PDA

View Full Version : Is there pure P312=Celtic U106=Germanic before Vikings? how does L21 fit?



Pages : [1] 2

TigerMW
08-18-2013, 11:05 PM
This is usually a passionate discussion. I'm not sure I totally understand all of the passion, but I think it is somewhat akin to the whole IE glory thing but distributed down to Celts, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons...

There is no doubt in the modern distribution of the R1b haplogroups that P312 is heavily oriented to ancient Celtic territories and U106 is heavily oriented towards Germanic territories although Germanic territories generally have a more balanced mix including I1, R1a and P312.

My primary suggestion is that P312 is so dominant in ancient Celtic lands, that people often overlook that it is a significant player in ancient Germanic lands too.

jdean
08-18-2013, 11:20 PM
My first thought was to say 'I agree' since this was formulated more as a statement than a question.

Something I was thinking about just the other day is the relatively limited distribution of U106 in comparison to P312 is another piece of evidence for U106 being somewhat younger than P312

TigerMW
08-18-2013, 11:39 PM
My first thought was to say 'I agree' since this was formulated more as a statement than a question.

Something I was thinking about just the other day is the relatively limited distribution of U106 in comparison to P312 is another piece of evidence for U106 being somewhat younger than P312

And/or being somewhat bottled up east or southeast of where it expanded to.

Some might say it was bottled up north/northeast (Fenno-Scandinavia) but I'm not one of those.

jdean
08-18-2013, 11:56 PM
And/or being somewhat bottled up east or southeast of where it expanded to.

Some might say it was bottled up north/northeast (Fenno-Scandinavia) but I'm not one of those.

Definitely a possibility but then we've got to come up with a plausible explanation for this bottling effect, U106 is pretty scarce in continental Romantic Language countries

Webb
08-19-2013, 01:29 AM
My first thought about U106 is this: Germanic exists all over scandanavia down into Germany and the culture and language encompasses P312, U106, I, and R1a. Is it possible that U106 wasn't originally Germanic, but became so due to contact with one of the other groups? Or is it the opposite?

Andrew Lancaster
08-19-2013, 09:48 AM
My first thought about U106 is this: Germanic exists all over scandanavia down into Germany and the culture and language encompasses P312, U106, I, and R1a. Is it possible that U106 wasn't originally Germanic, but became so due to contact with one of the other groups? Or is it the opposite?

I also wonder about this. Does anyone have U106 distribution data which divides up Germany, Scandinavia, Austria etc?

For example I recall U106 is particularly common in areas near the Rhine, but indeed this is an area where Germanic languages may have been intrusive. (There is no concensus about what language was being spoken there when the Romans arrived.)

Andrew

dartraighe
08-19-2013, 10:53 AM
There are two good P312 and U106 SNP maps at Semargl. The charts under the maps show the percentages of both in western Europe.

TigerMW
08-19-2013, 01:07 PM
My first thought about U106 is this: Germanic exists all over scandanavia down into Germany and the culture and language encompasses P312, U106, I, and R1a. Is it possible that U106 wasn't originally Germanic, but became so due to contact with one of the other groups? Or is it the opposite?

I would expect there would be some exchanges of people between neighboring groups since the formation of Proto-Germanic culture. Quantifying how much seems to be the difficult matter, but you bring out another point - the whole time scale.

U106 and P312 both appear to be quite a bit older than the development of a Proto-Germanic language. Wikipedia says,
"Although Proto-Germanic was reconstructed as a node in the tree model of language development, its main innovations must have followed a logical and therefore a chronological sequence, leading to the hypothesis that, over its estimated life of nearly one thousand years, roughly 500 BC to 500 AD" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language
Since P312 is probably at least 4000 years old there is at least 1500 years of time span that P312 in Europe could have wondered into what would become Germanic lands. The opportunity was there, anyway. To me it would be surprising if P312 was involved in these territories, assuming P312 was all over other parts of Western and Central Europe and was apparently a good seafarer.

rms2
08-19-2013, 02:02 PM
I think whenever one speaks of historical ethnic and tribal affiliations and y haplogroups, he must remember that it is only possible to generalize, that is, to look at the big, overall picture. So, in my opinion, the word "pure" is out of the question. I would never go so far as to say that every individual P312+ man is a Celt, for example, but I do think it is possible to say that P312 is a reasonably good fit for what we know of the ancient Celts and that U106 is a reasonably good fit for what we know of the ancient Germans.

The problem with terms like "Celt" and "German" is that they are primarily linguistic and cultural, and thus very fluid, and not, strictly speaking, racial or genetic categories. They also represent classifications that are far younger than the y haplogroups being discussed.

It is also important to recall that most of what we now call Germany only slowly became "German". Before that process began, most of it was home to various Celtic tribes, particularly in southern and western Germany. So, not all German y-dna is of Germanic origin. Much of it is Celtic, some of it is Slavic, and some of it has its origin in other groups that have gone into the German stew.

What I see in the distribution of P312 as a whole is high frequency in the old Celtic homelands and a progressive thinning out beyond that. P312 is far far less significant in the old Germanic homelands, i.e., North Germany and Scandinavia, than it is in southern and western Germany, France, Iberia, Italy, and the British Isles. The reverse is true for U106. In the Isles, U106 reaches its highest frequencies in the places settled most thickly by Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and, later, their English descendants.

In Scandinavia, while there is some P312, it is far less frequent than elsewhere farther south and west, and much of it probably does not predate the Middle Ages there. There is excellent reason to doubt, for example, whether most of the L21 in Scandinavia predates the Viking Period (as discussed on another recent thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1222-L21-hotspots-that-aren-t-British-Isles-or-Bretagne).

As I said, the reverse is true for U106. It is most frequent in the old Germanic homelands and thins out as one moves south and west away from them. As Dienekes aptly remarked:




The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html


The distribution of L21 is such a close fit to that of the insular and other northwestern Celts that one would be hard pressed to argue that it represents anything else.

632

TigerMW
08-19-2013, 03:08 PM
I think whenever one speaks of historical ethnic and tribal affiliations and y haplogroups, he must remember that it is only possible to generalize, that is, to look at the big, overall picture. So, in my opinion, the word "pure" is out of the question.
Agreed, the next question is how much is significant or not in terms of mixture.


I would never go so far as to say that every individual P312+ man is a Celt, for example, but I do think it is possible to say that P312 is a reasonably good fit for what we know of the ancient Celts and that U106 is a reasonably good fit for what we know of the ancient Germans.
I agree there are clear correlations but I think P312's scope is a bit more expansive than U106 when you compare the two head to head.


What I see in the distribution of P312 as a whole is high frequency in the old Celtic homelands and a progressive thinning out beyond that. P312 is far far less significant in the old Germanic homelands, i.e., North Germany and Scandinavia, than it is in southern and western Germany, France, Iberia, Italy, and the British Isles. The reverse is true for U106. In the Isles, U106 reaches its highest frequencies in the places settled most thickly by Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and, later, their English descendants.
This is what I mean by a half full versus half empty perspective. If you compare P312 on the Atlantic adjoining areas it is of such high frequency that it visually diminishes its own presence elsewhere. However, if you compare P312 with other clades, like U106, it is notable that P312 is a significant player outside of the Atlantic areas too.

From what I can see, the best study we have of Y DNA is the Old Norway Project graphic included below. Please check out the small pie (R1b only) breakouts. Pretty much, the U106 is is in bright green and the rest are elements of P312 with the exception of Ostergotland.

U106 is well over 50% and more of the R1b in Denmark and Bleking/Kristianstad, Sweden, but....
P312 is well over 50% in Norway Coastal but also has an majority at Skaraborg, Sweden.
P312 is approximately even in Norway unassigned.
Ostergotland-Jonkopig, Sweden is a bit odd with more "M269" than you'd expect.

P312 is a signficant player in Scandinavia, commensurate with U106, no ifs, ands, ors or buts.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map.jpg

TigerMW
08-19-2013, 05:14 PM
I moved this over from the L21 thread on non-Isles L21 because this gets into the whole "how long might P312, or even L21, might have been in the Isles?"


...
I have not had the time yet to go back and look closely at all of these either, but, honestly, I have my doubts about those who belong to subclades common to the Isles. The first one on the list, kit N5924, for example, is P314.2+. I realize the Isles skew in the database could be warping our view of it, but it does cast any Scandinavian P314.2+ result in doubt (by doubt, I mean doubt that it predates the Viking Period in Scandinavia). As it is, his closest match (N28650) lists an mdka in Luxembourg.

P314.2 is an interesting case. I think it is possible that L21 was once much more frequent in the Low Countries but was over run.

P314.2 is a good example of how we have to be careful in associating age and origin with a subclade. P314.2 fits right below DF21 which fits right below DF13. P314.2 could be quite old, itself. The maximum GD to the P314.2 modal for P314.2+ people is GD=18 at 67. In comparison, M153's (the Basque marker) maximum is GD=11 at 67.

I classify these two guys as 21-314-P13-B
fN28650 Conrardy 314.2* 21-314-P13-B Luxembourg, Pratz
fN5924 Måland(Hjelmeland) P314.2* Norway, Rogaland, Hjelmeland

Even though most of the P314.2 in our DNA projects is found with MDKAs from Ireland and Scotland, Conrardy and Maland don't match well with those. They outliers. That can easily be seen as one of the key signals for P314.2 is 388=13 as 388 is very slow. All of the P314.2 guys from the Isles are 388=13. The only two 388=12 (L21/DF21 modal) guys are Conrardy and Maland. I can't say with any confidence that P314.2 originated on the Isles. I don't know, but in light of the biases in our testing databases, and the outlier and modal 388 value, P314.2 could have originated elsewhere quite easily.


The next one, Livschitz (ancestral surname) has only 12 markers but is in the Baltic Ashkenazi Cluster (and Livschitz is a non-Scandinavian, Ashkenazi surname).

Right, but he is among folks found in the Baltic area, a long way from the British Isles. If these L21 non-Isles cluster folks could be found over there, its hard to say how long L21 might have been in the Baltic vicinity. Regardless, we have no reason to think they were the result of Viking slave trade. I'm recognize you are not promoting that concept but I would just like to establish that L21 could easily have made a significant presence in the Nordic Countries, a few percentage points anyway, prior to the Viking Age, right along with probably greater percentages of other P312 folks.

MJost
08-19-2013, 05:20 PM
It appears U106 had a land thrust into Western Norway but L21 appear to be populated by sea.

MJost

TigerMW
08-19-2013, 05:37 PM
It appears U106 had a land thrust into Western Norway but L21 appear to be populated by sea.

I am just speculating, but my suspicion is that some P312, including some L21 reached the Scandinavian Peninsula and even through the Kattegat Strait. I'm not saying they had a huge population impact, but if it was early on, i.e. the Nordic Bronze Age, they would have had a chance to establish some base for growth with significant advantage over the indigenous peoples. This could account for a few percentage points of frequency, anyway.

The corollary is that U106 was bottled up east and southeast, but for whatever reason, had a strong drive west and north from position(s) like Poland, the Czech Republic or as far south as Austria. This would explain U106's low diversity in the Scandinavia Peninsula and low presence along the Atlantic Seaboard until the Anglo-Saxon Era. The timing would be such as they made it to neck of the Jutland Peninsual (and Denmark) in time for Jastorf and the great Germanic expansions, but they would have been late for the early Nordic Bronze Age as they just couldn't seem to get to the Atlantic.

Of course, as Richard S noted, nothing is pure and some U106 outliers might have leaked west early but apparently not much.

GoldenHind
08-19-2013, 08:13 PM
My first thought was to say 'I agree' since this was formulated more as a statement than a question.

Something I was thinking about just the other day is the relatively limited distribution of U106 in comparison to P312 is another piece of evidence for U106 being somewhat younger than P312

My recollection is that both Nordtvedt and Vince V., in whose opinions I place great deal of faith, believed that P312 and U106 were born within a few generations of each other and quite close geographically. I don't know if their positions have changed.

Webb
08-19-2013, 09:01 PM
Of all the haplotypes in Western Europe, none are as concentrated as L21. According to the penguin atlas of Europe, Germanic settlements did not start showing up in Germany until around 750B.C. If L21 started showing up in the isles around 2000B.C. I think the window was there for them to have saturated other areas like Germany and parts of scandanavia, much like they did the isles.

jdean
08-19-2013, 09:57 PM
My recollection is that both Nordtvedt and Vince V., in whose opinions I place great deal of faith, believed that P312 and U106 were born within a few generations of each other and quite close geographically. I don't know if their positions have changed.

Yep I take heed to their advice as well, I can add a few others too but generally there's not that much difference between their calculations.

The last time I came across folk working on U106 I thought it was considered reasonably younger than P312 but that was a while ago and my recollection may be incorrect. I wonder if any of them have done interclade estimates since the Z18 split was discovered ?

TigerMW
08-19-2013, 10:24 PM
Yep I take heed to their advice as well, I can add a few others too but generally there's not that much difference between their calculations.

The last time I came across folk working on U106 I thought it was considered reasonably younger than P312 but that was a while ago and my recollection may be incorrect. I wonder if any of them have done interclade estimates since the Z18 split was discovered ?

I did this analysis on 67 STR haplotypes a little over a year and a half ago using Ken Nordtvedt's interclade estimation engine.

The youngest U106 could be, according to this analysis, is the range about the Z381 & Z18 interclade estimates. The centerpoint or best estimate is 2000 BC. U106's actual coalescence age is younger, meaning its expansion was later, on average, more like in the 1400-1300 BC range. The oldest U106 could be, is the interclade of U106 and its brother, P312, which would be about 2500 BC, give or take the error range.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L11_Subclades_Timeline.jpg

It's really L48 that is pulling down U106's coalesence age as L48 is very big and it is coalescence age is around 1100-1200 BC. Z18 diversified (probably expanded) earlier than L48.

During the period L48 really got going you can choose your location. You could choose either Nordic Bronze Cultures, or if you like more southerly locations mayber the Tumulus Culture, or if you like east you could choose Lusatian.

jdean
08-19-2013, 10:43 PM
So best guess is P312 being a little older than U106 but nothing to get excited about plus a confidence that leaves some wriggle room, sounds about right.

BTW how many years per gen to you use for this ?

GoldenHind
08-19-2013, 11:02 PM
I suspect that for whatever reason P312 expanded both in numbers and geographically at a much greater rate than U106. P312 seems to have been ranging across Europe at a time when U106 seems to have been bottled up somewhere, perhaps in northeastern Europe. I also suspect that much of P312's expansion, as opposed to that of U106, was by maritime routes.

I know a lot of people believe the Bell Beakers were primarily P312 (I don't necessarily disagree, I just think the jury is still out). As it seems to be established that the Beakers reached Scandinavia, I don't quite understand the resistance to the presence of P312 subclades there as early as the Bronze Age.

rms2
08-19-2013, 11:08 PM
. . .

From what I can see, the best study we have of Y DNA is the Old Norway Project graphic included below. Please check out the small pie (R1b only) breakouts. Pretty much, the U106 is is in bright green and the rest are elements of P312 with the exception of Ostergotland.

U106 is well over 50% and more of the R1b in Denmark and Bleking/Kristianstad, Sweden, but....
P312 is well over 50% in Norway Coastal but also has an majority at Skaraborg, Sweden.
P312 is approximately even in Norway unassigned.
Ostergotland-Jonkopig, Sweden is a bit odd with more "M269" than you'd expect.

P312 is a signficant player in Scandinavia, commensurate with U106, no ifs, ands, ors or buts.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map.jpg

I'm guessing those dots are the sample locations. I would prefer actual percentages to pie charts, but whatever. Nowhere in all that is R1b even half of the Norwegian or Swedish total. In one place, "Norway Coastal", P312 exceeds 50% of the R1b by a little. It looks like R1b as a whole is about 40% of the total there, so P312 would account for about 20% of the total y-dna, maybe a little more. Some of that is L21, and I think there is some reasonable doubt about its antiquity in Scandinavia. Some of the P312 is L238, and I think there is good reason to believe that L238 is native to Scandinavia. Of the rest, I don't know. Some of it may predate the Viking Era, but probably some of it does not. I think it would be generous to guesstimate that maybe half of that P312 (including all its clades) is native to Norway, that is, that it predates the Viking Era there. Maybe the true figure is more than half, perhaps as much as three quarters, although I doubt it is that high. I don't think one can reasonably argue that all of the P312 in "Norway Coastal", where P312 reaches its Norwegian peak, predates the Viking Era there. One would expect the highest frequency of relative newcomers in commercial seaports. The gaps in P312 frequency between Denmark and Sweden on the one hand and Norway on the other probably indicate that P312 arrived in Norway by sea. Part of that seaborne immigration may have occurred in ancient times; undoubtedly some of it came much later.

Maybe I am mistaken, but taking the totality of those pie charts, it looks like P312 as a whole runs around 15-20% of the total in Norway. That's not insignificant, it's true, although, as I said, I doubt all of that predates the Viking Era there. Still, compared with the rest of Europe to the south and west, that represents the ebb tide of P312, and I think some of that ebb tide washed up on Norway's shores subsequent to the Middle Ages.

U106 almost never reaches the sorts of frequencies anywhere that P312 and its clades reach in their heartlands. The exception may be the Netherlands, where I think U106 runs 30-50% of the total, but I am not even sure about that. So, yeah, U106 does not appear to be as extensive as P312. It does have its highest frequencies in the old Germanic homelands, however, and to fade beyond those.

If you read what I wrote in my initial post, you will see that I was not arguing that P312 is wholly ("purely") Celtic or that U106 is wholly Germanic. But it is pretty obvious that P312 is a far better fit for the Celts than it is for the Germans, and that U106 is a far better fit for the Germans than it is for the Celts.

rms2
08-19-2013, 11:17 PM
I suspect that for whatever reason P312 expanded both in numbers and geographically at a much greater rate than U106. P312 seems to have been ranging across Europe at a time when U106 seems to have been bottled up somewhere, perhaps in northeastern Europe. I also suspect that much of P312's expansion, as opposed to that of U106, was by maritime routes.

I know a lot of people believe the Bell Beakers were primarily P312 (I don't necessarily disagree, I just think the jury is still out). As it seems to be established that the Beakers reached Scandinavia, I don't quite understand the resistance to the presence of P312 subclades there as early as the Bronze Age.

I don't disagree with you, except that I have not seen anyone resist "the presence of P312 subclades there as early as the Bronze Age".

Who is resisting the idea that [I]some P312 got to Scandinavia quite early?

What I doubt is that all of the P312 currently found in Scandinavia predates the Middle Ages there. I don't think it does, especially much of the L21. But then I don't think all of the U106 or U152 or DF27 or whatever predates the Middle Ages in Scandinavia. No doubt even some of the I1 and R1a arrived there relatively late.

alan
08-19-2013, 11:40 PM
1. P312 seems to be very dominant in what was the main consolodated block of Celtic speakers were located at the opening of history which was essentially Gaul trans/cis, Iberia and the isles.

2. U106 does not seem to have a large zone of similar dominance. Instead, there is a mixed zone where P312 and U106 both occur. To some degree this corresponds to the zone where Germanic expanded at the expense of the Celts from 500bc-500ad but Scandinavia confuses this. I am actually a believer that pre-Germanic could also have been introduced by P312 and that U106 is really a late flourish of the proto-Germanic period.

Webb
08-19-2013, 11:46 PM
I am actually surprised that no one had ever tried to tie maritime beaker with the maritime culture of the Vikings. Meaning Viking maritime practice could have been introduced by maritime bell beakers.

ADW_1981
08-20-2013, 12:45 AM
No doubt even some of the I1 and R1a arrived there relatively late.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind. Why would only L21's be immigrants? Certainly people moved in from the east during the middle ages, populations known to have higher rates of I1, I2b1, and R1a1a.

GoldenHind
08-20-2013, 01:07 AM
A lot of the migration into Scandinavia in modern times came from Germany, which ought to be heavily U106.

TigerMW
08-20-2013, 01:39 AM
So best guess is P312 being a little older than U106 but nothing to get excited about plus a confidence that leaves some wriggle room, sounds about right.

BTW how many years per gen to you use for this ?

I used 30 yrs/gen. The spreadsheet is still in the Files section of the P312 yahoo group.

Another way to look at age simplistically is compare the P312 and U106 modals. U106 is different at 67 markers by a total of 4 steps, one each at 390=23 576=17 CDYa=37 492=13.
CDYa is hardly worth noticing and 576 is faster moving too. 492 is the slow one.

As you go east or south from Northern Germany you will encounter more U106 390=24, the P312/WAMH modal. Z381 is upstream of L48 and Z381's brother early branching under U106 is Z18. Z18's modal is 390=24.

If you were looking at individuals with these differences from you what would you think?

The P312 TMRCA and U106 TMRCA would show up in each other's FTDNA match lists at 67 markers. I have six or seven folks on my 67 marker match list, mostlly from the same area, and one has my surname (variant) so I'm quite excited about all of that.
However, none are as close to me as U106 and P312 to each other.

TigerMW
08-20-2013, 01:49 AM
A lot of the migration into Scandinavia in modern times came from Germany, which ought to be heavily U106.
I've wondered about that. I've got a guy in my little cluster who is in Finland but his name is Holmberg. That is more Germany oriented, isn't it?

I'll re-iterate
1) U106 in the Nordic Countries (or just Scandinavia) has less diversity than in Northern Germany or in England.
2) I don't see the U106 in the coastal areas the Vikings were supposed to hit hard, whereas we do see I1 in those areas and oftentimes R1a. (I exclude Danelaw from this statement as I don't know how to dissect Yorkshire, etc.)

I've asked this before, but is U106 "johnny come lately" to the Scandinavian Peninsula? That's no hit on U106 as this just adds more credence to the incredibly strong expansion of U106 west, and I think, north. We should probably call it the the L48 expansion.

In my point #2 above, it's hard to discern all of the types non-L21, non-U152 P312 in Ireland, Scotland, Bretagne, etc. Some could easily have come as Vikings although I don't know if the Vikings genetic impact was that strong anyway, at least broadly.


I am actually surprised that no one had ever tried to tie maritime beaker with the maritime culture of the Vikings. Meaning Viking maritime practice could have been introduced by maritime bell beakers.
Probably because that goes against the I1+R1a+U106 dominance in Scandinavia conventional wisdom.
However, who is better positioned to have brought great seafaring skills to those notable seafaring Scandinavian folks? If P312 was in the Beaker folks, we know they were good on the water.

TigerMW
08-20-2013, 02:37 AM
... it is pretty obvious that P312 is a far better fit for the Celts than it is for the Germans, and that U106 is a far better fit for the Germans than it is for the Celts.
I want to make sure we aren't comparing apples and oranges. There are general summary statement correlations versus specific indicators. I'm not sure of the value of general summary correlations for U106 and particularly for P312.

U106 is a great population diagnostic flag for many of the Germanic expansions. Probably the diagnostic indicator status should be more relegated to some kind subclade of Z381, maybe L48 or something just upstream. However, U106, or any major part of it that I can see, is not a great diagnostic flag for Viking expansions and of course they were Germanic. Overall, I1 probably has a better correlation with all kinds of Germanic expansions.

P312 is so broad it's just plain hard to call it a diagnostic indicator for a identifiable, cohesive populations as we can readily name. Its hard to imagine that U152 is not heavily connected with Italics as well as some Celtic groups, but could easily have mixed in with some Germanic groups. U152 did penetrate into the Jutland Peninsula. It must have been there before the Middle Ages. DF27 could be heavily Celtic, but also may have Italic pieces and some other things, for example the N-S group and M153, some that show up in Basques in good numbers and some that made inroads straight through Germany as well as Scandinavia.

There is a general correlation P312 to old Celtic lands, though. I agree, but we don't know if Celticism drove that or really something else, broader and older than Celts, including something that was in the Pre-Germanic and Proto-Germanic cultures.

MJost
08-20-2013, 03:44 AM
Here is what I show for the two clades P312 and U106 that have been tested positive, using all 67 markers with each showing their Founders Generations and YBP TMRCA and their respective SD+- ranges.

Next section is the Interclade TMRCA that would show the high end of U106's TMRCA.

The 3rd section shows what the confidence level would be for the calculated SD's in the first section. In other words P312 has a confidence that these haplotypes have a probability fit at 94%, with L21 at 99.75%.

The last section shows Bird's q TMRCA for reference.



YrsPerGen Count IntracladeFounder'sModalAge ModalGenAge StdDevInGen YBP +OR-YBP Max-YBP
30 N=1586 Clade A: U106 122.8 26.7 3,684.3 799.7 4,484.0
30 N=5535 Clade B: P312 141.0 28.6 4,230.5 856.9 5,087.4
Diff = 18.2 546.2 603.5


YrsPerGen TRUE MRCA InterCladeGAB Generations StdDevInGen YBP +OR-YBP Max-YBP
30 Interclade Modal Founder's: U106 & P312_________139.3 25.4 4,179.0 762.3 4,941.4



SD CONFIDENCE
CISDGenModal CI+OR-YBP ConfidenceLevel
CladeA 26.72 801.7 *94.00
CladeB 28.29 848.8 *99.75
Diff 9.12 273.6

CISDInterClade CI+OR-YBPInterclade ConfidenceLevel
21.21 636.3 99.73
2.70 81.0


Just for reference here is Bird's q TMRCA using 25 stable STRs (no multi-copy markers) out of 67.

ModalGenAge StdDevInGen YBP +OR-YBP Max-YBP
119.0 35.5 3,571.3 1,063.6 4,634.9
130.7 37.2 3,921.4 1,114.6 5,036.0



MJost

GoldenHind
08-20-2013, 03:49 AM
I've wondered about that. I've got a guy in my little cluster who is in Finland but his name is Holmberg. That is more Germany oriented, isn't it?



Holmberg in Finland is more likely to be of Swedish origin. There was a large amount of Swedish migration to Finland over the centuries. This is why, even though Finland is not really Scandinavian in the sense that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are, you can't completely exclude Finland when looking at Scandinavian DNA. The Finns themselves though are not of Germanic origin, unlike the other Scandinavian nations. I believe that many ethnic Finns at one time adopted Swedish surnames.

Andrew Lancaster
08-20-2013, 10:40 AM
After looking at the latest posts in this thread I'd like to go back to my original question about where exactly we find U106 in terms of diversity and frequency. From the comments so far it is maybe only the area of Germany, Holland and Belgium? Not Scandinavia? What about Austria? Has anyone got regional data about different parts of Germany such as Bavaria, Swabia, East Germany etc?

My reason for asking is that I am thinking about the so-called Nordwestblok theory whereby some of the people the Romans called Germanic might have not been what we now call Germanic, especially in the area of Belgium, Holland and the Rhineland. In other words Germanic language maybe only came to be imposed on the area as new groups arrived representing the future Saxon, Frank, and Allemanni political groups that apparently did speak Germanic, and possibly almost one identical language (so apparently whiping out older dialects/languages of IE).

Best Regards
Andrew

dartraighe
08-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Could someone show me the scientific study that says that there were no U106 in western or central Europe until 500 AD?

alan
08-20-2013, 12:09 PM
Could someone show me the scientific study that says that there were no U106 in western or central Europe until 500 AD?

Many papers show that U106 dramtically falls off at the Romance/Celtic-Germanic language interface. Noone will ever be able to prove its all Germanic but I think many would be happy to say that its 90-odd% germanic even now. So, its a balance of probabilites but its hugely waited towards the likelihood of a U106 ancestor being Germanic in the west.

rms2
08-20-2013, 02:49 PM
I want to make sure we aren't comparing apples and oranges. There are general summary statement correlations versus specific indicators. I'm not sure of the value of general summary correlations for U106 and particularly for P312.

U106 is a great population diagnostic flag for many of the Germanic expansions. Probably the diagnostic indicator status should be more relegated to some kind subclade of Z381, maybe L48 or something just upstream. However, U106, or any major part of it that I can see, is not a great diagnostic flag for Viking expansions and of course they were Germanic. Overall, I1 probably has a better correlation with all kinds of Germanic expansions.

P312 is so broad it's just plain hard to call it a diagnostic indicator for a identifiable, cohesive populations as we can readily name. Its hard to imagine that U152 is not heavily connected with Italics as well as some Celtic groups, but could easily have mixed in with some Germanic groups. U152 did penetrate into the Jutland Peninsula. It must have been there before the Middle Ages. DF27 could be heavily Celtic, but also may have Italic pieces and some other things, for example the N-S group and M153, some that show up in Basques in good numbers and some that made inroads straight through Germany as well as Scandinavia.

There is a general correlation P312 to old Celtic lands, though. I agree, but we don't know if Celticism drove that or really something else, broader and older than Celts, including something that was in the Pre-Germanic and Proto-Germanic cultures.

It seems to me that P312 as a whole fades as one moves beyond the old Celtic homelands. In my opinion - and it's only my opinion - its status in Scandinavia is doubtful, with the exception of L238, which probably originated in Scandinavia and shows that at least some P312 got there early. Some of the rest of the P312 in Scandinavia may have arrived early, too, but I think much of the L21 and U152 represents relative latecomers, and probably some of the DF27 does, too.

Without getting into the weeds of the various U106 subclades, those pie charts you posted earlier show that U106 is pretty hefty in Denmark and southern Sweden (some of which was part of Denmark for much of its history) and not insignificant in Norway, either. No doubt some of that also represents post-Viking Era immigration, but not all of it. U106 looks much more Germanocentric than P312, so I think probably a greater percentage of its Scandinavian component is ancient there. At one time most of the North Sea littoral and Scandinavia were part of one Germanic-speaking orbit composed of various, mostly related tribes. Beowulf and other works of old Germanic literature and saga preserve a good picture of that milieu. It seems pretty obvious to me that U106 was a substantial element of that Germanic tribal orbit, especially of the part referred to by Tacitus as the Ingwinian group. In other words, I think some of the U106 in eastern England probably represents descent from Danish Vikings (including Danes from what is now southern Sweden), as well as Anglo-Saxons. Some of the U106 elsewhere in the Isles (like Shetland and the Orkneys) could represent descent from Norwegian Vikings.

In other words, in my opinion, U106 is a pretty fair all-around Germanic indicator, and P312, in general, is not a bad fit for the Celts. Both of them are old well beyond such categories, so no doubt there are P312ers whose ancestors never spoke a Celtic language and U106ers whose ancestors never spoke a Germanic language, but those are the exceptions. One gets into the exceptions at the borders or fringes and beyond, where both y haplogroups begin to fade and where they have minority status.

If P312 was spread by Beaker Folk, and if Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic, then even in Scandinavia P312 early arrivals weren't Germanic speaking to begin with; they were Germanized by the locals.

rms2
08-20-2013, 03:16 PM
After looking at the latest posts in this thread I'd like to go back to my original question about where exactly we find U106 in terms of diversity and frequency. From the comments so far it is maybe only the area of Germany, Holland and Belgium? Not Scandinavia? What about Austria? Has anyone got regional data about different parts of Germany such as Bavaria, Swabia, East Germany etc?

My reason for asking is that I am thinking about the so-called Nordwestblok theory whereby some of the people the Romans called Germanic might have not been what we now call Germanic, especially in the area of Belgium, Holland and the Rhineland. In other words Germanic language maybe only came to be imposed on the area as new groups arrived representing the future Saxon, Frank, and Allemanni political groups that apparently did speak Germanic, and possibly almost one identical language (so apparently whiping out older dialects/languages of IE).

Best Regards
Andrew

Last I heard, the whole "Nordwestblok" idea had been discredited and is not accepted by most linguists. However, I think it is generally accepted that Germanic was affected by a substrate language or languages to a greater extent than most other IE language families. A fair amount of G2 and I2 pop up in the Low Countries and Germany that may represent descent from Neolithic and earlier peoples. There is also a lot of I1 in Germanic lands. I think their ancestors are more likely to have been responsible for "Nordwestblok" or whatever substrate influenced Germanic than the ancestors of today's U106ers.

jdean
08-20-2013, 03:56 PM
I thought to merge all the SNP maps from FTDNA for P312 and U106 and wonder if P312 could actually be considered more Germanic than U106 ?

636

Andrew Lancaster
08-20-2013, 05:56 PM
Last I heard, the whole "Nordwestblok" idea had been discredited and is not accepted by most linguists. However, I think it is generally accepted that Germanic was affected by a substrate language or languages to a greater extent than most other IE language families.

Well I think I would say it differently: every attempt to give a detailed description of the languages spoken between "Celtic" Gaul and the Suevi has some controversy to it. What is relevant to the discussion here is that whatever the linguistic situation the classical sources are at least clear that we can expect some ethnic differentiation in this area compared to being either Celtic or Germanic in the clearest sense.

So anyway I was interested to hear it confirmed that U106 is common in Denmark and southern Scandinavia, but can anyone say anything about southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland...?


Andrew

TigerMW
08-20-2013, 06:53 PM
After looking at the latest posts in this thread I'd like to go back to my original question about where exactly we find U106 in terms of diversity and frequency. From the comments so far it is maybe only the area of Germany, Holland and Belgium? Not Scandinavia? What about Austria? Has anyone got regional data about different parts of Germany such as Bavaria, Swabia, East Germany etc?

My reason for asking is that I am thinking about the so-called Nordwestblok theory whereby some of the people the Romans called Germanic might have not been what we now call Germanic, especially in the area of Belgium, Holland and the Rhineland. In other words Germanic language maybe only came to be imposed on the area as new groups arrived representing the future Saxon, Frank, and Allemanni political groups that apparently did speak Germanic, and possibly almost one identical language (so apparently whiping out older dialects/languages of IE).

Best Regards
Andrew

Here is the frequency map that Maciamo has put together over at Eupedia. He pulls the data out of studies like Busby's and Myres' but he will tweak (or ignore) data if he thinks the sample was too small. S21 is another name for U106 and, yes, U106, does seem to have left a mark as far south as Austria.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif


It is noticeable that U106 drops off the cliff at Calais, France. It's like everyone took a right turn and headed across the Channel to Dover. Meanwhile, I1 missed the turn, meaning it had another migration towards Bretagne with Vikings that didn't include U106, or I1 came to coastal France earlier in the Nordic Bronze Age by mix and exchange with someone like.... maybe P312? To put it another way, no Celtic blockade stopped I1 as well as it stopped U106. Hence, the question - "Was U106 johnny come lately?

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I1.gif

I find Iceland interesting though. It is nice even mix of I1, R1a and U106, and that even of a mix seems the exception rather than the norm. I don't know what to make of Iceland, but I can't really find the data on it.

ADW_1981
08-21-2013, 12:42 AM
A lot of the migration into Scandinavia in modern times came from Germany, which ought to be heavily U106.

Sure thing, but I1, I2b1, and R1a1 would have come along with it. We cannot assume all of it is native to the region going back a couple thousand years. Perhaps the I "groupings" represent an older population, the jury is still out on that one.

GoldenHind
08-21-2013, 12:51 AM
I thought to merge all the SNP maps from FTDNA for P312 and U106 and wonder if P312 could actually be considered more Germanic than U106 ?

636

I think one's conclusions from comparing these two maps will depend on whether one focuses on the similarities between them or the differences. Perhaps this is what Mike meant with the old adage about the glass half empty or full. I do think it is a stretch to explain the heavy presence of P312 in Germanic areas as solely due to Germanization of Celtic tribes, modern migration, etc.

I mentioned this on the thread before it was transferred here, but perhaps it is worth repeating. Maciamo Hay, who is responsible for the R1b page on Eupedia, has recently modified his views. He formerly listed P312 as Italo-Celtic. Now he labels it Italo-Celtic Germanic. He has changed the label for L238 Celtic-Nordic to just Nordic, and also describes P312 subclade DF19 as Anglo-Saxon.

R.Rocca
08-21-2013, 11:38 AM
I think one's conclusions from comparing these two maps will depend on whether one focuses on the similarities between them or the differences. Perhaps this is what Mike meant with the old adage about the glass half empty or full. I do think it is a stretch to explain the heavy presence of P312 in Germanic areas as solely due to Germanization of Celtic tribes, modern migration, etc.

I mentioned this on the thread before it was transferred here, but perhaps it is worth repeating. Maciamo Hay, who is responsible for the R1b page on Eupedia, has recently modified his views. He formerly listed P312 as Italo-Celtic. Now he labels it Italo-Celtic Germanic. He has changed the label for L238 Celtic-Nordic to just Nordic, and also describes P312 subclade DF19 as Anglo-Saxon.

I'd go a step further - the conclusion (P312 is more Germanic) is dead wrong. The map is based on extreme FTDNA testing bias (75K for the Isles, 12K for Germany, 4K for France.) Like I've said in the past, even the most Middle Eastern groups look British and German in FTDNA maps.

Clinton P
08-21-2013, 12:23 PM
Distribution of Germanic paternal lineages in Europe

639


This map was computed by adding Germanic lineages associated with the diffusion Germanic peoples from the Iron Age onwards. These includes Y-DNA haplogroups I1 (except some subclades of Finnish origin), I2-M223, R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and R1b-L238.

Distribution of Celtic paternal lineages in Europe

640


This map represents the paternal lineages associated with the spread of Proto-Italo-Celtic people from Central to Western Europe in the Bronze Age, starting circa 4,500 years ago. Their lineages are R1b-S116, in other words most of the European R1b minus the Greco-Etruscan R1b-L23, the Germanic R1b-U106 and R1b-L238, and the Proto-Celto-Germanic L11, L51 and L150. S116 includes subclades associated with non-IE languages such as Basque, and the ancient Gascon and Iberian languages. Since it is unclear exactly when and where Celtic languages developed and whether some Proto- Celtic speakers might have adopted indigenous languages in the land they settled (especially in Gascony and Mediterranean Iberia), all lineages were included for the purpose of this map, giving priority to Y-DNA over languages.

Clinton P

rms2
08-21-2013, 02:14 PM
. . . I do think it is a stretch to explain the heavy presence of P312 in Germanic areas as solely due to Germanization of Celtic tribes, modern migration, etc.
. . .

I realize I am ripping the above out of its context, i.e., your response to the maps Dave posted, but I want to know who here on this thread has ever said "the heavy presence of P312 in Germanic areas . . . [I]solely due to Germanization of Celtic tribes, modern migration, etc." (The italics are mine to emphasize the word solely.) I know I never have. I think a lot of the P312 in Germanic-speaking lands is due to those things, but not all of it. Look back at almost all of my posts. Most of them carry a caveat that some P312 got to Scandinavia in ancient times (although I am less confident about the L21 part). I've even come right out and stated my opinion that L238 is Scandinavian, root and branch.

I have yet to read a single post by anyone here that says that P312 in Germanic areas is solely due to the Germanization of Celtic tribes or to historical period migration.

Of course, the adjective heavy is a relative term. Relative to its presence in the old Celtic areas, P312's presence in Germanic areas is not heavy. Relative to its presence in the old Germanic areas, U106's presence in the old Celtic areas is not heavy.

The area now known as Germany was once largely Celtic, especially in the south and west. That makes it difficult to argue that the "heavy" presence of P312 in Germany should be counted in the Germanic column. Given P312's obvious center of gravity in the old Celtic part of Europe, it makes sense to attribute most if not all of it in Germany to the Celts, or to people who at some point became Celts, especially if, as I suspect is the case, there is a decreasing P312 cline in Germany from the south and west to the north and the east.

In Scandinavia, if it is unreasonable to attribute all of the P312 to Germanized Celts or historical period immigration, then it is just as unreasonable to attribute all of it to ancient or prehistoric antiquity, as if Scandinavia remained completely isolated and free of immigrants since that time. I think we can all probably agree on that. Certainly some of P312's "heavy" presence in Scandinavia - if one wants to characterize it that way - must be due to the relative newcomers of the Viking Era and later.

The obvious questions are how much of the P312 in Scandinavia is ancient and how much of it stems from the Viking Period and later. How can we tell? If we agree that L238 probably originated in Scandinavia or at least got there in ancient times, then we are talking about the rest. We know there has been a fair amount of immigration from the rest of Europe into Scandinavia since the Viking Era. How much of the P312 in Scandinavia does it account for? Not all, surely, but not none, either.

rms2
08-21-2013, 02:30 PM
I don't have the stats at hand, and I'm not going to look them up, but recall some recent telltale results regarding the Celtic-P312 versus Germanic-U106 controversy that is the issue of this thread. The German-speaking versus the Romance-speaking areas of Switzerland show a preponderance of U106 in the former and a preponderance of P312 (mostly U152, as I recall) in the latter. The same circumstance prevails in the Flemish versus Walloon areas of Flanders and Belgium. Look, too, at the inverse L21/U106 clines in the British Isles and that screen shot from Dr. Andy Grierson's laptop very graphically illustrating the steep increase in L21 as one crosses the Welsh border from Shropshire.

641

rms2
08-21-2013, 02:46 PM
Sorry for posting yet a third unanswered post in this thread, but I don't think anyone addressed a statement I made in an earlier post, a statement I think is somewhat important.

Here it is again.

If P312 was spread by Beaker Folk, and if Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic, then even in Scandinavia P312 early arrivals weren't Germanic speaking to begin with; they were Germanized by the locals.

Haven't many of us here accepted the ideas that 1) the Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic or perhaps Italo-Celtic (per David Anthony and others), and 2) the Beaker Men were largely P312+?

What then of P312 in Scandinavia? If the Beaker Folk first brought P312 to Scandinavia, and if the Beaker Folk were speaking an early form of Celtic, then wasn't even the very first P312 in Scandinavia Celtic?

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 03:46 PM
...
If P312 was spread by Beaker Folk, and if Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic, then even in Scandinavia P312 early arrivals weren't Germanic speaking to begin with; they were Germanized by the locals.
That's a big "if", actually a very big "if" to go along a second more moderate-sized "if". We can't really say Beaker folks spread P312 (they could easily have been L51*, L11* among other things), so I'd consider that a moderate "if" whereas the Beaker/Italo-Celtic language association is a very big "if".

Remember there were different types (physically) of Beaker folks, as Desidera has shown and her reflux hypothesis might account for P312 coming in a different wave.

Also, who were the locals in Scandinavia when Beakers and/or P312 arrived? How do we know they had some kind of Pre-Germanic or even IE-like language so that they could "Germanize" anybody. I don't find it hard to accept that I1 could have been there before P312, but I don't know what they were speaking. We don't know if U106 was there back then.


Haven't many of us here accepted the ideas that 1) the Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic or perhaps Italo-Celtic (per David Anthony and others), and 2) the Beaker Men were largely P312+?
I don't accept this at all.
I also missed the part where David Anthony said Beaker folks spoke Celtic or Italo-Celtic. I'd like to reread that. Please cite what he is saying.
I don't even accept the Koch/Cunliffe "Celtic from the west" concept.

I think these associations with the Beaker folks are all possible, but far, far from demonstrable. I realize we are just speculating here, but I'm just not at all committed to the Beaker = Italo-Celt thing.

I think it is possible that different Beaker folks spoke different languages or at least different dialects.

If we believe the Ringe, Warnow and Taylor (2002) IE branching that David Anthony uses, we can see that Warnow's latest (2013) estimates have the pre-Germanic branch not bifurcating until about 2000 BC. This would have been towards the end of the Beaker era. If they were speaking IE, it may have just been dialects and the true pre-Germanic dialect might have been totally indiscernible at that time... a gyration or two away. U106 may not have been its large merger with I1 and R1a (and elements of P312?) yet at 2000 BC. The Nordic Bronze Age had not kicked in yet at 2000 BC.
... but P312 and L21 could very easily have been around and in Scandinavia at 2000 BC, in time for the party.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

Caveat, particularly for Andrew: I'm not saying this timeline is 100% correct or that linguistic cladistics is infallible. These are just estimates, and probably very rough estimates. If I remember correctly, Warnow has a note that these are "approximations" and he has multiple methods that he uses to look for "best fit."

However, we don't even have Proto-Germanic attested to for a much later age so there is a huge gap between the dissapation of the Beaker era and the Proto-Germanic formation. Heck, many think that Hallstatt had an influence on Jastorf and if Jastorf is the first time we come to full Proto-Germanic that could easily account for P312 interjection into a mix of cultures that would culminate in Jastorf... even leaving the various Bell Beaker types aside (that hit Scandinavia).

umm... I wonder if this would help us understand elements of DF27? Some forms of hit might have went with Hallstatt into Jastorf, while some forms of P312*, L238 and even L21 or other forms of DF27 might have come into the North Sea and Baltic Sea areas earlier.

Richard R, what do you think of any U152 association with Hallstatt?

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 04:02 PM
Distribution of Germanic paternal lineages in Europe

Distribution of Celtic paternal lineages in Europe

Thanks, Clinton. I saw that thread over on Eupedia, but I didn't even read it. I'm very skeptical of making ethnic assignments based on haplogroups, particularly given the potential for lineages to switch more than once and the convoluted nature of trying define ethnicities, particularly when you add the dimension of time to the equation.

Is there anything new we can glean from Maciamo's analysis?

rms2
08-21-2013, 05:01 PM
That's a big "if", actually a very big "if" to go along a second more moderate-sized "if". We can't really say Beaker folks spread P312 (they could easily have been L51*, L11* among other things), so I'd consider that a moderate "if" whereas the Beaker/Italo-Celtic language association is a very big "if".

Remember there were different types (physically) of Beaker folks, as Desidera has shown and her reflux hypothesis might account for P312 coming in a different wave.


I don't accept this at all.
I also missed the part where David Anthony said Beaker folks spoke Celtic or Italo-Celtic. I'd like to reread that. Please cite what he is saying.
I don't even accept the Koch/Cunliffe "Celtic from the west" concept.

I think these associations with the Beaker folks are all possible, but far, far from demonstrable. I realize we are just speculating here, but I'm just not at all committed to the Beaker = Italo-Celt thing.

I think it is possible that different Beaker folks spoke different languages or at least different dialects.

Note that I did not say that the idea is that all Beaker men were P312 but that P312 was spread primarily by them.

Here is the relevant passage from Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 367:




Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.


A number of scholars have also suggested that the Beaker Folk brought early Celtic to the British Isles, among them Miles Dillon and Nora Chadwick (the following is from their book, The Celtic Realms, page 4):



About 2000 BC came the Bell-Beaker people, whose burials are in single graves, with individual grave-goods. The remarkable Wessex Culture of the Bronze Age which appears about 1500 BC is thought to be based upon this tradition. The grave-goods suggest the existence of a warrior aristocracy 'with a graded series of obligations of service . . . through a military nobility down to craftsmen and peasants', as in the Homeric society. This is the sort of society which is described in the Irish sagas, and there is no reason why so early a date for the coming of the Celts should be impossible. We shall see that there are considerations of language and culture that tend rather to support it.


Of course, this was also an idea that was advanced by Henri Hubert (no need to provide further quotes, however).




If we believe the Ringe, Warnow and Taylor (2002) IE branching that David Anthony uses, we can see that Warnow's latest (2013) estimates have the pre-Germanic branch not bifurcating until about 2000 BC. This would have been towards the end of the Beaker era. If they were speaking IE, it may have just been dialects and the true pre-Germanic dialect might have been totally indiscernible at that time... a gyration or two away. U106 may not have been its large merger with I1 and R1a (and elements of P312?) yet at 2000 BC. The Nordic Bronze Age had not kicked in yet at 2000 BC.
... but P312 and L21 could very easily have been around and in Scandinavia at 2000 BC, in time for the party.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

Caveat, particularly for Andrew: I'm not saying this timeline is 100% correct or that linguistic cladistics is infallible. These are just estimates, and probably very rough estimates. If I remember correctly, Warnow has a note that these are "approximations" and he has multiple methods that he uses to look for "best fit." However, we don't even have Proto-Germanic attested to for a much later age so there is a huge gap between the dissapation of the Beaker era and the Proto-Germanic formation. Heck, many think that Hallstatt had an influence on Jastorf and if Jastorf is the first time we come to true Proto-Germanic that could easily account for P312 interjection into Germanic cultures, forget the Bell Beakers.

I think you are probably cutting things a little close, despite your caveat, using the very approximate and loose dates of such language trees, but be that as it may. If the Beaker Folk got to Scandinavia before early Germanic appeared, then they certainly were not speaking it themselves. What were they speaking if not an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic?

I don't think it is likely the Beaker Folk had much of a hand in the development of early Germanic. Beaker is a mostly western phenomenon, after all. I have never heard of any scholars who connect the Beaker Folk to early Germanic or the Germanic peoples, anyway.

I have seen that connection made between the Corded Ware-Battle Axe Culture, early German and the Germans, however, as summarized in the following quote from Francis Owen's The Germanic People (p. 55):




There is no evidence of any subsequent invasion of Northern Europe after that of the Corded Ware people. It follows, then, that the Germanic culture, people and language were the results of these two factors: the Northern Megalithic and Corded Ware-Single Grave cultures.


Maybe I misunderstand you, though, Mike. Are you suggesting that P312 first got to Scandinavia by some means other than the Beaker Folk? I thought the Beaker settlements in Denmark and SW Norway were the chief arguments for a P312 presence in Scandinavia as early as the Bronze Age. Didn't you adduce those very settlements in a prior post to suggest L21 might have arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age?

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 05:11 PM
Perhaps this is what Mike meant with the old adage about the glass half empty or full.

I'll try to be a little clearer and more illustrative. Imagine we are at the bar and our current status is there are two good-sized pitchers and two mugs on the bar. One pitcher is full of Guinness beer and the other pitcher is empty. One mug is full of Budweiser and the other glass is nearly full, but it is Guinness.

If I pour the glass of Guiness into the empty pitcher and compare the two pitchers it is easy to think the nearer empty pitcher doesn't amount to much.

However, if I pour the Guiness from that pitcher back into its original mug, and then push the pitchers aside you might have a different perspective. If I put the mug of Guinness along side of the mug of Budweiser they'd nearly be the same in significance.

There is nothing wrong with comparing the two pitchers versus comparing the two mugs. It's all informative and can be used to hypothesize (I probably should say speculate) with. Anyway, I'm not being critical of the following perspective.

It seems to me that P312 as a whole fades as one moves beyond the old Celtic homelands.
I just want to point that implicit in this perspective are a couple of things.

One is the high frequency might indication an origin base for migrations and the "fading" indicates distance from the base. This is clearly possible but it has been shown that looking at modern day frequencies are not good indicators of origin so it's hard to know what is a "fade" or "drift" versus what is a "trail" or when a "fade" may have occurred. (Don't misread this. I don't advocate that P312 originated in the Proto-Germanic Language area, just that elements of P312 may have or at least have been present before the Viking Age.)

Another thing potentially implied is that the comparison of Scandinavian or Germanic elements of P312 with the rest of P312 diminishes the significance/age of the elements of P312 in the Germanic language areas. To me, that does not at all logically demonstrate that elements of P312 were not in Germanic Language areas for a long time, perhaps even before there was a Proto-Germanic langage.

Are the elements of P312 significant? If you look at the direct comparison with U106 (mug to mug):beerchug: it is. Either they are both significant or they are both insignificant. There's just not that much difference.

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 05:37 PM
... Maybe I misunderstand you, though, Mike. Are you suggesting that P312 first got to Scandinavia by some means other than the Beaker Folk? I thought the Beaker settlements in Denmark and SW Norway were the chief arguments for a P312 presence in Scandinavia as early as the Bronze Age. Didn't you adduce those very settlements in a prior post to suggest L21 might have arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age?

No, I agree it is possible that P312 reached Scandinavia with the early Bell Beaker folks, but P312 might have come later with the "reflux" Beakers or with mutliple types of Beakers. I do want to emphasize a Beaker folk is not a Beaker folk is not a Beaker folk, which is what Desideri showed.

On the other hand, I don't think that it is a given that P312 reached Scandinavia with the first Bell Beakers there or only with the Bell Beaker folks in general.

My chief contention is there were ample opportunities for P312 to have entered into the Proto-Germanic language area, starting with the Bell Beaker era, which would be well before Proto-Germanic, and up to the Viking Age (as well as during and after.) I guess you could consider these all Beaker descendants, but I hesitate to say the main drive of P312 was the Beaker folks themselves. You've got all of the follow on expansions like Tumulus, Urnfield, Hallstatt, etc., etc. that have may actually been better P312 population producers. I'm not sure who was the best P312 producer, but I don't necessarily pin it all on the original Beaker folks of the Atlantic.

Elements of P312 could well have been a significant player in these areas, relative to U106, prior to the Viking Age. That's all I'm saying. What's significant? That's a half glass, half full thing.

L21 gets a little more dicey.

jdean
08-21-2013, 06:06 PM
This is probably the wrong time to throw another idea into the melting pot (more of a question really) but.

The R1a lot have been having a jolly time over in Molgen rowing about the Goths.

From what I can gather there are reasonable arguments that they had settled in Poland before moving on to Scandinavia.

Bearing in mind that a lot of people think Poland is where U106 is oldest and I think the area of Scandinavia they settled is about the same as Proto Germanic was supposed to have come from, are they a good candidate for a lot of U106 in Germany ?

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 06:07 PM
Note that I did not say that the idea is that all Beaker men were P312 but that P312 was spread primarily by them.

Here is the relevant passage from Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 367: Anthony wrote,
"Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both."

This is partially what I meant by different types of Beaker folks. By the time of Anthony's description, archaeologically attested, there were already Bell Beaker folks in Portugal. What were they speaking? and were they the ones that made it to Scandinavia first, or was it descendants of the Hungarian Beaker folks which Desideri might consider part of the "reflux" movement. I don't know, but I just don't think all Bell Beaker folks were necessarily alike.

This is also partially why I cringe at and am skeptical of assigning ethnicities to haplogroups. Anthony is speculating, with good reason/logic I might add, about Pre-Celtic, Pre-Italic and so forth. If we define Celtic as including Pre-Celtic and Pre-Italic, etc. it starts getting real convoluted. I really don't know what should be considered "Proto-Celtic". We've seen the Celtic from the West push and we've seen the Central European concepts, including Hallstatt and even La Tene only, etc. Anthony seems to be pushing Austria and Bavaria if I interpret his semi-vague statements correctly. He doesn't say above that the Bell Beakers of Hungary were Celtic, just that they could have had descendants that were. Does he say anything about the concurrent Bell Beakers of Iberia? I don't remember him mentioning them but they might be a problem for some hypotheses.

Of course, Anthony does not mention Y DNA. We don't know what the Cspel Beaker folks were, at least until we get ancient DNA on them. They could have carried some R1b that was pre-P312/pre-U106 so that split may not have even occurred yet. We don't know, but anyway there is no genetic reason to think U106 and P312 were a long way from each other yet, if only because they may have been the same gleam in a common ancestor's eye.

There is no guarantee that U106 was the primary pre-Germanic IE dialect speaker. In the timeframe of which Anthony is writing, his view is the pre-Germanic guys were north and east of Hungary, separated by the Carpathians (see map below.) R1a may have been meeting up with I1 at the time, particularly if Nordvedt's Baltic view on I1's diversity is correct ....
and maybe even U106 was up there with them! We don't know, but if U106 was in the Anthony view of pre-Germanic migrations then that sure blows up much potential for an Austria/Alpine launchpad for U106 with L51* and L11* and P312.

I think the Pre-Germanic is the hardest nut to crack of the IE derived branches.

David Anthony from "Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism", 2013.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Dispersion_Map_early-on_by_Anthony_2013.jpg http://www.jolr.ru/files/%28104%29jlr2013-9%281-21%29.pdf

I almost forgot, in the same paper paper he leaves open the idea that pre-Germanic is related to Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic. Anthony wrote,
"3 a complex split that separated Italic, Celtic, and perhaps Germanic (Germanic could be rooted in two places in their phylogeny)."

As I mentioned before, I'm not promoting Bell Beakers were speaking any particular language or dialect.

... If the Beaker Folk got to Scandinavia before early Germanic appeared, then they certainly were not speaking it themselves. What were they speaking if not an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic? So the answer to the your question is I don't know and I don't know how anyone could determine that they were speaking (or not) Pre-Italic, Pre-Celtic or Pre-Germanic or whatever. It may have all been an indistinguishable set of dialects - works in progress, so to speak.

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 07:37 PM
L21 gets a little more dicey.

I was looking at L21 folks in the Low Countries on another thread. One thought is that L21 was connected with Rhenish Beaker folks and therefore we might seem some remnants in Benelux (essentially the Low Countries area.) I thought I'd look a little bit at the presence of P312 in the Low Countries to see if we could tell who has been there a long time, versus not. I understand this was not necessarily ancient Germanic land, but just wanted to see if could see anything related to areas next door to the neck of the Jutland.

I don't see much L21 there from our DNA projects. I could only count 10, but surprised by some of the other elements of P312:

10 L21
35 U152
22 DF27
12 P312xL21xU152 (DF27?)
1 P312* (counted de Frimbes)
5 DF19

It does draw into question more about L21's presence.

Did the Brabant DNA study give us any granular R1b results? That would be much more helpful.

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 08:18 PM
I was looking at L21 folks in the Low Countries on another thread. One thought is that L21 was connected with Rhenish Beaker folks and therefore we might seem some remnants in Benelux (essentially the Low Countries area.) I thought I'd look a little bit at the presence of P312 in the Low Countries to see if we could tell who has been there a long time, versus not. I understand this was not necessarily ancient Germanic land, but just wanted to see if could see anything related to areas next door to the neck of the Jutland.

I don't see much L21 there from our DNA projects. I could only count 10, but surprised by some of the other elements of P312:

10 L21
35 U152
22 DF27
12 P312xL21xU152 (DF27?)
1 P312* (counted de Frimbes)
5 DF19

It does draw into question more about L21's presence.

Did the Brabant DNA study give us any granular R1b results? That would be much more helpful.

Alan responded to the same basic info from another thread but I'll move it here so we won't get too distracted elsewhere.

I think if there is one clear pattern, its that P312 is very dominant in the former Celtic areas of France, Waloon Belgium, Iberia, the isles, Switzerland, south Germany, north Italy etc. It drops off in the more eastern parts of the Celtic lands in central and SE Europe but those were areas where Celts were mixed with other elements and in many cases clearly a late intrusive elite.

There is no comparable dominance of a single ydna line among Germanic speakers. They just seem more of a mixed bag to me and P312 including L21 seems to have been part of that mix. I would be tempted to put that down to the late origin of proto-Germanic and its even later expansion. Just no enough time between the origin of proto-German and its expansion period a few centuries later for it to have become dominated by a single clade.

I think you've also noted that the Germanic language as a larger substrate effect too so it seems to make sense. They are a mixed up bunch. Actually, that is probably more the normal and it is just the pure numbers of P312 in the West that is the anomaly.

Andrew Lancaster
08-21-2013, 08:55 PM
Here is the frequency map that Maciamo has put together over at Eupedia. He pulls the data out of studies like Busby's and Myres' but he will tweak (or ignore) data if he thinks the sample was too small. S21 is another name for U106 and, yes, U106, does seem to have left a mark as far south as Austria.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

So what data is reflected in the "hole" in the area of Thuringia?

TigerMW
08-21-2013, 09:14 PM
So what data is reflected in the "hole" in the area of Thuringia?
You'll probably have to go over to Maciamo's forum if you want to delve further into his maps, but he did make this comment. I think he is talking about I-M223. Whichever direction U106 was moving, it kind of looks like U106 had to go around I2b.

Lower frequency (of U106) around the Harz mountains in Germany, due to the higher percentage of I2b. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26700-New-map-of-R1b-S21-(U106)?p=377399&viewfull=1#post377399

Webb
08-21-2013, 11:29 PM
So what data is reflected in the "hole" in the area of Thuringia?

Andrew, in Thuringia lies a mystery. In the Slagle surname project are 15 lineages. Schlegel is a little town in Thuringia. So these 15 different lineages are Von Schlegel. 10 are M269. One is SRY2627, one is U152, and one is L21. Three others are probable L21 according to an old post by Mikewww on a different site. So this one surname has a percentage of 60 for P312 and 40 for U106. Thuringia is named after the thuringii, who were a substrate tribe of the Frankish confederation. I would like to find other data from families who have ties to this area. It could be some evidence for my hypothesis that the franks were a mixed bag of haplotypes, therefore leaving very little genetic evidence of their existence in France because they just reintroduced P312 haplotypes that were already there.

GoldenHind
08-22-2013, 12:40 AM
I'd go a step further - the conclusion (P312 is more Germanic) is dead wrong. The map is based on extreme FTDNA testing bias (75K for the Isles, 12K for Germany, 4K for France.) Like I've said in the past, even the most Middle Eastern groups look British and German in FTDNA maps.

I suspect jdean's comment was meant to be provocative rather than a statement of fact. But I think he does have a point.

There is no doubt about the enormous testing bias toward the British Isles in the FTDNA database. That doesn't make his two maps totally without value. One can eliminate the bias toward the Isles by simply ignoring them on the maps.

For instance, compare Scandinavia on the two maps. This area is enormously under represented in the FTDNA database, but that applies equally to both U106 and P312 there. The FTDNA numbers are probably higher than those of the Myres study. Comparing the two subclades on the maps, to my eye the similarity of their distribution is striking. If one has a slight edge, I think it would have to go to P312. Indeed, Maciamo has said the reason he recently changed his label for P312 to include Germanics as well as Italo-Celtics was his realization that P312 outnumbered U106 in Scandinavia. This has been apparent to me for some years.

Next look at the area running from the North Sea coast down to Switzerland. Both are vast areas of red. U106 may have a slight edge in Holland and Flanders, but P312 appears to have it in southern Germany. Again, to my eye, the similarities are more striking than the differences.

Now look at northern Germany east of the Elbe. Again, the similarity appears to me to be strong. I would guess that this area had less migration to America than the western parts of Germany, so there is far less red. But again this applies equally to both subclades.

In Eastern Europe, again vastly under-represented, the two subclades also look to me to be very similar, again with a slight edge to P312.

The differences are found in other areas. U106 appears scare in Italy. Doubtless much of the P312 there is U152. The northwest part of France is heavy in P312 and U106 is essentially absent, doubtless due to a strong L21 presence. Again P312 has a strong presence in Iberia, especially the north. I would assume much of it is DF27.

My conclusion is that P312 is spread across Europe, including Germanic areas, while U106 is much more localized. I certainly don't think one can say that P312 ONLY has strong presence in former Celtic areas. It is obvious that the Celts were largely composed of one or another variety of P312, but I think the evidence suggests they ranged far beyond Celtic areas.

I know this is not a popular concept with the many P312 hobbyists who strongly identify with Celts and regard Germanics with a certain amount of distaste. I suspect it will also be met with some resistance from those U106 who like to see themselves as the only Germanic R1b subclade.

TigerMW
08-22-2013, 03:18 AM
I commented earlier in the L21 non-Isle thread about the possibility of L21 reaching Fenno-Scandinavia as a result of Viking Slave trade.

There probably was some redistribution of people from the Isles as result of the Viking trade, but these L21 percentages are quite high for low class males, not culturally and climatically adapted to a Scandinavia environment.

I then ran through the three groups of L21 types in Scandinavia that I can find in our DNA projects..

Below are the L21 confirmed folks, a total of 22, that I can not assign to any STR signature based variety/cluster:
....
Below are another 27 folks that fit into STR signatures that potentially could be Scandinavian or Non-Isles of some type. I don't know.
(next post)...

In contrast, below are the L21 confirmed folks, a total of 20, that appear to be assigned to traditional (conventional wisdom) British Isles STR signature based variety/clusters.....

The third group of 20 traditional ISLES oriented STR signatures is dominated by the Irish Sea L21>DF13>Z255>L159.2 type. 9 of the 20 are Irish Sea types, which are also known as Leinster or Lagin haplotypes. Paul D researched the Norse-Irish alliance related to Leinster kings

What's evident with regards to Ireland is that Z255/L159.2 is quite intewoven with surnames connected to the major dynastical

groupings with the Laighin (historic kingdom of Leinster). This can be seen by the positive results from surnames that belong to either the:

Uí Cheinnselaigh
Uí Dhúnlainge

Both of which were at varying times heavily integrated with Viking Kingdom of Dublin in forms of marriage and political/military allaince. The prime example obviously been Máel Mórda mac Murchada who was brother-in-law to Olaf Cuaran (King of Dublin) and uncle and ally of Sigtrygg II Silkbeard Olafsson (King of Dublin).

Of coure Sigtrygg widowed mother was one of Brian Boru (Dál gCais eg. L226) divorced wives, he was also married to one of Brian's daughters.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Sihtric_989_1036_ruler_of_Dublin.jpg/482px-Sihtric_989_1036_ruler_of_Dublin.jpg

I should point out that the Byrnes of Leinster are descended from Bran son of Máel Mórda. Bran died in Cologne in 1052.

So, making logical inferences as we humans are wont to do, one has to conclude that it's quite likely that either 1) the Z255 in Scandinavia came from Irishmen who were involved in this Norse-Irish alliance or 2) the Z255 in Ireland came from Norsemen who were involved in this Norse-Irish alliance.
I know which conclusion makes the most sense to me. ;)

I don't think either is the answer to Norwegian Z255. The Norwegians who are Z255/L159.2+ do not look as closely related to the Byrnes and Kinsellas as other Irish and Scots do.

I don't know which direction R1b-L21>DF13>Z255>L159.2 (Irish Sea) people migrated, but let us suppose it was Ireland to Scandinavia. If this happened during the Viking Age it aligns nicely with the royal/elite alliance between Leinster Kings and Vikings. This makes more sense to me in terms of having a chance to have a male offspring population dent in Scandinavia. Even in the higher probability thrall L21+ target group, half of the group may really have been marriage alliance immigrants rather than thralls.

I guess significant is still a subjective term, but I don't see how it is likely that thrall trade brought enough surviving/thriving Irish male lineages to Scandinavia to make a significant dent in their population.

dartraighe
08-22-2013, 12:58 PM
This U106 is from one of the old Celtic nations.
Re: New study tests for U106 in an Austrian population
Wed May 28, 2008
This study has a larger N than the Myres et al study for Austria (the
Tyrol in particular in the new one). The Myres study estimated U106
frequency at 83.15% of R1b1c, based on 5 out of 6 hits. The new
study (Niederstätter et al) shows U106/U198 as 61.9% of the total R1b
portion of their sample of 135 men. David Faux seems happy with the N
for S28 so that implies the S21 must be OK since it's three times
that of S28 in this study. U106+ here translates to 74.29% of the
R1b1c men (the remaining 25% being S28). So this is actually maybe in
line with the Myres et al percentage and maybe there really is a "hot
spot" in Austria equal to the percentages reported in Friesland.

Pulling together the U106 project data, the additional U106 data from
other projects and Ysearch, and the studies, I get the following
table. Hopefully it will format OK - if not I apologize in advance.

jdean
08-22-2013, 01:12 PM
I suspect jdean's comment was meant to be provocative rather than a statement of fact. But I think he does have a point.

I don't know about provocative, mischievous maybe : )_

As you say, because the two maps are comparing P312 with U106 and come from the same data source the bias towards Isles testing can be ignored. The Isles are pretty much a blob for P312 anyway !!

Personally from the point of view of P312 its distribution is so wide that trying to pin it to one culture is going to be a little fraught I'd say, but hopefully as testing of the downstream SNPs improves we may get a better picture. Could take a while though !!

Alan has been making some interesting observations on another thread about the patchy nature of L21 distribution as well.

The big mystery for me is how hemmed in U106 is.

TigerMW
08-22-2013, 01:28 PM
The big mystery for me is how hemmed in U106 is.

Exactly. The Germanic expansions were not weak kneed in any way. I don't see any monolithic group or system that could have blockaded them in, maybe the Romans, but that was late and they employed and enabled their spread anyway. In fact groups like the Celts were busy fighting each other and invited foreigners in by alliance to help fight each other.

The only thing I can figure out is what I asked on post #38 - Was U106 johnny come lately?" (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit&p=11934&viewfull=1#post11934)
I don't think U106 was hemmed in. This was just as far as he made it before populations got too big and safe to impact much any more. When I speculate that U106 wasn't hemmed in, that's akin to saying he wasn't in the Nordic Bronze Age and on the open seas at that time (in force, anyway.) Why would U198 be hard to find in Scandinavia? Why does the P312/L11 modal 390=24 appear more east or southeast of the north of Germany? If U106 expansion followed a wave of advance model, he did not start out in the north of Germany or Denmark.

* Please note, that does not mean absolutely zero U106 couldn't have leaked west some time. As RMS2 has pointed out, no one is saying anything is absolute 100% or 0%, pure, etc.

jdean
08-22-2013, 02:17 PM
The only thing I can figure out is what I asked on post #38 - Was U106 johnny come lately?" (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit&p=11934&viewfull=1#post11934)

That's an idea I was mulling over as well. Problem is though, if that's the case where did Johnny come from ?

Apparently the origin of both the Saxons and Jutes isn't exactly straight forward either !

TigerMW
08-22-2013, 02:40 PM
if that's the case where did Johnny come from ?
Dartraighe may be pointing the way, at least for one potential alternative (this doesn't mean I'm a fan of Faux.)


This U106 is from one of the old Celtic nations.
Re: New study tests for U106 in an Austrian population
Wed May 28, 2008
This study has a larger N than the Myres et al study for Austria (the
Tyrol in particular in the new one). The Myres study estimated U106
frequency at 83.15% of R1b1c, based on 5 out of 6 hits. The new
study (Niederstätter et al) shows U106/U198 as 61.9% of the total R1b
portion of their sample of 135 men.
.... So this is actually maybe in
line with the Myres et al percentage and maybe there really is a "hot
spot" in Austria equal to the percentages reported in Friesland.
...

There certainly are reasons to consider that the primary expansion of U106 was north from Austria, before integrating or initiating Jastorf and continuing west to the Low Countries and north across the straits to Sweden and then finally across the Channel to England.

David Anthony is the one who echoes Ringe/Taylor/Warnow that Germanic might be rooted in the same dialect that Italo-Celtic dialects are rooted in. In that regards, Maciamo, is only parroting Anthony, but tying U106 to Austria which would be nice launchpad for L51, L11 and etc. for P312 and U106. As Richard R has noted, it's early European copper working territory. Anthony's timing may be off, though. It's challenging question. This alternative has its merits, however, it does say Anthony slightly missed the boat by having pre-Germanic on the north/east side of the Carpathian Mountains, but then there is no gaurantee U106, rather than R1a, carried the true pre-Germanic dialects or maybe there is no such thing. Perhaps some U106 and elements of P312 folks moved north into plains from Austria/Hungary and the west side of the Carpathians and they were speaking some indistinguishable IE dialects while R1a was moving towards the northwest from the east side of the Carpathians speaking some other indistinguishable dialects and they all met I1 and forms of I2 (and whoever was around) who both weren't speaking IE at all.

I'll go back to one of the things that make me cringe - trying to associate ancient haplogroups with not as ancient ethnicities. It's gets real convoluted between the Pre-Celtic, Pre-Italic and even with the Pre-Germanic as a potential close derivative. Perhaps we tend to lose track of that its just all IE; and P312 and U106 are all just L11, especially back then.

TigerMW
08-22-2013, 04:01 PM
I was looking at L21 folks in the Low Countries on another thread. One thought is that L21 was connected with Rhenish Beaker folks and therefore we might seem some remnants in Benelux (essentially the Low Countries area.) ...
Any thoughts on P312's or U106's potential involvement with the Rhenish Bell Beakers? If I remember correctly, Jean says this type dominated the British Isles.

R.Rocca
08-22-2013, 04:02 PM
Thanks. That's interesting. I wonder what history is that would account for Welsh or Irish going to these coastal regions over the last several hundred years? I think your thoughts on U106 and Rhenish Beakers are also interesting but I'll post a question on the P312/U106 Germanic/Italic thread on that because that's where it belongs.

I am not up on the various regional/type Beaker groups. Can you point to any papers that are good reading that get granular in describing differences between the groups?

In English, this is probably the best:

Polythetic networks, coherent people. A new historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker Phenomenon
by Marc Vander Linden

http://www.academia.edu/2122469/Polythetic_networks_coherent_people._A_new_histori cal_hypothesis_for_the_Bell_Beaker_Phenomenon

T101
08-22-2013, 04:03 PM
So what data is reflected in the "hole" in the area of Thuringia?

The "U106 hole" in Thuringia is probably reflective of the largely inaccessible Harz Mountains and the dense forests that surround those mountains and thus was not conducive to animal husbandry.

The region is an I2a2 hotspot today, and may have been a refuge for some I2 groups from the R1 takeover of Central and Northern Germany.

However, those lands were never really settled until approximately 1000AD.

R.Rocca
08-22-2013, 05:33 PM
Larmuseau made mention of the following:



The most surprising result of this study was that the West–East
gradients for both R-L48 and R-M529 were still visible when only
the present residence of the autochthonous DNA-donors (PD) was
used (Fig. 5 and Table S1). This is in contrast to the observed North–
South gradients in Brabant which disappeared when switching
from GD to PD (Fig. 4 and Table S1) [12]. Historical demography
explains this contrast: Brabant is the main industrialized region
within Flanders in contrast to the western and eastern parts within
Flanders [31]. As such, many immigrants in Brabant are from the
other parts of Flanders therefore the structure in Brabant
disappeared in the recent past. This is in contrast to the other
regions in Flanders which have been much less affected by
migration.

Finally, another genetic differentiation within Flanders was
found earlier between an autochthonous Flemish surnames group
(AFS) and a French/Roman Surnames group (FRS), the latter being
the remnant of a past gene flow event from Northern France to
Flanders at the end of the 16th century. Based on the extended
Y-SNP data the differences in sub-haplogroup frequencies between
AFS and FRS are statistically significant for two specific subhaplogroups,
namely R-Z381* and R-M529 (Table 2). The
frequencies in FRS for these two sub-haplogroups are comparable
with those expected for Northern France based on the observed
gradients in Flanders. However, there are no data (yet) for the
population in Northern France genotyped at such a Y-chromosomal
phylogenetic resolution as in this study. Nevertheless, like
the North–South gradient observed in Brabant, the earlier genetic
difference between AFS and FRS turned out to be a combination of
differences of several sub-haplogroups.

The 'south' part of the north-south gradient is due to U152 as per their prior study.

Andrew Lancaster
08-22-2013, 07:11 PM
The "U106 hole" in Thuringia is probably reflective of the largely inaccessible Harz Mountains and the dense forests that surround those mountains and thus was not conducive to animal husbandry.

The region is an I2a2 hotspot today, and may have been a refuge for some I2 groups from the R1 takeover of Central and Northern Germany.

However, those lands were never really settled until approximately 1000AD.

Hmm. A refuge for pre Germanics in the Harz? But the Suevi were said to dwell in just such places, and these were the first definite Germanic speakers in that area.

Andrew Lancaster
08-22-2013, 07:14 PM
Andrew, in Thuringia lies a mystery. In the Slagle surname project are 15 lineages. Schlegel is a little town in Thuringia. So these 15 different lineages are Von Schlegel. 10 are M269. One is SRY2627, one is U152, and one is L21. Three others are probable L21 according to an old post by Mikewww on a different site. So this one surname has a percentage of 60 for P312 and 40 for U106. Thuringia is named after the thuringii, who were a substrate tribe of the Frankish confederation. I would like to find other data from families who have ties to this area. It could be some evidence for my hypothesis that the franks were a mixed bag of haplotypes, therefore leaving very little genetic evidence of their existence in France because they just reintroduced P312 haplotypes that were already there.

I thought the leading theory of the origins of the Thuringi is that they were descended from the Hermunduri, who were Suebic. Although they were conquered by Franks I have never heard of them being described as Franks. I think they were local to the area.

Perhaps a lead here is that many suspect the Suebi in this area, like in Bohemia, might have mixed with pre-Germanic peoples when they entered the area.

alan
08-22-2013, 09:10 PM
Simple though the observation above is, sometimes its easy to lose sight of the simple things. P312 is pan-European. It therefore is a unique phenomenon. It remains very tempting to link it with beaker as its the only culture that is pan-European enough to fit it and it does fit pretty well.

U106 is more restricted and all of the studies of the linguistic boundary areas show that it may well have been far more restricted before the Germanic expansion began. I think though the issue of whether it was also Celtic or not is not really relevant to the west. The real point is it doesnt seem to be linked to the western Celts of Gaul, Iberia, Italy or the isles. If some U106 was encorporated into Celtic speakers in Austria, this is still irrelevant to western Celts as, contrary to the silly old maps showing expansion from that sort of zone, it is incredibly unlikely that Austrian Celts ever made it to the isles. In the west, all the evidence shows that U106 spread west with Germanics, regardless of whether some of it in the east Alpine zone included Celtic speakers. So, any hypothesis of U106 in Austria having included Celts is not of relevance to western Europe's U106.

I also dont think we should be mesmerised by Anthony's ideas on the origins of the Celts, Germans etc. Its undoubtedly the weakest point in his book and the space devoted to it is minimal. I actually have doubts if his model even makes sense. The idea of pushing back pre- versions of the various branches to 3000-2500BC or thereabout is far from completely accepted. Mallory in his recent book on the origins of the Irish sticks to his guns from some of his previous comments that he doesnt think Celtic emerged until the late Bronze Age.

Regardless of preference, there is no established certainty that we must look at the beaker period as a period where the western European IE speakers yet had broken into distinct languages. Ideas on trees and dates of IE languages are in a constant state of flux. That would remove the need to see all P312 as Celto-Italic and see it more as the big element of a generalised western IE. If there was any one line capable of being the prime spreader of west IE it is P312 although clearly a single lineage solution is not necessary.

The way I feel about it is if a generalised west IE was spread in the beaker period, primarily by P312 lineages, then the tentative emergence into distinct dialects may have commenced in the late or post-beaker phases and have been largely formed by interaction networks of elites in the period when beaker and its wider internationalism broke down. My feeling is there were probably all sorts of shades of grey in a patchwork of west IE dialects while period of separation would have led to divergence, convergence also happened and may have been driven by elite networks. These waxed and wained and I suspect it was far more complex than the picture we see in late prehistory.

alan
08-22-2013, 09:55 PM
Any thoughts on P312's or U106's potential involvement with the Rhenish Bell Beakers? If I remember correctly, Jean says this type dominated the British Isles.

The main evidence is the apparent L21 dominance in pre-Anglo-Saxon strata. That applies not only to Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and the Highlands but also can be seen in a slightly less dramatic form in western and northern England and even eastern Scotland. The latter is good evidence that L21 was not always a western clade. The beaker types of the isles in general do relate most to the Rhenish ones. So, how could L21 have dominated in the isles if it didnt dominate opposite around the Rhine. Otherwise we are looking at the whole of the isles being settled by a founder effectt that just so happened to be an atypical L21 dominant offshoot from the continent. The variety in isles beaker traditions would not support that idea IMO.

As I have said before, perhaps L21 was a maritime family who were able to dominate the northern seas before U106 and perhaps before U152 expanded to that area. L21 and DF27 look to me like lineages who had strong maritime abilities. U152 much less so. L21 looks like it dominated the north and DF27 the south but they probably overlapped and may have competed. The power of one might be later than the power of the other in an given area. You could argue that there were different modus operandi for each lineage that gave them different natural areas of domination.

If there is a link between L21 and maritime skills it almost by definition had to have occurred before the move to the isles. It not easy to just move from being a landlubber to a boatman. It takes generations to build up those skills and traditionally even into modern times in the isles the fishermen and local farmers often lived very much separate lives and didnt intermarry etc. Clearly in the isles the first beaker related clearly maritime links other than the very fact of crossing the channel is the copper trade which linked Ross Island to Britain and the north side of the channel. Then there was a little later the apparent invention of tin bronze in Britain and probably the trade of tin. Irish gold and lunalaes etc also moved across the isles and across the channel into northern France especially. Then there was all sorts of waxing and waning of copper sources, some of which clearly required boats to arrive in the isles. So, there is little doubt that in the beaker phase there were lineages controlling the seas with considerable maritime skills. All of this is before the British sewn plank boat tradition is attested and I suspect, given the very rough western seas involved in some of this trade, that some sort of currach type boats were involved. They had far better ability on very rough seas than most would see in any of the alternatives of the period.

I think a group of related lineages with considerable maritime skills clearly was well established from 2500BC-2000BC and this clearly involved the western seaways as well as the more classical beaker areas of SE and eastern Britain. The very close links between Britain, Ireland, northern France etc can be clearly seen in this phase in terms of metalwork. It is very hard not to think, given modern distributions, that this was L21 controlled. However, I wouldnt rule out DF27 having involvement and competing in this too. I would tend to link the latter with the scatter of northern examples of matitime beaker. The maritime skills set could have been developed anywhere where beaker people either lived or mixed in maritime areas before moving to the isles. The other clearly continental skills set involved mining and metalwork, especially in Ireland at Ross Island. Whether or not the same lineages had the maritime and metallurgical skills sets is an open question.

GoldenHind
08-23-2013, 12:55 AM
Any thoughts on P312's or U106's potential involvement with the Rhenish Bell Beakers? If I remember correctly, Jean says this type dominated the British Isles.

I have wondered about this myself. I believe some at least have claimed that U106 was absent from the Rhenish Beakers, and that they were primarily P312 lineages. It seems to me to be an open question.

I read with interest Rich R's contention on one of the L21 threads that U106 was a major component of Rhenish Beakers. Some time back on the old DNA Forum, I suggested that the hotspot of U106 in Holland could be better explained by Rhenish Beakers than by Iron Age migrations of Germanic tribes out of Scandinavia. I took a lot of flak for even suggesting it was a possibility. Of course it does not need to be one or another. Both could have contributed to it.

Kopfjäger
08-23-2013, 01:30 AM
I commented earlier in the L21 non-Isle thread about the possibility of L21 reaching Fenno-Scandinavia as a result of Viking Slave trade.


I then ran through the three groups of L21 types in Scandinavia that I can find in our DNA projects..

(next post)...


The third group of 20 traditional ISLES oriented STR signatures is dominated by the Irish Sea L21>DF13>Z255>L159.2 type. 9 of the 20 are Irish Sea types, which are also known as Leinster or Lagin haplotypes. Paul D researched the Norse-Irish alliance related to Leinster kings




I don't know which direction R1b-L21>DF13>Z255>L159.2 (Irish Sea) people migrated, but let us suppose it was Ireland to Scandinavia. If this happened during the Viking Age it aligns nicely with the royal/elite alliance between Leinster Kings and Vikings. This makes more sense to me in terms of having a chance to have a male offspring population dent in Scandinavia. Even in the higher probability thrall L21+ target group, half of the group may really have been marriage alliance immigrants rather than thralls.

I guess significant is still a subjective term, but I don't see how it is likely that thrall trade brought enough surviving/thriving Irish male lineages to Scandinavia to make a significant dent in their population.

Mike, I am looking at the Norwegian Z255 haplotypes and can tell you that I do not see an affinity with the Byrnes, Kinsellas, or others said to descend from the Laigin, other than the fact that both groups share the Z255 mutation. I personally think it makes more sense that Z255 is an extension of L21, and is found throughout Northwest Europe. Much like the French and German Z255+ folks, their inheritance of the mutation has more to do with being located at the fringes of Europe, rather than being Irish.

MJost
08-23-2013, 05:17 AM
The Norwegians fall into the CCGG category, but this doesn't do much as far as separating them since our Lorraine L159.2+ guy is also CCGG. I am not well-versed in the TMRCA estimates for Z255, but remember you or someone saying it is at least 1000 years old. It's likely older than that considering the presence near the Rhineland.

Here is my TMRCA's using Bird's q stable STRs 67marker panel

Z255 All
Coalescence / Founders
1,530.1 / 1,625.0

L159.2 All
Coalescence / Founders
1,481.4 / 1,560.3

L159.2 England
Coalescence
1,578.4

L159.2 Norway
Coalescence
1,170.3

L159.2 Scotland
Coalescence
1,521.42

MJost

alan
08-23-2013, 09:12 AM
I have wondered about this myself. I believe some at least have claimed that U106 was absent from the Rhenish Beakers, and that they were primarily P312 lineages. It seems to me to be an open question.

I read with interest Rich R's contention on one of the L21 threads that U106 was a major component of Rhenish Beakers. Some time back on the old DNA Forum, I suggested that the hotspot of U106 in Holland could be better explained by Rhenish Beakers than by Iron Age migrations of Germanic tribes out of Scandinavia. I took a lot of flak for even suggesting it was a possibility. Of course it does not need to be one or another. Both could have contributed to it.

If that was the case then it would be a game changer and drag U106 into the general beaker L11 picture and also very much change our ideas on isles U106. However, as it stands, what data there is still seems stacked against that. Everything depends on its position in the past relative to the most frequent contact points with the isles. If it was in Holland in beaker times then it would certainly have flowed into the east of the isles. However, variance to date does not seem to back the idea that it was in places like Holland in that period. In fact is there not even some doubt it is old enough to have existed in the beaker period?

One thing I sometimes wonder is that we might be treating beaker differently from other phases of contact when maybe we shouldnt. We treat the appearance of beaker and its associated changes with movements of people, which is fair enough. However, the evidence of contact based on metals etc goes on and on after that. Through much of the Bronze Age we can see interaction and similarity throughout the isles and onto the continent from nw France to the Rhine and occasionally beyond. Although this is mainly metalwork there are a number of behavoural patterns beyond that which suggest it may have gone beyond that. In the later bronze age there are broad similar patterns in terms of attitude to burials, watery ritual deposits, preference for some house and settlement types, feasting equiptment, selective uptake of central European warrior ideas. Rather like the beaker period it does not show some sort of simply scorched earth horizon but is complex. There are especially strong parallels across the English channel.

I wonder if we are being even handed when treating beaker period contacts and trade in a different way from similar patterns in the full Bronze Age.

Kopfjäger
08-23-2013, 10:10 AM
Here is my TMRCA's using Bird's q stable STRs 67marker panel

Z255 All
Coalescence / Founders
1,530.1 / 1,625.0

L159.2 All
Coalescence / Founders
1,481.4 / 1,560.3

L159.2 England
Coalescence
1,578.4

L159.2 Norway
Coalescence
1,170.3

L159.2 Scotland
Coalescence
1,521.42

MJost

Thanks, Mark. I am still of the impression that Z255/L159.2 first manifested itself somewhere between France and Germany, possibly along the Rhine.

Dubhthach
08-23-2013, 10:56 AM
Nice analogy, but as an Irishman I have to say it's heresy to drink Guinness from a Pitcher! ;)

Regarding southern Germany, here's a map of Hallstat cultural areas (taken from Wiki)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Hallstatt_culture.png

Here's another interesting map which attempts to plot the distrubition of Urnfiled, Hallstat and La Tene material cultures.

http://celticowboy.com/Celtic%20Areas.jpg

What we have to remember of course is that Celtic, Italic and Germanic are all closely related Indo-European languages -- more so to each other then to say Iranic or Indic or Greek!

At the ages that U106 and P312 came into existence it's probably safe to say that you just has a wide area of peoples speaking various dialects of "Proto-Indo-European" (Western Proto-IE). Over time this would diverge into the three groups but it's not inconceivable that movement in this area wouldn't be too hard.

R.Rocca
08-23-2013, 12:46 PM
No doubt that the Germanic people migrated in enough numbers that they were able to change the language of England. However, that doesn't mean there wasn't already an important amount of U106. The areas where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from (Denmark, N. Germany) have lower frequencies than England and that alone raises a big red flag and, IMO, makes an "almost all U106 in England is Germanic" scenario unlikely. The Netherlands frequency is the only area where you have a good 10%+ frequency over that of England, and from what I recall, the Frisians were only a minor player in the Germanic invasions.

As for the age of U106, based on the fact that it does not share it's level with any other SNP, I would have to say that it is as old as P312 and I don't have any problem with making either of them as old as Bell Beaker.

alan
08-23-2013, 01:16 PM
You can see a progressive central European influence in the NW starting with Urnfield eating into parts of France then Hallstatt pushing further then La Tene completing the job. However it is important to recall that the Atlantic Bronze Age was essentially a subset of Urnfield in terms of most of its metalwork. France acted as a conduit for urnfield influence which was kind of given an Atlantic spin in the NW quarter of France and the isles. Certain traditions however were characteristic of the Atlantic sub-network but generally speaking Atlantic metalwork, especially the stuff indicative of warrior status, was a spin on ideas coming from central Europe. The Atlantic tradition is probably distinct to some degree because it was maritime and conservative in some ways and cremation was probably the norm anyway in the isles so there was no need for urnfield burial ideas to have an impact. It must be extremely hard for a central European culture to impact a zone that is connected up and often accessible only by sea and I suspect that the lack of urnfield impact, the very slight Hallstatt impact etc is due to that. Landlubbers cant just take over a maritime network that existed in some form for 1400 years by the time urnfield started to make inroads nearby.

The map is a little misleading though. Very little impact or migration is suggested by Hallstatt finds and the evidence for actual La Tene migration to Britain from the continent is weak in many areas. Many Atlantic traditions remained right up until the Romans arrived including the watery deposition of metals, round houses, lack of remains of burials in many places. Britain must have really been still a zone of Atlantic Celts in general with patchy inroads in limited places and selective uptake of continental status items. I think this is almost certainly true of NW France too. In a way that is similar to the pattern in the Atlantic Bronze Age when there was strong conservatism or Atlanticism in the ritual-burial-domestic sphere but status metalwork was generally copied from central European ideas with a local spin. In Ireland this was especially true and Scotland, other than the southern part, lacks much in the way of La Tene metalwork except very late material.

I am currently reading The Atlantic Iron Age, an interesing if slighly mistitled book - it has a lot about the late Bronze Age. It is interesting as it tries to flesh out the concept of the Atlantic Bronze Age. Interestingly, the author concludes that it originated in NW France and the isles and only spread to Atlantic Iberia a couple of centuries later. He sees it as providing Atlantic Iberia with a link to central European ideas via the north Atlantic groups. This is not the first time I have heard this idea, some even claiming a small movement from NW France to Atlantic Iberia. The author claims this northern influence transformed Atlantic Iberia and totally changed the structure of society with more permanent settlements, hierachy etc. This agrees with a hunch I have had for years that Lusitanian could be a remnant of the language that was there before the northern connection was established and when the area looked more to the Med. That would then see actual Celtic as arriving in Iberia through dual routes around the same general era - north Atlantic from the north and Urnfield from the east. Certainly in Atlantic Iberia this would be a good explanaton for the presence of both Q Celtic (possibly the only form at this time) and Lusitanian. It fits nicely the archaeological evidence which sees Atlantic Iberia as having a long period of cultural detachment from the Atlantic areas to the north from the end of the beaker period to c. 1000BC, a scenario which would explain how Lusitanian had diverged from the other Celto-Italic dialects that had led to Celtic. By the opening of history Atlantic Iberia seemed to have Lustitanian areas as well as other areas in its northern parts that seemed to feature both languages. So, I certainly do not think there is much chance that Celtic evolved in Iberia. Iberia may have recieved Celto-Italic dialects long before this, perhaps in the beaker period, but it seems to me extremely unlikely that Celtic evolved there or spread from there. It is much more likely that western Europe was peppered with Celto-Italic dialects from the beaker period but that the Celtic shifts happened somewhere like central or northern France or south Germany which was in a position to influence the local Celto-Italic dialects of a much wider area in multiple directions.

Maybe Mallory is right in his belief that Celtic emerged fairly late, maybe c. 1200BC which he cites linguistic evidence in proto-Celtic for. Perhaps it was spread by the combination of the Urnfield and Atlantic elite networks who were probably already speaking a number of Celto-Italic dialects since beaker times anyway. It much easier to spread a dialect change than a new language especially with a mobile elite heavily involved in trading. After beaker times smaller networks rose and fell in various places but it is only the combined Urnfield and Atlantic networks that could claim a spread that could explain a convergence of dialect. The shifts that define Celtic are pretty specific so they probably happened once and spread from there. I think we need to look at Celtic as partly a dialect convergence rather than look at it as a tree branching into more and more distant subforms. Maybe the latter was the picture until dialect convergence was promoted by the large networks after the beaker period and maybe as late as 1200BC.


I think in general we need to move away from the idea of THE Celts and simply look at them as a subset of a larger Celto-Italic or west IE peoples who may have had localised dialects but shared a converging later dialect shift due to that subset being involved in long term networks together. That is much more logical than looking at them as a uniform people from beaker times. Mallory seems to want to place it about 1200BC or later. However, there were clear connections between the isles, northern France, central Europe etc in the early Bronze Age too so it is possible that the emergence ws underway before the late bronze age.

In general I do not think that the majority of Celtic speakers actually spread as Celts but spread as Celto-Italics or west IEs in the beaker period. I think the Celtic dialect was spread by elite interaction in the main. So, looking for the spread of a people who were already Celts may be pointless. The Hollywood type idea of Celts as a formed entity charging into areas probably is only semi-appropriate for the late extension of Gauls eastwards and into Central Europe and I think that was really a crisis mode and the beginning of the end for the Celts even though it is that one that captured the imagination of classical writers and the modern public.

alan
08-23-2013, 01:55 PM
One possible later explanation for the Rhine and Austria concentrations of U106 that just struck me is the bottling up effect of the Roman limes and emperial boundary. We have seen the effect of natural termini before with yDNA and I imagine a manmade one may have had a very similar effect, especially when it stood for around half a millenium at the very period when Germanics were trying to expand west and south.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Costantino_nord-limes_png.PNG

A major build up, concentration on the other side of the boundary followed by a modest but dense expansion of them when the boundary fell. Not to mention the Roman thing about settling friendlier Germans on the Roman side of the boudnary.

alan
08-23-2013, 02:08 PM
Uncannily the U106 peak is in the bit of Austria just outside the Roman imperial boundary i.e. the Danube.

alan
08-23-2013, 02:42 PM
lookng back through the thread Mike made a comment that U106 seemed to hit an imaginery barrier west before suddenly turning a right angle north to England. Was that perhaps a real barrier?

jdean
08-23-2013, 03:06 PM
Just came across this paper discussing contact between Proto Celtic & Germanic

http://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic

interestingly it also discuses the possibility of Celtic words entering Proto Finnic.

T101
08-23-2013, 03:35 PM
(Denmark, N. Germany) have lower frequencies than England and that alone raises a big red flag and, IMO, makes an "almost all U106 in England is Germanic" scenario unlikely.

What group (Belgae?) or prior culture besides the Germanic tribes could have brought U106 to the British Isles?

One area where the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes did not settle was Wales and there is a clear absence of U106 with less than 0.1% of U106 (Eupedia) found among the Welsh people.

TigerMW
08-23-2013, 03:44 PM
lookng back through the thread Mike made a comment that U106 seemed to hit an imaginery barrier west before suddenly turning a right angle north to England. Was that perhaps a real barrier?

Let me add the caveat that we should consider these frequency cline maps have to do some interpolation which means the pretty smooth lines/areas may be much more patchy in reality... and they almost surely are.

The current drawing of U106 frequencies is they drop off severely south and west of Calais. I'm not sure of the status of Calais itself, but the drop off is so severe that I question if any (hardly any) U106 was in this area including parts of the Low Countries prior to the Anglo-Saxon movements

"Map showing the situation of 1477, with Calais, the English Pale and neighbouring counties" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/VlaanderenArtesie1477.png


Wikipedia wrote (with sources),
"- the Angles, who probably came from Angeln (in modern Germany): Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain, leaving their former land empty. The name England (Old English: Engla land or Ængla land) originates from this tribe;
- the Saxons, from Lower Saxony (in modern Germany; German: Niedersachsen) and the Low Countries;
- the Jutes, possibly from the Jutland peninsula (in modern Denmark; Danish: Jylland)."
...
"When conditions improved Frisia would receive an influx of new settlers, mostly Angles and Saxons, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians."

It's pretty easy to see how modern and even Medieval populations don't necessarily reflect truly ancient ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

The only true viable containing/walling boundary I can really see is the the Roman Empire territory, but ironically it may actually have been Romans who helped initially bring more Germanic speakers down into the southern and western portions of the Low Countries. Again, all roads seem to lead to the conclusion that U106 was johnny come lately to the area.

Webb
08-23-2013, 04:20 PM
Let me add the caveat that we should consider these frequency cline maps have to do some interpolation which means the pretty smooth lines/areas may be much more patchy in reality... and they almost surely are.

The current drawing of U106 frequencies is they drop off severely south and west of Calais. I'm not sure of the status of Calais itself, but the drop off is so severe that I question if any (hardly any) U106 was in this area including parts of the Low Countries prior to the Anglo-Saxon movements

"Map showing the situation of 1477, with Calais, the English Pale and neighbouring counties" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/VlaanderenArtesie1477.png


Wikipedia wrote (with sources),
"- the Angles, who probably came from Angeln (in modern Germany): Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain, leaving their former land empty. The name England (Old English: Engla land or Ængla land) originates from this tribe;
- the Saxons, from Lower Saxony (in modern Germany; German: Niedersachsen) and the Low Countries;
- the Jutes, possibly from the Jutland peninsula (in modern Denmark; Danish: Jylland)."
...
"When conditions improved Frisia would receive an influx of new settlers, mostly Angles and Saxons, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians."

It's pretty easy to see how modern and even Medieval populations don't necessarily reflect truly ancient ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

The only true viable containing/walling boundary I can really see is the the Roman Empire territory, but ironically it may actually have been Romans who helped initially bring more Germanic speakers down into the southern and western portions of the Low Countries. Again, all roads seem to lead to the conclusion that U106 was johnny come lately to the area.

Mikewww, you are exactly correct. The Rhine Delta was a thorn in Rome's side. It was constantly flooding thereby displacing tribes who would then go traveling around the Roman Empire because they had no home. The 9th Hispana legion was eventually deployed there to keep the Rhine Delta clear of any tribes, so when Rome collapsed the whole area was free for the taking.

alan
08-23-2013, 05:31 PM
Let me add the caveat that we should consider these frequency cline maps have to do some interpolation which means the pretty smooth lines/areas may be much more patchy in reality... and they almost surely are.

The current drawing of U106 frequencies is they drop off severely south and west of Calais. I'm not sure of the status of Calais itself, but the drop off is so severe that I question if any (hardly any) U106 was in this area including parts of the Low Countries prior to the Anglo-Saxon movements

"Map showing the situation of 1477, with Calais, the English Pale and neighbouring counties" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/VlaanderenArtesie1477.png


Wikipedia wrote (with sources),
"- the Angles, who probably came from Angeln (in modern Germany): Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain, leaving their former land empty. The name England (Old English: Engla land or Ængla land) originates from this tribe;
- the Saxons, from Lower Saxony (in modern Germany; German: Niedersachsen) and the Low Countries;
- the Jutes, possibly from the Jutland peninsula (in modern Denmark; Danish: Jylland)."
...
"When conditions improved Frisia would receive an influx of new settlers, mostly Angles and Saxons, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

The only true viable containing/walling boundary I can really see is the the Roman Empire territory, but ironically it may actually have been Romans who helped initially bring more Germanic speakers down into the souther and western portions of the Low Countries. Again, all roads seem to lead to the conclusion that U106 was johnny come lately to the area.

I certainly think the Roman empire boundary would have had a welling up effect if any boundary ever did. Certainly the greatest man-made and/or man-enforced boundary in European human history. What a lot of people dont seem to fully realise is that even when the Romans settled groups like the Franks etc on the emperial side of the boundary, it was still all about the boundary. Another thing that is often overlooked is that, other than in England, the German-Romance boundary was pretty well established while the boundary still existed. The German language frontier actually move very little after that, just modest spread into the area beyond. German elite hegemony of course existed over much of Europe but not on a scale that moved the language barrier long term.

So, yes the empire boundary must have had a big impact on genes as it, including the Germans settled just inside it, set a linguistic pattern that largely still remains today. The U106 peak in Austria is right at and just outside the boundary.

alan
08-23-2013, 07:21 PM
Very interesting article. I doubt the point about direct contact with proto-finnic though. More likely just a case of chance survivals in two languages with the intermediary lost. I am not sure what he means by proto-Finnic though. There seems tto be a lot of disagreement about that.

The main point I see is a shared warrior/horse and religious culture. The knights and druids/poets were of course the elite of Celtic society. Other than being at least copper age, I dont see a lot of totally unambiguous dating evidence within the words themselves. Interesting though if these are share words before the proto-stage of both languages rather than borrowings.



Just came across this paper discussing contact between Proto Celtic & Germanic

http://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic

interestingly it also discuses the possibility of Celtic words entering Proto Finnic.

rms2
08-23-2013, 07:34 PM
This U106 is from one of the old Celtic nations.
Re: New study tests for U106 in an Austrian population
Wed May 28, 2008
This study has a larger N than the Myres et al study for Austria (the
Tyrol in particular in the new one). The Myres study estimated U106
frequency at 83.15% of R1b1c, based on 5 out of 6 hits. The new
study (Niederstätter et al) shows U106/U198 as 61.9% of the total R1b
portion of their sample of 135 men. David Faux seems happy with the N
for S28 so that implies the S21 must be OK since it's three times
that of S28 in this study. U106+ here translates to 74.29% of the
R1b1c men (the remaining 25% being S28). So this is actually maybe in
line with the Myres et al percentage and maybe there really is a "hot
spot" in Austria equal to the percentages reported in Friesland.

Pulling together the U106 project data, the additional U106 data from
other projects and Ysearch, and the studies, I get the following
table. Hopefully it will format OK - if not I apologize in advance.

Man, I didn't have time for Anthrogenica yesterday and - boom! - this thread now has a ton of new posts on it. I probably won't try to reply to all of them.

But regarding this one:

What language do they speak in Austria (Österreich)?

How did they come to speak that language there?

jdean
08-23-2013, 07:49 PM
Very interesting article. I doubt the point about direct contact with proto-finnic though. More likely just a case of chance survivals in two languages with the intermediary lost. I am not sure what he means by proto-Finnic though. There seems tto be a lot of disagreement about that.

The main point I see is a shared warrior/horse and religious culture. The knights and druids/poets were of course the elite of Celtic society. Other than being at least copper age, I dont see a lot of totally unambiguous dating evidence within the words themselves. Interesting though if these are share words before the proto-stage of both languages rather than borrowings.

Just noticed one of the shared words is werewolf : )

I was looking through the list (not txt searchable unfortunately) but couldn't find the reference for iron which I think is fairly well attested as a loan word from proto celtic into proto germanic.

What did you make of his notion that the range of words 'militates' against them coming from a shared ancestry and therefore the two groups spoke a different PIE dialect ?

rms2
08-23-2013, 08:01 PM
No doubt that the Germanic people migrated in enough numbers that they were able to change the language of England. However, that doesn't mean there wasn't already an important amount of U106. The areas where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from (Denmark, N. Germany) have lower frequencies than England and that alone raises a big red flag and, IMO, makes an "almost all U106 in England is Germanic" scenario unlikely. The Netherlands frequency is the only area where you have a good 10%+ frequency over that of England, and from what I recall, the Frisians were only a minor player in the Germanic invasions.

Beginning, as I recall, in the 3rd century, the Romans were already settling "Saxons" (for want of a better term) in what is now England as federates, so, yeah, there were Germanics there already a couple of centuries before the major influx of Anglo-Saxons in the post-Roman Period.

The differences in U106 frequency between England, Denmark, and Germany are not all that great, but the immediate staging area for the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what is now England was the North Sea littoral of Friesland and the Netherlands. There U106 is at its most frequent. All of those West Germanic tribes of the North Sea littoral were known collectively as "Anglo-Saxons" or just Saxons. They spoke the same languages, worshiped the same gods, and had the same culture.

I disagree with you in that I think "almost all U106 in England is Germanic" is right on the money. I do think, though, that it is probably important to retain the modifier almost, since some U106 might have trickled in a bit earlier, with the Belgae.




As for the age of U106, based on the fact that it does not share it's level with any other SNP, I would have to say that it is as old as P312 and I don't have any problem with making either of them as old as Bell Beaker.

I don't have a problem with that either, but I don't think U106 had much of a part in Beaker. Just my opinion.

avalon
08-23-2013, 08:17 PM
What group (Belgae?) or prior culture besides the Germanic tribes could have brought U106 to the British Isles?

One area where the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes did not settle was Wales and there is a clear absence of U106 with less than 0.1% of U106 (Eupedia) found among the Welsh people.

The Eupedia map for U106 is ok but the Myres and Busby data are somewhat lacking for parts of Britain so we do need more data.

Having said that, U106 in the Isles looks like an obvious Anglo-Saxon-Danish marker. I fail to see how it could have been in Britain in prehistory as its distribution so clearly matches the "English" settlement of Britain and Ireland.

The low frequencies of U106 in Highland Scotland, Wales and Western Ireland are very striking, the Anglo-Saxons never settled here. Am I missing something?

On edit: There actually was an Anglo-Saxon settlement in NE Wales, at modern day Rhuddlan, but I recall that it was back in Welsh hands by the 10th century.

TigerMW
08-23-2013, 08:23 PM
Man, I didn't have time for Anthrogenica yesterday and - boom! - this thread now has a ton of new posts on it. I probably won't try to reply to all of them.

I was thinking we were winding down and I was starting to look more at L21 but I think we may have to rediscover Germany before we are done. This has made me think about why I need to swing through Bavaria, Switzerland and over the Czech Republic and see what the beer is really like.

Nice analogy, but as an Irishman I have to say it's heresy to drink Guinness from a Pitcher! ;) I knew I might get slapped about how the Irish do it, but I'm surprised no one picked up anything on Budweiser, be it Imbev/Belgium/Brazilian or American. However, České Budějovice is actually in South Bohemia.... close to home (one of them) for me. :)

I'm getting people from Germany sending me side emails about pulling up data, but I think Richard R has looked at most of it already. I can't read German but here here are two.

"Analysis of the Y-chromosome Line R1b* in West German Populations" by Wirsching, et al.
http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/7512/pdf/DissMaximilianWilhelmWirschingOnline.pdf

"Contemporary paternal genetic landscape of Polish and German populations: from early medieval Slavic expansion to post-World War II resettlements" by Rebala, 2012.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n4/abs/ejhg2012190a.html

In reference to Eupedia's map of U106 frequencies, the point has been made to me that SW Germany might be higher than the map shows. This would be based on frequencies of 30-40% for U106 in Freiburg im Breisgau which is in Baden-Wurtemberg very near France and Switzerland.

:beerchug: It's friday!

rms2
08-23-2013, 08:35 PM
. . .

I am a big believer that U106 was a big player in Rhenish Bell Beakers and that's why we see it in some areas where Germanic incursions did not occur in the Isles and conversely, missing in places like Wales where BB is missing. Of note, the R1b+ U106- Kromsdorf Bell Beaker samples were part of the Eastern BB province, not the Rhenish BB province.

I disagree. I don't think U106 was far enough west in time to have a part in Bell Beaker.

Where did the English not eventually penetrate in the Isles? The frequency of U106 in the Isles corresponds quite well to Anglo-Saxon settlement and the subsequent spread of their descendants (and their language).

What makes you think Bell Beaker is missing from Wales?

Brymbo Man (https://sites.google.com/a/plaskynastongroup.org/walesprehistory-org/pre-history/brymbo-man-and-the-beaker-people)

Llandaff Beaker Man (http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/1901/?display_mode=low)

The Beaker Man of Llanharry (http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC311RZ_the-beaker-man-of-llanharry?guid=d53e917a-cf9f-479a-961c-d2694c098270)

T101
08-23-2013, 08:46 PM
I think "almost all U106 in England is Germanic" is right on the money. I do think, though, that it is probably important to retain the modifier almost, since some U106 might have trickled in a bit earlier, with the Belgae.


Yes, virtually all the the U106 in England is of Germanic origin. The Belgae, even though they were one and the same with the Celts in language and culture were a military and political alliance comprised of a large contingent of Germanic tribes (the Germanii cisrhenani). The U106 is therefore derived not from a Celtic source but from people originating east of the Rhine - the Germanic populace.

rms2
08-23-2013, 08:56 PM
I was thinking we were winding down and I was starting to look more at L21 but I think we may have rediscover Germany before we are done. This has made me think about why I need to swing through Bavaria, Switzerland and over the Czech Republic and see what the beer is really like.
I knew I might get slapped about how the Irish do it, but I'm surprised no one picked up anything on Budweiser, be in Imbev/Belgium or American. However, České Budějovice is actually in South Bohemia.... close to home (one of them) for me. :)

I'm getting people from Germany sending me side emails about pulling up data, but I think Richard R has looked at most of it already. I can't read German but here here are two.

"Analysis of the Y-chromosome Line R1b* in West German Populations" by Wirsching, et al.
http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/7512/pdf/DissMaximilianWilhelmWirschingOnline.pdf

"Contemporary paternal genetic landscape of Polish and German populations: from early medieval Slavic expansion to post-World War II resettlements" by Rebala, 2012.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n4/abs/ejhg2012190a.html

In reference to Eupedia's map of U106 frequencies, the point has been made to me that SW Germany might be higher than the map shows. This would be based on frequencies of 30-40% for U106 in Freiburg im Breisgau which is in Baden-Wurtemberg very near France and Switzerland.

:beerchug: It's friday!

Busby's Germany-F (F for Freiburg in SW Germany) sample has U106 at 28%. Of course, Germanic tribes and the German language spread all throughout Germany and beyond, into Switzerland, eastern France, Austria, and Italy. I think U106 has, overall, a Germanic center of gravity. Local hotspots here and there throughout the otherwise German-speaking world don't alter that.

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:02 PM
. . . The Belgae, even though they were one and the same with the Celts in language and culture were a military and political alliance comprised of a large contingent of Germanic tribes (the Germanii cisrhenani).

That is disputed. The names of the leaders and the tribes of the Belgae that are known are Celtic. Caesar called the Belgae "Germans" because they came from east of the Rhine, but plenty of Celts lived east of the Rhine at one time. There may have been some Germanic client tribes under the domination of the Belgae, but there is no evidence of that one way or the other.



The U106 is therefore derived not from a Celtic source but from people originating east of the Rhine - the Germanic populace.

That is what I think, too, but probably Germans who had become Celts rather than out-and-out Germans, but the result is the same, so we agree.

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:06 PM
The Eupedia map for U106 is ok but the Myres and Busby data are somewhat lacking for parts of Britain so we do need more data.

Having said that, U106 in the Isles looks like an obvious Anglo-Saxon-Danish marker. I fail to see how it could have been in Britain in prehistory as its distribution so clearly matches the "English" settlement of Britain and Ireland.

The low frequencies of U106 in Highland Scotland, Wales and Western Ireland are very striking, the Anglo-Saxons never settled here. Am I missing something?

On edit: There actually was an Anglo-Saxon settlement in NE Wales, at modern day Rhuddlan, but I recall that it was back in Welsh hands by the 10th century.

Looks pretty obvious to me, too. I don't see how anyone with even a little knowledge of British history could miss it.

And there is this screen shot from Dr. Andy Grierson's computer that I posted earlier that shows the marked difference in L21 frequency east and west of the Welsh border.

642

jdean
08-23-2013, 09:15 PM
Looks pretty obvious to me, too. I don't see how anyone with even a little knowledge of British history could miss it.

And there is this screen shot from Dr. Andy Grierson's computer that I posted earlier that shows the marked difference in L21 frequency east and west of the Welsh border.

642

I'd love to know the breakdown for L21 neg, the Marches isn't exactly very well represented in the British Isles DNA Project

TigerMW
08-23-2013, 09:16 PM
Busby's Germany-F (F for Freiburg in SW Germany) sample has U106 at 28%. Of course, Germanic tribes and the German language spread all throughout Germany and beyond, into Switzerland, eastern France, Austria, and Italy. I think U106 has, overall, a Germanic center of gravity. Local hotspots here and there throughout the otherwise German-speaking world don't alter that.

It seems like there are a lot of U106 people there to be strictly accounted for in times after Roman Empire. The frequencies are rivaling U106 in parts of England. I know there were Germanic military movements south into Europe but were there any big population movements akin to the Anglo-Saxons flooding into England?

If not, maybe a late or slow U106 launch out of Austria isn't so crazy. By late, I mean in comparison to P312's expansions.

I'm also trying to consider the U106 project admins saying 390=24 is more common among U106 in the Alpine area.

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:26 PM
It seems like there are a lot of U106 people there to be strictly accounted for in times after Roman Empire. The frequencies are rivaling U106 in parts of England. I know there were Germanic military movements south into Europe but were there any big population movements akin to the Anglo-Saxons flooding into England?

If not, maybe a late or slow U106 launch out of Austria isn't so crazy. By late, I mean in comparison to P312's expansions.

I'm also trying to consider the U106 project admins saying 390=24 is more common among U106 in the Alpine area.

As I recall, Freiburg is in the heart of Swabian (Schwaben, i.e., Suebi or Suevi) country. They were, of course, a Germanic tribe. That was their territory, so, yes, there was a big movement of Germans into that region.

T101
08-23-2013, 09:27 PM
but the result is the same, so we agree.

Haha... yep. Time for a drink. :) Have a good w/e!

R.Rocca
08-23-2013, 09:29 PM
Looks pretty obvious to me, too. I don't see how anyone with even a little knowledge of British history could miss it.

And there is this screen shot from Dr. Andy Grierson's computer that I posted earlier that shows the marked difference in L21 frequency east and west of the Welsh border.

642

I know Bell Beaker is extremely rare in Wales as well. Just saying.

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:30 PM
I'd love to know the breakdown for L21 neg, the Marches isn't exactly very well represented in the British Isles DNA Project

I would, too. As you know, that's where one of my closest matches comes from, but then he has a Welsh surname (some of us are just blessed).

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:33 PM
I know Bell Beaker is extremely rare in Wales as well. Just saying.

It may be rare, but there have been a number of Beaker finds in Wales (I posted links to three of them in a prior post).

I think the reason U106 is relatively rare in Wales (outside of places the English settled) is because Wales is a Celtic country, and U106 in Britain is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Danish.

rms2
08-23-2013, 09:37 PM
It may be rare, but there have been a number of Beaker finds in Wales (I posted links to three of them in a prior post).

I think the reason U106 is relatively rare in Wales (outside of places the English settled) is because Wales is a Celtic country, and U106 in Britain is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Danish.

Oops!

I posted those links over on that similar thread in the L21 subforum. Here they are:


Brymbo Man (https://sites.google.com/a/plaskynastongroup.org/walesprehistory-org/pre-history/brymbo-man-and-the-beaker-people)

Llandaff Beaker Man (http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/1901/?display_mode=low)

The Beaker Man of Llanharry (http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC311RZ_the-beaker-man-of-llanharry?guid=d53e917a-cf9f-479a-961c-d2694c098270)

jdean
08-23-2013, 09:37 PM
I would, too. As you know, that's where one of my closest matches comes from, but then he has a Welsh surname (some of us are just blessed).

We refer to Wales as 'God's own country', but I think one or two other places also lay claim to that : )

alan
08-23-2013, 09:53 PM
Just noticed one of the shared words is werewolf : )

I was looking through the list (not txt searchable unfortunately) but couldn't find the reference for iron which I think is fairly well attested as a loan word from proto celtic into proto germanic.

What did you make of his notion that the range of words 'militates' against them coming from a shared ancestry and therefore the two groups spoke a different PIE dialect ?


I wasnt sure what to make of that or what he really meant by that. It would be interesting though if this related to the meeting of corded ware pre-Germanics with beaker pre-Celtics c. 2600BC.

jdean
08-23-2013, 11:27 PM
I wasnt sure what to make of that or what he really meant by that. It would be interesting though if this related to the meeting of corded ware pre-Germanics with beaker pre-Celtics c. 2600BC.

Linguistics isn't my thing (putting it mildly) so I have to rely on opinions of others but simplistically I assumed because these loan (?) words were predominately restricted to military and religion the inference was they were transferred via business contact whilst if the two cultures were more closely related via language they would have a greater communality with more humdrum words, ie farming or the weather.

That said, if just his idea of proto-Celt coming into contact with proto-Germanic in the vicinity of the Czech Republic has legs that really would be something !!

TigerMW
08-24-2013, 12:04 AM
As I recall, Freiburg is in the heart of Swabian (Schwaben, i.e., Suebi or Suevi) country. They were, of course, a Germanic tribe. That was their territory, so, yes, there was a big movement of Germans into that region.
That appears to score a goal for the eastern alternative (Baltic) for U106 versus the southern (Austria). The Swabians must have been rich in U106 to make the dent they dent in SW Germany.

"Two thousand years ago, the Suebi or Suevi were an Elbe Germanic tribe whose origin was near the Baltic Sea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia

We should look at the Hg I and R1a maps to see if the same dent was made by those guys.

Jean M
08-24-2013, 08:09 AM
I know Bell Beaker is extremely rare in Wales as well. Just saying.

Wales is full of mountains. Just like the Scottish Highlands, it could not be settled at the same density as the British lowlands. It still isn't.

Population of Wales (2011) 3 million.
Population of Scotland (2011) 5 million.
Population of England (2011) 53 million.

Density per sq km in 2003:
Wales 142 people
Scotland 65 people
England 383 people

However Wales has mineral deposits which attracted mining.

alan
08-24-2013, 09:50 AM
Linguistics isn't my thing (putting it mildly) so I have to rely on opinions of others but simplistically I assumed because these loan (?) words were predominately restricted to military and religion the inference was they were transferred via business contact whilst if the two cultures were more closely related via language they would have a greater communality with more humdrum words, ie farming or the weather.

That said, if just his idea of proto-Celt coming into contact with proto-Germanic in the vicinity of the Czech Republic has legs that really would be something !!

I took it to mean that pre-proto-Celtic and German were indeed rather different branches but shared or one group heavily influenced the other when it came to military and religious i.e. elite strata. That does suggest that the concept of the roots of the Germans and Celts initially coming by different routes could be right and only later did they meet and end up sharing what sounds like elite vocab to me.

If it was down to a corded ware-beaker meeting in central Europe somewhere then that strongly favours pre-proto-Celtic and perhaps P312 lineages as the influential group because it is beaker that arrived and sort of eclipsed corded ware in influence. Many in this hobby have suggested this led to a diminishing of early R1a-corded groups in central Europe. In general too the suggestion of an elite consisting of warriors and religious/poet sort of groups does smack a little more of later Celtic society than Germanic although that is a massive leap in time.

Another consideration though is that these words are Celtic-Germanic associated and not Italic. You could say that might favour the pre-proto-Germans as donating the vovab. On the other hand it could simply suggest the pre-proto-Celts were diverged from Italic at the stage of the contact which could push towards a slightly later date of contact. Mind you the Celto-Italic concept is controversial anyway so it may not be an issue. It is interesting nevertheless that at the point of contact some degree of distinctiveness and peculiarity had already developed among at least one of these groups and their own distinctive vocab had formed. I think that would also favour the pre-proto-Celts as the donor because pre-proto-Germanic was likely part of the large corded ware horizon which one way or another probably led to Baltic, Slavic etc who despite staying in contact later dont share the vocab. Celtic on the other hand as currently hypothetically linked to beaker has a rather torturous route, perhaps a likely scenario to develop its own unique vocab. Another question of course is when did pre-proto-Celtic develop as a distinct group. Lusitanian kind of suggests to me that something more like Celto-Italic may have been present in Atlantic Iberia in the beaker period and that pre-proto-Celtic emerged somewhere else a little later.


Unfortunatley as ar as I can tell the words are a little too vague with too much wriggle room to nail down the date of this contact. It does seem to include some horse and wagon related terms. Not sure what to make of that as the whole horse aspect in beaker seems controversial. I notice this peculiar Celto-Germanic elite-religious vocab doesnt include archery terms. That might be simply because they didnt invent a peculiar term for it but it could also suggest a date when the importance of archery had diminished i.e. after the early Bronze Age. As for terms for forts, this is too vague and the tradition of building enclosures too ancient and ubiquitous to be useful. However, I do know that in places the beaker people did tend to settle in fortifications or naturally defended spots. I am not sure if the Corded groups did off the top of my head.

EDIT-a shared word for harbour is also interesting.

EDIT- the term jug is interesting too. Presumably a handled pitcher. A recent paper on bell beaker common ware points to a east-central European pre beaker origin. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/.../3051‎

So, given that beaker was in central Europe by c. 2600BC but handled beakers did not spread west for some centuries after, it is very unlikely that this word was brought from the early beaker zone in the west.

rms2
08-24-2013, 10:14 AM
That appears to score a goal for the eastern alternative (Baltic) for U106 versus the southern (Austria). The Swabians must have been rich in U106 to make the dent they dent in SW Germany.

"Two thousand years ago, the Suebi or Suevi were an Elbe Germanic tribe whose origin was near the Baltic Sea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia

We should look at the Hg I and R1a maps to see if the same dent was made by those guys.

Judging from Eupedia's and Rootsi's maps, I1 runs 10-15% in SW Germany, and I2b (old I1c, I believe) runs about 5-10%. Eupedia's R1a map shows a range of about 5-10% there.

That sounds right. I don't think R1a had that much of a hand in the old Germanic tribes: some presence, yes, but not that big. I1 has more of a Scandinavian center of gravity than U106, but the two seem to run together in many places. In the Isles, the distributions of M253 and U106 are remarkably similar, but with lower overall frequencies for M253 than for U106, which I think reflects the proportion of M253 to U106 in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands.

Rootsi I Maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/figure/FG1/)

643 645

644

rms2
08-24-2013, 10:27 AM
Judging from Eupedia's and Rootsi's maps, I1 runs 10-15% in SW Germany, and I2b (old I1c, I believe) runs about 5-10%. Eupedia's R1a map shows a range of about 5-10% there.

That sounds right. I don't think R1a had that much of a hand in the old Germanic tribes: some presence, yes, but not that big. I1 has more of a Scandinavian center of gravity than U106, but the two seem to run together in many places. In the Isles, the distributions of M253 and U106 are remarkably similar, but with lower overall frequencies for M253 than for U106, which I think reflects the proportion of M253 to U106 in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands.

Rootsi I Maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/figure/FG1/)

643 645

644

Eupedia's I1 map makes I1 look more frequent in Wales and Ireland than I think it really is. Rootsi's old I1a map is better. You can magnify it at the link I posted above.

alan
08-24-2013, 10:57 AM
What do people think of the large amount of peculiarly Celto-Germanic words relating to horses and wagons? Why would they have their own vocab for such things which are so intrinsically PIE? That and an apparent pattern of inventing all sorts of fighting and weapon terms seems strange to me. Could suggest a bit of a time lag between this set of words and the PIE period. Hard to imagine it is a pre-IE substrate effect although wheels did spread ahead of the steppe groups into late Neolithic groups in eastern and northern Europe. Proto-Germanic, admittedly a much later phase, does have an awful lot of unusual vocab that diverges from normal IE and may even be pre-IE. Celtic is far more 'normal' in terms of its IE vocab in general. I suppose that might suggest an origin of some of this more unusual shared celto-germanic vocab among the pre-proto-Germanic, perhaps corded ware peoples who do appear to have recieved IE traits through a medium that may have been partly non-IE. The Germanics do seem to be a rather more mixed group on the male lines and we know that corded ware groups included a non-R element. You do get the impression of corded ware as a more basic head bashing sort of society compared to the beakers who seem somewhat more sophisticated and socially complex in terms of their networking, trading etc. The heavy use of archery among beaker groups seems a more pragmatic approach compared to all that honour fighting close combat stuff.

As is pretty clear, the beaker phenomenon is complex and took on local aspects wherever it went. They would have been in close contact with corded groups from 2600BC across a wide front from Switzerland to the borders of eastern Europe and also in contact with groups as far as Hungary further south. Some aspects of the beaker culture after 2600BC do look rather different from the early beaker Med. groups, especially the use of single instead of collective graves. A different physical type seems to be associated with central and northern European beaker people too compared to the early Maritme Iberian groups and looks closer to pre-beaker groups in the Italian Alps and the north Balkans than the earlier beaker people. So, something of a transformation did occur possibly both culturally and physically. We dont know the genetics of this but the classic beaker physcial type seems to be a post-2600BC thing and linked to beaker in central and north-west Europe. The paper on beaker common ware shows that the predominant common ware types of beaker, including those on the isles which are not studies in the paper, generally moved from east to west after 2600BC. Single burial also seems likely to me to have been picked up from groups like Corded Ware and others to the east although adopted with their own spin. So, you could say that the predominant flow of cultural contacts beaker experienced after 2600BC was from east to west or from local central Europe groups.

rms2
08-24-2013, 10:59 AM
I think the data is pretty irrefutable. We have multiple and independent datasets all telling us that L21 is anywhere from 2-4% along the Rhine (Genome of the Netherlands, Myres, and Busby from Kaiser 2005). Even when we consider Larmuseau 2013 from Limburg in the Netherlands (which is not on the Rhine but close enough) the frequency is of L21 is 4.2%. Limburg seems pretty central to the area of the Dutch Bell Beakers.

I know that Henri Hubert, the French linguist and archaeologist, is considered old hat by some, but he suggested that the people he called the Goidels, who spoke Q-Celtic and were Beaker Folk, left NW Germany lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind.

The following quotes are taken from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People.



But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? . . . Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there . . .(p. 169)

[F]or it is a dogma of the German Siedelungsgeschichte that all the north-west seaboard, Westphalia, and Hanover were emptied of their inhabitants before the second period of the Bronze Age.

Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels. (p.176)

Hubert goes on to explain that NW Germany was not depopulated of the Goidels all at once but over time.

rms2
08-24-2013, 11:20 AM
It seems that in part this thread and the "L21 Hotpsots" thread in the L21 subforum are somewhat redundant, because some of the same conversation is occurring over there. Anyway, here is something I posted over there.

I know that Henri Hubert, the French linguist and archaeologist, is considered old hat by some, but he suggested that the people he called the Goidels, who spoke Q-Celtic and were Beaker Folk, left NW Germany lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind.

The following quotes are taken from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People.



But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? . . . Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there . . .(p. 169)

[F]or it is a dogma of the German Siedelungsgeschichte that all the north-west seaboard, Westphalia, and Hanover were emptied of their inhabitants before the second period of the Bronze Age.

Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels. (p.176)

Hubert goes on to explain that NW Germany was not depopulated of the Goidels all at once but over time.

alan
08-24-2013, 11:56 AM
Judging from Eupedia's and Rootsi's maps, I1 runs 10-15% in SW Germany, and I2b (old I1c, I believe) runs about 5-10%. Eupedia's R1a map shows a range of about 5-10% there.

That sounds right. I don't think R1a had that much of a hand in the old Germanic tribes: some presence, yes, but not that big. I1 has more of a Scandinavian center of gravity than U106, but the two seem to run together in many places. In the Isles, the distributions of M253 and U106 are remarkably similar, but with lower overall frequencies for M253 than for U106, which I think reflects the proportion of M253 to U106 in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands.

Rootsi I Maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/figure/FG1/)

643 645

644

R1a could have been a major factor in pre-proto-Germanic period and perhaps the origin of IE in that zone but the main expansion west much later after the proto-Germanic stage seems to be U106 related. I think we might have a complex situation of corded ware groups with an R1a element speaking some sort of pre-proto-Germanic beeing eclipsed and marginalised some centuries later by beaker R1b elements, possibly speaking pre-proto-Celtic. The latter could have included an L11* element that gave rise to U106 in-situ. In the period prior to proto-Germanic and the Germanic expansion c. 500BC onwards there may have been a complex situation in the present wider Germanic zone with a mix of pre-proto-Germans and Celtic speakers and maybe weird hybrids.

However, proto-Germanic seems to be a late phenomenon and driven by a specific Iron Age culture originating probably around Denmark. Denmark was within the heart of the Nordic Bronze Age zone before this, a network which probably included a significant R1a element at least north of the Baltic and a large amount of non-R substrate populations. This network surely must have been pre-Proto-Germanic given that proto-Germanic seems to have spread from around Denmark in the Iron Age. It makes sense as Germanic is an oddball language with a lot of atypical and possibly non-IE vocab. Attempts have been made to find very tangential IE explanations for a lot of the vocab but its not convincing and even if it is correct it still smacks of people learning an IE language that they were not entirely used to.

Denmark experience corded ware groups then beaker groups but later became tied into the nordic bronze age. It may therefore have experienced a sequence of pre-proto-German followed by some pre-proto-Celtic beaker influences followed by again being part of a pre-proto-German network separate from the main post-beaker successor cultures in the west and west-centre of Europe. That could easily have created a paradox where a lineage that could originally have been a wayward beaker L11* one eventually became the main medium of spreading proto-Germanic.

Generally speaking, features of proto-Germanic and its pre-forms and implied contacts does fit rather well with the archaeoogical evidence c. 2800-500BC. The problem is that 2500 year long period is essentially the pre-proto-Germanic phase which is a rather vast period to pin down when its contacts with pre-proto-Celtic happened. The only limiting factor on the contact period is when proto-Celtic and proto-German arose as the common vocab seems to date to the pre-proto phases of both languages. It is usually assumed proto-Germanic arose by 500BC. In terms of Celtic I think the indirect evidence points to an earlier period, at least by 1200BC if not long before. So, I would tend to see the pre-proto contact as having to have happened in the period 2600-1200BC although I dont think the vocab pins it down closer than that. Archaeology shows something of a separation between the assummed pre-proto periods of these languages in the full Bronze Age when they were probably involved in different networks with the pre-proto-Germanic presumably being within the Nordic network. So, to me that makes the most likely period of the shared elite vocab between those pre-proto languages either before the latter in the beaker period or much later when urnfield influences pushed north. Either is possible.

I get the general feel from the shared vocab of a fairly elaborate and developed non-archery based heroic warrior type society that had diverged a long way from generic PIE times and had its own peculiar characteristics. Much of the vocab themes are stikingly reminicent of Celtic society in later times. So it may be more likley it was the later period c. 1200BC by which time the Celts had diverged into a distinctive society. Clearly in such a period it is far more likely that influences went from south to north and from pre-proto-Celts to pre-proto-Germans. That of course would place the final evolution of proto-Celtic into the period from 1200BC onwards, something that Mallory would tend to support, and tend to indicate that before that western and west-central Europe may have been a mozaic of Celto-Italic dialects. I dont see the shifting of the latter to Celtic as involving large movements of people, more like elite interaction. The period with the urnfield and its side kick maritime Atlantic networks would provide a good scenario for dialect convergence.

alan
08-24-2013, 12:22 PM
One major old hat aspect of his ideas is that by using the term goidel he clouds the fact that in that period, if Celtic had yet actually emerged as a distinct dialect at all, everyone would have been a Q-celtic speaker. There is indirect evidence that this probably remained the case until at least 1000BC judging by the Q celtic language of the likely-urnfield derived Celt-Iberians of east-central Iberia. The idea of P and Q waves is an old fashioned one and its likely to have been more of a case of default old Q Celtic being altered by minor movements and elite interaction. Its interesting that Gaelic and Welsh are thought to converge not very long ago in the period c. 1000-500BC despite being on either side of the P-Q division and also sharing many 'insular' features not known on the continent.

So, it looks very much like the P-Q divide is not an important one and really just represents a rather late west-central European dialect fashion that spread to some areas and not to others that were isolated by then. Archaeology would tend to also place the most likely separation of British and Irish in the period 600-3/400BC. In that period not only was Ireland cut off from foreign influences but it also suffered a major population collapse which has been confirmed by radiocarbon dates of settlement sites randomly found during road monitoring etc over the last 20 years. The dissapearance of settlement coincides well with the disappearance of foreign influences or any identifiable metalwork in the period 600-300BC. The resumption of settlement traces across Ireland coinicides nicely with the appearance of La Tene metalwork - mainly in the northern two-thirds (but I wouldnt exaggerate that distinction too much as a lot is down to early collector's locations and the same was thought of beaker at one time). So, that would tend to place the date of the P-Q shift in Britain somewhere between 600 and 300BC.

The original shift probably took place in or near the western Alps under etruscan-raetic influence and spread through the Hallstatt D and early La Tene networks seen primarily in the spread of metalwork and also some limited settlement. Ireland missed that boat and even when La Tene influences reached Ireland, the latter had developed its own peculiar unique iron age culture with strange massive ritual/assembly henge type monuments, conservative bronze-age like cremation traditions and perhaps the very powerful theocracy implied in this was conservative and this prevented the language shift.

In general, far too much is read into the P-Q shift in older books but its pretty well played down in modern studies. The close structural similarity of Irish and British to each other and relative dissimilary of both to continental Celtic implies that the P-shift was a superficial aerial dialect fashion that swept Britain at come point after 600BC and doesnt imply a division of any real depth or a major population change in most of the areas of Britain despite the shift apparently being fairly total in Britain (including the Picts whose later territories had very little Hallstatt D and La Tene influences).

In addition to secular or trade contacts, the Celts had a very mobile learned class, especially the Druids, and the the latter are known to have converged at national assemblies in Gaul and to have travelled between Gaul and Britain. These druids and poets were after all the masters of the spoken word and their huge influence on opinion and on kings is well recorded in classical and Irish sources. There are hints on that German-Celtic paper that such a class existed in pre-proto-Celtic times. The influences of the networks of the druidical and learned classes on the movement of dialect and other ideas should not be underestimated. Again, the Irish evidence indicates that the local Druids (who are well recorded in the native tales) also were isolated in this crucial period and the ritual, burial and assembly traditions seem to have remained very localised and conservative. Again, this may have prevented external influence on dialect.



It seems that in part this thread and the "L21 Hotpsots" thread in the L21 subforum are somewhat redundant, because some of the same conversation is occurring over there. Anyway, here is something I posted over there.

I know that Henri Hubert, the French linguist and archaeologist, is considered old hat by some, but he suggested that the people he called the Goidels, who spoke Q-Celtic and were Beaker Folk, left NW Germany lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind.

The following quotes are taken from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People.



Hubert goes on to explain that NW Germany was not depopulated of the Goidels all at once but over time.

avalon
08-24-2013, 01:25 PM
I know Bell Beaker is extremely rare in Wales as well. Just saying.

Good point. As I understand it Beaker pottery in the Isles is most common in England and most scarce in the Celtic parts of the Isles. This seems to be at odds with the theory that the Beakers brought L21 to the Isles.

I take Jean's point about the population density of Lowland Britain compared to Highland Britain but is this the only explanation for the lack of pottery in the Celtic fringe? Do we see the same story with respect to Beaker remains and burials?

I must admit, my prehistoric knowledge of Britain is limited. I am more of a History guy.

Dubhthach
08-24-2013, 01:42 PM
I should point out that Old-Irish Goídel is a borrowing into Irish language from Proto-Welsh (Brythonic) -- gwyddel

Old Irish: Goídel
Middle Irish/Early Modern Irish: Gaoidheal
Irish (before spelling reform): Gaedheal
Irish (post spelling reform): Gael
Scottish Gaidhlig: Gàidheal

As a self descriptor it's probably a post-christian one reflecting the fact that the missionary church was Brythonic in origin.

R.Rocca
08-24-2013, 02:38 PM
It may be rare, but there have been a number of Beaker finds in Wales (I posted links to three of them in a prior post).

I think the reason U106 is relatively rare in Wales (outside of places the English settled) is because Wales is a Celtic country, and U106 in Britain is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Danish.

A few spot finds here and there do not change the fact that Bell Beaker is rare in Wales. This is how BB stacks up side by side-by-side with U106 and L21:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Rhenish_Bell_Beaker.png

As for BB pottery, funerary tradition, wrist guards, etc., no archaeologist puts British and Irish Bell Beakers in absolute terms. It is clear that Britain and Ireland received BB traditions from both the French/Iberian Maritime areas and the Rhenish areas:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Maritime_and_Rhenish.png

alan
08-24-2013, 03:00 PM
I should point out that Old-Irish Goídel is a borrowing into Irish language from Proto-Welsh (Brythonic) -- gwyddel

Old Irish: Goídel
Middle Irish/Early Modern Irish: Gaoidheal
Irish (before spelling reform): Gaedheal
Irish (post spelling reform): Gael
Scottish Gaidhlig: Gàidheal

As a self descriptor it's probably a post-christian one reflecting the fact that the missionary church was Brythonic in origin.

I think its unfortunate when people back project the name as if it is an ancient prehistoric ethnic term for all the Irish. It seems to be part of the whole Brito-Irish-Latin attempt to cobble together a national history in the Medieval era. So, I cringe when I hear people going on about prehistoric Celtic roots and calling themselves a 'true Gael' etc.

I dont think though that there was any concept of a unified history before the Medieval cobbling together. In fact we know Ireland was divided into many tribes and native Irish tradition appears to have once been fairly clear about the differening origins of strata and elements across the island like Errain, Cruithin, Laigin, Fir Bolgs etc so a unified history is irrational really. I would actually reason that the only group in pre-Christian Irish society who had a more big picture idea of Ireland may have been the top echelons of the learned class, poets, druids etc who had freedom to travel across the tribal boundaries.

There is a term Feni that became a term for the general freeman class later but it may originally have been some sort of self identifier. koch quotes a particularly early law tract that names the Ulaid, Laigin/Galeon and Feni and the main divisions of the Irish. So, it was originally a subdivision rather than a collective name. Koch speculates that that meant those three were the main powers around 600AD as groups who had provided high kings within memory. High kingship probably wasnt a very old concept anyway. He then speculates that Feni was originally only referring to the Connachta/Ui Neill group. That does seem plausible although it is odd that it came to mean freeman later.

Interestingly from the point of view of the origin of the Connachta, the name Feni seems to go back to a root that may have meant tribeless warrior bands. That confirms a feeling I have always had that its pointless looking for their origins in a tribe as on Ptolemy's map. They more likely were a dynasty that formed out of a warrior band than a tribe and certainly expanded in that sort of way. I have a slight hunch they may have originated in the Fir Domnainn crack military grouping mentioned among the Connachta (the latter name is an anacronism as this period was before Conn is meant to have existed) in the Ulster Cycle but that is just a stab in the dark.

Celtic history is riddled with unfortunate topplings by hired mercenaries.

Jean M
08-24-2013, 03:38 PM
I take Jean's point about the population density of Lowland Britain compared to Highland Britain..

I'm glad someone has noticed it. :) We see wave after wave of migrants entering Britain in prehistory and history. They pretty well all headed first for the best land. Each wave would overlay or push out/marginalise the previous one. Picture the scene before the Anglo-Saxon arrival. Celtic speakers covered the whole of Britain. They were densest in the lowlands. We may guess that they were heavy on R1b-L21. But in come the land-hungry Germani. We are told that the Romano-British were pushed westwards and even overseas (to Brittany and perhaps Ireland). So we would not expect to find the same density of L21 in Lowland Britain now as was there before.

Jean M
08-24-2013, 03:46 PM
Do we see the same story with respect to Beaker remains and burials?

Beaker remains remains and burials are recognised by the presence of Beaker pottery.

alan
08-24-2013, 05:10 PM
I recall the word Marcos for horse has been seen as a terms specific to a riding horse. It has also been suggested it is known in Altaic. Regardless of origin, the evidence for horse riding in what became Celtic Europe is much later than evidence for horse domestication. So, if pre-proto-Celtic and Germanic shared that word it could be evidence that proto-Celtic emerged not too long before 1000BC. Mallory has some other linguistic arguements for a late date for proto-Celtic but I cannot recall them all and I cannot face the trauma of finding his book in my very messy study lol.

razyn
08-24-2013, 05:31 PM
I don't want to change the subject here, but a paper on numismatics hit this forum today and scanning through it, I saw a lot of things that seem somewhat pertinent to themes in this thread. New data are emerging about tribes in the lower Rhine area based on distribution analysis of coins found in the past 30 years or so, since metal detectors made that so much more efficient. One footnote (the first one) caught my eye:

1. The term ‘Celtic’ is not used here in a strictly ethnic sense. It has emerged that in the Lower Rhine region Celtic coins were struck by tribes whom the Greco-Roman written sources describe as ‘Germanic’.
And there's a lot about coin deposition in cultic worship/veneration sites. A relevant summary comment is this:

The fact that sanctuaries tend to be the largest find spots for coins, together with the frequent occurrence of religious symbols on coins, suggests a link with ritual and ceremonies addressing the central values and identity of communities. Coins may have been minted under the patronage of deities.
If this piques the interest of any of you folks, the link to this paper was posted here:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1259-Late-Iron-Age-coinages-in-the-Lower-Rhine-area&p=12217#post12217
It's true that these numismatic data don't line up very well with the 2300 BC time frame of much of the present discussion. But they do line up with some of the linguistic, historical (from Greco-Roman sources), and genetic data that are being tossed into the same pot.

TigerMW
08-24-2013, 07:03 PM
It seems that in part this thread and the "L21 Hotpsots" thread in the L21 subforum are somewhat redundant, because some of the same conversation is occurring over there. Anyway, here is something I posted over there.
I tried to move the more Celtic-ish/German-ish low L21 content posts over here.


I know that Henri Hubert, the French linguist and archaeologist, is considered old hat by some, but he suggested that the people he called the Goidels, who spoke Q-Celtic and were Beaker Folk, left NW Germany lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind.

The following quotes are taken from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People.

Hubert goes on to explain that NW Germany was not depopulated of the Goidels all at once but over time.

I think it is possible that Beaker folks, or some part of them spoke Q-Celtic, but I don't think Hubert or anyone can really demonstrate that. He is speaking in terms of "Goidel" but literally no such thing may have existed back then. He also qualified,
"Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels"

I am just pointing out that Hubert also used the words "original stock of" which is not a pure equivalence/identication status. In other words, it is unclear where the line is between Proto-Celtic and Pre-Celtic and probably Italo-Celtic and just western IE. I think he is overusing the word "Goidel" but I understand that he is trying to couch his research with ethnicities we can relate to.

On the other hand, I'm perplexed that he referred to a "mixed" population. From everything I can see, the people moving into the British Isles during the early and middle Bronze Ages must have been very heavy with L21 content to have totally swamped the Isles like they apparently did. If these populations moving into the Isles really were both mixed and heavily L21 that may be sign that some kind of hegemony/polygamy system may have been in place already. This would point back to the possibility that it really was the Bell Beaker cultures that created the environment for R1b to expand at the expense of other haplogroups.

Jean M
08-25-2013, 01:14 PM
I recall the word Marcos for horse has been seen as a terms specific to a riding horse. It has also been suggested it is known in Altaic. Regardless of origin, the evidence for horse riding in what became Celtic Europe is much later than evidence for horse domestication. So, if pre-proto-Celtic and Germanic shared that word it could be evidence that proto-Celtic emerged not too long before 1000BC.

But there is no evidence that pre-proto Celtic (Italo-Celtic?) had such a word. Cognates appear in Irish (marc: horse), Welsh, Breton and Gaulish. If you bear in mind the contacts between the insular Celtic languages, that makes it perfectly possible that (as has been suggested) the word travelled into Central Europe with Scythians, who had close contact in Asia with Altaic speakers. Or I suggest the possibility of an earlier arrival into Hallstatt with Cimmerians.

The fact that the word appears in Germanic languages just implies that it was picked up from Celtic along with other words such as "iron" in the melting pot of Jastorf c. 500 BC.

rms2
08-25-2013, 01:51 PM
A few spot finds here and there do not change the fact that Bell Beaker is rare in Wales. This is how BB stacks up side by side-by-side with U106 and L21:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Rhenish_Bell_Beaker.png

As for BB pottery, funerary tradition, wrist guards, etc., no archaeologist puts British and Irish Bell Beakers in absolute terms. It is clear that Britain and Ireland received BB traditions from both the French/Iberian Maritime areas and the Rhenish areas:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Maritime_and_Rhenish.png

If U106 arrived in Britain with Beakers as early as the Bronze Age, it is amazing that it matches Anglo-Saxon settlement so well (better than it does Beakers) and is so limited in the Celtic Fringe nations.

I doubt U106 had much to do with Beakers. I think it was too far east and perhaps north and did not move fully into its present distribution until the advance of the Germanic peoples beginning in about the 3rd century BC.

It is well to point out for others reading this thread that the shading scales on those U106 and L21 maps are far different. Dark shadings on the U106 map represent far lower frequencies than similarly dark shadings on the L21 map.

Ancient y-dna testing of Beaker men will have to settle this dispute, obviously.

R.Rocca
08-25-2013, 04:56 PM
If U106 arrived in Britain with Beakers as early as the Bronze Age, it is amazing that it matches Anglo-Saxon settlement so well (better than it does Beakers) and is so limited in the Celtic Fringe nations.

It might be a better match in some places on the continent, but what about in Scotland? Here is what Moffat and Wilson had to say about U106 in Scotland:


"Because of the relative imprecision of the Y-chromosome molecular clock, geneticists have occasionally urged caution when comparing these samples of modern populations. Could S21 (U106), M253 (I1) and others not have arrived much later in Britain, especially in England, with the coming of the Anglo-Saxons and Danes after the fourth century AD? But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in areas where there was little or no settlement by Anglo-Saxons. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 (U106) is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 (U106) and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before."

Say what you will about Moffat and Wilson, but they do have access to several thousand unbiased samples that we don't to make their observation.


I doubt U106 had much to do with Beakers. I think it was too far east and perhaps north and did not move fully into its present distribution until the advance of the Germanic peoples beginning in about the 3rd century BC.

So far no R1b has been found in Corded Ware samples, and with every new ancient DNA sample that turns out to not be U106, the notion that it arose somewhere east or north disappears. The Alps seems like a more logical point of origin and the Rhine its primary vehicle of expansion.

As I've pointed out earlier, the two U106- Bell Beaker samples were part of the Eastern Bell Beaker province, not the Rhenish Bell Beakers, so the link is still far from resolved one way or another.


It is well to point out for others reading this thread that the shading scales on those U106 and L21 maps are far different. Dark shadings on the U106 map represent far lower frequencies than similarly dark shadings on the L21 map.

I'm not sure that really changes much of anything. The gradient for each is still the gradient for each.


Ancient y-dna testing of Beaker men will have to settle this dispute, obviously.

Indeed.

alan
08-25-2013, 05:44 PM
That is what I had previously read. Maybe I skimmed the paprt too fast but I took this paper as implying the vocab originated at what it was describing as the pre-proto-Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic stage and doesnt have the structure suggesting a borrowing from one to another in the proto phases. I took it to mean that the author was implying that celto-Germanic vocab set was acquired at some stage after Celto-Italic but before proto-Celtic. So, if the paper was right on that then it would provide something of a hint on a date at which both languages had not yet reached the proto stage. That is no big deal for Germanic as its usually placed late but there seems more doubt about Celtic and this would seem to push the date of proto-Celtic very late if the vocab was aquired in some pre-proto-Celtic stage.

Then again there seems to be a heck of a lot of disagreement when it comes to the spread of horse riding in Europe beyond the steppe with with some people envisaging pre-wheel steppe horse rivers in the Balkans c. 4000BC and on the other hand others pointing out a lack of evidence for actual riding until several millenia later across much of Europe.

In some papers I have read some of the current thinking is that proto-Uralic may originate as late as 2000BC has a clear east to west branching with Altaic splitting near the base soon after. That of course rings bells with Seima-Turbino although its spread in not one that would make sense for Altaic words to enter pre-Celtic and pre-Germanic but not Baltic or Slavic.

Seems like a minefield to me though.


But there is no evidence that pre-proto Celtic (Italo-Celtic?) had such a word. Cognates appear in Irish (marc: horse), Welsh, Breton and Gaulish. If you bear in mind the contacts between the insular Celtic languages, that makes it perfectly possible that (as has been suggested) the word travelled into Central Europe with Scythians, who had close contact in Asia with Altaic speakers. Or I suggest the possibility of an earlier arrival into Hallstatt with Cimmerians.

The fact that the word appears in Germanic languages just implies that it was picked up from Celtic along with other words such as "iron" in the melting pot of Jastorf c. 500 BC.

alan
08-25-2013, 06:00 PM
I really dislike those beaker maps when it comes to Ireland. They just are not accurate. They dont even include the Beaker mine at Ross Island, the huge number of Wedge Tombs in the western half of Ireland which are exactly beaker date 2500-2000BC and many have produced beakers, beaker related lithics and some copper objects. There are 5-600 of them surviving largely in the western half of Ireland. Add them and the map would look radically different. That map does not even include some fairly old sites I know of the top of my head like the beaker in the wedge tomb at Moytirra in Sligo - which does appear as a dot on Cunliffe's maritime beaker map. That old map of Irish beaker seems to have been being recycled for about 50 years!

jdean
08-25-2013, 06:04 PM
That is what I had previously read. Maybe I skimmed the paprt too fast but I took this paper as implying the vocab originated at what it was describing as the pre-proto-Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic stage and doesnt have the structure suggesting a borrowing from one to another in the proto phases. I took it to mean that the author was implying that celto-Germanic vocab set was acquired at some stage after Celto-Italic but before proto-Celtic. So, if the paper was right on that then it would provide something of a hint on a date at which both languages had not yet reached the proto stage. That is no big deal for Germanic as its usually placed late but there seems more doubt about Celtic and this would seem to push the date of proto-Celtic very late if the vocab was aquired in some pre-proto-Celtic stage.

Then again there seems to be a heck of a lot of disagreement when it comes to the spread of horse riding in Europe beyond the steppe with with some people envisaging pre-wheel steppe horse rivers in the Balkans c. 4000BC and on the other hand others pointing out a lack of evidence for actual riding until several millenia later across much of Europe.

In some papers I have read some of the current thinking is that proto-Uralic may originate as late as 2000BC has a clear east to west branching with Altaic splitting near the base soon after. That of course rings bells with Seima-Turbino although its spread in not one that would make sense for Altaic words to enter pre-Celtic and pre-Germanic but not Baltic or Slavic.

Seems like a minefield to me though.

Don't know if this helps but this is what a fellow by the name of Don Ringe, who I think is a professor at Pen, had to say on the subject.


There is a further Celtic word for ‘horse’, which also shows up in Germanic but has no other unarguable external cognates: OIr. marc, Welsh march < *markos; ON marr, OE mearh, OHG marah < PGmc. *marhaz < *márkos. (The pre-Germanic accent can be reconstructed in this case because the *h did not become voiced. A derived feminine survives in Modern English ‘mare’.) As is often the case, we can’t tell whether this is a shared inheritance or an early loanword, but in any case it seems restricted to northwestern Europe

TigerMW
08-25-2013, 06:10 PM
I really dislike those beaker maps when it comes to Ireland. They just are not accurate. They dont even include the Beaker mine at Ross Island, the huge number of Wedge Tombs in the western half of Ireland which are exactly beaker date 2500-2000BC and many have produced beakers, beaker related lithics and some copper objects. There are 5-600 of them surviving largely in the western half of Ireland. Add them and the map would look radically different. That map does not even include some fairly old sites I know of the top of my head like the beaker in the wedge tomb at Moytirra in Sligo - which does appear as a dot on Cunliffe's maritime beaker map. That old map of Irish beaker seems to have been being recycled for about 50 years!

I can't say anything about the accuracy of the Beaker artifacts maps but I do want make another point that sometimes gets lost. Since modern distributions may represent accumulation/destination points more than origins, the conventional wisdom/tradition/history of Celts continually moving west fits nicely. I liken it to aiming ahead when shooting skeet or hunting birds. You have to lead the bird to hit it. Similarly the current distribution of an ancient haplogroup may very well have launched from a more easterly point thousands of year ago.

A few spot finds here and there do not change the fact that Bell Beaker is rare in Wales. This is how BB stacks up side by side-by-side with U106 and L21:
http://r1b.org/imgs/Rhenish_Bell_Beaker.png

I apply this to U106 as well although I don't know what cultures to associate it with. It is apparent that U106 must have been involved with the southern/continental parts of the Jastorf "melting pot". It moved strongly west from there into the Low Countries and England, it seems. However, since U106 is quite a bit older than Jastorf there is no reason to think it was always sitting in Jastorf territory in the north of Germany and at the base of the Jutland Peninsula. My opinion is it did not come from the north of Denmark and the Scandinavian Peninsula, though, just because of the low genetic diversity for it there. Whether it came to the north of Germany from points east or point southeast I don't know but there are good reasons to consider either.
The beauty of a potential Austrian source (southeast) is it ties nicely with a potential L51/L11/P312 progression and it also makes it easier to see some of the high frequencies we see for U106 in places in SW Germany or in Austria.

R.Rocca
08-25-2013, 06:14 PM
I really dislike those beaker maps when it comes to Ireland. They just are not accurate. They dont even include the Beaker mine at Ross Island, the huge number of Wedge Tombs in the western half of Ireland which are exactly beaker date 2500-2000BC and many have produced beakers, beaker related lithics and some copper objects. There are 5-600 of them surviving largely in the western half of Ireland. Add them and the map would look radically different. That map does not even include some fairly old sites I know of the top of my head like the beaker in the wedge tomb at Moytirra in Sligo - which does appear as a dot on Cunliffe's maritime beaker map. That old map of Irish beaker seems to have been being recycled for about 50 years!

The map is from Vander Linden (2004) which is one of the leading academics on Bell Beaker, so I'll defer to him. Either way, as the images I posted from Cunliff's book shows, Bell Beaker came from two directions, one from NW France and the other from the Rhine. It could be that the one from NW France brought primarily L21 and to a lesser extent DF27, and the one from the Rhine brought in U106 and to a lesser extent, L21, DF19, U152.

Jean M
08-25-2013, 06:49 PM
I took this paper as implying the vocab originated at what it was describing as the pre-proto-Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic stage

Depends which paper you read. Tatyana A. Mikhailova, Macc, Cailín and Céile – an Altaic Element in Celtic? in Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.) 2007. The Celtic Languages in Contact: Papers from the workshop within the framework of the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn, 26-27 July 2007. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam points out that there have been several opinions:


According to Pokorny, the word *mark-o- represents a Celto-Germanic isogloss, conserved in these two branches of IE languages “a North-West-IE linguistic community” (Ellis Evans 1981: 241), and a presumed IE root is *marko- (IEW: 700). But Antoine Meillet assumed that this word was an early loanword in Germanic and Celtic from an unknown source (Meillet 1926: 229). This idea was developed by T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, who had seen in it a borrowing from an Altaic language (or dialect). Indeed, Celto-Germanic *mark- has parallels with Altaic *morV- (Mong. mörin, Kalm. morin ‘horse’; cf. Russ. merin ‘old horse, gelding,’ a late borrowing from Mong.... Gamkrelidze and Ivanov explain this borrowing by early contacts of IE tribes with Altaic tribes. Moreover, they propose that this represents evidence of early migrations of IE tribes from the East to the West through Asia Minor .... But why in this case should this word be preserved only in Celtic and Germanic, that is in West IE languages? Maybe it would be more logical to qualify *mark- as a “Wanderwort” of eastern origin that established itself in Celtic and Germanic alongside the inherited PIE word for ‘horse’ *(h1)ek’w-os ...? That is, this word was not transported to Europe by IE migratory tribes, but was adopted in Central Europe by IE speaking tribes (Celts and Germans) from some Asiatic people, speaking Altaic and practising horse-riding.



I have read some of the current thinking is that proto-Uralic may originate as late as 2000BC has a clear east to west branching with Altaic splitting near the base soon after.

Altaic is not a Uralic language. It is a separate family of languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

alan
08-25-2013, 07:04 PM
Don't know if this helps but this is what a fellow by the name of Don Ringe, who I think is a professor at Pen, had to say on the subject.

There is a chapter on this word in a recent book that discusses the interpretations.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VgBtaDT-evYC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=markos+horse+altaic&source=bl&ots=7YU4StvwgY&sig=VhLuPHX3vEjz7ymCz7XtS1YJziQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=00caUunTHIqm0AXRyoDgDA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=markos%20horse%20altaic&f=false

However, if you take the Celto-Germanic paper that places them in the pre-proto phases then a different conclusion is possible. On balance the Scyth-Cimmerian one looks less controversial. I am not in a position to be able to comment on the Celto-Germanic paper's linguistics. I just looked at it to see if there was anything in the shared vocab that would help date it and, if the author was right about the words being in the pre-proto stages then it would help date them.

I am inclined to see the shared vocab as a group to be fairly late as it really gives the impression of developed Celtic society. Certainly it seems to reflect the fundemenatals of later Celtic society to me more than it does the Germanic society although that is admittedly an off the cuff subjective feeling.

One aspect not dealt with enough in the paper is that many of the words in this shared vocab have also appeared in lists of non-IE words in these languages. The paper of course raises a number of potential Altaic and other non-IE parallels for several words rather than just Markos.

I am not a linguist so I dont know which of the lingusts is correct about the period under discussion. The evidence of horse riding is not good in the later Celtic zone until the late Bronze Age which would support the Scythian/Thraco-Cimmerian theory better.

alan
08-25-2013, 07:34 PM
The map is from Vander Linden (2004) which is one of the leading academics on Bell Beaker, so I'll defer to him. Either way, as the images I posted from Cunliff's book shows, Bell Beaker came from two directions, one from NW France and the other from the Rhine. It could be that the one from NW France brought primarily L21 and to a lesser extent DF27, and the one from the Rhine brought in U106 and to a lesser extent, L21, DF19, U152.

Not your fault in any way. You have to use what is available. There is a strange tradition of beaker maps of Ireland. I actually think the basic pattern shown might go back to one used in a book by Gordon Childe and has been passed on with modifications time and again. It just badly needs updated. It also is a fact that most development, rescue excavation and even research excavation takes place in the north and east of Ireland which is why more beaker is picked up there. Basically, its clear the whole island was using beaker from the wedge tombs of the west to the pit burials etc in the east and to the extreme SW where Ross Island mine is located and maps like that are misleading and give a false impression of regionality of beaker use within Ireland that probably isnt real. If we look at the percentage of the excavated wedge tombs that have produced beaker and extrapolate that to the entire surviving number then I am sure a couple of hundred new dots would appear across the western half of Ireland.

Jean M
08-25-2013, 07:35 PM
There is a chapter on this word in a recent book that discusses the interpretations.

Yes - that's the one I cite above: Mikhailova 2007.

alan
08-25-2013, 07:51 PM
Your right I am twisting myself in knots. I am thinking of Samoyedic which is a very different fish.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf


Depends which paper you read. Tatyana A. Mikhailova, Macc, Cailín and Céile – an Altaic Element in Celtic? in Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.) 2007. The Celtic Languages in Contact: Papers from the workshop within the framework of the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn, 26-27 July 2007. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam points out that there have been several opinions:





Altaic is not a Uralic language. It is a separate family of languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

alan
08-25-2013, 08:16 PM
Your right I am twisting myself in knots. I am thinking of Samoyedic which is a very different fish.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

BTW, that is a very interesting paper on Uralic and its Samoyed early split. It places the Uralic homeland between the Ob and Yenisei which seem to be in the bit of Russia north and NW of Mongolia. That includes part of Altai which is where my mistake about Altaic and Uralic came from. Nevertheless its an interesting paper AS it places the Uralic homeland well to the east near Mongolia.

alan
08-25-2013, 08:17 PM
Yes - that's the one I cite above: Mikhailova 2007.

Yep saw that. Great minds seldom differ or something like that!

R.Rocca
08-25-2013, 08:29 PM
Not your fault in any way. You have to use what is available. There is a strange tradition of beaker maps of Ireland. I actually think the basic pattern shown might go back to one used in a book by Gordon Childe and has been passed on with modifications time and again. It just badly needs updated. It also is a fact that most development, rescue excavation and even research excavation takes place in the north and east of Ireland which is why more beaker is picked up there. Basically, its clear the whole island was using beaker from the wedge tombs of the west to the pit burials etc in the east and to the extreme SW where Ross Island mine is located and maps like that are misleading and give a false impression of regionality of beaker use within Ireland that probably isnt real. If we look at the percentage of the excavated wedge tombs that have produced beaker and extrapolate that to the entire surviving number then I am sure a couple of hundred new dots would appear across the western half of Ireland.

I looked through my library and this is a map from an ongoing study by the University College Dublin. While it does show more of the sites you mention to the west, it still looks like the highest Bell Beaker concentrations are along the eastern coast. Either way, I'm not proposing that L21 was not the preeminent R1b in Irish Bell Beakers, what I am saying is that the likeliest place for its origin is NW France and not the Rhine. This is different than the situation in Britain where I think U106 would have been an important player.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Map_of_Irish_Bell_Beaker_Activity.png

avalon
08-25-2013, 09:23 PM
It might be a better match in some places on the continent, but what about in Scotland? Here is what Moffat and Wilson had to say about U106 in Scotland:


"Because of the relative imprecision of the Y-chromosome molecular clock, geneticists have occasionally urged caution when comparing these samples of modern populations. Could S21 (U106), M253 (I1) and others not have arrived much later in Britain, especially in England, with the coming of the Anglo-Saxons and Danes after the fourth century AD? But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in areas where there was little or no settlement by Anglo-Saxons. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 (U106) is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 (U106) and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before."

Say what you will about Moffat and Wilson, but they do have access to several thousand unbiased samples that we don't to make their observation.



The Anglo-Saxons may not have settled in Moray or Aberdeenshire but in the 12th century David I of Scotland crushed the Gaelic dynasty in Moray and planted some of his own followers in the area. These were men of Flemish, Anglo-Norman and Lowland Scottish/Northumbrian extraction so this could explain the high U106 in Moray.

R.Rocca
08-25-2013, 09:50 PM
The Anglo-Saxons may not have settled in Moray or Aberdeenshire but in the 12th century David I of Scotland crushed the Gaelic dynasty in Moray and planted some of his own followers in the area. These were men of Flemish, Anglo-Norman and Lowland Scottish/Northumbrian extraction so this could explain the high U106 in Moray.

As per Moffat & Wilson, U106 is 30% in Stonehaven and 27% in Morayshire. Only the Netherlands is higher with 33% and SE England is about equal with 27%. Unless these men were sourced from the Netherlands itself, it is difficult to see these latter day events as the source for British U106. I'll stick to what Moffat & Wilson say on this one, that while augmented by Anglo-Saxons, U106 has been in Britain for much longer.

alan
08-26-2013, 12:17 AM
yes its two different issues. That map does look better. All archaeological discovery though is biased by where modern development is taking place and being monitored and that is mostly in the east and north. Wedge tombs are only included when they have been excavated and only a few of the 500 or so have been. However, where clear primary layer finds of any useful type survive in these tombs they are always beaker associated and certainy beaker period. That class of upstanding distinctive tombs which can be assigned as beaker phase even without excavation is an almost unique resource for considering beaker settlement but this does not come out on any maps as only a tiny minority have been excavated. Although its fair enough that they are not automatically put on a map of actual beaker pots, they are as close to a proxy without excavation as you could get.

Anyway, the main point is origin of Irish beaker. I dont think anyone has a great grip on that to be honest. As I posted before, wedge tombs are unrelated to the Neolithic megalithic traditions which had ended 500 years before beaker and were completely different in structure, orientation etc. Wedge tombs also in their primary beaker period layers do not seem to be collective burial monuments. Many resemble heavy duty above-ground cists. Some are even built by digging a pit and setting the stones in it but leaving the uppermost part aboveground before putting the roofing slab on. The entrances are often very low and the small ones look like stone boxes. I think there is a good case to see them as a spin on the single cist burial tradition.

It is true that some people have tried to link them with the northern French Alles Couverte but many doubt this as they are not all that similar, have a completely different orientation and seem to be pre-beaker in date (mind you they thought that about wedge tombs once) and reused. Recently I have been reading that beaker single cist burials are now turning up in northern France in significant numbers. I personally think the Wedge Tomb is a form of cist single burial although so many are disturbed and so few excavated that noone can say for sure. My hunch is that they could have developed in Ireland from a single cist tradition in an area where near-surface bedrock made cist excavation impossible or far too difficult. There is a major concentration of wedge tombs on the burren and other rocky areas in western Ireland which perfectly fits that sort of physical setting with its very thin soils on bedrock. What is totally clear is that wedge tombs are not continuity of neolithic collective megalithic traditions which in ireland had died out anyway 500 years before beaker.

When beaker arrived the local tradition had for some time been token cremations in a pit with token artefacts and pottery fragments. In the east of Ireland beaker appears in those kind of burials. To me, those represent continuity and I suspect that is because they were the natives albeit taking up beaker influences. I suspect that the Wedge tombs actually represent the beaker people and a new intrusive tradition. However, although I believe this is strongly hinted at in the evidence, the lack of excavation of the tombs prevents this becoming clearer. So, I think, although rather unique, the Irish beaker burials may represent a spin on the single cist burials and may not be so out of step as often portrayed.

As far as I can tell, Ireland has only a handful of maritime sherds and where identifiable largely British or Rhenish type beakers. At least most of the identifiable sherds at Ross island seemed to be in that category according to the monograph on that site. On the other hand many are hard to categorise and Humphrey Case thought the general trend in them was closest to NW France. North-west France was a kind of a meeting point of both southern and northern beaker pottery according to books I have read in the past. I do think though that the entire continent coast of France and the Low Countries, probably via Britain, were involved in the beaker influences in Ireland and its hard to pin down. Similar issues exist for the origin of isles first farmers. Personally I suspect that beaker arrived in Ireland from Britain after a couple of generations there. I say that because existing Irish-British sea routes were well established in the Neolithic and can be seen to be partcularly strong all along the Irish Sea and north Atlantic in the immediate pre-beaker half millenia or so with the spread of things like timber circles, henges, grooved ware, details on the late super-passage tombs and other objects. No convincing similar direct continental links exist for Ireland in the pre-beaker half millenium. So, direct knowledge of Ireland by continentals would have been very low in the immediate pre-beaker period but Ireland was clearly very well known to Atlantic British in this period. While Ross Island mine tends to make one imagine a SW entry, there is little chance that they hit that jackpot immediately. Irish beaker is sometimes portrayed as early or archaic but in fact as far as I am aware no dates before 2400BC are known. So, beaker was probably in Britain for a century before Ireland.


I looked through my library and this is a map from an ongoing study by the University College Dublin. While it does show more of the sites you mention to the west, it still looks like the highest Bell Beaker concentrations are along the eastern coast. Either way, I'm not proposing that L21 was not the preeminent R1b in Irish Bell Beakers, what I am saying is that the likeliest place for its origin is NW France and not the Rhine. This is different than the situation in Britain where I think U106 would have been an important player.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Map_of_Irish_Bell_Beaker_Activity.png

avalon
08-26-2013, 08:38 AM
As per Moffat & Wilson, U106 is 30% in Stonehaven and 27% in Morayshire. Only the Netherlands is higher with 33% and SE England is about equal with 27%. Unless these men were sourced from the Netherlands itself, it is difficult to see these latter day events as the source for British U106. I'll stick to what Moffat & Wilson say on this one, that while augmented by Anglo-Saxons, U106 has been in Britain for much longer.

Well, Moffat and Wilson are not historians so perhaps they are unaware how much parts of Scotland were 'anglicised' in the middle ages. We know the Angles settled in Southern Scotland and they probably carried decent levels of U106.

Fast forward to the 12th century and David, King of the Scots, who was actually half Saxon through his mother Margaret of Wessex. He spent his childhood at the English court and was later responsible for promoting Anglo-Norman feudalism and land grabs in various parts of Scotland, including Moray and the Aberdeen area, including Stonehaven. Royal Burghs were established and David also supported the building of many Norman castles in Scotland.

Settlers in these new burghs would have been drawn from his Lowland Scot, English, Flemish and Norman supporters so could easily have carried U106 to NE Scotland. And if the descendants of these merchants, knights and land owners later flourished then surely this might explain elevated U106 in NE Scotland.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/scotland/borders/article_1.shtml

IMO, Southern and Eastern Scotland are genetically more Germanic than people think.

Jean M
08-26-2013, 09:55 AM
Well, Moffat and Wilson are not historians...

Moffat could be seen as an historian, though not of the academic kind. He has a degree in medieval history, which he followed with a career running the Edinburgh Festival and then in television. Since the 1999s he's been writing easy-reading history books.

He is well aware that the Angles settled in the Scottish Lowlands. That is covered in Chapter 8: The Four Nations of Scotland. Moffat declares (p. 237) that his own Y-DNA (L22/S142 = I1a1b) is Anglian. However he and Wilson do argue (p. 90) that U106/S21 must be older than that in Scotland because it is found in regions little settled by Anglians, such as Moray and Aberdeenshire. As you say, U106 in those areas may actually be a later arrival rather than earlier.

alan
08-26-2013, 10:34 AM
Another thing to not lose site of in terms of NE Scotland is it is also still high in L21 right to the coast so that also needs explained. I agree though that U106 may be from late settlers but anything is possible. Talking of L21 in Britain, is the Eupedia map accurate? It really makes Britain look like an L21 dominated country except for a bite taken out of it in the SE? I was wondering what the pretty high L21 count for the whole of northern England is based on on Macciamo's map. If its accurate it does kind of back the idea of England being largely L21 before the Anglo-Saxons put a dent in it.

http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Haplogroup-R1b-L21.gif

He makes it look like a pretty smooth cline with southern Britain closely following the cline on the continental coast with the lowest band similar to the Frankish settlement area in NE France and Belgium - again apparenty echoing the effect of Germanic language expansion on L21 in SE Britain. The recent paper on northern Belgium and southern Holland shoes that the L21 cline on the north coast is pretty smooth with those areas around 7% then a further drop in the rest of Holland and north Germany. There seems a smooth cline on the continent's north coast that is closely echoed in southern Britain. It easiest to see this as having a lot to do with U106 later Germanic intrusions into both SE Britain and the channel area of the continent. If it could have that effect on L21 in SE Britain then there is no reason to see why it hasnt had a similar effect on the channel coast area from around Calais eastwards. So, I think there is a reasonable case that L21 was a lot stronger on the continental coast from Calais eastwords before the Germanic movements.

rms2
08-26-2013, 11:27 AM
Well, Moffat and Wilson are not historians so perhaps they are unaware how much parts of Scotland were 'anglicised' in the middle ages. We know the Angles settled in Southern Scotland and they probably carried decent levels of U106.

Fast forward to the 12th century and David, King of the Scots, who was actually half Saxon through his mother Margaret of Wessex. He spent his childhood at the English court and was later responsible for promoting Anglo-Norman feudalism and land grabs in various parts of Scotland, including Moray and the Aberdeen area, including Stonehaven. Royal Burghs were established and David also supported the building of many Norman castles in Scotland.

Settlers in these new burghs would have been drawn from his Lowland Scot, English, Flemish and Norman supporters so could easily have carried U106 to NE Scotland. And if the descendants of these merchants, knights and land owners later flourished then surely this might explain elevated U106 in NE Scotland.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/scotland/borders/article_1.shtml

IMO, Southern and Eastern Scotland are genetically more Germanic than people think.

I figured someone would bring up Scotland, and I was prepared to mention David I's settlements of Northumbrians and others in Moray and Aberdeenshire. But I had things to do yesterday that kept me from Anthrogenica. Glad to see you covered for me, avalon. ;)

I don't think Busby's figure for that area of Scotland was as high as those claimed by Moffat and Wilson, but I'm not at my home computer, so I don't have the Busby stats handy.

rms2
08-26-2013, 11:28 AM
I mentioned that I do not think that U106 had much to do with Beaker because I do not believe it was that far west in the Bronze Age. There were Celtic tribes living in at least part of what is now the Netherlands and Flanders. It was only later that Germanic-speakers moved into that area, driving the Celtic tribes farther west. That was still going on within living memory of Caesar's time, since he mentions it in his Gallic Wars. Celtic tribes once lived north and east of the Rhine.

This is part of the reason why I think those Beaker maps posted by Rich Rocca are not really relevant. The nice gray Beaker area in the Netherlands looks like a source of some of the U106 in Britain, with corresponding gray Beaker settlement zones in eastern England. It makes sense, only I don't think the same kind of people were there in the Bronze Age as were there later, during the historical era and especially the Migration Period.

Germanic speakers may have begun to move into the Netherlands fairly early, starting around 750 BC, but movement into the area was not complete until the 3rd century BC, and did not extend to the Rhine. It was only later, around Caesar's time (1st century BC) and a bit earlier, that the Germans in that region expanded and began shoving the Celtic tribes across the Rhine.

So, that area changed hands, and the folks who were there in the Bronze Age weren't in the same family as those who lived on mounds of cow manure (Terpen) in the Roman Period and made the short sea crossing to Britain as Anglo-Saxons.

I also think that if U106 arrived in Britain in Beaker men as early as the Bronze Age, it would be more widespread and more frequent throughout the Isles than it is. Instead it seems to correspond too well to the pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement and the subsequent spread of the English language.

I know that Kromsdorf is not Rhenish Beaker, but it is interesting that, thus far, the only Beaker remains tested for U106 were U106-, and that in Germany, where U106 is now fairly common.

rms2
08-26-2013, 12:03 PM
I really dislike those beaker maps when it comes to Ireland. They just are not accurate. They dont even include the Beaker mine at Ross Island, the huge number of Wedge Tombs in the western half of Ireland which are exactly beaker date 2500-2000BC and many have produced beakers, beaker related lithics and some copper objects. There are 5-600 of them surviving largely in the western half of Ireland. Add them and the map would look radically different. That map does not even include some fairly old sites I know of the top of my head like the beaker in the wedge tomb at Moytirra in Sligo - which does appear as a dot on Cunliffe's maritime beaker map. That old map of Irish beaker seems to have been being recycled for about 50 years!

The map of Britain also shows Beaker finds only in southern Wales. "Brymbo Man" (http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/heritage/brymbo_man/) was found in North Wales.

As Jean mentioned, Wales is mostly mountainous, and was probably only sparsely settled in ancient times. Nevertheless, there have been a number of Beaker finds in Wales, and more could be awaiting discovery.

Webb
08-26-2013, 01:48 PM
I mentioned that I do not think that U106 had much to do with Beaker because I do not believe it was that far west in the Bronze Age. There were Celtic tribes living in at least part of what is now the Netherlands and Flanders. It was only later that Germanic-speakers moved into that area, driving the Celtic tribes farther west. That was still going on within living memory of Caesar's time, since he mentions it in his Gallic Wars. Celtic tribes once lived north and east of the Rhine.

This is part of the reason why I think those Beaker maps posted by Rich Rocca are not really relevant. The nice gray Beaker area in the Netherlands looks like a source of some of the U106 in Britain, with corresponding gray Beaker settlement zones in eastern England. It makes sense, only I don't think the same kind of people were there in the Bronze Age as were there later, during the historical era and especially the Migration Period.

Germanic speakers may have begun to move into the Netherlands fairly early, starting around 750 BC, but movement into the area was not complete until the 3rd century BC, and did not extend to the Rhine. It was only later, around Caesar's time (1st century BC) and a bit earlier, that the Germans in that region expanded and began shoving the Celtic tribes across the Rhine.

So, that area changed hands, and the folks who were there in the Bronze Age weren't in the same family as those who lived on mounds of cow manure (Terpen) in the Roman Period and made the short sea crossing to Britain as Anglo-Saxons.

I also think that if U106 arrived in Britain in Beaker men as early as the Bronze Age, it would be more widespread and more frequent throughout the Isles than it is. Instead it seems to correspond too well to the pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement and the subsequent spread of the English language.

I know that Kromsdorf is not Rhenish Beaker, but it is interesting that, thus far, the only Beaker remains tested for U106 were U106-, and that in Germany, where U106 is now fairly common.

There has been a lot of discussion about beaker migration and Germanic invasions. There is a whole lot of time between the two that could possibly explain some of the U106 in Britain.

R.Rocca
08-26-2013, 02:50 PM
So when L21 is found at 40% NW France or as high as 27% in Basque country, not a peep out of anyone. No long posts about how different the Irish Bell Beaker complex is from that of the Rhine group and how it has just as much or more commonalities with the Armorican group. On the flip side, 3-4% of L21 in the Netherlands, the heartland of Rhenish Beakers, must be significant and must have been much higher during the Bell Beaker period.

...and...

When U106 is higher in the extreme north and north-east of Scotland than anywhere else in England, that must be due to some mercenaries from places on the continent that do not have U106 that approaches the levels found in Scotland. Those Scottish U106 must have some clear genetic advantage over their continental brethren.

Sorry, but I think I'll bow out of this conversation as there only seems to be a willingness to discuss this topic in absolutes.

TigerMW
08-26-2013, 03:16 PM
So when L21 is found at 40% NW France or as high as 27% in Basque country, not a peep out of anyone. No long posts about how different the Irish Bell Beaker complex is from that of the Rhine group and how it has just as much or more commonalities with the Armorican group. On the flip side, 3-4% of L21 in the Netherlands, the heartland of Rhenish Beakers, must be significant and must have been much higher during the Bell Beaker period.

...and...

When U106 is higher in the extreme north and north-east of Scotland than anywhere else in England, that must be due to some mercenaries from places on the continent that do not have U106 that approaches the levels found in Scotland. Those Scottish U106 must have some clear genetic advantage over their continental brethren.

Sorry, but I think I'll bow out of this conversation as there only seems to be a willingness to discuss this topic in absolutes.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying. I think it is very interesting that L21 is in high in the Basque/Pyrenees area. I am not entirely sure what to make of it. I'm not sold on L21 being with the Rhenish Beakers versus the Atlantic and Iberian Beakers. I'm also not sold that L21 was with any of the first Beakers to hit Britain. The first Beakers may have been more explorers and exploiters rather than settlers/large population producers.

I'm a bit skeptical of much U106 input into Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon era but I think it is possible. A couple of years ago, I use to argue for it because I assumed U106 was along the North Sea for a long time and I believed some of the Sykes stuff. I no longer think that, though, mainly because of U106 diversity data indicating otherwise. I recognize that diversity has its own vagaries so I'm not set one way or another.

Back to L21, I'm not arguing this with details, at least yet in this thread, but I have over ten thousand haplotypes. It is apparent to me that L21 moved from east to west/northwest across the Isles. It is also apparent to me that the L21 from Iberian and the Basque regions is different than that in the Isles. I don't see any Irish/Atlantic/Basque affinity. Now that does not mean that L21 didn't come from southern France or somewhere down there, but the folks in the Basque region aren't that diverse as compared with France proper or England.

I hesitate to go into that in depth on this thread for L21 but I just think it is apparent that there was a large thrust from France proper into Great Britain and then on to the west and on to the north. I can't say with the same confidence, but I think there was movement from France proper into Pyrenees too. I could change my mind on that as there are too many untested Iberian R1b people that could yield some real L21 outliers still to come.

I think L21 story on both sides of the English Channel is further complicated by movements coming Britain back to France, possibly accounting for Bretagne's status. My guess is there were already L21 people in Bretagne and much of northern France and then more poured in to the Amorican Peninsula with the Anglo-Saxon Era. It's kind of a mixer/blender with people going both directions over a long period of time.

Do you think that my perspective on L21's general direction of movement is wrong?

Webb
08-26-2013, 03:24 PM
So when L21 is found at 40% NW France or as high as 27% in Basque country, not a peep out of anyone. No long posts about how different the Irish Bell Beaker complex is from that of the Rhine group and how it has just as much or more commonalities with the Armorican group. On the flip side, 3-4% of L21 in the Netherlands, the heartland of Rhenish Beakers, must be significant and must have been much higher during the Bell Beaker period.

...and...

When U106 is higher in the extreme north and north-east of Scotland than anywhere else in England, that must be due to some mercenaries from places on the continent that do not have U106 that approaches the levels found in Scotland. Those Scottish U106 must have some clear genetic advantage over their continental brethren.

Sorry, but I think I'll bow out of this conversation as there only seems to be a willingness to discuss this topic in absolutes.

Richard, I appreciate the work you do with snp research. Your research probably facilitated the inclusion of a huge number of snp's in the Geno 2.0 test. However, you have done the same on many a discussion about DF27. I seem to recall you stating that it should be called the South West cluster. I only point this out because I know I have been frustrated on few occasions by the hardline assertation that DF27 is Iberian without any willingness to look at any other possiblilites. I think Razyn has been frustrated on a few occasions as well. You mentioned that L21 is up to 27% of the basques, and you are right. It is also older than the M153 amongst the basque. So which group was in Iberia first, L21 or DF27? I posted in the U152 thread that of the 900 some members of the U152 project 1.6% have an origin of Spain/Portugal/ Latin America. I think it is safe to say that U152 has never really set foot in Iberia. So we are really down to L21 and DF27. Which one is the Celt or are they both Celts, or neither Celts?

TigerMW
08-26-2013, 03:55 PM
... So which group was in Iberia first, L21 or DF27? I posted in the U152 thread that of the 900 some members of the U152 project 1.6% have an origin of Spain/Portugal/ Latin America. I think it is safe to say that U152 has never really set foot in Iberia. So we are really down to L21 and DF27. Which one is the Celt or are they both Celts, or neither Celts?

As far as DF27, Richard R's description of the distribution status is fair and in looking at the haplotypes, DF27 in Iberia seems quite varied. In other words, I don't think there is any comparison of DF27 in Iberia to L21 in Iberia. ... If anything, it is more like what L21 is to Ireland, DF27 is nearly to Iberia except DF27 may be older.

That doesn't mean DF27 originated there, but we can not ignore that all kinds of DF27 are being found in Iberia. It's not just SRY2627, M153 or the NS cluster. DF27's diversity in Iberia may be supreme so I don't think that can be ignored. I still like France or even the Alps vicinity for DF27 but Iberia's diversity can not be ignored.

DF27 is old enough and far flung enough I could easily see it being in the Proto-Germanic target area prior to the formation of Germanic tribes, though, despite where DF27 may have originated. To be on topic with this thread, I have no qualms about DF27 being part of all three: the Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic and even Proto-Italic formations.

As far as U152, I know little other than when I did the Iberian projects DF27 suspect search about a month ago I found a lot more 492=14 than I expected, which is probably a type of U152. I confess that I understand U152 little.

alan
08-26-2013, 04:42 PM
I am not sure what or to whom RR was referring. I am not totally convinced by L21 originating in Rhenish beakers and I admit in terms of modern population it would be paradoxical. However, yDNA seems full of paradoxes which frequency often far from origin. I have posted before that L21's route is not at all clear. It would be wrong to say that there is particularly strong self evident evidence of immigrants from Brittany in the beaker period though. If it was clear then that would be a convenient answer but I honestly cannot think of anyone who has provided any convicining evidence of this.

This after all also effects much of Britain as well as Ireland and everyone has to bear in mind that Ireland's super-pumped up L21 numbers would crash if it were not for the late superclades like M222 etc. So, any beaker model solution to L21 in the isles has to take into account its strong presence in most of Britain except the SE. IMO we need primarily to look at Britain first and postulate where its high L21 came from. Ireland generally speaking probably got most of its settlement via Britain due to simple geography of Britain being between it and the continent. Ireland's beaker phenomenon is not well understood so its probably best to work out the origin of Britain's L21 first. One of the problems is very broad sweep sort of maps of the sort that Cunliffe tends to produce which grossly simplify things.

RR asked about the high Pyrenness L21. I dont have the answers but that, rather like NW France and the north and west of the isles, has all the hallmarks of a refuge zone something which can be seen be the fact those areas all tend to be lingusitically out of step with their neighbours. L21 on the continental side of the channel shows the same sort of cline as it does in southern England. That is why I hesitate to take the current continental channel pattern at face value if the isles one is taken to be due to Germanic intrusions.

alan
08-26-2013, 05:36 PM
The problem with L21 is that while DF27 has some resemblance to maritime beaker and other traits, L21 doesnt really have a neat correspondence between a well defined subgroup of beaker pottery and its modern distribution although, it does have a resemblance between the beaker metal trading zone at the time of Ross Island etc. It also has a resemblance to the early Bronze Age networks linking the isles and Armorica and the late Bronze Age early part of the Atlantic network before it extended to Portugal.

As for U106 I can see the temptation to link it as an element at least in Rhenish beaker. However, I just cannot square that with the way it falls away sharply at the Germanic language boundaries. That is more striking a boundary for U106 than the Rhine itself IMO. I also cannot see why the variance issue should be ignored for U106 when it is given such importance for interpretation of the other clades. I cant really see why U106 should have lost so much variance. I cant rule it our but it is more even handed to apply the variance reasoning to all clades.

The only way I can see U106 in the rhenish beakers is if most of the U106 from that phase survived in England but was replaced by new younger U106 groups in the Low Countries and Rhine areas in the Germanic expansion phase, thus reducing the continental variance. I dont think that can be ruled out for an area in the path of Germanic expansion. It might be worth discusssing the changes in tribes along the Rhine during Roman times. It is pretty complex though as far as I recall. Does matching of English U106 suggest over 4000 years of separation or something closer? That surely would tell us something about the origins of British U106. Do any of those north-eastern Scottish U106 folks have fairly recent matches with English, Flemish, north French etc?


I am not sure what or to whom RR was referring. I am not totally convinced by L21 originating in Rhenish beakers and I admit in terms of modern population it would be paradoxical. However, yDNA seems full of paradoxes which frequency often far from origin. I have posted before that L21's route is not at all clear. It would be wrong to say that there is particularly strong self evident evidence of immigrants from Brittany in the beaker period though. If it was clear then that would be a convenient answer but I honestly cannot think of anyone who has provided any convicining evidence of this.

This after all also effects much of Britain as well as Ireland and everyone has to bear in mind that Ireland's super-pumped up L21 numbers would crash if it were not for the late superclades like M222 etc. So, any beaker model solution to L21 in the isles has to take into account its strong presence in most of Britain except the SE. IMO we need primarily to look at Britain first and postulate where its high L21 came from. Ireland generally speaking probably got most of its settlement via Britain due to simple geography of Britain being between it and the continent. Ireland's beaker phenomenon is not well understood so its probably best to work out the origin of Britain's L21 first. One of the problems is very broad sweep sort of maps of the sort that Cunliffe tends to produce which grossly simplify things.

RR asked about the high Pyrenness L21. I dont have the answers but that, rather like NW France and the north and west of the isles, has all the hallmarks of a refuge zone something which can be seen be the fact those areas all tend to be lingusitically out of step with their neighbours. L21 on the continental side of the channel shows the same sort of cline as it does in southern England. That is why I hesitate to take the current continental channel pattern at face value if the isles one is taken to be due to Germanic intrusions.

TigerMW
08-26-2013, 05:45 PM
I think it is very interesting that L21 is in high in the Basque/Pyrenees area. I am not entirely sure what to make of it.
... It is also apparent to me that the L21 from Iberian and the Basque regions is different than that in the Isles. I don't see any Irish/Atlantic/Basque affinity. Now that does not mean that L21 didn't come from southern France or somewhere down there, but the folks in the Basque region aren't that diverse as compared with France proper or England. ...
This is the kind of thing I've been looking at as far as L21 in Iberia.

Of the 27 L21 confirmed Iberian MDKAs that have 67 STRs (so I can decently compare), 5 are in z9919-SP and 8 fit Z253 clusters or are Z253+ confirmed.

My gut feeling is that Z253 may absorb a good portion of the rest. Z253 is quite old and the Z253 in Iberia doesn't look like the Z253 in Ireland (i.e. L226/Irish III or L1066/Irish IV, etc.) Some of the CTS4466/Irish II/South guys are trying mightily to find someone positives from Iberia but it isn't working out so far. It is conceivable to me that Z253 started in Iberia and reached Ireland to fulfill the Milesian myth. I definitely think it is possible that some L21 did move from the Bay of Biscay area to Ireland early on, but I clearly would not bet that the bulk of L21 got to the Isles in this way.

No one from Iberia is DF13** or L21* yet, or looks like they are, but then they just haven't tested deep enough. The most interesting is probably the DF63+ guy. Of course, DF63+ means you are DF13-.
f232541 Roma of Spain, Catalonia, Borredà

There are a couple of good "outlier" prospects like
f171804 Sánchez DF13+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L371- L96- L144-
f46904 Montanez DF13+ DF21- Z253-

On some of these, the genealogy isn't that strong to Iberia so that is another part of the consideration.

GoldenHind
08-26-2013, 06:33 PM
Well, Moffat and Wilson are not historians so perhaps they are unaware how much parts of Scotland were 'anglicised' in the middle ages. We know the Angles settled in Southern Scotland and they probably carried decent levels of U106.

Fast forward to the 12th century and David, King of the Scots, who was actually half Saxon through his mother Margaret of Wessex. He spent his childhood at the English court and was later responsible for promoting Anglo-Norman feudalism and land grabs in various parts of Scotland, including Moray and the Aberdeen area, including Stonehaven. Royal Burghs were established and David also supported the building of many Norman castles in Scotland.

Settlers in these new burghs would have been drawn from his Lowland Scot, English, Flemish and Norman supporters so could easily have carried U106 to NE Scotland. And if the descendants of these merchants, knights and land owners later flourished then surely this might explain elevated U106 in NE Scotland.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/scotland/borders/article_1.shtml

IMO, Southern and Eastern Scotland are genetically more Germanic than people think.

King David was Earl of Huntington and Northampton before becoming King of Scotland. It is quite correct that he brought many of his Anglo-Norman tenants from his English earldoms to Scotland. However I have never seen anything that suggests he crammed them all into Stonehaven or Morayshire. In fact they seem to be fairly widespread in Scotland. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that would establish that the Normans were particularly high in U106. True, some of the "Anglo-Normans" may have had Flemish origins, but some were undoubtedly of Breton origins as well, such as Walter FitzAlan, ancestor of the royal Stewart line.

There also is no doubt that there were many Flemings who settled along the east coast of Scotland at various periods. Once again, I haven't seen anything that shows they were they were limited to the Aberdeen area either. They certainly settled in substantial numbers in Berwick and Edinburgh. Do these areas have the same levels of U106?

Certainly some of the U106 in Stonehaven and Morayshire may well due to Flemish settlers, though I doubt many, if any, in the Moffat-Wilson sample are descended in the male line from Norman knights. But it is hard to see how this could explain U106 levels which are not exceeded anywhere else in England. There were certainly many knights, merchants, weavers, etc. of Flemish origin who came to England over the centuries, which must boost U106 numbers there as well. If the figures cited by Rich R., are accurate, it would almost require a complete replacement of the native population by Flemish settlers in the areas in question, or some extraordinary and unexplained genetic event.

alan
08-26-2013, 07:49 PM
This is the kind of thing I've been looking at as far as L21 in Iberia.

Of the 27 L21 confirmed Iberian MDKAs that have 67 STRs (so I can decently compare), 5 are in z9919-SP and 8 fit Z253 clusters or are Z253+ confirmed.

My gut feeling is that Z253 may absorb a good portion of the rest. Z253 is quite old and the Z253 in Iberia doesn't look like the Z253 in Ireland (i.e. L226/Irish III or L1066/Irish IV, etc.) Some of the CTS4466/Irish II/South guys are trying mightily to find someone positives from Iberia but it isn't working out so far. It is conceivable to me that Z253 started in Iberia and reached Ireland to fulfill the Milesian myth. I definitely think it is possible that some L21 did move from the Bay of Biscay area to Ireland early on, but I clearly would not bet that the bulk of L21 got to the Isles in this way.

No one from Iberia is DF13** or L21* yet, or looks like they are, but then they just haven't tested deep enough. The most interesting is probably the DF63+ guy. Of course, DF63+ means you are DF13-.
f232541 Roma of Spain, Catalonia, Borredà

There are a couple of good "outlier" prospects like
f171804 Sánchez DF13+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L371- L96- L144-
f46904 Montanez DF13+ DF21- Z253-

On some of these, the genealogy isn't that strong to Iberia so that is another part of the consideration.

Its amazing how desperate some people are the prove the legend despite everything the modern scholars in Ireland have said about its fabrication. It seems to hold a big grip on the diaspora imagination far more than in Ireland itself. There is no need to rely on legends like that that are on a par with Brutus being the origin of the Britons when we have archaeology and genetics. For the most recent assessment on the origins of the Irish read Mallory's book of that title if you want the opinion of about the best placed person to understand all the data. Unpopular though it might be, he links pretty well all population input in prehistoric Ireland as coming via Britain. I think some people's need to find a more exotic link is based more on the unhappy colonial and modern history of Irish-British relations. However, you cannot let that baggage influence analysis of the distant past.

The thing is the Basque area is often stated to be set away from the stream of Atlantic maritime movements and it is not the area of Spain linked to the legends. Obviously it doesnt make sense as an origin area of the Irish celts as its a non-Celtic area. The coast is very dangerous in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay. So, its generally thought that copper and bronze age maritime movement skipped over this area and went from NW Iberia to NW France. In fact we know from the Iron Age that the Roman lighthouse at A'Coruna 'tower of Hercules' is positioned in a way that makes it useless for traffic coming along the Bay of Biscay and is angle towards NW France.

It has been surmised that the story of Bregon's tower and the settlement of Ireland was based on Roman references to the lighhouse at A'Coruna in the NW point of Iberia. I have visited it. its very nice although some misguided people have put up a horrible modern statue of King Bregon there. The tale has been shown by scholars to be fabricated and based on Roman material and word play but the lighthouse and other references clearly show that both the legend, the position of the lighthouse and marine conditions indicate that the area of the bay of Biscay, especially the angle between France and Spain where the Basques are located. was generally avoided by shipping. So the L21 hotpot on the French-Spanish border does not really fit the legend or the bronze age networks.

I definatley think that the Basque peak for L21 is a mountain refuge effect and you could probably say that NW France is too. Both could simply relate to the remanants of a once more extensive L21 zone in the northern half of France. L21 completely collapses in frequency in Spain outside this area. I will say it again. L21 in both the isles and the continent has the look of a first-in ancient clade that has been driven back west or survived best in the west and been heavily diluted further east. IF U106 in southern England is Anglo-Saxon then we can see the incredible impact on L21 frequency and there is no logical reason to not see the same effect by the heavy Frankish settlement areas in the Low Countries and NE France where there was a language shift and Flemish was spoken. That might indicate an originally strong L21 area across northern France, especially the coastal area and rivers flowing north. That seems a fair deduction and is even handed in terms of the model used. I would imagine that rather than a direct link what the Irish and Basque L21 shares is a common ancestor in Atlantic France. There was an urnfield thrust into the parts of centre-west France that could have displaced L21 lineages in that sort of area.

As to the origin of Z253 the FTDNA map doesnt really give that much of clue. Its also known in NW France and Britain. So there seems no logical reason to link the two extreme positions of its distribution and ignore the area in between.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-Z253/default.aspx?section=ymap

What sort of age is estimated for Z253 as a whole?

avalon
08-26-2013, 07:51 PM
So when L21 is found at 40% NW France or as high as 27% in Basque country, not a peep out of anyone. No long posts about how different the Irish Bell Beaker complex is from that of the Rhine group and how it has just as much or more commonalities with the Armorican group. On the flip side, 3-4% of L21 in the Netherlands, the heartland of Rhenish Beakers, must be significant and must have been much higher during the Bell Beaker period.

...and...

When U106 is higher in the extreme north and north-east of Scotland than anywhere else in England, that must be due to some mercenaries from places on the continent that do not have U106 that approaches the levels found in Scotland. Those Scottish U106 must have some clear genetic advantage over their continental brethren.

Sorry, but I think I'll bow out of this conversation as there only seems to be a willingness to discuss this topic in absolutes.

I hope you continue to post on this thread because I do understand your point of view. The U106 in NE Scotland does look extraordinarily high.

I am open minded on U106 in the Isles but I currently share the view with rms2 that the vast bulk of U106 arrived with Anglo-Saxons-Danes and then maybe later with Normans and Flemish - the Norman aristocracy were originally Danish weren't they?

The Belgae may also have brought small amounts of U106 at an earlier time, but again I am open minded on this.

ADW_1981
08-26-2013, 08:21 PM
I hope you continue to post on this thread because I do understand your point of view. The U106 in NE Scotland does look extraordinarily high.

I am open minded on U106 in the Isles but I currently share the view with rms2 that the vast bulk of U106 arrived with Anglo-Saxons-Danes and then maybe later with Normans and Flemish - the Norman aristocracy were originally Danish weren't they?

The Belgae may also have brought small amounts of U106 at an earlier time, but again I am open minded on this.

Consider that a good deal of the Icelandic and Norwegian R1b is U106+. I'd imagine some is Norse as well considering the alleged connection between Scotland and Norway.

alan
08-26-2013, 08:27 PM
i agree. RR is a great contributor. I hope he didnt take my criticism of some of the out of date beaker maps personally. That was a cricitcism of modern archaeologists rehashing of old maps. The other criticism was aimed at Cunliffe etc who make broad sweep zonations of the beaker phenomenon without knowing the details and to be honest the sheer uncertainty. I was just pointing out that Ireland, when you look at the detail, in no way fits into the western beaker collective grave traditions - in fact the native immediate pre-beaker Irish were not even using collective megalithic burial. That is the fault of archaeologists trying to create a simplified big picture. As I said, its not easy to find a single easy parallel to Irish beaker phenomenon as its kind of a unique spin which is partly novel (wedge tombs) and partly continuity of pre-beaker traditions (single token pit cremations). I wouldnt point that out if I didnt consider it an important consideration. Ireland is not the best starting point to work out L21-beaker connections because of its hard to interpret beaker phase. Possible a better approach would be to look at beaker in western Britain and try and explain the high L21 there.

Maybe Jean could weigh in with some comments about beaker in the western half of southern England around her home turf. Its often suggested that the Wessex area was wealthy due to acting as middlemen for the Ross Island metal coming via the Bristol Channel and the Avon etc. So, perhaps its likely that there were shared lineages along that axis. Some of the Irish beaker pottery is of the Wessex/British-Rhine type varieties which might support that sort of idea.


I hope you continue to post on this thread because I do understand your point of view. The U106 in NE Scotland does look extraordinarily high.

I am open minded on U106 in the Isles but I currently share the view with rms2 that the vast bulk of U106 arrived with Anglo-Saxons-Danes and then maybe later with Normans and Flemish - the Norman aristocracy were originally Danish weren't they?

The Belgae may also have brought small amounts of U106 at an earlier time, but again I am open minded on this.

avalon
08-26-2013, 08:53 PM
King David was Earl of Huntington and Northampton before becoming King of Scotland. It is quite correct that he brought many of his Anglo-Norman tenants from his English earldoms to Scotland. However I have never seen anything that suggests he crammed them all into Stonehaven or Morayshire. In fact they seem to be fairly widespread in Scotland. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that would establish that the Normans were particularly high in U106. True, some of the "Anglo-Normans" may have had Flemish origins, but some were undoubtedly of Breton origins as well, such as Walter FitzAlan, ancestor of the royal Stewart line.

There also is no doubt that there were many Flemings who settled along the east coast of Scotland at various periods. Once again, I haven't seen anything that shows they were they were limited to the Aberdeen area either. They certainly settled in substantial numbers in Berwick and Edinburgh. Do these areas have the same levels of U106?

Certainly some of the U106 in Stonehaven and Morayshire may well due to Flemish settlers, though I doubt many, if any, in the Moffat-Wilson sample are descended in the male line from Norman knights. But it is hard to see how this could explain U106 levels which are not exceeded anywhere else in England. There were certainly many knights, merchants, weavers, etc. of Flemish origin who came to England over the centuries, which must boost U106 numbers there as well. If the figures cited by Rich R., are accurate, it would almost require a complete replacement of the native population by Flemish settlers in the areas in question, or some extraordinary and unexplained genetic event.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Anglo-Normans and Flemish that David I planted in Scotland were only restricted to Aberdeenshire and Morayshire. Just that these were both areas in which he did established burghs, grant land to supporters and built Norman castles.
One of the major Flemish landholders in Moray was Freskin who according to wikipedia was the progenator of the Earls of Sutherland.

This map shows you the towns created in Moray and Aberdeen by David I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burghs_of_Dab%C3%ADd_mac_Ma%C3%ADl_Choluim.JP G

With respect to the Flemish, it is my understanding that they do possess high levels of U106. How could they not given their proximity to the Netherlands and its high frequency of U106?

Interestingly, one other place where we see unexpectedly high U106 in Britain is in Haverfordwest in SW Wales, as per the Busby study it was 22%, admittedly from a small sample. Posters will of course be aware that Southern Pembrokeshire was for centuries known as Little England beyond Wales because Henry I planted a colony of Flemish and English there in the 12th century.

It is tempting to see a connection between U106 and Flemish settlers in Britain. I am not sure about the U106 levels in Berwick and Edinburgh?

avalon
08-26-2013, 09:34 PM
If the figures cited by Rich R., are accurate, it would almost require a complete replacement of the native population by Flemish settlers in the areas in question, or some extraordinary and unexplained genetic event.

I think I am right in saying that when we refer to U106 being 27% in Moray that is just a percentage of the total R1b? This figure ignores the other haplogroups in Moray such as R1a and I. If Hgs I and R1a, for instance are high in Moray then this will lower the total U106 %.

Therefore, we wouldn't necessarily need a total replacement of the native population by Flemish settlers to see elevated levels of U106. This does depend on the frequencies of HGs I and R1a, and others in Moray?

alan
08-26-2013, 10:47 PM
I should add to my blurb about wedge tombs in Ireland that a broadly similar pattern of SW oriented megaliths of a new type dated to the beaker period exist in Scotland - the Clava Cairns and recumbant stone circles. That redating makes a lot more sense than the former idea that they were Neolithic. They are nothing like Wedge Tombs in construction details but in terms of date, orientation preferences and the use of megaliths for something approaching prominant exclusive burial shows very similar underlying beliefs and response to beaker influences. The orientations became a long standing preference throughout the Bronze Age for stone circles, stone alignments etc in parts of Ireland and Scotland. Similar alignments are known from stone rows at Carnac and general area, including some under water today. Its very hard to date these monuments but it is strikingly different from the Alles Couverte orientations of the same area some of which are very close. Some run over long barrows. So, at least we have some places on the continent with similar orientation traditions albeit dating doesnt seem entirely secure. Interesting though that NW France has rows with similar alignments to Irish Wedge tombs and also Allees Couvertte tombs which have a different orientation to wedge tombs but similar structural features. Maybe that would point in that direction for origins of these traditions being transported to the isles but then again Scottish Clava cairns and recumbant stone circles from Scotland also are of beaker date and sahre similar alignments.

BTW, for those intested in Scotland during the beaker period, these links gives an up to date summary of the current state of play

http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/content/chalcolithic-early-beaker-25th%E2%80%9322nd-century-bc-period-1

http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/content/earliest-bronze-age-22nd%E2%80%9320th-century-bc-period-2

It really brings out the possible Dutch link early on and also the connections to Ireland and Irish metal apparently travelling up the west of Scotland and up the great glen to NE Scotland. The has actually now been proven to have involved actual Irish people moving by isotope analysis.

MJost
08-26-2013, 11:11 PM
I have worked up a U106 variance by Subclade by top eight country locations and noted the overall largest subclade variance by Country.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNclBKWVJRRjVET3c/edit?usp=sharing

MJost

alan
08-27-2013, 12:21 AM
That is a great table but I dread to think how low the numbers, especially outside the isles, are for of each clade when it is broken down in fine detail like that. Can you give a breakdown of numbers?





I have worked up a U106 variance by Subclade by top eight country locations and noted the overall largest subclade variance by Country.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNclBKWVJRRjVET3c/edit?usp=sharing

MJost

MJost
08-27-2013, 12:26 AM
Anything three or more HTs. I didnt break down each of the subclades and their top eight country counts. Sorry.

I dont think you have to worry too much but the main thing to take away is the direction of each subclade by looking at the variance. This is for fun not an academic paper. The main ancestral subclade are large numbers with a total 1,586 tested U106 HTs.


MJost

GoldenHind
08-27-2013, 12:51 AM
I have worked up a U106 variance by Subclade by top eight country locations and noted the overall largest subclade variance by Country.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNclBKWVJRRjVET3c/edit?usp=sharing

MJost

Perhaps I am misreading your table, but it looks to me like U106 variance is higher in Scotland than even in Poland, and considerably greater than that in Belgium. Not that I am suggesting U106 originated in Scotland, but it doesn't provide much support for the contention that Scottish U106 is solely due to transplanted Flemings. If my reading is correct, I have little doubt that your table will soon be roundly attacked.

Webb
08-27-2013, 01:11 AM
Perhaps I am misreading your table, but it looks to me like U106 variance is higher in Scotland than even in Poland, and considerably greater than that in Belgium. Not that I am suggesting U106 originated in Scotland, but it doesn't provide much support for the contention that Scottish U106 is solely due to transplanted Flemings. If my reading is correct, I have little doubt that your table will soon be roundly attacked.

Time and again Mark has run these numbers and it always comes back as variance highest in Scotland. So either the whole premise of variance is flawed, or as JeanM has pointed out many times, people take their variance with them.

MJost
08-27-2013, 01:54 AM
Perhaps I am misreading your table, but it looks to me like U106 variance is higher in Scotland than even in Poland, and considerably greater than that in Belgium. Not that I am suggesting U106 originated in Scotland, but it doesn't provide much support for the contention that Scottish U106 is solely due to transplanted Flemings. If my reading is correct, I have little doubt that your table will soon be roundly attacked.

Belgium was 8.66 / 2,742.6 so if Scotland was transplanted it wouldn't have be from the Germanic ethnic group native to Belgium, would it? Look at R1b-U106>Z381>Z301>L48>L47 where it's just about the same in two different geographic areas, Scotland and Germany. All these numbers are Coalescence sampled and the variance shows a point where every HT lineage coalesces back to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). This is not the Founders Modal Age.

Does this represent the real story, its the best way to show the how it looks. In one or two centuries, the TMCRA is 3,449 down to 3,092 for U106 in each country. The migration path is key. Variance is the effect of multiple lineages, providing a more diverse ineages developes an increased variance. TMRCA for these haplotypes are estimated using variance as an unbiased estimator subject to the best stable STRs and mutations rates utilized. Did I mention I used Bird's q Stable STRs for this exercise? I did.

My TMRCA Estimator is available download and confirm any numbers. I could have made some errors. This data is included in my latest V8.7 sheet. This wasnt that easy to produce these result from 1,100 U106 records that had an entry in MikeW's Old world designation with 67 markers from all 1,586 U106 HTs.

I dont know what it means. This is what some of the thinkers can work on.

MJost





I want to see what others may have for results. I

R.Rocca
08-27-2013, 01:59 AM
Sorry to all for my crankiness today. Now back to genetics huh? :biggrin1:

MJost
08-27-2013, 02:10 AM
Time and again Mark has run these numbers and it always comes back as variance highest in Scotland. So either the whole premise of variance is flawed, or as JeanM has pointed out many times, people take their variance with them.

The concept of 'people take their variance with them' is that the group leaving an area, unless its just a close lineage bunch, take the variance with them from the local makeup. One consideration is that the local subclade was very recent and has not developed much variance and those who left exploded elsewhere within the subclade SNP. Each subclade derived could have same affect when a split occurs. You can even see it in the chart I produced.

What are the U106 Guru's showing?

MJost

Webb
08-27-2013, 02:41 AM
Sorry to all for my crankiness today. Now back to genetics huh? :biggrin1:

In reference to your comment about L21 in the Pyrenees. I read the published article of the genetic survey done in the Pyrenees back in 2010 or 2011. For the life of me I can't find it now. Anyway they found that L21, SRY2627, M153, and I2 all were pretty equal, in the 20 some percent range. I would really like to know what clades were present in the L21 group, however, I don't think it was addressed. At the time, there was no DF27, so SRY2627 and M153 were considered at the same level as L21.

Webb
08-27-2013, 02:44 AM
The concept of 'people take their variance with them' is that the group leaving an area, unless its just a close lineage bunch, take the variance with them from the local makeup. One consideration is that the local subclade was very recent and has not developed much variance and those who left exploded elsewhere within the subclade SNP. Each subclade derived could have same affect when a split occurs. You can even see it in the chart I produced.

What are the U106 Guru's showing?

MJost

I don't know if there are any guru's. when you go to their thread you can hear crickets chirping.

TigerMW
08-27-2013, 03:00 AM
What are the U106 Guru's showing?
The two primary admins who will talk about origins are Charles Moore and Michael Maddi. I think Charles leans more towards what he calls a "Danubian theory" while Maddi leans a little more on the northeastern/Baltic vicinity launch. I don't know anyone over there is arguing for a Scandinavia Peninsula or northern Denmark origination for U106. Hopefully, someone will chime in. I think Raymond W might be a good person to give us a perspective. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

We should probably look at some of the clades independently, particularly Z18.

As far as STR diversity by geography, differentiating crossroads, accumulation points and origins is a pain in the rear. This is what drove Dienekes nuts and this is what Anatole may have overdone, at least in his original concepts. Now, I do think that if you find a place with low diversity, you have to put it towards the end of the line as far as origination or older locations. For U106, diversity is low in the Scandinavian Peninsula which is why I quit believing in a U106 in the Nordic Bronze Age alternative.

I do see low diversity for Austria in our projects, but our data for Austria is so light I don't trust it. On the other hand, some studies show a lot of U106 in Austria so I think that has to be better investigated.

This is from a 2013 discussion.

Yes, I've read Anthony's book and agree strongly with Mike W's post below, using that source to back up his argument. It's been my thought for a long time that U106 was "born" in eastern or northeastern Europe, while P312 was "born" more to the south or west. Or at least, each had its phase of major demographic expansion in those areas of Europe. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/12169

Th is from 2009. I just saw the data well enough in the last year to catch up with what Maddi already thought.

The relatively high level in David's table of U106 in Sweden and Lithuania may point to a route taken by U106 through Europe, compared to other subclades, such as U152 and L21. That would be from the east, as with the other subclades, but with a detour toward the Baltic Sea area in the north. Then a population explosion as it moved westward through northern Europe. The fact that the ancestral value for DYS390 (24) in R1b-U106* is found at higher levels in Scandinavia and northeastern Europe, while the ancestral value (23) for R1b-L48, the main subclade of U106, is found at its highest levels in Central and Northwest Europe, may indicate the ancestral population of R1b-U106 was located in the eastern part of Europe, while its derived population (R1b-L48) moved to the west. http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-06/1246416510

I could go either way - a Baltic continental coast launch westward or a Austrian launch north and westward, but I think U106 had to be from either east or southeast of the neck of the Jutland Peninsula/northern Germany. The early Nordic Bronze Age stuff for U106 just doesn't correlate with the genetic data. Again, that's not to say one or two U106 could haven't squeaked out of the Baltic or Austria early on. I'm no purist.

MJost
08-27-2013, 03:40 AM
The two primary admins who will talk about origins are Charles Moore and Michael Maddi. Both lean towards an Austria launch northward into northern Germany. They are open to a more easterly/Baltic launch. I don't know anyone over there is arguing for a Scandinavia Peninsula or northern Denmark origination for U106. Hopefully, someone will chime in. I think Raymond W might be a good person to give us a perspective. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

We should probably look at some of the clades independently, particularly Z18.

As far as STR diversity by geography, differentiating crossroads, accumulation points and origins is a pain in the rear. This is what drove Dienekes nuts and this is what Anatole may have overdone, at least in his original concepts. Now, I do think that if you find a place with low diversity, you have to put it towards the end of the line as far as origination or older locations. For U106, diversity is low in the Scandinavian Peninsula which is why I quite believing in a U106 in the Nordic Bronze Age alternative.

I do see low diversity for Austria in our projects, but our data for Austria is so light I don't trust it. On the other hand, some studies show a lot of U106 in Austria so I think that has to be better investigated.

Z18 appears to be confined to the Netherlands and the history of the Netherland's is the history of a seafaring people thriving on a lowland river delta on the North Sea and Z14 needs more HTs in Netherland's to get a better picture but it appears to have most of the derived SNP based HTs same area, Netherland's. There are around 84 HTs for Z18's.

More Data is sure needed for L11 variances.

MJost

Denmark is a younger cluster at a variance of 9.01 and age of 2,852 so not good odds there either for starting U106.

TigerMW
08-27-2013, 03:55 AM
Z18 appears to be confined to the Netherlands and the history of the Netherland's is the history of a seafaring people thriving on a lowland river delta on the North Sea and Z14 needs more HTs in Netherland's to get a better picture but it appears to have most of the derived SNP based HTs same area, Netherland's. There are around 84 HTs for Z18's.

More Data is sure needed for L11 variances.

MJost

Denmark is a younger cluster at a variance of 9.01 and age of 2,852 so not good odds there either for starting U106.

There are Z18 people from Finland, Poland and Estonia among other places. That doesn't mean they originated there, though. I bring them up because they are an early branch parallel to Z381, where most of U106's population growth (and L48) sits.

I haven't seen a good map of Z18. Has anyone?

David S, can you help point us to any analysis on Z18?

alan
08-27-2013, 09:19 AM
It is interesting that Scotland has high pooled variance for all U106 which does suggest it has multiple origins. Problem is that Scotland's history makes that very likely. U106 could have been brought by Anglo-Saxons in the south-east and south in general from c. 600AD, Vikings in the west and north from C. 800AD and Medieval Flemings etc too after 1100AD. So with a known history of significant settlement from U106-rich groups of different origins it makes it almost inevitable that what the pooled U106 in Scotland is showing is the convergence date of Norwegain, Anglo-Saxon and Frankish/Flemish U106. That is really indirectly telling us something about continental Germanic history of U106 rather than a date relating to Scotland. That is the problem with pooled variance in a country with multiple significant inputs of the same clade.

Breaking U106 into its subclade components by geography and then working out variance is far more valid and the best theoretical approach but I didnt think we had the sort of sample size for most European countries that would make that possible. There surely are countries only represented by less than a handful in some of these subclades. If so then can the variance results be valid for subclades? Unless I saw the numbers of the subclade sample for each country I would be massively doubtful of the validity of the subclade results. The problem with almost all y DNA is that once a clade is broken down as far as it can, the sample size for each subclade on a country by country basis is very small with the possible exception of the isles.

rms2
08-27-2013, 11:33 AM
As for Scotland, the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kingdom_of_Northumbria_in_AD_802.jpg) extended to the Firth of Forth, included Edinburgh, and David I settled Northumbrians in Moray and Aberdeenshire in the 12th century.

English settlement in southern and eastern Scotland was extensive, and the Scots English dialect developed from old Northumbrian.

This site (http://www.scotland.org/features/1000-years-old-and-still-fresh-as-a-tulip), sponsored by Scottish Development International, says the following:



By 1600, trading colonies had grown up on either side of the well-travelled shipping routes: the Dutch settling along the eastern seaboard of Scotland . . .


The distribution of U106 in the Isles best and most obviously fits the pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement and the subsequent spread of the English and their language. If U106 arrived in the Isles in prehistory, including the Bronze Age, in any numbers, it would be more widespread than it is now, and its cline wouldn't be such a nice fit to the facts of the historical period, especially the advent of the Anglo-Saxons.

I am very interested in L21 in the Pyrenees and in France, but this thread has been mostly about the Celtic-versus-Germanic thing and the Beaker Folk. I don't see how disagreeing with the idea that U106 arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age with Rhenish Beaker Folk has anything to do with "absolutes". I just don't think it did, or at least not much of it. In my opinion - and it is just my opinion - the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England descends from Anglo-Saxons and Danes.

Wing Genealogist
08-27-2013, 12:16 PM
Time and again Mark has run these numbers and it always comes back as variance highest in Scotland. So either the whole premise of variance is flawed, or as JeanM has pointed out many times, people take their variance with them.

I am merely guessing here, but two ideas pop into my mind regarding this issue (highest variance in Scotland)

A) The European mainland has been very sparsely tested as compared to the British Isles. This may have allowed us to find more extreme outliers within the Isles which may cause the variance for the BI to rise.

B) Scotland U106 may be composed of different samples (from England and from ?Flanders). If U106 originally had divided and settled in slightly different locations early, would this not cause the variance to be lower in their native lands, and higher in lands where both populations settled??

I know Charles Moore, the Admin for the U106 Project does not participate in any of these forums. In general, we have less "tech gurus" than P312, and we tend to use our Yahoogroup forum for discussion, rather than forums such as this.

R.Rocca
08-27-2013, 12:23 PM
As for Scotland, the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kingdom_of_Northumbria_in_AD_802.jpg) extended to the Firth of Forth, included Edinburgh, and David I settled Northumbrians in Moray and Aberdeenshire in the 12th century.

English settlement in southern and eastern Scotland was extensive, and the Scots English dialect developed from old Northumbrian.

This site (http://www.scotland.org/features/1000-years-old-and-still-fresh-as-a-tulip), sponsored by Scottish Development International, says the following:



The distribution of U106 in the Isles best and most obviously fits the pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement and the subsequent spread of the English and their language. If U106 arrived in the Isles in prehistory, including the Bronze Age, in any numbers, it would be more widespread than it is now, and its cline wouldn't be such a nice fit to the facts of the historical period, especially the advent of the Anglo-Saxons.

I am very interested in L21 in the Pyrenees and in France, but this thread has been mostly about the Celtic-versus-Germanic thing and the Beaker Folk. I don't see how disagreeing with the idea that U106 arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age with Rhenish Beaker Folk has anything to do with "absolutes". I just don't think it did, or at least not much of it. In my opinion - and it is just my opinion - the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England descends from Anglo-Saxons and Danes.

Nobody is arguing that it is not the best fit, but the argument here is that it is not the "only fit". We can easily throw Rhenish Bell Beakers, Hallstatt and Belgae into the mix as possible pre-Anglo-Saxon U106, which nobody is arguing against. As for even later U106 arrivals that folks are mentioning, I had this to say in a prior post:


As per Moffat & Wilson, 30% of all men in Stonehaven and 27% of all men in Morayshire are U106+. Only the Netherlands is higher with 33% and SE England is about equal with 27%. Unless these men were sourced from the Netherlands itself, it is difficult to see these latter day events as the source for British U106. I'll stick to what Moffat & Wilson say on this one, that while augmented by Anglo-Saxons, U106 has been in Britain for much longer.

The only way those areas can have U106 that high is for 1.) U106 to have come from areas with populations equal to or greater than 27-30% (which rules out almost all of England, Northumbria, northern Germany, and Denmark), and 2.) for them to have completely replaced the prior Scottish male population.

T101
08-27-2013, 12:44 PM
I could go either way - a Baltic continental coast launch westward or a Austrian launch north and westward

How could you go either way?

The Baltic launch for U106 is completely debunked by the lack of any archaeological data or culture originating in present day Poland and expanding to the Frisian coast/ Northern Germany during that time period. Could you please name a single subclade of U106 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?

And to use only variance is a highly flawed approach. The Polish lands, similar to Scotland, were subjected to numerous migratory waves of U106 from multiple time periods and places (i.e. the Eastern Germanic tribes, to the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond).

By your reasoning Mike why don't you just advocate a Scottish origin for U106? It has everything you like: no archaeological data or cultural record of a migration of people to the Netherlands/ N. Germany and the highest variance of all U106 areas.

rms2
08-27-2013, 12:55 PM
I wonder about those Stonehaven and Morayshire U106+ figures from Moffat and Wilson, but let's just accept them. Busby, as I recall, had a fairly high figure for that area, too, but it was more believable, around 19%, if I remember correctly. L21 was still around 50% there, so total replacement doesn't seem likely: just a big influx of U106. Given the Northumbrian incursions into Scotland, David I's subsequent settlement of Northumbrians and Flemings there, and the 17th-century settlement of Dutch there, I don't think we need to look to a prehistoric source for Scottish U106.

The Bronze Age was pretty long ago. It just seems to me that U106 should be a bigger part of the western Isles mix if it arrived in the Isles during the Bronze Age. Another thing is the border march status of the Low Countries. It's common knowledge, I think, that the border between Romano-Celt and German runs through the Low Countries. In general, to the north and east are the Germans (Flemings, Dutch, Frisians), while to the south and west are the French-speaking Walloons. That border march status reflects historical events, population movements, and real differences between German speakers and French speakers. If in the Bronze Age the Rhenish Beaker Folk had been largely U106, how did they end up so overwhelmingly German in the Low Countries? If they have been in the area so long, why aren't they as well represented in Wallonia as they are in the Germanic-speaking regions?

No, it looks to me as though a Germanic-speaking U106 population moved south and west beginning in the 1st millennium BC, culminating in the 3rd century BC and subsequent centuries, and shoved an earlier, Celtic-speaking population back across the Rhine. That earlier, Celtic population was largely P312 and was composed, at least in part, of the descendants of the Rhenish Beaker Folk. The process was still ongoing in Julius Caesar's time.

Webb
08-27-2013, 12:56 PM
Nobody is arguing that it is not the best fit, but the argument here is that it is not the "only fit". We can easily throw Rhenish Bell Beakers, Hallstatt and Belgae into the mix as possible pre-Anglo-Saxon U106, which nobody is arguing against. As for even later U106 arrivals that folks are mentioning, I had this to say in a prior post:



The only way those areas can have U106 that high is for 1.) U106 to have come from areas with populations equal to or greater than 27-30% (which rules out almost all of England, Northumbria, northern Germany, and Denmark), and 2.) for them to have completely replaced the prior Scottish male population.

The Romans described the venicones of Scotland as using wooden hulled ships with leather sails. These types of vessels were not common anywhere else in the isles. Discoveries of similar vessels have been found in areas around the North Sea, leading some archeologists wondering if there was a pre-roman tie between scandanavia and Britain. The venicones territory was between the firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth.

MJost
08-27-2013, 01:07 PM
@T101

Whats your haplogroup?

MJost

rms2
08-27-2013, 01:20 PM
The Romans described the venicones of Scotland as using wooden hulled ships with leather sails. These types of vessels were not common anywhere else in the isles. Discoveries of similar vessels have been found in areas around the North Sea, leading some archeologists wondering if there was a pre-roman tie between scandanavia and Britain. The venicones territory was between the firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth.

"Venicones" is a Celtic name, meaning "hunting hounds" or "kindred hounds". According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venicones), the only mention of them is in Ptolemy's Geographia, Book 2 Chapter 2. All he says about them is the following:



Below these toward the west are the Venicones, whose town is Orrea.


http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/2*.html

That was certainly the only mention of them in Ptolemy that I could find.

Do you have some other primary source?

MJost
08-27-2013, 01:21 PM
I understand that 'Multiple founders, potential migrations instead of the gradual geographic expansion of a population, were mentioned by Myres et al.?

ok, you Myres experts, What did the Myres study actually present on this subject?

MJost

jdean
08-27-2013, 01:52 PM
There are Z18 people from Finland, Poland and Estonia among other places. That doesn't mean they originated there, though. I bring them up because they are an early branch parallel to Z381, where most of U106's population growth (and L48) sits.

I haven't seen a good map of Z18. Has anyone?

David S, can you help point us to any analysis on Z18?

Talk about minefield, but here we go : )

I suppose it's best to start with Z18+, Z14-, we don't have many and they are quite spread out with ancestry from Switzerland, France, Scotland, Belgium & Germany.

However the person with Swiss ancestry has a surname that's German, according to Worldnames, so on balance I'd say Z14- looks more Germanic.

When you get down to Z372+ (including L257) there looks to be a bias towards Scandinavia. We do have quite a few folk from outside that area, and Scotland in particular, but they seem to be in groups that are quite closely related to each other and have more distant matches with Scandinavia.

L14+, Z372- is a more complicated picture.

We have three confirmed L14+, Z372- clusters (BTW please don't try and read to much into their names)

The 'Swede' cluster is demonstrably young, most of the members have English MDKA but one is from Denmark and this is also one furthest removed from the group.

The 'Cumberland Cluster' is older and has members from all over the place, including Wales, personally I don't think I'd like to hazard where the group originated but it does have two members with Polish ancestry who aren't exactly very close to each other, so an Isles origin doesn’t seem very likely.

The 'East Anglian' cluster probably has the best chance of having originated in the Isles, but it is quite heavily centred in the SE of England. That said it also looks quite young there and one of the furthest removed from the group has a name you'd associate with Scotland. On the other hand there is also a predicted member, who is quite isolated, in the Scandinavian project : )


We are probably going to be doing a broad sweep for new candidates shortly (something we've not done for a while) so hopefully will be sending out more emails suggesting folk test these SNPs in the not to distant future.

BTW there's a new SNP out (courtesy of Andy Grierson, of course : ) called DF95 which we are hoping will further define the 'Cumberland' cluster.

MJost
08-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Z18 appears to be confined to the Netherlands and the history of the Netherland's is the history of a seafaring people thriving on a lowland river delta on the North Sea and Z14 needs more HTs in Netherland's to get a better picture but it appears to have most of the derived SNP based HTs same area, Netherland's. There are around 84 HTs for Z18's.

More Data is sure needed for L11 variances.

MJost




One of the central questions is where was L11 hanging out when its two main derived subclade were produced.

Myers showed L11 x106 xS116 (xP312/S116) as being in England. I need to run a P312 geo variance chart.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/figure/fig1/

MJost
08-27-2013, 02:29 PM
Talk about minefield, but here we go : )

I suppose it's best to start with Z18+, Z14-, we don't have many and they are quite spread out with ancestry from Switzerland, France, Scotland, Belgium & Germany.
Using MikeW's U106 and tested U106 HTs, most of the Z18's are not fully tested for their terminal subclades, so in reality they are not a true picture of Z18*. There is not enough terminal Z18* HTs so I used every (n=84) Z18 and below HT to calculate the variance stepping down into each subclade and all derived SNPs as I did for all subclades under U106 for my chart.

Even though there are 84 Hts in all of Z18, England and Scotland has around 30 HTs, Ireland has only eight, and the remaining fill out the the other countries listed. Removing Netherland Hts, the variance is 8.89 / 2,815.2 age. Thats about the same as England's Z14.

MJost

jdean
08-27-2013, 02:46 PM
Using MikeW's U106 and tested U106 HTs, most of the Z18's are not fully tested for their terminal subclades, so in reality they are not a true picture of Z18*. There is not enough terminal Z18* HTs so I used every (n=84) Z18 and below HT to calculate the variance stepping down into each subclade and all derived SNPs as I did for all subclades under U106 for my chart.

Even though there are 84 Hts in all of Z18, England and Scotland has around 30 HTs, Ireland has only eight, and the remaining fill out the the other countries listed. Removing Netherland Hts, the variance is 8.89 / 2,815.2 age. Thats about the same as England's Z14.

MJost

I count only 1 cluster (consisting of 2 people) that's not tested for Z14

MJost
08-27-2013, 02:54 PM
Here is an interesting older paper on the delevoping farming aspect during the BeakerBell period in the Netherlands that may have tie in's to the Isles.

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/12975/APL40_02_Fokkers.pdf?sequence=1

MJost

MJost
08-27-2013, 03:00 PM
I count only 1 cluster (consisting of 2 people) that's not tested for Z14

here is the list of (Z14's) s/b Z18's terminal SNP status that I have. Only the last two are deeper tested. (All though some may have been upgraded recently.)

f102416 Gunn R1b-U106>Z18
f26326 Anderson R1b-U106>Z18
fN35424 Ericksson(Nordmaling) R1b-U106>Z18
f147174 Edwards R1b-U106>Z18
f64197 Howell R1b-U106>Z18
f102458 Cave R1b-U106>Z18
f94743 Koontz R1b-U106>Z18
f69650 Raleigh R1b-U106>Z18
f26718 Starnes R1b-U106>Z18
fN68706 Lewis R1b-U106>Z18
f7792 Chamberlain R1b-U106>Z18
f78550 Coen R1b-U106>Z18
f13322 Oliver R1b-U106>Z18
f56417 Thomas R1b-U106>Z18
f122883 zzzUnkName R1b-U106>Z18
f162286 Landers R1b-U106>Z18
f65496 Vignault R1b-U106>Z18 *
f68399 Young R1b-U106>Z18 *-


MJost

jdean
08-27-2013, 03:09 PM
here is the list of Z14's terminal SNP status that I have. Only the last two are deeper tested. (All though some may have been upgraded recently.)

f102416 Gunn R1b-U106>Z18
f26326 Anderson R1b-U106>Z18
fN35424 Ericksson(Nordmaling) R1b-U106>Z18
f147174 Edwards R1b-U106>Z18
f64197 Howell R1b-U106>Z18
f102458 Cave R1b-U106>Z18
f94743 Koontz R1b-U106>Z18
f69650 Raleigh R1b-U106>Z18
f26718 Starnes R1b-U106>Z18
fN68706 Lewis R1b-U106>Z18
f7792 Chamberlain R1b-U106>Z18
f78550 Coen R1b-U106>Z18
f13322 Oliver R1b-U106>Z18
f56417 Thomas R1b-U106>Z18
f122883 zzzUnkName R1b-U106>Z18
f162286 Landers R1b-U106>Z18
f65496 Vignault R1b-U106>Z18 *
f68399 Young R1b-U106>Z18 *-


MJost

You might find it helpful to actually look at the Z18 project, that's what it's there for : )

alan
08-27-2013, 03:10 PM
I have an open mind on this. One thing I will say about north-east Scotland is that there was a language boudnary there between the Germanic lowland Scots and the Gaels from the 12th century. Initially it was probably enclaves in towns and fishing communities but it slowly expanded and a few centuries later something approaching the highland - lowland linguistic division formed. These two populations considered each other alient with the Gaels calling the lowlanders Gall, meaning stranger and the lowlanders calling the highlanders wild Irish, Erse etc. There was a substantial linguistic cultural divide that expanded in favour of the lowland Scots from the 12th century onwards. Now, other genetic studies have convincingly shown that at the sort of level of society that prevailed in Scotland c. 1100, language barriers only tend to move with a singficicant population input and where that doesnt happen you tend to get just a new elite with the locals retaining their language. So, if we are being even handed, this suggests that the expansion of Lowland Scots, a dialect of English, did involve a progressive expansion of lowland non-Celtic Scots genes in the period 1100-1500AD. Whether that relates to U106 is another mattern though. However, there is no doubt that a expansion of people with origins in Yorkshire, Flanders etc would have seriously upped the U106. Personally I dont think we can answer the question about earlier U106 until there is a sufficient sample to test a wider ranger of countries meaningfully at fine subclade level.



Nobody is arguing that it is not the best fit, but the argument here is that it is not the "only fit". We can easily throw Rhenish Bell Beakers, Hallstatt and Belgae into the mix as possible pre-Anglo-Saxon U106, which nobody is arguing against. As for even later U106 arrivals that folks are mentioning, I had this to say in a prior post:



The only way those areas can have U106 that high is for 1.) U106 to have come from areas with populations equal to or greater than 27-30% (which rules out almost all of England, Northumbria, northern Germany, and Denmark), and 2.) for them to have completely replaced the prior Scottish male population.

alan
08-27-2013, 03:23 PM
Gunn is a Scottish name with strong Viking associations. So, is Anderson unless he is a Scandinavian. Erricson has got to to be a Scandi. Edwards, Howell,Lewis and Thomas sound like part of a Welsh rugby team. That is a very odd mix of names.


here is the list of Z14's terminal SNP status that I have. Only the last two are deeper tested. (All though some may have been upgraded recently.)

f102416 Gunn R1b-U106>Z18
f26326 Anderson R1b-U106>Z18
fN35424 Ericksson(Nordmaling) R1b-U106>Z18
f147174 Edwards R1b-U106>Z18
f64197 Howell R1b-U106>Z18
f102458 Cave R1b-U106>Z18
f94743 Koontz R1b-U106>Z18
f69650 Raleigh R1b-U106>Z18
f26718 Starnes R1b-U106>Z18
fN68706 Lewis R1b-U106>Z18
f7792 Chamberlain R1b-U106>Z18
f78550 Coen R1b-U106>Z18
f13322 Oliver R1b-U106>Z18
f56417 Thomas R1b-U106>Z18
f122883 zzzUnkName R1b-U106>Z18
f162286 Landers R1b-U106>Z18
f65496 Vignault R1b-U106>Z18 *
f68399 Young R1b-U106>Z18 *-


MJost

MJost
08-27-2013, 03:23 PM
You might find it helpful to actually look at the Z18 project, that's what it's there for : )

Can you give us a report on the Coalescence ages and variance of the new HTs in the Z18 group. I dont think it will change much.

MJost

alan
08-27-2013, 03:32 PM
I think you are confusing them with the Veneti of Brittany. The Venicones names may have some sort of link to various Celtic names relating to groups of warrior youths who identify with wolves or hounds.

The Venicones dissapeared and may have became part of a larger grouping of southern Picts called the Maetaie or something like that and later were definately part of the Verturiones confederation of southern Picts who gave their name to Pictish groups that the Gaels called Fortrui.

There was also an Irish tribe called the Venicnii or something like that in NW Ulster.




The Romans described the venicones of Scotland as using wooden hulled ships with leather sails. These types of vessels were not common anywhere else in the isles. Discoveries of similar vessels have been found in areas around the North Sea, leading some archeologists wondering if there was a pre-roman tie between scandanavia and Britain. The venicones territory was between the firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth.

MJost
08-27-2013, 03:45 PM
Also wanted to add this paper, The PreHistory of the Netherlands.

http://www.academia.edu/550193/The_prehistory_of_the_Netherlands

MJosg

jdean
08-27-2013, 04:02 PM
Can you give us a report on the Coalescence ages and variance of the new HTs in the Z18 group. I dont think it will change much.

MJost

I not entirely sure I know what you mean, change from what ?

Personally I don't find coalescence age calcs that useful, generally you get a feel for relative ages of clusters by looking at them and when comparing clusters interclade calcs are preferable, but if you want to do some help yourself.

I'd say the Swede cluster is probably the youngest of the Z14+, Z372- groups with the East Anglia and Cumberland coming in joint second.

R.Rocca
08-27-2013, 04:08 PM
Richard, I appreciate the work you do with snp research. Your research probably facilitated the inclusion of a huge number of snp's in the Geno 2.0 test. However, you have done the same on many a discussion about DF27. I seem to recall you stating that it should be called the South West cluster. I only point this out because I know I have been frustrated on few occasions by the hardline assertation that DF27 is Iberian without any willingness to look at any other possiblilites. I think Razyn has been frustrated on a few occasions as well. You mentioned that L21 is up to 27% of the basques, and you are right. It is also older than the M153 amongst the basque. So which group was in Iberia first, L21 or DF27? I posted in the U152 thread that of the 900 some members of the U152 project 1.6% have an origin of Spain/Portugal/ Latin America. I think it is safe to say that U152 has never really set foot in Iberia. So we are really down to L21 and DF27. Which one is the Celt or are they both Celts, or neither Celts?

The North-South cluster was named as such by Ken Nordtvedt because, based solely on FTDNA frequency data, it looked to have one frequency spike in the north, one in the south, and not much in between. He made no claims about where it originated and neither did I. I made the claim that the North-South cluster would be more aptly named South-West cluster because, when one removes the British-German testing bias, it is nowhere near as common in the north than in the south. That has now been irrefutably confirmed by the Larmuseau data from Belgium where the North-South cluster can only be as high as 3.3% and the recently posted Genome of the Netherlands data where North-South can only be as high as 3.6% and where DF27 can only be as high as 5.4% if the 5 remaining P312+ Z195- DF19- U152- L21- L238- samples are in fact DF27**. We now know that North-South is many times larger in Iberia than in the Low Countries.

As for me saying that DF27 originated in Iberia, that is simply not true. Me arguing that DF27 has an overwhelmingly heavy presence in Iberia does not mean I said it originated there. Me saying that DF27 looks to have been heavily involved in Iberian Bell Beaker does not mean I think it originated there. So, it seems like your frustrations are very much unwarranted.

MJost
08-27-2013, 04:18 PM
My point was that by 3000 bc farming was well established and the same thing had to be occurring in the Prehistoric Britain, Ireland & Scotland.
The Neolithic long house was common and as the Germanic cattle farmer longhouses emerged along the southwestern North Sea coast in the third or fourth century BC. Who brought these ideas to the isle?

As Harry Fokkens wrote:
"The economic base was the same all over the Netherlands. The large house
plans, some including stall partitions, indicate that cattle farming was of major
importance, possibly also for the production of manure. The specific locations
of the settlements also point to an integrated system of mixed farming: many of
the settlements were positioned so that the occupants could cultivate crops on the
higher grounds and graze their cattle in the salt marshes or stream valleys which
were to be found all over the Netherlands with the exception of the forested parts
of the sandy areas. In the faunal samples percentages for cattle are always highest,
followed by those for sheep, goats and pigs. Horses were also kept, but presumably
only for riding. Hunting and fishing were practised, but they were both clearly of
lesser importance. Different models for the relative importance of cereal cultivation
and stock breeding suggest ratios of 1:3 fora farm with 30 cattle, which would
have required 2-5 ha of land for cultivation and a much larger area for pasture."

I suspect these larger family groups thrived and migrated to the isles.

MJost

jdean
08-27-2013, 04:19 PM
Gunn is a Scottish name with strong Viking associations. So, is Anderson unless he is a Scandinavian. Erricson has got to to be a Scandi. Edwards, Howell,Lewis and Thomas sound like part of a Welsh rugby team. That is a very odd mix of names.

Gunn is a very lonely Scot in the Scandinavia cluster along with Anderson and Erricson, that cluster is Z372+, L257-

Howell and Lewis are in the Swede cluster which is Z14+, Z372-

Edwards and Thomas are in the Cumberland cluster so are Z14+, Z372- but maybe DF95+

TigerMW
08-27-2013, 04:37 PM
I could go either way - a Baltic continental coast launch westward or a Austrian launch north and westward
How could you go either way? Its not hard. I can easily accept either alternative because I know of no strong reason why either would not work. If you have one, good, please explain.


The Baltic launch for U106 is completely debunked by the lack of any archaeological data or culture originating in present day Poland and expanding to the Frisian coast/ Northern Germany during that time period. Could you please name a single subclade of U106 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?
It's hard to prove a negative. I recommend you go to the U106 yahoo group and debunk what you want over there while you do it here. I've quoted their project administrators and I can see why they think what they do after looking at the data.

Can you be more specific on your debunking? There obviously is archaeological data available along the Baltic adjacent lands of Europe. What specific timeframe are you talking about and how do you demonstrate where U106 was or wasn't regarding that?

Your question on naming subclades is a distraction. There are Y SNPs occurring as much as everything two generations so obviously every location where a haplogroup as been for a while will have SNPs specific to that location. You must be talking about something else with some kind of assumption regarding SNPs. Are you assuming that people there must have moved in from Germany while at the same time they could not have moved out of Poland or some SNP would be found?


And to use only variance is a highly flawed approach. The Polish lands, similar to Scotland, were subjected to numerous migratory waves of U106 from multiple time periods and places (i.e. the Eastern Germanic tribes, to the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond). You must be making more assumptions if you are addressing me, as you seem to be. Who said I was using a "only variance" approach? It wasn't me. I doubt if the U106 project admins were either. I know we all look at SNPs, frequencies and try to understand a broader set of disciplines, although I'm surely no expert in all of that.


By your reasoning Mike why don't you just advocate a Scottish origin for U106? It has everything you like: no archaeological data or cultural record of a migration of people to the Netherlands/ N. Germany and the highest variance of all U106 areas. Since I'm not considering just variance, your follow-on challenge is a moot point. It is also not logical to assume equivalence in the situations and in the amounts of data.

Ummm... I must have hit a nerve. :( I interpret your assumption of my likes as an attempt to insult me personally rather than argue points. Well, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that.

T101, please provide us with your full hypothesis on U106. I won't assume what your hypothesis is, but pray tell, please explain. If you want to start a new thread, that is fine. If the U106 hypothesis is related to whether U106 is or isn't Germanic, then this is a good place for it.

MJost
08-27-2013, 04:58 PM
I suspect these larger family groups thrived and migrated to the isles.

MJost
Migration was a tool to expand into new under developed areas such as Scotland.


Dairying in prehistory
The domestication of the principal livestock species (goat, sheep and cattle) took place in the Near (Middle) East in the 8th millennium BC, in the area known as the "Fertile Crescent". By the 4th millennium BC there is evidence for the specialised exploitation of these animals for milk, wool and traction purposes by the first urban communities in Mesopotamia (Sherratt, 1981) , principally indicated by textual and pictorial evidence. The initial (Neolithic) mode of exploitation in this area, as shown by culling patterns reconstructed from bones recovered in excavations, suggests an emphasis on young animals for meat, and this simple type of livestock use is typical of the earliest farming groups in Europe (Bogucki, 1984, Benecke, 1994). However, there is considerable uncertainty about the date at which milking was first practised, and this is particularly interesting in view of the widespread occurrence of adult lactase deficiency in human populations. By the time that farming reached the British Isles in the 4th millennium BC, herd structures with a high proportion of mature females indicate that cattle were probably being exploited for dairy products (Legge, 1981). This supports a reconstruction of the beginnings of dairying as shown below (Fig. 105).

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_35.html

MJost

MJost
08-27-2013, 05:31 PM
By the time that farming reached the British Isles in the 4th millennium BC, herd structures with a high proportion of mature females indicate that cattle were probably being exploited for dairy products (Legge, 1981). This supports a reconstruction of the beginnings of dairying as shown below (Fig. 105).

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_35.html

MJost

I wonder who were the main players in the Salisbury Plain area? It was already dominated by peoples who were pre-Celtic based? And around 600 BC started to implement Iron Age Hill forts. Were these type of forts only in Northern Netherlands?

MJost

Webb
08-27-2013, 08:16 PM
I think you are confusing them with the Veneti of Brittany. The Venicones names may have some sort of link to various Celtic names relating to groups of warrior youths who identify with wolves or hounds.

The Venicones dissapeared and may have became part of a larger grouping of southern Picts called the Maetaie or something like that and later were definately part of the Verturiones confederation of southern Picts who gave their name to Pictish groups that the Gaels called Fortrui.

There was also an Irish tribe called the Venicnii or something like that in NW Ulster.

No it was the venicones that the Romans remarked about having wooden hulled ships with leather sails, because the common vessel at the time in the isles was a curragh styled vessel. I will find the roman description and post it here.

T101
08-27-2013, 08:37 PM
[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 08/27/2013: since you are criticizing me I won't delete the post. Everyone can judge for themselves, but we really do need to have content in posts so please strive to focus on that. ]]]

avalon
08-27-2013, 08:49 PM
Perhaps I am misreading your table, but it looks to me like U106 variance is higher in Scotland than even in Poland, and considerably greater than that in Belgium. Not that I am suggesting U106 originated in Scotland, but it doesn't provide much support for the contention that Scottish U106 is solely due to transplanted Flemings. If my reading is correct, I have little doubt that your table will soon be roundly attacked.

I don't think that Flemings are the sole source of U106 in NE Scotland. As others have said there are likely multiple sources for U106 in Scotland; Norwegian Vikings, Anglo-Normans, Lowland Scots, Dutch traders. I have also read of German Hansa (merchants from Lubeck) settling in Aberdeen.

I think Alan makes a good point about the linguistic divide in Scotland that developed from the 12th century: Gaelic speaking Highlanders and English speaking lowlanders in the south and along the east coast. The fact that this turned in favour of the Lowland Scots suggests movement of English speakers into formerly Gaelic areas. Some of these English speakers probably carried U106.

DMXX
08-27-2013, 09:52 PM
[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 08/27/2013: since you are criticizing me I won't delete the post. Everyone can judge for themselves, but we really do need to have content in posts so please strive to focus on that. ]]]

Viewers of this thread please note I (not Mike) edited out the ad hominem rubbish in this post.

T101
08-27-2013, 10:25 PM
@Mikewww

What evidence besides variance do you have to support an origin near the Baltic for U106?

Could you please name a single subclade of U106 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?

@DMXX

That was the most benign post. I don’t see how that could be construed as an ad hominem attack. Please send me a PM for clarification. You should apply the laws fairly and not play favorites.

DMXX
08-27-2013, 11:11 PM
@DMXX

That was the most benign post. I don’t see how that could be construed as an ad hominem attack. Please send me a PM for clarification. You should apply the laws fairly and not play favorites.

Aside from the subjectivity of what constitutes as "benign", 80% of your post was loosely relevant to this thread at best and based on an unsubstantiated assumption of another user's frame of mind in these discussions. Your comments were misplaced regardless of the intent; schooling an anonymous character from across the Internet is illogical and futile.

The first few sentences of the quoted post is what's welcomed on this forum. Please attempt to continue the discussion in that regard.

Webb
08-27-2013, 11:30 PM
No it was the venicones that the Romans remarked about having wooden hulled ships with leather sails, because the common vessel at the time in the isles was a curragh styled vessel. I will find the roman description and post it here.

My bad. It was the Veneti. The author I read was trying to tie them to the venicones because of the sailing vessel type the Veneti used. This type of vessel has been uncovered in Scotland and the coast of Belgium/Netherlands.

alan
08-28-2013, 12:05 AM
I was thinking there, given the evidence for Balts in Prussia and then Germanics, when did the Poles actually arrive in north Poland? Is it wise to look at the present north Polish population as representative of the prehistoric population of the area given they seem to Medieval conquerors of the area?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baltic_Tribes_c_1200.svg

Jean M
08-28-2013, 10:04 AM
I was thinking there, given the evidence for Balts in Prussia and then Germanics, when did the Poles actually arrive in north Poland? Is it wise to look at the present north Polish population as representative of the prehistoric population of the area given they seem to Medieval conquerors of the area?

No it isn't wise at all, as I have been saying for years. However there is some archaeological evidence of continuity of population in Pomerania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerania) from before the Migration Period. The extent to which that translates into modern DNA I would hesitate to guess, given the movements into the area subsequently.

Peter M
08-28-2013, 10:22 AM
here is the list of (Z14's) s/b Z18's terminal SNP status that I have. Only the last two are deeper tested. (All though some may have been upgraded recently.)

f102416 Gunn R1b-U106>Z18
f26326 Anderson R1b-U106>Z18
fN35424 Ericksson(Nordmaling) R1b-U106>Z18
f147174 Edwards R1b-U106>Z18
f64197 Howell R1b-U106>Z18
f102458 Cave R1b-U106>Z18
f94743 Koontz R1b-U106>Z18
f69650 Raleigh R1b-U106>Z18
f26718 Starnes R1b-U106>Z18
fN68706 Lewis R1b-U106>Z18
f7792 Chamberlain R1b-U106>Z18
f78550 Coen R1b-U106>Z18
f13322 Oliver R1b-U106>Z18
f56417 Thomas R1b-U106>Z18
f122883 zzzUnkName R1b-U106>Z18
f162286 Landers R1b-U106>Z18
f65496 Vignault R1b-U106>Z18 *
f68399 Young R1b-U106>Z18 *-


MJost

Why are you posting this list ? Does it have anything to do with the subject discussed here ?


Using MikeW's U106 and tested U106 HTs, most of the Z18's are not fully tested for their terminal subclades, so in reality they are not a true picture of Z18*. There is not enough terminal Z18* HTs so I used every (n=84) Z18 and below HT to calculate the variance stepping down into each subclade and all derived SNPs as I did for all subclades under U106 for my chart.

MJost

Obviously, the approach of the R-Z18 Project is a huge mystery to you. Wouldn't it have been a lot better to first ask before ignorently commenting ????

Or pay some attention to jdean's response ??


You might find it helpful to actually look at the Z18 project, that's what it's there for : )


One thing should have been clear from the start: you're not going the find the project's approach reflected in Mike's downloads. BTW, not a problem with Mike's activities; YOU shouldn't expect to do so: data is not more than that: data - the interpretation requires more.

In order words: would you be so kind as to refrain from commenting on the R-Z18 and Subgroups Project until you know and understand the approach it is following and you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt there's something fundamentally wrong with this approach ?

(as an aside: if YOU personally think extra testing should be done in the project and you are willing the discuss the project with respect, we no doubt will be able to start doing the tests YOU think necessary. As long as YOU are paying ALL costs involved, of course.)

bolek
08-28-2013, 10:32 AM
when did the Poles actually arrive in north Poland?

Most likely proto-Slavic populations which later became Poles arrived with Corded Ware Culture. Northern Poles do not differ much from Southern Poles, where CWC originated, but are very different from Germanics and Balts. Northern Poles, like for example Kashubians, have 7,8% R1b (and only half of it can be presumably Celto-Germanic or related to some West European Megalithic cultures like Bell Beakers, i.e. R1b-M269), 0% N1c (no Eastern Slavic or Baltic admixture), 68,8% R1a1 (typically Polish) and autosomally they cluster with Poles.

Modern genetics and anthropology do not support the theory of Medieval population replacement.
Early Medieval Slavs in Poland were antroplogically the same as Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures populations.

The changes of archeological cultures are not equivalent to population replacements. Only genetics and anthropology can tell us what happened with people and they do not support Kossina’s theory. Kossina and some of his modern followers are obviously wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna

alan
08-28-2013, 10:52 AM
What is it a full moon or something? Why all the flaming etc suddenly over the last 24 hours? This is a civilised forum normally where people are treated with respect even if one disagrees with someone.

rms2
08-28-2013, 10:53 AM
My bad. It was the Veneti. The author I read was trying to tie them to the venicones because of the sailing vessel type the Veneti used. This type of vessel has been uncovered in Scotland and the coast of Belgium/Netherlands.

Can you show me where such a vessel was found in Scotland? I saw the stuff by the guy trying to connect the Veneti and the Venicones (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/RomanVenicones01.htm). It seems a really weak linguistic argument to me. Anyway, the Veneti were from Armorica (Bretagne) and not Scandinavia, but the writer at the link I just posted tries to derive them from the Baltic. Even if that is true (which I doubt), it would not make the Veneti of Armorica and the Venicones of Scotland one and the same.

alan
08-28-2013, 10:58 AM
I am no expert in that field. One thing noticeablea about Slavic expansion is it tends to look like full scale folk movements rather than elite dominance and had a dramatic impact on yDNA. The Tyrol study showed Slavic expansion dramatically altered the yDNA in the area of Slavic placenames in Austria. So, I think the Slavic expansion did in places essentially remove the older yDNA pattern.


Most likely proto-Slavic populations which later became Poles arrived with Corded Ware Culture. Northern Poles do not differ much from Southern Poles, where CWC originated, but are very different from Germanics and Balts. Northern Poles, like for example Kashubians, have 7,8% R1b (and only half of it can be presumably Celto-Germanic or related to some West European Megalithic cultures like Bell Beakers, i.e. R1b-M269), 0% N1c (no Eastern Slavic or Baltic admixture), 68,8% R1a1 (typically Polish) and autosomally they cluster with Poles.

Modern genetics and anthropology do not support the theory of Medieval population replacement.
Early Medieval Slavs in Poland were antroplogically the same as Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures populations.

The changes of archeological cultures are not equivalent to population replacements. Only genetics and anthropology can tell us what happened with people and they do not support Kossina’s theory. Kossina and some of his modern followers are obviously wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna

alan
08-28-2013, 11:43 AM
I have never heard of the Veneti type vessels being found in Scotland. There are references to what appear to currach type boats being used by the Picts down the east coast of Scotland. It is true that there are references to both skin and wooden boats too among the Gaels including in Adomnan's Life of Columba in the late 600s AD but there are no details and no remains. The Senchus Fir nAlban seems to describe the fleet organisation of Dalriada. The terms seven bencher comes up in this and other sources, probably implying large currachs with 14 rowers and other crew possibly making miltary fleets of up to 2000 men but little about the boats are known.

A small boat dating possibly to the first century AD or perhaps some centuries earlier was found at Lough Lene in Ireland that 'combines techniques of sewn boat construction together with that of mortise-and-tenon in a way which cannot be paralleled elsewhere at present'. That indicates that there is a lot that we simply do not know about yet.

Another thing that rarely seems to be commented on is that Curraghs are thought of as being by far the best boats, other than the Veneti ones, to cope with very rough seas. Its also clear that the curragh tradition involved sails as shown by the Broighter boat model from the 1st century BC in Ireland and implied in other earlier classical sources. I suspect that this goes back to the Atlantic Bronze Age period in the west from very early references to skin boats plying those routes several centuries earlier. That network included Iberia from around 900BC and perhaps the sail spread from that contact point between the Med. and Atlantic. That probably gave them a large advantage in long distance journeys. The open sea journey between the likely southern nodal points on this network - Galicia to Brittany (they seem to have avoided Biscay and this is indicated by the configuration of the early Roman lighthouse at A Coruna in Galicia) is pretty large, taking days, and its hard to imagine this without sails. Currach type boats are noted in Atlantic Iberia by the Romans. In fact I wonder if the inclusion of Iberia in contacts with the north Atlantic might actually be directly related to the appearance of the sail as that would have surely helped overcome the dangerous Biscay obstacle by making the long oversees journey direct to NW France. I suppose the most likely source of sail knowledge in Iberia in the late Bronze Age would be contact with the Phoenicians. According to this article this dated from the 10th century which is about the right time for the extension of Atlantic Iberia into the Atlantic network to the north. I am not saying this was actually Phoenicians but rather locals who took up the idea of the sail and spread it up the Atlantic.

http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/Issue_10/Fortuna.pdf





The sewn plank boat tradition of the British early-mid Bronze Age didnt seem to include sails so a late Bronze Age south-western source for the sail seems very likely to me although I am not an expert in this field. The Nordic boat tradition seems to have been very late to take up the sail, possibly 1000-1500 years later than the west.




Can you show me where such a vessel was found in Scotland? I saw the stuff by the guy trying to connect the Veneti and the Venicones (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/RomanVenicones01.htm). It seems a really weak linguistic argument to me. Anyway, the Veneti were from Armorica (Bretagne) and not Scandinavia, but the writer at the link I just posted tries to derive them from the Baltic. Even if that is true (which I doubt), it would not make the Veneti of Armorica and the Venicones of Scotland one and the same.

Peter M
08-28-2013, 11:46 AM
@Mikewww

What evidence besides variance do you have to support an origin near the Baltic for U106?

Could you please name a single subclade of U106 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?

<polemics/>


Why would the presence (!!) of a single SNP (subclade) be meaningful to prove where U106 emerged ? Would you be so kind as to clarify ??

My personal impression is, one could try to prove a profile to be "closer to the first U106" or "older" and therefore more meaningful to prove an origin of a SNP by the absence (!!) of certain SNPs downstream, not by the presence of such SNPs. Would you agree ?

In general: do we have any type of shared idea as to what kind of approach would lead to a consensus on where U106 emerged and how it then spread over Europe ? Some are discussing variance, some migration paths and some the presence of SNPs, but to me these approaches appear to be different, possibly even incompatible, and therefore hard to mix in a single discussion (forum topic).

TigerMW
08-28-2013, 12:21 PM
@Mikewww

What evidence besides variance do you have to support an origin near the Baltic for U106?

Could you please name a single subclade of U106 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?

I don't really have any strong conviction that U106 came along the Baltic into U106. I just think it is a viable alternative. I actually lean more towards a movement up from Austria, because of connectability with L51*, P312 and metals. I agree that STR variance comparisons by geography have their vagaries and are not conclusive by any means. I have not updated my U106 files for sometime so I started that. I am still finding STR variance higher in Poland than in Germany and higher than in Scotland, too. This is just from DNA project data so it is not scientifically sampled and not at all conclusive plus this contradicts Mark's results so I would not want to stand on such data. There are scientific studies that show U106 with higher variance in Poland and the Baltic states, but that doesn't mean STRs don't have vagaries just because scientists are handling them.

I'm not following what you are looking for or what you have discovered about specific SNPs for Poland or Eastern Europe. Which SNPs do you consider older than 2500 years? I try to stay away from producing TMRCA estimates as they have their own caveats, first off they includes the STR variance which seem concerned about (and I agree) and second are mutation rates. Regardless, I'm not sure why it is important for Poland to have or not have their own SNP. If they did, it would just be another cousin. I don't think that would be conclusive either.

T101, where do you think U106 originated and when and how did it get into the Germanic tribes? U106 had to come from somewhere.

T101, which Y haplogroup(s) most likely brought the pre-Germanic western Centum IE dialect(s) into the formation of Proto-Germanic? Somehow, this IE dialect moved from the east into north of Germany, if you agree with a PIE homeland somewhere around the Black Sea, which I do.

avalon
08-28-2013, 12:24 PM
As per Moffat & Wilson, 30% of all men in Stonehaven and 27% of all men in Morayshire are U106+. Only the Netherlands is higher with 33% and SE England is about equal with 27%. Unless these men were sourced from the Netherlands itself, it is difficult to see these latter day events as the source for British U106. I'll stick to what Moffat & Wilson say on this one, that while augmented by Anglo-Saxons, U106 has been in Britain for much longer.


The only way those areas can have U106 that high is for 1.) U106 to have come from areas with populations equal to or greater than 27-30% (which rules out almost all of England, Northumbria, northern Germany, and Denmark), and 2.) for them to have completely replaced the prior Scottish male population.

Aren't you assuming that the modern frequencies of U106 in Netherlands, SE England, Flanders are the same as they were 1000 years ago? Is is not possible that in the 12th century the frequency of U106 in Flanders was higher than it is today? And that the Flemings who left to settle in Britain, as refugees from flooding, carried a disproportionate amount of U106?

And to take my conjecture further, you then get a Flemish nobleman like Freskin, who is granted land in Scotland in the 12th century, and is said to be the possible progenator of some major Scottish clan chiefs such as Clan Sutherland, Clan Murray and Clan Douglas.

I have checked FTDNA and there are some U106 Murray's and Douglas's but I don't think Sutherland.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freskin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freskin)

rms2
08-28-2013, 12:28 PM
I have never heard of the Veneti type vessels being found in Scotland. There are references to what appear to currach type boats being used by the Picts down the east coast of Scotland. It is true that there are references to both skin and wooden boats too among the Gaels including in Adomnan's Life of Columba in the late 600s AD but there are no details and no remains. The Senchus Fir nAlban seems to describe the fleet organisation of Dalriada. The terms seven bencher comes up in this and other sources, probably implying large currachs with 14 rowers and other crew possibly making miltary fleets of up to 2000 men but little about the boats are known.

A small boat dating possibly to the first century AD or perhaps some centuries earlier was found at Lough Lene in Ireland that 'combines techniques of sewn boat construction together with that of mortise-and-tenon in a way which cannot be paralleled elsewhere at present'. That indicates that there is a lot that we simply do not know about yet.

Another thing that rarely seems to be commented on is that Curraghs are thought of as being by far the best boats, other than the Veneti ones, to cope with very rough seas. Its also clear that the curragh tradition involved sails as shown by the Broighter boat model from the 1st century BC in Ireland and implied in other earlier classical sources. I suspect that this goes back to the Atlantic Bronze Age period in the west from very early references to skin boats plying those routes several centuries earlier. That network included Iberia from around 900BC and perhaps the sail spread from that contact point between the Med. and Atlantic. That probably gave them a large advantage in long distance journeys. The open sea journey between the likely southern nodal points on this network - Galicia to Brittany (they seem to have avoided Biscay and this is indicated by the configuration of the early Roman lighthouse at A Coruna in Galicia) is pretty large, taking days, and its hard to imagine this without sails. Currach type boats are noted in Atlantic Iberia by the Romans. In fact I wonder if the inclusion of Iberia in contacts with the north Atlantic might actually be directly related to the appearance of the sail as that would have surely helped overcome the dangerous Biscay obstacle by making the long oversees journey direct to NW France.

The sewn plank boat tradition of the British early-mid Bronze Age didnt seem to include sails so a late Bronze Age south-western source for the sail seems very likely to me although I am not an expert in this field. The Nordic boat tradition seems to have been very late to take up the sail, possibly 1000-1500 years later than the west.

I think when you boil it down the idea that the Venicones could be a source of some of the U106 in eastern Scotland is just unfounded. The Romans never said anything about them using any kind of boats, let alone Scandinavian-type boats. In fact, the only mention the Romans made of them that I can find was one short line in Ptolemy's Geographia. Their tribal name was Celtic, so they were probably a Celtic tribe.

History is replete with evidence of settlers coming to Scotland from places more rich in U106 than that country generally is. One has to really scrape for possible prehistoric sources or even very early historical sources, which gives the impression of the wish being father to the thought.

I will say, however, that Rich Rocca's Rhenish Beaker argument is the best I have seen along those lines. If some U106 does turn out to be of prehistoric provenance in Britain, that would be the most likely source. It's a good argument; I think it's wrong, but it's a good argument. I don't think U106 got to the Isles before the historical period, but we'll only know for sure when enough Beaker remains in the Isles are tested for y-dna to a great enough extent to include U106. I hope they don't leave out testing for P312 (or L21) like they did in Kromsdorf!

Anyway, talk of curraghs or coracles always makes me think of Ben Gunn's homemade goatskin boat in Stevenson's Treasure Island, the one Jim Hawkins used to make it back out to the Hispaniola. B)

R.Rocca
08-28-2013, 12:50 PM
I will say, however, that Rich Rocca's Rhenish Beaker argument is the best I have seen along those lines. If some U106 does turn out to be of prehistoric provenance in Britain, that would be the most likely source. It's a good argument; I think it's wrong, but it's a good argument. I don't think U106 got to the Isles before the historical period, but we'll only know for sure when enough Beaker remains in the Isles are tested for y-dna to a great enough extent to include U106. I hope they don't leave out testing for P312 (or L21) like they did in Kromsdorf!

Unfortunately Lee et al. ran out of DNA for the Kromsdorf samples, so I think the willingness was there, but the ability to do so was not. Let's hope the advances in ancient DNA testing the Max Plank institute has come up with will be applied in future samples.

TigerMW
08-28-2013, 12:58 PM
... The changes of archeological cultures are not equivalent to population replacements. Only genetics and anthropology can tell us what happened with people and they do not support Kossina’s theory. Kossina and some of his modern followers are obviously wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna

I agree with you and just read the article. I confess I was not aware of Kossinna. I generally just plain ignore things that appear to be propaganda. Every now and then another term pops up in these discussions - "Drang nach Osten". I generally ignored that too, but I now that I've looked it up I see it is related and that is important to be refuted.

I just want to be clear I have no (zero) inclination to support any such concepts and find them disgusting. My guess is that everyone on this forum finds them disgusting, but let's leave that alone as this is not a political forum. I re-iterate, I find the concepts espoused by Kossinna as repulsive and the whole concept of territorial expansion based on such concepts as also repulsive.

If no one disagrees with me on this, let's leave behind concerns about politics. If someone actually does agree with some of the political concepts, please take that to some other kind of forum. Either way, I don't see the need to potential insert political concepts here.

Clarification: I'm not saying Kossina was wrong on all his details. I just find the usage of that kind of data to promote political motives as repulsive.

Jean M
08-28-2013, 02:20 PM
Modern genetics and anthropology do not support the theory of Medieval population replacement.

In fact modern genetics does support it. Ralph and Coop's analysis using Identity-By-Descent indicates that Southeastern Europeans (Slavic nations) share large numbers of common ancestors which date to the Slavic expansions around 1,500 years ago. http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3815

Skull measurements seem unlikely to distinguish between German, Baltic and Slavic speakers in any consistent way. They are all Indo-Europeans. Balts and Slavs are closely related. As luck would have it though we can distinguish between Germanic and Slavic R1a, so ancient DNA will prove very useful in settling the matter.

Attacking Kossina as supporting the Nazi lust for expansion was naturally very popular in Poland in reaction to Nazi aggression in 1939. The Poles have my sympathy on that score. But life moves on. The compelling need felt in the post-war period to counter Nazi propaganda has long since died away in academic circles. Today Polish archaeologists cannot with any honesty claim archaeological continuity on Polish soil from the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures. They can see a century of break between them and the Migration Period. The pottery and other material remains from the Migration period are clearly related to the culture that starts in the Middle Dnieper area and can be linked to Slavic expansions. It is found wherever the Slavs appeared in the Post-Roman period.

There is plenty of evidence from Roman geographers and place-names that the area now Poland was inhabited by Germanic and Baltic speakers prior to the Slavic expansion in the Post-Roman period. Linguistics enables us to roughly date proto-Slavic (the language immediately prior to its break-up into separate Slavic languages) at c. 500 AD, and river-names locate its homeland in what is now Ukraine and Belarus. All this is well known.

razyn
08-28-2013, 02:54 PM
The changes of archeological cultures are not equivalent to population replacements. Only genetics and anthropology can tell us what happened with people and they do not support Kossina’s theory. Kossina and some of his modern followers are obviously wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna

A warning to us all; I especially appreciate the list of 13 specific criticisms of Kossina in the Wiki article. However. He wasn't wrong about everything, it was more a question of his being wrong-headed, especially about the urheimat and Aryan racial superiority stuff. We still use diffusionist models, write books (or study them) that attempt to harmonize linguistics with archaeology -- and now to link either, or both, with genetics. The fly in the ointment is that we still tend to answer the universal question, "Who am I?" with some fairly parochial "Not you" answers, that are specific to smaller, much less universal territorial issues. Most of those are well provided with historical invasions, atrocities and general misbehavior by the alleged superior types -- who are not going to win that argument by concession, on these boards or elsewhere.

The modern multidisciplinary approach is too complicated for a lot of people who try to take it anyway, and is all too easy to subvert to some sort (any sort) of nationalistic or ethnic ego trips. But it's an approach that advances knowledge, and needs to be taken. People such as David W. Anthony, Barry Cunliffe, J.P. Mallory and (very soon now) Jean Manco, who attempt it, need to wear sturdy flak jackets. They are setting themselves up for barrages of criticism, some of which may prove to have been deserved. They are also helping to move the ball down the field. Even the odious Kossinna did that.

Mike may think this doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread (and it was his topic), but really it does, because he used the words "pure" in the same sentence as Celtic and Germanic. Also, I think the 7.8% R1b among Kashubians in Poland is probably an important clue to overlooked population movements. Whether they were prehistoric is yet to be determined; but it's interesting, perhaps maritime, and not very Celtic looking.

MJost
08-28-2013, 02:56 PM
Why are you posting this list ? Does it have anything to do with the subject discussed here ?

Peter, Man what in the H is up your nose? This thread: Is there pure P312=Celtic U106=Germanic before Vikings? how does L21 fit?

Anything, the Who, The What, the WHEN, the Where is the subject. I believe my list does have something to do with this post. I understand you have a Z18 and subclades project, but who deemed you as the "Expert"?


Obviously, the approach of the R-Z18 Project is a huge mystery to you. Wouldn't it have been a lot better to first ask before ignorently commenting ????

I would say, now, I dont care what you think! I am just reporting data sets, You appear to state "Of these subgroups Z18 appears to be the oldest and as such appears to have been the first group to split off from the U106 mainstream" but on the other hand you state" In general, the age of the Z18 clusters is 1 - 2,000 years". I maybe ignorant of some of the facts but I am not stupid as you think as the mystery is in your mind only.



One thing should have been clear from the start: you're not going the find the project's approach reflected in Mike's downloads. BTW, not a problem with Mike's activities; YOU shouldn't expect to do so: data is not more than that: data - the interpretation requires more.

In order words: would you be so kind as to refrain from commenting on the R-Z18 and Subgroups Project until you know and understand the approach it is following and you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt there's something fundamentally wrong with this approach ?

(as an aside: if YOU personally think extra testing should be done in the project and you are willing the discuss the project with respect, we no doubt will be able to start doing the tests YOU think necessary. As long as YOU are paying ALL costs involved, of course.)

It appears you wish to be an z18 island by itself with your complete control as to what information is to be revealed or not, what thought processes are involved in detirmining what SNP testing is suggested. I didn't even think or say 'one negative' thing about 'Your' approach utilized fundamentally or other wise. All I did is show that, for TMRCA purposes, there were NOT enough Z18's tested to uncover there terminal SNP to be sure they were or were not a Z18*, (whoops the asterisk was used - sorry, it's a Mike thing), proving that an asterisk result shows that no other current down stream SNP have been positive. My previous statement of "Here is the list of Z18's terminal SNP status that I have. Only the last two are deeper tested. (All though some may have been upgraded recently.)" is, with the data at hand, correct overall. NOBODY believes every HT should be tested but it could be to help garner better TRMCA's by correctly placing HTs.

Plus, I don't think I EVER knew about your Z18 project truthfully. In my part of the forest, U106 is always away from my even my monthly reading. I use MikeW's compilations of haplotypes from the various Surnames AND SNP projects at his discretion.


Jdean does have a good point once in awhile so let him have his time.


And one final point. I have been involved with my four half maternal siblings who are Jost Paternally AND U106+.MDKA: Joseph JOST
Birth: 1787 in Vollinghausen on the Mohn, Church District Korbeke, Kreis Soest, Prussia, Germany
Death: FEB 1849

I placed my brothers HT in a cluster of Guys that I researched back in Nov 2011. They are mostly English.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNYmpYMkVLQ3VuTm8/edit?usp=sharing

These match your Z18 website cluster of:
08. Z18+ Z14+ Z372- "Cumberland" Cluster (25-11-22-11)
108758
46452
56417
90390

G45316<<<<< my brother's Haplotype from 23andme matches this Cluster but has not tested yet.

D393,D390,D19,D391,D385a,D385b,D426,D388,D439,D389 i,D392,D389b,D459a,D459b,D455,D454,D447,D437,D448, D449,D464a,D464b,D464c,YCA-a,YCA-b,D456,D442,D438,D531,D557,D446

13,25,14,11,11,11,12,12,12,13,13,17, 9,10,11,11,24,15,19,30,15,16,17,19,22,15,12,11,12, 16,13

Here are some addition suggested Z18>Z14's

109582
124936
45367
96037
57369

So I do have a vested interest in U106 TMRCA and origin and whether they are Celtic or not AND in Z18 whether they are in your project or the entire U106 realm.

MJost

TigerMW
08-28-2013, 03:29 PM
... Mike may think this doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread (and it was his topic), but really it does, because he used the words "pure" in the same sentence as Celtic and Germanic. Also, I think the 7.8% R1b among Kashubians in Poland is probably an important clue to overlooked population movements. Whether they were prehistoric is yet to be determined; but it's interesting, perhaps maritime, and not very Celtic looking.

I updated my comments a while ago to add this.

Clarification: I'm not saying Kossina was wrong on all his details. I just find the usage of that kind of data to promote political motives as repulsive. .. and I guess I should add "or to promote racial or cultural superiorities is also repulsive."

I don't know the history of the Kashubians, but I see the are associated with Pomerelia. Do we know how that 7.8% R1b is broken down and why are they important?

TigerMW
08-28-2013, 03:58 PM
On another thread, Richard S noted
I think the Saxons did get an early foothold in what is now SE England because the Romans settled them there as federates to help defend the "Saxon Shore" from their own kind. The 4th century Roman historian Eutropius remarked that in the 3rd century the opposite shore was "infested" with Franks and Saxons (Breviarium, IX 21 (http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/eutropius/trans9.html#21)).
Eutropius wrote,

"...the sea, which the Franks and Saxons infested, along the coast of Belgica and Armorica"

Are the Saxons the identifiable and equivalent to the Saxons who invaded in England in what we think of as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era?

The reason, I ask relates to the U106 and I1 distributions that are in the post attached below from this thread. Eutropious describes Armorica as being infested too, so that provides some historical support for I1 presence, which is fairly significant in Bretagne. However, U106 seemed to have not made it.


Judging from Eupedia's and Rootsi's maps, I1 runs 10-15% in SW Germany, and I2b (old I1c, I believe) runs about 5-10%. Eupedia's R1a map shows a range of about 5-10% there.

That sounds right. I don't think R1a had that much of a hand in the old Germanic tribes: some presence, yes, but not that big. I1 has more of a Scandinavian center of gravity than U106, but the two seem to run together in many places. In the Isles, the distributions of M253 and U106 are remarkably similar, but with lower overall frequencies for M253 than for U106, which I think reflects the proportion of M253 to U106 in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands.

Rootsi I Maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/figure/FG1/)

643 645

644

Is "Saxon" really just a generic term that Romans used? In other words, did the Romans, or at least Eutropius, intend that has a more generic description and not specifically to people from the neck of the Jutland Peninsula?

razyn
08-28-2013, 04:02 PM
I updated my comments a while ago to add this.
I don't know the history of the Kashubians, but I see the are associated with Pomerelia. Do we know how that 7.8% R1b is broken down and why are they important?
They are only important to me, personally, because one of the four proven families with my terminal SNP (Richert) is of Kashubian background, before coming to the US about a century ago. The rest are from SW England or nearby parts of France. (We've been calling this SNP "L484.NS," but it's Z220>Z210>Z295>CTS4065>L484, per Geno2 and other data -- some of it from extra-FTDNA sources.)

I don't know how the 7.8% "R1b" is broken down. Most SNP data available from that area (especially in English) aren't yet very finely tuned. L. Mayka and others are working on it. If it turns out to be early branches from P312, Eastern clades, Lower Rhine clades, lacking L21, U152 or something -- that sort of thing will presumably be informative.

alan
08-28-2013, 04:04 PM
Bit of an overreaction to mjosts post. We all know that testing is limited by finances etc. I dont think he was criticising that or the project, just commenting on this problem which exists across yDNA in general which he is entitled to do.


Why are you posting this list ? Does it have anything to do with the subject discussed here ?



Obviously, the approach of the R-Z18 Project is a huge mystery to you. Wouldn't it have been a lot better to first ask before ignorently commenting ????

Or pay some attention to jdean's response ??




One thing should have been clear from the start: you're not going the find the project's approach reflected in Mike's downloads. BTW, not a problem with Mike's activities; YOU shouldn't expect to do so: data is not more than that: data - the interpretation requires more.

In order words: would you be so kind as to refrain from commenting on the R-Z18 and Subgroups Project until you know and understand the approach it is following and you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt there's something fundamentally wrong with this approach ?

(as an aside: if YOU personally think extra testing should be done in the project and you are willing the discuss the project with respect, we no doubt will be able to start doing the tests YOU think necessary. As long as YOU are paying ALL costs involved, of course.)

alan
08-28-2013, 04:22 PM
Noone that matters gives his theories credibility these days. However, there are a range of opinions among unbiased modern scholars on the origins of the Slavs that have nothing to do with him.


Most likely proto-Slavic populations which later became Poles arrived with Corded Ware Culture. Northern Poles do not differ much from Southern Poles, where CWC originated, but are very different from Germanics and Balts. Northern Poles, like for example Kashubians, have 7,8% R1b (and only half of it can be presumably Celto-Germanic or related to some West European Megalithic cultures like Bell Beakers, i.e. R1b-M269), 0% N1c (no Eastern Slavic or Baltic admixture), 68,8% R1a1 (typically Polish) and autosomally they cluster with Poles.

Modern genetics and anthropology do not support the theory of Medieval population replacement.
Early Medieval Slavs in Poland were antroplogically the same as Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures populations.

The changes of archeological cultures are not equivalent to population replacements. Only genetics and anthropology can tell us what happened with people and they do not support Kossina’s theory. Kossina and some of his modern followers are obviously wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna

alan
08-28-2013, 04:37 PM
I am not totally sure but certainly the Celtic languages used terms derived from the word Saxon to describe the English. Its a bit weird though because most of the impact on the midlands heading towards Wales and in the north heading into contact with the north Britons, Picts and Scots was involved Angles not Saxons. I wonder if the word was first coined by Britons in the south who were most impacted by Saxons and the word spread from there. Or maybe it was a Roman type convention to generalise them as Saxons and that spread to the non-Latinate Britons to the west and then to the gaels.

The use of the term Saxon rather than Angle must be telling us something. You could also say its odd that England became Angleland rather than Saxonland considering that the Danes wiped out so much of the Angles terrories. Maybe the term is actually down to that very event or has something to do with Anglo-Danish influence and hegemony in the late Anglo-Saxon period. I should really look this up but I dont have time right now.


On another thread, Richard S noted
Eutropius wrote,

"...the sea, which the Franks and Saxons infested, along the coast of Belgica and Armorica"

Are the Saxons the identifiable and equivalent to the Saxons who invaded in England in what we think of as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era?

The reason, I ask relates to the U106 and I1 distributions that are in the post attached below from this thread. Eutropious describes Armorica as being infested too, so that provides some historical support for I1 presence, which is fairly significant in Bretagne. However, U106 seemed to have not made it.



Is "Saxon" really just a generic term that Romans used? In other words, did the Romans, or at least Eutropius, intend that has a more generic description and not specifically to people from the neck of the Jutland Peninsula?

bolek
08-28-2013, 07:06 PM
Based on the newest anthropological data it has been suggested that the area between the Oder and Vistula rivers witnessed continuity of human settlement between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages. Indeed, based on morphological features of skeletal materials it has been established that populations of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhovo cultures from the Roman period bear close similarities to the early medieval Western Slavs and not to the medieval Germanic speaking populations [10,11]. Furthermore, paleodemographic studies also point to the biological continuity of the populations inhabiting the Oder and Vistula basin in the Roman period and the early medieval Slavic populations of this region [10]. Therefore, anthropological data received thus far make the ‘‘allochtonic’’ hypothesis less plausible, especially in its extreme migrationist form.




It is also worth noting that two subbranches of previously described U5a2 subhaplogroup: U5a2a and U5a2b1, which are frequently observed among Poles, Russians, Belarusians and Czechs are dated to,6–7 kya [52]. This probably reflects distribution of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Corded Ware European cultures, as it has been suggested earlier on the basis of phylogeographic distribution of Y-chromosome R1a1a1-M458 subcluster characterized by similar expansion time [53]. Taken together, the time of origin and territorial range of mitochondrial subhaplogroups H5a2, H5e1a, H5u1, U4a2, U5a2a and U5a2b1 observed in central and eastern European populations indicate that some of the maternal ancestors of today’s Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians and Russians) inhabited areas of Central and Eastern Europe much earlier than it was estimated on the basis of archaeological and historical data. Indeed, we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Thus, the data from complete mitochondrial genomes collected so far seems to indicate that the ancestors of Slavs were autochthonous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe rather than early medieval invaders emerging in restricted areas of the Prut and Dniestr basin and expanding suddenly due to migration, as suggested by some archeologists [9]. In this respect, the complete genome data on several mitochondrial subhaplogroups of probable Central European origin presented in this and previous studies [51,52] are in a perfect agreement with the recent findings of physical anthropology, suggesting continuity of human settlement in central Europe between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages [11] as well as with earlier anthropological data pointing to the central Europe as the ‘‘homeland’’ of Slavs [54].





Taken together, this data points to a genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Interestingly, this picture could be also confirmed by expansion time of Y-chromosome subcluster R1a1a1-M458 [51]. Thus, one may exclude the migrationist assumption that Central European territories were populated by the Slavs only at the very beginning of sixth century, following whole scale depopulation of the northern areas of Central Europe [1]. Indeed, the data presented herein indicates that visible changes of material culture of Central Europe in the fifth century did not result from extensive demographic changes, but were rather accompanied by continuity of some maternal and paternal lineages between Bronze and early Middle Ages.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054360


I know that some people will never accept this but studies of phylogeographic distribution of Y-chromosome R1a1, studies of mtDNA and many anthropological data support theory that there was continuity of Slavic populations in Oder-Vistula basin. It very well agrees with opinions of archeologists like prof. Kostrzewski, Leciejewicz, Hensel, Jażdżewski and many others who have been explaining fifth century regress in Poland by crisis, which also happened in many European countries in this time, and objected to population replacement theory proposed by Kossina and his followers.

TigerMW
08-28-2013, 07:59 PM
. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054360

I know that some people will never accept this but studies of phylogeographic distribution of Y-chromosome R1a1, studies of mtDNA and many anthropological data support theory that there was continuity of Slavic populations in Oder-Vistula basin. It very well agrees with opinions of archeologists like prof. Kostrzewski, Leciejewicz, Hensel, Jażdżewski and many others who have been explaining fifth century regress in Poland by crisis, which also happened in many European countries in this time, and objected to population replacement theory proposed by Kossina and his followers.

I think the quotes and study are fine and I don't have any particular issues. I question the validity of a interpretations provided by the authors on Y DNA when the study was on mt DNA - "The History of Slavs Inferred from Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequences" by Mielnik-Sikorska, et. al.

On other threads, we've talk exhaustively about correlating autosomal DNA types to R1b and think the general consensus is we just can't figure it out.

Still, that's okay and just something I have minor qualms about. Mielnik-Sikorska, et. al. are just generalizing their interpretations and that is a normal desire to have ... expanding the meaningfulness of one's interpretations. In fact, I remember being taught generalization in essay writing/English 101.

Your quotes say,
"the ‘'allochtonic'’ hypothesis less plausible, especially in its extreme migrationist form"
"we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Age"
"continuity of some maternal and paternal lineages between Bronze and early Middle Ages"

I guess, here is the question - How does this relate to U106 and P312 and their involvement or lack of involvement in Germanic cultures or adjacent areas?

I don't think many people on this thread are saying there was purity of genetic types in the Germanic cultures and the quotes you cite related to mt DNA and R1a use words like "some" and "several." Your quotes even qualify their argument is primarily against "extreme" migrations. They are just providing their interpretations, but I don't see where they are even pointing to some kind of exclusivity. Is that how you are trying to relate this to U106?

Are you saying there were no cultural changes across the Oder-Vistula basin from the Bronze Age through the Medieval Ages? That's a pretty large area for a fairly long time span.

I re-iterate I have not read Kussinna and don't plan to so I'm not defending his concepts, per se. I am a not a follower, but that doesn't mean population replacements and migrations never happened.

MJost
08-29-2013, 01:19 AM
I don't really have any strong conviction that U106 came along the Baltic into U106. I just think it is a viable alternative. I actually lean more towards a movement up from Austria, because of connectability with L51*, P312 and metals. I agree that STR variance comparisons by geography have their vagaries and are not conclusive by any means. I have not updated my U106 files for sometime so I started that. I am still finding STR variance higher in Poland than in Germany and higher than in Scotland, too. This is just from DNA project data so it is not scientifically sampled and not at all conclusive plus this contradicts Mark's results so I would not want to stand on such data. There are scientific studies that show U106 with higher variance in Poland and the Baltic states, but that doesn't mean STRs don't have vagaries just because scientists are handling them.



There has been so much movement into Poland over the last 500-600 years. From what I read is that the Saxons, a Teutonic people, entered eastern Europe in the 10th century and failed in their attempts to convert the Prussians to Christianity. In 997, the Bohemian bishop and Saint Adalbert was martyred as a missionary in Prussia. The Christian faith was not established until the middle of the 13th century when the Teutonic Knights, a military religious order, conquered the land and subdued the country. During this conquering, the Prussians were largely exterminated. The Knights effected the Germanization of Prussia. The Knights then brought German and Dutch settlers into the conquered territory. Poland was transplanted by U106's?

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/M373080.html

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/prussia.htm


Also, I think the 7.8% R1b among Kashubians in Poland is probably an important clue to overlooked population movements. Whether they were prehistoric is yet to be determined; but it's interesting, perhaps maritime, and not very Celtic looking.

On the subject of Kashubian background. Following the centuries of interaction between local German and Kashubian population due to the Ostsiedlung, literally "settlement in the east", also called German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day western and central Germany into less-populated regions of eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe. The affected area roughly stretched from Slovenia to Estonia, and eastwards into Transylvania. In part, Ostsiedlung followed the territorial expansion of the Holy Roman Empire and the Teutonic Order. it has been confirmed a progressive language shift in the Kashubian population from their Slavonic vernacular to the local German dialect, low German.

My maternal GGgrandmother Vorban's b.1864 Marienburg Westprussia, MtDNA is H11a2 might be the connection via Kashubian ethnicity which are descendants of the Slavic Pomeranian tribes. My aDNA is Romanian based from my maternal line via Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae Project. She married a Kruger in White Russia- Shitomir a Parish of Volhynia in 1881. And later with husband Julius and five children came to Kansas America in 1890 via Bremen, Germany. I have a 5th cousin aDNA match living in Poland who states the they are descendants of Kashubian Slavic Pomeranians. My Ggrandmother reported in the 1920 US Census that both of her parents were from Holland and mother tongue was Dutch.

My point is that there is a higher probabilty that most of the Germanic U106 movements were from north central towards the northeast and eastern central europe, not western europe over these many many centuries bringing the original high variances with the guys out of the North Sea end of europe to where they relocated into what is now Poland and later southwards into Ukraine.

MJost

rms2
08-29-2013, 11:29 AM
On another thread, Richard S noted
Eutropius wrote,

"...the sea, which the Franks and Saxons infested, along the coast of Belgica and Armorica"

Are the Saxons the identifiable and equivalent to the Saxons who invaded in England in what we think of as the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era?

The reason, I ask relates to the U106 and I1 distributions that are in the post attached below from this thread. Eutropious describes Armorica as being infested too, so that provides some historical support for I1 presence, which is fairly significant in Bretagne. However, U106 seemed to have not made it.



Is "Saxon" really just a generic term that Romans used? In other words, did the Romans, or at least Eutropius, intend that has a more generic description and not specifically to people from the neck of the Jutland Peninsula?

Note that Eutropius said "Franks and Saxons", not just Saxons. Of course, both were loose confederations of groups of older tribes. The Salian ("Salty") Franks were the ones who lived near the North Sea coast. Modern Dutch is descended from their language: Old Low Franconian. Eutropius was writing in the 4th century about the 3rd century, which is pretty early.

At one point in the 5th century, the Britons had done such a good job of quelling the Germanic threat at home that the Saxons backed off and began looking for greener pastures. Some of them rowed up the Loire and began pillaging that area. Britain itself was so quiet that the British king some people think was Arthur, Riothamus (which was probably a title meaning "high king"), took an army across to Armorica to help rout out the Loire Saxons. He was double crossed by the Roman commander and subsequently badly defeated in battle by the Visigoths, as I recall. Before that happened, I think Riothamus won some victories over the Loire Saxons and may have run them off. I am working from memory on that, however, so I could be wrong.

My understanding is that the name Saxon stems from the Seaxe or Sax, the single-edged short sword, rather like a large Bowie knife, carried by many north German tribesmen.

I think there was a lot of confusion in how and to whom tribal names like Saxon were applied. Saxon could be and often was applied to all the Germanic tribes of the North Sea littoral, but basically the Saxons were a pretty powerful coalition of tribes living east and south of the Frisians, between the Weser and Elbe rivers. The Angles, according to Bede, came from Angeln on the Jutland peninsula, and the Jutes came from the northern part of Jutland. Together with the Frisians, whose modern language is said to be the closest to English of any language, these tribes came to be known collectively as the "Anglo-Saxons".

rms2
08-29-2013, 12:37 PM
I don't have the Busby spreadsheet handy, but what was the U106 frequency in their Bretagne sample? The maps I posted earlier show I1 at 5%+, with U106 at from 1-5%. Neither U106 nor M253 seem all that significant there.

My understanding is that Alan II, "the Fox", Duke of Bretagne, drove the Vikings out in 939. Their defeat at the hands of Alan was one of the reasons they focused on what would become Normandy.

But I don't think either M253 or U106 are all that big in Normandy either, which tends to support the idea that the Vikings formed a military elite in Normandy and were never very numerous there. The fact that they took up the French language so readily further reinforces that impression.

TigerMW
08-29-2013, 01:10 PM
There has been so much movement into Poland over the last 500-600 years. From what I read is that the Saxons, a Teutonic people, entered eastern Europe in the 10th century and failed in their attempts to convert the Prussians to Christianity. In 997, the Bohemian bishop and Saint Adalbert was martyred as a missionary in Prussia. The Christian faith was not established until the middle of the 13th century when the Teutonic Knights, a military religious order, conquered the land and subdued the country. During this conquering, the Prussians were largely exterminated. The Knights effected the Germanization of Prussia. The Knights then brought German and Dutch settlers into the conquered territory. Poland was transplanted by U106's?
...
My point is that there is a higher probabilty that most of the Germanic U106 movements were from north central towards the northeast and eastern central europe, not western europe over these many many centuries bringing the original high variances with the guys out of the North Sea end of europe to where they relocated into what is now Poland and later southwards into Ukraine.
I know we have an L21 guy from a German descendant group (at least that is their history) in Transylvania. It takes a lot to create a population dent the later you get. Do you think the last 500-600 years accounts for almost all of the U106 in Eastern Europe? It could be and I don't have a good gauge on the amount of eastward migration.

TigerMW
08-29-2013, 01:13 PM
I don't have the Busby spreadsheet handy, but what was the U106 frequency in their Bretagne sample? The maps I posted earlier show I1 at 5%+, with U106 at from 1-5%. Neither U106 nor M253 seem all that significant there.

My understanding is that Alan II, "the Fox", Duke of Bretagne, drove the Vikings out in 939. Their defeat at the hands of Alan was one of the reasons they focused on what would become Normandy.

But I don't think either M253 or U106 are all that big in Normandy either, which tends to support the idea that the Vikings formed a military elite in Normandy and were never very numerous there. The fact that they took up the French language so readily further reinforces that impression.

The best we know about France I think is from "Phylogeography of French Male Lineages" by Ramos-Luis et al - 2009.
Unfortunately, they didn't go to Normandy.

Here are the locations and SNPs they tested:

Île- de-France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Bretagne, Midi-Pyrénées, Alsace, Auvergne

R1b1*(xR1b1b2) = P25
R1b1b2*(xR1b1b2d,e,g,h) = M269
R1b1b2d = SRY2627
R1b1b2e = M222
R1b1b2g*(xR1b1b2g1) = U106
R1b1b2h = U152

Richard Rocca kindly posted this table for us on another forum
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Europe%20Y%20France%20Ramos-Luis_Table_1_from%20RRocca%20post.png


Nord-Pas-de-Calais has 8.82% U106 and 5.88% IxI2a2 (which is probably I1). We would expect U106 to have higher proportions vis a vis I1 so close to the Low Countries and the north of Germany. U106 is 15.0% in Alsace, which is what you might expect. The IxI2a2 there is 7.5% so the U106 to I1 ratio holds over there too.

However, Bretagne has 3.48% while it has 12.17% IxI2a2. The higher I1 in Bretagne would appear to support the whole idea of Franks, Saxons, Vikings or whatever Germanic moving along these coasts, but why does U106 drop off the table? That's why I wonder if the more sea-faring Scandinavian types were heavier with I1 and lighter with U106.

This is what I meant by U106's apparent right turn at or before Calais across the English Channel. U106 in the Low Countries has higher frequencies so the decline has already started by Calais as you move west/southwest.

This is part of why I think it is a challenge to place U106 in the Nordic Bronze Age as a significant player. I would have thought they would have been better mixed in with the sea-faring types. That's not hard evidence, just an obstacle to placing U106 in the core of the Nordic Bronze Age.

MJost
08-30-2013, 01:58 AM
I know we have an L21 guy from a German descendant group (at least that is their history) in Transylvania. It takes a lot to create a population dent the later you get. Do you think the last 500-600 years accounts for almost all of the U106 in Eastern Europe? It could be and I don't have a good gauge on the amount of eastward migration.

It seems to some movement by the invaders westward after the Roman period but land was the prerequisite need and the Germanic tribes look like they looked northeast and eastward.

I was reading some comments and this was one that stuck:
"During the middle and younger pre-roman iron age the influence of the Jastorf-culture increased, especially in the North-east of Lower Saxony. Between Elbe and Weser river we can find the Nienburg group and west of the Weser we have the Ems-Hunte-group. The coastal area is an own group, influenced by groups from the North. The Weser- mountain region is a link between these northern" cultures and the La-tene. " Was U106 mainly La-tene moving quickly northwards?

It just looks, speculatively, logical for U106 to be hemmed into the Rhine delta area and into the eastern part of the Isles until the last 1000 years or so. I can't see these guys involved in the great Germanic tribal migrations starting in the mid 4th century.

Added: http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-expansion-of-the-germanic-tribes

MJost