PDA

View Full Version : Angle, Saxon, or Jute



ejsteele
03-19-2018, 01:29 AM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

spruithean
03-19-2018, 01:42 AM
The best tests to identify subclades of U106 would be Big Y, FGC Y chromosome tests and so on.

However to my knowledge there has been no linking of R-U106 to any specific tribes, the same applies to other seemingly Germanic haplogroups such as I-M253 (and subclades) as these haplogroups are old and have had generations to expand and diversify. We must also remember that ancient groups weren't homogenous, they would all have had an influx of people within their ranks with variously differing origins. A notable scenario is that of Britain, a relatively small (compared to the Britons) influx of Germanic settlers arrived and eventually their language and culture spread rapidly. Many individuals in later generations would have been of Brittonic origin but having adopted Germanic culture became indistinguishable from their Germanic Anglo-Saxon counterparts, some individuals in the recent studies appear to have been mixed Celtic and Germanic.

While we may find these haplogroups in ancient DNA samples, we are looking at a small sample size that doesn't represent the whole tribal group in question.

ejsteele
03-19-2018, 02:03 AM
Thanks for the quick response. The tribal identification was really a long shot, especially given the history of the British Isles. I do know that I am positive for U106 and negative for L21, so that narrows the search down a bit. Thanks again.

JMcB
03-19-2018, 02:42 AM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

Hello ejsteele,

I not well versed on U106 but you might try taking a look at some of the work of Iain McDonald who has done a lot of research in that area:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html

There have also been some interesting threads on U106 here on Anthrogenica, which you might try searching out.

Good luck in your endeavors!

Bollox79
03-19-2018, 03:13 AM
The best tests to identify subclades of U106 would be Big Y, FGC Y chromosome tests and so on.

However to my knowledge there has been no linking of R-U106 to any specific tribes, the same applies to other seemingly Germanic haplogroups such as I-M253 (and subclades) as these haplogroups are old and have had generations to expand and diversify. We must also remember that ancient groups weren't homogenous, they would all have had an influx of people within their ranks with variously differing origins. A notable scenario is that of Britain, a relatively small (compared to the Britons) influx of Germanic settlers arrived and eventually their language and culture spread rapidly. Many individuals in later generations would have been of Brittonic origin but having adopted Germanic culture became indistinguishable from their Germanic Anglo-Saxon counterparts, some individuals in the recent studies appear to have been mixed Celtic and Germanic.

While we may find these haplogroups in ancient DNA samples, we are looking at a small sample size that doesn't represent the whole tribal group in question.

A small sample size yes... but we have found Z18 and two L48s under U106 at least in the Longobard cemetery at Szolad in the men buried with weapons and Northern European ancestry... also Haplogroup I2a (I think) among those with weapons/Northern ancestry. Now Z18 and L48 are very "Northern" groups in the U106 group... while Z156 (my group and a bunch of SNPs under that) is a southern group - found in two of those Roman Era Gladiators from SW of York circa 200-300 AD in Great Britain... and just found in a Unetice sample from Early Bronze Age east of Prague.

Ejsteele, you need to learn about U106 as a big group and the tree of SNPs under it... they branch off in different directions and for large groups under it (like L48 or Z156) they have different distributions in modern testers and even ancient results (the few we have so far!)... so to say U106 is "Germanic" is not exactly right. Some of it sure is... some isn't... does that make sense? Now keep in mind those Longobard guys were dated to about 500-600 AD - right about their time moving through Hungary into Northern Italy (they found some U106 at Collegno also with 1st generation male migrants with Northern ancestry)...

Big Y or a similar test would be good if you have the cash... as it will set you up for a while and you won't have to do much more testing... because it's an SNP discovery test and will find you your shared SNPs with other (unless you are just in a very rare group, then you might create your own under U106)... and then some personal variants you don't match anyone at... YET. Then just wait for matches to show up. Go join the U106 DNA group here... Dr. McDonald is a part of that and is in charge of my DF98 group under U106. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u106/about/background

Also you can join the U106 yahoo group and ask questions ;-) here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b1c_U106-S21/conversations/topics/47478

I have personally tested at National Genographic (to get started) then did up to STR 111 test and Big Y at FTDNA and have not regretted it since... now I just have to wait for more and more people to test and for more ancient DNA samples to come in ;-). The find in my group of U106 - Z381 - Z156 - Z304/305/306 - DF98 - S1911 - S1894/S1900 in Unetice culture near Prague was huge as it possibly pins down our early origins from the East... makes that culture and the following cultures very likely vehicles for the spread of Z156 and especially my group S1894/S1900 that I share with Dr. McDonald ;-).

I've also done the family finder at FTDNA (found many 3rd-5th cousins in Ireland and Highland/Western Scotland!) and plan to do my maternal DNA stuff there too... they are a good company... though Full Genome Corp is also good... I had them name some of my new SNPs found in my subgroups under U106 found with Big Y as I was one of the first among the U106ers to take the Big Y ;-)...

Let me know if you have any questions, but you can learn a lot from joining the U106 yahoo and asking questions ;-).

Bollox79
03-19-2018, 03:52 AM
P.S. Ejsteele,

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sub groups under Z18 and L48 are eventually found in Anglo, Jute, or Saxon burials or Viking age burials... considering it's common in the North/Scandinavia... we just have to wait for good papers to come out on these cultures/people.. and considering it's already been found among Longobards circa 500s AD in a Longobard cemetery ;-). I think every group we take a look at will have a mix of haplogroups, but some will be more common than others... so we just need to find our individual (or group) link and try and follow it from the present all the way back to the beginning ;-).

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-19-2018, 09:06 AM
Some good comments and advice above. As has been said joining the U106 group is the way to go.
If you are lucky your matches may be able to give a good clue to at least the period of migration and cultural group.
Good luck.

03-19-2018, 09:10 AM
Some good comments and advice above. As has been said joining the U106 group is the way to go.
If you are lucky your matches may be able to give a good clue to at least the period of migration and cultural group.
Good luck.

Hey John cant reply to your pm, as your personal quota of pm is full.

spruithean
03-19-2018, 09:26 AM
The Haplogroup I individuals among the Longobards found recently were I1-L22 (I1a1b1) in Szólád, Hungary and I2-Z79 in Collegno, Italy IIRC. So many of these recent findings are blending together in my mind!

We need more Angle, Saxon and Jute aDNA findings from the Isles.

ADW_1981
03-19-2018, 07:56 PM
Thanks for the quick response. The tribal identification was really a long shot, especially given the history of the British Isles. I do know that I am positive for U106 and negative for L21, so that narrows the search down a bit. Thanks again.

I wouldn't rule out L21, as it's represented in about 10% of the R1b males of Sweden. It is also among the top 3 R1b haplogroups in Iceland, and likely Norway as well (L238+, L21+, U106+). Keep in mind that the MDKA of these groups is far older than the historic migration period or even the formation of languages such as Proto-Germanic.

If I could wager a guess, we will see lots of various R1b in northern Germany during the migration period. The need not all be the same family lineage. Some recent data has indicated the U106+ was a significant player as Z381 has popped up in some aDNA which suggests a northern origin of their genomes.

Bollox79
03-20-2018, 12:06 AM
The Haplogroup I individuals among the Longobards found recently were I1-L22 (I1a1b1) in Szólád, Hungary and I2-Z79 in Collegno, Italy IIRC. So many of these recent findings are blending together in my mind!

We need more Angle, Saxon and Jute aDNA findings from the Isles.

I thought the Longobards at Szolad were of haplogroup I2a2a1 (that and subgroups?) or is that just the same thing as you said and they were using old nomenclature in the paper - I'm not very well versed on Haplogroup I - U106 and especially DF98 being my specialty ;-p.

And yes we need more Angle, Saxon, Jutes aDNA - we had an Anglo-Saxon in that same paper as the U106 gladiators 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 - and he was Haplogroup I (unsure what subgroup...).

spruithean
03-20-2018, 12:44 AM
I thought the Longobards at Szolad were of haplogroup I2a2a1 (that and subgroups?) or is that just the same thing as you said and they were using old nomenclature in the paper - I'm not very well versed on Haplogroup I - U106 and especially DF98 being my specialty ;-p.

And yes we need more Angle, Saxon, Jutes aDNA - we had an Anglo-Saxon in that same paper as the U106 gladiators 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 - and he was Haplogroup I (unsure what subgroup...).

There is a discussion of ancient I1 here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=366033&viewfull=1#post366033), the info may change or perhaps is incomplete. I can't seem to find any published information on the Langobard Y-haplogroups, but their mt-Haplogroups were published. I'm better versed with HG I-M170, I struggle with haplogroup R and its entirety!

Yes, I remember that paper, I would hope eventually they would determine the subclade of that A-S individual. Though the Roman-era results were more interesting!

Curleyprow
03-20-2018, 04:50 AM
Yes they may have adopted the British culture, but that in no way changes their genotype. If they were Germanic settlers with U106 haplogroup profiles they would still have evidence of that in their genetic make up. There is a general tendency in these threads to obfuscate the genetic issues by bringing in cultural and ethnic ones which often have little bearing on the discussion in hand. Ejsteele has a YDNa Germanic U106 profile and that remains whatever cultural group he now belongs to.

Finn
03-20-2018, 10:00 AM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

I'm very interested too. But it's a hell of a job. Already early middle age 'historian' Bede had difficulties to describe the different tribes.....

I agree with Bollox 79:


Now Z18 and L48 are very "Northern" groups in the U106 group... while Z156 (my group and a bunch of SNPs under that) is a southern group


For the Frisians: until the fifth century they spoke a kind of Celtic language (Schrijver 2017), when the Saxons, Angles and later on Jutes and Nores came in they began to speak a kind of German.
It could be the case that the German influx in to Friesland was Z18 and L48, buth there was an older residu, Bronze Age, population with Z156 (like the Oostwoud West-Friesland sample 1800 BC most probably has, according to info of Radboud).

Finn
03-20-2018, 07:04 PM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

And the Frisians???
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13808-The-Proto-Celtic-roots-of-the-Frisians

A321son
03-21-2018, 10:23 PM
If you want to be called one of these you need to go deeper into the U106 clades. U106 does not fit for a tribal group. Nor does P312. The best way to think to these, IMHO, is more like a linguistic family. U106 tends to be more Germanic and P312 more Celtic. Linguistic not tribal.

Furthermore, when accepting a tribal identity you have to also distinguish between modern labels and ancient labels. There was a lot of migration in the early centuries A.D. which transformed the location of tribes. There tended to be pressures from foreigners from the east and North resulting in a general movement south and west. If we look to the old Jutes, Angles and Saxons the bulk of them are probably in southern Britain and northern Germany and the Netherlands. So while the original home of the Jutes was northern Denmark their dna legacy is scattered more elsewhere.

Personally, when my kids ask, I say use the label Saxon for my clade of U106. I am part of what I call the 'holy grail" S5245 clade (it includes the Sinclairs of Roslin who represent the holy blood line according to the Da Vinci code :-) ). DF98 may be the kings' cluster but we have the more divine one (big lol). Btw, Frisian is of little value because the original Frisians had to leave their home area and ended up mostly in Britain and probably part of the Franks. Hardly anyone was in Frisia proper for a couple of hundred of years from 250 A.D. due to major flooding. It was then infilled from the east (i.e. Saxon territory which by then included migrating old Angles and Jutes from their north). One always has to keep in mind the great migrations of the early centuries A.D.

Finn
03-22-2018, 12:34 PM
Btw, Frisian is of little value because the original Frisians had to leave their home area and ended up mostly in Britain and probably part of the Franks. Hardly anyone was in Frisia proper for a couple of hundred of years from 250 A.D. due to major flooding. It was then infilled from the east (i.e. Saxon territory which by then included migrating old Angles and Jutes from their north). One always has to keep in mind the great migrations of the early centuries A.D.

Generally yes. But there was an older residu population. This residu population was smal in West Friesland, bigger in nowadays Groningen en Drenthe and biggest in East-Friesland (nowadays Germany). So it can well be the case that the older (proto) Celtic lines of R1b U106 did survive in these area's. Besides the major influx of the Nordics (especially in the Western/ Coastal parts of Friesland).

ADW_1981
03-22-2018, 01:07 PM
What is a "Nordic"? Are we really assuming U106 wouldn't be in the region of northern Germany and southern Scandinavia by 400 AD? This should roughly correspond to the migration period.

Finn
03-22-2018, 02:02 PM
What is a "Nordic"? Are we really assuming U106 wouldn't be in the region of northern Germany and southern Scandinavia by 400 AD? This should roughly correspond to the migration period.

In North Dutch there were two waves from the North;

A. The Saxons originated in Nordalbingia, nowadays Dithmarschen, about the beginning of the fifth century. in North Dutch also known as the Chauci. May be there was already an influx, in Groningen and Drenthe, during the Roman Period.

B. The Jutes and Nores, the Nordics, went to Friesland about 450 BC and settled especially in Westergo, the most Western part of Friesland.

Finn
03-22-2018, 02:30 PM
What is a "Nordic"? Are we really assuming U106 wouldn't be in the region of northern Germany and southern Scandinavia by 400 AD? This should roughly correspond to the migration period.

And of course I assume R1b U106 was already there in Northern Germany, Southern Scandinavia, but more the Z18 etc (Nordic) lines......

dsm
03-24-2018, 11:49 PM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

Hi,

Just read your post and it is one that has intrigued me as well. 1st I will add that Iain McDonalds U106 FTDNA Project is a great starting point. One of the better U106 projects around. You will get very insightful information from that project and Iain's own web page.

(WARNING: The following points are only one person's research and may easily be right or wrong)
I have a great grandfather who had R-U106-L48 DNA (as identified from one of his grandsons). That led me on a research trail. All I can offer is what I have found in regard to this issue but it is only one persons discoveries. He was Danish and from Haderslev about 60 kms north of the current Danish-German border at Flensburg. I have visited the area twice and met the wider family members still living there, in fact one visit was at the request of the local historical society who put on a special series of local events just for us. The Area he came from was once known as Nth Slesvig (DE: Schleswig, DK Slesvig). Just south of this area is the town of Schleswig and it was just close by to this town that the Angles (Angln) are understood to have left from to migrate to England around 400CE during a very severe weather period (farms turned into swamps, there was excessive rain etc: ). Further south of Schleswig is Holstein (DE: Holstein, DK: Holsten). This area had some Angles (in the north) and Saxons in the body of the duchy). The Frisian peoples were also intermixed with the Jutes/Angles & Saxons all the way from Nth Schleswig to Friesland in the Netherlands. Many of the Frisians inhabited the Frisian Islands that span Denmark to the Netherlands. Some Roman history referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Wikipedia does a good job of explaining this. Google 'Ingaevones'

R-U106 appears to have emerged and expanded from the base of the Jutland Peninsula and if we accept the current dates for R1b groups of Yamnaya migrations into central & western Europe, of 5300ybp-4800ybp, then it seems probable that R-U106 likely mutated after the Yamnaya had moved into central-western Europe from the Pontic Caspian Steppes. Possible at the time of the Corded Ware Culture or the Unetice Culture. We don't have enough ancient DNA data yet to prove if R-U106 mutated before the Yamnya migrations or during or just after. The U106 (esp U106-L48) DNA is strongest to day in Nth west Germany (Frisia) and nth Netherlands (Friesland) but still dominant up the Jutland Peninsula.

Some Roman historians referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Some of us think that the name Eng-land actually came from Ynga-land (Inga-land) rather than as a morph of Angles (which was pronounced more like Uhngles rather than pronounced like Ingles). Even today Eng-land and Anglia are distinctly different pronunciations). The numbers of Angles (from Schleswig) who migrated to Britain was not at all a big number. Some argue it was only a few thousand. There were clearly many more Saxons, and it can be argued that the largest numbers were Frisians.

It is reasonable to assume that the R-U106 peoples along the East coast of England, are *mostly* descendants of the people who migrated over from Europe in the extended period of 300 CE to 600 CE. During this period there was a massive weather event that caused a significant inundation of the homelands of the Frisians and degraded the farmlands up Jutland and did so for 100s of years. This weather event is known as the Dunkirk Transgressions (esp Dunkirk II & Dunkirk III). Again Wikipedia explains this quite well. Google 'Dunkirk Transgression' a highly recommended read. It puts the whole of the Ingaevones migrations to England into a more realistic perspective.

So this era was when a lot of coastal dwellers on or near the Frisian Island chain, had to either move inland (battle their way inland as the Islands went under water) or move to Britain which along its eastern side, was relatively sparsely populated at that time and that itself appears to have been a consequence of the Boudicca revolt in 60-61 CE. East Anglia was formerly the home of Boudicca's Iceni tribes. It is believed that East Anglia (both Norfolk & Suffolk) and what became Northumbria were readily settled by mixed groups of Angles, Saxons & Frisians. A group of Jutes are believed to have settled in Hampshire. Many believe that the bulk of these migrants were really Frisians rather than just the small band of Angles and the larger bands of Saxons. Interestingly, the old English language is often said to be closer to Old Frisian than to Saxon. Google 'Old Frisian'. The Danes that invaded England in 1013 & 1018 (King Canute or Knud) also referred to the English (Angles) of the day as 'the Frisians' (ref: Icelandic sagas - google 'Knýtlinga saga' under 'An Expedition to England).

So, U106 is common all up the Jutland peninsula and has likely been so since at least 4800 ybp. It is entirely likely that there was some cross flow of peoples during this entire era. Stephen Oppenheimer makes a good case for this and his logic still holds good. Google 'Stephen Oppenheimer'.

Trying to distinguish between the Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians in UK populations is a tough call because the DNA and sub-branches appear to have been so similar. Undoubtedly there would be some R1a peoples as well as I1 peoples and also some Scandinavian P312 peoples mixed in with the U106 who were the Ingaevones. Those mixes may have been greater in the area of Angln (near Schleswig) where the Angles came from and this is because that area was close to middle Denmark by way of the Island Funen (fyn). This whole picture gets muddied further by the Norse incursions (mostly on the West of England & all the way up in Scotland) and the later Danish incursions starting around 850 CE up to 1035 CE. Today it might be near impossible (at least very difficult) to say if an Englishman with U106, came from Frisa, Holstein, Schleswig, Nth Jutland or the middle parts of Denmark.

I am hoping that one day our DNA analysis will allow us to make the distinction, but as of today, I have not found a way to do so with any certainty. Hopefully the new joint project underway between the main projects of P312, U106 and S1194, will lead to better granularity of U106 DNA.

Doug Marker
Admin FTDNA S1194 Project

Curleyprow
03-25-2018, 05:34 AM
DSM, Thank you for a very informative post, balanced and mature. I must say I wasn't aware that P312 is a Scandinavian marker. Can you shed a bit more light on this aspect?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-25-2018, 07:57 AM
Hi,

Just read your post and it is one that has intrigued me as well. 1st I will add that Iain McDonalds U106 is a great starting point. One of the better U106 projects around.

(WARNING: The following points are only one person's research and may easily be right or wrong)
I have a great grandfather who had R-U106-L48 DNA (as identified from one of his grandsons). That led me on a research trail. All I can offer is what I have found in regard to this issue but it is only one persons discoveries. He was Danish and from Haderslev about 60 kms north of the current Danish-German border at Flensburg. I have visited the area twice and met the wider family members still living there, in fact one visit was at the request of the local historical society who put on a special series of local events just for us. The Area he came from was once known as Nth Slesvig (DE: Schleswig, DK Slesvig). Just south of this area is the town of Schleswig and it was just close by to this town that the Angles (Angln) are understood to have left from to migrate to England around 400CE during a very severe weather period (farms turned into swamps, there was excessive rain etc: ). Further south of Schleswig is Holstein (DE: Holstein, DK: Holsten). This area had some Angles (in the north) and Saxons in the body of the duchy). The Frisian peoples were also intermixed with the Jutes/Angles & Saxons all the way from Nth Schleswig to Friesland in the Netherlands. Many of the Frisians inhabited the Frisian Islands that span Denmark to the Netherlands. Some Roman history referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Wikipedia does a good job of explaining this. Google 'Ingaevones'

R-U106 appears to have emerged and expanded from the base of the Jutland Peninsula and if we accept the current dates for R1b groups of Yamnaya migrations into central & western Europe, of 5300ybp-4800ybp, then it seems probable that R-U106 likely mutated after the Yamnaya had moved into central-western Europe from the Pontic Caspian Steppes. Possible at the time of the Corded Ware Culture or the Unetice Culture. We don't have enough ancient DNA data yet to prove if R-U106 mutated before the Yamnya migrations or during or just after. The U106 (esp U106-L48) DNA is strongest to day in Nth west Germany (Frisia) and nth Netherlands (Friesland) but still dominant up the Jutland Peninsula.

Some Roman historians referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Some of us think that the name Eng-land actually came from Ynga-land (Inga-land) rather than as a morph of Angles (which was pronounced more like Uhngles rather than pronounced like Ingles). Even today Eng-land and Anglia are distinctly different pronunciations). The numbers of Angles (from Schleswig) who migrated to Britain was not at all a big number. Some argue it was only a few thousand. There were clearly many more Saxons, and it can be argued that the largest numbers were Frisians.

It is reasonable to assume that the R-U106 peoples along the East coast of England, are descendants of the people who migrated over from Europe in the extended period of 300 CE to 600 CE. During this period there was a massive weather event that cause significant inundation of the homelands of the Frisians and degraded the farmlands up Jutland. This weather event is known as the Dunkirk Transgressions (esp II & III). Again Wikipedia explains this quite well. Google 'Dunkirk Transgression' a highly recommended read. It puts the whole of the Ingaevones migrations to England into a more realistic perspective.

So this era was when a lot of coastal dwellers near the Frisian Island chain, had to either move inland (battle their way inland as the Islands went under water) or move to Britain which along its eastern side, was relatively sparsely populated at that time and that appears to have been a consequence of the Boudicca revolt. East Anglia was formerly the home of Boudicca's Iceni tribes. It is believed that East Anglia (Norfolk & Suffolk) and what became Northumbria were readily settled by mixed groups of Angles, Saxons & Frisians. A group of Jutes are believed to have settled in Hampshire. Many believe that the bulk of these migrants were really Frisians rather than just the small band of Angles and the larger bands of Saxons. Interestingly, the old English language is often said to be closer to Old Frisian than to Saxon. Google 'Old_Frisian'. The Danes that invaded England in 1013 & 1018 (King Canute or Knud) referred to the English of the day as 'the Frisians' (ref: Icelandic sagas).

So, U106 is common all up the Jutland peninsula and has likely been so since at least 4800 ybp. It is entirely likely that there was some cross flow of peoples during this entire era. Stephen Oppenheimer makes a good case for this and his logic still holds good.

Trying to distinguish between the Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians in UK populations is a tough call because the DNA and sub-branches appear to have been so similar. Undoubtedly there would be some R1a peoples as well as I1 peoples and also some Scandinavian P312 peoples mixed in with the U106 who were the Ingaevones. Those mixes may have been greater in the area of Angln (near Schleswig) where the Angles came from and this is because that area was close to middle Denmark by way of the Island Funen (fyn). This whole picture gets muddied further by the Norse incursions (mostly on the West of England & all the way up in Scotland) and the later Danish incursions starting around 850 CE up to 1035 CE. Today it might be near impossible (at least very difficult) to say if an Englishman with U106, came from Frisa, Holstein, Schleswig, Nth Jutland or the middle parts of Denmark.

I am hoping that one day our DNA analysis will allow us to make the distinction, but as of today, I have not found a way to do so with any certainty. Hopefully the new joint project underway between the main projects of P312, U106 and S1194, will lead to better granularity of U106 DNA.

Doug Marker
Admin FTDNA S1194 Project

I think it is possible in some instances to have more than one migration path to Britain from the same paternal line of descent. I have reasons to suspect this but I won't speculate too far at the moment until the data has been analysed in greater depth and I know more about the estimated dates of the SNPs.
Sufficient to say in my own paternal line there appears to be a connection to Scandinavia based on test results AND some research I have done which confirms a local presence from that Scandinavian country in the area of the England/Wales border where our known ancestral origins were. The problem is unravelling the origin of the "migration group" - Anglo Saxon (or earlier), Norse era, Norman or something else?
I'm Z326 which appears to be associated with the Lombard migrations and Longobard origins from the Winnili in Southern Scandinavia. Say for example our paternal line was in Scandinavia around or before 1,000BC. Some descendants of that line could have remained in Scandinavia. Others through the Anglo Saxon migrations could have made the journey West to Britain as well as elsewhere.
I later eras descendants of the same paternal line could have made the trip from Scandinavia to Britain as part of the Norse migrations or via France and Brittany as part of the Norman conquest. Of course there are always exceptions to the general block migrations. There were some Normans in Britain for example before the Conquest.
One big clue (but nothing is ever absolutely certain) is if there are still descendants of that same paternal line still in Scandinavia, which of course can only be confirmed by matches and detailed analysis. 100% certainty is difficult to achieve because an individual may not fit the block migration patterns or there could be the possibility of early migration or back - migration from one country to another for whatever reason.

ffoucart
03-25-2018, 11:39 AM
I have been trying to do some research into the tribal breakdown of U-106, but I admit to being too new at this to really know what I am doing. I had my DNA tested through Ancestry, and I know I am positive for U-106. I further "verified" this by viewing the FTDNA results of two individuals with whom I share a paternal ancestor (five or six generations back). The problem is that our common ancestor seems to have no past; that is, no one can figure out who his parents were or where they came from.

Therefore, what I am trying to find out now if possible, is whether my Germanic DNA is Angle, Saxon, or Jute. I figure if I can find out what Germanic tribe I may be from, I can at least begin to research what part of the British Isles my ancestors may have come from.

All that said, here are my questions: (1) which test would be best to identify the sub-clades of U-106, and (2) does anyone know if any of those have been matched to the various Germanic tribes?

Thanks,
Ed

I seriously doubt of the existence of specific subclades differentiating Germanic tribes. At least between neighboring populations, as the Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Franks. They were all sharing many cultural traits and beliefs, and were constantly intermixing.

If you look at the details, you'll see that no place settled by one of those tribes was purely Angle, Jute...

Germanic migrations to Roman shores (on both sides of the North Sea) have left many toponyms, with some of them giving clues about the tribe of their settlers. It is therefore possible to show that a village with a Jute name is nearby a village with a Saxon name and another one more scandinavian (Herule?). Even if the Angles were probably numerous to settle in Britain, hence the name (Terra Anglia).

dsm
03-25-2018, 09:33 PM
DSM, Thank you for a very informative post, balanced and mature. I must say I wasn't aware that P312 is a Scandinavian marker. Can you shed a bit more light on this aspect?

Hi, my comment was " some Scandinavian P312 peoples mixed in with the U106 ". Re R-P312, there were many P312 who were in Scandinavia. How they got there is still open to endless debate but the sub-clade of R-P312 called L238 is thought of as 'Nordic'. The notion of who has a right to belong somewhere can be very challenging. I can illustrate this with a lesson I learned from visiting Danish relatives in Jutland (my father's mother's father) - being into DNA I looked at the Danish family name and also took note of their appearance. I met perhaps 25 people with this family name. In the same way I might justifiably conclude that a family named Jones and living near Wales, is likely to be Welsh, I concluded that my Danish family relatives were Frisians and I guessed their Y-DNA would be U106-L48. I later had the DNA of one of the males analysed and as predicted it came back U106-L48. The point here is that one of the family historians in Denmark said they had never thought of themselves as 'Frisian' and rather bluntly said "we are Danish". I learned a deep lesson from this. The family history in the Haderslev area goes back as far as records were kept there. Yes they were and are Danish. My branding of them as 'Frisian' was me categorising them in a way they did not accept. Getting back to P312 in Sweden/Denmark & Norway (and R1a as well). There are very distinct sub-clades of these that identify as Nordic yet are R1a/P312 etc: ). So the lesson I hope I learned was that if someone has a history of 100s or 1000s or years in a particular area, that is what they are. The extreme mistake we can make today would be to refer to Nordic P312 as 'Celtic' people when in fact their line of P312 may well have been in Scandinavia 1000 years before the Hallstatt & La Tene Cultures (European Celts) had formed. The recent paper on Bell Beaker in UK, points out that those P312 peoples arrived in UK around 4,500 ybp and in 200 years became 90% of the Y-DNA of the UK. They must have been Brythonic and Goidelic speakers (insular Celts). But, the so called homeland of the Celts (i.e. Hallstatt & La Tene) did not come into dominance for a further 1000-1500 years. This, speaking for myself, is very much a case of "the more I learn, the less I know".

Cheers Doug

dsm
03-25-2018, 09:55 PM
I think it is possible in some instances to have more than one migration path to Britain from the same paternal line of descent. I have reasons to suspect this but I won't speculate too far at the moment until the data has been analysed in greater depth and I know more about the estimated dates of the SNPs.
Sufficient to say in my own paternal line there appears to be a connection to Scandinavia based on test results AND some research I have done which confirms a local presence from that Scandinavian country in the area of the England/Wales border where our known ancestral origins were. The problem is unravelling the origin of the "migration group" - Anglo Saxon (or earlier), Norse era, Norman or something else?
I'm Z326 which appears to be associated with the Lombard migrations and Longobard origins from the Winnili in Southern Scandinavia. Say for example our paternal line was in Scandinavia around or before 1,000BC. Some descendants of that line could have remained in Scandinavia. Others through the Anglo Saxon migrations could have made the journey West to Britain as well as elsewhere.
I later eras descendants of the same paternal line could have made the trip from Scandinavia to Britain as part of the Norse migrations or via France and Brittany as part of the Norman conquest. Of course there are always exceptions to the general block migrations. There were some Normans in Britain for example before the Conquest.
One big clue (but nothing is ever absolutely certain) is if there are still descendants of that same paternal line still in Scandinavia, which of course can only be confirmed by matches and detailed analysis. 100% certainty is difficult to achieve because an individual may not fit the block migration patterns or there could be the possibility of early migration or back - migration from one country to another for whatever reason.

John,

Your Welsh U106 is intriguing. My own male Y-DNA line of S1196 is also found along the Welsh border and the Scottish border. We have predicted that S1194 (also includes CTS4528 & DF100) and U106, would be found together in many common places. My own research places S1194 as having a nominal homeland in the Sth Baltic and allied to U106 people particularly the Lombards. We have one CTS4528 person who has a trail back to Lombardy in Italy and who regards his family line as part of the Lombard migrations from the Sth Baltic to Italy.

It is not a silly idea that your U106 line and my own S1194 line were part of the Danish warriors sent to the Cornish, Welsh and Scottish borders (Marches), by king Canute in 1018. Google "Canute I the Great Facts" choose the entry from "biography.yourdictionary" and look for the comments about stationing warriors at the 3 Marches. My Y-DNA family were from the region of the Cornish Marche (or Mark). Our Y-DNA ancestral village is Ottery-St-Mary near Exeter. Our name 'Marker' is believed to connect us to the role of defenders of the Mark (Mark-ers). At that time and for a long time after (up until William annexed Cornwall in 1066) the Yarl (Earl) of Devon could gather his 'Markers' as a defence force to block any attack from either the sea or via Cornwall. He could do so without a writ from the King as anyone else forming an army without a writ, was usually commiting treason. The title of the job of defending a Mark came to be held by the Marquis (as distinct from the title Earl). The Marquis title appears to have come from the Normans.

So to me, it is very interesting about your Welsh location.

Cheers Doug Marker

EXTRACT from the google link ...
"During 1018, Canute sent most of his Scandinavian host back to Denmark. With the remaining 3,000 men, he established an elite bodyguard, which became the core of his army, and stationed these soldiers at strategic points around the kingdom. The defense of the peace against both English offenders and Danish raiders rested upon this force. In the summer his brother Harald died without heirs. Then in October, Archbishop Wulfstan drafted a law code for Canute; it reinforced the idea that Canute was ruling as an English successor to the line of Alfred of Wessex, thus making his rule more palatable to his English subjects."

and

"Confirming the existing system, Canute's first act as king was to divide the kingdom into four great earldoms. While Eric, Eadric, and Thorkil held the above-mentioned positions, Canute held Wessex for himself, developing a division of power and land that would later provide a base for resistance by other such nobles against future kings. In addition to this system, Canute established a series of lesser earldoms along the Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish marches to protect those regions from raiders."

Plus,
about the existence of a Cornish Mark (Marche). This web site is about the history of Cornwall and how Cornwall was left as an independent duchy by Danish king Sweyn then later by his son Canute . Google 'Cornwall 410 – 1066' - take the 1st link (Cornwall Heritage).

EXTRACT
"In 1013AD Sweyn annexed Wessex to his Viking empire, which included Denmark and Norway. He did not annex Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, but instead allowed the three “client nations” self government in return for an annual payment or “danegeld”. His successor, King Canute the Great, continued this arrangement until 1035AD."

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-26-2018, 07:16 AM
John,

Your Welsh U106 is intriguing. My own male Y-DNA line of S1196 is also found along the Welsh border and the Scottish border. We have predicted that S1194 (also includes CTS4528 & DF100) and U106, would be found together in many common places. My own research places S1194 as having a nominal homeland in the Sth Baltic and allied to U106 people particularly the Lombards. We have one CTS4528 person who has a trail back to Lombardy in Italy and who regards his family line as part of the Lombard migrations from the Sth Baltic to Italy.

It is not a silly idea that your U106 line and my own S1194 line were part of the Danish warriors sent to the Cornish, Welsh and Scottish borders (Marches), by king Canute in 1018. Google "Canute I the Great Facts" choose the entry from "biography.yourdictionary" and look for the comments about stationing warriors at the 3 Marches. My Y-DNA family were from the region of the Cornish Marche (or Mark). Our Y-DNA ancestral village is Ottery-St-Mary near Exeter. Our name 'Marker' is believed to connect us to the role of defenders of the Mark (Mark-ers). At that time and for a long time after (up until William annexed Cornwall in 1066) the Yarl (Earl) of Devon could gather his 'Markers' as a defence force to block any attack from either the sea or via Cornwall. He could do so without a writ from the King as anyone else forming an army without a writ, was usually commiting treason. The title of the job of defending a Mark came to be held by the Marquis (as distinct from the title Earl). The Marquis title appears to have come from the Normans.

So to me, it is very interesting about your Welsh location.

Cheers Doug Marker

EXTRACT from the google link ...
"During 1018, Canute sent most of his Scandinavian host back to Denmark. With the remaining 3,000 men, he established an elite bodyguard, which became the core of his army, and stationed these soldiers at strategic points around the kingdom. The defense of the peace against both English offenders and Danish raiders rested upon this force. In the summer his brother Harald died without heirs. Then in October, Archbishop Wulfstan drafted a law code for Canute; it reinforced the idea that Canute was ruling as an English successor to the line of Alfred of Wessex, thus making his rule more palatable to his English subjects."

and

"Confirming the existing system, Canute's first act as king was to divide the kingdom into four great earldoms. While Eric, Eadric, and Thorkil held the above-mentioned positions, Canute held Wessex for himself, developing a division of power and land that would later provide a base for resistance by other such nobles against future kings. In addition to this system, Canute established a series of lesser earldoms along the Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish marches to protect those regions from raiders."

Plus,
about the existence of a Cornish Mark (Marche). This web site is about the history of Cornwall and how Cornwall was left as an independent duchy by Danish king Sweyn then later by his son Canute . Google 'Cornwall 410 – 1066' - take the 1st link (Cornwall Heritage).

EXTRACT
"In 1013AD Sweyn annexed Wessex to his Viking empire, which included Denmark and Norway. He did not annex Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, but instead allowed the three “client nations” self government in return for an annual payment or “danegeld”. His successor, King Canute the Great, continued this arrangement until 1035AD."

I share paternal ancestry with the Cecils (Lord Burghley etc). The early Cecil origins are unclear, historians have debated those origins for a long time. "Saissil" is a Welsh name or at least said to be. My own ancestry and that of the Cecils is in the South West corner of Herefordshire very close to the Welsh border. It was culturally Welsh and Welsh speaking until comparatively recent times. At one time of course it was part of Wales.
Harold Godwinson was Earl of Hereford and supposedly (with some evidence) he allowed some Normans to settle in the Herefordshire border region before the Conquest to help him against the Welsh although he also made alliances with some Welsh factions. It seems there were very probably Danes holding lands in West Herefordshire pre- Conquest - a Thorkil and a Burning (Thanes) are recorded in the Domesday Book. I have seen it claimed that some Danes fought with Godwinson at Hastings.
The book "Danes in Wessex - the Scandinavian impact on Southern England" goes into this subject in some detail. Wherever they came from these men or their descendants would have fairly quickly integrated into local society and culture, married local women and have spoken the local language.
However, our own paternal line origins may not lie in Denmark. The SNP dates need to be examined and confirmed by the experts so that possibilities can be explored further.

dsm
03-26-2018, 09:11 AM
I share paternal ancestry with the Cecils (Lord Burghley etc). The early Cecil origins are unclear, historians have debated those origins for a long time. "Saissil" is a Welsh name or at least said to be. My own ancestry and that of the Cecils is in the South West corner of Herefordshire very close to the Welsh border. It was culturally Welsh and Welsh speaking until comparatively recent times. At one time of course it was part of Wales.
Harold Godwinson was Earl of Hereford and supposedly (with some evidence) he allowed some Normans to settle in the Herefordshire border region before the Conquest to help him against the Welsh although he also made alliances with some Welsh factions. It seems there were very probably Danes holding lands in West Herefordshire pre- Conquest - a Thorkil and a Burning (Thanes) are recorded in the Domesday Book. I have seen it claimed that some Danes fought with Godwinson at Hastings.
The book "Danes in Wessex - the Scandinavian impact on Southern England" goes into this subject in some detail. Wherever they came from these men or their descendants would have fairly quickly integrated into local society and culture, married local women and have spoken the local language.
However, our own paternal line origins may not lie in Denmark. The SNP dates need to be examined and confirmed by the experts so that possibilities can be explored further.


John,

I agree with you as to possibilities. And having Norman origins is an excellent likelihood. I am and will remain very interested in what else you discover. The challenge for us all is always finding useful historical narratives that offer answers vs guessing what might be. There is though little doubt in my mind that U106 was strong (along with I1) among many Normans. And the information you already have is a good path to explore. It seems very reasonable to presume your line of U106 did not come with the Angles/Saxons/Frisians. That leaves 3 possibilities. 1) Unknown arrival (such as a Norse origin except that line may have little historical backing), 2) With the Danes 835CE-1035CE or 3) with the Normans. The way I might try to distinguish between 2 & 3 is looking for any SNP matches with known Normans and also any STR matches that back up the SNP analysis. A good goal.

Cheers Doug.

PS Re Danes & Harold. Once again Wikipedia has a pretty well worded outline of the 'Housecarl' (google that spelling as a start) and it describes their origins in Denmark and how they evolved into Harold's elite. Harold Godwinson's mother was said to be Gytha Thorkelsdóttir (who married Harold Godwin his father - Earl of Wessex). Gytha Thorkelsdóttir was in turn said to be King Canute's sister. D.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-26-2018, 10:04 AM
John,

I agree with you as to possibilities. And having Norman origins is an excellent likelihood. I am and will remain very interested in what else you discover. The challenge for us all is always finding useful historical narratives that offer answers vs guessing what might be. There is though little doubt in my mind that U106 was strong (along with I1) among many Normans. And the information you already have is a good path to explore. It seems very reasonable to presume your line of U106 did not come with the Angles/Saxons/Frisians. That leaves 3 possibilities. 1) Unknown arrival (such as a Norse origin except that line may have little historical backing), 2) With the Danes 835CE-1035CE or 3) with the Normans. The way I might try to distinguish between 2 & 3 is looking for any SNP matches with known Normans and also any STR matches that back up the SNP analysis. A good goal.

Cheers Doug.

PS Re Danes & Harold. Once again Wikipedia has a pretty well worded outline of the 'Housecarl' (google that spelling as a start) and it describes their origins in Denmark and how they evolved into Harold's elite. Harold Godwinson's mother was said to be Gytha Thorkelsdóttir (who married Harold Godwin his father - Earl of Wessex). Gytha Thorkelsdóttir was in turn said to be King Canute's sister. D.

"In the Domesday Book of 1086, Kilpeck (entered as Chipeete) was given by William the Conqueror to William Fitz Norman de la Mare, son of Norman de la Mare. The clan de la Mare is one of the oldest in Normandy and is descended from Ragnvald Eysteinsson, earl of Mřre and Romsdal. "
(I believe the descent from Ragnvald Eysteinsson (Norway) is not universally accepted as fact but it is quoted in various sources).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilpeck

Kilpeck Church

"The church is a particularly rich example of late Romanesque work; the figures on the chancel-arch and the south doorway are very remarkable, and these, together with the unusual and somewhat Scandinavian character of the rest of the ornament render the building one of the most interesting in the country. The pre-Conquest fragment at the northeast angle of the nave is one of the few surviving fragments of that period in the county. Among the fittings the font, the 12th-century stoup and the 17th century gallery are noteworthy."

"Domesday
These towns or lands underwritten are situated on the border of Archenfield. William Fitz Norman holds Chipecce (Kilpeck). Cadcand held it in the time of King Edward. In the demesne are three ploughlands and two bonds-men and four ploughmen and fifty-seven men with nineteen ploughlands and they pay fifteen quails of honey and ten shillings. They do not give other tribute nor do service, except in the army value four pounds.

Henry, grandson of William, assumed the name Henry de Kilpeck. His grandson Hugh de Kilpeck is mentioned in the reign of Henry III in 1248 as 'keeping the lay of Hereford'. In the reign of Edward II Alan de Plokenet then held the castle of Kilpeck and obtained a charter for a market 'every week on the Friday' at his manor of Kilpeck and also for a 'fair yearly on the eve and day of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary'."

http://www.castlewales.com/kilpeck.html


Norman matches (from Normandy) are hard to come by. :)

Finn
03-28-2018, 11:38 AM
Hi,

Just read your post and it is one that has intrigued me as well. 1st I will add that Iain McDonalds U106 FTDNA Project is a great starting point. One of the better U106 projects around. You will get very insightful information from that project and Iain's own web page.

(WARNING: The following points are only one person's research and may easily be right or wrong)
I have a great grandfather who had R-U106-L48 DNA (as identified from one of his grandsons). That led me on a research trail. All I can offer is what I have found in regard to this issue but it is only one persons discoveries. He was Danish and from Haderslev about 60 kms north of the current Danish-German border at Flensburg. I have visited the area twice and met the wider family members still living there, in fact one visit was at the request of the local historical society who put on a special series of local events just for us. The Area he came from was once known as Nth Slesvig (DE: Schleswig, DK Slesvig). Just south of this area is the town of Schleswig and it was just close by to this town that the Angles (Angln) are understood to have left from to migrate to England around 400CE during a very severe weather period (farms turned into swamps, there was excessive rain etc: ). Further south of Schleswig is Holstein (DE: Holstein, DK: Holsten). This area had some Angles (in the north) and Saxons in the body of the duchy). The Frisian peoples were also intermixed with the Jutes/Angles & Saxons all the way from Nth Schleswig to Friesland in the Netherlands. Many of the Frisians inhabited the Frisian Islands that span Denmark to the Netherlands. Some Roman history referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Wikipedia does a good job of explaining this. Google 'Ingaevones'

R-U106 appears to have emerged and expanded from the base of the Jutland Peninsula and if we accept the current dates for R1b groups of Yamnaya migrations into central & western Europe, of 5300ybp-4800ybp, then it seems probable that R-U106 likely mutated after the Yamnaya had moved into central-western Europe from the Pontic Caspian Steppes. Possible at the time of the Corded Ware Culture or the Unetice Culture. We don't have enough ancient DNA data yet to prove if R-U106 mutated before the Yamnya migrations or during or just after. The U106 (esp U106-L48) DNA is strongest to day in Nth west Germany (Frisia) and nth Netherlands (Friesland) but still dominant up the Jutland Peninsula.

Some Roman historians referred to all the tribes in Jutland & Friesland, that included the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians as the Ingaevones (i.e. Ynga or Inga). Some of us think that the name Eng-land actually came from Ynga-land (Inga-land) rather than as a morph of Angles (which was pronounced more like Uhngles rather than pronounced like Ingles). Even today Eng-land and Anglia are distinctly different pronunciations). The numbers of Angles (from Schleswig) who migrated to Britain was not at all a big number. Some argue it was only a few thousand. There were clearly many more Saxons, and it can be argued that the largest numbers were Frisians.

It is reasonable to assume that the R-U106 peoples along the East coast of England, are *mostly* descendants of the people who migrated over from Europe in the extended period of 300 CE to 600 CE. During this period there was a massive weather event that caused a significant inundation of the homelands of the Frisians and degraded the farmlands up Jutland and did so for 100s of years. This weather event is known as the Dunkirk Transgressions (esp Dunkirk II & Dunkirk III). Again Wikipedia explains this quite well. Google 'Dunkirk Transgression' a highly recommended read. It puts the whole of the Ingaevones migrations to England into a more realistic perspective.

So this era was when a lot of coastal dwellers on or near the Frisian Island chain, had to either move inland (battle their way inland as the Islands went under water) or move to Britain which along its eastern side, was relatively sparsely populated at that time and that itself appears to have been a consequence of the Boudicca revolt in 60-61 CE. East Anglia was formerly the home of Boudicca's Iceni tribes. It is believed that East Anglia (both Norfolk & Suffolk) and what became Northumbria were readily settled by mixed groups of Angles, Saxons & Frisians. A group of Jutes are believed to have settled in Hampshire. Many believe that the bulk of these migrants were really Frisians rather than just the small band of Angles and the larger bands of Saxons. Interestingly, the old English language is often said to be closer to Old Frisian than to Saxon. Google 'Old Frisian'. The Danes that invaded England in 1013 & 1018 (King Canute or Knud) also referred to the English (Angles) of the day as 'the Frisians' (ref: Icelandic sagas - google 'Knýtlinga saga' under 'An Expedition to England).

So, U106 is common all up the Jutland peninsula and has likely been so since at least 4800 ybp. It is entirely likely that there was some cross flow of peoples during this entire era. Stephen Oppenheimer makes a good case for this and his logic still holds good. Google 'Stephen Oppenheimer'.

Trying to distinguish between the Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians in UK populations is a tough call because the DNA and sub-branches appear to have been so similar. Undoubtedly there would be some R1a peoples as well as I1 peoples and also some Scandinavian P312 peoples mixed in with the U106 who were the Ingaevones. Those mixes may have been greater in the area of Angln (near Schleswig) where the Angles came from and this is because that area was close to middle Denmark by way of the Island Funen (fyn). This whole picture gets muddied further by the Norse incursions (mostly on the West of England & all the way up in Scotland) and the later Danish incursions starting around 850 CE up to 1035 CE. Today it might be near impossible (at least very difficult) to say if an Englishman with U106, came from Frisa, Holstein, Schleswig, Nth Jutland or the middle parts of Denmark.

I am hoping that one day our DNA analysis will allow us to make the distinction, but as of today, I have not found a way to do so with any certainty. Hopefully the new joint project underway between the main projects of P312, U106 and S1194, will lead to better granularity of U106 DNA.

Doug Marker
Admin FTDNA S1194 Project

The Friesland-Jutish/Angles relationship is one of flux and reflux.....

During the big European migration time, the Angles came about 400 AD and the Jutes came about 450 AD to nowadays Friesland and they settled along the Saxons, Norwegians a Germanic culture in Friesland (that had just before the migration period a severe population decline). And with them the 'Nordic' R1b U106 lines.

See this picture by Nicolay (2006):
https://www.mupload.nl/img/rumlset.png

The reflux was about the 8th century when people from nowadays North Dutch Friesland came to settle in Nord-Friesland, Schleswig.

So as the Dutch say what comes first: the eg or the chicken? ;)

dsm
03-28-2018, 10:48 PM
The Friesland-Jutish/Angles relationship is one of flux and reflux.....

During the big European migration time, the Angles came about 400 AD and the Jutes came about 450 AD to nowadays Friesland and they settled along the Saxons, Norwegians a Germanic culture in Friesland (that had just before the migration period a severe population decline). And with them the 'Nordic' R1b U106 lines.

See this picture by Nicolay (2006):
(had to remove link to get post accepted)

The reflux was about the 8th century when people from nowadays North Dutch Friesland came to settle in Nord-Friesland, Schleswig.

So as the Dutch say what comes first: the eg or the chicken? ;)

Finn,

Thanks. However if I was drawing those maps I would draw them a bit differently and I would label them with a very clear timeframe. Plus I would make sure the map showed the Frisian Islands all the way up to Esbjerg in Denmark & not ending just above Wilhelmshaven. Unfortunately those maps incl the locations of the various tribes (and lacking date ranges) are a bit incomplete and thus inaccurate for a good discussion.

One point you have raised elsewhere, that I find quite interesting, is about the people of the Frisian Islands (the early Frisians) who inhabited the Frisian Islands prior to about 200 CE and who were swept off the Islands during the Dunkirk I & II inundations that imapcted the entire Frisian chain. Someone might well be able to argue that they were Celtic speakers. No one (as best I understand) has written about them other than to imply they were not the same people who re-inhabited the Frisian Islands a few hundred years later. The later re-habitation of the Frisian Islands are said to be the same peoples there today. and that they mostly included West Saxons. Some of us believe that the modern Frisians in Frisa are mostly derived from the Saxons who moved back onto the land as the region became habitable again. Some argue (as I would) that the original Frisians mostly fled inland (where and if they could) or went over to England to get away from the inundation that wiped out their homelands.

One reason the original Frisians were called the Frisians is because they lived on the Frisian Islands. I would hope that is self-evident. However, we know from the historical records of 2000+ years that the Frisian chain was repeatedly inundated and that the Dunkirk transgressions are just among the worst we know of in comparative times ( since 0 BCE).

So in summary, your idea that 'Greater Frisia' at some past era, may have been inhabited by Celtic Speakers and perhaps were mostly R-P312 even, could be quite true. We just need a bit more firm evidence but it seems a reasonable hypothesis. Also I don't disagree that the inundated areas of Jutland and Netherlands, slowly came back to being habitable around 700-800 CE. And that there was flow of people into those areas. However, it would be a bit hard to believe the people said to be moving into these areas i.e. Schleswig, may have come from what were also other inundated areas ?. R-U106 people were all up the Jutland peninsula, and also in Funen (Fyn) and well into Norway before 0 CE.

Cheers Doug

uintah106
03-29-2018, 01:44 AM
I think it is possible in some instances to have more than one migration path to Britain from the same paternal line of descent. I have reasons to suspect this but I won't speculate too far at the moment until the data has been analysed in greater depth and I know more about the estimated dates of the SNPs.
Sufficient to say in my own paternal line there appears to be a connection to Scandinavia based on test results AND some research I have done which confirms a local presence from that Scandinavian country in the area of the England/Wales border where our known ancestral origins were. The problem is unravelling the origin of the "migration group" - Anglo Saxon (or earlier), Norse era, Norman or something else?
I'm Z326 which appears to be associated with the Lombard migrations and Longobard origins from the Winnili in Southern Scandinavia. Say for example our paternal line was in Scandinavia around or before 1,000BC. Some descendants of that line could have remained in Scandinavia. Others through the Anglo Saxon migrations could have made the journey West to Britain as well as elsewhere.
I later eras descendants of the same paternal line could have made the trip from Scandinavia to Britain as part of the Norse migrations or via France and Brittany as part of the Norman conquest. Of course there are always exceptions to the general block migrations. There were some Normans in Britain for example before the Conquest.
One big clue (but nothing is ever absolutely certain) is if there are still descendants of that same paternal line still in Scandinavia, which of course can only be confirmed by matches and detailed analysis. 100% certainty is difficult to achieve because an individual may not fit the block migration patterns or there could be the possibility of early migration or back - migration from one country to another for whatever reason.

A interesting possibility is my own subclade of U106, the unbelievably rare S11493. Found in Devon England and my y line hometown of Maribo Denmark.

dsm
03-29-2018, 04:10 AM
A interesting possibility is my own subclade of U106, the unbelievably rare S11493. Found in Devon England and my y line hometown of Maribo Denmark.

Your background is of great interest to me. As posted earlier my own origins are from near Exeter Devon where we know warriors were sent to protect the border (Cornwall / Devon).

Your Danish Origin shows as one of the Islands below Sjaelland (Zealand) in East Denmark which is where I believe my own S1194 (CTS4528/DF100) line was strong. I am building a table of U106 people who appear to have a homeland alongside where I think we came from.

Thanks for your info. If you have a family name for Devon, I'd like to do a name profile on it (1880 census) as that is often very helpful for showing family hot spots.

NOTE: In a prior post I listed my DNA line as part of S1196 but that was a typo, it should have been S1194. We S1194 are the 3rd parallel line branch to P312 & U106 (then us S1194). There are a couple of other parallel lines but they have very few known people in them.

Doug.

Finn
03-29-2018, 07:09 AM
Finn,

Thanks. However if I was drawing those maps I would draw them a bit differently and I would label them with a very clear timeframe. Plus I would make sure the map showed the Frisian Islands all the way up to Esbjerg in Denmark & not ending just above Wilhelmshaven. Unfortunately those maps incl the locations of the various tribes (and lacking date ranges) are a bit incomplete and thus inaccurate for a good discussion.

One point you have raised elsewhere, that I find quite interesting, is about the people of the Frisian Islands (the early Frisians) who inhabited the Frisian Islands prior to about 200 CE and who were swept off the Islands during the Dunkirk I & II inundations that imapcted the entire Frisian chain. Someone might well be able to argue that they were Celtic speakers. No one (as best I understand) has written about them other than to imply they were not the same people who re-inhabited the Frisian Islands a few hundred years later. The later re-habitation of the Frisian Islands are said to be the same peoples there today. and that they mostly included West Saxons. Some of us believe that the modern Frisians in Frisa are mostly derived from the Saxons who moved back onto the land as the region became habitable again. Some argue (as I would) that the original Frisians mostly fled inland (where and if they could) or went over to England to get away from the inundation that wiped out their homelands.

One reason the original Frisians were called the Frisians is because they lived on the Frisian Islands. I would hope that is self-evident. However, we know from the historical records of 2000+ years that the Frisian chain was repeatedly inundated and that the Dunkirk transgressions are just among the worst we know of in comparative times ( since 0 BCE).

So in summary, your idea that 'Greater Frisia' at some past era, may have been inhabited by Celtic Speakers and perhaps were mostly R-P312 even, could be quite true. We just need a bit more firm evidence but it seems a reasonable hypothesis. Also I don't disagree that the inundated areas of Jutland and Netherlands, slowly came back to being habitable around 700-800 CE. And that there was flow of people into those areas. However, it would be a bit hard to believe the people said to be moving into these areas i.e. Schleswig, may have come from what were also other inundated areas ?. R-U106 people were all up the Jutland peninsula, and also in Funen (Fyn) and well into Norway before 0 CE.

Cheers Doug

Hi Doug!

Interesting response!

You must now there is much romanticism about this kind of heritage. When Prof Boeles stated in the beginning of the 20 th century that the Frisians were an Anglo-Saxon offshoot the patriotic Frisians could keelhaul him.

And that's most probably also the background of the theories of re-migration after the population setback (continuation by rebound ;) . This population setback was most probably due to migration movement due to the turmoil of the end of the Roman period.

It's most probably that there was a kind of "Bronze age" substrate or residu population, but the Chauci/Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norwegians rolled over...

With respect to R!b U106 in nowadays Friesland you probably can find some residu Bronze Age lines, besides the Nordic iron age lines, but this is of course still in dispute.

uintah106
03-29-2018, 12:37 PM
Your background is of great interest to me. As posted earlier my own origins are from near Exeter Devon where we know warriors were sent to protect the border (Cornwall / Devon).

Your Danish Origin shows as one of the Islands below Sjaelland (Zealand) in East Denmark which is where I believe my own S1194 (CTS4528/DF100) line was strong. I am building a table of U106 people who appear to have a homeland alongside where I think we came from.

Thanks for your info. If you have a family name for Devon, I'd like to do a name profile on it (1880 census) as that is often very helpful for showing family hot spots.

NOTE: In a prior post I listed my DNA line as part of S1196 but that was a typo, it should have been S1194. We S1194 are the 3rd parallel line branch to P312 & U106 (then us S1194). There are a couple of other parallel lines but they have very few known people in them.

Doug.

There are actually two matches for S11493 in England,one in Devon and one in Ludgvan in Cornwall! They are both listed in FTDNA u106 project page. My own surname is a common scandinavian patronymic one . I tested with yseq R U106 superclade panel s19589> s11493+ and am awaiting results for the individual snp s11493 through FTDNA. Runestones on
Lolland definitely attest to viking activities.

dsm
03-29-2018, 04:36 PM
There are actually two matches for S11493 in England,one in Devon and one in Ludgvan in Cornwall! They are both listed in FTDNA u106 project page. My own surname is a common scandinavian patronymic one . I tested with yseq R U106 superclade panel s19589> s11493+ and am awaiting results for the individual snp s11493 through FTDNA. Runestones on
Lolland definitely attest to viking activities.

Just to clarify, did you pinpoint your origin in Lolland from the special SNPs you have ? - if yes was it S11493 ? - It is a very useful bit of information as to a connection between Devon area and Eastern Denmark. Thanks Doug.

PS: I located the family name shown against the U106 entry as in Milton Abbott Devon (this same kit entry is also in the Devon project run by Debbie Kennett). A name profile highlights some interesting aspects of the name. There are 2 spellings used in the UK (one has an extra p on the end). Both spellings tend to mostly match each other for locations. The spelling without the extra p appears to be the dominant spelling. In 1880 it shows as dominantly centered in Devon with strong presence in Dorset and shows an overflow into Cornwall (Plymouth). There also appears to be a hot spot in Ulster Ireland as well as pockets (for the single 'p' version) in both Durham & Derby. In the most recent census data the name shows as having spread even more in Ulster Durham & Derby plus across Sth England. I would post screen grabs but my membership here doesn't allow me to post links.

PPS. I am not sure but the entries in the Devon project show a strong group of U106-L48 people whereas the S11493 entry there doesn't include L48 in the SNP chain. If this is so then S11493 is very unique and may tell an interesting story. I counted 51 U106 entries in the Devon Project (most Devon Y-DNA by far is P312). Of them there were 17 who had L48 in them. Debbie Kennett is related to the Cruwys (Cruise) line and they are considered Norman and show as R1b-M269>U106>Z381>Z301>L48>Z8>Z11>Z12>Z8175>FGC12057>S18890>FGC12058>A687

Cheers D.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-30-2018, 12:23 AM
Just to clarify, did you pinpoint your origin in Lolland from the special SNPs you have ? - if yes was it S11493 ? - It is a very useful bit of information as to a connection between Devon area and Eastern Denmark. Thanks Doug.

PS: I located the family name shown against the U106 entry as in Milton Abbott Devon (this same kit entry is also in the Devon project run by Debbie Kennett). A name profile highlights some interesting aspects of the name. There are 2 spellings used in the UK (one has an extra p on the end). Both spellings tend to mostly match each other for locations. The spelling without the extra p appears to be the dominant spelling. In 1880 it shows as dominantly centered in Devon with strong presence in Dorset and shows an overflow into Cornwall (Plymouth). There also appears to be a hot spot in Ulster Ireland as well as pockets (for the single 'p' version) in both Durham & Derby. In the most recent census data the name shows as having spread even more in Ulster Durham & Derby plus across Sth England. I would post screen grabs but my membership here doesn't allow me to post links.

PPS. I am not sure but the entries in the Devon project show a strong group of U106-L48 people whereas the S11493 entry there doesn't include L48 in the SNP chain. If this is so then S11493 is very unique and may tell an interesting story. I counted 51 U106 entries in the Devon Project (most Devon Y-DNA by far is P312). Of them there were 17 who had L48 in them. Debbie Kennett is related to the Cruwys (Cruise) line and they are considered Norman and show as R1b-M269>U106>Z381>Z301>L48>Z8>Z11>Z12>Z8175>FGC12057>S18890>FGC12058>A687

Cheers D.

I've mentioned this book previously.I've only read the preview:-

" Danes in Wessex: the Scandinavian impact on Southern England"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Danes-Wessex-Scandinavian-Southern-England/dp/178297931X

dsm
03-30-2018, 01:09 AM
I've mentioned this book previously.I've only read the preview:-

" Danes in Wessex: the Scandinavian impact on Southern England"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Danes-Wessex-Scandinavian-Southern-England/dp/178297931X


That is an interesting book. Will get a copy. One of my bibles in the past was an old book as to Danish influence in Devon. I'll dig up a link. (EDIT: Am trying to find it - I think it was called History of Exeter & published in the early 1800s). In reading it I came across a blow-by-blow description of how King Alfred rushed back to defend Exeter at one period, and trapped a crew of a Danish longboat near Weymouth and took the captured warriors to the top of a nearby Hill (Ridgeway Hill is very close) and had them all executed. The BBC did a TV show about the find but seemed to have missed this version of the story. Now all I need do is find it again.

This may be it - I'll need to delve.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pDkQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Books+on+the+History+of+Exeter&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlh_yeupPaAhUITrwKHdNwACMQ6AEIKTAA#v=on epage&q=Books%20on%20the%20History%20of%20Exeter&f=false

Yes that is the book and at page 16 is the story of Danes landing at Wareham Dorset (near Weymouth) to raid Exeter and how the captured crews were executed. Ridgeway Hill is about 10-15 kms from Wareham going towards Exeter.
The executions were apparently at the highest point on the coast and it seems the heads would have been put on posts as warnings to other raiders.

Cheers Doug.

dsm
03-30-2018, 11:14 AM
I've mentioned this book previously.I've only read the preview:-

" Danes in Wessex: the Scandinavian impact on Southern England"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Danes-Wessex-Scandinavian-Southern-England/dp/178297931X

Read the preview of it. It was clearly interesting enough to buy. So now have the kindle edition. Thanks

Doug

ajc347
03-30-2018, 01:19 PM
Thanks for the book recommendations guys. They both look to be most interesting. :)

This book is also well worth a read in terms of Viking activity in the West Country:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vikings-West-Country-Derek-Gore/dp/1903356652

uintah106
03-30-2018, 03:54 PM
Just to clarify, did you pinpoint your origin in Lolland from the special SNPs you have ? - if yes was it S11493 ? - It is a very useful bit of information as to a connection between Devon area and Eastern Denmark. Thanks Doug.



PPS. I am not sure but the entries in the Devon project show a strong group of U106-L48 people whereas the S11493 entry there doesn't include L48 in the SNP chain. If this is so then S11493 is very unique and may tell an interesting story. I counted 51 U106 entries in the Devon Project (most Devon Y-DNA by far is P312). Of them there were 17 who had L48 in them. Debbie Kennett is related to the Cruwys (Cruise) line and they are considered Norman and show as R1b-M269>U106>Z381>Z301>L48>Z8>Z11>Z12>Z8175>FGC12057>S18890>FGC12058>A687

Cheers D.

Hi Doug, my paternal great grand father immigrated to the U.S. as an adult from Lolland DK. I originally took the geno 2.0 and came back U106+.Since that test looks for pretty much every subclade directly under U106 and showed me negative for all l tested with yseq and discovered I was s19589> s11493 two snps not tested for in geno 2.0.
I'm very excited about the prospect of a Danish viking connection with southern England. I think if some more U106> S11493 show up in Denmark it would be hard to dispute a direct connection. Another possibility would be a migration age Anglo-Saxon overlap with Danes on the continent.

dsm
03-30-2018, 08:55 PM
Hi Doug, my paternal great grand father immigrated to the U.S. as an adult from Lolland DK. I originally took the geno 2.0 and came back U106+.Since that test looks for pretty much every subclade directly under U106 and showed me negative for all l tested with yseq and discovered I was s19589> s11493 two snps not tested for in geno 2.0.
I'm very excited about the prospect of a Danish viking connection with southern England. I think if some more U106> S11493 show up in Denmark it would be hard to dispute a direct connection. Another possibility would be a migration age Anglo-Saxon overlap with Danes on the continent.

Very interesting !. Geno 2.0 does test for L48. we had my father's mother's father tested via a grandson 3 years ago and he was U106-L48 and from Haderslev Jutland. So if Geno 2 didn't call your DNA as having L48, it is pretty certain you don't have that SNP. As already mentioned my paternal line - long resident in Devon is alien DNA (S1194) in Devon (less than 0.5%). But we have name history back to the 1200s there, and, Interestingly a long family history of direct involvement in both church and military leadership which fits with a possible history as defenders of the Cornish Mark.

Your data then is exactly the type of detail we are compiling. In 1015 when Knud re-invaded England after his father
Sweyn died, he assembled his invasion fleet at Skaane (from the Knýtlinga saga ). And Skaane (and old Pomerania)
is where we believe S1194 DNA shows up (per the N.Myres et al study when referred to as L11*).

Here is the text of the Knýtlinga saga - see section 8
http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/knuts-invasion-of-england-in-1015-16-according-to-the-knytlinga-saga/

There is a lot of material that suggest some of the warriors kept behind in 1018, and sent to the border
areas, were Jomsvikings as Thorkell the Tall was their leader at one time and he was appointed Yarl of East Anglia
by Knud.

Thorkell the Tall - Wikipedia story ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorkell_the_Tall

Doug

uintah106
03-31-2018, 09:17 PM
I'm not sure how statistcians judge this ? The rarity of these two haplogroup ? They appear in baltic islands and adjacent areas, then south England, hmmm. Also S11493 is a bit of an anomaly!, 99% of U106 is Z2265+> BY30097 +. I'm Z2265+ By30097-, very rare. Like your S1194 is an obscure branch of L11. The Danish isles are somewhat insular.

dsm
03-31-2018, 10:23 PM
I'm not sure how statistcians judge this ? The rarity of these two haplogroup ? They appear in baltic islands and adjacent areas, then south England, hmmm. Also S11493 is a bit of an anomaly!, 99% of U106 is Z2265+> BY30097 +. I'm Z2265+ By30097-, very rare. Like your S1194 is an obscure branch of L11. The Danish isles are somewhat insular.

I discussed the possibility of S1194 being isolated in the Sth Baltic as a reason for its rarity with another project admin. The fact it is parallel to P312 & U106 yet so tiny in numbers is enigmatic. The person I had this conversation with believed that because Sth Baltic was a maritime region where boats were the main mode for serious travel, that it would be hard for anyone to remain isolated there. Bornholm was listed in the N.Myres et al study as statistically having 10% S1194 (as L11*) and that this was the highest density of it anywhere. I have a long term goal to do a further controlled study of long time male residents of Bornholm to see if the 10% S1194 holds good.

Lolland, Falster and Mřn are 3 islands (plus Sjćlland) along with Skaane (Sweden) and Bornholm, plus the area of Stralsund are all places that seem to be related to S1194, but we need a lot more evidence.

Your rare Z2265+ By30097- plus an origin from Lolland adds great support to there being isolated groups of peoples in the region. Esp when 2 with S11493 show up in Devon/Cornwall alongside our rare S1194.

Cheers Doug

uintah106
04-01-2018, 06:14 PM
[QUOTE=dsm;373176]I discussed the possibility of S1194 being isolated in the Sth Baltic as a reason for its rarity with another project admin. The fact it is parallel to P312 & U106 yet so tiny in numbers is enigmatic. The person I had this conversation with believed that because Sth Baltic was a maritime region where boats were the main mode for serious travel, that it would be hard for anyone to remain isolated there. Bornholm was listed in the N.Myres et al study as statistically having 10% S1194 (as L11*) and that this was the highest density of it anywhere. I have a long term goal to do a further controlled study of long time male residents of Bornholm to see if the 10% S1194 holds good.

Lolland, Falster and Mřn are 3 islands (plus Sjćlland) along with Skaane (Sweden) and Bornholm, plus the area of Stralsund are all places that seem to be related to S1194, but we need a lot more evidence.

Your rare Z2265+ By30097- plus an origin from Lolland adds great support to there being isolated groups of peoples in the region. Esp when 2 with S11493 show up in Devon/Cornwall alongside our rare S1194.

Cheers
By the iron age these isands were defending their self, yet rare haplogroups have persisted ,thus the insular aspect. The Hoby cups on lolland are roman, buried with a chieftain there.
The runestones there attest to raids on sweden . 'Fraithi first viking, died in sweden'.Krukr , South Dane, tormenter of southern swedes, yoke of sunderswedes, best of vikings' I think by Canutes time they were involved in invasion both ways. East and west.

daragon39
04-30-2018, 03:50 AM
From everything I've seen on the L1+ it seems to be more of a Saxon phenomena. And from what I have read about A410 and A412 both snps seem to have come around the time of Charlemagne's conquest of the Frisians and Saxons in the 8th Century AD. It could be a coincidence though. Unfortunately not much is known yet about L1+ and it's subclades and the L1+ Project on FTDNA seems to be dead with no new postings or news coming from it in years now.

Bollox79
05-04-2018, 05:27 AM
From everything I've seen on the L1+ it seems to be more of a Saxon phenomena. And from what I have read about A410 and A412 both snps seem to have come around the time of Charlemagne's conquest of the Frisians and Saxons in the 8th Century AD. It could be a coincidence though. Unfortunately not much is known yet about L1+ and it's subclades and the L1+ Project on FTDNA seems to be dead with no new postings or news coming from it in years now.

Looking at A410 under L1 under U106... and I see many Isles kits... a couple from Germany and one from Norway (back to the 1400s?). We now have a DF96 positive result in a Germanic Migration burial - sample ALH 1 from Altheim from the Baiuvarii elongated skulls paper is DF96 and a couple SNPs under that... this burial is from the 1st phase so about 450-500 AD. The York Gladiator 3drif-16 is L1+ under DF96 though ;-) right? We need more migration era and early Roman era burials/inhumations...

Edit: also a Germanic Migration burial from the same paper - AED 106 so Alternerding sample 106 - is U106+ Z381+ Z156+ Z305+ above DF98 and DF96... didn't get below Z305-307 though with his sample.

JonikW
06-21-2018, 10:12 PM
I'm interested in U106, particularly because it seems to go hand in hand with my own I1 wherever it's found. A good friend of mine who's a Yorkshireman with very deep ancestry there recently tested and I was pleased but not surprised when he turned out to be among your kin. I've always been very interested in who my first forefather to arrive in England was and am glad that I recently spent money I could ill afford on Big Y. It turned out initially that I had no proper matches, but my closest distant match was a German family with a TMRCA of about 2,500 ybp. I was happy with that as I felt it told me something but now have a lone proper match with a Swede from the old Danish part of southern Sweden who tested at the same time as me. He and I form a new twig of I1 with an estimated TMRCA of 1,050 ybp. My family has very deep roots in a village in Derbyshire in the old Danelaw so this seems to make sense. I'm interested now in whether any U106 folk have matches on the continent in the past 2,000 years or so that give a clue as to whether your particular forefather was Angle, Saxon, Jute, Dane etc. Or otherwise whether you have a hunch about where your own line originated There must be some interesting stories to tell.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-22-2018, 06:00 AM
I'm interested in U106, particularly because it seems to go hand in hand with my own I1 wherever it's found. A good friend of mine who's a Yorkshireman with very deep ancestry there recently tested and I was pleased but not surprised when he turned out to be among your kin. I've always been very interested in who my first forefather to arrive in England was and am glad that I recently spent money I could ill afford on Big Y. It turned out initially that I had no proper matches, but my closest distant match was a German family with a TMRCA of about 2,500 ybp. I was happy with that as I felt it told me something but now have a lone proper match with a Swede from the old Danish part of southern Sweden who tested at the same time as me. He and I form a new twig of I1 with an estimated TMRCA of 1,050 ybp. My family has very deep roots in a village in Derbyshire in the old Danelaw so this seems to make sense. I'm interested now in whether any U106 folk have matches on the continent in the past 2,000 years or so that give a clue as to whether your particular forefather was Angle, Saxon, Jute, Dane etc. Or otherwise whether you have a hunch about where your own line originated There must be some interesting stories to tell.

I can't be too specific because of confidentiality issues but it does seem our paternal U106 line may have origins in Scandinavia. At face value this may be around the 1,000 year before present mark, which could suggest a Norman or Viking era migration but the exact TMRCA dating needs to be looked at by the U106 experts. There was quite a significant Norman presence around the Welsh Borders (Herefordshire/Monmouthshire border) so Norman may be a strong possibility, although it seems there was also a less significant pre- Norman presence from Scandinavia in the area. One local family supposedly had Viking origins via Ireland, a Thorkil held lands in West Herefordshire according to the Domesday Book.
If I had to guess I would say Norman but I will have to wait and see if the dates fit.

JonikW
06-22-2018, 08:39 AM
Thanks John. Are you on YFull? If so, how did that agree with your project admin's TMRCA dating at Family Tree? Also, are U106 subclades relatively easy to date because they are quite prolific?

Wing Genealogist
06-22-2018, 11:18 AM
...Also, are U106 subclades relatively easy to date because they are quite prolific?

U106 subclades have been dated due to the work of Iain McDonald and others. This work was completed on the old (Build 37) Big Y results. He is expanding his work with the new (Build 38) Big Y results, but the work is extensive and takes a lot of time. He also intends on including other Next Generation Sequence (NGS) and Whole Genome Sequence (WGS) results (such as offered by Full Genomes Corp. and YSEQ) into this new age analysis.

We are very fortunate we have someone with the skills and patience to do this extremely complex math. Iain has a busy full-time job and other family obligations, so the amount of time he can dedicate to this work is limited.

Finn
06-23-2018, 11:14 AM
P.S. Ejsteele,

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sub groups under Z18 and L48 are eventually found in Anglo, Jute, or Saxon burials or Viking age burials... considering it's common in the North/Scandinavia... we just have to wait for good papers to come out on these cultures/people.. and considering it's already been found among Longobards circa 500s AD in a Longobard cemetery ;-). I think every group we take a look at will have a mix of haplogroups, but some will be more common than others... so we just need to find our individual (or group) link and try and follow it from the present all the way back to the beginning ;-).

The question was could Jutes, Angles and Saxons be separated?
After thought and rethought I think this will stay theory, to seperate it, these tribes must have made some separate deveolpment. Isolation by distance.
When we look at the map than we have Nordalbingia (Saxon core territory), just above Hamburg, close by is Angeln on their turn directly neigboring Jutland. All in between what shall it be 150 kilometer or 100 miles?
So unless one of the three tribes have an unique migration pattern, for example the Angeln came from Finland I tend to say they represent one big genepool.

For the discussion: every attempt to seperate Jutes, Angles and Saxons in genetic sense will fail.....

Wing Genealogist
06-23-2018, 01:19 PM
The question was could Jutes, Angles and Saxons be separated?
After thought and rethought I think this will stay theory, to seperate it, these tribes must have made some separate deveolpment. Isolation by distance.
When we look at the map than we have Nordalbingia (Saxon core territory), just above Hamburg, close by is Angeln on their turn directly neigboring Jutland. All in between what shall it be 150 kilometer or 100 miles?
So unless one of the three tribes have an unique migration pattern, for example the Angeln came from Finland I tend to say they represent one big genepool.

For the discussion: every attempt to seperate Jutes, Angles and Saxons in genetic sense will fail.....

All we can say with certainty is every attempt to date has failed. We really have no way of knowing what the future holds.

It is possible some future technology, or future testing of ancient remains, may discovery something, such as the Strontium isotopes being used to aid in the identification of where individuals lived in their youth.

Finn
06-23-2018, 03:23 PM
All we can say with certainty is every attempt to date has failed. We really have no way of knowing what the future holds.

It is possible some future technology, or future testing of ancient remains, may discovery something, such as the Strontium isotopes being used to aid in the identification of where individuals lived in their youth.

The last one the isotopes could this be so in depth to detain a difference from Hamburg to Flensburg?
And how about one Jutish-Anglo-Saxon genepool? In other words the genetic intermingling between Anglo-Saxon-Jute is so big that's not done to disentangle...

JerryS.
06-23-2018, 05:13 PM
to my understanding, those three groups were not traveled in to, but rather traveled out of... meaning their homeland region seemed to be stable, intact, and extremely similar to each other. while they traveled out of and spread their DNA to different regions in different frequencies and at different times.... causing their exported DNA to change, but not their core homeland DNA to change much, even with what I think would have been minor amounts of "brought back" people from outside their region.

Bollox79
06-24-2018, 01:02 AM
Based on ancient/medieval U106+ results we have so far... I wouldn't be that surprised when we find U106 in burials in the Anglo/Saxon/Jutes burial context (but then we get into the discussion of grave goods = tribal identity and that's a in depth discussion!)... I think eventually we will be able to say safety this or that "collection" of tribes had these haplgroups in common and/or which haplogroups played an important part in their identity. For example we have the haplogroups (of the men of Northern autosomal DNA) from both the Longobard and Baiuvarii papers. They were a mixture of haplogroup I and U106 (except for perhaps the random R1a and G2a guy) so just based on those examples I would expect to see more "tribal" groups (Germanic groups who have their origin in Northern Germany and Scandinavia - as I believe the Thuringi and Baiuvarii have a link to Elbe Germans - I bet we can include Saxons in that group - considering even now we have Wettin as DF98 and the brother group of DF96 was found in that Baiuvarii burial at Altheim circa 480-510 AD) with that mixture... I won't be that surprised if we do.

Additionally I have done some more digging/reading on the potential kinship groups (and male line) of the House of Wettin from Thuringia since they are in my DF98 group and if we can determine their common kinship descent group - then we can maybe hit the jackpot one day... or at least figure some stuff out about the S1911 split under DF98 as that is where my line splits off of Wettin - we have in S1911 a fairly good case for descent for two families from a Norman noble house - i.e. the descendants of Odard de Dutton from Normandy (Dutton and Warburton) from Cheshire, NW England. The SNP branching would appear to support this hypothesis and noble paper trail etc. I have a hypothesis that the Wettins and groups are descended from Bronze Age Unetice from Northern Europe (and perhaps Scandinavia if they moved up there and then came back down south later) as we have evidence the DF98 - S1911 group is descended from a wealthy early Unetice burial outside Prague at Jinonice burial ground (considered one of the most wealthy Unetice burial grounds around there). We later see Unetice in the middle Bronze Age in Northern Germany and thereabouts - Nebra Sky disk and all that. This House of Wettin has a lot of to do with the Saxons and associated tribes (and their Bronze Age ancestors?) - at least according to what I can find on their paternal line and kinship group.

There are three men and their families who have been considered as progenitors of the Wettin line - and you can find them listed on the wiki page etc. What I was interested in though is what a close contemporary of that time period said - he was Thietmar of Merseburg. He stated that the first (or there abouts) progenitor of the Wettins was an agnatic descendant of or at least related agnatically to Margrave Rikdag. I think this is good evidence of perhaps one possible option for the Wettin paternal line - if you do some digging/research on the Margrave and the extended families of that kinship group (they were all related) you can get an idea perhaps for what group the Wettins came from. I have found evidence that they were not a "new" family of social climbers - but they were an already established group in the elite kinship group of the East Saxon magnates of the 800-900s AD? The hard part is that records get really spotty back past the 800 and 900s AD... so while I don't know the exact paternal line... we have a good idea of the Wettin's established kinship group.

I hope if and when we get some aDNA from wherever the East Saxon (or just Saxon tribal nobility) were buried - I hope plenty of DF98 shows up ;-). I suppose that this can be an example of what we can hope to do eventually with modern day testing and aDNA - if you can get a family that has a very long paper trail - then perhaps you can trace it back to an established (but not necessarily known group in that we have records for individuals) kinship group... that's the idea anyway.

Cheers!

JerryS.
06-24-2018, 01:19 AM
isn't I1P109 Scandinavian in origin? and isn't there significant amounts of that in the U.K.? particularly in east England, east Scotland, and north German?

Bollox79
06-24-2018, 01:40 AM
The question was could Jutes, Angles and Saxons be separated?
After thought and rethought I think this will stay theory, to seperate it, these tribes must have made some separate deveolpment. Isolation by distance.
When we look at the map than we have Nordalbingia (Saxon core territory), just above Hamburg, close by is Angeln on their turn directly neigboring Jutland. All in between what shall it be 150 kilometer or 100 miles?
So unless one of the three tribes have an unique migration pattern, for example the Angeln came from Finland I tend to say they represent one big genepool.

For the discussion: every attempt to seperate Jutes, Angles and Saxons in genetic sense will fail.....

Isotope analysis might help, but that would have to be rather in depth as some areas are similar to others in terms of isotopes (a good case of that is some of the Roman gladiators who may have been born around York, but also the study warns that there are places on the continent side of Europe similar to York in terms of isotopes etc). I think it may come down to individual lines of paternal descent with enough modern and aDNA samples... and proven burial context (for as much as that can tell us) etc... in order to separate different tribes... and also why I mention that the Longobards and Baiuvarii in their respective papers look like a collection of "dominant haplogroups" overall - can we tell what tribe the haplogroup I guys were and who the U106 guys were? I think they may have viewed themselves as the same tribe considering the overall structure of Szolad cemetery for example...

Finn
06-24-2018, 05:51 AM
Yeah I see the point that isotopes and individual lines can be traced back to eventually Jutish, Anglos and Saxons.

That needs :
A. Enough samples from these individual tribes in their heartland, in original 400 AD setting.
B. Istoptic differences between Angeln, Nordalbingai and Jutland.

I don’t know what the potential graves are ....but on this small neighboring area between three groups that looks limited to me. And that’s also true for the isotopes these area is so small so real differences?

So unless there is something new invented in research I guess it’s mission impossible....

JonikW
06-24-2018, 08:45 AM
I think the best aDNA picture would emerge if we used samples from the first century AD, the time of Tacitus's Germania. The Angles were in place then as well as the tribes that would go on to form larger groups. That would discount movements in the next few centuries when the Limes and other factors were having a push and pull effect that we don't fully understand. We'd obviously need inhumations, not cremations, from across that part of Europe. Quite a tall order unfortunately. ADD: I reckon it could be done if the scientific and archaeological communities were as interested in this as we are.

Bollox79
06-25-2018, 07:09 AM
I think the best aDNA picture would emerge if we used samples from the first century AD, the time of Tacitus's Germania. The Angles were in place then as well as the tribes that would go on to form larger groups. That would discount movements in the next few centuries when the Limes and other factors were having a push and pull effect that we don't fully understand. We'd obviously need inhumations, not cremations, from across that part of Europe. Quite a tall order unfortunately. ADD: I reckon it could be done if the scientific and archaeological communities were as interested in this as we are.

That is the bit that I want to stress and I agree with you!!!

Ski
08-06-2018, 03:17 AM
This is one of the best threads I've read on Anthrogenica in some time. I'd be very interested personally to see how everything plays out in the future. I read a comment from someone above that mentioned how I and U106 seem to occur together which certainly complicates the matter. For example, my surname originates from a small village in northern Poland (Pomerania, well within the reach of the Teutonic Order's state). There is some amount of written evidence that the man whose descendants later owned the village (and ostensibly took on its name as a geographic surname) was a Saxon who came east with other German settlers in the 1300s. Two men (myself included) with verified paper trails to the same relatively uncommon surname have tested. He came back as I1, and I am U106-A14203. The only difference in surnames is that his family uses the German honorific 'von', however, neither of us show a 'Slavic' haplogroup. In fact, the only match I have at A14203 is another American whose paper trail leads to England in the 1500s.

On a wholly unrelated note, our early U106 Saxon/Angle/Jute/Frisian/whatever ancestors would have no idea what to think about their descendants 1500 years in the future trying to piece together their world... from our spit and some old pots.

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 06:06 AM
We will have to rely on the genetic and ancient DNA community for advancement of our studies - at least on the surface (or in the beginning)... for example: I recently friended an archaeologist on facebook and when I explained that U106 has been confirmed and found in early and later Migration period burials (the Baiuvarii and Longobard papers) and I asked if he or any academics with specialties in Migration period knew of any future ancient DNA papers or studies concerning paternal lines - he simply answered NO and his archaeology and living history friends thought it was funny. I get the feeling they don't take it very seriously and/or don't consider it a valid line of pursuit? Kind of ticked me off a bit when I first read it... but then it's hard to read context into textual discussions so whatever - we will continue to hope that the academics who are into the ancient DNA field continue to get better at it and the prices keep going down for testing - it's only a matter of time when we have enough samples to rebuild paternal lines. I think that some archaeology people are threatened by ancient DNA studies - that it may over turn or prove wrong long-held assumptions or ideas? What do you guys on this thread think? I hope that is not the case... we should follow the data where ever it takes us... whether we like it or not. In the end that is the truth. I responded by explaining that a group of very smart people (who did the Longobard and also I think - the Baiuvarii paper) are doing a very large project on ancient DNA and the migration age - ;-). Good enough for me: https://genetichistory.ias.edu/

Edit: In the end, I hope all people can pool their knowledge and resources... so that we can get a clearer picture of the past!!!

JohnHowellsTyrfro
08-06-2018, 06:42 AM
We will have to rely on the genetic and ancient DNA community for advancement of our studies - at least on the surface (or in the beginning)... for example: I recently friended an archaeologist on facebook and when I explained that U106 has been confirmed and found in early and later Migration period burials (the Baiuvarii and Longobard papers) and I asked if he or any academics with specialties in Migration period knew of any future ancient DNA papers or studies concerning paternal lines - he simply answered NO and his archaeology and living history friends thought it was funny. I get the feeling they don't take it very seriously and/or don't consider it a valid line of pursuit? Kind of ticked me off a bit when I first read it... but then it's hard to read context into textual discussions so whatever - we will continue to hope that the academics who are into the ancient DNA field continue to get better at it and the prices keep going down for testing - it's only a matter of time when we have enough samples to rebuild paternal lines. I think that some archaeology people are threatened by ancient DNA studies - that it may over turn or prove wrong long-held assumptions or ideas? What do you guys on this thread think? I hope that is not the case... we should follow the data where ever it takes us... whether we like it or not. In the end that is the truth. I responded by explaining that a group of very smart people (who did the Longobard and also I think - the Baiuvarii paper) are doing a very large project on ancient DNA and the migration age - ;-). Good enough for me: https://genetichistory.ias.edu/

Edit: In the end, I hope all people can pool their knowledge and resources... so that we can get a clearer picture of the past!!!

I think you are right - a part of it may be fear of being proved incorrect, reputations on the line. On the other hand I think a big part of it may be a lack of technical and scientific understanding (amongst many). I heard a dismissive comment about autosomal DNA study during a TV programme on the history of archaeology last night, which to me, even with my limited knowledge, looked like a lack of understanding.
It may require new generations of archaeologists to come through and prove what can be done. They can't ignore it for ever though. :)

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 06:56 AM
I think you are right - a part of it may be fear of being proved incorrect, reputations on the line. On the other hand I think a big part of it may be a lack of technical and scientific understanding (amongst many). I heard a dismissive comment about autosomal DNA study during a TV programme on the history of archaeology last night, which to me, even with my limited knowledge, looked like a lack of understanding.
It may require new generations of archaeologists to come through and prove what can be done. They can't ignore it for ever though. :)

John,

Exactly the feeling I got - though as I admit it was through textual discourse on facebook - so I try not to read too much into it, but the fact that when he answered NO and his friends not only "liked" it, but also did the "haha" response - gave me the feeling they thought it was ridiculous to try and reconstruct "paternal lines" of migration period burials. I don't think lack of studies is a "funny" thing... so maybe it's a lack of understanding of the actual possibilities of this new genetic science and a stubborn insistence that they have already "figured it out" and why bother? I think you are right about the general lack of understanding in the process of DNA research in general and especially aDNA, which has really taken off last year and this year!

It annoyed me a bit, if that is truly an old school attitude to a targeted Y-DNA study into migration period remains... because guess what a lot of the living history and archaeology is based on - that's right - our "interpretation" of the extant evidence. The same can be said of our aDNA studies - it's our interpretation of the data - but at least Y-DNA markers are either "yes" or "no" - there is not interpretation there - you either are or are not part of a group. That at least - is very straight forward. Anyway I won't vent any further on it, but the attitude annoys me. No one is better than anyone else - in the end we should work together. That is why I'm very glad and excited some historians and archaeologists have agreed to work with Geary and that group at https://genetichistory.ias.edu/ apparently!

As you say John - the ball is now rolling - and it will continue to gain momentum!! :-)!

Finn
08-06-2018, 07:35 AM
@John @Bollox the same experience here, although they tempted me to write an article about the North Dutch migration age case. I consider to do so (but work and family so pretty short of time....).

By the way I can recommend the Global 25 N Monte Runner (see elsewhere here on anthrogenica).

I constructed a "North Sea Germanic cline" by comparing with England/Anglo-Saxon, medieval Germany and although it's the only one (bad quality I have heard) Nordic Iron Age sample from Sweden (Rise 174).

1 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn 1.5604 63.33 34.17 2.5
2 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn_dad 1.2915 46.67 53.33 0
3 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn_mom 1.7904 55 45 0

All pretty neat with distance 1,6 (I), 1,3 (father) and 1,8 (mother).

From the three of us my father has the most 'typical' Germanic auDNA, my mother has most probably an amount of pre-Germanic genes....

I'm curios what other members get on this Germanic cluster!

JonikW
08-06-2018, 07:53 AM
A couple of quick observations: I agree with John and Bollox79 re the attitude of the archaeological community. I have an uncle who's a retired professor of archaeology and recently commissioned an aDNA test on some remains (I can't reveal what they are but will say they're not related to this thread). He sees the technology as invaluable but confirmed that others in the field feel threatened.
On the subject of this thread, we'll need a lot more aDNA to get a full picture. For example, I'd assumed my Y line came to England with the Angles until I got my Big Y match. I'd completely overlooked the impact of later Viking settlement in the Peak and its surrounds. I've read a lot about that since and can particularly recommend Hadley's Vikings in England for those who are interested in a readable scholarly work.

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 08:18 AM
@John @Bollox the same experience here, although they tempted me to write an article about the North Dutch migration age case. I consider to do so (but work and family so pretty short of time....).

By the way I can recommend the Global 25 N Monte Runner (see elsewhere here on anthrogenica).

I constructed a "North Sea Germanic cline" by comparing with England/Anglo-Saxon, medieval Germany and although it's the only one (bad quality I have heard) Nordic Iron Age sample from Sweden (Rise 174).

1 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn 1.5604 63.33 34.17 2.5
2 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn_dad 1.2915 46.67 53.33 0
3 England_Anglo-Saxon +Germany_Medieval +Nordic_IA Custom_-_AGUser_finn_mom 1.7904 55 45 0

All pretty neat with distance 1,6 (I), 1,3 (father) and 1,8 (mother).

From the three of us my father has the most 'typical' Germanic auDNA, my mother has most probably an amount of pre-Germanic genes....

I'm curios what other members get on this Germanic cluster!

Hail Finn! Good to hear from you - how do I run a comparison with your cline/Germanic cluster? I place on PCAs (with the early migration Baiuvarii included) right in them middle of three of them (all non-ACD or no elongated skull condition) and they are in the Western German/South Dutch area? Or at least the in the middle ground between the Isles on the upper right, Netherlands and Holland under and around them and left and up is the Scandinavian cluster if that makes sense. I get Western German/South Dutch in some of the Eurogenes and in MDLP (I think it was the k23 one) I get Dutch as first single pop ;-).

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 08:27 AM
A couple of quick observations: I agree with John and Bollox79 re the attitude of the archaeological community. I have an uncle who's a retired professor of archaeology and recently commissioned an aDNA test on some remains (I can't reveal what they are but will say they're not related to this thread). He sees the technology as invaluable but confirmed that others in the field feel threatened.
On the subject of this thread, we'll need a lot more aDNA to get a full picture. For example, I'd assumed my Y line came to England with the Angles until I got my Big Y match. I'd completely overlooked the impact of later Viking settlement in the Peak and its surrounds. I've read a lot about that since and can particularly recommend Hadley's Vikings in England for those who are interested in a readable scholarly work.

First off JonikW,

Great to hear your Uncle sees the usefulness of DNA testing and especially ancient DNA testing... perhaps he can work to convince his retired and not-retired colleagues to see the usefulness of it and convert them. I was honestly curious and surprised by the reaction I got from this guy who has studied Scando-German material culture of the 5th - 7th century and from his friends. To like and laugh at the fact there are no studies that they know of - but then they wouldn't if they take that type of attitude towards it - like it's a waste of time. Well DNA is pretty straight forward - you either are a certain group or you are not. That being said the interpretation of what is found with members of your "group" takes interpretation and I think people with vast knowledge of the current realm of migration period material would enjoy joining the party? I figured it may be that they are threatened and/or it's a general sentiment or attitude towards those "genetics studies" nutters - it's too bad because it's going to keep on going and more results are going to keep coming out regardless of their participation. If they don't want to help, then the amateur scholars will step it up and make their own conclusions. I studied history in college and did research projects - it's not lost on me how to do that (I finally get to put it to use!). It was hard to not fire a come back at him and his friends that I'm not the one running around dressed in interpretations of burial evidence that is just that - interpretation. I would prefer to know I'm related via DNA before I embrace a material culture so whole-heartedly, but then again opinions are like arse-holes and we all have them haha!

Glad to hear you Uncle has a aDNA project going - I wish you and him the best of luck with it and the results and I hope he can convince some of the archaeology community to accept it and join up with us!!

Edit: Yes I agree with you about needing many more samples - to define the branching etc. I need many more Germanic Migration samples to determine how much of a part U106 (and my group Z156 and Z305-307 and Z304 above DF98) played in them - judging from the evidence thus far - they played a major (at least 50% of Northern European men) part - but I would like many more samples from other burial contexts to support this hypothesis... so far we have L48 and Z18 with the Longobards and a Germanic chamber burial at Poprad, Slovaki, and some U106, Z156 and Z305 among the higher status burials at Altenerding (AED 106 and 92 were buried with decorated belt sets etc - considered a sign of higher status in addition to their weapon sets etc - I've been able to find a number of texts on the archaeology of Altenerding and sample 106 and especially 92 - as 92 was one of only two men (in the whole early phase of the burial ground?) to have four weapon types in his burial). Proud to have him in my Y-DNA group ;-p.

2nd edit: considering our own matching and Big y matches etc - I have in my small group under S4004 which is under DF98 - I have the "gladiator" 6drif-3 (was he a POW or auxiliary soldier?) and some American families with supposed ancestry from the Isles - the two in my group who are actually from Europe are two Swedes - so right now that is my closest (albeit distant in that it's over 1000 years ago probably in early AD times) relation to anyone in Europe.

JonikW
08-06-2018, 09:04 AM
First off JonikW,

Great to hear your Uncle sees the usefulness of DNA testing and especially ancient DNA testing... perhaps he can work to convince his retired and not-retired colleagues to see the usefulness of it and convert them. I was honestly curious and surprised by the reaction I got from this guy who has studied Scando-German material culture of the 5th - 7th century and from his friends. To like and laugh at the fact there are no studies that they know of - but then they wouldn't if they take that type of attitude towards it - like it's a waste of time. Well DNA is pretty straight forward - you either are a certain group or you are not. That being said the interpretation of what is found with members of your "group" takes interpretation and I think people with vast knowledge of the current realm of migration period material would enjoy joining the party? I figured it may be that they are threatened and/or it's a general sentiment or attitude towards those "genetics studies" nutters - it's too bad because it's going to keep on going and more results are going to keep coming out regardless of their participation. If they don't want to help, then the amateur scholars will step it up and make their own conclusions. I studied history in college and did research projects - it's not lost on me how to do that (I finally get to put it to use!). It was hard to not fire a come back at him and his friends that I'm not the one running around dressed in interpretations of burial evidence that is just that - interpretation. I would prefer to know I'm related via DNA before I embrace a material culture so whole-heartedly, but then again opinions are like arse-holes and we all have them haha!

Glad to hear you Uncle has a aDNA project going - I wish you and him the best of luck with it and the results and I hope he can convince some of the archaeology community to accept it and join up with us!!

Edit: Yes I agree with you about needing many more samples - to define the branching etc. I need many more Germanic Migration samples to determine how much of a part U106 (and my group Z156 and Z305-307 and Z304 above DF98) played in them - judging from the evidence thus far - they played a major (at least 50% of Northern European men) part - but I would like many more samples from other burial contexts to support this hypothesis... so far we have L48 and Z18 with the Longobards and a Germanic chamber burial at Poprad, Slovaki, and some U106, Z156 and Z305 among the higher status burials at Altenerding (AED 106 and 92 were buried with decorated belt sets etc - considered a sign of higher status in addition to their weapon sets etc - I've been able to find a number of texts on the archaeology of Altenerding and sample 106 and especially 92 - as 92 was one of only two men (in the whole early phase of the burial ground?) to have four weapon types in his burial). Proud to have him in my Y-DNA group ;-p.

2nd edit: considering our own matching and Big y matches etc - I have in my small group under S4004 which is under DF98 - I have the "gladiator" 6drif-3 (was he a POW or auxiliary soldier?) and some American families with supposed ancestry from the Isles - the two in my group who are actually from Europe are two Swedes - so right now that is my closest (albeit distant in that it's over 1000 years ago probably in early AD times) relation to anyone in Europe.

Yes, my uncle has been fascinated to follow my Y tests and was keen to point out when the Beaker paper came out that it vindicated the pre-1960s archaeological consensus! He still does occasional work (some of it high profile; he was interviewed on national TV recently although he lives and works in a different English-speaking country). I'm sure he does his best to convince those in the community who have embraced isotopes but have yet to see the benefits of DNA testing.
On the subject of papers, the Copenhagen university Viking study is due out soon. Anyone know of any Angle, Saxon or Jute studies in the works?
Edit: Bollox79, have you done Big Y/YFull? If so, any direct SNP matches with a TMRCA in the past 2,000 years?

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 09:21 AM
Yes, my uncle has been fascinated to follow my Y tests and was keen to point out when the Beaker paper came out that it vindicated the pre-1960s archaeological consensus! He still does occasional work (some of it high profile; he was interviewed on national TV recently although he lives and works in a different English-speaking country). I'm sure he does his best to convince those in the community who have embraced isotopes but have yet to see the benefits of DNA testing.
On the subject of papers, the Copenhagen university Viking study is due out soon. Anyone know of any Angle, Saxon or Jute studies in the works?

Can't wait for the Viking study - as there should hopefully be a couple or more U106ers and of course some group I guys - R1a also... as we were saying the more samples - the better!

as far as Angles and crew - I remember that a paper or project titled: Biological affinity and social identity: Ancient DNA analysis of Anglo-Saxons at Barrington A (Edix Hill), Cambridgeshire - this was found by member Rozenfeld among the titles of presentations for 24th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA2018/Programme.aspx?Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerC ommon=3#Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerCommon. The thread is here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot/page146

Edit: interesting that the pre-1960s archaeological interpretation was vindicated... that probably peeved a bunch of those archaeologists who supported the newer interpretations! They need to get over the their butthurt and just join in the fun!

JonikW
08-06-2018, 09:29 AM
Can't wait for the Viking study - as there should hopefully be a couple or more U106ers and of course some group I guys - R1a also... as we were saying the more samples - the better!

as far as Angles and crew - I remember that a paper or project titled: Biological affinity and social identity: Ancient DNA analysis of Anglo-Saxons at Barrington A (Edix Hill), Cambridgeshire - this was found by member Rozenfeld among the titles of presentations for 24th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA2018/Programme.aspx?Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerC ommon=3#Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerCommon. The thread is here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot/page146

Edit: interesting that the pre-1960s archaeological interpretation was vindicated... that probably peeved a bunch of those archaeologists who supported the newer interpretations! They need to get over the their butthurt and just join in the fun!

Oh yes, forgot about Cambridgeshire. Exciting stuff.

Bollox79
08-06-2018, 11:27 AM
Edit: Bollox79, have you done Big Y/YFull? If so, any direct SNP matches with a TMRCA in the past 2,000 years?

JonikW,

Yes I have done STR 111, Bit Y (and with that we are supposed to get the STR 500 - I have to e-mail them since my kit was one of the first Big Ys and they haven't upgraded me yet so they need to correct that). I don't have any close matches unfortunately - but based on the dating estimate range I might get close to late B.C./early AD - Iain McDonald has the estimate dating range for my FGC14840 group 1253 B.C to 2 AD currently (in the most update-to-version of the King's Cluster DF98 pdf)... one SNP before that I share 6drif-3 from York on the Mount - and in my little group under S4004 there are two Swedes (other than Americans who think their ancestors probably came from the Isles). I am currently awaiting closer matches - whether that be ancient(!) DNA, or someone from Europe. The fact that the Isles if fairly well tested compared to other countries makes me think I might find my closer match somewhere in the North on the continent side! Here is my little group from Alex's big tree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1330

This is the S4004 group above my immediate group - it has a Norwegian - then Swedish - Estonia nobility lineage who matches with Northern English/Scots and a German/Dutch man who matches with an Englishman... http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=3336&star=false

JonikW
08-06-2018, 01:36 PM
JonikW,

Yes I have done STR 111, Bit Y (and with that we are supposed to get the STR 500 - I have to e-mail them since my kit was one of the first Big Ys and they haven't upgraded me yet so they need to correct that). I don't have any close matches unfortunately - but based on the dating estimate range I might get close to late B.C./early AD - Iain McDonald has the estimate dating range for my FGC14840 group 1253 B.C to 2 AD currently (in the most update-to-version of the King's Cluster DF98 pdf)... one SNP before that I share 6drif-3 from York on the Mount - and in my little group under S4004 there are two Swedes (other than Americans who think their ancestors probably came from the Isles). I am currently awaiting closer matches - whether that be ancient(!) DNA, or someone from Europe. The fact that the Isles if fairly well tested compared to other countries makes me think I might find my closer match somewhere in the North on the continent side! Here is my little group from Alex's big tree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1330

This is the S4004 group above my immediate group - it has a Norwegian - then Swedish - Estonia nobility lineage who matches with Northern English/Scots and a German/Dutch man who matches with an Englishman... http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=3336&star=false

Very interesting, thanks. One day you'll check and get a closer match, just like I did. I look forward to hearing about it. I'm very interested in U106 for obvious reasons.

Sam Boyer
08-18-2018, 07:03 PM
I've considered this question quite a bit since getting my Y-DNA results back. My haplogroup is R1b-U106>DF96>Z27559, which I can only assume was brought over to England with the Anglo-Saxons, though what tribe it comes from seems a bit uncertain.

Nearly all recent matches are from England with many standard Anglo-Saxon occupational surnames which makes sense. The nearest haplogroup matches from any Germanic countries seem to be mostly from Germany and the Netherlands though it's impossible to pinpoint an exact location for the more recent subclades. Going back, however, DF96 appears to be focused along the Middle and Lower Rhine, which leads me to believe it could be connected to either the Frisii, the Saxons, or any of the other smaller West Germanic tribes. That'd make sense as my paternal line comes not far from Winchester, which is where these tribes are said to have settled. The lack of matches in Denmark also seems to rule out the nothernmost tribes, such as the Jutes or Angles. However, DF96 has also been found in one of the ancient Baiuvarii samples, as well as one of the samples found in the Roman Britain burial at York, so it seems to have traveled a bit from quite early on.

It's fun to speculate but there's a huge gap of around 1500 years or so where any number of short distance migrations could have occurred, and I'd assume this goes for many of the R1b-U106 and I1 subclades. Hopefully one day as more people from these regions have tested and we have access to more ancient DNA samples from the migration period, we'll begin to learn more.

Bollox79
08-19-2018, 03:04 AM
I've considered this question quite a bit since getting my Y-DNA results back. My haplogroup is R1b-U106>DF96>Z27559, which I can only assume was brought over to England with the Anglo-Saxons, though what tribe it comes from seems a bit uncertain.

Nearly all recent matches are from England with many standard Anglo-Saxon occupational surnames which makes sense. The nearest haplogroup matches from any Germanic countries seem to be mostly from Germany and the Netherlands though it's impossible to pinpoint an exact location for the more recent subclades. Going back, however, DF96 appears to be focused along the Middle and Lower Rhine, which leads me to believe it could be connected to either the Frisii, the Saxons, or any of the other smaller West Germanic tribes. That'd make sense as my paternal line comes not far from Winchester, which is where these tribes are said to have settled. The lack of matches in Denmark also seems to rule out the nothernmost tribes, such as the Jutes or Angles. However, DF96 has also been found in one of the ancient Baiuvarri samples, as well as one of the samples found in the Roman Britain burial at York, so it seems to have traveled a bit from quite early on.

It's fun to speculate but there's a huge gap of around 1500 years or so where any number of short distance migrations could have occurred, and I'd assume this goes for many of the R1b-U106 and I1 subclades. Hopefully one day as more people from these regions have tested and we have access to more ancient DNA samples from the migration period, we'll begin to learn more.

Yep ALH 1 was the Baiuvarii and 3drif-16 the "Gladiator" I have a close match (in the sense that my match is within two SNPs or so of my modern matches - which means my modern ones are very old!) with the other U106 Gladiator 6drif-3 (see my sig!). We have just found more U106 in the burials at Niederstotzingen by converting their .fastq files and running them through analysis. So far graves 6, 9, and 3a are U106+ and L48 and Z347+ (same as "Longobard" samples SZ11 from Szolad)... this is a burial site attributed to the Alamanni - very rich grave goods etc - and grave 9 (oldest grave there) has equipment that is "connected" or is considered Frankish in nature - but keep in mind the Franks recruited from other areas... this burial ground is within the Lombard horizon - movements of the Longobards I believe... we have a thread going over in Ancient DNA called Two Alemanni samples in K36 and PCA go check it out!

My own U106 DF98 group is the brother of your DF96 group and associated with the House of Wettin (their ancestors appear to be a part of the elite kinship group of East Saxon magnate families since Theitmar of Merseburg stated that the original Wettin was agnatic kin to a Margrave Rikdag!)...

Sam this is my current list of U106+ aDNA positive samples - I have yet to add the Niederstotzingen samples as we are still working our way through them... but will eventually once we establish who is U106+ among them... here is the link check it out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h6ZFaJe9gUtwl2r2Iu33B5_kCc6er5n9oEthCe25wV0/edit?usp=sharing

uintah106
08-19-2018, 03:34 AM
Yep ALH 1 was the Baiuvarii and 3drif-16 the "Gladiator" I have a close match (in the sense that my match is within two SNPs or so of my modern matches - which means my modern ones are very old!) with the other U106 Gladiator 6drif-3 (see my sig!). We have just found more U106 in the burials at Niederstotzingen by converting their .fastq files and running them through analysis. So far graves 6, 9, and 3a are U106+ and L48 and Z347+ (same as "Longobard" samples SZ11 from Szolad)... this is a burial site attributed to the Alamanni - very rich grave goods etc - and grave 9 (oldest grave there) has equipment that is "connected" or is considered Frankish in nature - but keep in mind the Franks recruited from other areas... this burial ground is within the Lombard horizon - movements of the Longobards I believe... we have a thread going over in Ancient DNA called Two Alemanni samples in K36 and PCA go check it out!

My own U106 DF98 group is the brother of your DF96 group and associated with the House of Wettin (their ancestors appear to be a part of the elite kinship group of East Saxon magnate families since Theitmar of Merseburg stated that the original Wettin was agnatic kin to a Margrave Rikdag!)...

Sam this is my current list of U106+ aDNA positive samples - I have yet to add the Niederstotzingen samples as we are still working our way through them... but will eventually once we establish who is U106+ among them... here is the link check it out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h6ZFaJe9gUtwl2r2Iu33B5_kCc6er5n9oEthCe25wV0/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for all your work on ancient U 106 really fascinating to follow. You even point out Rise98 is By30097- in your list which is significant to my clade. My S11493 branch has three members. My own from the Danish Isles and two from southwestern England. Maybe Danish Vikings or surely Angles and Danes had a lot of shared origions.

Bollox79
08-19-2018, 06:01 AM
Thanks for all your work on ancient U 106 really fascinating to follow. You even point out Rise98 is By30097- in your list which is significant to my clade. My S11493 branch has three members. My own from the Danish Isles and two from southwestern England. Maybe Danish Vikings or surely Angles and Danes had a lot of shared origions.

Thanks! With my crappy computer I can't really run the converting software like I'd like to... but I can certainly do the research on the background of the site in question and record all info for our group U106 (and others who have an interest in general). I think with enough samples like these and good testing etc... we can tentatively assign some "labels" to them... overall anyway or at least it can direct us to which group was likely their origin or kinship group... but keeping in mind that culture or ethnic labels are abstract - we really don't know who these guys considered themselves to be... but it's fun to speculate and try and put it in an archaeological context.

Yes I thought it quite important to get the Rise98 is By30097- since he is our earliest U106+ sample so it pays to pay attention to his SNPs and where they split! I hope in the future (more aDNA from the Baltic and Scandinavia) we find more of your S11493 branch ;-).

By trying to build these Y-SNP trees backwards and forewards (such as ALH 1 who Alex W. said has good enough testing to match a few variants in a Big Y tester if they ever come along under where he is now)... we can get an idea of their kinship group and their possible spread!

Sam Boyer
09-16-2018, 05:04 AM
Yep ALH 1 was the Baiuvarii and 3drif-16 the "Gladiator" I have a close match (in the sense that my match is within two SNPs or so of my modern matches - which means my modern ones are very old!) with the other U106 Gladiator 6drif-3 (see my sig!). We have just found more U106 in the burials at Niederstotzingen by converting their .fastq files and running them through analysis. So far graves 6, 9, and 3a are U106+ and L48 and Z347+ (same as "Longobard" samples SZ11 from Szolad)... this is a burial site attributed to the Alamanni - very rich grave goods etc - and grave 9 (oldest grave there) has equipment that is "connected" or is considered Frankish in nature - but keep in mind the Franks recruited from other areas... this burial ground is within the Lombard horizon - movements of the Longobards I believe... we have a thread going over in Ancient DNA called Two Alemanni samples in K36 and PCA go check it out!

My own U106 DF98 group is the brother of your DF96 group and associated with the House of Wettin (their ancestors appear to be a part of the elite kinship group of East Saxon magnate families since Theitmar of Merseburg stated that the original Wettin was agnatic kin to a Margrave Rikdag!)...

Sam this is my current list of U106+ aDNA positive samples - I have yet to add the Niederstotzingen samples as we are still working our way through them... but will eventually once we establish who is U106+ among them... here is the link check it out:...

Thanks a lot for all your work on this, it's great that we've got such a detailed list to draw from. I've also read up on Iain McDonald's research on U106 and DF98, and intend to follow his future reports closely.

I didn't notice until reviewing your document but I actually share another SNP with the ALH 1 Baiuvarii sample, FGC13326. It's interesting to see that even there, it seems to have traveled quite far from what we'd generally consider typical DF96 territory. It just goes to show, these older subclades could tell us very little location-wise unless we find more information about where some of the younger subclades originated from shortly before the Migration Period.

I'll be intrigued to see what future U106 samples can tell us.

Finn
09-07-2019, 05:49 PM
Based on the new paper about the Y chromosome landscape of the Netherlands
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0
I guess that there is going to be a certain shift in Jutish and Saxon R1b U106.
(West) Friesland had more Jutish influence than Groningen and Drenthe. Groningen and Drenthe had more Chauci/Saxon influence.

Mac Donald about Danish R1b U106,
U198 are largely missing

When we look at the North Dutch situation R1b U198 is strong in Groningen and Drenthe, that's Saxon influence.
For R1b U106 L47 is this also the case. I don't see mentioning R1b L47 in the Danish situation, though in the English case it's present. So I guess it's a big change it's more Saxon than Jutish!

https://www.mupload.nl/img/k4b8zm3w3jw.31.34.png

The Jutish influence among the Frisians is more there in Z18 (and Z9 ). Z18 is not separate shown in the article, but according the supplementary info (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41431-019-0496-0/MediaObjects/41431_2019_496_MOESM1_ESM.pdf) a substantial part of the total R1b U106:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/3hodrbyaq5bxb.42.39.png
This peaks in Westergo (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westergo#/media/Bestand:Westergo.jpg), the Jutish stronghold in migration time.

So: Z18 is more Jutish, and U198 and L47 more Saxon?

Wing Genealogist
09-07-2019, 07:36 PM
Based on the new paper about the Y chromosome landscape of the Netherlands
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0
I guess that there is going to be a certain shift in Jutish and Saxon R1b U106.
(West) Friesland had more Jutish influence than Groningen and Drenthe. Groningen and Drenthe had more Chauci/Saxon influence.

Mac Donald about Danish R1b U106,

When we look at the North Dutch situation R1b U198 is strong in Groningen and Drenthe, that's Saxon influence.
For R1b U106 L47 is this also the case. I don't see mentioning R1b L47 in the Danish situation, though in the English case it's present. So I guess it's a big change it's more Saxon than Jutish!

[SNIP image]

The Jutish influence among the Frisians is more there in Z18 (and Z9 ). Z18 is not separate shown in the article, but according the supplementary info (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41431-019-0496-0/MediaObjects/41431_2019_496_MOESM1_ESM.pdf) a substantial part of the total R1b U106:
[SNIP image]
This peaks in Westergo (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westergo#/media/Bestand:Westergo.jpg), the Jutish stronghold in migration time.

So: Z18 is more Jutish, and U198 and L47 more Saxon?

While Z9 is younger than Z18, it is roughly 2-3 times as large as Z18 (see the Datasets tab at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?)usp=sharing) Especially Open Search World (Columns J & K) & Open Search Europe (Columns L & M) and the GoNL (Genomes of the Netherlands) (Columns R & S).

Z9 is even more numerous than L47. By chance, L47 happened to be discovered early and been fixed in the collective memory while Z9 was at the beginning of the "SNP tsunami" and is mostly forgotten.

Finn
09-08-2019, 07:50 AM
While Z9 is younger than Z18, it is roughly 2-3 times as large as Z18 (see the Datasets tab at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?)usp=sharing) Especially Open Search World (Columns J & K) & Open Search Europe (Columns L & M) and the GoNL (Genomes of the Netherlands) (Columns R & S).

Z9 is even more numerous than L47. By chance, L47 happened to be discovered early and been fixed in the collective memory while Z9 was at the beginning of the "SNP tsunami" and is mostly forgotten.


OK based on that. L47 is shown in the research and has a Saxon kind of spread (in the North Dutch area).

But L48 is also shown, but L47 is a major line of it, and when I see the spread of L48 combined with your remarks about Z9 I guess Z9 is the major contributor behind L48......And it's the mostly Jutish spread because it peaks in Jutish stronghold Westergo.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/cnpf4ex.38.15.png

Pffff the subclade of the subclade of the subclade......;)

Finn
09-08-2019, 09:09 AM
So can we detect Angle, Saxon, or Jute?

Mc Donald:

U106 in Denmark is typical of the Scandinavian countries, being mainly Z18 and Z9. There is also a significant Z159 component, presumably related to the Baltic Sea trade. Z156 and U198 are largely missing, although generally the uptake of deeper SNP testing in Denmark is low.



They are interacted, but based on the recent Dutch research I would tentative say: Saxons have more R1b U198 and L47 and the Jutes more Z9 and Z18.....

(so I have revisited my originally point of view that they were too entangled too separate them...)

Finn
09-09-2019, 05:46 AM
Jutes & Angles
I guess in the Westergo (Friesland) situation there a fingers pointing to the Jutes (D bracteate) but the cross shaped fibulae are pointing to the Angles, indeed!

Cross shaped fibulae ('Anglian') from Nicolay
https://www.mupload.nl/img/a00ftm8wquc.40.17.png

D-bracteate ('Jutish') from Nicolay
https://www.mupload.nl/img/fli679s9og.40.34.png

Saxons/Chauci
More North Dutch eastwards (Groningen/Drenthe)there was Chauci/Saxons influence. They were waiting 'next door' in East-Friesland (nowadays Germany), and were expanding to Groningen and North Drenthe in Roman times and afterwards. It's known that already in Roman times they were Vikings avant la lettre and were pirates around the Channel. The expansion to neigbouring Groningen and Drenthe seems to be without much violence. But this picture correspondence with the picture of especially R1b U198 and also L47 (see previous pages).

Archeologist Annet Nieuwhof, Chauci expansion:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ox97fqaxc.54.24 kopie.jpg

Larmuseau
https://www.mupload.nl/img/6pd5bgmk1fw.16.28.png

Finn
09-11-2019, 03:59 PM
Through the eye lashes we can also see that R1b U198 and L47 is more there in Saxon England, and Z18 and Z9 in the Jutish and Anglo 'strongholds' (also Danelaw and Viking influences), Z156 seems to have a preference for Ireland/ Western parts of the isles.

See:
The geography of U106 testers in the British Isles,
in:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

Mc Donald's most recent comment about this (as quoted by Radboud):

R-Z156 is a minor branch of R-U106, probably representing about 15-20% of its population today. Based on the Corded Ware culture model, it probably formed around 2500 BC +/- about 200 years. Georgaphically, it seems to be more common in the southern range of R-U106, more towards the origins of the Celtic people. R-Z156 is notable for housing several European royal families, including the House of Wettin (also R-DF98) and probably the House of Bourbon (R-Z381 and negative for its other major branches).

R-DF98 represents roughly a third of R-Z156, about 5-7% of its population, and perhaps a few million men worldwide. We linked the DF98 mutation to this group back in 2013, and before that we called it the "Kings' Cluster", because one of the original testers was from the House of Wettin. This House includes the current royal families of Belgium and the UK, the last royal families of Bulgaria and Portugal, and the Saxon royal family. Since 2013, I have conducted research into this group, and I think I can now fairly claim to be the world authority on it. We're very lucky in R-DF98 to have a well-tested population and more ancient DNA than any other R-U106 branch. Geographically and historically, R-DF98 is common in a wide band, stretching from the British Isles, through France and the Low Countries, across southern and central Germany. That band probably continues eastwards into Austria, Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine, but we have fewer testers from these countries. It probably formed around 2200 BC +/- about 250 years.

Finn
09-14-2019, 09:02 AM
I will try to make a shift from Y-DNA to AU-DNA regarding the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. I will base this on my parents auDNA. And I guess this is also relevant for the Anglo-Saxons 'abroad'.

This figures are from research of Lukasz (K36 based) he has also some very relevant Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) samples as this his the heartland of the Chauci/Saxons.

My father has mostly a coastal North Dutch ancestry. This gives the following nMonte result:

Niedersachsen,45.6
Dutch_Groningen,39
Scotland,8
Iceland,3.2
Nordrhein-Westfalen,2.2
Dutch_Drenthe,0.4
England_South-West,0.4
North_Sweden,0.4
Saarland,0.4
Finnish_Swede,0.2
Schleswig-Holstein,0.2

This is a typically Saxon/Chauci result. My interpretation is that the Groningen region is a mixture of Germanic/Saxons with some 'pre-Germanic' substrate, may be 'hidden' in the Scotland result for example (with a outmost NW touch like Iceland/Scotland).

But as a whole I guess Dad's auDNA could easily be used as a proxy for North Sea Germanics.


In my mother's case this is more complicated. See has an inland North Dutch ancestry (sandy hight, Hondsrug/Drenthe). Here also a major Saxon influence,
nMONTE result:
Niedersachsen,32.8
SV_Skane,21.6
Dutch_Friesland,21
Dutch_Groningen,13.2
Dutch_Utrecht,2.6
Scotland,1.6
Dutch_Overijssel,1.4
Oberland(western_Ost_Preussen),1.2
Denmark,1
Ireland,1
Neumark(East_Brandenburg),0.8
Lithuanians,0.4
PL_North,0.4
NE_Ost-Presussen,0.2
PL_Masovia,0.2
Pommern,0.2
RU_Bryansk,0.2
SV_Gotaland,0.2

Again Niedersachsen as a proxy for the Saxon influence, but there is a consequent more northeastern= read Baltic touch in here auDNA too.
For example:
Gaussian method.
Noise dispersion set to 0,130062
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Niedersachsen @ 2,681287
2 Pommern @ 3,075798
3 Denmark @ 3,235213
4 SV_Skane @ 3,331292
5 England_South-East @ 3,389818
6 Schleswig-Holstein @ 3,412515
7 SV_Svealand @ 3,424674
8 England_North-West @ 3,447941
9 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern @ 3,463505
10 Iceland @ 3,467051

This could be a Jutish or even more an Anglian result.....as this is more Scandic than the more West-Germanic Saxons.
Although this is 'easiest' explanation I have doubts this is due to the North Sea Germanic amalgam.
First of all because the Jutes and Angles had in the North Dutch situation a preference for the coastal area and were not represented in the inland!

A more plausible explanation (IMO) is that it has a connection with the Funnelbeaker (TRB ). Her auDNA region is the absolute hotspot of the Funnelbeakers.


The following Early Neolithic period, starting around 6000 calBCE, saw the transition from foraging to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle with the expansion of farmers out of Anatolia into Central and Southern Europe. This development reached southern Scandinavia at around 4000 calBCE with farmers of the so-called Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture (EN TRB; from German Trichterbecher) who gradually introduced cultivation of cereals and cattle rearing. At the transition to the northern Middle Neolithic, around 3300 calBCE, an intensification of agriculture occurred in Denmark and in western central Sweden accompanied by the erection of megaliths. Settlements in eastern central Sweden increasingly concentrated along the coast, where the economy shifted towards the marine resources. Early pottery of these coastal hunter-gatherers, known as the Pitted Ware Culture (PWC), resembles the Funnel beakers in shape. Analysis of ancient genomes from PWC and megalithic Middle Neolithic TRB (MN TRB ) context in central Sweden has shown that the PWC individuals retain the genetic signature of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers while the TRB farmers’ ancestry can mainly be traced back to Central European farmers, albeit with substantial admixture from European hunter-gatherers18–20. As these TRB individuals date to a period one millennium after the initial Neolithization in southern Scandinavia, the question remains whether the first introduction of farming around 4000 BCE was driven by newcomers or by local groups involving later gene-flow from Central European farmers.


A detailed joint analysis of genetic and archaeological data from hunter-gatherers from northern Germany, Denmark and the southern tip of Sweden is necessary to establish the role of local admixture during the emergence of the TRB culture. Our data support that the Neolithic PWC foragers are largely genetically continuous to SHG, which is congruent with their similarities in subsistence strategies, while continuity between EN TRB and PWC can also be seen in archaeological assemblages38 and can be attributed to contact between farmers and foragers. Indeed, genetic evidence of admixture between these groups shows that they were not completely isolated from each other but did likely not uphold continuous contact nor intermarry frequently during their prolonged parallel existence in Scandinavia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5789860/

The North TRB deeply influenced, also genetically, the West TRB:

Whatever the origin, from the 35th cBC onwards Megalithicism gained an enormous dynamic. By the late 34th century, it had reached East Frisia, and Drenthe in the NE Netherlands (the concentration of Helgoland flint in Drenthe hints at a possibly arrival by boat), as well as Scania and Central Mecklenburg. The spreading pattern through Lower Saxony has remained somewhat unclear, at least to me. In any case, the AMS dating supplied with the Sorsum sample indicates that the location was reached by the early 32nd cBC at latest.


https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

Got it???
Mecklenburg is in line with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Pommern, Oberland results!
Scania with SV Skane result.


So she is still North Sea Germanic but with a high pre-Germanic amount pointing at TRB.

So this is the puzzle for me, both mom and dad are 'Saxons' with a pre-Germanic amount. But the pre-Germanic amount of Dad points at the outmost NW (Scotland, Iceland etc) and the pre-Germanic amount of mom is pointing at the outmost NE (Pommern, Oberland etc). What's the reason, indeed some kind of TRB (more NE) vs Bell Beakerish (NW)? Or....???


What are your thoughts about this? And how we could use it to get the Anglo-Saxon population/amount on the Isles more sharp.....Are there more people with usable results of the K36 research done by Lukasz?

Finn
10-24-2019, 06:19 PM
Odin In Friesland


In the Roman period, the coastal area of the northern Netherlands, and the province of Friesland in particular, was one of the most densely populated areas of northwestern Europe. In the 3rd century AD, a strong decline in population can be seen; the near absence of finds indicates that large areas, including most of the province of Friesland, were even deserted during most of the 4th century (Nieuwhof 2011). More to the east, in the Elbe-Weser region, cemetery sites in particular are at their most numerous in the 4th and 5th centuries, followed by a population decline that is traditionally related to the historically documented migration of Angles and Saxons.
The distribution of ‘Saxon’ jewellery, including brooches executed in the Saxon Relief Style, shows that the migrating ‘Anglo-Saxons’ settled not only in south-eastern England but also in Friesland (Nicolay 2014, 347 fig. 13.1). While in Friesland hundreds of abandoned terp sites could be reoccupied, in south-eastern England the presence of a Romano- British population must have resulted in a tenser situation and a mixed population. Despite the lack of evidence for a clear break in habitation, all currently known Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemetery sites were newly established which also points to significant socio-political and cultural changes in early Migration-Period Britain. Although the takeover of power positions is difficult to prove archaeologically, the symbolic language of contemporary status symbols seems to indicate that the newcomers were the dominant group and may have occupied most of the ruling positions in the newly inhabited areas.
After the newcomers had settled, the Migration and Merovingian Periods saw a fascinating process of power for- mation: all along the southern North Sea coasts regional kingdoms appeared, which developed into larger, supra- regional kingdoms in the late 6th century (Nicolay 2014, 350–361 figs. 13.2–3). Their development is historically doc umented for East Anglia, Essex and Kent, and on archaeological grounds can be extrapolated to the Dutch-German coastal area. Although the situation is less clear for northern Germany, at least two kingdoms existed around 600 in the Netherlands: a ‘northern kingdom’ that covered the coastal area of the northern Netherlands (with Wijnaldum as its probable centre), and a ‘western kingdom’ that extended along the coastal area of the western Netherlands (centred on the Rhine estuary).
The formation phase of ‘Anglo-Saxon’, ‘Frisian’ and ‘Saxon’ kingdoms saw a surprisingly uniform adaptation of cultural identities by the new elites, as reflected in the shape and decoration of gold and silver jewellery. During the 5th century, imported Roman silver had been transformed into late Roman style brooches in the northern Elbe-Weser region. Following the migration of Anglo-Saxons, such Saxon Relief Style brooches were also produced in Friesland and south-eastern England alongside the British ornaments in Quoit Brooch Style. After the Roman Empire had lost its significance as a political force in western Europe, the focus of the late 5th- and 6th-century North Sea elite shifted north. Symbols of the now powerful Scandinavian kingdoms were chosen to replace the late Roman style jewellery. ‘Jutlandic’ brooches and Scandinavian-type bracteates, decorated intyle I, appeared as the new insignia, and for several decades were imitated and copied at regional workshops.
This switch in the symbolic language of the leading elite is probably also the material reflection of an important ideological change. After Saxon-style ornaments had for at least half a century been treasured as symbols of their ‘Anglo-Saxon’ origin, the adaptation of Style I indicates that the North Sea elite created new and more powerful origin myths that linked true and mythical ancestors with the Old Norse pantheon. While the adapted Scandinavian decorative style on the one hand reflected a shared identity of the newly shaped king- doms, the animal ornamentation on the other hand gave room for expressing regional identities. The Scandinavian prototypes gradually developed into regional-style jewellery, per region showing a specific ‘amalgamation’ of Scandinavian (animal motifs and, for example, the shape of the disc-on-bow brooch) and Frankish (the shape of buckles and disc brooches, and the use of garnet-cloisonné) influences.
Despite the growing power of the Frankish kingdom to the south, it is interesting to see that the 6th-century North Sea elite chose not simply to imitate Frankish jewellery as their new insignia. Instead, they cherished a cultural iden- tity in which the mythical link with Scandinavia was maintained as both the Sutton Hoo jewellery and the Wijnaldum brooch illustrate. An important aspect of this link was the incorporation of Odin (Wodan) in the royal genealogies and the worship of Scandinavian gods, like Odin, Freya and Thor. It can be assumed that (most of ) these gods were similar to older, indigenous gods of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’, who now within the southern North Sea area were incorporated into a newly adopted, Scandinavian pantheon (see also Simek 2003, 103–117; 144). The continuation of the cultural-ideological link with Scandinavia, also after political bonds with the Frankish royal house were established, can be explained by the expansionist nature of the Frankish kingdom: to resist Frankish annexation not only a strong military power but also a different ideology, focusing on ancestral, Scandinavian gods was required.
As a result, an ideological borderline divided north-western Europe into a Frankish-Christian and a Scandinavian-pagan part (see also Hedeager 1992). In contrast to the Frankish kings, royal families along the southern North Sea coasts seem to have placed themselves within a Scandinavian mythology, developed their own language (runes) and visualized their ancestral links as decorative motifs on the symbols of their status (Animal Styles I and II; for southern Scandinavia, cf. Hedeager 1992, 289–291). The importance of mythical links with Scandinavia must have been a thorn in the side of the early missionaries who worked in England, and even more so in the area north of the Rhine. Two well-known events nicely illustrate how hesitant ‘North Sea kings’ were to abandon their ancestors and gods in favour of Christ. Not only did the East-Anglian King Readwald refuse to give up his pagan altar after his conversion to Christianity (616 AD; Simek 2003, 237–238), but also a century later the ‘Frisian’ King Radbod even refused to be baptized because he did not want to spend the afterlife in Heaven if his pagan ancestors could not (c.700; Simek 2003, 233). Although Christianity was first introduced in Kent under King Ćthelbert (d.616) during the late 6th century, it was another five centuries before the ‘Frisian’, ‘Saxon’ and Scandinavian kings were also converted (see Simek 2003, 228–255) and Odin lost out to Christ as the divine patron of kings.


Link:

https://www.academia.edu/35420221/Odin_in_Friesland._Scandinavian_influences_in_the_ southern_North_Sea_area_during_the_Migration_and_E arly_Merovingian_periods

It’s a pity that most people probably can’t read Dutch, because archeologist Ernst Taayke made this also clear in this work;

https://www.academia.edu/35839613/Onder_Franken_en_Saksen_Vrije_Fries_2000.pdf

Anglo-Saxon Impact


The occupation history of the coastal area of the northern Netherlands in the 4th and 5th centuries AD has been the subject of heated debate in the past. It still has not been decided whether migration or acculturation underlie the changes in the material culture that occur in the th century. In this article, the pottery from the terp settlement of Ezinge in the province of Groningen was compared to the pottery from some other settlements, in particular Midlaren-De Bloemert in northern Drenthe and the terp settlement of the Feddersen Wierde on the coast of Niedersachsen, in order to investigate the occupation history of the northern Netherlands in 4th and 5th centuries.
The number of pottery individuals, associations of pottery and a continuous typological development indicate that both Ezinge and Midlaren-De Bloemert were inhabited continuously from the middle Roman Iron Age until the early Middle Ages. While these pottery assemblages show how continuity can be recognized, they implicitly also show what the characteristics of discontinuity in this period might be: no finds from the period of the hiatus, no continuous pottery development and no associations of pottery from 3rd century with pottery in Anglo-Saxon style. These characteristics apply to a large part of the terp region of the northern Netherlands. Only some terps in Groningen and possibly in Oostergo remained inhabited during the 4th century.
The abandonment of the terp region already started in the 3rd century. It may have been caused by natural as well as social circumstances. The last inhabitants left no later than AD350, if we follow Lanting and Van der Plicht, but most terps were already deserted by that time. The area was reoccupied as from the early 5th century. From the small number of finds from this period in most terps, it may be inferred that reoccupation only started on a small scale. Since there are considerable regional and local differences, it is not possible to give a general date for the occupation hiatus.
The reason why some terp settlements in well-drained areas in the province of Groningen remained inhabited, whereas terps in well-drained areas in Friesland were abandoned, must lie in the social network these settlements were part of. Already from the beginning of the Roman Iron Age, Groningen and northern Drenthe had been part of a socio-cultural network, which reached far into the east and which shared the same style of pottery. Within this net-work, there was frequent social intercourse, which involved the exchange of gifts and marriage partners. It also enabled the rapid spread of stylistic elements. Soon after the Anglo-Saxon style developed in the 4th century in the Anglo-Saxon core area, Schalenurnen were adopted in Ezinge, while in Midlaren, decorated pots in Anglo-Saxon style were used as cremation urns. These forms and their decoration were adopted by the local population and combined with their local ware. The network that is represented by this pottery, provided a solid social back ground to the remaining inhabitants of the Groningen terp region during the 4th century.
The situation in the Frisian terp region was different. This area had only come under the influence of this eastern socio-cultural network in the 3rd century, at a time when part of the population had already left. This did not stop the emigration process. The Frisian terp region, especially Westergo, was virtually deserted as from the beginning of the 4 th century.
The coastal area was reoccupied in the course of the 5th century, only on a small scale. The abandoned terps in Groningen may have been repopulated from still inhabited terps in the area itself, or from nearby Drenthe. However, the population of these areas was not large enough to occupy the entire terp region, including the Frisian terps. Immigrants from elsewhere, but within the same ‘Anglo-Saxon’ network, must have occupied many of the abandoned terps. The new settlers as well as the remaining inhabitants of Groningen terps and of northern Drenthe were part of the same network. Through this network, not only the Anglo-Saxon pottery style, but also other cultural elements such as a different settlement structure and a new type of burial ritual, which have traditionally been associated with Anglo-Saxon immigrants, spread over the entire repopulated area. Migration as well as acculturation thus played a role in the introduction of new cultural elements during the Migration Period in the northern Netherlands.
http://jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfd43e.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0402a03

A bit more speculative is that you can also see it in nowadays y-dna. You can see a gap in YDNA marker P312 in the western parts, this is probably connected with the Bell Beaker, these western parts are highest in R1b u106 subclades (like the Northern Z18). The eastern parts of it are high in u198. I suppose a connection with Chauci (so Saxons).