PDA

View Full Version : U106 - arrival in Britain and Ireland



avalon
11-20-2013, 04:21 PM
The question of when U106 first arrived in the Isles often comes up and I know some posters believe it may have arrived during prehistory. This thinking is based on modern variance calculations that may be inaccurate.

On the other hand, high modern frequencies of U106 in the Isles very closely match the spread of Anglo-Saxons and the later spread of English speakers in medieval times and beyond.

In Ireland, per Busby 2011, U106 is rare and on modern databases U106 is generally confined to barers of English surnames in Ireland. U106 is rare in Wales and in much of Scotland too. If U106 is prehistoric then why is it so rare in the Celtic West? Is it possible that it could have been confined to the east of Britain in prehistory and was then augmented by 'Germanics' during the historic period?

It has been pointed out that U106 occurs at elevated levels in some parts of eastern Scotland, namely Moray and Aberdeenshire, but this can be reasonably explained by a period of "Anglicisation" in eastern Scotland from the 11th century onwards when we see settlers arriving in this area from various places including Lothian, Yorkshire, Somerset and Flanders during David I's establishment of Royal Burghs in Scotland.

The impact of these arrivals on the native culture must have been significant because by 1400 much of the east coast of Scotland is speaking Lowland Scots which is a dialect of English. Thereafter, Scottish history was often defined by English speaking lowlanders and the Gaelic speaking highlanders.

Wonder_Wall
12-11-2013, 05:24 AM
The speculative nature of this sort of thing seems driven by a paucity of good DNA evidence from the past... Do you happen to know what the earliest U106 in the isles is?

It's probably the case that some small amount of U106 is pre Anglo-Saxon. The question is how small I suppose.

alan
12-17-2013, 06:36 PM
I so not think anyone can answer that. IMO it depends where U106 was on the continent. No clade is going to get to the isles in any measurable amount unless it is on the shores opposite the isles. I would say as soon as it reached the Low Countries it could have crossed. However it has been suggested that it didnt reach the Low Countries until later although that is based on variance which always carries doubt.

What makes me think U106 is a latecomer in the west is that not only does U106 fall away in the Celtic fringe of the isles but it also falls away at the Germanic-Romance split on the continent. This is not quite as drastic a border but its a strong pattern given that we know Germanic groups did conquer places like France, Spain etc albeit in numbers insufficient to change the language.

rms2
12-18-2013, 12:23 AM
I so not think anyone can answer that. IMO it depends where U106 was on the continent. No clade is going to get to the isles in any measurable amount unless it is on the shores opposite the isles. I would say as soon as it reached the Low Countries it could have crossed. However it has been suggested that it didnt reach the Low Countries until later although that is based on variance which always carries doubt.

What makes me think U106 is a latecomer in the west is that not only does U106 fall away in the Celtic fringe of the isles but it also falls away at the Germanic-Romance split on the continent. This is not quite as drastic a border but its a strong pattern given that we know Germanic groups did conquer places like France, Spain etc albeit in numbers insufficient to change the language.

I agree. IMHO, U106 is closely connected to the development and spread of Germanic. Germanic speakers began arriving in the Lower Rhine region about 700 BC. That's when I think U106 got there, as well. I don't think they were sufficiently numerous or strong at that point to force their way into Britain, but that's not to say there weren't a few individuals here and there in SE Britain who were U106+.

It's possible there were some U106ers among the Belgae who went to Britain in the 1st century BC, but probably not many. There were probably some U106ers among Germanic troops serving as Roman auxilia in Britain in the closing centuries of Roman rule there, but the real influx of U106 came with the Anglo-Saxons, many of whom came from places where U106 is at its most frequent. It received a boost with the arrival of the Danish Vikings and, to a far lesser extent, the Normans.

If U106 were ancient or even prehistoric in the Isles, it would have a far different distribution there, at least in my opinion. As Avalon pointed out above, the distribution of U106 in the Isles is just too good a fit for the settlement patterns of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English.

Dienekes summed things up pretty well, I think.



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


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

R.Rocca
12-18-2013, 01:34 AM
I so not think anyone can answer that. IMO it depends where U106 was on the continent. No clade is going to get to the isles in any measurable amount unless it is on the shores opposite the isles. I would say as soon as it reached the Low Countries it could have crossed. However it has been suggested that it didnt reach the Low Countries until later although that is based on variance which always carries doubt.

What makes me think U106 is a latecomer in the west is that not only does U106 fall away in the Celtic fringe of the isles but it also falls away at the Germanic-Romance split on the continent. This is not quite as drastic a border but its a strong pattern given that we know Germanic groups did conquer places like France, Spain etc albeit in numbers insufficient to change the language.

Of 140 German speakers from five North-East Italian villages, contrary to what one might expect, U106 frequency was less than 1% and U106 was several times more common in Italian and Ladin speakers.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081704

Interestingly, of 142 samples from 3 Ladin speaking communities, 10.6% were L21+, with the samples from Gardena, South Tyrol having a relatively high L21+ frequency of 23.5%. I had noted in a U152 thread that almost all of U152 in the Ladin communities is L2+ which is more frequent as a percentage of U152 outside of Italy than within it. I would say that if these L2 prove to be of the downstream variety found in France (L2+Z49+142+ or L2+Z367+), then it may point to French origin for these L21. This of course would be a shock to no one.

rms2
12-19-2013, 01:13 AM
I saw that, and it struck me as odd, too, given that elsewhere U106 is much more frequent on the Germanic side of the Germanic/non-Germanic divide than otherwise. Given that, one would naturally expect the German-speaking villages to have a higher percentage of U106 than the Romance-speaking villages. Of course, these villages are all inside Italy, a Romance-speaking country. It could be that the U106+ men in the Romance-speaking villages are the descendants of Germanic tribesmen who came to Italy long enough ago that their descendants had plenty of time to adopt a Romance language, as the various Lombards and Goths and others elsewhere in Italy did.

That seems to me to be the most sensible explanation for this anomalous circumstance, especially given that nowhere in any of these sample locations does U106 comprise a majority or even a plurality.

Similarly, the German-speaking villages with the low levels of U106, on the other hand, could have been on the Austrian side of the oft-swaying Italian/Austrian border long enough to have adopted German, regardless of their older ethno-linguistic affinities.

It might be well to remember in this case that the exception proves the rule.

One more thing: I wonder how that trend would hold up if sampling had been extended to a few more German-speaking villages across the border in Austria. After all, for this study, twice as many Romance-speaking villages were sampled as German speaking.

R.Rocca
12-19-2013, 04:08 PM
I saw that, and it struck me as odd, too, given that elsewhere U106 is much more frequent on the Germanic side of the Germanic/non-Germanic divide than otherwise. Given that, one would naturally expect the German-speaking villages to have a higher percentage of U106 than the Romance-speaking villages. Of course, these villages are all inside Italy, a Romance-speaking country. It could be that the U106+ men in the Romance-speaking villages are the descendants of Germanic tribesmen who came to Italy long enough ago that their descendants had plenty of time to adopt a Romance language, as the various Lombards and Goths and others elsewhere in Italy did.

That seems to me to be the most sensible explanation for this anomalous circumstance, especially given that nowhere in any of these sample locations does U106 comprise a majority or even a plurality.

Similarly, the German-speaking villages with the low levels of U106, on the other hand, could have been on the Austrian side of the oft-swaying Italian/Austrian border long enough to have adopted German, regardless of their older ethno-linguistic affinities.

It might be well to remember in this case that the exception proves the rule.

One more thing: I wonder how that trend would hold up if sampling had been extended to a few more German-speaking villages across the border in Austria. After all, for this study, twice as many Romance-speaking villages were sampled as German speaking.

Haplogroup I1-M253 had no problems infiltrating these villages and it is a very healthy (for Italy anyway) 7.1% combined in these villages. R1a is also higher (10.7%), but it is almost all concentrated in Timau, Friuli (56.5%). Timau is right on the Austrian border.

Also of interest, the same pattern I've observed in other studies is true in this one: The U106(xL48) modal value of DYS390=24 is more common in the Romance speakers (69% of U106) than the typical DYS390=23. We know from FTDNA testing that this is not a mirage as a large percentage of Italian U106 testers are also L48-. Since U106 was so low in the Germanic speakers in this study, we can't really know what they would be, but right across the border in Tyrol Austria, DYS390=23 already becomes the majority (58.8% as per Niederstatter 2012).

So, what does all this mean? Maybe nothing, but I do find it interesting that Larmuseau (2013) found that L48 has an very obvious West-East cline in Belgium and Southern Netherlands. It could be that L48 is more indicative of Germanic expansion than some other U106 subclades.

Like you said, the exception should not be the rule, but in the case of Y-chromosome lineages that have been around for thousands of years, the rule may not always be the case in every geography.

Anglecynn
12-19-2013, 06:32 PM
Haplogroup I1-M253 had no problems infiltrating these villages and it is a very healthy (for Italy anyway) 7.1% combined in these villages. R1a is also higher (10.7%), but it is almost all concentrated in Timau, Friuli (56.5%). Timau is right on the Austrian border.

Also of interest, the same pattern I've observed in other studies is true in this one: The U106(xL48) modal value of DYS390=24 is more common in the Romance speakers (69% of U106) than the typical DYS390=23. We know from FTDNA testing that this is not a mirage as a large percentage of Italian U106 testers are also L48-. Since U106 was so low in the Germanic speakers in this study, we can't really know what they would be, but right across the border in Tyrol Austria, DYS390=23 already becomes the majority (58.8% as per Niederstatter 2012).

So, what does all this mean? Maybe nothing, but I do find it interesting that Larmuseau (2013) found that L48 has an very obvious West-East cline in Belgium and Southern Netherlands. It could be that L48 is more indicative of Germanic expansion than some other U106 subclades.

Like you said, the exception should not be the rule, but in the case of Y-chromosome lineages that have been around for thousands of years, the rule may not always be the case in every geography.

That's interesting. Is the percentage of L48 vs L48- known in various places in the British Isles? If for example the U106 in Wales is mostly L48- that might point to U106 being in Britain in the pre-Roman or Roman period, although if L48 is the minority in England as well it might be impossible to tell i suppose.

rms2
12-20-2013, 01:15 PM
Haplogroup I1-M253 had no problems infiltrating these villages and it is a very healthy (for Italy anyway) 7.1% combined in these villages. R1a is also higher (10.7%), but it is almost all concentrated in Timau, Friuli (56.5%). Timau is right on the Austrian border.

Also of interest, the same pattern I've observed in other studies is true in this one: The U106(xL48) modal value of DYS390=24 is more common in the Romance speakers (69% of U106) than the typical DYS390=23. We know from FTDNA testing that this is not a mirage as a large percentage of Italian U106 testers are also L48-. Since U106 was so low in the Germanic speakers in this study, we can't really know what they would be, but right across the border in Tyrol Austria, DYS390=23 already becomes the majority (58.8% as per Niederstatter 2012).

So, what does all this mean? Maybe nothing, but I do find it interesting that Larmuseau (2013) found that L48 has an very obvious West-East cline in Belgium and Southern Netherlands. It could be that L48 is more indicative of Germanic expansion than some other U106 subclades.

Like you said, the exception should not be the rule, but in the case of Y-chromosome lineages that have been around for thousands of years, the rule may not always be the case in every geography.

In this case we are considering not only y-chromosome lineages, which have been around for thousands of years, but languages, which are far younger and can be adopted fairly easily, regardless of y-chromosome lineage.

U106 in Italy is a minority y haplogroup. In none of the sample locations in this study did U106 comprise a majority or even a plurality of the samples. So, if U106 there represents Germanic descent, as I think it probably does, it is apparent that those Germans did not arrive in sufficient numbers to impose their speech on the native population - at least not for long.

I am not familiar with the details of the history of these Tyrolian villages, but I know the Austrian/Italian border has often swayed back and forth, similar to the situation in the Alsace/Elsass in what is now France and was frequently part of Germany. It could be that those German-speaking villages have just had more recent Austrian cultural and linguistic input than the villages where Romance languages are spoken, and that the U106 in the Romance-speaking villages never was Austrian. It could instead be descended from older Germanic input, perhaps dating back to the Roman period. That seems far more likely to me than that it represents some prehistoric U106 outlier.

In the British Isles, on the other hand, the distribution of U106 pretty obviously resembles the settlement patterns of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English. It is most frequent in the South and East and fades as one moves north and west, dropping like a rock in those places where Celtic languages and culture survived the longest or still survive. If U106 arrived in the Isles as far back as the Bronze Age, it should be more widespread and general throughout the Isles, it would seem to me, anyway.

Really, if one thinks about it, the pattern in Italy isn't all that different from the one in the British Isles. U106 is most frequent in the areas most heavily settled by Germanic tribes and fades as one moves south, away from those places. So, again, if U106 were really prehistoric in Italy, why did it confine itself to the areas which would later be settled by Germanic tribesmen? That seems an odd sort of coincidence.

Did the same thing happen in Britain?

Rathna
12-20-2013, 01:47 PM
So, again, if U106 were really prehistoric in Italy, why did it confine itself to the areas which would later be settled by Germanic tribesmen? That seems an odd sort of coincidence.


The solution could be the same of R-L11. It is scarce in Italy and many of them probably are of Langobard origin, as my friend Ballard has probably demonstrated, but the weird R-L11 haplotype has been found by Boattini in Pistoia province, demonstrating perhaps the remnant of the origin of this haplogroup from the Italian Refugium.
Hope to find something similar in Italy also for R-S21.
And don't forget to multiply your calculation of the MRCA for 2.5, and probably everything will become clear.

R.Rocca
12-20-2013, 03:27 PM
In this case we are considering not only y-chromosome lineages, which have been around for thousands of years, but languages, which are far younger and can be adopted fairly easily, regardless of y-chromosome lineage.

U106 in Italy is a minority y haplogroup. In none of the sample locations in this study did U106 comprise a majority or even a plurality of the samples. So, if U106 there represents Germanic descent, as I think it probably does, it is apparent that those Germans did not arrive in sufficient numbers to impose their speech on the native population - at least not for long.

I am not familiar with the details of the history of these Tyrolian villages, but I know the Austrian/Italian border has often swayed back and forth, similar to the situation in the Alsace/Elsass in what is now France and was frequently part of Germany. It could be that those German-speaking villages have just had more recent Austrian cultural and linguistic input than the villages where Romance languages are spoken, and that the U106 in the Romance-speaking villages never was Austrian. It could instead be descended from older Germanic input, perhaps dating back to the Roman period. That seems far more likely to me than that it represents some prehistoric U106 outlier.

In the British Isles, on the other hand, the distribution of U106 pretty obviously resembles the settlement patterns of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English. It is most frequent in the South and East and fades as one moves north and west, dropping like a rock in those places where Celtic languages and culture survived the longest or still survive. If U106 arrived in the Isles as far back as the Bronze Age, it should be more widespread and general throughout the Isles, it would seem to me, anyway.

Really, if one thinks about it, the pattern in Italy isn't all that different from the one in the British Isles. U106 is most frequent in the areas most heavily settled by Germanic tribes and fades as one moves south, away from those places. So, again, if U106 were really prehistoric in Italy, why did it confine itself to the areas which would later be settled by Germanic tribesmen? That seems an odd sort of coincidence.

Did the same thing happen in Britain?

I think I've shown enough based on data to see that in Italy, it may have nothing to do with coincidence, and more to do with bidirectional movement of people over the course of thousands of years.

Rathna
12-20-2013, 04:12 PM
I think I've shown enough based on data to see that in Italy, it may have nothing to do with coincidence, and more to do with bidirectional movement of people over the course of thousands of years.

I must write something to post my post...

Anglecynn
12-20-2013, 05:21 PM
In this case we are considering not only y-chromosome lineages, which have been around for thousands of years, but languages, which are far younger and can be adopted fairly easily, regardless of y-chromosome lineage.

U106 in Italy is a minority y haplogroup. In none of the sample locations in this study did U106 comprise a majority or even a plurality of the samples. So, if U106 there represents Germanic descent, as I think it probably does, it is apparent that those Germans did not arrive in sufficient numbers to impose their speech on the native population - at least not for long.

I am not familiar with the details of the history of these Tyrolian villages, but I know the Austrian/Italian border has often swayed back and forth, similar to the situation in the Alsace/Elsass in what is now France and was frequently part of Germany. It could be that those German-speaking villages have just had more recent Austrian cultural and linguistic input than the villages where Romance languages are spoken, and that the U106 in the Romance-speaking villages never was Austrian. It could instead be descended from older Germanic input, perhaps dating back to the Roman period. That seems far more likely to me than that it represents some prehistoric U106 outlier.

In the British Isles, on the other hand, the distribution of U106 pretty obviously resembles the settlement patterns of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English. It is most frequent in the South and East and fades as one moves north and west, dropping like a rock in those places where Celtic languages and culture survived the longest or still survive. If U106 arrived in the Isles as far back as the Bronze Age, it should be more widespread and general throughout the Isles, it would seem to me, anyway.

Really, if one thinks about it, the pattern in Italy isn't all that different from the one in the British Isles. U106 is most frequent in the areas most heavily settled by Germanic tribes and fades as one moves south, away from those places. So, again, if U106 were really prehistoric in Italy, why did it confine itself to the areas which would later be settled by Germanic tribesmen? That seems an odd sort of coincidence.

Did the same thing happen in Britain?

Although if small amounts of U106 had arrived in the immediate pre-Roman and the late-Roman periods, it's quite possible that they could have remained fairly restricted to the wealthy, populous lowlands. It's been acknowledged before that there has been a significant divide between the northern and western uplands and the southern, eastern and central lowlands for quite some time. In that way if any U106 was here in those periods - If it was quite uncommon it wouldn't have left a major mark from any movements westwards and many may have lived in their largely separate communities until English unification a couple of centuries later at which point they are absorbed, and culturally and genetically (due to U106) indistinguishable. We can see this a bit with U152, given that it follows a very English distribution in the Isles for the most part, and yet almost certainly the majority of it has been there before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. It could be that if U106 was here - It was only restricted to the far south-eastern areas in relatively small amounts, and so later became pretty much indistinguishable as it traveled with the rest of U106 in English movements through the British Isles.

Personally i agree with you very much, i'm pretty sure that almost all U106 (or at least in any reasonable amount) is post-Roman, although it helps to play devils advocate and to consider all possibilities.

It does depend very much on when U106 arrived in certain places on the continent though i would have thought?

If U106 had reached the Rhine prior to the movement of the Belgae into parts of southern Britain, i would have thought that small amounts (<5%) would probably be present dotted about here and there, among a majority U152, L21 and P312 population, although if it only reached the Rhine at about that time or later, then indeed pretty much all U106 apart from the rare exception could be post-Roman in date.

In any case, it's probably one of the clearest distinctions there is haplogroup-wise, and that it holds true across most areas of Europe supports that. Your hypothesis about northern Italy could well be true, if the U106 is ultimately absorbed within a non-Germanic speaking population at an earlier point, then it would not necessarily hold to what is observed in other areas of Europe where the Germanic language remained, and so did the U106.

rms2
12-22-2013, 01:44 PM
I also agree with you. There could have been a little U106 in Britain early on, but I don't think there was much, if any.

I acknowledge I could be very wrong, but I think U106 is closely associated with the rise and development of Germanic speech, and has been as long or almost as long as people have been twisting their tongues around it. Germans (in the broadest sense) started arriving in the Lower Rhine around 700 BC, but they did not really succeed in pushing the Celts across the Rhine until around 200 BC. So, I don't think much if any U106 could have made it to Britain before 200 BC or thereabouts. Even then, I doubt the Celtic tribes resident in SE Britain would have welcomed newcomers, except as traders or skilled craftsmen with something to offer. During that early period, the Celts were far more advanced than the Germans, so the crafts would have been flowing from the Celts to the Germans instead of the other way around.

rms2
12-22-2013, 02:36 PM
I think I've shown enough based on data to see that in Italy, it may have nothing to do with coincidence, and more to do with bidirectional movement of people over the course of thousands of years.

You could be right, but the data may also indicate that the U106 is due to Germanic settlement in Italy during the Migration Period. After all, U106 decreases and fades to practically nothing as one moves south in Italy and away from the places where the Germans (Lombards, Goths, etc.) settled. If that age-old bidirectional movement occurred, its genetic artifacts will be hard to disentangle from those of the historical Germanic settlement.

I think the U106 in Italy and in the Isles is due, for the most part, to Germanic settlement. I know we probably disagree about that.

Solothurn
12-22-2013, 03:27 PM
An English U106 > U198 'cousin' is thinking of ordering the Chromo2.

Potentially to look for Z201 (also known as S457)!

Does anybody know of any Z201+/S457+ results yet?

Thanks

rms2
12-22-2013, 04:03 PM
An English U106 > U198 'cousin' is thinking of ordering the Chromo2.

Potentially to look for Z201 (also known as S457)!

Does anybody know of any Z201+/S457+ results yet?

Thanks

I know S457 is included in the Chromo2 test, because I am negative for it (naturally). I have not heard of any positives, but maybe somebody else will post here with some news on that front.

R.Rocca
12-22-2013, 04:14 PM
You could be right, but the data may also indicate that the U106 is due to Germanic settlement in Italy during the Migration Period. After all, U106 decreases and fades to practically nothing as one moves south in Italy and away from the places where the Germans (Lombards, Goths, etc.) settled. If that age-old bidirectional movement occurred, its genetic artifacts will be hard to disentangle from those of the historical Germanic settlement.

I think the U106 in Italy and in the Isles is due, for the most part, to Germanic settlement. I know we probably disagree about that.

Absolutely not. I agree that "for the most part" U106 is indicative of the expansion of Germanic peoples in Europe. I do think however, that it already had a lighter and earlier spread pre-migrations, and I'm trying to determine what SNPs made up those migrations.

rms2
12-22-2013, 06:35 PM
Ah, then I misunderstood you.

If we differ, then it is probably on the extent of those "lighter and earlier spread pre-migrations". I think there may have been some of that, but not much, and maybe not even detectable.

Like I said, I could be way off, and maybe ancient y-dna results will show it, but I don't think U106 was around to be part of the Beaker migration into Britain.

GoldenHind
12-22-2013, 07:23 PM
Absolutely not. I agree that "for the most part" U106 is indicative of the expansion of Germanic peoples in Europe. I do think however, that it already had a lighter and earlier spread pre-migrations, and I'm trying to determine what SNPs made up those migrations.

That has been my suspicion for some time as well. When one looks at the distribution of U106 as a whole, it pretty much matches the distribution of the Germanic people. The question, which I think has generally been ignored, is whether the distribution of a large majority of Germanic U106 subclades is masking earlier migrations of U106 which may have occurred prior to the time when the Germanic people formed. U106 probably pre-dates the formation of the Germanic people by a millenium or so.

I don't think we have the answer yet, though I have seen a lot of hints, such as those you have pointed out on several occasions. It requires a complete analysis of U106 by subclade, though ancient DNA would be even better. At this point, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that there was a U106 presence amongst the Beakers, or that some U106 was present along the upper Rhine since the Bronze Age, long before the later arrival of the Germanic peoples.

rms2
12-22-2013, 07:48 PM
Possibilities are always present and nearly impossible to rule out. Likelihood, however, is another story.

The Bronze Age was a long time ago. If U106 was part of the Rhenish Beaker migration to Britain, it did an excellent job confining itself to regions that make its distribution resemble historic Germanic settlement. It did a good job doing a similar number on the Continent, as well.

I could be wrong and will perhaps be embarrassed when they finally get some British Beaker y-dna, but I tend to think the association of Beaker with the arrival of Celtic in the Isles is correct. I don't see any case for connecting U106 with Celtic and a strong one for connecting it to Germanic. Its greatest frequencies are found in Germanic-speaking areas and among Germanic peoples, and it fades to near nothing as one moves away from those areas and peoples.

As for Beaker, I realize two sets of remains aren't much, but the two from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf in Germany came from an area that today is U106-rich, yet both of them, while R1b, were U106-.

Too bad they weren't able to test them for P312 at least.

As for very early dribs and drabs of U106 here and there: they will be difficult to detect and are probably so close to zero as to be insignificant.

Anglecynn
12-23-2013, 03:15 AM
Possibilities are always present and nearly impossible to rule out. Likelihood, however, is another story.

The Bronze Age was a long time ago. If U106 was part of the Rhenish Beaker migration to Britain, it did an excellent job confining itself to regions that make its distribution resemble historic Germanic settlement. It did a good job doing a similar number on the Continent, as well.

I could be wrong and will perhaps be embarrassed when they finally get some British Beaker y-dna, but I tend to think the association of Beaker with the arrival of Celtic in the Isles is correct. I don't see any case for connecting U106 with Celtic and a strong one for connecting it to Germanic. Its greatest frequencies are found in Germanic-speaking areas and among Germanic peoples, and it fades to near nothing as one moves away from those areas and peoples.

As for Beaker, I realize two sets of remains aren't much, but the two from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf in Germany came from an area that today is U106-rich, yet both of them, while R1b, were U106-.

Too bad they weren't able to test them for P312 at least.

As for very early dribs and drabs of U106 here and there: they will be difficult to detect and are probably so close to zero as to be insignificant.

Although two is a very small sample size, it might at least indicate that the area wasn't as saturated with U106 then. It could be that U106 was a minority group in and around those beaker areas, that had a local peak or reached it's highest in an area that was later the core of Germanic-speaking peoples, it might just be that it follows the spread of those languages very well because it was either part of this proto-Germanic group, or was picked up very early on, and it's distribution did not exceed those areas that were 'Germanised' early on in any great number. So even if many U106 weren't part of the initial 'group', they were absorbed very early on. To me it looks like the language developed in an interface between I1, R1a and R1b, although the R1b must have been mostly U106 of course. Although there's a pretty clear divide between the groups, it would not be surprising to find that north Germanics are dominated by I1, west by R1b, east by R1a - although we don't really have east Germanics to look at, so that really rests on an understand of R1a, and whether there was continuity in that area before and after the Slavic expansion. The high relatedness of Slavs suggests that there is probably discontinuity to me, and that maybe R1b-U106 was located in significant numbers a bit further to the east, i don't know enough about R1a though to be honest, although R1a seems to be pretty common in inland and north-eastern Germany, and of course in most of Scandinavia. Only really seems to lack on the north sea coastline.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-06-2015, 08:34 AM
I'm in Wales close to the English border. Apparently little is yet known about my sub-type R1b-S11136 which was first found in a Tuscan man. Any thoughts on this please? John

J1 DYS388=13
04-06-2015, 09:13 AM
Well, Yfull's only sample of that SNP is from a man in Belgium. If Julius Caesar were on this forum, he would tell you that you must be a direct paternal descendant of the Belgae in Britain.

Clinton P
04-06-2015, 10:06 AM
S11136 appears to be a similar age to S21728 and S23955

Which Iain McDonald estimates to be....

Z9>Z326>FGC18842>S21728 (S23955) 32 BC (582 BC - 429 AD)

Regards,
Clinton P

rms2
04-06-2015, 12:03 PM
Well, Yfull's only sample of that SNP is from a man in Belgium. If Julius Caesar were on this forum, he would tell you that you must be a direct paternal descendant of the Belgae in Britain.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but a lot has changed since Julius Caesar's time, and Belgium has a large Germanic-speaking Flemish population. They are not likely to be descendants of the Celtic or mostly Celtic Belgae. As I recall, Flemish, like its close relative, Dutch, is a descendant of Old Low Franconian, the language of the Salian Franks, a Germanic tribe.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-06-2015, 12:26 PM
Thank you for the thoughts. Hopefully things may become clearer in time. I wonder if the low incidence indicates anything? Looking at it as a newcomer to this, I would have thought there would be more descendants of the specific German tribe out there, but maybe it's just a lack of testing. John

J1 DYS388=13
04-06-2015, 12:47 PM
It just indicates that S11136 is a newly discovered SNP. You are a pioneer.

Baltimore1937
04-06-2015, 01:57 PM
I'm in Wales close to the English border. Apparently little is yet known about my sub-type R1b-S11136 which was first found in a Tuscan man. Any thoughts on this please? John

Visigoth? Do you connect back to the Cambro-Norman de Clare line? I don't know anything about R1b, or even about my own R1a. But I recently saw in passing, at Ancestry, an apparent ancestor of the de Clare lines in England/Ireland who had a nickname that translated to "Divine Goth". He lived back in the late 900s. I think I also saw for this same man that he relinquished his claim to Monaco (SE France). Maybe this idea is worth pursuing.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-06-2015, 04:23 PM
Thank you again for the observations. I don't know Baltimore1937.I may see if I can find out more though. I haven't looked into ancestry matches for far. There seems to be a general presumption in favour of Saxon just on a numerical basis, but I wonder whether sometimes the situation could be a little more complex. Where has the DNA of the Normans gone? Even if they weren't here in large numbers, you might think because of their power and influence, they would have put their DNA about a bit. :) Assuming my ancestors didn't migrate in recent history, I understand the Norman Lords of the Welsh Marches where my ancestors lived were involved in forays into Ireland. I believe my recent paternal ancestors were modest farmers and builders, so I don't expect any High-born ancestry. Apparently I do have a little Central Asian ( presumed to be Hun ) DNA, so I don't know if this has particular relevance to the Visigoths? :) John

Agamemnon
04-06-2015, 10:15 PM
Given the complex nature of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, I'd say we shouldn't exactly be surprised to find a relatively diverse U106 picture in the Isles (we should also take into account the sampling bias in the Isles), the Anglo-Saxons were a conglomerate of different tribes which came from across the sea and probably had diverse origins to start with. I tend to agree with rms2 in that going off the contemporary picture is the wrong way to go if we are to find some sort of genetic surrogate for the Belgae. As far as I can tell, it looks as if U106 follows Germanic settlement in the Isles (Anglo-Saxon and Danish in particular), and the odds are that R1b-U106 wasn't rare in Proto-Germanic speakers (but again, we'll need aDNA to tell).

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-07-2015, 06:22 AM
This is really interesting.I appreciate my own paternal origins are most likely Saxon, but reading comments here has set me thinking about about my own sub-group which I apparently share with a chap from Belgium. I have read about the Franks and that they came to Britain with the Romans and that part of the Norman Invasion force came from the low countries. You can't help being curious. :)
"Caesar's sources informed him "that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germanic peoples, and that, having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country".[18] He also says that the Germanic people who lived to the west of the Rhine were allied to the Belgae.[19]

However, Caesar's use of the word "Germani" needs special consideration. He uses it in two ways. He describes a major grouping of northeastern tribes within the Belgic alliance as the "Germani", distinguishing them from their neighbours." Wikipedia
John

rms2
04-07-2015, 11:43 AM
As I understand it, the only personal names, tribal names, and place names associated with the Belgae are all Celtic. Caesar's reference to Germans in connection with the Belgae apparently stemmed from the fact that at one time they lived east of the Rhine. Ethnically and linguistically the Belgae were Celts, not Germans.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-07-2015, 12:53 PM
Thank you rms2. I'm sure you are correct. It's just that this was a further quote in Wikipedia suggesting greater Germanic influence.I'm not saying it is accurate though." Many modern scholars believe that the Belgae were a firmly Celtic-speaking group.[10][11][12][13] However, at least part of the Belgae may also have had significant genetic, cultural and historical connections to peoples east of the Rhine, including Germanic peoples, judging from archaeological, placename, and textual evidence.[14][15] It has also been argued based on placename studies that the older language of the area, though apparently Indo-European, was not Celtic (see Nordwestblock) and that Celtic, though influential amongst the elite, might never have been the main language of the part of the Belgic area north of the Ardennes.[16][17] Finally, some researchers, notably Maurits Gysseling, suggest that prior to Celtic and Germanic influences the Belgae may have comprised a distinct Indo-European branch, termed Belgian.[17] " John

vettor
04-07-2015, 06:49 PM
As I understand it, the only personal names, tribal names, and place names associated with the Belgae are all Celtic. Caesar's reference to Germans in connection with the Belgae apparently stemmed from the fact that at one time they lived east of the Rhine. Ethnically and linguistically the Belgae were Celts, not Germans.

IIRC , Caesar stated the belgae where not celts , but are a mix of Germanic and Gaulish people over time


Caesar said that the Belgae were separated from the Celtic Gauls to their south by "language, custom and laws" (lingua, institutis, legibus) but he did not go into detail, except to mention that he learnt from his contacts that the Belgae had some ancestry from east of the Rhine, which he referred to as Germania. Some of the Belgian tribes closest to the Rhine he described as the Germani cisrhenani.

So, IMO, the Belgae in Britain where the "first Germanic people " there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani

info on what Germani cisrhenani means and a nice map of germanic tribes in the link above

MitchellSince1893
04-07-2015, 11:54 PM
As I understand it, the only personal names, tribal names, and place names associated with the Belgae are all Celtic. Caesar's reference to Germans in connection with the Belgae apparently stemmed from the fact that at one time they lived east of the Rhine. Ethnically and linguistically the Belgae were Celts, not Germans.

I believe the Belgae were mixture of Celtic and Germanic. Regardless there isn't a consensus on this issue.

Ancient sources such as Caesar are unclear about the things used to define ethnicity today. He describes the Belgae as both Celtic (or at least Gaulish) and Germanic (at least some of them, and at least by descent). Strabo stated that the differences between the Celts (Gauls) and Belgae, in countenance, language, politics and way of life was a small one, unlike the difference between the Aquitanians and Celts.[9] On the other hand it has been proposed that there could have been more than one language within the region, and also possibly differences between the language of the elite and the rest of the population. Many modern scholars believe that the Belgae were a firmly Celtic-speaking group.[10][11][12][13] However, at least part of the Belgae may also have had significant genetic, cultural and historical connections to peoples east of the Rhine, including Germanic peoples, judging from archaeological, placename, and textual evidence.[14][15] It has also been argued based on placename studies that the older language of the area, though apparently Indo-European, was not Celtic (see Nordwestblock) and that Celtic, though influential amongst the elite, might never have been the main language of the part of the Belgic area north of the Ardennes.[16][17] Finally, some researchers, notably Maurits Gysseling, suggest that prior to Celtic and Germanic influences the Belgae may have comprised a distinct Indo-European branch, termed Belgian.[17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae

EDIT: Oops, I just saw where this was quoted before by JohnHowellsTyrfro

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-08-2015, 05:13 AM
I suppose we all want things to fit into convenient boxes, but maybe reality is often more complex. In the UK for example, Latin remained part of the general culture for a long time and still is to some extent, particularly in the law, but I wouldn't think the majority of the population spoke it even in Roman times. After the Norman conquest, french was spoken by the rulers and this persisted for a good while, with some of it still in the language, but the general population didn't speak it. Maybe the language of the "elite" can sometimes be an unreliable indicator of the larger population.
Where you have competing peoples, it seems inter-marriage was often a way of maintaining peace, increasing influence and cementing alliances at the higher levels of society it seems.
Raiding and the taking of slaves seems to have been common place and surely ultimately some of these slaves would have become integrated into and part of different cultures? Then again I suppose you also have the genetic consequences of "rape and pillage". I would guess as time went on, ancient "tribal" groups became more and more diverse. John

Jean M
04-08-2015, 11:46 AM
IIRC , Caesar stated the belgae where not celts , but are a mix of Germanic and Gaulish people over time

Not exactly. Here is what Caesar said: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War

De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 1, 1.


All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war;

In fact the name Belgae has a Celtic etymology and there were Celtic place-names in their territory in Roman times, so their linguistic differences from the Gauls cannot have been dramatic.

Caesar explained the origin of the Belgae in De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 2, 4.


When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do, in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was, that, from the recollection of those events, they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters.

The problem here is that Caesar assumed that if people came from east of the Rhine, which was Germania in his day, that these people must be Germani. In fact the Germani had expanded to the Rhine over what had been Celtic-speaking territory, as we see from place-names, including that of the Rhine itself, which have a Celtic etymology.

Gaulish druids knew that their land was partly inhabited by the descendants of refugees. Fortunately Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus preserved their account. People had 'poured in from the islands on the coast, and from the districts across the Rhine, having been driven from their former abodes by frequent wars, and sometimes by inroads of the tempestuous sea'.

To fight Caesar, the Belgae formed an alliance with those truly Germanic tribes who had managed to cross the Rhine.

De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 2, 3.


As he arrived there unexpectedly and sooner than any one anticipated, the Remi, who are the nearest of the Belgae to [Celtic] Gaul, sent to him Iccius and Andecombogius, [two of] the principal persons of the state, as their ambassadors: to tell him that they surrendered themselves and all their possessions to the protection and disposal of the Roman people: and that they had neither combined with the rest of the Belgae, nor entered into any confederacy against the Roman people: and were prepared to give hostages, to obey his commands, to receive him into their towns, and to aid him with corn and other things; that all the rest of the Belgae were in arms; and that the Germans, who dwell on this side of the Rhine, had joined themselves to them; and that so great was the infatuation of them all, that they could not restrain even the Suessiones, their own brethren and kinsmen, who enjoy the same rights, and the, same laws, and who have one government and one magistracy [in common] with themselves, from uniting with them.

vettor
04-08-2015, 06:32 PM
Not exactly. Here is what Caesar said: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War

De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 1, 1.



In fact the name Belgae has a Celtic etymology and there were Celtic place-names in their territory in Roman times, so their linguistic differences from the Gauls cannot have been dramatic.

Caesar explained the origin of the Belgae in De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 2, 4.



The problem here is that Caesar assumed that if people came from east of the Rhine, which was Germania in his day, that these people must be Germani. In fact the Germani had expanded to the Rhine over what had been Celtic-speaking territory, as we see from place-names, including that of the Rhine itself, which have a Celtic etymology.

Gaulish druids knew that their land was partly inhabited by the descendants of refugees. Fortunately Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus preserved their account. People had 'poured in from the islands on the coast, and from the districts across the Rhine, having been driven from their former abodes by frequent wars, and sometimes by inroads of the tempestuous sea'.

To fight Caesar, the Belgae formed an alliance with those truly Germanic tribes who had managed to cross the Rhine.

De bello gallico (Gallic Wars): Book 2, 3.

your argument is based on what Caesar thought that everyone over the east of the Rhine river was Germanic, but the fact as we know it was that only a small northern area of the Rhine river was the path of the Germanic and Gallic union ..........the map below best illustrates this ( see the darkish brown )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani#/media/File:Germanic_expansion.gif

It is not as if Caesar was 100% wrong in what he states.

We are talking about time prior to when the Romans entered Gaul. Roman historians has told us what they saw when they first arrived. The belgae would have already have been formed centuries earlier

rms2
04-08-2015, 07:10 PM
I have never read or heard of a single reputable scholar who thinks the Belgae were anything but Celts. They might disagree on the degree of Germanic influence on or input into the Belgae (personally, I think probably very little), but none that I know of has ever asserted that the Belgae were actually Germans themselves.

MitchellSince1893
04-08-2015, 10:26 PM
Tribes of the Belgae

Caesar names the following as Belgic tribes:
Ambiani
Atrebates
Atuatuci
Bellovaci
Caerosi (Germanic)
Caleti
Condrusi (Germanic)
Eburones (Germanic)
Menapii
Morini
Nervii
Paemani (Paemani)
Remi
Suessiones
Veliocasses
Viromanduihttp://belgae.askdefinebeta.com/

The Caeroesi (spelling variants include Caeraesi, Ceroesi, Cerosi) were a tribe living in Belgic Gaul when Julius Caesar's Roman forces entered the area in 57 BCE. They are know from his account of the Gallic War. They are generally also equated with the Cśracates mentioned briefly by Tacitus in his Histories.[1]
They were one of a group of tribes listed by his local informants as the Germani, along with the Eburones, Condrusi, Paemani (or Caemani), and Segni.[2] These tribes are referred to as the "Germani Cisrhenani", to distinguish them from Germani living on the east of the Rhine, outside of the Gaulish and Roman area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caeroesi


The Condrusi were a Germanic tribe of ancient Belgium, which takes its name from the political and ethnic group known to the Romans as the Belgae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condrusi


The Eburones (Greek: Ἐβούρωνες, Strabo), were a people who lived in the northeast of Gaul, in what is now the southern Netherlands, eastern Belgium, and the German Rhineland, in the period immediately before this region was conquered by Rome. Though living in Gaul, they were also described as being both Belgae, and Germani.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eburones

lgmayka
04-08-2015, 10:33 PM
I have never read or heard of a single reputable scholar who thinks the Belgae were anything but Celts.
I agree with you that Oppenheimer is not a reputable scholar. :crazy:

"Myths of British Ancestry" (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry), by Stephen Oppenheimer
---
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
...
The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by Caesar. In other words, a Germanic-type language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of the Roman invasion.
---

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-09-2015, 06:54 AM
Regarding Oppenheimer, who I know nothing about, some of the observations in the link above have, I admit, reflected some of my own ponderings regarding my own DNA, having read and tried to understand various threads posted on the Forum. It is very complex for me as a novice and please excuse me if I can't yet see the obvious.
I have asked myself what happened to my First Farmer ancestors ( and those who were here before ). As I understand it, the arrival of the First Farmers brought a significant population expansion. Is their DNA still in the UK to any considerable extent and if not, where did it go? Were the ancient pre-celtic peoples maybe more genetically diverse than previously thought? It seems at least some people were travelling to Stonehenge from as far away as The Alpine regions. I have also wondered if the notion of "Celts" as a separate large migratory group taking over Britain has been a little over-played owing to the obvious expansion of a Celtic culture of Art etc.. I asked this question on another thread, causing disruption. :)
I have also wondered whether my "Germanic" paternal sub-group matched with a chap from Belgium might have a link to the Belgae in Britain, rather than the Saxons. Obviously it is disputed whether or not the Belgae were "German" to any extent. I'm probably :crazy: too. :) If the Romans and Normans seem to have left little genetic impact, why is there a relatively high proportion of Saxon? Is it just down to numbers during the Saxon migration or is it possible more "Germanic" DNA was already in the UK? I suppose we will find out one of these days. :) John

Jean M
04-09-2015, 10:19 AM
If the Romans and Normans seem to have left little genetic impact, why is there a relatively high proportion of Saxon? Is it just down to numbers during the Saxon migration or is it possible more "Germanic" DNA was already in the UK?

Yes it is a question of numbers. The Romans and Normans simply took over at the top. They stamped their authority on the bits of Britain that they controlled, but were never greater in numbers than the people they ruled. Far from it. They were a thin elite. The Angles and Saxons arrived in force - not all at once, but boatload after boatload over a long period. They initially ignored the Roman towns and never took up the Roman apparatus of government. They created their own farming settlements, which have left Old English place-names all over lowland Britain. They were simple farmers. This is why they changed the language of what became England. Mass migration does that to a place.

Centuries after their first arrival, they spread from their early settlements in the east and south-east into what had remained the British (Welsh) west country and north. By this time they had coalesced into tribes led by kings. Although there was actual Anglo-Saxon settlement in these areas, it did not entail complete removal of the Britons/Welsh, who appear for example in Ine's laws of Wessex.

To establish conclusively the degree to which the Anglo-Saxon advent was a population replacement, we need DNA from before and after it. This was the aim of a study that has generated the first ancient genome sequences from Britain. The study sampled five individuals from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire (a Belgic region in the late pre-Roman period). Two men lived just before the Roman period and three women lived in the middle of the Anglo-Saxon period. All five samples are broadly similar to modern northern European peoples. Yet there are enough differences between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons to distinguish between them. Neither of the two males carried U106. One of them carried a subclade of R1b-L21, typical of the Celtic fringe of Britain today. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246

rms2
04-09-2015, 11:30 AM
I agree with you that Oppenheimer is not a reputable scholar. :crazy:

"Myths of British Ancestry" (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry), by Stephen Oppenheimer
---
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
...
The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by Caesar. In other words, a Germanic-type language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of the Roman invasion.
---

Right. I recall Oppenheimer's wild claims that some form of Germanic was spoken in Britain before even the Romans arrived. I have seen that claim asserted by a few others, as well, but not by anyone with any sort of gravitas. I got the impression that it was asserted mainly by some extreme English nationalists who don't like the idea that any of their ancestors ever were anything but Germanic or that they might have once lived on those big mounds of earth and cow manure known as Terps on the North Sea coast opposite Britain.

I still have not read or heard of a single reputable scholar who claims the Belgae were Germans rather than Celts. There may have been more or less mixing with Germans by the Belgae, and the extent of that seems to be the main area of controversy, but I have never seen a serious claim advanced that the Belgae were actually Germanic.

rms2
04-09-2015, 11:36 AM
. . .
I have also wondered whether my "Germanic" paternal sub-group matched with a chap from Belgium might have a link to the Belgae in Britain, rather than the Saxons . . .

In Belgium, it is the mainly French-speaking Walloon segment of the population that is regarded as descended from the native Celtic peoples of Belgium, perhaps mixed with some Roman input. Your match is more likely to be a member of the Flemish part of the Belgian population, which is mainly descended from the various Germanic peoples who formed the Frankish confederation of tribes.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-09-2015, 12:59 PM
Comments much appreciated, thank you. I live and learn. :)

Jean M
04-09-2015, 01:56 PM
Right. I recall Oppenheimer's wild claims that some form of Germanic was spoken in Britain before even the Romans arrived. I have seen that claim asserted by a few others, as well...

Interesting that it was promoted by Stephen Oppenheimer (a Briton with a German surname) and Peter Forster (part German, studied in Germany, works in Britain), neither of whom was trained in linguistics. Here's Geoffrey Sampson's response back in 2007: http://www.grsampson.net/qoppenheimer.html

vettor
04-09-2015, 06:38 PM
Yes it is a question of numbers. The Romans and Normans simply took over at the top. They stamped their authority on the bits of Britain that they controlled, but were never greater in numbers than the people they ruled. Far from it. They were a thin elite. The Angles and Saxons arrived in force - not all at once, but boatload after boatload over a long period. They initially ignored the Roman towns and never took up the Roman apparatus of government. They created their own farming settlements, which have left Old English place-names all over lowland Britain. They were simple farmers. This is why they changed the language of what became England. Mass migration does that to a place.

Centuries after their first arrival, they spread from their early settlements in the east and south-east into what had remained the British (Welsh) west country and north. By this time they had coalesced into tribes led by kings. Although there was actual Anglo-Saxon settlement in these areas, it did not entail complete removal of the Britons/Welsh, who appear for example in Ine's laws of Wessex.

To establish conclusively the degree to which the Anglo-Saxon advent was a population replacement, we need DNA from before and after it. This was the aim of a study that has generated the first ancient genome sequences from Britain. The study sampled five individuals from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire (a Belgic region in the late pre-Roman period). Two men lived just before the Roman period and three women lived in the middle of the Anglo-Saxon period. All five samples are broadly similar to modern northern European peoples. Yet there are enough differences between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons to distinguish between them. Neither of the two males carried U106. One of them carried a subclade of R1b-L21, typical of the Celtic fringe of Britain today. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246


you must realise that the Roman statements on Germani people in the northern part of the Rhine river was based only what they saw there. The Romans had no idea of what was in the alpine areas or southern Germany at that time to compare with, so to them these Germani where a purely foreign not matching anything Gallic they had already encountered.

The Alpine tribes and Southern German tribes where only conquered 50 years plus AFTER the Romans conquered Gaul and invaded Britain.

Jean M
04-09-2015, 07:40 PM
you must realise that the Roman statements on Germani people in the northern part of the Rhine river was based only what they saw there.

Yes Vettor, I do. Your ancestors are not to blame for not knowing absolutely everything. I am not blaming Caesar for not getting a linguistics degree from the University of Bologna before he set out for Gaul. That wouldn't be fair, as the University of Bologna was only founded in 1088 AD, and I don't think it was offering a Masters in Indo-European studies at the time. :biggrin1: The Romans left us a wonderful documentary heritage. Historians would be groping in the dark much more often without it. But we shouldn't expect too much of it.

avalon
04-10-2015, 08:47 PM
Regarding Oppenheimer, who I know nothing about, some of the observations in the link above have, I admit, reflected some of my own ponderings regarding my own DNA, having read and tried to understand various threads posted on the Forum. It is very complex for me as a novice and please excuse me if I can't yet see the obvious.
I have asked myself what happened to my First Farmer ancestors ( and those who were here before ). As I understand it, the arrival of the First Farmers brought a significant population expansion. Is their DNA still in the UK to any considerable extent and if not, where did it go? Were the ancient pre-celtic peoples maybe more genetically diverse than previously thought? It seems at least some people were travelling to Stonehenge from as far away as The Alpine regions. I have also wondered if the notion of "Celts" as a separate large migratory group taking over Britain has been a little over-played owing to the obvious expansion of a Celtic culture of Art etc.. I asked this question on another thread, causing disruption. :)
I have also wondered whether my "Germanic" paternal sub-group matched with a chap from Belgium might have a link to the Belgae in Britain, rather than the Saxons. Obviously it is disputed whether or not the Belgae were "German" to any extent. I'm probably :crazy: too. :) If the Romans and Normans seem to have left little genetic impact, why is there a relatively high proportion of Saxon? Is it just down to numbers during the Saxon migration or is it possible more "Germanic" DNA was already in the UK? I suppose we will find out one of these days. :) John

Jean explained it so clearly, I would only add that the recent POBI project estimated that the Anglo-Saxon genetic input into Central and Southern England was probably less than 50% and most likely between 10% and 40%. This seems a reasonable figure to me.

Going back to the Celts is even trickier I suppose, so long ago. Other posters know far more than me but I guess that we need ancient DNA from Neolithic Britons and then DNA from the Bronze Age Britons to try and understand the transition. This is assuming that it was Beakers that introduced Celtic languages into Britain.

We could then try and match ancient DNA to modern DNA but this is tricky because people have the annoying habit of moving around. There has been so much mixing in Britain, just in the last 250 years, never mind before.

vettor
04-10-2015, 09:22 PM
Yes Vettor, I do. Your ancestors are not to blame for not knowing absolutely everything. I am not blaming Caesar for not getting a linguistics degree from the University of Bologna before he set out for Gaul. That wouldn't be fair, as the University of Bologna was only founded in 1088 AD, and I don't think it was offering a Masters in Indo-European studies at the time. :biggrin1: The Romans left us a wonderful documentary heritage. Historians would be groping in the dark much more often without it. But we shouldn't expect too much of it.

what a sarcastic comment

You still not explain that the Romans at the time of the Gaulish invasion and the invasion of Britain, that the Romans still did not conquer the 45 Alpine tribes nor the south german tribes.........so to conclude , the Romans knowledge of Germani was purely and ONLY based on their knowledge of the Belgae

Jean M
04-10-2015, 09:53 PM
what are sarcastic comment

It was not intended as a sarcastic comment at all. Good scholars recognise the limitations of their sources. (I was being jovial about it, but that does not change the fact.)


the Romans knowledge of Germani was purely and ONLY based on their knowledge of the Belgae

The Romans certainly had a limited knowledge of the Germani prior to the conquest of Gaul, but not as limited as that. The Romans fought an invasion by the Cimbri and Teutones in 113 BC. At that time the Germani had no collective name for themselves, and the Romans only knew that these were barbarians from the north. It was Julius Caesar who first recorded the name Germani, at least in a surviving text. He was informed about the Germani by the Gauls, for whom the expansion of the Germani was a major threat. The (Celtic) Helvetii were poised to take over Gaul in order to escape from the Germani encroaching on the Alps. Caesar's first move in Gaul was to prevent that, knowing that the Helvetii were acting as a buffer between the Germani and the Romans.

Some Germani had entered Gaul as mercenaries and then taken over swathes of territory. Caesar was approached to evict these Germani. That was the start of his wider operations in Gaul. Caesar was convinced that if the Romans did not take over Gaul, the Germani would. This is all in his memoirs of the conquest of Gaul. It is well worth reading. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War

For a more detailed assessment of the Germani, we have to wait for later sources, such as Tacitus (56–117AD). That is true.

vettor
04-10-2015, 10:28 PM
It was not intended as a sarcastic comment at all. Good scholars recognise the limitations of their sources. (I was being jovial about it, but that does not change the fact.)



The Romans certainly had a limited knowledge of the Germani prior to the conquest of Gaul, but not as limited as that. The Romans fought an invasion by the Cimbri and Teutones in 113 BC. At that time the Germani had no collective name for themselves, and the Romans only knew that these were barbarians from the north. It was Julius Caesar who first recorded the name Germani, at least in a surviving text. He was informed about the Germani by the Gauls, for whom the expansion of the Germani was a major threat. The (Celtic) Helvetii were poised to take over Gaul in order to escape from the Germani encroaching on the Alps. Caesar's first move in Gaul was to prevent that, knowing that the Helvetii were acting as a buffer between the Germani and the Romans.

Some Germani had entered Gaul as mercenaries and then taken over swathes of territory. Caesar was approached to evict these Germani. That was the start of his wider operations in Gaul. Caesar was convinced that if the Romans did not take over Gaul, the Germani would. This is all in his memoirs of the conquest of Gaul. It is well worth reading. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War

For a more detailed assessment of the Germani, we have to wait for later sources, such as Tacitus (56–117AD). That is true.

On the cimbri.........it depends who you believe
1) they came from Germanic Jutland in modern Denmark
2) they came from modern Bavaria near augsburg vicinity

But Genetic tests on the 7 towns of the cimbri in Veneto italy , reveal no association with Jutland, so conclusion is that they invaded roman lands from unknown Roman area of southern Germany .............we do not even know at that time if they where Germani or Celti or even someone else. So, Roman knowledge is still isolated to the Belgae for any Germani they knew about in the time of Julius Caesar.

Still the 45 Alpine tribes where not conquered by the Romans at the time of the Belgae nor was even the area of Noricum ( east Austria )

Point about my ancestors.........do you know IF I was Roman! ( doubt that very much )............yes I have dual citizenship ( Australian and Italian ), but as per the recognised European and Italian laws/constituation.......there was no Italians prior to 17 March 1861............the Term Italian prior to this date was a geographical term, same level as British or Scandinavian terms. Which is why my ancestors leaving "italy " prior to 1861 to France and Austria cannot get Italian citizenship. I tried recently to help them .
Michealangelo is not even Italian, but Tuscan......Vivaldi is not Italian, but Venetian etc

Jean M
04-10-2015, 11:57 PM
On the cimbri.........it depends who you believe
1) they came from Germanic Jutland in modern Denmark
2) they came from modern Bavaria near augsburg vicinity

But Genetic tests on the 7 towns of the cimbri in Veneto italy , reveal no association with Jutland

Vettor - we are wandering so far off the topic of U106's arrival in Britain and Ireland that I feel I should apologise to other readers of this thread for aiding and abetting a highjack. :)

But just briefly - the Cimbri who fought the Romans in 113 BC were defeated and did not settle in any part of what is now Italy. The idea that they did is a typical medieval confusion by scholars digging around in the Classics and linking Germanic speakers they knew about (in what is now northeast Italy) to the Cimbri of Roman annals. Rita Morandi (2008) seems to have the linguistics of Cimbrian covered: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DISyUFeWVRkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Can we return this thread now to the topic of its title?

vettor
04-11-2015, 12:07 AM
Vettor - we are wandering so far off the topic of U106's arrival in Britain and Ireland that I feel I should apologise to other readers of this thread for aiding and abetting a highjack. :)

But just briefly - the Cimbri who fought the Romans in 113 BC were defeated and did not settle in any part of what is now Italy. The idea that they did is a typical medieval confusion by scholars digging around in the Classics and linking Germanic speakers they knew about (in what is now northeast Italy) to the Cimbri of Roman annals. Rita Morandi (2008) seems to have the linguistics of Cimbrian covered: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DISyUFeWVRkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Can we return this thread now to the topic of its title?

yes we are .

U106 apart from 2 contintental spots ( netherlands and east Austria ) was stated by Mr. Hammer as being in the vicinity for the Harz mountains ( border of Czech and Germany ). U106 in Austria could be the remnants of the lombard migration and settlement there before moving to italy. Lombards seem to have originated around the Harz mountains............my theory

tchekitchek
04-11-2015, 03:51 AM
In Belgium, it is the mainly French-speaking Walloon segment of the population that is regarded as descended from the native Celtic peoples of Belgium, perhaps mixed with some Roman input. Your match is more likely to be a member of the Flemish part of the Belgian population, which is mainly descended from the various Germanic peoples who formed the Frankish confederation of tribes.
There are germanic elements in Wallonia. Modern Flanders and Wallonia are modern cultural constructs.

Krefter
04-11-2015, 04:03 AM
There are germanic elements in Wallonia. Modern Flanders and Wallonia are modern cultural constructs.

There could be significance in Flanders and Wallonia. Not that those identities are old but that they one way or another developed out of a Gallo-Roman identity vs a Germanic-identity.

In Eurogenes(Davidski)'s database there's a sharp divide between Dutch from south of the Rhine and North of the Rhine. Dutch from South of the Rhine are most similar to French and Dutch from North are most similar to Irish-British, Scandinavians, and North Germans. The same divide seems to exist in Germany. Northern ones are similar to Irish-British and Scandinavians, while western and southern ones are similar to French. Also, the single sample from Belgium Davidski has clusters with South Dutch-West German-French.

More samples might disprove this trend. French, West-South Germans, and the Low countries might be so differnt from their neighbors partly because of Roman(Italian-like?, etc.) admixture not Gaulish ancestry. But I guess only Hallstatt genomes from France and Germany could give convincing evidence for this though.

tchekitchek
04-11-2015, 04:58 AM
There could be significance in Flanders and Wallonia. Not that those identities are old but that they one way or another developed out of a Gallo-Roman identity vs a Germanic-identity.

In Eurogenes(Davidski)'s database there's a sharp divide between Dutch from south of the Rhine and North of the Rhine. Dutch from South of the Rhine are most similar to French and Dutch from North are most similar to Irish-British, Scandinavians, and North Germans. The same divide seems to exist in Germany. Northern ones are similar to Irish-British and Scandinavians, while western and southern ones are similar to French. Also, the single sample from Belgium Davidski has clusters with South Dutch-West German-French.

More samples might disprove this trend. French, West-South Germans, and the Low countries might be so differnt from their neighbors partly because of Roman(Italian-like?, etc.) admixture not Gaulish ancestry. But I guess only Hallstatt genomes from France and Germany could give convincing evidence for this though.

Rivers are indeed sharp genetic borders in the Benelux, I'd argue not only Rhine but Meuse. For example samples from Hainaut Wallonia are very Germanic (lots of U106), Tournai being a Merovingian center. Clovis is born there.
What I'm saying is that Flanders and Wallonia are just 20th century political/cultural constructs, created over a rough horizontal line traced by the Germans during WWI for geopolitical purpose, which corresponds to nothing of the complexity of the place. The Germanic/Gallo-roman division is not as sharp as the linguistic divide suggests.

rms2
04-11-2015, 02:07 PM
There are germanic elements in Wallonia. Modern Flanders and Wallonia are modern cultural constructs.

I was not talking about the political map. I said JohnHowellsTyrfro's Belgian match is likely to be a Fleming rather than a Walloon, regardless of what side of the street he lives on in Belgium, since he is U106+. The point was that JohnHowellsTyrfro should probably not look to that Belgian match as evidence that he is descended from the Belgae. It is more likely just further evidence that his ancestry is Germanic.

In historical terms, the Walloons are regarded as the descendants of the Gallo-Roman population of what is now Belgium, and they speak French, while the Flemings are regarded as the descendants of Germanic peoples, and they speak Flemish. Those facts are not in dispute.

tchekitchek
04-11-2015, 02:29 PM
I was not talking about the political map. I said JohnHowellsTyrfro's Belgian match is likely to be a Fleming rather than a Walloon, regardless of what side of the street he lives on in Belgium, since he is U106+. The point was that JohnHowellsTyrfro should probably not look to that Belgian match as evidence that he is descended from the Belgae. It is more likely just further evidence that his ancestry is Germanic.

In historical terms, the Walloons are regarded as the descendants of the Gallo-Roman population of what is now Belgium, and they speak French, while the Flemings are regarded as the descendants of Germanic peoples, and they speak Flemish. Those facts are not in dispute.

Well, you have your very own definition of what is a walloon and what is a Fleming.

Are you implying that a Walloon individual belonging to U106 is actually a Fleming?

rms2
04-11-2015, 02:36 PM
Well, you have your very own definition of what is a walloon and what is a Fleming.

I wouldn't call it my very own as if I invented it, but I have made it mine through my ability to read.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/209945/Fleming-and-Walloon



Are you implying that a Walloon individual belonging to U106 is actually a Fleming?

I was not talking about individuals; I was talking in general terms about populations and their known histories. Individual results would have to be looked at on an individual basis. I do think it likely that a Walloon who is U106+ is probably the y-dna descendant of a German whose descendants became members of the French-speaking Walloon population at some point, just as I think an Irishman who is U106+ is probably the descendant of an Englishman or some other historical period settler from a region where U106 is much more common than it is in Ireland.

Cofgene
04-11-2015, 02:40 PM
For example samples from Hainaut Wallonia are very Germanic (lots of U106), Tournai being a Merovingian center.

The historical statement that U106 was Germanic is no longer valid. U106 is a very diverse group. There are specific descendant regions which are geographically British Isle, Scandinavian, or continental focused. The Z326 null425s are one of the most continental of the larger U106 subgroup clusters. The CTS2509 subgroup of the nulls is providing the highest 'Germanic' focus of all of the haplogroup regions under U106. But even in CTS2509 we are still working out the extent of the British Isle component since we have to account for Dr. Spencer Wells (Genographic project) being present in this 2300 year old haplogroup.

For a current view of the composition of U106 monitor the U106/S21 Yahoo discussion group. Iain McDonald recently posted an April update to the age and geographic dispersion of the U106 haplogroups.

rms2
04-11-2015, 02:51 PM
The historical statement that U106 was Germanic is no longer valid . . .

I think that is going to be difficult to prove given the distribution of U106. I'm willing to wait for some y-dna from the Migration Period, since I am not enough of a U106 devotee to want to delve into interminable arguments over it now.

I will just say that I think Dienekes summed things up pretty well awhile back.



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

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

joeflood
01-30-2016, 10:31 AM
How do you know the U106 mutation did not occur in Britain? I think a good case can be made that U106 was distributed from SE Britain rapidly around the North Sea from 2600 BC . The South Coast and Kent is where the highest concentrations of U106 are found (about 30%). In my sample of 27000 Europeans, Netherlands has 24% U106, Belgium 20%, Denmark 17%, Germany 12%, Scotland and Sweden 10%.

I actually think now that the Saxons were British descendants, come back 3000 years later with a new look.

Unfortunately researchers have been extraordinarily slow about testing ancient remains in Britain. They seem to prefer to trot off on field trips to the Ukraine, rather than testing where the real action must have been - the Atlantic seaboard and the Mediterranean. Not exotic, not so easy to get grants I suppose.

rms2
01-31-2016, 02:43 AM
How do you know the U106 mutation did not occur in Britain? I think a good case can be made that U106 was distributed from SE Britain rapidly around the North Sea from 2600 BC . The South Coast and Kent is where the highest concentrations of U106 are found (about 30%). In my sample of 27000 Europeans, Netherlands has 24% U106, Belgium 20%, Denmark 17%, Germany 12%, Scotland and Sweden 10%.

I actually think now that the Saxons were British descendants, come back 3000 years later with a new look.

Unfortunately researchers have been extraordinarily slow about testing ancient remains in Britain. They seem to prefer to trot off on field trips to the Ukraine, rather than testing where the real action must have been - the Atlantic seaboard and the Mediterranean. Not exotic, not so easy to get grants I suppose.

Well, Joe, there is no archaeological or historical basis upon which to support that idea. What culture was spreading from Britain to the Continent around 2600 BC? However, we do know the Anglo-Saxons began arriving and settling in SE Britain beginning in the 5th century AD, and they were largely from homelands on the North Sea littoral where U106 is well represented today, including Friesland, which I believe has the highest frequency of U106 anywhere. The distribution of U106 in Britain looks like a map of the distribution of the Anglo-Saxons and the spread of their descendants, the English, and their language.

The oldest U106+ result we have thus far (c. 2300 BC) is from the Lilla Beddinge Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden. About that same time, members of the Bell Beaker culture were arriving in Britain. Thus far, all the Bell Beaker results with sufficient coverage have been U106-, and that includes Bell Beaker results from areas of Germany where U106 is very frequent today.

I know some people really really want U106 to be of prehistoric provenance in Britain and Ireland, and they get really angry with me when I argue this way, but the evidence is what it is.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-31-2016, 01:34 PM
The historical statement that U106 was Germanic is no longer valid. U106 is a very diverse group. There are specific descendant regions which are geographically British Isle, Scandinavian, or continental focused. The Z326 null425s are one of the most continental of the larger U106 subgroup clusters. The CTS2509 subgroup of the nulls is providing the highest 'Germanic' focus of all of the haplogroup regions under U106. But even in CTS2509 we are still working out the extent of the British Isle component since we have to account for Dr. Spencer Wells (Genographic project) being present in this 2300 year old haplogroup.

For a current view of the composition of U106 monitor the U106/S21 Yahoo discussion group. Iain McDonald recently posted an April update to the age and geographic dispersion of the U106 haplogroups.

I must have been half-asleep when I first read this. What's the possible significance of this please? "The Z326 null425s are one of the most continental of the larger U106 subgroup clusters. The CTS2509 subgroup of the nulls is providing the highest 'Germanic' focus of all of the haplogroup regions under U106."
Sorry, I'm not as familiar as most with interpreting the different markers. I'm interested of course because I'm Z326 null 425 , various CTS markers, but not CTS2509. :) Any thoughts appreciated.

bradly88
04-26-2016, 12:26 AM
My ancestors were the Angles that settled in Morayshire. My ancestors started in a place called Ross Village. Ross Village was next to Middleton Village. By 1312 A.D., Both villages were absorbed into a town called Middleton, England. They were among the settlers that were sent to settle in Moray and Aberdeen in Scotland during the 12th century.

Huntergatherer1066
04-26-2016, 01:30 AM
My ancestors were the Angles that settled in Morayshire. My ancestors started in a place called Ross Village. Ross Village was next to Middleton Village. By 1312 A.D., Both villages were absorbed into a town called Middleton, England. They were among the settlers that were sent to settle in Moray and Aberdeen in Scotland during the 12th century.

Do you know what subclade of U106 you are?

bradly88
04-27-2016, 12:11 AM
Do you know what subclade of U106 you are?

According to Family Tree DNA, I might be an R1b-L48. What does R1b-L48 indicate by the way?

Huntergatherer1066
04-27-2016, 01:18 AM
According to Family Tree DNA, I might be an R1b-L48. What does R1b-L48 indicate by the way?

I am more familiar with the Z18 branch of U106, but I know L48 is one of the main branches just a few steps down from U106 (U106>Z381>Z301>L48) and is found far and wide from Ireland to Russia. If you find out where you are downstream of L48 you might get a better idea of things.

bradly88
04-27-2016, 02:45 AM
I am more familiar with the Z18 branch of U106, but I know L48 is one of the main branches just a few steps down from U106 (U106>Z381>Z301>L48) and is found far and wide from Ireland to Russia. If you find out where you are downstream of L48 you might get a better idea of things.

I was told to test for R1b-L47. R1b-L47 is the next one to be tested for.

lgmayka
04-27-2016, 09:44 AM
I was told to test for R1b-L47. R1b-L47 is the next one to be tested for.
Testing individual SNPs at FTDNA is, frankly, not cost-effective. I suggest the R1b-L48 SNP Pack ($109 or $119), or even the Big Y (if it's still $460 when you see this).

Sjonit
02-11-2020, 02:49 AM
I am also of North East Scotland descent, from the region of Montrose, Forfarshire with R-U106, R-L1. I am currently waiting on BIGY700 results to refine this more. The family name being Paton traced back to 1760.