PDA

View Full Version : R1b-U106 were the True Celts and Belgae (my opinion)



Tomenable
04-17-2016, 12:53 PM
Check this 2015 paper on U106 by Iain McDonald:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

On page 4 out of 22 he gives frequencies of U106:

https://s23.postimg.org/pjhoaqm9n/U106+frequencies.png

Celtic "Urheimat" as well as lands of the Belgae have high frequencies of R1b-U106:

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

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

Beaker Folks were IMHO not Celtic - they spoke some language which is long EXTINCT by now:

https://s22.postimg.org/raj6tkqn5/Celts.png

http://oaks.nvg.org/d/eurocelt.jpg

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 12:56 PM
Gallia Belgica (Gaule Belgique):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Peuples_gaulois.jpg

Belgica:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/Belgica.jpg

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 01:33 PM
Change the 06 in your title to 52 and you got it right :)
(Humor intended)

jdean
04-17-2016, 01:46 PM
Change the 06 in your title to 52 and you got it right :)
(Humor intended)

: ))))

rms2
04-17-2016, 01:46 PM
I disagree with the idea that U106 ever had much of a connection to Celtic peoples.

U106 is most frequent among Germanic speakers and their descendants and falls off precipitously in non-Germanic lands, especially in those places where Italo-Celtic languages prevail or, as in parts of Britain and in Ireland, where Celtic speech held out longest.

Dienekes summed things up well.



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

What is now Austria is currently German speaking and has been since it was settled by Germans during the Migration Period. Just as its current language cannot be attributed to the "Real Proto-Celts", neither can its level of y-dna U106. What is now the Czech Republic was also heavily settled by Germans, as well as Slavs. As in the case of Austria, its modern y-dna profile is about as representative of "Real Proto-Celts" as its Czech language is.

The Netherlands is Germanic speaking and has been for millennia, since it too was settled by Germanic tribes beginning about 700 BC. In Belgium, U106 is most frequent among the Germanic Flemings and declines among the Walloons, who are the descendants of the old Gallo-Roman population.

In Britain, the distribution of U106 matches the pattern of the arrival, settlement and spread of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English. It declines precipitously in the areas of Britain where the Celts held out against the English the longest. In Ireland, U106 is relatively rare and is commonest in those areas that were settled during the historical period by outsiders from areas, like England, where U106 is much more frequent than it is in Ireland.

When it comes to ancient y-dna, no U106 has turned up in any clearly Celtic contexts. On the other hand, it has turned up in what is likely to be a Proto or Pre-Proto-Germanic context, and that in its oldest incarnation to date, circa 2300 BC, in a set of remains from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden (RISE 98). As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that the Celts, "Real Proto" or otherwise, ever occupied Sweden.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the dominant y haplogroup among the Celts was R1b-P312 and its subclades.

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 02:17 PM
On a personal level, would it bother you if your paternal line was of German origin?

Knowing the history of Poland and Germany that would an understandable feeling.

EDIT: I assumed you were U106 when I first posted, but your profile only says you are R-M269.

tchekitchek
04-17-2016, 02:46 PM
In Belgium, U106 is most frequent among the Germanic Flemings and declines among the Walloons, who are the descendants of the old Gallo-Roman population.

"Walloon" is not an ethnic term, it's a linguistic/political term.

Lugus
04-17-2016, 02:56 PM
@Tomenable

The ancient Celts probably already belonged to a mixed bag of haplogroups, including R1b U106. It makes as much sense to say any of those were the "real" Celts as to say the "real" Portuguese are R1b or the "real" Poles are R1a. The idea that Celts originated in Halstatt and La Tène is outdated (where have you been in the last 30 years?). The ancient Celtic world, as known to us from place and personal names, tribal names, inscriptions, artifacts and ancient authors correlates very well with the modern distribution of P312 and not with U106. If you want to convince us otherwise you need more serious arguments.

A.D.
04-17-2016, 05:49 PM
I think the Belgae might be slightly different than we think. Ceaser called them 'part German' and the assumption is that they were 'Germans' mixed with 'Celts'. I have been wondering if they were the descendants of a mixture that occurred in Bell Beaker and Corded Wear times. I'd be surprised if U106 was even near at this time. Maybe DF27 from a North/South and a little later L21 from the East. There is evidence of people moving from the Eastern BB into the Northern Maritime BB areas. This could be the arrival of L21 still more pastoralist meeting DF27 more maritime. This would leave L21 sitting ready to move to the isles. Of course there were other Haplogroups, U152 small presence, but these seem the most influential.

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 06:25 PM
I assumed you were U106 when I first posted, but your profile only says you are R-M269.

That's because I have just ordered Y-DNA12 so far. :P I plan to order SNP Pack, but haven't ordered it yet.

I'm probably P312 or U106, but who knows.

Here are my Y-STR results (nothing more detailed than R1b-M269 cannot be deduced from these 12 STRs):

https://s23.postimg.org/jr8fmt9bf/STR.png


would it bother you if your paternal line was of German origin?

Nope. But I know from genealogy that I don't have any German paternal ancestry as far back as 1800 AD.

OTOH, my mom's maiden name is Meller, which AFAIK is a surname of Low Saxon or Low Franconian origin:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5lv-Y_Xs22M/UHp7Hz_4J2I/AAAAAAAAE28/QpG9pFjI98Q/s1600/Map_of_the_Low_German_Dialects.jpg

But that's maternal line (the surname is from my maternal grandfather's father's father, and so on).

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 06:46 PM
I appreciate your response. I was just wondering if there was desire for U106 to not be of German origin.

There was a proud Irishman on another forum that was U106 and he spent a lot of time attempting to prove that U106 in Ireland wasn't of Anglo-Saxon origin. From his posts it appeared to be very important to him to prove this (rms2 is quite familiar with him).


Now that we have that out of the way, what is your theory as to how the U106 men went from Celtic speakers to German speakers...assuming you think they spoke Celtic early on.

rms2
04-17-2016, 06:55 PM
"Walloon" is not an ethnic term, it's a linguistic/political term.



Ethnic Groups Worldwide, a ready reference Handbook, David Levinson, ORYX Press, (ISBN 1-57356-019-7), p. 13 : « Walloons are identified through their residence in Wallonia and by speaking dialects of French. They, too, are descended from the original Celtic inhabitants of the region and Romans and Franks who arrived later. Walloons are mainly Roman Catholic. »

I pulled that from footnote #2 in the Wikipedia article on Walloons, where it says,



Walloons are a distinctive ethnic community within Belgium.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloons#cite_note-2

I don't want to become embroiled in a big argument over what constitutes an ethnic group and what does not. It is common knowledge, however, that the Walloons descend for the most part from the original Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Belgium, while the Flemings, for the most part, descend from the Germans who settled there mostly during the Migration Period.

rms2
04-17-2016, 07:02 PM
. . .

There was a proud Irishman on another forum that was U106 and he spent a lot of time attempting to prove that U106 in Ireland wasn't of Anglo-Saxon origin. From his posts it appeared to be very important to him to prove this (rms2 is quite familiar with him) . . .

Last I heard, he was still holding forth over at FTDNA's forum, the one place aside from Molgen that for some odd reason refuses to ban him. He is the main reason I gave up on FTDNA's forum. It is just too tiresome constantly dealing with the same old thing with the same tired old motivation.

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 07:57 PM
The idea that Celts originated in Halstatt and La Tène is outdated

Perhaps indeed those were not the earliest Celts. But you do agree that Halstatt culture were also Celtic-speakers?

That is, if we find U106 in aDNA from Hallstatt culture, you will agree that U106 was (also) Celtic?

Or perhaps if we find U106 in Hallstatt culture, you will claim that Hallstatt people were Germanic?


what is your theory as to how the U106 men went from Celtic speakers to German speakers

In similar ways as most of the once Celtic-speaking world went from Celtic speakers to spekaers of other languages. :)

rms2
04-17-2016, 08:08 PM
. . .

In similar ways as most of the once Celtic-speaking world went from Celtic speakers to spekaers of other languages. :)

The oldest U106 yet found (RISE 98, c. 2300 BC) was so anxious to switch languages he moved to Sweden and made sure he was buried in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery just to confuse us and throw us off the "Real Proto-Celtic" trail. ;)

rms2
04-17-2016, 08:24 PM
Aside from its erroneous premise, there's some odd stuff in this thread. For example, when was Denmark ejected from Scandinavia and made a Central European country?

And naturally, if one is going to assert that "R1b-U106 were the true Celts", he must first dismiss the idea that the Bell Beaker people spoke an early form of Celtic, despite what a number of highly respected scholars have written on the subject over the years. It's just too inconvenient that thus far none of the growing list of Beaker remains has tested U106+ and that quite a few of them have tested U106-, even in parts of Germany where U106 is quite frequent today.

A.D.
04-17-2016, 08:50 PM
We're still waiting for those ancient Tartan lederhosen then LOL.

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 09:01 PM
@Tomenable
So in your theory U106 and U152 are both (U152 has to be a major player in this to make sense) part of the original Italo-Celtic/Proto Celtic branch of L11/P310.
U106 is located to the North of U152 and eventually adopts the language of their I1 neighbors and spreads into lower Saxony, Jutland, and the Low Countries. From here it spreads into Britain with fellow I1 and certain I2 Anglo Saxons (and enter as part of the Belgae in Britain before this)

Does that capture what you are thinking?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-17-2016, 09:09 PM
One problem with this scenario is the cardinal error of falsely assuming population continuity from Halstatt until modern Austrians. This would be incorrect- for there might have been changeover between Halstatt and La Tene (even if similar); then with the Annexation of Noricum to Rome and Germanicization of north of the Danube at the turn of our Era.

But the real clincher is that modern Austrians by large descend from Medieval Bavarian colonists (plus Slavs in east & Romance speakers in Tyrol) moving southeast, who in turn were largely Elbe Germani

As for Halstatt- I think it was just another episode of Celtic spread. But id put its "birth" To the late Bronze Age, after the the collapses and crises of 1200 BC, having emerged from long-arrived dialects.

rms2
04-17-2016, 09:14 PM
Thus far the only ancient Hallstatt area y-dna we have, ~700 BC, appears to be G2 of some kind: Ancient DNA: Y-chromosomal DNA Fingerprinting in Molecular Archaeology – Paternal Pedigrees and their Potential Geographical Correlates (http://tinyurl.com/hzh8cba).

Dante
04-17-2016, 09:24 PM
Forgive if wrong but I always thought there were two groups of Celts.

The Iberian [or potential southern French] Celts who settled the UK long before the Germanic celts. This is supported, to degree, with the fact that the extinct Celtiberian language [hardly Germanic] is similar to aspects to older forms of the Goidelic languages [Old Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic - by Scottish Gaelic I mean the original Pictish not what is there now] -- they are all considered Q-Celtic languages, after all. This wouldn't be due to some alien textbooks falling from a UFO that happened to be 'flying by' but population movement.

Goídelc, Old Irish, did after all start appearing about 400-500AD. Primitive Irish or Ogham, which is older [about 100AD], bears resemblance to Latin & Greek [again not really Germanic]. Anyone that knows Ireland's history, well UK history beyond basic textbook, knows that Ui Neill [modern "Ulster"] has never really bowed to invaders as at one point you'd have far better luck finding a flying cow than finding an Anglo-Saxon / Nord or other surname in that area.


There's also the sort of glaring fact true Celtic names for towns, villages, rivers, etc. are pretty much non-existent anywhere east of the Rhine. So if the UK settling celts came from that region... where's their language? Where's their history? So there was pretty jewelry, etc. that was similar between the Germanic celts and that found in the UK. In a way that isn't too, too surprising given as one culture wasn't more "ape-like" than the other. They all would have had opposable thumbs, spoken a language, used weapons and tools - and despite the idiotic claim of a radio station I listened to yesterday pretty sure humans lost their tails earlier than a few thousand years ago.

Dante
04-17-2016, 09:25 PM
My example well the Egyptians didn't settle South America but they also have pyramids. How'd that happen, aliens clone pyramids & ship them to Mexico? Brazil? Or given that the oldest pyramid is actually in Brazil did the aliens clone those pyramids and ship them to Egypt? It was the fact that they were all trying to get closer to the gods that spurred this - so jewelry been similar, as it all would have served the same purpose, is like saying hey that apple really is an apple.

There's also the little itty bitty fact that Herodotus's describtion of “Keltoi" reference... hmm, got to love general assumptions for his belief... Pyrene is actually Pyrenean, seeing as Avenius who talks nearly as much about Celts sticks with the proper Mediterranean region [Herodotus, if you read up, actually mentions the Pillars of Hercules which is about as central Europe as waving a wand and expecting it to do a real Harry Potter magic trick]. This has been proven a few times because well facts just don't add up.

So can someone prove to me this real Germanic celtic origin. Or original UK Celts been German. Cause I don't see it.

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 09:32 PM
Thus far the only ancient Hallstatt area y-dna we have, ~700 BC, appears to be G2 of some kind

G2 is around 8% of modern Austrians, so it's not out of place. But we need more samples from Hallstatt.

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 09:39 PM
@Tomenable
So in your theory U106 and U152 are both (U152 has to be a major player in this to make sense) part of the original Italo-Celtic/Proto Celtic branch of L11/P310.
U106 is located to the North of U152 and eventually adopts the language of their I1 neighbors and spreads into lower Saxony, Jutland, and the Low Countries. From here it spreads into Britain with fellow I1 and certain I2 Anglo Saxons (and enter as part of the Belgae in Britain before this)

Does that capture what you are thinking?

I think that U106 was also present already in Ancient Belgae. What do you think was their Y-DNA?

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 09:40 PM
In Belgium, U106 is most frequent among the Germanic Flemings and declines among the Walloons

Not true. Maciamo from Eupedia wrote this:

"The Wallonian province of Hainaut and Luxembourg have respectively 31% and 40% of R1b-U106, more than anywhere in Flanders. Even taking the results for all Wallonia, R1b-U106 is close to 22%, more than in some Flemish provinces and otherwise well into the Flemish average. Both in Wallonia and Flanders U106 peaks in the west (closer to the sea), and is lowest in the central provinces. I don't know where they are seeing any north-south gradient"

Walloons have just as much U106 as Flemings.

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 09:51 PM
I think that U106 was also present already in Ancient Belgae. What do you think was their Y-DNA?

I think the Belgae had U152 and some U106. They came from the east side of the Rhine so I think there is a good chance they had some U106 in them.

Actually, one problem I struggle with is the scarcity of U152 in the Belgae civitas area of England. If the Belgae were U152 heavy then one would expect some of it to survive in present day Isle of Wight and Hampshire. But studies so far don't show much U152 in this area.

Otherwise does my previous post capture your theory?

MitchellSince1893
04-17-2016, 10:01 PM
Brabant study map for reference
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 10:06 PM
As for frequencies of other haplogroups - here is data from Maciamo:

Wallonia (n=74):

I1 - 11,2%
I2b - 6,8%
R1a - 4,0%

Flanders (n=695):

I1 - 13,4%
R1a - 4,6%
I2b - 4,3%

So we have a bit more of I1 and also a bit more of R1a in Flanders.

While percent of I2b is higher in Wallonia, and U106 about the same.

===========================================

Walloons seem to be much less interested in testing DNA (a much smaller sample).

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 10:09 PM
I'm not sure how can frequency of I1 be 11,2% if sample size is 74.

It would mean that 8 and 1/3 people had I1... 8 people = 10,8%.

tchekitchek
04-18-2016, 12:05 AM
I don't want to become embroiled in a big argument over what constitutes an ethnic group and what does not. It is common knowledge, however, that the Walloons descend for the most part from the original Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Belgium, while the Flemings, for the most part, descend from the Germans who settled there mostly during the Migration Period.

I know it's a "popular belief" but it's not true. Wallonia is a modern construct (like Flanders), both flemish and walloon ethnicities formed many centuries after gallo-romans and franks mingled together in both regions. While Flemish are relatively a bit more germanic, it's not clear cut.

Actually, in the low countries, the rhine is far more a genetic barrier than the linguistic border is.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-18-2016, 01:22 AM
As for frequencies of other haplogroups - here is data from Maciamo:

Wallonia (n=74):

I1 - 11,2%
I2b - 6,8%
R1a - 4,0%

Flanders (n=695):

I1 - 13,4%
R1a - 4,6%
I2b - 4,3%

So we have a bit more of I1 and also a bit more of R1a in Flanders.

While percent of I2b is higher in Wallonia, and U106 about the same.

===========================================

Walloons seem to be much less interested in testing DNA (a much smaller sample).

What are Maciamo's references/ how does he derive his figures (here,& in general) ?

GoldenHind
04-18-2016, 03:07 AM
What are Maciamo's references/ how does he derive his figures (here,& in general) ?

I'm pretty sure this is from the Brabant DNA study done around 6 years ago. They tested in various regions described as West Flanders, East Flanders, Flemish Brabant, Limburg and North Brabant and possibly Wallonia. Included in the testing were U106, U152 and SRY2627. All other P312 was lumped together as P312*.

VinceT
04-18-2016, 05:06 AM
http://brabant-dna.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1377&t=3787&sid=0a90d24a5c328a5bb66f90d3aee1d6c8



R-U106
23
1.98%


R-Z381
100
8.61%


R-U198
17
1.46%


R-L48
129
11.10%


R-Z18
22
1.89%


U106 Sub-total

291
25.04%







R-P312
111
9.55%


R-M529
97
8.35%


R-Z195
40
3.44%


R-SRY2627
13
1.12%


R-U152
39
3.36%


R-L2
62
5.34%


R-L20
14
1.20%


P312 Sub-total

376
32.36%







R-P25
1
0.09%


R-P297
1
0.09%


R-M269
21
1.81%


R-M412
1
0.09%


R-P310
10
0.86%


R1b xU106, P312 Sub-total

34
2.94%







R-SRY10831.2
1
0.09%


R-M17
43
3.70%


R-M173
2
0.17%


R1a Sub-total

46
3.96%





Incidentally, I count more P312+ men (21) in the Denmark Y-DNA project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Denmark?iframe=yresults) than U106+ men (16), which is a ratio that is strangely close to that of the Brabant study.

Lugus
04-18-2016, 06:18 AM
Perhaps indeed those were not the earliest Celts. But you do agree that Halstatt culture were also Celtic-speakers?

That is, if we find U106 in aDNA from Hallstatt culture, you will agree that U106 was (also) Celtic?

Or perhaps if we find U106 in Hallstatt culture, you will claim that Hallstatt people were Germanic?

The Celts appear in history only in the first millenium BC. That's quite late to for a close association with this or that haplogroup. Their ancestors, the Proto-Celts, who I believe were by and large P312, had enough time to blend with other populations and among themselves (the different subclades) so I wouldn't be surprised to find any haplogroup in a Celtic setting, including G, J, E, I etc.. So yes, you could also find U106 and it would be pure Celtic. On the other hand, I'm sure you'll also find P312 in Germanic tribes, as you find it today in Germanic lands. We have to be carefull not to go crazy after haplogroups, especially as we approach more recent times and the Celts we know are not that old.

EastAnglian
04-18-2016, 07:55 AM
The Celts appear in history only in the first millenium BC. That's quite late to for a close association with this or that haplogroup. Their ancestors, the Proto-Celts, who I believe were by and large P312, had enough time to blend with other populations and among themselves (the different subclades) so I wouldn't be surprised to find any haplogroup in a Celtic setting, including G, J, E, I etc.. So yes, you could also find U106 and it would be pure Celtic. On the other hand, I'm sure you'll also find P312 in Germanic tribes, as you find it today in Germanic lands. We have to be carefull not to go crazy after haplogroups, especially as we approach more recent times and the Celts we know are not that old.

What do ancient remains show though?, anyone got info to post?

Lugus
04-18-2016, 09:16 AM
What do ancient remains show though?, anyone got info to post?

You mean aDNA? There's not much. We're just starting to scratch the top of things. Check out here what there is:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

With a big thank you to Jean Manco.

ffoucart
04-18-2016, 10:42 AM
About Hainaut and the Belgian province of Luxembourg, the Belgian Tribes from those territories were Nervi and Treveri, both described as originally Germanic tribes. But this is a hot debate.

And it is also false to make a clear genetic difference between Flemish and Walloon. I don't find much.

Moreover, the Franks settled in Hainaut, notably at Tournai and around.

Dubhthach
04-18-2016, 10:57 AM
What do ancient remains show though?, anyone got info to post?

We are completely lacking aDNA (well full genomes) from European Iron age as far as I know, would be nice get some out of various Hallstat/La Tene Necropolises. I could be wrong but I think the only aDNA full genomes so far published from Iron age are from Britain? eg. Yorkshire woman (3rd century BC?) and Hinxton men (1st century BC)

rms2
04-18-2016, 11:47 AM
Brabant study map for reference
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

If those are the actual Brabant figures, then I stand corrected, but the frequency of U106 drops off pretty drastically as one moves west into France. Busby's North France and North Central France sample locations (N=68 and N=91, respectively) show U106 frequencies of 8.8% and 7.7% respectively. In other words, as one moves away from areas where Germanic tribes like the Franks made their greatest impact and into the historically Celtic zones, U106 frequency plummets like a rock. In Britain, the story is the same but with the Anglo-Saxons occupying the role the Franks played on the other side of the Channel.

IMHO the evidence that U106 had little or no connection to Celtic peoples is overwhelming, but let's wait and see what the ancient y-dna evidence shows.

rms2
04-18-2016, 12:01 PM
What do ancient remains show though?, anyone got info to post?

If one accepts what a number of scholars over the years have asserted, that the Bell Beaker people spoke an early form of Celtic or at least some form of Italo-Celtic and thus provided the original matrix from which the Celts emerged, then the fact that we have a growing list of y-dna results from Bell Beaker remains could be significant in this context. I have a table of Bell Beaker results on my computer at home, but unfortunately I am at work right now and don't have access to it. However, thus far, all the Bell Beaker y-dna has belonged at the very least to y haplogroup R1 and, where the coverage went far enough, to R1b. A number of the remains tested positive for P312, one of those for U152, and the three from Rathlin Island in Northern Ireland were all positive for L21.

The two Iron Age Celts from Hinxton in Cambridgeshire (c. 1st - 2nd centuries AD) were both L21+.

None of the Bell Beaker remains thus far has tested positive for U106. On the other hand, RISE 98, from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, did test U106+. He was a contemporary of the Bell Beaker people (c. 2300 BC in his case), but, as far as I know, the Bell Beaker people never settled in Sweden and RISE 98 was not a Bell Beaker man. Thus the oldest ancient evidence for U106 comes from a distinctly non-Bell Beaker context and in a country not known either for Bell Beaker or later Celtic settlement.

Dubhthach
04-18-2016, 12:02 PM
Worth remembering that the language boundary in what is now Belgium hasn't been static, that and parts of North-East France still have native Dutch/Flemish speakers (over 300+ years after incorporation under French rule)

8915

8916

Either way I'd imagine that what we term Belgium was at core of Frankish controlled area at time they began their expansion into Gallia.

Mac von Frankfurt
04-18-2016, 02:21 PM
I find it difficult to follow discussions about the culture and geography associated with a particular SNP because it is often not made clear whether the writer is talking about the location and culture of the first man to have the SNP, the culture/geography the majority of his descendants later assumed/occupied, or the preponderance of the SNP in some other modern culture or geography. The conflation of these three ideas makes these discussion less useful and interesting than they otherwise would be.

rms2
04-18-2016, 03:31 PM
When I was talking about the difference between the frequency of U106 among Flemings and Walloons earlier, I was working from memory, and what I had in mind was the paper talked about by Dienekes at the link below, which, while not about Walloons in Belgium, compared the y haplogroups of men in Flanders with Flemish surnames to those of men there with French surnames.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/bearers-of-french-surnames-in-flanders.html

As one can easily see, U106 is significantly more frequent in Flanders among those with Flemish surnames than it is among those with French surnames. Were R1b-U106 the y haplogroup of the "true Celts", we should see just the opposite.

8917

A.D.
04-18-2016, 05:12 PM
The area slightly to the North i.e Holland was a strong point of BB settlement (not origin) it looks like this was where L21 (not exclusively L21) spread to the British Isles, Ireland, N. Denmark and the S tip of Norway. In fact it was claimed that it was the source of BB by some. L21 probably came down from the Alpine region in strong numbers. This seems to be the area where oats were first used on large scale and it would follow the people growing them were pastoral. Beakers are evidence of settlement not movement. So in the Bronze age L21 (not exclusively L21) in this area had it all, raw materials a trade network, the hardiest of crops and a large 'hinterland' hence a strong population. This was inherited by there Iron age descendants. I don't see any chance of large scale German intrusion. o be honest I don't think the Germans were ready for large scale anything that far west at the time. Plenty of raiding and trading but not settlement in significant numbers until the migration era.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-18-2016, 05:25 PM
You mean aDNA? There's not much. We're just starting to scratch the top of things. Check out here what there is:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

With a big thank you to Jean Manco.

I suppose that's the point really. What's that old saying " absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence " ?

rms2
04-18-2016, 07:10 PM
There were a few maps in the first couple of posts in this thread, but they did not compare the actual overall distribution of U106/S21 with the old homelands of the Celts. If one does that, I think he sees pretty clearly that U106 is a bad fit for the Celts and a much better fit for Germanic peoples.

8922 8923 8924

rms2
04-18-2016, 11:09 PM
I suppose that's the point really. What's that old saying " absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence " ?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but that saying would make more sense in this context were the evidence actually absent. It's not. There is plenty of evidence available. It just gives no indication that there is much if any connection between U106 and Celtic peoples.

Agamemnon
04-19-2016, 01:21 AM
This theory goes against all the evidence we have so far, including archeogenetic and linguistic evidence. Besides, we already had that discussion last week and I recall myself showing conclusively that this theory makes little to no sense at all (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=150408#post150408).

VinceT
04-19-2016, 03:17 AM
Presuming that a correlation of the geographic distribution modern day Germanic languages with the geographic distribution of R-U106 men, implies an ancient correlation of pre-Germanic origins with the origins of U106, particularly when you are dealing with a sample size of 1, is a massive logical fallacy.

Language and culture is adopted. They are not inherited genetically.

The impression that I am getting, is that U106 could easily have been founded somewhere along the Rhine, Meuse and Sheldt rivers, but expanded northward and eastward, while the pre-germanic language dispersed southward. They met and merged somewhere in the middle.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-19-2016, 04:07 AM
Presuming that a correlation of the geographic distribution modern day Germanic languages with the geographic distribution of R-U106 men, implies an ancient correlation of pre-Germanic origins with the origins of U106, particularly when you are dealing with a sample size of 1, is a massive logical fallacy.

Language and culture is adopted. They are not inherited genetically.

The impression that I am getting, is that U106 could easily have been founded somewhere along the Rhine, Meuse and Sheldt rivers, but expanded northward and eastward, while the pre-germanic language dispersed southward. They met and merged somewhere in the middle.

I agree for the most part, but IMHO I don't think they would have "met in the middle" because (1) pre-Germanic did not expand southward (although Germanic propper did, much later) & (2) U106 likely pre-dates the move toward a dedicated pre-Germanic lect by some 1000 years.

Essentially, I envisage pre-Germanic moved north, not south, but possibly after U106 had done.

We should also remember that even till now continental scholars talk of a possibly non-IE Nordwestblock as late as the Roman era

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-19-2016, 05:31 AM
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but that saying would make more sense in this context were the evidence actually absent. It's not. There is plenty of evidence available. It just gives no indication that there is much if any connection between U106 and Celtic peoples.

No, I don't take it as giving me a hard time. :) It's just relatively speaking there seems to be very little ancient DNA analysis available and how representative is this of the total population? Just a personal opinion, but my guess is the notion of "The Celts" or other groups being a sort of genetic closed club may be over-played. I don't think it is likely that the Celts were predominantly or even significantly U106, but where peoples come into contact with each other they tend to "mingle" which is probably more relevant in Continental Europe. Also an individual's ancestral history is much more that their Y dna.
I would just like to see more ancient DNA evidence, no battle axe to grind either way. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-19-2016, 05:40 AM
Presuming that a correlation of the geographic distribution modern day Germanic languages with the geographic distribution of R-U106 men, implies an ancient correlation of pre-Germanic origins with the origins of U106, particularly when you are dealing with a sample size of 1, is a massive logical fallacy.

Language and culture is adopted. They are not inherited genetically.

The impression that I am getting, is that U106 could easily have been founded somewhere along the Rhine, Meuse and Sheldt rivers, but expanded northward and eastward, while the pre-germanic language dispersed southward. They met and merged somewhere in the middle.

That's an interesting point. In Britain and even Ireland, the main language is English, but that doesn't reflect the genetic make-up of the whole population. Other languages survive alongside of course.

EastAnglian
04-19-2016, 07:30 AM
No, I don't take it as giving me a hard time. :) It's just relatively speaking there seems to be very little ancient DNA analysis available and how representative is this of the total population? Just a personal opinion, but my guess is the notion of "The Celts" or other groups being a sort of genetic closed club may be over-played. I don't think it is likely that the Celts were predominantly or even significantly U106, but where peoples come into contact with each other they tend to "mingle" which is probably more relevant in Continental Europe. Also an individual's ancestral history is much more that their Y dna.
I would just like to see more ancient DNA evidence, no battle axe to grind either way. :)

Personally I think a lot of the suppositions are correct regarding U106 but like yourself I'd like to see some ancient DNA from the continent. Until we have that it's all conjecture.

Perhaps the community as a whole needs to be more proactive in this and it would go a way to resolving a lot of these debates. Perhaps a project needs to be started, or an organisation dedicated to this task.

A.D.
04-19-2016, 07:30 AM
I don't think I put what I was Trying to say down well in my last post. I think the ethnicity of the Dutch /Belgium area was the same as BB their affiliation changed due to the localization that happened with the end of the Bronze age. It could be with the use of iron it was it was more economically viable for people east of the Rhine to get it from east east of the Rhine. Maybe at that time it was easier extracted hence cheaper. The language followed the commerce. That would explain why peoples with ethnicity more like the Celts were culturally more like the Germans. If you look at the Tuetones and Cimbri there is argument as to weather they were Celts or Germans also they seemed to join up with the Boii and other Celtic tribes. I think that weakens the Celts and Germans don't mix argument.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-19-2016, 07:43 AM
Personally I think a lot of the suppositions are correct regarding U106 but like yourself I'd like to see some ancient DNA from the continent. Until we have that it's all conjecture.

Perhaps the community as a whole needs to be more proactive in this and it would go a way to resolving a lot of these debates. Perhaps a project needs to be started, or an organisation dedicated to this task.

It's actually quite achievable
€10, 000 would allow 100 samples tested. Autosomes, Y hg, and all
Factor on a ~ 30 - 40 % hit rate , and we'd have 40 Iron Age samples
So still a bit steep, but well within the realm of achievability

A.D.
04-19-2016, 08:35 AM
JeanM was offering £100 to a good cause maybe that's a start. Her war cry is more ancient DNA. Maybe someone could start a fund or collection or something. Maybe project admins could have a wee fund people could put a few £/$'s in 1 or 2 from every body would do it. Every body asks 'where did my Haplogroup originate' or ' am I a Celt or a German or what ever.

Dubhthach
04-19-2016, 08:47 AM
That's an interesting point. In Britain and even Ireland, the main language is English, but that doesn't reflect the genetic make-up of the whole population. Other languages survive alongside of course.

Indeed, well Ireland is a prime example of language shift from Celtic language to a Germanic language, not only that but a rapid change. Irish went from been spoken language of 2/3rds of population in the 1760's to be spoken language of ~25% in 100 years, the only major change in proceeding 200+ years (before 1800) was a complete replacement of native landed elite. eg. Language change was driven by top-down emulation of the elite, as oppose to massive population inflow, though obviously the Great Famine accelerated the process massively in the 1840's -- probably the same process affected Gaulish (we have accounts of Gaulish surviving for at least 4-500 years after Caesar's conquest, though at this stage highly marginalised).

As a comparison the shift of Frankish elite from Frankish to what became "Old French" could be compared to Cambro-Norman's shifting from Hiberno-Norman (dialect of Norman-French spoken in Ireland) to "Early Modern Irish".

Odyss
04-19-2016, 09:36 AM
Irish people should revive the Gaelic language like Jews did with Hebrew and leave English as a secondary one.

Dubhthach
04-19-2016, 09:41 AM
Irish people should revive the Gaelic language like Jews did with Hebrew and leave English as a secondary one.

At this stage the only way to revive Irish, would probably be to ban it (been taught to english speakers in school). That's more of a sad reflection on Irish people than anything else. Obviously Irish continues to this day as a first language among minority of the population.

rms2
04-19-2016, 11:10 AM
Presuming that a correlation of the geographic distribution modern day Germanic languages with the geographic distribution of R-U106 men, implies an ancient correlation of pre-Germanic origins with the origins of U106, particularly when you are dealing with a sample size of 1, is a massive logical fallacy.

If that was what was occurring, you might be right, but it's not. It is the preponderance of all the evidence currently available, modern distribution (interpreted in the light of history, archaeology and language) and ancient y-dna (which includes more than merely one sample), that shows that U106 is an extremely bad fit for much if any connection to the Celts (the actual topic of this thread) and a much better fit for Germanic peoples.



Language and culture is adopted. They are not inherited genetically.

No kidding?



The impression that I am getting, is that U106 could easily have been founded somewhere along the Rhine, Meuse and Sheldt rivers, but expanded northward and eastward, while the pre-germanic language dispersed southward. They met and merged somewhere in the middle.

I don't think the ultimate origin of U106 is the issue. All it would take for U106 to have a strong connection to Germanic speakers (which I think it self evidently does) is for the bulk of its bearers to have adopted Germanic speech early enough for the spread of the two (U106 and Germanic speech) to have pretty much coincided. I think it's obvious that is what happened.

I think it likely U106 arose in eastern Europe. IMHO it was in on the evolution of Germanic from the very beginning and spread south and west with it. That, in my opinion, is why it is absent from Bell Beaker and probably will remain so.

rms2
04-19-2016, 11:33 AM
No, I don't take it as giving me a hard time. :) It's just relatively speaking there seems to be very little ancient DNA analysis available and how representative is this of the total population? Just a personal opinion, but my guess is the notion of "The Celts" or other groups being a sort of genetic closed club may be over-played. I don't think it is likely that the Celts were predominantly or even significantly U106, but where peoples come into contact with each other they tend to "mingle" which is probably more relevant in Continental Europe. Also an individual's ancestral history is much more that their Y dna.
I would just like to see more ancient DNA evidence, no battle axe to grind either way. :)

I don't think groups like the Celts and Germans were entirely closed clubs, but they did inhabit specific regions and they do have known histories. Undoubtedly there was some mixing, but we are talking about tribal peoples, and in this case patriarchal tribal peoples. To a great extent their societies were based on bonds of kinship. It should not surprise us if certain y haplogroups predominate in such tribal groupings, while others, although present, are less frequent among them.

We are able to see clines in y haplogroups that reflect both documented history and archaeological evidence. Is it a mere coincidence that U106 is at its most frequent on the Continent in the old homelands of the West Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons (which moniker includes the Frisians) and in Britain in the places settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English? What about the stark contrast between the relatively high frequency of U106 east of Offa's Dyke in England and the much lower frequency of U106 west of it, in Wales? It isn't much of a leap to infer that it reflects the history of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of what is now England (Angle Land) and Wales' status as one of the last refuges of the Celtic Britons.

I think the presence of U106 as a very significant player in the history of the spread of Germanic-speaking peoples is one of the more obvious things in genetics. The connection between the two is about as subtle as a hammer blow to the head.

rms2
04-19-2016, 12:09 PM
Speaking of clines and connections to historical peoples, take a look at what U106 does as one moves south and west from its high point in Friesland, home of the very Germanic Frisians (42.6% according to Busby, N=94).

In the Netherlands in general, both Busby and the Genome of the Netherlands Project have U106 at about 36%. Then, as one moves south and west into Belgium, U106 declines to about 25% (per the Brabant Project, which apparently did not differentiate between men with Flemish surnames versus those with French surnames). As we cross the border into France, formerly Celtic Gaul, the frequency of U106 declines still further, to 8.8% in Busby's North France sample (N=68), and 7.7% in its North Central France sample (N=91). By the time one reaches Bretagne, U106 is down to 3.5% (N=115).

That does not sound like a Celtic pattern. It sounds like a German pattern, very similar to what one sees as he moves westward and northwestward across Britain, from the places in the east and southeast most heavily settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, to those places where Celtic languages and peoples held out the longest.

R.Rocca
04-19-2016, 12:15 PM
Looks to me like the OP likes to make sweeping statements to get a rise out of people. Of course whatever the Iron Age Celts were, they were already a mix of many haplogroups, but primarily P312. Instead of looking at mixed populations like Austria, the OP conveniently forgot to mention the ultra-Celtic Irish population where P312 lineages reach 90%. There is no amount of Halstatt or LaTene migrations that can account for that. Like I said recently, some folks like to argue that black is white and up is down, regardless of how obvious the data presented to them is.

ffoucart
04-19-2016, 12:57 PM
Differentiating between Flemish and French names can be troublesome, especially in Nord Pas de Calais, where a language shift occured. Not only the names were usually translated, but some places (Boulonnais) with heavy Germanic settlement (Anglo Saxon for the Boulonnais and Ponthieu), shifted early to a Roman dialect, meaning before the names became hereditary.

As an example, you could easily pin names like Liagre or Drouart as French names (found at Halluin and around, in French Flanders). In fact these names changed in the XVIIIth century from Li Iagre (De Jaeger) and Deurwaerder. You can follow the transformation with the baptisms registers.

I think it explains why it was not done. For Flanders, it was more easy as the French names were mainly the result of the settlement of refugees from Artois.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-19-2016, 05:32 PM
I don't think groups like the Celts and Germans were entirely closed clubs, but they did inhabit specific regions and they do have known histories. Undoubtedly there was some mixing, but we are talking about tribal peoples, and in this case patriarchal tribal peoples. To a great extent their societies were based on bonds of kinship. It should not surprise us if certain y haplogroups predominate in such tribal groupings, while others, although present, are less frequent among them.

We are able to see clines in y haplogroups that reflect both documented history and archaeological evidence. Is it a mere coincidence that U106 is at its most frequent on the Continent in the old homelands of the West Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons (which moniker includes the Frisians) and in Britain in the places settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English? What about the stark contrast between the relatively high frequency of U106 east of Offa's Dyke in England and the much lower frequency of U106 west of it, in Wales? It isn't much of a leap to infer that it reflects the history of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of what is now England (Angle Land) and Wales' status as one of the last refuges of the Celtic Britons.

I think the presence of U106 as a very significant player in the history of the spread of Germanic-speaking peoples is one of the more obvious things in genetics. The connection between the two is about as subtle as a hammer blow to the head.

The thing is though, the assumption is that all the U106 in England is of A/S origin and so is all of the smaller percentages of U106 in Wales and elsewhere., but I don't think we know that 100/% for sure at the moment. I'm pretty sure that my own is of A/S origin and I don't have a problem with that, so I'm not making a personal case. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-19-2016, 05:40 PM
I think setting up a fund to test more ancient DNA is a great idea. I don't really understand why more isn't done anyway, because that's where the answers are.

rms2
04-19-2016, 06:39 PM
The thing is though, the assumption is that all the U106 in England is of A/S origin and so is all of the smaller percentages of U106 in Wales and elsewhere., but I don't think we know that 100/% for sure at the moment. I'm pretty sure that my own is of A/S origin and I don't have a problem with that, so I'm not making a personal case. :)

Some of it is probably of Danish Viking and/or Norse Viking origin, as well. It would be hard to tell those apart from the Anglo-Saxon stuff. One would have the same problem with I-M253. There could be a tiny fraction of U106 in Britain that falls into the category "other"(i.e., not Anglo-Saxon or Viking or Norman or Flemish, etc.). That would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

A.D.
04-20-2016, 09:51 AM
The Roman slave trade could in theory have bought I1a from Scotland to Ethiopia possible but tiny chance. Isn't the oldest surviving Y lineage known in the world found in a guy in the eastern U.S. 300,000 years+ old from West Africa. Mike hammers ,'Ed' Green and Chris Stringer level studies. Strange and unlikely thins turn up by chance.

EastAnglian
04-20-2016, 11:47 AM
I think setting up a fund to test more ancient DNA is a great idea. I don't really understand why more isn't done anyway, because that's where the answers are.

I nominate you as the founder, what's your first move? :biggrin1:

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-20-2016, 12:31 PM
I nominate you as the founder, what's your first move? :biggrin1:

Well I would be prepared to contribute, but you would think some "professionals" would be taking this on board. Maybe some testing companies could donate a share of their profits so they could actually give us some answers instead of speculating. :)

GTC
04-20-2016, 12:36 PM
Maybe some testing companies could donate a share of their profits so they could actually give us some answers instead of speculating. :)

I have to wonder just how profitable those companies are. I don't think Croesus would feel challenged by them.

A.D.
04-20-2016, 07:03 PM
I think this article has a lot to do with U106 movement into Scandinavia and the lowlands http://tinyurl.com/gskd4cx

EastAnglian
04-21-2016, 07:30 AM
Well I would be prepared to contribute, but you would think some "professionals" would be taking this on board. Maybe some testing companies could donate a share of their profits so they could actually give us some answers instead of speculating. :)

Well I was thinking that I don't see why a FTDNA project couldn't be set up for ancient Y DNA, people could then donate to the project and when a decent amount is reached they could approach the university or museum holding the remains in question. So to that end I have filled in an application with FTDNA, we'll see what they say. I think we'd need some DNA egg heads on board though.

Edit:

Maybe Iain Mcdonald would be a good fella to get involved?, he works at a uni doesn't he?

A.D.
04-21-2016, 10:07 AM
I think some one who has good knowledge of Eurasian history and good contacts with Continental academia.There is a danger that it could get Eurocentric or R1b bias (because there's so many of us) which must be avoided. So it would need to be someone who likes the bigger picture. There are a few people one this sight who have discussed with the likes of Mike Hammers and other 'old pro's even some 'armatures' who hit way above their weight. I'm going to put it on a new thread in General and see what happens.

rms2
04-21-2016, 11:16 PM
. . . There is a danger that it could get Eurocentric or R1b bias (because there's so many of us) which must be avoided. So it would need to be someone who likes the bigger picture . . .

I don't know about anyone else, but I won't donate to a fund for sponsoring ancient y-dna research unless it is Eurocentric. Let somebody else pay for "the bigger picture". Specifically hunting for the ancient R1b trail would not bother me at all, quite the contrary.

A.D.
04-21-2016, 11:42 PM
I was thinking the likes of 'the Bronze age Battle in Germany' are there I's G's etc. Also Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa what input did they have. I wasn't really thinking Australian Aboriginals or Bantu that's Nat Geo. I meant not just look for say M222 ignore the rest. I think we need context. We need to disprove as well as prove because ancient DNA is still relatively rare.

wombatofthenorth
04-22-2016, 02:27 AM
Well I would be prepared to contribute, but you would think some "professionals" would be taking this on board. Maybe some testing companies could donate a share of their profits so they could actually give us some answers instead of speculating. :)

I'm not sure how much they have to donate. AFAIK, so far 23 has simply lost tons of money (although if they ever get something medical going perhaps they could eventually make a lot and with the kit price back to $199 they may stop having net losses and might start turning some degree of profit again just from that, so maybe in time they'll have some profit building up again). Geno takes any excess money and they do put it to new studies, they are the only company that actually does a lot of that. They are non-profit and the excess money they get from kit sales does go to more research. I have the impression that FTDNA probably doesn't make a whole lot of profit but probably just gets a little in excess of what they need to get by. Not sure about Ancestry, perhaps they do make some decently solid profit???

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-22-2016, 05:26 PM
I suppose there could be something like a voluntary option to donate when you order a kit?
If I'm honest I would be happy to contribute to "European" ancestral research and I would think that's numerically where most of the interest would be. Being a bit selfish I would hope to learn a bit more about my own ancestral history.

vettor
04-22-2016, 06:57 PM
I disagree with the idea that U106 ever had much of a connection to Celtic peoples.

U106 is most frequent among Germanic speakers and their descendants and falls off precipitously in non-Germanic lands, especially in those places where Italo-Celtic languages prevail or, as in parts of Britain and in Ireland, where Celtic speech held out longest.

Dienekes summed things up well.



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

What is now Austria is currently German speaking and has been since it was settled by Germans during the Migration Period. Just as its current language cannot be attributed to the "Real Proto-Celts", neither can its level of y-dna U106. What is now the Czech Republic was also heavily settled by Germans, as well as Slavs. As in the case of Austria, its modern y-dna profile is about as representative of "Real Proto-Celts" as its Czech language is.



U106 cannot be german because there was no germanic people in southern germany or austria until after the fall of the Roman empire ~300-400AD................the bavarians , who some became the austrians ( as there where no austrians until 998AD ) where the last tribe to become germanic.
So the only people I know of in what is found in ancient iron-age East Austria , called Noricum ............where celts, illyrians and some venetic in the south-west of Noricum.

Since people wil always dispute the difference between celtic and Gaulish........I prefer to say gaulish instead of celtic in the area I noted above.

rms2
04-22-2016, 10:45 PM
U106 cannot be german because there was no germanic people in southern germany or austria until after the fall of the Roman empire ~300-400AD................the bavarians , who some became the austrians ( as there where no austrians until 998AD ) where the last tribe to become germanic.
So the only people I know of in what is found in ancient iron-age East Austria , called Noricum ............where celts, illyrians and some venetic in the south-west of Noricum.

Since people wil always dispute the difference between celtic and Gaulish........I prefer to say gaulish instead of celtic in the area I noted above.

One has to look at the evidence, which has been discussed in this thread at length already and apparently you missed, if you think "U106 cannot be [G]erman." Good grief.

rms2
04-22-2016, 10:50 PM
By the way, I think there is some P312 that is undoubtedly German rather than Celtic, as well. One has to look at the evidence. But most P312 is Celtic. That much is obvious.

TigerMW
04-22-2016, 11:26 PM
It's okay to disagree but let us seek to minimize the color commentary and try to stick to evidence and logic. Sometimes there isn't much new data to assess and the arguments have been explained. In those cases we probably just have to wait for ancient DNA.

Moderator
04-23-2016, 06:34 PM
[MOD] Several posts removed. Per section 3.11, personalization of discussions is prohibited on this forum. Please refrain from targeting other members for their opinions. Thanks for your cooperation.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 05:03 AM
Celtic heritage is influencing Bavarian self-consciousness - apparently Bavarians don't want to be part of Germany:

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

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

And on another forum a Bavarian user - nick-named Toem - wrote:

http://historum.com/members/toem.html



As a Bavarian i can tell you that i feel much more closer to Austria than to Germany. After all Austrians are Bavarians too from a historic/ethnic perspective.

Therefore i'd much rather want to live in a Bavarian/Austrian national state.

In reality, there's no such thing as a German nation. Germany has always been a federation of different nations. Today's Germany is a product of Prussia's inner German imperialism. In 1871 no German nation was founded in reality, but a Greater Prussian empire.

Of course, due to revisionist history, most people aren't aware of this, and even if you'd ask people in Bavaria today, the majority wouldn't associate them with Austria anymore.

There's a good quote by a German historian. Too my shame i forgot his name, read it in a book once.

"Die Reichgsründung von 1871 war die Verhinderung einer Deutschen Nation durch Preußen."

"The foundation of the German Reich in 1871 was the prevention of a German nation by Prussia".

Today's "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" is a direct succesor and product of that Reichs foundation in 1871.

You should also realize that the revolutionists of 1848 did by no means represent the majority of the people in their decisions.
At least in Southern Germany the idea of a Prussian lead German State was not popular at all.

For example, Bavarian millitary troops, who at the time had given their oath not only to the Bavarian King but also to the Austrian emperror had the following short chant.

It is originally in Bavarian language, where it rhymes better, but I translated it to High german.

Es gibt nur eine Kaiserstadt,
es gibt nur ein Wien,
es gibt nur ein Räuberloch,
das ist Berlin.

In English that would be something like this.

There is only one city of the emperor,
there is only one Vienna,
there's only one bandit town,
that is Berlin.

Also keep in my mind that the war of 1866 was originally called the Prussian-German war. In the decleration of the general mobilization of the German Confederation, it was stated that due to an agressive act by Prussia against Germany, war actions had to be taken.

So as you see Prussia at that time was not even considered to be a real German state in the south and Austria/Vienna was considered to be the historical and cultural center of the German lands. Which indeed it is.

Who are the Bavarians - can they even be considered Germans?

AFAIK, Bavarians are a mix of mostly Celts and Slavs, with some Latin (Romance) too.

Would you agree that Bavarians and Austrians should be counted as Celtic nations?

Gravetto-Danubian
05-06-2016, 05:36 AM
AFAIK, Bavarians are a mix of mostly Celts and Slavs, with some Latin (Romance) too.

Would you agree that Bavarians and Austrians should be counted as Celtic nations?

I outlined why Bavarians & Austrians have little Celtic ancestry already on page 2.
You should devote some proper reading on the region so more logical hypotheses can be formed.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 05:41 AM
All anthropologists of the past recognized Bavarians as mostly Celtic, though.

They are anthropologically and also genetically different from North Germans.

ffoucart
05-06-2016, 06:00 AM
Celtic genes are influencing Bavarian self-consciousness - apparently Bavarians don't want to be part of Germany:

Who are the Bavarians - can they even be considered Germans?

AFAIK, Bavarians are a mix of mostly Celts and Slavs, with some Latin (Romance) too.

Would you agree that Bavarians and Austrians should be counted as Celtic nations?

SOME Bavarians are independantists. A very limited part in fact. Most Bavarians would be very surprised of your speak.



And, frankly, genes have nothing to do with revendiqued nationality.

Moreover, you are making a confusion between Nation-state, and Nation itself. There is little doubt that Bavarians are part of the German Nation (as defined culturally). But Bayern was always reluctant to be part of the German state (founded by Prussia, an ennemy).

And Bavarians are not a mix of Celts and Slavs, as a great part of their ancestry is Germanic (Bavaria emerged from a fusion of different germanic tribes).

Bavaria was also one of the 5 (and after the scission of Lotharingia) 6 stem duchies of the kingdom of Germany.

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

Austria was originally the Ostmark, a territory conquered on the Avars, and subject to Frankish settlement.

This is basic history.

Gravetto-Danubian
05-06-2016, 06:17 AM
All anthropologists of the past recognized Bavarians as mostly Celtic, though.

They are anthropologically and also genetically different from North Germans.

C'mon Tom, use the same intelligence you applied for the palynology and settlement history of Greater Poland for Bavaria and Austria; and you'll derive the answer for yourself

But I agree they're different to north Germans, but no one disputes that. I like Bavarians !

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 06:17 AM
Interesting thread about the assimilation of Celts by Germanic tribes:

http://historum.com/european-history/100271-how-gaul-were-earliest-germanic-people-2.html#post2443441?postcount=15

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 06:20 AM
Bavarians are part of the German Nation (as defined culturally).

Not really since the German nation was built on Protestant (Lutheran) foundations, while Bavarians and Austrians are Catholic.

Religion is an important part of culture, almost as important as language.


Austria was originally the Ostmark, a territory conquered on the Avars

Not conquered on the Avars, but conquered on the Slovene Principality of Carantania:

http://historum.com/european-history/80449-slovenia.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Regnum_Carantanum.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Territory_governed_by_Braslav.png/600px-Territory_governed_by_Braslav.png

Ethnically Slovene territory in the Early Middle Ages (green) compared to modern borders of Slovenia:

http://www.gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P02/img/karta2.jpg

Avars = Obri

=============================================

Slovenes are - by the way - to a large extent descended from West Slavs rather than from East Slavs:

Hence you can see similarities between Slovene and Slovak (as well as other West Slavic) languages:

http://egradiva.gis.si/web/2.-letnik-zgodovina/alpski-slovani?p_p_id=ZSS_T04_P09_WAR_ZSS_T04_P09portlet_ INSTANCE_H6iU&p_p_state=maximized

Slovenia was settled by Slavs from two directions - from the North and from the East:

http://www.gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P09/img/img3.jpg

vettor
05-06-2016, 06:25 AM
One has to look at the evidence, which has been discussed in this thread at length already and apparently you missed, if you think "U106 cannot be [G]erman." Good grief.

I do not look at the term German as a modern area of Germany , but see German as in the areas only of modern north-germany and denmark. Basically gaulish celts ruled central and southern germany in the iron age..........bronze age , I am unsure

ffoucart
05-06-2016, 06:31 AM
Not really since the German nation was built on Protestant (Lutheran) foundations, while Bavarians and Austrians are Catholic.

Absolutely not! The German dialect used by Luther became the Linga Franca, as a middle point between Low German dialects and High German dialect, but religion was never part of the German Nation, as the principle of various religions was set in the XVIIth century for the kingdom of Germany (as Germany was half Catholic/half Protestant).

To be German, tradionnly means to be ethnically German (blood is more important than culture or language). That's why the conflict was difficult to set with France, as some parts of France are considered as ethnically part of Germany, wether France choose another definition for its Nation.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 06:36 AM
To be German, tradionnly means to be ethnically German

If by "ethnicity" you mean "genetics", then there is not even such a thing as "genetically German".

Germans are one of the most genetically mixed nations in Europe.

I can hardly think of anyone more mixed, perhaps only the French would count as even more mixed.

OTOH, the Danes are genetically homogeneous, descended from a small effective population size:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7096-Athanasiadis-et-al-2016-Genetic-History-of-Denmark&p=155198&viewfull=1#post155198

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 06:39 AM
Proverbially "mutts are most obsessed about purity" and this is why we see what we see in 20th century history.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 07:04 AM
German nationalists prior to the National Socialist era always defined "ethnic Germans" as "people who can speak German language", not based on skull measurements etc. (and DNA tests were not available back then of course). Check for example this book:

Jason D. Hansen, "Mapping the Germans: Statistical Science, Cartography, and the Visualization of the German Nation, 1848-1914"

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 07:56 AM
for the kingdom of Germany (as Germany was half Catholic/half Protestant).

Catholic South-West, Protestant North-East. It wasn't exactly 50/50 - Protestants were more numerous IIRC.

Today Catholics are 50% or even more because Protestants in DDR became Atheists during Communist rules.

As for the Kingdom of Brandenburg-Prussia itself, its German-speaking regions were overwhelmingly Lutheran.

ffoucart
05-06-2016, 08:10 AM
Language was only one part of the equation, as some French speakers were considered as "Germans" already in the XVIth century (in Lorraine and Wallonia).

I remember discussing with a young Bavarian some years ago at München (given his look and job, I think he was politically on the left). When he asked us our place of origin in France (Lille and around), his answer was clear "but you are not really French, you are German".

Clearly not an isolated case, as proven by recent History.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 08:19 AM
Here is some regional data on religious structure from the Prussian census of year 1817:

Regierungsbezirk - Protestants / total population:

Liegnitz - 429,245 / 499,788

Provinz Brandenburg:

Berlin - 186,572 / 196,429
Potsdam - 520,493 / 525,038
Frankfurt/O. - 564,248 / 576,328

Provinz Sachsen:

Magdeburg - 462,510 / 472,012
Merseburg - 499,969 / 501,868
Erfurt - 170,500 / 240,339

Provinz Pommern:

Stralsund - 128,673 / 129,239
Stettin - 323,078 / 327,002
Köslin - 239,594 / 244,515

And Non-Protestants were about 50/50 Catholics/Jews.

===================

Of course there were regions with more Catholics.

ffoucart
05-06-2016, 08:35 AM
You are more and more off topic.

We can discuss at length what is or is not German, or part of the German Nation, given that various definitions exist anyway.

But since your point is to try to prove that U106 is a Celtic subclade, you have no choice but to try to forge your own definition of what is Germanic, given the correlation between U106 and Germanic languages.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 08:40 AM
In Early Middle Ages there were still many Romance-speaking communities in what is now Germany.

For example Moselle Romance linguistic area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle_Romance

rms2
05-06-2016, 11:24 AM
I do not look at the term German as a modern area of Germany , but see German as in the areas only of modern north-germany and denmark. Basically gaulish celts ruled central and southern germany in the iron age..........bronze age , I am unsure

Right, and I used the word "German" in this thread in the ethnolinguistic sense, not in the sense of modern nation states.

It is pretty apparent that U106 has a strong connection to ancient Germans, who eventually spread, mostly during the Migration Period, into areas of what is now Germany that were once largely Celtic. The distribution of U106, strongest among Germanic speakers, fading to near zero among speakers of Italo-Celtic, makes that pretty clear, and the discovery of the oldest U106 to date (c. 2300 BC) in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden offers preliminary ancient support for it.

U152 is the clearest representative of the old Celtic population of central and southern Germany.

Claiming that U106 represents the "true Celts" is just not tenable.

EastAnglian
05-06-2016, 11:45 AM
Why are so many on here determined to link U106 to Celts anyway?, what's wrong with the Germanic connection?. Perhaps its a post WW2 hangover.

rms2
05-06-2016, 06:34 PM
Why are so many on here determined to link U106 to Celts anyway?, what's wrong with the Germanic connection?. Perhaps its a post WW2 hangover.

Good question. I'm not sure what the motivation of this thread's creator was.

I know of one guy who very clearly was upset because his U106+ result did not comport well with his self image as a 100% pure, dyed-in-the-wool Irishman, so he did everything he could at every dna chat venue he could find to assert that U106 is prehistoric in Ireland. The thought that one of his y-dna ancestors might have been an Englishman was especially upsetting to him. Last I heard, he is still slugging away, valiantly contending with fate.

I suspect that, similarly,there are other U106+ guys with Celtic surnames and/or ancestry in Celtic Fringe countries who don't like the idea of belonging to a Germanic y-dna line. They would prefer it if at least some of U106, particularly their parts of it, could be linked to the Celts.

MikeWhalen
05-06-2016, 06:44 PM
I propose a simple test...do a poll and find out which haplogroup like which food basic best...'taters or 'krout'
(meaning Potatoes or Sauerkraut, for all you non Irish & German types)
:)

Mike

vettor
05-06-2016, 06:51 PM
Right, and I used the word "German" in this thread in the ethnolinguistic sense, not in the sense of modern nation states.

It is pretty apparent that U106 has a strong connection to ancient Germans, who eventually spread, mostly during the Migration Period, into areas of what is now Germany that were once largely Celtic. The distribution of U106, strongest among Germanic speakers, fading to near zero among speakers of Italo-Celtic, makes that pretty clear, and the discovery of the oldest U106 to date (c. 2300 BC) in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden offers preliminary ancient support for it.

U152 is the clearest representative of the old Celtic population of central and southern Germany.

Claiming that U106 represents the "true Celts" is just not tenable.

Can you prove that U106 formed in northern Germany and Denmark in ancient times, because these with part of Scandinavia are "german" .
If you can prove that, then the U106 in Austria ( IIRC it is 15% ) was a germanic move southward, most likely after the fall of the Roman Empire

rms2
05-06-2016, 06:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQVFZx7XX4

Of course, Germans are big Kartoffel eaters, too.

rms2
05-06-2016, 06:58 PM
Can you prove that U106 formed in northern Germany and Denmark in ancient times, because these with part of Scandinavia are "german" .
If you can prove that, then the U106 in Austria ( IIRC it is 15% ) was a germanic move southward, most likely after the fall of the Roman Empire

Go back and read all the evidence presented in this thread: the distribution of U106, its obvious connection to Germanic speakers and inverse relationship to speakers of Italo-Celtic, the absence of U106 in Bell Beaker thus far, and the fact that the oldest U106 yet found came from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden.

That does not constitute absolute proof, but it does add up to a preponderance of the evidence, and I think it is about as subtle as a sledgehammer blow to the head.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 07:05 PM
But R1b-L21 also has a very strong relationship to Germanic-speakers. Today. :)

After all, nearly all of L21 in Britain, Ireland, the USA, Canada and Australia speak English, a Germanic language...

What if the story of U106 was similar and they originally spoke Celtic, like L21 did ???

miiser
05-06-2016, 07:07 PM
Go back and read all the evidence presented in this thread: the distribution of U106, its obvious connection to Germanic speakers and inverse relationship to speakers of Italo-Celtic . . .

Do you really believe that modern distribution is an indication of origin? You do not hold to a consistent standard with regard to this argument when applied to other haplogroups.

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 07:10 PM
We all know that Celtic languages are almost extinct today, but Celtic ancestry is far from extinct - it is very common.

After all Ancient Celts used to number 10,000,000 individuals in times when entire Europe had only few dozen millions:

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

So they were probably a double digit percentage of the population of the European continent, during their "golden age":


the total Celtic-speaking population (being more than 10,000,000 around 200 BC)

Tomenable
05-06-2016, 07:26 PM
Some linguists group Germanic languages with Balto-Slavic (Balto-Slavo-Germanic), others link them with Italo-Celtic (Italo-Celto-Germanic). Assuming that the latter is correct, we would expect Proto-Celts and Proto-Germanics to have shared some subclades in common.

Just like Balts and Slavs share most of subclades of R1a (today the main difference is I2a among Slavs vs. N1c among Balts).

So it is possible that R1b-U106 was present both among Celts (or at least among certain groups of Celts) and among Germanics.

lgmayka
05-06-2016, 08:08 PM
I know of one guy who very clearly was upset because his U106+ result did not comport well with his self image as a 100% pure, dyed-in-the-wool Irishman, so he did everything he could at every dna chat venue he could find to assert that U106 is prehistoric in Ireland.
It might be more useful to actually investigate and explain the various U106 subclades and singletons in Ireland.

A friend of Irish ancestry tested 67 markers, then:
Deep Clade-R (result U106+)
Z381 (result +)
Z301 (result -)
Z156 (result +)
Z305 (result -)
R1b-Z156 SNP Pack (all negative below Z156 itself)

So after all that money spent, he is essentially Z156*. According to YFull, Z156 has a TMRCA of 4600 years (https://yfull.com/tree/R-S264/). (Michał would say 5060-5520 years.) I'll be blunt: How can anyone know where his patrilineage has been for the past 4600-5500 years? How can anyone be so sure which languages his patrilineage has spoken, and in which cultures his patrilineage has lived?

Perhaps my larger point is that we need to move past the 4900-year-old generalities of U106, P312, etc. Each subclade and singleton has its own (pre)history. That's what motivates people to order SNP packs and the Big Y.

GoldenHind
05-06-2016, 08:10 PM
Some linguists group Germanic languages with Balto-Slavic (Balto-Slavo-Germanic), others link them with Italo-Celtic (Italo-Celto-Germanic). Assuming that the latter is correct, we would expect Proto-Celts and Proto-Germanics to have shared some subclades in common.

Just like Balts and Slavs share most of subclades of R1a (today the main difference is I2a among Slavs vs. N1c among Balts).

So it is possible that R1b-U106 was present both among Celts (or at least among certain groups of Celts) and among Germanics.

I suspect the Italo-Cektic-Germanic connection is correct, although Germanic also had other influences, which may have included Balto-Slavic. I believe that both R1b U106 and P312 were speaking some sort of photo-Indo-European dialect which eventually evolved into Italic, Celtic and Germanic.

I have thought for some time that the fact that R1b in Scandinavia is roughly divided equally between P312 and U106, though the percentages vary by area, strongly suggests that P312 was present both among Germanics and Celts. There is a P312 subclade (L238) which is largely confined to Scandinavia, especially Norway and Sweden.

lgmayka
05-06-2016, 08:40 PM
There is a P312 subclade (L238) which is largely confined to Scandinavia, especially Norway and Sweden.
Although ironically, its earliest offshoot is Polish. Kit 109663 is
L238+ Z2246+ Z2245- Z2247- Z2248-

rms2
05-07-2016, 02:35 PM
Do you really believe that modern distribution is an indication of origin? You do not hold to a consistent standard with regard to this argument when applied to other haplogroups.

You really should try reading whole posts instead of only the parts of them that suit your argument.

The oldest U106 thus far came from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden circa 2300 BC, no U106 has yet turned up among the growing number of Bell Beaker test results, including those from places where U106 is quite frequent today, and no U106 has yet turned up in ancient Celtic results (although the list of ancient Celtic y-dna results is small). Whether one agrees with them or not, a number of scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker with the genesis of Italo-Celtic.

I mentioned all of that already. Modern distribution is only part of the evidence.

rms2
05-07-2016, 02:44 PM
It might be more useful to actually investigate and explain the various U106 subclades and singletons in Ireland . . .

You make a good point about individual results, but when generalizing about a y haplogroup as a whole one has to look at the preponderance of the evidence. There is nothing particularly Celtic or Irish about U106.

I don't know about your friend's results, but Z156 is the subclade of the German royal house of Wettin. I think it far more likely that the few Z156 men in Ireland, even those on lines whose terminal SNPs are not yet known, descend from some historical period ancestor from a country with far more U106 (and Z156) than Ireland has than that they descend from some prehistoric Irishman.

Any kind of U106 is still U106 and subject to interpretation in light of the evidence provided by the larger group as a whole. It would not make much sense to interpret the whole group by the possible odd exception here or there (which, if the truth were known, is probably not all that exceptional).

Does anyone here really think "R1b-U106 were the True Celts"?

A.D.
05-07-2016, 03:15 PM
I don't know about your friend's results, but Z156 is the subclade of the German royal house of Wettin. I think it far more likely that the few Z156 men in Ireland, even those on lines whose terminal SNPs are not yet known, descend from some historical period ancestor from a country with far more U106 (and Z156) than Ireland has than that they descend from some prehistoric Irishman.

Any kind of U106 is still U106 and subject to interpretation in light of the evidence provided by the larger group as a whole. It would not make much sense to interpret the whole group by the possible odd exception here or there (which, if the truth were known, is not probably all that exceptional).

Does anyone here really think "R1b-U106 were the True Celts"?[/QUOTE]

You may suggest it but there is no evidence to make a solid argument. Historically King Billy's army could have brought all the U106 to Ireland. I'm not even sure how much the Vikings left probably very little. Even less than expected would not surprise me.

rms2
05-07-2016, 03:23 PM
You may suggest it but there is no evidence to make a solid argument. Historically King Billy's army could have brought all the U106 to Ireland. I'm not even sure how much the Vikings left probably very little. Even less than expected would not surprise me.

I apologize, but I don't follow your post, given that you quoted me. Did you mean that someone might suggest that "R1b-U106 were the True Celts" but there is no evidence to make a solid argument for that position? Or did you mean something else?

I agree with your comment about the Normans, although, honestly, I think the English are responsible for almost all the U106 in Ireland.

A.D.
05-07-2016, 03:37 PM
I don't think the Celts were U106. Any argument that says they were is full of ifs, buts and maybes. I'm totally in agreement with you here.

rms2
05-07-2016, 03:38 PM
I don't think the Celts were U106. Any argument that says they were is full of ifs, buts and maybes. I'm totally in agreement with you here.

Okay, thanks.

Tomenable
05-07-2016, 04:58 PM
I have thought for some time that the fact that R1b in Scandinavia is roughly divided equally between P312 and U106, though the % vary by area, strongly suggests that P312 was present both among Germanics and Celts.

Maybe.

But there was a large-scale immigration from the continent (and perhaps from the British Isles too) to Scandinavia. Check what user Bazyli (he is historian Adam Sengebusch) - wrote about this:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=144146&view=findpost&p=1545058

I will translate Bazyli's post from Polish:

"Numerous German settlers settled in Sweden. Stockholm in the 14th and the early 15th centuries was a city ruled by merchants who came from the Rhineland. Apart from them, huge numbers of miners and foundry-workers [from mainland Europe] settled in central-western parts of Sweden, and so many ethnic Germans settled in Gotland, that the Teutonic Order easily conquered that island with their help. Similarly, the Norwegian city of Bergen was totally overmastered by merchants and craftsmen from Germany. Only the Protestant Reformation contributed to the dillution of the ethnic German element and its assimilation by Norwegians and Swedes."

See also here about the occupation of Gotland by the Teutonic Order in years 1398 - 1408:

http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3206&context=luc_theses

I have also read, that there was a royal ordinance in the Kalmar Union in the early 1500s, which prohibited more than 50% of Scandinavian town councils being represented by ethnic Germans. So it looks like cities in Scandinavia were infested with immigrants from the Holy Roman Empire at that time, and those Germans had taken control of over 50% of seats in town councils in most of Scandinavian towns in the 1400s.

In other words - modern Scandinavians are not "genetic fossils" unchanged since the Bronze Age.

There was also Slavic immigration, but it was mostly to Denmark, not Sweden and Norway:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7096-Athanasiadis-et-al-2016-Genetic-History-of-Denmark&p=155198&viewfull=1#post155198


Abstract: Denmark’s genetic history has never been studied in detail. In this work, we analysed genetic and anthropometrical data from ~800 Danish students as part of an outreach activity promoting genomic literacy in secondary education.

DNA analysis revealed remarkable homogeneity of the Danish population after discounting contributions from recent immigration. This homogeneity was reflected in PCA and AMOVA, but also in more sophisticated LD-based methods for estimating admixture.

Notwithstanding Denmark’s homogeneity, we observed a clear signal of Polish admixture in the East of the country, coinciding with historical Polish settlements in the region before the Middle Ages.

In addition, Denmark has a substantially smaller effective population size compared to Sweden and Norway, possibly reflecting further lack of strong population structure.

GoldenHind
05-07-2016, 07:49 PM
If the R1b-P312>L238 in Scandinavia are relatively recent arrivals from Germany, they must have all packed their bags to leave. The R1b-L238 project has 24 members from Norway, 13 from Sweden, four from Finland and one from the Faroe Islands. There is but one each from Germany (Ostfriesland) and Austria.

So what do have to say about the genetic composition of the Bell Beaker settlements in Denmark and Norway?

miiser
05-07-2016, 08:56 PM
You really should try reading whole posts instead of only the parts of them that suit your argument.

The oldest U106 thus far came from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden circa 2300 BC, no U106 has yet turned up among the growing number of Bell Beaker test results, including those from places where U106 is quite frequent today, and no U106 has yet turned up in ancient Celtic results (although the list of ancient Celtic y-dna results is small). Whether one agrees with them or not, a number of scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker with the genesis of Italo-Celtic.

I mentioned all of that already. Modern distribution is only part of the evidence.

I did read the entire comment. It's obvious to any sincere and honest debater that I was responding to the specific arguments that I actually responded to. I don't challenge the arguments that I didn't challenge. I do challenge the ones that I did. It's a standard practice in debate, and it's not that complicated. Debaters don't usually counter the arguments they agree with.

But I suspect you already understand this, and are just making a sneaky reply in an attempt to redirect, rather than to respond to my counterargument and explain the inconsistency of your own position.

rms2
05-07-2016, 09:35 PM
I did read the entire comment. It's obvious to any sincere and honest debater that I was responding to the specific arguments that I actually responded to. I don't challenge the arguments that I didn't challenge. I do challenge the ones that I did. It's a standard practice in debate, and it's not that complicated. Debaters don't usually counter the arguments they agree with.

But I suspect you already understand this, and are just making a sneaky reply in an attempt to redirect, rather than to respond to my counterargument and explain the inconsistency of your own position.

No, your response implied that modern distribution was my sole argument. Otherwise, you would not have written



Do you really believe that modern distribution is an indication of origin? You do not hold to a consistent standard with regard to this argument when applied to other haplogroups.

There was nothing "sneaky" about my reply, which served to remind you of all the evidence I cited, of which modern distribution was but one piece; but, really, reminding you was not my purpose. Showing others that modern distribution is not the only indicator of a connection between U106 and Germanic speakers was. And there is nothing inconsistent about my argument in this case, which included all the evidence I cited in my follow-up "sneaky" post.

Modern distribution by itself is an imperfect indicator of origin, but it's not totally irrelevant. One has to interpret modern distribution in the light of history, linguistics, and ancient y-dna results.

rms2
05-07-2016, 09:59 PM
If the R1b-P312>L238 in Scandinavia are relatively recent arrivals from Germany, they must have all packed their bags to leave. The R1b-L238 project has 24 members from Norway, 13 from Sweden, four from Finland and one from the Faroe Islands. There is but one each from Germany (Ostfriesland) and Austria.

So what do have to say about the genetic composition of the Bell Beaker settlements in Denmark and Norway?

I think you are right, that there is some P312 that was Germanic from very very early on, like L238 and maybe DF19 and DF99. I do think the bulk of P312 was mainly Italo-Celtic, though, as you know. It seems to me P312 has a much broader, more diverse distribution than U106.

Webb
05-07-2016, 11:19 PM
But R1b-L21 also has a very strong relationship to Germanic-speakers. Today. :)

After all, nearly all of L21 in Britain, Ireland, the USA, Canada and Australia speak English, a Germanic language...

What if the story of U106 was similar and they originally spoke Celtic, like L21 did ???

Suppose this was the case. Which haplogroup present in German speaking areas brought the Germanic language to those areas? In Scandinavia of all of the haplogroup a present, which is responsible for Germanic. I think the I's can be ruled out. So what's left? If you say L21, then you have to explain Gaelic in Ireland somehow.

GoldenHind
05-08-2016, 01:07 AM
I think you are right, that there is some P312 that was Germanic from very very early on, like L238 and maybe DF19 and DF99. I do think the bulk of P312 was mainly Italo-Celtic, though, as you know. It seems to me P312 has a much broader, more diverse distribution than U106.

I think we can agree that P312 is found throughout Europe, including Germanic and non-Germanic countries, although the amount of P312 as a percentage of total R1b clearly increases as one proceeds west, and is especially high in some Celtic areas such as Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France.

I should have added to my post above about L238 that it was the only P312 subclade which was completely absent in 500 samples in the Genomes of the Netherlands study. Perhaps the Dutch L238 all moved to Scandinavia as well!

GTC
05-08-2016, 09:01 AM
I think you are right, that there is some P312 that was Germanic from very very early on, like L238 and maybe DF19 and DF99. I do think the bulk of P312 was mainly Italo-Celtic, though, as you know. It seems to me P312 has a much broader, more diverse distribution than U106.

Dr Iain McDonald, a co-administrator of the FTDNA U106 Project, is spending considerable time and effort on the dating of U106 subclades. In a recent U106 Group discussion he wrote:

"U106 and P312 share a common ancestor that likely lived no more than 200 years before either of them - probably less. They may well have shared a common ancestor within their living memory. The ancient U106 and P312 burials we have suggest the two were not separated by more than a few hundred miles at most. They likely originated in very similar parts of western Europe. Their modern distributions overlap considerably, and it is only strong founder effects (e.g. from L21 or U152) that make the populations that different."

tchekitchek
05-08-2016, 09:31 AM
Maybe.

But there was a large-scale immigration from the continent (and perhaps from the British Isles too) to Scandinavia. Check what user Bazyli (he is historian Adam Sengebusch) - wrote about this:

There was a big "walloon" immigration to Sweden in the 16th century too.

rms2
05-08-2016, 11:15 AM
Dr Iain McDonald, a co-administrator of the FTDNA U106 Project, is spending considerable time and effort on the dating of U106 subclades. In a recent U106 Group discussion he wrote:

"U106 and P312 share a common ancestor that likely lived no more than 200 years before either of them - probably less. They may well have shared a common ancestor within their living memory. The ancient U106 and P312 burials we have suggest the two were not separated by more than a few hundred miles at most. They likely originated in very similar parts of western Europe. Their modern distributions overlap considerably, and it is only strong founder effects (e.g. from L21 or U152) that make the populations that different."

That is why both ended up associated with related branches of Indo-European peoples, Italo-Celtic, in the case of P312 (for the most part), and Germanic, in the case of U106.

A lot of that overlap is a consequence of later movements, like the movement of Germans during the Migration Period, which brought U106 into Italo-Celtic territory like Britain.

ffoucart
05-08-2016, 11:25 AM
There was a big "walloon" immigration to Sweden in the 16th century too.

Yes, I think that most of my matches with Swedish people are from these "Brabanters".

But to my knowledge, we can hardly speak of a"massive" or "big" migration.

One of my Swedish correspondent said to me that most of them stayed together until the end of the XVIIIth century.

tchekitchek
05-08-2016, 05:50 PM
Yes, I think that most of my matches with Swedish people are from these "Brabanters".

But to my knowledge, we can hardly speak of a"massive" or "big" migration.

One of my Swedish correspondent said to me that most of them stayed together until the end of the XVIIIth century.
Not sure they were Brabanters; I think they came from the Namur and Liège area.

ADW_1981
05-12-2016, 02:09 PM
This is what I speculated on my father's side based on his high % of Swedish and Swedish/Finnish matches at 23andMe, some of whom are active on these boards. However, none have been able to confirm Walloon ancestry.

TigerMW
05-13-2016, 02:33 PM
I apologize if this is old news.

"Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons", Martiniano, 20156

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/fig_tab/ncomms10326_T1.html

I noticed two of the pre-Anglo-Saxon "Roman Era" men were U106+. There is actually a nice mix with U152, P311 and L21>DF63 included in the ancient York samples.

Would these folks be descendants of Parisi?

A.D.
05-13-2016, 06:58 PM
I apologize if this is old news.

"Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons", Martiniano, 20156

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/fig_tab/ncomms10326_T1.html I d



I noticed two of the pre-Anglo-Saxon "Roman Era" men were U106+. There is actually a nice mix with U152, P311 and L21>DF63 included in the ancient York samples.

Would these folks be descendants of Parisi?

I don't think they are native to the area some were from the West of Britain and some could be from Holland Germany or France. Here's the link to the paper

http://tinyurl.com/hjhmr3q

Agamemnon
05-13-2016, 07:12 PM
I apologize if this is old news.

"Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons", Martiniano, 20156

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/fig_tab/ncomms10326_T1.html

I noticed two of the pre-Anglo-Saxon "Roman Era" men were U106+. There is actually a nice mix with U152, P311 and L21>DF63 included in the ancient York samples.

Would these folks be descendants of Parisi?

The two U106 gladiators were actually pretty much identical to the Anglo-Saxon sample from the same study, so I'd say surmise they were neither Celtic nor British to begin with.

TigerMW
05-13-2016, 07:44 PM
The two U106 gladiators were actually pretty much identical to the Anglo-Saxon sample from the same study, so I'd say surmise they were neither Celtic nor British to begin with.

You may be right. They may have been not Brythonic speakers, but I don't think we can surmise that from the information presented.


"Seven ancient genomes are sampled from a cemetery in Roman York dated between the second and the fourth century AD, one from an earlier Yorkshire Iron-Age burial (210 BC–40 AD) and one from a later neighbouring Anglo-Saxon burial (650–910 AD)."
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/full/ncomms10326.html

The U106 were from the Roman Era in the paper so they were no later than 400 AD.

"The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was the process, from the mid 5th to early 7th centuries, by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the Roman withdrawal in the early 5th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain

Is there anything we can tell from the artifacts in the Roman Era U106 burials that would lead us to conclude what culture they were?

BdCdL
09-04-2016, 03:53 PM
The theory of "NordWestBlock" rather looks like a well-done propaganda than a really scientific analyze.

A simple counter example:
If we follow "Geographia" (II, 2, 9) of Ptolemy, the link between the Irish Menapii and the Belgӕ proves that Z16340 is the Menapii clade.

Knowing that Ireland is the most Celtic country in the world, Why, if the Nordwestblock theory was true, Ireland wouldn't be more germanic?
The Menapii who were described by Caesar as germanic were in fact genetically Celtic, as proven by the Z16340 cluster.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z16340/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yfull.com%2Ftree%2FR-Z16340%2F&h=BAQE-EAF4)
http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=514&star=false (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ytree.net%2FDisplayTree.p hp%3FblockID%3D514%26star%3Dfalse&h=AAQFLRO8t)
... And more proves are coming: The number of the kits going in this direction are increasing.

Norman Mongan kindly allowed me to publish this image coming from his book if I mention it.
http://www.normanmongan.com/books/menapia-quest/ (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.normanmongan.com%2Fbooks% 2Fmenapia-quest%2F&h=DAQG0ddSC)

His book contains an important quantity of records in Ireland (specially Fermanagh & Leinster) and abroad (Flanders) that increases the credibility of the Celtic Menapii.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11369&stc=1

Tomenable
04-26-2018, 06:04 PM
There is now a sample of R1b-U106 from Unetice culture in Czech Republic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC

I7196, Czech Republic, Jinonice, Unetice culture, 2200-1700 BC, R1b-U106

Many think that Austria and Czechia is where Celtic ethnogenesis took place.

04-26-2018, 06:16 PM
On a personal level, would it bother you if your paternal line was of German origin?

Knowing the history of Poland and Germany that would an understandable feeling.

EDIT: I assumed you were U106 when I first posted, but your profile only says you are R-M269.

Don’t bother me to be honest, just finding it intriguing

Finn
04-26-2018, 06:30 PM
There is now a sample of R1b-U106 from Unetice culture in Czech Republic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC

I7196, Czech Republic, Jinonice, Unetice culture, 2200-1700 BC, R1b-U106

Many think that Austria and Czechia is where Celtic ethnogenesis took place.

Yep and around 1800 BC we find a R1B U106 sample in Oostwoud, West Friesland right in the face of England.....

rms2
04-26-2018, 10:55 PM
There is now a sample of R1b-U106 from Unetice culture in Czech Republic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC

I7196, Czech Republic, Jinonice, Unetice culture, 2200-1700 BC, R1b-U106

Many think that Austria and Czechia is where Celtic ethnogenesis took place.

Unetice has been proposed as the, or one of the, sources for Proto-Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italo-Celtic. No one really knows what language Unetice people spoke, except that it probably was some form of Indo-European. It probably depended on where one was.

As was mentioned a number of times earlier in this thread, there is no reason to regard U106 as having much of any connection to the Celts, let alone to regard U106 as the premier y-dna haplogroup of the "true Celts". Such a claim is ridiculous. U106 frequency reaches its peak in Germanic speaking regions and drops like a rock once one crosses the border into Italo-Celtic speaking regions. That is true both on the Continent and in the British Isles.

Okay, that's modern dna. What about ancient dna? Well, not only was the oldest known U106 thus far found in Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, but U106 is also popping up very frequently in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans. Do I need to list them for you?

Meanwhile, U106 has not yet appeared in Kurgan Bell Beaker, although I expect it might in the eastern part of Kurgan Bell Beaker's Northern Province, i.e., the Baltic coast. The only identifiable ancient Celtic remains thus far tested for y-dna, the Hinxton Celts, were neither of them derived for U106. Instead, they were R1b-L21.

And by the way, the Hinxton Celts were recovered in the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni, so it is likely they belonged to that tribe.

rms2
04-26-2018, 11:14 PM
Yep and around 1800 BC we find a R1B U106 sample in Oostwoud, West Friesland right in the face of England.....

Yep, dead as a door nail on the Dutch side. Interesting that none of Olalde et al's Bronze Age British samples, including those in what is now England, turned out to be U106. Subsequently, the two Iron Age Celts dug up at Hinxton (likely Belgic Catuvellauni) weren't U106 either. They were both R1b-L21.

Then there are all those pesky U106+ Migration Period Germans and that U106 buried in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden. Strange place for a "true Celt".

We've been round and round on this before, Finn, on a couple of other threads. What do you find Celtic about U106? Seriously.

rms2
04-26-2018, 11:36 PM
Here is an interesting archaeological paper by Dalia Anna Pokutta that tells the tale of an ancient Swede who wound up in Unetice country, though the ending isn't too happy:

Journey to murder: Atypical graves of the immigrants in the Early Bronze Age Europe (http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54762/WA308_74895_P244_Journey-to-murder-At_I.pdf).

It would be interesting to know what his y-dna haplogroup was and whether any other migrants from the Baltic region wound up in Unetice.

Finn
04-27-2018, 12:36 AM
Yep, dead as a door nail on the Dutch side. Interesting that none of Olalde et al's Bronze Age British samples, including those in what is now England, turned out to be U106. Subsequently, the two Iron Age Celts dug up at Hinxton (likely Belgic Catuvellauni) weren't U106 either. They were both R1b-L21.

Then there are all those pesky U106+ Migration Period Germans and that U106 buried in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden. Strange place for a "true Celt".

We've been round and round on this before, Finn, on a couple of other threads. What do you find Celtic about U106? Seriously.

Two things:
1. I don’t think that the Oostwoud R1bU 106 people have ‘waited’ about 2300 years (German migration) to take a vessel to England.....
2. The ‘Celtic-Italic’ [Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield) Bronze Age people moved from Central Europe to NW Europe incl Isles
and Southern Scandinavia.
It seems like if Rms2 himself has difficulties with a potential (proto) Celtic label....:biggrin1:

Finn
04-27-2018, 07:46 AM
Yep, dead as a door nail on the Dutch side. Interesting that none of Olalde et al's Bronze Age British samples, including those in what is now England, turned out to be U106. Subsequently, the two Iron Age Celts dug up at Hinxton (likely Belgic Catuvellauni) weren't U106 either. They were both R1b-L21.

Then there are all those pesky U106+ Migration Period Germans and that U106 buried in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden. Strange place for a "true Celt".

We've been round and round on this before, Finn, on a couple of other threads. What do you find Celtic about U106? Seriously.


Wake up Rms2, there was no Brexit...no walls... they were more clever in those times! ;)

From the Celtic (sic!) Encyclopedia:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/stz872.png

rms2
04-27-2018, 10:47 AM
Two things:
1. I don’t think that the Oostwoud R1bU 106 people have ‘waited’ about 2300 years (German migration) to take a vessel to England.....

Until they find more than one U106 there, you cannot assume there was any "Oostwoud R1b-U106 people". And if there were, and they went to what is now England, it's strange that none of Olalde et al's Bronze Age British results was U106.

The Hinxton Celts were unearthed in a part of England that today is loaded with U106. Yet both of them were R1b-L21, like their Kurgan Bell Beaker forebears.

Which reminds me, all of the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker men at Oostwoud were R1b-P312. The Oostwoud U106 was a late arrival interred in a separate mound on his back, contrary to Kurgan Bell Beaker custom.



2. The ‘Celtic-Italic’ [Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield) Bronze Age people moved from Central Europe to NW Europe incl Isles
and Southern Scandinavia.

Prove that. While you're at it, prove there was a significant level of U106 among Italo-Celtic peoples. All the evidence thus far indicates there wasn't. Otherwise, U106 would not decline so precipitously once one crosses from Germanic speaking to Italo-Celtic speaking areas.

If U106 was so Celtic, why does it feature so prominently among Migration Period Germans? Mark my words, it will show up in the Vikings, as well, once we get a sufficient number of test results from them.

And how is it the y-dna haplogroup of the "true Celts" shows up most frequently in Britain in those areas most heavily settled by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English? Why does its frequency drop like a rock west of Offa's Dyke? Why is it so scarce in Ireland, and, when it is found there, occurs most frequently (but never very frequently) in those places settled by the English and Lowland Scots? Why in Scotland is U106 relatively infrequent, and where it is most frequent is found in the places settled by the English?



It seems like if Rms2 himself has difficulties with a potential (proto) Celtic label....:biggrin1:

I do because it's preposterous.

Finn
04-27-2018, 11:15 AM
Until they find more than one U106 there, you cannot assume there was any "Oostwoud R1b-U106 people". And if there were, and they went to what is now England, it's strange that none of Olalde et al's Bronze Age British results was U106.

The Hinxton Celts were unearthed in a part of England that today is loaded with U106. Yet both of them were R1b-L21, like their Kurgan Bell Beaker forebears.

Which reminds me, all of the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker men at Oostwoud were R1b-P312. The Oostwoud U106 was a late arrival interred in a separate mound on his back, contrary to Kurgan Bell Beaker custom.



Prove that. While you're at it, prove there was a significant level of U106 among Italo-Celtic peoples. All the evidence thus far indicates there wasn't. Otherwise, U106 would not decline so precipitously once one crosses from Germanic speaking to Italo-Celtic speaking areas.

If U106 was so Celtic, why does it feature so prominently among Migration Period Germans? Mark my words, it will show up in the Vikings, as well, once we get a sufficient number of test results from them.

And how is it the y-dna haplogroup of the "true Celts" shows up most frequently in Britain in those areas most heavily settled by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English? Why does its frequency drop like a rock west of Offa's Dyke? Why is it so scarce in Ireland, and, when it is found there, occurs most frequently (but never very frequently) in those places settled by the English and Lowland Scots? Why in Scotland is U106 relatively infrequent, and where it is most frequent is found in the places settled by the English?



I do because it's preposterous.


Oostwoud R1b U106 was part of the post Bell Beakers, and as it's dated about 1800 BC and qualified bij Prof Fokkens as a MBA burial, it's Central European Bronze Age derived.
Of course there is no evidence yet that it bridged to England, but otherwise wit a seafaring people in the top of North Holland it's not reasonable to believe it staid more dan 2000 years on that place without a spin off to England (like the previous BB did).

So if not "true Celts" it were certainly "proto-Celts" of the Bronze Age period.

And that it will show up among the Germans is out of question....

rms2
04-27-2018, 11:28 AM
Oostwoud R1b U106 was part of the post Bell Beakers, and as it's dated about 1800 BC and qualified bij Prof Fokkens as a MBA burial, it's Central European Bronze Age derived.
Of course there is no evidence yet that it bridged to England, but otherwise wit a seafaring people in the top of North Holland it's not reasonable to believe it staid more dan 2000 years on that place without a spin off to England (like the previous BB did).

So if not "true Celts" it were certainly "proto-Celts" of the Bronze Age period.

You have to prove that last statement, not simply assert it.

Thus far, there is no evidence there was much, if any, U106 in Britain prior to the Roman Period and especially prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

You and Tomenable need to prove your case by showing what is identifiably Celtic about U106. Its modern distribution certainly is not. It has not shown up yet in Kurgan Bell Beaker in those places that would ultimately become Italo-Celtic speaking. The only two ancient Celtic results thus far were not U106. Oh, and there has been one ancient result from Hallstatt I mentioned earlier in this thread, but that one was G2a (great idea for a new thread: G2a were the "true Celts"!). Meanwhile, the oldest known U106 was recovered in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, and U106 is showing up frequently in Migration Period Germans.

One U106 in Czech Unetice is not even close to proof of Celtic status, especially given all the rest. That particular part of Unetice might have contributed to the genesis of pre-Proto-Germanic for all we know.

rms2
04-27-2018, 11:47 AM
. . . Oh, and there has been one ancient result from Hallstatt I mentioned earlier in this thread, but that one was G2a (great idea for a new thread: G2a were the "true Celts"!) . . .

I just thought of an even more eye-catching title for a new thread: Stalin was a "True Celt"! ;)

(Stalin was G2a.)

Finn
04-27-2018, 11:51 AM
You have to prove that last statement, not simply assert it.

Thus far, there is no evidence there was much, if any, U106 in Britain prior to the Roman Period and especially prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

You and Tomenable need to prove your case by showing what is identifiably Celtic about U106. Its modern distribution certainly is not. It has not shown up yet in Kurgan Bell Beaker in those places that would ultimately become Italo-Celtic speaking. The only two ancient Celtic results thus far were not U106. Oh, and there has been one ancient result from Hallstatt I mentioned earlier in this thread, but that one was G2a (great idea for a new thread: G2a were the "true Celts"!). Meanwhile, the oldest known U106 was recovered in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, and U106 is showing up frequently in Migration Period Germans.

One U106 in Czech Unetice is not even close to proof of Celtic status, especially given all the rest. That particular part of Unetice might have contributed to the genesis of pre-Proto-Germanic for all we know.

1. Sogel-Wohlde/Elp was part of Unetice and is proto-Celtic (German Urkeltentum)
2. In both cultures R1b U106 is now detected (Unetice and Oostwoud).

Simple as that.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12312-Celtic-Vs-Germanic-DNA&p=379091&viewfull=1#post379091

rms2
04-27-2018, 12:10 PM
1. Sogel-Wohlde/Elp was part of Unetice and is proto-Celtic (German Urkeltentum)
2. In both cultures R1b U106 is now detected (Unetice and Oostwoud).

Simple as that.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12312-Celtic-Vs-Germanic-DNA&p=379091&viewfull=1#post379091

Your #1 above is a bald assertion. That's what is simple about it. It is much simpler to merely say things than it is to prove them.

I understand some folks have guessed that the U106 Oostwoud mound belonged to Elp. Besides, there is no proof Elp was Proto-Celtic. In fact, it extended up into the Jutland Peninsula, not an area ever known to be any kind of Celtic.

It seems likely to me the Oostwoud U106 probably did belong to the Elp culture and was an immigrant from Scandinavia.

Radboud
04-27-2018, 12:14 PM
1. Sogel-Wohlde/Elp was part of Unetice and is proto-Celtic (German Urkeltentum)
2. In both cultures R1b U106 is now detected (Unetice and Oostwoud).

Simple as that.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12312-Celtic-Vs-Germanic-DNA&p=379091&viewfull=1#post379091

There are some issues about Unetice culture being ''Proto-Celtic''. Unetice Culture was a actually a huge complex that consisted different groups, so it's simplistic to consider it as just Proto-Celtic. It's possible that certain northern groups of Unetice actually spoke a western IE language that was important to the formation of Proto-Germanic, but we lack evidence.

Unetice Culture is also way to old to be considered as Proto-Celtic. Even Tumulus Culture cannot be considered as such. (Proto) Italo-Celtic is probably more accurate for some groups.

Nino90
04-27-2018, 12:14 PM
I am R-L2 - True celt

rms2
04-27-2018, 12:21 PM
I am R-L2 - True celt

I would say P312 as a whole has a better claim on the "true Celt" moniker, whatever that means. If by true Celt we mean the original Celts, I think that title belongs to most of P312, with some exceptions, like probably L238, that may never have been Celtic.

Certainly L2 probably formed an important element in the Celtic world.

Finn
04-27-2018, 12:25 PM
Your #1 above is a bald assertion. That's what is simple about it. It is much simpler to merely say things than it is to prove them.

I understand some folks have guessed that the U106 Oostwoud mound belonged to Elp. Besides, there is no proof Elp was Proto-Celtic. In fact, it extended up into the Jutland Peninsula, not an area ever known to be any kind of Celtic.

It seems likely to me the Oostwoud U106 probably did belong to the Elp culture and was an immigrant from Scandinavia.

No there is no alternative to Elp or better to say Hoogkarspel, as part of Elp.
The Tumulus style and Sögel Wohlde is not rooted in Scandinavia. Even Nordicist do not claim that ;)
And Radboud this is a question of labeling, Central Bronze Age culture is also ok, but proto-Celtic is also ok (Iron Age Celts from Hallstatt/La Tene are rooted in this Bronze Age Cultures, so it's reasonable to call it proto, although this is a matter of taste, not 'rules').

rms2
04-27-2018, 01:41 PM
No there is no alternative to Elp or better to say Hoogkarspel, as part of Elp.
The Tumulus style and Sögel Wohlde is not rooted in Scandinavia. Even Nordicist do not claim that ;)
And Radboud this is a question of labeling, Central Bronze Age culture is also ok, but proto-Celtic is also ok (Iron Age Celts from Hallstatt/La Tene are rooted in this Bronze Age Cultures, so it's reasonable to call it proto, although this is a matter of taste, not 'rules').

So, you've got one U106 at Oostwoud. You're making him do all sorts of extra duty as Elp, Sögel Wohlde, etc., none of which can be shown to have anything to do with the Celts. The territory covered by Elp included the Jutland Peninsula of Denmark, which wasn't Celtic territory.

To make a long story short, your claim of early Celt status for U106 hangs by the thinnest, most precarious of imaginary threads, while the enormous preponderance of evidence indicates that U106 had little or nothing to do with the Celts, and that includes ancient dna test results in which U106 shows up in Sweden around 2300 BC and in a growing number of Migration Period Germans.

I think if Thor were tested by FTDNA and turned out to be U106, you would say he really should be regarded as the Celtic thunder god Taranis. ;)

Finn
04-27-2018, 01:50 PM
No it are "proto-Celts" so rooted in the Central European Bronze Age cultures (that became in the Iron age the actual Celts).
The claim is not thin because the R1b U106 samples are there.
In some way I think your are unwilling to accept this.

rms2
04-27-2018, 02:06 PM
No it are "proto-Celts" so rooted in the Central European Bronze Age cultures (that became in the Iron age the actual Celts).
The claim is not thin because the R1b U106 samples are there.
In some way I think your are unwilling to accept this.

I am unwilling to accept your claim of Proto-Celtic status for U106, yes. You have nothing to back it up.

Proto-Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italo-Celtic have all been attributed to Unetice. If any of that is true, based on what we know about U106, I am inclined to believe it was in the part of Unetice that contributed to the formation of early Germanic. It certainly shows no signs of having contributed to Italo-Celtic.

Elp was a culture of the North Sea coast, including the Jutland Peninsula. Why should it be regarded as having anything to do with the Celts?

Meanwhile, the great preponderance of evidence, which I won't bother repeating (just look back at my prior posts, starting very early on in this two-year-old thread), argues against much if any connection between U106 and the Celts and for a very close connection between U106 and the Germanic peoples, which is being borne out in ancient dna test results.

Finn
04-27-2018, 02:06 PM
So, you've got one U106 at Oostwoud. You're making him do all sorts of extra duty as Elp, Sögel Wohlde, etc., none of which can be shown to have anything to do with the Celts. The territory covered by Elp included the Jutland Peninsula of Denmark, which wasn't Celtic territory.

To make a long story short, your claim of early Celt status for U106 hangs by the thinnest, most precarious of imaginary threads, while the enormous preponderance of evidence indicates that U106 had little or nothing to do with the Celts, and that includes ancient dna test results in which U106 shows up in Sweden around 2300 BC and in a growing number of Migration Period Germans.

I think if Thor were tested by FTDNA and turned out to be U106, you would say he really should be regarded as the Celtic thunder god Taranis. ;)

I guess the only way you will be convinced if we find in the Tumulus a tape with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GED7QtAWRpI

:biggrin1:

Sikeliot
04-27-2018, 02:08 PM
Something I have been meaning to say that I think this is the right place to say it.

A lot of the Celtic tribes in England came from Belgium or were Belgic/Gallic rather than so closely related to the Gaels. When we looked at the Irish DNA Atlas and saw England has a higher amount of "Belgian-like" DNA than the rest of the British Isles, many attributed it to Germanic sources but maybe it is simply a reflection of the Celtic tribes in England having had higher affinity to Belgium than the Celts in Ireland had?

rms2
04-27-2018, 02:13 PM
The skeletons of the two Hinxton Celts were recovered in the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni. They lived and died at the time that tribe controlled the area where they were found. Both of them were R1b-L21.

The leaders of the Belgae all had Celtic names, and the names of the Belgic tribes were all Celtic. There is no indication they were Germans. Caesar, in his Gallic Wars, said they were partly of German derivation, but he seemed to be referring to the idea that they had once lived east of the Rhine rather than to their actual ethnolinguistic status. That's the source of the erroneous notion that the Belgae might have been German or a mix of Celt and German.

The_Lyonnist
04-27-2018, 02:27 PM
P312 were the true Celts.

Finn
04-27-2018, 02:30 PM
The skeletons of the two Hinxton Celts were recovered in the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni. They lived and died at the time that tribe controlled the area where they were found. Both of them were R1b-L21.

The leaders of the Belgae all had Celtic names, and the names of the Belgic tribes were all Celtic. There is no indication they were Germans. Caesar, in his Gallic Wars, said they were partly of German derivation, but he seemed to be referring to the idea that they had once lived east of the Rhine rather than to their actual ethnolinguistic status. That's the source of the erroneous notion that the Belgae might have been German or a mix of Celt and German.


"Frisians and their North Sea Neighbours: From the Fifth Century to the Viking Age",

"An investigation into the mysterious Frisians, drawing together evidence from linguistic, textual and archaeological sources.From as early as the first century AD, learned Romans knew of more than one group of people living in north-western Europe beyond their Empire's Gallic provinces whose names contained the element that gives us modern "Frisian". These were apparently Celtic-speaking peoples, but that population was probably completely replaced in the course of the convulsions that Europe underwent during the fourth and fifth centuries.

https://boydellandbrewer.com/frisians-and-their-north-sea-neighbours.html

Finn
04-27-2018, 02:49 PM
https://www.mupload.nl/img/lne9jc16bzy.45.52.png

Source (https://books.google.nl/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA1193&lpg=PA1193&dq=malorix++celtic&source=bl&ots=p1Tyhdws0L&sig=XcsYvTC00-pzdKuSVi-mJ3_7D00&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj45umo2NraAhVJ2qQKHSzjAtoQ6AEIMTAB#v=on epage&q=malorix%20%20celtic&f=false)

Radboud
04-27-2018, 03:18 PM
And Radboud this is a question of labeling, Central Bronze Age culture is also ok, but proto-Celtic is also ok (Iron Age Celts from Hallstatt/La Tene are rooted in this Bronze Age Cultures, so it's reasonable to call it proto, although this is a matter of taste, not 'rules').

It sounds simplistic to me. Like I said, Unetice is a huge complex with different groups. Some of these groups probably spoke a dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Celtic, but I doubt this is the same case for every single group like the ones in the north. (Sogel, Grobia etc)

About Oostwoud, we simply do not have enough evidence to associate a culture with the BA_Netherlands U106 sample, let alone which language/dialect they spoke.

About Schijver's theory about a Celtic origin for Frisii, the user Olivier van Renswoude has some counter-arguments against this theory, it can be found in the comment section here:

https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/

Finn
04-27-2018, 03:30 PM
It sounds simplistic to me. Like I said, Unetice is a huge complex with different groups. Some of these groups probably spoke a dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Celtic, but I doubt this is the same case for every single group like the ones in the north. (Sogel, Grobia etc)

About Oostwoud, we simply do not have enough evidence to associate a culture with the BA_Netherlands U106 sample, let alone which language/dialect they spoke.

See the works of Schrijver, not eloquent enough? ;) I'm convinced that his work is scientific funded, have you read his articles and books already?

Genetically these Bronze age cultures had it's effect on the modern inland North Dutch (Drenthe) the most, the modern coastal North Dutch have a higher Germanic/Nordic component (congruent with the cultural shift as stated by Schrijver).

R1b L21 is also there in Elp area, as in England and Belgium.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/omudpu.png

With R1b U106 Oostwoud as part of the Elp culture, there could also be a crossing of some R1b U106 to England. No not a sample yet.

Webb
04-27-2018, 03:32 PM
P312 were the true Celts.

You forgot to add: Particularly, DF27.

jdean
04-27-2018, 04:08 PM
Topic looks like it could turn into a fist fight quite quickly : )

MikeWhalen
04-27-2018, 04:17 PM
heh
my money is on the Irish

:)

Mike


Topic looks like it could turn into a fist fight quite quickly : )

Webb
04-27-2018, 04:26 PM
Topic looks like it could turn into a fist fight quite quickly : )

I’ll buy you a pint after we all smash each other’s faces in!! Only a true Celt would extend that kind of courtesy.

Finn
04-27-2018, 04:44 PM
heh
my money is on the Irish

:)

Mike

Ok be aware of the Friso-Saxon slaughter 6 feet 4, bizygomatic 160 mmm......but mostly very friendly Mike:angel:

I like the quick debate no hard or personal feelings!

As long as debate leads to progress...no problem doesn't it?

jdean
04-27-2018, 04:55 PM
I’ll buy you a pint after we all smash each other’s faces in!! Only a true Celt would extend that kind of courtesy.

Are you sure you don't live round here ?

Webb
04-27-2018, 06:52 PM
Are you sure you don't live round here ?

Haha, no but in some places in the U.S. the same courtesy applies. Other places in the U.S. ends with someone dying. Depends on where you are.

Finn
04-27-2018, 07:16 PM
It sounds simplistic to me. Like I said, Unetice is a huge complex with different groups. Some of these groups probably spoke a dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Celtic, but I doubt this is the same case for every single group like the ones in the north. (Sogel, Grobia etc)

About Oostwoud, we simply do not have enough evidence to associate a culture with the BA_Netherlands U106 sample, let alone which language/dialect they spoke.

About Schijver's theory about a Celtic origin for Frisii, the user Olivier van Renswoude has some counter-arguments against this theory, it can be found in the comment section here:

https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/

On second thought I don't deny the complexity Radboud!

But for Oostwoud we still have a timing about 1800 BC and a statement from Fokkens that's MBA burying style....so its very clear a part of the Elp culture. With this kind of information (timing and info of Fokkens) I don't know an alternative. You?

It's also known that the Elp culture that began with Sogel Wohlde phase later on know an Urnfield phase.....there were findings in different parts of the North Dutch.

So all Bronze Age cultures of the Central European room influenced NW Europe and especially the Elp area, from the Frisii to the Cimbri were influenced by pre or proto and even the actual Celts.

It's presumable that the interaction with the other parts of the North Sea din't stop with the BB why should that be the case?

That's the grand narrative, genetically and culturally.

What would be your counter story!?

Webb
04-27-2018, 07:21 PM
To be serious though, I don’t think that every single Celtic male was P312. But, while I don’t believe in correlating modern dna distribution with ancient migrations, there is at least one exception, which would be the case of L21. Until something else comes up to change this, I think L21’s density in the British Isles, particularly where Insular Celtic is still spoken today has to be enough evidence that L21 = Insular Celtic.

jdean
04-27-2018, 07:22 PM
Haha, no but in some places in the U.S. the same courtesy applies. Other places in the U.S. ends with someone dying. Depends on where you are.

Luckily arguments rarely get that serous around here either. Anyway where were we, are yes L21 surely that's got to be the only 'true' line : )

I'll be drinking a pint of Felinfoel (because you don't get much more Welsh sounding than that) to go with my black eye please.

Webb
04-27-2018, 07:35 PM
Luckily arguments rarely get that serous around here either. Anyway where were we, are yes L21 surely that's got to be the only 'true' line : )

I'll be drinking a pint of Felinfoel (because you don't get much more Welsh sounding than that) to go with my black eye please.

What’s interesting is I’m a double Jones as my grandparents are first cousins. Some of the males in this line have come back as DF27. They haven’t tested any further downstream, though. I have no idea where they originated in Wales. I’m assuming Wales because of the last name. DF27 seems to have some dense pockets here and there in Britain and is slightly heavier in Ireland than U152.

Finn
04-27-2018, 07:43 PM
To be serious though, I don’t think that every single Celtic male was P312. But, while I don’t believe in correlating modern dna distribution with ancient migrations, there is at least one exception, which would be the case of L21. Until something else comes up to change this, I think L21’s density in the British Isles, particularly where Insular Celtic is still spoken today has to be enough evidence that L21 = Insular Celtic.

yep see this L21 map:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/9yh3ji.png

and 23 and me Irish/British:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/bjkzo292bv.png

See the modern overlap with the area's in NW Germany/North Dutch?
Some North Dutch get high Irish scores on the admixtures.

No coincidence to me: they are to be found in the Bronze Age! BB to begin with but after that the North Sea did not dry up......

Dewsloth
04-27-2018, 07:44 PM
Unetice has been proposed as the, or one of the, sources for Proto-Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italo-Celtic. No one really knows what language Unetice people spoke, except that it probably was some form of Indo-European. It probably depended on where one was.

As was mentioned a number of times earlier in this thread, there is no reason to regard U106 as having much of any connection to the Celts, let alone to regard U106 as the premier y-dna haplogroup of the "true Celts". Such a claim is ridiculous. U106 frequency reaches its peak in Germanic speaking regions and drops like a rock once one crosses the border into Italo-Celtic speaking regions. That is true both on the Continent and in the British Isles.

Okay, that's modern dna.

It's too bad modern DNA doesn't count. This is the sum total of DF88* [one of the two oldest subclades of DF19] MDKA locations:

22825

Únětice-land and Norway?

rms2
04-27-2018, 08:04 PM
To be serious though, I don’t think that every single Celtic male was P312. But, while I don’t believe in correlating modern dna distribution with ancient migrations, there is at least one exception, which would be the case of L21. Until something else comes up to change this, I think L21’s density in the British Isles, particularly where Insular Celtic is still spoken today has to be enough evidence that L21 = Insular Celtic.

I don't think every single Celt was P312 either, but probably most of them were. There might have even been a few U106 Celts, although I doubt there were many.

But look at the title of this thread. That is just absurd.

jdean
04-27-2018, 08:09 PM
I don't think every single Celt was P312 either, but probably most of them were. There might have even been a few U106 Celts, although I doubt there were many.

But look at the title of this thread. That is just absurd.

I assumed it was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek ?

Finn
04-27-2018, 08:11 PM
heh
my money is on the Irish

:)

Mike

Ok let's be clear who is pro Irish here? Rms2, notably with Irish roots, is convinced that R1b U106 has one and only Germanic roots. So all R1b U106 in the Irish are Anglo-Saxon or Viking derived..... lets' repeat that R1b U106 in the Irish are Germanic depositors!? Really.....

I guess not my opinion is that during the Bronze Age the Irish also got R1b U106.

This is what Mac Donald (R1b U106 expert) stated about the R1b U106 in 2016:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/po2tj7nqk9.53.25.png

Yes there are some Irish Z18 R1b U106 Z18 Viking and Anglo Saxon derived. Rms2 has got a point here....

But!

Z156 and U198 (large numbers in Ireland) are most probably rooted in the Bronze Age! So for the most part not Anglo-Saxons or Vikings.....

But ok if you still want to believe the Irish R1b U106 are totally an Anglo Saxon/Germanic offshoot.....be my guest.


:biggrin1:

rms2
04-27-2018, 08:14 PM
I assumed it was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek ?

I didn't get that impression at all. I think Tomenable was serious. Read the first few posts in this thread, which is over two years old.

Dewsloth
04-27-2018, 08:15 PM
Yes there are some Irish Z18 R1b U106 Z18 Viking and Anglo Saxon derived. Rms2 has got a pint here....

Not sure if typo or damn good pun... :biggrin1:


I mean it's not 5pm, yet, but it is Friday...

Finn
04-27-2018, 08:18 PM
Not sure if typo or damn good pun... :biggrin1:


I mean it's not 5pm, yet, but it is Friday...

:beerchug:

not native man! so excuse for the typos!

rms2
04-27-2018, 08:23 PM
Where do you see the words "Bronze Age" in what you quoted from MacDonald, Finn? I'm on the train home right now, using my phone, which makes replying really difficult. I'll give you a fuller response when I get home.

Finn
04-27-2018, 08:59 PM
Where do you see the words "Bronze Age" in what you quoted from MacDonald, Finn? I'm on the train home right now, using my phone, which makes replying really difficult. I'll give you a fuller response when I get home.

Your over and over stated idea is all R1b U106 is Germanic.

My idea: Z156, U198 are Bronze Age or, don’t mention the war, even (pre or Proto) Celtic!

See the result tomorrow I type also on the phone and going to bed we have a newborn baby so every hour is welcome��

rms2
04-27-2018, 10:06 PM
Your over and over stated idea is all R1b U106 is Germanic.

My idea: Z156, U198 are Bronze Age or, don’t mention the war, even (pre or Proto) Celtic!

See the result tomorrow I type also on the phone and going to bed we have a newborn baby so every hour is welcome��

Cool. God bless your newborn. You must be quite a bit younger than I, but I remember having newborns in the house (I have five kids: two boys and three girls). Now I am more into grandkids. I have four of those: two boys and two girls.

Here are three of my grandkids, children of my youngest son:

22826

rms2
04-27-2018, 10:23 PM
Ok let's be clear who is pro Irish here? Rms2, notably with Irish roots, is convinced that R1b U106 has one and only Germanic roots. So all R1b U106 in the Irish are Anglo-Saxon or Viking derived..... lets' repeat that R1b U106 in the Irish are Germanic depositors!? Really.....

I guess not my opinion is that during the Bronze Age the Irish also got R1b U106.

This is what Mac Donald (R1b U106 expert) stated about the R1b U106 in 2016:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/po2tj7nqk9.53.25.png

Yes there are some Irish Z18 R1b U106 Z18 Viking and Anglo Saxon derived. Rms2 has got a point here....

But!

Z156 and U198 (large numbers in Ireland) are most probably rooted in the Bronze Age! So for the most part not Anglo-Saxons or Vikings.....

But ok if you still want to believe the Irish R1b U106 are totally an Anglo Saxon/Germanic offshoot.....be my guest.


:biggrin1:

Finn, MacDonald attributes the U106 in Ireland to the last 2,000 years. That is since the year 50 BC (using 1950 as "the present"). I think he was being generous and allowing for a big margin of error. That does not encompass the Bronze Age. If you look at U106 in Ireland, it is very small potatoes and reaches its highest frequency in the places where the English and other settlers settled who came from places with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. It's pretty obvious that the U106 in Ireland is relatively recent and certainly did not arrive in the Bronze Age.

Even if we are likewise generous (ridiculously generous) and accept your argument that U106ers were represented among the Proto-Celts (which I don't really believe), by the time anyone can tell a Celt from a German, U106 was German.

That's why U106 is turning up in Migration Period Germans and won't be found in identifiable Celts.

Webb
04-27-2018, 10:46 PM
Finn, MacDonald attributes the U106 in Ireland to the last 2,000 years. That is since the year 50 BC (using 1950 as "the present"). I think he was being generous and allowing for a big margin of error. That does not encompass the Bronze Age. If you look at U106 in Ireland, it is very small potatoes and reaches its highest frequency in the places where the English and other settlers settled who came from places with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. It's pretty obvious that the U106 in Ireland is relatively recent and certainly did not arrive in the Bronze Age.

Even if we are likewise generous (ridiculously generous) and accept your argument that U106ers were represented among the Proto-Celts (which I don't really believe), by the time anyone can tell a Celt from a German, U106 was German.

That's why U106 is turning up in Migration Period Germans and won't be found in identifiable Celts.

I believe it will be quite the opposite with P312. We already have several ancient samples of P312 found deep in the interior of present day Germany. One has to wonder if P312 dominated much of Western Europe, genetically, in their maximal spread. I should start a new thread thread titled, “P312: The Gods of Western Europe.” This is a joke before everyone pounces on me.

rms2
04-27-2018, 10:56 PM
I think some of P312, like L238, was in on the German thing fairly early. But for the most part P312 was Italo-Celtic.

Of course, much of Germany (southern Germany) was Celtic.

rms2
04-27-2018, 11:06 PM
If U106 had any part in Proto-Celtic, or Italo-Celtic, one wonders why it is so scarce in Celtic and Italo-Celtic lands today. It founded them and then disappeared?

Finn
04-28-2018, 07:07 AM
Cool. God bless your newborn. You must be quite a bit younger than I, but I remember having newborns in the house (I have five kids: two boys and three girls). Now I am more into grandkids. I have four of those: two boys and two girls.

Here are three of my grandkids, children of my youngest son:

22826

22830

:bounce: Thank you!!! But i'm not that young ;) Already have twin sons of 13.....

Finn
04-28-2018, 07:34 AM
If U106 had any part in Proto-Celtic, or Italo-Celtic, one wonders why it is so scarce in Celtic and Italo-Celtic lands today. It founded them and then disappeared?

The simple thing is you can't explain the spread of R1b U106 with the spread of Germans (although R1b U106 is a major line in it). If you are as strict as with the Celts than you speak about Germans from about 500 BC, in the area North Germany (Jastorf area) and Southern Scandinavia.

The spread from this area was as early as Roman times and peaked during the fifth/sixth century AD. The destination area's like England, Friesland/North Dutch, area around the Channel etc were at that time populated with Celtic c.q. genetically heavy influenced by the Central European Bronze Age populations.

To make a kind of split Z18 is very obvious a Germanic line, but Z156 for example can't be simply be reduced to Germanic spread.

The samples from R1b U106 we nowadays have from Unetice, from Oostwoud etc reveil already that the spread of R1b U106 to NW Europe didnt't wait until Germanic times. It was already there since EBA. Hard facts Rms2.

So you can't simple make it hard that the R1b U106 in the Irish and Welsh is all Anglo Saxon/ Viking derived.....

(Just like for large parts of Germany, Dutch, Belgium, Austria).

It's quite nuts to think with the Bronze Age samples of Central Europe and NW Europe that this stood more than 2000 years "on hold" and than began the spread. Prove that's the case Rms2.

Finn
04-28-2018, 02:11 PM
But R1b-L21 also has a very strong relationship to Germanic-speakers. Today. :)

After all, nearly all of L21 in Britain, Ireland, the USA, Canada and Australia speak English, a Germanic language...

What if the story of U106 was similar and they originally spoke Celtic, like L21 did ???

I guess you were right Tomenable! The Frisian case exemplifies this. Until the Germanic spread the Frisians spoke Celtic and were genetically influenced by the Central European Bronze Age cultures....

rms2
04-28-2018, 02:37 PM
I guess you were right Tomenable! The Frisian case exemplifies this. Until the Germanic spread the Frisians spoke Celtic and were genetically influenced by the Central European Bronze Age cultures....

The problem with what Tomenable wrote is that we have recorded history that tells us how those L21's became English speaking. We don't have anything like that to tell us the Frisians were once Celtic speaking, which I do not believe.

You're a nice guy, Finn, but you keep making assertions that amount to saying, over and over, "U106 was Proto-Celtic", but you never post any actual evidence that indicates how you know that. There is no evidence that the peoples of the continental North Sea Coast were once Celtic speaking. I have never seen a map by any scholar that includes that area in the original Celtic homeland nor have I read anything that indicates that the North Sea coast was once Celtic.

Meanwhile, there is loads of evidence to indicate a close association between U106 and the ancient Germanic peoples, including actual y-dna test results from Migration Period Germans. I guess you want us to believe that those people represent Celts who switched over and became Germans, but where is all the U106 in Italo-Celtic speaking lands? Shouldn't U106 have been in the forefront of spreading Italo-Celtic, or at least Celtic, if it was once the premier Celtic y-dna haplogroup?

Finn
04-28-2018, 03:02 PM
The problem with what Tomenable wrote is that we have recorded history that tells us how those L21's became English speaking. We don't have anything like that to tell us the Frisians were once Celtic speaking, which I do not believe.

You're a nice guy, Finn, but you keep making assertions that amount to saying, over and over, "U106 was Proto-Celtic", but you never post any actual evidence that indicates how you know that. There is no evidence that the peoples of the continental North Sea Coast were once Celtic speaking. I have never seen a map by any scholar that includes that area in the original Celtic homeland nor have I read anything that indicates that the North Sea coast was once Celtic.

Meanwhile, there is loads of evidence to indicate a close association between U106 and the ancient Germanic peoples, including actual y-dna test results from Migration Period Germans. I guess you want us to believe that those people represent Celts who switched over and became Germans, but where is all the U106 in Italo-Celtic speaking lands? Shouldn't U106 have been in the forefront of spreading Italo-Celtic, or at least Celtic, if it was once the premier Celtic y-dna haplogroup?


I guess I either don’t articulatie myself very well, or we are on other frequencies....I guess so.

Again and again I repeated that of course R1b U106 was part of Germanic spread even a big part. I hope this is clear.

But the latest samples of the last months show R1b U106 has an older spread, a spread that began in EBA. I doesn’t interest me if you call this spread pre, proto or actual Celltic or simply Bronze Age. But it bothers me sincere that there was a spread before the Germans came on the stage.

So I don’t really know why you are so one track minded... R1b U106 is German tick R1b U106 is German tick like an old LP with a scratch.

So nice guy or not this becomes allergic for me because it’s done without really communication, you ignore the questions and the evidences,....that makes it in essence difficult to discuss with you rms2.

I guess for you it’s waiting till one or another guy that you consider as an authority will explain you that....and then Rms2 is convinced?:confused:

rms2
04-28-2018, 03:20 PM
I'm waiting for evidence, Finn. You don't really present any that indicates U106 was any kind of Celtic. So, it was in Czech Unetice and then in a mound in Oostwoud in the Netherlands. Neither of those can be linked to Celtic speakers, pre, proto, or otherwise, and U106 was in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery before it was in either of those other cultures/places.

Meanwhile, U106 reaches its peak frequencies among Germanic speakers, drops off precipitously in Italo-Celtic speaking regions, and is popping up time after time in the skeletons of ancient Migration Period Germans, some of whom, like the Lombards, can be traced to Scandinavia. That doesn't sound like the profile of an especially Celtic y-dna haplogroup.

Finn
04-28-2018, 03:50 PM
I'm waiting for evidence, Finn. You don't really present any that indicates U106 was any kind of Celtic. So, it was in Czech Unetice and then in a mound in Oostwoud in the Netherlands. Neither of those can be linked to Celtic speakers, pre, proto, or otherwise, and U106 was in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery before it was in either of those other cultures/places.

Meanwhile, U106 reaches its peak frequencies among Germanic speakers, drops off precipitously in Italo-Celtic speaking regions, and is popping up time after time in the skeletons of ancient Migration Period Germans, some of whom, like the Lombards, can be traced to Scandinavia. That doesn't sound like the profile of an especially Celtic y-dna haplogroup.

Schrijver has shown in a qualified linguistic study that the Frisii spoke Celtic. If you want to reject this it’s to simple to say I don’t believe that.

Archeology shows that NW Europe was deeply influenced by the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe. That’s the state of the art in the literature. See for example Kristiansen or VandKilde.

Genetically we see that the Bronze Age populations of NW Europe show a remarkable resemblance. Many Frisians get Irish on top in the admixtures. that’s because of a same basic layer. And that’s not because of the Iron Age Germanics. Because Ireland and Welsh etc were not deeply influenced by it.

R1b U106 fits in this picture, ok the samples are small, but Unetice and Oostwoud (and IMO Lilla Beddinge too) do show a Bronze Age spread. Big or small but it was there. It’s plausible that there was Bronze Age spread and that some lines of R1b U106 were part of it.

It’s really odd to state that there were Bronze Age R1b U106 samples but that they were frozen until the Germans came on stage that would really be the limit. Totally implausible.

Of course the story is not complete, and much more samples are needed.

But one thing is clear you can’t ignore a certain possibility of a Bronze Age spread of R1b U106 That’s my major thing. Nothing more nothing less. Do you still state here that a Bronze Age spread of R1b U106 was not there or was impossible? And why?

rms2
04-28-2018, 04:58 PM
Schrijver has shown in a qualified linguistic study that the Frisii spoke Celtic. If you want to reject this it’s to simple to say I don’t believe that.

That's one Dutch scholar. I'm not a linguist, but, as I understand it, even the name Frisian is Germanic. If the people who are now called by the Germanic name Frisians were once Celtic speaking, they were Germanicized by some other people. I'm guessing the ones doing the Germanicizing comprised the U106 element, and the original Celtic speakers were mostly P312.

BTW, I could pull one scholar to prove almost anything. What's the actual scholarly consensus on the Frisians? Frankly, I have never heard that the continental North Sea coast in the areas historically inhabited by the Germanic Frisians was ever Celtic speaking.



Archeology shows that NW Europe was deeply influenced by the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe. That’s the state of the art in the literature. See for example Kristiansen or VandKilde.

And? That's proof all of the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe were peopled by Celtic speakers? Weak.



Genetically we see that the Bronze Age populations of NW Europe show a remarkable resemblance. Many Frisians get Irish on top in the admixtures. that’s because of a same basic layer. And that’s not because of the Iron Age Germanics. Because Ireland and Welsh etc were not deeply influenced by it.

In terms of autosomal dna, that's true. But we're talking y-dna, and there are distinct clines in the distribution of y-dna that coincide pretty well with the historical record, as well as with the distribution of languages.



R1b U106 fits in this picture, ok the samples are small, but Unetice and Oostwoud (and IMO Lilla Beddinge too) do show a Bronze Age spread. Big or small but it was there. It’s plausible that there was Bronze Age spread and that some lines of R1b U106 were part of it.

It’s really odd to state that there were Bronze Age R1b U106 samples but that they were frozen until the Germans came on stage that would really be the limit. Totally implausible.

Of course the story is not complete, and much more samples are needed.

But one thing is clear you can’t ignore a certain possibility of a Bronze Age spread of R1b U106 That’s my major thing. Nothing more nothing less. Do you still state here that a Bronze Age spread of R1b U106 was not there or was impossible? And why?

No one is ignoring anything or saying U106 was frozen. It's just that there is no convincing evidence that U106 had much if anything to do with the Celts. I'm not saying there never were any U106 Celts anywhere ever. I just don't think there were many of them. Given the evidence, it just doesn't look like U106 was any kind of big player among the Celts. It does look like U106 was huge among the Germans, however.

I think these maps tell the tale pretty well.

22837 22838

22839

alexfritz
04-28-2018, 05:22 PM
but what if all IE languages in western europe fell within the modern conceptual celtic/italic range (but with actual celtic/italic just being mere hub-terms rather than actual nods) and germanic as the odd man out developing in its more seclusive (ex:sound shift defining) nordic ba circle; there is an alternate model by linguists (watkins et al) who figured out that an actual italic/celtic nod doesnt add up and thus the common nod of celtic and italic was PIE itself meaning further expanding on other linguists (clackson et al) in which celtic and italic do not qualify as actual subgroups, meaning lusitanian and lepontic or latin and cymraeg are from a much broader common source without intermediate units, germanic as the odd man out expanded from nordic ba circle in iron age defusion (attested by celtic loans);
22840

Radboud
04-28-2018, 05:52 PM
But for Oostwoud we still have a timing about 1800 BC and a statement from Fokkens that's MBA burying style....so its very clear a part of the Elp culture. With this kind of information (timing and info of Fokkens) I don't know an alternative. You?


Yeah, your scenario is possible and the Netherlands_BA samples from Oostwoud are obviously not Bell Beakers. However, why did Fokkens not mention that these Netherlands_BA samples were part of the Elp Culture in the paper? Or did he mention this assocation in an another paper? For example, The U106 dude from Unetice Czechia is labeled as Czech_EBA but it's grave and burial were undoubtely classified as Unetice.

It's also possible that the R1b-U106 Oostwoud is originally from the Baltic region, rather than Central-Europe. We must not forget that U106 is absent in Bell Beakers, it makes a Central-BB>Unetice scenario for U106 problematic. From what I understand is that Unetice also received influences from other cultures like CWC though.

We also have more Y-results from Unetice than just the U106. So far, I2 seems to be a significant lineage in Unetice. Of course we need way more samples to have a better view, but I am not convinced that Unetice was a ''power house'' for U106 yet.

I0114 I2a2 Esperstedt
I0116 I2c2 Esperstedt
I0804 I2 Eulau

I7196 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (The U106 sample)
I7197 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2a1
I7199 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I7202 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
I7203 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1

Below are results that were not identified with Unetice, but they are also from Czech_EBA.


I4884 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I5037 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R
I5042 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1
I5043 Czech_EBA Czech Republic G2a2a1a2

rms2
04-28-2018, 05:58 PM
but what if all IE languages in western europe fell within the modern conceptual celtic/italic range (but with actual celtic/italic just being mere hub-terms rather than actual nods) and germanic as the odd man out developing in its more seclusive (ex:sound shift defining) nordic ba circle; there is an alternate model by linguists (watkins et al) who figured out that an actual italic/celtic nod doesnt add up and thus the common nod of celtic and italic was PIE itself meaning further expanding on other linguists (clackson et al) in which celtic and italic do not qualify as actual subgroups, meaning lusitanian and lepontic or latin and cymraeg are from a much broader common source without intermediate units, germanic as the odd man out expanded from nordic ba circle in iron age defusion (attested by celtic loans); . . . .



I'm not enough of a linguist to judge such matters. From what I can see, if U106 was ever Celtic speaking, it became Germanic speaking so early that no one can tell it was ever Celtic speaking. It was certainly Germanic speaking by the time anyone could tell Germanic from Celtic.

Finn
04-28-2018, 06:03 PM
That's one Dutch scholar. I'm not a linguist,

Yes and the most prominent scholar of the Low Lands about Celtic studies, so not a nitwit:
https://www.uu.nl/staff/pchschrijver/0


but, as I understand it, even the name Frisian is Germanic. If the people who are now called by the Germanic name Frisians were once Celtic speaking, they were Germanicized by some other people. I'm guessing the ones doing the Germanicizing comprised the U106 element, and the original Celtic speakers were mostly P312.



BTW, I could pull one scholar to prove almost anything. What's the actual scholarly consensus on the Frisians? Frankly, I have never heard that the continental North Sea coast in the areas historically inhabited by the Germanic Frisians was ever Celtic speaking.


The Frisii of the (pre) Roman times were an offshoot of Bronze Age cultures of the more higher sandy Elp culture (Zeijen culture (http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/25020/22480)to be precise). At the end of the Roman time in the fourth century AD the population got a severe setback, at least on the most western coastal area, it's still in discussion if the population totally disappeared or partly. At least they were for centuries not mentioned as Frisian.

In the fifth century the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Norwegians came in especially in the most depopulated area's (especially westergo). These people brought their culture, language and genes in. It's from that time that the Frisians became part of the Germanic world.

Till nowadays you can still see some differences my father has a coastal ancestry (a good friend of me an historic expert of the North Sea coast, suggested that in my ancestry were some A-S/Nordic chieftains but only some but no definitive proof yet) and is more Nordic, my mother is more inland North Dutch (more continuity) and shows also some affinity with the Bronze Age.

After centuries when the Franks aimed to conquer the North Dutch area at once the Frisian name came en vogue again. Old flag but a new vessel....

The Frisians had already with Oostwoud R1b U106, probably Z156 (If i'm well Radboud hinted ones in that direction)? After the Nordics came, Z18 became big along the coastal Dutch (must be further researched). Mac Donald stated that the Dutch have the most Z18 besides the Scandinavians most probable due to this roll over during the early middle ages.



No one is ignoring anything or saying U106 was frozen. It's just that there is no convincing evidence that U106 had much if anything to do with the Celts. I'm not saying there never were any U106 Celts anywhere ever. I just don't think there were many of them. Given the evidence, it just doesn't look like U106 was any kind of big player among the Celts. It does look like U106 was huge among the Germans, however.
I think these maps tell the tale pretty well.


IMO you see indeed a (tiny) possible connection from R1b U106 with the Bronze Age cultures? Fine.

Finn
04-28-2018, 06:15 PM
but what if all IE languages in western europe fell within the modern conceptual celtic/italic range (but with actual celtic/italic just being mere hub-terms rather than actual nods) and germanic as the odd man out developing in its more seclusive (ex:sound shift defining) nordic ba circle; there is an alternate model by linguists (watkins et al) who figured out that an actual italic/celtic nod doesnt add up and thus the common nod of celtic and italic was PIE itself meaning further expanding on other linguists (clackson et al) in which celtic and italic do not qualify as actual subgroups, meaning lusitanian and lepontic or latin and cymraeg are from a much broader common source without intermediate units, germanic as the odd man out expanded from nordic ba circle in iron age defusion (attested by celtic loans);
22840

Yep you got a point here. May be the Jastorf culture in combination with Scandinavians moving south due to bad weather conditions. The end of Nordic Bronze Age, and the collaps of that network of interaction with Central Europe, may be was the cause of some 'isolated' development in North Germany that caused a certain separate development of German. Just some impressions.

Schrijver suggests a Indo-European- Saami interaction in the development of German.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Contact_and_the_Origins_of_the_Germanic_L anguages

rms2
04-28-2018, 06:16 PM
I wouldn't call Schrijver a nitwit. Never. But just because he's not a nitwit doesn't mean he is right about the Frisians.

Finn, Elp extended up into the Jutland Peninsula of Denmark. That wasn't Celtic territory. If the Oostwoud U106 guy was from Elp, he may have been one of those blond Scandinavian interlopers. Probably had the name Sven, I'll bet, and liked to eat smoked eels and drink Absolut vodka. ;)

rms2
04-28-2018, 06:26 PM
What do you want to bet that if they're able to pull a Viking out of the ground in England, he'll be U106+?

Finn
04-28-2018, 06:29 PM
Yeah, your scenario is possible and the Netherlands_BA samples from Oostwoud are obviously not Bell Beakers. However, why did Fokkens not mention that these Netherlands_BA samples were part of the Elp Culture in the paper?


Fokkens mentions that it's typically for MBA. And MBA in that specific area is Elp (1800-800 BC). Actually Hoogkarspel. But Hoogkasrpel is considered part of Elp....the archeologist made it easy for us ;)


It's also possible that the R1b-U106 Oostwoud is originally from the Baltic region, rather than Central-Europe.


Can be ruled out, the initiators of Elp came from the Unetice area (IMO most probably from the Luneburger Heide area). The Tumulus of Drouwen (Drenthe) belongs to the highest ranks of the Unetice graves. The Baltics did not know that kind of graves, neither the (more simple) Tumulus graves known in Oostwoud.

By the way my mother from the core Elp region has a direct 3cM connection with Rise 150 Unetice, Silezia, no coincidence to me....


We also have more Y-results from Unetice than just the U106. So far, I2 seems to be a significant lineage in Unetice. Of course we need way more samples to have a better view, but I am not convinced that Unetice was a ''power house'' for U106 yet.


Unetice was mixed as Elp was probably mixed too....

rms2
04-28-2018, 06:35 PM
BTW, in case anyone thinks I am some kind of extreme Celto-fanatic, I have plenty of Germanic ancestry. As I recall, one of my ancestral lines, surname Stovall, is U106, and one of my third great grandfathers, Abner Standish Washburn, with ancestry in East Anglia, was I-M253. On Gedmatch I tend to group with the Dutch and the Danes, despite my y-dna Welsh ancestry. My 4th great grandmother, Amanda Snedeker, was of Dutch descent, with ancestry in Overijssel. My biggest DNA Circle at Ancestry, with 162 members, is descended from Ulrich Stutz, a Swiss-German immigrant to Pennsylvania.

rms2
04-28-2018, 06:37 PM
Fokkens mentions that it's typically for MBA. And MBA in that specific area is Elp (1800-800 BC). Actually Hoogkarspel. But Hoogkasrpel is considered part of Elp....the archeologist made it easy for us ;)



Can be ruled out, the initiators of Elp came from the Unetice area (IMO most probably from the Luneburger Heide area). The Tumulus of Drouwen (Drenthe) belongs tot the highest ranks of the Unetice graves. The Baltics did not know that kind of graves, neither the (simpeler) Tumulus graves known in Oostwoud.

By the way my mother from the core Elp region has a direct 3cM connection with Rise 150 Unetice, Silezia, no coincidence to me....



Unetice was mixed as Elp was probably mixed too....

So, please explain the fact that the biggest part of Elp was up the Jutland Peninsula in modern Denmark. Lots of bagpipe music there, I guess.

Finn
04-28-2018, 06:50 PM
What do you want to bet that if they're able to pull a Viking out of the ground in England, he'll be U106+?

No bet I guess the Viking has a big chance of being R1b U106 Z18 or Im253 would be a good one too....


I wouldn't call Schrijver a nitwit. Never. But just because he's not a nitwit doesn't mean he is right about the Frisians.

Finn, Elp extended up into the Jutland Peninsula of Denmark. That wasn't Celtic territory. If the Oostwoud U106 guy was from Elp, he may have been one of those blond Scandinavian interlopers. Probably had the name Sven, I'll bet, and liked to eat smoked eels and drink Absolut vodka.

When Jean M first came with Schrijver about this I thought that was nonsense. Now older and wiser (hum) I can put it in context, his tale about the Frisians correspondences with archeology and genetics....

Indeed Jutland is high flying Elp too, but beneath that there are regional differences of course....The Celtic impact was more Northern less I guess. The Rhine, Weser and Ems connected coastal Friesland with the Center of Germany. Jutland had not such like..... But otherwise the Cimbri aren't undoubtfully seen as Germanic!

rms2
04-28-2018, 06:59 PM
No bet I guess the Viking has a big chance of being Rb1 U106 Z18 or Im253 would be a good one too....

I

When Jean M first came with Schrijver about this I thought that was nonsense. No older and wiser (hum) I can put hem in context, his tale about the Frisians correspondence with archeology and genetics....

Indeed Jutland is high flying Elp too, but beneath that there are regions difference of course....The Celtic impact was more Northern less I guess. The Rhine, Weser and Ems connected coastal Friesland with the Center of Germany. Jutland had not such like..... But otherwise the Cimbri aren't undoubtfully seen as Germanic!

As I recall, no one really knows where the Cimbri came from, and the connection with Denmark is based on a shaky identification of the tribal name Cimbri with modern Himmerland in Denmark. Ouch! I think those who believe there is a connection between the Welsh Cymry and Cimbri are closer to right, but no one believes that one either.

From Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78:


The women [of the Celts] are as large as the men and as brave. They are mostly very fair-headed when they are born. The tribes of the north are extremely ferocious. The Irish and the British are cannibals. They used to be known as Cimmerioi; now they are called Cimbroi. They captured Rome and plundered Delphi and ended by dominating a great part of Europe and Asia. They mixed easily with the Greeks and this section of them became known as the Gallograeci or Hellenogalatai.

Finn
04-28-2018, 07:10 PM
As I recall, no one really knows where the Cimbri came from, and the connection with Denmark is based on a shaky identification of the tribal name Cimbri with modern Himmerland in Denmark. Ouch! I think those who believe there is a connection between the Welsh Cymry and Cimbri are closer to right, but no one believes that one either.

From Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78:


The good Old Romans mentioned the countervailing 'barbaric' tribes North of them as Celts...and in even more terra incognita as Germans.....when the Celts became more and more part of the Roman Empire the Germans furfilled more and more the previous role of the Celts. This is not based on ethnic lines or something like that.

uintah106
04-28-2018, 07:18 PM
U106 stratified in gemanic culture , thats obvious . Why did P312 and U106 split culturaly?

uintah106
04-28-2018, 07:21 PM
Geography.? Yep I think so

uintah106
04-28-2018, 07:23 PM
Geography.? Yep I think so

Simple sane accurate

rms2
04-28-2018, 07:26 PM
I suspect U106 was part of Kurgan Bell Beaker's Northern Province along the Baltic coast, while P312 was farther south in east central Europe. The L21 branch of P312 ended up going north down the Rhine and ultimately to Britain. DF27 went west into what are now France and Spain. U152 stayed in south central Europe and also went into France and Italy. Of course, I am over simplifying, but that is necessary sometimes for clarity's sake.

U106 ended up involved in the genesis of early Germanic and ultimately spread with Germanic peoples during the Migration Period.

uintah106
04-28-2018, 07:46 PM
I think U106 found the road to Dublin....ROCKY

rms2
04-28-2018, 09:08 PM
I think U106 found the road to Dublin....ROCKY

A musical allusion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QdbeM2JWYE

Saetro
04-28-2018, 10:56 PM
All of this will change when Reich's paper(s) on Britain come out.
The thread will then be "Why Reich was wrong" :)
And if his sources are again gladiator's graveyards that will certainly be justified.

Meanwhile I am trying to understand:
-the chronology of the Celtic period
-just who were the Druids and why were they accepted into a pre-existing society?
- who took those Norwegian voles to Scotland around 1000 BC?

But that is my Cornish/Celtic part.
Another part of my ancestry comes from an area with mixed ethnicity for around 600 years before they emigrated to the New World.
When they moved, some were separated out by ethnicity and spoke a different language although this has since died out.
The majority were ethnically mixed partly with that separate group, and partly with other groups, but they have been perceived as homogenous - inaccurately.
I only know their story because they talked and wrote about it.
Their other cultural artifacts might just hint at this, but looking at it now, they again appear homogenous - or at the very least homogeneous.
Their uniparental markers might help.
But hey, my father's ancestors have given me a rare Y haplogroup.
If we dug a part of a graveyard containing them, we might conclude that a large part of the immigrant stock was of this type.
More likely, sampling a number of graveyards, we would miss them entirely.
The different language does not appear on any of the gravestones.
Their housing was similar and even if still standing, the different features would appear as natural and not ethnic variation.

Whatever Reich reports, problems like this ensure that we can only ever approximate the situation of the nature of groups who have emerged from a mixing pot region.
What is reported should be valuable - but is unlikely to be the entire story.
Hopefully the accompanying archaeology gives us enough of the rest.

I look forward to its contribution to the matter of this thread.

epoch
04-29-2018, 06:05 AM
The skeletons of the two Hinxton Celts were recovered in the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni. They lived and died at the time that tribe controlled the area where they were found. Both of them were R1b-L21.

The leaders of the Belgae all had Celtic names, and the names of the Belgic tribes were all Celtic. There is no indication they were Germans. Caesar, in his Gallic Wars, said they were partly of German derivation, but he seemed to be referring to the idea that they had once lived east of the Rhine rather than to their actual ethnolinguistic status. That's the source of the erroneous notion that the Belgae might have been German or a mix of Celt and German.

Tacitus mentioned that the Nervians claimed Germanic descent. But that might be a mistake. The area was a contact zone between Germanics and Celts as the case of Viradectis (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viradecdis) shows. It was a goddess revered by the Tungri with a Celtic name but with a clearly Germanic feminine suffex -es.

epoch
04-29-2018, 06:39 AM
https://www.mupload.nl/img/lne9jc16bzy.45.52.png

Source (https://books.google.nl/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA1193&lpg=PA1193&dq=malorix++celtic&source=bl&ots=p1Tyhdws0L&sig=XcsYvTC00-pzdKuSVi-mJ3_7D00&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj45umo2NraAhVJ2qQKHSzjAtoQ6AEIMTAB#v=on epage&q=malorix%20%20celtic&f=false)

Schrijver mentions Malorix and Verritus as Celtic names. However, we have a clear example of a Germanic goddess (Hludana (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hludana-steen)) on votif stone found in Frisia proper.

Radboud
04-29-2018, 06:46 AM
Can be ruled out, the initiators of Elp came from the Unetice area (IMO most probably from the Luneburger Heide area). The Tumulus of Drouwen (Drenthe) belongs to the highest ranks of the Unetice graves. The Baltics did not know that kind of graves, neither the (more simple) Tumulus graves known in Oostwoud.


I did not mean the Baltic countries but I meant that the U106 guy came from NE Germany/Western-Poland or somewhere nearby. The lack of U106 in Central BB's makes the scenario possible that U106 was originally from that area, rather than Central-Europe. And the tumuli of Elp Culture was also known in Northern Germany and Scandinavia.

''The initial phase is characterized by tumuli (1800–1200 BCE), strongly tied to contemporary tumuli in Northern Germany and Scandinavia''

epoch
04-29-2018, 06:55 AM
The good Old Romans mentioned the countervailing 'barbaric' tribes North of them as Celts...and in even more terra incognita as Germans.....when the Celts became more and more part of the Roman Empire the Germans furfilled more and more the previous role of the Celts. This is not based on ethnic lines or something like that.

Those same good old Romans never ever called the Frisians Celts. They did name them Germanic in almost every text about them. Frisians served in the Roman army so you'd think they knew, as is argued in this thread (https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/) where it also is made clear that Flevum seems to be a clearly Germanic name.

Finn
04-29-2018, 07:50 AM
Those same good old Romans never ever called the Frisians Celts. They did name them Germanic in almost every text about them. Frisians served in the Roman army so you'd think they knew, as is argued in this thread (https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/) where it also is made clear that Flevum seems to be a clearly Germanic name.


If you ask me: were the old Frisii 'proper' or 'hardcore' Celtic, I would say: no.

But we must not make the mistake that the Romans thought in ethnic terms, that wasn't part of their horizon, thinking in ethnic terms is modern. Projecting this way of thinking in classic times can give troubles.

But if they were not proper Celts this would not mean they were not influenced bij the Celtic civilization. IMO Schrijver has made clear through analyzing old Frisian and old English that the language consist of German but with some indicators of people wo want to acquire the German language but had Celtic as mother tongue. I'm convinced to that someone with a right eye who analysis my post here on Anthrogenica can immediately see that my mother tongue is Dutch. Schrijver is convincing IMO.

Genetically the Frisians drank from the same well (genepool) as the 'proper' Celts namely the Central European Bronze age cultures. To begin with Unetice. In Drouwen North Dutch we see one of the highest ranks Unetice tumulus. So the Tumulus and also the Urnfield culture had it's impact on the the North Dutch. Archeologist have made that clear.

It somehow reminds me all of Prof Boelens. Around ww1 he detected Anglo-Saxon pottery in Frisian soil. He came with the idea that in the early middle ages the Frisians became through the migration of Anglo-Saxons Germanic. The patriotic Frisians at that time could keelhaul him. Persona non grata.

In nowadays books about the Frisian history this is generally accepted: the old Frisii became in the fourth century in decline, and were (partly) replaced by incoming Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Norwegians. Then they became, without doubt if you want to say so, part of the Germanic horizon.

Finn
04-29-2018, 08:07 AM
I did not mean the Baltic countries but I meant that the U106 guy came from NE Germany/Western-Poland or somewhere nearby.

You mean the 'Unetice' part of nowadays Poland, Germany? No doubt see my previous posting about the direct connection betweens my mothers DNA and of Rise 150, Silezia, Poland.

epoch
04-29-2018, 09:02 AM
If you ask me: were the old Frisii 'proper' or 'hardcore' Celtic, I would say no.

But we must not make the mistake that the Romans thought in ethnic terms, that wasn't part of their horizon, thinking in ethnic terms is modern. Projecting this way of thinking in classic times can give troubles.

I have a hard time believing that a tribe whose name isn't just inexplainable as a Celtic name yet perfectly explainable in Germanic, started out as Celtic.


But if they were not proper Celts this would not mean they were not influenced bij the Celtic civilization. IMO Schrijver has made clear through analyzing old Frisian and old English that the language consist of German but with some indicators of people wo want to acquire the German language but had Celtic as mother tongue. I'm convinced to that someone with a right eye who analysis my post here on Anthrogenica can immediately see that my mother tongue is Dutch. Schrijver is convincing IMO.

Genetically the Frisians drank from the same well (genepool) as the 'proper' Celts namely the Central European Bronze age cultures. To begin with Unetice. In Drouwen North Dutch we see one of the highest ranks Unetice tumulus. So the Tumulus and also the Urnfield culture had it's impact on the the North Dutch. Archeologist have made that clear.

It somehow reminds me all of Prof Boelens. Around ww1 he detected Anglo-Saxon pottery in Frisian soil. He came with the idea that in the early middle ages the Frisians became through the migration of Anglo-Saxons Germanic. The patriotic Frisians at that time could keelhaul him. Persona non grata.

The habitation hiatus does not appear in West-Friesland, which was also part of Frisia proper. Also, in Drenthe the pottery appears before in Frisia, but without habitation hiatus.


In nowadays books about the Frisian history this is generally accepted: the old Frisii became in the fourth century in decline, and were (partly) replaced by incoming Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Norwegians. Then they became, without doubt if you want to say so, part of the Germanic horizon.

I think it went like this: The area of Frisia proper was partly abandoned, partly resettled by the lesser Chauci and groups from Drenthe (Tuihanti) which formed around the old Frisian core. I don't think there could have been complete replacement.

First because of the name of tribe. It doesn't look like German tribes, to whom descent was very important, would consider using another name, even if the name of tribes often became toponyms (Twente from Tuihanti, Betuwe from Batavi).

Second: Where did they go? If, as has been suggested, they were incorporated in Roman area, then why? The hiatus is way before the migrational period.

Finn
04-29-2018, 09:26 AM
I have a hard time believing that a tribe whose name isn't just inexplainable as a Celtic name yet perfectly explainable in Germanic, started out as Celtic.


And what about the central thesis that old Frisian and English as language consist of German but with some indicators of people wo want to acquire the German language but had Celtic as mother tongue?

I have not seen critic from academic side on his assumption in this respect.....but may be I've overlooked something.



The habitation hiatus does not appear in West-Friesland, which was also part of Frisia proper. Also, in Drenthe the pottery appears before in Frisia, but without habitation hiatus.

If I'm well is stated in Frisian and their neighbours (2017) that the province of North Holland (so to speak) was even more in decline in that time....

‘All quiet on the western front’? The Western Netherlands and the ‘North Sea Culture’ in the Migration Period (pp. 53-74)
Menno Dijkstra and Jan de Koning

.....and indeed Drenthe knows more continuity although there were sign of Chauci/Saxon influence. See also what I stated about my father (coastal) he has more Scandic genes than my mother (Drenthe). So indeed.


I think it went like this: The area of Frisia proper was partly abandoned, partly resettled by the lesser Chauci and groups from Drenthe (Tuihanti) which formed around the old Frisian core. I don't think there could have been complete replacement.


No not complete. But the most abandoned area, Westergo, was a real Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stronghold. Lot's of findings there that confirms this (Nicolay 2006). Chauci went indeed to Drenthe/Groningen.


Second: Where did they go? If, as has been suggested, they were incorporated in Roman area, then why? The hiatus is way before the migrational period.


Where did they go? Some mystery here, once read partly Northern France....not much reliable sources.....There are even theories of a later remigration of the Frisii elite. But I guess there is some wishful thinking behind this (continuity through the backdoor ;)

epoch
04-29-2018, 09:37 AM
And what about the central thesis that old Frisian and English as language consist of German but with some indicators of people wo want to acquire the German language but had Celtic as mother tongue?

I have not see critic from academic side on his assumption in this respect.....but may be I've overlooked something.

In the thread at Jona Lendering someone posted that Michiel de Vaan had objections to the theory in the book "The Dawn of Dutch".



If I'm well is stated in Frisian and their neighbours (2017) that the province of North Holland (so to speak) was even more in decline in that time....

‘All quiet on the western front’? The Western Netherlands and the ‘North Sea Culture’ in the Migration Period (pp. 53-74)
Menno Dijkstra and Jan de Koning

.....and indeed Drenthe knows more continuity although there were sign of Chauci/Saxon influence. See also what I stated about my father (coastal) he has more Scandic genes than my mother (Drenthe). So indeed.



No not complete. But the most abandoned area, Westergo, was a real Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stronghold. Lot's of findings there that confirms this (Nicolay 2006). Chauci went indeed to Drenthe/Groningen.




Where did they go? Some mystery here, once read partly Northern France....not much reliable sources.....There are even theories of a later remigration of the Frisii elite. But I guess there is some wishful thinking behind this (continuity through the backdoor ;)

On the North-Holland hiatus:

https://www.fryske-akademy.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/beelden/homepage/Kennis/It_Beaken/74_2012/It_Beaken_2012_1-2_3-32.pdf


As is generally accepted, the heartland of the Frisians, the modern
province of Friesland, has no continuous habitation history from Roman times
into the Middle Ages. The Frisians of the Roman Era, mentioned by Tacitus,
are not the same as the Frisians of t
he Lex Frisionum, one of
the Germanic
laws written down during the reign of Charlemagne. For North-Holland as
part of the early medieval Frisia that extended along the entire Dutch coast,
the gap in habitation was taken to be even longer ( fourth to seventh centuries).
However, research during the last twenty years has demonstrated that North-
Holland is the only ‘Frisian’ province for which a continuous habitation may be
assumed.

EDIT: I think similar things happened with the Thuringians, where Warini and Angles appear to have been major contributors but the name seems connected to the Hermanduri.

epoch
04-29-2018, 09:54 AM
@Finn

In your opinion, how related were the Tuihanti to the Frisians? And what was the tribal affinity of Drenthe? Frisian? The lesser Chauci?

Finn
04-29-2018, 10:17 AM
@Finn

In your opinion, how related were the Tuihanti to the Frisians? And what was the tribal affinity of Drenthe? Frisian? The lesser Chauci?

IMO in Groningen and Northern Drenthe the Chauci......see this information:
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/41443811/Chauken_2017.pdf

In Drenthe this related in a mixture of "Bronze Age people" continuity mixed with incoming Chauci....

For the rest unsure to me.

epoch
04-29-2018, 10:20 AM
Maybe the hiatus, which is dated 350 to 425, was associated with the onslaught of Franks in Belgica. There is mentioning of Frankish sea-raids.

epoch
04-29-2018, 10:28 AM
IMO in Groningen and Northern Drenthe the Chauci......see this information:
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/41443811/Chauken_2017.pdf

In Drenthe this related in a mixture of "Bronze Age people" continuity mixed with incoming Chauci....

For the rest unsure to me.

"Groninger terpen" also show a similar habitation hiatus.

Finn
04-29-2018, 11:09 AM
"Groninger terpen" also show a similar habitation hiatus.

Yes but less than in Westergo....the more eastwards in the terp/wierde/warft area (nowadays Friesland, Groningen, East-Friesland) the less depopulated.
For Groningen was the Hondsrug an escape. But getting little bit out off topic ;)

rms2
04-29-2018, 11:35 AM
All of this will change when Reich's paper(s) on Britain come out.
The thread will then be "Why Reich was wrong" :)
And if his sources are again gladiator's graveyards that will certainly be justified.

Meanwhile I am trying to understand:
-the chronology of the Celtic period
-just who were the Druids and why were they accepted into a pre-existing society?
- who took those Norwegian voles to Scotland around 1000 BC?

But that is my Cornish/Celtic part.
Another part of my ancestry comes from an area with mixed ethnicity for around 600 years before they emigrated to the New World.
When they moved, some were separated out by ethnicity and spoke a different language although this has since died out.
The majority were ethnically mixed partly with that separate group, and partly with other groups, but they have been perceived as homogenous - inaccurately.
I only know their story because they talked and wrote about it.
Their other cultural artifacts might just hint at this, but looking at it now, they again appear homogenous - or at the very least homogeneous.
Their uniparental markers might help.
But hey, my father's ancestors have given me a rare Y haplogroup.
If we dug a part of a graveyard containing them, we might conclude that a large part of the immigrant stock was of this type.
More likely, sampling a number of graveyards, we would miss them entirely.
The different language does not appear on any of the gravestones.
Their housing was similar and even if still standing, the different features would appear as natural and not ethnic variation.

Whatever Reich reports, problems like this ensure that we can only ever approximate the situation of the nature of groups who have emerged from a mixing pot region.
What is reported should be valuable - but is unlikely to be the entire story.
Hopefully the accompanying archaeology gives us enough of the rest.

I look forward to its contribution to the matter of this thread.

One has to remember that all or most of us in threads like this are speaking in broad, general terms. I think one has to do that with y-dna haplogroups to get some kind of handle on the truth. We wouldn't be able to say much about them that was meaningful if we had to delve into the personal histories of all the individuals who comprise them or account for every possible exception.

No doubt there were some Celts who were U106. I just don't think the evidence indicates there were many of them.

As for Reich's upcoming papers on Britain, I look forward to them. It's true I will be shocked if he finds much U106 there before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. I expect some via the Roman occupation: mainly Germanic auxiliary soldiers, gladiators, slaves, etc. But if U106 got to Britain in any kind of numbers prior to the Anglo-Saxons, it's amazing that Olalde et al missed them (and the "et al" included Reich), and that the distribution of U106 in Britain fits the spread of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, so well.

rms2
04-29-2018, 05:33 PM
Here's something interesting I just remembered. It's from Professor Patrice Brun, quoted in Falileyev, Alexander (2015), Introduction: A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics, in The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3.



Since there is no evidence that the regions of Western Europe where Celtic languages are still spoken today became Celtic after 1600 BC, they must have become so at an earlier date. Before 1600 BC, the only time when the zones which gave rise to the north-Alpine and Atlantic complexes shared similar material and structural characteristics was the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. This was the well known Bell Beaker "package". Linking all the regions where a Celtic language was later to be spoken, this community represents a unique situation.

Radboud
04-30-2018, 03:53 PM
You mean the 'Unetice' part of nowadays Poland, Germany? No doubt see my previous posting about the direct connection betweens my mothers DNA and of Rise 150, Silezia, Poland.

Not necessary the Unetice part of Poland or Germany, but somewhere near the Baltic coast aka the Baltic Bell Beakers.

Btw, Unetice and Elp were mixed yes. It has been shown that Bell Beaker culture was mixed, yet it was a powerhouse for P312, based on the high frequencies. We need to see more results of Unetice to conclude if Unetice was a ''smoking gun'' for U106. So far, it looks like I2 was a significant lineage in Unetice.