PDA

View Full Version : Speculation - Could U106 Z326 be German-Celtic?



JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-20-2016, 08:53 AM
Being Z326 myself, I found the following comments from Dr. Iain McDonald on the U106 project group very interesting. He suggests that there is a possibility that Z326 could have had a (German) Celtic origin and was possibly dispersed partly, but not exclusively, through the Roman Empire, including to Britain. He emphasises that this is speculation and only the basis for further research.
"Downstream from L11, things become more speculative. U106 is a comparatively small part of L11 which remained more strongly associated with modern-day Germany, Denmark and southern Scandinavia. Groups between U106 and L48 have similar locations, so probably remained in the same broad population.
In fact, it is hard to provide any localisation until the Z326 level. Z326 is a much more recent SNP - it formed during the first millenium BC. It shows a marked concentration in modern Germany, and regions speaking Germanic languages. However, it is not a substantial fraction of the Swedish population, so (speculating) it may not be Germanic in origin itself, just adopted by the Germans, and may have come from the native Celtic population instead.
By the time we get to CTS2509, we are still only around the time of Christ, perhaps still a little before. CTS2509 is unusually widely scattered across Europe. It has several old branches in particular countries, particularly (though not exclusively) countries which formed part of the Roman Empire. Speculating, to me this looks like the original CTS2509 population was subsumed into the Roman Empire, and the resulting migration took it to the far reaches of that Empire.
I will re-emphasise that much of these last two paragraphs are highly speculative, and should be looked at as directions for future research rather than accepted fact. We have no ancient DNA to back this information up, and modern populations are difficult to interpret." He goes on to comment :-
"There was a lot of migration associated with the Roman conquest of different regions. Some will have been civilian migration away from areas of conflict deeper into northern Germany; some will have been civilian trade within the Roman empire; much will have been recruitment into the Roman legions.
The traditional boundary of the Roman Empire is the River Rhine, but there were short periods of extension across onto its east bank. The arrival of the Romans largely co-incided with the final periods of Germanic movement down from the north of Germany to the south. The tribes inhabiting the Rhine valley were better described as Celtic than German. We know some of the details of how these tribes moved around, but much is lost to history as we rely solely on the Roman accounts. The only things that can be said for certain is that the rise of CTS2509 roughly co-incides with the rise of the Roman empire in terms of time and geography. We know from history that the Roman Empire, particularly the designation of a Roman citizen, allowed population movement and migration on a scale that had hitherto not been experienced. We don't see much direct evidence in the DNA record, because this migration wasn't a bulk movement of people, but a scattering of existing populations around the empire and beyond.
Most of what I've said is very speculative, and I would say that to imagine your ancestors were Roman legionnaries based on what I've said would be a speculation too far."
He was responding to someone else's enquiry, not mine and he also acknowledged that migration of Z326 to the UK could also be linked to Anglo/Saxon or other population movements.

Radboud
06-20-2016, 12:16 PM
However, it is not a substantial fraction of the Swedish population, so (speculating) it may not be Germanic in origin itself, just adopted by the Germans, and may have come from the native Celtic population instead.

Why it may not be Germanic in origin itself if it has not a substantial fraction in Sweden? Doe he assume that Sweden is the ''Proto-Germanic homeland''? In Sweden, R1b Z326 has a higher substantial fraction than atleast Z156, U198 and L47 according to this paper.

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



64 testers from 61 different families
U106 is significant in Sweden, where it mainly is contained
where it is most prevalent in the southern counties. Its
northernmost extent roughly correlates with the northern
extent of “European” expansion into Saami lands.
Z18>Z372 and L48>Z9 are common while Z156, U198
and L47 are notably absent in this data set. Z372 is
dominated by the rare subclade S3207: a 2000-year-old
clade largely confined to the inland of the Scandinavian
peninsula. It is expected that most of the undifferentiated
U106 results will be Z18, and most of the undifferentiated
L48 results will be Z9.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-20-2016, 04:37 PM
Why it may not be Germanic in origin itself if it has not a substantial fraction in Sweden? Doe he assume that Sweden is the ''Proto-Germanic homeland''? In Sweden, R1b Z326 has a higher substantial fraction than atleast Z156, U198 and L47 according to this paper.

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

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one, but I understand he is doing more analysis on U106 and Z326 in particular and he suggested an up-date of his paper probably later this year. Hopefully the reasons for his theory may become clearer when the full up-date is available. The way I read the comment above was that in relation to Z326 he was possibly suggesting a widespread dispersal or "scattering", rather than a consistent migration pattern.

Kanenas
06-20-2016, 05:29 PM
Franks could have had it but I don't think that it was Germanic originally. For those who accept 'kurgan theory' (I don't) it could be either Germanic or Celtic. For me that I don't it could be anything but I assume that Franks had it.

Either way, all of them have a relatively recent common ancestor.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?msa=0&ie=UTF&mid=1IrYMCKB0Q8U42SDzJibvNaY0ejU

Z326
U106>L48>Z9>Z331>Z326
Founder estimate: 3000 years before present
Z326+ or L48+/null 425 (also known as the "null 425 cluster") was first identified by the late Leo Little who estimated its age at around 2-3,000 years. Michael Maddi now estimates the age at around 3,000 years. He maintains a map showing the known European ancestral locations of all men who have tested Z326+ or who are L48+/null 425.
http://isogg.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#Z326

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-05-2016, 09:04 PM
Franks could have had it but I don't think that it was Germanic originally. For those who accept 'kurgan theory' (I don't) it could be either Germanic or Celtic. For me that I don't it could be anything but I assume that Franks had it.

Either way, all of them have a relatively recent common ancestor.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?msa=0&ie=UTF&mid=1IrYMCKB0Q8U42SDzJibvNaY0ejU

Z326
U106>L48>Z9>Z331>Z326
Founder estimate: 3000 years before present
Z326+ or L48+/null 425 (also known as the "null 425 cluster") was first identified by the late Leo Little who estimated its age at around 2-3,000 years. Michael Maddi now estimates the age at around 3,000 years. He maintains a map showing the known European ancestral locations of all men who have tested Z326+ or who are L48+/null 425.
http://isogg.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#Z326

I notice there is some speculation that Z326 could have an association with the Lombards having an origin in Southern Scandinavia. Being in the UK I was surprised to have a match in Tuscany.
If I understand correctly the theory is those Lombards which didn't end up in Italy, (U106 not being that common there) could have merged with the Saxons and headed West.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjp1Zfmmd3NAhWBLsAKHeF4BTsQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLombar ds&usg=AFQjCNFWdmzl_rQrTpPvp2FZibNGk17H1Q

mouse
07-05-2016, 09:44 PM
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S21728/

Tomenable
07-17-2016, 02:16 PM
I guess that R1b-U106>S263>S264>S497+ could be continental Celtic.

S497, a branch of of U106, established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=141441&viewfull=1#post141441

I am talking about these samples from Roman-era Eboracum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum) (Martiniano et al. 2016):

Sample 3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Sample 6DRIF-3 - this one was R1b-DF98 (which is also S497+)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-22-2016, 05:04 AM
10547

I came across this interesting link about the history of the Suebi and Lombards which mentions debate about whether the Suebi were Germanic or Celtic.
I'm really hoping that later this year Dr. Ian McDonald will have more to say about possible links of Z326 with the Suebi and Lombards and it's European distribution.
"Controversy exists as to whether particular tribes were German or Gaulish (Celtic), and the Suevi encompassed people who may straddle both definitions. The subject is discussed in greater detail in the accompanying feature. Their name comes from the proto-Germanic word 'sweboz', for 'one's own' people, or fellow countrymen. Certainly under Ariovistus, the Suevi had a foot in both camps. They made a foray across the Rhine as the leaders of a small confederation of Germanic tribes. There they became involved in Gaulish and Roman politics, before being forced back into the area that was becoming known as Germania. Following this, they drifted into modern lower central Germany, taking elements of their confederation with them and soon adding new tribes to it."

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj0_3qnYbOAhXrBcAKHcj_B3YQFggrMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyfiles.co.uk%2FKingList sEurope%2FBarbarianSuevi.htm&usg=AFQjCNFfF1dkeT06kJr5ws6g4dJNDZqE8A

Perhaps my Avatar is not so far out after all? :)

Another link on lesser known Germanic tribes, including the Suebi.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjX5rKjo4bOAhVGKMAKHaL3BnMQjhwIBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Flistverse.com%2F2011%2F10%2F30%2F 10-lesser-known-germanic-tribes%2F&psig=AFQjCNG3IAd9uL3OznUPEoZhCcZ3xleTWA&ust=1469249524201221

rms2
07-23-2016, 02:20 PM
I guess that R1b-U106>S263>S264>S497+ could be continental Celtic.

S497, a branch of of U106, established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons . . .

Anything is possible, but, really, one cannot legitimately say "S497, a branch of of U106, established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons", based on the skeletons of possible gladiators or soldiers recovered in an urban Roman context. It is far more likely that the Romans brought those men or their male antecedents there from the Continent. It is pretty well known that the Romans brought people to Britain from all over the Empire, and we know that Germans served in the Roman Army in Britain as auxilia. That may be how the original Anglo-Saxons came to be familiar with Britain in the first place and to find it desirable as a place to settle, especially since their own lands on the opposite side of the North Sea were subject to pretty regular flooding, not to mention pressure from the movements of other barbarians.

Radboud
07-30-2016, 02:37 PM
I checked the age of Z326 and it looks like Z326 is quite old.( formed 4400 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp according to YFULL) It is still to old to be Germanic or Celtic. It could have been both present in certain Celtic and Germanic groups.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-30-2016, 04:35 PM
I checked the age of Z326 and it looks like Z326 is quite old.( formed 4400 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp according to YFULL) It is still to old to be Germanic or Celtic. It could have been both present in certain Celtic and Germanic groups.

"Z326+ or L48+/null 425 (also known as the "null 425 cluster") was first identified by the late Leo Little who estimated its age at around 2-3,000 years. Michael Maddi now estimates the age at around 3,000 years. He maintains a map showing the known European ancestral locations of all men who have tested Z326+ or who are L48+/null 425. The map can be found here. For information about nulls see the Wiki article null value which includes a link to the Null 425 Project."

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiiwPyhzpvOAhVqK8AKHSJ5BbQQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fisogg.org%2Fwiki%2FHaplogroup_R1b _(Y-DNA)&usg=AFQjCNG_s9BAOq5lKcpZ0G6tKcl04J4kpA

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-30-2016, 04:48 PM
Distribution map Z326. It seems quite widely dispersed across Northern and Eastern Europe, including the UK and Ireland, but with noticeable gaps - but could that be partly due to lack of tests like France and Spain? I was a bit surprised to see a couple in the Azores, recent migration I suppose?

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=206021627702855801359.00043ad4cc0fa4420ed3c

Cofgene
07-30-2016, 05:07 PM
The presence in the Azores has been traced back to the British isles for the known individuals. There are several Hispanic results where we need them to due at least the Z326 panel to figure out what their origin/migration pattern could have been. The referenced map needs a significant update to include all of the Big-Y and panel results to date. Some color coding of specific Z326 branches will highlight specific geographically focused subgroups within the larger Z326 cluster.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-30-2016, 06:17 PM
The presence in the Azores has been traced back to the British isles for the known individuals. There are several Hispanic results where we need them to due at least the Z326 panel to figure out what their origin/migration pattern could have been. The referenced map needs a significant update to include all of the Big-Y and panel results to date. Some color coding of specific Z326 branches will highlight specific geographically focused subgroups within the larger Z326 cluster.

For some reason I can't click on "thanks", but thanks. :) It will be very interesting to see what the Spanish and other distribution , may say about historic migration patterns.

lgmayka
07-30-2016, 06:26 PM
Michael Maddi now estimates the age at around 3,000 years.
That estimate is more appropriate for its primary subclade R-Z325 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z325/). The R-Z326 clade itself is about 3500 years old (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z326/), because it includes other rare subclades such as A5011, A5017, and A5588, found in Poland and Ukraine.

mouse
07-30-2016, 06:29 PM
For some reason I can't click on "thanks", but thanks. :) It will be very interesting to see what the Spanish and other distribution , may say about historic migration patterns.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S21728/

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-30-2016, 06:35 PM
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S21728/

I'm S11136. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-30-2016, 06:39 PM
That estimate is more appropriate for its primary subclade R-Z325 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z325/). The R-Z326 clade itself is about 3500 years old (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z326/), because it includes other rare subclades such as A5011, A5017, and A5588, found in Poland and Ukraine.

I'm curious about it's dispersal. :)

Cofgene
07-30-2016, 10:12 PM
That estimate is more appropriate for its primary subclade R-Z325 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z325/). The R-Z326 clade itself is about 3500 years old (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z326/), because it includes other rare subclades such as A5011, A5017, and A5588, found in Poland and Ukraine.

Sorry you are incorrect. You may be referring to Z326's age. YFull's estimate for "Z325" is significantly off and should not be referred to. When talking about ages for any regions under the R-U106 haplogroup please refer to and utilize Iain McDonald's estimates at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-age.html Remember that YFull has an incomplete set of data to base its calculations and tree structure off of. That incomplete set results in inaccurate age estimates based upon both smaller numbers and an incomplete tree structure.

Rarity of subclades is not an issue in age determination. Note that A5011 and A5088 are younger than Z325. A5017's appearance is within the same time frame as Z325. For A5011 it is developing stronger "German" focus than most Z326 branches. Whether that geographic focus will fall into what is now part of Poland still needs to be figured out. 1 Polish, 8 German, and 1 English lineage are confirmed onto the A5011 branch. Another 15 or so lineages still need to be tested to confirm they fall under A5011.

lgmayka
07-31-2016, 02:40 AM
Note that A5011 and A5088 are younger than Z325. A5017's appearance is within the same time frame as Z325.
I don't mean the TMRCA of each subclade, I mean the divergence ("formation") age. Obviously, all of the subclades and singletons directly under Z326 (including A5011 and A5017) began to diverge from each other at roughly the same time (by McDonald's calculation, 627 BC). Z319/Z325, being itself a sub-subclade of Z326, must have a slightly younger divergence age (515 BC in McDonald's table, if I interpret it correctly).

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 02:47 AM
Maybe I've misunderstood, but what is "German-Celtic"?
As in the former Celts which lived in central- southern Germany before they were Germanicized ?

AH I see. McDonlad is going on old notions that Germanic originated in Scandinavia
Rather, I agree with recent views (Schdmit, Udolph) which place the origins of Germanic in Iron Age northern Germany, from where it moved into Scandinavia.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-31-2016, 06:48 AM
Maybe I've misunderstood, but what is "German-Celtic"?
As in the former Celts which lived in central- southern Germany before they were Germanicized ?

AH I see. McDonlad is going on old notions that Germanic originated in Scandinavia
Rather, I agree with recent views (Schdmit, Udolph) which place the origins of Germanic in Iron Age northern Germany, from where it moved into Scandinavia.

He does say I think that he is speculating but this is where his analysis of the actual data is taking him, but I understand that work is on-going and hopefully there will be more to come before too long. :)

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 09:26 AM
He does say I think that he is speculating but this is where his analysis of the actual data is taking him, but I understand that work is on-going and hopefully there will be more to come before too long. :)

No I don't disagree with anything he said, and his work on U106 is impressive to say the least, I'm just pointing out one aspect about the linguistics side of things
Whatever was in Bronze Age Scandinavia might have been a pre-Germanic I.E.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 10:04 AM
I came across this interesting link about the history of the Suebi and Lombards which mentions debate about whether the Suebi were Germanic or Celtic.

The Suebi were Germanic. Moving across the Rhine into Gaul would not turn them into Celts. In the Roman period the Germani west of the Rhine were known as Germani. The Roman province in which they lived was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Inferior

It is frankly dotty to suppose that crossing a boundary would change an ethnic designation either then or now. If a foreigner arrives in Wales, he or she does not instantly become Welsh. If that person settles in Wales and his or her children are born there, even then the children might not see themselves or be seen by others as Welsh. It would take a few generations and the adoption of the Welsh language and Welsh names for them to become indistinguishable from the Welsh. :)

And by the way, there is no such thing as "German-Celtic". There were Celts who lived in what is now Germany, but before it was Germany. So they are not German Celts. They are just Celts.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 10:09 AM
Whatever was in Bronze Age Scandinavia might have been a pre-Germanic I.E.

I think that is generally agreed. There seems to have been a lengthy period of pre-Germanic (in contact with Finnic, among other languages), before the development of Proto-Germanic, which of course is the stage of the language immediately before it split into daughter languages.

Speculative route:

10716

Cofgene
07-31-2016, 10:20 AM
I don't mean the TMRCA of each subclade, I mean the divergence ("formation") age. Obviously, all of the subclades and singletons directly under Z326 (including A5011 and A5017) began to diverge from each other at roughly the same time (by McDonald's calculation, 627 BC). Z319/Z325, being itself a sub-subclade of Z326, must have a slightly younger divergence age (515 BC in McDonald's table, if I interpret it correctly).


A5011 and A5017 are not directly under Z326. There is an intervening layer called Z8168. The one issue with Iain's analysis is that it is limited to SNPs and it is limited to results found in Big-Y. Z8168 is just one of the layers under Z326 not covered by Big-Y. We have also added several equivalents to the Z326 level that are not covered by Big-Y. These types of changes will adjust the age closer to current time for results under Z326. No big deal but we need to recognize what Yfull and Iain provide work off of a subset of what is known even within their data sets. Yfull and Iain ignore INDELs and MNPs for age analysis. When one ignores something one introduces additional errors.

The Yfull tree is missing 5 of the 8 haplogroup layers between my L188 result and Z326. :eek:

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 10:22 AM
I think that is generally agreed. There seems to have been a lengthy period of pre-Germanic (in contact with Finnic, among other languages), before the development of Proto-Germanic, which of course is the stage of the language immediately before it split into daughter languages.

Speculative route:

10716

Yes that's what I mean , we must read same material ;)
I like your map too.

Slightly tangential, but how would the finding of I1 in Hungarian LBK modify your hypothesis about the route of pre-Germanics, if at all; and how / where does U106 come into play, in your opinion ?

Jean M
07-31-2016, 10:26 AM
Z326 is a much more recent SNP - it formed during the first millenium BC. It shows a marked concentration in modern Germany, and regions speaking Germanic languages. However, it is not a substantial fraction of the Swedish population, so (speculating) it may not be Germanic in origin itself, just adopted by the Germans, and may have come from the native Celtic population instead..

This idea is not new. It has been argued on this forum before now. But it is based purely on modern distribution. We now have a U106 in Bronze Age Sweden, which rather puts paid to it.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 10:30 AM
A5011 and A5017 are not directly under Z326. There is an intervening layer called Z8168. The one issue with Iain's analysis is that it is limited to SNPs and it is limited to results found in Big-Y. Z8168 is just one of the layers under Z326 not covered by Big-Y. We have also added several equivalents to the Z326 level that are not covered by Big-Y. These types of changes will adjust the age closer to current time for results under Z326. No big deal but we need to recognize what Yfull and Iain provide work off of a subset of what is known even within their data sets. Yfull and Iain ignore INDELs and MNPs for age analysis. When one ignores something one introduces additional errors.

The Yfull tree is missing 5 of the 8 haplogroup layers between my L188 result and Z326. :eek:

What ages do you estimate ?

Helgenes50
07-31-2016, 10:33 AM
I think that is generally agreed. There seems to have been a lengthy period of pre-Germanic (in contact with Finnic, among other languages), before the development of Proto-Germanic, which of course is the stage of the language immediately before it split into daughter languages.

Speculative route:

10716
Your map is very interesting.
Do you have the same one for the Celts, to compare

Jean M
07-31-2016, 10:56 AM
Yes that's what I mean , we must read same material ;)
I like your map too.

It's just a rough map made for a lecture. So it might change somewhat. It certainly should not be seen as exact.


how would the finding of I1 in Hungarian LBK modify your hypothesis about the route of pre-Germanics, if at all; and how / where does U106 come into play, in your opinion ?

I presume that both I1 and I2 were forager lineages, some representatives of which happened to be so placed as to be absorbed into the Neolithic movement up the Danube. (I have long had my eye on the fisher-folk of Lepinski Vir as a potential source, but we have no aDNA from them.) The I1 in Hungarian LBKT might or might not be an ancestor of that which we find in modern Germanic speakers. Given that the LBK crashed eventually, it might have harboured quite a few now-dead lineages. (That certainly seems to be the case with some of its mtDNA lines.) The I1 expert Ken N. has come to the conclusion that the I1 we can trace in living people behaved like R1a and R1b in its sudden expansion round about 3000 BC. So it could have been a fellow traveller all the way from a Late Cucuteni village, or it might have been absorbed from the TRB. All I can say is that it was present in the Nordic Bronze Age (Angmollan, Sweden, RISE207.)

We also have U106 in Sweden 2275-2032 BC (Lilla Beddinge 56, RISE98). I presume that this lineage travelled as shown on the map. Obviously we would like aDNA along the trail.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 11:03 AM
Your map is very interesting. Do you have the same one for the Celts, to compare

10718

Notes:


Italo-Celtic is not a form of Celtic. It is the presumed ancestor of the Celtic and Italic language families. It would be more like Italic.
The lines on the map are of deduced prehistoric movements and have nothing to do with the movements of the Celts in historic times i.e. as recorded by the Romans and Greeks.

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:14 AM
As for ancient I1 samples:

Apart from Transdanubian LBK (BAB5), we also have one I1 from Stora Förvar on the island of Stora Karlsö near Gotland. From mainland SHG we have no I1, but only three haplogroups - I2a1a, I2a1b and I2c:

https://s32.postimg.org/6bwioqnqt/DNA_WHG.png

Why am I calling these three SHG markers "haplogroups", and not "subclades of I2" ???

Well, just check when did they split from each other:

I2a1a (L158) split from I2a1b (M423) 18300 years ago:

I2a1a (formed 18300 ybp per YFull) - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L158/

I2a1b (formed 18300 ybp per YFull) - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M423/

And I2c (L596) split from I2a around 21700 years ago:

I2c (formed 21700 per YFull) - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L596/

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

So these "subclades" of I2 split from each other about as long ago, as R1a split from R1b.

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:19 AM
We also have U106 in Sweden 2275-2032 BC (Lilla Beddinge 56, RISE98)

Lilla Beddinge is located in Scania:

https://s31.postimg.org/dx1yw4gmz/RISE_98.png

https://s31.postimg.org/dx1yw4gmz/RISE_98.png

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:27 AM
First farmers who came to Scandinavia around year 4000 BC represented TRB culture, the population of which descended from a fusion of ENF and European hunter-gatherers, who learned how to farm. So those TRB people had a lot of Euro HG admixture.

TRB farmers came to Sweden by boats, and probably they came across the Baltic Sea. Why do I think so:

1) Farming reached the Baltic Sea coast before it reached the North Sea coast

2) Farming appeared in Scania (South Sweden) before it appeared in Denmark

TRB culture descended from Lengyel, which descended from LBK, which in turn descended from Starčevo.

I suppose that TRB farmers brought I1 to mainland Scandinavia, but originally I1 was a HG lineage. Question is where was I1 ancestral to Scandinavian I1 assimilated? Maybe it was assimilated in Hungary or another place in Central Europe, but maybe it was assimilated for example on Bornholm (assuming that I1 also lived there, not only on Stora Karlsö and Gotland).

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

Extent of farming in Europe in year 4500 BC (500 years later first farmers came to Sweden):

http://s16.postimg.org/s3sssklx1/Farmers.png

http://s16.postimg.org/s3sssklx1/Farmers.png

Jean M
07-31-2016, 11:28 AM
As for ancient I1 samples:

... we also have one I1 from Stora Förvar on the island of Stora Karlsö near Gotland.

Where has that haplogroup designation come from? It is not from Skoglund 2014.

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:32 AM
Where has that haplogroup designation come from? It is not from Skoglund 2014.

The sample is from Skoglund 2014, but Skoglund did not reveal what was his haplogroup.

Genetiker checked Y-SNP calls: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/


Below are the Y-SNP calls for Stora Förvar 11, a 7,500-year-old Mesolithic hunter-gatherer sample from the island of Stora Karlsö in Sweden. Positive calls are in bold, and negative calls are in non-bold.

The calls show that Stora Förvar 11 belonged to Y haplogroup I1-M253.

Stora Karlsö is a small island located near the coast of Gotland.

That's why my table above has "Gotlandia" as location.

Szwecja = mainland Sweden. Węgry = Hungary.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 11:42 AM
Where has that haplogroup designation come from? It is not from Skoglund 2014.

We've also checked it
It's pre-I1

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:43 AM
"Pre-I1" = simply I1 but before the well-known bottleneck of I1.

The bottleneck happened several centuries after that guy lived.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 11:46 AM
The sample is from Skoglund 2014, but Skoglund did not reveal what was his haplogroup.

That is what I mean. The sample of course was published in Skoglund 2014, but that paper gave no Y-DNA haplogroup designation. I suspected the latter might be from Genetiker.


We've also checked it. It's pre-I1

Thank you. Interesting.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 11:47 AM
First farmers who came to Scandinavia around year 4000 BC represented TRB culture, the population of which descended from a fusion of ENF and European hunter-gatherers, who learned how to farm. So those TRB people had a lot of Euro HG admixture.

TRB farmers came to Sweden by boats, and probably they came across the Baltic Sea. Why do I think so:

1) Farming reached the Baltic Sea coast before it reached the North Sea coast

2) Farming appeared in Scania (South Sweden) before it appeared in Denmark

TRB culture descended from Lengyel, which descended from LBK, which in turn descended from Starčevo.

I suppose that TRB farmers brought I1 to mainland Scandinavia, but originally I1 was a HG lineage. Question is where was I1 ancestral to Scandinavian I1 assimilated? Maybe it was assimilated in Hungary or another place in Central Europe, but maybe it was assimilated for example on Bornholm (assuming that I1 also lived there, not only on Stora Karlsö and Gotland).

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

Extent of farming in Europe in year 4500 BC (500 years later first farmers came to Sweden):

http://s16.postimg.org/s3sssklx1/Farmers.png

http://s16.postimg.org/s3sssklx1/Farmers.png

IIRC, some TRB and late Neolithic samples form Germany just looked autosomally as usual mid-Neolithic europeans, but they had I and that R* sample

Jean M
07-31-2016, 11:55 AM
First farmers who came to Scandinavia around year 4000 BC represented TRB culture, the population of which descended from a fusion of ENF and European hunter-gatherers, who learned how to farm. So those TRB people had a lot of Euro HG admixture.

We don't need to guess at the level of HG ancesttry in the Scandinavian TRB. We have samples. You seem to be basing your conclusions to some extent on an old idea of archaeologists that the TRB represented local hunter-gatherers adopting agriculture. This was shown to be completely wrong by ancient DNA published several years ago.

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 11:57 AM
I'm not saying that they represented "local Scandinavian" hunter-gatherers.

I'm saying that they had a lot of Euro HG ancestry, not necessarily local though.

Already Western Anatolian farmers had at least a dozen or so % of Euro HG autosomal admixture.

However, as farmers expanded into Europe, they gradually "picked up" more of Euro HG ancestry.

In fact recent papers by Lazaridis and Broushaki about Near Eastern genomes, show that Euro hunter-gatherers migrated (or their genes diffused) deep into Anatolia and even into the Middle East.

Some Euro HG admixture was present there already before Indo-European expansions.

Tomenable
07-31-2016, 12:03 PM
an old idea of archaeologists that the TRB represented local hunter-gatherers adopting agriculture.

This is what Wiki claims:

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


The Funnel(-neck-)beaker culture, in short TRB or TBK (German: Trichter(-rand-)becherkultur, Dutch: Trechterbekercultuur; ca 4300 BC–ca 2800 BC) was an archaeological culture in north-central Europe. It developed as a technological merger of local neolithic and mesolithic techno-complexes between the lower Elbe and middle Vistula rivers, introducing farming and husbandry as a major source of food to the pottery-using hunter-gatherers north of this line.

How much of this is wrong? I think that this has been shown to be wrong:

"introducing farming and husbandry as a major source of food to the pottery-using hunter-gatherers north of this line."

But this is true, some Central European HGs were assimilated by farmers:

"It developed as a technological merger of local neolithic and mesolithic techno-complexes between the lower Elbe and middle Vistula rivers"

Jean M
07-31-2016, 12:16 PM
Being Z326 myself, I found the following comments from Dr. Iain McDonald on the U106 project group very interesting..

John - I realise that you would like your paternal lineage to be Celtic-speaking as far back as possible. For all I know, it could be. :)

The deductions that I and others have made about U106 in general might not apply to your ancestor. If we go right back to the point at which P312 and U106 were created from R1b1a2a1a (L151), they were brother clades. It is unlikely that the very first man to carry U106 lived a million miles away from the first man to carry P312. Even if these mutations actually occurred somewhere in the progress away from the steppe, so that their descendants travelled by separate routes northwards, the two trails met once the Danube trail emerged from the Carpathians. Some P312 seems to have entered Corded Ware. So it is not impossible that some U106 entered one of the groups that would eventually merge into Bell Beaker. That might become clear if we found a subclade that does not fit the Germanic distribution.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 12:26 PM
some Central European HGs were assimilated by farmers:

There are two separate issues I think.


Hunter-gatherers carrying I1 and I2 were absorbed into the early farming cultures of south-eastern Europe and Anatolia, so that these haplogroups were carried with farming to places like Sardinia, where no local foragers had settled.
Local hunter-gatherers were absorbed into the middle and final stages of the Neolithic across Europe, as farming spread out and most foragers could not compete with it. (If you can't beat them, join them.) This did not apply to all foragers. Foraging continued in the far north-east.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-31-2016, 12:58 PM
John - I realise that you would like your paternal lineage to be Celtic-speaking as far back as possible. For all I know, it could be. :)

The deductions that I and others have made about U106 in general might not apply to your ancestor. If we go right back to the point at which P312 and U106 were created from R1b1a2a1a (L151), they were brother clades. It is unlikely that the very first man to carry U106 lived a million miles away from the first man to carry P312. Even if these mutations actually occurred somewhere in the progress away from the steppe, so that their descendants travelled by separate routes northwards, the two trails met once the Danube trail emerged from the Carpathians. Some P312 seems to have entered Corded Ware. So it is not impossible that some U106 entered one of the groups that would eventually merge into Bell Beaker. That might become clear if we found a subclade that does not fit the Germanic distribution.

Don't shoot the messenger Jean, I'm just reporting what has been said by others with theories :)
I have no axe to grind (viking or otherwise) about whether my ancestors were "celtic" or not. I certainly know that some were and some weren't.
Regarding my Y dna from what I've learned it almost certainly came to Britain during the Anglo Saxon period of migration and therefore is "Germanic" and I don't have any problem at all with that. I'm quite open-minded about these things the only thing I'm hoping for personally is for a little greater clarity in relation to my paternal history whatever it may reveal.
Given my limited knowledge I wouldn't presume to argue these things one way or the other, but am interested in what people have to say so I can learn more. :)

Helgenes50
07-31-2016, 01:06 PM
10718

Notes:


Italo-Celtic is not a form of Celtic. It is the presumed ancestor of the Celtic and Italic language families. It would be more like Italic.
The lines on the map are of deduced prehistoric movements and have nothing to do with the movements of the Celts in historic times i.e. as recorded by the Romans and Greeks.

Thanks a lot Jean,
the Carpathian Mountains are a real frontier between the two cultures proto-germanic and proto-Celtic (and Italic), like for the R1a and the R1b. Very speaking on the map.

Jean M
07-31-2016, 01:09 PM
Don't shoot the messenger Jean

I have no wish to shoot you John, I assure you. I just want to drop a hint that we can do no more at the moment than generalise. Such broad-brush thinking won't fit every single person. As we gather more data on subclades of these monster-size haplogroups, we shall get closer to being able to fit subclades to specific lines.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 01:19 PM
Thanks a lot Jean,
the Carpathian Mountains are a real frontier between the two cultures proto-germanic and proto-Celtic (and Italic), like for the R1a and the R1b. Very speaking on the map.

How ?
Proto-Celtic evolved in west-central Europe (northern France <-> Austria), and proto-Germanic in north Germany. No Carpathian Mountains in the way there

Jean M
07-31-2016, 01:21 PM
Thanks a lot Jean,
the Carpathian Mountains are a real frontier between the two cultures proto-germanic and proto-Celtic (and Italic), like for the R1a and the R1b. Very speaking on the map.

That is certainly my thinking for part of the picture. But Proto-Celtic and Pre-Proto-Germanic were in contact at a relatively early stage. An interface between Bell Beaker and Single Grave/Corded Ware might explain that. Some Bell Beaker entered Scandinavia.

Proto-Germanic took several words from Celtic at a later stage, presumably when the Jastorf culture absorbed technology from the La Tène culture. So we can see periods in which there was interaction and potential for intermarriage. We shouldn't picture a rigid dividing line that no idividual could possibly cross.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2016, 01:23 PM
The deductions that I and others have made about U106 in general might not apply to your ancestor. If we go right back to the point at which P312 and U106 were created from R1b1a2a1a (L151), they were brother clades. It is unlikely that the very first man to carry U106 lived a million miles away from the first man to carry P312. Even if these mutations actually occurred somewhere in the progress away from the steppe, so that their descendants travelled by separate routes northwards, the two trails met once the Danube trail emerged from the Carpathians. Some P312 seems to have entered Corded Ware. So it is not impossible that some U106 entered one of the groups that would eventually merge into Bell Beaker. That might become clear if we found a subclade that does not fit the Germanic distribution.

Wasn't that an error in the paper ?
Smal and others found that CWC "R1b" samples were actually R1a, or am I confused

Jean M
07-31-2016, 01:37 PM
Proto-Celtic evolved in west-central Europe (northern France <-> Austria), and proto-Germanic in north Germany.

I would place Proto-Celtic around the heads of the Danube and Rhine i.e. where the modern borders of Germany, France and Switzerland meet. Not that we can be at all certain about these things. I would include northern Poland in the range in which Proto-Germanic developed. (Of course there were only a few Germanic speakers in Poland, for a comparatively short time. No great stain on the name of Poland. She adds hastily.)

Jean M
07-31-2016, 01:38 PM
Wasn't that an error in the paper ? Smal and others found that CWC "R1b" samples were actually R1a, or am I confused

My website is down today. It has probably exceeded its monthly bandwidth again. So I was rather talking off the top of my head. I'll check the version on my computer.

Helgenes50
07-31-2016, 01:42 PM
How ?
Proto-Celtic evolved in west-central Europe (northern France <-> Austria), and proto-Germanic in north Germany. No Carpathian Mountains in the way there

I speak of the route followed
by the ancestors of these two branches, Celtic and Germanic,
Not those of the historic periods, the cradle of the Celtic culture is probably more western of course !

Jean M
07-31-2016, 01:52 PM
My website is down today. It has probably exceeded its monthly bandwidth again. So I was rather talking off the top of my head. I'll check the version on my computer.

Aha! Goes to show that my memory is not to be trusted. The Corded Ware sample I1534/ESP 14 was given as R1b1a2 (CTS11468+ not P312) by Mathieson 2015, but the SNP was negatively verified by Sergey Malyshev.

palamede
08-24-2016, 11:07 AM
=====================

Extent of farming in Europe in year 4500 BC (500 years later first farmers came to Sweden):

http://s16.postimg.org/s3sssklx1/Farmers.png

I don't understand why Anglo-saxon scholars reject the presence of Neolithic cultures in Normandy, Brittany and Loire Valley in 4500BC. probably, the first Neolithic had been present since 5000BC. The first megalithic monuments were built before 4500BC.

c. 4800 BC: Constructions in Brittany (Barnenez) and Poitou (Bougon).

Jean M
08-24-2016, 12:01 PM
I don't understand why Anglo-saxon scholars reject the presence of Neolithic cultures in Normandy, Brittany and Loire Valley in 4500BC.

I frankly don't think that Anglo-Saxon scholars had the faintest clue about the Neolithic. They were writing before AD 1066. :)

You perhaps mean Anglophone? Certainly the caption to the map is in English, but where it came from I have no idea. It certainly doesn't look like a production of Barry Cunliffe.

[added] I tracked the image to the Historium forum, where it was posted in 2015 by a now-banned member.

Tomenable
09-05-2016, 05:35 AM
We've also checked it
It's pre-I1

Apart from Genetiker, who else confirmed that Stora Förvar was I1 ???

Radboud
12-01-2017, 06:59 PM
Bumping this thread, I received my Big-Y results. It turns out I belong the subclade A5869. I asked McDonald about it's historical background etc.




Well I can certainly give you what information I can on R-A5869, but I'm afraid it's not a lot more than you've already said. As with all these small clades, we're limited in what we can say by the small number of people who we know are in them.

In broader terms, R-Z326 is very closely associable with modern Germany, and perhaps regions immediately bordering it to the east. It originates some time during the second millennium BC, likely somewhere close to the middle of it. That combination of place and date matches with the Tumulus culture, so we may expect some association with their descendants. There are a lot of British diaspora who are R-Z326 as well, but this is probably due to two factors: (1) a bias towards testing British diaspora due to the large number of Americans who test; and (2) successive waves of people from Germany and its surroundings to the British Isles (e.g. the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Flemish, etc.)

R-Z326>A5016 formed shortly after Z326 itself. We have 34 members in the project. They concentrate in Germany, but there is a small but significant Polish population too. Individuals are spread from the Netherlands to Estonia, from Sweden to Serbia, reflecting over 3000 years of migration. Again, there is a strong British component because of these migrations.

R-A5016>S3980 is much younger, probably from around the middle of the first millennium BC. We have 24 members in the project. They have a marginally more northern distribution, but it's not clear if this is significant. Aside from the Brits, most are German or "Prussian", with some Swedish and an Estonian in there. At this point in history (circa 700 BC), the Germanic peoples were coming down from Scandinavia and starting to settle these regions. It may be that your family was co-opted into one of these early Germanic tribes.

R-S3980>A5869 is younger again, probably a little under 2000 years old. There are 15 members in our project. They show the same distribution as S3980, on the south shores of the Baltic Sea and into Sweden. The possible range of dates I have for A5869 corresponds well to the period of the Roman Empire.


When I asked him about a Proto-Germanic scenario, he replied:




There is an old supposition that U106 is "Germanic" and P312 is "Celtic" based on the modern distribution of populations. However, both U106 and P312 are around 5000 years old, far pre-dating anything that could be called proto-Germanic or proto-Celtic. These assignments have fallen out of fashion, but persist in some places. We try to discourage them.

L48 formed soon after U106. In terms of cultures, it probably falls somewhere between the original Corded Ware migrations from the Russian Steppe (c. 2850 BC) and the Nordic Battle Axe or Boat Axe culture that came to dominate its western extent. (I'll stress that these are just our best guesses at the moment, rather than substantiated fact.) Some descendants of these cultures helped found the Germanic nations, and some the Celtic nations, but there was over 2000 years between the two. Saying that L48 is Germanic is a bit like saying the Romans were Luxembourgish. While a few of them probably did come from Luxembourg, it rather misses the story of the whole Roman Empire. The important thing when making these assignments is to use contemporary cultures: a fact that is often overlooked.


Indeed. Many of the larger L48 subclades do show probable Germanic, proto-Germanic, or pre-Germanic associations. Z8 is among the clearest of them. However, L48 itself predates this, and many L48 clades probably went off in very different directions.

For origins within U106 as a whole, we need much more ancient DNA. We only have two ancient U106 samples so far. The hope is that the 1000 Ancient Genomes project from Uppsala will reveal some. You can also see my recent ancient DNA update on my website.

So it seems both scenarios are possible.(Tumulus Culture/Nordic Bronze Age)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-02-2017, 09:01 PM
"That combination of place and date matches with the Tumulus culture, so we may expect some association with their descendants. There are a lot of British diaspora who are R-Z326 as well, but this is probably due to two factors: (1) a bias towards testing British diaspora due to the large number of Americans who test; and (2) successive waves of people from Germany and its surroundings to the British Isles (e.g. the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Flemish, etc.)"

"Some descendants of these cultures helped found the Germanic nations, and some the Celtic nations, but there was over 2000 years between the two. Saying that L48 is Germanic is a bit like saying the Romans were Luxembourgish. While a few of them probably did come from Luxembourg, it rather misses the story of the whole Roman Empire. The important thing when making these assignments is to use contemporary cultures: a fact that is often overlooked."

I'm no expert in ancient history but I've always thought U106 = "Germanic" was too simplistic, if "convenient". Question is where are the ancient U106 DNA samples hiding?

rms2
12-02-2017, 09:12 PM
. . .

I'm no expert in ancient history but I've always thought U106 = "Germanic" was too simplistic, if "convenient". Question is where are the ancient U106 DNA samples hiding?

It only seems too simplistic if one thinks it means that every last U106 ever born was a Germanic. For one thing, U106 predates the Germanic languages. For another, U106=Germanic, which I think is actually pretty accurate if one understands it aright, is meant as a generalization. It applies to the bulk of U106 and not to every last specific, particular individual U106 ever born.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-02-2017, 09:34 PM
It only seems too simplistic if one thinks it means that every last U106 ever born was a Germanic. For one thing, U106 predates the Germanic languages. For another, U106=Germanic, which I think is actually pretty accurate if one understands it aright, is meant as a generalization. It applies to the bulk of U106 and not to every last specific, particular individual U106 ever born.

It's not always presented in that way. How much doesn't fit "the usual pattern" I suppose we don't really know as yet. I just think we have to be cautious about making broad assumptions.

rms2
12-02-2017, 09:49 PM
It's not always presented in that way. How much doesn't fit "the usual pattern" I suppose we don't really know as yet. I just think we have to be cautious about making broad assumptions.

I think the generalization that U106 is, in Dienekes' words, "a major lineage within the Germanic group", is safe from the danger of broad assumptions. The evidence of it is just overwhelming.

rms2
12-02-2017, 11:07 PM
An additional comment I would like to make is about the old chestnut that because a y-dna haplogroup is older than a language family, it therefore cannot be associated with that language family. That is not really true. There is no reason to think that because a y-dna haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language coincide.

It seems to me the older than the language argument is most frequently made by folks who have some reason for not wanting their haplogroup to be associated with a particular ethnolinguistic group.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-03-2017, 06:40 AM
I think the generalization that U106 is, in Dienekes' words, "a major lineage within the Germanic group", is safe from the danger of broad assumptions. The evidence of it is just overwhelming.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. :)

Radboud
12-03-2017, 11:46 AM
It seems to me the older than the language argument is most frequently made by folks who have some reason for not wanting their haplogroup to be associated with a particular ethnolinguistic group.

Yeah, I noticed that before. However, I am sure McDonald is not one of them. He is predicting scenarios based on Modern & Ancient data.

Although I find a Nordic Bronze Age origin of Z326 more likely, we cannot exclude the other scenarios unless we have solid Ancient dna.

Finn
12-03-2017, 12:42 PM
I think the generalization that U106 is, in Dienekes' words, "a major lineage within the Germanic group", is safe from the danger of broad assumptions. The evidence of it is just overwhelming.


May it's both initial spread during the initial phase of the Bronze Age ('LN/EBA') in NW Europe and during the migration period in the early middle ages. And also during the Germanic spread to Eastern Europe in the middle ages. And so fort.

So in the midst of flux and reflux we have to make our reconstructions, and no that's not easy and we will never have enough 'evidence' to be sure, the past is gone and shall never return, only in our 'models' and 'representations' that are always imperfect......

lgmayka
12-03-2017, 01:11 PM
All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language coincide.
I have boldened your conditional phrase, which is almost never true. If a clade's distribution exactly coincided with that of a language, few people would debate the relationship. The primary reason for this discussion is that the distribution of a haplogroup or subclade almost never coincides with that of a language--and one main reason is that haplogroups, and even major clades, are typically much older than modern languages, or even language families.

With respect to "Germanic" R-U106: The typical case that brings up this kind of discussion is the discovery of R-U106 in a region that does not speak a Germanic language. People who assume that U106=Germanic (even experts who ought to know better!) immediately and blindly pontificate that such a lineage must be due to modern or medieval migration; whereas more careful observers point out that U106 is much older than Proto-Germanic, and hence this discovered lineage may be a remnant of a more ancient migration, or even perhaps of the clade's initial expansion.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-03-2017, 01:44 PM
Yeah, I noticed that before. However, I am sure McDonald is not one of them. He is predicting scenarios based on Modern & Ancient data.

Although I find a Nordic Bronze Age origin of Z326 more likely, we cannot exclude the other scenarios unless we have solid Ancient dna.

I've found the apparent widespread geographical distribution of Z326 (based on quite limited numbers of test results) curious. Of course as has been pointed out Z326 might not really be an exception, just that it currently appears to be. On a simple level it could appear that it is widely distributed partly (but of course not entirely) because of some early migration. Hopefully things will become clearer when we have more results or hopefully ancient DNA.

rms2
12-03-2017, 02:10 PM
I have boldened your conditional phrase, which is almost never true. If a clade's distribution exactly coincided with that of a language, few people would debate the relationship. The primary reason for this discussion is that the distribution of a haplogroup or subclade almost never coincides with that of a language--and one main reason is that haplogroups, and even major clades, are typically much older than modern languages, or even language families.

I did not say the clade's distribution had to match that of the language exactly, or that we should even expect such a chimerical and nifty situation. Why would anyone expect anything that clean and neat in the real world? Of course, people, who are individuals after all, are going to move beyond the usual bounds of their particular ethnolinguistic group from time to time. Thus some of their descendants will be found outside it. And languages will spill over in various ways and be adopted by people whose y-dna haplogroups are not typical of speakers of that language.

Yet it is still possible and entirely reasonable to look at the evidence and make generalizations like the one concerning the very obvious and close relationship between U106 and Germanic speakers.



With respect to "Germanic" R-U106: The typical case that brings up this kind of discussion is the discovery of R-U106 in a region that does not speak a Germanic language. People who assume that U106=Germanic (even experts who ought to know better!) immediately and blindly pontificate that such a lineage must be due to modern or medieval migration; whereas more careful observers point out that U106 is much older than Proto-Germanic, and hence this discovered lineage may be a remnant of a more ancient migration, or even perhaps of the clade's initial expansion.

Sigh. I am not saying it is impossible to find U106 here and there that never became Germanic and had nothing whatsoever to do with Germanic speakers, culture, history, etc., or that we should always, everywhere and in all circumstances conclude that every instance of U106 must be Germanic.

But, honestly, how can anyone look at the distribution of U106, its absence in Bell Beaker thus far, its presence in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in the last quarter of the third millennium BC, etc., and miss its obvious connection to Germanic speakers?

In my experience, most of the U106-cannot-be-said-to-be-Germanic arguments come from folks like old Dartraighe, an Irish U106 who desperately wants to avoid the "stigma" of maybe not having a y-dna line native to Ireland since the end of the Younger Dryas, or the odd L21 guy here and there who wants to be Germanic himself and so is jealous of what U106 has.

The "U106 predates Proto-Germanic" argument is bogus, because pretty obviously U106 is "a major lineage within the Germanic group", i.e., enough of its bearers took up Germanic speech early enough to spread with the language and become closely associated with it.

Here's another thing. Almost invariably, whenever someone argues against the idea that U106 is primarily a Germanic lineage, he assembles a few straw windmills to tilt against, like the idea that for any y-dna haplogroup to be closely associated with an ethnolinguistic group, its distribution and that of the ethnolinguistic group must coincide exactly, or that those who argue for such an association think that absolutely every last instance of that haplogroup should automatically be assumed to belong to that ethnolinguistic group.

rms2
12-03-2017, 02:41 PM
. . . People who assume that U106=Germanic (even experts who ought to know better!) immediately and blindly pontificate that such a lineage must be due to modern or medieval migration; whereas more careful observers point out that U106 is much older than Proto-Germanic, and hence this discovered lineage may be a remnant of a more ancient migration, or even perhaps of the clade's initial expansion.

I want to address this. First off, I don't just assume U106=Germanic. I think the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that U106 is "a major lineage within the Germanic group" (which is a better formulation).

Secondly, few people "immediately and blindly pontificate" that a U106 in a non-Germanic region must be the product of modern or medieval migration. How blind is it to be familiar enough with history to know that in the past people from regions that are heavily U106 and Germanic settled at times in places that are neither, like France, Italy, Ireland, Scotland and Wales? How blind is it to know that die Völkerwanderung in the closing centuries of the Roman Period was a genuine large-scale folk movement of Germanic peoples, that it really took place?

How blind is it, for example, to think that maybe a U106 in Northern Ireland might be the descendant of an Englishman or a Lowland Scot rather than of a Bronze Age arrival, particularly given the relatively low frequency of U106 in Ireland?

Radboud
12-03-2017, 02:54 PM
I've found the apparent widespread geographical distribution of Z326 (based on quite limited numbers of test results) curious. Of course as has been pointed out Z326 might not really be an exception, just that it currently appears to be. On a simple level it could appear that it is widely distributed partly (but of course not entirely) because of some early migration. Hopefully things will become clearer when we have more results or hopefully ancient DNA.

Yes, the widespread distribution is intriguing. Some widespread distributions of certain subclades do make sense to me though. I have seen some subclades that could have an association with Lombards. For example, a clade called CTS7411 has 2 Swedes, a Northern German and a Tuscan. Of course this combination can have different scenarios. I hope that the Y-haplogroups of the Lombards will be analyzed from the upcoming paper about Lombards.

However, it's hard to make sense about my own upcoming clade. I will be probably sitting with an Estonian and an English person in a new subclade soon. I do not have a clue about the connection yet. :P

Agamemnon
12-03-2017, 03:24 PM
I think it's quite clear at this stage that R1b-U106 was a major marker among the Proto-Germanic language community that spread out with Germanic dispersals and I'd be willing to bet that it already was a major marker among the earliest Germanic-speaking populations (all the way back to Pre-PGmc stage). In the same way, it's increasingly doubtful U106 ever was a major marker among the Proto-Celts and their closest linguistic relatives, it might or might not have been present, if anything such a link would be tentative at best. This isn't in any way, shape or form a 1:1 correlation between genes and languages, just an observation based on the data we have so far.

rms2
12-03-2017, 03:50 PM
I think it's quite clear at this stage that R1b-U106 was a major marker among the Proto-Germanic language community that spread out with Germanic dispersals and I'd be willing to bet that it already was a major marker among the earliest Germanic-speaking populations (all the way back to Pre-PGmc stage). In the same way, it's increasingly doubtful U106 ever was a major marker among the Proto-Celts and their closest linguistic relatives, it might or might not have been present, if anything such a link would be tentative at best.

Well said, and that is what thoughtful people mean when they use the very simplistic formula U106=Germanic, which is, of course, better rendered as U106 is a major lineage within the Germanic group.



This isn't in any way, shape or form a 1:1 correlation between genes and languages, just an observation based on the data we have so far.

Right again, and only a complete goof would imagine such a 1:1 correspondence in the real world.

I get the impression that some people get up in arms when they see someone equate most of U106 with Germanic because they think it means the speaker intends such a correspondence.

Others don't like it because they either 1) don't want to be Germanic or acknowledge that they might have had Germanic y-dna ancestors, or 2) resent what they erroneously regard as U106's near monopoly on Germanic (and obviously U106 has no monopoly or even near monopoly on Germanic).

Wing Genealogist
12-03-2017, 06:19 PM
As one of the admin team member for the R-U106 Project, I do try to downplay the U106=Germanic mantra (at least within our discussion group). This is due to the fact we do have new people joining our discussion group all the time, and some of these newbies have no grasp about the age of the U106 clade and the age of the Germanic tribes. More than a few of these folks do take this saying too literally, so it is important to say (as rms and others indicate) that U106 is a major lineage within the Germanic group and explain that cultures/languages are comprised of multiple haplogroups and haplogroups are found in multiple cultures.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-03-2017, 07:15 PM
As one of the admin team member for the R-U106 Project, I do try to downplay the U106=Germanic mantra (at least within our discussion group). This is due to the fact we do have new people joining our discussion group all the time, and some of these newbies have no grasp about the age of the U106 clade and the age of the Germanic tribes. More than a few of these folks do take this saying too literally, so it is important to say (as rms and others indicate) that U106 is a major lineage within the Germanic group and explain that cultures/languages are comprised of multiple haplogroups and haplogroups are found in multiple cultures.

I really don't have a (battle) axe to grind ( :) ) but I think we need to be cautious about the assumption or impression that U106 always equates to origin within a specific culture and unintentionally bending the interpretation to fit the assumption, at least until we have more information. Pre-judging things just doesn't seem very wise to me. I don't think anyone would doubt a major association with groups like the Anglo Saxons and Norse.

Bollox79
12-03-2017, 08:07 PM
Glad to see some discussion on U106... since it's still a bit of a mystery ;-).

Let us look at the Ancient DNA samples to date. We have Lilla Beddinge R1b-U106 Allentoft+ 2015 2275-2032 BC Battle Axe / Nordic Late Neolithic. Now we have an Early Bronze Age tumulus skeleton from West Frisia positive for U106 (any progress on any subclades for that sample yet?) aka the R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC from the Bell Beaker paper, but buried in a different manner to the earlier Bell Beaker samples. Perhaps an intrusive population? My question is where is all of the U106 hiding (somewhere in the North around the Baltic?)... it seems interesting to me that the two earliest samples of ancient U106 are both right near the sea ;-). Can't get much closer than where it was found in Sweden and West Frisia? Then you have the two U106 samples of the Driffield Terrace boys... 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 (I am still not 100% convinced they were ALL gladiators - perhaps soldiers or tribal fighting? Certainly their martial history is quite apparent though - they are quite similar stress marker and trauma wise to several other sample groups such as the Towton soldiers, some of the Visby skeletons, and even those Lombard/Longobardi males who were buried with weapons etc you can compare all the non-metric traits) and it's interesting that they were both Z156 (3drif-16 being DF96 and L1 and 6drif-3 being DF98 brother clade to DF96 and S1911 etc) so where they from the same tribe? Certainly a shared culture/tribal background along their paternal line...

At the end of the day we need more ancient DNA samples from all over... and especially for DF96 and DF98 in the Low Countries and along the Rhine. There is a study with a lot of Dutch ancient DNA from the 12th (I think?) century and on wards that is underway... I'd love to know how much Z156 is found in that group (if they even tested for it)...

And what explains the large amount of U106 in the Netherlands today? That is why the ancient DNA through stages of history (from 12th cent and on wards for that one study) is important so you can compare the overall percentage at different stages in history! Some Roman era stuff from the Low Countries and Netherlands would be great if there is any!

Also off the top of your heads - what do you make of the DF98 map Iain McDonald maintains? 20218

Cheers!

rms2
12-03-2017, 08:20 PM
. . . Pre-judging things just doesn't seem very wise to me . . .

Doesn't pre-judging occur before the evidence comes in? Don't we have a lot of evidence now?

Do you think it likely that new evidence will overturn the idea that U106 is a major lineage in the Germanic group?

It will be interesting to see what places like the Ergolding Cave (Frankish burials) will reveal. As I recall the R1b haplotypes there were closest to R1b-U106 haplotypes. Too bad they did not do SNP testing on them. It will be interesting to see some honest-to-goodness Anglo-Saxon and Viking results from Britain, as well.

Bollox79
12-03-2017, 08:24 PM
As far as I know we have one Christian Anglo-Saxon y-dna sample from Teeside (I think) that was in the paper along with the Gladiators... and he was haplogroup I I think. Still we need many, many more for a good cross section of any part of these populations.

Are there any other y-dna Saxon or Viking samples? Can't think of any off the top of my head in the time period we are generally discussing. Yes I would have loved to see (or still see in the future) those samples from Ergolding typed for SNPs!!!

rms2
12-03-2017, 08:29 PM
As far as I know we have one Christian Anglo-Saxon y-dna sample from Teeside (I think) that was in the paper along with the Gladiators... and he was haplogroup I I think. Still we need many, many more for a good cross section of any part of these populations.

Are there any other y-dna Saxon or Viking samples? Can't think of any off the top of my head in the time period we are generally discussing. Yes I would have loved to see (or still see in the future) those samples from Ergolding typed for SNPs!!!

I-M253 is probably U106's main competitor for "major lineage in the Germanic group". In Britain the two seem to have a similar distribution, as well.

In the category of not-Anglo-Saxon and not-Viking, we have the Hinxton Celts, also not-U106, from SE England, which is today the heartland of U106 in Britain. And none of the Neolithic, Bell Beaker or Bronze Age British remains in Olalde et al was U106.

lgmayka
12-03-2017, 08:30 PM
Sigh. I am not saying it is impossible to find U106 here and there that never became Germanic and had nothing whatsoever to do with Germanic speakers, culture, history, etc., or that we should always, everywhere and in all circumstances conclude that every instance of U106 must be Germanic.
I'm glad that you agree with me, at least theoretically. So why are you discouraging testers by repeating vague generalizations instead of examining individual cases in detail?


In my experience, most of the U106-cannot-be-said-to-be-Germanic arguments come from folks like old Dartraighe, an Irish U106 who desperately wants to avoid the "stigma" of maybe not having a y-dna line native to Ireland since the end of the Younger Dryas, or the odd L21 guy here and there who wants to be Germanic himself and so is jealous of what U106 has.
Guessing, and then disparaging, other people's motivations is both impolite and unhelpful to our field, IMHO. We can disagree on the interpretation of results without pretending to read each other's minds.

Mocking other people's alleged motivations is another effective way to discourage them from testing any further.


The "U106 predates Proto-Germanic" argument is bogus, because pretty obviously U106 is "a major lineage within the Germanic group", i.e., enough of its bearers took up Germanic speech early enough to spread with the language and become closely associated with it.
You just admitted earlier in your post that it's not bogus.

lgmayka
12-03-2017, 08:38 PM
Secondly, few people "immediately and blindly pontificate" that a U106 in a non-Germanic region must be the product of modern or medieval migration. How blind is it to be familiar enough with history to know that in the past people from regions that are heavily U106 and Germanic settled at times in places that are neither, like France, Italy, Ireland, Scotland and Wales? How blind is it to know that die Völkerwanderung in the closing centuries of the Roman Period was a genuine large-scale folk movement of Germanic peoples, that it really took place?

How blind is it, for example, to think that maybe a U106 in Northern Ireland might be the descendant of an Englishman or a Lowland Scot rather than of a Bronze Age arrival, particularly given the relatively low frequency of U106 in Ireland?
Very blind. All of your sweeping generalizations are secondary to the individual's specific Big Y results and analysis. The latter must be considered primary.

It is very harmful to our field to discourage testers from ordering the Big Y by pretending we already know the answers they seek. It is even more harmful to ignore their Big Y results and analysis in order to indulge our own pretense of armchair omniscence.

rms2
12-03-2017, 08:44 PM
I'm glad that you agree with me, at least theoretically. So why are you discouraging testers by repeating vague generalizations instead of examining individual cases in detail?

Because such generalizations are useful, not to mention obvious, especially in this case.



Guessing, and then disparaging, other people's motivations is both impolite and unhelpful to our field, IMHO. We can disagree on the interpretation of results without pretending to read each other's minds.

Long experience with that particular person, who eventually became a disciple of Gioiello, convinces me that my "guess" is spot on.



Mocking other people's alleged motivations is another effective way to discourage them from testing any further.

I don't think I am mocking them, just recognizing them as painfully obvious.



You just admitted earlier in your post that it's not bogus.

No, I did not. The argument that because a y-dna haplogroup is older, even considerably older, than an ethnolinguistic group means that it cannot be closely associated with that ethnolinguistic group is bogus. As I said, all that is needed is for the bulk of that y-dna haplogroup to become speakers of the language early enough to spread with it and become closely associated with it.

rms2
12-03-2017, 08:47 PM
Very blind. All of your sweeping generalizations are secondary to the individual's specific Big Y results and analysis. The latter must be considered primary.

It is very harmful to our field to discourage testers from ordering the Big Y by pretending we already know the answers they seek. It is even more harmful to ignore their Big Y results and analysis in order to indulge our own pretense of armchair omniscence.

We disagree. I am not going to refrain from making useful inferences from the available evidence because of the supposed (and largely imaginary) ill effects such inferences might have on some future potential tester's motivation.

What is blind is ignoring the evidence that U106 is in fact a major lineage within the Germanic group.

BTW, it is not blind to interpret y-dna test results in the light of history and known migrations. To do otherwise is simply ignorant.

rms2
12-03-2017, 09:06 PM
When a person speaks of U106, he is speaking of the y-dna haplogroup as a whole and can therefore only speak generally, i.e., about what is generally true of the entire haplogroup. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

When it comes to a particular individual bearer of U106, however, such generalizations go out the window except as a useful background or rule of thumb.

For example, in the case of an Irish U106, the reasonable, informed person's initial thought is that his y-dna progenitor was probably someone who came to Ireland from a place where U106 is much more frequent, like England, especially since we know from history that the English conquered Ireland and ruled it for several centuries. If, however, the evidence indicates otherwise, so be it. Perhaps the man's y-dna ancestor came from some other source, like the Normans, Flemings, or Vikings. Or perhaps, in the most unlikely scenario, the man's U106 ancestor predated in Ireland all those much more recent immigrants. We must be open to that possibility, as well, even though the evidence is strongly against it in terms of most of the U106 in Ireland.

lgmayka
12-03-2017, 09:36 PM
When it comes to a particular individual bearer of U106, however, such generalizations go out the window except as a useful background or rule of thumb.
(Emphasis added.) We can at least agree on that.

I would go further to say that individual subclades may also have their own distinct and interesting histories. For example, R-Z18 (a.k.a. R-Z19) is rather remarkable:

- YFull's R-Z19 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/) portrays a rapid demographic and geographic expansion 3700 years ago, with singletons spread from Sardinia to Moscow. Those who typically add 10-20% to YFull's time estimates would say that the expansion occurred more than 4000 years ago.

- Ytree.net's Z18 node (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1148&star=false) shows an even more surprising list of singletons, although perhaps it's simply unfinished.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-04-2017, 07:26 AM
Doesn't pre-judging occur before the evidence comes in? Don't we have a lot of evidence now?

Do you think it likely that new evidence will overturn the idea that U106 is a major lineage in the Germanic group?

It will be interesting to see what places like the Ergolding Cave (Frankish burials) will reveal. As I recall the R1b haplotypes there were closest to R1b-U106 haplotypes. Too bad they did not do SNP testing on them. It will be interesting to see some honest-to-goodness Anglo-Saxon and Viking results from Britain, as well.

No of course not - that seems pretty obvious from the distribution however more than one wave can lap up on a beach. :) I just don't assume it's the answer to everything.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-04-2017, 08:06 AM
Glad to see some discussion on U106... since it's still a bit of a mystery ;-).

Let us look at the Ancient DNA samples to date. We have Lilla Beddinge R1b-U106 Allentoft+ 2015 2275-2032 BC Battle Axe / Nordic Late Neolithic. Now we have an Early Bronze Age tumulus skeleton from West Frisia positive for U106 (any progress on any subclades for that sample yet?) aka the R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC from the Bell Beaker paper, but buried in a different manner to the earlier Bell Beaker samples. Perhaps an intrusive population? My question is where is all of the U106 hiding (somewhere in the North around the Baltic?)... it seems interesting to me that the two earliest samples of ancient U106 are both right near the sea ;-). Can't get much closer than where it was found in Sweden and West Frisia? Then you have the two U106 samples of the Driffield Terrace boys... 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 (I am still not 100% convinced they were ALL gladiators - perhaps soldiers or tribal fighting? Certainly their martial history is quite apparent though - they are quite similar stress marker and trauma wise to several other sample groups such as the Towton soldiers, some of the Visby skeletons, and even those Lombard/Longobardi males who were buried with weapons etc you can compare all the non-metric traits) and it's interesting that they were both Z156 (3drif-16 being DF96 and L1 and 6drif-3 being DF98 brother clade to DF96 and S1911 etc) so where they from the same tribe? Certainly a shared culture/tribal background along their paternal line...

At the end of the day we need more ancient DNA samples from all over... and especially for DF96 and DF98 in the Low Countries and along the Rhine. There is a study with a lot of Dutch ancient DNA from the 12th (I think?) century and on wards that is underway... I'd love to know how much Z156 is found in that group (if they even tested for it)...

And what explains the large amount of U106 in the Netherlands today? That is why the ancient DNA through stages of history (from 12th cent and on wards for that one study) is important so you can compare the overall percentage at different stages in history! Some Roman era stuff from the Low Countries and Netherlands would be great if there is any!

Also off the top of your heads - what do you make of the DF98 map Iain McDonald maintains? 20218

Cheers!

I think you make a good point - the Anglo Saxons didn't invent boats and neither did the Romans. I'm not 100% convinced by the gladiator theory either but it would fit with the presumption that there was little or no U106 in Britain before the Romans. "They can't possibly be "locals" because they are U106". Could their recent ancestors have been Roman imports? - of course they could but it's not the only possibility I don't think so anyway.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-04-2017, 08:11 AM
(Emphasis added.) We can at least agree on that.

I would go further to say that individual subclades may also have their own distinct and interesting histories. For example, R-Z18 (a.k.a. R-Z19) is rather remarkable:

- YFull's R-Z19 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/) portrays a rapid demographic and geographic expansion 3700 years ago, with singletons spread from Sardinia to Moscow. Those who typically add 10-20% to YFull's time estimates would say that the expansion occurred more than 4000 years ago.

- Ytree.net's Z18 node (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1148&star=false) shows an even more surprising list of singletons, although perhaps it's simply unfinished.

Excellent point and this thread was about Z326 not U106 as a whole.

Wing Genealogist
12-04-2017, 12:54 PM
(Emphasis added.) [snip].... For example, R-Z18 (a.k.a. R-Z19) is rather remarkable:

- YFull's R-Z19 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/) portrays a rapid demographic and geographic expansion 3700 years ago, with singletons spread from Sardinia to Moscow. Those who typically add 10-20% to YFull's time estimates would say that the expansion occurred more than 4000 years ago.

- Ytree.net's Z18 node (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1148&star=false) shows an even more surprising list of singletons, although perhaps it's simply unfinished.

The U106 tree https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing shows 7 subclades of Z18. In addition, Iain's tree structure http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html shows a rough timeline of formation for the clades.

Even Iain would say to take the estimated dates of formation for the various clades with a grain of salt, but it does give us a place to start.

lgmayka
12-04-2017, 02:29 PM
The U106 tree https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing shows 7 subclades of Z18.
Plus 4 singletons, one of them from Sardinia. If you can tell me: Is the Muscovite (YF08784) on your haplotree? If so, as a singleton or in a subclade?


In addition, Iain's tree structure http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html shows a rough timeline of formation for the clades.
Excellent! His timeline shows that R-Z18 underwent a major expansion around 2400 BC--a couple millennia before Proto-Germanic and even long before the Nordic Bronze Age.

rms2
12-04-2017, 03:32 PM
I think you make a good point - the Anglo Saxons didn't event boats and neither did the Romans. I'm not 100% convinced by the gladiator theory either but it would fit with the presumption that there was little or no U106 in Britain before the Romans. "They can't possibly be "locals" because they are U106". Could their recent ancestors have been Roman imports? - of course they could but it's not the only possibility I don't think so anyway.

I guess there was that presumption before the evidence began to come in. No one can say (yet) there was no U106 in Britain before the Romans; there might have been some, but it is looking less and less likely that there could have been much.

As I mentioned before, no U106 turned up in the British Neolithic, Bell Beaker or Bronze Age samples from Olalde et al, and the Iron Age Hinxton Celts were not U106, although they came from SE England, today the heartland of British U106.



Excellent point and this thread was about Z326 not U106 as a whole.

True. Since it's not about U106 as a whole and not about whether or not U106 should be regarded as primarily representing Germanic ancestry, I'll leave you all to it. It's your y-dna haplogroup. Believe what you will.

rms2
12-04-2017, 04:12 PM
. . .

Excellent! His timeline shows that R-Z18 underwent a major expansion around 2400 BC--a couple millennia before Proto-Germanic and even long before the Nordic Bronze Age.

I don't want to become embroiled in an argument about Z18/Z19. I don't care enough to research all its particulars, but, as I mentioned a couple of times already, even if a y-dna haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than a language, all that is needed is for enough members of that haplogroup or subclade to adopt the language early enough to spread with it, so that they become closely associated with it.

Here's another thing. I took a quick glance at Z19/Z18 in YFull's tree, expecting some big exception to the "U106 is a major lineage within the Germanic group" rule. What I found, however, was anything but that. I'm not going to count the little flags, but it looks to me like members of Z19/Z18 who aren't Scandinavian (especially Swedish) are rather the exception.

Here are some screenshots I had to break up to fit in Paint so that the characters would still be large enough to be legible. I numbered them.

20242 20243

Wing Genealogist
12-05-2017, 12:59 AM
Plus 4 singletons, one of them from Sardinia. If you can tell me: Is the Muscovite (YF08784) on your haplotree? If so, as a singleton or in a subclade?

Excellent! His timeline shows that R-Z18 underwent a major expansion around 2400 BC--a couple millennia before Proto-Germanic and even long before the Nordic Bronze Age.

It is likely the majority of results at YFull are from Big Y results (rather than results from FGC or YSEQ). The Big Y does have some "holes" in it, and some of these holes affect Z18. For instance, Z17 is the largest subclade of Z18, but it does not appear in Big Y results.

In addition, due to the rather limited number of Z18+ results, YFull is not able to define some of the smaller clades below Z18 (such as ZP156, A6915, S7047 & Z2396). The same is true of Z17, where either the Big Y test did not cover the area where some of the Z17 subclades are found, or there are not YFull results to properly define all of the currently known subclades of Z17.

I believe most (if not all) of the "singletons" YFull listed fall into one of the above situations. I am aware of two subclades of Z18 which cannot currently be placed, but both of them (L653 & an Indel L325) are due to the fact they were found during FTDNA's "Walk (through) the Y" experimental testing, and have not done any true NGS testing to properly identify where they fall below Z18.

Agamemnon
12-05-2017, 02:20 AM
There are at least two other lineages which are bound to have been major markers among the earliest Germanic-speaking communities, namely I1-M253 and R1a-Z284. There are also several other, less prominent markers (in terms of overall frequency) that seem to be genuinely linked to the earliest Germanic dispersals, lineages such as R1a-L664, some branches of I2a-M223 or even branches of R1b-P312 like DF99 and L238. One could even tentatively argue that some branches of DF27 and U152 might've had a role in the aforementioned dispersals.

All in all, there is no single Germanic marker, all the more so because the breakup of Common Germanic admittedly is quite recent.

Mykellos
12-05-2017, 08:09 AM
Bumping this thread, I received my Big-Y results. It turns out I belong the subclade A5869. I asked McDonald about it's historical background etc.

Well I can certainly give you what information I can on R-A5869, but I'm afraid it's not a lot more than you've already said. As with all these small clades, we're limited in what we can say by the small number of people who we know are in them.

In broader terms, R-Z326 is very closely associable with modern Germany, and perhaps regions immediately bordering it to the east. It originates some time during the second millennium BC, likely somewhere close to the middle of it. That combination of place and date matches with the Tumulus culture, so we may expect some association with their descendants. There are a lot of British diaspora who are R-Z326 as well, but this is probably due to two factors: (1) a bias towards testing British diaspora due to the large number of Americans who test; and (2) successive waves of people from Germany and its surroundings to the British Isles (e.g. the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Flemish, etc.)

R-Z326>A5016 formed shortly after Z326 itself. We have 34 members in the project. They concentrate in Germany, but there is a small but significant Polish population too. Individuals are spread from the Netherlands to Estonia, from Sweden to Serbia, reflecting over 3000 years of migration. Again, there is a strong British component because of these migrations.

R-A5016>S3980 is much younger, probably from around the middle of the first millennium BC. We have 24 members in the project. They have a marginally more northern distribution, but it's not clear if this is significant. Aside from the Brits, most are German or "Prussian", with some Swedish and an Estonian in there. At this point in history (circa 700 BC), the Germanic peoples were coming down from Scandinavia and starting to settle these regions. It may be that your family was co-opted into one of these early Germanic tribes.

R-S3980>A5869 is younger again, probably a little under 2000 years old. There are 15 members in our project. They show the same distribution as S3980, on the south shores of the Baltic Sea and into Sweden. The possible range of dates I have for A5869 corresponds well to the period of the Roman Empire.

Well, I thank you, Radboud, for prying more detailed historical information out of Mr McDonald....as my bigY Result this week was R-S3980, and given I am not particularly knowledgeable about what happened in that period of history, I was wondering "what does it all mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!?"

lgmayka
12-05-2017, 09:33 PM
Here's another thing. I took a quick glance at Z19/Z18 in YFull's tree, expecting some big exception to the "U106 is a major lineage within the Germanic group" rule. What I found, however, was anything but that. I'm not going to count the little flags, but it looks to me like members of Z19/Z18 who aren't Scandinavian (especially Swedish) are rather the exception.
You missed my point. I was specifically referring to the time period and geographical extent of the initial expansion of Z19/Z18. For this purpose, each singleton and direct subclade counts equally--a very prolific subclade does not carry any greater weight than a singleton.

lgmayka
12-05-2017, 09:41 PM
For instance, Z17 is the largest subclade of Z18, but it does not appear in Big Y results.
Are you certain of that, based on BAM files? That is not how YFull portrays the situation.

Here again is YFull's R-Z19/Z18 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/), and here is YFull's R-Z372/Z17 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z372/). The Z19 singletons are specifically labeled as R-Z19* (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19*/), whereas--in YFull's convention--a no-call on a direct subclade should place the entry directly at R-Z19.

If you have examined the BAM files--including those of the Sardinian and the Muscovite--and assert that they contain no Z17 or Z372 calls, I can ask YFull to correct the placement of these entries on their haplotree.

Cofgene
12-05-2017, 09:56 PM
Are you certain of that, based on BAM files? That is not how YFull portrays the situation.

Here again is YFull's R-Z19/Z18 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/), and here is YFull's R-Z372/Z17 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z372/). The Z19 singletons are specifically labeled as R-Z19* (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19*/), whereas--in YFull's convention--a no-call on a direct subclade should place the entry directly at R-Z19.

If you have examined the BAM files--including those of the Sardinian and the Muscovite--and assert that they contain no Z17 or Z372 calls, I can ask YFull to correct the placement of these entries on their haplotree.

And you just pointed out the limitation of YFull. They don't have results available to them from other tests. Why so hip on Yfull and BAM being the reference state?

lgmayka
12-05-2017, 10:12 PM
And you just pointed out the limitation of YFull. They don't have results available to them from other tests. Why so hip on Yfull and BAM being the reference state?
Are you saying that you have other relevant test results (SNP pack? Yseq?) for the Muscovite entry? If so, please ask the owner to report those to YFull, in order to correct his placement.

You presumably have no such additional results for the Sardinian ERS257002, who is an academic sample. To which subclade do you have evidence he belongs? Or have you verified, via BAM file, that he is a no-call at both Z17 and Z372 ? Or do you have more detailed results from another Sardinian who appears to belong to the same Y-STR cluster?

Contrary to common belief, YFull is willing to take other evidenced test results into account on a case-by-case basis. For example, YFull moved E-Z19851 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z19851/) under Z5017 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z5017/)after I pointed out that three FTDNA kits had tested Z19851+ Z5017+ via SNP pack.

Wing Genealogist
12-06-2017, 12:02 AM
Are you certain of that, based on BAM files? That is not how YFull portrays the situation.

Here again is YFull's R-Z19/Z18 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/), and here is YFull's R-Z372/Z17 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z372/). The Z19 singletons are specifically labeled as R-Z19* (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z19*/), whereas--in YFull's convention--a no-call on a direct subclade should place the entry directly at R-Z19.

If you have examined the BAM files--including those of the Sardinian and the Muscovite--and assert that they contain no Z17 or Z372 calls, I can ask YFull to correct the placement of these entries on their haplotree.

I don't have any expertise in reading BAM files. In addition, I don't have access to the data from YFull (I can only see what they report on their Y-tree), but I do have access to the data from Full Genomes. Full Genomes has analyzed the Big Y results of five Z17+ individuals as well as two Y-Elite tests and a NGS test by YSeq. None of the five Big Y results had any calls for Z17 (but all five had calls for Z17 subclades). Z17 did show up in the other three testers results.

As far as I am aware, Neither the Muscovite or the Sardinian have results in the U106 Project at FTDNA. The IT system at FTDNA leaves something to be desired, and I cannot access the Project membership GAP list in order to determine whether an YFull individual is in the FTDNA U106 Project or not.

lgmayka
12-06-2017, 12:24 AM
None of the five Big Y results had any calls for Z17 (but all five had calls for Z17 subclades).
Thank you. Did any of them have a result for Z372 (a.k.a. S375), which--according to YFull's tree (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z372/)--is at the same level as Z17 ?

EDIT: I now see that the U106 project tree has Z372 downstream from Z17; and in fact, Z17 has 6 additional rare subclades besides Z372. This explains many of the tree differences.

So let's say, hypothetically, that the Sardinian and Muscovite are actually R-Z17* (with Z17+ undetected by the Big Y). This displaces the basic question only a little. According to McDonald's timeline (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html), R-Z17 began to expand roughly 4000 years ago--still well before Proto-Germanic, or even the Nordic Bronze Age. This still implies a wide expansion prior to the applicability of the simplistic U106=Germanic story.

Wing Genealogist
12-06-2017, 12:59 AM
While U106 (and all of its top-level subclades), Z381 (and its top-level subclades) & Z18 (and its top-level subclades) are all considerably older than the Nordic Bronze age, it does appear that even as late as the Proto-Germanic era many of the U106+ folks still lived in areas falling under Proto-Germanic. Undoubtedly, some U106+ folks lived outside of this area of influence, but it appears a large portion were still within this sphere.

I say this due to the fact U106 is a major haplogroup in the Germanic areas, but is only a very minor haplogroup (if present at all) outside of Germanic areas. Many of the U106+ folks found in Eastern Europe appear to be relatively recent immigration (such as the "Ivanhoe" cluster below L47>Z159).

Agamemnon
12-06-2017, 01:41 AM
Doesn't the "Ivanhoe" cluster comprise several Jewish branches?

Wing Genealogist
12-06-2017, 05:25 AM
Doesn't the "Ivanhoe" cluster comprise several Jewish branches?

Yes it does, but it also is very closely related to a cluster of folks in England. But to date, not to anyone on Continental Western Europe. This is a major reason why it is considered to have arrived in Eastern Europe relatively late.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
12-06-2017, 08:34 AM
Yes it does, but it also is very closely related to a cluster of folks in England. But to date, not to anyone on Continental Western Europe. This is a major reason why it is considered to have arrived in Eastern Europe relatively late.

Curious. Would it be fair to say there are big holes as far as testing goes in parts of Europe, France in particular - Iberia? Maybe I've misunderstood. If there is a "big hole" in France and gaps in other places, that's a substantial part of Western Europe. I'm not saying that suggests anything but it would be nice to know what is there.

Wing Genealogist
12-06-2017, 11:20 AM
Curious. Would it be fair to say there are big holes as far as testing goes in parts of Europe, France in particular - Iberia? Maybe I've misunderstood. If there is a "big hole" in France and gaps in other places, that's a substantial part of Western Europe. I'm not saying that suggests anything but it would be nice to know what is there.

In this particular case, the "big hole" I am referring to is the fact the Ivanhoe cluster apparently emigrated from England to Eastern Europe and was never in Western Europe. This is also the reason why it was called the Ivanhoe cluster (named after Walter Scott's novel linking England and the Jews).

lgmayka
12-06-2017, 02:56 PM
Many of the U106+ folks found in Eastern Europe appear to be relatively recent immigration (such as the "Ivanhoe" cluster below L47>Z159).
In your statement, I assume that "relatively recent" means "within the last 2000 years." I agree with you that much--perhaps the majority--of R-U106 in Poland arrived within the last 2000 years. For example, McDonald's timeline dates the expansion of R-Z17913 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y6453/) to 700 AD. In his depction, though, it begins to diverge from R-Z17297 in the first century AD.

On the other hand, R-L257, a subclade of R-Z372, began to expand about 1250 BC, according to McDonald. YFull's R-L257 haplotree shows three subclades, each of which is present east or southeast of the Baltic Sea:
- YF03769 of Smolensk (Russia, near the Belarusian border) diverged from its R-Y18499 brethren about 2300 years ago, according to YFull
- YF04574 of Lithuania diverged from its R-Y18550 brothers roughly 1500 years ago in YFull's reckoning
- YF03781 of Estonia diverged from the rest of R-Z375 about 2100 years ago according to YFull, or about 500 BC on McDonald's timeline (which calls the clade Z8190).