PDA

View Full Version : R1b and the Atlantic Bronze Age ..a regional archaeogenetic model



Net Down G5L
11-22-2016, 06:14 PM
The Late Atlantic Bronze Age - an interplay between L21(with DF27) and U152?

Some months ago I "published"* online a regional archaeogenetic model for the south of England. It contains a high level/simplified explanation for the Atlantic Bronze Age based around the expansion of DF27, L21 and U152 - and the interplay between them. While we wait...and wait....for more regional/isles aDNA I would like to see if anyone would like to engage in a discussion about the "end" of the Atlantic Bronze Age.

I have modelled it as L21 male line dominated tribes (in the Isles, lower Rhine and Flanders/Normandy/Brittany)manufacturing and trading bronze with U152 dominated male line tribes in continental France into the Alps (Urnfield RSFO culture).
I hypothesise that the expansion of the RSFO culture drove tribes out of the Lower Rhine and into southern England in the late Bronze Age (characterised by large round houses, bronze watery deposition and linear land divisions).
I further hypothesise that the RSFO (U152) culture took over land in Normandy and migrated into Wessex (characterised by black earth midden 'settlements' with All Cannings Cross style haematite ware pottery and deposition of hoards of Bronze Axes. This could be seen as the introduction of the Iron Age into Britain and is sometimes called the' Iron Age Transition'.
The idea of a migration starting the Iron Age in the Isles has been out of fashion for decades. However, I believe archaeology and DNA evidence are increasingly pointing towards a migratory event.

For more detail of my hypothesis/model see:
http://purbecksociety.co.uk/assets/V10-papers-read-before-the-purbeck-society-review-2016-1.pdf
Pages 65-69 contain the relevant Late Bronze Age - Iron Age Transition sections of my archaeogenetic model.

*The "published" material is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is simply a 160th anniversary presentation I made to the Purbeck Society in 2015. In the tradition started 160 years ago, the presentation was written up 'for the record'. I added a simplified archaeogenetic model for southern England to show how I had come to my predictions linking landscapes to Y DNA types. NOTE that the lecture was presented to an audience with zero knowledge of modern or aDNA and very little archaeology knowledge. It was not designed to be presented to knowledgeable people on this forum. However, I believe that the appended 'simplified regional archaeogenetic model' has value and will be of interest to some on this forum (who may also be interested in the information it contains about my site at Worth Matravers - detail to be published in 2017 as a Dorset Museum monograph). It is well referenced with aDNA and archaeology sources. It can be used as a hypothesis to be tested with aDNA from samples in the region.

Net Down G5L
11-23-2016, 07:57 AM
I developed my archaeogenetic model to try and look at the bigger picture to explain the changes in archaeology/landscape archaeology on/around my site at Worth Matravers. I am not aware of any other attempts to produce a sub-regional archaeogenetic model and to apply it to explaining local changes in archaeology/landscape archaeology.

I am sure there must be others out there. Can any one point me to them as I would like to compare approaches / learn from other methods?

A Norfolk L-M20
11-23-2016, 12:04 PM
Looking forward to seeing this discussion develop. Although I'm not well versed in R1b, I am a long term fan of British late prehistory. I certainly agree that there are grounds for a number of presently unidentified immigration events into Southern Britain during late prehistory.

rms2
11-23-2016, 01:44 PM
Nice work. It will take some time to read through all of it, but I do respectfully quibble with your map on page 62, which shows L21 and DF27 Bell Beaker coming to Ireland and then Britain via Armorica, "with links to Iberia". That may be right for DF27, but not for L21. I think the bulk of the Bell Beaker in Britain and Ireland was L21 and came to Britain first, probably from the Rhine delta, and went to Ireland from Britain. I doubt much U152 arrived in Britain that early. It came later. If much U152 had come to Britain as early as the Bronze Age, it would be more extensive and widespread in Britain and Ireland than it currently is, unless it experienced some sort of drastic setback.

razyn
11-23-2016, 02:57 PM
I concur in the opinion of rms2 that your reliance on Eupedia maps of modern DF27 distribution (after at least 4,000 years of diffusion, including some migration and a lot of begetting) has led you into some commonly held misconceptions. Not that there are necessarily better maps than Maciamo's available; his just are not mapping ancient distributions.

The only aDNA yet found that is positively identified as DF27+ is sample I0806, from a Bell Beaker grave in a Corded Ware area at Quedlinburg (Elbe river valley) Germany. Autosomally he looks very similar to his earliest U152 (close) cousin, further south but also in present Germany. That is to say, both look like recent (in generations) arrivals from the east, not the southwest.

MitchellSince1893
11-23-2016, 03:46 PM
FWIW I created a couple of maps based on FTDNA project data comparing DF27 to U152 in England. At the time the overall totals for U152 (114 samples) and DF27 (109 samples) in England were very similar in size so it seemed like a worthwhile comparison.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/2a/a5/ff2aa5c04d9c90b579a0b0255cc35134.png
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d3/1c/a6/d31ca6ffd474b01072b00a9aac48dd3b.png

DF27 seems more prevalent along English Channel while U152 is stronger along North Sea coast.

I've wondered if this may indicate their primary Bronze/Iron Age source of entry. I.e DF27 from Normandy and Brittany and U152 from further east.

Dewsloth
11-23-2016, 05:23 PM
Subscribed :)
Interesting thread. At some point DF19 crosses the Channel, too. I don't know of any Bronze Age presence, there, but if any turns up...

Net Down G5L
11-23-2016, 06:49 PM
I concur in the opinion of rms2 that your reliance on Eupedia maps of modern DF27 distribution (after at least 4,000 years of diffusion, including some migration and a lot of begetting) has led you into some commonly held misconceptions. Not that there are necessarily better maps than Maciamo's available; his just are not mapping ancient distributions.

The only aDNA yet found that is positively identified as DF27+ is sample I0806, from a Bell Beaker grave in a Corded Ware area at Quedlinburg (Elbe river valley) Germany. Autosomally he looks very similar to his earliest U152 (close) cousin, further south but also in present Germany. That is to say, both look like recent (in generations) arrivals from the east, not the southwest.

Thanks for the comments that are much appreciated. I should stress that if you look at the appendix table they contain some of the most important evidence I base my hypothesis on. Most of the evidence is referenced and it is archaeology publications (and some yet to be published) and ancient DNA publications. I do find the modern DNA maps useful but as you will see from the referenced evidence, the modern DNA is secondary importance to the primary evidence - archaeology and ancient DNA.

And it is what it is.... a best guess hypothesis...on the archaeology and aDNA evidence that I have found / understand (and I do not pretend to fully understand everything I have sourced).

MitchellSince1893
11-23-2016, 07:23 PM
Something that stood out to me in my ftdna Y dna study of England was the paucity of U152 in the old Belgae civilitas in and around present day Hampshire and Wiltshire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_Celtic_tribes_-_South.svg

I was left with 4 options.

1. U152 was mostly pushed out of this area in the last 2000 years.
2. Later arrivals eradicated most U152 in this area.
3. U152 wasn't that common among the Belgae.
4. Some combination of the 3 above.

Thus I admit a bias that makes me hesitant to give U152 a prominent role in this area of England.

Also I think Amesbury Archer may be too old to be U152...but I could be wrong. At 2300 BC he would have to be in one of the 1st few generations of U152 men (Yfull dates U152 at 2650 BC). While possible, I think the odds are against it.

Overall I commend you on your work. It graphically demonstrates the complexity of the story.

Net Down G5L
11-23-2016, 07:36 PM
Nice work. It will take some time to read through all of it, but I do respectfully quibble with your map on page 62, which shows L21 and DF27 Bell Beaker coming to Ireland and then Britain via Armorica, "with links to Iberia". That may be right for DF27, but not for L21. I think the bulk of the Bell Beaker in Britain and Ireland was L21 and came to Britain first, probably from the Rhine delta, and went to Ireland from Britain. I doubt much U152 arrived in Britain that early. It came later. If much U152 had come to Britain as early as the Bronze Age, it would be more extensive and widespread in Britain and Ireland than it currently is, unless it experienced some sort of drastic setback.

Yes, we do need much more aDNA evidence before we can turn our best guesses into something more solid. I stated at the start of the Beaker section that it was simply based on archaeology evidence from Clarke 1970 (simple basic honest interpretation of Beaker pottery) and was waiting the Beaker aDNA papers for a thorough update. Ref page 61 "(NB. Route of R1b to source area of Beaker - awaiting imminent release of Beaker aDNA papers. However, the recent release of autosomal data from a Chalcolithic male from Armenia (sample Areni-1 about 4000 BC male DNA L1a Lazaridis et al 2016) shows a significant shift towards modern European autosomal DNA. This indicates a movement of people out of the Steppe and that could include the line R1b M269.)"

We do have L21 / DF21 in Ireland in the Early Bronze Age and we do have U152 in Germany (referenced in the model). We know from archaeology evidence (referenced in model) that there is a zone of interaction or conflict in Scotland and also a zone of interaction or conflict in Wessex. So on the basis of the aDNA evidence available the simple conclusion is (in broad terms) interaction/conflict between L21 in the west and U152 to the East. Of course that does not guarantee it is a correct hypothesis as it could be conflict between different L21 tribes or very many other scenarios you could suggest. But if we are led by aDNA it seems to me the simplist explanation.

I suggested that discussion could be on the late Bronze age / Iron Age Transition because I think that same interaction/conflict could still be occuring 1000 years later and could be the 'explanation' behind the complex archaeology of the late Atlantic Bronze Age. It is also possibly a less 'emotive' period to discuss - the downside being it is more difficult to source good archaeology evidence and there is pretty much a void in the regfional aDNA evidence.

Of course it (my model) is all (self) educated guesswork until we get ancient DNA evidence. But then that is our hobby, is it not. Trying to guess the results before the academics tell us the evidence and the story (which of course we will quibble with).

I am also interested in the possibility of citizen scientists contributing directly to the development of that story - as I see real possibilities for collaboration. We have some hugely talanted and dedicated expert citizen scientists developing the Y haplotree and also pushing the bounds of autosomal analysis.

Net Down G5L
11-23-2016, 08:14 PM
Something that stood out to me in my ftdna Y dna study of England was the paucity of U152 in the old Belgae civilitas in and around present day Hampshire and Wiltshire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_Celtic_tribes_-_South.svg

I was left with 4 options.

1. U152 was mostly pushed out of this area in the last 2000 years.
2. Later arrivals eradicated most U152 in this area.
3. U152 wasn't that common among the Belgae.
4. Some combination of the 3 above.

Thus I admit a bias that makes me hesitant to give U152 a prominent role in this area of England.

Also I think Amesbury Archer may be too old to be U152...but I could be wrong. At 2300 BC he would have to be in one of the 1st few generations of U152 men (Yfull dates U152 at 2650 BC). While possible, I think the odds are against it.

Overall I commend you on your work. It graphically demonstrates the complexity of the story.

Thanks for your interesting comments / information.

As per your suggestion, I too came to the conclusion that U152 "wasn't that common among the Belgae". However, I do predict that the Belgae pretty much replaced the previous male population. I think a similar situation occured with the Durotriges. Since I wrote the paper I have had some exchanges with a prominent academic who is researching this topic and it seems likely that ongoing research in France and England will show that there was a mass migration of Durotriges from the Cherbourg peninsula to Dorset - a probable retreat from Roman advance.

rms2
11-23-2016, 10:24 PM
Recall that the Hinxton Celts, although of Iron Age provenance, were both L21 and not U152. They were recovered in what is now SE England.

I just don't think U152 was there, at least not much, in the Bronze Age to get involved in a conflict with L21.

At some point, too, as I recall, you mention U152 coming up and pushing L21 out of what is now Normandy. I used to run the Normandy Y-DNA Project, and I can tell you that L21 was the most common y haplogroup in it, with U152 far less frequent.

Agamemnon
11-23-2016, 10:43 PM
I certainly think we'll find U152 in the Iceni, that's the most convincing explanation for the local peak in East Anglia.

Power77
11-23-2016, 10:54 PM
I certainly think we'll find U152 in the Iceni, that's the most convincing explanation for the local peak in East Anglia.

Is it just me or Britain was basically a "pan-R1b" area in the Bronze/Iron Age:eek:?

Net Down G5L
11-23-2016, 11:36 PM
Recall that the Hinxton Celts, although of Iron Age provenance, were both L21 and not U152. They were recovered in what is now SE England.

I just don't think U152 was there, at least not much, in the Bronze Age to get involved in a conflict with L21.

At some point, too, as I recall, you mention U152 coming up and pushing L21 out of what is now Normandy. I used to run the Normandy Y-DNA Project, and I can tell you that L21 was the most common y haplogroup in it, with U152 far less frequent.

There we are back to the problem of using modern DNA rather than relying on archaeology and ancient DNA.

I see a U152 'incursion' through Normandy into the Isles at the end of the Bronze Age - that being the maximum expansion of the RSFO culture. I cite the archaeology evidence to support the migration. We lack any ancient DNA evidence so my model relies on Alpine Urnfield/RSFO being U152 dominated. This 'brief' incursion saw them dominating central southern England - much of Wessex, Vale of Pewsey etc (ref black earth midden sites etc) for hundreds of years.
This group was however, pretty much totally replaced (male line) by later migrations including the Belgae and Durotriges.

I see a number of almost total replacements of Y DNA in southern England between the Neolithic and Saxon Periods.

So no, current DNA is not a good indicator of what may have ben in place in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Early, Late bronze Age, Early, mid, late Iron Age etc.

There may have been very many (double figures) almost complete replacements of male lineages in southern England from the Mesolithic to the present.

That is essentially what my model suggests..... and it also tries to identify the different groups impacts on the landscape archaeology of the sub-region.

rms2
11-23-2016, 11:37 PM
Is it just me or Britain was basically a "pan-R1b" area in the Bronze/Iron Age:eek:?

No. I think it was by far mostly L21, with some DF27 and U152 here and there. I think most of the DF27 and U152 arrived later, perhaps with La Tene Celts, the Belgae, and then with the Romans.

By far most of the U106 arrived with the Anglo-Saxons.

rms2
11-23-2016, 11:39 PM
There we are back to the problem of using modern DNA rather than relying on archaeology and ancient DNA.

I see a U152 'incursion' through Normandy into the Isles at the end of the Bronze Age - that being the maximum expansion of the RSFO culture. I cite the archaeology evidence to support the migration. We lack any ancient DNA evidence so my model relies on Alpine Urnfield/RSFO being U152 dominated. This 'brief' incursion saw them dominating central southern England - much of Wessex, Vale of Pewsey etc (ref black earth midden sites etc) for hundreds of years.
This group was however, pretty much totally replaced (male line) by later migrations including the Belgae and Durotriges.

I see a number of almost total replacements of Y DNA in southern England between the Neolithic and Saxon Periods.

So no, current DNA is not a good indicator of what may have ben in place in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Early, Late bronze Age, Early, mid, late Iron Age etc.

There may have been very many (double figures) almost complete replacements of male lineages in southern England from the Mesolithic to the present.

That is essentially what my model suggests..... and it also tries to identify the different groups impacts on the landscape archaeology of the sub-region.

Archaeology is apparently a matter of interpretation; in this case you are doing the interpreting, but I agree about ancient DNA. It doesn't lend much support to what you are suggesting.

MitchellSince1893
11-23-2016, 11:40 PM
I certainly think we'll find U152 in the Iceni, that's the most convincing explanation for the local peak in East Anglia.

I was getting ready to make the very same comment.

I posted this before but here it is again


the Iceni (or Eceni) were a Celtic tribe based in what is now Norfolk, north-western Suffolk and eastern Cambridgeshire. They may also be identified with the tribe of the Cenimagni ('Ceni' or Iceni and 'magni', 'great'), who sided with Caesar during his invasion of 54 BC, perhaps signalling the beginnings of the Iceni's pro-Roman policy. Like their neighbours, they were probably a Belgic tribe from the North Sea or Baltics, part of the third wave of Celtic settlers in Britain. (See the map of most of Europe's tribes around the first centuries BC and AD to view the tribe's location in relation to all other Celts.)

However, the Iceni are also linked to the La Tène period in Europe, thanks to the work of Hawkes (1931) and Childe (1940), both of whom are cited by Jones (1997). He noted that Childe interpreted the burials and stray objects regarded as characteristic of the La Tène tradition in East Anglia as the culture of 'Marnian Chieftains' (Celts from the River Marne region) who established control of the 'Halstatt peasantry' and later founded the Iceni tribe. This would be typical of a late-arriving and more advanced Celtic group who established a new ruling elite over an existing body of earlier Celts.
Source http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLi...itainIceni.htm http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5802-U152-numbers-and-percentages-in-Britain&p=128266&viewfull=1#post128266

I find the possible connection to the Marne region of interest as U152 is presently quite high in this region.

GoldenHind
11-23-2016, 11:51 PM
No. I think it was by far mostly L21, with some DF27 and U152 here and there. I think most of the DF27 and U152 arrived later, perhaps with La Tene Celts, the Belgae, and then with the Romans.

By far most of the U106 arrived with the Anglo-Saxons.

I wouldn't disagree with either of those statements.

However I suspect the Anglo-Saxons also included at least some amount of L21, DF27 and U152. I also strongly suspect that most of DF19 and DF99 only arrived in Britain with the Anglo-Saxons, and L238 only with the Vikings, though I don't think some presence in Britain of all three before the Anglo-Saxons can be ruled out at this point.

rms2
11-23-2016, 11:55 PM
I wouldn't disagree with either of those statements.

However I suspect the Anglo-Saxons also included at least some amount of L21, DF27 and U152. I also strongly suspect that most of DF19 and DF99 only arrived in Britain with the Anglo-Saxons, and L238 only with the Vikings, though I don't think some presence in Britain of all three before the Anglo-Saxons can be ruled out at this point.

I agree with that, although I don't think there was much L21 among the Anglo-Saxons (some, maybe).

Net Down G5L
11-24-2016, 12:12 AM
Is it just me or Britain was basically a "pan-R1b" area in the Bronze/Iron Age:eek:?

On a global scale Britain is tiny. However, in terms of archaeology there are definate sub regional patterns in the archaeology (and hence probably the aDNA). Historically archaeologists recognised migrations into southern England. However, when these migrations could not be recognised in other areas the whole notion of migrations was rejected for the best part of 50 years. Now, I think all on this forum, agree the importance of migrational events and we are seeking to identify and understand them.

So, for example, the late Bronze Age RSFO incursion I hypothesise probably did not get much further north than the Vale of Pewsey or much further west than Cadbury Castle. Taking the Isles as a whole - we are looking at a relatively short lived incursion in to a very small part of the Isles. However, I believe it had a very significant impact on the archaeology and landscape of that area - and that it is still possible to see remnant farming and territory division features in the landscape - including the earliest uni-vallate hillforts. The middens, pottery and metalwork lie beneath some of those features - including at my site at Worth Matravers. It is just one layer in the palimpsest - but is still there to see.

I do not pretend my model addresses the complexity of the whole of the Isles from Mesolithic to present day. Trying to understand central southern England in some detail for that time period is is more than enough for me. The whole of the Isles certainly has a very complex R1b (and beyond) story to tell.
[I am merely looking at the bigger picture in more general terms to try and understand the detail of a specific sub-region.]

Net Down G5L
11-24-2016, 12:38 AM
Archaeology is apparently a matter of interpretation; in this case you are doing the interpreting, but I agree about ancient DNA. It doesn't lend much support to what you are suggesting.

Yes I agree. My model/hypothesis is my interpretation.
Yes, its a hypothesis because there is not yet the aDNA to disprove it or support it.
I thought I had made all this very clear in the intro and throughout the paper.

My interpretation is very radically different to the academic paradigm that dominated Britsh archaeology for the latter part of the last century and it is shaped by the major aDNA published studies of the last few years (many referenced in the model).

My model may be totally wrong. I hope some of it will be correct but I will refine my model and my ideas as new archaeology and aDNA evidence becomes available.

If some turns out to be correct, then that will likely be due to what I have learned from other citizen scientists on this and other similar fora.
Edit: And I should also specifically mention Jean who has been brave enough to publish her excellent books when it would be easy to wait and wait for more evidence and certainty.


N. B. I happen to think that - in future times - all multi-period archaeology sites should be supported by an archaeogenetic model, as many sites will have had significant changes in population/culture over time.

GoldenHind
11-24-2016, 12:44 AM
I agree with that, although I don't think there was much L21 among the Anglo-Saxons (some, maybe).

My guess is that not all of the Rhenish Beakers went to Britain. I think some stayed home and some went to Scandinavia, and both were absorbed into the Jastorf culture at an early date, and eventually developed into the early Germanic people. I think some of the eastern Beakers, who settled in what is now northern Poland, and some of the Hallstatt Celts (as JeanM maintains) were absorbed into the Jastorf culture as well. I am hopeful the Beaker aDNA we are waiting for will shed some light on all this.

rms2
11-24-2016, 01:39 AM
My guess is that not all of the Rhenish Beakers went to Britain. I think some stayed home and some went to Scandinavia, and both were absorbed into the Jastorf culture at an early date, and eventually developed into the early Germanic people. I think some of the eastern Beakers, who settled in what is now northern Poland, and some of the Hallstatt Celts (as JeanM maintains) were absorbed into the Jastorf culture as well. I am hopeful the Beaker aDNA we are waiting for will shed some light on all this.

I don't have a problem with that, but I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that L21 did not have much to do with the Anglo-Saxons. I do agree with you about the rest though. The evidence supports that.

Agamemnon
11-24-2016, 02:43 PM
Yes, some branches of U152, a minority to be sure, seem to have arrived in East Anglia with later Germanic arrivals, perhaps even from Scandinavia. David Faux is the most famous proponent of this hypothesis, I think there might be some truth to what he has been saying all these years, U152 quite certainly was a major marker among eastern and central European Beakers.
The presence of branches of P312 in the Jastorf culture would hardly come as a surprise since all reconstructions of Proto-Germanic to date indicate that the earliest Germanic-speaking communities were in contact with the Iron Age Celts.

rms2
11-24-2016, 05:26 PM
Yes, some branches of U152, a minority to be sure, seem to have arrived in East Anglia with later Germanic arrivals, perhaps even from Scandinavia. David Faux is the most famous proponent of this hypothesis, I think there might be some truth to what he has been saying all these years, U152 quite certainly was a major marker among eastern and central European Beakers.
The presence of branches of P312 in the Jastorf culture would hardly come as a surprise since all reconstructions of Proto-Germanic to date indicate that the earliest Germanic-speaking communities were in contact with the Iron Age Celts.

David's idea was that the U152 in England could be attributed to Danish Vikings, who were themselves the descendants of the Cimbri, who were, according to David, La Tene Celts gone north. It was an intricate theory, but largely fanciful, and did not stand the test of time and further Scandinavian y-dna test results. He also had the Cimbri crossing over to the Oslofjord area, where he expected to see a sizable pocket of U152. That never materialized.

I do think there was probably some U152 among the Anglo-Saxons, but probably most of them were U106, I-M253, DF19, and DF99. L238 has a really good claim on Viking ancestry, it seems to me.

vettor
11-24-2016, 05:50 PM
David's idea was that the U152 in England could be attributed to Danish Vikings, who were themselves the descendants of the Cimbri, who were, according to David, La Tene Celts gone north. It was an intricate theory, but largely fanciful, and did not stand the test of time and further Scandinavian y-dna test results. He also had the Cimbri crossing over to the Oslofjord area, where he expected to see a sizable pocket of U152. That never materialized.

I do think there was probably some U152 among the Anglo-Saxons, but probably most of them were U106, I-M253, DF19, and DF99. L238 has a really good claim on Viking ancestry, it seems to me.

there are a lot of people making different claims

http://www.freewebs.com/northsea-r-one-b-group/newsletterfebruary.htm

I have even seen a claim of R1a1 via a connection with a "royal" irish line

and even

http://no-tie.com/DNA-WilliamDeConqueror.jpg

rms2
11-24-2016, 05:54 PM
there are a lot of people making different claims

http://www.freewebs.com/northsea-r-one-b-group/newsletterfebruary.htm

That's an old web site. I remember seeing that back in 2006 when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test from FTDNA. Actually some of that wasn't too far off, and, given what was known at that time, has stood up fairly well.



I have even seen a claim of R1a1 via a connection with a "royal" irish line

Interesting. I haven't heard that one. R1a1 is pretty scarce in Ireland, but anything is possible.

Romilius
11-24-2016, 07:03 PM
That's an old web site. I remember seeing that back in 2006 when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test from FTDNA. Actually some of that wasn't too far off, and, given what was known at that time, has stood up fairly well.



Interesting. I haven't heard that one. R1a1 is pretty scarce in Ireland, but anything is possible.

I think that some people like to take every rumour to state that R1a is somewhat a superior haplogroup...

markalliston
01-04-2017, 09:47 PM
L21 may have been a minority population amongst the Anglo Saxons but there is the possibility that at least in Wessex the leading families may have been. Cerdic being a Bryothonic name, also many of the abbeys had Irish connections.

moesan
01-22-2017, 07:48 PM
Wessex had a non negilictible noble pop of Armorican Breton origin, come with William the Bastard and after, and possessing lands there - but could that explain an important demic input onto basic folks Y-DNA?

moesan
01-22-2017, 07:50 PM
Oops! Sorry, I made a terrific error!!! in was in Essex!!! I beg your pardon (bad beer, bad wine, too great age?)

rms2
01-22-2017, 11:10 PM
L21 may have been a minority population amongst the Anglo Saxons but there is the possibility that at least in Wessex the leading families may have been. Cerdic being a Bryothonic name, also many of the abbeys had Irish connections.

I think we were talking about the original Anglo-Saxons from the Anglo-Saxon homelands along the continental side of the North Sea littoral rather than about Britons who were assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon population later. No doubt a lot of L21s of British descent became English as a result of assimilation.