Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: E-BY3880 vs Old Bavarians

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,759
    Sex

    E-BY3880 vs Old Bavarians

    When going through my matches on all levels, I did notice something strange on FTDNA, which is a big hole exactly in the area which was settled by the old Bavarians, there true core zone. It doesn't really matter in which direction you move, every neighbouring tribe and country has a good amount of samples, no matter whether its North, East, South or West. Usually I would consider some sort of testing bias, but some of the regions and groups considered don't really have a better level of testing as far as I know.

    I will post a map which shows the pattern (can't right now, attachments don't work for me) with the largely E-BY3880 free zone marked, its largely identical to the old Bavarian core settlement area. Like some regions in Austria had more Slavic and Frankish input in comparison. The comparison with the countries and tribes to the West, especially the Allemannic groups and Rhenish Franks, is striking. Its even more clealry visible with the larger data base on FTDNA and no matter in which direction one moves from the Bavarian core zone away, more samples pop up.

    Compare - just look at the samples, the coloring is worthless in this case, because it gives green shades to Bavarian areas where not a single sample being present so far:
    https://phylogeographer.com/scripts/heatmap.php

    If this holds up, one might consider it one case of late Germanic tribal differentiation, in which Bavarians had, even though they surely assimilated Celts, Romance speakers, Slavs and others too, a different patrilinear make up which simply included less E-V13 in general and some clades in particular. I'm pretty sure there is no reason why Bavaria should have been always different in this respect, even if one might argue with the Roman legions, because these alone can't explain it, but that the Bavarians themselves, by settling the region the way they did, reduced some and increased other haplotypes frequencies.

    I know some studies might contradict this, probably the impression is wrong, but at least going by public data bases and especially FTDNA, this is quite striking. In the M35 project, half of the testers from Bavaria are so far E-V22, which makes the situation even more extreme. The North and West of Bavaria, which are more Frankish-Slavic and Swabian respectively, have a higher frequency again. So its not about the Bavarian state as a whole, but specifically the Bavarian settlement core. The Allemannic settlement area on the contrary being strongly associated with a much higher frequency, so even though both are in the South, and had a Celto-Roman history, they differ a lot by what I saw.

    Probably someone knows facts contradicting my hypothesis.
    Last edited by Riverman; 04-28-2021 at 03:55 PM.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     capsian (04-28-2021),  Johane Derite (04-28-2021),  Lupriac (04-28-2021)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    274
    Sex
    Location
    north africa
    Ethnicity
    berber
    Nationality
    Morocco
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y141637*
    mtDNA (M)
    V7

    Morocco Algeria MoroccoPreColonial Byzantine Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    When going through my matches on all levels, I did notice something strange on FTDNA, which is a big hole exactly in the area which was settled by the old Bavarians, there true core zone. It doesn't really matter in which direction you move, every neighbouring tribe and country has a good amount of samples, no matter whether its North, East, South or West. Usually I would consider some sort of testing bias, but some of the regions and groups considered don't really have a better level of testing as far as I know.

    I will post a map which shows the pattern (can't right now, attachments don't work for me) with the largely E-BY3880 free zone marked, its largely identical to the old Bavarian core settlement area. Like some regions in Austria had more Slavic and Frankish input in comparison. The comparison with the countries and tribes to the West, especially the Allemannic groups and Rhenish Franks, is striking. Its even more clealry visible with the larger data base on FTDNA and no matter in which direction one moves from the Bavarian core zone away, more samples pop up.

    Compare - just look at the samples, the coloring is worthless in this case, because it gives green shades to Bavarian areas where not a single sample being present so far:
    https://phylogeographer.com/scripts/heatmap.php

    If this holds up, one might consider it one case of late Germanic tribal differentiation, in which Bavarians had, even though they surely assimilated Celts, Romance speakers, Slavs and others too, a different patrilinear make up which simply included less E-V13 in general and some clades in particular. I'm pretty sure there is no reason why Bavaria should have been always different in this respect, even if one might argue with the Roman legions, because these alone can't explain it, but that the Bavarians themselves, by settling the region the way they did, reduced some and increased other haplotypes frequencies.

    I know some studies might contradict this, probably the impression is wrong, but at least going by public data bases and especially FTDNA, this is quite striking. In the M35 project, half of the testers from Bavaria are so far E-V22, which makes the situation even more extreme. The North and West of Bavaria, which are more Frankish-Slavic and Swabian respectively, have a higher frequency again. So its not about the Bavarian state as a whole, but specifically the Bavarian settlement core. The Allemannic settlement area on the contrary being strongly associated with a much higher frequency, so even though both are in the South, and had a Celto-Roman history, they differ a lot by what I saw.

    Probably someone knows facts contradicting my hypothesis.
    i think there is a reason it was found in these regions because of the early Slavs

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to capsian For This Useful Post:

     Lupriac (04-28-2021),  Riverman (04-28-2021)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,759
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by capsian View Post
    i think there is a reason it was found in these regions because of the early Slavs
    That's true, I'd say so too. But I think some subclades will turn out to be Celtic or Celto-Germanic and in early Medieval times strongly associated with some Frankish, Hessian and especially Allemannic groups. Right at and across the border between Bavarian and Allemannic there is a really steep increase going by the currently available results. You can draw the ethnolinguistic border largely by just drawing a line from one sample to another. South Western Germany and German Swiss have a good number. More samples would be great like always of course, because sampling bias can distort things somewhat.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     capsian (04-28-2021),  Johane Derite (04-28-2021),  Lupriac (04-28-2021)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    265
    Sex
    Location
    Central Balkans
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Z16988+BY99620+

    Very nice observation Riverman.
    There is one more haplogroup which has steep increase when going from Bavarian to Alemannian region. It is R-U152.
    In my opinion there is a good explanation for such distribution of these two haplogroups. I think it must've crossed your mind. So if you don't write it I will write it later this evening.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bane For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (04-28-2021),  Lupriac (04-28-2021),  Riverman (04-28-2021)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    430
    Sex

    Greece
    And which haplogroups are common in the core settlement area?

  10. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,759
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bane View Post
    Very nice observation Riverman.
    There is one more haplogroup which has steep increase when going from Bavarian to Alemannian region. It is R-U152.
    In my opinion there is a good explanation for such distribution of these two haplogroups. I think it must've crossed your mind. So if you don't write it I will write it later this evening.
    Concerning E-BY3880, more testing down to the sub- and terminal clades might solve a lot. Because if looking at the bigger picture now, we get pretty much the same variation left and right of Bavaria, with the Bavarian core zone being like a wedge going right through it. The question is how old is the split between areas like Alsace, Switzerland and Baden-Württemberg on the one hand and Saxony, Bohemia-Moravia and Austria on the other. To which period does it date. I'm pretty sure its no older than the Late Urnfield and early Hallstatt period, but it may be significantly younger. Its also possible its a combination, like some subclades were present in the LBA-EIA, others entered with Celts, again others with Romans and so on. We'll see.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Lupriac (04-28-2021)

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    265
    Sex
    Location
    Central Balkans
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Z16988+BY99620+

    I think the reason why E-BY3880 and R-U152 are lower in Bavarian compared to Alemannian region is due to the more massive settlement of Germanic tribes in Old Bavaria. Specifically Suebians. I know Swabia got its name from Suebi tribe but this does not have to point to higher number of settlers. So before limes germanicus broke tribes which dwelled north of Danube were Suebian tribes. After it broke they moved South and pushed previous population away from what is today Bavarian region. This is how I see it.


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bane For This Useful Post:

     Lupriac (04-28-2021),  Riverman (04-28-2021)

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,759
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bane View Post
    I think the reason why E-BY3880 and R-U152 are lower in Bavarian compared to Alemannian region is due to the more massive settlement of Germanic tribes in Old Bavaria.
    I'd say so too, though its not true for all Allemannic areas, some might have an even as strong or stronger Germanic contribution, but this is more fine scaled. Also, Bavarians too seem to have a variation of haplogroups, including clearly non-Germanic ones, its just less E-BY3880 and R-U152 which might be more associated with Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene/Celts in Southern Germany. Would be interesting to check the relationship of I1 + R1b-U106 vs. the frequency of E-BY3880 + R-U152 down to the district. But that's not possible, at least not for me.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bane (04-28-2021),  capsian (04-28-2021),  Lupriac (04-28-2021)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •