World Families Forums - Scotland: Data from the Busby Study

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2014, 02:26:10 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Scotland: Data from the Busby Study
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Scotland: Data from the Busby Study  (Read 5040 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: September 02, 2011, 09:50:27 PM »

I am not going to attempt to average these results, in case I missed a location and someone catches me. I think I got all the Scottish sample locations, however. Anyway, I used the data from the Excel chart in the Busby et al supplementary info section:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.DC1/rspb20111044supp2.xls

I plugged the latitudes and longitudes into Google Maps. The names of the locations I supply below are what I got from Google Maps.

Moray  N=67

U106xU198 = 19.4%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,M222 = 6%

L21xM222 = 41.8%

M222 = 10.4%

U152 = 4.5%

Isle of Skye  N=80

U106xU198 = 6.3%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,M222 = 11.3%

L21xM222 = 42.5%

M222 = 6.3%

U152 = 0

Argyll and Bute  N=21

U106xU198 = 9.5%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,M222 = 0

L21xM222 = 52.4%

M222 = 14.3%

U152 = 4.8%

Orkney  N=112

U106xU198 = 13.4%

U198 = 3.6%

P312xL21,M222 = 6.3%

L21xM222 = 33%

M222 = 0.9%

U152 = 3.6%

If I missed a Scottish spot, please let me know.

L21xM222 is ubiquitous in Scotland and has levels similar to those in many places in Ireland. I think we can legitimately plant the L21 flag in Scotland. M222 makes a fairly strong showing in Moray in NE Scotland, surprisingly.

U106xU198 makes its strongest showing in Moray. U198 shows up only in Orkney, where U106xU198 makes its second strongest showing.

U152 is rather anemic in Scotland, never reaching a greater frequency than 4.8% (in Argyll and Bute). It managed only 3.6% in Orkney, which doesn't do its Viking bona fides much good at all. I think the old claim that U152 in the British Isles can be attributed to Vikings is pretty much dead.

P312xL21,M222 makes its strongest showing on the Isle of Skye, which makes me wonder how much of that might be L238. I wonder about that in Orkney, as well. Hmmm . . .
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 09:54:08 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2011, 03:42:50 PM »

Although U106 is higher in Moray, this contradicts Moffat and Wilson's claim that L21 was low there.  L21 is clearly dominant everywhere in Scotland in a way that it is not in England. It is interesting to note that Moray (as well as Aberdeenshire, Tayside etc) was south of the Viking area and north of the Anglo-Saxon area i.e. it was in the Pictish zone.  So the high U106 is surprising.  That is why Moffat and Wilson raised the possibility that U106 is partly prehistoric in origin.  Also 52.2% of the entire population of Moray are L21 and subclades.  That is strong evidence that the dominance of L21 in Scotland is true of the east as the west although 66.7% if L21 and subclades in Argyll is a very very high percentage of the total population of an area and there cant be many areas where it is much higher than that anywhere. 

U152 rather like in England seems widespread at low levels everywhere.  I think it is largely of prehistoric origin in Britain. 

High M222 throughout is interesting if somewhat baffling.  For those who see M222 in Germanic Europe as due to Viking slaving, the lack of M222 in Orkney requires explanation. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2011, 03:56:47 PM »

....and another thing is this.  All the L11 clades as a whole come to about 80% in both the large mainland areas (Argyll in the west and Moray in the east).  Sykes alluded to the fact that R1b was very high in the north-east of Scotland.  So Scotland does not follow the English pattern of a large drop off of R1b in the east.   I am not sure what that is down to but Skyes mentioned R1a was very rare in NE Scotland, more evidence that the Viking impact was slight (which corresponds with historical, placename and archaeological evidence).  I believe Sykes found the remainder was mainly I but I am not sure what Busby found. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2011, 06:17:11 PM »

I don't know about M222 in Orkney and the Viking slave trade thing. Each place is a separate case. Is there evidence the Vikings hauled Irish slaves with them every place they settled? Maybe they just didn't bring that many to Orkney in the first place, or by some chance fortune the M222 element among them didn't become a big part of the population.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2011, 06:49:21 PM »

It is interesting to note that Moray (as well as Aberdeenshire, Tayside etc) was south of the Viking area and north of the Anglo-Saxon area i.e. it was in the Pictish zone.  So the high U106 is surprising.  That is why Moffat and Wilson raised the possibility that U106 is partly prehistoric in origin. 




If Moray falls into the area between Viking and Anglo-Saxon settlements, those who believe all U106 in Britain is of Germanic origin have to explain why U106 has its highest percentage there in all of Scotland. Norman knights and later Flemish settlers have been proposed, but it seems highly unlikely to me that this would lead to a higher concentration than in those areas where the Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians are known to have settled. Doubtless this was Wilson's and Moffat's point. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2011, 07:12:49 PM »

I don't know. The frequency of U106xU198 in Moray is odd, but I wouldn't rush to conclude it is prehistoric there. Apparently there was some Norse settlement along Dornoch Firth and as far south as Tarbat, which isn't exactly at the opposite end of the world from Moray. It would be interesting to know how much I1 and R1a there is in the area.

I'm not saying the U106xU198 in Moray isn't prehistoric, but it is odd.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:16:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2011, 07:41:45 PM »

The book, Vikings in Scotland: An Archaeological Survey, by James Graham-Campbell and Colleen E. Batey, says on page 68 that ". . . [T]he domination of the Orkney earldom extended south to the Moray Firth . . . Norse farm-names thin out towards the Moray Firth, but there is a cluster on the good, arable lands of Cromarty and Easter Ross", neither of which is far from Moray.

It also says (also on page 68), "Saga tradition attributes the conquest of Caithness, Sutherland, Moray and Ross to Sigurd the Mighty, Earl of Orkney, and Thorstein the Red, from the Hebrides".

Of course, none of this is conclusive evidence that there were extensive Viking settlements in Moray, but it does seem to suggest that the Vikings had some presence in the region or at least not far from it.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:44:42 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2011, 09:32:34 PM »

I don't know. The frequency of U106xU198 in Moray is odd, but I wouldn't rush to conclude it is prehistoric there. Apparently there was some Norse settlement along Dornoch Firth and as far south as Tarbat, which isn't exactly at the opposite end of the world from Moray. It would be interesting to know how much I1 and R1a there is in the area.

I'm not saying the U106xU198 in Moray isn't prehistoric, but it is odd.

The totals are in line with the crude haplogroup totals for Scotland by region given by Skyes.  I recall that just to the south of Moray his Aberdeenshire/Grampian NE corner group also had 80% R1b, very little R1a (like 1% or something), quite a bit of I and I suppose the rest was stuff like E etc in low levels.  Certainly I recall R1a was very low.  I dont think Vikings are the source.  Its way too north for Anglo-Saxons.  They basically stopped around Stirling other than a few years overrunning Fife before they were defeated by the Picts at Nechtansmere probably in Angus.  If its not prehistoric it could be Norman period settlers.  It could even be down to the growth of some clans with Norman or other non-native founder in the area.  There was a transplanting of Normans in the area:

It is, however, during the reign of William I (1165-1214 AD) that the Norman presence in northern Scotland becomes particularly noticeable. There are probably two main reasons for this. Firstly, under the terms of the Treaty of Falaise (1174), William I was forced to temporarily abandon Scottish claims to lands in Northern England (particularly Northumberland). At least in the short term, the King of Scots was able to focus on extending royal authority north of the Mounth in areas like Moray and Ross. The second reason was the actions of the MacWilliam kin-group who challenged the authority of William I and Alexander II in Moray and Ross until c.1230 AD. As each ‘rebellion’ was defeated, lands in Moray, Ross, Sutherland and Caithness were granted to families – usually of Norman or Flemish extraction – loyal to the kings of Scotland.
In the North-East probably the best example of this process was the granting of the Lordship of the Garioch before 1182 to the brother of William I, David earl of Huntingdon. In turn, earl David granted lands within his new Lordship to Norman and Flemish families like de Boiville, de Audri, le Bret and Bertolf. More importantly perhaps, royal control of this Lordship, together with the building of a new motte and bailey fortification at Inverurie, meant that the kings of Scotland effectively controlled the main overland routes from Aberdeenshire to Moray. As far as Buchan is concerned, the province remained under the control of the native family of mormaír (earls) until c.1212 AD when Marjory, heiress of Fergus, married William Comyn. Consequently, William Comyn was the first Norman earl of any Scottish province and the marriage may have been a reward from William I to William Comyn for supporting the king against the MacWilliams in Moray and Ross c.1211 AD. By 1286 AD another four Scottish earldoms were controlled by families of Anglo-Norman origin.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 09:33:06 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2011, 07:16:37 AM »

The problem with the Norman idea, it seems to me, is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Normans were predominantly U106. Perhaps they were, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Certainly the Normandy Y-DNA Project, which, admittedly, is pretty small, gives no indication of it.

Maybe the Norman nobility was predominantly U106; I don't know.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2011, 02:13:30 PM »

The problem with the Norman idea, it seems to me, is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Normans were predominantly U106. Perhaps they were, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Certainly the Normandy Y-DNA Project, which, admittedly, is pretty small, gives no indication of it.

Maybe the Norman nobility was predominantly U106; I don't know.
I don't see any evidence that U106 is a major part of Norman Y DNA lineages, although, certainly they were enough to be mixed so U106 might have easily joined with the Norman establishment in forms of Flemish or Frankish allies.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2011, 02:22:19 PM »

The problem with the Norman idea, it seems to me, is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Normans were predominantly U106. Perhaps they were, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Certainly the Normandy Y-DNA Project, which, admittedly, is pretty small, gives no indication of it.

Maybe the Norman nobility was predominantly U106; I don't know.
I don't see any evidence that U106 is a major part of Norman Y DNA lineages, although, certainly they were enough to be mixed so U106 might have easily joined with the Norman establishment in forms of Flemish or Frankish allies.

I agree, so we have got this weird pocket of 19.4% U106xU198 in Busby's Moray sample. I'm not convinced it's prehistoric, but it could be, I guess.

I just think it's a little strange, and we don't yet know how to account for it. It would be nice to have that Moray U106 broken down into its constituent subclades. We know, at least, that none of it was U198.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2011, 02:51:05 PM »

Has anyone found any sample locations in Normandy in Busby? I went over the French stuff pretty thoroughly, I thought, but I missed a couple of locations in my first examination (they weren't in Normandy though). I didn't see anything from Normandy, but maybe I missed it.

Maybe I'll take another look.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2011, 04:07:07 PM »

It seems though that the Flemish were a big thing in Scotland in the 12th-13th century and a big element among the 'Normans'.  I also recall someone commenting on the dutch-like sound of Scots English I think at some point in the Medieval period or maybe the 16th century.  

I have an open mind about Moray U106.  However, the way I see it it really would have to either be pre-500BC or post-1100AD.  I see no possibility for its arrival in between.  In between those dates it was really the Pictish area mainly, being overtaken by the Gaels in the last couple of centuries.  If it is post 1100AD and associated with Medieval settlers then (given that this was not some large scale invasion) you would expect that the variance for U106 in the area would be low.  It seems unlikely that a small migration of Flemings would have transferred a lot of the variance.  

NO doubt deeper clade testing would sort this out either now or the not too distant future.  I wonder what the surnames are?
 
I am not sure what to make of the lack of U198 in Scotland.  You could either take that as evidence that Scotland's U106 is earlier or later than England's depending on how you view U198.  It does suggest a different origin either chronologically or geographically or both.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 04:10:16 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2011, 06:15:59 PM »

The reason no one has seen evidence that the Normans were primarily U106 is simply that such evidence doesn't exist.

Nor do I find some settlement by Normans and Flemings a reasonable explanation why the highest proportion of U106 is in Moray. On another forum some one once provided a list of Scottish surnames that claimed Norman origins. In looking into this, I found few if any that actually had proven Norman origins, and I not even sure these surnames are primarily located in Moray (for instance, the Stewarts, actually of Breton origin, were amongst those listed).

This is the way the thinking goes. It starts with the unassailable assumption:

U106 is Germanic
Therefore all U106 in Britain must be due to the Anglo-Saxons or Scandinavians
If some U106 is found in an area where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings didn't settle, another explanation must exist
The Normans were largely of Scandinavian origin, particularly the aristocracy, so they must be U106 as well
The Flemings, being Germanic, must also be U106
If Normans and Flemings are found in the area in question, they have to be the source of the otherwise unexplainable U106 there
QED

This is the sort of reasoning that drives me absolutely crazy. I see examples of this sort of thinking on nearly a daily basis on one forum or another. The fact that the evidence we do have shows that U106 doesn't appear in significantly higher proportions throughout Scandinavia than P312 is simply ignored or claimed to be the result of Viking slavery, later immigration, etc. The facts must be interpreted in a way consistent with the assumptions.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 06:21:34 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2011, 06:31:11 PM »

The reason no one has seen evidence that the Normans were primarily U106 is simply that such evidence doesn't exist.

Nor do I find some settlement by Normans and Flemings a reasonable explanation why the highest proportion of U106 is in Moray. On another forum some one once provided a list of Scottish surnames that claimed Norman origins. In looking into this, I found few if any that actually had proven Norman origins, and I not even sure these surnames are primarily located in Moray (for instance, the Stewarts, actually of Breton origin, were amongst those listed).

This is the way the thinking goes. It starts with the unassailable assumption:

U106 is Germanic
Therefore all U106 in Britain must be due to the Anglo-Saxons or Scandinavians
If some U106 is found in an area where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings didn't settle, another explanation must exist
The Normans were largely of Scandinavian origin, particularly the aristocracy, so they must be U106 as well
The Flemings, being Germanic, must also be U106
If Normans and Flemings are found in the area in question, they have to be the source of the otherwise unexplainable U106 there
QED

This is the sort of reasoning that drives me absolutely crazy. I see examples of this sort of thinking on nearly a daily basis on one forum or another. The fact that the evidence we do have shows that U106 doesn't appear in significantly higher proportions throughout Scandinavia than P312 is simply ignored or claimed to be the result of Viking slavery, later immigration, etc. The facts must be interpreted in a way consistent with the assumptions.

There are many Norman surnames associated with the Leinster area due to its history, and one can see a lot of these lineages in the L159.2 Project. There was a large number of Irish (and Scots) who took such surnames.

Facts can be twisted no matter what. If we were talking about U106, L48+ in Orkney, that is one thing. But Moray and the areas surrounding it were not bastions of Anglo-Scandinavian settlement. I tend to think of this area as the most Pictish or pre-Gaelic part of Scotland.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2011, 06:48:44 PM »

Nor do I find some settlement by Normans and Flemings a reasonable explanation why the highest proportion of U106 is in Moray.

According to Alistair Moffat, the reason why Moray, Aberdeen, Nairn and Banff are Doric speaking is due to David 1st resettling people from Northumberland there in the 1130s. The explanation was in a radio broadcast in which scotsman James Naughtie learned that he was 'an angle'. It's about 2 mins into the broadcast:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9501000/9501822.stm

cheers
authun
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 06:53:23 PM by authun » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2011, 07:35:42 PM »

I suppose the question would be do these NE Scottish U106 have continental matches with a GD suggestive of dark age or Medieval migrations or are the GDs larger than that.  If they are descended from a small group of Medieval incomers then they should have small GD and I assume their variance would be low.  Its not like an Anglo-Saxon migration type scenario where people could argue that a lot of the variance was transferred due to a huge migration.

Re: James Naughty.  Google him and go to the one (its the 2nd top hit) called James Naughty slip on youtube.  Its hilarious if you dont mind a little bad language.  
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 07:36:16 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2011, 07:55:26 PM »

Re: James Naughty.  Google him and go to the one (its the 2nd top hit) called James Naughty slip on youtube.  Its hilarious if you dont mind a little bad language.  

I heard Agnew's 'didn't quite get his leg over' live on radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k0qZDdfvZk&feature=related

cheers
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2011, 08:06:43 PM »

The level of U106xU198 found in Moray by Busby just struck me as too odd and disconnected from the rest of U106 to be of prehistoric standing there. It seems like something picked up and dropped there, or something that arrived by boat (and by that I don't mean Vikings).

Otherwise, if it is prehistoric, how does one account for it?

12th-century Northumbrian settlers at least makes sense and accounts for the oddball result.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2011, 10:06:11 PM »

This assumes that because the Northumbtians were Angles and the Angles were Germanic, they must have been predominiantly U106. Once again, I point out that there is absolutely no evidence to support such an idea. The best stand in for the Angles is the modern population of Jutland, The best evidence we have for the genetic make up of Denmark comes from the Myres' data. U106 reaches it's highest density at 21% in north Denmark, not the southern part where the Angles came from, and even then it only very slightly (10 as opposed to 9) outnumbers P312. So there is no more proof that the Angles were predominantly U106 than there is that the Normans were.

Once again, we are not just explaining why there should be any U106 in Moray. We must also explain why the U106 density is higher there than anywhere else in Scotland. Perhaps an importation of Northumbrians added to a pre-existing population might explain it.

I find the pre-historic presence of U106 in Britain quite easy to account for. They had boats, just like their P312 cousins, and they were just as able to cross the channel and settle in Britain as anyone else who got there in prehistoric times.   
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2011, 10:51:29 PM »

Once again, we are not just explaining why there should be any U106 in Moray. We must also explain why the U106 density is higher there than anywhere else in Scotland. Perhaps an importation of Northumbrians added to a pre-existing population might explain it.

I find the pre-historic presence of U106 in Britain quite easy to account for. They had boats, just like their P312 cousins, and they were just as able to cross the channel and settle in Britain as anyone else who got there in prehistoric times.    
I agree. If Occam's razor applies at all, it's hard to believe U106 didn't reach England before the Anglo-Saxon period. The only question is was it significant? There are "localized" populations in the British Isles. I don't see any reason to think that some U106 couldn't have been localized in some areas prior to the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps even prior to the main Celtic immigrations.... or perhaps some U106 was just a part of the Celtic input. Notice I didn't say part of all Celtic input.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 10:52:24 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2011, 04:17:29 AM »

This assumes that because the Northumbtians were Angles and the Angles were Germanic, they must have been predominiantly U106.

We must also explain why the U106 density is higher there than anywhere else in Scotland. Perhaps an importation of Northumbrians added to a pre-existing population might explain it.

Yes, it doesn't say anything about the origin of U106, it merely offers another possible explanation of how U106 got there without having to default to migrating Flemmings or Normans. As long as U106 existed in Northumbria, irrespective of how it got there, it's just a possible route to Moray.

As far as I know, Anglian settlement in Northumbria was along the coast and up the river valley floors. The upland areas in the northerly Pennines, Cheviots, Moorfoots and Lammermuirs suggest surviving P-Celtic toponymy, the latter two showing the highest concentrations. It won't be possible to determine in which areas U106 existed, if at all, but there exists a plausible possibility that two populations, one upland and one lowland, existed in Northumbria, rather than one genetically admixed population.

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 04:38:33 AM by authun » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2011, 05:26:08 AM »

The best stand in for the Angles is the modern population of Jutland, The best evidence we have for the genetic make up of Denmark comes from the Myres' data. U106 reaches it's highest density at 21% in north Denmark, not the southern part where the Angles came from,

On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that all the people who were known as Angles in England came solely from Angeln in southern Jutland. We know from the differences in dress assemblages1 in burials that people from northern Jutland were involved too and Hines expands the continental catchment area for all those known as Angles in England to include parts of Norway, 'The Scandinavian character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period'.

In addition, the greatest hero of Anglo Saxon epic poetry is a Geat, not an Angle and Sutton Hoo has strong affinities with the Vendel period Sweden. The saga of Ida the Flamebearer, the legendary founder of Bernicia has him making landfall in the mid 6th cent. a time coincident with depopulation in parts of southern Norway, Joel Gunn, 'The years without summer: tracing A.D. 536 and its aftermath', and major changes in the structure of society in Denmark in the mid 6th cent.

1. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/s/silver_wrist-clasp.aspx

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 06:45:22 AM by authun » Logged
y24
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2011, 06:22:02 AM »

Nor do I find some settlement by Normans and Flemings a reasonable explanation why the highest proportion of U106 is in Moray.

According to Alistair Moffat, the reason why Moray, Aberdeen, Nairn and Banff are Doric speaking is due to David 1st resettling people from Northumberland there in the 1130s. The explanation was in a radio broadcast in which scotsman James Naughtie learned that he was 'an angle'. It's about 2 mins into the broadcast:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9501000/9501822.stm

cheers
authun

One piece of evidence that may be persuasive of a U106 link to some Northumbrian Angles is the L257+ Dunbar YDNA cluster. It is large and looks to be possibly the line of the descendants of Gospatrick, perhaps son of Uhtred the Bold, ealdorman of Northumbria, the TMRCA calculations seem to fit. Of course, that does not mean all Angles were U106 but some of them may well have been.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2011, 07:38:06 AM »

One has a far easier time arguing for some prehistoric U106 in SE Britain than for an isolated chunk of it in NE Scotland in Moray. It seems to me David I's settlement of Northumbrians there better satisfies the requirements of Occam's Razor. We know it happened, for one thing.

The U106 there in Moray has the look of something that was dropped there by somebody. A "plantation" of outsiders by a 12th-century king makes perfect sense. A prehistoric island of U106 in a sea of L21 just does not.

U106 would not have to predominate among the Angles in England or in Jutland for some U106 to have gone with the Northumbrians to Moray. Listen to Moffat's conversation with Naughtie that authun linked above. Naughtie is I1d ("S142"), not U106. From what I have seen, I1 and U106 seem to have their high frequency spots in the same places in Britain. Since I1, like U106, is common in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons, that is an indication of the source of both haplogroups in Britain, prehistoric or otherwise.

It would make more sense, it seems to me, to argue that the U106 in Northumbria that got sent north to Moray by David I had its ultimate source in prehistoric U106 from SE Britain than to argue for a pocket of U106 that has been in Moray since prehistoric times. Either way, it's a stretch.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 07:45:01 AM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.274 seconds with 19 queries.