World Families Forums - Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 12:24:27 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)
| | |-+  Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"  (Read 5036 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2011, 12:40:34 AM »

.... There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between ...
Probably so, but what is "few and far between?"  5% or 25% or .05%?

It makes a difference to the non-R-L21 guy who thinks he is Celtic.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2011, 02:45:47 PM »

I am kind of in sympathy with Rich on this one.  I do think if we cant generalise about patterns there isnt much point in looking for them. 

I do reiterate my point.  If an essentially east of the Lower Rhine clade like U106 is argued to be in Britain before the Romans then we need to find archaeological evidence for movement from east of the Lower Rhine to Britain in prehistory.  I am not sure there is terribly strong evidence for that either archaeologically or linguistically.  My overall impression is that contact with Britain in prehistory was mainly west of the Rhine.  I suppose you could divide that further into an Atlantic zone including NW France and Atlantic Britain and an eastern proto-Belgic zone that included NE France, Belgium, southern Holland and south-east England.  I think the evidence of potential migration from further east in what you could call the Nordic Bronze Age/later proto-Germanic area is much more limited in prehistory. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2011, 06:44:24 PM »

.... There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between ...
Probably so, but what is "few and far between?"  5% or 25% or .05%?

It makes a difference to the non-R-L21 guy who thinks he is Celtic.

Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.

Then there is I-M284, which I think is old in the British Isles and certainly was an element in the Celtic landscape. Maybe some I-M223 was, as well.

That's all I can think of for fairly obvious stuff. U106 wasn't that much of a factor among the Celts; that's my opinion, anyway. Maybe ancient y-dna will prove me wrong.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2011, 10:38:20 AM »

Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 10:40:13 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2011, 11:37:30 AM »

Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?


In SE England they do, but that could be due to a couple of things: first, U152 Belgae from right across the Channel; second, U152 Roman soldiers from Italy and perhaps Gaul; and, third, an overlay of incoming U106 Anglo-Saxons beginning in the Migration Period.

I think one indication that U106 might not be a very big factor among descendants of the Celts is the results from the Brabant study. I was reading an article somewhere (wish I could recall where) that indicated there is a real y-dna divide between Flemings and Walloons in the Low Countries. That divide is primarily between U106 (on the Flemish side) and U152 (on the Walloon side). If that is true, that would seem to support the idea that U106 is mainly connected to Germanic speakers and not to Celtic speakers.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 11:38:41 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2011, 06:21:39 PM »

Here is what I think I was remembering:

Quote
To test this approach we studied the temporal pattern of the 'autochthonous' micro-geographical genetic structure in the region of Brabant in Belgium and The Netherlands (Northwest-Europe). Genealogical data of 881 individuals from Northwest-Europe were collected from which 634 family trees showed a residence within Brabant for at least one generation. The Y-chromosome genetic variation of the 634 participants was investigated using 110 Y-SNPs and 38 Y-STRs and linked to particular locations within Brabant on specific time periods based on genealogical records. Significant temporal variation in the Y-chromosome distribution was detected through a north-south gradient in the frequencies distribution of subhaplogroup R1b1b2a1 (R-U106), next to an opposite trend for R1b1b2a2g (R-152) [sic].


That's from an up and coming paper to be presented at the "Comparing Ancient and Modern DNA Variability" conference to be held at Porto, Portugal, this coming 23-25 November: http://www.mnhn.fr/mnhn/ecoanthropologie/Porto2011/Porto2011_program.html

It's mentioned on the 30 September 2011 entry of Dienekes' blog.

It doesn't actually say anything about Flemings and Walloons. Apparently in my mind I interpreted the North-South U106 gradient versus South-North U152 gradient that way, and that was what I remembered. I think it is probably pretty reasonable to do that, but an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons would be more accurate, obviously.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 06:24:12 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2011, 04:37:33 PM »

Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?

I started up a conversation on the U106 Yahoo group, or rather interjected into one, to ask the question about early U106 in the Isles. The U106 project admins and quite a number of U106 people are over there. Not sure what to expect, but appears most think that U106 is too old to not have had some impact on the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxon era. That doesn't mean they were long-time Celtic, though.

We'll see, I'm hoping for some strong point/counter-point arguments over there.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2011, 05:26:20 PM »

I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers. 

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2011, 10:58:42 PM »

I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers.  
Stephen Oppenheimer made a big point of emphasizing the pre-Anglo-Saxon era contacts across from the North Sea. He essentially was trying to make a case that the invasions were just the of a long-time system of contact and migration - the east side of Britain was always different than the west. I guess you think Oppenheimer was stretching a bit a bit.

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance.  
I'm trying to get that out of the U106 guys on their Yahoo group. I doubt if the results will be clear. I'm afraid we'll have the same problem we had identified in Busby's analysis - that STR diversity is indiscernible across R-L11 major subclades.

Still the thing that bothers (frustrates) me about about that is that generally implies that P312*, L21, U152, L2, U106*, U198, L48 all expanded quickly at the same time.. and I don't mean just in France or just in the Netherlands and N. Germany. The diversity spreads somewhat indiscernibly at least through England.

This is just thinking out loud....

What if all of the above executed a very quick initial spread to their points of current high frequency (including U106 to England, L21 to England and on to Ireland, U152 up the Rhiine, Z196 to Iberia, etc?) That is really what the STR diversity is saying if we believed it unbiased in by our historical and archaeological predispositions. We can't align them that well, anyway.

Then there were recurrent machinations of these subclades within their regional trade/contact areas, with occasional spillage of people from one region over into another, changing the frequencies, but not that much. This would cause the locations of higher diversity to spread a little bit more, disguising the hard to see quick initial spread even more.

I guess it is the displacement/migrationalist concept early (but still later than early Neolithic) but moderately minimalist by the time we get to the historic era. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions would not have been the most significant Y DNA influencer of frequencies in England; perhaps diminishing L21 from 65% to 45% in England because some I, R1a and U106 were already there prehistorically.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 11:07:46 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2011, 11:19:50 AM »

Please bear in mind my reply #33 is 99% speculation.  I just have to ask myself without prejudice, "if I was just looking at the Y DNA data, what does it tell me?"

A U106 guy just posted this on another forum.
Quote from: van Keuls
According to Caesar and Tacitus, the Belgae tribes that inhabited northeastern Gaul in Caesar's time were in large part originally Germani from the east side of the Rhine. The Belgae had invaded and ruled parts of southeastern England prior to Caesar's conquest of Gaul. So I would assume the Belgae brought some U106 into Britain circa 100 BC. No doubt earlier invasions and other contacts caused people to cross the channel. In addition, the Romans brought thousands of Germanic auxiliary soldiers to Britain in first and second centuries AD. According to wikipedia, there were 55,000 auxiliaries in Britain mainly from northern Gaul and the lower Rhine in the second century AD guarding Britain at places such as Hadrian's wall.

This would obfuscate the STR diversity, making U106 look slightly older because of an earlier partial entry prior to the Anglo-Saxons and possibly form a different type of U106 to boot.

"Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" by Weale
Quote from: Weale
It is also true that a mass migration event could have occurred outside the Anglo-Saxon migration period because the 95% confidence interval for a Central English-Frisian split extends as far back as 425 B.C. (if one allows a background migration rate of 0.1% and a generation time of 25 years). Archaeology and the testimony of Caesar combine to suggest an immigration of the Belgae, a Celtic tribe from northern Gaul, into central southern England (Hampshire and West Sussex) between 100 and 80 B.C.

Weale does not support that the Belgae and Roman auxiliary effects were high, but does note they are a real possibility.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:21:05 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2011, 05:27:50 PM »

I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers.  
Stephen Oppenheimer made a big point of emphasizing the pre-Anglo-Saxon era contacts across from the North Sea. He essentially was trying to make a case that the invasions were just the of a long-time system of contact and migration - the east side of Britain was always different than the west. I guess you think Oppenheimer was stretching a bit a bit.

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance.  
I'm trying to get that out of the U106 guys on their Yahoo group. I doubt if the results will be clear. I'm afraid we'll have the same problem we had identified in Busby's analysis - that STR diversity is indiscernible across R-L11 major subclades.

Still the thing that bothers (frustrates) me about about that is that generally implies that P312*, L21, U152, L2, U106*, U198, L48 all expanded quickly at the same time.. and I don't mean just in France or just in the Netherlands and N. Germany. The diversity spreads somewhat indiscernibly at least through England.

This is just thinking out loud....

What if all of the above executed a very quick initial spread to their points of current high frequency (including U106 to England, L21 to England and on to Ireland, U152 up the Rhiine, Z196 to Iberia, etc?) That is really what the STR diversity is saying if we believed it unbiased in by our historical and archaeological predispositions. We can't align them that well, anyway.

Then there were recurrent machinations of these subclades within their regional trade/contact areas, with occasional spillage of people from one region over into another, changing the frequencies, but not that much. This would cause the locations of higher diversity to spread a little bit more, disguising the hard to see quick initial spread even more.

I guess it is the displacement/migrationalist concept early (but still later than early Neolithic) but moderately minimalist by the time we get to the historic era. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions would not have been the most significant Y DNA influencer of frequencies in England; perhaps diminishing L21 from 65% to 45% in England because some I, R1a and U106 were already there prehistorically.

I think Oppenheimer has a point but one of his weaknesses (apart from getting the dating being very wrong) is that his evidence for the divide between the North Sea and Atlantic streams is over egged.  This was partly down to his idea that this dichotomy began in the upper Palaeolithic and continued afterwards.  There is little evidence at all for that dichotomy in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.   In the early Neolithic it is likely that that the whole coast from Brittany to the Rhine was involved in a continuum rather than some strong dichotomy.  In the beaker period there is a hint of an Atlantic vs North Sea/Rhine split with a sort of a gap between.  The Low Country Beakers did include the area east of the Rhine and a lot of what is now strong U106 territory.  The immediate post-beaker era saw the rise of strong elites in Wessex, Brittany and the Unetice areas but I think movement between them would likely have been modest and this phase of contract may have been more important for linguistic evolution than genetic change on a large scale. 

In the early-mid Bronze Age, the Atlantic Bronze network may have seen a similar low level trickle of genes.  In the same period the SE of England was linked to the Hilversum culture of Belgium and south Holland.  This was sort of the eastern edge of the Atlantic network.  Beyond the Rhine was the Elp culture in Holland and the Nordic Bronze Age.  I see the Hilversum links as more like a possible proto-Belgic connection rather than a Germanic one.  Oppenheimer hints at links of the SE of England with Germanic Europe in the Bronze Age but he then fails to really give much in the way of examples.  Generally speaking I think SE England in the Bronze and Iron Ages was more closely connected to Belgium and to a lesser extent Holland than it was with anywhere further east. 

So, the possibility of U106 in England in quantity prior to the Germanic movements of the late Roman era and later hinges on whether it was already in Flanders and Holland in the Bronze or Copper Ages (or before if you believe in an earlier date for L11 clades).  I cannot see any way of proving that and the best option seems to remain inferring from the variance of U106 broken down on a geographical basis. 

I noticed looking back to the August thread that this had been discussed and you posted a link to the U106 group but I was not able to access it.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2011, 08:04:33 PM »

I don't think Caesar meant that the Belgae were actually Germans but rather that some of them had lived east of the Rhine at one time. The evidence of the names of their tribes and leaders is that they were Celts.

My view is that U106 was small potatoes among Celtic speakers, which I think is what the apparent north-south U106 gradient in the Low Countries indicates. My own feeling is that U106 may have moved west into the Low Countries from farther east relatively late, as Celtic-speaking tribes left the region. It could very well be that the side of the Channel opposite England wasn't always as rich in U106 as it is now.

Now I think U152 came to England, in part, with the Belgae, but I don't think U106 was that big a factor among them.

I tend to think die Völkerwanderung was a pretty big deal and a massive folk movement, particularly in places like England, where a Germanic language was able to assert itself and actually replace the native language. In all the years the Romans controlled Britain, with their advanced military, political, and administrative systems, they were never able to make Latin or even a vulgar version of it the language of the country. The Anglo-Saxons were far less sophisticated than the Romans, yet they managed to make English the language of most of Britain. In my humble opinion, that took loads of boots on the ground. Before that, there wasn't all that much U106 around.

Of course, I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 08:06:39 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2011, 08:19:18 PM »

I wanted to add something. If U106 was present in the Low Countries very early, why didn't it move down into Northern France in strength? Its frequency drops off pretty drastically, it seems to me, from Normandy west.

And Northern France is the natural road into France. It is flat and pretty easy to negotiate, which is why the Germans took that route not once but twice, first in WWI and again in WWII.

I mean if one is going to contend that U106 should have been in England early because there is so much of it in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask why it isn't present in Northern France in great numbers. If an early presence in the Netherlands means an early presence in England, then it ought also to mean an easy early trek into Northern France, too.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2011, 08:20:30 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2011, 08:23:40 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  

Which is why I think England received a major influx of Anglo-Saxons and not merely a military elite.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2011, 09:40:20 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  

Which is why I think England received a major influx of Anglo-Saxons and not merely a military elite.

I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:41:07 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2011, 10:08:02 PM »

I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.
I went back and looked at a couple of the studies. Maybe it was buried in the supplemental data, but what our best estimates of Anglo-Saxon immigration into England during the Anglo-Saxon era?

How does that compare to the population of England at the start and end of the era?

I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2011, 10:22:17 PM »

I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.
I went back and looked at a couple of the studies. Maybe it was buried in the supplemental data, but what our best estimates of Anglo-Saxon immigration into England during the Anglo-Saxon era?

How does that compare to the population of England at the start and end of the era?

I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?

I am not sure about population estimates before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but I am curious to how badly the Romano-British population suffered during Justinian's Plague.

Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. The interesting thing about Southern England, in particular, is that it does have a lot of U106 compared to other areas of England, and looks North Sea-ish in character. I think that is a definite sign of population change after the Romans left.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:23:25 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2011, 10:27:16 PM »

May I add that I1 should also be grouped into the Anglo-Saxon smorgasbord (as well as some P312* and L21 subclades)!
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:27:46 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2011, 10:37:18 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think, not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right (STR diversity for U106 is high in England,) so I think the book remains open. ... just an opinion.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:58:56 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2011, 10:54:46 PM »

.... I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?
... Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. ...
I picked 793 AD for purposes of this discussion for a reason.

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.

The Vikings may have included some similar Y DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, but apparently they were not identical. I picture it like your basic three circle A-B-C intersection diagram where the Vikings may have had parts from the Anglo-Saxons and parts from elsewhere. We don't really know the mix.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2011, 10:56:07 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think., not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right, so I think the book remains open. Just an opinion.

The problem is that if U106 did get into England - or Great Britain, period - on a considerable scale before the Germanic migrations, I am inclined to think we should find it further inland. And why not Ireland as well? The frequencies of U106 in England are too much of a match to Migration Age movements.

I am not saying all of it is indicative of Germanic ancestry, but one can accurately generalize that U106 in Essex is most likely Saxon in origin. U106* in Kerry, Ireland is probably something else.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2011, 10:58:39 PM »

.... I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?
... Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. ...
I picked 793 AD for purposes of this discussion for a reason.

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.

The Vikings may have included some similar Y DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, but apparently they were not identical. I picture it like your basic three circle A-B-C intersection diagram where the Vikings may have had parts from the Anglo-Saxons and parts from elsewhere. We don't really know the mix.

I would say 1066 since Denmark and even Norway still had claims on England. Harald Hardrada being felled at Stamford Bridge usually signals the end of the Viking Age.

U198 is a rarer subclade of U106, but even it is found in the Netherlands and Sweden.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:58:58 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2011, 11:04:30 PM »


Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.


U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:04:46 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2011, 11:36:41 PM »

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.
U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.
No, I don't think we can say that, at least genetically. We don't really know.  U198 is just a point of why we can't consider the Low Countries, the Jutland Peninsula and the Scandinavian Peninsula as one, genetically speaking, but there are other examples too.  We've already seen where we can only find one or two U198 folks in Scandinavia. The mix of haplogroups varies across these areas.

You can probably suppose that these peoples were Germanic speaking, but not that they were genetically the same.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:38:02 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
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 0.177 seconds with 19 queries.