World Families Forums - TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 10:09:18 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)
| | |-+  TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades  (Read 13039 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2011, 10:53:26 PM »





If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. It may have occurred quite far south of there, i.e. Austria/Switzerland; or even as far east as Belarus or the Ukraine.
I make no claim that U106 was part of the Bell Beaker movements.  I don't know. They are hard to understand. From what Jean M says, there were more than one type of Beaker folks and the "folks" may not even all have carried beaker pottery around with them.



I generally agree with your first point. I also think they may have continued past Scandinavia to the coast of the North Sea, the area where their current hotspot is.

I am not claiming the case for a U106 presence among the more easterly Beakers has been proved, merely that there is some evidence suggesting it might have been. I just don't think the possibility should be dismissed out of hand.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 10:54:06 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2011, 10:15:25 AM »

... I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).
If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. ....
I should clarify. I think it is fairly obvious that a large part, if not almost all, of the U106 is England got there from the Anglo-Saxon period on from the Jutland Peninsula and points south and west of the Jutland down to Calais, France.  Some probably came from the Scandinavian Peninsula directly as well as indirectly from the Scandinavian Peninsula and on south down the Jutland and then over to England.

I just think that U106 arose and originally expanded on the continent and not in the Jutland and/or Scandinavia. STR diversity reflects that.  Given that U106 is about 4000 years old and started out on the continent, it would be surprising to me that some U106 didn't leak over across the North Sea into England. At the time their version of IE may not have been much different from what a lot of P312 folks were speaking.

The opinions are based on
1) high U198 diversity in England with very light U198 elsewhere
2) higher U106 diversity overall from Eastern Europe while diversity in Scandinavia and England are about the same
3) U106 being about 4000 years old, well before the formation of the Germanic lanugages
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 10:26:14 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2011, 10:31:41 AM »

Corded Ware and Beaker basically commenced c. 3000BC at opposite ends of Europe.  As L11 and all its major subclades are of similar age and seems to have crossed from somewhere around the Black Sea (probably south side) then its very hard to see how L11 could have been both at the origin of Corded Ware in Poland and beakers to the south-west.  It would require an unlikely rush by L11 to opposite ends of Europe within cultures of different origins.  Corded Ware is basically TRB with eastern elements added) and probably a mix of Neolithic 'natives' and Ukrainian elements coming in.  Beaker of course is of very unclear origins at present before it suddenly arises in Iberia.  Its just very tricky without special pleading arguments to understand how it could have been early associated with both corded ware and beaker.  If the proposed dates are right it seems more likely L11 originated in one group and transferred from one to the other. There was a period c. 2500 when both cultures expanded and overlapped each other and were contemporary around the area from Holland to Swizerland centred on the Rhine.

Problem with beakers is its seems to have been a very complex network of contacts in many directions and its a bit of a cure all snake oil that can be made to fit any opinion.  There needs to be more detailed chronological studies based on very carefully chosen samples to further unravel the beaker network.  It wont be  to do because it will involved large amounts of radiocarbon dates
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 10:40:23 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2011, 10:52:02 AM »

I personally dont think that a lack of U106 in the far west necessarily tells us much about the eastern and south-eastern Britons.  The lines of contact with the continent were different and it is possible that there was really major differences in clades between SE England and elsewhere and I also do not believe that this is merely the result of the Belgic movements of the later Iron Age.  The Hilversum culture of the late Bronze Age linked what were later the Belgic areas of the continent and SE England. 

Very little is clear except this - if U106 had the same distribution as it does today back in the copper age, with a strong showing as far west as Flanders, then it would certainly have ended up in southern and eastern Britain due to the beaker, Hilversum and Belgic connections.   If it was not common in SE England in prehistory then I would conversely conclude it must have been further east on the continent.  The two things must go hand in hand.  It really needs to be broken into many subclades and a good deep clade sample tested before we will have a better idea IMO.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2011, 07:57:19 PM »

U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).







We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.

P312 is also ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where there is no Beaker settlement. Does this prove that P312 couldn't have arrived there with the Beakers?

Finally I see no reason to assume that the Beakers on the Atlantic coastline necessarily had the exact same genetic composition as those from Holland and the Rhine.

Look at the distribution maps for both P312 and U106. P312's center is farther west than U106's center. U106 has a distribution that is a much better fit for the Germanic peoples than for the Celts and is overall a bit too far east for much of a connection to the Beaker Folk. We've been through this before.

I am thinking here of both P312 and U106 as monoliths in this case because, honestly, I am not all that familiar with the U106 subclade situation. It strikes me that U198 is not really a major subclade, although I could be wrong about that. I am not sure why it has to be found at high frequencies everywhere every other kind of U106 is found in order for there to be a clear connection between U106 and Germanic-speaking peoples.

Maybe ancient y-dna will eventually prove me wrong, but I just don't see U106 as far enough west and south early enough to be Beaker.

Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2011, 08:11:37 PM »

... I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).
If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. ....
I should clarify. I think it is fairly obvious that a large part, if not almost all, of the U106 is England got there from the Anglo-Saxon period on from the Jutland Peninsula and points south and west of the Jutland down to Calais, France.  Some probably came from the Scandinavian Peninsula directly as well as indirectly from the Scandinavian Peninsula and on south down the Jutland and then over to England.

I just think that U106 arose and originally expanded on the continent and not in the Jutland and/or Scandinavia. STR diversity reflects that.  Given that U106 is about 4000 years old and started out on the continent, it would be surprising to me that some U106 didn't leak over across the North Sea into England. At the time their version of IE may not have been much different from what a lot of P312 folks were speaking.

The opinions are based on
1) high U198 diversity in England with very light U198 elsewhere
2) higher U106 diversity overall from Eastern Europe while diversity in Scandinavia and England are about the same
3) U106 being about 4000 years old, well before the formation of the Germanic lanugages

I agree with most of what you say above, except that I do not think there was much U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons. Some, maybe, but not a lot. I suspect U198 got there with the Anglo-Saxons, just as L48 probably did.

I also do not think U106 originated in Scandinavia. In fact, I don't think any major y haplogroup originated in Scandinavia. Perhaps some subclade of I1 or some subclade of N originated there, and maybe L238 originated there, but nothing major.

I do think U106 has a pretty clear connection to Germanic-speakers, even though, yes, it is older than the Germanic branch of Indo-European. That seems to me to be pretty painfully obvious. That is one reason why I don't think it had much to do with the Beaker Folk and why I don't think it got anywhere near as far west and south as it is found in strength now prior to the 3rd century BC.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 08:15:32 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2011, 08:35:02 PM »

I also don't think U152 had much of a connection to the Beaker Folk, although it seems to me far more likely that U152 did than that U106 did.

I think U152 arrived in Britain well before U106 did, but U152 made less of a dent in the population of Britain than U106, although U106 got there later.

Here's what I think. There was some kind of I2 already in Britain from at least the Mesolithic Period. More I2a arrived, along with G2a probably, during the Neolithic. R-L21 came with the Beaker Folk, perhaps with some smaller numbers of other kinds of P312. U152 came mainly with the Belgae during the historical period. U106, probably mostly L48, began arriving with the Anglo-Saxons and was reinforced with infusions of mainly Danish Vikings.

Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2011, 03:50:44 PM »

I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 04:00:03 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2011, 05:16:44 PM »

3rd century BC. I did not say U106 was "bottled up in Scandinavia". I didn't even think it.

I said I don't think U106 was much of a factor among the Beaker Folk because I don't think it was far enough south and west at that time (3rd-2nd millennium BC).

500 BC is too late for Beaker Folk, and the Jastorf-Harpstedt cultures were not as far west as the Netherlands, being located around the mouth of the Elbe and extending to the east and north up the neck of the Jutland peninsula. Even if they made it as far west and south as the Netherlands, again, 500 BC is too late for Beaker Folk.

Remember, the oldest U106 (older than the Germanic languages) is found in Poland and the Baltic. I think that's probably about where most of it was during the Beaker part of the Bronze Age. It moved south and west later.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2011, 06:21:30 PM »

I find the highest variance being in Poland interesting as both TRB and Corded Ware (only about 1000 years after each other) are earliest dated in Poland.

U106 could (if it is old enough) be linked to Corded Ware neatly but the highest variance for P312 is not neatly linked to what is currently thought to be the origin area of beaker.  The strange thing is that the theory that held until not so long ago was that beaker came out of western peripheral corded ware along the Rhine or thereabouts and that would actually rather well fit the high variance for P312 around the eastern France/Swiss/German border area.  I must admit that intuitively when I look at overall generalised picture of the cultures I did tend to feel that the TRB-Corded Ware-beaker evolution 'felt' right.  Something along the line of the theory that European beaker culture was created by SW Influences (metalurgy etc) meeting Corded Ware influences on the western boundary of the latter always felt believable.  It still is not clear exactly what element that created the beaker culture brought L11.  

An indirect way of working our how L11 got into the beaker culture is to ask how it got into the Corded Ware culture.  What is the common denominator in beaker and Corded Ware?  Normally the Corded Ware culture is seen as TRB peoples with some sort of additional eastern input.  The Corded Ware area now is a complex mixture of R1b, R1a and I etc.  Beaker areas are today very predominantly R1b.  So either L11 was already within TRB or it is due to that extra eastern element.  There must have been a melting pot in the east that included L11 at the time of these movements, perhaps slightly south and west of R1a but in an overlapping.  

The Indo-European culture may have evolved from a blend of the pastoralism and metal working of R1b peoples on the western shores of the Black Sea and the hunter-gatherers of the steppes who one would assume were R1a.  Without both elements then the Indo-European cultures as we know it would not exists.  As has been pointed out by some the Indo-European vocab implies a much more settled farming culture than step nomads.  I think the origin of IE culture  is in the blend.  Step nomad traits fizzled out pretty far east after all.  It would seem most likely that the area on the (moving) boundary between the steppes peoples and the peoples was very important. 
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 06:30:49 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2011, 06:40:12 PM »

I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."

He also tended to be against the idea of Celtic emerging in the Bronze Age at that time and was still into the whole urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model which is becoming increasingly unpopular.  Its hard to not see that there is a possibility that Germanic had roots in the Nordic Bronze Age.  The area in between the Nordic and Atlantic Bronze Ages  like the Low Counties has been suggested to be an intermediate group, perhaps Germanicised later.  In general Mallory followed the linguists dating of Celtic, Germanic etc which at that time was generally not placed much before the late Bronze Age.  There are now a lot of studies which push back separate languages into a much earlier period.  Personally I think Celtic and Germanic may have started to emerge around 2000BC. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2011, 07:01:37 PM »

I also don't think U152 had much of a connection to the Beaker Folk, although it seems to me far more likely that U152 did than that U106 did.

I think U152 arrived in Britain well before U106 did, but U152 made less of a dent in the population of Britain than U106, although U106 got there later.

Here's what I think. There was some kind of I2 already in Britain from at least the Mesolithic Period. More I2a arrived, along with G2a probably, during the Neolithic. R-L21 came with the Beaker Folk, perhaps with some smaller numbers of other kinds of P312. U152 came mainly with the Belgae during the historical period. U106, probably mostly L48, began arriving with the Anglo-Saxons and was reinforced with infusions of mainly Danish Vikings.



It seems to me that different clades predominated among different beaker hotspots.  Z196 type clades in Iberia, L21 in NW France and the western half of the isles and U152 was probably big in the Belgium/south Holland Beaker hotspot and down the Rhine .  Beaker tended to be in hotspots rather than continuous coverage so it is possible that the clades emerged in each hotspot or sector of the beaker culture and there was then at least a modest flow between areas given beaker peoples strong correlation with trading and metals.  Each of these areas is also a metal hotspot with the exception of the Low Countries and eastern Britain.  I suspect that L21 had a big role in the primary obtaining of metal while the groups to the east in the eastern half of Britain and the Low Countries were wealthy middle men.   Metal only brings wealth if you can reach a market and these middle men may have done better out of it than the metal rich but geographically peripheral groups in Atlantic Britain.  It is noticeable in the British Isles that there was a bit of a split between

1. Metal source areas with poor land and few beaker burials
2.  areas with beaker burials but of no metal sources but good land

The general impression I get is that the L21 areas were involved heavily in the primary production while the U152 areas may have been the middle men. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2011, 07:39:01 PM »

I was thinking of the Beaker Folk who went to Britain and Ireland. I think they were mostly R-L21.

Of course, I don't know; I'm just having fun guessing.

I don't think P312 and U106 populations were thoroughly mixed as long ago as the Bronze Age; otherwise, we wouldn't see the kinds of frequency clines we are still able to detect.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 07:39:19 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2011, 11:52:50 PM »

...I don't think P312 and U106 populations were thoroughly mixed as long ago as the Bronze Age; otherwise, we wouldn't see the kinds of frequency clines we are still able to detect.
Ironically, P312 and U106 are closely related and must have originated near the same place. Their L11 family must have been very mobile and either very lucky or carrying the same advantage. They may have had split dramatically before the bulk of their populations met up again, but this all happened fairly quickly.

Many of us make an assumption of balance as we think of two brothers. From a DNA projects standpoint, this is not true. There are many more P312 than U106 folks, but this may just be the bias of our projects.

I often hear the quote about 10 million R1b men in Europe and it is easy to think half P312 and half U106 but, what is the real balance?  If they are roughly 50/50, that may b part of the reason I have hard time perceiving U106 not reaching further west earlier than the Anglo-Saxon period.

I guess that is a question that should be easily answered from the Myres information. As a percentage of total population of Western and Central Europe, how many U106xL48, L48, U198, P312xL21xU152xZ196, L21, U152 and Z196 folks are there?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 11:54:00 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2011, 09:15:41 AM »

I've made the comment in the past that P312 seems to be much more populous than U106.

As for being closely related, we know that's true, but it's a close relationship at some removes, both in terms of the Y Tree and geography, not to mention five thousand years or so of time. In other words, close can only be a relative term when applied to P312 and U106.

We're close relative to non-R1b stuff, but far enough apart for clines in distribution to still be clearly discernible, even today, five thousand or so years after the births of both haplogroups.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2011, 09:46:26 AM »

Robert (Goldenhind) makes an excellent point about U106 being treated as a virtual monolith. Even Busby only goes so far as to separate out U198 from the general U106 herd. And U198 seems to hardly be worth the effort (if the U198 guys will pardon me for saying it).

Meanwhile, P312 (S116) always seems to come in for much more precise slicing and dicing.

I think that is chiefly because P312 was only discovered a number of years after some of its more famous subclades, so it has never been thought of as a single thing. It was split before we even knew it existed.

U106 (S21), on the other hand, was a star at its discovery in 2005 and, along with U152 (S28), had center stage for several years, especially since it offered hope to R1b guys who desperately wanted to be Vikings or at least some kind of Germanic and to escape the sort of generalized European "aborigine" status to which most of us had been consigned.

Why split up a good thing? seems to still be a popular sentiment among U106 enthusiasts.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2011, 10:26:23 AM »

.... Why split up a good thing? seems to still be a popular sentiment among U106 enthusiasts.
I agree, which is why I think P312 and U106 should also be considered in context of each other and together as well divided by it elements.  From a cultural standpoint, the divide may not be so great, at least for some elements and at certain phases in time.

What if L11 (S127) had been discovered first? and then P312 and U106 not for a couple of years later?  and let's add M269 and L23 to the couple of years later.

Genetic genealogists would have several years of endoctrination of some large scale activities in Western Europe by these L11 people.  They might be commonly thought of as directly related to Centum IE.

From a general standpoint, P312 and U106 started out together. One went right and one went left and they met up together in prehistory.. before Caesar. Where exactly the line was I don't know but I'll bet it moved (as we saw when Anglo-Saxons entered Britain) back and forth throughout prehistory.  

... and the line between P312 and U106 was probably not a clear line.. I think we can be pretty sure. Besides tribal alliances, mergers, intermarriage among leaders, etc. - back from the original split up some P312 and may have went with their U106 cousins rather than with the bulk of their P312 brothers. You can say it wasn't significant, but we really don't know, particularly when we see a pretty good number of P312* and Z196 in Germanic areas. As far degrees of significance, I think any traceable element should be considered which means I think L226 is important. U198 is at least as important as L226.

I guess I'm just saying it's not all one way or another but varying degrees. We can call one degree substantial and another inconsequential but we don't know. Most Y DNA lines went extinct anyway so the modern mix may be quite a bit different than the original bands that went right and left.

It's still all one family tree... at the L11 level for sure... and the branches probably all don't grow straight out in their respective directions but some branches and twigs probably cross back over culturally in seemingly wrong directions.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 06:54:04 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2011, 01:06:24 PM »

I tend to think that for a long period the difference between P312 and U106 must have been minor.  If L11 is c. 5000 years old or less, it would have taken a long time for there to be any real distinctiveness between them for many many centuries.  I think cultural distinctiveness (if the suggested dating is correct) only developed slowly as the L11 peoples slowly split into separate tighter networks in the post-beaker/Corded Ware era. In fact I would say most likely the period c. 1600BC saw the beginning of the development of distinctive 'blocks' that led towards separate languages.  Although Germanic may have only developed its distinctive features in the very end of the Bronze Age I have no doubt that its cultural identity was slowly emerging in the Nordic Bronze Age which commenced c. 1700BC.  However that is many centuries after the beaker dispersal started.   
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 01:10:40 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2011, 09:21:06 PM »

It's been suggested that localization was a key feature of the iron age  and the bronze age was quite the opposite. This has to be a prime candidate for the Celtic Germanic split to be emphasized if not causing it.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2011, 10:18:23 AM »

I have been going back over Busby's spreadsheet this morning, but not with a fine-toothed comb, so I may have missed some things and locations. Anyway, my impression is that in the Germanic-speaking lands on the Continent, U106 is more frequent than P312 in the North, especially in the Netherlands, where it simply overwhelms P312 (particularly in Friesland). That changes as one moves south into central and southern Germany, where the two draw even and then P312 begins to overtake U106. U106 still makes a good showing there, however.

The exceptions in all this are the samples from Ängelholm in SW Sweden (formerly part of Denmark) and Norway. In Ängelholm, P312 outnumbers U106 nearly three to one in a fair-sized sample of 139. In Norway, the two run about even in a sample of 138.

I'm looking at both U106 and P312 as monoliths, since, apart from U198, Busby didn't break the U106 population down into subclades as they did with at least part of P312.

It's interesting that L21xM222, while rather infrequent (but not altogether absent) in Germany, begins to grow in frequency as one moves west into the Netherlands, where it is just over 5% of the Friesland sample and roughly 6% of the Utrecht sample. In my humble opinion, that is an echo of the pre-Germanic, Celtic past of the Channel coast and just beyond. At one time the whole region opposite Britain, from Brittany to West Friesland, was predominantly L21. That changed as much of the L21 went to Britain, and as U106 moved in from the northeast and U152 moved up from the southeast. If you will recall, the L21 frequency climbs to 10% as one moves into NE France and continues to climb as one moves west across northern France.

It is also interesting that L21 made a fair showing in Switzerland, with a high of over 7% at Oberdorf, although the sample sizes were relatively small.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 11:27:06 AM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2011, 05:16:53 PM »

The exceptions in all this are the samples from Ängelholm in SW Sweden (formerly part of Denmark) and Norway. In Ängelholm, P312 outnumbers U106 nearly three to one in a fair-sized sample of 139. In Norway, the two run about even in a sample of 138.

I'm looking at both U106 and P312 as monoliths, since, apart from U198, Busby didn't break the U106 population down into subclades as they did with at least part of P312.


Jean M. made some pie charts from the newly released Old Norway data and posted them on another forum, so I suspect you haven't seen them. This was discussed on another topic on this forum.

The data from Norway itself is quite interesting. In the Norway coastal sample (n=82) nearly half are R1b, and P312* is nearly half of the R1b. It  outnumbers all of U106 combined. L21 looks to be roughly half the size of all U106. In the Norway inland sample (n=221), P312* and L21 are approximately the same size (about a quarter of R1b), and combined they are about the same size as all of U106, which is nearly half of R1b there.

In spite of this, and undoubtedly ignorant of it, the usual suspect on the other forum has been arguing that L21 in Scandinavia is due to the Viking slavery, claiming Wilson and Moffat as his source. Others have argued this is due to migration in historic times. The difficulty with these arguments is that the areas were the Norwegian Vikings did most of their slave taking was Ireland and northern Scotland. Most of the modern migration has also come from Scotland.However P312* is pretty thin in Scotland and Ireland, and neither Viking slavery or historic migration can possibly explain the enormous amount of P312* in the Norway coastal sample. So the origin of P312* in Norway (which of course includes L238 and doubtless other subclades) must be sought from an earlier data. If P312* arrived there early, perhaps in the Bronze Age, it seems reasonable to me that L21 could have as well, at least in part.

The data for Sweden and northern Denmark from the Old Norway Project is also interesting. I won't go into it again, but it demonstarate that while U106 overwhelms P312 in some areas, in others P312 has a slight edge or is about equal to U106. It is clear that the distribution of R1b subclades in Scandinavia is far from uniform.

I wish we had some idea of the breakdown of U106 subclades in these studies.


Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2011, 10:49:44 PM »

Could the Hugano's have spread u-106 after there move out of France they did leave in numbers and seemed to be quite a closed community. There dates are very late though. Their names show up quite a lot in N.Ireland.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2011, 09:18:32 AM »

Could the Hugano's have spread u-106 after there move out of France they did leave in numbers and seemed to be quite a closed community. There dates are very late though. Their names show up quite a lot in N.Ireland.   

The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot.

One of my own ancestors was a Huguenot, but he was from northwestern France, where L21 predominates.

Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2011, 11:32:31 AM »

Would this older paper expose larger scale alignments to the movements of R-M269 and its subclades?

I found this link on the Yahoo U106 files section.

Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routers in Europe Taberlet etal

molecular ecology (1998) 7, 453-464

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YELSTp4yCiaSGtBDUNpLHW6u2VEkaojipPaS1Sxn9CPz7s2iEcg7RWIGdEg0EtrolBOnT2JkKFykAJOaOXrOZ0_K-XZGHw/Phylogeography2.pdf
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2011, 12:50:20 PM »

... In spite of this, and undoubtedly ignorant of it, the usual suspect on the other forum has been arguing that L21 in Scandinavia is due to the Viking slavery, claiming Wilson and Moffat as his source. Others have argued this is due to migration in historic times. The difficulty with these arguments is that the areas were the Norwegian Vikings did most of their slave taking was Ireland and northern Scotland. Most of the modern migration has also come from Scotland.However P312* is pretty thin in Scotland and Ireland, and neither Viking slavery or historic migration can possibly explain the enormous amount of P312* in the Norway coastal sample. So the origin of P312* in Norway (which of course includes L238 and doubtless other subclades) must be sought from an earlier data. If P312* arrived there early, perhaps in the Bronze Age, it seems reasonable to me that L21 could have as well, at least in part....
I agree, and would add that the ratio of L21 subclades is different in Scandinavia than it is in Scotland and Ireland, implying a different source. M222 is usually shown in these studies and it has lower ratios to L21* in Scandinavia.

I want to be careful to not imply that there is zero L21 or P312 (or U106 or I for that matter) in Scandinavia that was brought there as thralls. There probably was some, but how much of an impact they made is hard to ascertain.

Based on the Old Norway Project, L21's presence in Norway in-land as well as coastal, and parts of southern Sweden are over 5%.  To me, that is a significant presence for a 4000 year-old (or less) subclade.

My perspective is there is an hypothesis that has been put forth that most of the L21 in Scandinavia is the result of Viking captured labor. I'll call it alternative #1.  The Viking Age was about 790AD to 1066AD so the alternatives are that L21 may have also come prior to (alt. #2) 790AD and (alt. #3) post 1066 AD.  

What alternative(s) had the most significant impact of L21 in Scandinavia?

As far as #1, thralls in the Viking Age, if we had enough information about the details of Viking excursions and slave trading practices we could try to estimate this and make a comparison. However those details don't see to be available. Those putting forward the Viking forced labor hypothesis don't present data to backup their hypothesis. They just have historic anectdotal information. I have my doubts the thrall immigration was tremendously significant as far as Y DNA goes. I don't think thralls necessarily would thrive in the foreign environment and economy which wasn't exactly based on a rich agricultural environment, at least compared to the Isles. I would think the thralls would have been more valuable elsewhere.  The Viking Age was also a fairly short period of time, about 250 years.

Alternative #2, Gaelic and post-Gaelic Isles merchant contact and migration to Scandinavia, there is definitely historical information available. We could try to estimate the significance of the impact. My thinking is although this may have had an impact, it should show in terms of very unbalanced frequency of high L21 on the Norwegian coast, and that's about it. I'd also expect to see a high ratio of M222, like in Ulster, Ireland and Scotland.  We don't see that.

Alternative #3 seems most promising. I say that just because there is a large time-frame, probably from 2000BC to 700AD, for opportunity of migration of L21 into Scandinavia, although not necessarily all from the Isles. During this timeframe, existing populations in Scandinavia were probably much lower so a little immigration could have made a large difference. At the same time, we know Bell Beaker folks (through archaeological finds) have been an element of bring the Bronze Age to Scandinavia. This would have been a richer opportunity for a Y DNA impact, through elites, on Scandinavia than through thralls.

We don't really know, but to present the hypothesis that L21 is by default descendant of a thrall in Scandinavia is without justification and is provocative - which might sell more books.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 01:20:46 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 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 0.21 seconds with 19 queries.