World Families Forums - Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
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)
| | |-+  Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?  (Read 9248 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2012, 03:54:10 PM »

I need to leave U106 alone, though. A number of folks (not you, Jdean) have far too much emotion invested in it, and it isn't all that important to me.

I think that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

That was revealing.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 04:15:11 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2012, 05:12:40 PM »

I need to leave U106 alone, though. A number of folks (not you, Jdean) have far too much emotion invested in it, and it isn't all that important to me.

I think that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

That was revealing.


Having thought about it, I came back to delete my comment. Unfortunately it was too late. All I meant to comment on was that you have gotten pretty angry in some of the discussions, as perhaps many of us have.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:31:32 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2012, 05:16:48 PM »

I'm sorry I beat you to deleting it.

I've posted stuff I have been lucky enough to delete pretty quickly myself and been glad of it.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:19:48 PM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2012, 06:30:06 AM »

Goldenhind

Often an angry response suggests some emotional attachment.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2012, 06:46:50 AM »

Does this forum allow sock-puppets?
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #105 on: April 22, 2012, 06:52:22 AM »

The alternative is censorship and no one of compassion or integrity would advocate any such exclusion.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #106 on: April 22, 2012, 07:47:20 AM »

No - the alternative is civility. A forum like this one is created for discussion of specific topics. Civil discourse is an aid to keeping on topic. That is generally recognised by those running forums these days, after many years of Internet experience. That is why forums nowadays have registration and rules and moderators.

It is standard practice to remove spam, ban sock-puppets and personal attacks, and attempt to keep discussions on the topic of the thread title. None of this is easy. The moderator always has a pretty thankless task. A forum such as this one has particular problems in that discussions of ethnicity can become extremely heated and descend rapidly into racist or ethnic abuse. There are forums out there that I wouldn't want to post on because they can't or don't control that tendency.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 08:22:56 AM by Jean M » Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #107 on: April 22, 2012, 08:29:01 AM »

Yes absoluteley, it's always a disappointing distraction when people indulge in discourtesy, no matter how cleverly veiled, far more more mature to remain objective and polite, than indulge in fallacious responses using ad hominem, appeals to ridicule etc. Thankfully due to the integrity and consideration of our Moderator, along with the vigilance of contributors such as your good self, such behavior is rare.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #108 on: April 22, 2012, 08:44:49 AM »

No - the alternative is civility.

That is true, but sometimes that is tough, especially when one knows what is going on and is tempted to just be blunt about it.

Maybe our recent outbreak of whatever-this-is concerning U106 will fade. I hope it does soon.

It would be nice if we could all just discuss it without emotion and without underhanded games.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #109 on: April 22, 2012, 10:56:30 AM »

Bravo!
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #110 on: April 23, 2012, 03:30:56 PM »

Maybe our recent outbreak of whatever-this-is concerning U106 will fade. I hope it does soon.


I hope it does too. Unfortunately the argument has degenerated into far too many snide comments from a number of people, including myself. So here is what I fully intend to be my very last public comment on the subject for a very long time.

As the motivations for well known views have been questioned, I have spent some time reflecting on why I keep harping on the subject. While one's motivations may be complex and may alter over time, I think there is one primary reason why I keep referring to the subject of U106.

I believe the the oft expressed view that U106 is monolithic and exclusively Germanic is strangling further research on U106 subclades.

I have been in touch with a few people who are trying to conduct research into the subclades of U106, without any assistance from those in charge of the U106 project.  A common complaint is that there isn't much interest by those who are U106 in doing any further subclade testing. This is in complete contrast to P312, where every new SNP engenders a lot of interest and numerous orders. I think much of the lack of interest is due to the monolithic view of U106 as exclusively Germanic. Once one has tested U106, one only need determine which Germanic tribe settled in the appropriate ancestral area during the Migration Age, and one knows everything one needs to know. Further testing just gives one a jumble of letters and numbers which are essentially meaningless. Since the answer is known in advance, there is no need to ask the question.

It is clear that the subclade substructure of U106 is just as complex as that of P312. But as long as the current view prevails, I think it is going to prove extremely difficult to make much progress in deciphering it.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #111 on: April 23, 2012, 05:41:19 PM »

Maybe our recent outbreak of whatever-this-is concerning U106 will fade. I hope it does soon.


. . .

I believe the the oft expressed view that U106 is monolithic and exclusively Germanic is strangling further research on U106 subclades.

. . .



Where has that view been "oft expressed"? Certainly not here and not by anyone I can recall.

It's a waste of time debating past each other. Judging by what you posted above, you haven't really been arguing with anyone here, anyway.

You have been combating a position taken by no one that I know of.

I would say U106 is mostly Germanic, but there are exceptions. I tend to think the exceptions are rather insignificant and don't alter the big picture, but that is far different from saying that "U106 is monolithic and exclusively Germanic".

In fact, I wouldn't put that kind of label on ANY major y haplogroup.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 05:42:05 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #112 on: April 23, 2012, 06:02:21 PM »


Germanic is strangling further research on U106 subclades.

Why would a Germanic label strangle research into subclades? People will always want to know more. Angle? Saxon? Viking? Frank? Can we tell the difference? The desire to climb out of a broad ethnic label altogether is not even the primary driver of research, let alone the exclusive one.

I can't speak for any of the groups involved of course, but I have been impressed by the website http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/ and seem to recall a lot of interest in other subclades of U106 on DNA Forums. Given the numbers of people carrying U106, that's not surprising. I'd say that people will go on beavering away until they can get some surname-subclade links.

[Added] The L48+ WTY Project remains active and is now accepting donations for L48 null 425 cluster SNP tests, if anyone is feeling generous.  "SNP Z326 has previously been identified as a SNP that appears to be equivalent with the null 425 cluster.  However, there are now 13 additional SNPs on this branch that have become testable SNPs on the FTDNA Advanced Orders menu."
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 06:51:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #113 on: April 23, 2012, 07:05:02 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10503.msg129419#msg129419
So the supposition is that U106 may have met folks (such as I1, R1a1, P312*) from Scandinavia just south of the Jutland to form the Jastorf culture.

Jastorf beings around 700 BC?  U106 is about 4000 years old?  So the corollary of your supposition is that U106 was contained east of the Oder River for its first 1300 years?  And that lines up with variance figures?

Remember, this is all just a speculative inquiry but it is based on STR diversity being higher in Poland than Germany and being similar in both England and Scandinavia.   Scandinavian U106 does not look old.

Yes, there is a corollary that U106 was not in the Jutland or at the neck of the Jutland or points west or north, to any significant degree, prior to the Jastorf expansion.  It could have been either east or south.  I don't know which. That's not too hard to imagine, if you think the R-L11 family (L11*, U106, P312) originated in SE Europe, the Steppes or SW Asia.

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10503.msg129419#msg129419
Later the descendants of Jastorf expanded north up the Jutland into Scandinavia as well as west into the Low Countries and then to England.  This happened at about the same time.

Are there any historical or archaelogical sources that show a simultaneous movement of people out of the Jastorf area:
West to the Low Countries & England; and
North to Scandinavia

I think the movement of people into the Low Countries and over into England (the Anglo-Saxon Era) is pretty well documented.

I don't know much about migrations south to north in the Jutland Peninsula, if there were any, or from Denmark across the straits to the Scandinavian Peninsula.
Nord-Pas-de-Calais seems to be the final roadblock for U106 on its way to England.

U106 is 8% in Ile de France and 9% in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, while it is 27% among Authentic Flemish surnames.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/bearers-of-french-surnames-in-flanders.html

Although we don't have Normandy in this study, my review of our DNA projects leads me to the opinion that Normandy is also low on U106. I1 might be a little stronger along the Atlantic France. I think this goes along with the possibility that U106 was late to Scandinavia and that it was the "southern" contingent that integrated of what was to become Jastorf.  I'm just speculating, but I think U106's expansion pushed north as well as west to get to the frequency numbers it now has in England and Scandinavia. The earlier days of the Vikings probably didn't include many U106 guys.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 07:09:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #114 on: April 23, 2012, 07:16:32 PM »

I think there were probably plenty of Danish Vikings who were U106 but far fewer Swedes and Norwegians. Remember that the Danes extended into the southern part of what is now Sweden.

The Norwegians went mainly to Scotland and Ireland and NW England, while the actual Swedes (not the Danes of Scania/southern Sweden) mainly went east, into Russia. The Danes were latecomers to Ireland and spent most of their time in the British Isles menacing and settling in eastern England.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #115 on: April 23, 2012, 07:21:02 PM »

I think there were probably plenty of Danish Vikings who were U106 but far fewer Swedes and Norwegians. Remember that the Danes extended into the southern part of what is now Sweden.

The Norwegians went mainly to Scotland and Ireland and NW England, while the actual Swedes (not the Danes of Scania/southern Sweden) mainly went east, into Russia. The Danes were latecomers to Ireland and spent most of their time in the British Isles menacing and settling in eastern England.
.... so there is historical backup for a late drive of people from the Jutland (Denmark) across the straits to the Scandinavian Peninsula.

This makes sense because places where we see the "Hiberno-Vikings" and "Scots-Norse" don't seem to have a strong  of U106, actually more of the Scandinavian variants of P312, like L165.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 07:21:32 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #116 on: April 23, 2012, 07:29:00 PM »

I think there were probably plenty of Danish Vikings who were U106 but far fewer Swedes and Norwegians. Remember that the Danes extended into the southern part of what is now Sweden.

The Norwegians went mainly to Scotland and Ireland and NW England, while the actual Swedes (not the Danes of Scania/southern Sweden) mainly went east, into Russia. The Danes were latecomers to Ireland and spent most of their time in the British Isles menacing and settling in eastern England.
.... so there is historical backup for a late drive of people from the Jutland (Denmark) across the straits to the Scandinavian Peninsula.

This makes sense because places where we see the "Hiberno-Vikings" and "Scots-Norse" don't seem to have a strong  of U106, actually more of the Scandinavian variants of P312, like L165.


I'm not sure when the Danes moved into Scania (Skåne), which I think was bigger than the modern Swedish county that bears that name, or if perhaps they even originated there and moved west and south into the islands and Jutland at some point.

I am a little rusty on all this stuff, but the Swedes or Svear were the people farther north who had moved south to menace Danish-held territory. You get some of the flavor of that in the old sagas, where the Svear are generally treated as bad guys, into witchcraft and sorcery.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 07:29:33 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #117 on: April 23, 2012, 07:41:03 PM »

I think there were probably plenty of Danish Vikings who were U106 but far fewer Swedes and Norwegians. Remember that the Danes extended into the southern part of what is now Sweden.

The Norwegians went mainly to Scotland and Ireland and NW England, while the actual Swedes (not the Danes of Scania/southern Sweden) mainly went east, into Russia. The Danes were latecomers to Ireland and spent most of their time in the British Isles menacing and settling in eastern England.
.... so there is historical backup for a late drive of people from the Jutland (Denmark) across the straits to the Scandinavian Peninsula.

This makes sense because places where we see the "Hiberno-Vikings" and "Scots-Norse" don't seem to have a strong  of U106, actually more of the Scandinavian variants of P312, like L165.


I'm not sure when the Danes moved into Scania (Skåne), which I think was bigger than the modern Swedish county that bears that name, or if perhaps they even originated there and moved west and south into the islands and Jutland at some point.

I am a little rusty on all this stuff, but the Swedes or Svear were the people farther north who had moved south to menace Danish-held territory. You get some of the flavor of that in the old sagas, where the Svear are generally treated as bad guys, into witchcraft and sorcery.


I also seem to recall a movement of Danes into the region of the Oslofjord in Norway, but my memory is fuzzy on that.

I used to be really into the whole Germanic/Viking thing and was really current on it.

I lost interest in it pretty quickly in 2006, admittedly as a consequence of my own initial I1- result and subsequent S21- (U106-) result. ;-)

Of course, one of my third great grandfathers on my father's side was I1, so maybe I should rekindle the old interest, but I probably won't.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 07:42:00 PM by rms2 » Logged

Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #118 on: April 23, 2012, 08:54:45 PM »

20-30% of Iceland is U106 according to this Eupedia map.  What I'm trying to get my head around is if U106 was a fairly late push into Scandinavia, roughly when did that happen and isn't it a bit against the current (ie Germanicky types getting in their volkswagens heading south instead of north)?
http://www.disnorge.no/cms/system/files/offentlige_filer/Haplogroup-R1b-U106%20Eupedia.gif
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #119 on: April 23, 2012, 09:04:57 PM »

A common complaint is that there isn't much interest by those who are U106 in doing any further subclade testing. This is in complete contrast to P312, where every new SNP engenders a lot of interest and numerous orders.

Going by Thomas Krahn's figures, testing totals to date are:

U106: 7271
P312: 5557

Quote
I think much of the lack of interest is due to the monolithic view of U106 as exclusively Germanic.

I'm in the U106 project and I haven't heard anybody advance that argument. The majority of discussion is along the lines of "what can I test for next?" and the admins do a great job of analyzing haplotypes and suggesting the next move. Another frequent question is "when will the primer for xxx be developed so that I can test for it?"

IMO the key issue for U106 is to get many more Europeans with known ancestry tested.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #120 on: April 24, 2012, 05:30:57 AM »

IMO the key issue for U106 is to get many more Europeans with known ancestry tested.

Maybe we should nag Peter Forster to publish something on U106. I hear that Roots for Real has a huge European database. They advertise in German and French as well as English. 
Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #121 on: April 24, 2012, 06:53:03 AM »

The Norwegians went mainly to Scotland and Ireland and NW England, while the actual Swedes (not the Danes of Scania/southern Sweden) mainly went east, into Russia.

Runestones in Sweden are particularly helpful as they sometimes record the location, eg the Ingvar Runestones record the expedition to the Caspian Sea, about 26, the Greece Runestones those to the Byzantine Empire, about 30 and the England Runestones record those to Britain also about 30. They are mostly found around the Lake Malaren Area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_runestones

Typical is this one from Uppland, U344:

"And Ulfr has taken three payments in England. That was the first that Tosti paid. Then Þorketill paid. Then Knútr paid."

Because Sweden was not a single kingdom, Danish kings especially had networks of thegns loyal to them. Those thegns in return had men under them who were keen to go on expeditions. If a thegn couldn't get on one expedition, he better get his men a place on another.

Two of the three chieftain graves at Repton, thought to be a graveyard of the Great Danish Army, had isotopic results consistent with an upbringing in Sweden. One of them was thought to have come from Birka.

Norwegians and Danes too went to Byzantium, though Britain and Ireland were more common. Both Harald Hardrade, King of Norway and Sweyn, King of Denmark, fought together in the Varingian Guard in their youth:

http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/hardrade1.html
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 06:53:56 AM by authun » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 24, 2012, 11:51:33 AM »

20-30% of Iceland is U106 according to this Eupedia map.  What I'm trying to get my head around is if U106 was a fairly late push into Scandinavia, roughly when did that happen and isn't it a bit against the current (ie Germanicky types getting in their volkswagens heading south instead of north)?
http://www.disnorge.no/cms/system/files/offentlige_filer/Haplogroup-R1b-U106%20Eupedia.gif

I'm just speculating, but according to the supposition I've put out, the settling of Iceland by the people who would remain and survive until today would have been done in later historical times.

What does the historical record tell us about the settling of Iceland?  I know they've had a bad climate period or two.

Quote from: Scott Mandia
Lamb (1995) reports that the population of Iceland fell from about 77,500, as indicated by tax records in 1095, to around 72,000 in 1311. By 1703 it was down to 50,000, and after some severe years of ice and volcanic eruptions in the 1780's it was only 38,000. Average height declined from 5'8" during the tenth century to 5'6" in the eighteenth century. Lamb (1995) attributes much of the decline in population to the colder climate and increased ice flow. The harvest years were so cold that there was little hay to feed the livestock so thousands of sheep died. During the MWP, Icelanders grew grain over much of the island but by the early 1200's only barley, a short-season grain, was being grown. Lamb (1995) notes that there was also an increase in glacier growth and subsequent flooding from bursts due to volcanic activity under the ice. By the 1500's conditions were so bad that all attempts at grain growing were abandoned and Icelanders turned solely to the sea for their survival. The shellfish near the shores were destroyed by increasing amounts of ice so cod fishing became the Icelanders main source of food and trade. As the cooler waters moved southward, the cod were forced farther southward until they were too far offshore for the primitive Icelandic ships to reach.

As the warmer climate brought the Vikings in increasing numbers to Greenland and Iceland, the cooler climate was equal to the task of decreasing those numbers. By the time Columbus set sail in 1492, Greenland was "dead" and Iceland was struggling to survive its failing crops, starvation, and a collapsing fishing industry.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/decline_of_vikings_iceland.html

Are there known immigrations from Scandinavia to Iceland in the 1700's and 1800's?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 11:52:01 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 310


« Reply #123 on: April 24, 2012, 09:45:50 PM »

There was a program about the populating of Iceland on the BBC. (normally not overly fanciful the Beeb) apparently most of the women came from Ireland and Scotland nearly all the men came from Vikings. They showed the place of the first house etc. all backed up by DNA (supposedly).  Though they didn't state types etc but it was definitely Viking DNA. Oh have I missed something what is the Viking Y-DNA?
Logged
Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #124 on: April 25, 2012, 10:58:28 PM »

I've been finding U106 STR diversity as young in Scandinavia, when compared to the Low Countries, the rest of Continental Europe or the British Isles.

Perhaps there is an alignment with expansions of U106 and Germanic languages, but not necessarily out of Scandinavia.

Mike, I'm sure you've posted this somewhere before, but what is your variance/diversity figures for U106 in Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, and England?  Can you vis-a-vis them with P312 figures too?  I guess I'd like to know roughly what time P312 is thought to have arrived in Scandinavia, and see how U106 compares.

I'm keeping an open mind on U106's movements from its beginning.  Despite these brothers being almost the same age, it seems inconceivable and quite amazing is that P312 had a 2000 year old stranglehold on much of western Europe to the exclusion of his U106 brother, but that may well be the case...

With the neolithic farmers picking the eyes out of coastal mediterranean areas and hopping along the coast to estuaries of rivers, did P312 perhaps do the same, whilst U106 overlanded it much more slowly, and by the time they reach say Denmark, P312 is firmly entrenched with no niche for U106 to fill or exploit.  Does P312 take the wives and cattle of the neoliths, unburdened by having to drive its own cattle overland like U106 to the north?
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 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 0.137 seconds with 19 queries.