World Families Forums - Austria’s “Three Amigos” R-M412, R-U106, R-U152 map to Romance, not Slavic areas

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 06:12:14 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)
| | |-+  Austria’s “Three Amigos” R-M412, R-U106, R-U152 map to Romance, not Slavic areas
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Austria’s “Three Amigos” R-M412, R-U106, R-U152 map to Romance, not Slavic areas  (Read 1119 times)
Black Taylor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« on: July 28, 2012, 12:10:42 PM »

As an alternative to the recent (somewhat tedious) discussion about u106 in Britain, Dienekes has a new post up referencing a paper on Austrian toponyms (http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/complex-y-chromosome-structure-in-east.html) which puts some Y lines in the spotlight.

The take away points are that other than the historic Germanic language flush which poured out of Bavaria and swamped Austria in its entirety, earlier substrates of Slavic and Romance toponyms divide Austria into a northern Slavic area corresponding to higher levels of Y groups E-M78, R-M17, R-M412/S167*, and R-S116*, and a southern area of Romance toponyms with elevated levels of  R-M412/S167*, R-U106/S21, and R-U152/S28.

Does anyone know enough about the prehistory of this area to explain the three-way m412, u106 and u152 enrichment in southern Austria?  Which ancient Romance speaking group would be dominated by this combination of Y lines?

My first thought reading the abstract is that if a Romance language was adopted by or superimposed on an existing population (e.g. Roman conquest), this appears to be a case where u106 and u152 may not fit into tidy "German" or "Celtic" pigeon holes.  The enrichment in the frequency of m412, which is upstream of the other two SNPs may also be important.  What was this original population and what did they speak before adopting a Romance language?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L48
mtDNA: H
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2012, 01:33:50 PM »

I have posted another thread on the General Discussion and many comments about the paper. My title alludes to the pretension (not new) of Dienekes to demonstrate that hg. J2 (his one) was the haplogroup which took to Europe the Indo-European languages.
But the paper is very interesting beyond Dienekes and his problems. To answer your question you should read all the postings I have written in these last years (many thousands).
This region was the Rhaetian one and of course they spoke Rhaetian language before the Roman conquest, but Rhaetic was linked to Etruscan, then I consider all them “Ancient Italians” and their Y and mtDNA those of the Italian Refugium. The paper, written by Austrians of German language, says clearly that the population of Zone A is linked with the ancient Romanic people and that the Zone B, those of the Slav colonization, don’t cluster with to-day Slavs. Then they too were probably people of the zone, perhaps Illyrians, or ancient people of the high Adriatic.
Of course there has been a founder effect and any diversity in the composition of the two populations should be examined case by case.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2012, 02:30:05 PM »

I didn't read the paper, and don't plan to, but I did read the synopsis Dienekes posted today on RootsWeb; and I wondered why on earth they would compare field names and Y-DNA... but omit everything else to do with the culture(s), population movements, etc. of that area, at least in more recent millennia.  There is an excellent atlas of folk culture for Austria.  The journal Wörter und Sachen covered this area admirably, I believe from 1909ff.  The museum in Graz has specialized in such things for a century or so.  There was a little revival of interest in it, back in my student days, one evidence of that being Ethnologia Europaea: Revue Internationale d'Ethnologie Européene (A World Review of European Ethnology). Volume I, Number 1 (1967).  And so on.

It just appears that the wheel is unnecessarily being reinvented.  And I idly wonder if that's because the said field names and Y-DNA allow them to say what they want to say, whereas more complete coverage might cloud their picture.  Maybe I'm unduly suspicious -- but I find myself uncharacteristically agreeing somewhat with Gioiello, who is also suspicious (if perhaps of something slightly different).
Logged

R1b Z196*
Black Taylor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2012, 03:23:23 PM »

Maliclavelli, thanks for the reply.  I see by your name tag that you've posted almost 1500 comments on this forum (!), so while I will read your posts as you suggest I won't be able to get through that today.

As an quick alternative I read the wikipedia page on the Raetians, the reported ancient inhabitants of this part of Austria.  If this is accurate, it's apparent that the Raetians were either: a) of similar origin to the Etruscans, displaced by Celts from an original home in the Po valley, or b) a Celtic tribe much like many others.  The missing ingredient in this early time frame is the German identity most often associated with u106, as Germans weren't present in the area yet.  Based on the toponym - haplogroup pairing, u106 was already present in the Romance speaking (Rhaetian) southern region prior to the Slavic expansions.  This stems from the following population/linguistic scenario:

Rhaetian (oldest) --> Romance --> Slavic --> German (youngest) as implied by the toponyms.  In terms of Y haplogroups I'd say the paper suggests:

Start with a population proportionally enriched in R-M412/S167*, R-U106/S21, and R-U152/S28 (Rhaetian/Romance stage) --> add lots of E-M78, R-M17, R-M412/S167*, and R-S116* in the north (Slavic stage) --> add more u106 and u152 and whatever else came in from Bavaria along with the Germans to the whole thing.  This last population push is probably fairly uniform based on the toponyms and doesn't eliminate the earlier variation.

So, you have a pre-Migration  and probably pre-Roman period population that includes u106 among other R1b types (in addition to other haplogroups like G, J etc as Dienekes focuses on), in advance of any German migration to the area.  The Slavs then come in with their distinctive male lines, mainly into the northern part of the country.  The whole lot is then over-run later on by a German speaking population from Bavaria.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L48
mtDNA: H
Black Taylor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2012, 03:56:49 PM »

Thanks Rayzn, if I can find an english translation of your reference I'll read it.  I became interested in central european population history when I had my Czech father-in-law tested with 23andme.  His family is of long-standing Prague origin and he came back u106.  This non-Slavic result really made him angry, which I found greatly amusing!  In any case it triggered my interest in understanding population flow and continuity across the area, and working around some of the short-hand "this Y group = X ethnicity" assertions.

Think of this as my little effort to deflect some of this forum's discussion off the ongoing topic of who's in fact indigenous to the British Isles!
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L48
mtDNA: H
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2012, 05:44:39 PM »

The take away points are that other than the historic Germanic language flush which poured out of Bavaria and swamped Austria in its entirety, earlier substrates of Slavic and Romance toponyms divide Austria into a northern Slavic area corresponding to higher levels of Y groups E-M78, R-M17, R-M412/S167*, and R-S116*, and a southern area of Romance toponyms with elevated levels of  R-M412/S167*, R-U106/S21, and R-U152/S28.

Does anyone know enough about the prehistory of this area to explain the three-way m412, u106 and u152 enrichment in southern Austria? 

Looking at their STR and SNP table "S8" I see an abundance of R-M412/S167*, R-U106/S21, and R-U152/S28 in both areas - I don't see an advantage in either area for these three haplogroups.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2012, 06:34:11 PM »

Thanks Rayzn, if I can find an english translation of your reference I'll read it.  I became interested in central european population history when I had my Czech father-in-law tested with 23andme.  His family is of long-standing Prague origin and he came back u106.  This non-Slavic result really made him angry, which I found greatly amusing!  In any case it triggered my interest in understanding population flow and continuity across the area, and working around some of the short-hand "this Y group = X ethnicity" assertions.

Think of this as my little effort to deflect some of this forum's discussion off the ongoing topic of who's in fact indigenous to the British Isles!

Why on earth does everybody get there knickers in such a twist over U106 ? :)
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2012, 04:31:54 PM »

The reaction is not so much on R U106 but rather the fact that some, even though lacking a shred of actual hard evidence in any scientific sense, trumpet 'as fact' an orthodoxy which would have people believe that the Haplogroup found itself bottled up for a considerable number of centuries, was seemingly unable to cross the North Sea, and only managed to during later Germanic migrations. In other words the response is towards a dogma.  
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 04:32:13 PM by whoknows » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2012, 07:06:12 PM »

The reaction is not so much on R U106 but rather the fact that some, even though lacking a shred of actual hard evidence in any scientific sense, trumpet 'as fact' an orthodoxy which would have people believe that the Haplogroup found itself bottled up for a considerable number of centuries, was seemingly unable to cross the North Sea, and only managed to during later Germanic migrations. In other words the response is towards a dogma.  

I think U106 could have reached the Isles prior to the Roman and Anglo-Saxon eras, but I don't see anyone "trumpet"ing this or the opposite as "fact." Please refer to the  post or article you are concerned about and please be specific.
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2012, 07:59:50 PM »

Some quick observations:

- The biggest news is the relatively high level of L51(xL11) at 4.8%. This is even higher in area "A" of the study at an extremely high 14.3%. I still see no evidence that L51 was born anywhere east of the Alps.
- As with other studies, P312* (aka S116*) is extremely low in the Alps at 3% (8 of 270). This would include DF27 and any undefined P312. Undefined P312(xDF27) was less common in Iberia than Tuscany in the 1000 Genomes samples, so we should not just assume that DF27 makes up all of the Austrian P312*.
- There is a complete lack of L21 (0.0%). This is in line with the very small percentages seen in the Alps in prior studies. It is hard to imagine that L21 had anything more than a very small role (if any) in the La Tene migrations that crossed the Alps into the Balkans and finally into Anatolia.
- L11* frequency is very low at 0.7%. This is in line with what we know...that L11* is not very common.
- Surprisingly (to me anyway) is the very low L23* frequency (1.9%).

As for U152 frequencies, I should point out that while the Austria sample is in line with the Germany country total (around 11%), U152 is more common in western Germany. As per Busby:

SW Germany: 17.6%
Central Germany: 15.8%
West Germany: 14.0%

We should also not be surprised that U152's highest frequency in France is not at its point closest to Italy, but in Alsace at 22.5%. Not surprisingly, most Alsace samples in the U152 FTDNA project have German surnames.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 08:21:21 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2012, 09:19:19 PM »

His family is of long-standing Prague origin and he came back u106.  This non-Slavic result really made him angry, which I found greatly amusing! 

Ah, haplogroup remorse/denial. Thankfully he's not on here desperately trying to bend U106 to fit his ethnicity.
Logged

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

Posts: 58


« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2012, 11:23:30 PM »

- The biggest news is the relatively high level of L51(xL11) at 4.8%. This is even higher in area "A" of the study at an extremely high 14.3%.

I am uncomfortable with the conclusion that R-M412, R-U106, R-U152 are stronger in area A than in area B.  Of course they will have a lower frequency in area B - that is because of the big difference in other haplogroups such as E and R1a. As percents of the whole these R1b clades are not so different in areas A vs. B.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2012, 07:17:03 AM »

I think the place name underpinning of this paper has limited utility, given the pervasiveness of German in the area now. Basically you have German (and Germans, probably) spread everywhere, with older substrates of varying ages underneath.
Logged

Pages: [1] 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 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.