World Families Forums - POBI Map Answers

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2014, 02:49:59 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)
| | |-+  POBI Map Answers
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: POBI Map Answers  (Read 1364 times)
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« on: August 20, 2012, 05:59:43 AM »

Just recieved a reply from PoBI re their map. I asked what the mustard/yellow colour signified in Cumbria & Northumberland. The reply stated that they were still trying to ascertain precisely what the mustard/yellow signified, but they believed in part it may represent Ancient British, and/or Anglo-Danish.
The PoBI chap apologised for not being more specific at this stage, but hoped they would soon be able to draw final conclusions.
In my reply I explained that I was glad a Brythonic Celt presence hadn't been ignored as I feel the mountainous regions of Cumbria would surely have been a safe haven for Britons following Roman, Angle, Dane & later Norman incursions. It should be added that parts of Cumbria avoided Norman domination.
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 08:33:51 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2012, 06:22:46 AM »

Personally, I don't think that South West Wales and Cumbria/Northumberland are that related. Mainly because of the geographic distance and the fact that the POBI map refers to autosomal DNA. The clusters don't tell us anything about the male or female lineages in each region.

The map doesn't really tell us much, only that people living in specific regions are closely related, which is obvious anyway. And of course there's the mass of red squares that covers most of England.

PS. I should point out that the South West Wales cluster also covers parts of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, areas that are still predominantly Welsh speaking.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 06:30:34 AM by avalon » Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2012, 06:44:42 AM »

True Avalon.
My eyesight & colour-blindness caused me to think that PoBI were trying to establish  a connection between S W Wales & N W England, but you & PoBI have rightly knocked that on the head.
Let's hope PoBI get their findings out asap.
Cheers,
Bob
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2012, 08:00:56 AM »

True Avalon.
My eyesight & colour-blindness caused me to think that PoBI were trying to establish  a connection between S W Wales & N W England, but you & PoBI have rightly knocked that on the head.
Let's hope PoBI get their findings out asap.
Cheers,
Bob

I look forward to the findings too. It's confusing that the online map at the Royal Society is different to the one they used at the actual exhibition (posted on facebook).

Another criticism of the project is that for their sampling they used Cornwall, Devon and Pembrokeshire as surrogates for the Ancient British. This is strange given the known Flemish/Norman medieval settlement in Southern Pembrokeshire and the fact that Cornwall/Devon are more anglicised than Wales.

A far better surrogate for the Ancient British is of course Welsh Wales, AKA "Y Fro Gymraeg."

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

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2012, 10:48:59 AM »

... Another criticism of the project is that for their sampling they used Cornwall, Devon and Pembrokeshire as surrogates for the Ancient British. This is strange given the known Flemish/Norman medieval settlement in Southern Pembrokeshire and the fact that Cornwall/Devon are more anglicised than Wales.

A far better surrogate for the Ancient British is of course Welsh Wales, AKA "Y Fro Gymraeg."  

I agree with this concern. They have to make an assumption about who is a surrogate for the Ancient British, gene-wise. I tend to agree that the Welsh would be better, but its still an assumption.

Has there been any effort to look at ancient DNA in pre-Roman East/Central/South Britainand compare it to modern DNA in Wales to see if there is a match?  How about a match in the skeletal structures?

How do we know that the west side of Britain, gene-wise, wasn't always different than from the east side?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 10:49:20 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 405


« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2012, 10:53:04 AM »

I look forward to the findings too. It's confusing that the online map at the Royal Society is different to the one they used at the actual exhibition (posted on facebook).

The online map was very preliminary, one of several provided in advance by groups invited to participate in the summer science exhibition and used by the Royal Society to advertise that event.  The much larger and more detailed map was on display at the week-long (early July) exhibition itself, and will be the basis of a major publication.  I wouldn't be surprised if the print version is still more detailed, although the scale issue (magazine format rather than a large poster) may control that.  Since the summer exhibition ended, they were still collecting samples, I believe in South Yorkshire.  And btw these are blood samples, not cheek swabs.  Collecting them involves medical professionals or staff members of the project, usually an excursion to the collection site, and rounding up volunteers who are screened to confirm their suitability (all four grandparents born nearby, I think the limit is around 50 kilometers, anyway they have some rules).

There are complaints about this being slow, and about its being funded by megabucks Big Pharma interests.  But in reality, if it weren't, it wouldn't happen.  It's kind of like watching TV in the US, say NFL football, and having to sit through the commercials.

I posted this link on an earlier thread, but I'll do it again.  There was considerable well-informed guesswork about the map symbols and colors on a RootsWeb thread.  See especially the two comments by Tim Janzen, which refer to the color changes between the two maps, on this (archived) thread:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-07/1341435888

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-07/1341463601

And note that the color isn't the only informative detail.  A blue triangle doesn't mean the same thing as a blue square, cross, or circle.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2012, 11:28:13 AM »

Thanks Razyn. The second link was particularly useful. I noted that  Tim Janzen mentioned links between Dyfed, southern Scotland & North East Ireland. Prior to the PoBI maps, I'd have expected similarities between Wales, Cumbria & Southern Scotland, plus some Ulster presence via Southern Scotland. This all seems logical to me, but I'm still prepared for a shock!
I'd be staggered if Brythonic Celts weren't showing in numbers in Cumbria & southern Scotland. I'd find it hard to accept that the Brythonic Celts in the  Kingdom of Strathclyde who reputedly dominated southern Scotland to beyond the Clyde, plus their cousins in the Kingdom of Rheged (Cumbrians) had disappeared without trace!
Tim mentions PoBI showing other symbols on the Scottish Border. I'd guess the many Flemish & Norman descended families may account for some of these, plus Angles etc.
I suppose we've just got to wait for confirmation!
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 12:05:26 PM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2012, 03:19:03 PM »

I look forward to the findings too. It's confusing that the online map at the Royal Society is different to the one they used at the actual exhibition (posted on facebook).

The online map was very preliminary, one of several provided in advance by groups invited to participate in the summer science exhibition and used by the Royal Society to advertise that event.  The much larger and more detailed map was on display at the week-long (early July) exhibition itself, and will be the basis of a major publication.  I wouldn't be surprised if the print version is still more detailed, although the scale issue (magazine format rather than a large poster) may control that.  Since the summer exhibition ended, they were still collecting samples, I believe in South Yorkshire.  And btw these are blood samples, not cheek swabs.  Collecting them involves medical professionals or staff members of the project, usually an excursion to the collection site, and rounding up volunteers who are screened to confirm their suitability (all four grandparents born nearby, I think the limit is around 50 kilometers, anyway they have some rules).

There are complaints about this being slow, and about its being funded by megabucks Big Pharma interests.  But in reality, if it weren't, it wouldn't happen.  It's kind of like watching TV in the US, say NFL football, and having to sit through the commercials.

I posted this link on an earlier thread, but I'll do it again.  There was considerable well-informed guesswork about the map symbols and colors on a RootsWeb thread.  See especially the two comments by Tim Janzen, which refer to the color changes between the two maps, on this (archived) thread:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-07/1341435888

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-07/1341463601

And note that the color isn't the only informative detail.  A blue triangle doesn't mean the same thing as a blue square, cross, or circle.

Thanks for the useful information and the link to rootsweb.

I think Tim Janzen's speculation about the clusters is pretty good, although where he attributed dark blue in Herefordshire, Forest of Dean and Cheshire to Roman settlers, I am inclined to guess Norman as these areas were part of the Welsh March, where Normans established key lordships in the Middle Ages.

Also, the pink clusters in North Wales and Orkney are separate because one is squares, the other circles.

Scotland is interesting because the samples are so scarce but the dominance of yellow squares in Scotland and Northern Ireland is probably significant.

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

Posts: 310


« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2012, 10:42:19 PM »

Mikewww's question about wether W and E britian were always of differet genetic make up leads straight to the question what was harder to cross in ancient time, the English channel or the Pennines?
A while back there was a town being excavated some where in E England that was thought to be Anglo-Saxon but it appeared that there was a migration  there straight after the Romans, by people from the west.
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2012, 03:34:50 AM »

... Another criticism of the project is that for their sampling they used Cornwall, Devon and Pembrokeshire as surrogates for the Ancient British. This is strange given the known Flemish/Norman medieval settlement in Southern Pembrokeshire and the fact that Cornwall/Devon are more anglicised than Wales.

A far better surrogate for the Ancient British is of course Welsh Wales, AKA "Y Fro Gymraeg."  

I agree with this concern. They have to make an assumption about who is a surrogate for the Ancient British, gene-wise. I tend to agree that the Welsh would be better, but its still an assumption.

Has there been any effort to look at ancient DNA in pre-Roman East/Central/South Britainand compare it to modern DNA in Wales to see if there is a match?  How about a match in the skeletal structures?

How do we know that the west side of Britain, gene-wise, wasn't always different than from the east side?

I think the only ancient DNA sampled in Britain is Cheddar Man, from Somerset, who was mtDNA Haplogroup U5.

I'm not sure about the genetic makeup of Britain in pre-history and whether there was an east west division. That's the great mystery that dna might one day solve.

The megalithic stone cicles certainly follow a more Western and Northern distribution in Britain.

Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2012, 10:14:23 AM »

It's important to recall that what we're talking about with these different colored map symbols is autosomal dna. For starters, women contribute half of it. An older or newer population in a region might be responsible for more or less of the total autosomal dna depending on what proportion of the population they were. A particular y-dna lineage could become dominant without ultimately transmitting much of the original autosomal profile of its founders, depending on how long it took to achieve that dominance.

For those reasons you could have two regions dominated by the same y-dna lineage, say L21, since we're talking about the British Isles, but yet be autosomally distinct from one another.

I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the symbols in England necessarily mean Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian autosomal dna prevails there. One would have to know how English autosomal dna compares to autosomal dna in the homelands of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings.
Logged

SEJJ
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2012, 03:02:30 PM »

It's important to recall that what we're talking about with these different colored map symbols is autosomal dna. For starters, women contribute half of it. An older or newer population in a region might be responsible for more or less of the total autosomal dna depending on what proportion of the population they were. A particular y-dna lineage could become dominant without ultimately transmitting much of the original autosomal profile of its founders, depending on how long it took to achieve that dominance.

For those reasons you could have two regions dominated by the same y-dna lineage, say L21, since we're talking about the British Isles, but yet be autosomally distinct from one another.

I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the symbols in England necessarily mean Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian autosomal dna prevails there. One would have to know how English autosomal dna compares to autosomal dna in the homelands of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings.

That is a good point about the Y-DNA - I would think that one of the important things to do with autosomal genetics is to compare and draw comparisons with the y-dna side of things. So then if we know that autosomal studies are both accurate and reliable, we can draw similarities or perhaps equivalents in Y-DNA - If we can't draw those similarities i guess it would suggest that Y-DNA is an unreliable way to measure ethnicities in a closely related area like the British Isles, due to the reasons you mentioned. Although i think this has been done quite a lot recently, and i suppose you can draw equivalents between things like R1b-L21 and 'Gedrosia'-like components (in NW Europe), R1b-P312 and 'Western European'-like components, although it would be interesting to see if there is actually an autosomal distinction perhaps within groups like R1b-L21 which are heavily dominant in a fairly restricted area, this would presumably be very useful in identifying these local clusters with particular haplogroups, if there is even such an association - there may not be?

I agree with your final paragraph, although i would also note that one of the replies to a question on the royal society website stated: '...the extensive red English cluster has a large signature from the Belgium/Denmark/North Germany area.' Whilst this answer is relatively vague in terms of what a 'large signature' actually means, it at least implies that this is likely the best surrogate for an Anglo-Saxon area of the British Isles without looking at the continent in detail. I would also hedge my bets that there is a significant (probably not particularly large) Belgic element to this as well, especially as the region it shows affinities too also covers Belgium. I would suppose that this would be down to both the Germanic settlement in Belgium and potential Belgic settlement in south-eastern Britain (R1b-U152?).

Looking at the map and reading that comment i am reminded particularly of a place-name study done a couple of years ago by Susan Hilsberg which included a synoptic map of Germanic place-names. In Britain it correlates almost exactly with the large red cluster identified by POBI, and on the continent it runs from mid-Belgium all the way up to Denmark, with particularly high concentrations in Northwest Germany, the Netherlands and northern Belgium.

I don't know if i can include attachments in these messages but basically this red cluster looks like the continuation of a band that runs along the north-sea coastline of mainland Europe. It also follows the limits of the old 'Northwest Block' idea quite well, with the addition of south-eastern Britain - I recall reading that there was debate as to whether south-eastern Britain was possibly part of this supposed 'Northwest Block' if it ever did exist (I don't know much more than that about it), so it's possible that there are even older connections going on.

I also wouldn't be surprised if this red group didn't carry on to the continent, perhaps due to a longer separation time and the addition of a British element that wasn't present in any great amount in the aforementioned region of the European mainland (R1b-L21?).

Apologies for the wall of text, that's just what i feel may be going on in regards to that red blob based on my current knowledge, so reply aggressively if i'm wrong.

Of course apparently POBI are working on including a large database of European samples (5000+ i think?) to their dataset so hopefully we will see a similar map including the continent in months to come.

Sam Jackson
Logged

Y-DNA: I1*
MT-DNA: U5a1b4
       
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2012, 03:28:07 PM »

Quote
For those reasons you could have two regions dominated by the same y-dna lineage, say L21, since we're talking about the British Isles, but yet be autosomally distinct from one another.

Good point.

I would also say that far too many assumptions are made about population migrations (particularly in Britain and Ireland) based on Y-DNA studies, without enough consideration given to mtDNA - half the population!

This is fine when people move around in family groups but what about cases where Anglo-Saxon warriors travelled without women and settled down with British wives. Surely, this would distort the overall genetic, or autosomal DNA.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2012, 03:39:23 PM »

Quote
For those reasons you could have two regions dominated by the same y-dna lineage, say L21, since we're talking about the British Isles, but yet be autosomally distinct from one another.

Good point.

I would also say that far too many assumptions are made about population migrations (particularly in Britain and Ireland) based on Y-DNA studies, without enough consideration given to mtDNA - half the population!

This is fine when people move around in family groups but what about cases where Anglo-Saxon warriors travelled without women and settled down with British wives. Surely, this would distort the overall genetic, or autosomal DNA.



Very true.

When I got my Family Finder results I submitted the raw data to Dr. McDonald for analysis and comparison with the databases to which he has access. He  pronounced me "100% English" and sent me a chart that showed my little dot juxtaposed between the French on the one hand and the Irish on the other.

I am L21+ DF13+, but autosomally, at least according to what Dr. McDonald has available, I cluster with the English.

Aside from the notion that male Anglo-Saxons came for the most part without their own women and took native British women as wives (which seems likely to me), the first P312+ or L21+ arrivals (Beaker Boys, perhaps) could have been in pretty much the same situation.
Logged

avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2012, 03:45:05 PM »

With respect to the extensive red cluster in England, Brian Swann kindly posted this photo on facebook from the exhibition.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3746456298284&set=o.11416337921&type=1&permPage=1

Prof Donnelly of Oxford University described the people of Central and Southern England as a "genetic cocktail," based on the POBI findings.

This makes sense as in the historic period England would have received more genetic input from Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, etc, than the "Celtic" fringe of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.



Logged
SEJJ
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2012, 04:27:07 PM »

Quote
For those reasons you could have two regions dominated by the same y-dna lineage, say L21, since we're talking about the British Isles, but yet be autosomally distinct from one another.

Good point.

I would also say that far too many assumptions are made about population migrations (particularly in Britain and Ireland) based on Y-DNA studies, without enough consideration given to mtDNA - half the population!

This is fine when people move around in family groups but what about cases where Anglo-Saxon warriors travelled without women and settled down with British wives. Surely, this would distort the overall genetic, or autosomal DNA.


That is a good point about mt Dna, one that needs to be expanded upon, although from my understanding it seems very difficult to isolate two separate populations in a relatively close-knit area, as mt Dna seems a lot more evenly spread out in comparison to y-DNA.

It is true that it would not be reliable if we are looking at a group that predominately took wives from the population they were going into, but we don't know how common this was (which is where mt-DNA becomes important, if populations can be told apart based on their mt-DNA). From my own experience of immigration it seems that these men may predominantly take wives of the other population if they haven't established their own community either within or close to the other population, but when a community has been established they seem to bring family over from wherever they came from much, much more.

Although this can't be drawn directly parallel to the situation of Britain in the migration era, i think this serves as a fairly good modern example:
Where i live is historically part of the area that is the home of the British Army since the mid 19th century, in the last few decades soldiers from the Gurkha regiments have come to live (settle) here, they mostly speak Nepalese, their culture is different but not worlds apart from ours when they are living here. What i observe is that one of their priorities is to bring their families over, that means wives, parents, children and extended family, if they weren't already here. They mostly keep to themselves and form their own groups, although there is some communication between their community and ours each tends to stick with their own group. They are very likeable folk and are an active part of the community from within their own community, i've not personally heard of any serious crime or violence stemming from their communities.

Now imagine that situation, but imagine there is outright hostility between these two groups, communication would be even less and would often be hostile, the likely outcome is that the incoming group would stick even more to their own people, there would likely be some more immigration from their previous home if there was enough incentive to, and the community itself is big enough to be it's own tribal grouping rather than be absorbed into the host population.

Of course it's hard to tell what happened in historic migrations but i've seen far more examples of immigrants forming their own internally-oriented communities after immigrating, rather than immigrants becoming part of the host population - even in a very modern and liberally-oriented society, and a very highly organised and structured society at that, compared to what there was in the early historic period.

I don't mean to say that it was either one thing or the other, as it seems that within a number of generations the communities blended together where they met in many areas, but i'm pretty certain that if it was predominantly lone males of the warrior-caste (of any migration) settling in Britain, we would be speaking a Celtic language with some Germanic borrowings, perhaps similar to what we see with Norman-French borrowings into English, and the incoming Norman system and the existing English system were likely both more structured (at least from top-down) than their Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon counterparts in the migration era.

Saying that, i would imagine that small Germanic communities in Roman Britain would have been absorbed quite well into the society as it was, perhaps because of a preponderance to marry into the community, assuming they stayed of course.

Whatever the case is - Whether it is mostly lone males taking wives or mostly families involved, the Y-DNA is a bit ambiguous either way. As a small, mostly male, elite could cause a profound effect on the Y-DNA through having more children, assuming their lineages remained as part of the elite for a long time.

Personally it seems more to me like a mix of both, but a community established by a mixing of a warrior- elite with local women and then receiving some period of continued immigration from their homeland, followed by an expansion (perhaps due to increasing population size?) seems like the most likely explanation. Then if that is later followed up by even more mixing between the populations as boundaries swap and change with changes in leadership, conquest etc it would explain the 'genetic cocktail' pretty well.

Although sometimes it seems like a bit of a false argument in terms of identity, ultimately the identities that formed after this period of history (Heptarchy, and much later England) were all Anglo-Saxons, whether they were Celts that became Germanic, or whether they were Germanic in the first place - And those that stood fast seem to be well represented the further west you go (Wales, Cornwall, etc), or at least that is my opinion.

Sam Jackson
Logged

Y-DNA: I1*
MT-DNA: U5a1b4
       
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2012, 07:31:14 AM »

Quote
It is true that it would not be reliable if we are looking at a group that predominately took wives from the population they were going into, but we don't know how common this was (which is where mt-DNA becomes important, if populations can be told apart based on their mt-DNA). From my own experience of immigration it seems that these men may predominantly take wives of the other population if they haven't established their own community either within or close to the other population, but when a community has been established they seem to bring family over from wherever they came from much, much more.

I would agree with this view of migration in the modern age, but it's difficult to say if humans followed similar patterns in prehistoric times.

For most of their time in Europe, humans essentially lived off the land, either as hunter-gathers or farmers. They may have repsonded differently to famine, disease, environmental disasters, etc.

I would guess that they mostly moved around in family/tribal groups, occasionally in male only groups or even alone and perhaps, heaven forbid, as women only groups!

Logged
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2012, 07:56:43 AM »

Quote
It is true that it would not be reliable if we are looking at a group that predominately took wives from the population they were going into, but we don't know how common this was (which is where mt-DNA becomes important, if populations can be told apart based on their mt-DNA). From my own experience of immigration it seems that these men may predominantly take wives of the other population if they haven't established their own community either within or close to the other population, but when a community has been established they seem to bring family over from wherever they came from much, much more.

I would agree with this view of migration in the modern age, but it's difficult to say if humans followed similar patterns in prehistoric times.

For most of their time in Europe, humans essentially lived off the land, either as hunter-gathers or farmers. They may have repsonded differently to famine, disease, environmental disasters, etc.

I would guess that they mostly moved around in family/tribal groups, occasionally in male only groups or even alone and perhaps, heaven forbid, as women only groups!

Yep, it's not like they could go to the local Western Union office and send a telegram home saying "Having a wonderful time. Wish you were here. Jump on the next ship leaving port and ask for me when you get here."
Logged

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

Posts: 50


« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2012, 11:46:50 AM »

Quote
It is true that it would not be reliable if we are looking at a group that predominately took wives from the population they were going into, but we don't know how common this was (which is where mt-DNA becomes important, if populations can be told apart based on their mt-DNA). From my own experience of immigration it seems that these men may predominantly take wives of the other population if they haven't established their own community either within or close to the other population, but when a community has been established they seem to bring family over from wherever they came from much, much more.

I would agree with this view of migration in the modern age, but it's difficult to say if humans followed similar patterns in prehistoric times.

For most of their time in Europe, humans essentially lived off the land, either as hunter-gathers or farmers. They may have repsonded differently to famine, disease, environmental disasters, etc.

I would guess that they mostly moved around in family/tribal groups, occasionally in male only groups or even alone and perhaps, heaven forbid, as women only groups!

Yep, it's not like they could go to the local Western Union office and send a telegram home saying "Having a wonderful time. Wish you were here. Jump on the next ship leaving port and ask for me when you get here."

Haha yes that is very true, i would just say my point is that people seem to move more often in family groups when there is an established community for them to go to, assuming they know about it of course as you say.

You are correct of course in that we don't truly know how people behaved in response to change or disaster, but i don't think the basics will have a changed a massive amount over a few thousand years. Of course people were a lot more religious, superstitious and would turn to their deities before anyone else in many cases, but at the end of the day practicality is of the utmost importance.

I would agree that they predominantly moved around in family/tribal groups, and i don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that if some members of a tribal grouping established a community in a new area, that there would exist a period of diffusion between the two areas - and that these essentially new communities being created would compete for land as the population expanded.

I imagine that whatever scenarios we come up with for any migration they will always be too simplistic though, if you looked it on an individual level i'm sure there would have been a whole range of reasons for one to go from point A to point B, whether or not they are becoming part of a different people or whether they are travelling to what would essentially be a colony. Then things like pressure from other tribes, economic or environmental difficulties, individual fortune, seeking refuge  all come into play.

At the end of the day like you say people had to live off the land, if you are an elite those people that do the bulk of the necessaries are going to have to come from somewhere - are they natives? are they colonists? are they a community of both? I think it's likely that many families and individuals would have taken the risk to 'set up shop' in a new area with better prospects, assuming that they were either free enough to do so, driven to do so by tribal conflict, economic or environmental pressure, or a movement of people (the elite and the non-elite).

Well it must have been a real time of opportunity for the elites and for everyone else  - what was the Western Roman Empire was essentially up for grabs, or at least more than it had been for hundreds of years, not to mention lowland Britain is an excellent place for farming (particularly cattle farming). The tribes in Britain are conflicting over territory already, and some of the tribes from the continent come and try their luck too after they realise they can. The Romans were constantly battling barbarians on their frontiers, it's no surprise that when the system started to collapse, you get a recipe for disaster. Bearing in mind the Germanic tribes have been bottled up for centuries, warring with each other and at times the Roman Empire - It's again not surprising that it all went haywire after that - and then of course later there are tribes further east that are pushing westward.

But anyway, it appears to me that people tend to do the same sort of thing repeatedly, almost predictably. I'll stop here because i tend to ramble on :].

Sam Jackson
Logged

Y-DNA: I1*
MT-DNA: U5a1b4
       
glentane
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2012, 03:58:23 PM »

the first P312+ or L21+ arrivals (Beaker Boys, perhaps) could have been in pretty much the same situation.
OK Rich you convinced me. I'm in.
"The Fabulous Beaker Boys" it is.
None of this L21/AMH/S1000whatever dash-number gibberish anymore.
Never guessed Michelle Pfeiffer was an Ancient Brit, though.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2012, 09:51:32 AM »

I've read that Donald II of Alba expelled the Kingdom of Strathclyde (southern Scotland) aristocracy from the region in c889. It seems Eochu, the king & others, relocated in North Wales.
I have no idea what numbers this expulsion affected, but suppose we'll need to have a working knowledge of incidents such as this when analyzing the PoBI maps.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 11:23:58 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
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 0.175 seconds with 19 queries.