R-L21* in Scandinavia

[rms2]

Yes, I was there back in October when L21 was discovered.

The thing I find strange is that with the original three L21 Isles & Colonial haplotypes that had tested with 23andMe had enough variance between them to indicate a rough 3500 age mark.  I believe I was the first person to give that extremely crude estimate.  http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showtopic=4810&view=findpost&p=65126

We're up to - what, 22 or so now in all of continental europe.   Only seven of them have 67 marker haplotypes done, with an age range between 2700 and 3300 years.  Did we just get dumb lucky on the original three 23andMe guys to get the most extreme variance spread?

Wasn't Dale Krueger one of the original 23andMe test subjects? His ancestor came from old Prussia (modern Poland), but he had no STRs to compare at that time. Even now he has only a 12-marker kit in the lab waiting for results.

Seven continental 67-marker haplotypes are few indeed, yet, as you say, you get up to a 3300-year TMRCA with that small set.

These early runs at the continental numbers strike me as extremely premature, and the difference in 3300 years and 3500 years is hair splitting, especially given the paucity of 67-marker continental haplotypes under consideration.

I'm guessing (and I admit, it's a guess) L21 first arose on the Continent and spread to the British Isles, because the tendency in Europe has been in that direction and not the other way around, because I know that Brits and Irish are over-represented in the y databases, and because we are getting too many continental L21+ results, too soon. Did the Celtic languages, for example, spread from Ireland to the rest of Western Europe?

[GoldenHind]

Cheese and Crackers, guys!  Get a grip!

I think that we need to consider the remote possibility that the Rhineland group and Scandinavian group were founded by a back migration of a single man respectively just a few thousand years ago.  I have no idea if it's true or not, but surely to heck we can't throw it out just because it feels wrong or there isn't sufficient archeological evidence to support it.

We've humored R1b decent from Paleolithic European cave painters for years; I think we can also humour the "back-traveler" theory for a while, too.

Who knows, there might be something to it.

Is it possible? Of course.

Is it likely? Doesn't seem so to me, but who knows?

Commercial dna testing is overloaded with persons of British Isles descent. The Continent is under-represented, yet we are getting a pretty steady flow of L21+ there, and L21 was only just discovered (for all practical purposes) in October.

Significant movement between Europe and the Isles has been from the Continent into the Isles and not the other way around.

Single L21+ founders moving from Ireland (or Britain) to the Rhineland, France, Scandinavia, etc., and having the sort of impact we are seeing seems a real stretch.

But, hey, if that is what proves to be the case so be it.

My sentiments exactly- possible but unlikely, and the stronger the presence in Scandinavia the less likely it is. I have never said it shouldn't be considered, as I believe all possibilities should be open to consideration. That being said, I do think the attempts to explain L21 in Scandinavia as a result of medieval and modern migration (no Miles, I'm not referring to you!) is absurd.

[Oisin]

Yes, I was there back in October when L21 was discovered.

The thing I find strange is that with the original three L21 Isles & Colonial haplotypes that had tested with 23andMe had enough variance between them to indicate a rough 3500 age mark.  I believe I was the first person to give that extremely crude estimate.  http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showtopic=4810&view=findpost&p=65126

We're up to - what, 22 or so now in all of continental europe.   Only seven of them have 67 marker haplotypes done, with an age range between 2700 and 3300 years.  Did we just get dumb lucky on the original three 23andMe guys to get the most extreme variance spread?

If you know the year that L21 happened then you must know the place of origin and probably the name of the man also.Well done you are a genius.

[vtilroe]

Yes, I was there back in October when L21 was discovered.

The thing I find strange is that with the original three L21 Isles & Colonial haplotypes that had tested with 23andMe had enough variance between them to indicate a rough 3500 age mark.  I believe I was the first person to give that extremely crude estimate.  http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showtopic=4810&view=findpost&p=65126

We're up to - what, 22 or so now in all of continental europe.   Only seven of them have 67 marker haplotypes done, with an age range between 2700 and 3300 years.  Did we just get dumb lucky on the original three 23andMe guys to get the most extreme variance spread?

If you know the year that L21 happened then you must know the place of origin and probably the name of the man also.Well done you are a genius.

I've made my guess where L21 may have occurred, but I don't know if I'm right or wrong, and we may not ever know.

I don't know his name, but chances are he was one of my nth great-uncles, or an nth cousin m-times removed.

As far as being a genius -- not quite.  I was accepted into Mensa though, but I think they'll accept anyone dumb enough to pay the membership fee, which actually doesn't say a lot for my own intelligence.

[Oisin]

I made into Mensa myself and I didnt pay a thing.All I can see on this forum and other forums is a load of rubbish.There is not one genetic scientist that can determine the age of any haplogroup and better still there are none writting on the forums!!

[rms2]

Ah, well, if you shop around a bit, I'm sure you will find an age estimate that suits you.

If you don't like the "load of rubbish" here, why not go discuss y dna with your fellow Mensa members and just dispense with all of us lower forms of intelligent life?

[vtilroe]

I made into Mensa myself and I didnt pay a thing.All I can see on this forum and other forums is a load of rubbish.There is not one genetic scientist that can determine the age of any haplogroup and better still there are none writting on the forums!!

Genetic scientists are rather slow with their results and conclusions since everything must be exhaustively researched and peer-reviewed, and if a conclusion is later found to be faulty or erroneous, owning up to it can be professionally damaging.

There is no such risk within the amateur community, since nothing is at stake aside from having to eat some crow now and again.

Hence apparent progress from the scientists is seemingly rare (and unavailable until their findings are published), and as a result they wind up lagging behind the amateurs.

Genetic scientists are unable to speculate for the same reason.  Amateurs have no such restriction.

As a Mensan, I am surprised that you haven't realized that.

[Oisin]

Could you answer this question?How many mutations can one have in the first 12 markers and still be related?

[Jdean]

Could you answer this question?How many mutations can one have in the first 12 markers and still be related?

I suppose it depends how far back you want to call related,

I would like to show I'm related to a group on Terry's Barton project that are 3 off me on 12, my argument is we could be related going back about 850 years, I think that is probably stretching things a bit though. Of course we have the same surname without that I really would be beating my head against a brick wall assuming I'm not already.

Dave Stedman L21+

[vtilroe]

Could you answer this question?How many mutations can one have in the first 12 markers and still be related?

Dave Stedman has a good point.  According to the Genetic Adam theory, we are all related, no matter how many mutations a 12 marker haplotype has.

I have several exact matches on my 12 marker haplotype that had implied a fairly recent relationship. However when those haplotypes were extended to 67 markers, those matches evaporated into thin air.  The extended haplotypes in addition to SNP testing now imply a common ancestor who lived over 3500 years ago.

I know of one member of this forum who differed from his own son by two or three markers using the first 12 markers (paternity issues were never in doubt), but when their haplotypes were extended to 67 markers, the remaining values were absolutely identical.

Comparing "bikini haplotypes" of only 6 or 12 markers is what got Dr. Oppenheimer into trouble. Most genetic genealogists I know who have been doing this for years would now consider it absolutely nonsensical.  Unfortunately published scientific literature and the Genographic Project still seem to consider this the standard.

Hopefully the tides will change soon.

[rms2]

Interestingly relative to the original topic of this thread, both of our Orcadian R-P312 and Subclades Project members, Eunson and Robertson, have now turned out to be R-L21*. Eunson finally got his result this evening.

You can see them on the R-L21* Map at the link in my signature below, Eunson in Kirkwall and Robertson in Orkney.

[rms2]

Our Finnish R-L21*, Ilmarinen, has close matches in Ysearch with a Hungarian, Porosz, and with another Finn, Sutinen, among others.

I've emailed Porosz a couple of times but have yet to hear back from him, although I think he is probably L21+, too.

Sutinen tested with SMGF, but I emailed the lady responsible to try to get her to test Sutinen with FTDNA.

[rms2]

There are eight Scandinavian R-L21*s in the R-L21 Plus Project right now.

Here they are, south to north (and they go pretty far north!) by ancestral surname and location:

1. Svensson - Kalmar Län, Sweden
2. Askilson - near Rannekleiv, Norway
3. Berge - Strandebarm, Hordaland, Norway
4. Heihiller - near Holmefjord, Norway
5. Ilmarinen - Jurva, Finland
6. Backström - Jämtland, Sweden
7. Andersen - Nordland, Norway
8. Johnson - Marskard, Norway

[Kestrel]

Could you answer this question?How many mutations can one have in the first 12 markers and still be related?

Dave Stedman has a good point.  According to the Genetic Adam theory, we are all related, no matter how many mutations a 12 marker haplotype has.

I have several exact matches on my 12 marker haplotype that had implied a fairly recent relationship. However when those haplotypes were extended to 67 markers, those matches evaporated into thin air.  The extended haplotypes in addition to SNP testing now imply a common ancestor who lived over 3500 years ago.

I know of one member of this forum who differed from his own son by two or three markers using the first 12 markers (paternity issues were never in doubt), but when their haplotypes were extended to 67 markers, the remaining values were absolutely identical.

Comparing "bikini haplotypes" of only 6 or 12 markers is what got Dr. Oppenheimer into trouble. Most genetic genealogists I know who have been doing this for years would now consider it absolutely nonsensical.  Unfortunately published scientific literature and the Genographic Project still seem to consider this the standard.

Hopefully the tides will change soon.

If a father and son can be out two or three markers in the first twelve then ystr markers are not very reliable.That makes me wonder about the whole ydna being of any value in family research.Are snps reliable?When one sees all the different haplotypes within a project like L21 how does one determine the age of the group.Do they use unreliable dys markers? Also I dont understand the importance of Scandinavian L21 results.What is behind all this?

[rms2]

If a father and son can be out two or three markers in the first twelve then ystr markers are not very reliable.

No, it doesn't mean that. It means 12 markers are too few and do not offer enough resolution.

That makes me wonder about the whole ydna being of any value in family research.Are snps reliable?When one sees all the different haplotypes within a project like L21 how does one determine the age of the group.Do they use unreliable dys markers? Also I dont understand the importance of Scandinavian L21 results.What is behind all this?

The people who know seem to rely on what they call "interclade variance" to estimate the TMRCA of two different subclades. That gives them an upper end of the possible age of both subclades.

I am not sure I understand your question regarding the importance of Scandinavian R-L21*.

What do you mean by, "What is behind all this?"

We have threads dedicated to German R-L21*, French R-L21*, etc.

I don't think I started threads on Irish or British R-L21* because we have so many of those results already and because genetic genealogy is skewed toward the British Isles. So, for me, the continental results are more interesting because I know there are fewer test subjects available, so each individual continental result has greater potential significance than an individual British or Irish result. I don't mean anything negative by that; it's just a fact.

[GoldenHind]

There are eight Scandinavian R-L21*s in the R-L21 Plus Project right now.

Here they are, south to north (and they go pretty far north!) by ancestral surname and location:

1. Svensson - Kalmar Län, Sweden
2. Askilson - near Rannekleiv, Norway
3. Berge - Strandebarm, Hordaland, Norway
4. Heihiller - near Holmefjord, Norway
5. Ilmarinen - Jurva, Finland
6. Backström - Jämtland, Sweden
7. Andersen - Nordland, Norway
8. Johnson - Marskard, Norway

As a result of getting in yet another argument on the DNA forum about the ratio of U106 to P312 in Scandinavia, I decided to do a little research using the various R1b projects. I was truly startled by the results.
Number of U106 in Norway: 1 (who is U198)
Number of U152 in Norway: 2 (both L2)
Number of P312* in Norway: 1
Number of L21 in Norway: 5
Note the number of L21 is more than the others combined. This is despite the fact that testing for L21 has only been going on for three or so months, while that for U106 and U152 has been going on for several years. of course the total number is yet small, and the trend may not hold up. I also note that the same trend does not appear in Denmark or Sweden. But it is possible that L21 may turn out to be largest R1b subclade in Norway.

[rms2]

I would be interested in a comparison of the total number of Scandinavian P312+, including all its subclades, versus the total number of Scandinavian U106+, including all its subclades.

But I'm too lazy to run the stats down myself.

[GoldenHind]

I would be interested in a comparison of the total number of Scandinavian P312+, including all its subclades, versus the total number of Scandinavian U106+, including all its subclades.

But I'm too lazy to run the stats down myself.

I have done so and posted the results on the Scandinavian P312 thread. It is interesting that P312 and subclades outnumbers U106 and subclades 22 to 19, despite a much shorter testing period (except for U152).

[rms2]

Updated list:

R-L21* Scandinavia as of 15 February 2009:
 
1. Svensson - Kalmar Län, Sweden
2. Askilson - near Rannekleiv, Norway
3. Berge - Strandebarm, Hordaland, Norway
4. Heihiller - near Holmefjord, Norway
5. Ilmarinen - Jurva, Finland
6. Backström - Jämtland, Sweden
7. Andersen - Nordland, Norway
8. Johnson - Marskard, Norway
9. Eriksson - Lapfjärd, Finland

[Mikewww]

Thus far there are five Scandinavian R-L21* results: three in Norway and two in Sweden.

Remember that L21 was just discovered in October, that Scandinavians are way under-represented in commercial dna testing, and that persons of British Isles descent are way over-represented.

Check the R-L21* Map at the link in my signature below. Click the placemarks for details.

If you had checked the other forum, you could have read why they all have to be immigrants from Ireland.

Maybe we'll find another Swedish R-L21* for the project.

I finally reached one of my closer genetic distance folks in YSearch at 67 markers. His Ysearch is 7F56N and his family is from Ostergotland. This is where the Ostrogoths are from, right?
Anyway, I'm an L21* (Ysearch RXYKH) and he and I have the same off-modal values at several very slow moving locations, including YCAIIa, 406S1 and 19/394.

I don't feel like the Irish monk scenarios apply although I don't have good reasoning. We do have Vikings attacking Ireland though, of course some may have went home with an adopted Celtic in the family.

We also have Normans invading Ireland as well, through Wales. It's hard to track those Normans back to a specific location in Scandanavia, isn't it? Does anyone know specifically where Rollo (Robert the 1st Duke of Normandy) came from?

Hopefully 5F56N (surname Wallentinus) will do some SNP testing and join the project. I'd be surprised if he is not L21+.

umm.. Wallentinus... is that Latin? oops, back to the monks.... but Latin doesn't have a "W" ??

Here is what I was told by a surname researcher:
Wallentinus is a latinization of Wallentin. .... W and V are equivalent in Swedish, and Wallentin is equivalent to Vallentin, a name known in Scotland and England:
http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Vallentin

Vallentin didn't start showing up in England until about the 12th century and is said to have French influence. The Normans invaded in the 11th century. Interesting puzzle for me.... My closest GD matches are in Wales, my name is literally a derivative of "Welsh" and my folklore says I'm Cambro(Welsh)-Norman. However, now I found someone not too different who may actually have a "Norse" background, perhaps more Germanic.

[cmblandford]

Does anyone know specifically where Rollo (Robert the 1st Duke of Normandy) came from?

Nice summary on the following site:

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

[rms2]

As Neal pointed out over the Yahoo group, the man's ancestor had the surname Petterson.

Don't make the mistake of attributing British or Irish ancestry to someone because he might be L21+.

I don't believe L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland.

[GoldenHind]

.

 It's hard to track those Normans back to a specific location in Scandanavia, isn't it? Does anyone know specifically where Rollo (Robert the 1st Duke of Normandy) came from?

I wouldn't get too hung up on Rollo. His origin- Norway or Denmark- and even his real name are disputed by scholars. Rather than going too off topic, here is a link which provides a good summary of the arguments:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rollo000.htm
But with regard to the majority of Scandinavian settlers in Normandy, it is generally agreed that the great majority of them came from Denmark, based on a study of Scandinavian names in early Normandy. However there is little doubt that there were Norwegian settlements there as well. The other difficulty is that it is generally accepted that the Scandinavian settlers in Normandy did not completely displace the previous occupants of the area, and that in large parts of the Duchy the Scandinavian element appears to be sparse to non-existent.
There were probably few people in 11th century Europe who were more genetically diverse than the Normans.

[Mikewww]

It's hard to track those Normans back to a specific location in Scandanavia, isn't it? Does anyone know specifically where Rollo (Robert the 1st Duke of Normandy) came from?

... it is generally agreed that the great majority of them came from Denmark, based on a study of Scandinavian names in early Normandy. However there is little doubt that there were Norwegian settlements there as well. The other difficulty is that it is generally accepted that the Scandinavian settlers in Normandy did not completely displace the previous occupants of the area, and that in large parts of the Duchy the Scandinavian element appears to be sparse to non-existent.
There were probably few people in 11th century Europe who were more genetically diverse than the Normans.

I agree absolutely.  I don't know what the % mix was, but there were Bretons, perhaps Flemish and probably some old Romano-Gauls and Franks in the vicinity.
A challenge when understanding the impact of the Normans on the British Isles genetically is that it is hard to tell how much is not just the "old" people recycled.  For instance, a Breton-Norman's Y DNA may look just like the Briton's Y DNA since that his is old homeland.  Or perhaps a Romano-Gaul-Norman's Y DNA may look like a Briton's because he had long lost Gaullic cousins who move into the Isles many years prior to become Britons.

[GoldenHind]

It's hard to track those Normans back to a specific location in Scandanavia, isn't it? Does anyone know specifically where Rollo (Robert the 1st Duke of Normandy) came from?

... it is generally agreed that the great majority of them came from Denmark, based on a study of Scandinavian names in early Normandy. However there is little doubt that there were Norwegian settlements there as well. The other difficulty is that it is generally accepted that the Scandinavian settlers in Normandy did not completely displace the previous occupants of the area, and that in large parts of the Duchy the Scandinavian element appears to be sparse to non-existent.
There were probably few people in 11th century Europe who were more genetically diverse than the Normans.

I agree absolutely.  I don't know what the % mix was, but there were Bretons, perhaps Flemish and probably some old Romano-Gauls and Franks in the vicinity.
A challenge when understanding the impact of the Normans on the British Isles genetically is that it is hard to tell how much is not just the "old" people recycled.  For instance, a Breton-Norman's Y DNA may look just like the Briton's Y DNA since that his is old homeland.  Or perhaps a Romano-Gaul-Norman's Y DNA may look like a Briton's because he had long lost Gaullic cousins who move into the Isles many years prior to become Britons.

I assume by the term Briton-Norman you mean an inhabitant of Normandy of Breton ancestry. I always try to remind people that the term Norman means an inhabitant of Normandy, and NOT someone from Brittany, Flanders, Picardy, etc, who joined Duke William's army in the conquest of England. I know some people use the term Norman very loosely.
But that aside, the DNA of a Norman of Danish ancestry might be identical to a descendant of a Danish settler in the Danelaw in England. I have also said before that I would not be surprised if there were a lot of cousins, some perhaps reasonably close but most probably fairly distant, who fought on opposite sides at the Battle of Hastings.