World Families Forums - Scandinavian L21

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 05:24:59 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)
| | |-+  Scandinavian L21
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Scandinavian L21  (Read 11723 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2010, 03:32:27 PM »

I am confused why U152 is associated with Iron Age entry into Scandinavia, and L21 is not. The latter is much more represented in Scandinavia than the former, so it is harder for me to accept L21's presence there as the result of Viking Age movements.

The hotspot for U152 is Switzerland/Southern Germany, but its numbers decrease as one moves north. Is there any evidence for Celts in Scandinavia? I know they got their amber from the Baltic, but I thought Celtic tribes only reached as far as Southern Poland.

I coordinate the L159 Project (downstream of L21) so that it serves as a repository of data. There are a couple of Norwegians in the project, two of the four are native Norwegians. One is L159+, and his ancestry is from the Ofotenfjord area in the North, whereas the other Norwegian is from Oppland in the South. The former has no matches at 37 markers. I'm not saying that those British L159+ are of Norse origin, but maybe some clades are older than we think.

Then one has to acknowledge the British Isles bias in the sampling frame.


Re Celts in Scandinava.  Some of the best Celtic Iron Age artifacts archaeological artifiacts come from Jutland.  For example the Gundestrup Cauldron, the Braa Cauldron, the Djedjerg Wagons. 

The first language recorded from Scandinavia are words from the peoples who resided on the eastern margin of Jutland.  These words are Mare Morusa (Dead Sea - Baltic Sea) and Mare Congelium (spelling? but means frozen) from the sea between Sweden and Finland.  Celtic scholars have reported that these are indisputably Celtic words.  Pliny the Elder reported these facts, quoting a Greek historian who flourished circa 325 BC.  The region where these people lived is, oddly (or not), the only place where U152 is today found in Denmark.  The archaeological artifacts are also only from this said area.

Has any South Irish or Irish Type III been found in Scandinavia?
 

I knew that the cauldrons were imports from Celtic lands, but I don't think Jutland was ever Celticized. I could be wrong. Southern Scandinavia is the source of the Nordic Bronze Age, where L21 is also found.

I can't speak for the South or Irish Type III clusters because I don't know too much about them - although it wouldn't surprise me if some samples are in Scandinavia. The Irish Sea Modal shows up in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Are you saying these are all imports from the Viking Age?

And I think Mac is right that those words for the Baltic Sea were written by Latin scholars, but do we know what the natives called it?

Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2010, 05:54:17 PM »

Probably a mistake to assume that the language boundaries in 100BC are anything like they were in 1000BC.  Language fronts move, often only leaving small residual traces of the previous state of affairs.  I have a book on Scottish placenames that breaks them down period by period for example.  It lists English, Norse, Norman, Gaelic, P-Celtic names and even suggests a category of rivernames that belong to a period when Indo-Europeans had arrived but had not yet evolved into separate languages.  However, he only suggested a handful of possible pre-Indo-European placenames.  If the copper age spread of IE is correct then that means that virtually no trace has survived of the languages of the first 6000 years of settlement in Scotland.  So, old languages do disappear leaving no traces sometimes. 

Anyway my point is I think there is a chance that areas of the north could have been Celtic speaking further back in time.  One thing that is probably the strongest bit of evidence is the Ciimbri and Teutones who are generally thought to have come from in and around Denmark.  Their very names are thought by many to be Celtic and their leaders had very Celtic names.  They could be evidence that Celtic may have been known in at least pockets around Scandinavia before the Germanic expansion totally engulfed them.  Personally I think its likely we are talking pockets because as others have pointed out this also is the homeland of the proto-Germanic cultures. 
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2010, 06:20:21 PM »

Probably a mistake to assume that the language boundaries in 100BC are anything like they were in 1000BC.  Language fronts move, often only leaving small residual traces of the previous state of affairs.  I have a book on Scottish placenames that breaks them down period by period for example.  It lists English, Norse, Norman, Gaelic, P-Celtic names and even suggests a category of rivernames that belong to a period when Indo-Europeans had arrived but had not yet evolved into separate languages.  However, he only suggested a handful of possible pre-Indo-European placenames.  If the copper age spread of IE is correct then that means that virtually no trace has survived of the languages of the first 6000 years of settlement in Scotland.  So, old languages do disappear leaving no traces sometimes. 

Anyway my point is I think there is a chance that areas of the north could have been Celtic speaking further back in time.  One thing that is probably the strongest bit of evidence is the Ciimbri and Teutones who are generally thought to have come from in and around Denmark.  Their very names are thought by many to be Celtic and their leaders had very Celtic names.  They could be evidence that Celtic may have been known in at least pockets around Scandinavia before the Germanic expansion totally engulfed them.  Personally I think its likely we are talking pockets because as others have pointed out this also is the homeland of the proto-Germanic cultures. 

I do remember reading that the kings of the Cimbri had Celtic names... That is very interesting. Didn't Hubert write about that?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2010, 06:21:35 PM »


The Myres and genetic genealogist data are saying pretty much the same thing.  not a heck of a log of U152 in Scanadinavia (circa 3% total perhaps) but highly concentrated in very specific areas such that locally the percentage may riise to 10% or so.  A large triangle circumscribing the Vik from the head to the mouth of Oslofjord; and northern and eastern Jutland (including the island of Fyn).  There is one outlier from Stockholm, and another from the middke of Finalnd and that is it - so far.  This distribution could not be more different from what we see with L21.  These two S116 subclades have a very different history in Scandinavia - that much we can take to the bank at this point.


I don't believe Myres et al did any sampling in Norway, and even the hobbyist results show very little U152 in Norway: only a handful, certainly not enough to talk about any trends or real patterns.

It's plain enough what you are getting at: you want to scaffold an argument that U152 in England is "viking" by arguing that the scant U152 found in Norway must be native because it is found "circumscribing the Vik from the head to the mouth of Oslofjord".

For some reason you feel you must chalk up L21, on the other hand,  to the viking slave trade.

That is the obvious reason for the following somewhat snide remark:

Quote
These two S116 subclades have a very different history in Scandinavia - that much we can take to the bank at this point.

From what I can see, the main difference between U152 and L21 in Scandinavia is that there appears to be a lot more of the latter there than the former.

Some of the L21 in Scandinavia may in fact be due to the Viking Era slave trade, but it doesn't seem likely that all of it is. And if some of the L21 in Scandinavia can be attributed to the viking slave trade, then certainly so can some of the U106 and the U152, since both of those clades are also found in the British Isles, and the vikings can hardly have dna tested their victims to be sure they only nabbed the L21s.

You know, if you want to make U152 out to be a "viking" clade, fine. I mean, really, who cares? Knock yourself out.

But you really ought to be able to indulge yourself without the need to relegate others to the status of the descendants of slaves.



« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 06:26:04 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2010, 06:22:15 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2010, 06:24:31 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  

And Myres et al, as I recall without dredging the dratted thing up again, found very very little U152 in Denmark, correct?
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2010, 07:09:26 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  

And Myres et al, as I recall without dredging the dratted thing up again, found very very little U152 in Denmark, correct?

That is what I recall.  Practically no U152 and quite a lot of L21 concentrated into certain areas.  That is one of DF's theories that is not helped by the Myres study. 



Another thing.  I do not know a lot about the Geography of Denamark but my understanding is that the Cimbri have been linked to the area called Himmerland which which may mean 'Cimbri land' with the usual Germanic shift.  Now Himmerland is described as NE Jutland.  My understanding is that the L21 hotspot is NE Denmark rather than the NW as some might assume.  That is interesting if L21 has a hotspot in the very area associated with the Cimbri.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2010, 07:12:30 PM »



Another thing.  I do not know a lot about the Geography of Denamark but my understanding is that the Cimbri have been linked to the area called Himmerland which which may mean 'Cimbri land' with the usual Germanic shift.  Now Himmerland is described as NE Jutland.  My understanding is that the L21 hotspot is NE Denmark rather than the NW as some might assume.  That is interesting if L21 has a hotspot in the very area associated with the Cimbri.   

Interesting, and that is on topic for this thread, since it is about L21 in Scandinavia and not U152, which appears to be pretty scarce there anyway.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2010, 07:13:06 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  

And Myres et al, as I recall without dredging the dratted thing up again, found very very little U152 in Denmark, correct?

That is what I recall.  Practically no U152 and quite a lot of L21 concentrated into certain areas.  That is one of DF's theories that is not helped by the Myres study. 



Another thing.  I do not know a lot about the Geography of Denamark but my understanding is that the Cimbri have been linked to the area called Himmerland which which may mean 'Cimbri land' with the usual Germanic shift.  Now Himmerland is described as NE Jutland.  My understanding is that the L21 hotspot is NE Denmark rather than the NW as some might assume.  That is interesting if L21 has a hotspot in the very area associated with the Cimbri.   

Yet another thought.  The east side of Denmark is where the Elbe links empties into the North Sea.  At the other end of the Elbe is Austria, another unexpected L21 hotspot.  The Elbe route was very important in the Late Bronze Age according to Cunliffe's recent book.
Logged
Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2010, 07:15:32 PM »

These words are Mare Morusa (Dead Sea - Baltic Sea) and Mare Congelium (spelling? but means frozen) from the sea between Sweden and Finland.  Celtic scholars have reported that these are indisputably Celtic words.  Pliny the Elder reported these facts, quoting a Greek historian who flourished circa 325 BC.  The region where these people lived is, oddly (or not), the only place where U152 is today found in Denmark.  The archaeological artifacts are also only from this said area.

Certainly Mare Morusa and Mare Congelium are Latin words. Probably Plyny the Elder translated these words in Latin, otherwise, if they are really the original words, we should think to Italics as the inhabitants of those regions. It is probably not believable, but R-U152 could have come from Italy, which retains the highest numbers and variance of this haplogroup.

Sorry, I was going on raw memory and at my age, that is definitely not a wise approach.  Here is the qactual quote from theat I was recalling:

"Pliny the Elder (circa 77 AD) who stated that Philemon wrote that, the
Cimbris word Morimarusa means the Dead Sea, as far as the Promentory of Rubeas,
beyond which they name it the Cronian Sea (“Naturalis Historiae”, Libri IV, xiii, line
95). The word “Morimarusa”, referring to the Baltic Sea, is composed of ‘muir’ and
‘marbh’ in Q-Celt Irish; ‘mor’ and ‘maro’ / ‘marw’ in P-Celt languages such as Breton
and Welsh. Importantly, there is no Germanic word in any dialect that would even
approximate these root elements (Wikipedia entry for “Cimbri”). Furthermore, Thierry
(1828) notes that ‘crwnn’ means coagulated or frozen, and in Gallic, cronn has the same
meaning; Murchroinn equals ‘icy sea’."
Logged
Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2010, 07:18:28 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  

And Myres et al, as I recall without dredging the dratted thing up again, found very very little U152 in Denmark, correct?
4.5% in two key locations in Denmark - a good deal more than the L21 located in Germany (for example).

I see no reason why L21 and U152 could not have been members of the same tribal unit and moved to NE Jutland together.  Perhaps this might give a hint as to where some L21 was in 425 BC - between the Rhine and the Elbe?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 07:21:05 PM by Norwich » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2010, 07:31:25 PM »

Something is clearly amiss with Myres' German sampling. I'm not sure what it is, but it runs far too contrary to what we have seen with FTDNA test results. Myres et al don't seem to have made much of an effort to acquire a representative sample. Take France, for example, where most of the numbers seem to have come from the South and the East, and Northern France was left out entirely.

I don't recall there being that much U152 in Denmark anywhere, but that is another funny thing about Myres. In places it shows zero U152 in Scandinavia, and in others it seems to show a little. I wonder how many samples those "4.5%" figures represent.

Of course, if you want to talk about U152 in Scandinavia you should start a thread on that subject. This one is about L21 in Scandinavia.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2010, 07:38:27 PM »

I would really encourage people to look at the Cimbri Wiki page.  To me all the positive evidence suggests they were Celtic and only negative evidence is used to say they were not.  

And Myres et al, as I recall without dredging the dratted thing up again, found very very little U152 in Denmark, correct?
4.5% in two key locations in Denmark - a good deal more than the L21 located in Germany (for example).

I see no reason why L21 and U152 could not have been members of the same tribal unit and moved to NE Jutland together.  Perhaps this might give a hint as to where some L21 was in 425 BC - between the Rhine and the Elbe?


I would be astonished if the SW Germany L21 result in the recent study is not some kind of sample aberration.  It is so far removed from the proportion of self testing SW Germans where L21 has a very decent showing in the Rhineland and neighbouring areas. Its the one result of the study I simply do not believe is representative in terms of L21 (the rest is lower than expected but essentially compatible with the project maps).  Some sort of tapering off from France to Austria with maybe 8% of males L21 in SW Germany would make a lot more sense.    

I accept the point about mixed groups.  I really do not think pure one-clade or even one-haplotype groups existed in the late prehistoric period except in areas where founder effects had happened.  

I certainly think the positive evidence all seems to point to the Cimbri being Celts.  I wonder if they did not expand up the Elbe from the Czech and Austria zone in an attempt to control trade.  That was a big deal at times in late prehistory.  Amber for metal resources.    
Logged
Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2010, 07:40:16 PM »


The Myres and genetic genealogist data are saying pretty much the same thing.  not a heck of a log of U152 in Scanadinavia (circa 3% total perhaps) but highly concentrated in very specific areas such that locally the percentage may riise to 10% or so.  A large triangle circumscribing the Vik from the head to the mouth of Oslofjord; and northern and eastern Jutland (including the island of Fyn).  There is one outlier from Stockholm, and another from the middke of Finalnd and that is it - so far.  This distribution could not be more different from what we see with L21.  These two S116 subclades have a very different history in Scandinavia - that much we can take to the bank at this point.


I don't believe Myres et al did any sampling in Norway, and even the hobbyist results show very little U152 in Norway: only a handful, certainly not enough to talk about any trends or real patterns.

It's plain enough what you are getting at: you want to scaffold an argument that U152 in England is "viking" by arguing that the scant U152 found in Norway must be native because it is found "circumscribing the Vik from the head to the mouth of Oslofjord".

For some reason you feel you must chalk up L21, on the other hand,  to the viking slave trade.

That is the obvious reason for the following somewhat snide remark:

Quote
These two S116 subclades have a very different history in Scandinavia - that much we can take to the bank at this point.

From what I can see, the main difference between U152 and L21 in Scandinavia is that there appears to be a lot more of the latter there than the former.

Some of the L21 in Scandinavia may in fact be due to the Viking Era slave trade, but it doesn't seem likely that all of it is. And if some of the L21 in Scandinavia can be attributed to the viking slave trade, then certainly so can some of the U106 and the U152, since both of those clades are also found in the British Isles, and the vikings can hardly have dna tested their victims to be sure they only nabbed the L21s.

You know, if you want to make U152 out to be a "viking" clade, fine. I mean, really, who cares? Knock yourself out.

But you really ought to be able to indulge yourself without the need to relegate others to the status of the descendants of slaves.

I think you are generalizing and certainly putting words in my mouth.  Rather a touchy subject - it is just a Y chromsome, nothing to get hot under the collar about.  The goal is to, without fear of intimidation, propose sensible reasons for what we see today, with the realiszation that this may not be a very precise indicatior of what was apparent in for example the Iron Age.  It is clear that Canute brought back Britons to do his fighting in Scandinavia - these can hardly be thought of as "slaves".  Charles broght thousands of Britons to do his dirty work against the hapless Saxons in the 800s.  All were rewarded with land in the Thuringia region of Germany.  These are not pathetic thralls, but valued allies.  The point is that there is historical evidence of a back migration to both Scandinavia and Germany of L21 (or more correctly, whatever haplogroup Britons tended to possess at the time).

I am truly sorry that things didn't work out according to your expectations.  Hopefully Myres is not the last word on the subject.

The apparent key to understanding the origins of L21 in Scandinavia is a haplotype analysis (do they have a lot of matches with Britosn?), and whether M222 Niall, South Irish, and Irish Type III are found in Scandinavia.  If the answer is yes, then in all probability the arrival there is recent.  Just one reason for L21's presence is historically attested commercial activity which would involve Bergen Norway and Goteburg Sweden as an example.  I think that this can all be sorted out - but less of a chance with say U152 which has little subclade structure.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2010, 07:42:37 PM »

 would be astonished if the SW Germany L21 result in the recent study is not some kind of sample aberration.  It is so far removed from the proportion of self testing SW Germans where L21 has a very decent showing in the Rhineland and neighbouring areas. Its the one result of the study I simply do not believe is representative in terms of L21 (the rest is lower than expected but essentially compatible with the project maps).  Some sort of tapering off from France to Austria with maybe 8% of males L21 in SW Germany would make a lot more sense.    

I accept the point about mixed groups.  I really do not think pure one-clade or even one-haplotype groups existed in the late prehistoric period except in areas where founder effects had happened.  

I certainly think the positive evidence all seems to point to the Cimbri being Celts.  I wonder if they did not expand up the Elbe from the Czech and Austria zone in an attempt to control trade.  That was a big deal at times in late prehistory.  Amber for metal resources.    
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2010, 07:46:57 PM »

. . .
I am truly sorry that things didn't work out according to your expectations.  Hopefully Myres is not the last word on the subject.

And that is precisely why you are here, isn't it, David?

You are back at it, arguing the same old things, but now triumphantly armed with what I am sure is now your favorite study.

Please, if you must indulge your "Viking U152" thing, do so on another thread.
Logged

Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2010, 10:52:39 PM »

would be astonished if the SW Germany L21 result in the recent study is not some kind of sample aberration.  It is so far removed from the proportion of self testing SW Germans where L21 has a very decent showing in the Rhineland and neighbouring areas. Its the one result of the study I simply do not believe is representative in terms of L21 (the rest is lower than expected but essentially compatible with the project maps).  Some sort of tapering off from France to Austria with maybe 8% of males L21 in SW Germany would make a lot more sense.    

I accept the point about mixed groups.  I really do not think pure one-clade or even one-haplotype groups existed in the late prehistoric period except in areas where founder effects had happened.  

I certainly think the positive evidence all seems to point to the Cimbri being Celts.  I wonder if they did not expand up the Elbe from the Czech and Austria zone in an attempt to control trade.  That was a big deal at times in late prehistory.  Amber for metal resources.    
Humm, perhaps we can come up with a hypothesis here.  If U152 and L21 were perhaps two of the groups which made up the massive capital of Noricum (Austria) at Magdelensburg (Klagenfurt today), their commercial entrepeneurial predilections may have brought them together to strongarm a takeover of the amber trade (by the the Cimbri and the Teutones). 

The distribution of the two haplogroups in Denmark seems to overlap ((e.g., both zero in East Denmark but together about 15% of North Denmark).  In 113 BC a supposed 300,00 of these tribesmen of the north headed on an oddessey which took them to all corners of the Celtic world - supposedly looking for a place to settle (what, the climiate of Denmark was not to their liking?).  They apparently destroyed the seemingly impregnable Magdelensburg which was the most massive hillfort I think in all Europe at the time.  Did they leave a contingent there to "hold the fort so to speak" while others went on to meet their destiny in 101 BC at Vericellae Italy. 

The unusual L21 hotspot in Austria needs an explanation - I am scratching around here.  Anyway, when the reemenants retuirned to their homeland in Denmark they seem to have simply taken up where they left off - minus a few hundred thousand of their men and women.

What is interesting is that the Niederstatter Austrian data indicated 7% U152, and the Myres data about 6% L21.  So ----------- well I am not sure but perhaps it means something in relation to the same haplogroups in Denmark :-)
Logged
Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2010, 11:10:38 PM »

. . .
I am truly sorry that things didn't work out according to your expectations.  Hopefully Myres is not the last word on the subject.

And that is precisely why you are here, isn't it, David?

You are back at it, arguing the same old things, but now triumphantly armed with what I am sure is now your favorite study.

Please, if you must indulge your "Viking U152" thing, do so on another thread.
Norwich here.  Comparing and contrasting U106, L21, U152, SRY2627 can be very productive for those who are intent on ferreting out the truth.  Sorry, don't know what you mean re Viking U152 - is this in one of my postings, and what does that have to do with the price of cheeze in China or the distribution of L21 - which you said is very disappointing via the Myres study.  I have some bones to pick about other haplogroups too - but this is a landmark study.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2010, 11:30:03 PM »

would be astonished if the SW Germany L21 result in the recent study is not some kind of sample aberration.  It is so far removed from the proportion of self testing SW Germans where L21 has a very decent showing in the Rhineland and neighbouring areas. Its the one result of the study I simply do not believe is representative in terms of L21 (the rest is lower than expected but essentially compatible with the project maps).  Some sort of tapering off from France to Austria with maybe 8% of males L21 in SW Germany would make a lot more sense.    

I accept the point about mixed groups.  I really do not think pure one-clade or even one-haplotype groups existed in the late prehistoric period except in areas where founder effects had happened.  

I certainly think the positive evidence all seems to point to the Cimbri being Celts.  I wonder if they did not expand up the Elbe from the Czech and Austria zone in an attempt to control trade.  That was a big deal at times in late prehistory.  Amber for metal resources.    
Humm, perhaps we can come up with a hypothesis here.  If U152 and L21 were perhaps two of the groups which made up the massive capital of Noricum (Austria) at Magdelensburg (Klagenfurt today), their commercial entrepeneurial predilections may have brought them together to strongarm a takeover of the amber trade (by the the Cimbri and the Teutones).  

The distribution of the two haplogroups in Denmark seems to overlap ((e.g., both zero in East Denmark but together about 15% of North Denmark).  In 113 BC a supposed 300,00 of these tribesmen of the north headed on an oddessey which took them to all corners of the Celtic world - supposedly looking for a place to settle (what, the climiate of Denmark was not to their liking?).  They apparently destroyed the seemingly impregnable Magdelensburg which was the most massive hillfort I think in all Europe at the time.  Did they leave a contingent there to "hold the fort so to speak" while others went on to meet their destiny in 101 BC at Vericellae Italy.  

The unusual L21 hotspot in Austria needs an explanation - I am scratching around here.  Anyway, when the reemenants retuirned to their homeland in Denmark they seem to have simply taken up where they left off - minus a few hundred thousand of their men and women.

What is interesting is that the Niederstatter Austrian data indicated 7% U152, and the Myres data about 6% L21.  So ----------- well I am not sure but perhaps it means something in relation to the same haplogroups in Denmark :-)

I think U152 is more confined to places such as Southern Germany/Switzerland than L21. The latter is most likely the largest represented subclade of R1b in Norway, and is present throughout Sweden and Denmark. An earlier study of Myres pointed out that 50% of Danish R1b1b2 was U106-. It's too bad the sampling frame from Denmark is underrepresented.

Now, small numbers of U152 could have traveled with L21 northwards but it seems that the former could be just as likely a recent import because of lower frequencies.

And the Cimbri being identified as Celtic is still debatable.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 11:30:35 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #69 on: September 06, 2010, 12:10:36 AM »

These words are Mare Morusa (Dead Sea - Baltic Sea) and Mare Congelium (spelling? but means frozen) from the sea between Sweden and Finland.  Celtic scholars have reported that these are indisputably Celtic words.  Pliny the Elder reported these facts, quoting a Greek historian who flourished circa 325 BC.  The region where these people lived is, oddly (or not), the only place where U152 is today found in Denmark.  The archaeological artifacts are also only from this said area.

Certainly Mare Morusa and Mare Congelium are Latin words. Probably Plyny the Elder translated these words in Latin, otherwise, if they are really the original words, we should think to Italics as the inhabitants of those regions. It is probably not believable, but R-U152 could have come from Italy, which retains the highest numbers and variance of this haplogroup.

Sorry, I was going on raw memory and at my age, that is definitely not a wise approach.  Here is the qactual quote from theat I was recalling:

"Pliny the Elder (circa 77 AD) who stated that Philemon wrote that, the
Cimbris word Morimarusa means the Dead Sea, as far as the Promentory of Rubeas,
beyond which they name it the Cronian Sea (“Naturalis Historiae”, Libri IV, xiii, line
95). The word “Morimarusa”, referring to the Baltic Sea, is composed of ‘muir’ and
‘marbh’ in Q-Celt Irish; ‘mor’ and ‘maro’ / ‘marw’ in P-Celt languages such as Breton
and Welsh. Importantly, there is no Germanic word in any dialect that would even
approximate these root elements (Wikipedia entry for “Cimbri”). Furthermore, Thierry
(1828) notes that ‘crwnn’ means coagulated or frozen, and in Gallic, cronn has the same
meaning; Murchroinn equals ‘icy sea’."

Of course I have analysed your words, marking the parts of the words that were Latin. If you say "Morimorusa" it is all different: there isn't more "mar" but "mor" and "mar-usa" and not "mor-usa". Indo-European languages have the same origin, but Latin "mare" ="sea" is different from "mor", and "mar-usa" is different from "mor-usa" if did mean "mor-tuum" or similar.  If the words are these, your analysis is more believable.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:36:48 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: September 06, 2010, 07:43:08 AM »

Let's take a look back at Table S4 of the recent Myres et al study at the sample sizes for Denmark and Sweden. There is no indication that any Norwegians were tested at all.

Denmark East = 17

Denmark Island (east) = 10

Denmark North = 42

Denmark Southeast = 22

Denmark West = 19

Sweden South (Malmö) = 139


Most of the sample sizes are pretty small. Only Malmö in Sweden had a decent sample size. The sample sizes for "Denmark East" and "Denmark Island (east)" are so small as to be nearly irrelevant, at least if the intent was to focus on those specific regions. Their chief significance, it seems to me, is their contribution to the total Danish sample.

So, here are the L21 results from those regions.

Denmark East = 0

Denmark Island (east) = 0

Denmark North = 9.5% (4 out 42)

Denmark Southeast = 9.1% (2 out of 22)

Denmark West = 5.3% (1 out of 19)

Sweden South (Malmö) = 5.8% (8 out of 139)


So, in Denmark as a whole, based on Table S4, there were 7 L21+ results (out 110) or about 6.4% of the total sample. In Sweden, obviously, the results weren't too different, at close to 6% (5.8%).

Overall, there were 15 L21+ results out of a total Scandinavian sample of 249, which comes to 6%.

It would have been nice if Myres et al had tested 100 or so Norwegians.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 04:38:44 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2010, 07:51:08 AM »

Let's take a look back at Table S4 of the recent Myres et al study at the sample sizes for Denmark and Sweden. There is no indication that any Norwegians were tested at all.

Denmark East = 17

Denmark Island (east) = 10

Denmark North = 42

Denmark Southeast = 22

Denmark West = 19

Sweden South (Malmö) = 139


Most of the sample sizes are pretty small. Only Malmö in Sweden had a decent sample size. The sample sizes for "Denmark East" and "Denmark Island (east)" are so small as to be nearly irrelevant, at least if the intent was to focus on those specific regions. Their chief significance, it seems to me, is their contribution to the total Danish sample.

So, here are the L21 results from those regions.

Denmark East = 0

Denmark Island (east) = 0

Denmark North = 9.5% (4 out 42)

Denmark Southeast = 9.1% (2 out of 22)

Denmark West = 5.3% (1 out of 19)

Sweden South (Malmö) = 5.8% (8 out of 139)


So, in Denmark as a whole, based on Table S4, there were 7 L21+ results (out 110) or about 6.4% of the total sample. In Sweden, obviously, the results weren't too different, at close to 6% (5.8%).

Overall, there were 15 L21+ results out of a total Scandinavian sample of 249, which comes to 6%.

It would have been nice if Myres et al had tested 100 or so Norwegians.


So, if R1b1b2 is about 40% of Danish y-dna (I think that's about right), that means, based on Myres anyway, that L21 is roughly 16% of Danish R1b1b2.

In Sweden, however, R1b1b2 is only about 20-25% of the y-dna. Therefore, if Myres' sampling is at all representative, then L21 is about 23-29% of Swedish R1b1b2.

EDIT: I should note that we are talking about L21 xM222 in all of the above. I should also add that, according to Myres' Table S4, there were 1 or at the most 2 M222s in the entire Scandinavian sample of 249 men (in Malmö, Sweden).
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 04:38:19 PM by rms2 » Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2010, 03:54:29 PM »

The discovery of a “sealed” Stone Age house site from 3500 BC has stirred great excitement among archaeologists from Norway’s Museum of Cultural History at the University in Oslo. The settlement site at Hamresanden, close to Kristiansand’s airport at Kjevik in Southern Norway, looks like it was covered by a sandstorm, possibly in the course of a few hours.

more....
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/10/01/archaeologists-find-mini-pompeii/
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2010, 11:53:08 AM »

..... I should note that we are talking about L21 xM222 in all of the above. I should also add that, according to Myres' Table S4, there were 1 or at the most 2 M222s in the entire Scandinavian sample of 249 men (in Malmö, Sweden).
This seems to imply that those who claim the Vikings took a bunch Irishmen/boys back to Scandinavia don't have much to stand on.  Therefore, L21* must have already been there.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 11:53:52 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 678


« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2010, 12:56:59 PM »

..... I should note that we are talking about L21 xM222 in all of the above. I should also add that, according to Myres' Table S4, there were 1 or at the most 2 M222s in the entire Scandinavian sample of 249 men (in Malmö, Sweden).
This seems to imply that those who claim the Vikings took a bunch Irishmen/boys back to Scandinavia don't have much to stand on.  Therefore, L21* must have already been there.

I think it's rather odd that none of the people who are keen on this idea are willing to be drawn into a conversation regarding the apparent lack of Irish DNA in Scandinavia.
Logged

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

Pages: 1 2 [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 0.159 seconds with 18 queries.