World Families Forums - R1b1b2 in Sweden

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 02:42:08 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)
| | |-+  R1b1b2 in Sweden
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b1b2 in Sweden  (Read 11841 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« on: July 12, 2010, 04:23:25 PM »

Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

The study, entitled "Y Chromosome Diversity in Sweden", was published in 2006. It examined the Ydna of 305 Swedish males from seven different Swedish administrative provinces, plus 38 Saami from the north of Sweden and 40 males from the Finnish province of Österbotten for comparison purposes. Both STRs and SNPs were tested, but unfortunately R1b wasn't SNP tested beyond M269.

Nonetheless, the results are very interesting. HG I1a(M253), at 113 out of 305 (37%), was the most common in the country as a whole. R1b1b2 was second, at 72/305 (24%), exactly double the number of R1a at 36/305 (12%).

However R1b1b2(M269) was the most common haplogroup in two southerly provinces, Skaraborg to the west and Östergotland/Jönköping to the east. But this is what I found to be most interesting. The R1b1b2 samples had a greater genetic variance than any of the other haplogroups. Even more interesting, they found what they termed a "significant difference" between R1b1b2 in western and eastern Sweden, which they felt reflected prehistoric demographic events.

They went on to say this about the R1b1b2 differentiation in southern Sweden:

 "It [a difference between east and west in southern Sweden] is also visible in archaelogoical material, from the megalithic architecture onwards, to the Medieval period and further on into recent time, in accordance with observed differences between the east and west of Sweden that have long since been long discussed in terms of economy, religion, settlement, social structure, politics, etc. It is all about differences in degree and not in kind. The geneflow between the eastern and western parts of southern Scandinavia, across Lake Vättern, has not been strong enough to completely erase the founder effects of the earliest settlement in these areas."

Unfortunately the study followed the then prevailing Semino model that R1b1b2 represented the Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe and assumed it constituted the earliest settlement of Sweden.

I wondered if the east/west R1b differntiation might be due to a difference between settlement patterns of U106 and P312 subclades, so I turned to the various R1b project maps to see if such a pattern could be detected. I couldn't see any evidence of it. Unfortunately the U106 map lumps everyone together on their map and makes no attempt to distinguish between U106 subclades. There were 17 people with Swedish ancestry in the U106 project, compared to 9 P312*, 6 L21 and 2 U152 (the latter from Faux's website). However when one adds up all the P312 results, the number is 17, exactly the same as U106. While I wouldn't suggest this represents scientifically valid sampling, it is consistent with other evidence I have seen that R1b in Scandinavia is split roughly 50/50 between U106 and P312. Of course some will say that the U106 half is Germanic and the P312 half is Viking slaves or later immigrants from Scotland, etc. To my way of thinking, this amounts to interpreting facts to support previously held conclusions, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

I do think the claimed east/west differntiation in R1b in Sweden could be an important clue in the history the settlement of R1b in Europe.

A pdf version of the full study may be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/39hpgry
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2010, 05:01:18 PM »

My outline of the origins of the Germanic-speaking peoples has been added to Peopling of Europe. See: The great wandering. This includes a bit on the coming and going within Scandinavia.

This is a lot more to write! I have barely started. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Frisians, Bohemians and Vikings are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all yet. But I do aim to get more done.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 05:02:08 PM by Jean M » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2010, 05:34:37 PM »

My outline of the origins of the Germanic-speaking peoples has been added to Peopling of Europe. See: The great wandering. This includes a bit on the coming and going within Scandinavia.

This is a lot more to write! I have barely started. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Frisians, Bohemians and Vikings are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all yet. But I do aim to get more done.
Thanks. I hadn't seen that before, or numerous other additions you've made since I last had a look at it. I look forward to reading through it once again.
A minor (and personal) quibble. Everything I have seen (including the Swedish FTDNA projects results I mentioned above) suggests P312* is more numerous in Scandinavia (and other Germanic lands, with the possible exception of Norway) than L21, though the latter was no doubt well represented. Admittedly though, P312* is not technically a subclade, and almost certainly encompasses as yet undiscovered subclades with vastly different histories and distribution. But I am confident that a major portion of it was an element of the Nordic Bronze Age culture.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2010, 06:11:04 AM »

Thanks.

The point about P312* all over the place was made in a comment on my blog post: The Romantic Atlantic Route. It would be helpful if some of that P312* turns out to be in a new subclade or subclades. But the distribution of it certainly does not warrant regarding it as representing any particular Western European ethnicity.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2010, 08:35:10 AM »


. . . Everything I have seen (including the Swedish FTDNA projects results I mentioned above) suggests P312* is more numerous in Scandinavia (and other Germanic lands, with the possible exception of Norway) than L21, though the latter was no doubt well represented.  . . .

There are currently 22 entries in the Scandinavia category on the Y-DNA Results page of the R-L21 Plus Project and 19 entries in the R-P312* Scandinavia category of the R-P312 and Subclades Project.

On the Y-DNA Results page of the R-L21 Plus Project, there are currently 29 entries in the Germany category, 1 in the Luxembourg category, 6 in the Netherlands category, and 3 in the Switzerland category. To that one could add Goblirsch from the Czech Republic category, since that is a Bavarian surname, for a total of 40.

On the Y-DNA Results page of the R-P312 and Subclades Project, there are currently 25 entries in the R-P312* Germany category, 6 in the R-P312* Netherlands category, 3 in the R-P312* Switzerland category, and 3 in the R-P312* Belgium category (I'm counting them because thus far all the Belgians have Flemish - i.e., Germanic - surnames). Add to them 6 with German surnames in the R-P312* Eastern Europe category, for a total of 43.

So L21 and R-P312* are running about even in Scandinavia and the other Germanic-speaking countries (excluding England).

At least 11 of those Germanic R-P312*, four of whom are Scandinavians, belong to the R1b North-South Cluster. I think most of us would agree (although we could be wrong) that the North-South Cluster represents a P312+ subclade, so there are at minimum two further subdivisions of what is now known as R-P312* in the old Germanic lands.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 08:49:55 AM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 02:42:00 PM »

Thanks.

The point about P312* all over the place was made in a comment on my blog post: The Romantic Atlantic Route. It would be helpful if some of that P312* turns out to be in a new subclade or subclades. But the distribution of it certainly does not warrant regarding it as representing any particular Western European ethnicity.

Yes, based on what we know at the moment, that which is currently catagorized as P312* is more widespread across Europe than any other variety of R1b. I did not mean to suggest that it is specifically Germanic- obviously it isn't- just that it appears to have had a signioficant presence amongst the Germanics, so I was a little chuffed that you mentioned L21 but not P312* in your article.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 02:54:18 PM »

I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

No - I know you weren't claiming P312* as Germanic. The issue is that people tend to label it Celtic! You are always careful to correct them, and I was just supporting you in that.

The problem with discussing haplogroups at all in P of E is that someone will always be left out. No large population is likely to consist of just one haplogroup, yet we tend to pick out one, or maybe two, as markers, because they have the clearest correlation and we can track them. There will be others that don't get a mention in my attempts to tell a simple story. I decided to mention four in the case of the Germanic peoples, to make the point as forcefully as possible that these were a mixed people. I'm sorry to leave you out, but where do I stop?

[Added] If P312* is running at equal numbers with L21, I will add it.  :)
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 02:58:03 PM by Jean M » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 02:54:36 PM »



So L21 and R-P312* are running about even in Scandinavia and the other Germanic-speaking countries (excluding England).


Obviously the numbers have changed since last I looked. I think this is due in no small part to your tireless efforts to identify and recruit new L21 members. So I will modify my remarks to say that P312* seems to have been no less numerous in Germanic countries than L21.
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
However when P312* is finally broken down into identifiable subclades (assuming that ever occurs), I strongly suspect that some of will be primarily Germanic, some will be primarily Celtic, and some will be spread through both cultures. Some may even be primarily eastern European.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 03:09:00 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 02:57:21 PM »

I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

No - I know you weren't claiming P312* as Germanic. The issue is that people tend to label it Celtic! You are always careful to correct them, and I was just supporting you in that.

The problem with discussing haplogroups at all in P of E is that someone will always be left out. No large population is likely to consist of just one haplogroup, yet we tend to pick out one, or maybe two, as markers, because they have the clearest correlation and we can track them. There will be others that don't get a mention in my attempts to tell a simple story. I decided to mention four in the case of the Germanic peoples, to make the point as forcefully as possible that these were a mixed people. I'm sorry to leave you out, but where do I stop?
OK, not chuffed, but slighted. I thought chuffed meant irritated. I am generally pretty good at British slang but obviously not completely versant.
Anyone who is P312* always feels left out because U106, U152 and L21 gets all the attention.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 03:05:46 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2010, 02:58:46 PM »

I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2010, 03:02:54 PM »

I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)
Thanks. I feel better already.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2010, 03:20:17 PM »

I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

No - I know you weren't claiming P312* as Germanic. The issue is that people tend to label it Celtic! You are always careful to correct them, and I was just supporting you in that.

The problem with discussing haplogroups at all in P of E is that someone will always be left out. No large population is likely to consist of just one haplogroup, yet we tend to pick out one, or maybe two, as markers, because they have the clearest correlation and we can track them. There will be others that don't get a mention in my attempts to tell a simple story. I decided to mention four in the case of the Germanic peoples, to make the point as forcefully as possible that these were a mixed people. I'm sorry to leave you out, but where do I stop?
OK, not chuffed, but slighted. I thought chuffed meant irritated. I am generally pretty good at British slang but obviously not completely versant.
Anyone who is P312* always feels left out because U106, U152 and L21 gets all the attention.

Narked or peeved could be apt choices, not entirely sure if they are especially British though :)
Logged

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

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2010, 03:44:34 PM »

No - I know you weren't claiming P312* as Germanic. The issue is that people tend to label it Celtic! You are always careful to correct them, and I was just supporting you in that.



You're quite correct, the idea that P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic has long been my pet peeve. I wouldn't mind so much, except that one has to ignore or explain away a great deal of evidence to come to that conclusion, and simplistic answers to complex questions have never appealed to me. I think we largely have Dr. Faux to thank for this idea, though according to him the only part of P312 which was Celtic was U152, the remainder being "Atlantic facade aboriginals." So pardon me if I sometimes get a little peeved on these issues.
Incidentally I learned only recently that the Frisian model, which was the chief bit of evidence which led to the U106=Germanic notion, only applies to a portion of the U106 subclade L48.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2010, 06:51:55 PM »

I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)
Thanks. I feel better already.

OK - the latest revision is up. The delay was because I was in the middle of writing a new paragraph about the Irish and La Tene and M222 and stuff like like.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2010, 07:45:31 PM »



So L21 and R-P312* are running about even in Scandinavia and the other Germanic-speaking countries (excluding England).


Obviously the numbers have changed since last I looked. I think this is due in no small part to your tireless efforts to identify and recruit new L21 members. So I will modify my remarks to say that P312* seems to have been no less numerous in Germanic countries than L21.
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
However when P312* is finally broken down into identifiable subclades (assuming that ever occurs), I strongly suspect that some of will be primarily Germanic, some will be primarily Celtic, and some will be spread through both cultures. Some may even be primarily eastern European.

Actually, I haven't been actively recruiting Scandinavians or Germans for quite some time. If I run across one who looks likely to be L21+, I'll drop him an email, but that hasn't happened much lately, for one thing because it's so hard to sort an L21+ haplotype from all the L21- haplotypes.

But I don't think there ever was a time when P312* was way ahead of L21 in either Germany or Scandinavia (except maybe when L21 was first discovered and had few results of any kind).

Honestly, I kind of lost interest in recruiting Scandinavians because every time we got a new one someone would chalk him up as the descendant of an Irish or British thrall, a Scottish merchant, or an Irish monk. It's exasperating.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 07:49:29 PM by rms2 » Logged

y24
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2010, 05:20:53 AM »

Quote
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
I agree. In comparison to L21, P312*'s distribution pattern in the British Isles is clearly different.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2010, 07:53:06 AM »

Quote
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
I agree. In comparison to L21, P312*'s distribution pattern in the British Isles is clearly different.

I think it is really difficult to say much about R-P312* because it is a large paragroup and not a single subclade. Its apparent distribution is deceptive and could be almost meaningless because we do not yet know what or how many subclades comprise it. As I pointed out in my earlier post, a good percentage of the R-P312* in the old Germanic lands belongs to the R1b North-South Cluster; one could probably separate that out and class it as a subclade separate from the rest of the current R-P312* and not be in too much danger of being wrong. There are a number of R1b North-South guys in England, as well. R1b North-South is all over Europe, especially Western Europe. There is quite a bit of it in western and southern France and in Iberia, as well.

Switching gears somewhat, although I haven't done the necessary bean counting, my impression is that P312 (I'm talking about P312 as a whole, including all its subclades and not just R-P312*) is the biggest division of R1b1b2 in Europe, bigger than U106 and its clades. Therefore it is not at all surprising that the P312+ group as a whole rivals U106 in the old Germanic lands. But I think it is also true that the center of gravity of the P312+ group is more western than that of the U106+ group, which is why P312 is often associated with the Celts. In general (please note that I said, in general), the distribution of the P312+ group in Europe fits the Celtic pattern better than it does the Germanic pattern. And it does seem pretty apparent that the distribution of the U106+ group fits the Germanic pattern reasonably well.

I'm not trying to aggravate anyone, but I do think it is possible to generalize in this fashion, and I think it is necessary, too, if we are not to just throw up our hands and despair of ever making any sense of y haplogroups and their distribution. Does that mean there are no exceptions to the general pattern? Of course not. Obviously, there are exceptions. It's difficult, for example, to make the P312+ (all of it, not just R-P312*) in Scandinavia Celtic. But it is quite possible (and likely, it seems to me) that the P312+ in Scandinavia arrived there in the Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk, and the same people may have been Proto-Celts elsewhere.

It's important to remember that language and ethnicity are fluid. A Celtic tribe could easily become a Germanic tribe within a few generations, and vice versa. Even if one were to conclude that, yes, P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic (equations with which I disagree as absolutes but which I think work as a rule of thumb or generalization), the fact would still remain that P312 and U106 are both P310+ and therefore closely related. In terms of y-dna, that would mean there was little difference  between Celts and Germans anyway. The Celts and Germans also had much in common culturally. At first, the Greeks and Romans could hardly tell them apart. Modern scholars still argue about the identity of the Cimbri and Teutones, whether they were Celts or Germans, for example.

As for R-P312*, if one wants to consider it as a single thing (which I think is a big mistake), the bulk of it is centered more in Iberia and France than in the old Germanic lands, and that is probably close to true of P312+ as a whole.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2010, 05:15:22 AM »

I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

OK, not chuffed, but slighted. I thought chuffed meant irritated. I am generally pretty good at British slang but obviously not completely versant.

Miffed would be a suitable word, though Sir Walter Scott claimed it was a woman's phrase.

But both you and Jean are correct about chuffed. From etymonline:

"pleased, happy," c.1860, British dialect, from obsolete chuff "swollen with fat" (1520s). A second British dialectal chuff has an opposite meaning, "displeased, gruff" (1832), from chuff "rude fellow" (mid-15c.), of unknown origin. Related: Chuffed."

cheers
authun
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:18:55 AM by authun » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2010, 05:34:02 AM »

Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

The study, entitled "Y Chromosome Diversity in Sweden", was published in 2006.

....

They went on to say this about the R1b1b2 differentiation in southern Sweden:

 "It [a difference between east and west in southern Sweden] is also visible in archaelogoical material, from the megalithic architecture onwards, to the Medieval period and further on into recent time, in accordance with observed differences between the east and west of Sweden that have long since been long discussed in terms of economy, religion, settlement, social structure, politics, etc. It is all about differences in degree and not in kind. The geneflow between the eastern and western parts of southern Scandinavia, across Lake Vättern, has not been strong enough to completely erase the founder effects of the earliest settlement in these areas."

Does this reflect different origins for the Svear around Lake Mälaren and the Götar around Lakes Vättern and Vänern? The Svear of course gave their name to Sweden and many people tend to think of iron age Sweden being comprised of Svear and Danes in the south but the Götar, usually associated with the Geats, held most of the land in between. They may have been part of a different settlement phase at some point.

cheers
authun
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:34:52 AM by authun » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2010, 10:59:14 AM »

...
As for R-P312*, if one wants to consider it as a single thing (which I think is a big mistake), the bulk of it is centered more in Iberia and France than in the old Germanic lands, and that is probably close to true of P312+ as a whole.
I agree, I've looked at P312* quite a bit now.  The North-South cluster should be considered separately as a highly probable sub-clade.  The rest seems hard to organize into clusters (with any degree of certainty) but they could just be viewed as scattered P312* types that accompanied or maybe led or followed various strands (subclades) of P312 or U106 to various places.  

It may be all of the above, but P312* is not a single unit.  Some P312* folks may be more closely related to L21+ (or U152+ or you name it) folks than to other P312* folks.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 10:59:57 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2010, 08:22:36 PM »

I have always said that it is a mistake to look at P312* as a monolithic unit, so I have no disagreement there. I have also frequently stated that I suspect P312* is hiding as yet unidentified subclades with different histories and distributions. But I also think it is just as erroneous to consider all of U106 as a monolithic unit. That is exactly what happens when people maintain it equates with Germanic. I concede that some U106 subclades appear to have been predominantly Germanic, and some P312 subclades appear to have been predominantly Celtic, but I think that is as much as the current evidence will support, and I think it is a mistake to try to take it beyond that.

It is very difficult to get a handle on the various U106 subclades, because there is no project which includes all U106 subclades, and no map which distinguishes between them (they are divided by country or origin rather than by subclade). Apparently however not a single person of Scandinavian ancestry has been found in the U106 subclade U198.

My problem with the P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic assumption is that it colors the way one views the evidence. If there are a few L21 in Spain, they must be Celtoiberian. If there are a few U106 there, they must be Visigoths or Vandals. It prevents the facts from speaking for themselves, and demands an interpretation  which will reinforce the pre-existing assumtion.

Look at these numbers from the various projects:

U106    Norway:  5       Italy:  10
L21       Norway:  11     Italy:   4

More Germanics in Italy than Norway? But if one is going to include all of U106, one should compare it to all of P312. When we do, we get these numbers:

U106   Norway:  5
P312   Norway:  21

Is is reasonable that there are about 5 times the number of Celts as there are Germanics there in this Nordic country? Of course if one starts with the assumption that U106 is Germanic and P312 is Celtic, one can look for ways to try to explain away such figures.

Consider this: when some interim reports from the Brabant project were released, someone trumpeted the fact the the highest R1b subclade numbers for U106 once again proved their connection with the Germanics. Then someone pointed out that U152 was listed separately from the rest of P312, and when added together, P312 rather than U106, was the most numerous. Although the numbers remained the same, the interpretation drawn from them then changed to surprise that there were so many Celts in the area. The facts don't matter; a way will be found to interpret them so that the conclusion always remains the same.

Certainly P312* is strong in Iberia, but that some portion of P312* is Germanic appears to be established by the recent identification of the R1b Norse cluster as a subclade under P312. I have yet to hear how this can be explained away, though I have no doubt some will try.
 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 08:38:29 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2010, 08:37:38 PM »

Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

The study, entitled "Y Chromosome Diversity in Sweden", was published in 2006.

....

They went on to say this about the R1b1b2 differentiation in southern Sweden:

 "It [a difference between east and west in southern Sweden] is also visible in archaelogoical material, from the megalithic architecture onwards, to the Medieval period and further on into recent time, in accordance with observed differences between the east and west of Sweden that have long since been long discussed in terms of economy, religion, settlement, social structure, politics, etc. It is all about differences in degree and not in kind. The geneflow between the eastern and western parts of southern Scandinavia, across Lake Vättern, has not been strong enough to completely erase the founder effects of the earliest settlement in these areas."

Does this reflect different origins for the Svear around Lake Mälaren and the Götar around Lakes Vättern and Vänern? The Svear of course gave their name to Sweden and many people tend to think of iron age Sweden being comprised of Svear and Danes in the south but the Götar, usually associated with the Geats, held most of the land in between. They may have been part of a different settlement phase at some point.

cheers
authun
Welcome back. Apparently not, as the divide found in the study was to either side of Lake Vättern. However it may be that the predominance of HG R1b in that area is a genetic legacy of the Götar/Geats. Unfortunately the study only included seven scattered provinces in Sweden.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2010, 09:28:30 PM »

. . .

My problem with the P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic assumption is that it colors the way one views the evidence . . .
 

It's not an assumption. It is a generalization based on the apparent distributions of P312 and U106.

It does not mean, as I said in my post above, that there aren't exceptions. I also said I disagree with those equations if they are seen as absolutes. They aren't absolute.

But I don't see how one can look at the great bulk of continental U106 (including those with 492=13 - or especially 390=23 and 492=13 together - who may not have been SNP tested yet) and not notice that the overall distribution mirrors the Germanic distribution.

And while I think P312 (all of it, not just R-P312*) is bigger overall than U106, and thus well represented in the old Germanic lands, its center of gravity is farther west than that of U106.

Thus it is the relative distributions of the two subdivisions of P310 that make the generalization valid, as a generalization, not as a hard-and-fast rule.

I don't think a comparison of the relative numbers of L21 and U106 in Norway and Italy renders the P312=Celtic, U106=Germanic generalization invalid. For one thing, two U106+ Italians (whom I know personally) run two of the most active Italian dna projects. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that they were aggressively on the lookout for other U106+ Italians and were recruiting likely candidates for SNP testing. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that Norway has been neglected by them.

But it is really hard to miss the number of Germans and Netherlanders and Danes and Swedes, etc., who are U106+. P312 may rival U106 for sheer numbers in Germany (largely due to U152, L21 and P312*), but P312 is bigger overall, and its center of gravity is farther west. Some P312 clades hardly make it into Germanic lands at all.

If one looks at the British Isles picture, I think he will see that U106 in the old Celtic regions is fairly limited to people with English surnames. Old Gaelic, Catholic surnames among U106 in Ireland, for example, are almost non-existent. It seems to me there is comparatively little U106 in Ireland and Scotland and very little of it in Wales. There isn't much of it in western Scotland or the Highlands. It seems to be down in the lowlands where the English made the greatest inroads. And that's not based on any assumptions. It's based on the R-U106 Project Map:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106/default.aspx?section=yresults

We may be looking at this thing in different ways and thus not really disagreeing so much as seeing it from different angles. I think P312=Celtic, U106=Germanic is a fairly reasonable rule of thumb, a sloppy approximation of the true picture. I think such working generalizations are valid and useful in an extremely complex, confusing, and only haphazardly researched field where we are never likely to get the "true picture", in sharp focus, with all its details nicely delineated.

It's a little like saying R1a in Europe=Slavic. Is that absolutely, without exceptions, the truth? No! But it's not too far off either.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 09:33:22 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2010, 09:30:05 PM »

I have always said that it is a mistake to look at P312* as a monolithic unit, so I have no disagreement there. I have also frequently stated that I suspect P312* is hiding as yet unidentified subclades with different histories and distributions. But I also think it is just as erroneous to consider all of U106 as a monolithic unit. That is exactly what happens when people maintain it equates with Germanic. I concede that some U106 subclades appear to have been predominantly Germanic, and some P312 subclades appear to have been predominantly Celtic, but I think that is as much as the current evidence will support, and I think it is a mistake to try to take it beyond that.

It is very difficult to get a handle on the various U106 subclades, because there is no project which includes all U106 subclades, and no map which distinguishes between them (they are divided by country or origin rather than by subclade). Apparently however not a single person of Scandinavian ancestry has been found in the U106 subclade U198.

My problem with the P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic assumption is that it colors the way one views the evidence. If there are a few L21 in Spain, they must be Celtoiberian. If there are a few U106 there, they must be Visigoths or Vandals. It prevents the facts from speaking for themselves, and demands an interpretation  which will reinforce the pre-existing assumtion.

Look at these numbers from the various projects:

U106    Norway:  5       Italy:  10
L21       Norway:  11     Italy:   4

More Germanics in Italy than Norway? But if one is going to include all of U106, one should compare it to all of P312. When we do, we get these numbers:

U106   Norway:  5
P312   Norway:  21

Is is reasonable that there are about 5 times the number of Celts as there are Germanics there in this Nordic country? Of course if one starts with the assumption that U106 is Germanic and P312 is Celtic, one can look for ways to try to explain away such figures.

Consider this: when some interim reports from the Brabant project were released, someone trumpeted the fact the the highest R1b subclade numbers for U106 once again proved their connection with the Germanics. Then someone pointed out that U152 was listed separately from the rest of P312, and when added together, P312 rather than U106, was the most numerous. Although the numbers remained the same, the interpretation drawn from them then changed to surprise that there were so many Celts in the area. The facts don't matter; a way will be found to interpret them so that the conclusion always remains the same.

Certainly P312* is strong in Iberia, but that some portion of P312* is Germanic appears to be established by the recent identification of the R1b Norse cluster as a subclade under P312. I have yet to hear how this can be explained away, though I have no doubt some will try.
 

Thanks for posting this interesting study, GoldenHind. I was shocked to see that R1b outnumbered R1a considerably in Sweden - to finish in SECOND place! I personally think that R1b1b2 was the latecomer to Scandinavia, perpetuating the change from proto-Germanic to proto-Norse/Old Norse. And I agree that it was there during the Nordic Bronze Age.

This whole mess has become political. The fact is that the Germanic tribes were a mixed people, but R1b1b2 (P312 in particular) was an instrumental part of them. Speaking of the Geats, the Longacre/Langaker family (to which I am an extended cousin through the Rambos) is from Gothenburg, Sweden - the Geatish heartland. And they are R1b1b2.

I think that the P312 in Britain (especially East England) could be potentially Danish/Swedish/Anglian in origin. I am not saying all of it, but L21 is a bit heavier in the West. We really need a defining SNP downstream from P312* found in both Great Britain and Scandinavia. It would easier to connect the two populations.



Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2010, 09:37:00 PM »

. . .

My problem with the P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic assumption is that it colors the way one views the evidence . . .
 

It's not an assumption. It is a generalization based on the apparent distributions of P312 and U106.

It does not mean, as I said in my post above, that there aren't exceptions. I also said I disagree with those equations if they are seen as absolutes. They aren't absolute.

But I don't see how one can look at the great bulk of continental U106 (including those with 492=13 - or especially 390=23 and 492=13 together - who may not have been SNP tested yet) and not notice that the overall distribution mirrors the Germanic distribution.

And while I think P312 (all of it, not just R-P312*) is bigger overall than U106, and thus well represented in the old Germanic lands, its center of gravity is farther west than that of U106.

Thus it is the relative distributions of the two subdivisions of P310 that make the generalization valid, as a generalization, not as a hard-and-fast rule.

I don't think a comparison of the relative numbers of L21 and U106 in Norway and Italy renders the P312=Celtic, U106=Germanic generalization invalid. For one thing, two U106+ Italians (whom I know personally) run two of the most active Italian dna projects. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that they were aggressively on the lookout for other U106+ Italians and were recruiting likely candidates for SNP testing. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that Norway has been neglected by them.

But it is really hard to miss the number of Germans and Netherlanders and Danes and Swedes, etc., who are U106+. P312 may rival U106 for sheer numbers in Germany (largely due to U152, L21 and P312*), but P312 is bigger overall, and its center of gravity is farther west. Some P312 clades hardly make it into Germanic lands at all.

If one looks at the British Isles picture, I think he will see that U106 in the old Celtic regions is fairly limited to people with English surnames. Old Gaelic, Catholic surnames among U106 in Ireland, for example, are almost non-existent. It seems to me there is comparatively little U106 in Ireland and Scotland and very little of it in Wales. There isn't much of it in western Scotland or the Highlands. It seems to be down in the lowlands where the English made the greatest inroads. And that's not based on any assumptions. It's based on the R-U106 Project Map:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106/default.aspx?section=yresults

We may be looking at this thing in different ways and thus not really disagreeing so much as seeing it from different angles. I think P312=Celtic, U106=Germanic is a fairly reasonable rule of thumb, a sloppy approximation of the true picture. I think such working generalizations are valid and useful in an extremely field where we are never likely to get the "true picture", in sharp focus, with all its details nicely delineated.

It's a little like saying R1a in Europe=Slavic. Is that absolutely, without exceptions, the truth? No! But it's not too far off either.

I think this is the problem though. We already assume that U106 is Germanic in those areas. U106 could have been in the Netherlands and Denmark as Beaker Folk, with P312 bringing in Proto-Germanic. It depends on how long these clades were in those areas.

For some reason, P312 is beating out U106 in Scandinavia. I think P312 leans more towards Proto-Norse populations, while U106 has a more Frisian distribution. Northern Norway shows P312/L21, and this is illustrative of Old Norse settlement on the coasts.

Just a thought.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 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 0.139 seconds with 19 queries.