World Families Forums - R1b1b2 in Denmark (Myres II)

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 11:57:14 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 Denmark (Myres II)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b1b2 in Denmark (Myres II)  (Read 1116 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« on: October 21, 2010, 08:57:16 PM »

Continuing with my interest in R1b in Scandinavia, I have had occasion to look at and analyze the R1b data from Denmark in the second Myres study. I suspect it is precisely the same data used in the first Myres study, but now with the addition of more SNPs and further subclades.

Mostly importantly, the data is clearly inadequate for drawing any firm conclusions. The sample for all of Denmark is only 110, out of a population of nearly five and a half million. Any observations are therefore highly tentative. However it is the only study of the country I am aware of which looks at R1b SNPs.

The samples are divided into five different geographic areas. Some of them these designations are extremely confusing, even to someone with more than a passing knowledge of Danish geography. For instance, I might guess that Island(East) is Bornholm, an island in the Baltic which lies far to the east of the rest of Denmark. North presumably refers to northern Jutland. Is West the remainder of Jutland not designated North, or does it only include the western half of the peninsula? It is extremely hard to determine how they distinguished between East and Southeast, as Northeast Denmark doesn't exist. Does East refer to the island of Zealand, and Southeast to Falster, Laaland and Møn? If so, how did they classify results from Fyn?


My first obsevation is that R1b does not appear to be uniformly distributed throughout Denmark, which matches the indications from Sweden. R1b was most common in the sample designated North. This region also had the largest sample size (42) of any of the regions. Just under half of the sample (47.6% or 20/42) is M269. The low was in Island(East), where M269 was only 10% (1/10), however the number sampled there (10) was also the smallest of any of the regions. The sole M269 there incidentally was L11*.

The next highest area for R1b is West, where M269 was 36.8% (7/19). M269 was 31.8% (7/22) in the Southeast, and 29.4% (5/17) in the East. Looking at the total results, M269 was 36% (40/110).

The subclade numbers from the total sample are as follows:

U106(XU198)      19
U198                    1
P312*                  6
L21                      7
U152                   3
L23(XM412)         2
L11*                    2
M222                   0

I find the complete absence of M222 and the sole U198 to be interesting. As far as I am aware, this is the only U198 found to date anywhere in Scandinavia, and probably is the same individual cited in the first Myres study.

A cursory look seems to show a strong dominance of U106, but when all U106+ is compared to all P312+, the difference becomes much less significant.

U106+     20 (18%)
P312+     16 (14.5%)

Also very interesting is that generally the distribution of U106+ and P312+ mirror each other. Where one is more common, so is the other. The only exception is East, with 3 U106(XU198), and only one P312+ (an S116*). However the sample size for this area was extremely small- only 17.

Finally, I think it noteworthy that these results are different in many ways from those from Malmö in Sweden, especially considering that area was part of Denmark for many centuries.

What inferences might one draw from this data? Does the stronger presence of M269 (including both U106+ and P312+) in the north and west indicate R1b arrived from the west, perhaps by sea? Could this be tied to the Maritime Bell Beakers? Does the fact that their density is largely the same indicate that U106+ and P312+ arrived together, rather than separately and from different directions?











« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 09:02:12 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2010, 12:00:38 PM »

....
Mostly importantly, the data is clearly inadequate for drawing any firm conclusions. The sample for all of Denmark is only 110, out of a population of nearly five and a half million. ....
My first obsevation is that R1b does not appear to be uniformly distributed throughout Denmark, which matches the indications from Sweden. R1b was most common in the sample designated North. This region also had the largest sample size (42) of any of the regions. Just under half of the sample (47.6% or 20/42) is M269. The low was in Island(East), where M269 was only 10% (1/10), however the number sampled there (10) was also the smallest of any of the regions. The sole M269 there incidentally was L11*.  .....
The next highest area for R1b is West, where M269 was 36.8% (7/19). M269 was 31.8% (7/22) in the Southeast, and 29.4% (5/17) in the East. Looking at the total results, M269 was 36% (40/110).  
I downloaded the U106 project data into my spreadsheet to calculate variance, diversity, etc.
There is not that much U106 available in the project from Scandinavia so the data is limited.  There is also not much from Austria, which can't be reflective of the real situation.  (EDIT: I just noticed I didn't classify all of the Austria, Finland and Poland data so I'll report back when finished)

However, there are a number of resonably long haplotypes from England, Germany, etc.   I didn't know what to expect, but so far Denmark has the highest variance by about 20%.  

Again the caveat is that I only have a couple of ht's from (see EDIT above) Poland and Austria so I'm not even considering those locations.   I've read U106 project administrators say diversity is highest as you go east - specifically Poland.

The inference is that much of the U106 and P312 peoples (but not necessarily all) had different routes to the North Sea area and Scandinavia.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 03:13:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2010, 12:19:30 PM »

... The subclade numbers from the total sample (Denmark) are as follows:
L21                      7 (Corrected)
M222                   0

I find the complete absence of M222 and the sole U198 to be interesting.

I made this point before but "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" by Myres et al lists in Table S2 that 16 of 58 L21+ people in Ireland are M222+.  That is 28%.

For those that think L21+ got to Scandinavia by Vikings bringing them there, they'd expect about 28% to be M222+.  That does NOT seem to be the case at all, as your tabulations confirm at least for the Danish Vikings.

Here is an inference one might draw: L21+ was in Scandinavia prior to the Viking Era.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 07:49:39 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2010, 07:21:25 PM »

There were 7 L21+, not zero.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2010, 07:28:22 PM »

You know, Myres et al used SMGF samples, for the most part, for that first study. I wonder if they did the same for this more recent study.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2010, 07:52:44 PM »

There were 7 L21+, not zero.
Yes. Sorry.  I corrected 7 L21+ and zero M222+. So the point is there should be more M222 showing up in Denmark if L21+ (including M222) in Denmark is only there because the Vikings brought them back.

Harry A made a point about this on another forum. Many of the "slaves" or whatever the Vikings took were actually traded elsewhere besides Scandinavia.  I think he also said they were more likely to be women than men.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2010, 07:59:59 PM »

True, and Gwynn Jones, an expert on the Vikings, in his A History of the Vikings, said the Vikings' favorite slave hunting territory was the Baltic coast, not the British Isles. It makes sense: anywhere along the Baltic coast was a relatively short haul back to Scandinavia, since a large part of Scandinavia itself is on the Baltic.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2010, 08:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=9689.msg121133#msg121133 M269. The [b
I downloaded the U106 project data into my spreadsheet to calculate variance, diversity, etc.
There is not that much U106 available in the project from Scandinavia so the data is limited.  There is also not much from Austria, which can't be reflective of the real situation.  (EDIT: I just noticed I didn't classify all of the Austria, Finland and Poland data so I'll report back when finished)

However, there are a number of resonably long haplotypes from England, Germany, etc.   I didn't know what to expect, but so far Denmark has the highest variance by about 20%.  

Again the caveat is that I only have a couple of ht's from (see EDIT above) Poland and Austria so I'm not even considering those locations.   I've read U106 project administrators say diversity is highest as you go east - specifically Poland.

The inference is that much of the U106 and P312 peoples (but not necessarily all) had different routes to the North Sea area and Scandinavia.

If U106 and P312 took different routes to Scandinavia, one must come up with a credible explanation why both groups have their highest density (in Denmark) in the North, and their second highest the West.

My suspicion is that U106 established their hotspot in the lower Rhine region at a very early date- Bronze Age or earlier- and spread to Denmark by traveling up North Sea coast. Some people believe U106 reached Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia first, and than got to the Netherlands by traveling the opposite direction, but I remain unconvinced. So perhaps you could compare U106 variance in the Netherlands to that in Scandinavia.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2010, 08:46:12 PM »

You know, Myres et al used SMGF samples, for the most part, for that first study. I wonder if they did the same for this more recent study.

My belief is that they used the same SMGF samples from their first study and just performed additional SNP tests. It is possible that SMGF may have added a few samples in the interval, but I suspect the number would be minimal. The SMGF database for Europe just hasn't grown that fast.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2010, 09:21:25 PM »

There were 7 L21+, not zero.
Yes. Sorry.  I corrected 7 L21+ and zero M222+. So the point is there should be more M222 showing up in Denmark if L21+ (including M222) in Denmark is only there because the Vikings brought them back.

Harry A made a point about this on another forum. Many of the "slaves" or whatever the Vikings took were actually traded elsewhere besides Scandinavia.  I think he also said they were more likely to be women than men.

I have always thought the idea that L21 in Scandinavia was due solely to the Viking slave trade to be a red herring. Those who have proposed it seem to have in mind a model like that employed in America, where large groups of able bodied slaves were imported to do agricultural work on large plantations. There is simply no evidence to support a similar model in Scandinavia. The sources generally indicate the Vikings primarily took women and children and some skilled craftsmen, but those able bodied captives who were potential warriors were simply slain. Perhaps they were worried about what might happen at home while they were away raiding! Some of the slaves may have been taken back to Scandinavia to serve in wealthy households, but they were a source of commerce and were often traded on to far off lands, such as Muslim Spain. (How much L21 and M222 is there in Andalucia?) Iceland may be something of an exception, as it was an empty land being settled during the Viking era. Much of this I have taken from an article I have on the subject written by a Danish academic.

Personally I thought the large scale study of Malmö in Sweden from Myres II, where L21 was the largest R1b subclade (more numerous than U106), should have finally put an end to this claim. I also don't know why L21 is always the primary victim of this idea. As I have said previously, no one ever suggests any U106 slaves were taken back to Scandinavia from Anglo-Saxon England.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 09:22:17 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2010, 11:41:45 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=9689.msg121133#msg121133I ....   I've read [u
U106 project administrators say diversity is highest as you go east - specifically Poland[/u].

The inference is that much of the U106 and P312 peoples (but not necessarily all) had different routes to the North Sea area and Scandinavia.

If U106 and P312 took different routes to Scandinavia, one must come up with a credible explanation why both groups have their highest density (in Denmark) in the North, and their second highest the West.

My suspicion is that U106 established their hotspot in the lower Rhine region at a very early date- Bronze Age or earlier- and spread to Denmark by traveling up North Sea coast. Some people believe U106 reached Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia first, and than got to the Netherlands by traveling the opposite direction, but I remain unconvinced. So perhaps you could compare U106 variance in the Netherlands to that in Scandinavia.
I'm including all of Denmark along with Norway, Sweden and Finland as Scandinavia. Basically, what I call the Low Countries is Benelux.

I've got the Low Countries with greater variance for R-U106 than Scandinavia.

Below is a 67 length (50 non-multicopy marker) comparison with no real low sample sizes for these regions.  My definition of East Europe is just anything south of Scandinavia and east of Germany, Austria and Italy.

East Europe 1.03
Ireland .98
Scotland .97
Low Countries .95
Germany .91
Scandinavia .89
England .85
Alpine Countries &  Italy .83

I'm a little taken back.  i did expect higher variance in Eastern Euope and I was not surprised with lower variance in Scandinavia.

However, I thought Austria/Switz/Itlay would have higher variance.

I cetainly thought Ireland and Scotland would have higher lower variance than England.

With the variance around the headwaters of the Danube being low like this, that doesn't implicate the Danube as a source.  ... must have mostly come from around the northern side of the Carpathians.

Given the length of the haplotypes and sample sizes, I don't think the data is critically limited or anything like that.

Perhaps I need to look at L48+ separately because R-L48 and R-U106* are two different beasts.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 11:42:26 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2010, 11:49:58 PM »

Perhaps I need to look at L48+ separately because R-L48 and R-U106* are two different beasts.
L48+ is different in that it shows higher variance in Scandinavia than in the Low Countries.

Still, even on just L48+, variance is higher in Ireland or Scotland than in England.

Does this make any sense?  or do we just write it off and say we don't have enough data.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 11:51:57 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
jerome72
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2010, 04:27:38 AM »

I have always thought the idea that L21 in Scandinavia was due solely to the Viking slave trade to be a red herring. Those who have proposed it seem to have in mind a model like that employed in America, where large groups of able bodied slaves were imported to do agricultural work on large plantations. There is simply no evidence to support a similar model in Scandinavia. The sources generally indicate the Vikings primarily took women and children and some skilled craftsmen, but those able bodied captives who were potential warriors were simply slain. Perhaps they were worried about what might happen at home while they were away raiding! Some of the slaves may have been taken back to Scandinavia to serve in wealthy households, but they were a source of commerce and were often traded on to far off lands, such as Muslim Spain. (How much L21 and M222 is there in Andalucia?) Iceland may be something of an exception, as it was an empty land being settled during the Viking era. Much of this I have taken from an article I have on the subject written by a Danish academic.

Personally I thought the large scale study of Malmö in Sweden from Myres II, where L21 was the largest R1b subclade (more numerous than U106), should have finally put an end to this claim. I also don't know why L21 is always the primary victim of this idea. As I have said previously, no one ever suggests any U106 slaves were taken back to Scandinavia from Anglo-Saxon England.

In any case, slaves must represent a tiny fraction of a percentage of the Y chromosome and probably, not detectable on a sample of 1000 people...
I am also surprised to read that some said the presence of certain haplogroups by slaves (slaves Roman, Viking ect ..).
Except, as you noted, when virgin land (or very sparsely populated) , as was America
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.263 seconds with 19 queries.