World Families Forums - What do non-R-M269 people think of R-M269?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 06:08:47 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)
| | |-+  What do non-R-M269 people think of R-M269?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: What do non-R-M269 people think of R-M269?  (Read 3348 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: December 02, 2010, 03:21:39 PM »

Perhaps we need a little non-data, non-objective discussion every now and them - if for no other reason than a laugh. I just noticed this posting in an Hg I topic forum.

Quote from: HgIfolkatDNAforum
Where can we find a place, where haplogroup I could have survived in a bottleneck? An answer could be the Atlantic coast of Norway behind the mountains, where man and woman could live of the products from the sea, protected, and not slaugthered by polygamic invaders from the fertile crescent, who introduced agriculture in Europe and hg R1b1b2 all the way to Ireland.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 03:22:10 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2010, 04:32:02 PM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 04:33:22 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2010, 07:52:57 PM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.

I am sure they wonder how R-M269 became so successful in Europe. I just consider myself a descendant of that first R-M269 man, who must have been - shall I say - slick with the ladies?

I hope my Korean fiancee agrees, lol.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 07:54:15 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 #3 on: December 03, 2010, 12:53:24 AM »

"I hope my Korean fiancee agrees, lol."

Certainly she agrees and you, even though a little equipped, will cut a very fine figure.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2010, 09:48:45 AM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 05:41:55 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
y24
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2010, 03:03:25 PM »

I often cringe when a person with a certain haplogroup (one that usually matches their own.. oddly enough) casts those from another haplogroup as "peasants" as opposed to their own "elite".

Maybe some people's prized "I am a Viking" T shirts are starting to wear thin and become full of holes 5 years later. Things might not be as simple as was once thought.

There are a few self proclaimed "elite" knocking about on forums. Pretty much the only thing that seems to be backing up their lofty ideas is wishful thinking and partiality, usually combined with an attitude. They never seem to give any evidence for their claims.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2010, 08:27:55 PM »

I often cringe when a person with a certain haplogroup (one that usually matches their own.. oddly enough) casts those from another haplogroup as "peasants" as opposed to their own "elite".

Maybe some people's prized "I am a Viking" T shirts are starting to wear thin and become full of holes 5 years later. Things might not be as simple as was once thought.

There are a few self proclaimed "elite" knocking about on forums. Pretty much the only thing that seems to be backing up their lofty ideas is wishful thinking and partiality, usually combined with an attitude. They never seem to give any evidence for their claims.

You are so right. I have encountered a lot of that since ordering my initial 37-marker y-dna test back in April of 2006 and starting to peruse the various dna discussion venues.

Remember when most of us were "R1b1c*" (M269+)? Our ancestors were the apparent first choice for downtrodden European "aborigine" status, the "cast of thousands" who formed the backdrop for the glorious exploits of this or that more refined haplogroup or subclade.
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2010, 09:25:54 PM »

You are so right. I have encountered a lot of that since ordering my initial 37-marker y-dna test back in April of 2006 and starting to peruse the various dna discussion venues.

Remember when most of us were "R1b1c*" (M269+)? Our ancestors were the apparent first choice for downtrodden European "aborigine" status, the "cast of thousands" who formed the backdrop for the glorious exploits of this or that more refined haplogroup or subclade.

We're still the multitude of thousands though, but fine company ;)
Logged

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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2010, 10:36:44 PM »


We're still the multitude of thousands though, but fine company ;)

The best! :)
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2010, 11:27:27 PM »

"I hope my Korean fiancee agrees, lol."

Certainly she agrees and you, even though a little equipped, will cut a very fine figure.

Haha, why thank you, mi amico! She loves my mom's Italian cooking, though.
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 #10 on: December 03, 2010, 11:29:14 PM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.

I doubt I1 was conjuring tales of Thor and speaking Germanic before R1b and R1a got to Scandinavia.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2010, 12:58:24 AM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2010, 01:54:33 AM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.
I got tired of hearing that too, but I just started pounding them with data so I think they are at bay... at least in the Hg R (edit) and Y DNA General categories. I'm amazed by the lack of data behind some arguments.
The Myres study, the Scandinavian, Norwegian and Normandy projects have been great... even if their data isn't perfect. Just because R-P312 is so prominent in many Celtic areas doesn't mean it isn't significant in Germanic areas.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 10:50:20 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2010, 07:41:50 AM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.
I got tired of hearing that too, but I just started pounding them with data so I think they are at bay... at least in the Hg I and Y DNA General categories. I'm amazed by the lack of data behind some arguments.
The Myres study, the Scandinavian, Norwegian and Normandy projects have been great... even if their data isn't perfect. Just because R-P312 is so prominent in many Celtic areas doesn't mean it isn't significant in Germanic areas.



Yeah got to admit we have all been guilty of trying to look for overly simple answers that link clades with particular cultures.  There clearly is no neat fit between clades and cultures.  Its amazing how modern myths have developed about clades like U106 in particular.  Myres date (OK its has its problems) seems to confirm an impression on the project maps that there is a lot of U106 in the Rhine area and even seemed to indicate there was less, not more, in north Germany.  As has been noted there is more S116 than U106 in Scandinavia.  

Its actually a little irrational to project Celts and German divisions back 4000 years ago when linguists seem to think the characteristics of Germanic didnt even exist until 2500 years ago and conventional linguists (i.e. not the revisionist bean counter types) never thought Celtic could be that old.  I dont believe for one moment that when R1b1b2 was dispersing into Europe in the form of L11*( and its hot-on-the-heels descendant clades S116, U106 and even U152 and L21) there was any difference linguistically between these peoples.  

In fact archaeological maps of Bronze Age artifacts strongly suggest that their was a lot of trading across later linguistic divisions that would have required a common language.  This seems to have been the raison d'etre of the Bronze Age elites.  There were very varied multi-directional trading that cuts across later Celtic and Germanc divisions.  You do not see neat divisions that reflect later linguistic divisions.  
Certainly, I defy anyone to find any Bronze Age archaeological culture that corresponds with ALL or even MOST of the  areas where Celtic speakers were earliest known (France, Iberia, bordering areas of west-central Europe, north Italy, the British Isles).  The idea that Urnfield or Tumulous or even Unetice culture somehow is a Celtic heartland is no better than the revisionist idea of some sort of Atlantic fringe origin.  Neither work without a lot of special pleading IMO.  

Perhaps, like Germanic, other western Indo-Europeans didnt form distinct dialects until relatively late on the cusp of the Iron Age when the more widespread Bronze network was breaking down into smaller interaction areas.  Perhaps prior to the breakdown of the Bronze Age networks there was a fairly uniform elite-driven  language of Indo-European Centum type, perhaps akin to Celto-Italic, across all of western Europe.  Germanic (certainly this was thought at one time) could be seen the odd man out and as a late creation caused by the general population taking on the elite language in an imperfect way.  The normally attributed  timing of the emergence of Germanic is interesting too in that this was as the Bronze Age came to an end.  I think this collapse of the old Bronze Age networks may have been the point when Celts, Italics and Germanic really became distinct and using these distinctions in particular prior to say 700BC(ish) may be irrational. 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 12:37:54 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2010, 11:08:23 AM »

I think too that the glory some people feel they want from the Vikings, particularly the Norse (Norwegian) Vikings is OTT.  Judge them by the end results.  Basically they only achieved a real input in terms of language and probably genes in Orkney, Shetland and the Atlantic island and peninsular fringe of Scotland, the odd pocket in England and of course Iceland.   That is the very margins of Europe and not the choicest spots for living in that period.  It is noticeable in Scotland too they made no impact on the more populous areas.  I think the Norwegians just didnt have the numbers to conquer and long term hold onto the more populated lands.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 11:10:40 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2010, 02:11:02 PM »

You're probably right, but one of the appeals of the so-called "Deep Ancestry" approach to commercial dna testing is the possibility of getting a desired ethno-historical label to attach to onesself. That is very obviously the fire in many hearts. I guess if I were to be honest, it was a big part of my own motivation.

Viking wannabeism is a powerful force in male dna testing, of that I am sure. It was even in the back of my mind when I ordered my first test, but in a whimsical sort of way, since I know I'm not of Scandinavian ancestry and didn't think there was a big likelihood I would get some kind of conclusive "viking" result. But back then (2006) all the dna discussion spots were saying "I1a" (now known as I1) in a person with a British surname was a sure sign of "invader" (Viking or Anglo-Saxon) ancestry; that is to say, it was a much-coveted result, and a badge of genetic honor. R1a was also mentioned as "viking" in a person of British ancestry.

Shortly thereafter, a famous dna talking head started adding U152 and U106 (or S28 and S21, as they were then known) to the list of haplogroups with glorious, macho, extra-manly, "invader" ancestors.

Naturally, I didn't land in any of those favored Valhallan haplogroups.

Probably all dna testing can do for one along Deep Ancestry lines is confirm a likely place of origin, or at least point strongly in that direction. He is still left with the mish-mash of a region's history to sort out. But for us lost colonial boys, getting pointed in the right direction is a very big deal.

Were my y-dna ancestors Celts or Anglo-Saxons or Vikings or Normans? Who knows (except them and God)? The dna doesn't really say.

In some cases the clues (circumstantial evidence) are stronger than in others, but even then one can never be certain.

My own surname is commonest in Cornwall, and my closest matches seem to all come from the West Midlands of England or from Wales. I am L21+ to boot, and L21 is King of the Celtic Fringe. (It would surprise me greatly if anyone wanted to argue that that is not the case.)

So, I'm guessing my immigrant ancestor was a Cornishman or a Welshman or a West Midlander who came to North America, probably in the 17th century, perhaps as an indentured servant or even a prisoner.

That's it - no glorious descent from Ragnar Hairy-Breeks or Erik Bloodaxe - but it's a helluva lot more than I knew before I got my y-dna tested.

And there is much to be proud of in it.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 02:18:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2010, 02:21:01 PM »

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.

I think this project is probably a good example of what you're talking about

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/normans-ce/default.aspx

&_&
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 02:27:23 PM by Jdean » Logged

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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2010, 02:32:09 PM »


I think this project is probably a good example of what you're talking about

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/normans-ce/default.aspx

&_&


Hoo-whee! Who wrote that stuff, Alfred Rosenberg?
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2010, 02:45:13 PM »


I think this project is probably a good example of what you're talking about

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/normans-ce/default.aspx

&_&


Hoo-whee! Who wrote that stuff, Alfred Rosenberg?

Perhaps Scandinavian P312 people could be persuaded to bombard them for requests to join, then again the project administrator would probably create a 'Slaves' category for them ;)
Logged

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

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2010, 03:38:07 PM »

Got to be honest though, I have less of an idea what the heck being R1b1b2, S116 or L21 means than I thought we had  a few years back when we were M269*. Back then we were ice age hunters painting caves in France and Spain.  I must admit I kind of liked that extremely deep ancestry identity and was resistant for a few months of the new Neolithic or Bronze Age dating when Ken and others first suggested them.  That was because I was falling into the trap everyone but a few wiser souls like Ken fell into - inferring based on modern head counts rather than variance and a decent understanding of phylogeny and a general disbelief that the origin point need not have anything to do with the head count.  It has been clear for some time that this model was wrong although there are one or two characters still in an incredible degree of denial about this.  

However, what was a clear-cut but badly wrong deep ancestral identity deduction has rightly been ejected but has not been replaced by anything new as 'clearcut' as yet. We have a vague idea of an east to west Neolithic or Copper Age movement but we dont really know when, what culture or whether they came from north or south of the Black Sea, whether they took a route along the Med. or through central Europe etc.  We seem to be going in the right direction but the picture is still extremely hazy in terms of time and space.

In terms of shallow ancestry, short of being lucky enough to have avoided being a * person and being in a subclade defined by a later, preferably historic period SNP, then the STR based matching on your FTDNA page is about the best you can do as far as I can see.  I certainly notice that when SNPs are discovered they do tend to confirm STR matching so I would guess this does mean that the STR method probably is reasonable for giving a clue to historic times origin.  I dont know enough about it but I have been told by others that the current SNP hunt is barely scraping the surface so I would think loads of clade-defining SNPs await discovery.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 03:41:58 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2010, 04:03:38 PM »

This 'elite' 'master race' etc is the reason I gave up on physical anthropology sites(and ancestry tracing in general) I hoped this relatively new study of genetics would be free of these ideas. I did notice on one of the links from this site, the mention of a renowned 'historian' who I know to be a sectarian bigot and his theories are twisted if not lies to suite his political beliefs. That's all I'll say on that.
I think it's best to let them enjoy their delusions while they last. It looks like genetic research will put pay to it all.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2010, 07:48:08 PM »

I think too that the glory some people feel they want from the Vikings, particularly the Norse (Norwegian) Vikings is OTT.  Judge them by the end results.  Basically they only achieved a real input in terms of language and probably genes in Orkney, Shetland and the Atlantic island and peninsular fringe of Scotland, the odd pocket in England and of course Iceland.   That is the very margins of Europe and not the choicest spots for living in that period.  It is noticeable in Scotland too they made no impact on the more populous areas.  I think the Norwegians just didnt have the numbers to conquer and long term hold onto the more populated lands.  

It is very interesting you mention this. Places like the Outer Hebrides are the strongest bastions of Gaelic language in Scotland. How could this be if Norwegian chieftains held so much sway in the area? In St. Kilda, druidism lasted beyond the Viking Age, I believe.

In fact, any Norse effect upon the cultures of Ireland and Scotland is minimal, as they were all Gaelicized.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2010, 08:01:39 PM »

Yes, I have read some comments on another forum where certain HG I people have said they think R1b types are rather too full of themselves. I haven't noticed the same antagonism directed against R1a people, some of whom are far more guilty of self-aggrandisement than any of us.

Additionally, I think most of us give credit for the introduction of agriculture predominantly to HG J.
I just referred to you (as Goldenhind) two days ago in discussing how there appear to be more R-P312 people than R-U106 people in some Scandinavian countries.  Many are surprised when I pull out the Myres info or the Norwegian project data to demonstrate it.

At least relative to Hg I people who talk about Viking and Norman haplogroups and "elite" and the like, I think the R-M269 people are quite controlled.  Some seem to think that Hg I (or at least I1)=Scandinavian and Scandinavian=elite.

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.
I got tired of hearing that too, but I just started pounding them with data so I think they are at bay... at least in the Hg I and Y DNA General categories. I'm amazed by the lack of data behind some arguments.
The Myres study, the Scandinavian, Norwegian and Normandy projects have been great... even if their data isn't perfect. Just because R-P312 is so prominent in many Celtic areas doesn't mean it isn't significant in Germanic areas.



Yeah got to admit we have all been guilty of trying to look for overly simple answers that link clades with particular cultures.  There clearly is no neat fit between clades and cultures.  Its amazing how modern myths have developed about clades like U106 in particular.  Myres date (OK its has its problems) seems to confirm an impression on the project maps that there is a lot of U106 in the Rhine area and even seemed to indicate there was less, not more, in north Germany.  As has been noted there is more S116 than U106 in Scandinavia.  

Its actually a little irrational to project Celts and German divisions back 4000 years ago when linguists seem to think the characteristics of Germanic didnt even exist until 2500 years ago and conventional linguists (i.e. not the revisionist bean counter types) never thought Celtic could be that old.  I dont believe for one moment that when R1b1b2 was dispersing into Europe in the form of L11*( and its hot-on-the-heels descendant clades S116, U106 and even U152 and L21) there was any difference linguistically between these peoples.  

In fact archaeological maps of Bronze Age artifacts strongly suggest that their was a lot of trading across later linguistic divisions that would have required a common language.  This seems to have been the raison d'etre of the Bronze Age elites.  There were very varied multi-directional trading that cuts across later Celtic and Germanc divisions.  You do not see neat divisions that reflect later linguistic divisions.  
Certainly, I defy anyone to find any Bronze Age archaeological culture that corresponds with ALL or even MOST of the  areas where Celtic speakers were earliest known (France, Iberia, bordering areas of west-central Europe, north Italy, the British Isles).  The idea that Urnfield or Tumulous or even Unetice culture somehow is a Celtic heartland is no better than the revisionist idea of some sort of Atlantic fringe origin.  Neither work without a lot of special pleading IMO.  

Perhaps, like Germanic, other western Indo-Europeans didnt form distinct dialects until relatively late on the cusp of the Iron Age when the more widespread Bronze network was breaking down into smaller interaction areas.  Perhaps prior to the breakdown of the Bronze Age networks there was a fairly uniform elite-driven  language of Indo-European Centum type, perhaps akin to Celto-Italic, across all of western Europe.  Germanic (certainly this was thought at one time) could be seen the odd man out and as a late creation caused by the general population taking on the elite language in an imperfect way.  The normally attributed  timing of the emergence of Germanic is interesting too in that this was as the Bronze Age came to an end.  I think this collapse of the old Bronze Age networks may have been the point when Celts, Italics and Germanic really became distinct and using these distinctions in particular prior to say 700BC(ish) may be irrational. 

This may well be one of the most insightful posts I have read on this issue on any of the forums.
 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2010, 08:16:52 PM »

Referring to me must have gone over like a lead balloon. Actually, one of things that finally soured me on the other forum were the arguments of two HG I people who contended ALL R1b's in Scandinavia were the descendants of Viking slaves, but that their HG I status proves they are the descendants of Norman knights. I have given up trying to respond to that sort of nonsense.

I think this project is probably a good example of what you're talking about

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/normans-ce/default.aspx

&_&


I know I have ruffled feathers on occasion when I have pointed out that in the English language the word Norman has a very precise definition: of or pertaining to Normandy. This does not include people from Brittany, Flanders, etc., The Anglo-Saxons made no such distinction, and referred to the lot of them as Frenchmen.

However the people in the project you link to have their own definition of Norman, which has nothing to do with either Normandy or the source of the word- Nordmann or Northman, ie an inhabitant of Scandinavia during the Viking age. I tried pointing this out to them several times, but they just ignored me. Evidently, like Alice in Wonderland, when they use the word it means whatever they want it to mean.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2010, 08:26:08 PM »

One thing DNA has actually revealed is that various peoples really are not distinct in terms of y-DNA.  A lot of people had strange ideas of exotic mysterious origins of peoples like the Irish and the Picts of Scotland that would set them apart like lost Atlantians. In general people tend to think that there would be something unique or different that defined each nation.  However, I think the real lesson of DNA is that peoples of much of western and central Europe have a huge amount in common. They are like cakes made of the same ingredients, just in different proportions.  
L
The L11 clades (S116 and subclades and U106) form a huge common denominator among so much of western Europe and could be said to be to be the main ingredient everywhere .  It is the biggest y-DNA input among all western European nations (I think?).  I think L11 is the commonality among Europeans west of the old Iron curtain line.  I dont think there are any other substantial y-DNA common denominator.  

The moment when the idea some R1b clades were on a pedestal bit the dust was the discovery of S116.  This demonstrated that most Irish and British Celtic fringe and Iberian R1b was S116 just the same as U152.  Previous to that all non-U152, non-U106 western European R1b was considered M269*. Somehow the idea that M269* was 30,000 years old while U152 was Celtic got hold.  This relegated the non-U152 R1b to some sort of radically different backstory as Celticised aborginals.  With hindsight, given the identical STRs of U152 and most of what was then considered M269*, this was a totally preposterous idea and its hard to understand how it could ever have been believed.  

Whatever the details of the story, the common thread among the ex-Celtic speaking areas like the isles, France, Switzerland, west-central Europe, Iberia, north Italy etc is that they are very dominated by S116 clades.  Whether that has anything directly to do with the Celtic language is more uncertain.  However, S116 does show that the long-held idea that the isles Celts were racially speaking Celticised aboriginals that were very different from the continental Gauls is not true.  The clades downstream of S116 differ in each area but seeing as the SNPs that define these divisions seem to be little younger than S116 itself then the only conclusion is there is no difference between S116 peoples, especially if the common ancestor was only 4000 years ago or so as some suggest.  

Anyway, I think the significance of its disproving of the idea of real Celts in Gaul etc and racially different Celticised pre-Celts in the Atlantic fringe cannot be understated.  That is a myth you will read in old books from Victorian times to the mid 20th century explicitly and still implicitly believed until today by many.  S116 disproves that.  The sequence L11-U106/S116-U152/L21 is far too rapid in terms of variance dating for there to have been any real difference in language either.  

People often ask 'who were the Celts?'.  In genetic terms I think we can be fairly sure that I clades do not represent the kind of wave-like and relatively recent structure that could possibly explain the spread of the language.  Similarly, R1a cannot be a realistic common denominator for the Celts.  It really has to be something to do with the R1b1b2.  I really cannot see any other alternative.        
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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 0.158 seconds with 19 queries.