World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: rms2 on October 02, 2011, 08:19:36 AM



Title: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 02, 2011, 08:19:36 AM
http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html (http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html)

Maybe someone mentioned this before, but I found it interesting.

"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 02, 2011, 10:14:15 AM
http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html (http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html)
Quote from: Leiden article
New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The counter-argument to this has been out there a long time, by Thomas et al. There is no need for a violent clean-sweep. Within a number of generations, an apartheid system could have done the same.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1601/2651.full

Quote
Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. It is likely that such a disadvantage would lead to differential reproductive success.

I'm not on either side but I think it is a good debate.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 02, 2011, 03:57:43 PM
I think it might have been a good debate at one time, but the discovery of L21, it seems to me, has discredited both the wipe-out and "apartheid" theories. I suppose one could still argue that an apartheid-like system served to reduce the British population in what is now England, but it couldn't have been too effective; there's too much L21 still around. Besides that, there is some evidence that at least some influential Britons might have retained their status in Anglo-Saxon society (cf. Cerdic of Wessex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex)).


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 02, 2011, 08:54:31 PM
I think it might have been a good debate at one time, but the discovery of L21, it seems to me, has discredited both the wipe-out and "apartheid" theories. I suppose one could still argue that an apartheid-like system served to reduce the British population in what is now England, but it couldn't have been too effective; there's too much L21 still around. Besides that, there is some evidence that at least some influential Britons might have retained their status in Anglo-Saxon society (cf. Cerdic of Wessex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex)).
I should qualify my opinion. Perhaps Authun can add his comments.

We had good long thread on this on that other forum about two years ago. http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/5117-brits-versus-old-english-and-the-anglo-saxon-invasion/page__view__findpost__p__74746

My opinion is there is no wipe-out to zero of the prior inhabitants of England by the Anglo-Saxons. There was an impact, no doubt, though.  The question now is just what the percentage is?

I don't think L21 was absent from Jutland Peninsula and the Low Countries. This makes the evaluation even more convoluted. Some of the Anglo-Saxon incomers post the Roman era probably were L21. Maybe not many, but some.

The other side is that probably some Brythonic speaking folks in England had some U106, P312*, Z196, J, E and I in them.  What varieties and to what extent I don't know. As you know, I suspect that U106 subclade U198 was present in England a long time and probably some other U106* with him.

If I was forced into a number, I'd say about half to a third of the Y chromosome population of post Anglo-Saxon/Viking era frequency of England are from old Briton lineages.
Quote from: Mikewww from Dec 2008
Just to make sure, I understand it. 1 minus the above numbers would be the Britons then, right? So this is the % of Brittonic Y DNA by English city if Capelli is right.
Morpeth 42.9%
Penrith 45.6%
York 29.4%
Southwell 47.1%
Uttoxter 50.4%
Norfolk 27.5%
Chippenham 29.2%
Faversham 50.5%
Midhurst 75.6%
Dorchester 64.0%
Cornwall 42.3%
"A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" by Capelli et al
http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/capelli2_CB.pdf

I think Capelli, Weale, Thomas didn't have the advantage of understanding the subclades and deep ancestral varieties that we now do. I also think it was a mistake to assume that the Norman alliance of immigrants were similar to the Anglo-Saxons as many could have been Briton re-treads, Gauls of some kind, Flemings, or Bretons.

There was no complete wipe-out but was the glass half-empty or half-full or almost so, is really the question.

Even folks like Weale left the question wide open.
Quote from: Weale et al
we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.
In my opinion, Weale's broad range is fine, but marking the upper end at 100% is absurd and just exposing their bias.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 03, 2011, 10:18:17 AM
http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html (http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html)

Maybe someone mentioned this before, but I found it interesting.

"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."

Very cool!

I know at various times some British kings were allied with the Anglo-Saxons too. One example is a Welsh king allied with a Mercian king to fend off the Northumbrians, although I cannot recall the names of each.

All I can picture is some British tribes throwing in their lots with the Anglo-Saxons just to spite their neighbors! lol


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: authun on October 03, 2011, 03:36:51 PM
My opinion is there is no wipe-out to zero of the prior inhabitants of England by the Anglo-Saxons. There was an impact, no doubt, though.  The question now is just what the percentage is?

It's not possible to comment on Laker's work without seeing it. The idea of detecting sub stratal influences in dialects has been around for some time, most noticably in the 'Celtic Englishes Project', ie studying the way irish, welsh and gaelic speaking scots now speak english. The idea is that mothers spoke the new language, imperfectly, to their young children, who then picked up the imperfections, such as referring to an inanimate object as 'him' rather than 'it' and odd sentance structures such as 'I do be going to the shops', rather than 'I am going ...' Those that study it, claim that often, these peculiar ways of saying things are direct, word for word translations from celtic languages.

The article in question isn't a breakthrough, it is probably just more examples of the above, a strengthening of the hypothesis. Moreover, not even Bede claimed a wipeout or expulsion in the way that some historians claim he did.  His text is clear:

"... for though in part they are their own masters yet elsewhere they are also brought under subjection to the English." (Book 5, chapter XIII; OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ENGLISH NATION, OR OF ALL BRITAIN. [A.D. 725-731.])

Bede tells us in Book 1, Chaper XXXIV that Aethelfrith 'conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune.' So, even in the territories conquered by Aethelfrith (Northumbria), Britons remained. It was only a question of who they paid their tribute to. Everyone had to do it, people just wanted to avoid having to pay it to both a British King and a Germanic King at the same time.

However, I have seen linguists claim in the past that the sheep scoring numerals used in various Yorkshire Dales are evidence of a survival of Britons, but it transpired that they were welsh lead miners who moved here in the middle ages and who turned their hand to sheep farming when the lead seams ran out.

Klemola gives an example of the use of the third person singluar to describe an inanimate object:

""I know what we'll do.
# We'll get a brick,
and chuck him up in the air,
and if he do come down,
we got to # go to work,
and if he stop up there,”
he said,
"we got to have a day off.”"


It is an example of a south west dialect. However, whether this dates back to the Dark Ages or not is an entirely different matter, as Klemola recognises:

"The paper will also address the question of whether these characteristics of the personal pronouns in south-western dialects could be due to a Celtic substratum.". We're not sure when this way of speaking developed.


Even folks like Weale left the question wide open.
Quote from: Weale et al
we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.
In my opinion, Weale's broad range is fine, but marking the upper end at 100% is absurd and just exposing their bias.

The broad range was due to the lack of clarity on some haplotypes at that time. They didn't know whether to assign some to Britons or to Germanics. Depending on how they were assigned, you got very different results.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: authun on October 03, 2011, 05:35:06 PM
I found Laker's key points for his dissertation. It follows the same methodology as previous papers on this subject, namely that of studying middle english texts.

"1. The results of this dissertation support the general observation that more suspected Brittonic influences on English appear in Middle English sources than in Old English sources."

The argument is that because the substrata is observed in Middle English, it may have been present in old English. It doesn't exist in Old English texts because that was an elite language and much more conservative than the spoken language.

Whilst this is highly likely, supporters such as Hildegard Tristram, "This paper argues that the texts surviving from the Old English period do not reflect the spoken language of the bulk of the population under Anglo-Saxon elite domination." whilst conceding that we don't really know what spoken old english sounded like. Coates adopts a cautious approach, "No-one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated conclusively that Brittonic had an impact on English grammar." If we don't know what spoken old english sounded like, we don't know what spoken Brittonic sounded like either, again it is only a back projection from later welsh languages.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 03, 2011, 07:40:34 PM
It is an open question as to how much U106 and I1 there were in what is now England before the Anglo-Saxons starting showing up. I don't know the answer, but I suspect it was much less than it is now, and it was much more geographically restricted.

I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now. If the situation was similar at the time of the A-S migrations, then, obviously, only a small fraction of them were L21+.

It's fair, I think, to look at the modern distribution of U106 and I1 and to see them in England as representing the old Anglo-Saxons, and, to some unknown extent, Danish Vikings. Just how much is Anglo-Saxon and how much is Danish Viking, I do not know.

Was a substantial portion of pre-Anglo-Saxon British Celts U106 and/or I1? Personally, I doubt it, but who knows? Perhaps in the southeast of what is now England U106 and I1 were already present in substantial numbers before the Anglo-Saxons got there. That could be, but I really don't think U106 and I1 were as widespread or as populous in the rest of England before the Anglo-Saxons as they became after them.

It seems to me fairly obvious that the British Celts were probably predominantly L21.

Some other interesting questions concern U152. How much of the U152 in what is now England got there in the bodies of Italian Roman soldiers? How much of it got there with the Belgae? How much with the Anglo-Saxons?


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 03, 2011, 08:07:08 PM
Mike said 'f I was forced into a number, I'd say about half to a third of the Y chromosome population of post Anglo-Saxon/Viking era frequency of England are from old Briton lineages.'

I think that is brave to have a stab at a ballpark figure.  I would tend to think in the same general terms.   i mentally tend to figure that there was some L21 with the A-Saxons and some U106 is pre-historic in Britain too but I tend to think they might cancel each other out.  I also think U152 was a pre-Anglo-Saxon marker in general and was a significant clade of southern and eastern Britain.  So, I would as many do tend to still look to U106 and the northern European I clades (although again maybe not all) to be an indicator of A-S strength.  I suppose R1a too has been shown to be in Germany in the Corded Ware culture so you could add that too.  I would tend to think of the pre-Celtic population survival as roughly L21+U152+some of the western I clades + other smaller haplogroups.  I tend to see the Celtic element as varying from about 33-75% in England on a roughly east to west trend.  I also imagine the female input is a lot more Celtic.  Overall I would tend to think of the English genetics as rather more Celtic than Germanic. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 03, 2011, 08:39:40 PM
...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.
I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 04, 2011, 07:10:16 PM
...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.
I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.

I wouldn't call it quite the same logic or reasoning, because U198 is just scarcer all the way around than L21. There's a lot of L21 in the places where there is a lot of L21.

There doesn't seem to be a big supply of U198 anywhere. Britain is not exactly loaded with U198; but Britain is loaded with L21 in a big way, and mainly in the "Celtic Fringe".

So the actual logic is that L21 appears to be mainly Celtic and isn't big in Germanic places. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly British (i.e., from Britons) in England.

U198 is hard to identify, and it isn't big anywhere (which is one of the reasons it's hard to nail down). I don't think it can be reasonably used to argue there was a lot of U106 in Britain before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

U106 is big in Germanic areas and in the places in Britain where Germans (i.e., mainly Anglo-Saxons) settled. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly Germanic in England and elsewhere in the British Isles.

By the way, isn't U198 especially scarce in the traditionally Celtic areas of Britain? If it tends to "hang" with other U106 and with I1, then it could reasonably be construed as Germanic, too.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 04, 2011, 09:11:31 PM
...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.
I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.

I wouldn't call it quite the same logic or reasoning, because U198 is just scarcer all the way around than L21. There's a lot of L21 in the places where there is a lot of L21.
I guess its a matter of degrees.  We haven't defined specific percentages that are scarce or light.

Quote from: rms2
There doesn't seem to be a big supply of U198 anywhere. Britain is not exactly loaded with U198; but Britain is loaded with L21 in a big way, and mainly in the "Celtic Fringe".

So the actual logic is that L21 appears to be mainly Celtic and isn't big in Germanic places. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly British (i.e., from Britons) in England.

U198 is hard to identify, and it isn't big anywhere (which is one of the reasons it's hard to nail down). I don't think it can be reasonably used to argue there was a lot of U106 in Britain before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
I don't think U198 is any harder to nail down than anything else. It is England-centric with everything else being of quite low frequency or non-existent. That doesn't prove an origin in England just the same way that L21's frequency in the Isles doesn't prove its origin is there.
 
Quote from: rms2
U106 is big in Germanic areas and in the places in Britain where Germans (i.e., mainly Anglo-Saxons) settled. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly Germanic in England and elsewhere in the British Isles.

I'm not sure where we are going with this, but I'm fine with labeling that most L21 lineages had a Celtic ancestry at one time or another or most U106 had a Germanic ancestry at one time or another.

However, that doesn't mean that either is a sure-fire diagnostic marker akin to how M153 is found with the Basques. There are too many L21 folks in places that have been speaking Germanic a long time to say L21 is pure. I'd say the same thing about U106 and U152.

Unless we want to talk about real number (percentages) ranges talking about mostly this or mostly that is a glass half-full/half-empty discussion - it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Quote from: rms2
By the way, isn't U198 especially scarce in the traditionally Celtic areas of Britain? If it tends to "hang" with other U106 and with I1, then it could reasonably be construed as Germanic, too.
This is the point I do want to challenge. It's just a point of advocacy I want to take up versus conventional wisdom.  Was it Sykes who thought there was a North Sea connection from the Isles to the Low Countries and Jutland Peninsula a long time before the Anglo-Saxons?

I'm very interested in this - what is the strongest evidence we (or I should say the academics) have to claim the Welsh as a proxy for the old Britons? I'm from Missouri (figure of speech) so that's never been demonstrated to me conclusively.

U198 is way older than Germanic languages as we think of them. Same for U106, U152 and L21. Probably older than Celtic languages as we think of them.

The Celtics were never a unified nation or uniform people.  Why do the Celtics in the low-lands and plains in the south and east of England have to have the same make up of those in the mountains to the west and to the north? How do we know Great Britain was ever totally Celtic?

I don't think of Great Britain as an isolated island, even prior to the Roman Empire. The waterways may have just been good highways for the people who knew how to use them.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: authun on October 05, 2011, 06:17:56 AM
I'm very interested in this - what is the strongest evidence we (or I should say the academics) have to claim the Welsh as a proxy for the old Britons?

There is no proof, it was a hypothesis used by Jim Wilson back in 2001 in 'Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles'. Both Weale and Capelli subsequently used the hypothesis although Weale warned that, "the study of Wilson et al. did not directly address the effects of cultural transitions in other areas of Britain."

Wilson' hypothesis was based on an assumption that the 'celtic' population of Britain was derived from the palaeolithic population and that "that subsequent cultural transitions in North Wales were not associated with substantial incoming male gene flow." The position of Hg E in Abergele in North Wales as found by Weale may show this assumption to be wrong.

Since much of europe is represented by clines of one sort or another, it's a long shot to assume homogenity throughout pre roman Britain.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: MHammers on October 05, 2011, 11:38:22 AM
Out of curiousity, I ran a sample of U198 through Ken's Generations5 spreadsheet.  I was hoping that if U198 is the best R1b candidate for an Anglo-Saxon signature, a founder effect might show up.

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch.  
Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp.  

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29  or 2430+/-870 ybp.  Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance.

At the low end of the confidence interval of 2430-870, puts it at 1560 ybp or 440 AD, which is about the same time as the early Anglo-Saxon period in England.  It is puzzling that the variance for the English only sample is not low enough to demonstrate a founder effect in post-Roman Britain.  Perhaps the linguists are right in that it was only a smaller elite migration.  This would explain why L21 who were likely Romano-British, Irish, and Pictish, was able to continue their proliferation.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 05, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
Out of curiousity, I ran a sample of U198 through Ken's Generations5 spreadsheet.  I was hoping that if U198 is the best R1b candidate for an Anglo-Saxon signature, a founder effect might show up.

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch.  
Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp.  

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29  or 2430+/-870 ybp.  Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance....
I should qualify any age related comments I have on U198 as being very risky.  U198 is the one that bounces around the most when I do intraclade variance based calculations.  I wouldn't have ever brought it up (another thread here) except Tim Janzen had also found the TMRCA for U198 to be older, like I was finding (on some runs.)  He puts U198 is as old as U106, or about 4000 ybp.

This would be a good clade for Busby to use as an example of the problems with STR variance.  If you use only the slower markers (as Tim probably did) you get higher relative variance.  The faster markers seem relatively slow for U198 uniquely.  Perhaps it is the saturation effect. Ken Nordtvedt did say on Rootsweb we need to "downweight" the faster markers as we look further back in time.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: MHammers on October 05, 2011, 04:00:53 PM
I should qualify any age related comments I have on U198 as being very risky.  U198 is the one that bounces around the most when I do intraclade variance based calculations.  I wouldn't have ever brought it up (another thread here) except Tim Janzen had also found the TMRCA for U198 to be older, like I was finding (on some runs.)  He puts U198 is as old as U106, or about 4000 ybp.

This would be a good clade for Busby to use as an example of the problems with STR variance.  If you use only the slower markers (as Tim probably did) you get higher relative variance.  The faster markers seem relatively slow for U198 uniquely.  Perhaps it is the saturation effect. Ken Nordtvedt did say on Rootsweb we need to "downweight" the faster markers as we look further back in time.


The problem I see is that our snp ages are usually based on str measurements, unless we can zero in with the Karafet counting method down to the L11+ level.

For example, str variance gives us ages around 4000 ybp for most of L11+. On the 10 (for 67 marker panel)fast mutators xCDY and 464, they are most likely to mutate at least twice in 4000 yrs.  439 and 481 maybe just once.  This is according to the Ratestuff data on the Yahoo L21 project all haplotypes file.  I think we have to be cautious with downweighting because the snp age itself is really only projected from str's.  Downweighting the fast str's may give a increase in age of about 20-25% if you slow down their mutation rate by half to account for the likely 2 mutations in the last 4-5000 years.  I doubt a younger subclade like L159 would require a correction since it's  only around 1500-2000 yrs. old.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 05, 2011, 05:06:16 PM
I think one thing is clear.  If you are talking about gene flow from coasts opposite Britain , L21 (and U152) most likely overwhelmingly represents gene flow from west of the Rhine while U106 clearly is more east of the Rhine.  We may not have enough subclade definition to unravel the layers and timings but I think the geography is reasonably clear. Broadly speaking the British Isles L11 clade pattern does seem to echo that of the bit of the continent closest to them. 

As for L21 there is no doubt that L21 in Busby does rise with lingering Celtic speaking.  It rises substantially in Devon and the Pennines and drops off in the east.   It is however high in the north-east of Scotland compared to south-east England which does suggest that high L21 might once have extended to the east coast and Anglo-Saxons and Danes may have diluted it in eastern England.  I dont see those Germanic peoples as any more likely origins of U152 as L21 so I would tend to see U152 as an east/Belgic  pre-Roman clade, at least mainly.  I would say the same in relation to the continent too. 

So, with lots of caveats I would be lying if I said I didnt still think that the proportion of U102 + R1a vs L21+U152 didnt still feel like a rough indicator of Celtic vs German populations in R terms. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 05, 2011, 08:13:48 PM
Even if you chalked all the U198 in England up to SE British Celts, you still wouldn't have that much of a factor. Until we get complete genome testing or lots of good ancient y-dna, the general or big picture is the best we can do, I think.

And that, pretty obviously, it seems to me, says that L21 is biggest in the old Celtic regions and U106 is biggest in the old Germanic regions. That is why it is not unreasonable to see L21 in England as a British marker and U106 in England as a Germanic marker. U198 is a smallish U106 clade, but it has its best showing in England not in the traditionally Celtic west but in those places where the Anglo-Saxons settled.

Sure, it's possible to argue the southeast of England was always genetically  similar to the area right across the Channel, and maybe that is true. But how far did that similarity extend?

I don't know the answer, but I tend to see the Anglo-Saxon migration into what is now England, over time, as a very large folk movement. I don't see it as the movement of  merely an army and a set of elites like the Norman Conquest. In my view, there was a flood of Anglo-Saxons, including whole families, and that, in part, accounts for their success and the subsequent success of the English language.

So, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Celtic-speaking U106 element was ever all that large. Some, yes, maybe, but the real infusion of U106 arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. That's just my opinion.

Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error.

Look, L21 just literally dominates in the old Celtic regions of the British Isles. It practically screams, "Celtic!" Even on the Continent, with the exception of Scandinavia, where it may have arrived with British immigrants of one sort or another, it is at its most frequent in areas where there were lots of Celts and far fewer Germans.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 06, 2011, 12:27:09 AM
....
Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error...
Generalizing is fine, but it is easy to assume the generalizations are always correct. This does cause discouragement. What does the L21 "Briton" think who's name, residency, culture and genealogy are Germanic as far back as he can find? Maybe he is the lineage of an Irish mercenary, but we really don't know.

I come down on the side of assuming that the ethnicities we think of as Celtic, German, Roman or whatever were probably a mix of haplogroups. The corrallary to that is if you really want to understand a lineage in question you need to get down to the cluster level, which may mean recruiting and researching the cluster. Fortunately new SNP discoveries will make this all more certain and clear.

Many of these haplogroups we speak of are two thousand or more years older than the ethnicities we are classifying them by. Unfortunately these ethnicities are really only faintly understood and often embellished as our historical data is limited to a a few foreign authors (Greeks and Romans) or religious and politically motivated folks. The ethnicities weren't at all monolithic, homogenous, or nationalistic anyway. They are more like bands and tribes that ware constantly changing, assigned sweeping labels by foreigners.  I don't think we still know what the Belgae were for sure? or the difference between a Caledonian and a Pict, if there is such a difference? I realize I'm being a bit pickyunish.

I'm not saying there were a large set of tribes that spoke Celtic languages, or Germanic languages.  Sure, but what we know of them was long after many haplogroups had expanded.

Going back to a pertinent question. We'll never have proof, but do we even have good evidence that the inhabitants of Britain were alike all over Great Britain when the Romans first appeared? I'm fine if we do. I hope we do, but I've always been bothered by some of the giant assumptions.

It does seem reasonable that inhabitants along both sides of the Irish Sea may have more in common than the folks to their east and south across some rugged highlands in a plain that faces the North Sea and Low Countries. I think it's rather hard to believe that such differences weren't there prior to the times of the Romans.  This may just mean that long, long ago there may have been a lot more L21 people in the Low Countries but many were diluted, obliterated or moved west across the channel.  Perhaps more than half the L21 in England is closer related to the L21 on the continent than to Irish, Welsh and Scottish L21?





Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 06, 2011, 12:35:17 PM
I am fairly convinced that 90% of L21 went through a phase of Celtic culture wherever it was.  As for U106, it most westerly concentration seem to be associated with the Dutch languages where it crosses the Rhine into the coast of Belgium and NE France.  I understand it sharply drops off at the Germanic-Romance divide.  So, I would think U106 prior to that extension of Flemish speakers into that area was esseintially an east of the Rhine clade (in terms of the Lower Rhine).  So, that tells me that U106 in pre-Roman times was probably east of the Rhine in terms of the coasts facing Britain.

This is important because that means only contact with the area between the Rhine and the Baltic (most likely the area between northern Holland and Denmark) would have brought U106 to Britain in prehistoric times.Clearly it is most likely on geographical grounds along that this would have been mainly east and south-east Britain.      So, the challenge is to identify phases of contact between Britain and the area east of the Rhine in prehistoric times because that is the only way U106 can have got to Britain (if it did) in prehistoric times.  Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about a lot of cultures so its not easy. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 06, 2011, 01:54:49 PM
... As for U106, it most westerly concentration seem to be associated with the Dutch languages where it crosses the Rhine into the coast of Belgium and NE France.  I understand it sharply drops off at the Germanic-Romance divide.  So, I would think U106 prior to that extension of Flemish speakers into that area was esseintially an east of the Rhine clade (in terms of the Lower Rhine).  So, that tells me that U106 in pre-Roman times was probably east of the Rhine in terms of the coasts facing Britain.

This is important because that means only contact with the area between the Rhine and the Baltic (most likely the area between northern Holland and Denmark) would have brought U106 to Britain in prehistoric times.Clearly it is most likely on geographical grounds along that this would have been mainly east and south-east Britain.....
What were the predominat haplogroups of Gallia Belgica?  It was west of the Rhine so I assume you think it would have very little U106.
Very well could be L21, P312* with some other things mixed in.

I may be misreading this, but my understanding is that the Belgae's greatest impact was in England, itself. Is that fair?  Weren't the Belgae supposed to have originated in Germany and moved to the west side of the lower Rhine at some point?  The last I heard, most people think the Belgae where Celtic speaking. Is that true?

I asked this early. It's not really Sykes who thought there was some pre-Roman North Sea connections to England.  It was Stephen Oppenheimer.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 06, 2011, 03:59:35 PM
I believe that the evidence for what the Belgae spoke is overwhelmingly Celtic in terms of personal names, tribal name, placenames in Classical sources etc.  The evidence for Germanic seems to just be down to peoples interpretations of east of the Rhine, Germani etc but there is a lack of evidence for Germanic speaking in general.  

I think the roots of the Belgae and even their links with SE England may have roots as far back as beaker times and in the long succeeding Hilversum culture which in the main was west of the original line of the Lower Rhine.  They were kind of a peripheral element of the Atlantic Bronze network or perhaps some sort of interface between them and the groups like the Elp culture to the east of the Rhine in northern Holland and NW Germany who had some sort of relation to the Nordic Bronze Age area.  Its tempting to see Elp as part of a proto-German group and Hilversum as some sort of proto-Belgic group (some even suggest Nordwestblock speaking).   I tend to be more convinced that the basic linguistic pattern as being set in the Bronze Age with the Iron Age getting far too much attention simply because it coincides with classical historians appearing.  

Mike-The overwhelming evidence of all types for Belgae in the isles is SE/southern England.  The talk of them in Ireland is totally speculative, based on an interpretation of Fir Bolg and Ptolemy's Menapii.  Too much is made of the latter because its in fact a common Celtic root and the Isle of Mann, Menai strates etc have similar names.  There is virtually no archaeological evidence for the distinctive Belgic material culture in Ireland.  I am baffled by how many people believe in Belgae in Ireland and the amount of internet posting about it.  If you google Belgae far more stuff about (possibly imaginary) Belgae in Ireland comes up that the real proven Belgae of the Low Countries, SE England etc.  The curse of O'Rahilly in the age of the internet!  


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 06, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
I suppose based on modern distributions and alleged drop off of U106 along the Germanic-Romance border, I dont think that the Belgae (other than actual German elements intruding into them) would have had a lot of U106.  Modern maps of U106 show a major drop off around the German-Romance border.  Overall I do not think the Belgic Gauls had much U106 although it would also be incredible if it had none given the block of it east of the Lower Rhine.  It may have been brought in pockets into northern Belgica in the end of the Iron Age.  However, I do not believe most of the Belgae were Germanic in the sense of Germanic speakers.  

Upshot is I dont think the Belgae explain U106 but they might have been a major source of U152.  The Hilversum culture of the early to mid Bronze Age was closely linked to SE England but this seems to be overlap mostly with later Belgic areas than the later Germanic areas further to the east.  I have heard of some links between Britain and the Nordic Bronze Area but not of the sort where you would normally infer significant population movement.  I am not sure about the details of the British-Low Countries link in the beaker period.  I have heard the link was more with the west of the Rhine part of the Low Countries but I would need to check it.  


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 06, 2011, 05:50:04 PM
Another thing is there is a pretty good case that from north Holland eastwards appears most likely to be in a proto-Germanic sphere, certainly outside the proto-Celtic sphere.  If movement into England did happen from east of the Lower Rhine then it should have been some non-Celtic language, some IE on the path towards Germanic.  If we go back into the Bronze Age I would still say that it is likely that most of the U106 zone facing England would not be thought to be within the proto-Celtic sphere.  Now, Oppenheimers idea that SE England lacks evidence of Celtic has been exploded by actual linguists.  In fact if you look at Roman sources the Belgic part of England has one of the major concentrations of certain Celtic names.  So, I think that is in itself evidence that links with the area between North Holland and Scandinavia beyond the Celtic zone must have been weak in the Iron and Bronze Age.  That is not to claim no contact and exceptions but I think its a fair observation.  If Britain's links east of the old Lower Rhine line (which was to the east of where it is now) were weak in those periods then that maybe strengthens the case that not much U106 would have flowed in.  It is only in the migration period that the flow into England switched to being mainly east of Rhine.  I must look deeper into this though.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 06, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
....
Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error...
Generalizing is fine, but it is easy to assume the generalizations are always correct. This does cause discouragement. What does the L21 "Briton" think who's name, residency, culture and genealogy are Germanic as far back as he can find? Maybe he is the lineage of an Irish mercenary, but we really don't know.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking about L21 and U106 in Britain, not in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent. I still think most German L21 is Celtic, but I wouldn't call them "Britons".

I come down on the side of assuming that the ethnicities we think of as Celtic, German, Roman or whatever were probably a mix of haplogroups. The corrallary to that is if you really want to understand a lineage in question you need to get down to the cluster level, which may mean recruiting and researching the cluster. Fortunately new SNP discoveries will make this all more certain and clear.

I agree with that, but in the British Isles, for by far and away the most part, L21 is clearly Celtic. I don't really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between, with the exception perhaps of U152 in the south. I suspect, however, that at least some of that English U152 is Italo-Roman in origin.

Perhaps as far more haplotypes are collected and analyzed, greater cluster resolution will break things down with more specificity. Personally, I still don't think that will alter the basically Celtic nature of L21 in the British Isles much at all.

Many of these haplogroups we speak of are two thousand or more years older than the ethnicities we are classifying them by. Unfortunately these ethnicities are really only faintly understood and often embellished as our historical data is limited to a a few foreign authors (Greeks and Romans) or religious and politically motivated folks. The ethnicities weren't at all monolithic, homogenous, or nationalistic anyway. They are more like bands and tribes that ware constantly changing, assigned sweeping labels by foreigners.  I don't think we still know what the Belgae were for sure? or the difference between a Caledonian and a Pict, if there is such a difference? I realize I'm being a bit pickyunish.

No problem. I still think L21 is blatantly, screamingly Celtic, having appeared in that historical, ethno-linguistic guise most recently of all its various ethno-linguistic incarnations.

I don't think we have to worry about the Celticity of the regions where L21 is at its most frequent being the result of an embellishment or of over-enthusiastic nationalism.

I think that is also true of the Teutonism of the places where U106 puts in its heftiest showing.

I don't think the evidence, especially for L21, is all that subtle. Actually, it's about as subtle as a hammer over the head.

I'm not saying there were a large set of tribes that spoke Celtic languages, or Germanic languages.  Sure, but what we know of them was long after many haplogroups had expanded.

Going back to a pertinent question. We'll never have proof, but do we even have good evidence that the inhabitants of Britain were alike all over Great Britain when the Romans first appeared? I'm fine if we do. I hope we do, but I've always been bothered by some of the giant assumptions.

It does seem reasonable that inhabitants along both sides of the Irish Sea may have more in common than the folks to their east and south across some rugged highlands in a plain that faces the North Sea and Low Countries. I think it's rather hard to believe that such differences weren't there prior to the times of the Romans.  This may just mean that long, long ago there may have been a lot more L21 people in the Low Countries but many were diluted, obliterated or moved west across the channel.  Perhaps more than half the L21 in England is closer related to the L21 on the continent than to Irish, Welsh and Scottish L21?


That is certainly something to consider. I have often wondered how much of the L21 in England and Wales actually came from Ireland beginning in about the 5th century. We know there was substantial Irish settlement in Wales and SW England. Of course, Scotland takes its name from the Irish Scots. An Irish impact there almost goes without saying.



Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 07, 2011, 12:40:34 AM
.... There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between ...
Probably so, but what is "few and far between?"  5% or 25% or .05%?

It makes a difference to the non-R-L21 guy who thinks he is Celtic.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 07, 2011, 02:45:47 PM
I am kind of in sympathy with Rich on this one.  I do think if we cant generalise about patterns there isnt much point in looking for them. 

I do reiterate my point.  If an essentially east of the Lower Rhine clade like U106 is argued to be in Britain before the Romans then we need to find archaeological evidence for movement from east of the Lower Rhine to Britain in prehistory.  I am not sure there is terribly strong evidence for that either archaeologically or linguistically.  My overall impression is that contact with Britain in prehistory was mainly west of the Rhine.  I suppose you could divide that further into an Atlantic zone including NW France and Atlantic Britain and an eastern proto-Belgic zone that included NE France, Belgium, southern Holland and south-east England.  I think the evidence of potential migration from further east in what you could call the Nordic Bronze Age/later proto-Germanic area is much more limited in prehistory. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 07, 2011, 06:44:24 PM
.... There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between ...
Probably so, but what is "few and far between?"  5% or 25% or .05%?

It makes a difference to the non-R-L21 guy who thinks he is Celtic.

Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.

Then there is I-M284, which I think is old in the British Isles and certainly was an element in the Celtic landscape. Maybe some I-M223 was, as well.

That's all I can think of for fairly obvious stuff. U106 wasn't that much of a factor among the Celts; that's my opinion, anyway. Maybe ancient y-dna will prove me wrong.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 08, 2011, 10:38:20 AM
Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 08, 2011, 11:37:30 AM
Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?


In SE England they do, but that could be due to a couple of things: first, U152 Belgae from right across the Channel; second, U152 Roman soldiers from Italy and perhaps Gaul; and, third, an overlay of incoming U106 Anglo-Saxons beginning in the Migration Period.

I think one indication that U106 might not be a very big factor among descendants of the Celts is the results from the Brabant study. I was reading an article somewhere (wish I could recall where) that indicated there is a real y-dna divide between Flemings and Walloons in the Low Countries. That divide is primarily between U106 (on the Flemish side) and U152 (on the Walloon side). If that is true, that would seem to support the idea that U106 is mainly connected to Germanic speakers and not to Celtic speakers.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 08, 2011, 06:21:39 PM
Here is what I think I was remembering:

Quote
To test this approach we studied the temporal pattern of the 'autochthonous' micro-geographical genetic structure in the region of Brabant in Belgium and The Netherlands (Northwest-Europe). Genealogical data of 881 individuals from Northwest-Europe were collected from which 634 family trees showed a residence within Brabant for at least one generation. The Y-chromosome genetic variation of the 634 participants was investigated using 110 Y-SNPs and 38 Y-STRs and linked to particular locations within Brabant on specific time periods based on genealogical records. Significant temporal variation in the Y-chromosome distribution was detected through a north-south gradient in the frequencies distribution of subhaplogroup R1b1b2a1 (R-U106), next to an opposite trend for R1b1b2a2g (R-152) [sic].


That's from an up and coming paper to be presented at the "Comparing Ancient and Modern DNA Variability" conference to be held at Porto, Portugal, this coming 23-25 November: http://www.mnhn.fr/mnhn/ecoanthropologie/Porto2011/Porto2011_program.html (http://www.mnhn.fr/mnhn/ecoanthropologie/Porto2011/Porto2011_program.html)

It's mentioned on the 30 September 2011 entry of Dienekes' blog.

It doesn't actually say anything about Flemings and Walloons. Apparently in my mind I interpreted the North-South U106 gradient versus South-North U152 gradient that way, and that was what I remembered. I think it is probably pretty reasonable to do that, but an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons would be more accurate, obviously.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 11, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Well, in England I think some of the U152 is Celtic. Some of it is probably Italo-Roman, though. But I think Celtic U152 was Belgic and mostly confined to southern and eastern Britain.....
Some of the U152 is Celtic and we think the Belgae were Celtic. I would submit that odds are excellent some U106 was mixed in with the Belgae, hence there may be U106 Celtic.
Maybe not, but I think it is worth the discussion. U106 is certainly old enough.

Do the U152 and U106 guys (or some subset like U198 or L1 or L48) in England align in their frequencies regionally?

I started up a conversation on the U106 Yahoo group, or rather interjected into one, to ask the question about early U106 in the Isles. The U106 project admins and quite a number of U106 people are over there. Not sure what to expect, but appears most think that U106 is too old to not have had some impact on the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxon era. That doesn't mean they were long-time Celtic, though.

We'll see, I'm hoping for some strong point/counter-point arguments over there.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 11, 2011, 05:26:20 PM
I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers. 

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 11, 2011, 10:58:42 PM
I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers.  
Stephen Oppenheimer made a big point of emphasizing the pre-Anglo-Saxon era contacts across from the North Sea. He essentially was trying to make a case that the invasions were just the of a long-time system of contact and migration - the east side of Britain was always different than the west. I guess you think Oppenheimer was stretching a bit a bit.

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance.  
I'm trying to get that out of the U106 guys on their Yahoo group. I doubt if the results will be clear. I'm afraid we'll have the same problem we had identified in Busby's analysis - that STR diversity is indiscernible across R-L11 major subclades.

Still the thing that bothers (frustrates) me about about that is that generally implies that P312*, L21, U152, L2, U106*, U198, L48 all expanded quickly at the same time.. and I don't mean just in France or just in the Netherlands and N. Germany. The diversity spreads somewhat indiscernibly at least through England.

This is just thinking out loud....

What if all of the above executed a very quick initial spread to their points of current high frequency (including U106 to England, L21 to England and on to Ireland, U152 up the Rhiine, Z196 to Iberia, etc?) That is really what the STR diversity is saying if we believed it unbiased in by our historical and archaeological predispositions. We can't align them that well, anyway.

Then there were recurrent machinations of these subclades within their regional trade/contact areas, with occasional spillage of people from one region over into another, changing the frequencies, but not that much. This would cause the locations of higher diversity to spread a little bit more, disguising the hard to see quick initial spread even more.

I guess it is the displacement/migrationalist concept early (but still later than early Neolithic) but moderately minimalist by the time we get to the historic era. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions would not have been the most significant Y DNA influencer of frequencies in England; perhaps diminishing L21 from 65% to 45% in England because some I, R1a and U106 were already there prehistorically.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 12, 2011, 11:19:50 AM
Please bear in mind my reply #33 is 99% speculation.  I just have to ask myself without prejudice, "if I was just looking at the Y DNA data, what does it tell me?"

A U106 guy just posted this on another forum.
Quote from: van Keuls
According to Caesar and Tacitus, the Belgae tribes that inhabited northeastern Gaul in Caesar's time were in large part originally Germani from the east side of the Rhine. The Belgae had invaded and ruled parts of southeastern England prior to Caesar's conquest of Gaul. So I would assume the Belgae brought some U106 into Britain circa 100 BC. No doubt earlier invasions and other contacts caused people to cross the channel. In addition, the Romans brought thousands of Germanic auxiliary soldiers to Britain in first and second centuries AD. According to wikipedia, there were 55,000 auxiliaries in Britain mainly from northern Gaul and the lower Rhine in the second century AD guarding Britain at places such as Hadrian's wall.

This would obfuscate the STR diversity, making U106 look slightly older because of an earlier partial entry prior to the Anglo-Saxons and possibly form a different type of U106 to boot.

"Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" by Weale
Quote from: Weale
It is also true that a mass migration event could have occurred outside the Anglo-Saxon migration period because the 95% confidence interval for a Central English-Frisian split extends as far back as 425 B.C. (if one allows a background migration rate of 0.1% and a generation time of 25 years). Archaeology and the testimony of Caesar combine to suggest an immigration of the Belgae, a Celtic tribe from northern Gaul, into central southern England (Hampshire and West Sussex) between 100 and 80 B.C.

Weale does not support that the Belgae and Roman auxiliary effects were high, but does note they are a real possibility.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 12, 2011, 05:27:50 PM
I think the core issue is where was U106 in prehistory.  Most Copper to Iron Age contact with England seems to have been from no further east than Holland and it seems to me predominantly west of the Rhine.  So the position of U106 in prehistory has a major bearing on whether it was likely to cross the English channel.  If U106 was east of the Rhine and especially if it was east of Holland then I dont think it would have crossed to England in large numbers.  
Stephen Oppenheimer made a big point of emphasizing the pre-Anglo-Saxon era contacts across from the North Sea. He essentially was trying to make a case that the invasions were just the of a long-time system of contact and migration - the east side of Britain was always different than the west. I guess you think Oppenheimer was stretching a bit a bit.

I cant recall if U106 variance has been calculated on a country by country basis or perhaps pooled into bigger blocks of the continent.  The only way I can see of inferring how far west U106 was  is to do this.  It may have already been done but I am hazy on that.  I would certainly like to see a 'west of Rhine' variance calculation pooling France, Belgium, Iberia etc to see if it has significantly lower variance.  
I'm trying to get that out of the U106 guys on their Yahoo group. I doubt if the results will be clear. I'm afraid we'll have the same problem we had identified in Busby's analysis - that STR diversity is indiscernible across R-L11 major subclades.

Still the thing that bothers (frustrates) me about about that is that generally implies that P312*, L21, U152, L2, U106*, U198, L48 all expanded quickly at the same time.. and I don't mean just in France or just in the Netherlands and N. Germany. The diversity spreads somewhat indiscernibly at least through England.

This is just thinking out loud....

What if all of the above executed a very quick initial spread to their points of current high frequency (including U106 to England, L21 to England and on to Ireland, U152 up the Rhiine, Z196 to Iberia, etc?) That is really what the STR diversity is saying if we believed it unbiased in by our historical and archaeological predispositions. We can't align them that well, anyway.

Then there were recurrent machinations of these subclades within their regional trade/contact areas, with occasional spillage of people from one region over into another, changing the frequencies, but not that much. This would cause the locations of higher diversity to spread a little bit more, disguising the hard to see quick initial spread even more.

I guess it is the displacement/migrationalist concept early (but still later than early Neolithic) but moderately minimalist by the time we get to the historic era. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions would not have been the most significant Y DNA influencer of frequencies in England; perhaps diminishing L21 from 65% to 45% in England because some I, R1a and U106 were already there prehistorically.

I think Oppenheimer has a point but one of his weaknesses (apart from getting the dating being very wrong) is that his evidence for the divide between the North Sea and Atlantic streams is over egged.  This was partly down to his idea that this dichotomy began in the upper Palaeolithic and continued afterwards.  There is little evidence at all for that dichotomy in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.   In the early Neolithic it is likely that that the whole coast from Brittany to the Rhine was involved in a continuum rather than some strong dichotomy.  In the beaker period there is a hint of an Atlantic vs North Sea/Rhine split with a sort of a gap between.  The Low Country Beakers did include the area east of the Rhine and a lot of what is now strong U106 territory.  The immediate post-beaker era saw the rise of strong elites in Wessex, Brittany and the Unetice areas but I think movement between them would likely have been modest and this phase of contract may have been more important for linguistic evolution than genetic change on a large scale. 

In the early-mid Bronze Age, the Atlantic Bronze network may have seen a similar low level trickle of genes.  In the same period the SE of England was linked to the Hilversum culture of Belgium and south Holland.  This was sort of the eastern edge of the Atlantic network.  Beyond the Rhine was the Elp culture in Holland and the Nordic Bronze Age.  I see the Hilversum links as more like a possible proto-Belgic connection rather than a Germanic one.  Oppenheimer hints at links of the SE of England with Germanic Europe in the Bronze Age but he then fails to really give much in the way of examples.  Generally speaking I think SE England in the Bronze and Iron Ages was more closely connected to Belgium and to a lesser extent Holland than it was with anywhere further east. 

So, the possibility of U106 in England in quantity prior to the Germanic movements of the late Roman era and later hinges on whether it was already in Flanders and Holland in the Bronze or Copper Ages (or before if you believe in an earlier date for L11 clades).  I cannot see any way of proving that and the best option seems to remain inferring from the variance of U106 broken down on a geographical basis. 

I noticed looking back to the August thread that this had been discussed and you posted a link to the U106 group but I was not able to access it.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 12, 2011, 08:04:33 PM
I don't think Caesar meant that the Belgae were actually Germans but rather that some of them had lived east of the Rhine at one time. The evidence of the names of their tribes and leaders is that they were Celts.

My view is that U106 was small potatoes among Celtic speakers, which I think is what the apparent north-south U106 gradient in the Low Countries indicates. My own feeling is that U106 may have moved west into the Low Countries from farther east relatively late, as Celtic-speaking tribes left the region. It could very well be that the side of the Channel opposite England wasn't always as rich in U106 as it is now.

Now I think U152 came to England, in part, with the Belgae, but I don't think U106 was that big a factor among them.

I tend to think die Völkerwanderung was a pretty big deal and a massive folk movement, particularly in places like England, where a Germanic language was able to assert itself and actually replace the native language. In all the years the Romans controlled Britain, with their advanced military, political, and administrative systems, they were never able to make Latin or even a vulgar version of it the language of the country. The Anglo-Saxons were far less sophisticated than the Romans, yet they managed to make English the language of most of Britain. In my humble opinion, that took loads of boots on the ground. Before that, there wasn't all that much U106 around.

Of course, I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 12, 2011, 08:19:18 PM
I wanted to add something. If U106 was present in the Low Countries very early, why didn't it move down into Northern France in strength? Its frequency drops off pretty drastically, it seems to me, from Normandy west.

And Northern France is the natural road into France. It is flat and pretty easy to negotiate, which is why the Germans took that route not once but twice, first in WWI and again in WWII.

I mean if one is going to contend that U106 should have been in England early because there is so much of it in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask why it isn't present in Northern France in great numbers. If an early presence in the Netherlands means an early presence in England, then it ought also to mean an easy early trek into Northern France, too.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 12, 2011, 08:20:30 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 12, 2011, 08:23:40 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  

Which is why I think England received a major influx of Anglo-Saxons and not merely a military elite.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 09:40:20 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  

Which is why I think England received a major influx of Anglo-Saxons and not merely a military elite.

I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 12, 2011, 10:08:02 PM
I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.
I went back and looked at a couple of the studies. Maybe it was buried in the supplemental data, but what our best estimates of Anglo-Saxon immigration into England during the Anglo-Saxon era?

How does that compare to the population of England at the start and end of the era?

I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 10:22:17 PM
I would expect England, especially in the East and Southeast, to have a large Germanic population, mainly of the Anglo-Saxon variety. But like you said, Rich, the Saxons settled there en masse, and it seems like it was a gradual process.

It is a refugee-like situation with the families coming in.
I went back and looked at a couple of the studies. Maybe it was buried in the supplemental data, but what our best estimates of Anglo-Saxon immigration into England during the Anglo-Saxon era?

How does that compare to the population of England at the start and end of the era?

I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?

I am not sure about population estimates before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but I am curious to how badly the Romano-British population suffered during Justinian's Plague.

Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. The interesting thing about Southern England, in particular, is that it does have a lot of U106 compared to other areas of England, and looks North Sea-ish in character. I think that is a definite sign of population change after the Romans left.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 10:27:16 PM
May I add that I1 should also be grouped into the Anglo-Saxon smorgasbord (as well as some P312* and L21 subclades)!


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 12, 2011, 10:37:18 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think, not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right (STR diversity for U106 is high in England,) so I think the book remains open. ... just an opinion.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 12, 2011, 10:54:46 PM
.... I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?
... Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. ...
I picked 793 AD for purposes of this discussion for a reason.

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.

The Vikings may have included some similar Y DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, but apparently they were not identical. I picture it like your basic three circle A-B-C intersection diagram where the Vikings may have had parts from the Anglo-Saxons and parts from elsewhere. We don't really know the mix.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 10:56:07 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think., not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right, so I think the book remains open. Just an opinion.

The problem is that if U106 did get into England - or Great Britain, period - on a considerable scale before the Germanic migrations, I am inclined to think we should find it further inland. And why not Ireland as well? The frequencies of U106 in England are too much of a match to Migration Age movements.

I am not saying all of it is indicative of Germanic ancestry, but one can accurately generalize that U106 in Essex is most likely Saxon in origin. U106* in Kerry, Ireland is probably something else.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 10:58:39 PM
.... I guess I should define the Anglo-Saxon era. Is it fair to define it as the end of Romano-Britain circa 410 AD and ended when the Viking period started in 793 AD?
... Around 410 AD sounds accurate, but I would say the Anglo-Saxon era continued until 1066. ...
I picked 793 AD for purposes of this discussion for a reason.

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.

The Vikings may have included some similar Y DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, but apparently they were not identical. I picture it like your basic three circle A-B-C intersection diagram where the Vikings may have had parts from the Anglo-Saxons and parts from elsewhere. We don't really know the mix.

I would say 1066 since Denmark and even Norway still had claims on England. Harald Hardrada being felled at Stamford Bridge usually signals the end of the Viking Age.

U198 is a rarer subclade of U106, but even it is found in the Netherlands and Sweden.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 12, 2011, 11:04:30 PM

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.


U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 12, 2011, 11:36:41 PM
Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.
U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.
No, I don't think we can say that, at least genetically. We don't really know.  U198 is just a point of why we can't consider the Low Countries, the Jutland Peninsula and the Scandinavian Peninsula as one, genetically speaking, but there are other examples too.  We've already seen where we can only find one or two U198 folks in Scandinavia. The mix of haplogroups varies across these areas.

You can probably suppose that these peoples were Germanic speaking, but not that they were genetically the same.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 13, 2011, 01:34:47 AM
Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.
U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.
No, I don't think we can say that, at least genetically. We don't really know.  U198 is just a point of why we can't consider the Low Countries, the Jutland Peninsula and the Scandinavian Peninsula as one, genetically speaking, but there are other examples too.  We've already seen where we can only find one or two U198 folks in Scandinavia. The mix of haplogroups varies across these areas.

You can probably suppose that these peoples were Germanic speaking, but not that they were genetically the same.

There is an obvious consistency of U106 from Denmark through the Low Countries though. I do not see why a large number of Danes can not be genetically related to populations residing in Southern Jutland and the Netherlands. U106 has been there for a long time.  The populations are related at least on the YDNA side (only accounting for U106, not P312 or other haplogroups).

U198 is much less common subclade of U106, yes. But in Great Britain, its highest frequency is in Southern England. Coupled with its presence in the Netherlands and Germany (I believe it is also in Northern Poland...odd), I do not think it is hard to associate it with Migration Age movements.




Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 13, 2011, 02:31:47 PM
One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think., not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right, so I think the book remains open. Just an opinion.

The problem is that if U106 did get into England - or Great Britain, period - on a considerable scale before the Germanic migrations, I am inclined to think we should find it further inland. And why not Ireland as well? The frequencies of U106 in England are too much of a match to Migration Age movements.

I am not saying all of it is indicative of Germanic ancestry, but one can accurately generalize that U106 in Essex is most likely Saxon in origin. U106* in Kerry, Ireland is probably something else.

I have an open mind on whether a significant chunk of U106 in Britain is Germanic.  For me that possibility hinges on where U106 was on the continent in the Iron, Bronze and even Neolithic ages.  I dont see any evidence of very strong archaeological contact in prehistory to the east of Holland.  So if it ended up in England in prehistory in significant numbers it would have had to have been established in Holland and north Belgium by then.  There was quite a lot of contact between those areas and south-east England in the Bronze Age, including the Copper Age.  I would think that matching would be the best clue as to how old U106 is in England.  if there is a lack of continental matches with English U106 individuals in the 1500 or even 2000 year span then you would have to get suspicious that it is older.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 13, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
I have an open mind on whether a significant chunk of U106 in Britain is Germanic.  For me that possibility hinges on where U106 was on the continent in the Iron, Bronze and even Neolithic ages.  I dont see any evidence of very strong archaeological contact in prehistory to the east of Holland.  So if it ended up in England in prehistory in significant numbers it would have had to have been established in Holland and north Belgium by then. 
Of course we don't know U106(S21)'s frequencies beyond the extant population. Here is a frequency map.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26700-New-map-of-R1b-S21-%28U106%29

There does appear to be stopping big drop off just west and south of Belgium. Just looking at it generally, U106 seems to be North Sea-centric but stretches back into down into Central Europe all the way to the Adriatic Sea.
 
Quote from: alan trowel hands
There was quite a lot of contact between those areas and south-east England in the Bronze Age, including the Copper Age.  I would think that matching would be the best clue as to how old U106 is in England.  if there is a lack of continental matches with English U106 individuals in the 1500 or even 2000 year span then you would have to get suspicious that it is older.
I agree with this point which is what has caused me to raise the issue. There are some clusters that cross the channel..... however U106 in England has a ton of unclustered people.  This also manifests itself in the STR diversity.

England's U106 does not look young and according to Busby's scale of things you'd have to say it was just part of the Busby blob of indiscernible STR diversity for R1b.

Hence, I place a hard challenge to conventional thought on U106. If it all is of roughly of the same age, then probably significant amounts of U106 got to England about the same time P312 got there.  U106 subclade L48 or some of its pieces may have come later, just like L21 may have come later than early P312.
Possibly were there Beaker explorers and colonizers, but biggest waves took a while to get over?

I've never thought about North America R1b settlement like this, but there may have been a 150 years, perhaps predominantly Iberian R1b (and other Hgs), before Isles people came in earnest.  100-200 years later yet from the mid-1700's to the late 1800's, were they swamped by immigrants from home or near home - the Scots-Irish and the Irish?  This all may have been warp speed compared to prehistoric times.



Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 13, 2011, 07:10:27 PM
Mike-It was Oppenheimer who tried the idea of looking for exact matches (at the admittedly small markers numbers he used) between the English and NW continentals.  I know his methodology and dating methods seem discredited but I wonder if his conclusions are of any use.  He noted only small numbers of matches with the traditional Anglo-Saxon homeland and (if I am recalling this correctly) a lack of exact matches with the Low Countries.  I think what he was hinting at was that there was possible a large ancient link with the Low Countries earlier than the period where such matches could be expected but there was still a remnant of a small group of later exact matches from Schleswig Holstein and Saxony. 


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 13, 2011, 07:15:17 PM
I would like to see an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons in the Low Countries. I think the apparent north-south U106 gradient and south-north U152 gradient are indicative that Flemings are largely U106 and Walloons U152. If that is truly the case, then it tends to support the idea that U106 is associated with Germanic speakers in the Low Countries and U152 with the non-Germanic, supposedly Gallo-Roman Walloons.

That seems to me to be a big clue that, unless southeastern Britain was Germanic-speaking long before the Anglo-Saxons (as Oppenheimer proposed), there probably wasn't all that much U106 there.

I know y-dna and language have only a tenuous relationship, but, in this case, if U106 had a large Celtic component right across the Channel from England, shouldn't more Walloons be U106+? Shouldn't Celtic Gaul (France) have more U106?

Frankly, I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. U152 and L21, yes, but not U106.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: NealtheRed on October 13, 2011, 09:49:05 PM
I would like to see an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons in the Low Countries. I think the apparent north-south U106 gradient and south-north U152 gradient are indicative that Flemings are largely U106 and Walloons U152. If that is truly the case, then it tends to support the idea that U106 is associated with Germanic speakers in the Low Countries and U152 with the non-Germanic, supposedly Gallo-Roman Walloons.

That seems to me to be a big clue that, unless southeastern Britain was Germanic-speaking long before the Anglo-Saxons (as Oppenheimer proposed), there probably wasn't all that much U106 there.

I know y-dna and language have only a tenuous relationship, but, in this case, if U106 had a large Celtic component right across the Channel from England, shouldn't more Walloons be U106+? Shouldn't Celtic Gaul (France) have more U106?

Frankly, I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. U152 and L21, yes, but not U106.

Speaking of Flemish and Walloons, I believe U198 in Belgium is only found among the Flemish as well. U106 is too localized in England to make me think it got there before and during the arrival of L21.

But if it did get there prior, shouldn't we see the same frequencies of U106 - comparable to L21 - across England, Wales, and the Scottish Highlands? We do not see that. In fact, L21 can be found anywhere in Britain.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Bren123 on October 26, 2011, 03:26:59 PM
http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html (http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html)

Maybe someone mentioned this before, but I found it interesting.

"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."


I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Jdean on October 26, 2011, 06:49:04 PM
I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on October 26, 2011, 07:18:15 PM

I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

You're in danger of being thought a troll.

Produce an argument. That is what this thread is for.

Simply calling something "garbage" is a poor substitute.

Besides that, this thread was well on its way to submerging when you dragged it to the surface again with your post.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Bren123 on December 10, 2011, 01:47:52 AM
I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

yes The idea that britons would take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language is absurd also i think they're basing they're findings too much on genetics which is a red herring because the Anglo-Saxons weren't that different( genetically) to the Britons.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on December 10, 2011, 07:56:38 AM
I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

yes The idea that britons would take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language is absurd also i think they're basing they're findings too much on genetics which is a red herring because the Anglo-Saxons weren't that different( genetically) to the Britons.

The fact is, the Britons did "take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language". They certainly weren't speaking Old English prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

Regarding genetics, at least in terms of y-dna, there are marked differences in the profile of the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons versus the Celtic regions of the British Isles and of Armorica (Brittany). R-L21 is much less frequent in the former than it is in the latter, where it absolutely predominates.

The y-haplogroups that are common in the old continental homelands of the Anglo-Saxons, e.g., R-U106 and I1, are more common in the south and east of England where the Anglo-Saxons settled than they are in the west and north. In other words, the y haplogroup clines in England match the historical record pretty well, with the Anglo-Saxon stuff, mainly R-U106 and I1, declining as one moves north and west, and the British stuff increasing in that direction. The British stuff, mainly R-L21, generally declines as one moves south and east in England.

There are some pretty good maps of the distributions of European y haplogroups here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml).

Check them out and you should see what I mean. Be sure to notice that the shading scales differ from map to map.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 11, 2011, 04:06:03 PM
It strikes me looking at the Eupedia maps that even south-east England is quite different from the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands in terms of U152 and R1a as well as L21.  They are in no way duplicates of each other.  I dont think anyone in the right mind could literally claim that the south-east English dont at least carry a fair bit of Celtic blood.  They are definately not duplicates of Schleswig Holstein etc and that can be seen by more than just the L21-U106 ratio.  This tends to get side stepped by the wipeout theorists by comparing with Holland rather than north Germany/Denmark.  I know there were Saxons in the Low Country coastal area but there were lot of other peoples too in the latter area and it seems absurd to me to not just do the obvious thing and look at Scheswig-Holstein, north Germany etc.  That kind of seems a little bit like cooking the books.  There is far better evidence of England-Low Countries direct contact in the Bronze Age than there is with Scheswig etc so it   doesnt make sense to use Holland when you could use the area a little to the east where there is less of a problem of earlier contacts with England confusing the issue.  I simply believe that the comparison is not made between SE England and Schleswig Holstein etc because it would not provide wipeout evidence.  It seems to me that if you compared that area with SE England on the one hand and the Celtic fringe on the other, SE England would look intermediate.  Of course that also does not take into account one thing that is clear-the difference between the south-east of England and the west (even of England) was probably partially already there before the Anglo-Saxons.  The Belgae were probably just the tail end of a long period of contact between SE England and the Low Counties.  There were cultures in the Bronze Age like Hlversum which seem to strongly link the Low Countries and SE England in the Bronze Age. That culture was one of a few in the Low Countries which were almost like an eastern limit of the Atlantic zone in the Bronze Age or an intermediate zone between the Atlantic and Nordic Bronze Age and as such that almost prefigures the Belgic zone which also lay in a transition area between the Celts and Germans.  SE England could have been in a transitional zone like that for 2000 years.  


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: rms2 on December 11, 2011, 04:32:17 PM
That is, if the Netherlands was as U106-rich in the Bronze Age as it is now.

I don't think it was, but that's just my guess.

I do agree about the idea of SE England being intermediate between the old A-S homelands and western Britain, but that's because I think the evidence is pretty clear there was no wipe-out.

L21 survives pretty strongly in SE England, and I think the U152 there could be Belgic and also possibly even Roman. To some extent I'm coming around to Gioiello's way of thinking on U152, i.e., that it is a lot more Italic than we often consider.


Title: Re: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
Post by: Mark Jost on December 23, 2011, 03:05:31 PM
On the russian DNA site it has a couple of links and one contains this Summary:
 
Mavro Mavro  - Historiography Of The Slavs


http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.semargl.me/library/europa/orbini/