World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: GoldenHind on July 12, 2010, 04:23:25 PM



Title: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 12, 2010, 04:23:25 PM
Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/39hpgry


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 12, 2010, 05:01:18 PM
My outline of the origins of the Germanic-speaking peoples has been added to Peopling of Europe. See: The great wandering (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#wandering). This includes a bit on the coming and going within Scandinavia.

This is a lot more to write! I have barely started. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Frisians, Bohemians and Vikings are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all yet. But I do aim to get more done.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 12, 2010, 05:34:37 PM
My outline of the origins of the Germanic-speaking peoples has been added to Peopling of Europe. See: The great wandering (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#wandering). This includes a bit on the coming and going within Scandinavia.

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 13, 2010, 06:11:04 AM
Thanks.

The point about P312* all over the place was made in a comment on my blog post: The Romantic Atlantic Route (http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/blog/2/entry-64-the-romantic-atlantic-route/). It would be helpful if some of that P312* turns out to be in a new subclade or subclades. But the distribution of it certainly does not warrant regarding it as representing any particular Western European ethnicity.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 13, 2010, 08:35:10 AM

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

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

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

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

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

At least 11 of those Germanic R-P312*, four of whom are Scandinavians, belong to the R1b North-South Cluster. I think most of us would agree (although we could be wrong) that the North-South Cluster represents a P312+ subclade, so there are at minimum two further subdivisions of what is now known as R-P312* in the old Germanic lands.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 13, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Thanks.

The point about P312* all over the place was made in a comment on my blog post: The Romantic Atlantic Route (http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/blog/2/entry-64-the-romantic-atlantic-route/). It would be helpful if some of that P312* turns out to be in a new subclade or subclades. But the distribution of it certainly does not warrant regarding it as representing any particular Western European ethnicity.

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 13, 2010, 02:54:18 PM
I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

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

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

[Added] If P312* is running at equal numbers with L21, I will add it.  :)


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 13, 2010, 02:54:36 PM


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


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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 13, 2010, 02:57:21 PM
I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 13, 2010, 02:58:46 PM
I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 13, 2010, 03:02:54 PM
I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)
Thanks. I feel better already.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jdean on July 13, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

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

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 13, 2010, 03:44:34 PM
No - I know you weren't claiming P312* as Germanic. The issue is that people tend to label it Celtic! You are always careful to correct them, and I was just supporting you in that.



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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 13, 2010, 06:51:55 PM
I give up! I do! I'm about to add it.  :)
Thanks. I feel better already.

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 13, 2010, 07:45:31 PM


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


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

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

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

Honestly, I kind of lost interest in recruiting Scandinavians because every time we got a new one someone would chalk him up as the descendant of an Irish or British thrall, a Scottish merchant, or an Irish monk. It's exasperating.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: y24 on July 14, 2010, 05:20:53 AM
Quote
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
I agree. In comparison to L21, P312*'s distribution pattern in the British Isles is clearly different.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 14, 2010, 07:53:06 AM
Quote
I do think much, and probably most, but certainly not all, of P312* in the British Isles is of Germanic origin. It's distribution pattern, based on what we presently know, is a better match to Germanic settlement patterns than L21 or even U106. P312* also appears to be less numerous in Wales and Ireland than U106.
I agree. In comparison to L21, P312*'s distribution pattern in the British Isles is clearly different.

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: authun on July 15, 2010, 05:15:22 AM
I don't think you mean "chuffed" somehow! [British slang for "pleased".]

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

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

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

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

cheers
authun


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: authun on July 15, 2010, 05:34:02 AM
Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

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

....

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

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

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

cheers
authun


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 15, 2010, 10:59:14 AM
...
As for R-P312*, if one wants to consider it as a single thing (which I think is a big mistake), the bulk of it is centered more in Iberia and France than in the old Germanic lands, and that is probably close to true of P312+ as a whole.
I agree, I've looked at P312* quite a bit now.  The North-South cluster should be considered separately as a highly probable sub-clade.  The rest seems hard to organize into clusters (with any degree of certainty) but they could just be viewed as scattered P312* types that accompanied or maybe led or followed various strands (subclades) of P312 or U106 to various places.  

It may be all of the above, but P312* is not a single unit.  Some P312* folks may be more closely related to L21+ (or U152+ or you name it) folks than to other P312* folks.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 15, 2010, 08:22:36 PM
I have always said that it is a mistake to look at P312* as a monolithic unit, so I have no disagreement there. I have also frequently stated that I suspect P312* is hiding as yet unidentified subclades with different histories and distributions. But I also think it is just as erroneous to consider all of U106 as a monolithic unit. That is exactly what happens when people maintain it equates with Germanic. I concede that some U106 subclades appear to have been predominantly Germanic, and some P312 subclades appear to have been predominantly Celtic, but I think that is as much as the current evidence will support, and I think it is a mistake to try to take it beyond that.

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

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

Look at these numbers from the various projects:

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

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

U106   Norway:  5
P312   Norway:  21

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

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 15, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Someone on another forum recently referred me to a study on Ydna in Sweden, which I had seen some years ago but since forgotten. On re-reading it, I found a few points of considerable interest bearing on the question of the history of R1b in Europe.

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

....

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 15, 2010, 09:28:30 PM
. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 15, 2010, 09:30:05 PM
I have always said that it is a mistake to look at P312* as a monolithic unit, so I have no disagreement there. I have also frequently stated that I suspect P312* is hiding as yet unidentified subclades with different histories and distributions. But I also think it is just as erroneous to consider all of U106 as a monolithic unit. That is exactly what happens when people maintain it equates with Germanic. I concede that some U106 subclades appear to have been predominantly Germanic, and some P312 subclades appear to have been predominantly Celtic, but I think that is as much as the current evidence will support, and I think it is a mistake to try to take it beyond that.

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

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

Look at these numbers from the various projects:

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

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

U106   Norway:  5
P312   Norway:  21

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

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

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

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

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

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





Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 15, 2010, 09:37:00 PM
. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 15, 2010, 09:51:16 PM


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

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

Just a thought.

No, we don't assume that U106 is Germanic in those areas. U106 is HUGE in the old Germanic areas.

Take a gander around at the various projects, including the R-U106 Project, which, sadly, has some oddball geographic categories that tend to confuse rather than enlighten.

I never assumed anything about any y haplogroups or their subclades. I have watched the S21/U106 story unfold since the days when it was the big story, one of only a few known subclades of R1b1b2. Believe me, I have no reason to want U106 to be Germanic or P312 to be Celtic.

Obviously, a great deal of P312 is neither Celtic nor Germanic. A couple of its clades are found predominantly distributed in old, non-Indo-European, Iberian or Basque regions. In fact, R-P312* abounds in such regions, appearing there in greater numbers than it does in Germanic lands.

Some U106 is likewise found among people who are neither Celtic nor Germanic.

But generalizations are based upon general trends, the overall distribution of the haplgroups, and not upon the exceptions.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 15, 2010, 10:40:09 PM
But that's the thing, Rich.

U106 could be huge, massive, or ubiquitous in Germanic areas - wait, it is only huge in certain Germanic areas - but it could have been there before proto-Germanic arrived on the scene.

I remember that someone posted an interesting thought on this forum (Vince V.?) it was a bit odd that U106 was confined to "hotspots" like the Netherlands and Austria, whereas P312 was more successful through out Europe - even in Scandinavia.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 16, 2010, 02:55:53 PM
... I concede that some U106 subclades appear to have been predominantly Germanic, and some P312 subclades appear to have been predominantly Celtic, but I think that is as much as the current evidence will support, and I think it is a mistake to try to take it beyond that.
....
I'm in total agreement.  P312's and U106's MRCA each were not that far from each other time-wise so probably not geographically as well.  I'd be surprised if a little bit of P312* folks and L21* folks (etc.) didn't go with the U106 base along time ago, and vice versa.

However, as noted, P312 et al may be the prevailing Hg in old Celtic areas whereas U106 may be in old Germanic areas although P312 is not at all out of the picture.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 16, 2010, 06:37:06 PM
But that's the thing, Rich.

U106 could be huge, massive, or ubiquitous in Germanic areas - wait, it is only huge in certain Germanic areas - but it could have been there before proto-Germanic arrived on the scene.

I remember that someone posted an interesting thought on this forum (Vince V.?) it was a bit odd that U106 was confined to "hotspots" like the Netherlands and Austria, whereas P312 was more successful through out Europe - even in Scandinavia.


I don't want to keep going on and on and 'round and 'round about this, because, frankly, U106 is not really my thing, but U106 is pretty big in all the old Germanic areas. Norway may be the lone exception, but I doubt even that. I think U106 is big there, too, and time will tell.

It's not confined to hotspots like the Netherlands and Austria. I don't know where you heard that. Germany is lousy with it, as are Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden.

Could it have been there before Proto-Germanic arrived on the scene? Sure, if Proto-Germanic arrived with R1a or I1. But that seems counter-intuitive to me. According to Mallory, linguists attribute early Germanic to the Harpstedt and Jastorf cultures, and they were located precisely where U106 is most common today.

I'm not saying Germanics were all U106 without exception. But I do think it is fair to characterize U106 as fitting the Germanic pattern pretty well.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 16, 2010, 07:00:00 PM
GoldenHind posted the numbers that showed P312 outnumbering U106 in Scandinavia.

U106 is not my forte either, but the numbers above speak volumes. At any rate, it is a plausible argument that some P312* in Great Britain could be Germanic in origin.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jdean on July 16, 2010, 08:12:42 PM
GoldenHind posted the numbers that showed P312 outnumbering U106 in Scandinavia.

U106 is not my forte either, but the numbers above speak volumes. At any rate, it is a plausible argument that some P312* in Great Britain could be Germanic in origin.

I would be more than a little surprised if there were no Germanic P312* or downstream SNPs in the Isles.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 16, 2010, 09:36:40 PM
GoldenHind posted the numbers that showed P312 outnumbering U106 in Scandinavia.

U106 is not my forte either, but the numbers above speak volumes. At any rate, it is a plausible argument that some P312* in Great Britain could be Germanic in origin.

The difference between the amount of P312+ and U106+ in Scandinavia is not that significant. The point you miss is the overall distribution of the P312+ clades versus that of the U106+ clades. It seems to me there is a greater continuity in the U106 zone between Scandinavia and the neighboring continental Germanic lands than there is with Scandinavian P312 and the neighboring continental Germanic lands.

The zones of highest U152 frequency are not really contiguous with the bit of U152 found in Scandinavia, for example. The same could be said of L21 and P312*. U106, on the other hand, is very frequent in Northern Germany and the Netherlands. It doesn't seem to have the geographic gap that the P312 clades seem to have between the continent and Scandinavia.

I don't doubt that some of the R-P312* in Britain is Germanic in origin. Some of the R-L21 there might be, as well.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 17, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

No, we don't assume that U106 is Germanic in those areas. U106 is HUGE in the old Germanic areas.

Take a gander around at the various projects, including the R-U106 Project, which, sadly, has some oddball geographic categories that tend to confuse rather than enlighten.


But generalizations are based upon general trends, the overall distribution of the haplgroups, and not upon the exceptions.

This generalization simply doesn't hold up on anaysis. What does appear valid is that some U106 subclades are "huge" in some of the old Germanic areas. The identity of U106 as Germanic is based on looking at it as monolithic. For some reason nearly everyone (and I am guilty of this myself) tends to analyze R1b in Europe by comparing U106, P312*, L21 , U152, SRY2627, M222, etc. You do precisely this when you look at U106 in northern Germany and then compare it to U152, L21 and P312*. If one is going to lump all of U106 together, an accurate comparison requires doing the same with all of P312. As I said, we all have a tendency to do this. One reason is that there seems to have been little analysis of U106 by subclades. I think this is at least partly due to the fact that the U106 project does not divide or map their members by subclade. They also exclude from their project U106 subclades U198/S29 (they have a separate project) and L1/S26 (who don't appear to even have a project), and apparently also P107 (who also don't seem to have a project). P107 is regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a "pre-Anglo-Saxon marker" in England, and some seem to apply the same label to L1, but none dare call them British, because that would make them Celtic and upset the equation.

The Myres study of a few years back, which attempted to analyze what percentage of R1b in various countries was composed of U106, found it to be "huge" in only two countries: Netherlands and Austria. The U106 percentage of R1b in Denmark was 51.3%. If that is accurate, it suggests the P312 percentage of R1b in Denmark to be 48.7%, unless of course a surprising amount of ht 15 turns up there. I wouldn't call that a huge disparity. It estimated the U106 percentage of R1b in Switzerland as as only 23%, and Germany as 47.56%, indicating P312 outnumbers U106 in both those countries. Sweden wasn't included in the study, but as I pointed out previously, the FTDNA projects indicate an equal division there between U106 and P312, despite the fact testing for U106 has about a five year advantage. I don't think there is any evidence to indicate that U106 vastly outnumbers P312 in Scandinavia as a whole. It looks to me like a 50/50 split is more likely.

What I call the "equation" may be only a generalization, but a number of people consider it axiomatic. In any case, I think it has the tendency to be misleading and is generally unhelpful to analyzing R1b in Europe.




Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 17, 2010, 06:39:12 PM
No, I am considering them both as monoliths: P312 as a whole versus U106 as a whole.

There is plenty of P312 in Germanic lands and plenty of U106 in Germanic lands. But the Germanic lands seem to be the center of gravity for U106, while P312's center of gravity is farther west. Another thing to consider, which I pointed out, is that P312 is just more populous overall than U106.

So, yeah, some P312 might be considered Germanic (although I think a lot of it in Germany may have originally been Celtic, like the stuff in SW Germany), but the overall best fit for P312 is Celtic. But that does not mean P312 is always Celtic everywhere! A big chunk of P312 is non-Celtic, non-Germanic Iberian. Some of it is Basque. Bits of it are even Slavic, Italic, and Jewish.

Some U106 is likewise not Germanic, but the overall best fit for U106 is Germanic. That likewise does not mean that all U106 everywhere is always and without exception Germanic.

It's like this. P312 sits farther west and more centrally over the old Celtic homelands than does U106, but P312 is so populous its spillover into Germanic lands causes it to rival all comers there. U106 sits father east than P312, is centered on the old Germanic lands, but is slightly less numerous than P312. Even so, U106 is better represented in northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark than P312, which gives it a more even geographic continuity into Scandinavia than that of P312, which seems to be strong in SW and middle Germany but then to experience something of a decline or break before reaching Scandinavia. I have not crunched all the numbers, but that is my impression anyway. It's an odd thing, but it may mean that P312 expanded by sea into Scandinavia rather than advancing up the European Plain. U106 may have entered Scandinavia farther east and by land. That might explain the relative dispositions of P312 and U106 in Scandinavia, as well.

So, perhaps it is best to avoid labeling either closely-related P310+ haplogroup, but I still think what I am observing is fairly obvious, which is why many people tend to associate U106, rightly or wrongly, with the ancient Germans.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 17, 2010, 09:06:37 PM
GoldenHind posted the numbers that showed P312 outnumbering U106 in Scandinavia.

U106 is not my forte either, but the numbers above speak volumes. At any rate, it is a plausible argument that some P312* in Great Britain could be Germanic in origin.

I would be more than a little surprised if there were no Germanic P312* or downstream SNPs in the Isles.

Although it is a little preliminary, we may already have a Germanic P312 subclade in S182.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 17, 2010, 09:22:53 PM


Even so, U106 is better represented in northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark than P312, which gives it a more even geographic continuity into Scandinavia than that of P312, which seems to be strong in SW and middle Germany but then to experience something of a decline or break before reaching Scandinavia. I have not crunched all the numbers, but that is my impression anyway. It's an odd thing, but it may mean that P312 expanded by sea into Scandinavia rather than advancing up the European Plain. U106 may have entered Scandinavia farther east and by land. That might explain the relative dispositions of P312 and U106 in Scandinavia, as well.


If you do crunch the northern Germany numbers, a word of caution. According to a U106 person on another forum who is even more vociferous in his criticism of the U106=Germanic equation than I am, a number of people with ancestry from southwest Germany are inexplicably listed as being from northern Germany in the U106 project. I haven't checked this myself.

You may well be right about P312 and U106 taking different routes to Scandinavia. What is really needed is a study such as the Swedish one which actually differentiates between R1b subclades. But I'm not holding my breath. Even the extremely ambitious on-going Brabant Ydna study is only SNP testing for three R1b subclades: all of U106, U152 and then the rest of P312.

I think one of the unfortunate aspects of the "equation" is that it causes us to think that all of U106 and all of P312 took completely different routes in entering Europe. That may or may not be the case.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 17, 2010, 09:27:31 PM
Another simple observation is that U106 is rare in the old Celtic world except on it's eastern fringes were Germanic movement was strong enough to lead to language shift. Where Celtic or it's Latin successors were not replaced it seems R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly S116 and rarely U106.  

Although the division is not absolute by any means  it seems that S116 both as a percentage of R1b1b2 and as a percentage of all males has a sharp fall at the old Celtic Germanic boundary. Combined I thnk that likely means a sharp fall in actual numbers


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 18, 2010, 02:57:28 PM
Another simple observation is that U106 is rare in the old Celtic world except on it's eastern fringes were Germanic movement was strong enough to lead to language shift. Where Celtic or it's Latin successors were not replaced it seems R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly S116 and rarely U106.  

Although the division is not absolute by any means  it seems that S116 both as a percentage of R1b1b2 and as a percentage of all males has a sharp fall at the old Celtic Germanic boundary. Combined I thnk that likely means a sharp fall in actual numbers

That is what I see, too. In the case of Germany, for example, it could easily be argued that much of the P312+ there is Celtic in origin. According to David Faux's U152 database (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm)), none of the U152 in Germany is found in the North. By far most of the L21 and R-P312* in Germany are likewise found in southern or middle Germany and skewed to the west, i.e., in the ancient Celtic homelands, where the old Celtic hillforts and burial mounds are found.

Though there are a few North Germans who are P312+ (a handful of R-L21s and a couple of R-P312*s), there is basically a break or gap before P312 picks up again in Scandinavia. I don't think there is any such break in U106 between northern Germany and Scandinavia.

That is one of the reasons I think P312 may have expanded up the coast of northern Europe into Scandinavia, while U106 may have taken a land route from farther east and north.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 18, 2010, 08:21:01 PM
Another simple observation is that U106 is rare in the old Celtic world except on it's eastern fringes were Germanic movement was strong enough to lead to language shift. Where Celtic or it's Latin successors were not replaced it seems R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly S116 and rarely U106.  

Although the division is not absolute by any means  it seems that S116 both as a percentage of R1b1b2 and as a percentage of all males has a sharp fall at the old Celtic Germanic boundary. Combined I thnk that likely means a sharp fall in actual numbers

That is what I see, too. In the case of Germany, for example, it could easily be argued that much of the P312+ there is Celtic in origin. According to David Faux's U152 database (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm)), none of the U152 in Germany is found in the North. By far most of the L21 and R-P312* in Germany are likewise found in southern or middle Germany and skewed to the west, i.e., in the ancient Celtic homelands, where the old Celtic hillforts and burial mounds are found.

Though there are a few North Germans who are P312+ (a handful of R-L21s and a couple of R-P312*s), there is basically a break or gap before P312 picks up again in Scandinavia. I don't think there is any such break in U106 between northern Germany and Scandinavia.

That is one of the reasons I think P312 may have expanded up the coast of northern Europe into Scandinavia, while U106 may have taken a land route from farther east and north.

I think P312/L21 was all-encompassing when entering Scandinavia. It could have entered via sea, but no doubt it also got there via Jutland. Like GoldenHind said with the Myres study some time ago, if you take into consideration the percentages of U106 in Denmark then it changes things a bit. I remember Vince discussing U106 as ubiquitous in hotspots, where P312 is defined by its continuity. And, what about those L48- U106?

P312* and L21 further west can surely be attributed to Celtic ancestry (not all of it, of course), but it's dominance in Norway and presence in Sweden indicates the spread of Germanic culture during the Nordic Bronze Age. U106 was included, but why were the iron-making Norse in Norway more P312/L21 than U106?

GoldenHind also pointed out a newly defining SNP below P312* that could be attributed to Germanic ancestry. This is also the situation with Clan MacLeod. Clan history holds they descend from a Norse chieftain in the Outer Hebrides, yet folks would not believe it because the largest related group of MacLeods are R1b. Yet a downstream SNP (S68) connected this related group with lineages in Scandinavia.

We just have to wait for another P312* SNP that connects these two populations.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 18, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
I'm afraid neither of you (referring to Rich and Alan) are addressing my point. All that you point out merely  demonstrates that with which I agree: there is a strong correlation between some U106 subclades and some Germanics, and a strong correlation between some P312 subclades and some Celts. What I object to is taking it beyond that and making a general connection between all Germanics and all U106 and all Celts and all P312. In logic this is known as the fallacy of composition: if something is true of a part of a entity, then it must also be true of the entire entity.

Assuming the apparent predominance of U106 over P312 in northern Germany is actual rather than illusory, do all U106 subclades have a strong presence there, or just some of them? If they are all or nearly all L48, does it establish that U198, P107 and L1 must necessarily also be Germanic, even if they have no or very little presence there? Once again this compares U106 as single entitiy against P312 divided into parts.

If no part of U106 can be Celtic because they don't have a strong presence in the western fringes of Europe, why doesn't the same logic apply to U152? I don't believe U106 is rarer in Ireland and Spain than U152. Must all Celtic tribes necessarily have populated the western fringes of Europe?

I don't think either of you are defending the proposition that U106=Germanic and P312=Celtic. Part of my opposition to it, even as a generalization, as a logical fallacy, is that that it treats both P312 and U106 as homogenous entities. I think we can be reasonably certain that P312 isn't monolithic, and I strongly suspect the same is true with U106.

But my chief objection is the generalization effects the way we view the evidence and the conclusions we draw from it. Thus if U106 is more common in Germany than P312, it demonstrates the strong presence of U106 in the old Germanic homelands. If P312 is more numerous there, it establishes the strong Celtic admixture there. If U106 has a strong presence in Austria, it reflects the Germanic invasions there. If U152 has the same presence, it would reflect a fossil from Hallstatt.

Since the conclusions are pre-ordained, the facts become essentially irrelevant.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 19, 2010, 08:07:05 AM
Well, I am not committing the fallacy of composition, because I am not arguing that all U106 is Germanic and all P312 is Celtic. What I am saying is that, generally speaking, as a rule of thumb, P312=Celtic and U106=Germanic. Probably a better way to state that would be to say that P312 is usually or mostly Celtic, and U106 is is usually or mostly Germanic.

I think you see that from their relative distributions, even within Germany. In Germany we know where the old Celts lived, and we know where the Germanics lived and how they worked their way south and west. Alan wasn't just talking about Ireland and Spain. He was talking about the relative dispositions of U106 and P312 in Germany, as well. U106 tends to stack up farther north and east in Germany than P312, and P312 tends to be thickest in the old Celtic region. I didn't just assume that or decide that's how I would see things regardless of the facts. That is the way things are.

U106 tends to decline as one moves into the old Celtic lands. It gets really thin on the ground as one moves west into France, and even thinner in Spain and Portugal. It's pretty big in England, but in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland its presence drops. A telltale sign is its connection with English/Protestant surnames in Ireland.

P312 tends to decline as one moves into the old Germanic homelands in Germany and the Netherlands. It picks up again in Scandinavia. That is what makes me think that P312 moved by boat up the coast into Scandinavia.

Since P312 and U106 are both probably older than the distinctions between Celtic and Germanic, these kinds of classifications will remain inexact. There will be considerable blurring across the boundaries, and exceptions will exist. We know that. But we can see the general pattern, and it makes generalizing both possible and valuable, at least in my opinion.

Take the case of Austria, which you mentioned in your last post. If we look at Austria in isolation, we might not be able to say much of anything about the haplogroups and subclades found there. But with the help of the big picture, i.e., the overall distribution of the haplogroups and subclades that are present there, we might be able to say a lot. If the overall U106 pattern in the rest of Europe associates it with Germanic-speaking peoples, and there is a goodly amount of U106 in Austria, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Austria probably acquired its Germanic speech largely from its U106 component. If the overall P312 pattern in the rest of Europe is Celtic, then it may not be unreasonable to attribute the P312 in Austria to its ancient Celtic inhabitants.

R1a and I2a are both very common in Slavic-speaking lands, so why would we not conclude that Slavs are probably responsible for most of the R1a and I2a in Austria? Given Austria's proximity to Slavic-speaking R1a and I2a populations, what is the logical conclusion?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 19, 2010, 08:58:36 AM
I did want to add that I think the distribution of R-P312* in Britain is very similar to that of U106 and even I1. So, since I tend to generalize and conclude that both U106 and I1 are mostly Germanic, I have to conclude that the distribution of R-P312* in Britain is mostly Germanic (with perhaps some Belgic), as well, right down to the association of R-P312* with English/Protestant surnames in Ireland (just like U106).

In saying that, I am treating R-P312* as a single thing, when I know it is at minimum at least two things in Britain, since there is a fair-sized R1b North-South component there.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 19, 2010, 10:10:53 AM
.... According to David Faux's U152 database (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm)) ....
Is Faux's database a superset of the R-U152 FTDNA project? 
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=yresults

Which would be better to include in a P312 all-inclusive database?  I don't see where Faux includes the FTDNA kit numbers which makes it a little more difficult to reconcile with the project since FTDNA screens don't include Ysearch ID's.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 20, 2010, 07:36:08 AM
.... According to David Faux's U152 database (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm (http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Data.htm)) ....
Is Faux's database a superset of the R-U152 FTDNA project? 
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=yresults

Which would be better to include in a P312 all-inclusive database?  I don't see where Faux includes the FTDNA kit numbers which makes it a little more difficult to reconcile with the project since FTDNA screens don't include Ysearch ID's.

Faux's database is independent of the the FTDNA R1b-U152 Project. I would say Faux's database is more accurate when it comes to geographic origin than the Y-DNA Results page of the R1b-U152 Project. That is David's main interest, so he is very careful and exacting when it comes to that. He also includes people who have tested with companies other than FTDNA, so some of those he lists may not be in the R1b-U152 Project.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 22, 2010, 08:18:54 PM
Having looked at the distribution of U106 subclades a little closer, a possible scenario comes to mind. I seem to remember Vince V. once suggesting that U106 arrived in Europe first, and then was largely swamped by later arriving P312, leaving U106 strongholds in the Netherlands and Austria. Could U106 have entered Europe along the Danube, and from there proceeded up the Rhine to the north sea coast? The later arrival of P312 could have left U106 with concentrations along the upper Danube and lower Rhine. From the lower Rhine part of U106 could have gone northwest to England and Scotland, while another part went easterly along the north German plain to the Baltic, partly branching off into Scandinavia, but never establishing a very strong presence in Norway.

This could explain why some U106 subclades are essentially absent from Scandinavia, and are largely confined to England and Scotland. Also, there are some who have studied this who maintain that the concentration of U106 is greater along the Rhine than in north Germany. In any case, such a scenario is much more consistent with the known distribution of U106 and subclades than the notion that they got to Netherlands and Austria in a migration out of Scandinavia during the early Iron Age.

I also think this could have occurred very early on in the Bronze or even Copper Age, long before the division in Europe between the Celts and Germanics. I don't know enough about the archaeology of the period to know if this plausible or not.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 24, 2010, 03:29:22 PM
I had occasion recently to revisit the Myres' et al. study of U106 in Denmark. To my knowledge, this is the only study which has looked at R1b subclades anywhere in Scandinavia. In any case, it is the best evidence we have on the issue.

The study only looked at the amounts of R1b-M269, U106 and U106 subclade U198/S29. The sample size was 113. The results were as follows:

M269:                39 (34.5% of the total)
U106 (XU198):  19 (16.8% of the toal)
U198:                  1 (.09% of the total)

This figure is not listed, but is easily calculated:

M269 (XU106,U198): 19 (16.8% of the toal)

Since we know M269 in western Europe is nearly all ht15 (ie positive for either U106 or P312), it is likely that all or nearly all of the latter 19 are P312, nearly dead even with U106 + U198 at 20.

Those who support the U106+ Germanic idea rely in part on the idea that U106 vastly out numbers P312 in Denmark. The best evidence we have to date, the Myres study, doesn't support that contention.

I believe I am also correct in stating that more of the P312 subclade SRY2627, regarded by some as Celtic, has been found in Denmark than the so-called Germanic subclade U198.




Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 24, 2010, 04:18:52 PM
I think Goldenhind does seem to have a point that in much of Scandinavia anyway P312 does seem to be as strong as U106.  It seems that P312 was strong almost everywhere in the R1b1b2 world except perhaps in a few limited areas including Holland.  Its the addition of U106 that is the difference in my opinion.   As for the cultural connotations, its clearly more complex than a simply match for the ethnic divisions around the 200BC-400AD period. Personally I think U152 has been linked to the Celts based on very little.  In my opinion its a very poor match for the Celts overall and only seems strong in areas where Germans overlaid the Celts. In fact I think there may be a case that U152 at least partly expanded with the south-west Germanic Suebic and related tribes around SW Germany, Alsace, Switzerland and Italy.  L21 is a far better candidate than U152 as a Celtic clade as it is known in most of the old Celtic world in reasonable numbers. 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 24, 2010, 10:17:24 PM
Hmmm . . .

Interesting. I still don't think that alters the fact that the overall distribution of P312+ (all of it, not just P312*) is a better fit for Celtic than Germanic and that the reverse is true for U106. You still have the problem of the apparent gap between the P312+ regions of Germany (middle and SW Germany) and Scandinavia.

I know there were Beaker settlements in SW Norway that are believed to have come from Jutland. Anyone know any more about that?

I wonder if the U106 in Denmark is pretty near universally L48+.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: MHammers on July 25, 2010, 12:15:11 AM
I can't remember the paper, but it was about the Beaker settlements in Scandinavia.
It did say that the Beaker period there lasted from 2300 to about 2000BC.   


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: MHammers on July 25, 2010, 12:27:45 AM
Here it is.  My dates were a little off.

http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_low.pdf


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2010, 07:08:32 AM
Hmmm . . .

Interesting. I still don't think that alters the fact that the overall distribution of P312+ (all of it, not just P312*) is a better fit for Celtic than Germanic and that the reverse is true for U106. You still have the problem of the apparent gap between the P312+ regions of Germany (middle and SW Germany) and Scandinavia.

I know there were Beaker settlements in SW Norway that are believed to have come from Jutland. Anyone know any more about that?

I wonder if the U106 in Denmark is pretty near universally L48+.

What we have are

1. some areas where S116 clades are very predominant over U106 (most of the old Celtic world)

2. areas where the reverse is true (apparently fairly restricted to Holland, north Germany etc)

3. areas where there is a real mixture of the two (Scandinavia, England etc).

The simplest interpretation is that U106 originated in area 2 and then expanded into the very mixed area 3 zone where it either overlaid or was layer overlaid by S116 but failed to make it into area 1 in any numbers.   The result was that S116 clades seem to predominate in Celtic areas but also form a strata in the northernmost Germanic areas so the cultural match is not simple.  However, that may because we set too much in stone the linguistic distribution of the very late Iron Age when we know in fact that language barriers constantly shift.  While S116 seems complex, I still would feel deep down that U106 owes a lot Germanic expansions.  Unlike the S116 in Scandinavia issue, I am not aware of an area of high U106 which is not explainable by Germanic movements.  This is a total guess but I wonder if S116 held a wider (seaborne?) dominance at some point in the copper and bronze age than it later lost to U106 elements. 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 25, 2010, 03:59:44 PM

I wonder if the U106 in Denmark is pretty near universally L48+.

I have wondered about that myself. Unfortunately the way the U106 project is organized- by geographic area rather than by subclade- makes it difficult to make this determination. Also they do not identify U106*, so it is impossible to distinguish between those who have tested negative for L48 and those who haven't tested for it.

As I have said before, the U106 project makes any attempt to analyze them by subclade extremely difficult. Perhaps this is one reason people tend to treat it as monolithic, when it clearly isn't.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 25, 2010, 06:15:40 PM

I wonder if the U106 in Denmark is pretty near universally L48+.

I have wondered about that myself. Unfortunately the way the U106 project is organized- by geographic area rather than by subclade- makes it difficult to make this determination. Also they do not identify U106*, so it is impossible to distinguish between those who have tested negative for L48 and those who haven't tested for it.

As I have said before, the U106 project makes any attempt to analyze them by subclade extremely difficult. Perhaps this is one reason people tend to treat it as monolithic, when it clearly isn't.

Yeah, I can vouch for this as well. My maternal grandfather is L48- (Schaefer, Palatinate, Germany), but he is among those in the same category who tested L48+.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 25, 2010, 06:18:39 PM

I wonder if the U106 in Denmark is pretty near universally L48+.

I have wondered about that myself. Unfortunately the way the U106 project is organized- by geographic area rather than by subclade- makes it difficult to make this determination. Also they do not identify U106*, so it is impossible to distinguish between those who have tested negative for L48 and those who haven't tested for it.

As I have said before, the U106 project makes any attempt to analyze them by subclade extremely difficult. Perhaps this is one reason people tend to treat it as monolithic, when it clearly isn't.

I looked again at the U106 project, and found that members are classified by subclade on the results page, as opposed to the Ydna results page. One then has to compare the two pages. Unfortunately I couldn't reconcile the results on the two different pages. But as far as I can tell, all the U106 from Denmark are either L48 or untested for L48 (mostly the latter).


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 25, 2010, 06:34:41 PM
Since I had a little time today, I thought it might be instructive to look at the various project results for northern Germany. First I had to decide exactly what area to define as northern Germany. I settled on a line running roughly east/west from Osnabrück thropugh Hannover to Berlin. I didn't go east beyond the present day Polish border into the old Prussian territories ceeded after WWII for a number of reasons. One is that those areas were settled by Germans during the middle ages, and they could have come from anywhere in Germany.

Secondly, I excluded all those entries whose markers was placed in Berlin as the capitol as the actual place of origin in Germany was unknown.

I only looked at the various project maps.

The results:

U106: 9
U198: 1
P312*: 5
L21: 4
U152: 2

I used the FTDNA project for U152 rather than Faux's statistics. I also looked at the L1 project, but they don't maintain a map, and almost all of the surnames were British, only a very few German surnames.

Adding them up, one gets this result:

U106: 10
P312: 11

I don't claim these results are scientifically valid, but it does appear to me that the idea that current testing results demonstrate a dominance of U106 over P312 in northern Germany is incorrect. One can only come to that conclusion if one compares all of U106 against P312 divided into subclades, which is something I think we are all guilty of.

I invite anyone to look at the U106 project map and then zoom in on Germany. There is no heavy concentration in northern Germany. The concentrations appear to be along the North Sea coast and again in the area around Frankfurt/ Mannheim.

So where is the evidence that U106 is so dominant in northern Germany?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 25, 2010, 09:21:16 PM
I don't know that I have the motivation or time to examine this myself, but it seems to me you have drawn an arbitrary line to define your "Northern Germany". I would look for a more historic definition based perhaps on the major dialect divisions and run the southern boundary line of Northern Germany roughly from Köln to Dresden or, if that seems slightly too far south, from Düsseldorf to Leipzig.

Secondly, if you are drawing your ten U106+ from Northern Germany from the R1b-U106 Project's map, the one provided by FTDNA, I have to tell you those maps are notoriously inaccurate. What appears on those is determined entirely by project members. Many project members do not bother to enter a location on their "Plot Ancestral Locations" pages, and many of those who do never take the next step to have a pin placed in the project map at that location. So, what you are getting from those maps is probably an undercount. You would be getting merely those of North German ancestry who bothered to enter a location for their ancestor on their Plot Ancestral Locations pages.

Google maps like the ones I keep are far more accurate. They take a lot of work because I personally communicate with members to make sure the info is correct and squares with what they believe is the correct location. Often there is a conflict between what is in Ysearch and what is in "Plot Ancestral Locations" that can only be resolved by checking with the person.

Thirdly, you would be better off with Faux's database when it comes to U152. I know that he communicates with those on his page and questions them closely about their ancestral origins. Regardless of his own theories, he is pretty scrupulous about reporting honestly. When Faux says of German U152 (as he does on his database page), "None to date north of Koblenz", I think you can take that to the bank. Believe me, he has checked and double-checked.

I haven't attempted the bean counting you have, but I am pretty confident there are more than ten U106ers with ancestry in Northern Germany in the various FTDNA projects. I know what follows is anecdotal, but I can tell you from hunting for suitable recruits for both the R-P312 and Subclades Project and the R-L21 Plus Project that northern Germany is loaded with U106+. Some of them have not yet been tested but have 492=13 or the even more significant and telling combination of 390=23 together with 492=13.

I have to confess that this is something I don't care enough about to do the necessary footwork to get a really good, accurate overview of the distribution of U106. Nevertheless, I think my impression is fairly accurate: for every three North German R1b1b2s, two will be U106+ and one will be some kind of P312+. I think the reverse is true in SW Germany.

I have to work from personal experience because I don't know of an easily accessible source for U106 stats in North Germany. My personal experience consists of checking many many R1b1b2 haplotypes in Ysearch and elsewhere for matches, looking for project recruits. I have also had a lot of experience with U106+ and likely U106+ guys who have joined either the R-P312 and Subclades Project or the R-L21 Plus Project by mistake.

Probably Mike Maddi would be a good source for U106 stats, but I am not sure he would come here and share them.



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 26, 2010, 09:04:01 AM
I've been looking back over this stuff a little (not much though), and I must say, Goldenhind brings up some good points. I'm still not convinced he is right, and I still think the overall distribution of P312+ is a better fit for Celtic than Germanic, but what he has written does raise some questions about what we have been led to believe about U106.

I think the thing to do would be to test a random sample of 50 or so North German R1b1b2s and see how they come out. Choosing the sample would be tough. If you allow too many of those with 390=23, you are going to get a disproportionate number of U106+, so you would have to try to get a representative sample of North German R1b1b2 haplotypes.

In his old (2005) paper entitled, "Variations of R1b Ydna in Europe: Distribution and Origins" (http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe), A.A. Foster reported that

Quote
Within the North Sea-Baltic area (Northern  Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway) a sample of 1,227 haplotypes showed the R1b DYS390 percentages to be:    

DYS 390=25... 10.1%.

DYS 390=24... 46.6%.

DYS 390=23... 38.1%.

DYS 390=22...   3.7%
.

Although some 390=23 is P312+, 23 at 390 is disproportionately represented within U106.

Foster did not report on how much of that 390=23 was North German or on how he defined "Northern Germany".

Perhaps the easiest path would be to just use the figures he supplied and get haplotypes with those values at 390 in the proportions he listed. I would go with 12-marker haplotypes, so that it would not be possible to predict the outcome and stack the deck one way or the other (in other words, you would be blind regarding 492).

The sample population could be recruited from the Germany Project, but one would have to be careful to screen potential recruits to try to be sure their ancestry is genuinely North German. Donations could probably be raised and a general fund created specifically for such a project.

Ideally, every sample would get FTDNA's Deep Clade-R test, and it might even be possible to convince FTDNA to offer a slight price break [why that d-word for "price break" cannot be used here baffles me] of some kind. If money were a real concern (and when is it not?), it might be possible to get FTDNA to just test the samples minimally for P312 and U106 and to report only on those two SNPs.

You know, this is not a bad idea, if I do say so myself. I wonder if one could just create new FTDNA projects based on member/donor-funded SNP testing. I mean, that is a big part of our raison d'être in the R-L21 Plus Project, and we have been pretty successful at doing it.

I guess the big issue might be territorial jealousy. If one set up a project for SNP testing Germans, for example, he might run afoul of the guys who administer the Germany Project, and so on.

Any thoughts?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 27, 2010, 02:51:31 PM
I don't know that I have the motivation or time to examine this myself, but it seems to me you have drawn an arbitrary line to define your "Northern Germany". I would look for a more historic definition based perhaps on the major dialect divisions and run the southern boundary line of Northern Germany roughly from Köln to Dresden or, if that seems slightly too far south, from Düsseldorf to Leipzig.

Secondly, if you are drawing your ten U106+ from Northern Germany from the R1b-U106 Project's map, the one provided by FTDNA, I have to tell you those maps are notoriously inaccurate. What appears on those is determined entirely by project members. Many project members do not bother to enter a location on their "Plot Ancestral Locations" pages, and many of those who do never take the next step to have a pin placed in the project map at that location. So, what you are getting from those maps is probably an undercount. You would be getting merely those of North German ancestry who bothered to enter a location for their ancestor on their Plot Ancestral Locations pages.

Google maps like the ones I keep are far more accurate. They take a lot of work because I personally communicate with members to make sure the info is correct and squares with what they believe is the correct location. Often there is a conflict between what is in Ysearch and what is in "Plot Ancestral Locations" that can only be resolved by checking with the person.

Thirdly, you would be better off with Faux's database when it comes to U152. I know that he communicates with those on his page and questions them closely about their ancestral origins. Regardless of his own theories, he is pretty scrupulous about reporting honestly. When Faux says of German U152 (as he does on his database page), "None to date north of Koblenz", I think you can take that to the bank. Believe me, he has checked and double-checked.

I haven't attempted the bean counting you have, but I am pretty confident there are more than ten U106ers with ancestry in Northern Germany in the various FTDNA projects. I know what follows is anecdotal, but I can tell you from hunting for suitable recruits for both the R-P312 and Subclades Project and the R-L21 Plus Project that northern Germany is loaded with U106+. Some of them have not yet been tested but have 492=13 or the even more significant and telling combination of 390=23 together with 492=13.

I have to confess that this is something I don't care enough about to do the necessary footwork to get a really good, accurate overview of the distribution of U106. Nevertheless, I think my impression is fairly accurate: for every three North German R1b1b2s, two will be U106+ and one will be some kind of P312+. I think the reverse is true in SW Germany.

I have to work from personal experience because I don't know of an easily accessible source for U106 stats in North Germany. My personal experience consists of checking many many R1b1b2 haplotypes in Ysearch and elsewhere for matches, looking for project recruits. I have also had a lot of experience with U106+ and likely U106+ guys who have joined either the R-P312 and Subclades Project or the R-L21 Plus Project by mistake.

Probably Mike Maddi would be a good source for U106 stats, but I am not sure he would come here and share them.



Any line one chooses to divide north from south Germany is arbitrary. I chose Osnabrück/Hannover/Berlin because it formed a generally east to west line that was easily identifiable on the Google maps and it isolated the northernmost portion of the country, including a large swath of the north German plain that runs across the country. If U106 was truly so dominant in northern Germany, I would have expected to find evidence of it in the northernmost portion of the country.

You may well be right that the U106 project map isn't as inclusive as those you maintain for L21 and P312*. But surely that must apply across the board, and not just to those members from northern Germany. Look at the map and zoom in on Germany. The heaviest concentration isn't in northern Germany, but rather in an area extending south from the Frankfurt area.

As for U152, I don't claim it has a strong presence in northern Germany. Two results in many years of testing would indicate otherwise. There were actually three listed on the FTDNA U152 project map, but I excluded one because he appeared to be of possible Lithuanian origin. I don't take what Faux has to say on anything as gospel, because I know he has a tendency to find some way to  data which does not correspond with his preconceptions.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 27, 2010, 03:14:14 PM
I've been looking back over this stuff a little (not much though), and I must say, Goldenhind brings up some good points. I'm still not convinced he is right, and I still think the overall distribution of P312+ is a better fit for Celtic than Germanic, but what he has written does raise some questions about what we have been led to believe about U106.

I think the thing to do would be to test a random sample of 50 or so North German R1b1b2s and see how they come out. Choosing the sample would be tough. If you allow too many of those with 390=23, you are going to get a disproportionate number of U106+, so you would have to try to get a representative sample of North German R1b1b2 haplotypes.

In his old (2005) paper entitled, "Variations of R1b Ydna in Europe: Distribution and Origins" (http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe), A.A. Foster reported that

Quote
Within the North Sea-Baltic area (Northern  Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway) a sample of 1,227 haplotypes showed the R1b DYS390 percentages to be:    

DYS 390=25... 10.1%.

DYS 390=24... 46.6%.

DYS 390=23... 38.1%.

DYS 390=22...   3.7%
.

Although some 390=23 is P312+, 23 at 390 is disproportionately represented within U106.

Foster did not report on how much of that 390=23 was North German or on how he defined "Northern Germany".

Perhaps the easiest path would be to just use the figures he supplied and get haplotypes with those values at 390 in the proportions he listed. I would go with 12-marker haplotypes, so that it would not be possible to predict the outcome and stack the deck one way or the other (in other words, you would be blind regarding 492).

The sample population could be recruited from the Germany Project, but one would have to be careful to screen potential recruits to try to be sure their ancestry is genuinely North German. Donations could probably be raised and a general fund created specifically for such a project.

Ideally, every sample would get FTDNA's Deep Clade-R test, and it might even be possible to convince FTDNA to offer a slight price break [why that d-word for "price break" cannot be used here baffles me] of some kind. If money were a real concern (and when is it not?), it might be possible to get FTDNA to just test the samples minimally for P312 and U106 and to report only on those two SNPs.

You know, this is not a bad idea, if I do say so myself. I wonder if one could just create new FTDNA projects based on member/donor-funded SNP testing. I mean, that is a big part of our raison d'être in the R-L21 Plus Project, and we have been pretty successful at doing it.

I guess the big issue might be territorial jealousy. If one set up a project for SNP testing Germans, for example, he might run afoul of the guys who administer the Germany Project, and so on.

Any thoughts?


DYS 390 isn't a reliable predictor of U106/P312 status, and focusing on it won't provide accurate results. Also 390=23 is a characteristic of the Frisian cluster, which only constitutes a portion of one U106 subclade (L48- per Maddi). One of the points I am trying to make is that one shouldn't define all of U106 by the characteristics of only one of its constituent parts.

One could focus on 492 results from members of the Germany project from north Germany who have tested 67 markers. However even this marker only gives results with an accuracy of only around 90%, and one is still left with the problem of defining north Germany. Perhaps Alan, Jean (are you there Jean?) or someone else would care to chime in where they think the line should be drawn.

In looking at the FTDNA projects though, one must keep in mind that U106 has had the advantage of several years of testing over P312 and L21, so one would expect U106 to have a strong numerical advantage in any area where they form roughly equal portions.

What is really needed is random sampling of a large number of R1bs from northern Germany.

If you were to focus on SNP testing of likely P312 in Scandinavia and north Germany, in much the same way you have done with France and Iberia, we might find the P312 subclades have a much stronger presence there than most people believe.

Finally let me make it clear that I do not claim that P312 isn't outnumbered by U106 in northern Germany. That may or may not be, but I am beginning to suspect that the case has been overstated, and that the concentration of U106 in Germany isn't in fact in the far north of the country. I am also beginning to suspect that whatever presence U106 does have in north Germany may be largely composed of only a portion of U106, and does not apply to all of its subclades.



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 27, 2010, 04:13:24 PM
I think a big part of the problem is the sampling process, like you said GoldenHind.

There is bound to be more P312* and subclades in Scandinavia. There are still some Danish and Dutch folks who are unaccounted for, yet L21+ on the FTDNA Haplotree page. But I know it is near impossible to contact them.

I have perused the Sorenson database and actually found a number of Scandinavian matches to the Irish Sea Modal. The Norwegian matches are really close to our Norwegian and Western Scottish L159+. So I think a complete, random sample like you guys are talking about would do wonders in improving our understanding of Scandinavian R1b1b2.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 08:18:50 AM

. . .

Any line one chooses to divide north from south Germany is arbitrary.

Not really. A line could be drawn, as I pointed out, that corresponds more closely with the old northern, Niederdeutsch or "Plattdeutsch" dialect division of Germany. Your line was too far north to correspond to that. A line from to Düsseldorf to Leipzig or Köln to Dresden would be much more accurate.

Such a line would not be arbitrary at all but would actually be based on the traditional notion of what is northern Germany, which is only partly about geography.

You may well be right that the U106 project map isn't as inclusive as those you maintain for L21 and P312*. But surely that must apply across the board, and not just to those members from northern Germany. Look at the map and zoom in on Germany. The heaviest concentration isn't in northern Germany, but rather in an area extending south from the Frankfurt area.

It does apply across the board, but you were talking about Northern Germany and the number of U106ers there, so the number of U106ers missed on other parts of the map isn't really relevant. The number of North German U106ers missed on the R1b-U106 Project map is a potential problem if you were relying on it.

As for U152, I don't claim it has a strong presence in northern Germany. Two results in many years of testing would indicate otherwise. There were actually three listed on the FTDNA U152 project map, but I excluded one because he appeared to be of possible Lithuanian origin. I don't take what Faux has to say on anything as gospel, because I know he has a tendency to find some way to  data which does not correspond with his preconceptions.

I have had my share of issues with Faux, but I know he screens what he reports on his database very carefully, and the U152 Project does not. I think he probably found that those "North German" U152s were not actually of North German origin. In fact, he reports that one, Stampa, has a Swiss match of the same surname and actually originated in Switzerland. I cannot confirm that, and I am not going to bother to check it out, but I suspect Faux is right, because I know he does bother to check.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 08:36:13 AM

DYS 390 isn't a reliable predictor of U106/P312 status, and focusing on it won't provide accurate results. Also 390=23 is a characteristic of the Frisian cluster, which only constitutes a portion of one U106 subclade (L48- per Maddi). One of the points I am trying to make is that one shouldn't define all of U106 by the characteristics of only one of its constituent parts.

390=23 isn't reliable as an absolute predictor of U106+ status (I never said it was), but it is a fairly reasonable predictor of the likelihood that one is U106+, especially in locations like Northern Germany.

It is a fact that 390=23 is more frequent within U106 than in other R1b1b2 subclades. That is especially true in Northern Europe.

Besides, I never said one should focus on 390=23. What I said was that its presence in a North German testing pool would have to be balanced or one would get a result that would be skewed to U106+. And that is a fact.

390=23 in U106 is common enough that I generally will not pay for an L21 test for someone who has it unless he also has a 67-marker haplotype and 492=12. I certainly would not offer to pay for the L21 test of a German with 390=23 and no 492 result to check! That would be like flushing money down the toilet.



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 08:47:18 AM
I think a big part of the problem is the sampling process, like you said GoldenHind.

There is bound to be more P312* and subclades in Scandinavia. There are still some Danish and Dutch folks who are unaccounted for, yet L21+ on the FTDNA Haplotree page. But I know it is near impossible to contact them.

I have perused the Sorenson database and actually found a number of Scandinavian matches to the Irish Sea Modal. The Norwegian matches are really close to our Norwegian and Western Scottish L159+. So I think a complete, random sample like you guys are talking about would do wonders in improving our understanding of Scandinavian R1b1b2.

Neal,

All you are going to accomplish by finding matches to the "Irish Sea Modal" in Scandinavia is to bolster the idea that boatloads of Irish thralls were hauled there during the Viking Era. Honestly, that is the first impression that even I get when I hear of such a thing, and I definitely don't look for an Irishman under every rock.

Much as I am loath to admit it, there are several of our L21+ Scandinavian guys who appear to be of Scottish ancestry. There's no denying it. I don't think that means that all L21 in Scandinavia is necessarily of British Isles provenance, but it is a weakness when one tries arguing otherwise. Another of our L21+ Scandinavian guys has an ancestral surname most common in Austria.

I haven't investigated the P312* Scandinavian contingent closely, and I probably won't, but it is possible that not all of them are strictly Scandinavian either.

Of course, the same could be true of some of the U106 Scandinavians, as well.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 28, 2010, 12:08:57 PM
I think a big part of the problem is the sampling process, like you said GoldenHind.

There is bound to be more P312* and subclades in Scandinavia. There are still some Danish and Dutch folks who are unaccounted for, yet L21+ on the FTDNA Haplotree page. But I know it is near impossible to contact them.

I have perused the Sorenson database and actually found a number of Scandinavian matches to the Irish Sea Modal. The Norwegian matches are really close to our Norwegian and Western Scottish L159+. So I think a complete, random sample like you guys are talking about would do wonders in improving our understanding of Scandinavian R1b1b2.
.... Much as I am loath to admit it, there are several of our L21+ Scandinavian guys who appear to be of Scottish ancestry. There's no denying it. I don't think that means that all L21 in Scandinavia is necessarily of British Isles provenance, but it is a weakness when one tries arguing otherwise. Another of our L21+ Scandinavian guys has an ancestral surname most common in Austria.
...
RMS2, which L21+ guys in Scandinavia do you think are of a Scottish lineage?  How do you know that it isn't the other way around... that the Scottish guys aren't of Scandinavian origin?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 12:37:35 PM
Take a look at Ausland, kit 36081, Ysearch VVCYQ; Erickson, kit N5620, Ysearch nsp69; and Dundas, kit 82542, Ysearch XAVVM.

While it is remotely possible that all their numerous Scots matches are the descendants of Norwegians, it doesn't seem likely. Dundas actually has a family tradition of Scottish ancestry that predates his dna testing (not to mention a Scottish surname), and his genetic case for Scottish ancestry is weaker than the first two, in my opinion.

Those three I could think of off the top of my head. I would have to go back and look at the rest to see if there are any others.



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 28, 2010, 02:49:50 PM
...my impression is that P312 (I'm talking about P312 as a whole, including all its subclades and not just R-P312*) is the biggest division of R1b1b2 in Europe, bigger than U106 and its clades. Therefore it is not at all surprising that the P312+ group as a whole rivals U106 in the old Germanic lands. But I think it is also true that the center of gravity of the P312+ group is more western than that of the U106+ group, which is why P312 is often associated with the Celts. In general (please note that I said, in general), the distribution of the P312+ group in Europe fits the Celtic pattern better than it does the Germanic pattern. And it does seem pretty apparent that the distribution of the U106+ group fits the Germanic pattern reasonably well.

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

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

Following this excellent example, I've expanded on my bare list of haplogroups (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#wandering) to say:

Quote
As we shall see, the Germani apparently sprang from a mixture of peoples. So it is no surprise that they did not have just one genetic marker, to judge by their descendants. If and when scientists find ancient Y-DNA from men that we can guess spoke Proto-Germanic, it is most likely to be a mixture of I1, R1a1a, R1b-U106 and R1b-P312, to name only the most common haplogroups. As mentioned in the Indo-European genetics section, R1a1a is shared by Germanic, Baltic and Slavic speakers. R1b-P312 peaks in western Europe and correlates best with the former Celtic and Italic speaking zone. Its subclade R1b-L21 is strongly concentrated in the more northerly former Celtic-speaking region. So the presence of R1b-P312* and R1b-L21 in present-day Germanic-speakers no doubt partly reflects migration from former Celtic areas into Scandinavia over the centuries, and partly the fact that Germanic speakers spread out over parts of the former Celtic area, absorbing existing populations as they went. Yet some may have arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with Bell Beaker folk or even Corded Ware. We should not imagine an impassible genetic divide between overlapping and interacting cultures.

R1b-U106 has its peak in northern Europe and a distribution which correlates fairly well with Germanic speakers, past and present. With an estimated date rather older than R1b-P312, it may have spread initially from the European steppe around 4000 BC among those who brought the Funnel Beaker Culture to Scandinavia and the Baltic. Or it may have been concentrated in the Usatovo Culture and spread north into Corded Ware. We can only speculate. Yet it seem safe to expect that it spread long before Proto-Germanic developed.

And hope not to get shot down in flames. :)


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 28, 2010, 03:42:13 PM
I think a big part of the problem is the sampling process, like you said GoldenHind.

There is bound to be more P312* and subclades in Scandinavia. There are still some Danish and Dutch folks who are unaccounted for, yet L21+ on the FTDNA Haplotree page. But I know it is near impossible to contact them.

I have perused the Sorenson database and actually found a number of Scandinavian matches to the Irish Sea Modal. The Norwegian matches are really close to our Norwegian and Western Scottish L159+. So I think a complete, random sample like you guys are talking about would do wonders in improving our understanding of Scandinavian R1b1b2.

Neal,

All you are going to accomplish by finding matches to the "Irish Sea Modal" in Scandinavia is to bolster the idea that boatloads of Irish thralls were hauled there during the Viking Era. Honestly, that is the first impression that even I get when I hear of such a thing, and I definitely don't look for an Irishman under every rock.

Much as I am loath to admit it, there are several of our L21+ Scandinavian guys who appear to be of Scottish ancestry. There's no denying it. I don't think that means that all L21 in Scandinavia is necessarily of British Isles provenance, but it is a weakness when one tries arguing otherwise. Another of our L21+ Scandinavian guys has an ancestral surname most common in Austria.

I haven't investigated the P312* Scandinavian contingent closely, and I probably won't, but it is possible that not all of them are strictly Scandinavian either.

Of course, the same could be true of some of the U106 Scandinavians, as well.

Rich,

I think there is some connection with the Irish Sea Modal and Scandinavia. It has to be more than coincidental that most of the Irish L159+ are from the counties of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and Kildare - and right across the sea we can find L159 in Northern England-Scottish Borders.

L159 is also in the Hebrides, and I was really surprised when I found the Norwegians and other Scandinavians matching the signature. I am not coming to conclusions, but it almost looks like the dispersal could be due to Norse-Gaels. It's just a theory, but everyone has their own opinions of R1b1b2 in Scandinavia.

I just don't think L21 there is attributed to slaves.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 28, 2010, 04:39:43 PM


 
Quote
As we shall see, the Germani apparently sprang from a mixture of peoples. So it is no surprise that they did not have just one genetic marker, to judge by their descendants. If and when scientists find ancient Y-DNA from men that we can guess spoke Proto-Germanic, it is most likely to be a mixture of I1, R1a1a, R1b-U106 and R1b-P312, to name only the most common haplogroups. As mentioned in the Indo-European genetics section, R1a1a is shared by Germanic, Baltic and Slavic speakers. R1b-P312 peaks in western Europe and correlates best with the former Celtic and Italic speaking zone. Its subclade R1b-L21 is strongly concentrated in the more northerly former Celtic-speaking region. So the presence of R1b-P312* and R1b-L21 in present-day Germanic-speakers no doubt partly reflects migration from former Celtic areas into Scandinavia over the centuries, and partly the fact that Germanic speakers spread out over parts of the former Celtic area, absorbing existing populations as they went. Yet some may have arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with Bell Beaker folk or even Corded Ware. We should not imagine an impassible genetic divide between overlapping and interacting cultures.

R1b-U106 has its peak in northern Europe and a distribution which correlates fairly well with Germanic speakers, past and present. With an estimated date rather older than R1b-P312, it may have spread initially from the European steppe around 4000 BC among those who brought the Funnel Beaker Culture to Scandinavia and the Baltic. Or it may have been concentrated in the Usatovo Culture and spread north into Corded Ware. We can only speculate. Yet it seem safe to expect that it spread long before Proto-Germanic developed.

And hope not to get shot down in flames. :)

You have taken a middle ground which throws a bone of sorts to both sides. I suspect it is  probably fairly close to the mark. I do disagree with some of your statements.

.
While it probably correct as a generalization that overall P312, or at least a substantial portion of it, correlates best with former Celtic and Italic speaking zones, it really ignores a strong presence of some P312 in the Germanic speaking zone, as well as in other areas which have no connection with either the Celtic or Germanic peoples.

You suggest that the primary explanation for the presence of P312 in Germanic speaking areas is due to later migration or the incorporation of Celts into Germanic speaking peoples, and only allow for a possibility that some P312 "may" have arrived in the Bronze Age. There really isn't any proof of when the bulk of P312 arrived in Germanic speaking areas, and I can't see any reason to emphasize the former scenario over the latter. My suspicion is that at least two P312 subclades (L165 and S182) are likely to have a strong association with Scandinavia. If so, it will be very difficult to dismiss them as an incorporation of Celts or a result of modern migration.

The possible connection between U106 and the Funnel Beaker Culture is an interesting one. Incidentally, I recently read somewhere a suggestion that U106 represented the Bell Beakers.

I previously posted the Myres' study results from Denmark. Here are their results for Germany:

Sample size: 332

R1b-M269: 143 (43.1% of the total)

U106 (XU198): 62 (18.7%)

U198: 6 (1.8%)

U106 + U198: 68 (20.5%)

R1b-M269 (XU106,U198): 75 (22.6%)

Again it is reasonable to assume the latter group is all or very nearly all P312. This is a large sampling in a peer-reviewed study with some very respected names in the field.

Which is more likely, that P312 attained an apparent majority status in Germany solely due to the incorporation of Celts during the Iron Age and later migration, or that P312 had a strong presence amongst the Germanic speaking peoples dating to the Nordic Bronze Age?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 07:11:41 PM


Rich,

I think there is some connection with the Irish Sea Modal and Scandinavia. It has to be more than coincidental that most of the Irish L159+ are from the counties of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and Kildare - and right across the sea we can find L159 in Northern England-Scottish Borders.

L159 is also in the Hebrides, and I was really surprised when I found the Norwegians and other Scandinavians matching the signature. I am not coming to conclusions, but it almost looks like the dispersal could be due to Norse-Gaels. It's just a theory, but everyone has their own opinions of R1b1b2 in Scandinavia.

I just don't think L21 there is attributed to slaves.

Neal,

L159 is young relative to L21 and virtually limited to Ireland, with perhaps some British additions. I think you are going to have a real uphill battle to convince anyone (even me, and I want to believe) that it was brought to Ireland from Scandinavia and not vice versa.

You would have to find enough L159 in Scandinavia to show its haplotypes are older there than in Ireland and the rest of the British Isles. I do wish you the best of success with that, but I doubt it can be done . . . ever.

I think the default setting on L159 in Scandinavia is the dreaded Viking Era slave trade. To a certain extent that may even be an element of L21 in Scandinavia as a whole.

But when you have a clade like L159 that shows up almost nowhere but Ireland and also pops up in a very few Scandinavians, what else can one reasonably conclude?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 28, 2010, 07:14:56 PM

You suggest that the primary explanation for the presence of P312 in Germanic speaking areas is due to later migration or the incorporation of Celts into Germanic speaking peoples, and only allow for a possibility that some P312 "may" have arrived in the Bronze Age.

I don't suggest anything as a primary reason.  I merely mention the possibility of Celtic input first, since that follows logically from the statements before that, which need to be first to make it crystal clear that P312 does not mean Germanic. It is not a Germanic marker and that needs to be said. I can't be much stronger than "may" have arrived with Bell Beaker, because I cannot prove that it did. But I could run to "reasonable supposition".  :)

[Added] Wording amended in the original.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 07:27:56 PM

. . .

Which is more likely, that P312 attained an apparent majority status in Germany solely due to the incorporation of Celts during the Iron Age and later migration, or that P312 had a strong presence amongst the Germanic speaking peoples dating to the Nordic Bronze Age?


I don't know, but I think it is entirely possible that there were enough Celts in Germany to account for the majority of German R1b1b2 lines, yes. I could be wrong, but I believe historically the southern and western parts of Germany have generally always been the most populous, and those were precisely the areas inhabited by Celts.

I used to teach German (but I am really rusty now), and I recall reading that High German (Hochdeutsch) actually shows signs of Celtic influence, whereas English is regarded as not showing much Celtic influence at all, even though we know what is now England was lousy with Celts.

As I recall from reading Gerhard Herm's The Celts, that German author considered the Celtic component to be the biggest part of what went into the German mix. He could have been wrong, I suppose.

Regarding the figures from Myres et al that you cited, I wouldn't disregard the P310- element in Germany, which would probably account for at least some of that xU106 stuff, enough to account for a few percent anyway.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 28, 2010, 07:46:48 PM

You suggest that the primary explanation for the presence of P312 in Germanic speaking areas is due to later migration or the incorporation of Celts into Germanic speaking peoples, and only allow for a possibility that some P312 "may" have arrived in the Bronze Age.

I don't suggest anything as a primary reason.  I merely mention the possibility of Celtic input first, since that follows logically from the statements before that, which need to be first to make it crystal clear that P312 does not mean Germanic. It is not a Germanic marker and that needs to be said. I can't be much stronger than "may" have arrived with Bell Beaker, because I cannot prove that it did. But I could run to "reasonable supposition".  :)

[Added] Wording amended in the original.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments, but I took the following to have that meaning:

"So the presence of R1b-P312* and R1b-L21 in present-day Germanic-speakers no doubt partly reflects migration from former Celtic areas into Scandinavia over the centuries, and partly the fact that Germanic speakers spread out over parts of the former Celtic area, absorbing existing populations as they went."

I have never claimed that P312 is a Germanic marker. I also don't think it is entirely a Celtic marker. I don't think most would disagree with that.

What I do suspect, based on the strong presence of P312 in Scandinavia and in Germany, is that some portion of it was present in Scandinavia and northern Germany at least since the Nordic Bronze Age. In my opinion the circumstantial evidence in support of that proposition is fairly strong. That it may have arrived with the Bell Beakers is certainly a reasonable supposition, but of course other possibilities cannot be excluded at this point.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 28, 2010, 07:49:50 PM
The best evidence comes from the % of various haplogroups in Scandinavia, rather than Germany. But even that is tricky, because modern populations are not safe proxies for ancient ones.  

  


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 28, 2010, 07:52:56 PM


Rich,

I think there is some connection with the Irish Sea Modal and Scandinavia. It has to be more than coincidental that most of the Irish L159+ are from the counties of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and Kildare - and right across the sea we can find L159 in Northern England-Scottish Borders.

L159 is also in the Hebrides, and I was really surprised when I found the Norwegians and other Scandinavians matching the signature. I am not coming to conclusions, but it almost looks like the dispersal could be due to Norse-Gaels. It's just a theory, but everyone has their own opinions of R1b1b2 in Scandinavia.

I just don't think L21 there is attributed to slaves.

Neal,

L159 is young relative to L21 and virtually limited to Ireland, with perhaps some British additions. I think you are going to have a real uphill battle to convince anyone (even me, and I want to believe) that it was brought to Ireland from Scandinavia and not vice versa.

You would have to find enough L159 in Scandinavia to show its haplotypes are older there than in Ireland and the rest of the British Isles. I do wish you the best of success with that, but I doubt it can be done . . . ever.

I think the default setting on L159 in Scandinavia is the dreaded Viking Era slave trade. To a certain extent that may even be an element of L21 in Scandinavia as a whole.

But when you have a clade like L159 that shows up almost nowhere but Ireland and also pops up in a very few Scandinavians, what else can one reasonably conclude?

Hi Rich,

Actually the variance between samples is much higher in the Scandinavians. And L159 showing "up almost nowhere but Ireland" illustrates the lack of understanding of the subclade's presence in both Great Britain and Ireland. It is present considerably in Northern England, the Scottish Borders, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Outer and Inner Hebrides, and in Northern Scotland near Caithness and Sutherland.

I am not here to convince anyone else, only myself of the patterns of L159. You are right that nothing is always certain in this field, but the clustering of the subclade in certain areas supports the settlement of Norse-Gaels. The Scandinavians I observed are located in More, Norway; Tromso, Norway; Aalborg, Denmark; and Kristianstad, Sweden.

I can reasonably conclude that there is an uncanny connection to the movements of Norse-Gaels.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 08:02:30 PM


Hi Rich,

Actually the variance between samples is much higher in the Scandinavians. And L159 showing "up almost nowhere but Ireland" illustrates the lack of understanding of the subclade's presence in both Great Britain and Ireland. It is present considerably in Northern England, the Scottish Borders, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Outer and Inner Hebrides, and in Northern Scotland near Caithness and Sutherland.

I am not here to convince anyone else, only myself of the patterns of L159. You are right that nothing is always certain in this field, but the clustering of the subclade in certain areas supports the settlement of Norse-Gaels. The Scandinavians I observed are located in More, Norway; Tromso, Norway; Aalborg, Denmark; and Kristianstad, Sweden.

I can reasonably conclude that there is an uncanny connection to the movements of Norse-Gaels.

Well, I have my doubts. For one thing, none of the Scandinavians you found in SMGF has been tested for L159. You can't really consider them until they have been tested.

Are you saying that the greatest proportion of L159 is something other than Irish?

Has it been found on the continent in any numbers?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 28, 2010, 08:16:11 PM
Well, it has been found in Southern Germany, but some paternal issues are surfacing with that.

Other than that, I have surfed French, Iberian, and Dutch projects and have not found the haplotype.

I'd say the greatest proportion of L159 is coming out of the Scottish-English Borders and Yorkshire. At first, I thought this was due to the Celtic Brigantes, but then multiple folks with ties to Clan Donald were matching the L159 signature or coming back L159+. Then I found samples from the Hebrides (Matheson, MacSween, McQueen) who matched it.

I'm telling you, the samples from Ireland are based on the east coast, and the ones in Northern Ireland have names like McCabe or MacLachlan, and have gallowglass connections.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 28, 2010, 08:17:57 PM
Another example of what I consider to be the pernicious influence of the "equation" (if I may use that shorthand term for what I am complaining about), is that only P312 are suspected to be the result of the Viking slave trade when found in Scandinavia. Did the Vikings only take slaves from Celtic lands? Were no U106 taken as slaves from Anglo-Saxon England? They certainly raided Anglo-Saxon England as much as they did in Scotland and Ireland, if not more so. Yet in all my years of perusing these forums, I have never heard anyone suggest that any U106 in Scandinavia could possibly have been the result of the slave trade, or the result of later migration to the area.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 28, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
The best evidence comes from the % of various haplogroups in Scandinavia, rather than Germany. But even that is tricky, because modern populations are not safe proxies for ancient ones.  

  

Agreed. If you didn't see it, please see my post #45 on page 2 of this thread for the result of the Myres' study in Denmark.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2010, 09:11:04 PM
Another example of what I consider to be the pernicious influence of the "equation" (if I may use that shorthand term for what I am complaining about), is that only P312 are suspected to be the result of the Viking slave trade when found in Scandinavia. Did the Vikings only take slaves from Celtic lands? Were no U106 taken as slaves from Anglo-Saxon England? They certainly raided Anglo-Saxon England as much as they did in Scotland and Ireland, if not more so. Yet in all my years of perusing these forums, I have never heard anyone suggest that any U106 in Scandinavia could possibly have been the result of the slave trade, or the result of later migration to the area.

Well, you missed my arguments with Faux on that subject from a few years ago then, before we even knew P312 existed. He was arguing then that most of the old R1b1c* (R1b1b2 now) in Scandinavia got there in the bodies of thralls. I replied with essentially what you are saying. I emphasized the fact that the Vikings were especially strong in eastern England, where there is plenty of U106 (known as S21 back then), I1 (I1a back then), and U152 (old S28). I said they were all as likely as any R1b1c* to have been transported to Scandinavia in the bodies of thralls, and that, given his reasoning, any haplogroup found in England and in Scandinavia could be thrall or viking or a combination of the two and there is no way to know which individual's ancestor was which. (Actually, that is essentially correct.)

However, I do think L159 is a different subject. It looks to be almost strictly a British Isles clade and probably too young to have originated on the continent. I could be wrong about that, but I'm just expressing my honest opinion. I think it's a lot like M222: when it shows up in Scandinavia it's an import.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 28, 2010, 09:32:24 PM
Another example of what I consider to be the pernicious influence of the "equation" (if I may use that shorthand term for what I am complaining about), is that only P312 are suspected to be the result of the Viking slave trade when found in Scandinavia. Did the Vikings only take slaves from Celtic lands? Were no U106 taken as slaves from Anglo-Saxon England? They certainly raided Anglo-Saxon England as much as they did in Scotland and Ireland, if not more so. Yet in all my years of perusing these forums, I have never heard anyone suggest that any U106 in Scandinavia could possibly have been the result of the slave trade, or the result of later migration to the area.

Well, you missed my arguments with Faux on that subject from a few years ago then, before we even knew P312 existed. He was arguing then that most of the old R1b1c* (R1b1b2 now) in Scandinavia got there in the bodies of thralls. I replied with essentially what you are saying. I emphasized the fact that the Vikings were especially strong in eastern England, where there is plenty of U106 (known as S21 back then), I1 (I1a back then), and U152 (old S28). I said they were all as likely as any R1b1c* to have been transported to Scandinavia in the bodies of thralls, and that, given his reasoning, any haplogroup found in England and in Scandinavia could be thrall or viking or a combination of the two and there is no way to know which individual's ancestor was which. (Actually, that is essentially correct.)

However, I do think L159 is a different subject. It looks to be almost strictly a British Isles clade and probably too young to have originated on the continent. I could be wrong about that, but I'm just expressing my honest opinion. I think it's a lot like M222: when it shows up in Scandinavia it's an import.

Earl Beatty with the 464X Project said the TMRCA for the CCGG/L159 mutation could be somewhere in the Early Middle Ages, right around the time Norway held possessions along Western Scotland, the Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. Of course, Norwegian longphorts were in Leinster as well.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 07:24:42 AM
Earl Beatty with the 464X Project said the TMRCA for the CCGG/L159 mutation could be somewhere in the Early Middle Ages, right around the time Norway held possessions along Western Scotland, the Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. Of course, Norwegian longphorts were in Leinster as well.

So, unless it starts showing up on the Continent in great numbers, it seems there are only two possibilities: 1) L159 originated in Ireland or someplace else in the British Isles and pops up here and there in Scandinavia as an import, or 2) it originated in Scandinavia and was brought to the British Isles by Vikings.

Personally, and I mean no offense, I think possibility #2 is a real longshot and very unlikely.

But who knows?



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 07:35:49 AM
I tried asking a couple of questions on Rootsweb on the subject of whether or not U106 is uniquely Germanic. Here are the two most significant responses thus far.

Quote from: Tom Gull
Personal opinion: we were encouraged to believe that U106 is uniquely
Germanic because (a) years ago it was labelled "Frisian" from one piece of
deductive analysis and there was thought to be a measured peak in the
Netherlands and (b) this dovetailed nicely with a strongly-stated hypothesis
where it was very convenient for it to be labelled "Germanic" while another
major haplogroup was "Celtic". With enough buzz around it, this
dual-assignment label for the two haplogroups became so firmly entrenched
that it was easy to either ignore contradictory evidence or to move
geographic boundaries around to support it. There's a strong desire for
people to want to belong to a specific group and I think that was in play
here.

As to which haplogroup (if any) deserves to be labelled Germanic because of
a clear point of origin or a narrow geographic spread, I am neutral in the
sense that I don't remember clear evidence for any haplogroup having that
title. Nor do I think these widely spread haplogroups "owned" large areas of
Europe, blocking out other haplogroups.

To me, the Rhine and the Danube seem to factor heavily into the growth of
U106. There are three or four large haplogroups that overlap into those same
areas. Why one would be "proven" Germanic and another Celtic escapes me as a
piece of straightforward logic.

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt (Replying to Tom Gull's post above)
I think you increasingly mythologize the history of this broad subject each
time you comment on it.

U106 aka S21 was discovered some time AFTER the first evidence of a cline
concerning DYS 390/391 = 23/11 R1b.... was found in western Europe which
peaked in the general Netherlands, NW Germany, Denmark region ("Greater
Frisia" to give it the irritating nickname, although I see some vintage 2004
messages I sent out on this subject using the name "AngloSaxony" as well.)
The frequency cline for this variety of western R1b... was calibrated
relative to the 24/11 and 24/10 frequencies of R1b....... As far as I know,
the increased data of today does not change much these frequency shares as
we move from region to region in western europe. I have the original
frequencies obtained by geographically clustering the yhrd haplotypes. Then
additional STRs were found which correlated with the 23/11 motif, so we got
bonified clades. It was only after that that the snp U106/S21 was
discovered and found to correlate with the 23/11 cline. The snp had nothing
to do with the original observation of the cline which was geographical in
nature. Talking in terms of the frequencies of this tri-partition of
R1b..., the middle Rhine looks like a mixing zone for the 24/11 and 23/11
types of R1b.....

A decent case can be made, I believe, that the same peoples that spread
I1-AS (or at least some of the major clades of I1-AS) in Europe also spread
U106/S21. What language they spoke is difficult to say; the initial spread
may have begun before the IE languages came to that part of Europe ---
although we know the peoples of this region of Europe were on the move even
in Roman times. When the Celtic language went extinct in the upper Danube
region I don't know. What's the conventional wisdom on that?

If you look at the ydna makeup of northern Germany versus southern Germany
today, significant differences exist. I suspect that goes along with an
expansion of the peoples of the territory today called northern Germany into
the territory of today's southern Germany, but diluted in the latter region
by the indigenous peoples who were not eliminated but simply mixed with the
newcomers.

You can read the whole thread here:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-07/1280143673 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-07/1280143673)


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 29, 2010, 07:54:10 AM


Rich,

I think there is some connection with the Irish Sea Modal and Scandinavia. It has to be more than coincidental that most of the Irish L159+ are from the counties of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and Kildare - and right across the sea we can find L159 in Northern England-Scottish Borders.

L159 is also in the Hebrides, and I was really surprised when I found the Norwegians and other Scandinavians matching the signature. I am not coming to conclusions, but it almost looks like the dispersal could be due to Norse-Gaels. It's just a theory, but everyone has their own opinions of R1b1b2 in Scandinavia.

I just don't think L21 there is attributed to slaves.

Neal,

L159 is young relative to L21 and virtually limited to Ireland, with perhaps some British additions. I think you are going to have a real uphill battle to convince anyone (even me, and I want to believe) that it was brought to Ireland from Scandinavia and not vice versa.

You would have to find enough L159 in Scandinavia to show its haplotypes are older there than in Ireland and the rest of the British Isles. I do wish you the best of success with that, but I doubt it can be done . . . ever.

I think the default setting on L159 in Scandinavia is the dreaded Viking Era slave trade. To a certain extent that may even be an element of L21 in Scandinavia as a whole.

But when you have a clade like L159 that shows up almost nowhere but Ireland and also pops up in a very few Scandinavians, what else can one reasonably conclude?

Folks - what is this L159? In the ISOGG SNP index L159 = I2a1.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 08:01:31 AM
Earl Beatty with the 464X Project said the TMRCA for the CCGG/L159 mutation could be somewhere in the Early Middle Ages, right around the time Norway held possessions along Western Scotland, the Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. Of course, Norwegian longphorts were in Leinster as well.

So, unless it starts showing up on the Continent in great numbers, it seems there are only two possibilities: 1) L159 originated in Ireland or someplace else in the British Isles and pops up here and there in Scandinavia as an import, or 2) it originated in Scandinavia and was brought to the British Isles by Vikings.

Personally, and I mean no offense, I think possibility #2 is a real longshot and very unlikely.

But who knows?



Why would I be offended?

Rich, I still think of the possibility that L159 originated in Ireland/Britain, and that is what the 464X admins. are trying to calculate with the TMRCA. However, if these Scandinavian matches are legitimate, they have more variance than the Irish and British Isles folks. That is the interesting part.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:03:56 AM
Folks - what is this L159? In the ISOGG SNP index L159 = I2a1.

That's one of the problems with it. It is called "L159.2" within L21 because it was found first within I2a, but it's the same mutation in both groups. Because of some questions about its stability, ISOGG has not yet added it to the R Tree.

I seem to recall that it is not, strictly speaking, an SNP but acts kind of like one, but I might be mistaken on that and don't recall the details. It was discovered in the course of the WTY among some L21+ men, mostly Irish. Subsequently, other men have tested positive for it, almost all of them either of British Isles descent or with British Isles surnames.

There is an L159 Project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L159.2/default.aspx (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L159.2/default.aspx)



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:07:27 AM


Why would I be offended?

Rich, I still think of the possibility that L159 originated in Ireland/Britain, and that is what the 464X admins. are trying to calculate with the TMRCA. However, if these Scandinavian matches are legitimate, they have more variance than the Irish and British Isles folks. That is interesting part.


Has someone actually calculated that variance?

Are you talking about variance among Scandinavians who have actually been tested and found to be L159+?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jean M on July 29, 2010, 08:16:05 AM
Folks - what is this L159? In the ISOGG SNP index L159 = I2a1.

That's one of the problems with it. It is called "L159.2" within L21 because it was found first within I2a, but it's the same mutation in both groups. Because of some questions about its stability, ISOGG has not yet added it to the R Tree.

I seem to recall that it is not, strictly speaking, an SNP but acts kind of like one, but I might be mistaken on that and don't recall the details. It was discovered in the course of the WTY among some L21+ men, mostly Irish. Subsequently, other men have tested positive for it, almost all of them either of British Isles descent or with British Isles surnames.

There is an L159 Project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L159.2/default.aspx (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L159.2/default.aspx)

Many thanks!


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 08:16:44 AM


Why would I be offended?

Rich, I still think of the possibility that L159 originated in Ireland/Britain, and that is what the 464X admins. are trying to calculate with the TMRCA. However, if these Scandinavian matches are legitimate, they have more variance than the Irish and British Isles folks. That is interesting part.


Has someone actually calculated that variance?

Are you talking about variance among Scandinavians who have actually been tested and found to be L159+?

No, sir. I have only tested one Scandinavian for L159, and he was found to be L159+. But like I said in the previous post, if those other Scandinavians are legitimate matches to the modal (and very much look to be L159+) then the variance between haplotypes in Scandinavia is higher than in Britain or Ireland.

Our Duoos L159+ has a very close match with ancestry from Northern Norway. Both share off-modal values that none of the British and Irish folks have.

I was shocked to find that these Scandinavians matched the modal, but were further away from the Irish and British matches.

And L159 has been found in mostly Irish and British folks because as we all know... the database is flooded with them.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:22:21 AM
How unique is the modal you're talking about? Has everyone who has its key markers and who has been tested for L159 been L159+?

The British Isles are just lousy with L21. I doubt anyone would dispute that. R-L159 is a subclade of L21 and apparently much younger than its L21 ancestor. It is thus far, by far, most commonly found among men of British Isles ancestry.

So, you've got an L21+ subclade, found most commonly in the British Isles, in the midst of all that other British and Irish L21.

See how utterly tough it is to argue that the rest of the L21 around it is British but L159 is a relatively recent Norwegian transplant?

It's hard enough to argue that the L21 in Scandinavia isn't a relatively recent import from elsewhere, and L21 is probably 4,000-5,000 years old and found all over Europe.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
. . .
And L159 has been found in mostly Irish and British folks because as we all know... the database is flooded with them.

That's a good argument for clades with at least some number of continental results and a little age on them beyond the medieval period.

You're going to have to start really getting some continental results to make it work for L159.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 08:32:16 AM
How unique is the modal you're talking about? Has everyone who has its key markers and who has been tested for L159 been L159+?

The British Isles are just lousy with L21. I doubt anyone would dispute that. R-L159 is a subclade of L21 and apparently much younger than its L21 ancestor. It is thus far, by far, most commonly found among men of British Isles ancestry.

So, you've got an L21+ subclade, found most commonly in the British Isles, in the midst of all that other British and Irish L21.

See how utterly tough it is to argue that the rest of the L21 around it is British but L159 is a relatively recent Norwegian transplant?

It's hard enough to argue that the L21 in Scandinavia isn't a relatively recent import from elsewhere, and L21 is probably 4,000-5,000 years old and found all over Europe.

The answer to question 1 is a resounding yes. Everyone I have recruited for the L159 Project - and matches the modal - has come back L159+. But the interesting part is that 90% of these guys have ancestry in coastal Leinster or Northern England (now more from Western Scotland are coming back L159+).

Rich, you know I believe L21 in Scandinavia (and Norway especially) was brought there before the distinction of Celtic-Germanic. And even though L21 is, as you say, lousy in Great Britain, L159 is not common at all there. But when it is common, it comes up in certain spots, known to have been frequented by the Norse.

So far all intents and purposes, it is not surprising that an uncommon subclade of L21 is showing up in these places. You know what though? I'd be happy to get an answer either way. I don't consider the hypothesis because I think I'm Magnus.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:44:20 AM
Okay, Neal, good luck with that.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 08:53:26 AM
Okay, Neal, good luck with that.

Meh, I tried I suppose.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 09:40:08 AM
Although this thread is supposed to be about R1b1b2 in Sweden, I thought it wouldn't be too far off topic to mention that a new Norwegian R-P312* just joined the R-P312 and Subclades Project.

The ancestral surname, Liotaaen, looks Finnish to me, but he was born in Sævareid, just southeast of Bergen. That surname is given as "Ljotaa - Storevik" in Ysearch, so there is a discrepancy between the FTDNA Plot Ancestral Origins entry and the Ysearch entry.

The Ysearch ID is 5T6QZ.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 09:54:14 AM
Although this thread is supposed to be about R1b1b2 in Sweden, I thought it wouldn't be too far off topic to mention that a new Norwegian R-P312* just joined the R-P312 and Subclades Project.

The ancestral surname, Liotaaen, looks Finnish to me, but he was born in Sævareid, just southeast of Bergen. That surname is given as "Ljotaa - Storevik" in Ysearch, so there is a discrepancy between the FTDNA Plot Ancestral Origins entry and the Ysearch entry.

The Ysearch ID is 5T6QZ.

Excellent, sir.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 10:14:58 AM

The answer to question 1 is a resounding yes. Everyone I have recruited for the L159 Project - and matches the modal - has come back L159+. But the interesting part is that 90% of these guys have ancestry in coastal Leinster or Northern England (now more from Western Scotland are coming back L159+).
. . .

Sorry to reopen the L159 thing again, but is Ysearch 7UKVB the L159 modal you were referring to?

If so, there are plenty of people who match it exactly whom I know for a fact are L21- (and so L159-), like Blumenthal, Ysearch TDNF7; Ohlhaeuser, Ysearch ASWME; and Desaulniers, Ysearch GN22D. There are also any number of L21- guys who are just one off that L159 modal, including some who are R-L20.

That modal is not going to be much good for finding L159+.

You absolutely cannot count on those who match it in SMGF or Ysearch being L159+.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 12:17:26 PM
Actually, that is incorrect.

The L159 Ysearch ID that you mentioned does not abide by those values I gave you earlier.

Again, here they are:

DYS389i and ii: 14-30
DYS437/448: 15-18
DYS442: 11
DYS446:14

One must match the FULL sequence in order to be pursued for recruitment. That is why the SMGF matches do in fact match the modal perfectly. Also, I found that some matches in SMGF have corollaries at FTDNA: the same surname matches in the FTDNA database.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 12:22:17 PM
Wow, I just looked at Ohlhauser, and that guy misses on ALL of the key markers.

It is not common, I assure you.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 29, 2010, 06:06:49 PM

. . .

Which is more likely, that P312 attained an apparent majority status in Germany solely due to the incorporation of Celts during the Iron Age and later migration, or that P312 had a strong presence amongst the Germanic speaking peoples dating to the Nordic Bronze Age?


I don't know, but I think it is entirely possible that there were enough Celts in Germany to account for the majority of German R1b1b2 lines, yes. I could be wrong, but I believe historically the southern and western parts of Germany have generally always been the most populous, and those were precisely the areas inhabited by Celts.

I used to teach German (but I am really rusty now), and I recall reading that High German (Hochdeutsch) actually shows signs of Celtic influence, whereas English is regarded as not showing much Celtic influence at all, even though we know what is now England was lousy with Celts.

As I recall from reading Gerhard Herm's The Celts, that German author considered the Celtic component to be the biggest part of what went into the German mix. He could have been wrong, I suppose.

Regarding the figures from Myres et al that you cited, I wouldn't disregard the P310- element in Germany, which would probably account for at least some of that xU106 stuff, enough to account for a few percent anyway.

If the large portion of P312 present in Germany today is solely due to the incorporation of Celtic people to the west and south, I would expect to see significant differences in the Myres' results in Denmark. They just aren't that different. The amount of U106 (including U198) in Germany, stated as a percentage of M269, is 47.6%, only increasing to 51.3% in Denmark. The percentage of M269 (XU106,U198) in Germany is 52.4%, only decreasing to 48.7% in Denmark.

I don't think a case can be made for the massive incorporation of Celtic people in Denmark. As far as I know, most of the "modern"migration into Denmark has come from northern Germany.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 29, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
I tried asking a couple of questions on Rootsweb on the subject of whether or not U106 is uniquely Germanic. Here are the two most significant responses thus far.

Quote from: Tom Gull
Personal opinion: we were encouraged to believe that U106 is uniquely
Germanic because (a) years ago it was labelled "Frisian" from one piece of
deductive analysis and there was thought to be a measured peak in the
Netherlands and (b) this dovetailed nicely with a strongly-stated hypothesis
where it was very convenient for it to be labelled "Germanic" while another
major haplogroup was "Celtic". With enough buzz around it, this
dual-assignment label for the two haplogroups became so firmly entrenched
that it was easy to either ignore contradictory evidence or to move
geographic boundaries around to support it. There's a strong desire for
people to want to belong to a specific group and I think that was in play
here.

As to which haplogroup (if any) deserves to be labelled Germanic because of
a clear point of origin or a narrow geographic spread, I am neutral in the
sense that I don't remember clear evidence for any haplogroup having that
title. Nor do I think these widely spread haplogroups "owned" large areas of
Europe, blocking out other haplogroups.

To me, the Rhine and the Danube seem to factor heavily into the growth of
U106. There are three or four large haplogroups that overlap into those same
areas. Why one would be "proven" Germanic and another Celtic escapes me as a
piece of straightforward logic.

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt (Replying to Tom Gull's post above)
I think you increasingly mythologize the history of this broad subject each
time you comment on it.

U106 aka S21 was discovered some time AFTER the first evidence of a cline
concerning DYS 390/391 = 23/11 R1b.... was found in western Europe which
peaked in the general Netherlands, NW Germany, Denmark region ("Greater
Frisia" to give it the irritating nickname, although I see some vintage 2004
messages I sent out on this subject using the name "AngloSaxony" as well.)
The frequency cline for this variety of western R1b... was calibrated
relative to the 24/11 and 24/10 frequencies of R1b....... As far as I know,
the increased data of today does not change much these frequency shares as
we move from region to region in western europe. I have the original
frequencies obtained by geographically clustering the yhrd haplotypes. Then
additional STRs were found which correlated with the 23/11 motif, so we got
bonified clades. It was only after that that the snp U106/S21 was
discovered and found to correlate with the 23/11 cline. The snp had nothing
to do with the original observation of the cline which was geographical in
nature. Talking in terms of the frequencies of this tri-partition of
R1b..., the middle Rhine looks like a mixing zone for the 24/11 and 23/11
types of R1b.....

A decent case can be made, I believe, that the same peoples that spread
I1-AS (or at least some of the major clades of I1-AS) in Europe also spread
U106/S21. What language they spoke is difficult to say; the initial spread
may have begun before the IE languages came to that part of Europe ---
although we know the peoples of this region of Europe were on the move even
in Roman times. When the Celtic language went extinct in the upper Danube
region I don't know. What's the conventional wisdom on that?

If you look at the ydna makeup of northern Germany versus southern Germany
today, significant differences exist. I suspect that goes along with an
expansion of the peoples of the territory today called northern Germany into
the territory of today's southern Germany, but diluted in the latter region
by the indigenous peoples who were not eliminated but simply mixed with the
newcomers.

You can read the whole thread here:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-07/1280143673 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-07/1280143673)


It appears to me that Nordtvedt is speaking of the Frisian modal, which he also calls 23/11. As I said before, according to M. Maddi, this constitutes only a portion of one of the U106 subclades, L48. I have always conceeded that there is a correlation between some subclades of U106 with the Germanics and some subclades of P312 with the Celts. The point which I made earlier is that it is a logical fallacy to assume that something is true of all of an entity just because it is true of part of an entity. Where is the proof that U198  or L1 have an equally strong presence in "Greater Frisia?"

Even if what he says applies to all of U106- I note he is careful to speak of some of the major clades of I1-AS, rather than treating it as necessarily monolithic- I don't think you'll find him contending that there was no P312 in Scandinavia. After all, he is the one who identified the R1b-Norse cluster, which he has said is found throughout Scandinavia and does not appear to be young, and which I believe has now been established as part of P312. I have discussed this with him in emails, and he hasn't expressed any reservation about it.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 29, 2010, 06:42:10 PM
Rich bringing up P310 got me to thinking that it makes an excellent analogy to the way I view P312, and to a lesser extent U106.

Is P310 Celtic or Germanic?

Assuming there is a correlation between some P310 subclades with Celts or Germanics, does this establish that P310 must be one or the other?

If so, can one make that determination by counting up whether it is more common today in old Germanic lands or old Celtic lands?

I think most would agree that P310 is a pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic marker which existed in Europe before those cultures evolved. I doubt anyone would contend that a correlation of some of its subclades with Celts or Germanics, or counting up its presence today in old Celtic or Germanic lands, proves that P310 must have been one or the other, even as a generalization.

This is exactly how I look at P312, and to a lesser extent, U106.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:05:02 PM

. . .

Which is more likely, that P312 attained an apparent majority status in Germany solely due to the incorporation of Celts during the Iron Age and later migration, or that P312 had a strong presence amongst the Germanic speaking peoples dating to the Nordic Bronze Age?


I don't know, but I think it is entirely possible that there were enough Celts in Germany to account for the majority of German R1b1b2 lines, yes. I could be wrong, but I believe historically the southern and western parts of Germany have generally always been the most populous, and those were precisely the areas inhabited by Celts.

I used to teach German (but I am really rusty now), and I recall reading that High German (Hochdeutsch) actually shows signs of Celtic influence, whereas English is regarded as not showing much Celtic influence at all, even though we know what is now England was lousy with Celts.

As I recall from reading Gerhard Herm's The Celts, that German author considered the Celtic component to be the biggest part of what went into the German mix. He could have been wrong, I suppose.

Regarding the figures from Myres et al that you cited, I wouldn't disregard the P310- element in Germany, which would probably account for at least some of that xU106 stuff, enough to account for a few percent anyway.

If the large portion of P312 present in Germany today is solely due to the incorporation of Celtic people to the west and south, I would expect to see significant differences in the Myres' results in Denmark. They just aren't that different. The amount of U106 (including U198) in Germany, stated as a percentage of M269, is 47.6%, only increasing to 51.3% in Denmark. The percentage of M269 (XU106,U198) in Germany is 52.4%, only decreasing to 48.7% in Denmark.

I don't think a case can be made for the massive incorporation of Celtic people in Denmark. As far as I know, most of the "modern"migration into Denmark has come from northern Germany.

You used the word "solely"; I did not. I said I think it is possible that the majority of German R1b1b2 lines are Celtic in origin.

I still suspect the cline in U106 from North Germany to Denmark is more uniform than the cline of P312 from Germany to Denmark. In other words, I suspect there is markedly less P312 in Northern Germany than in Southern Germany and more U106 in Northern Germany than in Southern Germany. That may not be readily apparent from projects with confusing geographic categories or no geographic categories, but I think it is apparent from haplotype comparisons, like the following from Ken Nordtvedt.

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
I have just copied and pasted my mid-2004 message below.

A = 24, 11, 13
B = 24, 10, 13
C = 23, 11, 13
at 390,391,392

Haplotype A is the truncated Atlantic Modal Haplotype. I quote below the
percentages these three forms contribute to the "R1b" populations (of their
summed contributions) by region in Europe from the YHRD database.

Spain --- 67% --- 22% --- 11% in order A,B,C
France --- 61% --- 26% --- 13%

Ireland --- 57% --- 25% --- 18%
London --- 53% --- 28% --- 19%

Rhine --- 51% --- 27% --- 22%
South Germania --- 48% --- 24% --- 28%
Southeast Germania --- 44% --- 22% --- 35%
Northeast Germania --- 44% --- 25% --- 31%

Anglo-Saxony --- 40% --- 20% --- 40% [Denmark, Netherlands, NW Germania]

Scandinavia --- 51% --- 20% --- 29%
(Finland hardly got any R1bs, so this is mainly Norway + Sweden)

Eastern Europe --- 51% --- 21% --- 28%

North Italia --- 49% --- 26% --- 25%

Some in haplotypes A and B will be U106+, but the bulk of those in haplotype C in Germany and Scandinavia will be U106+.

You can see that the frequency of haplotype C in what Ken called "Anglo-Saxony" was 40%.

All one has to do is glance at the R1b-U106 project to see how prevalent 390=23 is among U106ers.

This Rootsweb post (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-10/1161227276), while a bit dated, mentions a comparison of 1,866 67-marker R1b1b2 haplotypes relative to 390=23 and 492=13 and 492=12. 56% of the 492=13 group had 390=23, while only 7% of the 492=12 group had 390=23.

So, while 390=23 is not an infallible predictor of U106+ status, it is a reasonable predictor, especially in those areas where U106 is known to have a strong presence.

It is not true that all those with 390=23 and 492=13 belong to the so-called Frisian cluster; many of them do not.

I don't think a sizeable P312 component in Denmark or the rest of Scandinavia means that Germany's P312 isn't mostly Celtic. We know from history and archaeology that the Celts were strongly represented in Germany, especially in the South and West, where P312 is strongest. It is possible that at least part of the P312 in Scandinavia got there in the Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk, at least some of whom may have spoken Proto-Celtic. Assuming for the moment and for the sake of argument that the Beaker Folk were mostly P312, they would have been a decided minority in Scandinavia, since R1b1b2 as a whole is only about 25-30% of the y-dna there. Their early Celtic speech, if they had one, may simply have not taken hold and succumbed to early Germanic.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:22:28 PM
Actually, that is incorrect.

The L159 Ysearch ID that you mentioned does not abide by those values I gave you earlier.

Again, here they are:

DYS389i and ii: 14-30
DYS437/448: 15-18
DYS442: 11
DYS446:14

One must match the FULL sequence in order to be pursued for recruitment. That is why the SMGF matches do in fact match the modal perfectly. Also, I found that some matches in SMGF have corollaries at FTDNA: the same surname matches in the FTDNA database.

What is the full sequence? Those values above, with 14 at 389i and 16 (the R1b1b2 modal) at 389ii? I know you have to have at least eight markers to run a haplotype in Ysearch. What are the other two you are using?

Can you give me a Ysearch entry for your L159 modal?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 08:50:21 PM
Actually, that is incorrect.

The L159 Ysearch ID that you mentioned does not abide by those values I gave you earlier.

Again, here they are:

DYS389i and ii: 14-30
DYS437/448: 15-18
DYS442: 11
DYS446:14

One must match the FULL sequence in order to be pursued for recruitment. That is why the SMGF matches do in fact match the modal perfectly. Also, I found that some matches in SMGF have corollaries at FTDNA: the same surname matches in the FTDNA database.

What is the full sequence? Those values above, with 14 at 389i and 16 (the R1b1b2 modal) at 389ii? I know you have to have at least eight markers to run a haplotype in Ysearch. What are the other two you are using?

Can you give me a Ysearch entry for your L159 modal?

I ran the key markers along with 390=24 and 19=14 (to get the eight markers needed) in Ysearch and did not get a single verifiable non-British Isles match.

If it is UKCMV, which is the "DYS464x ccgg Project Modal", and much the same as BFHRM, the "Leinster (Lagin) Modal", the only folks I could find reasonably close all had British Isles surnames.









Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 29, 2010, 09:04:24 PM
Rich bringing up P310 got me to thinking that it makes an excellent analogy to the way I view P312, and to a lesser extent U106.

Is P310 Celtic or Germanic?

Assuming there is a correlation between some P310 subclades with Celts or Germanics, does this establish that P310 must be one or the other?

If so, can one make that determination by counting up whether it is more common today in old Germanic lands or old Celtic lands?

I think most would agree that P310 is a pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic marker which existed in Europe before those cultures evolved. I doubt anyone would contend that a correlation of some of its subclades with Celts or Germanics, or counting up its presence today in old Celtic or Germanic lands, proves that P310 must have been one or the other, even as a generalization.

This is exactly how I look at P312, and to a lesser extent, U106.

P312 and U106 are both P310+, so, if one is mostly Celtic, and the other mostly Germanic, beginning with the time those designations begin to mean anything, then the answer is that P310 is both.

The case with those who are currently P310* (and there are some in Germany) is similar to that for R-P312*. Their ancestor(s) broke off from the P310 line at some point upstream of both P312 and U106, but that doesn't mean they don't belong to some as-yet-undiscovered parallel P310+ subclade. We just don't know what that subclade is (or subclades are). Until we do, it's difficult to say what the paragroup currently known as P310* is. I haven't followed its distribution as a whole.

I am also not aware of the age estimates for P310, but it could predate the Celtic and Germanic languages and go back to Proto-Indo-European, or, if P310 was non-Indo-European, to the time before our ancestors learned to speak some form of Indo-European.

It is not necessary to be able to trace the Celtic/Germanic branches of the Indo-European language family back to genetic Adam to be able to generalize and say that the distribution of P312 is a good general fit for the Celts and that of U106 is a good general fit for the Germans.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 09:58:42 PM
Actually, that is incorrect.

The L159 Ysearch ID that you mentioned does not abide by those values I gave you earlier.

Again, here they are:

DYS389i and ii: 14-30
DYS437/448: 15-18
DYS442: 11
DYS446:14

One must match the FULL sequence in order to be pursued for recruitment. That is why the SMGF matches do in fact match the modal perfectly. Also, I found that some matches in SMGF have corollaries at FTDNA: the same surname matches in the FTDNA database.

What is the full sequence? Those values above, with 14 at 389i and 16 (the R1b1b2 modal) at 389ii? I know you have to have at least eight markers to run a haplotype in Ysearch. What are the other two you are using?

Can you give me a Ysearch entry for your L159 modal?

I ran the key markers along with 390=24 and 19=14 (to get the eight markers needed) in Ysearch and did not get a single verifiable non-British Isles match.

If it is UKCMV, which is the "DYS464x ccgg Project Modal", and much the same as BFHRM, the "Leinster (Lagin) Modal", the only folks I could find reasonably close all had British Isles surnames.









Duoos tested with FTDNA, but he has not posted his haplotype due to privacy reasons. Run the same search in SMGF, and tell me what continentals come up matching the signature.

The only ones are Scandinavians. Hmm, this is probably because Sorenson has a better sample from folks with Scandinavian ancestry than FTDNA. You always pointed out the fallacy of sampling bias in the FTDNA database.

You will also find some British matches from the counties of Lincolnshire (Kirk), Norfolk (Rix), and Durham (Mattinson). To be honest, the Durham match is not surprising because many L159+ folks have ancestry in Northern England - from Cumbria to Northumberland.

Actually, I think there are more samples who match the modal from Yorkshire and the East Midlands than any other place in England. Many of them have names ending in '-son' or inherit place names like Tharpe or Latham.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 29, 2010, 10:03:04 PM
Rich bringing up P310 got me to thinking that it makes an excellent analogy to the way I view P312, and to a lesser extent U106.

Is P310 Celtic or Germanic?

Assuming there is a correlation between some P310 subclades with Celts or Germanics, does this establish that P310 must be one or the other?

If so, can one make that determination by counting up whether it is more common today in old Germanic lands or old Celtic lands?

I think most would agree that P310 is a pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic marker which existed in Europe before those cultures evolved. I doubt anyone would contend that a correlation of some of its subclades with Celts or Germanics, or counting up its presence today in old Celtic or Germanic lands, proves that P310 must have been one or the other, even as a generalization.

This is exactly how I look at P312, and to a lesser extent, U106.

P312 and U106 are both P310+, so, if one is mostly Celtic, and the other mostly Germanic, beginning with the time those designations begin to mean anything, then the answer is that P310 is both.

The case with those who are currently P310* (and there are some in Germany) is similar to that for R-P312*. Their ancestor(s) broke off from the P310 line at some point upstream of both P312 and U106, but that doesn't mean they don't belong to some as-yet-undiscovered parallel P310+ subclade. We just don't know what that subclade is (or subclades are). Until we do, it's difficult to say what the paragroup currently known as P310* is. I haven't followed its distribution as a whole.

I am also not aware of the age estimates for P310, but it could predate the Celtic and Germanic languages and go back to Proto-Indo-European, or, if P310 was non-Indo-European, to the time before our ancestors learned to speak some form of Indo-European.

It is not necessary to be able to trace the Celtic/Germanic branches of the Indo-European language family back to genetic Adam to be able to generalize and say that the distribution of P312 is a good general fit for the Celts and that of U106 is a good general fit for the Germans.

Rich,

I appreciate your wisdom on this, and I concur that you have a better understanding of early R1b1b2 than me. But I will say that it is equally (if not more so) plausible that when P310 split, some P312* went north and became Germanic, while others moved south into the Celto-Italic world.

Like GoldenHind said, I just don't see how R1b1b2 in Scandinavia can be so clear cut. Both P312 and U106 have a strong presence there, with P312 holding a majority in Scandinavia overall.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 30, 2010, 08:01:21 AM
I never said P312 was 100% Celtic and nothing but. It's obvious to even the casual observer that it's not.

I said it is possible to generalize and say that, in general, the distribution of P312 as a whole is a pretty good fit for the Celts, while the distribution of U106, in general, is a better fit for the Germans.

First off, it is possible to go from Celtic to Germanic or the reverse in a very short time, since those are ethno-linguistic terms and not things that are absolute and eternally immutable. A tribe that was essentially an extended family group could be solidly P312 in its y-dna, speak Celtic and worship the Celtic gods in great-great-grandpa's day and yet be fully Germanic a few generations later. The same could be true, in reverse, of a tribe that was speaking Germanic in great-great-grandpa's day.

Strictly speaking, P312 is a y-dna SNP that represents a major division of P310, not an ethno-linguistic group. The same is true of U106. So, if one took a P312+ baby and dropped him in Tokyo to be raised as a Japanese, he would be Japanese. Genetically he wouldn't be much like the other Japanese, but linguistically and culturally he would be.

So, this, for me anyway, is not about specific individual results or exceptions. It is about generalizing and finding things that are true of the big picture.

If we cannot do that, if we must say that y-dna in Europe is such a total hodge-podge that there aren't any recognizable clines in the distribution of y haplogroups, then "Deep Ancestry" is pretty much a waste of time, and one thing is pretty much the same as another. One cannot say, for example, that R1a in Europe is generally Slavic because - by gum! - there are a few R1as here and there in Scotland.

I think it is possible to generalize, as long as one realizes that is what is being done. It is possible to have a general rule or true statement about a thing without necessarily being able to explain all its particulars and exceptions.

There is a fair amount of P312 in Scandinavia apparently. It doesn't make sense to use it to explain the vast of bulk of the rest of P312, which is centered squarely in the old Celtic homelands. It might make sense, however, to look for an answer to the Scandinavian P312 question where the vast bulk of the rest of P312 resides.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 30, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
. . .

Run the same search in SMGF, and tell me what continentals come up matching the signature . . .


Okay, I did. I got one continental hit, and it was to a Scandinavian with the ancestral surname(s) Sedeniussen/Hansen. That was a single continental hit in 7 pages of British Isles hits, and that in a database with a large LDS component of Scandinavian ancestry.

So, for me, I got all British Isles surnames in Ysearch and a single Scandinavian hit in SMGF in 7 pages, the rest of which were British Isles surnames.

 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 30, 2010, 09:52:50 AM
. . .

Run the same search in SMGF, and tell me what continentals come up matching the signature . . .


Okay, I did. I got one continental hit, and it was to a Scandinavian with the ancestral surname(s) Sedeniussen/Hansen. That was a single continental hit in 7 pages of British Isles hits, and that in a database with a large LDS component of Scandinavian ancestry.

So, for me, I got all British Isles surnames in Ysearch and a single Scandinavian hit in SMGF in 7 pages, the rest of which were British Isles surnames.

 

Ok, good! Sedeniussen is actually a close match to our Duoos L159+, and his MDKA is from Troms in the far north. If you put in those seven values I told you about earlier, there are actually two other continentals in SMGF (both Scandinavians) that match perfectly, along with other British matches (mostly from Northern or Eastern England) and Irish matches (mostly from Dublin or coastal Leinster).

One is a Dane (Jorgensen) whose MDKA is from Aalborg, and the other is a Swede (Palsson) with ancestry from Kristianstad. What is interesting about the latter two Scandinavian matches is both have ancestry in historically Danish lands. Kristianstad is in Scania (Southern Sweden) and Aalborg is in North Jutland.

You're right that I will need more matches, but to find samples in different parts of Scandinavia is a good chance that more will be found. I am currently working with another Norwegian who lives in Troms and is a close match to a number of L159 group members.

We shall see.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 30, 2010, 10:15:06 AM
What seven other values?

I ran the 6 you gave me plus 390=24 and 19=14 in order to have the eight markers needed.

In SMGF, I got one continental, Sedeniussen, and a boatload, 7 pages worth, of British Isles surnames. In Ysearch I got another boatload of British Isles surnames but not a single continental, not even one.

If the TMRCA of L159 is indeed medieval, and if it continues to be overhwhelmingly British with but a few odd Scandinavians here and there, then it won't make much sense to argue that it was brought to the British Isles by Norwegian Vikings and settled there as a Scandinavian L21 island in a sea of otherwise British L21.

The medieval TMRCA and the limited Scandinavian presence combine to make the case for the Viking Era slave trade, among other, later, possibilities, it seems to me.

And I hate to even mention the Viking Era slave trade, but I don't think you can avoid it in every case.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 30, 2010, 01:18:31 PM
What seven other values?

I ran the 6 you gave me plus 390=24 and 19=14 in order to have the eight markers needed.

In SMGF, I got one continental, Sedeniussen, and a boatload, 7 pages worth, of British Isles surnames. In Ysearch I got another boatload of British Isles surnames but not a single continental, not even one.

If the TMRCA of L159 is indeed medieval, and if it continues to be overhwhelmingly British with but a few odd Scandinavians here and there, then it won't make much sense to argue that it was brought to the British Isles by Norwegian Vikings and settled there as a Scandinavian L21 island in a sea of otherwise British L21.

The medieval TMRCA and the limited Scandinavian presence combine to make the case for the Viking Era slave trade, among other, later, possibilities, it seems to me.

And I hate to even mention the Viking Era slave trade, but I don't think you can avoid it in every case.

I apologize for the misinformation. I looked at the e-mail from Earl Beaty again, and he stated that the TMRCA was applied to the ancestor of the Beatty Project, not those in the L159 Project.

So the various haplotypes (especially the high variation in the Scandinavian ones) could well support the possibility of an older L159 in Scandinavia.

Here are the seven values for the search:

DYS389i/ii, DYS392: 14-13-30
DYS437/448: 15-18
DYS442: 11
DYS446: 14



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 30, 2010, 01:19:55 PM
What seven other values?
If the TMRCA of L159 is indeed medieval, and if it continues to be overhwhelmingly British with but a few odd Scandinavians here and there, then it won't make much sense to argue that it was brought to the British Isles by Norwegian Vikings and settled there as a Scandinavian L21 island in a sea of otherwise British L21.

Remember, L159 is a VERY small part of L21 in Britain and Ireland. And, it only comes up in certain places...


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 30, 2010, 01:34:57 PM
I can't believe this.

As I posted the last message, the Norwegian from Troms I was working with just joined the L159 Project, and he matches the modal!!

His surname is Holmang, ancestral Olsson. Someone has a sense a humor apparently!


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 30, 2010, 09:59:46 PM





Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
I have just copied and pasted my mid-2004 message below.

A = 24, 11, 13
B = 24, 10, 13
C = 23, 11, 13
at 390,391,392

Haplotype A is the truncated Atlantic Modal Haplotype. I quote below the
percentages these three forms contribute to the "R1b" populations (of their
summed contributions) by region in Europe from the YHRD database.

Spain --- 67% --- 22% --- 11% in order A,B,C
France --- 61% --- 26% --- 13%

Ireland --- 57% --- 25% --- 18%
London --- 53% --- 28% --- 19%

Rhine --- 51% --- 27% --- 22%
South Germania --- 48% --- 24% --- 28%
Southeast Germania --- 44% --- 22% --- 35%
Northeast Germania --- 44% --- 25% --- 31%

Anglo-Saxony --- 40% --- 20% --- 40% [Denmark, Netherlands, NW Germania]

Scandinavia --- 51% --- 20% --- 29%
(Finland hardly got any R1bs, so this is mainly Norway + Sweden)

Eastern Europe --- 51% --- 21% --- 28%

North Italia --- 49% --- 26% --- 25%

Some in haplotypes A and B will be U106+, but the bulk of those in haplotype C in Germany and Scandinavia will be U106+.

You can see that the frequency of haplotype C in what Ken called "Anglo-Saxony" was 40%.

All one has to do is glance at the R1b-U106 project to see how prevalent 390=23 is among U106ers.

This Rootsweb post (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-10/1161227276), while a bit dated, mentions a comparison of 1,866 67-marker R1b1b2 haplotypes relative to 390=23 and 492=13 and 492=12. 56% of the 492=13 group had 390=23, while only 7% of the 492=12 group had 390=23.

So, while 390=23 is not an infallible predictor of U106+ status, it is a reasonable predictor, especially in those areas where U106 is known to have a strong presence.

It is not true that all those with 390=23 and 492=13 belong to the so-called Frisian cluster; many of them do not.


I'm sorry, but I don't find these statistics very convincing as proof of U106 dominance in northern Germany. Firstly, as you acknowledge, the 23,10 combination is also found in P312. Secondly, the statistics only include two of several different R1b combinations at those markers, and thus exclude part of R1b. Nor are all of U106 23,10. I would estimate only about half of the U1096 project had that signature, and the only one in the L1 who project did was specifically noted not to be L1. The other two signatures are common in both P312 and U106.

But putting those issues aside, even if one accepts 23,10 as a reasonable stand in for U106, the statistics still don't prove much. "North Germania" is not listed separately, but lumped together with Denmark and the Netherlands. The latter is well known to be the hotspot for U106, and could well be skewing the results. There are some other results which appear improbable if 23,10 is a reasonable facsimilie of U106. It is only 29% of Sweden and Norway. Southeast Germany has a higher percentage than northeast Germany, where it is dwarfed by the other two signatures. If valid, the statistics show a dominance only in the western portion of northern Germany, and not in the eastern portion of the north. Finally Ireland comes in at 18%. Is it believable that nearly 1 in 5 males in Ireland is U106?

I know this sort of datamining Ken used to do often led to interesting results, but I can't consider this as convincing proof that U106 far outnumbers P312 in north Germany.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 31, 2010, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
I have just copied and pasted my mid-2004 message below.

A = 24, 11, 13
B = 24, 10, 13
C = 23, 11, 13
at 390,391,392

Haplotype A is the truncated Atlantic Modal Haplotype. I quote below the
percentages these three forms contribute to the "R1b" populations (of their
summed contributions) by region in Europe from the YHRD database.

Spain --- 67% --- 22% --- 11% in order A,B,C
France --- 61% --- 26% --- 13%

Ireland --- 57% --- 25% --- 18%
London --- 53% --- 28% --- 19%

Rhine --- 51% --- 27% --- 22%
South Germania --- 48% --- 24% --- 28%
Southeast Germania --- 44% --- 22% --- 35%
Northeast Germania --- 44% --- 25% --- 31%

Anglo-Saxony --- 40% --- 20% --- 40% [Denmark, Netherlands, NW Germania]

Scandinavia --- 51% --- 20% --- 29%
(Finland hardly got any R1bs, so this is mainly Norway + Sweden)

Eastern Europe --- 51% --- 21% --- 28%

North Italia --- 49% --- 26% --- 25%

Some in haplotypes A and B will be U106+, but the bulk of those in haplotype C in Germany and Scandinavia will be U106+.

You can see that the frequency of haplotype C in what Ken called "Anglo-Saxony" was 40%.

All one has to do is glance at the R1b-U106 project to see how prevalent 390=23 is among U106ers.

This Rootsweb post (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-10/1161227276), while a bit dated, mentions a comparison of 1,866 67-marker R1b1b2 haplotypes relative to 390=23 and 492=13 and 492=12. 56% of the 492=13 group had 390=23, while only 7% of the 492=12 group had 390=23.

So, while 390=23 is not an infallible predictor of U106+ status, it is a reasonable predictor, especially in those areas where U106 is known to have a strong presence.

It is not true that all those with 390=23 and 492=13 belong to the so-called Frisian cluster; many of them do not.


I'm sorry, but I don't find these statistics very convincing as proof of U106 dominance in northern Germany. Firstly, as you acknowledge, the 23,10 combination is also found in P312. Secondly, the statistics only include two of several different R1b combinations at those markers, and thus exclude part of R1b. Nor are all of U106 23,10. I would estimate only about half of the U1096 project had that signature, and the only one in the L1 who project did was specifically noted not to be L1. The other two signatures are common in both P312 and U106.

But putting those issues aside, even if one accepts 23,10 as a reasonable stand in for U106, the statistics still don't prove much. "North Germania" is not listed separately, but lumped together with Denmark and the Netherlands. The latter is well known to be the hotspot for U106, and could well be skewing the results. There are some other results which appear improbable if 23,10 is a reasonable facsimilie of U106. It is only 29% of Sweden and Norway. Southeast Germany has a higher percentage than northeast Germany, where it is dwarfed by the other two signatures. If valid, the statistics show a dominance only in the western portion of northern Germany, and not in the eastern portion of the north. Finally Ireland comes in at 18%. Is it believable that nearly 1 in 5 males in Ireland is U106?

I know this sort of datamining Ken used to do often led to interesting results, but I can't consider this as convincing proof that U106 far outnumbers P312 in north Germany.
I have to agree that analyzing bikini STR criteria as a proxy for an SNP marked clade is precarious.
I'm counting 51 R-L21* 23,10 folks and another 20 R-P312 23,10 folks.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2010, 03:59:03 AM
What seven other values?
If the TMRCA of L159 is indeed medieval, and if it continues to be overhwhelmingly British with but a few odd Scandinavians here and there, then it won't make much sense to argue that it was brought to the British Isles by Norwegian Vikings and settled there as a Scandinavian L21 island in a sea of otherwise British L21.

Remember, L159 is a VERY small part of L21 in Britain and Ireland. And, it only comes up in certain places...

Of course sheer numbers today is not a good basis for inferring where a clade is oldest.  What we really need is to get the sample big enough so a valid look at variance is possible.  In principle I would not rule out the idea of L21 vikings that have nothing to do with slavery.  Ireland is very predominantly L21.  It also had a very significant viking presence that to date has not been detected in the modern y-DNA.  I have a hunch that some L21 includes Viking lineages.  Those clusters that are thinly spread along both sides of the Irish Sea and cross various cultural barriers do make you think there was some seaborne group involved although Vikings are not the only possibility.  I still believe that in the isles a large majority of L21 reflects pre-Germanic times but I think Norman and Viking contributions to isles L21 is also likely. 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 06:54:17 AM
I think you guys are ignoring some of the data with regard to 390=23 (like the stats from that collection of 1,866 67-marker haplotypes I mentioned), but suit yourselves. I think 390=23 is less valuable as a predictor of U106+ the farther west one goes in Europe, but in Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, it's a very good predictor.

Like I said, I would never offer to pay for the L21 test of a German with 390=23 unless he also had 11 or 12 at 492. I guarantee you that 99 times out of 100 that would be like flushing money down the toilet.

I think you ought to raise some money and Deep Clade-R test a pool of about 100 North Germans. It would be interesting to see how that would come out.

The scientists aren't doing things like that, it seems.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 07:37:25 AM
. . .  I still believe that in the isles a large majority of L21 reflects pre-Germanic times but I think Norman and Viking contributions to isles L21 is also likely.  

The pre-Germanic times element is so overwhelming, in my opinion, that it will make the probably minute Scandinavian contribution difficult, if not impossible, to detect. I do think the Normans made some sort of y-dna dent in the British population, but the L21 contingent was probably mostly native Gaulish for the most part and not Scandinavian.

I have had so much grief from the out-of-the-Isles crew ever since L21 was first discovered that I usually don't do or say anything I think might bolster its arguments, but I've got to say that I have some misgivings when it comes to L21 in Scandinavia. I'm not saying I think it's all traceable to the Viking Era slave trade, but I wouldn't disregard that as a factor for at least some of it. Earlier in this thread I mentioned three of our Scandinavian L21 guys whom I think are definitely of Scottish ancestry. I won't bother listing them again. There are at least two others for whom the evidence points to the British Isles, as well. One has a number of fairly close 67-marker Irish matches, and the other has a number of close 67-marker Welsh matches.

I suppose one could argue that those 67-marker Irish matches (Heaney, McGuire, Carroll) and those 67-marker Welsh matches (Banks, Morris, Evans, Jones, Morgan) are the descendants of vikings, but I wonder (Banks may be an English surname, but the rest are pretty well-known Welsh surnames).

To sum up, I think there is pretty good reason to suspect that at least five of our 22 Scandinavians are ultimately British or Irish. Believe me, that is the last thing I want to say, but I try to be brutally honest with myself when assessing this stuff.

The remaining 17 don't give any real clear indications of British ancestry. A few of them have no close matches beyond 12 markers, and a few of them only match other Scandinavians.

One of our Swedes (Martinson, Ysearch E6EXF) lists a family tradition of descent from an Italian pirate named Martini who was supposedly hanged by the King of Sweden. That's probably just a family legend, but there may be some element of truth to it, perhaps the Italian immigrant part.

I very strongly doubt that L159 will prove to be the Viking L21 clade in the British Isles. In fact, I think where it shows up in Scandinavia it is the unmistakable sign of an Irish or British import and will probably be accompanied by a rack of fairly close British Isles matches. (That's assuming that L159 is stable enough to be regarded as a legitimate SNP or something like an SNP.)

I will be very glad to be convinced otherwise, but I don't look for that to happen.



Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 08:02:44 AM
. . .  I still believe that in the isles a large majority of L21 reflects pre-Germanic times but I think Norman and Viking contributions to isles L21 is also likely.  

The pre-Germanic times element is so overwhelming, in my opinion, that it will make the probably minute Scandinavian contribution difficult, if not impossible, to detect. I do think the Normans made some sort of y-dna dent in the British population, but the L21 contingent was probably mostly native Gaulish for the most part and not Scandinavian.

I have had so much grief from the out-of-the-Isles crew ever since L21 was first discovered that I usually don't do or say anything I think might bolster its arguments, but I've got to say that I have some misgivings when it comes to L21 in Scandinavia. I'm not saying I think it's all traceable to the Viking Era slave trade, but I wouldn't disregard that as a factor for at least some of it. Earlier in this thread I mentioned three of our Scandinavian L21 guys whom I think are definitely of Scottish ancestry. I won't bother listing them again. There are at least two others for whom the evidence points to the British Isles, as well. One has a number of fairly close 67-marker Irish matches, and the other has a number of close 67-marker Welsh matches.

I suppose one could argue that those 67-marker Irish matches (Heaney, McGuire, Carroll) and those 67-marker Welsh matches (Banks, Morris, Evans, Jones, Morgan) are the descendants of vikings, but I wonder (Banks may be an English surname, but the rest are pretty well-known Welsh surnames).

To sum up, I think there is pretty good reason to suspect that at least five of our 22 Scandinavians are ultimately British or Irish. Believe me, that is the last thing I want to say, but I try to be brutally honest with myself when assessing this stuff.

The remaining 17 don't give any real clear indications of British ancestry. A few of them have no close matches beyond 12 markers, and a few of them only match other Scandinavians.

One of our Swedes (Martinson, Ysearch E6EXF) lists a family tradition of descent from an Italian pirate named Martini who was supposedly hanged by the King of Sweden. That's probably just a family legend, but there may be some element of truth to it, perhaps the Italian immigrant part.

I very strongly doubt that L159 will prove to be the Viking L21 clade in the British Isles. In fact, I think where it shows up in Scandinavia it is the unmistakable sign of an Irish or British import and will probably be accompanied by a rack of fairly close British Isles matches. (That's assuming that L159 is stable enough to be regarded as a legitimate SNP or something like an SNP.)

I will be very glad to be convinced otherwise, but I don't look for that to happen.



I understand how you feel about L159, but I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself.

Interesting you mentioned the close matches of Scandinavians being British. The new Norwegian I recruited yesterday (he actually lives in Tromso) has no matches at 37 markers actually, and he can go back to the 1600s in Northern Norway.

I am not trying to convince anybody, and am actually quite excited at the possibilities now!


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 08:14:40 AM
I understand how you feel about L159, but I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself.

Interesting you mentioned the close matches of Scandinavians being British. The new Norwegian I recruited yesterday (he actually lives in Tromso) has no matches at 37 markers actually, and he can go back to the 1600s in Northern Norway.

I am not trying to convince anybody, and am actually quite excited at the possibilities now!

Empirical evidence?

How many Scandinavians have tested positive for L159?

What are their Ysearch IDs?

Have they also been tested for L21?

Since there is some question about the stability of L159, it would probably be a good idea if all those with an L159+ result were at least tested for L21 to make sure we're dealing with the same thing and not separate incidences of L159 in different subclades.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 08:29:32 AM
I understand how you feel about L159, but I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself.

Interesting you mentioned the close matches of Scandinavians being British. The new Norwegian I recruited yesterday (he actually lives in Tromso) has no matches at 37 markers actually, and he can go back to the 1600s in Northern Norway.

I am not trying to convince anybody, and am actually quite excited at the possibilities now!

Empirical evidence?

How many Scandinavians have tested positive for L159?

What are their Ysearch IDs?

Have they also been tested for L21?

Since there is some question about the stability of L159, it would probably be a good idea if all those with an L159+ result were at least tested for L21 to make sure we're dealing with the same thing and not separate incidences of L159 in different subclades.

The stability factor has nothing to do with L159's placement in the R-tree. It is clearly downstream of R-L21 - and may I add - that all who have been deep clade tested and are L159+ are 100% L21+. So that is not at issue.

The haplotype is only present in R-L21. I have been able to predict at a 100% hit rate the outcome of L159 testing. Preliminary testing has supported this.

And what good is it for me to post supporting statistics of L159 on this forum now? You reaffirm that you can not be convinced, but are persistent in trying to devalue the possibility of a Scandinavian orign (which is a good possibility).

I am not sure why you take such an pro-Celtic stance here, but that has something to do with it. I remember a long time ago you mentioned your closest 67-marker match being a Welshman. Does this have something to do with the support of L21 being thoroughly Celtic, and "No, no, it can not be Germanic!"? How can any impartiality be derived from this? This makes me support my point even further, Rich.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 08:54:13 AM
I remember a chart of R1b haplotypes posted online some years ago. Anyway,
it split the different types into R1b-North Sea, R1b-Baltic/East, etc.

The chart designated the different percentages of R1b clades by DYS390. In the R1b-North Sea group, DYS390= 24 was the clear majority, with the value of 23 coming in second (and not a close second).

In U106, 90% of those who have 24 on DYS390 come back L48-. My maternal grandfather is U106+, has 24 on DYS390, and is L48- accordingly. His ancestry is from Palatinate, Germany.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 09:01:49 AM


The stability factor has nothing to do with L159's placement in the R-tree. It is clearly downstream of R-L21 - and may I add - that all who have been deep clade tested and are L159+ are 100% L21+. So that is not at issue.

Neal,

L159 has not been recognized by ISOGG and placed in its R Tree, and it also occurs in I2a. There is a question about its stability, which was mentioned by Thomas Krahn on Rootsweb.

The haplotype is only present in R-L21. I have been able to predict at a 100% hit rate the outcome of L159 testing. Preliminary testing has supported this.

And what good is it for me to post supporting statistics of L159 on this forum now? You reaffirm that you can not be convinced, but are persistent in trying to devalue the possibility of a Scandinavian orign (which is a good possibility).

I can be convinced, but I need to be convinced by actual evidence.

I am not sure why you take such an pro-Celtic stance here, but that has something to do with it. I remember a long time ago you mentioned your closest 67-marker match being a Welshman. Does this have something to do with the support of L21 being thoroughly Celtic, and "No, no, it can not be Germanic!"? How can any impartiality be derived from this? This makes me support my point even further, Rich.

Now you have descended to an ad hominem attack, which is the refuge of those who cannot support their theories.

I am not taking a "pro-Celtic" stance. I am merely saying what I believe to be true.

I could respond in kind (and there is ample ammunition, believe me), but I won't.

I will just ask you to produce the evidence, but I don't think you can.

By the way, I began dna testing thinking I was "Germanic". I grew up reading all the Germanic stuff I could get my hands on, including the Viking sagas and anything I could find about the Vikings. If I could find a way to make P312 and L21 "Germanic", believe me, I would do it. I freely admit that. Honestly, I grew up thinking Celts were losers, beaten by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Vikings (my apologies to the Celtomaniacs out there).

So, you are way off base. Please don't continue in that personal vein. You don't want to go down that road, trust me.

 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 09:39:01 AM
This is the point I am trying to make. You call that a personal attack? This is a forum, not Caesar's Palace. I apologize if I uspet you in any way.

Thomas Krahn also clearly stated that L159 is important to the Irish Sea Modal. I have stated this before. There is a correlation between the haplotype and L159 status, meaning a common ancestry. But to one outside the cluster, it means nothing. Ditto.

Holy Christmas. I'm off base?


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 10:13:43 AM
I apologize for hijacking this forum, folks. We should get back on topic.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 11:05:39 AM
This is the point I am trying to make. You call that a personal attack? This is a forum, not Caesar's Palace. I apologize if I uspet you in any way.

What point? That I am so hopelessly biased that I want to deny L159 its glorious Viking past?

Reread what you wrote. You basically accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias because my closest match is Welsh (actually he's an Englishman, born in Worcestershire). You questioned my integrity and motives rather than producing evidence or countering my arguments. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is.

The essence of what you wrote is that because I think my own ancestors were Celtic, therefore, I want to deny Germanic and/or Viking ancestry to the rest of you.

Hence, none of my arguments has any value, and you have no need to back up your "Norwegian Viking L159" theory with any real evidence.

Thomas Krahn also clearly stated that L159 is important to the Irish Sea Modal. I have stated this before. There is a correlation between the haplotype and L159 status, meaning a common ancestry. But to one outside the cluster, it means nothing. Ditto.

Holy Christmas. I'm off base?

I said you were way off base when you made your ad hominem attack and accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias. I explained why you were way off base, and, yeah, you were. I bit my own tongue and refrained from responding in kind.

Maybe L159 is a perfectly good SNP, but the fact remains that ISOGG has not added it to their R Tree yet, and they are usually pretty quick to add the latest SNPs; witness L226 and L193.

We can work on the assumption that L159 is a solid SNP. You still don't have much evidence that it is Scandinavian in origin, or, if you do, you aren't producing it.

I ran your one Scandinavian L159+, Duoos, in Ysearch, even though he doesn't have a Ysearch entry and I had to enter his markers manually. His closest haplotype neighbors all have British Isles surnames. One, McCloughan (YGUM9), is a 34/37 neighbor to Duoos. There are several others - Robinson (596U9), Nelson (SWX5J), Riley (9B9ER), and Glynn (2EHJX) - who are 4 away at 37 markers. After that there are quite a few who are 5 or 6 away at 37 markers, all with British Isles surnames. All that is not insurmountable evidence that Duoos is British or Irish in origin; he needs to go out to 67 markers. But I didn't see any Scandinavians in his haplotype neighborhood.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on July 31, 2010, 11:21:16 AM
This is the point I am trying to make. You call that a personal attack? This is a forum, not Caesar's Palace. I apologize if I uspet you in any way.

What point? That I am so hopelessly biased that I want to deny L159 its glorious Viking past?

Reread what you wrote. You basically accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias because my closest match is Welsh (actually he's an Englishman, born in Worcestershire). You questioned my integrity and motives rather than producing evidence or countering my arguments. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is.

The essence of what you wrote is that because I think my own ancestors were Celtic, therefore, I want to deny Germanic and/or Viking ancestry to the rest of you.

Hence, none of my arguments has any value, and you have no need to back up your "Norwegian Viking L159" theory with any real evidence.

Thomas Krahn also clearly stated that L159 is important to the Irish Sea Modal. I have stated this before. There is a correlation between the haplotype and L159 status, meaning a common ancestry. But to one outside the cluster, it means nothing. Ditto.

Holy Christmas. I'm off base?

I said you were way off base when you made your ad hominem attack and accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias. I explained why you were way off base, and, yeah, you were. I bit my own tongue and refrained from responding in kind.

Maybe L159 is a perfectly good SNP, but the fact remains that ISOGG has not added it to their R Tree yet, and they are usually pretty quick to add the latest SNPs; witness L226 and L193.

We can work on the assumption that L159 is a solid SNP. You still don't have much evidence that it is Scandinavian in origin, or, if you do, you aren't producing it.

I ran your one Scandinavian L159+, Duoos, in Ysearch, even though he doesn't have a Ysearch entry and I had to enter his markers manually. His closest haplotype neighbors all have British Isles surnames. One, McCloughan (YGUM9), is a 34/37 neighbor to Duoos. There are several others - Robinson (596U9), Nelson (SWX5J), Riley (9B9ER), and Glynn (2EHJX) - who are 4 away at 37 markers. After that there are quite a few who are 5 or 6 away at 37 markers, all with British Isles surnames. All that is not insurmountable evidence that Duoos is British or Irish in origin; he needs to go out to 67 markers. But I didn't see any Scandinavians in his haplotype neighborhood.


Rich,

You're a good man, and I appreciate your insight. Really, I learn a lot from these posts.

Once again, I apologize for the snide remarks.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 31, 2010, 01:16:44 PM
. . .  I still believe that in the isles a large majority of L21 reflects pre-Germanic times but I think Norman and Viking contributions to isles L21 is also likely.  
.... I suppose one could argue that those 67-marker Irish matches (Heaney, McGuire, Carroll) and those 67-marker Welsh matches (Banks, Morris, Evans, Jones, Morgan) are the descendants of vikings, but I wonder (Banks may be an English surname, but the rest are pretty well-known Welsh surnames).
....
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but since you brought up my R-L21* cluster (sub of 11-13) I'll give you the data I have.

Our Swede is actually a Swedish citizen, his MDKA is Sunesson, and he has genealogy going back to the late 1500's now. His ancestors are from the Östergötland area of Sweden which is on the Baltic Sea side.

There are multiple individuals of the below surnames but most are blocked in the U.S.  The most frequent surnames (at least DNA tested) are the Banks, the Barrett's and the Watkins.

Adams   England, West Midlands, Shropshire
Banks   unknown
Barrett   England
Barrett   Ireland, Connacht, Co. Mayo, Tirawley
  http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/barrett.htm
Connell   England, North West, Lancashire
Evans   Wales
Gardiner(m.Watkins) England, West Midlands, Herefordshire
Jones   Wales
Lewis         Wales, Glen Morganshire
Morgan   Wales, Ponty Pool
Munnerlyn unknown
Owen   Wales, Oswestry
Welch   Ireland
Welsh   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Kilkenny
Walsh   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Kilkenny, Ballinteskin
Watkins    unknown

No matter what, other than the Swede, this cluster is very Wales-centric. The Irish folks in the cluster tie back to Wales, but there is a lot of Norman folklore tied up in it as well.

For instance, the Barrett's of Mayo claim they are descended of a Norman knight, named Baret, who came with William in 1066.  They also have an old  poem which states they and the Walsh's were Norman Invaders in Ireland who descended from the "Lords of Glamorgan."  They were also called the "Welshmen of Tirawley."

This matches well with my own Walsh family and a book written in 1825 about the Walsh's using research with a Catholic priest over in Ireland.

Among the old documents they dug up from the times of Gerald of Wales, the proposed progenitor of my Walsh family, Philip Walsh, was written as a nephew and/or dear relative to the following:
Raymond 'le Gros' fitz William Fitz Gerald
William Fitz Odo de Barry
Richard de Clare (Strongbow himself)
Robert Fitz Stephen

Fitz Stephen was also called a grandfather.  My Walsh clan progenitor was a Norman knight with a horse, armor and the whole bit.  He fought under Raymond le Gros and along side King Henry's illegitimate offspring. My best guess is my clan progenitor was an NPE but whether his paternal lineage was Norman or Briton is a big question.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~walsh/strongbw.html

Our cluster's TMRCA is just about 1000 years.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2010, 02:40:38 PM
I tend to think that by the time of the invasions of Britain and Ireland a 'Norman' only was a geographical identity among the French and all the normal French ancestries were present in that area in addition to the Viking element.  NW France, including Normandy, is very high in L21, I would guess hugely higher than among the mainly Danish (I now there were others too) Vikings who settled in NW France.  So, the Occam's Razor way of interpreting that is that most Normans in France were not Viking ancestry which, if true, in turn means most of the Normans who came to Britain (then Ireland) were not of Viking ancestry (not to mention all the Bretons, Flemings etc).  I suspect that the Gallo-Roman/Latinate French/Frankish population in Normandy remained the bulk of the population after the Vikings arrived.  If Jean's ideas that languages tend to change with genes is true then this would also support the idea of a thin Viking superstrate that was absorbed.   I suspect that this pre-Viking (and pre-Frankish) NW French stock was actually very similar genetically to the pre-Germanic peoples of Atlantic Britain.  That is certainly what the y-DNA and L21 in particular suggest and again it must be emphasised that L21 dominates the whole NW of France and cannot possibly be explained as a whole by the British settlements in coastal Brittany. 


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 03:36:42 PM

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but since you brought up my R-L21* cluster (sub of 11-13) I'll give you the data I have.

Our Swede is an actually Swedish citizen, his MDKA is Sunesson, and he has genealogy going back to the late 1500's now. His ancestors are from the Östergötland area of Sweden which is on the Baltic Sea side.

. . .


Of course, I did not actually name the cluster or the individual, just the fact that he has a number of fairly close Welsh matches, enough to make one wonder in which direction the "from-to" arrow points.

My own preliminary, but strong suspicion is British ancestry for the Swede, but, of course, I could be wrong, and all those folks with Welsh surnames could be the descendants of Vikings (even though Viking settlement in Wales was very limited) or of Normans who themselves were the descendants of Vikings.

The Gordian Knot for alleged Scandinavian L21 in the British Isles is the fact that the vast bulk of L21 there is pretty apparently not Scandinavian in origin. How does one pick out the Scandinavian L21 in the Isles (if there is any)?

Even if an L21 subclade is discovered that is found in both places, the immediate, natural, and completely reasonable conclusion will be that it is British or Irish in origin. Given the relatively small number of Scandinavians in the y-dna database, probably only 25% of whom are even R1b1b2, let alone L21+, a subclade like that would have to claim a big slice of the Scandinavian L21 pie to be even halfway convincing as native to Scandinavia. And the Scandinavian part would have to be more diverse in its haplotypes than the probably much larger British part.

Now, if one could find an L21 subclade that occurs only very rarely in the British Isles but commonly in Scandinavia, that might be convincing.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 31, 2010, 04:04:46 PM
What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 04:22:17 PM
What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.

These Welsh and Irish matches are pretty close, close enough that there is little doubt they are all L21+ and all probably from the same neck of the woods. I wouldn't have mentioned them otherwise, because I don't consider a gd of 9 or 10 at 67 markers close. The matches I am talking about range from 63/67 to 60/67 for the Scandinavian with the Irish matches, and from 61/67 to 59/67 for the Scandinavian with the Welsh matches. While it is remotely possible that they mean absolutely nothing and are merely coincidental, the fact that they are all also "coincidentally" Irish on the one hand and Welsh on the other makes that very unlikely.

I think what Hammer actually said last year was that 50% of FTDNA's database of SNP-tested Norwegian R1b1b2s was L21+.

This is kind of a funny (in the sense of ironic, as well as amusing) thread to me, because I find myself arguing for a British Isles origin for some of our L21+ Scandinavians (only five of them, actually), and that is something I definitely don't like doing, since the out-of-the-Isles thing irks me to no end.

But I have to be honest. If I wasn't convinced, believe me, I wouldn't say what I'm saying.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 31, 2010, 04:30:37 PM
It appears to me that much of the argument here over the whole P312/U106 issue involves the use of labels, so I am going to make one last attempt at stating what I believe to be the case with minimal refernce to the issue of ethnic labels. Obviously this is speculative to a degree, but it's all based on evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence.

The best currently available evidence suggests to me that the present division between P312 and U106 in Scandinavia, taken as a whole, is roughly an even split, although it no doubt varies by country and even region. While it is dangerous to assume that this is an accurate reflection of the distant past, I think the large presence of P312 there cannot be satisfactorily explained as solely the result of modern migration events. Thus I think it is reasonable to infer that P312 has had a significant presence in Scandinavia since the Bronze Age. The theory that it arrived there with the Bell Beakers and speaking an IE language, perhaps proto-Italo-Celtic, I consider to be a not unreasonable assumption, but I do not think the possibility that some may have arrived in other ways, such as with the Corded Ware culture, can be completely excluded at this point. The P312 in Scandinavia probably included elements of L21, U152, S68/L165, S182/L238,  some unknown portion of what it currently identified as P312*, and possibly even some SRY2627. I am tempted to suspect that at least some of them reached the area by sea routes rather than by land.

I have spent far less time and effort looking at U106, and thus this is even more speculative than the above. I am convinced however that the history of U106 will only be discovered by analyzing it by subclade, rather than treating it as a monolithic whole. For a variety of reasons this is difficult to do at the moment. This is partially due to the manner in which the U106 project is organized. However a couple of new, probably significant SNPs within U106 have been discovered only very recently, and I think it is only a matter of time before people start looking at U106 by subclades. There seems to be little doubt that the greatest U106 concentration is in the vicinity of the Netherlands. The general assumption seems to be that it arrived there with Germanic people coming from Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Iron Age. However the complete or near complete absence of some U106 subclades (U198, L1) in Scandinavia makes me suspect otherwise. I suspect that the concentration in Holland dates to the Bronze Age, and that elements of U106 got to Scandinavia from the Netherlands, rather than vice versa. I doubt those parts of U106 not found in Scandinavia ever had much of a presence there. Instead they seem to have expanded from the North Sea across the Channel into England, before the Roman occupation there. An association with the Belgic people for this portion of U106 seems more likely to me than with the Germanics. I wouldn’t care to speculate what their language may have been. Other parts of U106, perhaps largely L48, seem to have expanded from the area around Holland into northern Germany and Scandinavia. Along with elements of P312, I1a and R1a and others, I think they eventually developed there into the Germanic people during the Nordic Bronze Age.

I do not address the issue of P312 and the Celts in much of the rest of Europe, because I really don't think there much disagreement about the connection.

We are just going to have to disagree on whether labeling P312 as Celtic and U106 as Germanic is a helpful generalization or a hindrance to determining the truth. I do believe one reason why I was able to envisage this scenario, whether it is correct or not, is because I have freed my mind from the supposed connection.

I have spent far too much time on this issue, looking at various projects and maps, bean counting and reflecting upon what it all means. This has been to the detriment of a number of other pursuits. So take your shots, let fly and have the last word if you must. I am going to do my utmost not to respond further. I really have other things to attend to, and it occurs to me that there is really no reason why I should care whether other people agree with me or not.      

  


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2010, 04:48:57 PM
I don't think most of what you wrote above is wrong, but I still think one has to look at the overall distribution of P312 versus the overall distribution of U106. Although P312 is present in the old Germanic lands, its center of gravity is farther west and a better fit overall for Celtic than Germanic. U106 seems to have a center of gravity east and north of that of P312, which makes it a better fit for Germanic.

As for where U106 came from, whether it spread from the Netherlands to Scandinavia or vice versa or from somewhere else to both of those places, I guess one would have to look at the variance of U106 and find out where its most diverse haplotypes are. I seem to remember that Tim Janzen actually did that and found U106 to be most diverse in Eastern Europe, but I might be mistaken.

Perhaps all of P312 and its clades were in place before anyone began speaking either Celtic or Germanic, so that a P312 with ancestry in North Germany can be confident his ancestors went directly from speaking Ka*pong! Bo*ing! or whatever it was to some form of early German and never passed through a Celtic or Iberian phase.

That could be very true, but it still doesn't alter the overall distribution of P312 and its general good fit for the old Celtic homelands. And it also doesn't alter the fact that much of Germany was once inhabited by Celts, who were especially strong in the South and West, where P312 is prevalent.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on July 31, 2010, 06:38:08 PM

As for where U106 came from, whether it spread from the Netherlands to Scandinavia or vice versa or from somewhere else to both of those places, I guess one would have to look at the variance of U106 and find out where its most diverse haplotypes are. I seem to remember that Tim Janzen actually did that and found U106 to be most diverse in Eastern Europe, but I might be mistaken.



Since this is an interesting issue, I will depart from my stance of not responding further on the general question. Recently someone who described himself as Irish with a Gaelic surname and who had tested U106* (and was not pleased with being informed that indicated an Anglo-Saxon origin), asked on another forum in what region did U106 display the greatest genetic diversity. Many pages later, after repeatedly statements that the greatest concentration was in Frisia, no one was able to provide an answer. Someone posted a link to variance data by one of the U106 project administrators. Vince V. had the following to say about it:
"Better to say that the data which exist shows that all regions have roughly the same variance."
Personally I would expect both P312 and U106 to be more diverse in eastern Europe, more likely southeastern Europe, because that is where I suspect both subclades were born. Unfortunately that is a region which probably one of the most undertested.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 31, 2010, 07:09:04 PM
What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.

These Welsh and Irish matches are pretty close, close enough that there is little doubt they are all L21+ and all probably from the same neck of the woods. I wouldn't have mentioned them otherwise, because I don't consider a gd of 9 or 10 at 67 markers close. The matches I am talking about range from 63/67 to 60/67 for the Scandinavian with the Irish matches, and from 61/67 to 59/67 for the Scandinavian with the Welsh matches. While it is remotely possible that they mean absolutely nothing and are merely coincidental, the fact that they are all also "coincidentally" Irish on the one hand and Welsh on the other makes that very unlikely.

I think what Hammer actually said last year was that 50% of FTDNA's database of SNP-tested Norwegian R1b1b2s was L21+.

This is kind of a funny (in the sense of ironic, as well as amusing) thread to me, because I find myself arguing for a British Isles origin for some of our L21+ Scandinavians (only five of them, actually), and that is something I definitely don't like doing, since the out-of-the-Isles thing irks me to no end.

But I have to be honest. If I wasn't convinced, believe me, I wouldn't say what I'm saying.
Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries. 
Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: y24 on August 01, 2010, 07:01:56 AM
I believe even Welshmen knew how to sail.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on August 01, 2010, 07:35:40 AM

Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries. 
Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.

One should allow for a fairly wide margin of error either side of any TMRCA. Could be 11th-13th centuries, could be Viking Era slave trade, could be Viking settlement in Britain, etc.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 01, 2010, 11:50:23 AM

Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries.  
Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.

One should allow for a fairly wide margin of error either side of any TMRCA. Could be 11th-13th centuries, could be Viking Era slave trade, could be Viking settlement in Britain, etc.

This is why I don't like TMRCA's for clusters or genealogical purposes.  There is no firm answer as anything can be recLOH or some kind of exception on a small scale.

FTDNA should have better insight into TMRCA's than you or I. They says some of those folks you and I described (Welsh/Irish + 1 Swede) as greater than 95% odds to be within 24 generations.  At 30 yrs/gen you get 720 years.  That's the outside edge of their 95% confidence and that seems too young, but to go back as far as another 400-500 years to 800-900 AD seems a little too far back of an adjustment for a "95%" confidence TMRCA... IMHO.

From what I've read, the Vikings had much less success and frequency in settling in Wales than in Ireland, Scotland and England.  The Vikings who did attack Wales were primarily Irish-Vikings so I'd expect more of this variety of people (that I call R-L21* 11-13 Combo Group B-2) from Ireland relative to Wales, but we don't see that.  

I just don't see how the Swede in the group was a captured Welsh slave taken back to the Baltic.  Probably some Welsh would have been taken back to Ireland by both the Vikings and the Gaels pre-1000 AD.  However, the diversity of this 11-13 B-2 group is in Wales and Western England. Also the TMRCA data is quite a bit off to be in the ages of Viking raiding.

Still the question is open - how does a Swede fit into this variety of men?

I don't think it is a genetic coincidence.  19/394=15 YCAII=18,13 406s1=11 617=13 444=13 are not fast markers.  This is a pretty strong pattern.




Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on October 06, 2010, 07:13:49 PM
As I have often stated, I have a strong interest in R1b in Scandinavia. Therefore I was very interested in the data from the most recent Myres et al. study. Of particular interest were the results from Sweden. Unfortunately only a very small area was tested, but the number was comparatively large (139). The study labels the area in question as Malmö, which is a little confusing as this is a city and a municipal district, but not a county or province. It is located in southwest Sweden, across the Øresund channel from Copenhagen, in an area clalled Skåne. Skåne was part of Denmark from before the Viking age until the 17th century, when it ceeded to Sweden by Denmark after a war.

Here are what I believe to be some of the noteworthy results, stated in percentage of the total sample:

M269:                  20.9% (29 out of 139) (the second most common HG after I1).
L23:                      4.3%  (6/139)
L11*:                    0.7%  (1/139)
U106/(XU198):      4.3%  (6/139)
U198:                    0
S116*:                  2.2%  (3/139)
L21(XM222)           5.8%  (8/139)
U152:                    2.2%  (3/139)
M222:                    1.4%  (2/139)



A couple of observations, in line with some of the positions I have taken in earlier posts on this thread. P312 and subclades were more than double U106 (16 vs. 6).
U198 continues to demonstrate a near complete absence from Scandinavia. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it ever had a presence there.

I do not suggest these numbers should be taken as representative of Sweden as a whole. The gentic study of seven different provinces in Sweden I cited in my initial post on this thread  shows R1b is not uniformly spread across Sweden. Its strongest presence, where it was the most common haplogroup, was in the provinces of Skaraborg and Ötergötland/Jönköping, which are located some distance north of Malmö. R1b was however the second most common HG in the other five provinces tested.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: rms2 on October 06, 2010, 08:12:28 PM
But just look at the map of U106 in Scandinavia in the Myres et al report. One would never know that they didn't test any Norwegians and that U106 didn't fare so well in Sweden.

Interesting that L21 was the most frequent M269 subclade in Myres' Swedish sample.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on October 07, 2010, 09:04:58 PM
But just look at the map of U106 in Scandinavia in the Myres et al report. One would never know that they didn't test any Norwegians and that U106 didn't fare so well in Sweden.

Interesting that L21 was the most frequent M269 subclade in Myres' Swedish sample.

The U106 map in the Myres' report is just one more prop to what I consider to be the U106 myth.

I do believe that part of the problem is that everyone compares U106 as a whole with P312 only after it has been broken down into subclades.  I think this is largely due to the accident of when the various SNPs were discovered.  If anyone ever started comparing the distribution of U106 subclades against that of P312 subclades, I suspect the analysis would change completely. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. The idea that U106 is monolithic, while P312 can only be analyzed by subclades, is just too ingrained in too many people's thinking.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on October 10, 2010, 03:19:53 PM
Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.
L21 is most common R1b subclade.
L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.
There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.
M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 10, 2010, 04:03:13 PM
Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.
L21 is most common R1b subclade.
L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.
There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.
M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

The L21 to M222 ratio is very different from Ireland so I think we can probably safely say that the stats do not support an Irish Viking slave origin for the bulk of L21 in Scandinavia.  I think the problem is that the connections between Scandinavia and the far west (isles, France etc) in the prehistoric period are only hazily represented.  It could also be that there is an intermediate common origin point in some area where the L21 element is now too small to pick up the full variance in the sort of sample used.  I think there is little doubt that Myres have picked up major expansion points for U152 near the alps and imply one for L21 in the area straddling North/Central France and England but I am not convinced that the sample would have been big enough to get a big enough sample of L21 in areas where it is now rare but potentially old i.e. you need a really big sample to pick up the variance of a clade in an area where it is now rare.  I suspect (although this is a guess) that S116, U152 and L21 actually occurred further east but the trail now is slight.  Presumably, as Myres et al observe, a clade could only have the expansion opportunity when it passed surfing the head of a wave into virgin territory.  There may be a long tail of a clades travels before it got the chance to expand.  In other words there is a period between 'one guy with the SNP' and 'first big expansion' that is hard to detect.   


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Jdean on October 10, 2010, 04:03:51 PM
Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.
L21 is most common R1b subclade.
L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.
There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.
M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

I wouldn't take a lack of response to personally, a lot of people are probably having trouble accessing the forum since Worldfamilies.net got hijacked the other day. I still can't get in from the UK, but found a proxy that allowed me access, so today I'm posting from somewhere in America apparently.

Though I'm not surprised that P312+ is relatively common in Scandinavia I must say I'm a little surprised that P312+ would significantly outstrip U106.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: NealtheRed on October 10, 2010, 04:33:41 PM
Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.
L21 is most common R1b subclade.
L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.
There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.
M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

I wouldn't take a lack of response to personally, a lot of people are probably having trouble accessing the forum since Worldfamilies.net got hijacked the other day. I still can't get in from the UK, but found a proxy that allowed me access, so today I'm posting from somewhere in America apparently.

Though I'm not surprised that P312+ is relatively common in Scandinavia I must say I'm a little surprised that P312+ would significantly outstrip U106.


Yes, I agree. That L21 is the most common subclade in Sweden means a lot, especially because of Southern Sweden's importance as the cradle of the Germanic tribes. It must have been really diverse between R1b, R1a, and I developing that culture.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 10, 2010, 04:36:44 PM
I think the L23 result may be due to the way R1b1b2 spread east-west.  If you think about it you will get a progression of L51-L11-then downstream with the mix of each changing as you head east-west.  Although Scandinavia is to the north, it is also fairly far east and partly on the longitude of what in cold war terms was reckoned eastern Europe.  The upshot of that is that the seas around Scandinavia are accessed by north flowing rivers some of which originate in eastern Europe and essentially link the Scandianvian seas with eastern Europe.  If populations tended to follow a Danubian path west then the north was accessed by every north-flowing river from the Black Sea to the Elbe (and beyond).  Those rivers lead from the Scandinavian seas towards areas where upstream forms of R1b would be known.  

In other words longitude may be more important than latitude in terms of what genes  arrived.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 11, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.
L21 is most common R1b subclade.
L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.
There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.
M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.
I don't have much of a reaction because I pretty much agree with you in the first place. P312 may be more common in other places, but it is still at least relatively common in some Scandinavian and Germanic geographies.

The distribution of P312 as you move east from the Isles, France and Iberia appears patchy.  In this regard, P312 is quite like more of the other subclades clades, like U106, in Europe - scattered and patchy.  The only difference is that relative to its age, P312 also has a large area, the Atlantic fringe, where it is solid* rather than patchy.

I just think more happened as you go east into continental Eurasia so the various clades were moved, washed over, wiped out, etc., etc. in spots. By more happening, I mean things like the Huns, the full Germanic migrations and war after war.

* Nothing is "solid". These are relative terms.


Title: Re: R1b1b2 in Sweden
Post by: GoldenHind on October 11, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
I think the L23 result may be due to the way R1b1b2 spread east-west.  If you think about it you will get a progression of L51-L11-then downstream with the mix of each changing as you head east-west.  Although Scandinavia is to the north, it is also fairly far east and partly on the longitude of what in cold war terms was reckoned eastern Europe.  The upshot of that is that the seas around Scandinavia are accessed by north flowing rivers some of which originate in eastern Europe and essentially link the Scandianvian seas with eastern Europe.  If populations tended to follow a Danubian path west then the north was accessed by every north-flowing river from the Black Sea to the Elbe (and beyond).  Those rivers lead from the Scandinavian seas towards areas where upstream forms of R1b would be known.  

In other words longitude may be more important than latitude in terms of what genes  arrived.

I think this must be the most likely explanation, at least in terms of the L23* (sorry for not using the asterisk in my previous posts). It must represent a very early entry of R1b into Scandinavia. I can't think of any other way to account for it. I wonder then whether the arrival of L23* included ht15 subclades along with the ht35. In other words, are we looking at multiple R1b migrations into Scandinavia, or a larger event, such as Corded Ware, of mixed R1b subclades?

While I have said it would be a mistake to assume the Malmö results are applicable to all of Sweden (let alone all of Scandinavia), as far as I know this is this only reasonably large scale R1b SNP analysis of any single location in Scandinavia. I don't think it can be dismissed as some sort of anomaly, just because it doesn't match perceived wisdom.

I believe the large L21 element, especially when coupled with what we know about L21 in Norway, should finally dispose of the question of whether the arrival of L21 in Scandinavia is solely due to Iron Age and modern events. I really think it is much too large to be dismissed by any of the usual arguments various people have put forward- from Viking slaves to wandering monks to Aberdeen merchants and mercenaries.

I also think the P312+ results are far too large to be ascribed to Germanicized Celts, but I really don't want to start that argument again.