World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: rms2 on March 26, 2011, 02:12:18 PM



Title: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 26, 2011, 02:12:18 PM
I am curious about something. A particular individual has repeatedly claimed that U152 is common in Scandinavia and especially in Norway, yet I can find no evidence that is true, not in the R1b-U152 Project, not in the R-P312 and Subclades Project, and not in any published studies.

Can someone direct me to some evidence that there is a significant level of U152 anywhere at all in Scandinavia?


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: NealtheRed on March 26, 2011, 11:06:41 PM
I am curious about something. A particular individual has repeatedly claimed that U152 is common in Scandinavia and especially in Norway, yet I can find no evidence that is true, not in the R1b-U152 Project, not in the R-P312 and Subclades Project, and not in any published studies.

Can someone direct me to some evidence that there is a significant level of U152 anywhere at all in Scandinavia?

That's a good question. If U152 is present at all, it is very much outnumbered by L21.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 27, 2011, 07:41:28 AM
I am curious about something. A particular individual has repeatedly claimed that U152 is common in Scandinavia and especially in Norway, yet I can find no evidence that is true, not in the R1b-U152 Project, not in the R-P312 and Subclades Project, and not in any published studies.

Can someone direct me to some evidence that there is a significant level of U152 anywhere at all in Scandinavia?
I can't.
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/u152_frequency_map_2010_13_small.png

"A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" by Myres et. al. (2010) shows U152 in frequencies from 0% to 4.8% in various parts of Denmark, 2.2% in South Sweden and 3.4% in the Netherlands.

As far as impact on the British Isles, frequencies in parts of England are higher.  With such low frequencies in the haplogroup mix in Scandinavia, I don't see how Viking raiders could have brought much U152 to the Isles.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2011, 12:47:00 PM
I am curious about something. A particular individual has repeatedly claimed that U152 is common in Scandinavia and especially in Norway, yet I can find no evidence that is true, not in the R1b-U152 Project, not in the R-P312 and Subclades Project, and not in any published studies.

Can someone direct me to some evidence that there is a significant level of U152 anywhere at all in Scandinavia?
I can't.
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/u152_frequency_map_2010_13_small.png

"A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" by Myres et. al. (2010) shows U152 in frequencies from 0% to 4.8% in various parts of Denmark, 2.2% in South Sweden and 3.4% in the Netherlands.

As far as impact on the British Isles, frequencies in parts of England are higher.  With such low frequencies in the haplogroup mix in Scandinavia, I don't see how Viking raiders could have brought much U152 to the Isles.

Exactly.

From what I can see, there is more E1b1b than U152 in Scandinavia.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 27, 2011, 01:56:01 PM
I'm not sure who is making this claim, or what he is basing it on. I don't take the Myres data as the last word on the subject, as the samples for Denmark are just too small, and the sample from one area in Sweden probably doesn't accurately reflect the entire country.  Finally they didn't use any Norwegian data at all. So I think the jury is still out on R1b subclade distribution in Scandinavia.

If someone is making a claim, the burden is on him to provide supporting evidence. The Myres' data are the only ones I know which examined R1b subclades in Scandinavia, and they indicate, as Mike pointed out above, a small presence U152 presence there.

I might add that that there really isn't any evidence which proves that U106 heavily outnumbers P312 in Scandinavia either. Most interesting to me is that in the Danish samples all R1b subclades- U106, P312*, L21 and U152 have their greatest presence in northern Denmark. There must be some inference that can be
drawn from that.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2011, 03:04:11 PM
It is true, as far as I know, that there is no good study of R1b subclades in Norway.

The claim in question, however, is that U152 in the British Isles is of Viking origin. The person making the claim has ancestry in SE England and is actually R-L20 (not simply R-U152).

As far as I can tell, not a single R-L20 has yet shown up in Scandinavia or among persons of Scandinavian descent anywhere outside of Scandinavia.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2011, 03:44:53 PM
Does anyone know where U152 haplotypes are at their most diverse (i.e., where they are oldest)?


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2011, 07:21:20 PM
It is true, as far as I know, that there is no good study of R1b subclades in Norway.

The claim in question, however, is that U152 in the British Isles is of Viking origin. The person making the claim has ancestry in SE England and is actually R-L20 (not simply R-U152).

As far as I can tell, not a single R-L20 has yet shown up in Scandinavia or among persons of Scandinavian descent anywhere outside of Scandinavia.


Actually, it turns out there has been one R-L20 of Norwegian descent found, but that's it thus far in all of Scandinavia.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Jdean on March 27, 2011, 07:56:14 PM
Actually, it turns out there has been one R-L20 of Norwegian descent found, but that's it thus far in all of Scandinavia.

Amusing that he can read so much into a single result and yet be so blithe about all the R-L21 turning up all over continental Europe.

I was interested in his argument that his ancestors being boat builders added extra weight to his presumed Scandinavian origins though, boat building was always something us Brits had problems with, it's good to know his ancestors came along to help us out :)


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 28, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
Actually, it turns out there has been one R-L20 of Norwegian descent found, but that's it thus far in all of Scandinavia.

Amusing that he can read so much into a single result and yet be so blithe about all the R-L21 turning up all over continental Europe.

I was interested in his argument that his ancestors being boat builders added extra weight to his presumed Scandinavian origins though, boat building was always something us Brits had problems with, it's good to know his ancestors came along to help us out :)


Presumably your ancestors must have had to swim across the channel to get to Britain, as they apparently had no knowledge of boat-building until his ancestors came along to enlighten the aboriginees.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 28, 2011, 07:49:37 PM
It's all very strange to me.

There is plenty of U152 right across the Channel in France and Belgium. I think most people would look at that and right away guess that is where the U152 in Britain came from.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Jdean on March 28, 2011, 08:04:16 PM
It's all very strange to me.

There is plenty of U152 right across the Channel in France and Belgium. I think most people would look at that and right away guess that is where the U152 in Britain came from.

Indeed, why go for the improbable when the probable is right at hand.

What's so wrong with being connected to France anyway, they may be a stroppy lot but they make very good cheese (and wine for that matter).


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Jdean on March 28, 2011, 08:06:44 PM
Presumably your ancestors must have had to swim across the channel to get to Britain, as they apparently had no knowledge of boat-building until his ancestors came along to enlighten the aboriginees.

May explain the strange aversion to fish that most Brits suffer (unless covered with excess batter of course)


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 28, 2011, 08:12:13 PM
It's all very strange to me.

There is plenty of U152 right across the Channel in France and Belgium. I think most people would look at that and right away guess that is where the U152 in Britain came from.

Indeed, why go for the improbable when the probable is right at hand.

What's so wrong with being connected to France anyway, they may be a stroppy lot but they make very good cheese (and wine for that matter).

Yeah. I think that's where L21 came from on its way to Britain, too.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Jdean on March 28, 2011, 08:21:05 PM
Yeah. I think that's where L21 came from on its way to Britain, too.

Well if I was made to swim that's where I would choose. It seems odd that the closest land mass to Britain should be the furthest from so many minds.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 29, 2011, 12:00:51 AM
It's all very strange to me.

There is plenty of U152 right across the Channel in France and Belgium. I think most people would look at that and right away guess that is where the U152 in Britain came from.
Well, I tried to pin the U152 from Scandinavia to Great Britain theory down and to see if the proposer can come up with something else to say. I think he'll have to punt (and wait for ancient DNA.)


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 29, 2011, 03:16:29 PM
Well I have also read the book on Scots DNA that was recently published and it states that U152 is stronger in the east of Scotland (no Vikings, except the northern tip) than in the Atlantic area (where  many Vikings settled).  In fact the book makes the point that ALL of eastern Scotland is actually high in U106 and fairly high in U152 and L21 is much lower  there than it is in the west.  Indeed it even provides a map of Britain covered in mini pie charts for U152.  This clearly shows that U152 is raised all down eastern Britain (and the south coast) and low in the west.  Interestingly the Atlantic zone strongly Norse settled area of the Outer Hebrides and Skye have virtually zero U152 on the pie charts.  Basically in Scotland the correlation is with geography not with Vikings or even Anglo-Saxons.  The book pushes the idea that the whole of Britain is divided between east and south on one hand and the west on the other l and that in the case of eastern Scotland it cant be explained by Vikings.  Indeed, only the most southerly part of eastern Scotland experienced Anglo-Saxon settlement either.  So, the gist of the book is that this clade difference (more U106 and U152 in the east) probably goes back deep into prehistory, perhaps to the beginning of the arrival of R1b in the isles.  

I agree that it is perverse to look for the origins of U152 in a place where it is rare and ignore its high presence if Belgium and NE France, the closest areas accessing the sea near SE England.  I suspect most U152 (and perhaps a significant chunk of U106 is prehistoric, perhaps even dating from the beaker period and likely also brought through other Bronze Age and Iron Age contacts and finally the Belgae. ALL of those link easter and southern England to Belgium and NE France where U152 is common.  Other than the Belgae, eastern Scotland also tended to share these links.  Basically  link between south and east England (and eastern Scotland) with Belgium and NE France is a more realistic bringer of U152.  My own feeling, based on U152 and U106 being well represented in north-east Scotland where neither Anglo-Saxons or Vikings penetrated, is that both started arriving in Britain from the late Neolithic to the late Iron Age.  I would guess the Normans could have brought some too.  I doubt many U152 have anything to do with Vikings, especially the Norse.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 29, 2011, 03:55:14 PM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking. 


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 29, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking. 

Did they mention the y haplogroups?

What is their take on L21?


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: OConnor on March 30, 2011, 01:07:01 AM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking. 

Is this a claim for R1a to Vikings and R1b1a to France?
It seems to me there were probably R-L21 guys who were Norse as well as R1a.
Unless they are talking some other haplo groups.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 30, 2011, 08:39:46 AM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking. 

Did they mention the y haplogroups?

What is their take on L21?
I don't have the book yet, but David F said out on Rootsweb something to the effect that L21 was a "pan-British Isles" marker.  I don't know if the book brought France into that.  David also said something about L21 coming into the Isles from 2500-1500 BC.  Perhaps they are saying Bell Beakers.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on March 30, 2011, 08:11:35 PM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking. 

Did they mention the y haplogroups?

What is their take on L21?
I don't have the book yet, but David F said out on Rootsweb something to the effect that L21 was a "pan-British Isles" marker.  I don't know if the book brought France into that.  David also said something about L21 coming into the Isles from 2500-1500 BC.  Perhaps they are saying Bell Beakers.

I agree that it is "pan-British" in the sense that it is all over Britain.

If Wilson and Moffat say it came from somewhere else sometime between 2500 and 1500 BC, then they apparently did not mean it was British in origin.

Man, I want to get a copy of that book!


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 30, 2011, 10:58:31 PM
So, the gist of the book is that this clade difference (more U106 and U152 in the east) probably goes back deep into prehistory, perhaps to the beginning of the arrival of R1b in the isles.  

My own feeling, based on U152 and U106 being well represented in north-east Scotland where neither Anglo-Saxons or Vikings penetrated, is that both started arriving in Britain from the late Neolithic to the late Iron Age.  

Any suggestion that any U106 was present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons is clearly considered heretical thinking by nearly everyone. Fortunately for you and me and a handful of others, they no longer burn heretics at the stake.


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 31, 2011, 05:12:11 PM
another interesting statement in the same book is that a preliminary study of clearly Norman surnames in Scotland suggests the Normans genes were French rather than Viking.  

Did they mention the y haplogroups?

What is their take on L21?

Rich
I have been a bit busy recently so I have only skimmed my copy of The Scots; A genetic journey'.  In general I think it an interesting read and well written but there are areas where it is vague, dodges the issues or doesn't seem to compute.

They link M269 with the first farmers in a similar way to Myres etc.  However, it then goes a bit weird. They state that L21 (developed on the continent in northern Iberia/southern France (doesnt say why or give any evidence) and got to the isles along western Copper/Bronze Age trade routes/beakers.  They think U106 and U152 got to the more easterly bits of the isles about the same time by a more easterly route (I think they had an area centred on the Low Countries in mind).   The idea that R1b arrived with the farmers but then the main clades somehow also came from the continent in the copper age is frankly a fudge and they have side stepped the issue.  They keep things vague.  Maybe the fact there are two authors may be the reason why they seem to switch between these periods or at least fudge the issue of date alternating between a first farmers model and a copper age one.  That is hard to make sense of. Is he implying S116* and perhaps L11* date to before 4000BC but the downstream clades date from 1-2000 years later? That doesnt seem to tally with the similar variance of L11, S116, U152, L21, S21 etc.  

Personally I think they are getting closer to the truth in terms of dates and directions than others before them who have published popular books but there is a lot of find tuning, tweaking, a heck of a lot of detail needed and plenty of de-fudging needed.

In general Wilson follows the Oppenheimer idea of the west and east of Britain being very different and settled from Iberia/southern France on the one hand and more to the east around the Low Countries/NW Germany on the other and the duality seen in later times is back projected into the Neolithic.  They stop short of the Oppenheimer idea that the Celtic-German linguistic divide goes back deep into prehistory.  

They (without providing tables) give interesting stats such as the fact there is a high amount of U106 and to a lesser degree U152 in eastern Britain, including NE Scotland where 'Dark Ages' Germanic invasions cannot be cited as an explanation. That is genuinely interesting, suggesting that R1b1b2 at least has an east-west divide the full length of Britain that at least partly pre-dates the historic period.




Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: rms2 on April 01, 2011, 02:02:14 PM
Well, it sounds like an improvement over the old "Cro-Magnon" R1b days, anyway. If Dr. Wilson has moved us forward that much in time, that is certainly a promising sign.

I like the idea of a Beaker Folk origin for L21; it's more glamorous than being descended from a Neolithic farmer. I can't offer any good evidence to support the idea; I just like it. However, I do suspect a Beaker Folk origin may be the truth. Celtic lingo had to get to Britain somehow. Why not with some of the Beaker Folk?


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 01, 2011, 05:13:44 PM
Well, it sounds like an improvement over the old "Cro-Magnon" R1b days, anyway. If Dr. Wilson has moved us forward that much in time, that is certainly a promising sign.

I like the idea of a Beaker Folk origin for L21; it's more glamorous than being descended from a Neolithic farmer. I can't offer any good evidence to support the idea; I just like it. However, I do suspect a Beaker Folk origin may be the truth. Celtic lingo had to get to Britain somehow. Why not with some of the Beaker Folk?

Its certainly one of the two best options.  I think really now its pretty well agreed it must be either the first farmers or the beaker people.  I think that is progress.  The distribution of beakers does bear a strong resemblance to S116 and in some way or another that probably represents some sort of network of contact and therefore at least some gene flow.  The only problem I see is that the origin of beakers and the first true copper working industry in western Europe are currently placed in Iberia shortly after 3000BC while variance for S116 clades points to France and Germany as the oldest with Iberia and Italy being later overspills.  Clearly the phylogeny of L51-L23-L11-S116/U106 points to an east west movement.  That for me remains the stumbling block of the beaker idea.  Variance in general does not seem to support the idea of a movement along the Med. for S116.  Funny thing is idea that beakers evolved from corded ware on the latter's western edges that was accepted by many until a little after 2000 would have fitted S116 much better. 


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 02, 2011, 11:30:52 AM
Its certainly one of the two best options.  I think really now its pretty well agreed it must be either the first farmers or the beaker people.  I think that is progress.  The distribution of beakers does bear a strong resemblance to S116 and in some way or another that probably represents some sort of network of contact and therefore at least some gene flow.  The only problem I see is that the origin of beakers and the first true copper working industry in western Europe are currently placed in Iberia shortly after 3000BC while variance for S116 clades points to France and Germany as the oldest with Iberia and Italy being later overspills.  Clearly the phylogeny of L51-L23-L11-S116/U106 points to an east west movement.  That for me remains the stumbling block of the beaker idea.  Variance in general does not seem to support the idea of a movement along the Med. for S116.  Funny thing is idea that beakers evolved from corded ware on the latter's western edges that was accepted by many until a little after 2000 would have fitted S116 much better. 
What caused the idea that the Beaker culture originated in Iberia and not closer to Germany?  Is it just the dating of the sites with the Beaker pottery? What was the predecessor to the Beaker culture in Portugal? 

I ask because I don't think the innovations of the culture evolved in situ out on the western coast of Europe.  Perhaps that is an old bias I have about innovations, such as farming, animal husbandry, metalworking as coming out of the Near East/SW Asia area.

Are there sub-components of the Beaker "package" found elsewhere at earlier times?


Title: Re: U152 in Scandinavia? Really?
Post by: Heber on April 02, 2011, 07:37:59 PM
Its certainly one of the two best options.  I think really now its pretty well agreed it must be either the first farmers or the beaker people.  I think that is progress.  The distribution of beakers does bear a strong resemblance to S116 and in some way or another that probably represents some sort of network of contact and therefore at least some gene flow.  The only problem I see is that the origin of beakers and the first true copper working industry in western Europe are currently placed in Iberia shortly after 3000BC while variance for S116 clades points to France and Germany as the oldest with Iberia and Italy being later overspills.  Clearly the phylogeny of L51-L23-L11-S116/U106 points to an east west movement.  That for me remains the stumbling block of the beaker idea.  Variance in general does not seem to support the idea of a movement along the Med. for S116.  Funny thing is idea that beakers evolved from corded ware on the latter's western edges that was accepted by many until a little after 2000 would have fitted S116 much better. 
What caused the idea that the Beaker culture originated in Iberia and not closer to Germany?  Is it just the dating of the sites with the Beaker pottery? What was the predecessor to the Beaker culture in Portugal? 

I ask because I don't think the innovations of the culture evolved in situ out on the western coast of Europe.  Perhaps that is an old bias I have about innovations, such as farming, animal husbandry, metalworking as coming out of the Near East/SW Asia area.

Are there sub-components of the Beaker "package" found elsewhere at earlier times?


You can listen to the original BBC broadcasts based on the book below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yrkxc

I ordered the book. Looking forward to a good read.
The sample used was 3,000 from throughout Scotland so it is a big improvement on the Myres data. It appears to support the general Myres findings.
When Myres was published, I tried to ploy the migrations of M222 as follows:

http://www.box.net/shared/oqtrep2dng

I will update the chart when I get hold of Wilson's data. Does anyone know if it is available online. I still have an issue with the Myres dates, which appear old. The Bell Beaker connection is looking very interesting and seems to fit this theory. I never did like the term Bell Beaker. As someone pointed out in another forum, will archealogists in 2,000 years call us the Tupper Ware people:).