PDA

View Full Version : Y-DNA Contributions from historical migrations/invasions of Great Britain?



JFWR
11-07-12, 05:13
What would be a good mapping of the general Y-DNA contribution of historical migrations/invasions of Great Britain? For instance, what haplogroups might we associate with these populations:

Pre-Celtic Britain (Suggestion: I2a2a-Isles?).
Briton.
Pictish.
Roman.
Anglo-Saxon (and Jutes, Geats, et cetera).
Viking/Norsemen.
Norman.
Post-Norman influxes of migrants from continental Europe (primarily French and Dutch?).

Also, how might these match with the native British population of today? What was the population change resultant from these historical movements?

I imagine Roman and Norman have comparatively less of an influence because of the smaller population shift in spite of their absolute political domination. Contrariwise, from what I gather, the Britons and Anglo-Saxons were very complete migrations that widely replaced previous populations or pushed them to the fringes. I imagine the Picts represent a small portion of the population, also, and then mainly in Scotland.

Degredado
11-07-12, 15:07
Pre-Celtic/Pictish - I2a2
Celtic/Belgic - R1b (L21, P312*, S28)
Roman - R1b-S28, J2, E, G2a
Anglo-Saxon - R1b-S21, I1, I2a2
Vikings - I1, R1b-S21, R1a
Normans - R1b (L21, S28, S21, P312*), I1

sparkey
11-07-12, 17:14
Pre-Celtic/Pictish - I2a2
Celtic/Belgic - R1b (L21, P312*, S28)
Roman - R1b-S28, J2, E, G2a
Anglo-Saxon - R1b-S21, I1, I2a2
Vikings - I1, R1b-S21, R1a
Normans - R1b (L21, S28, S21, P312*), I1

This is pretty close to my understanding, although I don't think that "Pictish" is "pre-Celtic," I think it's more likely a form of Brythonic, and more appropriately placed with "Celtic/Belgic." I also think that, although L21 and S28 were both present among early Celtic-speaking expansions into Britain, they were probably in different concentrations in different expansions. Specifically, any early Atlantic expansions would have had more L21, and any Iron Age La-Tene-influenced expansions would have had more S28.

We can narrow down the Haplogroup I subclades a bit more than you have, as well. Specifically, I'd place I1-Z58 as the typical I1 subclade in the Anglo-Saxon expansion, and I1-L22 as the typical subclade in the Viking expansion. For I2, I'd place I2a2a-Isles and I2a1a-Gen as probably largely pre-Celtic, and I think also I2a1b2-Isles, or at least some of it; and I2a2a3 Z161+ (most of I2a2a-Cont) as the typical Anglo-Saxon I2.

JFWR
11-07-12, 17:16
Pre-Celtic/Pictish - I2a2

You think the Picts were pre-Celtic? They seem to be non-Celtic, but I don't know about pre-Celtic. That is, "indigenous Britons". They certainly do not seem to have very much in common with their Southerly pre-Celtic folks.


Celtic/Belgic - R1b (L21, P312*, S28)

I think that's fair.

Roman - R1b-S28, J2, E, G2a[/quote]

Has there been any haplogroup study on large ancient Roman gravesites and such? I'd be interested in what came out of those specifically.


Anglo-Saxon - R1b-S21, I1, I2a2

I think that's fairly fair. However, see below.


Vikings - I1, R1b-S21, R1a


You could probably add I2a2 here, too. It's common in Sweden and Norway.


Normans - R1b (L21, S28, S21, P312*), I1

Due to the distribution of I2a2 in NW France (Normandy and surrounding), Norway, Sweden, and Germany, I think that it is very possible Normans brought this along, too. Plus, the relative rarity in Great Britain would be explained by being Norman due to their relative few numbers. I ask about population changes precisely for this reason: If Saxon migration/conquest was complete and thorough, why do so few have I2A2 in Britain? If it came from Viking or Norman influence more, it might have more of a justification because neither of these brought too many people to Britain.

JFWR
11-07-12, 17:19
This is pretty close to my understanding, although I don't think that "Pictish" is "pre-Celtic," I think it's more likely a form of Brythonic, and more appropriately placed with "Celtic/Belgic." I also think that, although L21 and S28 were both present among early Celtic-speaking expansions into Britain, they were probably in different concentrations in different expansions. Specifically, any early Atlantic expansions would have had more L21, and any Iron Age La-Tene-influenced expansions would have had more S28.

I think this is a fairly reasonable conjecture. But there is also the question of why the Picts are so unceltic in many ways. Is this because they lived in greater isolation?


We can narrow down the Haplogroup I subclades a bit more than you have, as well. Specifically, I'd place I1-Z58 as the typical I1 subclade in the Anglo-Saxon expansion, and I1-L22 as the typical subclade in the Viking expansion. For I2, I'd place I2a2a-Isles and I2a1a-Gen as probably largely pre-Celtic, and I think also I2a1b2-Isles, or at least some of it; and I2a2a3 Z161+ (most of I2a2a-Cont) as the typical Anglo-Saxon I2.

Hs I2a1a been found in Britain very much? I thought it was primarily Sardinian.

sparkey
11-07-12, 17:28
I think this is a fairly reasonable conjecture. But there is also the question of why the Picts are so unceltic in many ways. Is this because they lived in greater isolation?

I haven't found arguments that they're unceltic to be particularly convincing, at least from what I've read so far. Taranis has been very convincing about the Brythonic nature of the Picts, here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27394-The-Picts) and elsewhere.


Hs I2a1a been found in Britain very much? I thought it was primarily Sardinian.

The British/Irish/French subclade is a little different than the Sardinian subclade. It's not all that common in Britain; at least, it doesn't reach anywhere near the frequency that it does in Sardinia. Probably fewer than 0.1% of British people have it... although I think the number is a bit higher in Ireland. But it's useful as one of the few examples of particularly early haplogroups in Britain.

JFWR
11-07-12, 17:33
I haven't found arguments that they're unceltic to be particularly convincing, at least from what I've read so far. Taranis has been very convincing about the Brythonic nature of the Picts, here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27394-The-Picts) and elsewhere.

I shall read this forthwith. Thank you.

As a historical note: Did the Romans identify the Picts as Celtic? What about any saints?


The British/Irish/French subclade is a little different than the Sardinian subclade. It's not all that common in Britain; at least, it doesn't reach anywhere near the frequency that it does in Sardinia. Probably fewer than 0.1% of British people have it... although I think the number is a bit higher in Ireland. But it's useful as one of the few examples of particularly early haplogroups in Britain.

You think that the Pictish version of this would produce something that low, though? Specifically in Scotland?

Hmm. I don't know. This might just come from later migrations of people, especially if iti s not that common in Pictish home country.

ebAmerican
11-07-12, 17:44
... the Britons and Anglo-Saxons were very complete migrations that widely replaced previous populations or pushed them to the fringes. I imagine the Picts represent a small portion of the population, also, and then mainly in Scotland.

First post - first of all what a great site. There is a lot of good information about history and genetics. Well done!

I always thought the idea of indigenous continuity strange. An idea pioneered in the 60s. If you look at any autosomal dna map the closest living relatives are always next door. So it's not surprising east England (Anglo Saxon) territory would be closely linked with Belgium and the Netherlands (linguistically and genetic). I would say the English channel was treated more like a lake than a forbearing ocean. A slow but constant diffusion of people along the entire Atlantic coast seems more probable than any mass invasion. I think we like to imagine large hordes of warrior Celts, and Germans invading. It's a romantic idea of heroism, but highly unlikely. They were most likely small disparate groups living side by side, and eventually assimilating into a new group. Which ever group had the better survival strategy eventually dominated.

Keegah
11-07-12, 17:49
As a historical note: Did the Romans identify the Picts as Celtic? What about any saints?.

I don't believe that the Romans identified any Insular Celts as being Celtic, only the Gauls and the Celtiberians.

JFWR
11-07-12, 17:49
First post - first of all what a great site. There is a lot of good information about history and genetics. Well done!

I always thought the idea of indigenous continuity strange. An idea pioneered in the 60s. If you look at any autosomal dna map the closest living relatives are always next door. So it's not surprising east England (Anglo Saxon) territory would be closely linked with Belgium and the Netherlands (linguistically and genetic). I would say the English channel was treated more like a lake than a forbearing ocean. A slow but constant diffusion of people along the entire Atlantic coast seems more probable than any mass invasion. I think we like to imagine large hordes of warrior Celts, and Germans invading. It's a romantic idea of heroism, but highly unlikely. They were most likely small disparate groups living side by side, and eventually assimilating into a new group. Which ever group had the better survival strategy eventually dominated.

You have something of a point, but the historical records show something of a strong change in post-Roman Briton society that is directly related to the Anglo-Saxon domination. There are no Celtic kings in England after the time of Arthur (I use this romantically as his historicity may or may not be valid). All the kings of England proper are Anglo-Saxon, and the surviving Celtic populations are pushed to Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and Ireland. Politically and linguistically, we know that to be very, very true. Anglo-Saxon is a Germanic language dominated by Germanic words, although some have supposed a strong infusion of a Celtic grammar.

The Normans also treated the Welsh as an entirely distinct people from the Anglo-Saxons. That's another strong indicator that Anglo-Saxon England was not very alike to any Celtic nation of the time.

JFWR
11-07-12, 17:51
I don't believe that the Romans identified any Insular Celts as being Celtic, only the Gauls and the Celtiberians.

Are you sure? I know the Romans identified Britain as the home of the druids and their secret schools of learning. It would be odd that the obvious linguistic and cultural continuity would have went by unnoted by the Romans.

ebAmerican
11-07-12, 18:05
Caesar made it very clear that the east Brythonic people spoke a language almost identical to Gaulish, but practiced their own customs and belief system. He said it was told to him by his Gaulish companions that the Gaulish druids were trained in Britain.

MOESAN
11-07-12, 22:56
You think the Picts were pre-Celtic? They seem to be non-Celtic, but I don't know about pre-Celtic. That is, "indigenous Britons". They certainly do not seem to have very much in common with their Southerly pre-Celtic folks.

Roman - R1b-S28, J2, E, G2a

Has there been any haplogroup study on large ancient Roman gravesites and such? I'd be interested in what came out of those specifically.



I think that's fairly fair. However, see below.



You could probably add I2a2 here, too. It's common in Sweden and Norway.



Due to the distribution of I2a2 in NW France (Normandy and surrounding), Norway, Sweden, and Germany, I think that it is very possible Normans brought this along, too. Plus, the relative rarity in Great Britain would be explained by being Norman due to their relative few numbers. I ask about population changes precisely for this reason: If Saxon migration/conquest was complete and thorough, why do so few have I2A2 in Britain? If it came from Viking or Norman influence more, it might have more of a justification because neither of these brought too many people to Britain.[/QUOTE]

oh! a very "cool" thread where I suppose there will not be too hot quarrel! only supposition that will not bring civil war or verbal terrorism (joke!)
I agree with almost what is said here because I do not see to great oppositions for the principal HGs
concerning Y-I2a1a OK even if I think it is not so old in the Isles (Y-I2a1a with Megalithics? BUT Y-I2a1b AND Y-I2b possibly with B.B. AND after with Belgae and Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) invasions -
concernong Normans I have some problem: how could thay had grought a lot of Y-I2b to Normandy (France) without influence too much the romance language, and have so little genetic impact on brittain where they influenced the language (even if later angevin french came with Plantagenêts to reinforce french language)? the ratio I1-I2b (11,5><5,0) is by far very distant to the Scandinavian one (33,0/44,0><2,00/4,00 in South) - so even in Normandy in think they were Y-I2b of other origin than scandinavian) I do not exclude nevertheless some Saxons of the Roman period that took foot in Northern Normandy: their ration could have been closer to the France Norman one- to tell my thought I say that Y-I2b bearers passed for a part into Brittain at B.B. ages, diluted after (Fr.HUBERT spoke about a near desertification in Westfalen and parts of the Netherlands about 2500/2200 BC) as the correlative fo the B.B. settlements in Brittain and the bulk of their Eastern comrades stayed in the mountainous areas of South Saxe where stay the peaks of %s - only some percentages passed to Brittain with Germanic invasions - about Western France I add that Brittany have a surprising high level of Y-I2b too (6,0% according to Maciamo, here again the ratio I1/I2b excludes a too big Viking impact: 8/6!): maybe a trace of the colonisators of the B.B. (Rhine) and the subsequent cultures akin to their one, the Wessex Culture and the Tumuli Culture of Brittany (1800/1600 BC?) - I am almost sure that these people send some western Y-R1a (Corded Ware origin) and some Y-I2a1b in small numbers too... and some R1b too (what sort? R-L21? R-U106? ...?) the high antiquity of Y-I2a1b Isles does not prove its high antiquity in the Isles?
for Y-R1B-U152, yes, I see also Belgae from N-E FRance-Belgium or Gauls from Switzerland, more than the future Romans and Saxons - sure their impact are negligeable compared ot the "great" HGs more common among Celts and Germanics....
just bets because the minor HGs in Brittain and Ireland could have come there with more than a historical event, and even very last (as they come almost all of them from the same perturbed areas: see the Flemings and Brabenders (FN Bremner, Fleming in Scorland)

MOESAN
11-07-12, 23:25
First post - first of all what a great site. There is a lot of good information about history and genetics. Well done!

I always thought the idea of indigenous continuity strange. An idea pioneered in the 60s. If you look at any autosomal dna map the closest living relatives are always next door. So it's not surprising east England (Anglo Saxon) territory would be closely linked with Belgium and the Netherlands (linguistically and genetic). I would say the English channel was treated more like a lake than a forbearing ocean. A slow but constant diffusion of people along the entire Atlantic coast seems more probable than any mass invasion. I think we like to imagine large hordes of warrior Celts, and Germans invading. It's a romantic idea of heroism, but highly unlikely. They were most likely small disparate groups living side by side, and eventually assimilating into a new group. Which ever group had the better survival strategy eventually dominated.

Big invasions overseas are very uneasy, uneasier than progressive colonisation, it is possible at firts sight -the Channel or our 'Mor Breizh' (Brittain Sea) was a boulevard sometime, but because of strong well established politic-economic ties (Celts, and Romans after that)- when two different populations are trying to gnaw the same bone, the landing become harder and the Channel breadth is a sufficiant obstacle!
Why did never Caeser speak about Germanic peoples in eastern Brittain at his time: he was well enough informed about interprets: and the tribes names there appear celtic -the same for the language as said here by an other blogger -
the physical anthropology show that in Eastern England, Saxons sepultures contains people different from the previous Brittons sepultures: sometimes they was buryied with Britton females, different from the saxon females in metric means: COON said that some centuries after, the Brittons population (mean) "came back" a little in the admixture, with its own different comonents. So at a time, there was no osmose: the mixture came after; becoming gradual between the West an East extremities - the genetic and phenotypic impact of germanic people (for me) between east-central Wales and central western England - is far from a gradual osmose between ancient friend populations: it looks like a military corner in the flank of the welsh defenses -

MOESAN
11-07-12, 23:28
Caesar made it very clear that the east Brythonic people spoke a language almost identical to Gaulish, but practiced their own customs and belief system. He said it was told to him by his Gaulish companions that the Gaulish druids were trained in Britain.

I agree - Caesar (Julius) said too that sometimes, Britton tribes send reinforcements troops to help some Gauls in their war against him, if I remember well -

MOESAN
11-07-12, 23:30
sorry - I2a2 = I2a1b - but you had understood

JFWR
12-07-12, 04:19
I agree with almost what is said here because I do not see to great oppositions for the principal HGs
concerning Y-I2a1a OK even if I think it is not so old in the Isles (Y-I2a1a with Megalithics? BUT Y-I2a1b AND Y-I2b possibly with B.B. AND after with Belgae and Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) invasions -
concernong Normans I have some problem: how could thay had grought a lot of Y-I2b to Normandy (France) without influence too much the romance language, and have so little genetic impact on brittain where they influenced the language (even if later angevin french came with Plantagenêts to reinforce french language)? the ratio I1-I2b (11,5><5,0) is by far very distant to the Scandinavian one (33,0/44,0><2,00/4,00 in South) - so even in Normandy in think they were Y-I2b of other origin than scandinavian) I do not exclude nevertheless some Saxons of the Roman period that took foot in Northern Normandy: their ration could have been closer to the France Norman one- to tell my thought I say that Y-I2b bearers passed for a part into Brittain at B.B. ages, diluted after (Fr.HUBERT spoke about a near desertification in Westfalen and parts of the Netherlands about 2500/2200 BC) as the correlative fo the B.B. settlements in Brittain and the bulk of their Eastern comrades stayed in the mountainous areas of South Saxe where stay the peaks of %s - only some percentages passed to Brittain with Germanic invasions - about Western France I add that Brittany have a surprising high level of Y-I2b too (6,0% according to Maciamo, here again the ratio I1/I2b excludes a too big Viking impact: 8/6!): maybe a trace of the colonisators of the B.B. (Rhine) and the subsequent cultures akin to their one, the Wessex Culture and the Tumuli Culture of Brittany (1800/1600 BC?) - I am almost sure that these people send some western Y-R1a (Corded Ware origin) and some Y-I2a1b in small numbers too... and some R1b too (what sort? R-L21? R-U106? ...?) the high antiquity of Y-I2a1b Isles does not prove its high antiquity in the Isles?
for Y-R1B-U152, yes, I see also Belgae from N-E FRance-Belgium or Gauls from Switzerland, more than the future Romans and Saxons - sure their impact are negligeable compared ot the "great" HGs more common among Celts and Germanics....
just bets because the minor HGs in Brittain and Ireland could have come there with more than a historical event, and even very last (as they come almost all of them from the same perturbed areas: see the Flemings and Brabenders (FN Bremner, Fleming in Scorland)


From my understanding of Norman domination of Britain, was that it was mostly political domination from on high. William and his descendants didn't bring in droves of men, but won at Hastings, and then managed through superior organization to dominate the Anglo-Saxons who were deprived of their ancestral rights. Likewise, the fact that English became so Normanized was due to the fact that the Normans had a great influence on the court language. We must recall, for instance, that several English kings spoke only French! Modern English no doubt started as a pidgin language between Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
As for why the Normans didn't influence French, well, it is perhaps because the French influenced Normans. The Normans, a Germanic people, adopted a romance language (Old French) as their language.

The Bretons may well have had influxes of I2a2a, from from where, I wonder? Maybe the Carologinians? Because unless the previous Bronze Age Celtic view of I2a2a is right, it's hard for a Celtic population to be definitively associated with I2a2a unless it comes later.

Can you clarify those ratios, also? I have not heard of any place where 44.0 percent of the population was I2a2a.

Eldritch
03-10-12, 23:45
I guess Roman contribution is understimated in Britain.

Yorkie
05-10-12, 19:49
Has there been any haplogroup study on large ancient Roman gravesites and such? I'd be interested in what came out of those specifically.



I think that's fairly fair. However, see below.



You could probably add I2a2 here, too. It's common in Sweden and Norway.



Due to the distribution of I2a2 in NW France (Normandy and surrounding), Norway, Sweden, and Germany, I think that it is very possible Normans brought this along, too. Plus, the relative rarity in Great Britain would be explained by being Norman due to their relative few numbers. I ask about population changes precisely for this reason: If Saxon migration/conquest was complete and thorough, why do so few have I2A2 in Britain? If it came from Viking or Norman influence more, it might have more of a justification because neither of these brought too many people to Britain.

oh! a very "cool" thread where I suppose there will not be too hot quarrel! only supposition that will not bring civil war or verbal terrorism (joke!)
I agree with almost what is said here because I do not see to great oppositions for the principal HGs
concerning Y-I2a1a OK even if I think it is not so old in the Isles (Y-I2a1a with Megalithics? BUT Y-I2a1b AND Y-I2b possibly with B.B. AND after with Belgae and Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) invasions -
concernong Normans I have some problem: how could thay had grought a lot of Y-I2b to Normandy (France) without influence too much the romance language, and have so little genetic impact on brittain where they influenced the language (even if later angevin french came with Plantagenêts to reinforce french language)? the ratio I1-I2b (11,5><5,0) is by far very distant to the Scandinavian one (33,0/44,0><2,00/4,00 in South) - so even in Normandy in think they were Y-I2b of other origin than scandinavian) I do not exclude nevertheless some Saxons of the Roman period that took foot in Northern Normandy: their ration could have been closer to the France Norman one- to tell my thought I say that Y-I2b bearers passed for a part into Brittain at B.B. ages, diluted after (Fr.HUBERT spoke about a near desertification in Westfalen and parts of the Netherlands about 2500/2200 BC) as the correlative fo the B.B. settlements in Brittain and the bulk of their Eastern comrades stayed in the mountainous areas of South Saxe where stay the peaks of %s - only some percentages passed to Brittain with Germanic invasions - about Western France I add that Brittany have a surprising high level of Y-I2b too (6,0% according to Maciamo, here again the ratio I1/I2b excludes a too big Viking impact: 8/6!): maybe a trace of the colonisators of the B.B. (Rhine) and the subsequent cultures akin to their one, the Wessex Culture and the Tumuli Culture of Brittany (1800/1600 BC?) - I am almost sure that these people send some western Y-R1a (Corded Ware origin) and some Y-I2a1b in small numbers too... and some R1b too (what sort? R-L21? R-U106? ...?) the high antiquity of Y-I2a1b Isles does not prove its high antiquity in the Isles?
for Y-R1B-U152, yes, I see also Belgae from N-E FRance-Belgium or Gauls from Switzerland, more than the future Romans and Saxons - sure their impact are negligeable compared ot the "great" HGs more common among Celts and Germanics....
just bets because the minor HGs in Brittain and Ireland could have come there with more than a historical event, and even very last (as they come almost all of them from the same perturbed areas: see the Flemings and Brabenders (FN Bremner, Fleming in Scorland)
[/QUOTE]

This is getting confusing. I suspect that some people are using out of date nomenclature here. It might help to include L161 in front of I2a1b2-Isles. Nordtvedt might well see this small clade as early post-LGM, but those such as Sykes and Forster see at least the English distribution [this clade is not exclusively Irish and has English, Scots, German etc members] as more likely Anglo-Saxon in origin. The Irish distribution might be earlier and could trace back to the Erainn or Fir Bolg tribes who may have had a Belgic origin.

MOESAN
05-10-12, 22:42
oh! a very "cool" thread where I suppose there will not be too hot quarrel! only supposition that will not bring civil war or verbal terrorism (joke!)
I agree with almost what is said here because I do not see to great oppositions for the principal HGs
concerning Y-I2a1a OK even if I think it is not so old in the Isles (Y-I2a1a with Megalithics? BUT Y-I2a1b AND Y-I2b possibly with B.B. AND after with Belgae and Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) invasions -
concernong Normans I have some problem: how could thay had grought a lot of Y-I2b to Normandy (France) without influence too much the romance language, and have so little genetic impact on brittain where they influenced the language (even if later angevin french came with Plantagenêts to reinforce french language)? the ratio I1-I2b (11,5><5,0) is by far very distant to the Scandinavian one (33,0/44,0><2,00/4,00 in South) - so even in Normandy in think they were Y-I2b of other origin than scandinavian) I do not exclude nevertheless some Saxons of the Roman period that took foot in Northern Normandy: their ration could have been closer to the France Norman one- to tell my thought I say that Y-I2b bearers passed for a part into Brittain at B.B. ages, diluted after (Fr.HUBERT spoke about a near desertification in Westfalen and parts of the Netherlands about 2500/2200 BC) as the correlative fo the B.B. settlements in Brittain and the bulk of their Eastern comrades stayed in the mountainous areas of South Saxe where stay the peaks of %s - only some percentages passed to Brittain with Germanic invasions - about Western France I add that Brittany have a surprising high level of Y-I2b too (6,0% according to Maciamo, here again the ratio I1/I2b excludes a too big Viking impact: 8/6!): maybe a trace of the colonisators of the B.B. (Rhine) and the subsequent cultures akin to their one, the Wessex Culture and the Tumuli Culture of Brittany (1800/1600 BC?) - I am almost sure that these people send some western Y-R1a (Corded Ware origin) and some Y-I2a1b in small numbers too... and some R1b too (what sort? R-L21? R-U106? ...?) the high antiquity of Y-I2a1b Isles does not prove its high antiquity in the Isles?
for Y-R1B-U152, yes, I see also Belgae from N-E FRance-Belgium or Gauls from Switzerland, more than the future Romans and Saxons - sure their impact are negligeable compared ot the "great" HGs more common among Celts and Germanics....
just bets because the minor HGs in Brittain and Ireland could have come there with more than a historical event, and even very last (as they come almost all of them from the same perturbed areas: see the Flemings and Brabenders (FN Bremner, Fleming in Scorland)


This is getting confusing. I suspect that some people are using out of date nomenclature here. It might help to include L161 in front of I2a1b2-Isles. Nordtvedt might well see this small clade as early post-LGM, but those such as Sykes and Forster see at least the English distribution [this clade is not exclusively Irish and has English, Scots, German etc members] as more likely Anglo-Saxon in origin. The Irish distribution might be earlier and could trace back to the Erainn or Fir Bolg tribes who may have had a Belgic origin.[/QUOTE]

I was speaking about the generic HGs Y-I1... versus HGs Y-I2a1b (in general, not one of his "british" dowstream HGs or subclade HPs) I was focused on the Normans (and generally french territories) possible genetic contribution to the Isles -
Fir Bolg were maybe Belgae and they could have brought some I2a2 ex I2b (a few) as some Y-R1b-U152, U106 (a few) but before them were the Rhine BB people (more dense in England and Scotland) that I suppose brought some Y-I2a1b & I2a2 along with diverse Y-R1b and even some Y-R1a among them: all these cultures took the same pathes... for ireland I believe there impact has been very light compared to Brittain -

Mikewww
06-10-12, 17:41
Pre-Celtic/Pictish - I2a2
Celtic/Belgic - R1b (L21, P312*, S28)
Roman - R1b-S28, J2, E, G2a
Anglo-Saxon - R1b-S21, I1, I2a2
Vikings - I1, R1b-S21, R1a
Normans - R1b (L21, S28, S21, P312*), I1

A better description for R1b among the Vikings is just R1b as there are a lot of R1b-P312/S116 types in Scandinavia too. See the Old Norway Project.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/-sczsteve/Gothenburg_13Oct2011.pdf

Steve Harding presented this chart.5746

You'll notice that the smaller pulled out pie charts are the R1b breakdown. U106 is the green and you can see there are P312 types (U152/S28, P312/S116, L21/S145, M167/SRY2627) are the majority of the R1b at many of the locations, including Skarabourg, Sweden.

Therefore, it is likely there were some P312 types with Scandinavian raiders/Vikings.

Jackson
06-10-12, 23:28
A better description for R1b among the Vikings is just R1b as there are a lot of R1b-P312/S116 types in Scandinavia too. See the Old Norway Project.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/-sczsteve/Gothenburg_13Oct2011.pdf

Steve Harding presented this chart.5746

You'll notice that the smaller pulled out pie charts are the R1b breakdown. U106 is the green and you can see there are P312 types (U152/S28, P312/S116, L21/S145, M167/SRY2627) are the majority of the R1b at many of the locations, including Skarabourg, Sweden.

Therefore, it is likely there were some P312 types with Scandinavian raiders/Vikings.

Thanks for the link. I've seen this before but i'm still surprised how much U152 there is in Jutland. I know it's only a relatively small percentage of the R1b but it's still more than i would have thought. And of course if R1b-L21 in particular (or at least P312) is biased towards the Norwegians then it might make the Norwegian Viking input in Britain harder to detect, as they primarily went to areas that were already L21/P312 heavy around the Irish sea. Although the discovery of Norwegian (or Scandinavian) specific groups helps with that.

Dubhthach
09-10-12, 11:08
Post-Norman influxes of migrants from continental Europe (primarily French and Dutch?).

Probably the largest single group of migrants into Britain since early Modern times have been the Irish. At the moment there are about 6 million people living in Britain who have at least one Irish grandparent (and thus eligble for Irish citzenship), when you fact in historic migration over the last 250 years the numbers with some Irish ancestry has been claimed to be up to 14million (BBC 2001). Even today there's probably upwards of 500,000 Irish born living in Britain.

-Paul
(DF41+)

MOESAN
09-10-12, 13:38
I had argued in some thread that Germanics did not put a foot in Britain before the Anglo-saxons invasions (except the possible few germanic mercenaries under Roma controle)-
I keep thinking it for the most, but I red again,newly, a COON phrase about the erroneously so called "Danes groves" in Yorkshire (29 males were found): he said: the skeletons was 'Aunjetitz-Unetice like' or (very close) 'early scandinavian types' (of iron Age) # celtic nordic type of Irona Age ("kymric"), with fibulae showing 'scandinavian affinities' AND IT WAS AT FINAL BRONZE AGES: so I'm obliged to admit that some nordic or germanic people had yet put a foot in estern coastal Britain at some early time (even if not in huge quantities)

MOESAN
09-10-12, 13:46
Probably the largest single group of migrants into Britain since early Modern times have been the Irish. At the moment there are about 6 million people living in Britain who have at least one Irish grandparent (and thus eligble for Irish citzenship), when you fact in historic migration over the last 250 years the numbers with some Irish ancestry has been claimed to be up to 14million (BBC 2001). Even today there's probably upwards of 500,000 Irish born living in Britain.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I agree, totally: the present day physical aspect of Englishmen is very often "altered" (joke) by "celtic back migration" and the irish people are the heavier in the game, I assume: big towns and industrial areas, West lancashire upon all, are targets of irish immigration and it is very evident when you see the surnames percentages evolution in some brittish areas...
Welshmen migrated too, but I think their preferred target was Midlands and Dark Country - it 's why I'm a little bit irritated when I read people speaking about the present day global aspect of English people as it they were all typical of the previous inhabitants of Danelaw, to support the idea there has not been an important germanic and viking occupation in Britain. there has been.