Scottish R1b-U152, Danelaw vs. Channel crossing

Dorianfinder

Regular Member
Messages
472
Reaction score
49
Points
28
Location
Western Cape
Ethnic group
European
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-FGC13617
mtDNA haplogroup
T2b1
Where do you believe did R1b-U152 in Scotland come from?

There has been a rather heated debate for some time now, where do things stand?
 
In my opinion, Scottish U152 is most likely to be of Celtic origin (I might use the term "Pictish"). Specifically from the arrival of Hallstatt expansion into Britain that brought iron-working (circa 8th century BC).

There is also a linguistic argument in favour of this: of what previously little is known if the Pictish language, it was a P-Celtic language akin to Brythonic and Gaulish.

Also, the key argument against a Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or Viking, for that matter) origin is simple: in the original homeland of neither the Vikings nor in the Saxons are any appreciable amounts of U152.

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif
 
Is there some confusion here between R1b-U106 and R1b-U152? I have to imagine that R1b-U106 is more contentious. R1b-U152 must be Celtic related and completely divorced from the Danelaw.
 
In my opinion, Scottish U152 is most likely to be of Celtic origin (I might use the term "Pictish"). Specifically from the arrival of Hallstatt expansion into Britain that brought iron-working (circa 8th century BC).

There is also a linguistic argument in favour of this: of what previously little is known if the Pictish language, it was a P-Celtic language akin to Brythonic and Gaulish.

Also, the key argument against a Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or Viking, for that matter) origin is simple: in the original homeland of neither the Vikings nor in the Saxons are any appreciable amounts of U152.

Celtic expansion.jpg

@ Taranis

So you believe the Channel crossing hypothesis. What linguistic support do you have linking the Pictish with the continental Belgae (Normandy, Picardy, Belgium)?
 
I don't remember exactly but it might have been two sources for R1b U152, one would have been Italic and another from the Low countries. the L2 subclade has something to do with it
 
Is there some confusion here between R1b-U106 and R1b-U152? I have to imagine that R1b-U106 is more contentious. R1b-U152 must be Celtic related and completely divorced from the Danelaw.

The discussion concerns R1b-U152 as there appears to be a long-standing theory by Dr. David Faux with regards to the Cimbri and the Scottish lowlands. He has been heavily criticized by some and he remains adamant that archaeological evidence points to the Danelaw 'East coast of Jutland'. Any thoughts on this?

Dr. David Faux writes:
Origins of the Cimbri – German or Celt?: Before delving into the topic in any depth it is essential to clear up one matter which seems to have created the largest swirl of controversy – were the Cimbri Germans, or were they Celts? Since they resided in the heart of the northern Germanic, southern Scandinavian region the answer should be obvious, however what seems apparent may only be an illusion.
 
I don't remember exactly but it might have been two sources for R1b U152, one would have been Italic and another from the Low countries. the L2 subclade has something to do with it

Please try and remember, I think it could be useful to this discussion.
 
The discussion concerns R1b-U152 as there appears to be a long-standing theory by Dr. David Faux with regards to the Cimbri and the Scottish lowlands. He has been heavily criticized by some and he remains adamant that archaeological evidence points to the Danelaw 'East coast of Jutland'. Any thoughts on this?

I haven't read it. It seems implausible. Does diversity of R1b-U152 increase as we get closer to Jutland or something? Even if that was the case, the Danelaw is too recent for it to matter. We would expect near-modern admixture in Jutland during the Viking Age, and R1b-U152 is just too low there for Scotland's modern admixture to reflect it.
 
L2 as a percentage of U152 increases as one nears the North Sea.

...which is exactly the kind of clean gradient we would expect if it arose during U152's expansion. And we date L2 to ca. 2500 years ago, around the time of the Celtic expansion most closely associated with U152. This certainly doesn't help a "Danelaw" argument. Agree?
 
If all the British U152 had come via the chanel, we would expect more U152 in Wales
 
I haven't read it. It seems implausible. Does diversity of R1b-U152 increase as we get closer to Jutland or something? Even if that was the case, the Danelaw is too recent for it to matter. We would expect near-modern admixture in Jutland during the Viking Age, and R1b-U152 is just too low there for Scotland's modern admixture to reflect it.

Neither frequency nor diversity play in favour of the Danelaw hypothesis. It appears to be based primarily on two things, the near perfect Eastern distribution on the British isles and a slightly larger frequency amoung lowland Scots rather than South East Anglia.
 
If all the British U152 had come via the chanel, we would expect more U152 in Wales

Why? Most R1b-U152 in Britain came later than most R1b-L21 in Britain. Wales is relatively difficult to reach and would have already been full of R1b-L21 people.
 
The discussion concerns R1b-U152 as there appears to be a long-standing theory by Dr. David Faux with regards to the Cimbri and the Scottish lowlands. He has been heavily criticized by some and he remains adamant that archaeological evidence points to the Danelaw 'East coast of Jutland'. Any thoughts on this?

Dr. David Faux writes:
Origins of the Cimbri – German or Celt?: Before delving into the topic in any depth it is essential to clear up one matter which seems to have created the largest swirl of controversy – were the Cimbri Germans, or were they Celts? Since they resided in the heart of the northern Germanic, southern Scandinavian region the answer should be obvious, however what seems apparent may only be an illusion.

Honestly, what screws up this idea is that there is virtually no U152 in Jutland (unless you have sources that say otherwise). Check out the distribution map I posted.

Regarding the Cimbri, in my opinion a compelling case can be made that they were actually Germanic, specifically that they spoke the so-called "Pre-Germanic"* language.

(*more precisely described as "Proto-Germanic before the First Germanic Soundshift", which is pretty unwieldy).


Interesting map. A tad inaccurate, but interesting.

@ Taranis

So you believe the Channel crossing hypothesis. What linguistic support do you have linking the Pictish with the continental Belgae (Normandy, Picardy, Belgium)?

Let me say this: I would not link them with the Belgae per se. The main evidence I have is in Pictish tribal and place names in Antiquity, which suggest that Pictish (assuming it was a distinct language, and not just an arbitrary perception by the Romans of the tribes living north of the Hadrian's Wall) was akin to Brythonic and Gaulish.

(Regarding the Danelaw, I think that Scottish R1b-U106 is mostly of Viking origin)
 
...which is exactly the kind of clean gradient we would expect if it arose during U152's expansion. And we date L2 to ca. 2500 years ago, around the time of the Celtic expansion most closely associated with U152. This certainly doesn't help a "Danelaw" argument. Agree?

The TMRCA for L2 has been pushed back quite a bit (3200-3500ybp) as consensus is building that it formed very near the time of its parent U152. I agree that L2 rather than U152 would have played a significant role in the Celtic migration.
 
The TMRCA for L2 has been pushed back quite a bit (3200-3500ybp) as consensus is building that it formed very near the time of its parent U152. I agree that L2 rather than U152 would have played a significant role in the Celtic migration.

Actually I was concerned that 2500 might be too recent for my explanation after thinking about it, because we generally expect SNPs to arise in a population just before an expansion rather than in the middle of it to explain such a gradient... if 2500 was correct, probably a lot of L2- would have traveled before L2+ started. But if instead we have a an earlier date for L2, we are more likely to have had a population of U152 that is closer to the North Sea with higher L2 levels and a population that is farther from the North Sea with lower L2 level, which then got amplified as expansion occurred.
 
Honestly, what screws up this idea is that there is virtually no U152 in Jutland (unless you have sources that say otherwise). Check out the distribution map I posted.

Regarding the Cimbri, in my opinion a compelling case can be made that they were actually Germanic, specifically that they spoke the so-called "Pre-Germanic"* language.

(*more precisely described as "Proto-Germanic before the First Germanic Soundshift", which is pretty unwieldy).



Interesting map. A tad inaccurate, but interesting.



Let me say this: I would not link them with the Belgae per se. The main evidence I have is in Pictish tribal and place names in Antiquity, which suggest that Pictish (assuming it was a distinct language, and not just an arbitrary perception by the Romans of the tribes living north of the Hadrian's Wall) was akin to Brythonic and Gaulish.

(Regarding the Danelaw, I think that Scottish R1b-U106 is mostly of Viking origin)

If R1b-U106 was mostly introduced by Vikings would you say that an early wave of L21 and U106 possibly arrived during the same time and a later migration is therefore responsible for the Celtic U152 we find along the East coast?
 
If R1b-U106 was mostly introduced by Vikings would you say that an early wave of L21 and U106 possibly arrived during the same time and a later migration is therefore responsible for the Celtic U152 we find along the East coast?

Apart from Austrian U106, which is, to quote sparkey "cotentious", I would argue that U106 is virtually exclusively Germanic in origin, and I hence don't see how there could have been U106 in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons or the Vikings.

My scenario is approximately as follows:

- L21 arrived on the British Isles with the great upheavals in the 13th century BC. The subclade M222 subsequently evolved in Ireland.

- U152 arrived in 8th century BC with the arrival of iron-working. There may have been a secondary source later ~2nd/3rd century BC via the Belgae.
 
Apart from Austrian U106, which is, to quote sparkey "cotentious", I would argue that U106 is virtually exclusively Germanic in origin, and I hence don't see how there could have been U106 in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons or the Vikings.

My scenario is approximately as follows:

- L21 arrived on the British Isles with the great upheavals in the 13th century BC. The subclade M222 subsequently evolved in Ireland.

- U152 arrived in 8th century BC with the arrival of iron-working. There may have been a secondary source later ~2nd/3rd century BC via the Belgae.

It appears sensible and stands up well against the Cimbri hypothesis for U152 in Scotland. I think Dr. David Faux related the introduction of iron-working to the regions settled by the Cimbri, positing an archaeological argument with iron-work introduction into the East Jutland from the U152 homelands in Central Europe.
 

This thread has been viewed 27534 times.

Back
Top