PDA

View Full Version : R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (R1b-S497): a native Celtic branch of R1b1a1a2a1a1 (R1b-U106) ?



Tomenable
18-02-16, 17:18
A Romano-Briton sample 3DRIF-16 (Martiniano 2016) from the Driffield Terrace in York (Eboracum) belonged to haplogroup U106, which used to be linked with Germanic peoples. But that guy was clearly Non-Germanic and preceded any migrations of Germanic-speaking groups to Britain.

Apart from M405/U106/S21+, he also had SNPs Z381/S263+, Z305/S376+, S1785+; so he belonged to R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (R1b-S497):

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

This subclade is around 4900 years old and had its TMRCA around 4200 years ago, according to age estimates by YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Its age (as well as the age of U106 as a whole) is much older than the emergence of Proto-Germanic community, so there are only very few reasons (most notably: modern frequencies; but modern frequencies are often not good reasons at all, as aDNA has been showing all the time) to assume that U106 was originally restricted only to Germanic-speakers, and entered other populations only as the result of Germanic admixture.

Could S497 be a natively Italo-Celtic subclade of U106 ? What is the modern distribution of this subclade?

Tomenable
18-02-16, 18:05
Oh, I forgot about the other sample, 6DRIF-3, who was also under R1b-S497, but one step further in the tree - R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a1 (R1b-DF98).

Were they really Germanic gladiators? Both were under S497, locally born (not 1st generation migrants), autosomally similar to locals, etc.

BTW - we have in total 12 samples of pre-Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA from the British Isles (3 Irish BA, 2 IA Britons, 7 Romano-Briton York), and 17% of them (two) are U106. I don't think that Germanic people made up 17% of British-Irish male population already around 100-300 AD.

The fact is, that so far U106 is as much as 17% (two out of 12) of Pre-Anglo-Saxon ancient Y-DNA from Britain and Ireland combined.

bicicleur
18-02-16, 18:24
can you give me a reference to the paper? is this the gladiator paper?

2 U106 samples is not so much to draw big conclusions especially if both are from the same location/age

what I remember from the paper is that these gladiators were not free men but slaves/prisoners execept the one on the horse who would have been an empovershied nobleman

Tomenable
18-02-16, 18:41
Yes, the gladiator paper.

They are not only both U106, but both are Z306/S497 (one is DF98, which is downstream of Z306/S497).

I've checked FTDNA R1b-U106 Project for R1b-Z306 (= S497) and R1b-DF98 results:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=ymap

Carriers of the most basal subclades of R1b-Z306/S497 seem to be, mostly, British.

bicicleur
18-02-16, 19:42
Yes, the gladiator paper.

They are not only both U106, but both are Z306/S497 (one is DF98, which is downstream of Z306/S497).

I've checked FTDNA R1b-U106 Project for R1b-Z306 (= S497) and R1b-DF98 results:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=ymap

Carriers of the most basal subclades of R1b-Z306/S497 seem to be, mostly, British.



do you mean all the subclades downstream of Z304 ?

R-S497Z307/S498 * Z304/S265 * Z8161/S1667+3 SNPsformed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybpinfo (http://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-S497/)

I don't think they are particularly British, I'd say Germanic

LeBrok
18-02-16, 21:27
Isn't U106 equivalent of S21?
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

I heard that some English historians and archeologists suspects that there was influx of Frisians to England in Roman times, way before Anglo-Saxons.

bicicleur
19-02-16, 08:30
this is the oldest detected U106 :


Battle Axe/ Nordic LN
Sweden
Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98]
M
2275-2032 BC
R1b1a2a1a1
M405/S21/U106
K1b1a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































that was before the Nordic Bronze Age
so probably nothing to do with metallurgy
but maybe involved in amber trade?

MOESAN
19-02-16, 09:59
as said by Bicycleur, 2 men in a sample of 12, and found in the same place, cannot help to make rules -
Germanics pirates of all sorts were already raiding NW Europe shores in Roman times: Saxons and Frisians, it seems well established.
That said, some U106 could have been found among non-germanic speaking people, what doesn' t exclude they came from the regions where ultimately formed proto-Germanics;
some R1-U106 could have been found too at low level among Belgae tribes (already said)
Concerning the notion of "gladiator" it seems it's not well checked; they could have been mercenaries, with a statut inferior to the genuine Roman soldiers?
I recall too of some settlements in Yorkshire attributed to Vikings and finally dated to Iron Age (no more precise date in my mind): earlier Germanics setllements at low density? Not impossible; they could have been incorporated among Roman army?

MOESAN
19-02-16, 10:03
THat said, in the Netherlands, there is a clear gradiant from North (Frisia: maxi) to South for U106, the southenr R1b closer to more continental regions under celtic and later Romùan power: we can suppose in Roman time when Celts were the most numerous, the opposition between distributions could have been stronger.
I still believe U106 is as a whole a Germanics marker, but I don't discard a possible non-germanic U106 for some subclades. It calls for more detailed surveys (local).

Tomenable
19-02-16, 12:11
this is the oldest detected U106 :


Battle Axe/ Nordic LN
Sweden
Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98]
M
2275-2032 BC
R1b1a2a1a1
M405/S21/U106
K1b1a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































that was before the Nordic Bronze Age
so probably nothing to do with metallurgy
but maybe involved in amber trade?

That was a Battle Axe (Scandinavian Corded Ware) sample. They had copper metallurgy.

But that sample is 4300-4000 years old, while U106 in general is 4900 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

So that guy lived several centuries up to even one thousand years after the emergence and TMRCA of U106.

During that time carriers of U106 could migrate into many places, not just Scandinavia.


Concerning the notion of "gladiator" it seems it's not well checkedIt is well checked - they were most certainly gladiators, here is a documentary about them:

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gladiators-back-from-the-dead-video_13d4008d0.html

There were actually around 80 skeletons of gladiators there, so we got DNA just from a small part of them.


in the Netherlands, there is a clear gradiant from North (Frisia: maxi) to South for U106In Belgium there is no clear pattern, with some Walloon-speaking areas having higher percent of U106:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

bicicleur
19-02-16, 14:02
That was a Battle Axe (Scandinavian Corded Ware) sample. They had copper metallurgy.

But that sample is 4300-4000 years old, while U106 in general is 4900 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

So that guy lived several centuries up to even one thousand years after the emergence and TMRCA of U106.

During that time carriers of U106 could migrate into many places, not just Scandinavia.



corded ware did have copper objects indeed, but did they melt their own ores to produce copper?

indeed several centuries, but it is not so the U106 arrived in Scandinavia as late as the Nordic Bronze
he could just as well arrived have there along with corded ware 2700 BC
we don't know

Greying Wanderer
19-02-16, 14:48
I think R1b came from roughly the same source region but spread west by various routes.

S21 looks to me like the route was either
- source -> Danube -> Rhine -> Rhine mouth
or
- source -> Baltic -> North Sea -> Rhine mouth
then dramatically expanding from the Atlantic coast for some reason.

Personally I think "Germanic" is/was the result of the northern branch of R1b merging with a pre-existing Nordic I1 population so that northern branch was both Celtic (originally) and Germanic (later) with the Belgae maybe representing that original state i.e. culturally Celtic but visually looking more like what Romans thought of as Germanic.

Personally I think Caesar dividing Gaul into three visible "types" is probably indicative of different ancestral paths but the genetic labels and cultural labels may not always match exactly and on the borders in some cases there may have been Vasconic Celts and Celtic Vascones and Germanic Celts and Celtic Germanics.


that was before the Nordic Bronze Age so probably nothing to do with metallurgy

Unless they were copper workers/traders. If you notice the S21 distribution map in the post above the patch of S21 in Russia is on top of the Kargaly copper field.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Kargaly,+Respublika+Bashkortostan,+Russia,+452213/@53.9887004,51.1526692,5.75z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x43defc40bf0e6221:0xeeb96b7fb5547 e65

so one possible* explanation could be they were originally copper artisans following the trade routes along the big rivers who expanded dramatically for some reason when they arrived at the Atlantic coast.

(*unlikely maybe but possible)

MOESAN
19-02-16, 14:51
That was a Battle Axe (Scandinavian Corded Ware) sample. They had copper metallurgy.

But that sample is 4300-4000 years old, while U106 in general is 4900 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

So that guy lived several centuries up to even one thousand years after the emergence and TMRCA of U106.

During that time carriers of U106 could migrate into many places, not just Scandinavia.

It is well checked - they were most certainly gladiators, here is a documentary about them:

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gladiators-back-from-the-dead-video_13d4008d0.html

There were actually around 80 skeletons of gladiators there, so we got DNA just from a small part of them.

In Belgium there is no clear pattern, with some Walloon-speaking areas having higher percent of U106:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

Thanks Tomenable
I saw the above map. But on what I've seen before, it seems the netherlander speaking population studied had very better samples than the Walloon and Pickard part of Belgium. I rely in no way on the southern part of this map. Maybe can you tell me the samples numbers which served to edit this map?
That said, romance speaking Belgium could have very unlevel %s of U106 because I red the Franks tribes occuped strongholds in some partso of it, and not with the same density everywhere. The same occurred in Northern France for Franks: some arrows of penetration with sdenser imput than the regions comprise between them. Not an exception.
I would be pleased if someone with knowledge about Blegium History could confirm or infirm these facts concerning Franks in Romance Belgium.

Concerning gladiators, I'll red your stuff. Maybe my doubts are not justified in fine? If gladiators, the presence of the sudist outlier is well explained; concerning the others, Three generations in place could dilute the "germanic" part of the ancestor (8/8 >> 1/8)... What doesn't exclude an old presence of Germanics in Yorkshire.

Tomenable
19-02-16, 17:16
Greying Wanderer,

Some time ago I added this to my bookmarks:

"On the Physical Anthropology of the Ancient Celts":

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

Greying Wanderer
19-02-16, 18:31
Greying Wanderer,

Some time ago I added this to my bookmarks:

"On the Physical Anthropology of the Ancient Celts":

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

That fits my view - caused imo by the original population splitting along different routes so they end up mixing with different substrates.

MOESAN
26-02-16, 14:41
Greying Wanderer,

Some time ago I added this to my bookmarks:

"On the Physical Anthropology of the Ancient Celts":




https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/


Thanks Tomenable - for your contribution with docs in more than athread.

This abstract has some merit but in its goal to contradict affirmations of some of the old anthropologists - with their 'nordic' supremacy theory - it passes beside a few about Celts anthropology.
That Celts were a mix is no more debated.
The french anthropologists of the 75/85's seemed thinking that as a whole a strong tendancy to homogeneization of the previous mixes took place, at least in the continental region betweel Eastern France, Switzerland, Southern Germany and Bohemia.
I want not to bore people with anthropology details. Shortly said : in the Iron Age of La Tène core, except some rare exceptions, it seems Celtic population was homogenized with few local variations : a mix, but homogenous enough. Mesocephalic means, statures between the Romans and the Germanics ones. A trait seems of some value : the low height of skulls, common there but in the Isles too among Celts. Curiously enough, Coon mentioned the relative closeness of Celts skulls to first Slavs and Scythians (not precised : I suppose Europe Scythians), and also to Romans elite ! I suppose it's not to say the mix was exactly the same, but that one element in the mix (rather on the dolicho-mesocephalic side I think) of these populations, was the same. I recall 'mediterraneans danubians' (<< Catal Höyük?) AND 'corded' types were very high skulled, and the faces were different too. Coon said that the only Steppic populations who had low skulls were found in Ukraina. This element, true type or stable crossing mean, is not to be ignored because the same constant was differentiating Brittons and first Anglo-Saxons in Britain. Low skull is not the only feature in cause here, but I simplify. Important : as a whole, the « Celtic » mean, spite it includes these elements, is very far from the compound populations. of the British BBs (Round Barrows).
I wonder if a 'nordic' basis among this Celts element could not have been early enough crossed with an uncommon kind of « mediterranean » which appeared in some places South the Caucasus at Bronze Ages , very low and long skulled (# 'brünnoid-capelloid', # Chancelade, # classic 'mediterranean') with small face, relatively broad and low in proportions, sort of 'cromagnoid' proportionally reduced face in an already evolved type (evolved where? North or South Vaucasus ?). Curiously too, this small faced element seems to me close enough to the typical 'Long Barrows' megalithic people and evocates too the skull of the man of Rogalin (a Y-R1a1!), Lublin, 2000/1600 BC in Bronze Strzyźow culture, not far from the Ukraine borders. The Rogalin type exhibits the typical orbits of mean index with a tendancy to recede backwards at the inferior external angles Coon described for Long Barrows people ; even the nose root and frontal profile seem close enough... ??? Problem : Did the crossings occurred all of them in East, or did some 'nordic' Celts cross later with Atlantic Long Barrows North the Alps, result of westwards Steppics moves and eastwards Megalithers moves apparently verified in Germany??? Only tries to understand. What for a FunnelBK influence in Poland, parrtly Long-Barrows inherited ???
If we take caution concerning assimilations of populations far for time and place, we can nevertheless rely on differenciation among populations close for time and place, no ?
& : For interested people I can go in a few more details but in the Physical Anthropology part then.
&& : It seems that in Gallia the autochtonous 'alpine' element, well present but at first at relatively low rate among the Celts cemeteries, increased at the end of Iron Age, and expanded from Alpine regions towards all Today France regions despite leaving some "holes", reflecting perhaps other steps in depth of territories occupation and in homogeneization implying maybe accultured populations of deeper and higher lands, but it concerns later periods.