PDA

View Full Version : U106 explored: its relationships, geography and history by Iain McDonald (2015)



Tomenable
08-04-16, 02:00
Link:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html

Quite interesting. I was surprised by low frequencies of U106 in Scandinavia according to this paper.

It also suggests that U106 was perhaps originally spreading from what is now South Germany.

Fire Haired14
08-04-16, 02:21
Very impressive work by Iain. Yeah, U106 is mostly a West-Germanic thing(Germany, Netherlands, England). It's more popular there than in Scandinavia, and rare in the rest of Europe.

Tomenable
08-04-16, 11:19
If it is West Germanic, then I doubt that it was even originally Proto-Germanic.

Because Scandinavia is considered to be the Urheimat of Proto-Germanic folks.

Athiudisc
10-04-16, 17:53
Scandinavia is held to be the place where Proto-Germanic evolved, but it's not like I1 guys independently came up with a new branch of Indo-European...I find it far more likely that Proto-Germanic was the product of R1b (and some R1a) and I1 cultures coming together. Our oldest U106 remains were found in Sweden, after all, despite the modern tendency for I1 to be higher in Northern Germanic cultures and R1b in Western Germanic groups. Neither are absent from either division, even up into Finland (for R1b) or down in Sicily (for I1). They generally seem to go together.

elghund
10-04-16, 19:41
Fifty-seven percent seems low for the percentage of M269 in England. It matches East Anglia, the lowest percentage of any area in England.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#frequency

I know he used figures from this Myers paper from 2007 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080563/table/T4/). Does this paper have accurate percentages?

Fire Haired14
10-04-16, 20:00
If it is West Germanic, then I doubt that it was even originally Proto-Germanic.

Because Scandinavia is considered to be the Urheimat of Proto-Germanic folks.

I'm gonna look up(on wikpedia) why Scandinavia is considered birthplace of Germanic languages. All I know is, by the first records of people in Northern Europe in circa 100 BC, there were Germanic speaking people in most of modern day Germany and Scandinavia. Why, should the first Germanic speakers before 100 BC have lived in Scandinavia instead of Germany? I'm skeptical. I'm pretty sure "Germania" in circa 100 BC-0 AD, mostly referred to West Germanic-speakers.

In the paper with Gladiator and Anglo Saxon DNA from England, they showed how there's a close relationship between Dutch and Danish and Anglo Saxons, and I think it's because of the Roman-era Germania and not Norse/Scandinavia. We do have R1b-U106 and I1 in Sweden dating 2000 BC and that could be significant for distant origin of Germanic languages. It's possible for some odd reason U106 became less popular in Scandinavia, after expanding South.

MOESAN
10-04-16, 20:04
I agree Proto-Germanics were surely already a mix of Y-R1b and Y-I1 with surely some Y-R1a; hard to make reliable bets; I think the most of Y-R1a in Scandinavia passed into it before Proto-Germanics. Among Y-R1b I suppose more than ONE wave, maybe more than TWO.. But I believe the one concerning Proto-Germanics was U106 in its majority. In Sweden I think (Blekinge sample by instance) ANCIENT upstream of Y-R1b (L51, L11 and P312 rich) came before with a distinct kind of I-Ean (some archaic one).
&: Y-I1 is diverse in Scandinavia: here too, surely more than a wave?
concerning Myres, Yes I think his (or her) samples are not big enough; concerning ALL R1b, Maciamo give some slightly different %s if I don't mistake

Tomenable
10-04-16, 20:22
Our oldest U106 remains were found in Sweden

Even that sample from Sweden is 1000 years younger than the estimated age of U106 according to YFull.

YFull estimates U106 to be 5000 years old, while U106 man from Sweden lived a bit over 4000 years ago.

Moreover, according to Iain McDonald, U106 was expanding from Southern Germany (and Austria):

"Wherever its exact origin, U106 appears to have spread mainly from southern Germany."

According to McDonald, the highest share of U106 among R1b is in Austria, where 85% of R1b is U106.

So it seems that U106 could the main lineage of Hallstatt culture, which was represented by Celts.

There is ample evidence that Proto-Germanic language was strongly influenced by Celtic. There were Early Celtic loanwords in PGMc - including words for iron, king, kingdom, doctor, mail armour and town - which may indicate Celtic elite dominance in Early Germanic society. This is further confirmed by Celtic-sounding names of some of Germanic chieftains mentioned by Roman sources.

Hallstatt anthropological type is most common in Scandinavia today, but it is named after skulls from Celtic Hallstatt culture.

So all of this indicates that there were Celtic migrations into Scandinavia in the Early Iron Age.

Tomenable
10-04-16, 20:34
Why, should the first Germanic speakers before 100 BC have lived in Scandinavia instead of Germany?

Germany was still full of Celts in 100 BC, and modern Germans are also mostly Celtic, genetically speaking.

In the Bronze Age, Germanic tribes were in Scandinavia and Northernmost Germany (Nordic Bronze Age culture).

And the main Germanic haplogroup was always I1. Germanic language is also full of Non-Indo-European vocabulary.

Welsh and Irish are culturally Celtic, but genetically they are Pre-Celtic Beaker folks, whose language is now extinct. Britain was always the remote periphery of the Celtic World, so I'm not sure why people think that Britons were genetically "pure Celts".

Bell Beaker folks were brachycephalic (round-headed), while Hallstatt Celts were dolichocephalic (long-headed).

Tomenable
10-04-16, 20:42
We do have R1b-U106 and I1 in Sweden dating 2000 BC

Actually our samples of I1 from Sweden are younger than 2000 BC, and younger than R1b.

We assume that I1 was in Sweden before R1b and R1a, but there is no evidence for this.

Tomenable
10-04-16, 20:45
Modern Germans are largely descendants of settlers from the French-Dutch-Belgian-German borderland and from Southern Germany who re-populated Central and Eastern Germany during the Medieval "Ostsiedlung". In Ancient Germania and in Early Medieval times after the Migration Period, haplogroup frequencies in what is now Central & Eastern Germany could be much different than now.

Even Pagan Saxons were decimated by Charlemagne, and huge immigration of West Frankish settlers to their lands took place.

So Northern Germany is also different than it used to be before the bloody conquest of Saxons by Charlemagne. Probably before Charlemagne Northern Germany was dominated by I1 (like modern Denmark is), and only after Charlemagne by R1b.

Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and turned out to be I1.

So Anglo-Saxons who came to Britain, were probably mostly I1. Just like Pagan Saxons before Charlemagne.

Tomenable
10-04-16, 20:56
The conquest of Saxons by the Frankish Empire lasted around four decades (years 772 - 804).

We don't know how many died and how many survived, but sources indicate that losses were very heavy. For example in year 782 Charlemagne massacred 4500 Southern Saxon captives. In 795-798 there was enslavement and forcible population transfers of Northern Saxons. In year 804 Charlemagne expelled over 10,000 Northern Saxon families to Gaul - their descendants speak French today, and are no longer parts of the gene pool of modern Germans. In 798 in the battle of Bornhöved 3000-4000 Saxons were killed. These are just some examples of war crimes and casualties inflicted by Charlemagne and his allies against Pagan Saxons.

About the massacre of 4500 captured Saxon warriors in 782: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

There were more casualties for sure. Northern Germany was largely depopulated during those wars.

Saxon lands were then largely re-populated by western settlers coming from Western Francia.

This is probably the reason why 23andMe cannot genetically distinguish French people from Germans today (see the link):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5236-23andme-s-quot-German-Problem-quote

The same process (depopulation + repopulation by Western settlers) later took place after crusades against Pagan Slavs.

You can read about this for example in the following book:

Gerald Stone, "Slav Outposts in Central European History: The Wends, Sorbs and Kashubs"

Tomenable
10-04-16, 21:17
Among Y-R1b I suppose more than ONE wave, maybe more than TWO

More than two. Even in the Middle Ages lots of Germans migrated from the Holy Roman Empire to Scandinavia. The Kalmar Union prohibited people of German origin from occupying more than 50% of seats in city councils of Scandinavian cities.

This alone shows how numerous those German immigrants must have been.

The popular image of Scandinavia as a place with no immigration but constantly "spitting" emigrant tribes in all directions is a myth. There was more immigration than emigration to Scandinavia, but emigration (e.g. Viking emigration) is more famous.

Fire Haired14
11-04-16, 03:43
Germany was still full of Celts in 100 BC, and modern Germans are also mostly Celtic, genetically speaking.

The genetics of Germany and Low Countries is still a mystery to me. I do know there's diversity in Germany and Low Countries. "West Germans", "South Dutch", and Swiss, clearly have loads of Italian-like and or French-like ancestry. Austrians have loads of Polish-like and Yugoslavian-like ancestry. "East Germans" have loads of Polish-like ancestry. A simple Celtic+Germanic admixture doesn't work for all of them.

"North Dutch" and "North German" are similar to British/Irish and Scandinavians. They might be representative of the majority of Germans and Dutch, and have the most ancestry from Roman-era Germania. They have loads of Y DNA I1(like 20%) and R1b-U106(like 20%). However, they have hardly any R1a-Z284, while Scandinavians have around 20%. That's a hole in the theory, hordes of Scandinavians in the Iron age brought Germanic languages to Germany.

There's lots of possibilities. Germans definitely aren't purely from Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. The 1200 BC German guy who had R1a-Z283, clearly isn't the same as modern Germans. Their ancestors were apart of the same North European Steppe+EEF family, but aren't sampled yet by ancient DNA.

I tend to think, irrespective where Germanic languages began(It's either Germany/Denmark or Scandinavia), modern Germans IMO are a mixture of "Germania" and other(French-like/Gaul, Italian, Polish, Balkan).


Welsh and Irish are culturally Celtic, but genetically they are Pre-Celtic Beaker folks, whose language is now extinct. Britain was always the remote periphery of the Celtic World, so I'm not sure why people think that Britons were genetically "pure Celts".

Gauls are the most famous Celts, because they're the Celts Romans knew. That doesn't mean Gaul was the center of the Celtic world. But actually there was never Celtic world that extended to the British Isles. No one, as far as we know, was aware that the languages in the British isles were apart of the same language family as the languages in Gaul. People in the Isles and Gauls weren't considered to be the same people. So, there was no concept of a pan-Celtic world. There was a concept of Gaul and Britain and Ireland.

Celtic languages could have expanded with Bell beaker culture to the Isles. We can't dismiss that possibility, and state it a fact that Celts of the Isles are descended of pre-Celtic Beaker folk. If that's true, it'd be difficult to measure Celtic vs pre-Celtic ancestry, because the people who brought Celtic languages would have been pretty similar genetically.

bicicleur
11-04-16, 10:35
So it seems that U106 could the main lineage of Hallstatt culture, which was represented by Celts.

There is ample evidence that Proto-Germanic language was strongly influenced by Celtic. There were Early Celtic loanwords in PGMc - including words for iron, king, kingdom, doctor, mail armour and town - which may indicate Celtic elite dominance in Early Germanic society. This is further confirmed by Celtic-sounding names of some of Germanic chieftains mentioned by Roman sources.

Hallstatt anthropological type is most common in Scandinavia today, but it is named after skulls from Celtic Hallstatt culture.

So all of this indicates that there were Celtic migrations into Scandinavia in the Early Iron Age.

could this language influence have happened during Jastdorf culture, which is Proto-Germanic and during which Germanic tribes learned iron smelting?
could they have learned iron smelting from Halstatt?

I don't think U-106 was the main Halstatt haplogroup.
IMO La Tene descended from Halstatt and Belgian and Gaulish tribes were La Tene.
Today France has about 15 % U152 and only 5 % U106.

bicicleur
11-04-16, 10:43
Actually our samples of I1 from Sweden are younger than 2000 BC, and younger than R1b.

We assume that I1 was in Sweden before R1b and R1a, but there is no evidence for this.

IMO opinion R1a and I1 arrived at the same time in Scandinavia, it is when I1 was born (TMRCA 4700 years).
R1b-U106 arrived a little later with Bell Beakers in Jutland.

Ian McDonald nowhere mentions the Bell Beakers. He thinks of R1b as spreading into Europe in a straight line from SW Europe to NW.
IMO Bell Beakers played a very important role in spreading R1b-L151,P310.

bicicleur
11-04-16, 10:46
Modern Germans are largely descendants of settlers from the French-Dutch-Belgian-German borderland and from Southern Germany who re-populated Central and Eastern Germany during the Medieval "Ostsiedlung". In Ancient Germania and in Early Medieval times after the Migration Period, haplogroup frequencies in what is now Central & Eastern Germany could be much different than now.

Even Pagan Saxons were decimated by Charlemagne, and huge immigration of West Frankish settlers to their lands took place.

So Northern Germany is also different than it used to be before the bloody conquest of Saxons by Charlemagne. Probably before Charlemagne Northern Germany was dominated by I1 (like modern Denmark is), and only after Charlemagne by R1b.

Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and turned out to be I1.

So Anglo-Saxons who came to Britain, were probably mostly I1. Just like Pagan Saxons before Charlemagne.

Charlemagne beheaded 5000 Saxons, but I suppose there were much Saxons at that time.
This was not the normal politics of Charlemagne, the beheading of the 5000 Saxons was an exception.

According to Wikipedia, Ostsiedlung where Germans settling further east 12th-13th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Order

bicicleur
11-04-16, 11:03
The genetics of Germany and Low Countries is still a mystery to me. I do know there's diversity in Germany and Low Countries. "West Germans", "South Dutch", and Swiss, clearly have loads of Italian-like and or French-like ancestry. Austrians have loads of Polish-like and Yugoslavian-like ancestry. "East Germans" have loads of Polish-like ancestry. A simple Celtic+Germanic admixture doesn't work for all of them.

"North Dutch" and "North German" are similar to British/Irish and Scandinavians. They might be representative of the majority of Germans and Dutch, and have the most ancestry from Roman-era Germania. They have loads of Y DNA I1(like 20%) and R1b-U106(like 20%). However, they have hardly any R1a-Z284, while Scandinavians have around 20%. That's a hole in the theory, hordes of Scandinavians in the Iron age brought Germanic languages to Germany.

There's lots of possibilities. Germans definitely aren't purely from Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. The 1200 BC German guy who had R1a-Z283, clearly isn't the same as modern Germans. Their ancestors were apart of the same North European Steppe+EEF family, but aren't sampled yet by ancient DNA.

I tend to think, irrespective where Germanic languages began(It's either Germany/Denmark or Scandinavia), modern Germans IMO are a mixture of "Germania" and other(French-like/Gaul, Italian, Polish, Balkan).



Gauls are the most famous Celts, because they're the Celts Romans knew. That doesn't mean Gaul was the center of the Celtic world. But actually there was never Celtic world that extended to the British Isles. No one, as far as we know, was aware that the languages in the British isles were apart of the same language family as the languages in Gaul. People in the Isles and Gauls weren't considered to be the same people. So, there was no concept of a pan-Celtic world. There was a concept of Gaul and Britain and Ireland.

Celtic languages could have expanded with Bell beaker culture to the Isles. We can't dismiss that possibility, and state it a fact that Celts of the Isles are descended of pre-Celtic Beaker folk. If that's true, it'd be difficult to measure Celtic vs pre-Celtic ancestry, because the people who brought Celtic languages would have been pretty similar genetically.

The history of the Celts is much more complex and diverse than presumed two decades ago.
There are numerous Celtic tribes and most areas of western Europe have been conquered by several waves of Celtic tribes.
The British tribe R1b-L21 arrived in the British Isles allready 4-4500 years ago, as anciant DNA recently has proven.
That was way before the Halstatt period.
Later La Tene tribes (Gaulish and Belgian) also invaded the Britis Isles.

MOESAN
14-04-16, 14:39
Modern Germans are largely descendants of settlers from the French-Dutch-Belgian-German borderland and from Southern Germany who re-populated Central and Eastern Germany during the Medieval "Ostsiedlung". In Ancient Germania and in Early Medieval times after the Migration Period, haplogroup frequencies in what is now Central & Eastern Germany could be much different than now.
Sincerely I think you are wrong here. And it's not Carolus Magnus who repopulated Western Scandiavia with Franks or close populations.
So Northern Germany is also different than it used to be before the bloody conquest of Saxons by Charlemagne. Probably before Charlemagne Northern Germany was dominated by I1 (like modern Denmark is), and only after Charlemagne by R1b.

Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and turned out to be I1.
Even Pagan Saxons were decimated by Charlemagne, and huge immigration of West Frankish settlers to their lands took place.



So Anglo-Saxons who came to Britain, were probably mostly I1. Just like Pagan Saxons before Charlemagne.




I think the mix was made in North Germany with Y-R1b6U106 and Y-I1, only the internal distribution was reversed between West and East;
It is not Charlemagne who repopulated Western Scandinavia with Franks and close people. U106 was the main germanicizator in North Europe (I think Y-R1a introduced a more archaic I-Ean language there, just before). Other threads here in past spoke about that.
for Anglo-Saxons of Britain, let's wait for more haplos, please.

MOESAN
14-04-16, 14:52
@FireHaired
it's not the center of this thread, but Brittons and Gauls did not always consider them as purely strangers; If I recall well, in the Carnutes forest (near Orléans) there were some "conciles" of Druids of the two side of the Channel. And their languages were close; and more than a time, some Britton tribes rescued Gaulish tribes in war against Roma with some warriors. Celts were never panceltic oriented, they were too jealous of their freedom. But the "gap" between Britton and Gaulish tribes existed within Britton and Gaulish tribes too. "Celtic Mess" it's all!!!

halfalp
21-04-16, 19:52
Before the Nordic bronze age wich is considered like the Germanic or Nordique bronze-age, Scandinavia was again part of the Corded Ware horizon, Scandinavia was naturaly not a place for devloping a high level of metallurgy.Maybe, Proto-Germanic language is more younger than we can think, i always think like the Centum thing in the germanic languages came with bronze age, Nordic bronze age or later with iron Jastorf culture, someway related with ( Celtic people ? ) or the North-West, like the Nordwestblock Hypothesis, i think it match pretty good with the modern distribution of U106, Belgium / Netherlands, maybe there was here at the time of the bronze age a Celto-Italic-Venetic related people / language who migrated by boat in the western coast of scandinavia and before that, assimilated some central europe bronze age features or develope its own...