PDA

View Full Version : Y-DNA from Germany in the 300s-400s AD shows 58% frequency of I1 and not much R1b



Tomenable
16-04-16, 23:04
12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to the 300s-400s AD, of whom 7 or 8 were I1:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7): LINK (http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007%2Fs00194-015-0043-4)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.

==========================

R1b came to dominate what is now Germany only as the result of Frankish conquest:

Here is my hypothesis:

1) Frankish realm = R1b majority; Germanic tribes between Rhine and Elbe, including Saxons = I1 / I majority:

https://s23.postimg.org/ivqf5lt6j/6th+century.png

The extent of the Frankish realm in the 5th century and its early expansion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHEXQdtt6Q

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Frankish_homeland.jpg

2) Franks expand into Pagan Saxons, Thuringians and others; with Frankish authority come many R1b settlers:

https://s24.postimg.org/wfvxfaxbp/9th+century.png

3) Further expansion of East Francia - or Germany as it is now called - into Slavic lands between Elbe and Oder:

https://s30.postimg.org/j9nedsfld/12th+century.png

Settlers who expanded into lands between Rhine and Oder came mostly from these areas:

https://s22.postimg.org/bai0spuip/Ostsiedlung.png

"Ostsiedlung" settlers came from areas which are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and the French-German borderland. Most of them spoke West Germanic dialects, but many also spoke Romance (e.g. Walloons). Ashkenazi Jews were part of that too.

Many came from westernmost parts of modern Germany (the Rhineland). Many also came from Friesland (Frisia).

Modern situation (numerically dominant haplogroup by country):

Of course details are wrong in this map (for example, the most numerous hg in Sardinia is in fact I2):

https://s30.postimg.org/itnmx1ald/Obecnie.png

Tomenable
16-04-16, 23:09
Modern Germans are largely descendants of settlers from the French-Dutch-Belgian-German borderland and from Southern Germany who re-populated Central, Northern 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 were 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 it turned out to be I1.

We also have Roman era Y-DNA from Britain, and among it there were 2 samples of R1b-U106.

So the presence of U106 in what is now England actually pre-dated the Anglo-Saxon conquest.

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

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 - there were more casualties for sure. About the massacre of 4500 captured Saxon warriors in 782: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

What is now Northern Germany was largely devastated and depopulated during those wars.

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

It seems that Thuringian genetic distinctiveness surived better until the present-day than Saxon.

Thuringia has the lowest frequency of R1b-U106 and the highest of I2a2 out of all regions of Germany.

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"

Goga
16-04-16, 23:11
Thanks for the info.

Angela
16-04-16, 23:18
I'm not sufficiently proficient in ancient German history to judge, but it's a very interesting theory, Tomenable. If true, that might explain why the "northern" yDna associated with Lombard sites in Italy is almost always I1. Of course, that leaves U-106 to be explained.

Tomenable
16-04-16, 23:18
There is also Y-DNA from 13th century (1200s AD - "Ostsiedlung" era) Berlin, and it is 100% R1b.

But the sample size is in this case very small - just 2 boys, both of whom are R1b (one of them was surely U106):

LINK (http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.10.022)

They examined autosomal DNA too, but only write about eye colour, not about affinities to modern populations.

MOESAN
16-04-16, 23:58
There is also Y-DNA from 13th century (1200s AD - "Ostsiedlung" era) Berlin, and it is 100% R1b.

But the sample size is in this case very small - just 2 boys, both of whom are R1b (one of them was surely U106):

LINK (http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.10.022)

They examined autosomal DNA too, but only write about eye colour, not about affinities to modern populations.

Thanks Tomenable, but 12 is also a relatively SMALL sample; I would not build a theory upon so small sample. And I doubt it could reflect East Germany at this time.
Have you details about the auDNA of these people and their origin(s)?: are they not relatives, kind of brethren?
Frisons speak a language akin in a big part to anglo-saxon but with some phonetic evolutions close to the scandinavian ones (ancient TH >> T, F = F (opposed to dutch V), S (opposed to german and dutch Z) + Frisons are very nordiclike, but they show the maximum for Y-R1b-U106 spite they have also a high % of Y-I1 (28% in some survey). Sure, the S>>Z and F>>V evolution in dutch and fleming and partly in german could be a west-germanic late evolution showing a distinct origin of West and Eats Germanic tribes.
or otherwise a Belgae celtic evolution (by substrata) ;
whatever the cause of some voicing for S and F, it could be not directly linked to Y-U106. My thought is Y-I1 and Y-R1bU106 mixed in North-Germany before 500 BC at least, the only difference being in the respective ratio's for West and East. I posted already about this stuff, in a thread about U106, I think. West Scandinavian have respectable amount of U106, and U106 looses weight gradually southwards compared to other R1b, showing it is not a SO WESTERN PHENOMENON; I'm still waiting serious samples for Walloonia and Luxemburg concerning U106 and U152.

And is the strong enough percentage of Y-R1bU106 in Estonia the only result of late germanic colonisations? I avow I lack precise knowledge here.

MOESAN
17-04-16, 00:01
concerning auDNA of French and German people, uneasy to tell one of another for some DNA companies, in more than a plotting they are clearly distinguished as a whole, except some mergin indivudual cases.

Sile
17-04-16, 00:20
12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to the 300s-400s AD, of whom 7 or 8 were I1:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7): LINK (http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007%2Fs00194-015-0043-4)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.



Lets clear up the position of the Saxon homelands in the period you mentioned ......................it was always stated that the Saxons lived on the north sea coast between the frisians in modern netherlands and the angels in and around the german-danish border.
They spoke an old-germanic language associated with the frisian language ............actually frisians lived also in pockets on the coast from Netherlands to Denmark.
Frisian is the father of the English language.

When the Romans left Britain , the saxons logically should still have been on the coast to migrate to Britain around 400AD ................they now live on the old east german-west german border. So , what marker was the saxons on the coast?

BTW..........the Vandals where I1, I2a1 and R1b

Angela
17-04-16, 00:42
Ah, we have ancient Vandal y dna as well?

Tomenable
17-04-16, 00:55
Ah, we have ancient Vandal y dna as well?

Not yet. Not to my knowledge at least.


and the angels in and around the german-danish border.

Ptolemy (lived in 90-168 AD) placed the Angles (Suebi Angili) rather deep inland:

Of course during the next few centuries they could possibly move towards the north:

Homelands of Angili, Frisii and Saxones according to Ptolemy (https://s23.postimg.org/elt98ahrf/Angili,+Frisii+and+Saxones.png)

Albis = River Elbe

https://s23.postimg.org/elt98ahrf/Angili,+Frisii+and+Saxones.png

LeBrok
17-04-16, 02:24
This is related to important part of history. End of Roman Empire, just before big population movements and expansion of Slavs there.





Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and it turned out to be I1. And now we have a place where Saxons migrated, Saxony. All rich in I1. Definitely a marker of Saxons.

You also might be right that Francs were U106 dominant and all middle ages east expansion brought lots of U106 to Eastern Europe.

This means that 2 germanic tribes carry different Y dominant haplogroups. In this case I wouldn't be surprised to see other dominant haplogroups in Vandals or Goths.


In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.Seems like Germans came through recent drastic changes.

Templar
17-04-16, 03:13
This is related to important part of history. End of Roman Empire, just before big population movements and expansion of Slavs there.


And now we have a place where Saxons migrated, Saxony. All rich in I1. Definitely a marker of Saxons.

You also might be right that Francs were U106 dominant and all middle ages east expansion brought lots of U106 to Eastern Europe.

This means that 2 germanic tribes carry different Y dominant haplogroups. In this case I wouldn't be surprised to see other dominant haplogroups in Vandals or Goths.

[/COLOR]Seems like Germans came through recent drastic changes.



Maybe the original Franks were also mostly I1 but absorbed a lot of r1b from their conquests to the west. Population density was likely far higher in post-Roman Gaul than in Germania due to the technological differences. So a lot of the Romans/Gauls would have been absorbed by them, passing on their language and culture and therefore also ethnic identity.

Athiudisc
17-04-16, 05:38
Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and it turned out to be I1.

We also have Roman era Y-DNA from Britain, and among it there were 2 samples of R1b-U106.

So the presence of U106 in what is now England actually pre-dated the Anglo-Saxon conquest.

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

I'm still not seeing any real reason to come to this conclusion.

One single person in this context is largely meaningless. If that Anglo-Saxon I1 sample had instead been R1a, it wouldn't be logical to conclude Angles or Saxons were probably mostly R1a.

The two Roman-era U106 samples from Britain have affinities to northeastern European (Polish/Lithuanian, IIRC) populations, which rather suggests that they weren't purely the product of some large/long-settled pre-Germanic British population of U106. On the other hand, we know that people have been coming to Britain for a long time...a third of the remains from that Bronze/Iron Age grave in Kent came from Scandinavia (where, as I pointed out in the other thread, our oldest U106 remains were from: Corded Ware southern Sweden). So U106 in Britain prior to larger-scale Germanic invasions isn't any sort of proof that it isn't Germanic, or that I1 is "more Germanic," or that Germanic peoples were predominantly I1, etc.

The most likely scenarios still seem (to me, at least, and speaking with large generalizations) to be that either Germanic languages are the product of R1b Indo-Europeans and I1 pre-Indo-Europeans mingling, or I1 Indo-Europeanized by R1a, with Germanic the result of further mingling with U106. In either case, there's again no reason to think that that I1 is "more Germanic," or that Germanic peoples were predominantly I1, etc.

If the argument is going to be "the U106 is Frankish," it still doesn't address the question of why it's more common in Anglo-Saxon-Frisian areas than the "real Saxon" I1. While that could be explained by any number of factors (founder effects, etc.), it rather seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse, as we're left wondering why we're assuming the Franks were Celts (or whatever) that were Germanicized by "real Germanic" I1, or absorbed so much "Celtic U106," or whatever. It seems like retroactive reasoning to support a conclusion rather than evidence supporting a conclusion.

All that said, I suppose it could be true.

Fire Haired14
17-04-16, 08:56
Thanks a lot Tomenable. England has huge amounts of R1b-U106, almost as much as Germany does. Anglo Saxons brought most of it. The U106s from those Gladiators were exceptions and not the norm. We also have to take a deep look at U106 diversity. There's some clearly West Germanic-clades, that many of the U106s in England belong to and the Gladiators did not have.

bicicleur
17-04-16, 09:24
what is the origin of the Franks? what is the origin of the Saxons?
both probably came from the north but can there be pointed to an area of origin?
aren't they the result of merging and fusion of older tribes?
wouldn't their Y-DNA be a mixture?

for some reason Charlemagne couldn't get along with the Saxons, while it was easier for him to integrate other subdued people into his empire
maybe the Saxons were just to proud to give up their identity
in spite of these wars and defeats there was still a 'Saxon identity' and language left in the middle ages :

http://lowlands-l.net/grammar-new/saxons.php

Tomenable
17-04-16, 10:40
This means that 2 germanic tribes carry different Y dominant haplogroups.

Rhenish Germanics had absorbed a lot of Non-Germanic substrate (mostly Gauls and Belgae).

In my opinion U106 had originally been more Belgian (carried by Belgae) than Germanic.

Only later as Germanic tribes expanded south-west they absorbed more of U106 from Belgae.


Anglo Saxons brought most of it. No, in my opinion the Belgae brought most of R1b-U106 and Anglo-Saxons the rest.

We have 2 samples of U106 from Roman era York and there is no evidence that it was Germanic.

They do show some indications of foreign ancestry, but not Germanic, and not paternal.

Check these Supplementary Figures (especially Table 9, Table 10 and Figure 12):

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/extref/ncomms10326-s1.pdf

And also Figure 2 here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/pdf/ncomms10326.pdf

Pre-Germanic individuals with U106 are 3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3, Anglo-Saxon with I1 is NO3424.

Let's take a closer look at these samples:

Man 3DRIF-16 (Roman Eburacum):

Y-DNA haplogroup - R1b-U106
mtDNA haplogroup - H6a1a
autosomal similarity - Scots, Welsh and Lithuanians-Poles

Man 6DRIF-3 (Roman Eburacum):

Y-DNA haplogroup - R1b-U106
mtDNA haplogroup - J1b1a1
autosomal similarity - Irish, Welsh and Lithuanians-Poles

Man NO3424 (Anglo-Saxon man):

Y-DNA haplogroup - I1
mtDNA haplogroup - H1b
autosomal similarity - Irish, Welsh and Norwegians

All three were most likely born locally (NOT first generation immigrants), and all were of mixed Celtic + something ancestry.

Figure 12 shows that 3DRIF-16 shows autosomal affinities to Scots, Lithuanians-Poles and Welsh, while 6DRIF-3 to Irish, Welsh and Lithuanians-Poles. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon NO3423 shows affinities to Irish, Welsh and Norwegians.

This makes perfect sense for NO3423, since Norwegians are Germanic and he was too - at least partially.

By contrast, neither Poles nor Lithuanians are Germanic. 3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 were most likely as well not.

There is no proof that their Y-DNA (U106) was foreign. They could be Celtic Belgae paternally, and foreign maternally.

For example mtDNA hg of 3DRIF-16 was H6a1a and mtDNA hg of 6DRIF-3 was J1b1a1.

H6a1a was found in Corded Ware and in Srubnaya, both associated with Satem languages and with R1a paternal hg:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

The highest frequency of J1b1a1 - 3,4% (9/267) - is in Belarus and also 2% (9/440) among East Balts:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z4KyIlcQpgXBhgOJS3Cc7Q1fdVQj-FWZ_Fwj5C4lnjI/edit#gid=1484072995

3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 are actually more "exotic" for British standards in terms of mtDNA than in terms Y-DNA.

To sum up:

In my opinion 3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 were of mixed Celtic and Balto-Slavic ancestry, with their Y-DNA - R1b-U106 - coming from Celtic paternal ancestors, and their mtDNA - J1b1a1 and H6a1a - coming from Balto-Slavic maternal ancestors.

If someone is autosomally a bit like Lithuanians, then he is partially Baltic - not partially Germanic. Simple as that.

Had that Anglo-Saxon sample been like Lithuanians too, I'd have agreed that Roman-era samples were Germanic.

But the Anglo-Saxon had Norwegian affinity (makes sense, he really was Germanic), and Roman-era samples - NOT.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 10:51
those Gladiators were exceptions and not the norm.

Haven't you noticed that their mtDNA - J1b1a1 and H6a1a - look even more foreign in Britain than their Y-DNA?

Your own spreadsheet shows that J1b1a1 is typically Baltic & Slavic today. Also H6a1a was found in Srubna culture in Russia, and in Corded Ware culture - both associated with ancestors of Satem-speaking peoples, such as Balto-Slavs. Autosomally those gladiators resembled Insular Celts, Lithuanians and Poles. They had Baltic mtDNA, Belgian Celtic Y-DNA, and mixed autosomes. The Anglo-Saxon man autosomally resembled Insular Celts and Norwegians (which shows that he was of mixed Celtic-Germanic ancestry, just like modern English people). Autosomal affinity to Lithuanians and/or Poles doesn't proof that someone was Germanic.

IMO those gladiators were local paternally and in terms of Y-DNA, but with foreign maternal ancestry and mtDNA.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 11:00
]There's some clearly West Germanic-clades, that many of the U106s in England belong to

Perhaps typically Belgian clades. Before Germanics came, there were Belgae in that area:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/Belgica.jpg

Most of R1b-U106 in modern Belgium and Netherlands is likely from those Ancient Belgae.

Maciamo
17-04-16, 11:03
Thanks for posting this paper.

12 samples is not representative for frequencies. Mind you, even 100 samples doesn't give reliable frequencies. If I understood well, all the samples come from a collective tomb, and so could be an extended family or at least a same small group of people. It's not clear whether all the I1 share a similar haplotype or not, but it would not be particularly surprising that many individuals should share the same Y-DNA if they descend from a common paternal ancestor.

So I won't read too much into it for the moment.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 11:12
The two Roman-era U106 samples from Britain have affinities to northeastern European (Polish/Lithuanian, IIRC) populations, which rather suggests that they weren't purely the product of some large/long-settled pre-Germanic British population of U106. On the other hand, we know that people have been coming to Britain for a long time...

Yes they have autosomal affinities to Balto-Slavs (Lithuanians-Poles), not to Germanics (Norwegians). By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon sample has affinities to Norwegians. And they have typically Balto-Slavic/Eastern European mtDNA. What it shows is not that they were "Germanic", but that trafficking women from [North-]Eastern Europe to Britain dates back already to Roman times!


12 samples is not representative for frequencies.

Not fully representative, but the difference is quite striking (58% in that sample, vs. 16% in modern Germany).

Even if in that sample I1 is overrepresented, I don't think that it will go down to 16% with more samples.

Probably in reality it was something like ~35-40% (or somewhere in the middle between 16 and 58).

IMO we can safely assume that I1 was more frequent in Pre-Frankish Germania than in modern Germany.

Fire Haired14
17-04-16, 12:27
@Tomenable,

The French side of the Rhine river has a mere 5-10% U106, while "Western Germany" has 24%(Myers 2010). There's a low chance Belgium has much more than Eastern France.

Britanny, Medival refuge from Anglo Saxons for Britons, has 4.4% U106(Evolutionary History of R1b M269 based on modern Iberian data). England has about 25%. The high amount of I1 from this late Roman-era grave in Germany and the two U106s from Roman-era Britons, isn't overwhelming evidence that U106 is decended of Celtic Belgea instead of Germanic people. It's pretty clear there's something specfic about Germanic languages and U106, especially West Germanic languages.

U106 is a Celtic and Slavic repellent. Where ever Celts and Slavs live U106 is rare. In Britanny and France and Ireland and Poland U106 is rare, while in England and Germany and Netherlands and Austria and Scandinavia U106 is popular.

Alan
17-04-16, 12:59
12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to the 300s-400s AD, of whom 7 or 8 were I1:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7): LINK (http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007%2Fs00194-015-0043-4)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.

==========================

R1b came to dominate what is now Germany only as the result of Frankish conquest:

Here is my hypothesis:

1) Frankish realm = R1b majority; Germanic tribes between Rhine and Elbe, including Saxons = I1 / I majority:

https://s23.postimg.org/ivqf5lt6j/6th+century.png

The extent of the Frankish realm in the 5th century and its early expansion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHEXQdtt6Q

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Frankish_homeland.jpg

2) Franks expand into Pagan Saxons, Thuringians and others; with Frankish authority come many R1b settlers:

https://s24.postimg.org/wfvxfaxbp/9th+century.png

3) Further expansion of East Francia - or Germany as it is now called - into Slavic lands between Elbe and Oder:

https://s30.postimg.org/j9nedsfld/12th+century.png

Settlers who expanded into lands between Rhine and Oder came mostly from these areas:

https://s22.postimg.org/bai0spuip/Ostsiedlung.png

"Ostsiedlung" settlers came from areas which are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and the French-German borderland. Most of them spoke West Germanic dialects, but many also spoke Romance (e.g. Walloons). Ashkenazi Jews were part of that too.

Many came from westernmost parts of modern Germany (the Rhineland). Many also came from Friesland (Frisia).

Modern situation (numerically dominant haplogroup by country):

Of course details are wrong in this map (for example, the most numerous hg in Sardinia is in fact I2):

https://s30.postimg.org/itnmx1ald/Obecnie.png
to be correct we see druring 300 AD 66% compared to 23% "I" today. 25% R1b compared to 44% and 17% R1a compared to 16%.

The frequency of R1a hasn't changed much, but the frequency of I vs R1b has shifted in favour of R1b. But who even thought that the frequency even just 1500 years ago would be very similar to that today? Central Europe has a history of ethnic cleansing (Suebi ) and immigration ( Goth, Vandals). But I am not surprised to see frequency of I dominating since this Haplogroup is also the dominant among the Scando Germanics who have had less history of immigration and such. But just as in Germany also in Scandinavia there is very significant frequency of R1b and R1a.

We also need some samples from other regions of Germany.

Alan
17-04-16, 13:22
Am I missing something here? Weren't the Frankish Germanic themselves.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 14:19
Am I missing something here? Weren't the Frankish Germanic themselves.

The bulk of the population of the Frankish Empire were Non-Germanic descendants of Roman citizens.

Those Roman citizens were themselves descended from Gauls and Belgae who adopted Latin language.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 14:23
we see druring 300 AD 66% compared to 23% "I" today. 25% R1b compared to 44% and 17% R1a compared to 16%.

You made a mistake in your calculation, because 66% + 25% + 17% = 108%.

We have the following 12 samples:

7 samples of I1 = 58% (compared to only 16% I1 today)

And the remaining 5 samples are:

1 sample of "Russian I" = 8% (probably I2, but could be I1 too)
1 sample of R1b = 8%
2 samples of "Western European" R1 = 17% (most likely R1b)
1 sample of "Eastern European" R1 = 8% (most likely R1a)

So we have 8% of presumed R1a, not 17% as you claim.

And we have probably 25% of R1b.

Tomenable
17-04-16, 14:30
U106 is a Celtic and Slavic repellent. Where ever Celts and Slavs live U106 is rare

Nope. U106 is very frequent in territories which used to be Gallia Belgica (Gaule Belgique):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Peuples_gaulois.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Peuples_gaulois.jpg

Tomenable
17-04-16, 14:42
In Britanny and France and Ireland and Poland U106 is rare, while in England and Germany and Netherlands and Austria and Scandinavia U106 is popular.

Check this 2015 paper on U106 by Iain McDonald:

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

On page 4 out of 22 he gives frequencies of U106:

https://s23.postimg.org/pjhoaqm9n/U106+frequencies.png

Celtic "Urheimat" as well as lands of the Belgae have high frequencies of R1b-U106:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tène_culture

Beaker Folks were IMHO not Celtic - they spoke some language which is long EXTINCT by now:

https://s22.postimg.org/raj6tkqn5/Celts.png

http://oaks.nvg.org/d/eurocelt.jpg

Tomenable
17-04-16, 15:03
Hallstatt Celtic influence in the British Isles outside of England itself was small:

(so the Welsh are not genetically Celtic, they just speak a Celtic language; like Afro-Americans speak English):

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Hallstatt_La_Tene_map.gif

bicicleur
17-04-16, 17:50
The bulk of the population of the Frankish Empire were Non-Germanic descendants of Roman citizens.

Those Roman citizens were themselves descended from Gauls and Belgae who adopted Latin language.

the Franks didn't displace the original population, neither did other Germanic tribes that crossed the borders of the former Roman empire
there are no indications that the Franks replaced populations in territories they conquered subseqently
the Franks were merely a ruling class
if they did so in Saxony, that would be an exception

Fire Haired14
17-04-16, 21:15
@Tomenable,

Belgium is right next door to the Netherlands, and many there speak Dutch. Austrians speak German, so of course they have lots of U106. Belgea were conquered by Rome, then Franks. Anglo Saxons obviously brought most of the U106 to the Isles, because it so much more popular in England than Celtic Isles people. Anglo Saxons came from Denmark and Germany, not former Belgea country. Belgea can't explain the strong presence of U106 in Scandinavia at all.

LeBrok
18-04-16, 06:00
Maybe the original Franks were also mostly I1 but absorbed a lot of r1b from their conquests to the west. Population density was likely far higher in post-Roman Gaul than in Germania due to the technological differences. So a lot of the Romans/Gauls would have been absorbed by them, passing on their language and culture and therefore also ethnic identity.That's a possibility at the moment. We have to wait and see. Tomenable might be right asserting that most U106 in Francs came from Celts farther west. Later when Frankish empire was a dominant force its citizens spread to the rest of Germany and Central Europe bringing U106 with them.

berun
18-04-16, 15:48
The question of an eventual colonization of Saxony by galo-frankians, let say it, is unheard to me and is against the known Frankish politics over conquered territories to appoint Frankish officials to rule the region. I don't know any Frankish colinization but i don't know everything...

The high percent of Y-DNA I could be explained more easily with this map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Germanic_expansion.gif

The region of the samples was Germanized some five-six centuries before, so all possible admixture was not done yet.

Take per example the case of Spaniards in Peru, the possible admixture with locals after let say 1000 years, and the actual genetic map of the country with prodominant indigenous regions against the european ones.

Rethel
18-04-16, 16:36
Tomen,

I have the feeling, that you created a theory, which will be soon crushed :)

Of course, it is possible, what you are assuming, BUT 12 samples from
only one place don't seem to be adequate to all Germania at that time.

And I have a quite good intuition, which many times was right. :)

LeBrok
18-04-16, 17:06
The question of an eventual colonization of Saxony by galo-frankians, let say it, is unheard to me and is against the known Frankish politics over conquered territories to appoint Frankish officials to rule the region. I don't know any Frankish colinization but i don't know everything...
What we are referring too is a slow migration of population from West to East Germany, then later from Germany to Poland, Prussia or even Russia, which pretty much lasted to 1,400 hundreds.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Deutsche_Ostsiedlung.png/220px-Deutsche_Ostsiedlung.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung

Templar
18-04-16, 17:37
That's a possibility at the moment. We have to wait and see. Tomenable might be right asserting that most U106 in Francs came from Celts farther west. Later when Frankish empire was a dominant force its citizens spread to the rest of Germany and Central Europe bringing U106 with them.

It would be ironic if a Germanic tribe (Franks) caused a large genetic replacement of Germanic DNA in Germania with that of foreigners. Funny how Merkel is doing the same to modern Germany.

Aaron1981
18-04-16, 19:20
Maybe the original Franks were also mostly I1 but absorbed a lot of r1b from their conquests to the west. Population density was likely far higher in post-Roman Gaul than in Germania due to the technological differences. So a lot of the Romans/Gauls would have been absorbed by them, passing on their language and culture and therefore also ethnic identity.

I1, or at least his immediate ancestor is exceedingly old in northern or central Europe, so it's highly unlikely they were the Indo European speakers. This leaves only R1a or R1b, Battle Axe and Atlantic Bronze/BB specifically to have brought Germanic speaking languages to central/northern Europe.

To Tomenable's point that I1 was more frequent, I think that's jumping to conclusions a little bit. Let's not forget this is still a very small sample which could also be overestimated with kinship. We also see samples 2 of 2 which were R1b in a Berlin sample, and 1 of 1 as I1 in Anglo-Saxon England. The only thing this suggests is that I1 was likely brought with Germanic speakers, not the relative percentages of the population around 400 AD.

berun
18-04-16, 19:52
Lebrok. I know such colonization process, but is not related to the Frankish kingdom but to the Holy German Empire, and the colonized lands were mainly slav instead... as i understood the poster atributes actual R1b to galo-frankish colonization which is to me unheard.

Also to compare actual mean german genetics with old ones is to me a very gross mistake taking into account that Germany is a political product of the XIX-XX Centuries and that such territory suffered various known migrations: celts in the south, germanics coming gradualy from the north, romans ruling the south, slavs occuping the east, and then germans colonizing slavic lands in the east till reaching Wien and so.

sparkey
18-04-16, 20:24
These are very interesting samples, but I have to agree with Maciamo here that we can't read anything into the frequencies at all. Any given family tomb having very high percentages of I1 doesn't tell us any more about the larger Germanic population than modern carriers of the surname English surname Mead being ~68% I2 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mead/?iframe=yresults) tells us about the larger English population.

Are there at least STRs or some way we can see how much diversity there is in the I1?

Angela
18-04-16, 20:26
I1, or at least his immediate ancestor is exceedingly old in northern or central Europe, so it's highly unlikely they were the Indo European speakers. This leaves only R1a or R1b, Battle Axe and Atlantic Bronze/BB specifically to have brought Germanic speaking languages to central/northern Europe.

To Tomenable's point that I1 was more frequent, I think that's jumping to conclusions a little bit. Let's not forget this is still a very small sample which could also be overestimated with kinship. We also see samples 2 of 2 which were R1b in a Berlin sample, and 1 of 1 as I1 in Anglo-Saxon England. The only thing this suggests is that I1 was likely brought with Germanic speakers, not the relative percentages of the population around 400 AD.

This makes a lot of sense.

ThirdTerm
18-04-16, 23:12
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe_Y-DNA_map.jpg

Six ancient human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf in Germany belonged to R1b and the R1b people were present in modern-day Germany by 2,000 BCE (Lee et al. 2012). The Germanic tribes were originally from Scandinavia and they settled in present-day Denmark by 750 BC and their settlements were expanded to Southern Germany by AD 1. The German article (Harthun et al. 2015) concludes that these ancient individuals were Central Europeans, arguing that haplogroups I, J and E were introduced from the Middle East to Europe around 10,000 years ago, but the Görzig site could have been one of those Norse settlements, considering the high percentage of hg I1. Some regions of modern-day Germany may have been largely inhabited by the Germanic tribes with haplogroup I1 and they gradually admixed with the R1b population before the emergence of a common German identity. Today, R1b and I1 account for 36% and 16% in East Germany respectively and R1b is the majority haplogroup in South Germany and West Germany (47-48%).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Germanic_tribes_%28750BC-1AD%29.png
The expansion of the Germanic tribes 750 BC – AD 1 (after the Penguin Atlas of World History 1988)



The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture in Europe is associated with demographic changes that may have shifted the human gene pool of the region as a result of an influx of Neolithic farmers from the Near East. However, the genetic composition of populations after the earliest Neolithic, when a diverse mosaic of societies that had been fully engaged in agriculture for some time appeared in central Europe, is poorly known. At this period during the Late Neolithic (ca. 2,800-2,000 BC), regionally distinctive burial patterns associated with two different cultural groups emerge, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, and may reflect differences in how these societies were organized. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany showed distinct mitochondrial haplotypes for six individuals, which were classified under the haplogroups I1, K1, T1, U2, U5, and W5, and two males were identified as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b. In contrast to other Late Neolithic societies in Europe emphasizing maintenance of biological relatedness in mortuary contexts, the diversity of maternal haplotypes evident at Kromsdorf suggests that burial practices of Bell Beaker communities operated outside of social norms based on shared maternal lineages. Furthermore, our data, along with those from previous studies, indicate that modern U5-lineages may have received little, if any, contribution from the Mesolithic or Neolithic mitochondrial gene pool.

Fire Haired14
19-04-16, 05:16
Also to compare actual mean german genetics with old ones is to me a very gross mistake taking into account that Germany is a political product of the XIX-XX Centuries and that such territory suffered various known migrations: celts in the south, germanics coming gradualy from the north, romans ruling the south, slavs occuping the east, and then germans colonizing slavic lands in the east till reaching Wien and so.

Germany is a young idea, but people in Germany are suppose to be the descendants of the various nations that lived in "Germania" from the Iron age to Early Middle Ages. Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected. Germany is very distinct from their neighbors(France, Italy, Poland, and Britain) in terms of Y DNA. Their Y DNA though is similar to linguistically relatives in Scandinavia. So, that alone is good evidence that modern German Y DNA is mostly descended from Iron age Germania, not Celts or Slavs or anyone else.

The country Germany is in a similar situation as big countries like Italy and Spain and France. The idea of those countries isn't 2,000 years old but the people there are suppose to be the descendants of the people who lived there from when the earliest writing(circa 500 BC-0 AD) referring to those places came about.

Tomenable
19-04-16, 13:31
Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected.

Well, archaeology and palynology don't support this idea. They show a depopulation in areas between the Elbe and the Oder during the early 5th to early 6th centuries, followed by repopulation from the East during the late 6th and 7th centuries, followed by the Northern Crusades - at first during the 8th and 9th centuries against Pagan Saxons and Thuringians who lived to the west of the Elbe; then during the 10th, 11th, 12th and early 13th centuries against Slavs who lived between the Elbe and the Oder. During and after those Northern Crusades a re-population of areas devastated by war took place, driven by settlers coming from the West. Here is a summary of pollen data posted by user Frank N. from Hamburg:

This analysis refers to areas of present-day East Germany (i.e. between the Elbe and the Oder):


1. At the beginning of the migration period, there is a widespread, sudden and massive drop in settlement along the Baltic Sea coast and its extended hinterland. This drop starts sometimes during the early fifth century somewhere in Eastern Pomerania, and progresses westwards over the next century until it comes to a halt around 550 AD in Middle Holstein, at the Ilmenau river in Lower Saxony, and near (probably east of) the Harz mountains.

2. Repopulation, driven by Slavic immigration, takes place during the seventh century. Pollen diagrams suggest a westward movement along or parallel to the Baltic coast [i.e. from Poland], other movements (up the Oder and Elbe) might have also occurred, but can't be traced from the pollen diagrams that I have examined. By the end of the seventh century, the migration reaches the middle Elbe and East Holstein [see also the map below].

Then there was this:

3. The Northern Crusades (at first Frankish conquest of Saxons & Thuringians, then German conquest of Slavs).

And back to Frank N:

This below refers only to colonisation of areas to the east of the Elbe (to the west of the Elbe it started earlier):


4. In the second half of the twelfth century, a strong and steady increase in settlement begins, which peaks by the late 14th century. This increase starts in East Holstein around 1150 and moves eastwards. It reaches the Oder around 1250. The geographical spread and the timeline correspond well to the German colonisation.

So it was a pretty turbulent time, and the final stage of that sequence was immigration from the West.

Map:

After the migration period, this black-orange line (map below) was the Slavic-Germanic ethnic border:

Görzig is located almost exactly at that ethnic borderland.

Our 12 Y-DNA samples discussed in this thread are from Görzig, but they are from the 300s-450s AD, so they pre-date the depopulation and the Slavic expansion, which took place during the 450s-600s AD in this region:

http://s18.postimg.org/d7ljiq1kp/Location.png

berun
19-04-16, 18:13
Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected. Germany is very distinct from their neighbors(France, Italy, Poland, and Britain) in terms of Y DNA.

Tomenable includes information to doubt about the degree of continuity; of course conquest/colonization rarely wipes out the previous population, but you can take the example of Anglo-saxons invading Britons and how nowadays English people have a 30% or so of Germanic DNA. If taking things even less dramatic, East Germany was occupied by X tribes, then in the II Iron Age was occupied by Germanics (you can count a +15% foreign DNA), then occupied by Slavs around 500 AD (+15% foreig DNA), and then again occupied by Germans around 1000-1200 (+15% foreig DNA that came mainly from Old Saxony); suming up it would be that between X DNA and actual DNA you can count as minimum that half of it is not so ancient.

As an example, that from Procopius' History of Wars (7, 38), how after the slavs won the Byzantine local garrison of Topirus, in the Thracian coast: "Then they slew all the men immediately, to the number of fifteen thousand, took all the valuables as plunder, and reduced the children and women to slavery. Before this, however, they had spared no age, but both these and the other group, since the time when they fell upon the land of the Romans, had been killing all who fell in their way, young and old alike, so that the whole land inhabited by the Illyrians and Thracians came to be everywhere filled with unburied corpses." In The Secret History (18): "But the Gepides control Sirmium [near Belgrad] and the country thereabout, which is all, roughly speaking, completely destitute of human habitation. For some were destroyed by the war, some by disease and famine, the natural concomitants of war. And lllyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole expanse of country from the Ionian Gulf to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Greece and the Thracian Chersonnese, was overrun practically every year by Huns, Sclaveni and Antae, from the time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire, and they wrought frightful havoc among the inhabitants of that region. For in each invasion more than twenty myriads of Romans, I think, were destroyed or enslaved there, so that a veritable ‘Scythian wilderness’ came to exist everywhere in this land."

Greying Wanderer
19-04-16, 22:14
Interesting idea but i'd hold back for a while. If you look at a relief map

http://www.indiecartographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Germany-Relief-CM-wm.jpg

Germany is clearly two zones: mountainous south, north European plain in the north. So if the ydna I were the paleos covering the whole area and the R1b originally came from the east I'd suggest the ydna I people would be more likely to carry on being the majority in the mountain south.

(even more so if they'd been displaced by the farmers first and the then the R1b replaced the farmers)

so I wouldn't be surprised if you're at least partly right (the R1b maps always looked mostly west to east to me) but I wonder if in the particular case of Gorzig the direction may have been north->south rather west->east?

Templar
20-04-16, 00:36
I1, or at least his immediate ancestor is exceedingly old in northern or central Europe, so it's highly unlikely they were the Indo European speakers. This leaves only R1a or R1b, Battle Axe and Atlantic Bronze/BB specifically to have brought Germanic speaking languages to central/northern Europe.

To Tomenable's point that I1 was more frequent, I think that's jumping to conclusions a little bit. Let's not forget this is still a very small sample which could also be overestimated with kinship. We also see samples 2 of 2 which were R1b in a Berlin sample, and 1 of 1 as I1 in Anglo-Saxon England. The only thing this suggests is that I1 was likely brought with Germanic speakers, not the relative percentages of the population around 400 AD.

Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families. I think Germanic languages originated as fusion between the local languages spoken by the I1 and the incoming r1b and r1a invaders, while other IE language families were more "pure" indoeuropean in their vocabulary. This could have been caused by higher pre-indoeuropean ancestry in Scandinavians due to the cold and inhospitable terrain (especially since Indoeuropean used chariots and other wheeled vehicles during their migrations, which would have been difficult to use in battle in Scandinavia). A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

Fire Haired14
20-04-16, 06:55
@Tomenable, berun.

Ok, sure there could have been a lot of population replacement in East Germany after the Iron age. Tomenable, I still don't think U106 is mostly a Belgea marker. It peaks in Dutch, who are Franks. Belgium probably has a lot because they're of largely Germanic-origin. The relatively high amount of U106 in Scandinavia(10-15%), can't be explained by Belgea. U152 and DF27 were certainly the main Y DNA haplogroups of Belgea and Gauls.

bicicleur
20-04-16, 08:57
Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families. I think Germanic languages originated as fusion between the local languages spoken by the I1 and the incoming r1b and r1a invaders, while other IE language families were more "pure" indoeuropean in their vocabulary. This could have been caused by higher pre-indoeuropean ancestry in Scandinavians due to the cold and inhospitable terrain (especially since Indoeuropean used chariots and other wheeled vehicles during their migrations, which would have been difficult to use in battle in Scandinavia). A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

the non european probably didn't come from I1
I1 has one single ancestor 4700 years old, that time first IE people were allready in Scandinavia

Ukko
20-04-16, 13:08
Baltic Finnish has earlier linguistic contacts to Proto-Germanic than Celtic or Balto-Slavic have, Finns have I1 that is related to Saxon lines in Germany and Britain.

You can throw in the archelogical evidence also, seax finds etc.

Do the math.


PS, Baltic Finnish word for Germany is Saksa.

ElHorsto
20-04-16, 14:51
Interesting idea but i'd hold back for a while. If you look at a relief map

http://www.indiecartographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Germany-Relief-CM-wm.jpg

Germany is clearly two zones: mountainous south, north European plain in the north.


I also see in Germany more north-south division rather than east-west.
It might be a coincidence, but the relief map above fits to the dialect border lines:
Uerdinger line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uerdingen_line#/media/File:Uerdinger_und_Karlsruher_Linie.png)
Benrath line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benrath_line#/media/File:Benrather_und_Speyerer_Linie.png)

North of these lines is the area of the Plattdeutsch language (Low German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German)), which is essentially ancient Saxon language and is much more similar to English than is standard German. Plattdeutsch is barely understandable by germans not knowing Plattdeutsch. Few people in the north still speak it. Before Martin Luther, all northern Germany spoke Platt.
The Saxons were not decimated at all, quite to the contrary, after they have been defeated by the Franks, they soon overtook the rule from the frankish Merowingians and Karolingians, and were called Ottonians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottonian_dynasty). Later, Henry the Lion from Brunswick significantly drove the east colonization. Although he was again from a frankish aristrocratic line, he was considered a saxon king (Duchy_of_Saxony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Saxony), with Westfalia and Lower-Saxony/Eastfalia as core areas). "Falen/Falia" literally means Saxony.

Even in the later colonised east of Germany, the north-south division remained mostly intact, because north of the Erzgebirge mountains, mostly Saxon colonists settled, whereas in the mountains there settled mostly south Germans. The southernmost east-german province "Saxony" is ironically the least saxon settled colony in the east.



So if the ydna I were the paleos covering the whole area and the R1b originally came from the east I'd suggest the ydna I people would be more likely to carry on being the majority in the mountain south.


That might apply to I2, but not I1. I think I1 is too much bottlenecked and recent, and it probably spread by germanic or funnelbeaker agriculture in the lowlands in general - in north german, south swedish and danish plains. At the same time Norway and South Germany have less I1 and are mountainous.
I think I2 is the mesolithic remnant that survived in mountainous pockets like north Sweden, Harz mountains, Thuringia and somewhat Bavaria. R1b was also well enough adapted to mountains due to cattle and perhaps also metallurgy. I1 possibly had multiplied by agriculture in fertile plains (Görzig is situated in the higly fertile "Magdeburger Börde"). I wonder whether it has a connection to Funnelbeakers and the much older neolithic farmer I1 from the Hungarian plain, and possibly Goseck near Görzig (Goseck_circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle)).



(even more so if they'd been displaced by the farmers first and the then the R1b replaced the farmers)

so I wouldn't be surprised if you're at least partly right (the R1b maps always looked mostly west to east to me) but I wonder if in the particular case of Gorzig the direction may have been north->south rather west->east?

Goga
20-04-16, 19:05
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe_Y-DNA_map.jpg

Six ancient human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf in Germany belonged to R1b and the R1b people were present in modern-day Germany by 2,000 BCE (Lee et al. 2012). The Germanic tribes were originally from Scandinavia and they settled in present-day Denmark by 750 BC and their settlements were expanded to Southern Germany by AD 1. The German article (Harthun et al. 2015) concludes that these ancient individuals were Central Europeans, arguing that haplogroups I, J and E were introduced from the Middle East to Europe around 10,000 years ago, but the Görzig site could have been one of those Norse settlements, considering the high percentage of hg I1. Some regions of modern-day Germany may have been largely inhabited by the Germanic tribes with haplogroup I1 and they gradually admixed with the R1b population before the emergence of a common German identity. Today, R1b and I1 account for 36% and 16% in East Germany respectively and R1b is the majority haplogroup in South Germany and West Germany (47-48%).
You are a great mind. Are you a scientist?

I think that the Germanic race and language were born after hg. I (I1 & I2) and R1b mixed with each other. At the first early stage, R1b was much more dominant in Germanic lands. Later there was a hg. I gene flow from Scandinavia into Germania. So the balance between hg. I and hg. R1b was shifted in the advantage of hg. I.

But hg. R1b from Yamnaya was still the most dominant haplogroup in Central Europe. So hg. R1b gradually replaced hg. I in Germania. +There was some R1a migration from the east, (R1a tribes from the Slavonic lands started to arrive in Germania), so hg. R1a & R1b were growing in population, while hg. I was declining in population in Germania.

Garrick
20-04-16, 23:55
It is probably there were more I1 in Germany in past, maybe not so long ago.

There is interesting story for two Serbian men with I1 haplogroup.

It is proved that they are descendants of Saxons whose ancestors worked as miners in Serbian mines in Middle Age (13th, 14th century).

Although it is small sample, there is assumption based on evidence of haplogroups that Saxons who came to the Balkans as miners were mostly or dominantly I1 carriers.

I have an assumption.

Maybe I1 carriers in Saxon areas in Germany and surrounding were starving due to black death (1346-1671).

About 1/3 of European population extinct and it can be possible that among them are Saxon I1 carriers.

MOESAN
21-04-16, 00:13
Not yet. Not to my knowledge at least.



Ptolemy (lived in 90-168 AD) placed the Angles (Suebi Angili) rather deep inland:

Of course during the next few centuries they could possibly move towards the north:

Homelands of Angili, Frisii and Saxones according to Ptolemy (https://s23.postimg.org/elt98ahrf/Angili,+Frisii+and+Saxones.png)

Albis = River Elbe

https://s23.postimg.org/elt98ahrf/Angili,+Frisii+and+Saxones.png


I answer you principally here, without having read the numerous last posts.
Sorry for my "prose", a bit hard to digest I suppose.



-Sax/Nieder-Sachsen today is THE NORTHWEST of Germany. Sax-Anhalt inEastern Germany is only a bit, and it could be a lately extension ofthe western Sax (???)


-The Ptolemeus map is very uncertain for geographic precise locations.And it mentions Longobardi, Suebi Longobardi, SuebiSemnonesandSuebi Angili. These« Suebi something » names are in line so I suppose it'sthe name of composed tribes under the Suebi rule, inevery casenot a hazard of writing on the map confusing us about the reality(for Ptolemeus) of these « composed » tribes ?If it's not an error, itimplies Suebi Longobardi was a new compound of tribes distinct fromthe original Longobardi : Suebi Longobardi seems placedby him south the Ruhr region, south the Sugambri tribe whenLongobardi is situed by him in North, south the Angrivari and northhis Suebi Angili and Cherusci (today german historians placedLangobarden north Angrivari). I 'm not sure it's of worth discussingtoo much about locations because some tribes had changed placed overtime. What is interesting is seeing Longobardi separated from SuebiLongobardi : so we can imagine someAngili existed apart fromSuebi Angili, and were situated more northernly ? Unseasyto prove or disprove. Allthe way Angles stayed plenty of time in Southern Jutland since beforethe end of Roman times.


-Concerning sample size andaccuracy I have in mind the Liechtenstein (Harz Unstrut culture)people where, upon STRsit's true, 12 men wereclassified Y-I2a2 (L38) vs 2 Y-R1a and 1 Y-R1b(U106). There has beenmentioned 4 lignages for Y-I2a2 there, at first, but later, someonessaid this human group show family links. So the reasoning of Y-I2a2there = % of 12/15 males could be without sense. By the way too,the 2 R1a would have been of an unic lignage. So I hold with Maciamowhen he says the sample for East Saxons in question here isunreliable to establish ratio's of I1>< R-U106 among theGermanics.


- Interesting, thanks toFireHaired : I suppose its%s are reliable : the ratio U106/totalR1b-M269 :
Eire : 7,5 % - Wales :6,0 % - France : 13,5 % - Scotland : 16,5 %(no surprise here)-
Switzerland : 22,4 %*-England : 35,1 % - Belgium : 42,0 % - Germany :44,2 % -The Netherlands : 64,8 % - Denmark :50,0 % - Norway : 60,0 % - Sweden : 66,6 %(!) - Austria : 85,2 % (!) -
Finland : 50,0 % -Balts+Estonians (low numbers?) : 40,0 % -
Czechs : 50,0 % (!) -Ukraina : 36,0 % - Poland : 34,8 % - Belarus :10,0 % - Slovakia : 8,6 % - Hungary : 20,0 %
Italy : 10,8 % -Spain : 11,5 %- Portugal : 9,3 %
my ones : U106/M269,surely upon littler samples, but more regional, just for info :
North-England : 31,8 %- Central England : 30,6 % & 50,0 % -Northwest-England : 27,1 % - East-England : 40,1 %- East-Anglia : 41,1 % - Southeast-England : 34,1 %- Southwest-England : 32,4 % & 31,6 %-Northeast-Ireland : 15,7 % - North-Ireland (+ Donegal?) :4,7 % - East-Ireland : 0,0 % (?) - Southeast-Ireland :7,5 % & 9,9 % - Southwest-Ireland : 5,4 % &3,9 %
Northwest Scotland:9,5 %- East-Northeast Scotland : 7,5 % - WestScotland (Lallands ? More?): 12,2 %
Wales : 11,6 %
Switz.Northeast alemannic :33,3 % - Switz. Northwest-alemannic : 15,9 % (NearElsass) – Switz. Southeast alemannic:22,2 % - Switz. Southwestalemmanic : 30,0 % -Northwest Switzerland (romance) :6,6 % BUT : 13,5 % L21/S145 !
Denmark : too lowsamples, all Jutland : respectively : 37,5 % &44,4 % & 60,0 % …
The Netherlands : 69,5 %- North Germany : 57,1 % - West Germany : 44,4 %
West Flanders : 52,1 %- East Flanders : 40,9 % - Antwerpe : 38,2 % -N-E Äntwerpe :34,4 % - Limburg : 38,1 % -North-Brabant (germanic) : 61,7 % - South-Brabant(walloon) : 38,4 %
Romania : 9,9 % -Hungary : 17,2 % - Greece : 0,0 % (! BUT Creta :5,8 %) - Albania : 4,3 % - Macedonia : 0,0 (!) -Croatia : 7,0 % - Serbia : 18,6 %-Montenegro :0,0 % - Bosnia : 0,0 % - Bulgaria : 16,2 %(!) - Czechia : 26,1 % - Slovakia : 24,5 %(closer between them here) –West Ukraina : 38,5 %- Center Ukraina : 17,7 % - Belarus:33,3 % &29,7 % (closer to West Ukraina, then)-
South-Sweden :only 20,6 % … Estonia : 59,3 % - Finland :47,6 % - Poland : 32,2 % - North Russia:22,4 %Center Russia 19,3 % South Russia 30,3 %
Spain Valencia (East) :2,0 % - North Italy 13,4 % - South Italy 3,7 % (surelyexceptions around West Sicilia and Campobasso...)
concerningAustria don't find my %, but I remember it was around the66,6 % close to The Netherlands, so not so higheven if very high...Anerror in FireHaired statesconcerning the totalof Y-R1b ?: Maciamogives 32 % -I know Tyrol gives higher %s of U106 but...
Whatever the samples, we seethat the Y-R1b-U106 ratio's cline within Y-R1b is finally moreNorthern/Southern (except Austria) than Western/Eastern even if indetails things are a bit more complicated : and we see theCeltic lands are not the strongest as a whole, compared not only togermanic regions but also to other ethnic groups. It's confirmed inthe Benelux as a whole, in France, in Iberia (the Northwest andWestern lands have more than the Southeast ones)
The southern Sweden % isvery low : sample size ? + upstream SNPs ? :don't forget M269's in different geographic areas have differentstories : some are ancestors of U106, some others to P312... Isee nothing in all these%s which copuld deny a germanic origin forthe bulk of Y-R1a.


- surely some subclades ofY-R1b-U106 and Y-I1 had stories different from the story of bulk oftheir ancestral lignage. I don't refuse the thought of some U106 andsome I1 incorporated amon Celts and others at the mergins. By theway, Y-I1 is old in North and some clades could have been inNorth-West before Celts and Germanics, and here I cannot speak of« mergin ». For U106 I think it's at the mergin thatsomeones were incorporated among Celts, Belgae come from Bohemiasurroundings for the most.


- I was interested by theTomenable hypothesis concerning Hallstatt, U106 and Austria-Bohemia :people (future rich Tumuli) interested in metals who descended therivers network towards the Saale region and the Harz/Thuringen? Verysensible at first sight. Question : is the today frequency ofU106 reflecting this ? And reflecting more ancient stages ?I think Corded reached Saale Thuringen region, almost sure so somekind of Y-R1a (R1a seems more ancient than Y-R1b and than the most-not the whole- of Y-I1 in Norway : see other threads) ;but I suppose Corded came more through East plain than through theBohemian mountains.
ButU106 ? I think the clear enough cut between it and P312can be explained by an isolation at some stage of the Y-R1b-L11level. Where were the 2 pools ? U106 vs P312 ? ForP312, East of France-Bavaria-Switzerland (future « poor »Tumuli under Unetice influence culturally only) seem good enoughcheck ; for U106, South Bohemia-North Austria could be righttoo, before later moves West-East (Celts) and then East-West(Slavs) : infiltration from the Danube and then the riversnetwork (Elbe and Co); a northwards colonization for metals withThuringen/Saale for target, cutting R1a of Scandinavia off the R1a ofEast... ??? It deserves a knowledge of R1a subclades I have notnow. Austria richness in U106 could be linked to an old Danube cradleas well as to a « bridge head » of Germanics warriorsafter the Volker Wanderungen. Classical anthropology showed theGermanics tribe coming down in Southwest Germany could be distinguishfrom the more meso-brachycephalic people of Pre-Celtic+Celtic origin.Salzburg region is blonder and less brachycephalic than a lot ofSouthern Germany regions : an anterior state or more Germanicscolonizators ? It needs more accurate and precise auDNA for thediverse Austrian regions. I avow I'm not completely convinced bythe U106/Danube connexion as a primal stage ; not isolatedenough, when we know the Danube boulevard leads to Rhine mouth ;I've hard work to explain the still existing opposition in R1b's %safter centuries of moves even if war conquests are not always checkedby important population shifts. I wonder if a more northeasternposition was not the case for U106??? Rhine was more a link atBB's times than a frontier. Spite this it became a kind of frontieror a sort of hurdle at Celtic-Germanic pre-Roman times, at least inits lower part, visible in a « today » bunch of closeisolosses or gradiants in The Netherlands concerning U106 vs P312 ifI rely upon STR's, what could prove the Germanics people did notexterminate all the Celts on their way South. It's true someGermanics tribes were already infiltred among Celtic tribes in oldBelgia at Roman times.


-Now, my suppositions : As I wrote previously I think R-U106 andI1 were already mixed in Denmark-North Germany before Roman Era. Onlythe respective %s changed, apparently R-U106 dominant more westernly,I1 dominant more easternly. Thuringen and Sax-Anhalt, regionsattracted a lot of tribes of divers horizons at LN-EBA. By the way,the geographical link of this cradle with Hallstatt (more than to LaTène) could prove all Hallstatt at first was not ONLYCeltic, my doubts based upon what was said by more than an ancientarcheologist and historian and antrhopologist. More than aTumuli/Barrows culture existed there in Europe, and the link maybewas not too tight between rich tumuli of Saale regions and the« poorest » tumuli of Bavaria-East France which (theselast ones) could be linked more properly to proto-Celtic culture. LaTène culture showed a great change in hyerarchization andsettlements places after Hallstatt, I see personally as a return to amore ancient situation after absorbtion of new elites not Celtic byforce.
Iresume ( needed!) : Y-R-U106 among Celts ? Yes, atlight dosis. But Y-I1 too, at light dosis. But for me Germanics attheir daybreak after I-Eanization by R1b (more U106) were already amix of R-U106+I1, centered around Denmark and in a lot of Southernand eastern countries, the 2 are roughly traces of Germanics people,whatever their respective%s.
Futurewill tell us ?

ElHorsto
21-04-16, 02:06
It is probably there were more I1 in Germany in past, maybe not so long ago.

There is interesting story for two Serbian men with I1 haplogroup.

It is proved that they are descendants of Saxons whose ancestors worked as miners in Serbian mines in Middle Age (13th, 14th century).

Although it is small sample, there is assumption based on evidence of haplogroups that Saxons who came to the Balkans as miners were mostly or dominantly I1 carriers.

I have an assumption.

Maybe I1 carriers in Saxon areas in Germany and surrounding were starving due to black death (1346-1671).

About 1/3 of European population extinct and it can be possible that among them are Saxon I1 carriers.

It is possible, but there are widespread confusions regarding the term "Saxon", even among Germans. The east-german provinces "Saxony" and Saxony-Anhalt are not the ancestral Saxon land and were only partially settled by Saxons. Even Mecklenburg is certainly more saxon than "Saxony". Especially Erzgebirge mountain in Saxony was populated more by franks and bavarians than saxons.

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.

Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.

Templar
21-04-16, 04:19
the non european probably didn't come from I1
I1 has one single ancestor 4700 years old, that time first IE people were allready in Scandinavia

Even so it would be an unknown I* predecessor of I1. A paleolithic remnant that merged with the coming Indoeuropeans. I1 was the specific clade that benefited from the resulting mix and it expanded like wildfire due to Bronze age technology and weaponry.

LeBrok
21-04-16, 08:28
The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.Saxons or not, definitely some Germanic people were there at that time. I'm not sure, but gathering info from posts, first arrival of Saxons in Saxony is rather unknown. So who knows what was the name of the tribe there by said time.


Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.Interesting is the fact that most Slavs refer to Germans as Svabi (Szwaby). It might be the case that at some point they battled Suabs the most of other tirbes, hens such identification of Germans. It is mystery however, when and where the contact happened. Looking at maps of ancient tribes and chronology of their movements, it shouldn't be the case. Suabs have left before Slavs arrived. Go figure.

ElHorsto
21-04-16, 12:27
Saxons or not, definitely some Germanic people were there at that time. I'm not sure, but gathering info from posts, first arrival of Saxons in Saxony is rather unknown. So who knows what was the name of the tribe there by said time.


The first arrival of Saxons together with other Germans in Saxony happened when it was already slavic, and the "Holy-Roman-Empre/Germany" already existed. The Görzig samples are from 300-400 years before the slavs arrived. I'm not even sure if Görzig later became slavic at all, it looks like it was close to the border.
[EDIT: Görzig was slavonic: Gorizka]
In either case they were neither saxons nor slavs for sure.



Interesting is the fact that most Slavs refer to Germans as Svabi (Szwaby). It might be the case that at some point they battled Suabs the most of other tirbes, hens such identification of Germans. It is mystery however, when and where the contact happened. Looking at maps of ancient tribes and chronology of their movements, it shouldn't be the case. Suabs have left before Slavs arrived. Go figure.

I'm sure it has nothing directly to do with the original suabian tribe. Those germans who are called Svabi in the Balkans have been moved there by the Habsburg monarchy 200 years ago (Schwabenzug (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabenzug)). Actual Svabians (Schwaben) do exist still today in Baden-Württemberg, and they represented only a small fraction of the "Svabi", but they apparently provided the name for all these german migrants. I don't know about Poland though.

berun
21-04-16, 12:49
Svabi ressembles suebi, a group of mobile germanic tribes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi

MOESAN
21-04-16, 13:38
It is possible, but there are widespread confusions regarding the term "Saxon", even among Germans. The east-german provinces "Saxony" and Saxony-Anhalt are not the ancestral Saxon land and were only partially settled by Saxons. Even Mecklenburg is certainly more saxon than "Saxony". Especially Erzgebirge mountain in Saxony was populated more by franks and bavarians than saxons.

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.

Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.

good precisions

MOESAN
21-04-16, 14:09
from Wikipedia:

Généralités[modifier (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&veaction=edit&vesection=1) | modifier le code (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&action=edit&section=1)]

Le terme Suèves (latin Suebi, Suabi ou Suevi) fait référence à un groupe germanique, peuple qui vivait jadis dans le nord-est de la Magna Germania (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Germania) sur la mer Baltique (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mer_Baltique). Dans les sources romaines, la mer Baltique est désignée comme Mare Suebicum d'après les Suèves. Le géographe Claude Ptolémée (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Ptol%C3%A9m%C3%A9e) (vers 100, † environ 175) dans sa Géographie (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9ographie_(Ptol%C3%A9m%C3%A9e)). localise à l'emplacement des rivières actuelles Swine et Oder (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oder) le fleuve Συήβος (Suebos, lat.: Suevus). Ainsi, le nom tribal des Suebi peut se laisser interpréter comme provenant de la zone de peuplement d'origine en tant que «peuple de l'Oder» ou encore le nom de la rivière Suevus comme le nom du fleuve des Suèves.
Comme l'historien Reinhard Wenskus l'a expliqué, l'apparence et la tradition des Suèves a marqué la perception ethnographique et la description de nombreuses tribus germaniques dans le monde antique avant que cette empreinte ne passe aux tribus gothiques. Beaucoup de tribus germaniques ont fait en sorte de se présenter comme suèves.
Étymologiquement, le nom des Souabes dérive directement du terme suève. De nombreuses tribus d'ascendance celte (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celte) et/ou germanique (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanique) ont été désignées de façon arbitraire par les romains (probablement pour des raisons géostratégiques et politiques), comme étant des tribus suèves à l'époque de Tacite (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacite): ainsi, les Marcomans (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomans), les Semnons (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnons) lesHermundures (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermundures), les Quades (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quades) et les Lombards (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards), et parfois les Angles (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles_(peuple))1 (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su%C3%A8ves#cite_note-todd-1). Sur le plan archéologique, ils se laissent identifier, au plus tôt, dans les Germains (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germains) de l'Elbe (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_(fleuve)). L'archéologie les désigne comme appartenant à la fois à la culture de Jastorf (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_de_Jastorf) et à la culture d'Harpstedt (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpstedt)1 (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su%C3%A8ves#cite_note-todd-1).
Les sources antiques perdent leur trace au iie siècle avant notre ère avant que ne réapparaisse leur nom dans des sources plus tardives. Ils ont participé aux grandes migrations (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_migrations)et pour certains d'entre eux sont parvenus jusqu'à la péninsule Ibérique.
Tacite, dans la Germanie, 39, témoigne que les Semnons passaient pour le fondement du peuple suève, vetustissimi Sueborum.
Les Suèves selon César[modifier (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&veaction=edit&vesection=2) | modifier le code (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&action=edit&section=2)]

En 58 av. J.-C., dans une bataille sur le Rhin (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_l%27Ochsenfeld), César (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_C%C3%A9sar) défait les Suèves qui avaient pénétré en Gaule conduits par Arioviste (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arioviste). Dans ses rapports, il conçoit comme Suèves les peuples germaniques habitant à l'est des Ubiens (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiens) et des Sicambres (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicambres) et indique qu'ils comptaient 100 groupes avec 1 000 hommes capables de combattre, mais qui se seraient retirés, lors de sa traversée du Rhin, vers la forêt de Bacenis (le massif d'Allemagne centrale, qui, selon César sépare les Suèves des Chérusques (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A9rusques)). Cette localisation est néanmoins considérée comme incertaine. Ils n'auraient pas connu de résidence fixe, mais se seraient déplacés chaque année dans le cadre des campagnes armées. La taille de l'alliance tribale suève est probablement due, dans la majorité des cas, à l'intégration d'autres tribus attirées par la gloire des Suèves à la guerre. Dion Cassius (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dion_Cassius) signale dans tous les cas, que « beaucoup d'autres manifestent la prétention d'être Suèves».
Selon les sources archéologiques, on observe des colonies tout à fait permanentes au nord du Main (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_(rivi%C3%A8re)) et le long de celui-ci. De même, les oppida (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppida) celtiques ont été occupées dans la région peu de temps après l'immigration germaniqune. Ces soi-disant Suèves du Main qui furent en 9/10 av. J.-C. soumis par Drusus (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Claudius_Drusus), sont d'après les fouilles archéologiques un mélange de peuples germaniques du Rhin-Weser et de peuples germaiques de l'Elbe.
Les Suèves du Neckar[modifier (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&veaction=edit&vesection=3) | modifier le code (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Su%C3%A8ves&action=edit&section=3)]

Selon des inscriptions trouvées, auraient vécu, sous la domination romaine, dans la région de Lopodunum (aujourd'hui Ladenburg (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladenburg)) au ier et iie siècles ap. J.-C., les Suèves Nicrenses (Suèves du Neckar (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckar)). D'après ces peuples suèves, est nommée la Civitas Ulpia Sueborum Nicretum qui se trouve près de Ladenburg. Il s'agit probablement de restes, qui étaient demeurés après l'expulsion de 58 av. J.-C. ou encore de volontaires ou même de réinstallations forcées. Dans une carte routière romaine de l'Antiquité tardive, laTabula Peutingeriana, on trouve également, entre Alamannia et les Burcturi (= Bructères (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruct%C3%A8res)), le nom Suevia, qui est probablement lié aux peuplements des Suèves du Neckar.

from that we can deduce:
Suèves/Suebi/Schwaben are the same thing - they were (seemingly) based in East-Germany very early and then this explain why all Germanics are named after their own tribe name by Slavs.
Powerful as they were, they incorporated other littler tribes (so maybe the compound names we find on some maps) and even , their name was "usurpated" by some more obscure germanic tribes.
By the way, Zeeland (# sea-land) would have been Zeeuws-land, land of the Suebi: so a stam of this great powerful tribe or group of tribes could have colonized this ancient celtic region too. I 'll try to say more about language if it's of some worth.
I'm not sure all that could disentangle the question" of supposed Y-I1 Saxons! With so much moves in some centuries among Germanics (dissolution, recomposition) I'm not sure the II/IV/V centuries would have seen so dramatic differences about haplo's in Northern Germany (not the case for Southern germany, been preceltic and Celtic before...
Franks themselves were numerous, but also incorporated some Belgae and Gauls tribes: they were, like Alamans and Suebi, recomposed big tribes.

ElHorsto
21-04-16, 14:29
from that we can deduce:
Suèves/Suebi/Schwaben are the same thing - they were (seemingly) based in East-Germany very early and then this explain why all Germanics are named after their own tribe name by Slavs.


They were the same thing 1500 years ago, but concerning the Balkans, their name has a much more recent story. They pronounce it "Shvabi", which hints to the more recent sound shift from 'S' to 'Sh'.

I'm still not so sure the ancient Suebi explains Germans being called Svabi by the other Slavs. When Slavs arrived in east Germany and Poland they found empty land in the north, and the Thuringian kingdom in the south, which they destroyed. At that time the Suebi already had left east Germany. It is possible that some Slavs fought the Suebi further south. In any case 'Nemci' was the most common slavic name for Germans or Germanics.

Tomenable
21-04-16, 14:30
The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxonsProbably Thuringians, Northern Suebi or Cherusci.BTW - Görzig is in Kreis Anhalt-Bitterfeld. After the Migration Period, this area was settled by Slavs, who built the stronghold of Ciervisti in that region (modern Zerbst).So we are looking at Pre-Slavic DNA from region which later became Slavic (even though very close to the western borderland of Slavic lands).

Milan
21-04-16, 14:30
I'm sure it has nothing directly to do with the original suabian tribe. Those germans who are called Svabi in the Balkans have been moved there by the Habsburg monarchy 200 years ago (Schwabenzug (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabenzug)). Actual Svabians (Schwaben) do exist still today in Baden-Württemberg, and they represented only a small fraction of the "Svabi", but they apparently provided the name for all these german migrants. I don't know about Poland though.
I think that the one of the first names used for Germans and maybe wider populations near them in Slavic language is "Nemac" (murmuring people) from Nem (mute) which still dominate in the Slavic languages,Germany is called "Nemacka" from the same name,the "Roman name" Germania,Germans is used also.
Švaba is perhaps later term and is derived from the Suebi tribe,yes moved by the Habsburg monarchy in Balkans,still denote a German but is not used that much.
For the Franks older term is Fruzi.
Speaking here about the South-Slavic languages and people.

Tomenable
21-04-16, 14:39
the ratio U106/totalR1b-M269 :Czechs : 50,0 % (!)Myres et al. had this data for Czech Republic:L23(xM412) -------------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U106(xU198) ----------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U152 ---------------------- 0,034 (= 3,4%)M529(xM222) ------------ 0,011 (= 1,1%)R1b-M269 all ------------------ 0,218 (= 21,8%)Which means that U106 is only 26,1% of M269.

MOESAN
21-04-16, 14:49
2 great germanic regions seem sharing a phonetic tendancy: NO diphtonging of long mid-germanic /I:/: Scandinavia, a lot of places in East Germany, and Zeeland/Flanders, Elsass Schwaben-Switzerland (these 3 last ones classified 'alemannic'. It concerns also long germanic /U:/ in some way. But considering vowels are as a rule less solid than consonnants/stops and that modern traits can be born late enough I 've doubt about the usefulness of this observation; and I think the western phenomenon is more related to remnants of Celtic substrata than to specific old Germanics tribes (Celts diphtonged long /E:/, almost never /I:/ if I'm right).
concerning Y-I1 and its ancestors in North-central Europe, a Russian scientist (Shtrunov) thought some Y-I's (I1 + maybe North-East Y-I2a2) could have been the carriers of the pre-I-Ean and pre-Finnic strata in Languages of Saami and Finland... I have not the knowledge to weight his affirmation.

Milan
21-04-16, 16:34
Other terms used in the medieval Slavic languages in Balkans prior for the Saxons is "Sasi" they were mostly working as miners in mine industry.
Couple toponyms still survive from their name,the village of Sase, Srebrenica, and the Saška reka was named after the community,one of today mines in R. Macedonia is called Sasa,probably connected to this name but is much later name.

LeBrok
21-04-16, 16:47
The first arrival of Saxons together with other Germans in Saxony happened when it was already slavic, and the "Holy-Roman-Empre/Germany" already existed. The Görzig samples are from 300-400 years before the slavs arrived. I'm not even sure if Görzig later became slavic at all, it looks like it was close to the border.You mean the first documented movement.





I'm sure it has nothing directly to do with the original suabian tribe. Those germans who are called Svabi in the Balkans have been moved there by the Habsburg monarchy 200 years ago (Schwabenzug (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabenzug)). Actual Svabians (Schwaben) do exist still today in Baden-Württemberg, and they represented only a small fraction of the "Svabi", but they apparently provided the name for all these german migrants. I don't know about Poland though.I beg to differ on this one. Svab is panslavic word, therefore must have been coined before expansion. Also, unlike Nemec, it is used in derogatory form. I'm telling you, something bad had happened between Svabians and Slavs. Part of unknown history I guess.

Milan
21-04-16, 16:58
You mean the first documented movement.




I beg to differ on this one. Svab is panslavic word, therefore must have been coined before expansion. Also, unlike Nemec, it is used in derogatory form. I'm telling you, something bad had happened between Svabians and Slavs. Part of unknown history I guess.
Svab is indeed used in derogatory form,but i think this had to do with ww2,in case of the Balkans at least the Germans back then and the soldiers were called Svabe mostly by Partisans,like Jerry in English.Other than that has no Slavic etymology neither i see something derogatory in it,by etymology Nemec(mute) would be kind of derogatory but we don't expirience it in that sense,is just a said word,no one think on it's etymology.

LeBrok
21-04-16, 17:11
Svab is indeed used in derogatory form,but i think this had to do with ww2,in case of the Balkans at least the Germans back then and the soldiers were called Svabe mostly by Partisans,like Jerry in English.Other than that has no Slavic etymology neither i see something derogatory in it,by etymology Nemec(mute) would be kind of derogatory but we don't expirience it in that sense,is just a said word,no one think on it's etymology.WW2 would seem like an explanation, but I think it is not. For instance, why would Serbs and Poles, and probably other Slavs, call all Germans taking part in the war, by the name of one German region? Too coincidental to happen. I'm sure Germans from Schwaben were not particularly more cruel than others to get any distinction.
I think it was vice versa, Germans were called Svabi, because it was already a derogatory term. If we have one, we'll use it, instead of inventing a new one.

Garrick
21-04-16, 17:27
Other terms used in the medieval Slavic languages in Balkans prior for the Saxons is "Sasi" they were mostly working as miners in mine industry.
Couple toponyms still survive from their name,the village of Sase, Srebrenica, and the Saška reka was named after the community,one of today mines in R. Macedonia is called Sasa,probably connected to this name but is much later name.

There are more, for example in Serbia Šaška reka (Shashka river) near Zajecar, village Sase near Raška (Rashka), etc.

MOESAN
21-04-16, 19:31
They were the same thing 1500 years ago, but concerning the Balkans, their name has a much more recent story. They pronounce it "Shvabi", which hints to the more recent sound shift from 'S' to 'Sh'.

I'm still not so sure the ancient Suebi explains Germans being called Svabi by the other Slavs. When Slavs arrived in east Germany and Poland they found empty land in the north, and the Thuringian kingdom in the south, which they destroyed. At that time the Suebi already had left east Germany. It is possible that some Slavs fought the Suebi further south. In any case 'Nemci' was the most common slavic name for Germans or Germanics.

Thanks El Horsto - I was just proposing a possible explanation. That said, approximations and assimilations are very common concerning ethnies or tribes names, in oral as in written culture. "Helvetes" and Swiss, "Dutch" for (Netherlanders) whose name would rather concern Germans, "Allemand" for German too, "Saxons" for Germans of Romania and so on... mix of scale, of places, of chronology.

MOESAN
21-04-16, 19:38
Myres et al. had this data for Czech Republic:L23(xM412) -------------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U106(xU198) ----------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U152 ---------------------- 0,034 (= 3,4%)M529(xM222) ------------ 0,011 (= 1,1%)R1b-M269 all ------------------ 0,218 (= 21,8%)Which means that U106 is only 26,1% of M269.

OK: it confirms my impressions. 50% was the ratio proposed by FireHaired, and it seemed too high for me; surely a technical error or a writing error: I added other ratios (in italic inclined letters) which fit your own ones for Czechs.

Tomenable
21-04-16, 20:05
As for Ostsiedlung, I've recently bought two books (they are in Polish, but have also abstracts in English so I will cite English titles):

- D. Leśniewska, "German Colonization and Colonization on the German Law in Medieval Bohemia & Moravia in the Light of Historiography"
- Jan M. Piskorski, "The Rural Colonization of Western Pomerania in the 13th Century and at the Beginning of the 14th Century..." *

These books give interesting details which may give hints as to genetic structure of modern regional populations as well.

For example Piskorski writes, that the number of German settlers in the island of Rügen was very low.

So modern inhabitants of Rügen should be of mostly Polabian Slavic descend. It would be nice to collect DNA there.

* German title is: "Die Ländliche Kolonisation Pommerns im 13. und in den Anfängen des 14. Jahrhunderts auf dem Hintergrund der Siedlungsvorgänge im Mittelalterlichen Europa".

Rethel
23-04-16, 11:09
Our 12 Y-DNA samples discussed in this thread are from Görzig, but they are from the 300s-450s AD, so they pre-date the depopulation and the Slavic expansion, which took place during the 450s-600s AD in this region:

Now I get how you think.

But I think, that I1 rather increase in number in last 1700 years than deline, and such depopulation, whereever it had place in germanic speaking world, was in favor of I1. I1 at that time was totally assimilated, so no one cared, which people are settled where and how many children they had. The spread of I1 was unseeable and was systematicaly increasing during millenia, not only in Scandinavia but also in the continent. More than that, many other lineages went away with germanic tribes invading the Empire, and if more I1 left in place, then this clade had batter chances to be more spreading. This is my guess, and I have suspected it to be correct :)

Rethel
23-04-16, 11:18
Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families.

This is already non actual view. Most of the words can be easly explained on IE basis. Btw, some of the words, which were presented in this 1/3 are several times similar to slavic words, so, no problem. Of course some words can be inherited from locals, but some can be also self invented by Germans or twisted so much, that IE root is not recognizable - and in the case of these languages is very possible :)



A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

But becasue of the age, he can be afterIE not preIE :)
Women also can influenced language, even more,
especially, that they are talking more and even to much:wink:

Tomenable
23-04-16, 16:04
As for Ostsiedlung, I've recently bought two books (they are in Polish, but have also abstracts in English so I will cite English titles):

- D. Leśniewska, "German Colonization and Colonization on the German Law in Medieval Bohemia & Moravia in the Light of Historiography"
- Jan M. Piskorski, "The Rural Colonization of Western Pomerania in the 13th Century and at the Beginning of the 14th Century..." *

These books give interesting details which may give hints as to genetic structure of modern regional populations as well.

For example Piskorski writes, that the number of German settlers in the island of Rügen was very low.

So modern inhabitants of Rügen should be of mostly Polabian Slavic descend. It would be nice to collect DNA there.

* German title is: "Die Ländliche Kolonisation Pommerns im 13. und in den Anfängen des 14. Jahrhunderts auf dem Hintergrund der Siedlungsvorgänge im Mittelalterlichen Europa".

If German colleagues are interested - here is the table of contents in German (and references to German summary):

Table of Contents (http://s31.postimg.org/fmoejbfd5/Spis_tresci.png)

http://s31.postimg.org/hled30z9l/Spis_tresci.png

German Summary (http://s31.postimg.org/8isors5mx/Zusammenfassung.png)

http://s31.postimg.org/kyugin5aj/Zusammenfassung.png

And Extended Table of Contents from the other book:

http://s31.postimg.org/x79lwrsw9/Summary1.png

http://s31.postimg.org/cq7hngr9l/Summary2.png

http://s31.postimg.org/nwxyclz49/Summary3.png

http://s31.postimg.org/h0mm2fdah/Summary4.png

http://s31.postimg.org/nvjvotouh/Summary5.png

http://s31.postimg.org/6g9ifraq1/Summary6.png

MOESAN
24-04-16, 20:11
I could seem marginal:
a survey about East Tyrol of Austria, close to Carinthia and Italian (South) Tyrol, gave 42,2% for all Y-R1b's and 18,9% for U106 so a ratio of 44,78% for U106, not so dramatic. It's ture it is East Tyrol. But it is far from the almost 80% of U106/R1b... by the way Y-I1 was at 15,9%, so an equilibrium between supposed "germanic" R-U106 and I1... It could confirm there Germanics as vectors for the most of these haplo's in Austria, and not Austria as cradle for a U106 almost without Y-I1? Hard to believe Y-I1s came after from North, independently from U106...

Moi-même
25-04-16, 08:33
What about Ötzi's G2a? He was found in the Tyrol if I remember well.

berun
25-04-16, 09:08
Interesting results in a little area; what we have by sure in Görzig is 7 I1 and 1 R1b; but 40 km SW in Esperstedt (samples from the Corded Ware culture of 2500-2050) gave 8 R1a and a R1b1a2, then 40 km SE from Esperstedt, in Eulau, two samples pertaining also to the Corded Ware from 2600 were R1a (total CW = 10 R1a + 1 R1b); some 70 km S of Esperstedt, in Kromsdorf, two samples of the Bell Beaker culture were R1b; also other two samples of the Bell Beaker found 70 km NW of Esperstedt were R1b (in Quedlinburg), as was the Bell Beaker found in Rothenschirmbach, which is at few km from Esperstedt... (total BB = 5 R1b). The Bronze Age samples from 2100-2000 of the Unetice Culture found were I2a2, I2, I2c2; thousand years later the samples found in the Lichstentein cave (at few km from Quedlinbrug) pertaining to the Urnfield culture (celtic), were mainly I2 (11 I2a2b + 2 R1a + 1 R1b)... it would be nice to know the actual Y-DNA of the region as to know the aftermatch of such mix.

Of course these could be biased data related to samples that were relatives, but each culture is showing a different genetic make-up in an area similar to Corsica island in extension, but it seems that something happended with the Unetice culture, and it was not reversed so much by the change to the Urnfield developed in the south at some 500 km. By the way, the presence of seven I1 in Görzig could be explained then by the migration from the north of Germanics in the II Iron Age.

berun
25-04-16, 20:58
I forgot to add up the sample from Halberstadt, near Quiedlinburg, it was a R1a from the Lusatian culture, of about the same epoch than the Urnfield samples...

Tomenable
28-04-16, 01:02
but 40 km SW in Esperstedt (samples from the Corded Ware culture of 2500-2050) gave 8 R1a and a R1b1a2, then 40 km SE from Esperstedt, in Eulau, two samples pertaining also to the Corded Ware from 2600 were R1a (total CW = 10 R1a + 1 R1b)

That alleged CWC R1b from Esperstedt was in fact R1a.

SNP calls suggest that he was in fact R1a-M198* (basal paragroup M198):

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/

And on Anthrogenica user Smal explained why he was not R1b - le'ts cite him:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125343&viewfull=1#post125343

Quote:
=================
I1534 is not R1b. CTS11468 and many other R1b specific SNPs are negative for this sample.

I1534 has the following negative R1b SNPs:

L1349/PF6268/YSC0000231-
CTS2702/PF6099/Z8132-
CTS2703-
L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224-
CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484-
CTS2466/PF6453-
CTS2704/PF6100-
CTS8052/FGC45/PF6473-
L749/PF6476/YSC0000290-
PF6496/YSC0000213-
L1350/PF6505/YSC0000225-
PF6507-
CTS11468/FGC49/PF6520-
CTS12972/FGC52/PF6532-

CTS11468 is a mutation from “G” to “T”. All R1b1a2 (R-M269) have “T” in this position. I1534 has 1”G” read.

I am looking at the actual reads from bam files.

It is easy to explain.

A difference between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence can arise in 2 cases

1) Ancestral (RS) -> Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
2) Ancestral (SS) -> Derived (RS) [negative SNP in SS]

If there are no differences between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence that can mean

3) Ancestral -> Derived (RS) = Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
4) Ancestral (RS) = Ancestral (SS) -> Derived [negative SNP in SS]

Probably you know that Reference Sequence is a mix from the actual R1b-P312 (mainly) and G sequences.

As a result, the most of R1b1a2 specific SNPs belong to the variant 3. But in case of CTS11468 we see the variant 2.

However, Mathieson et al have recorded it wrongly as the variant 1.
==================
End of quote

Tomenable
28-04-16, 01:10
There is also RISE1, but if one claims that he was R1b-M269, then one must also claim the same for Copper Age ATP3 from Iberia:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125363&viewfull=1#post125363


This [RISE1 sample] is evidently "one of the worse quality samples in the dataset". It shows just one positive call (in one read?) for all known mutations under R1, so in case we accept this is R1b1, we should also accept that the commonly questioned Iberian sample ATP3 from El Portalon (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=107965&viewfull=1#post107965) is R1b-M269 (or a closely related lineage) or that the Quedlinburg IX sample I0559/QLB15 (Baalberge culture, dated to 3645-3537 BC) is certainly R1 (and possibly R1a or R1b). In other words, if one says RISE1 is "reliable" while ATP3 is "unreliable", this is like using double standards for this type of analysis.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=107965&viewfull=1#post107965


El Portalon cave is located near a pass between the Douro and Ebro basins, maybe the kind of place traders and travellers might wash up?

We can say R1b-M269 is more likely [for ATP3 sample] than the others because the others have contradictory calls - in most cases lots of contradictory calls.

E1b1b1a1-L547+, but E1b1b1a-PF2108-, E1b1b-PF1689-, E1b1-P180-, E-PF1561- (besides it is F+)
I2a2a1b2a2-something-Y16447+ (not old enough anyway according to Y-Full), but I-CTS1006-, IJ-F1450, IJ-Y1943-
J2a1b-S18476+, but J2a-M410-, J2-PF4926-, J-PF4562-, and the 2 IJ-
O3a2c1c1-F1835+, but NO-F415-, NO-M2335-
Q1b-Y1109+, but Q1b-Y1254- (to be fair this might not be equivalent)
Q1a2b2a2-Y1618+, but Q1a2-Y750-
R2(a?)-Y3545+, but R2(a?)-Y3385-, Y3402-, FGC22606-, Y4689-, FGC12636-
R1b1a2-PF6518+, R1b1a-Y97+ (albeit this one is likely spurious), R1-M748+, K-PF5501+, GHIJK-M3773 , F-Y1811+, F-PF2756+.

If it is actually R1b-M269 then it has 6 contradictory calls scattered randomly through a very large number of called SNPs (and these could even be genuine private SNPs for all we know), and a neat unbroken sequence of positive SNPs.
If it was another one then there are more contradictory calls, including negative SNPs upstream in their own lineages, and the R ones just happen to form an unbroken sequence.
So M269 *is* more likely than any of the others, due to that crazy little thing called math.

It could still be just a fluke, or more plausibly contamination (though from what Ted Kandell was saying the R1 SNP sounds genuine). I wouldn't take it as solid proof of early Iberian M269. But I certainly wouldn't bet against finding more either.

Of course both RISE1 and ATP3 could indeed be R1b-M269+. I wrote more about ATP3 here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32246-Tracing-Y-dna-sequences?p=479120&viewfull=1#post479120

And Maciamo wrote about him here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31558-Analysis-of-Chalcolithic-El-Portalon-samples-(Günther-at-al-2015)?p=466264&viewfull=1#post466264

berun
28-04-16, 10:11
Quite impressive the new DNA panorama so... it makes more diificult even for flower-power archaeologists to keep that pots are not languages or that ancient language changes were done by fashion-like processes or happy synergies

MOESAN
28-04-16, 19:26
Concerning differences of Y-DNA in close enough cultures, geographically speaking:
Liechtenstein people were of Unstrut culture, influenced by Urnfields, but considered as other urnfields cultures, by someones as Tumuli Cultures descendants, maybe proto-Celtic. Their specific L38 variant could be come there from South Germany, not North, at least in a short scale of time (Y-I2a2 show a large geographic distribution in Europe since Chalcolithic and maybe before). The L38 variant, is of occidental distribution andcould be related to continental Celts. Y-I2a2 is old in Europe but this clade seems in relation with metals and could have been involved in moves impulsed by I-Eans in West. When ? We lack sufficent samples of anDNA to be sure to date. BBs of Germany seem lacking Y-I2a2. We have Y-I2a2 in Spain at LN, and inCentral Europe in diverse cultures at BA (Hungary, Bohemia?) ; but what subclades ? The familial aspect of theLiechtenstein Cave doesn't a allow us to do too much pronostics I think. I confess I would be pleased having the subclades of theMoldovia and the Russia Y-I2a2 oftoday, and more anDNA of BA in Hungary and Unetice.
Concerning BBs and CWC I agree they seem very well Y-Haplo « monopole » oriented : Y-R1b >< Y-R1a. Idon't think R1a played a so big game in the sooner Germanic phases.
I would not be surprised if Unetice were more variable.(diverse modes of settlementatthe same time)
Y-G2a ? Neolithic people become « autochtonous » as the diverse Y-I (and Y-C) of Mesolithic. Incorporated in diverse ways by time, I suppose. Idon't think G2 played a big role after Neolithic.
concerning Urnfields, it's a complicated phenomenon, with increase in population, changes in houses, at first in some places, new swords but ancient pottery (so new males?): I would say: diverse modalities but as you seem thinking, surely some demic changes at some stage, so not only trade of pots and weapons...

Tomenable
15-05-16, 11:33
OK: it confirms my impressions. 50% was the ratio proposed by FireHaired, and it seemed too high for me; surely a technical error or a writing error: I added other ratios (in italic inclined letters) which fit your own ones for Czechs.


P312 is the most common clade of R1b in Czech Republic, while in Poland U106.

Data from Myres et al. 2010:

Czech Rep.:

R1b-P312 = 10.2%
R1b-U106 = 5.7%

Poland:

R1b-P312 = 5.47%
R1b-U106 = 5.94%

So Poles have a bit more U106 than Czechs, but almost 2 times less of P312.

This reflects extra Celtic influence in Czechs rather than Germanic influence.

MOESAN
15-05-16, 12:46
Quite impressive the new DNA panorama so... it makes more diificult even for flower-power archaeologists to keep that pots are not languages or that ancient language changes were done by fashion-like processes or happy synergies


P312 is the most common clade of R1b in Czech Republic, while in Poland U106.

Data from Myres et al. 2010:

Czech Rep.:

R1b-P312 = 10.2%
R1b-U106 = 5.7%

Poland:

R1b-P312 = 5.47%
R1b-U106 = 5.94%

So Poles have a bit more U106 than Czechs, but almost 2 times less of P312.

This reflects extra Celtic influence in Czechs rather than Germanic influence.

I made some suppositions, nothing oppose us here; I said Y-R-U106 could have come from somewhere around Bohemia (North?) but I don(t exclude a more northern path, - even if I rely but only with caution about variance calculations upon STRs some authors considered some Y-R1b could have taken a northern enough road to rich some West Europe places - North the Carpathians could fit very well and some special SNPs downstream P312 in North could have been part of this journey of R1b richer in U106.
Czechia history is not the same as the Austria one: Czechia received imputs from Celts too (and some defectuous genes in the same time!) before the Slavs imput (other defectuous genes!). Austria received later Germanic imput. What I think is Poland was not so impacted by Celts than Bohemia and it could be the reason of your percentages. But hese results are the current ones and does not tell us too much about succession of tribes by time in these regions...

A. Papadimitriou
15-05-16, 15:07
All western European R1b came from Anatolia through the Steppes (or through the Balkans, both work).

Look at the following article from Wikipedia about the mythological origins of Franks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Mythological_origins

Myths aren't history, of course but they usually have an historical nucleus.

The term 'Turks' was used in the Middle Ages to refer to Hungarians, so it isn't about Central Asian Turkic people or people from Turkey of course.

And in my opinion R1b was the Haplogroup of the Hattians, so non-IE but with an ancient advanced culture.

The Basques, speak the language of their ancestors.

You may find what I say ridiculous but history will tell.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif

Milan
15-05-16, 17:02
The term 'Turks' was used in the Middle Ages to refer to Hungarians, so it isn't about Central Asian Turkic people or people from Turkey of course.

And in my opinion R1b was the Haplogroup of the Hattians, so non-IE but with an ancient advanced culture.

The Basques, speak the language of their ancestors.

You may find what I say ridiculous but history will tell.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif
Yep Magyars were called "Turkoi" and not only,also their country was called Turkey by Byzantines.
By contrast i can not find the term Turks about Bulgarians which are labeled as a Turks too.

MOESAN
16-05-16, 12:30
All western European R1b came from Anatolia through the Steppes (or through the Balkans, both work).

Look at the following article from Wikipedia about the mythological origins of Franks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Mythological_origins

Myths aren't history, of course but they usually have an historical nucleus.

The term 'Turks' was used in the Middle Ages to refer to Hungarians, so it isn't about Central Asian Turkic people or people from Turkey of course.

And in my opinion R1b was the Haplogroup of the Hattians, so non-IE but with an ancient advanced culture.

The Basques, speak the language of their ancestors.

You may find what I say ridiculous but history will tell.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif

I believe too myths have some part of truth in them, the question is: what part? I have more doubts as myths came further back in past. Troy seems a very "fashion" origin for more than an ancient culture, and >Celts evocated - in the Middle Ages - origins from Scythes, based partly upon the (mistaking) similitude between Scythe and Scot words... They spoke too of North African journey before climbing North via Iberia; what is false, what is true? The problem is that the "educated" people which enriched the myths had a classical culture aware of the Roman and Greek myths so... The study of these myths is very fascinating but requires some prudence.
I don't see the usefulness (a true english word or one of mine?) of your remark about ancient Y-R1b tracks. We are speaking here about more recent SNP's. Concerning 'gedrosia' component in auDNA, it's interesting but to be of some worth you have to compare 'gedrosia' vs 'caucasus', NOT 'gedrosia' in it's own. Then the results are far less clear concerning the links between N-W Europe and Anatolia...

A. Papadimitriou
16-05-16, 13:59
I'll say something controversial. But I've seen many controversial things said about my country, Italy, the Basques, the Magyars etc.

These are the areas where the Elder futhark inscriptions are found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark#/media/File:Elder_futhark_inscriptions.png

The Franks are traditionally considered a group of "germanic tribes". We see that they were predominately R1b but pre-6th century inscriptions in Germanic languages are found almost exclusively in areas associated with I1.
So, for me it makes sense that Germanic languages were the languages of I1 people. R1b people may have been Indoeuropeanized by them and/or the Latins. That doesn't make them inferior. (The 'Byzantines' viewed the Franks favorably because they had an advanced civilization. That wasn't true, for other northern, northeastern and other neighbors )

MOESAN
16-05-16, 19:09
The bulk of Y-I1 is in Gotland Island - is there the supposed cradle of Germanic language? Hav we a land dominated by say 70% Y-I1 people at the supposed (for good reasons) proto-germanic times? I don(t know. The hotspot Y-R1b-U106 people of the Frisains is considered as come from Jutland. Germanic language mutations are seen by a lot of specialists as the result of substrata (or associated =) population foreign to I-Eans, maybe finnic peaking; nothing sure, but for me the most evident could be an acculturation of pre-I-Eans by northern (or become northern)I-Eans. What would be the ones, what would be the others? If Franks grouping was not germanic around the +400, how would they have abandoned either latin or celtic languages when they came Westward and Southward? I wait to know more about germanic inscriptions and their dates.
The best would be to have more ancient Y-DNA fr these times and places. All of us are making suppositions even if some theories seem to me more sensible than others at first sight And I recall that seemingly, U106 doesn't seem having been so strong in Belgia areas before germanization.

Athiudisc
16-05-16, 20:56
pre-6th century inscriptions in Germanic languages are found almost exclusively in areas associated with I1.

And R1b, judging by the map.


So, for me it makes sense that Germanic languages were the languages of I1 people. R1b people may have been Indoeuropeanized by them

In this theory, did I1 come off the steppe, or were they Indo-Europeanized by R1a before Indo-Europeanizing R1b? How do the M269 samples from the Yamna culture fit in? Is there any reason to believe L51 split from Z2103 prior to Indo-European languages becoming a thing?

MOESAN
17-05-16, 11:52
In Scandinavia Y-R1 is heavier than Y-I1, and R1b play the greater role among R1, except in Norway where R1b and R1a are in balance. Sure it's modern DNA, we lack big samples of anDNA concerning ancient times. That said I am not sure a recent alphabet (the runes, of italian inspiration: Italics, Etruscans) distribution born centuries after germanic languages were formed could help us too much in this thread. I lack precise and sure documentation but it seems Christianization of western Germanics (Franks for the most) could partly explain the scarcity or lack of runes inscriptions among West Germanics, as these runes appeared relatively latelty?

Aaron1981
17-05-16, 15:46
In Scandinavia Y-R1 is heavier than Y-I1, and R1b play the greater role among R1, except in Norway where R1b and R1a are in balance. Sure it's modern DNA, we lack big samples of anDNA concerning ancient times. That said I am not sure a recent alphabet (the runes, of italian inspiration: Italics, Etruscans) distribution born centuries after germanic languages were formed could help us too much in this thread. I lack precise and sure documentation but it seems Christianization of western Germanics (Franks for the most) could partly explain the scarcity or lack of runes inscriptions among West Germanics, as these runes appeared relatively latelty?

In Norway, R1b is the highest of the three (R1b, R1a, I1) in the south, and south west. Would this be the same region that left to populate Iceland? R1b is the majority in Iceland as well, Denmark too. In Sweden, it is regional with some southern areas peaking in R1b, others I1.

Aaron1981
17-05-16, 15:48
I'll say something controversial. But I've seen many controversial things said about my country, Italy, the Basques, the Magyars etc.

These are the areas where the Elder futhark inscriptions are found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark#/media/File:Elder_futhark_inscriptions.png

The Franks are traditionally considered a group of "germanic tribes". We see that they were predominately R1b but pre-6th century inscriptions in Germanic languages are found almost exclusively in areas associated with I1.
So, for me it makes sense that Germanic languages were the languages of I1 people. R1b people may have been Indoeuropeanized by them and/or the Latins. That doesn't make them inferior. (The 'Byzantines' viewed the Franks favorably because they had an advanced civilization. That wasn't true, for other northern, northeastern and other neighbors )

I hate to say it, but "LOL". Those rune locations are (predominantly) in areas with peaks of R1b, not I1. The southern regions of Sweden, and southern coast lines of Norway. Within Germany, you're looking at 50% of the population being R1b, so difficult to state otherwise.

MOESAN
18-05-16, 14:46
In Norway, R1b is the highest of the three (R1b, R1a, I1) in the south, and south west. Would this be the same region that left to populate Iceland? R1b is the majority in Iceland as well, Denm]ark too. In Sweden, it is regional with some southern areas peaking in R1b, others I1.

I agree, I was not going too deeply into regional details. The goal was to show even in Scandinavia Y-I1 had not a global monopole. And that geographical distributions of some fact was not enough to prove something in itself. By the way, upno what i red, Sweden was not the first I-Einzed country in Scandinavia, except the lands between Denmark and Southern Norway. I would be very interested in having the detailed distributions of the diverse subclades (SNPs based!!!) of Y-I1 in different parts of Scandinavia...

Judith
14-01-17, 14:04
I wish that the samples sizes wer larger in the original post of this thread. We do not know if the people wer typical of their community either, they could have been a cluster of known immigrants for examples.

Tomenable
14-01-17, 15:17
Would this be the same region that left to populate Iceland? R1b is the majority in Iceland

Iceland was populated from Norway (possibly Denmark too) and Ireland (possibly Britain too), not just from Norway. Lineages from Ireland and Britain were probably nearly all R1b. At least 1/4 of Icelandic male lineages are Celtic:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/images/6800661f1.jpg

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/images/6800661f1.jpg

MOESAN
14-01-17, 19:59
Hallstatt Celtic influence in the British Isles outside of England itself was small:

(so the Welsh are not genetically Celtic, they just speak a Celtic language; like Afro-Americans speak English):

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Hallstatt_La_Tene_map.gif

Welsh are not "pure" Celts but they have nevertheless an heavy celtic ancestry upon a basco(WHG-neolithical ancestry) - you are confusing the situation in ancient times with the today one, I think.
I don't know if I said that in this thread but Fleming people have a stronger ratio Y-R-U106/Y-I1 than the Picards-Artesians of Northern France of Belgae origin (confirmed by a survey about French and Flemish surnames in Flanders)! And Walloons too show a weakening of Y-R-U106 compared to P-312 R1b! It doesn't match a theory about non-Germanic U106 at all!

Tomenable
15-01-17, 17:54
^ Some subclades of U106 could be Non-Germanic.

Because U106 as a whole is odler than PGmc I think.

mihaitzateo
15-01-17, 18:00
I think you can not extend those results to whole Germany.

MOESAN
15-01-17, 19:05
^ Some subclades of U106 could be Non-Germanic.

Because U106 as a whole is odler than PGmc I think.

Eveyone can say that concerning every Y-haplo (Y-I1 itself!), but my global reasoning is still of worth - I don't exclude some U106 for Belgae by instance, but not the bulk of them (BTW some recent thoughts considers the Belgae area as a region of mixed tribes of diverse origins, some Celtic, other Germanic and others old-IE close to meta-Italics;
but it seems to me that the today U106 distribution as a whole matches very well Germanics areas -

Bollox79
15-01-17, 19:25
Guys don't forget that according to Dr. Iain McDonald (who is the expert on the DF98 subclade aka King's cluster of U106!!) that U106 overall appears to split into a Northern or "more Germanic" L48 and sub groups and a southern Z156 and U198 group... and we also found two Z156ers (also positive for Z304-307 - and 3drif-16 was DF96+ and 6drif-3 was DF98+ and I match him as several more SNPs!) among the Driffield Terrace guys - 3drif-16 being dated to a bit earlier I think around 100-200AD and 6drif-3 around 200-300ish AD and most likely either Gladiators or auxiliary soldiers - I'm sure you have heard the story before!). This is the best tested ancient U106 to date that I know of... and interesting they are both Z156 and in a grave yard dated to before the "Germanics" arrived at the Isles (well they could have arrived from the Rhine early in the AD with the Romans etc) - at least by "tradition" though the real history will probably be a bit different! Still could have been people from the North who came south and the Romans picked them up... as DF98 and DF96 is quite common in modern pops along the Rhine... but Dr. Iain thinks there is a chance those Z156 guys were in the Isles B.C. times... still we need more aDNA from along the Rhine and the B.C. Isles etc... to see what is and isn't found in certain time periods etc!

Cheers!

Bollox79
15-01-17, 19:27
Also we probably just need more testing in the East for U106...

Bollox79
15-01-17, 19:31
Dr. Iain's DF98 pdf file if you haven't seen it yet... he breaks down a lot of the subgroups here! ok I can't post links yet as I'm too new so google Iain McDonald's king's cluster pdf... I'd post the link, but it wont' let me. Loads of info on the DF98 group under U106 etc.

Apsurdistan
19-04-17, 05:24
Natgeo's information about I1 is a little different than what I see on this site. It says I1 is 18% in germany not 16%, England 16 not 14. And that Norway has the highest % at 45. And in Finland it's 35% not 28.

Aaron1981
19-04-17, 05:59
What Tomenable omitted from his original post was that the I1 haplotypes were all the same, or at least most were, making the sample quite skewed and not likely a true representation of Germany. In other words, these I1's were related males, most likely from the same family, or an extended family. Don't believe me? Look them up on YHRD where they were sourced from.

Apsurdistan
19-04-17, 07:18
Well how can any of these ancient remains ever be a true representation of a large territory? How many samples do you need 1000's? A genocide mass grave? Huge casualties of some natural disaster? There were no cemeteries back then, maybe were but small ones and from one family or small tribe.

Northener
09-05-17, 22:10
12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to the 300s-400s AD, of whom 7 or 8 were I1:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7): LINK (http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007%2Fs00194-015-0043-4)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.

==========================

R1b came to dominate what is now Germany only as the result of Frankish conquest:

Here is my hypothesis:

1) Frankish realm = R1b majority; Germanic tribes between Rhine and Elbe, including Saxons = I1 / I majority:

https://s23.postimg.org/ivqf5lt6j/6th+century.png

The extent of the Frankish realm in the 5th century and its early expansion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHEXQdtt6Q

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Frankish_homeland.jpg

2) Franks expand into Pagan Saxons, Thuringians and others; with Frankish authority come many R1b settlers:

https://s24.postimg.org/wfvxfaxbp/9th+century.png

3) Further expansion of East Francia - or Germany as it is now called - into Slavic lands between Elbe and Oder:

https://s30.postimg.org/j9nedsfld/12th+century.png

Settlers who expanded into lands between Rhine and Oder came mostly from these areas:

https://s22.postimg.org/bai0spuip/Ostsiedlung.png

"Ostsiedlung" settlers came from areas which are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and the French-German borderland. Most of them spoke West Germanic dialects, but many also spoke Romance (e.g. Walloons). Ashkenazi Jews were part of that too.

Many came from westernmost parts of modern Germany (the Rhineland). Many also came from Friesland (Frisia).

Modern situation (numerically dominant haplogroup by country):

Of course details are wrong in this map (for example, the most numerous hg in Sardinia is in fact I2):

https://s30.postimg.org/itnmx1ald/Obecnie.png

Interesting survey Tomenable, I just discovered it.

Tumulus: R1b boost in NW Europe
My educated guess is that R1b 106 was a product of the people from Tumulus culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus_culture). This Tumulus culture had a major impact in Northwestern Europe. About 1600 BC archeologist found a major shift. During the whole Bronze Age there were very close ties between central Europe and the Nordics. The result was the Elp culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture), that culture was for example responsible for the start of the use of longhouses, until the twentieth century very common in large parts of NW Europe.

Prof Leendert Kooijmans stated already in 1998:
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."

These people/warriors from central Europe brought R1b-U106/S21 to the NW (North Dutch, NW Germany, Denmark). The connection and networks between the Nordic Bronze Age and Central Europe (Hungary etc) were as said very close. These R1b lineages (by dominating warriors!?) mixed in the Bronze and Iron Age with the already settled I people.

In nowadays Friesland there was a kind of bottleneck effect in the third century AD, so this may be has stimulated the exorbitant high R1b U106/S21?

La Tene Hallstatt Celtic not Gemanic
The later on "(proto) Celtic" La Tene and Hallstatt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tène_culture) did reach the (later called) Frankish and Alemanni territory (South and Western Germany) and of course nowadays Southern Netherlands (Limburg/Brabant) Belgium, France, British Isles. It left a genetic footprint in these area's. But La Tene/Hallstatt, although most probably influenced the culture and materials of the North and West Germans, but didn't left a major genetic footprint in these areas!

Jastorf/Harpstedt-Nienburg: Germanic
In stead of La Tene and Hallstatt, in NW Europe the Jastorf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture) and the Harpstedt-Nienburg (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpstedt-Nienburger_Gruppe) cultures developed. These were clearly (proto) Germanic cultures. Of course in these time R1b U106/S21was already settled.

All plausible or....?

Sonnenburg
10-05-17, 00:04
Interesting, very...
I encountered another map by Maciamo Hay (https://independent.academia.edu/MaciamoHay). Phylogenetic Tree of
I1 Z140 Last updated: May 2017. According to that map I1 Z140 had *Y6910 of Nordic Bronze Age that split into A11341 and Y6885 both went to Britain and Ireland.
I am *Y6910 so, I am selfish here, my ancestors ( last name ) came from Leipzig area that would be in agreement of the statement that Ancient Germania was populated by I1 Haplogroup.
I would like to find out where did
I1 Z140 *Y6910 originate in Ancient Germania?
I am negative on both A11341 and Y6885, that means my ancestors didn't go to Britain or Ireland, even though they had to be 'relatives'...
I can't post a map, I guess I'm not 'important' enough. It's Eupedia map by Maciamo Hay.

Promenade
10-05-17, 02:16
Guys don't forget that according to Dr. Iain McDonald (who is the expert on the DF98 subclade aka King's cluster of U106!!) that U106 overall appears to split into a Northern or "more Germanic" L48 and sub groups and a southern Z156 and U198 group... and we also found two Z156ers (also positive for Z304-307 - and 3drif-16 was DF96+ and 6drif-3 was DF98+ and I match him as several more SNPs!) among the Driffield Terrace guys - 3drif-16 being dated to a bit earlier I think around 100-200AD and 6drif-3 around 200-300ish AD and most likely either Gladiators or auxiliary soldiers - I'm sure you have heard the story before!). This is the best tested ancient U106 to date that I know of... and interesting they are both Z156 and in a grave yard dated to before the "Germanics" arrived at the Isles (well they could have arrived from the Rhine early in the AD with the Romans etc) - at least by "tradition" though the real history will probably be a bit different! Still could have been people from the North who came south and the Romans picked them up... as DF98 and DF96 is quite common in modern pops along the Rhine... but Dr. Iain thinks there is a chance those Z156 guys were in the Isles B.C. times... still we need more aDNA from along the Rhine and the B.C. Isles etc... to see what is and isn't found in certain time periods etc!

Cheers!

Interesting, my subclade (R-L1) is downstream Z156(it is downstream DF96 though not DF98). My direct paternal ancestry goes back to Ireland which would make it seem like it predated the arrival of Germanic migrations to the British Isles... but then again my surname arrived in Ireland with the Cambro-Normans who probably carried R1b-U106. Many of the others in Ireland with R-L1 also have Norman surnames.

Here is the the number of people with R-L1 across Europe according to the map on the FTDNA project page for R-L1-
England and Scotland:32
Germany:11
Ireland and Northern Ireland:9
Finland:4
Sweden:2
Hungary:2
Norway:1
Belgium:1
Ukraine:1
France:1


Here is how the FTDNA project group for R-L1 describes it's origin-
"Known Origins of R-L1/S26 (formerly known as null439s) are mainly in the south and central parts of England. However, there are a number of R-L1/S26's with origins in Germany, one in Norway, one in Finland, and one in northwest Spain. This tends to indicate the origin of the R-L1/S26's was somewhere in northwest Europe, and that R-L1/S26 came mainly to Britain with various Germanic migrations (pre-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking)."

Here's a 2015 report from McDonald about R1b-u106 that gives some numbers and shares his thoughts
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

To your point about DF98 being pre-germanic Dr.McDonald describes DF98 in the UK as Anglo-Saxon and Norman. Z156 Itself is absent from Denmark and Sweden(Although it's found in Norway and Finland) but McDonald comments that it's probably because many people have not done deeper testing there and the samples are fairly small(24 and 64). There is a large percentage of it in Germany, Austria/Hungary, France, Belgium, Poland but none in Switzerland and little in the Netherlands. Again the samples size isnt optimal, only in Germany, Scotland, Ireland and England do the number of samples top 100 and in important places like Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and Switzerland the sample size of R1b-u106 tested for subclades is less than 50 in each country.

R-L1 makes up a strangely high percentage of the population of R1b-U106 in Finland(all the Z156 in Finland is R-L1) and Ukraine.(Probably due to under coverage)

In the UK R-L1 peaks in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland but it's also present in high numbers all over the island: notably Devon, Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Norfolk/Suffolk, Northumberland/Durham and North East Scotland. It's completely absent in Wales and Munster(Ireland). He doesn't indicate where he believes it originated from. I believe that R-L1 came from Germanic migrations to the British Isles, as for other subclades downstream DF96 and DF98 I'm not completely sure.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 11:39
So it seems that Iron Age Poland was also 50% (!) I1-M253?:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34258-Iron-Age-and-Early-Medieval-Polish-DNA/page3?p=513761&viewfull=1#post513761

Rethel
07-07-17, 21:37
So it seems that Iron Age Poland was also 50% (!) I1-M253?:

Come on! Dont make a sensation from one
family village enlarging it on whole country.

I1a3_Young
10-07-17, 17:39
Has there been any word on the deeper I1 subclades of these Görzig samples? If they are indeed one family unit then perhaps we can get a better coverage of the Y SNPS by substituting missing calls with one another.

Parafarne
17-08-17, 18:43
In my view at that time the different haplogroups have not mixed togather very well because the society were very tribal! so a town next to this location could have been say 70% R1b or I2 or R1a for that matter, rates of 45% for I1 in todays scandinavia is not uncommon so maybe because of small sample size or a I1 heavy danish immigrant group is responsible for the high percentages in this specific area. so when the tribes mixed togather we have a very uniform rates today which was not the case in newly colonized region of germany at that time.Infact I2a2 is even today higher in this region if you see the maps! In my view its a founder-effect.

MOESAN
01-09-17, 18:34
I would be pleased to know which are the more upstream vs more downstream among these Y-R1b subclades, along the Rhine? Is there kind of a N-S cline? In which direction? It's important concerning the geographic origin of U106 in Austria (from East? ancient? Or from North, more recent?) and its story among other Y-R1b clade.

@Promenades
R-L1 if regional distributions are confirmed, seems rather germanic if I rely on its quasi absence in Munster and Wales

Northener
10-09-17, 08:04
12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to the 300s-400s AD, of whom 7 or 8 were I1:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7): LINK (http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007%2Fs00194-015-0043-4)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.

=https://s30.postimg.org/itnmx1ald/Obecnie.png

That's a very good overview Tomenable. But if we want to find the key for the spread of R1b (U106) I think we can better look in another time and space.

The only reasonable candidate for the biggest spread of R1b (U106/S21) in Northwestern Europe is the Barbed Wire annex Elp culture. This was also the beginning of the Bronze Age in that area.


The push came from the Steppe, from the Unetice culture, the central European Hungarian/Moravian room. The so called Sögel-Wohlde warriors (derived from the Unetice culture) were the initiators of the Bronze age in Northwest Europe. They had an extended network reaching from England, Northern Netherlands, Northwest Germany, Southern Scandinavia even into their Moravian/Hungarian heartland. They triggered the Nordic Bronze Age.


If we want to make a change to solve this case (=key to the R1b spread in NW Europe) we must probably organize a crowd funding for a DNA test for one of of those "warriors" namely the so called "chieftain of Drouwen", here is his tumulus grave:


https://www.mupload.nl/img/m8jvfomhhwkph.jpg

Ed the Red
11-11-17, 10:50
Ok, my 2 cents, why does 23 and me humble Irish and British together? They shouldn't have completely similar DNA because English wouldn't have penetrated more than N Ireland. Is it a possible concept that R1bU106 was mixed with Celts before the Anglo-Saxons invaded England? After all the Belgae which give name to modern Belgium were a Celtic tribe.

Ed the Red
11-11-17, 10:57
*jumble Irish not humble*

Ed the Red
11-11-17, 12:08
Is it possible an earlier branch of R1b U106 came to Britain before Anglo - Saxon
Which basically means that SOME Celts and Germans were indistinguishable genetically. I say fuk ya!

Wheal
11-11-17, 15:34
Does someone have a link to a pin map showing location of ancient DNA only? I think the heat maps are great, but I would also like to see one of just the locations of the various DNA recovery so I can wrap my mind around what you are talking about.

IronSide
11-11-17, 15:56
Does someone have a link to a pin map showing location of ancient DNA only? I think the heat maps are great, but I would also like to see one of just the locations of the various DNA recovery so I can wrap my mind around what you are talking about.

Maybe this helps

https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#5/46.073/11.777

Wheal
11-11-17, 15:59
Thank you IronSide!

Angela
11-11-17, 16:34
Ironside,

Thanks for the map. I'm going to make a sticky of it in the ancient dna section.

IronSide
11-11-17, 16:39
It's cool isn't it? and it gets updated whenever a new study reports something new.

Wheal
12-11-17, 15:02
I think it's great. I would like to make a slide show of the DNA that shows the progression of Y and mt (of course of those known). I suppose I'll need to quit my job to have time to do it.

paul333
12-11-17, 20:21
Ok, my 2 cents, why does 23 and me humble Irish and British together? They shouldn't have completely similar DNA because English wouldn't have penetrated more than N Ireland. Is it a possible concept that R1bU106 was mixed with Celts before the Anglo-Saxons invaded England? After all the Belgae which give name to modern Belgium were a Celtic tribe.

There were both East Belgium,'Tungrians' and 'Mixed Germanic tribsmen' serving as Roman cavalry and soldiers, stationed at 'Birrens' Roman fort in Scotland, Dumfries, in Cohorts of a thousand strong, since the first century AD.

spruithean
12-11-17, 22:40
Interesting, very...
I encountered another map by Maciamo Hay (https://independent.academia.edu/MaciamoHay). Phylogenetic Tree of
I1 Z140 Last updated: May 2017. According to that map I1 Z140 had *Y6910 of Nordic Bronze Age that split into A11341 and Y6885 both went to Britain and Ireland.
I am *Y6910 so, I am selfish here, my ancestors ( last name ) came from Leipzig area that would be in agreement of the statement that Ancient Germania was populated by I1 Haplogroup.
I would like to find out where did
I1 Z140 *Y6910 originate in Ancient Germania?
I am negative on both A11341 and Y6885, that means my ancestors didn't go to Britain or Ireland, even though they had to be 'relatives'...
I can't post a map, I guess I'm not 'important' enough. It's Eupedia map by Maciamo Hay.


I would believe that I-Y6910 originated somewhere in the Northern Germany-Jutland area. If I recall correctly it is downstream of I-A196. I would like some ancient DNA to be Z140 positive.

Your I-Y6910* line is not positive for the downstream SNPs that traveled to Britain & Ireland, while you are related to those people you are not related for a very long time.


Is it possible an earlier branch of R1b U106 came to Britain before Anglo - Saxon
Which basically means that SOME Celts and Germans were indistinguishable genetically. I say fuk ya!

Is it possible? Maybe. So far it isn't looking to be likely. Both R-U106 samples found at Driffield Terrace were autosomally some concoction of Germanic (one of them appeared to be Celto-Germanic). One of them was positive for the defining House of Wettin SNP, many Roman auxiliaries settled down in Roman Britain with their families. We must also remember that there were a large number of Germanic foederati troops in Roman Britain coming from tribes such as Tungri, Frisiavones, Batavi, and other groups. I also think it is worth mentioning the Marcomannic chieftain Fraomar who, with his followers, was shipped off to Britain after he is stripped of his chieftainship.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were some Anglo-Saxon foederati in Britain in these days. The coming of the Anglo-Saxons doesn't appear to be this full-scale invasion as was previously thought.

In regards to some Celts and Germans being indistinguishable are you referring to the Y-line (which is such a small portion of ancestry) or do you mean autosomal? Both the Celts and Germanic peoples have similar origin populations in varying proportions (reflected in autosomal DNA) and are rather similar if we don't get down to the microscopic differences.

spruithean
12-11-17, 22:47
There were both East Belgium,'Tungrians' and 'Mixed Germanic tribsmen' serving as Roman cavalry and soldiers, stationed at 'Birrens' Roman fort in Scotland, Dumfries, in Cohorts of a thousand strong, since the first century AD.

This website (http://roman-britain.co.uk/places/blatobulgium.htm) is a goldmine for information on various forts throughout Roman Britain.

EDIT: Adding link to page of irregular auxiliary units (http://roman-britain.co.uk/military/british_irregulars.htm) in Roman Britain.

paul333
12-11-17, 23:30
This website (http://roman-britain.co.uk/places/blatobulgium.htm) is a goldmine for information on various forts throughout Roman Britain.

EDIT: Adding link to page of irregular auxiliary units (http://roman-britain.co.uk/military/british_irregulars.htm) in Roman Britain.


Thanks,
That web page, is about 'Birrens' ( BLATOBVLGIVM ) fort, and the one I took the information from, was actually there at the fort today.

Ed the Red
15-11-17, 17:11
There were both East Belgium,'Tungrians' and 'Mixed Germanic tribsmen' serving as Roman cavalry and soldiers, stationed at 'Birrens' Roman fort in Scotland, Dumfries, in Cohorts of a thousand strong, since the first century AD.

Even Caesar notes the Belgae on both sides of the channel as well as other belgic tribes like the atrebates and menapii. This proves my point of the R1b U106 haplogroup as being spread already through Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.

Ed the Red
15-11-17, 19:04
I would believe that I-Y6910 originated somewhere in the Northern Germany-Jutland area. If I recall correctly it is downstream of I-A196. I would like some ancient DNA to be Z140 positive.

Your I-Y6910* line is not positive for the downstream SNPs that traveled to Britain & Ireland, while you are related to those people you are not related for a very long time.



Is it possible? Maybe. So far it isn't looking to be likely. Both R-U106 samples found at Driffield Terrace were autosomally some concoction of Germanic (one of them appeared to be Celto-Germanic). One of them was positive for the defining House of Wettin SNP, many Roman auxiliaries settled down in Roman Britain with their families. We must also remember that there were a large number of Germanic foederati troops in Roman Britain coming from tribes such as Tungri, Frisiavones, Batavi, and other groups. I also think it is worth mentioning the Marcomannic chieftain Fraomar who, with his followers, was shipped off to Britain after he is stripped of his chieftainship.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were some Anglo-Saxon foederati in Britain in these days. The coming of the Anglo-Saxons doesn't appear to be this full-scale invasion as was previously thought.

In regards to some Celts and Germans being indistinguishable are you referring to the Y-line (which is such a small portion of ancestry) or do you mean autosomal? Both the Celts and Germanic peoples have similar origin populations in varying proportions (reflected in autosomal DNA) and are rather similar if we don't get down to the microscopic differences.

I don't think there is any better way to trace ancestry than your Y-dna, it is an unbroken line as long as you have a son. Autosomally has definitely made populations less definitive in regards with tests like 23 and me.

Ed the Red
15-11-17, 19:20
Celts and Germans have very similar origins regarding the Indo-Europeans. The most basic description is Germans went north mixing with Baltic elements, and Celts went south mixing with Mediterranean elements.

paul333
15-11-17, 20:21
I don't think there is any better way to trace ancestry than your Y-dna, it is an unbroken line as long as you have a son. Autosomally has definitely made populations less definitive in regards with tests like 23 and me.

Trouble using this method, you are then accepting the information of others ( experts ) as proof of Ancestry, which has its dangers if incorrect. I am having problems already and I have only had my Y-DNA results a short time. Genetics is in its early stages and seems to be full of misstakes, I would continue with a paper trail separate to the DNA, at the moment, as I cannot trust the information I have received from my LivingDNA test results.

Ed the Red
15-11-17, 22:19
The only confusion with Y-dna would be if you and your dad or brother had different Y-dna. In that case the explanation would be adoption or the milk man!

paul333
16-11-17, 01:58
The only confusion with Y-dna would be if you and your dad or brother had different Y-dna. In that case the explanation would be adoption or the milk man!

Agree, but Ancestry is as much about finding out where your family came from, and at the moment following my Y-DNA results from LivingDNA, I havent a clue..

MOESAN
19-11-17, 20:25
Even Caesar notes the Belgae on both sides of the channel as well as other belgic tribes like the atrebates and menapii. This proves my point of the R1b U106 haplogroup as being spread already through Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.

seemingly the today pops of N-E France (North the Seine so in Bemgae territories) shows less Y-R1b-U106 than Germanic speaking pops of France and Belgium and the same cline exists in the Netherlands where the maxi of U106 is in North among Frisians - So I don't think U106 was so dense among Belgae, AS A WHOLE - but as already said "Belgia" of the time was rather a patchwork and nothing excludes that some isolated downstream SNP's of U106 could have been born among some tribes of ancient Belgia, maybe not of Celtic origin - so yes U106 were maybe present in Britain before Saxons, under the global label of "Belgae", whatever their true language.

Ed the Red
22-11-17, 01:54
seemingly the today pops of N-E France (North the Seine so in Bemgae territories) shows less Y-R1b-U106 than Germanic speaking pops of France and Belgium and the same cline exists in the Netherlands where the maxi of U106 is in North among Frisians - So I don't think U106 was so dense among Belgae, AS A WHOLE - but as already said "Belgia" of the time was rather a patchwork and nothing excludes that some isolated downstream SNP's of U106 could have been born among some tribes of ancient Belgia, maybe not of Celtic origin - so yes U106 were maybe present in Britain before Saxons, under the global label of "Belgae", whatever their true language.

I don't think anyone can be certain if subclades of U106 can be determined as being German unless there is no evidence of U106 or its subclades in Britain before Anglo-Saxons. I think I have a valid point that if belgic tribes were already in Britain before Anglo-Saxons than that could be a sign of branching of the same tribes diverting to both Celtic (Belgae) and then German (Anglo-Saxons). I'll have to do a little googling on that one.

Ed the Red
22-11-17, 03:27
Alot of the U106 could've moved out of Belgium with belgic tribes in Roman times or even before Romans. Maybe the dominance of U106 in Britain can also be attributed to these migrations?