British: Celtic and Germanic origins

[spongetaro]

In addition, there isn't much to connect U106 to Celtic speakers.

There is the Nordwestblock theory which tells that the area between the rivers Meuse, Elbe, Somme and Oise (Benelux, Western germany and Northern France)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany and possibly the eastern part of England during the Bronze and Iron Ages was neither Germanic, nor Celtic.

This area has the highest concentration of R1b U106 in Europe.
I Think that contraty to Nordwestblock inhabitants, the real Germanic people in Jutland had more R1a. England has huge frequencies of R1b U106 but lacks R1a.
R1b U106 could have been brought to England by many waves starting from the Bronze age from this neither Germanic, nor Celtic Nordwestblock area.

 

[rms2]

According to Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, the consensus among linguists places the origins of the Germanic languages with the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures in the eastern portion of your "Nordwestblock". I would place the bulk of the U106 among those folks and not in the Netherlands or the immediate Channel coast during the Bronze Age.

The "Nordwestblock" idea remains controversial and, as far as I know, is not generally accepted by linguists. Perhaps Taranis knows more about that though.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to regard "the real Germanic people" as particularly R1a.

 

[Taranis]

I think most of the U152 in England is probably Belgic in origin but that some of it may have arrived with Roman soldiers. The Parisii in Yorkshire may have been mostly U152, as well. I don't think much, if any, U152 in Britain is Germanic.

Well, I personally too think that it is mostly of Belgic (or otherwise continental Celtic, see Parisii) origin, rather than Roman. There are some people who argued that U152 is majorly or exclusively Italic/Roman, but even though there clearly is an Italian component to U152, in my opinion that does not explain the presence of U152 in Britain and in Central Europe. Therefore, yeah, I absolutely agree in regard for the Belgae.

Regarding U152, I don't think that it was originally Germanic, though it may have been to a fair degree by the time of the Migrations Period due to the fact that the Celtic population north of the Danube was absorbed when the Romans expanded the border of their empire to the Rhine and the Danube. So, by 400 AD, the Germanic tribes (at least in the southern half) might have been to a significant degree carriers of U152.

Regarding U106, it's confusing to say the least. As you know, the R1b sample from Urnfield also belongs to U106. The peak of U106 diversity, from what I gather, appears to be Austria (if anybody knows something different, please correct me). On the flip side, there's also the argument that a considerable population influx must have taken place in Austria, otherwise Austria should today be Romance speaking, shouldn't it? From that perspective, I think that the association of U106 is even more unclear than the association of U152.

 

[rms2]

In some regions of Anglia, Wesex, Essex, or Sussex that may be the case, but certainly not in regions such as Cumbria where there was relatively little Anglo-Saxon migration.

Not in historical times, but things were possibly otherwise. You see, the reason I see U106 as spreading from ancestors of the Celts is that there was quite probably a migration towards Northern Europe during the middle Bronze Age (the Central European Tumulus culture). And since the ancestors of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic speakers seem to have been the Chalcolithic Corded Ware culture (which probably was mostly R1a and had quite little R1b) and Balts and Slavs have a very low amount of R1b, this expansion would explain the linguistic and genetic discrepancies between Germanic and Balto-Slavic peoples, which otherwise seem to have had a common origin (more recent than PIE). It is on whether this expansion of U106 affected England on which I am most divided, but from what I have pondered it does seem to be the case, though to a lesser extent than Scandinavia and northern Germany.

From what I have heard, and I am on friendly terms with the admins of the R1b-U106 Research Project, the highest U106 variance is in Poland and the Baltic, which would seem to argue for a northeastern origin rather than a Central European origin for U106, perhaps with the Corded Ware/Battleaxe people.

 

[rms2]

. . .

Regarding U106, it's confusing to say the least. As you know, the R1b sample from Urnfield also belongs to U106. The peak of U106 diversity, from what I gather, appears to be Austria (if anybody knows something different, please correct me). On the flip side, there's also the argument that a considerable population influx must have taken place in Austria, otherwise Austria should today be Romance speaking, shouldn't it? From that perspective, I think that the association of U106 is even more unclear than the association of U152.

Are you aware of some ancient y-dna from the Urnfield culture? I don't know of any ancient U106. I know some folks think the R1b in the Lichtenstein Cave is U106, but, as far as I know, it wasn't tested for anything that far downstream. Besides, the Lichtenstein Cave burial, in a cave, minus cremation and ashes placed in urns, doesn't seem a good exemplar of classic Urnfield.

From what I have heard, the oldest U106 is found in Poland and the Baltic.

 

[sparkey]

Devon probably isn't any more Celtic than the West Midlands or old Cumbria. High L21 results there could be characterized as "too Cornovian" or "too Brigantian".

I recall the People of the British Isles Project showing that Devon was exceptional, along the gradient to a non-Anglo-Saxon Cornwall. From Jean Manco's report of a Sir Walter Bodmer presentation:

He treated us to the results in the form of a map of the UK onto the screen, with the coloured clusters plotted on it. He was thrilled to find that even within Orkney, in which he has a particular interest, distinct clusters could be found. Ulster and Western Scotland turned out very similar. Wales threw up distinct clusters in the North-West and South West. There were separate clusters in NE and NW England. But what astonished some present was the wash of yellow across most of England outside that highland zone and Devon and Cornwall. Sir Walter was quite unapologetic about seeing this as the heritage of the Anglo-Saxons.

Also from an abstract from Bodmer for ICHG/ASHG 2011:

Using a novel clustering algorithm that takes into account linkage disequilibrium structure, approximately 3000 of the samples were clustered, using these comprehensive genotyping data, into more than 50 groups purely as a function of their genetic similarities without any reference to their know locations. When the appropriate geographical position of each individual within a cluster is plotted on a map of the UK, there is a striking association between clusters and geography, which reflects to a major extent the known history of the British peoples. Thus, for example, even individuals from Cornwall and Devon, the two adjacent counties in the southwestern tip of Britain, fall into different, but coherent clusters.

The first result above combined with the second result above seems to indicate that Cornwall+Devon together have less Anglo-Saxon influence than the rest of England, but are still distinct from one another, which indicates to me that they both represent a certain Dumnonian resistance to Wessex, but have an ancient division between them (evidence for an ancient Cornish subtribe?).

I'm not sure offhand if there's anything that we can look at online that the project has come out with lately, though. If there's anything to contradict me here, I'd like to see it. The Dumnonians were relatively powerful as far as the minor Celtic kingdoms went, as evidenced by their influence in Brittany. That could explain the lesser genetic impact in the region, in addition to the geographic isolation.

 

[rms2]

Notice the data from Leeds in north central England: L21xM222 = 29.8%, U106xU198 = 14.9%. That is the most westerly sample location, after Exeter. I personally think it is indicative of the trend of a northwest-southeast L21 British gradient and the opposite gradient for U106, Bodmer and the addition of autosomal and mtDNA notwithstanding.

Big results for L21 in the west of England and reductions in U106, I think.

 

[Dubhthach]

Here are some maps I created in Google using the coordinates in the Busby spreadsheet:
England and Wales

Scotland

Even their sampling in Ireland isn't that great, absolutley no samples from NorthWest

 

[rms2]

I'm not sure why you labeled the Leeds sample "England Northwest". Leeds is not in the northwest. It's in north central England, which is clear from your map. Busby did not get a sample from northwestern England. Manchester, Liverpool and Carlisle, among other cities, are in the northwest, but not Leeds.

 

[Dubhthach]

I'm not sure why you labeled the Leeds sample "England Northwest". Leeds is not in the northwest. It's in north central England, which is clear from your map. Busby did not get a sample from northwestern England. Manchester, Liverpool and Carlisle, among other cities, are in the northwest, but not Leeds.

I used the labels that Busby use in the spreadsheet. The point of the map is to show each of their discrete geographic points. Personally I would have thought that NW would have been somewhere like Cumbria so I was surprised when I put the co-ordinates in and got Leeds.

As a result I regard their collection as a poor enough Data-set. One only has to look at their Ireland map. They have no samples from the North-West (Donegal, Western Tyrone, Western Derry, Fermanagh, Sligo, Leitrim) which would be the core of the M222 area given historic Uí Néill/Connachta territory. That and at least three of the sample points are cities (Dublin, Belfast, Galway)

 

[rms2]

Ah. I agree with you about Busby's sampling. The data from England have an eastern bias, and they could have done a better job elsewhere, too. Still, since it's your own map, and not Busby's, perhaps you should consider a more accurate label for Leeds than the one Busby used.

You did a good job in putting it together. It certainly helps to see the sample points on the map.

 

[Yorkie]

I think most of the U152 in England is probably Belgic in origin but that some of it may have arrived with Roman soldiers. The Parisii in Yorkshire may have been mostly U152, as well. I don't think much, if any, U152 in Britain is Germanic.

You may well be correct re R1b U152, rms2, and I am tempted to agree with you that the Belgae are responsible for most of it. The modern day continental distribution seems to indicate that its ultimate origins are Hallstat Celtic. However, Jim Wilson for one has recently commented that U152 appears to mirror Germanic settlements too. I think we need to exercise caution here. Maybe some U152 is Germanic after all?

 

[tjlowery87]

if i1 arose in northern germany does that make it nordic before it became germanic(nordic non germanic)?
this is a question that been puzzling me.

 

[nordicwarrior]

TJ, frankly it depends on who you ask. Some background info might help... not everyone agrees on the order of arrival for the three major Scandinavian y-haplos (R1a, R1b, and I1). There are other haplogroups involved besides these three so that further complicates things.

What does seem to be agreed upon (by most posters that I've noticed anyway) is that the Northern people didn't become truly Scandinavian until all three major groups mixed in what is the Nordic countries of today. So I1 wouldn't be considered Scandinavian until R1b and R1a arrived... and vice versa.

That being said, I personally would consider ANY of the haplogroups that were located way up there (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and even Denmark) to be Norse... whether they were mixed or not. To me Norse just means Northern. But to be truly Scandinavian... the three major groups would have had to jell first.

Please jump in if I've gotten this wrong.

 

[tjlowery87]

thank for your help

 

[TomAC]

My research show E3b was probably introduced by Roman soldiers from the Balkans