British: Celtic and Germanic origins

[LeBrok]

It'll be interesting to know if Q in Hungary is the same as in Norway. Personally I think they are different.
Q in Hungary will be from central Asia. Q in Norway will be Arctic Siberian.
Probably they split 10 thousand years ago when Ice Age ended and some Q moved North. Once they had evolved to prosper in far North, they've spread around Arctic Circle also reaching Norway.

 

[Yorkie]

It'll be interesting to know if Q in Hungary is the same as in Norway. Personally I think they are different.
Q in Hungary will be from central Asia. Q in Norway will be Arctic Siberian.
Probably they split 10 thousand years ago when Ice Age ended and some Q moved North. Once they had evolved to prosper in far North, they've spread around Arctic Circle also reaching Norway.

I think you are correct regarding the Norwegian Q hailing from Arctic Siberia. There is not much of it in Britain, but what there is most likely comes via Norwegian Viking raids/settlement.

 

[Trevor]

I was interested to see the new R1b maps (L21, S28, S21) at

eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b

Are we any clearer on the question of how much English ancestry is Germanic and how much is older British?

 

[Goga]

I was interested to see the new R1b maps (L21, S28, S21) at

eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b

Are we any clearer on the question of how much English ancestry is Germanic and how much is older British?

As far as I do understand is U106 related to Germanic people and it is not from Iberia!

English folks have for about 30-40% of it.

 

[rms2]

No, England is not 30-40% U106. The average frequency of U106 over the whole of England, based on Busby et al, is about 20%. L21 was about the same, despite Busby's somewhat eastern sampling bias. My guess is that L21 actually surpasses U106 in England. A hint that that is the case was the sample from Exeter in Devon, which was about 38% L21. If Busby had sampled a few more locations in western England, L21 would have easily passed U106 by. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[sparkey]

No, England is not 30-40% U106. The average frequency of U106 over the whole of England, based on Busby et al, is about 20%. L21 was about the same, despite Busby's somewhat eastern sampling bias. My guess is that L21 actually surpasses U106 in England. A hint that that is the case was the sample from Exeter in Devon, which was about 38% L21. If Busby had sampled a few more locations in western England, L21 would have easily passed U106 by. That's my opinion, anyway.

I agree with most of this... although picking Exeter in particular isn't going to tell us much; Devonians are genetically closer to the Cornish than they are to most "Anglo-Saxon" English, owing to shared Dumnonian history. Considering that the population density of England is greatest in the Southeast, we probably have fairly even levels of U106 vs. L21, or at least levels on the same order of magnitude if L21 is higher like you say. As others have said, this indicates that the English are fairly close to 50/50 Germanic vs. pre-Germanic on their patrilines (and I would say probably more balanced to pre-Germanic on their non-patrilines), with a gradient from Germanic to pre-Germanic as you get closer to Cornwall in particular. The Cornish are relatively void of Anglo-Saxon lineage, as Sir Walter Bodmer has argued.

 

[rms2]

While the population density around London is pretty high, it's not the case that the population of the southeast in general is so overwhelming that geneticists can afford to bypass most of the rest of the country. The area from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds has a very high population density, as does the region from Birmingham to Leicester.

http://www.atozmapsdata.com/zoomify.asp?name=Country/Modern/Z_UK_Pop

Had Busby et al sampled more western locations, instead of so many east of the M1 motorway, we would have a better idea of the relative proportion of L21 versus U106.

Personally, I doubt that it is 50-50 Germanic vs. Celtic. I think L21 would have edged out U106 had more western locations been sampled, but we won't know for sure until more balanced sampling is undertaken. (I'm not sure why you chose to characterize L21 as "pre-Germanic" rather than "Celtic".) Another factor is that U152 in England is almost certainly not Germanic. It would have to be placed on the non-Germanic side of the balance. Of course, if one counts I1 as Germanic, which it probably is, that might balance things out at close to 50-50 Celtic-Germanic in England. I still think it's probably more like 60-40, but who knows?

By the way, I didn't "pick" Exeter. Busby did. It was the only truly western location they sampled, which is why I mentioned it. The rest of the sampling locations in England were either right along the M1 or east of it.

It doesn't matter if "[t]he Cornish are relatively void of Anglo-Saxon lineage", especially since Busby sampled only one such location. What matters is the eastern bias in Busby's sampling. By weighting the sampling to the east, Busby et al insured that they would pick up an Anglo-Saxon bias. They should have balanced it with a few more western locations. Even with that eastern bias, L21 and U106 had about the same average frequency overall. More balanced sampling, I believe, would have tipped the scales in favor of L21. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[rms2]

Since we are discussing England, I thought I would post here what I could find for England from the Busby et al paper's supplementary info Excel chart.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing....8/18/rspb.2011.1044.DC1/rspb20111044supp2.xls

The six sample locations in England were: 1) Southwell, Nottinghamshire; 2) Lutterworth, Leicestershire; 3) Leeds, West Yorkshire; 4) Peterborough, Cambridgeshire; 5) Exeter, Devon; and 6) Gravesend, Kent.

I mentioned this elsewhere once before, but I noticed that the M1 Motorway, which runs north-south through basically the center of England, makes it fairly easy to see that Busby's sampling is skewed a bit to the eastern side of England. Leeds and Lutterworth are pretty much right on the M1. Southwell, Peterborough, and Gravesend are east of it, Gravesend well east of it, down in SE England. As I said before, there was only one sample location in the West, the one at Exeter in Devon.

Here is a breakdown by sampling location in England.

Southwell N= 165

U106xU198 = 15.8%

U198 = 2.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 15.2%

L21xM222 = 16.4%

M222 = 0

U152 = 9.7%

Lutterworth N=25

U106xU198 = 24%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 12%

L21xM222 = 8%

M222 = 4%

U152 = 0

Leeds N=47

U106xU198 = 14.9%

U198 = 6.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 10.6%

L21xM222 = 29.8%

M222 = 10.6%

U152 = 6.4%

Peterborough N= 172

U106xU198 = 23.3%

U198 = 2.3%

P312xL21,U152 = 17.4%

L21xM222 = 12.8%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.1%

Exeter N=48

U106xU198 = 25%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 6.3%

L21xM222 = 37.5%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.3%

Gravesend N=52

U106xU198 = 23.1%

U198 = 3.8%

P312xL21,U152 = 21.2%

L21xM222 = 13.5%

M222 = 1.9%

U152 = 15.4%

Averaging over all six sample locations, I arrive at the following:

U106xU198 = 21%

U198 = 2.48%

P312xL21,U152 = 13.78%

L21xM222 = 19.66%

M222 = 2.75%

U152 = 7.98%

Busby's sample has an eastern bias, which translates into an Anglo-Saxon and U106 bias. A few more locations in the west would have balanced things out.

 

[Taranis]

rms2, I have a question here upon which I would enjoy to hear your opinion, which tackles also the topic of this thread: what is your opinion of R1b-U152 (S28)? Do you think that it's the result of an iron age migration into Britain, or do you think that it's purely of Roman origin (those two were the most discussed hypotheses thus far), or do you have an altogether different opinion?

 

[Asturrulumbo]

In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U152 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.

 

[rms2]

rms2, I have a question here upon which I would enjoy to hear your opinion, which tackles also the topic of this thread: what is your opinion of R1b-U152 (S28)? Do you think that it's the result of an iron age migration into Britain, or do you think that it's purely of Roman origin (those two were the most discussed hypotheses thus far), or do you have an altogether different opinion?

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.

 

[rms2]

In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.

My own opinion is there wasn't much U106 at all in what is now England prior to the Migration Period and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. I say that because I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. In the Low Countries there is apparently a north-south gradient for U106 and an opposite, south-north gradient for U152. That indicates that the Flemings are mostly U106 and the Walloons mostly U152. That would tend to support the idea that U106 has no real connection to the Celts directly across the Channel from Britain or at least not much of one.

I suspect the y-dna composition of the Low Countries has changed a lot since the Bronze Age. The bulk of U106 was probably farther east and north at that time.

Of course, only ancient y-dna can sort out these sorts of disagreements.

 

[rms2]

This is just my opinion, but I think the "Celtic stuff" in Britain is R-L21 (pretty obviously) , R-U152, I-M284, and probably I-M223, as well.

U106 and I1, from what I can see from papers like Capelli et al, are fellow travelers and pretty plainly Germanic. The Celtic element in them, if there is one, is miniscule.

I know I am leaving out some y haplogroups and subclades found in Britain, but I think I have covered the main players.

 

[sparkey]

(I'm not sure why you chose to characterize L21 as "pre-Germanic" rather than "Celtic".)

Mainly due to caution. I don't feel certain that L21 was absent from the Beakers, and if it wasn't, that the Beakers spoke Celtic languages exclusively. But it's true that by the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon migrations, Britain would have been overwhelmingly Celtic, so it's not inaccurate to describe it as "Celtic" there, as long as we're clear what we mean by that.

Another factor is that U152 in England is almost certainly not Germanic. It would have to be placed on the non-Germanic side of the balance. Of course, if one counts I1 as Germanic, which it probably is, that might balance things out at close to 50-50 Celtic-Germanic in England. I still think it's probably more like 60-40, but who knows?

I also had this in mind, and I1 is higher than U152 in England. And I would guess that there is probably more Germanic U152 than Celtic I1.

I'm not sure about the exact percentages we end up with for pre-Germanic vs. Germanic on English patrilines, either. Somewhere between 50/50 and 60/40 sounds about right.

By the way, I didn't "pick" Exeter. Busby did. It was the only truly western location they sampled, which is why I mentioned it. The rest of the sampling locations in England were either right along the M1 or east of it.

I meant that you were using it as example of what you think that the rest of Western England will show. I was just expressing doubt that Exeter is a good indication of that. I think it's too Dumnonian to be representative.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

My own opinion is there wasn't much U106 at all in what is now England prior to the Migration Period and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. I say that because I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. In the Low Countries there is apparently a north-south gradient for U106 and an opposite, south-north gradient for U152. That indicates that the Flemings are mostly U106 and the Walloons mostly U152. That would tend to support the idea that U106 has no real connection to the Celts directly across the Channel from Britain or at least not much of one.

I suspect the y-dna composition of the Low Countries has changed a lot since the Bronze Age. The bulk of U106 was probably farther east and north at that time.

Of course, only ancient y-dna can sort out these sorts of disagreements.

I thought the same at first, but after considering it I arrived to the conclusion that England has too much U106 for it to be all Germanic, as it would imply an almost complete Germanic origin for many if not most populations of England, which is not supported historically or genetically in other respects (for example, R1a frequencies). It is with this reasoning that I theorize as I do, and I somewhat explained and expanded it in this thread.

 

[rms2]

I am still convinced that a little more western balance was called for and would have tipped the scales substantially in favor of L21. 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".

Celtic and Germanic are mainly linguistic designations, although, pretty obviously, there is more to them than that. If you can call something Germanic-speaking Germanic, you can certainly call something Celtic-speaking Celtic. It's a shame the so-called "Celto-Sceptics" have (for plainly Anglo-centric political reasons) spread doubt and timidity where the Celts are concerned. No one feels the same sort of trepidation in referring to Slavs as Slavs or Germans as Germans.

I don't think much of the U152 in England is Germanic in origin. Just my opinion.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

I don't think much of the U152 in England is Germanic in origin. Just my opinion.

I completely agree, U152 is basically all Celtic (in Britain).

 

[rms2]

I thought the same at first, but after considering it I arrived to the conclusion that England has too much U106 for it to be all Germanic, as it would imply an almost complete Germanic origin for many if not most populations of England, which is not supported historically or genetically in other respects (for example, R1a frequencies). It is with this reasoning that I theorize as I do, and I somewhat explained and expanded it in this thread.

I saw that thread but respectfully disagree. What is now England was one of the few places into which Germanic tribes moved with sufficient strength to actually replace the native language, despite their relatively unsophisticated political, military, administrative, and social systems. The Romans, for all their 400 years in Britain and their much more advanced capabilities, were never able to do that. The Normans couldn't do it either.

There is evidence that many villages on the continental side of the North Sea littoral were abandoned during the Migration Period. I think the Anglo-Saxons came in force, over time, and brought their women and children with them. In addition, there isn't much to connect U106 to Celtic speakers.

 

[rms2]

Consider also that the predominantly U106 Anglo-Saxons would receive later y-dna shots in the arm from the incursions and settlements of the Vikings, thus increasing the supply of U106 in what is now England.

I suspect that there wasn't near as much R1a in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons prior to and during the Migration Period as there is now. I don't think you can use modern German R1a levels to measure Migration Period German R1a levels.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

I saw that thread but respectfully disagree. What is now England was one of the few places into which Germanic tribes moved with sufficient strength to actually replace the native language, despite their relatively unsophisticated political, military, administrative, and social systems. The Romans, for all their 400 years in Britain and their much more advanced capabilities, were never able to do that. The Normans couldn't do it either.

There is evidence that many villages on the continental side of the North Sea littoral were abandoned during the Migration Period. I think the Anglo-Saxons came in force, over time, and brought their women and children with them. In addition, there isn't much to connect U106 to Celtic speakers.

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.

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

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.