R1b's arrival in Europe - Tumulus culture or Bell Beaker?

[Mikewww]

There are so many scenarios possible according the arrival of R1b in Western Europe;
if we look at the different branches, (from L11 onwards) it looks to me, the center of diversity lies in France. (need more French data...).
Lastly, I was thinking, what if R1b was an Indo-Europeanized marker. A scenario like that might have been the following:

If R1b-M269 was a non-Indo-European marker, and spread first to the Balkan from Anatolia, later on over sea to southern France - R1b's seem good sea men, I think we should not underestimate the faring skills -, where it soon became part of the spread of Bell Beaker.
Then, in southern-Germany, parts of it would have come in touch with the R1a Indo-European elite, and take over their PIE-dialect (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, then happening before anything satem-like), spreading it as R1b folk (Urnfield etc.) over Western Europe (as Proto-Italo-Celtic), not influencing the Basque R1b's.
For a parallel: Romans imposing their language over the Iberian people, who, later, as Spaniards dominate in some American colonies.

Just a thought experiment I think may be worth looking at.

This is a good point to analyze. A good test for it might involve trying to understand the timing and location of the split between pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Cetic. I think this is quite old so that doesn't support this hypothesis, at least at a point in Bavaria. I would think the split would have occurred closer to the PIE homeland. Any thoughts on that?

Another test for the hypothesis might be R1a in Celtic and Italic lands. You'd think that if R1a transferred PIE to R1b in southern Germany that some Celtic or Italic areas would be strong in R1a. Are there any? or is it completely MIA?

I guess for that matter, is R1a strong in any of the Centum languages? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is way east in China. Tocharian is supposed to be Centum, right, or at least not Satem? Is R1a a little stronger in Turkey?

 

[GloomyGonzales]

This is a good point to analyze. A good test for it might involve trying to understand the timing and location of the split between pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Cetic. I think this is quite old so that doesn't support this hypothesis, at least at a point in Bavaria. I would think the split would have occurred closer to the PIE homeland. Any thoughts on that?

Another test for the hypothesis might be R1a in Celtic and Italic lands. You'd think that if R1a transferred PIE to R1b in southern Germany that some Celtic or Italic areas would be strong in R1a. Are there any? or is it completely MIA?

I guess for that matter, is R1a strong in any of the Centum languages? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is way east in China. Tocharian is supposed to be Centum, right, or at least not Satem? Is R1a a little stronger in Turkey?

I guess East Germanic tribes (e.g. Goths and Vandals) were predominantly R1a-Z280 with some I1 and I2b. I think U106 was not Germanic but more likely Celtic and was in fact germanized lately. The distribution of R1a(Z284, Z280)/I1&I2b clades fits better Germanic tribes migrations than U106/I1&I2b. By the way both R1a and I1 have cline from NE to SW while U106 moved kinda in opposite direction.

 

[spongetaro]

I guess East Germanic tribes (e.g. Goths and Vandals) were predominantly R1a-Z280 with some I1 and I2b. I think U106 was not Germanic but more likely Celtic and was in fact germanized lately. The distribution of R1a(Z284, Z280)/I1&I2b clades fits better Germanic tribes migrations than U106/I1&I2b. By the way both R1a and I1 have cline from NE to SW while U106 moved kinda in opposite direction.

I agree with you. U106 is actually high in the area that some scholars call the "Nordwestblock" that was neither Germanic nor Celtic. The Nordic migrations in the iron age towards the south had the effect of making several of those languages disappear, especially in the Benelux area. U106 is probably older than the Iron age scandinavian migrations towards the south that brought the Germanic languages (and I1) there. The age of U106 fits rather with the acient bronze age culture of Northwestern Europe (Hilversum, Collared urns) that precedes the "Celtic" Tumulus culture. Links between Benelux and Eastern England already existed during the ancient bronze age and could account for some of the England's U106.

This map shows the ancent bronze age cultures of NW Europe that rose
out of Bell Beaker substratum, probably already carrying R1b L11.

I have a German magazin about the ancient Germans that says regarding the Frisians: "Unklar ist bis heute, ob sie ursprünglich Germanen waren oder erst durch Zuzug, möglicherweise der Sachsen, zu desen". Even though I don't speak German, I guess it means that the Frisians were "Germanicized" by the Saxons.

 

[Sennevini]

I have a German magazin about the ancient Germans that says regarding the Frisians: "Unklar ist bis heute, ob sie ursprünglich Germanen waren oder erst durch Zuzug, möglicherweise der Sachsen, zu desen". Even though I don't speak German, I guess it means that the Frisians were "Germanicized" by the Saxons.

Translation: "It is till now not clear, whether they [Frisians] were originally Germanic, or only by influx, possibly from the Saxons."

This is another question to look at; around the North Sea of course there were people, lending their words (most notably "herring") to the Germanic tribes.

Germanic holds a position between the Italo-Celtic and the Balto-Slavic family, combining features of both.

And, dont confuse Germanic with German .

 

[Mikewww]

I agree with you. U106 is actually high in the area that some scholars call the "Nordwestblock" that was neither Germanic nor Celtic. The Nordic migrations in the iron age towards the south had the effect of making several of those languages disappear, especially in the Benelux area. U106 is probably older than the Iron age scandinavian migrations towards the south that brought the Germanic languages (and I1) there.

U106 is definitely older than what is considered the Proto-Germanic language timeframe. For that matter so is I1 and R1a1. All three preceded Proto-Germanic languages. The mostly likely to be speaking IE in pre-Germanic times, I think (just speculating), would be R1a1 and R1b.

I don't really know the Germanic language/Nordwest block thing other than just a little reading. My understanding is that one hypothesis is that Proto-Germanic really got going in the Jastorf Culture. It's not really a Fenno-Scandinavian thing, though, it's more of the base of the Jutland Peninsula and Northern Germany.

The age of U106 fits rather with the acient bronze age culture of Northwestern Europe (Hilversum, Collared urns) that precedes the "Celtic" Tumulus culture.

How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.

So here is my ultimate question - How do you know that a pre-Germanic IE dialect came to the Jastorf from the north? Couldn't it have come from the south or east, or maybe even from multiple directions.

 

[spongetaro]

U106 is definitely older than what is considered the Proto-Germanic language timeframe. For that matter so is I1 and R1a1. All three preceded Proto-Germanic languages. The mostly likely to be speaking IE in pre-Germanic times, I think (just speculating), would be R1a1 and R1b.

I don't really know the Germanic language/Nordwest block thing other than just a little reading. My understanding is that one hypothesis is that Proto-Germanic really got going in the Jastorf Culture. It's not really a Fenno-Scandinavian thing, though, it's more of the base of the Jutland Peninsula and Northern Germany.

I agree with you, Jastorf extended into Northern and Central Germany but not westward along the North sea and in a lots of places which are today U106 hotspots. According to the Nordwestblock theory, the Harpstedt-Nienburger culture (yellow on the map), located southwest of the Jutland peninsula, (the area of the future Northsea Germans) and more generally, all the lands located west and south of the Ems river, were germanized by a small elite only during the last century BC. If so, an elite move can not account alone for all the U106 in Norwestern germany and the Netherlands. Like U152 people (Italo-Celtic) , U106 people may have changed their linguistic affiliation over time, from a Nordwestblock language to a Germanic one or belonged to both since the begining.

How do you know that a pre-Germanic IE dialect came to the Jastorf from the north?

I notice that most of the iron age migrations in the area describe a North-South move, not the opposite . So the lands located north of the Jutland may have been "Pre proto Germanic" (Proto Germanic lacking the Grimm's law) before the iron age.The way I see it is that it developped during the Nordic bronze age in the Juland and spread to Northern Germany with the Jastorf culture then centuries later to the vast area that the Roman called "Magna Germania".

Otherwise I don't see how Norway and Sweden could be among the Germanic speaking countries since Jastorf never extended there. What is sure is that the Jutland peninsula experienced both the Nordic bronze age and the jastorf culture. So it coud have been the mean by which the proto Germanic languages spread southward.

How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.

I means "traditionally associated with the Proto Celts", I could have said Urnfields or whatever. I personnaly think that the Tumulus were rather Celto-Ligurian.

 

[Mikewww]

I notice that most of the iron age migrations in the area describe a North-South move, not the opposite . So the lands located north of the Jutland may have been "Pre proto Germanic" (Proto Germanic lacking the Grimm's law) before the iron age.The way I see it is that it developped during the Nordic bronze age in the Juland and spread to Northern Germany with the Jastorf culture then centuries later to the vast area that the Roman called "Magna Germania".

Otherwise I don't see how Norway and Sweden could be among the Germanic speaking countries since Jastorf never extended there. What is sure is that the Jutland peninsula experienced both the Nordic bronze age and the jastorf culture. So it coud have been the mean by which the proto Germanic languages spread southward.

I'm challenging you on the north to south assumption of movement of a pre-Germanic speakers into the Jastorf Culture.

The reason is I don't see a real or clear consensus that is true.

Why don't you see how Norway and Sweden could be pre/proto-Germanic speaking unless it originated there?

The Jastorf culture was characterized by its use of cremation burials in extensive urnfields and link with the practices of the Northern Bronze Age. Archeology offers evidence concerning the crystallization of a group in terms of a shared material culture, in which the (impoverished) Northern Bronze Age continued to exert cultural influence, and in which the northward thrust of Hallstatt into the same area was instrumental, while extensive migrations "should be discounted". No homogeneous contribution to the Germanic-speaking northerners has been determined

I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I just have never understood how the pre-Germanic speakers came from Scandinavia into the proto-Germanic culture, if it was Jastorf.

The backdrop for my line of questioning is the genetic data. I1 did not come from the PIE homeland, as far as I can see. R1b-U106 may well have, as well as R1a1. R1a1 is heavy in Balto-Slavic lands generally across the board. Germanic languages are NOT Balto-Slavic, which are Satem. Germanic languages are Centum based. U106 looks like a likely suspect for carrying a Centum based pre-Germanic western IE dialect.

The other part of this is I've done a number of STR variance/diversity analyses on R1b-U106. It is not old in Scandinavia. It is no more diverse in Scandinavia than it is in England so I think it might be a latecomer to Scandinavia, emanating out of the Jastorf at or about the same time as it pushed west through Frisia and onto England.

U106 variance is higher east of Germany, along Poland and into the Baltic states, rather than south into Austria. That's a bit of puzzler though, unless David Anthony was right that the pre-Germanic IE speakers came towards the Baltic from around the north side of the Cartpathian Mountains and U106 was with them.

 

[Mikewww]

How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.

I means "traditionally associated with the Proto Celts", I could have said Urnfields or whatever. I personnaly think that the Tumulus were rather Celto-Ligurian.

Okay, but how do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? We don't.

The Urnfield people could have been just a western dialect of IE, which could have contributed to pre-Germanic speakers. This actually makes a lot of sense which is why I keep checking to see if variance of U106 is higher south of northern-Germany (Jastorf territories) but I don't get that. I'm getting U106 is older into Poland and along the Baltic.

I don't have the answer to this riddle. I'm just trying to figure it out.

 

[GloomyGonzales]

I'm challenging you on thenorth to south assumption of movement of a pre-Germanic speakers into theJastorf Culture.

The reason is I don't see a real or clearconsensus that is true.

Why don't you see how Norwayand Swedencould be pre/proto-Germanic speaking unless it originated there?

I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I justhave never understood how the pre-Germanic speakers came from Scandinaviainto the proto-Germanic culture, if it was Jastorf.

I doubt that there were any migrations fromScandinavia to Poland or Jutland more likely otherwise. I think the distribution of R1a-Z284 clade is very indicative it'sabsent in Central and Eastern Europe and even in Germanythis clade is very rare and restricted to North Germany.

The backdrop for my line of questioning is thegenetic data. I1 did not come from the PIE homeland, as far as I can see. R1b-U106may well have, as well as R1a1. R1a1 is heavy in Balto-Slavic lands generallyacross the board. Germanic languages are NOT Balto-Slavic, which are Satem.Germanic languages are Centum based. U106 looks like a likely suspect forcarrying a Centum based pre-Germanic western IE dialect.

Baltic and Slavic languages are only partiallysatemized and this can be a result of interactions with Iranian-speakingnomads. So those R1a guys who did not get in contact with Iranian-speakingnomads could be centum.
By the way the biggest number of linguisticinnovations Germanic languages share with Baltic languages - 24, while withCeltic languages they share only 18. And we should not forget that we haveloanwords in Finnic from Proto-Germanic but I have never heard about borrowingsfrom Proto-Germanic in Celtic languages. I guess we have correct location forProto-Germanic (Jastorf culture) but we are trying to connect it with wronghaplos.

The other part of this is I've done a number ofSTR variance/diversity analyses on R1b-U106. It is not old in Scandinavia.It is no more diverse in Scandinavia than it is in England so I think it mightbe a latecomer to Scandinavia, emanating out of the Jastorf at or about thesame time as it pushed west through Frisia and onto England.

U106 variance is higher east of Germany, along Polandand into the Baltic states, rather than south into Austria. That's a bit of puzzlerthough, unless David Anthony was right that the pre-Germanic IE speakers cametowards the Baltic from around the north side of the Cartpathian Mountains andU106 was with them.

High variance of U106 in Poland and in Balticstates can be explained by the fact that those lands were occupied by TeutonicOrder that enrolled warriors from all the North Europe and as well those landwere occupied by Danes and Swedes.

 

[zanipolo]

Why are people thinking that U106 in austria and netherlands originated after the Roman period?
The fact are that there where no austrians until 1000AD, there where no frisians until after the collapse of the Roman empire ( frisians ruled from holland to jutland) Paul the deacon wrote the first clash between the longobards and the slavs happened in 610AD in vienna area.
So, why do we not envisage that pre the celtic period in the alps, resided the illyrians, venetics and rhaetian people, these people in the late bronze age ruled this "austria". Why is it not easy to realise that U106 merged from this and migrated westwards along the danube and then northward along the Rhine to the netherlands. Its not hard to do now ...sailing from amsterdam to the black sea

Should u106 really be called germanic?


plenty of U106 in tyrol from august 2012 data

• Tirol
• East Tyrolean Dissection of Y Chromosome Variation, Niederstätter, Rampl, Erhart, Pitterl, Oberacher et al. 2012 (270 samples, 17 Y-STRs, 27 Y-SNPs)
  R1b-U106/S21 18,9%, I1-M253 15,9%, R1a-M17 14,1%, R1b-U152/S28 12,6%, J-M304 8,9%, G2a-P15 7,4%, R1b-M412/S167* 4,8%, E1b-M78 4,4%, R1b-S116* 3,0%, I2-M223 2,6 %, R1b-L23/S141* 1,9%
• Tyrol Y-SNPs Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, Niederstätter et al. 2008 (135 individuals)
  R1b-U106/S21 60%, R1b-U152/S28 21%, R1b-U198 2%, R1b* 19%

 

[Mikewww]

I doubt that there were any migrations fromScandinavia to Poland or Jutland more likely otherwise. I think the distribution of R1a-Z284 clade is very indicative it'sabsent in Central and Eastern Europe and even in Germanythis clade is very rare and restricted to North Germany.

I don't know if there were migrations from Scandinavia to Poland/Jutland. I'm just saying I think the pre-Germanic form of IE may have come from the south or east of Germany into the Jastorf Culture (of N.Germany and the lower Jutland.) If so, R1b-U106 might be a good candidate carrier for that pre-Germanic language.

 

[Mikewww]

High variance of U106 in Poland and in Balticstates can be explained by the fact that those lands were occupied by TeutonicOrder that enrolled warriors from all the North Europe and as well those landwere occupied by Danes and Swedes.

There still has to be a source. I'm saying that the STR variance calculations on long haplotypes show highest variance to the east of Germany, in places like Poland, Lithuania, etc. I think the Myres study showed the same thing.

Germany, itself, as well as the Nordic Countries, England and Austria all had lower variance. U106 had to come from somewhere and that somewhere should have higher diversity. There is no better candidate than lands directly east of present day Germany. There were Germanic wanderings all over Europe but I can't find a place with higher diversity than the area to the east of Germany.

Do you have a better candidate for a source for R1b-U106?

I throw in the caveat that we have very little data from Austria and U106, as was noted, is supposed to have a hot spot there. I would not take off the table the possibility that some place like Austria and/or Hungary. I just haven't seen enough U106 data from there to calculate anything that might be representative.

In any case I don't see how U106 came into Jastorf from Scandinavia. If so, the Centum based IE dialect that became pre-Germanic may have come from Eastern or Central/Southern Europe.

 

[GloomyGonzales]

There still has to be a source. I'm saying that the STR variance calculations on long haplotypes show highest variance to the east of Germany, in places like Poland, Lithuania, etc. I think the Myres study showed the same thing.

Germany, itself, as well as the Nordic Countries, England and Austria all had lower variance. U106 had to come from somewhere and that somewhere should have higher diversity. There is no better candidate than lands directly east of present day Germany. There were Germanic wanderings all over Europe but I can't find a place with higher diversity than the area to the east of Germany.

Do you have a better candidate for a source for R1b-U106?

I throw in the caveat that we have very little data from Austria and U106, as was noted, is supposed to have a hot spot there. I would not take off the table the possibility that some place like Austria and/or Hungary. I just haven't seen enough U106 data from there to calculate anything that might be representative.

In any case I don't see how U106 came into Jastorf from Scandinavia. If so, the Centum based IE dialect that became pre-Germanic may have come from Eastern or Central/Southern Europe.

The STR variance calculations can be misleading. Now we have pretty much SNPs and tested for SNPs guys so there’s no need to bulk together all STRs without regard of their SNPs.
I’ve checked out Polish DNA Project at FTDNA and I should say that all lines of R1b-U106 in Poland are pretty young, maximum 1500 bp. It looks like U106 guys came in Poland at historical times (Drang nach Osten, Partitions, Jewish migrations and so on).

I think it’s more reasonable to look for U106 origin where we have maximum of U106* and old clades like L217, Z381 and Z18.
The majority of all U106* for a while have been found in England, Scotland and Germany.
L217+ was found in England
The distribution of R1b-Z381, R1b-Z18 (below on the map) points towards England, North-West Germany and Netherlands.

http://imageshack.us/a/img19/1329/u106.jpg

Purple pins – R1b-Z381
Light green pins – R1b-Z18

By the way the distribution and age of U106 clades in Britain does not fit the story of its arrival with Anglo-Saxons. If U106 came in Britain with Anglo-Saxon invasion we would have a set of U106 lines with age of ~ 1500 years but in fact majority of lines much older. It means that U106 colonized Britain long before Anglo-Saxon invasion.

So I think association of U106 with the NorthWestBlock (Hilversum, Elp and Wessex cultures) is pretty much solid.

 

[MOESAN]

I find this thread posts quality very interesting - no curse no 'malediction', it is like a good rest!
Y-R1b/U106 could very well be arrived in W-Europe South the baltic shores for a big part, maybe too through Donau river - as a whole it appears to some scholars that a big part of R1b came via this northern road - (see L11?) - some isolated old forms or R1b-U106 could have done their way to West where the knew demographic growth in short enough time giving birth to a numerous but not too variated bunch of downstream clades? I think that if U106 is now a good marker of germanic tribes as a whole, it was very present also North placed but included on margins of ancient proto-celtic-ligurian-italic(-germanic) people (so, among N-W-block I-E speakers), being the future celtic or celtized Belgae source? these Belgae can explain the "excess" of U106 in Brittain compared to Y-I1 by instance? and maybe (I wait numerous enough samples for it) "excess" among Walloons?
Sorry for ma generalizations.

 

[Mkk]

By the way the distribution and age of U106 clades in Britain does not fit the story of its arrival with Anglo-Saxons. If U106 came in Britain with Anglo-Saxon invasion we would have a set of U106 lines with age of ~ 1500 years but in fact majority of lines much older. It means that U106 colonized Britain long before Anglo-Saxon invasion.

This is flawed reasoning. If we look at European American lineages, we don't see them coalescing to less than 400 years ago., This is because, during the migration, the Euros didn't go under a bottleneck.

So if the Anglo-Saxon and Viking migration did indeed bring most of the U106 to the Isles, then we wouldn't expect a bottleneck of population as the population movement would have been large.

 

[GloomyGonzales]

This is flawed reasoning. If we look at European American lineages, we don't see them coalescing to less than 400 years ago., This is because, during the migration, the Euros didn't go under a bottleneck.

So if the Anglo-Saxon and Viking migration did indeed bring most of the U106 to the Isles, then we wouldn't expect a bottleneck of population as the population movement would have been large.

From mathematical point of view there's no reason to compare migration from Europe to America with migration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain. We talk about incomparable figures and models. Longtime prolongated migration of huge masses of population from Europe to America can not result in any detectable bottlenecks especially if event (migration) itself happend no so long ago.

 

[Mkk]

From mathematical point of view there's no reason to compare migration from Europe to America with migration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain. We talk about incomparable figures and models. Longtime prolongated migration of huge masses of population from Europe to America can not result in any detectable bottlenecks especially if event (migration) itself happend no so long ago.

Ofcourse the AS migration was smaller numerically than white emigration to America. But my point is, unless there is a very small population movement causing a large number of founder effects with haplogroups, then there's no reason to think that the AS U106 lineages would have to coalless to just 1500 years ago. They would go back to their actual founder, many of whom lived many years before then.

Another example is:

I suspect the South Asian and Afro-Carribean lineages don't coalless to less than 60 years ago in Britain.

 

[MOESAN]

to come back closer to the thread I 'm not sure Y-R1b/U106 bearers was centered in the nucleus of Tumuli culture, lesser yet found among BB previous spread -

 

[MOESAN]

just to feed the debate: you can search for "Le Second Mésolithique d' Europe occidentale" by Thomas PERRIN (a froggy!) on the net - it would be easy to find I suppose (I've no more the link) -
it speaks about a second wave of Mesolithic people from unknown geographical source (for now: possibly from N Africa, from ex-Yugoslavia, from Ukraina, according to different theories) - this wave reached Western Europe by Mediterranea, not by the Donau river - thinking in the theory about a 'neolithic' origin of Y-R1b, it is to say for the period, not obligatory for the kind of culture, this abstract could give some help? ( a sea travel for some of the Y-R1b? pushed by the neolithic people, in some way?)

 

[MOESAN]

other bell sound (after my post which is a bit aventurous) -
in a Russian paper (based partially on a post of De Beule) about Y-I2a2 (ex I2b ex I2c) SNP L38, the conclusions was (I 've no competence to judge) that the geofraphically origin of this Y-I2a2 SNP was in Eastern Europe, in the Carpathians regions (it recalls me the old opinion of old PEAKE about Bell Beakers successors of Tripolje culture, going westwards to reach Bavaria, maybe a hative conclusion?) - this paper seamed considering thise Y-I2-L38 having flourished in Upper Rhine valley (Bavaria B-Wurttemberg) along Y-R1b, dating it to about the La Tène period - would it not be possible to go back farther in past and tying it also to the B.B. phenomenon and after (by origin or contamination) to the Urnfields ??? I2a2L38 could be tied to La Tène but more generally other Y-I2a2 (other brother SNPs) of Northern Germany could not be linked to the more ancient B.B. of N-W Europe type? associated with some I2a1b (I shall not speake here of 'dinaric' phénotype even if it could be of some worth)