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

[Tomenable]

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 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/showthr...mbutas-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/thread...er-at-al-2015)?p=466264&viewfull=1#post466264

 

[berun]

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]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Concerning differences of Y-DNA in close enough cultures, geographically speaking:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Liechtenstein people were of Unstrut culture, influenced by Urnfields, but considered [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]as other urnfields cultures, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]by someones as Tumuli Cultures descendants, maybe proto-Celtic. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]T[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]h[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]eir specific L[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]3[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]8 variant could be come there from South [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Germany[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], not North, at least in a short scale of time (Y-I2a2 show a large geographic distribution in Europe since Chalcolithic and maybe before). [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The L38 variant, is of occidental distribution[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]When ? We lack sufficent samples of anDNA to be sure to date. BBs [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]of Germany[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] 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. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I confess I would be pleased having the subclades of theMoldovia and the Russia Y-I2a2 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]oftoday, and more anDNA of BA in Hungary and Unetice[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Concerning BBs and CWC I agree they seem very well Y-Haplo « monopole » oriented : Y-R1b >< Y-R1a. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Idon't think R1a played a so big game in the sooner Germanic phases.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I would not be surprised if Unetice were more variable.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](diverse modes of settl[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]ement[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]atthe same time)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Y-G2a ? Neolithic people become « autochtonous » as the diverse Y-I (and Y-C) of Mesolithic. Incorporated in diverse ways by time, I suppose. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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...[/FONT]

 

[Tomenable]

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]

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...

 

[APO276]

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]

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]

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...

 

[APO276]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MOESAN]

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):

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]

^ Some subclades of U106 could be Non-Germanic.

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

 

[mihaitzateo]

I think you can not extend those results to whole Germany.