# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  British: Celtic and Germanic origins

## Trevor

Is it possible to estimate what proportion of British ancestry is Celtic and Germanic (Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman)?

Is all hg. I1 in Britain Germanic in origin?

Where did the I2 come from? Has it been in Britain since before the Celts? Or did it come with the Celts or the Germanics?

Is the R1a in Britain Germanic or did it come with the Celts? Or could it have arrived before the Celts?

How much of the R1b is Celtic or Germanic? Would the Germanic tribes have brought over a mix of R1b types?

And what about the slight G2, J2 and E3b presence? Is there any way of telling when those arrived?

T and Q are also present at 0.5%

----------


## Wilhelm

I1 ,R1a, Q arrived with the Vikings, ANglo-Saxons and Jutes
R1b arrived also with all these germanics but also with celts. It is about 50/50 of the Celtic S116 and the germanic U106 branches.
I2 is probably of palaeolithic origin from the south european expansion after the glacial refuge
G2, J2, and E3b probably came with the neolithic farmers, but also could be some minority of Roman presence.

----------


## Trevor

> I1 ,R1a, Q arrived with the Vikings, ANglo-Saxons and Jutes
> R1b arrived also with all these germanics but also with celts. It is about 50/50 of the Celtic S116 and the germanic U106 branches.
> I2 is probably of palaeolithic origin from the south european expansion after the glacial refuge
> G2, J2, and E3b probably came with the neolithic farmers, but also could be some minority of Roman presence.


If thats right then England would be about 53% Germanic from the I1, R1a, Q and 50% of the R1b, according to the haplogroup figures given at eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml.

Could the Germanics have brought over some of the S116? Is S116 present in Germany today? Did the ancient Germanics have U106 and S116 or just U106?

Could the Germanics have brought over some of the I2, G2, J2 and E3b? All of these haplogroups are present in Germany today. Would the ancient Germanics have had these haplogroups?

----------


## Wilhelm

> Could the Germanics have brought over some of the S116? Is S116 present in Germany today? Did the ancient Germanics have U106 and S116 or just U106?


yes, of course germanics have and had S116 yes, but it's much rare in northern germany(anglo-saxons) or Scandinavia




> Could the Germanics have brought over some of the I2, G2, J2 and E3b? All of these haplogroups are present in Germany today. Would the ancient Germanics have had these haplogroups?


Yes, it's posible, since all these haplogorup were introduced in Europe in Neolithic times. Altough the E3b or J2 is very rare in northern germany, where the anglo-saxons came from. It is much more frequent in south Germany about 8%

----------


## Yorkie

> I1 ,R1a, Q arrived with the Vikings, ANglo-Saxons and Jutes
> R1b arrived also with all these germanics but also with celts. It is about 50/50 of the Celtic S116 and the germanic U106 branches.
> I2 is probably of palaeolithic origin from the south european expansion after the glacial refuge
> G2, J2, and E3b probably came with the neolithic farmers, but also could be some minority of Roman presence.


I2 needs to be split into the different clades here:
M26 I2a1 was probably founded in Iberia and in most cases probably pre-Celtic in origin when found in Britain.
I2b1 can be both of Germanic origin [more Anglo-Saxon than Danish, Norse] and ancient, pre-Celtic origin. McEvoy and Bradley [2010] assign I2b1a largely to La Tene Celts.

L161 I2a2b-Isles was probably founded in northern Germany, and some of it dates back to the Neolithic [Nordtvedt], whilst some came later with Celts [Manco], and Anglo-Saxons [Sykes, Klyosov, Manco, Owen].

I2a3-Western is founded near north sea and was probably brought to Britain by Anglo-Saxons

I2a2a-Disles- is a tiny clade so far found only in Scotland and Ireland. Probably pre-Celtic in origin.

I2a2a-Dinaric- the true, south-east european I2a2 is absent in Britain.

Regarding R1b, most R1b appears to be of pre-Celtic and Celtic origin save for the following:

R1b-U106/S21 -in some cases it is likely Germanic but there is no evidence that it is always Germanic.

R1b-U198/S29- this rarer clade appears strongly Germanic as does S26.

Also, a recently-discovered 'Norse' form of R1b, tested for as SNP S182 by Ethnoancestry appears Germanic in origin.

I disagree with the 50/50 Germanic/Celtic scenario envisaged by some for R1b. I think it is far more likely 70 Celtic and 30 Germanic, at least in Britain.

Re I1 and R1a1 in Britain- these are clearly Germanic/Scandinavian when found in British men. R1a1 is more often or not a signal of Norwegian Viking origin when found in British men [Wilson], but Danes, Normans and Anglo-Saxons carried R1a1 too. I1 can indicate descent from Danes, Normans and Anglo-Saxons. According to Nordtvedt, Barac and also Tambetts, the 23 at 390 and 13 at 462 type of I1 is more likely to be Scandinavian in origin, and the 22 at 390, 12 at 462 form a more likely indicator of lowland Germanic origin [i,e, Anglo Saxon]. The latter form predominates in lowland Germanic countries and Britain.

As for G2, J2 and E3b having Roman connections, I see no evidence in the form of an academic paper to support this conjecture. However, there is strong amateur consensus that E3b, in particular, might link to the Romans in some cases. There is evidence from Sykes for a Neolithic origin for all 3.

----------


## Trevor

> yes, of course germanics have and had S116 yes, but it's much rare in northern germany(anglo-saxons) or Scandinavia
> 
> Yes, it's posible, since all these haplogorup were introduced in Europe in Neolithic times. Altough the E3b or J2 is very rare in northern germany, where the anglo-saxons came from. It is much more frequent in south Germany about 8%


G2, J2 and E3b are even rarer in England.

Northern Germany has slightly higher levels of G2, J2 and E3b than England. ( eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml )

G2 = 1.5% in England, 3.5% in northern Germany
J2 = 3.5 in England and 4 in northen Germany
E3b = 1 in England and 2.5 in northern Germany

They make up only 6% of English ancestry anyway.

S116 is more substantial. Is there any way that we can get a figure for S116 in Germany/ northern Germany? Are there any sub-groups within S116 that we can age, that might indicate how much S116 came over with the Germanics?

----------


## Trevor

> I2 needs to be split into the different clades here:
> M26 I2a1 was probably founded in Iberia and in most cases probably pre-Celtic in origin when found in Britain.
> I2b1 can be both of Germanic origin [more Anglo-Saxon than Danish, Norse] and ancient, pre-Celtic origin. McEvoy and Bradley [2010] assign I2b1a largely to La Tene Celts.
> 
> L161 I2a2b-Isles was probably founded in northern Germany, and some of it dates back to the Neolithic [Nordtvedt], whilst some came later with Celts [Manco], and Anglo-Saxons [Sykes, Klyosov, Manco, Owen].
> 
> I2a3-Western is founded near north sea and was probably brought to Britain by Anglo-Saxons
> 
> I2a2a-Disles- is a tiny clade so far found only in Scotland and Ireland. Probably pre-Celtic in origin.
> ...


Thanks for sharing that!

 :Good Job: 

Do you think that it is possible yet to give any sort of estimate for Celtic/ Germanic origin in England and the rest of Britain? Is it likely to ever be possible to give a fair estimate?

----------


## Yorkie

> Thanks for sharing that!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that it is possible yet to give any sort of estimate for Celtic/ Germanic origin in England and the rest of Britain? Is it likely to ever be possible to give a fair estimate?


There is conflicting evidence already. Without going into great detail, the likes of Bryan Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer, David Goldstein etc appear to think that the pre-Celtic, and Celtic populations contributed more to the British gene-pool than did the Germanic/ Scandinavian invasions. Sykes appears to acknowledge a greater Germanic input than does Oppenheimer [whose figures for Anglo-Saxon contributions are around 5%!], but even he sees the Germanic input in England as around 15%. Those such as Oppenheimer and Peter Forster see Germanic input as dating to far earlier than the historical 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Viking' period, beyond the Neolithic. Conversely Weale et al have suggested that in England the Anglo-Saxon invasions made a much larger impact.

So far, much of the analysis has involved both Ydna and to a lesser extent, Mtdna. However, Sir Walter Bodmer has made estimates which take into account more than just the single set of Y chromosome markers used by Weale's team and Goldstein's team. Bodmer has looked at a host of different genetic variants including those associated with rhesus negativity, biological markers of the HLA system, blood group, and versions of the MC1R gene [for red hair] found in dna. From this, Bodmer and his team came up with the following estimates for percentages of Celtic versus Germanic ancestry in the British. The team surveyed various English counties, and the results [below] are easily available in Robin McKie's [2006] _The Face of Britain._ London: Simon and Schuster. Anyone interested in British ethnology should read this book:

Northumberland and Durham: 77% Germanic, 23% Celtic
Sussex and Kent: 71% Germanic, 29% Celtic
Cumbria: 56% Germanic, 44% Celtic
Oxfordshire: 49% Germanic, 51% Celtic

The analyses assume that Cornwall, Devon, and Wales are the most Celtic parts of southern Britain, and that East Anglia and Lincolnshire are the most Germanic.

Unfortunately, Bodmer's test is not commercially available. He did, however, test one 'celebrity', Tory MP Ann Widdecombe [largely of Cornish/Devon ancestry]. Widdecombe turned out to be 50% Germanic, and 50% Celtic.

----------


## Wilhelm

English people in autosomal genetics cluster and/or overlap with Germans, Danes,etc That is only posible if there is substantial germanic/nordic input which I believe is the case.

----------


## Yorkie

> English people in autosomal genetics cluster and/or overlap with Germans, Danes,etc That is only posible if there is substantial germanic/nordic input which I believe is the case.


Of course. My own ancestry is largely English with an emphasis on Yorkshire and East Anglia. I haven't tested for autosomal dna yet but I imagine that I would get many German and Danish matches.

----------


## iapodos

> I2a2a-Dinaric- the true, south-east european I2a2 is absent in Britain.


Actually, I am I2a2 Dinaric South and according to FTDNA I have 20 exact matches 12/12. Among them are people with surnames: Stanton, Adams, McDonald. I would say they sound quite British. So I2a2 Dinaric is not absent in Britain. The question is only how they get there? 
I2a2 Dinaric is usually associated with eastern Europe and Balkans, but half of my exact matches 12/12 are people from northwestern Europe like Melzer, Thiel, Everts, Clauder, Stroup.
In all this studies in Britain, is there any study that shows presence of I2a2 Dinaric in any percent on the British Isles?

----------


## Haganus

I do not understand why Q (mongolic haplogroup) is present in Britain.
Taken with the Germanic tribes? It seems me not realistic, because
the haplogroup Q is absent in the Netherlands, North-Germany and
Denmark.

----------


## DavidCoutts

> Of course. My own ancestry is largely English with an emphasis on Yorkshire and East Anglia. I haven't tested for autosomal dna yet but I imagine that I would get many German and Danish matches.


Yorkie, I had my Autosomal DNA tested by GeneBase. How do I go about comparing my Autosomal DNA with other peoples? I did'nt see an option for ADNA in YSearch?

----------


## Yorkie

> Actually, I am I2a2 Dinaric South and according to FTDNA I have 20 exact matches 12/12. Among them are people with surnames: Stanton, Adams, McDonald. I would say they sound quite British. So I2a2 Dinaric is not absent in Britain. The question is only how they get there? 
> I2a2 Dinaric is usually associated with eastern Europe and Balkans, but half of my exact matches 12/12 are people from northwestern Europe like Melzer, Thiel, Everts, Clauder, Stroup.
> In all this studies in Britain, is there any study that shows presence of I2a2 Dinaric in any percent on the British Isles?


I would be very careful indeed with matches on such short ['bikini'] haplotypes. If I told you that I get almost 20 close matches with R1a1 people on 12 markers, would that surprise you? I am I2a2b-Isles and at low resolution, my signature can easily be mistaken for R1a1, but snp typing and 43 STR markers show me to be firmly I2a2b-Isles.

I2a2a-Dinaric _is_ effectively absent in Britain, but Nordtvedt has a small list of around 9 or 10 that might be NPEs, relatives of Polish military who stayed after WW2 etc. You will find I2a2a-Dinaric in tiny numbers in some countries like Germany but this is usually down to immigration from the east.

----------


## Yorkie

> Yorkie, I had my Autosomal DNA tested by GeneBase. How do I go about comparing my Autosomal DNA with other peoples? I did'nt see an option for ADNA in YSearch?


Sorry, David, I'm not sure. I have yet to take the plunge with autosomal testing. I keep in mind what Peter Forster told me- that at this stage continental testing might be accurate but inter-continental testing isn't reliable enough. What I'm interested in is percentage of Scandinavian dna etc. I'll wait a while...

----------


## Yorkie

> I do not understand why Q (mongolic haplogroup) is present in Britain.
> Taken with the Germanic tribes? It seems me not realistic, because
> the haplogroup Q is absent in the Netherlands, North-Germany and
> Denmark.


 Q haplogroup is around 4% in Norway. It is therefore feasible that small quantities were brought to Britain as a minority clade with Norwegian Vikings.

----------


## iapodos

> I would be very careful indeed with matches on such short ['bikini'] haplotypes. If I told you that I get almost 20 close matches with R1a1 people on 12 markers, would that surprise you? I am I2a2b-Isles and at low resolution, my signature can easily be mistaken for R1a1, but snp typing and 43 STR markers show me to be firmly I2a2b-Isles.
> I2a2a-Dinaric _is_ effectively absent in Britain, but Nordtvedt has a small list of around 9 or 10 that might be NPEs, relatives of Polish military who stayed after WW2 etc. You will find I2a2a-Dinaric in tiny numbers in some countries like Germany but this is usually down to immigration from the east.


I understand that there are haplotypes which may refer to two different haplogroups in 12 markers, but actually I did test on 67 markers and people I mentioned before also had tested 67 markers. For example, McDonald is my closest match on 25 marker analysis (-2), and on 67 (-10) , and the same thing is with Clauder and Stroup which have also done 67 analysis. Not to mention that they are actually genetically closest people to me in all databases I search, including those of ex-Yugoslavian. As far I know that McDonald is American with ancestry for few centuries in USA so he couldn't be from some recent migration from Eastern Europe. Stroup and Clauder are also Americans with German origins,for a centuries also residing in USA. 
I also believe that my 12 marker haplotype could not be assigned to any other haplogroup but to I2a2 Dinaric (as much I saw in databases).
So, as I understand, you believe that there is no I2a2 Dinaric in Britain except those which was caused with some recent migration (in XX century)?

----------


## Yorkie

> I understand that there are haplotypes which may refer to two different haplogroups in 12 markers, but actually I did test on 67 markers and people I mentioned before also had tested 67 markers. For example, McDonald is my closest match on 25 marker analysis (-2), and on 67 (-10) , and the same thing is with Clauder and Stroup which have also done 67 analysis. Not to mention that they are actually genetically closest people to me in all databases I search, including those of ex-Yugoslavian. As far I know that McDonald is American with ancestry for few centuries in USA so he couldn't be from some recent migration from Eastern Europe. Stroup and Clauder are also Americans with German origins,for a centuries also residing in USA. 
> I also believe that my 12 marker haplotype could not be assigned to any other haplogroup but to I2a2 Dinaric (as much I saw in databases).
> So, as I understand, you believe that there is no I2a2 Dinaric in Britain except those which was caused with some recent migration (in XX century)?


I am going by Ken Nordtvedt's research into I2a2 here. As I said, Ken possesses a mere handful of I2a2a-Dinaric haplotypes which are associated with British names. These, and the examples you cite, seem a drop in the ocean. Ken regards I2a2a-Dinaric as effectively absent in Britain, and I think he is correct to maintain this position. Scattered examples do not make for a significant presence. The I2a2 found in Britain and Ireland is massively, overwhelmingly I2a2b-Isles [and that is for a small clade in itself].

There are often tiny occurences of 'rogue' haplotypes in lots of countries. In I2a2a-Dinaric's case, NPEs, Polish military etc spring to mind. Also, there are cases in Scotland of Polish immigration in Lanark which precede WW2, and legends of Hungarian ancestry in a couple of Scottish Clans. This might explain the MacDonald connection?

These examples aside, there is simply no reason why I2a2a-Dinaric should figure in either the British or Irish gene-pool, as there has been no significant contribution to either gene-pool by Slavic or Balkan peoples.

By the way, are you certain that 'Clauder' and 'Stroup' are names of British origin? Without checking, they don't sound British to me.

----------


## Haganus

I should like to know about the presence of haplogroup Q in Europe.
Is it only present in East-Europe and a little in Norway-Sweden-Finland?
I understand that haplogroup Q is in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands
and Belgium totally absent?


Erik

----------


## Yorkie

Regarding Q, I only have the figures of 4% for Norway and 3% for Hungary. It must be near to absent in Britain, surely? At any rate, it is not regarded as anything near typical of the gene-pool.

----------


## 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.

Haplogroup-R1b-L21 Map.jpg

----------


## 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....odern/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.o...11044supp2.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".  :Wink: 

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.

----------


## 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) 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

----------

