What's Your Y-DNA Haplogroup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBurn

Well, 23andme told me I2, so I'm pretty sure it's I2*.
Which is pretty rare and ancient, so go me!

---

I brotherhood! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBurn

Well, 23andme told me I2, so I'm pretty sure it's I2*.
Which is pretty rare and ancient, so go me!

---

23andMe told you that you are I2*, because they probably made a low-resolution insight into your Y-DNA, not because your I2 is ancestral and negative to any younger SNP's.

That's why we also have many I1* or R1a1a* in our board...sadly. FTDNA is more professional in those terms but you also need to pay more as well.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurgen Khan

Thanks Artek. I knew about the Jarl Birger line. I think most of the North Germanic ruling families were/are R1 types in the paternal line... :rolleyes2::cool:

---

R1b and R1a are supposed to have overrun Western Europe as invaders - R1a with Indo-Europeans and R1b with Neolithic / Bronze Age migrations apparently. If this were the case then it would favour R1 haplogroups being higher among the aristocracy than others, although in new settled areas like Iceland there may have been opportunists from more humble backgrounds, although I personally haven't looked into their history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artek

I think that the R1b in North Germanics is younger than R1a(and I1 obviously) but in such countries like Denmark or Netherlands it become more successful and overnumbered older lineages. Going after it, samples should go from I1/R1a predominance rather to the R1b predominance in younger periods. Let us hope that the study will prove that.

---

How? Unless R1a and I1 men are less fertile, how would R1b coming into a region presumably as a minority be able to outnumber the other haplogroups? Polygamy? :confused: Why can't we see any cultures for R1b moving into Northern Europe? It's almost as if it crept in undetected.
I think I'll have a look at the mythology again, I'm convinced that the Aesir, Vanir, etc describe actual populations (obviously storytellers exaggerated and over time they became gods), Aesir almost certainly being R1a IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albion

How? Unless R1a and I1 men are less fertile, how would R1b coming into a region presumably as a minority be able to outnumber the other haplogroups? Polygamy? :confused: Why can't we see any cultures for R1b moving into Northern Europe? It's almost as if it crept in undetected.

---

They could have come in a few bigger waves and assimilate into existing cultures - so that's why there is no typical R1b-connected culture in the Northern Europe.And if not a fertility - a law and economy could have been at the side of the invaders. Or a weapons to some extent, we don't know for sure.

Anyway, I only said that they made it really successful into Denmark (40% of R1b) and Netherlands(50% of R1b). If such percentages aren't a result of more recent events, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artek

They could have come in a few bigger waves and assimilate into existing cultures - so that's why there is no typical R1b-connected culture in the Northern Europe.And if not a fertility - a law and economy could have been at the side of the invaders. Or a weapons to some extent, we don't know for sure.

Anyway, I only said that they made it really successful into Denmark (40% of R1b) and Netherlands(50% of R1b). If such percentages aren't a result of more recent events, of course.

---

Apparently R1b-U106 is quite young in Scandinavia, and older in central and eastern Europe or something similar, so that's at least 1 type of R1b that probably expanded into the north late. I don't know about P312, it seems to have a reasonable presence in Norway, Sweden and much of Denmark but very scanty around the Netherlands & Frisia due to U106 dominance. An odd situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artek

23andMe told you that you are I2*, because they probably made a low-resolution insight into your Y-DNA, not because your I2 is ancestral and negative to any younger SNP's.

That's why we also have many I1* or R1a1a* in our board...sadly. FTDNA is more professional in those terms but you also need to pay more as well.:(

---

Yes. If you are really interested in your y-dna, FTDNA will do a more thorough analysis by going deeper. For some haplogroups, like R1a, that can mean a world of difference. For example, one can be R1a from northern India, or R1a form Poland or Germany. They are, literally, a world apart. The only way to know, genetically, is to take a deep clade test at FTDNA. I am not familiar with all y-dna haplogropus. Some may not have as much details (deep clades).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson

Apparently R1b-U106 is quite young in Scandinavia, and older in central and eastern Europe or something similar, so that's at least 1 type of R1b that probably expanded into the north late. I don't know about P312, it seems to have a reasonable presence in Norway, Sweden and much of Denmark but very scanty around the Netherlands & Frisia due to U106 dominance. An odd situation.

---

Yes, I'm starting to think that U106 could have been proto-Celtic. There was almost certainly a Celtic influence on the Germanics as can be seen with the strange case of the Cimbri sometimes being seen as Celtic (yet from Denmark) and Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic.
The Low Countries weren't originally Celtic or Germanic, but belonged to a hypothetical Nordwestblok culture (personally I don't think it was a culture, rather a grey area between Celtic and Germanic cultures where the two blended into each other without any distinct boundaries. Belgae to the south being similar but more leaning to Celtic, Nordwestblok more leaning to Germanics).

The oldest U106 was found at Lichtenstein cave during the Urnfield culture. The Urnfied was ultimately ancestral to the Hallstatt and thus Celts. It could have either spread prior to the Celts or with them, but probably both. Lichtenstein Cave is quite far north, located in the far SE of Lower Saxony. I don't think this strays into the Germanic homeland though.
As for the origins of the Urnfield, I think it is a result of the Bronze Age collapse, R1b diffusing out of Anatolia and into Europe via two routes - one up the Danube into Central and Northern Europe and another probably by sea to Iberia and Britain. This diffusion may be visible from the events at the time in the Near East - Sea peoples raiding Egypt and the Levant (presumably from Anatolia), Mycenean culture ends and Troy destroyed. I think this points to two movements of R1b carrying tribes, one by sea and the other on land wreaking havoc in Anatolia and Greece on the way.

Whether U106 was present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons would be an interesting point to consider. We need more testing of remains.
So I think U106 in Germanics *might* be Celtic for the most part, although some is earlier urnfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albion

Yes, I'm starting to think that U106 could have been proto-Celtic. There was almost certainly a Celtic influence on the Germanics as can be seen with the strange case of the Cimbri sometimes being seen as Celtic (yet from Denmark) and Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic.
The Low Countries weren't originally Celtic or Germanic, but belonged to a hypothetical Nordwestblok culture (personally I don't think it was a culture, rather a grey area between Celtic and Germanic cultures where the two blended into each other without any distinct boundaries. Belgae to the south being similar but more leaning to Celtic, Nordwestblok more leaning to Germanics).

The oldest U106 was found at Lichtenstein cave during the Urnfield culture. The Urnfied was ultimately ancestral to the Hallstatt and thus Celts. It could have either spread prior to the Celts or with them, but probably both. Lichtenstein Cave is quite far north, located in the far SE of Lower Saxony. I don't think this strays into the Germanic homeland though.
As for the origins of the Urnfield, I think it is a result of the Bronze Age collapse, R1b diffusing out of Anatolia and into Europe via two routes - one up the Danube into Central and Northern Europe and another probably by sea to Iberia and Britain. This diffusion may be visible from the events at the time in the Near East - Sea peoples raiding Egypt and the Levant (presumably from Anatolia), Mycenean culture ends and Troy destroyed. I think this points to two movements of R1b carrying tribes, one by sea and the other on land wreaking havoc in Anatolia and Greece on the way.

Whether U106 was present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons would be an interesting point to consider. We need more testing of remains.
So I think U106 in Germanics *might* be Celtic for the most part, although some is earlier urnfield.

---

Yeah i agree with this mostly, i am quite interested in the Nordwestblok idea, although have only read a little bit about it. Well there is a line in northern Germany where you stop getting evidence of Celtic place names, basically the core low German area.

If you think about it to be honest, it looks like P312 has been in the north for a while too, so it could be that R1b-U106 represents the Celtic part of that Nordic-Celtic mix that ended up being Germanic.

As regards to R1b-U106 in Britain in pre-Germanic times, most likely i think. Although looking at say, northern France/Normandy, i think they have about 8% of U106 now and they are part Germanic, so although i think it was there it is probably not likely that it was over 5%, (although it could have been in some parts of the far south-east i guess) but we will see in the future hopefully.

I think U106 can safely be called Germanic though, as it could have been possible that these U106-heavy north-central Europeans were one of the key players in the beginning as you say.

Of course we also have to remember that these are pre-Celtic and pre-Germanic as well, for the most part.

E-V13 baby . ;) E1b1b1a2.

N1c1.

Very common among the people my father descends from.