PDA

View Full Version : R1a1 in Great Britain, What is Your Theory?



Alpine Storm
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 08:16 AM
What would be your theory on R1a1 arriving in Norther England. My lines run into England fairly deep. Yet only 1/10 males in England are R1a1.

Soldiers brought by the Roman Army's?
Slaves traded by the Normans or Vikings
Independently migrated from Gaul?
Viking mixed Bloodlines?
Trade routes

darthantares
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 01:26 PM
Well according to the National Geographic Genographic project I am R1a. Records say that my paternal line supposedly came from the Southern Netherland to the Americas way back in the mid 1600s with the Dutch West India Company. What is interesting though is I'm getting the most exact 12 marker matches with people from Norway. I don't think this area of research is fully developed though it will be interesting to follow over the next several years. But still the results make me wonder. :fviking:

some_one_number_one
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007, 02:33 PM
IMO R1a comes from Norway vikings.

Oswiu
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 06:01 AM
What would be your theory on R1a1 arriving in Norther England. My lines run into England fairly deep. Yet only 1/10 males in England are R1a1.

Soldiers brought by the Roman Army's?
Slaves traded by the Normans or Vikings
Independently migrated from Gaul?
Viking mixed Bloodlines?
Trade routes

IMO R1a comes from Norway vikings.
In Northern England's case, the Polak is likely to be right. Gaul is a bit far away and too dilute itself in R1a for it to have leaked naturally from there to explain any more than a smidgen of the proportion in the North Country, though it's not impossible from when the Parisi first settled in Yorkshire. The Roman Army on the Wall was largely composed of Germans, though their descendants would have significantly Brythonicised by the time the Angles got there, to suffer the fate of much of old Britannia's Y chromosome carriers in the struggles of the time. The Angles would have naturally increased it, but looking at one Y chromosome set of data I have for the British Isles, the strikingly high amount on the Isle of Man would make the Norse origin most likely.

I'll have to get round to sampling mine one day... Is it cheaper yet?

Psychonaut
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 06:30 AM
In Northern England's case, the Polak is likely to be right. Gaul is a bit far away and too dilute itself in R1a for it to have leaked naturally from there to explain any more than a smidgen of the proportion in the North Country, though it's not impossible from when the Parisi first settled in Yorkshire. The Roman Army on the Wall was largely composed of Germans, though their descendants would have significantly Brythonicised by the time the Angles got there, to suffer the fate of much of old Britannia's Y chromosome carriers in the struggles of the time. The Angles would have naturally increased it, but looking at one Y chromosome set of data I have for the British Isles, the strikingly high amount on the Isle of Man would make the Norse origin most likely.

I'll have to get round to sampling mine one day... Is it cheaper yet?

I've been digging deep into R1a ever since I found out I belonged to that haplogroup. Determining whether your R1a lineage is Nordic, Slavic, Indic or Ashkenazi depends on the allele values, not just the R1a grouping. The English and Slavic R1a modal haplotypes do share a common ancestor, but since the alleles are three steps off, that common ancestor existed nearly 150 generations ago. So, if you belong to the English R1a haplogroup, chances are far greater that your paternal ancestry is Nordic than Slavic.

As to the price, I got both my y-DNA and mt-DNA tested at FTDNA (www.familytreedna.com) for around $150.

Allenson
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 02:46 PM
I would reckon that R1a in England comes from multiple sources as Oswiu mentioned--Norse, Angles & other vaious continentals serving the Empire in different capacities.

Also, it could be considered that 'some' R1a arrived in Britain much earlier--during the mesolithic in particular when sealevels were much lower and much of what is now the North Sea was dry land thus aiding in the westward movement of this haplogroup.

Agrippa
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 09:58 PM
By the way, we have a proof that R1a was present among Central German Corded Ware people from Eulau, which makes the assumption that R1a was a common, if not the most common and important, y-DNA haplogroup among early Indeuropeans, since it has been found in ancient ice mummies from the Eastern Indoeuropean tribes already, now proven in the other major group in Central Europe, the Corded Ware group.

Therefore most R1a carriers of England might be, in my opinion, descendents of Central European Indoeuropean male lines, in most cases, for England, via Norway obviously, I dont see much of an alternative actually, if arguing with the most probable origin...

zomo
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 08:37 PM
Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-Based Sampling: The Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in Northwest England

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/-sczsteve/survey_summary.pdf

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/552/vikgr9.jpg

Proof of Liverpool's Viking past


They used historical documents, including a tax register from the time of Henry VIII, to identify surnames common in the region. They then recruited 77 male volunteers with "original" surnames, and looked for a genetic signature of Viking ancestry on the Y chromosome. They report in Molecular Biology and Evolution that a Y chromosome type, R1a, common in Norway, is also very common among men with original surnames.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/03/britishidentity.jamesranderson

Eburos
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 08:43 PM
I am intrigued to find my R1a1 ancestors origin. My English family comes from the Midlands of England, not from the North.
Maybe we are from Roman soldiers or slaves?
But my R1a1 cousins are mostly English.

Oswiu
Monday, April 6th, 2009, 11:41 PM
I am intrigued to find my R1a1 ancestors origin. My English family comes from the Midlands of England, not from the North.


Look up the Five Boroughs, mate. ;)

The eastern Midlands were HEAVILY Anglicised, then as HEAVILY Scandinavianised.

Eburos
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Thank you, I will look this up. I am aware that this area was part of the Danelaw. My name is Anglo-Saxon traces to around Buckinghamshire.

rainman
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Rather interesting that given the history of Britain it is one of the most ethnically mixed nationalities of Europe yet one of the most dominant. Similar can be said for Germany. England is an ethnic soup but luckily has been all Aryan until recently.

I've sort of though maybe this is genetically the ideal scenario. Relative isolation combined with relative incursions of outside blood as opposed to total isolation or total mixing. Curiously, for example, Japan has a similar history being similarly an Island off the coast. Perhaps a bit more isolationists, but anyway they too are the regional superpower and most advanced folk of their area.

You had the picts and possibly earlier peoples, themselves the results of several migrations. Then the Celts and Romans. Then various Germanic migrations.

I guess I'm off topic. Anyway I know people really should be rooted in their history but I consider race something alive and today. If two different tribes combine and form a new tribe that lives for a thousand years and you are born into it you are part of the tribe you are born into. Not some ancestor's tribe from 1,000 years ago. Similarly I don't think you can be half this or half that. You are 100% of one group. You are one human being. What I mean is even if you are mixed then you are 100% mixed race- that is of one group. You don't half check the white box and half check the black box, you entirely check a whole new one. So I like to know about my history but mainly I like to look at who I am now, what my parents were and my folk community that is alive today.

So many of us lack that folk community.

Eburos
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 01:40 AM
I appreciate your opinion on such matters Rainman. I feel no guilt at all trying to unravel the history of my family. I don't think that I am looking only at my past, and I hope your comment was not directed to me.

rainman
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 01:43 AM
No. lol I don't mean to feel guilt. I just mean it gets confusing when you try to get into such very minute specific details. Like someone saying "What am I? I'm trying to see- my ancestors came from England but somewhere there is the one gene that maybe came from Norway..." It's just what you are is what you are today it doesn't need to be buried in the past somewhere.

I think its great looking into your past. It's good to be balanced- know where you came from, where you are at and where you are going. :-)

Oswiu
Saturday, April 11th, 2009, 06:12 PM
Rather interesting that given the history of Britain it is one of the most ethnically mixed nationalities of Europe yet one of the most dominant. Similar can be said for Germany. England is an ethnic soup but luckily has been all Aryan until recently.
I don't think we're especially peculiar in that respect at all. Some that seem to have less going on in their history, ethnically-speaking, might well make up for it in their prehistory. As for 'dominance', nearly everyone on the continent has taken their turn at that rota, some time or other.

Eburos
Saturday, April 11th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Well, Oswiu I do have one match in the ysearch database for a Dane with a genetic distance of 3.
Most of my closest matches are with other English surnames and quite a few Austrian, and former Austrian/Czechoslovakians, and also a few Pomeranians.
It seems that a few of my distant English cousins came from East Anglia.
Perhaps there is a heavy Danish or Anglian R1a1 connection in England today.

Psychonaut
Sunday, April 12th, 2009, 06:04 PM
I do have one match in the ysearch database for a Dane with a genetic distance of 3.

A genetic distance of three means that your common ancestor is very very far out (around 100 generations if I remember correctly). I'm R1a as well and I have ysearch matches amongst North Indians and Uyghurs at distances of three.

Eburos
Sunday, April 12th, 2009, 06:51 PM
A genetic distance of three means that your common ancestor is very very far out (around 100 generations if I remember correctly). I'm R1a as well and I have ysearch matches amongst North Indians and Uyghurs at distances of three.

Yes, a distance of 3 in 12 dys markers is a long shot for being a Dane, but my family had lived in England since before the Norman invasion, at least a 1000 years, "some of the first recorded surnames in England".

My closest matches of 0,1,2 genetic distances are all fellow English and Scottish surnames, excluding a few at 2 from Austria/Czechoslovakia, and quite a few Prussians at 3.

I have a genetic distance of 4 to a few Swedes and 5 to a few Norwegians.
My matches for India are gentic distance of 5 and 6.

Through the powers of deduction I could then Hypothesize that my ancestors did not enter England through Norway or Sweden, but through either Danish or the Angles of Schleswig-Holstein.

Sir Infamous
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, 06:23 PM
By the way, we have a proof that R1a was present among Central German Corded Ware people from Eulau, which makes the assumption that R1a was a common, if not the most common and important, y-DNA haplogroup among early Indeuropeans, since it has been found in ancient ice mummies from the Eastern Indoeuropean tribes already, now proven in the other major group in Central Europe, the Corded Ware group.

Therefore most R1a carriers of England might be, in my opinion, descendents of Central European Indoeuropean male lines, in most cases, for England, via Norway obviously, I dont see much of an alternative actually, if arguing with the most probable origin...

Only in the Northern (Baltic-Slavic, Germanic, and "Eastern" Celtic) and Eastern ((Indo Aryan) "Indo-Europan peoples". Although I agree the proto-IndoEuropeans would have had to be carry R1a.

Indo-Europeanization is mostly Cultural and not physical. For instance Western Europe does not carry R1a in the least. Thus it is safe to say they don't physically descend form the proto-Indo Europeans.

And Anthropological data indicates that Northern Europeans (the corded ware peoples) do not physically descend from the Kurgan folk either. Atleast they carry R1a though.

Lasgo
Monday, August 27th, 2018, 11:08 AM
Only in the Northern (Baltic-Slavic, Germanic, and "Eastern" Celtic) and Eastern ((Indo Aryan) "Indo-Europan peoples". Although I agree the proto-IndoEuropeans would have had to be carry R1a.

Indo-Europeanization is mostly Cultural and not physical. For instance Western Europe does not carry R1a in the least. Thus it is safe to say they don't physically descend form the proto-Indo Europeans.

And Anthropological data indicates that Northern Europeans (the corded ware peoples) do not physically descend from the Kurgan folk either. Atleast they carry R1a though.

So who does then?