World Families Forums - R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 06:02:24 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1  (Read 5901 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2011, 07:08:33 PM »

The one really strange thing about this is that U198 seems to be oldest subclade of U106. It's most prevalent and oldest in England though.  What do studies show about U198? Would an early form of U106, i.e. U198, have moved into the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons and the history we know about?

Mike,

... I just looked at the U198 Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U198/default.aspx?section=yresults

It's a sizable project, but it seems really light on continental members. I counted ten of them in the whole thing of however many there are.

Do you have another source of continental U198 haplotypes so that you can get a good variance calculation on them?

It seems to me you have enough Isles stuff there to get a fair idea of U198's age in the British Isles, but I would think ten haplotypes too few to tell you much about U198 on the Continent. But I'm not a math guy, so maybe I'm wrong. ...
I copied data from about 15-20 geographic projects as well as U198, U106 and R1b. I could only come up with 14 U198 from the continent, twelve of which are 67 STRs. I don't feel like a a variance calculation on 12 people is reliable but the results seem to be 5-10% higher variance on the continent than on the Isles. Most of the continentals are from Germany or the Netherlands.

It makes sense that U198 would be born on the continent if its similar in age to U106 and it get round the issue of back migration being required.  However, that doesnt change the fact that the timing suggested by the variance is much older than the Anglo-Saxons if it is interpreted in the same way as all the other clades.

Given that, and given the likelihood that at least some U106 of some kind got to SE Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons, do you not still feel that U106 in England is a pretty fair proxy for the Anglo-Saxons?

It seems to taper off in frequency as one heads west and north in Britain, as one would expect of the Anglo-Saxon population. I could be wrong, but, as I recall, that mirrors the I1 cline in Britain. One would expect the presence of I1 among the Anglo-Saxon population, as well.

So, it seems to me there could have been something of a U106 population in SE Britain fairly early on, but it received a large injection of reinforcements during the post-Roman Period, which goes a long way toward explaining the success of the Anglo-Saxons in what would become England and the spread of the English language.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 07:09:28 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2011, 07:30:22 PM »

It's too bad Busby or somebody hasn't broken down U106 into its bigger components (like L48) in Britain and elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how U106's subclades (other than the small U198 clade) are distributed.

I am sure the Anglo-Saxons weren't just U106 and I1, by the way. There is R1a, E1b1b, G2, and J, in Germany, as well, and there could be some clade or clades of as-yet-unresolved P312* that is found especially concentrated in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands. It's just harder to spot those things and attribute them to the Anglo-Saxons, at least at present.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 07:31:38 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2011, 08:40:18 PM »

It's too bad Busby or somebody hasn't broken down U106 into its bigger components (like L48) in Britain and elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how U106's subclades (other than the small U198 clade) are distributed.

I am sure the Anglo-Saxons weren't just U106 and I1, by the way. There is R1a, E1b1b, G2, and J, in Germany, as well, and there could be some clade or clades of as-yet-unresolved P312* that is found especially concentrated in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands. It's just harder to spot those things and attribute them to the Anglo-Saxons, at least at present.

I think L48 is a much stronger indicator of Anglo-Saxon (Danish?) presence in England. But no one wants to split up U106 - conclusions could place some of it in Britain before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2011, 07:41:28 AM »

I don't think anyone is afraid to split U106 up because doing so would show that some of it got to Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think U106 is still looked at monolithically because of an accident of y-dna research. U106 was discovered relatively early on, back in 2005. For quite awhile nothing was known of its subclades. The same thing applies to U152, which is also still thought of as a single block. Those two, U106 and U152, back then known as "S21" and "S28" because they were first discovered by Dr. Jim Wilson of Ethnoancestry, were the only games in town. Some folks, like a well-known and very vocal U152 partisan, for one, thought that perhaps U106, U152, M222, and SRY2627 would be the only SNPs ever discovered south of M269, that probably there wasn't anything else there. We now know, of course, that they were wrong.

But it is a legacy of that time, from 2005 through early 2008, that U106 and U152 are still thought of as monolithic. U152 is almost regarded as something separate from its parent haplogroup, P312.

My own feeling is that there wasn't much U106 in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. Obviously, I can't prove that, but that is what I think. There may have been some present in the southeast, but, overall, I think most of it arrived with the Anglo-Saxons, with later infusions, albeit slight, from Danish and Norwegian Vikings.

So, don't get me wrong; I am not saying all the U106 in Britain can be attributed to Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. There probably was some in SE Britain earlier than that simply because there is so much of it in the adjacent continental areas. But I do think there was a major shift of U106 with the Anglo-Saxons during the Migration Period, and that probably accounts for the bulk of English U106. That's just my opinion. U106, it seems to me, is the major difference between the male populations of Anglo-Saxon (English) and Celtic Britain. There is also a lot more y-haplogroup I1 in Anglo-Saxon than in Celtic Britain. I believe U106 and I1 tend to have their highest frequencies in Britain in pretty much the same places, but I could be wrong about that.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 07:47:33 AM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2011, 11:08:00 AM »

I suppose one thing that would enhance the chance U106 was in England in prehistoric times would be if it can be shown that it was in Holland/Belgium in early times.  Is the variance for U106 in the low countries in the same ball park as U106 as a whole?  If U106 was in its present continental distribution back in the the early days of U106 then it is hard to believe the short journey from the Low Countries to SE England was not made by some of them.  Again it all depends on the absolute date of U106.  Eastern Britain was strongly connected to the low countries in the beaker period. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2011, 11:33:33 AM »

I don't think anyone is afraid to split U106 up because doing so would show that some of it got to Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think U106 is still looked at monolithically because of an accident of y-dna research. U106 was discovered relatively early on, back in 2005. For quite awhile nothing was known of its subclades. ....
I don't know about L48, but I though S29 (U198) has been around for a while... at least as long as L21.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2011, 11:35:17 AM »

I see the subject of the fascinating kingdom of Elmet has been raised in this thread. Unfortunately it is fascinating only because of it's lack of archaeology. It appears in written sources as a Celtic Kingdom as late as the start of the 7th cent. Anglo Saxon archaeology only amounts to a couple of skeletons and a handful of beads so this supports its celtic credentials. Anglo Saxon archaeology starts really in the 8th cent, but it is mainly ecclesiastical stone scultpures, not much in the way of settlment evidence. The problem however, is that there is little archaeology for the celtic kingdom either. We don't know where they lived. We don't know where their royal centre was. We don't find hearths or middens or animal bones. It is typical of the archaeology of the Britons, largely invisible.

If you look at this map, you can see why Deira, which has much germanic archaeology, is different from Elmet. The roads shown are the roman roads which went around the wetlands, always subject to flooding. Towards the end of the roman period, the sea flooded much of the area. Some roman finds are found under as much as 3m of marine deposit. Elmet was effectively cut off from Deira.

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/humberwetlands.gif

Reghed, to the west of Elmet is also a fascinating area. Supposedly a kingdom, there is little early archaeology from Britons in the south. This too was a flooded area and most of the population must have been either in Gwynedd in North Wales or up in Cumbria in the north. Settlement density in the south must have been very low.

This map which appeared in Der Spiegel recently is a redrawing of a map produced by Mark Thomas. The areas of highest germanic settlement are the white ones:

http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-226190-thumbflex-fwgo.jpg

These coincide largely with Page's map for early runic finds, ie those dated to before 650 AD:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/page_pre650_runes.gif

The runic finds are almost exclusively in burials so that map gives a good idea of where all the early germanic burial sites are.

best
authun
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 11:36:38 AM by authun » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2011, 01:35:33 PM »

I wonder how long a haplotype they used for that "Frisian y chromosome segment" that is the basis of the Der Spiegel map. I fit the "Frisian" haplotype, according to Oppenheimer's book, The Origins of the British, but, as I recall, he used only six markers. If Mark Thomas used a short haplotype like that, he was picking up some non-Frisian noise, probably especially in the west.

My haplotype is the reason why so many people back in 2006 expected me to test S21+, even Dr. Jim Wilson, who ran the test on me twice because he was surprised when I got a negative result. That result was later confirmed when FTDNA also tested me for U106. When I got my 67-marker results I had 492=12, which is a pretty reliable sign that one is U106-. The vast majority of U106+ men have 492=13.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 01:52:15 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2011, 01:37:36 PM »

I don't think anyone is afraid to split U106 up because doing so would show that some of it got to Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think U106 is still looked at monolithically because of an accident of y-dna research. U106 was discovered relatively early on, back in 2005. For quite awhile nothing was known of its subclades. ....
I don't know about L48, but I though S29 (U198) has been around for a while... at least as long as L21.

That's true, but it was connected with the null 439 thing and thus was treated as small potatoes. It was lumped in with the rest of U106 for purposes of the discussions that were going on at the time. It was discussed, but not to the extent "S21" was, and S21/U106 was pretty much always treated as a single, monolithic block.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 01:42:53 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2011, 05:30:35 PM »

I have often complained about the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic, and to compare it to individual P312 subclades. As Rich pointed out, this is solely due to accident of when they were discovered. However with the new WTY results and those of the 1000 Genomes projects, a large number of new SNPs have been discovered below U106. A chart of of it looks almost as complicated as that for P312 subclades. However a few people interested in U106 have complained that very few U106 people are interested in further SNP testing. Presumably they are satisfied with their presumed Anglo-Saxon identity.

Eventually however the data will come out, and we will have a much better idea of what U106's component parts. For instance, the Frisian modal mentioned above is found only in a portion of U106 subclade L48, and it may one day (if it already hasn't) be connected with an SNP below L48, much as the north-south cluster have turned out to be Z196, and the Norse cluster L238. At the moment, people tend to see the Frisian cluster as representative of all of U106, which it clearly isn't.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2011, 09:24:50 PM »

I am sure the Anglo-Saxons weren't just U106 and I1, by the way. There is R1a, E1b1b, G2, and J, in Germany, as well, and there could be some clade or clades of as-yet-unresolved P312* that is found especially concentrated in the old Anglo-Saxon homelands. It's just harder to spot those things and attribute them to the Anglo-Saxons, at least at present.

While it is too soon to say for sure, I think it is quite possible that the new P312 subclade DF19 may have a connection to the Anglo-Saxons. It's very difficult to tell at the moment, as FTDNA isn't processing any of the orders for it.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #61 on: August 31, 2011, 07:23:31 AM »

I think what you see in U106, beyond the full-blown Frisian cluster, is a lot of folks who have 390=23. That's not to say all U106ers have 390=23, they don't, but many of them do, far more than in any other R1b haplogroup. Of course, not all men with 390=23 are U106+ either. I have 390=23, and I am U106-.

But if you spot an R1b haplotype with 390=23 in an area with a lot of U106, it's a pretty fair bet it will be U106+. Combine that with 492=13 and it's practically a sure thing.

Back in 2006 when I ordered my first 37-marker test and was waiting for the results, I did a lot of searching on the internet for information on y-dna test results. Back then there was a group called, as I recall, The North Sea-Baltic R1b Group, or something very much like that. They were arguing back then that there was a disproportionate amount of 390=23 in the old Germanic areas and that it probably meant something. I think their web site was a couple of years old even then, because they didn't appear to know about "S21" (U106) yet.

Anyway, I think they had things basically right. I seem to remember that they probably overestimated the Germanic element in the English y-dna population, but back then they didn't have as much to work with as we do now. It's when you get into areas where U106 is not so prevalent that 390=23 becomes a far less reliable indicator. For example, I think it falls apart, or begins to fall apart, in the western part of England.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 07:34:40 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2011, 09:38:58 AM »

I don't think anyone is afraid to split U106 up because doing so would show that some of it got to Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think U106 is still looked at monolithically because of an accident of y-dna research. U106 was discovered relatively early on, back in 2005. For quite awhile nothing was known of its subclades. ....
I don't know about L48, but I though S29 (U198) has been around for a while... at least as long as L21.

That's true, but it was connected with the null 439 thing and thus was treated as small potatoes. It was lumped in with the rest of U106 for purposes of the discussions that were going on at the time. It was discussed, but not to the extent "S21" was, and S21/U106 was pretty much always treated as a single, monolithic block.
Just to be sure we are all insynch, I've got that 439=null is connected with the L1+ people. This is where the "L" comes from is my understanding, Leo Little, who helped discover L1+ because he felt an SNP caused the null value at 439.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #63 on: August 31, 2011, 12:31:03 PM »

I don't think anyone is afraid to split U106 up because doing so would show that some of it got to Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think U106 is still looked at monolithically because of an accident of y-dna research. U106 was discovered relatively early on, back in 2005. For quite awhile nothing was known of its subclades. ....
I don't know about L48, but I though S29 (U198) has been around for a while... at least as long as L21.

That's true, but it was connected with the null 439 thing and thus was treated as small potatoes. It was lumped in with the rest of U106 for purposes of the discussions that were going on at the time. It was discussed, but not to the extent "S21" was, and S21/U106 was pretty much always treated as a single, monolithic block.
Just to be sure we are all insynch, I've got that 439=null is connected with the L1+ people. This is where the "L" comes from is my understanding, Leo Little, who helped discover L1+ because he felt an SNP caused the null value at 439.

I thought I remembered the 439 null thing as connected to S29/U198. My mistake.

It's been awhile since I have even thought much about U106 and its clades. Soon I will return to that blissful state. ;-)
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 18 queries.