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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 08:50:26 PM
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 5905 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: August 17, 2011, 05:27:20 PM »

I am trying to understand P312 and its family, including brothers.. which mainly means U106. I have been hoping to get some of the U106 folks to do some calculating (and speculating) but haven't drummed up much of a conversation there.

I've pulled data from the U106, U198, n439/L1 projects only so I haven't looked as extensively as I have at P312.  I'm going to see if I can collect some more data before I release actual numbers.

Here is what seems to be showing up. I'll call these statements as initial glances at the data.

U106 as a whole appears to be slightly younger than P312 as a whole, but that picture changes if you look at subclades. R-U106's U198 subclade is as old as P312's Z196 or U152.  My conclusion is that U106, U198, P312, U152 and Z196 are all about the same age.  L21 and SRY2627 are slightly younger.

I tried to look at U106 in Germany in depth but it didn't matter how I divided it (north vs middle vs south vs all,) Germany doesn't appear any older than England or France, in fact, younger if anything. Denmark is about the same age as England or France.  BTW, U106  in France is pretty much only found in the north.

U106 is not any older in the Scandinavian Peninsula than it is in England, that I can see.

I looked at the Alpine area (Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, N. Italy) and tried to combine with and keep separated from S. Germany but it made no difference. U106 looks older to the north, although, I'll say again it's variance in Germany just wasn't that high.

Variance is higher over in Hungary, Czech Republic, but it is definitely highest in Poland. Some of the people from Poland list themselves as German background, Prussia, etc.

This is pure just speculating without trying to align with other kinds of evidence, but I'd guess moved into NW Europe from the SE Baltic coast along into Denmark/Saxony and then from there spreading across into the Scandinavian Peninsula, the Isles and down into Germany.

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?



« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 07:08:47 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2011, 06:12:45 PM »

The Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) is believed to have originated in central Poland among a late Lengyel culture group called Sarnawo c. 4400BC.  TRB then spread west along the coast to the Danish-German border area c. 4200BC and then through the rest of the Northern European Plain and southern Scandinavia by c. 4000BC.   Some people even see TRB influences in aspects of the Neolithic of eastern England.   TRB was the first farming culture in much of northern Europe. However, in much of Germany, including some of the areas TRB occupied, this was not the case.

I have long thought there is a bit of a match for TRB in U106 on the continent both in terms of distribution and variance patterns.  I mean by that it could have really taken off in TRB but it could have originated a little pre-TRB in Lengyel. 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 06:20:57 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2011, 06:55:36 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?



There's a new kid on the block as well, Z18 which is above L257

Current speculation is U106 split into Z381 and Z18 shortly after inception with most U106 people being Z381+ something

U106 Candidate SNPs

Z18 also looks to be quite old but the data is limited as yet.

Vince had this to say on DNA-Forums

According to mth69's calculations (if I'm reading it right):

•   L257's intra-clade age is approximately 3.4K years old.
•   L257 and L48 split apart 3.9K years ago (or more accurately, the split of Z18 and Z381 represented by L257 and L48.)
•   Z18/Z19's intra-clade age is approximately 3.9K years (based on three samples).
•   U106's intra-clade age is approximately 4.1K years
•   P312's intra-clade age is approximately 4.3K years
•   U106 and P312 split apart 4.3K years ago.
•   P310's intra-clade age is approximately 4.5K years
•   L51's intra-clade age is approximately 4.8K years old.

Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2011, 10:07:04 PM »

U106 is not any older in the Scandinavian Peninsula than it is in England, that I can see.

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?






Some people are convinced that U106 was concentrated in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only entered the rest of Europe during the migration age with the movement of Germanic tribes.  They also seem to think that something somehow prevented any U106 individuals from crossing the channel into Britain prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. (Apparently P312 was the only people capable of maritime voyages before the 4th centruy AD). Both of these beliefs are necessary in order to preserve the Germanic purity of U106. Needless to say, I have never found either of these ideas very credible. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2011, 08:01:40 AM »

I think what reasonable people see is that U106 and its subclades, in general, have a distribution that is a pretty good match for the distribution of the early to medieval Germans. Personally, I think you would have to be blind not to see that.

Similarly, P312 and its subclades are situated, in general, a little farther west and are a pretty good match for the distribution of the Celts.

It's a gross mistake to make such generalities hard and fast rules and to tell individuals that because they are U106+ they are absolutely of Germanic descent or that because they are P312+ they are absolutely of Celtic descent.

But I don't think y-dna haplogroups were so thoroughly intermixed in prehistoric and ancient (or even early medieval) times that it is impossible to connect them to large ethno-linguistic groups - like the Germans and Celts - in general and to make statements about them that are generally true.

That doesn't mean there weren't exceptions and that no U106+ individuals made it to the British Isles before the Migration Period or that there weren't whole tribes of P312+ individuals who never spoke a word of Celtic (the Basques spring to mind).

But if I were running the R1a Project, I would have no conscience qualms about informing an R1a with a Polish surname he is probably a Slav. Similarly, I think it's pretty safe to say that a Dutch U106+ individual is of Germanic ancestry, and L21+ from Wales is probably a Celt.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 08:03:16 AM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2011, 08:54:15 AM »

I would add that although some see TRB (c. 6000 years ago) as too early for U106, plenty are willing to link northern European R1a with corded ware and S116 with beaker which both commenced around 5000 years ago.  I am not convinced variance dating calculations can disintinguise between 5000 and 6000 years ago or even wider a difference than than. 

What I cannot make my mind up about is England.  Does U106 have an early origin such as the Neolithic or is its high variance because a massive folk migration has simply brought that variance with it to England from somewhere else?  I am not sure if there is any way of telling.  Are there any pretty well England-specific subclades that are really old.  If there are then that is pretty strong evidence that U106 has at least partly prehistoric origins. 

According to Moffat and Wilson there is a considerable amount of U106 in north-east Scotland in an area that was too far north for Anglo-Saxon or Danish settlement but too far south for Vikings.  No archaeological, historical or placename evidence for them exists in that area.  So, its either got to be prehistoric or its really late (post-1100AD Medieval settlers like Fleming townsfolk, fishermen, Normans etc).  It would be interesting to look closer at the U106 from NE Scotland (basically Fife to Inverness) and their variance. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2011, 09:06:36 AM »

U106 is not any older in the Scandinavian Peninsula than it is in England, that I can see.

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?






Some people are convinced that U106 was concentrated in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only entered the rest of Europe during the migration age with the movement of Germanic tribes.  They also seem to think that something somehow prevented any U106 individuals from crossing the channel into Britain prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. (Apparently P312 was the only people capable of maritime voyages before the 4th centruy AD). Both of these beliefs are necessary in order to preserve the Germanic purity of U106. Needless to say, I have never found either of these ideas very credible. 

I think clades pattern is pre-specific IE dialects.  The dialects evolved later.  The main reason why there is a broad correlation between S116 and U106 and Celtic and Germanic is geography and later networks of interaction IMO.  The networks of contact was partly dictated by the same geographical factors that had earlier created the clade patterns. The net result is that there seems to be a correlation but its not causal IMO.  I dont think people would have know they were an S116 or U106 person in the early days. They would not have been culturally or linguistically distinct given their immediate common ancestor L11.  Strong differentiation must have developed a long time later. 
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2011, 10:11:06 AM »

Strong differentiation must have developed a long time later. 
I agree completely with you. These haplogroups are in Europe from Prehistory and the calculations of Nordtvedt Klyosov and all the others must be multiplied at least for 2.5.
If you see R-U152, which is clearly Italian in its origin, and it has been demonstrated by the 1000 genomes project with 3 out 4 R-U152* in Tuscany, it is present at the highest level in Tuscany not only in the Ligurian zone (Versilia till Pisa), but till the Maremma and goes beyond the historical division between Etruscans and Ligurians, demonstrating that these settlements are more ancient than historic peoples. And Italy hasn't, beyond what Rich thinks, the haplogroups born later in Central-North Europe from R-P312, like R-L21.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2011, 11:22:34 AM »

Here is the frequency map that Vince V put together using his mapping tool with interpolation.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/U106frequency.pdf
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 11:26:49 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2011, 06:51:44 PM »

 
The map won't work for me. It says I have to be a member of the U106 Group to have access.

Incidentally I have been hammering on the argument that we need to have U106 frequency maps by subclade before we can say anything intelligent about it. Consider how handicapped we would be if no one had ever mapped P312 by subclades, or worse yet, if no one had ever mapped R1b beyond M269.
However, for whatever reason, there is a great deal of resistance to subclade mapping by U106 people.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 07:40:50 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2011, 07:54:10 PM »

According to Moffat and Wilson there is a considerable amount of U106 in north-east Scotland in an area that was too far north for Anglo-Saxon or Danish settlement but too far south for Vikings.  No archaeological, historical or placename evidence for them exists in that area.  So, its either got to be prehistoric or its really late (post-1100AD Medieval settlers like Fleming townsfolk, fishermen, Normans etc).  It would be interesting to look closer at the U106 from NE Scotland (basically Fife to Inverness) and their variance.  

I was delighted when I heard about this in the Moffat and Wilson book. However those who want to preserve the U106 identity as strictly Germanic started frantically looking for something which could explain this in a post Anglo-Saxon context. This gave rise to theories about a large scale influx of Norman barons, Flemish fishermen, etc. In my mind it was a classic case of an hypothesis in a desperate search of facts to support it, rather than merely letting the evidence speak for itself.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 07:55:48 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2011, 01:11:26 PM »

According to Moffat and Wilson there is a considerable amount of U106 in north-east Scotland in an area that was too far north for Anglo-Saxon or Danish settlement but too far south for Vikings.  No archaeological, historical or placename evidence for them exists in that area.  So, its either got to be prehistoric or its really late (post-1100AD Medieval settlers like Fleming townsfolk, fishermen, Normans etc).  It would be interesting to look closer at the U106 from NE Scotland (basically Fife to Inverness) and their variance.  

I was delighted when I heard about this in the Moffat and Wilson book. However those who want to preserve the U106 identity as strictly Germanic started frantically looking for something which could explain this in a post Anglo-Saxon context. This gave rise to theories about a large scale influx of Norman barons, Flemish fishermen, etc. In my mind it was a classic case of an hypothesis in a desperate search of facts to support it, rather than merely letting the evidence speak for itself.

Is there anyone who could comment on these NE Scottish U106 folks, their variance etc. Its interesting that Moffat and Wilson indicate a significant amount of U106 and U152 there, Sykes already observed a very high R1b count there years ago and a lack of R1a.  Its odd though that Moffat and Sykes identify an L21 clade (they see L21 as 'western') with the Picts, whose main population centres were in the east.  Its clearly not as simple as that.  If the R1b Scots clade is Pictish then it is a strong suggestion of L21 being important in the NE of Scotland from a remote era. How a Pictish L21 clade fits in with the U152 and U106 in the area is not clear to me.   
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2011, 10:49:59 PM »

According to Moffat and Wilson there is a considerable amount of U106 in north-east Scotland in an area that was too far north for Anglo-Saxon or Danish settlement but too far south for Vikings.  No archaeological, historical or placename evidence for them exists in that area.  So, its either got to be prehistoric or its really late (post-1100AD Medieval settlers like Fleming townsfolk, fishermen, Normans etc).  It would be interesting to look closer at the U106 from NE Scotland (basically Fife to Inverness) and their variance.  

I was delighted when I heard about this in the Moffat and Wilson book. However those who want to preserve the U106 identity as strictly Germanic started frantically looking for something which could explain this in a post Anglo-Saxon context. This gave rise to theories about a large scale influx of Norman barons, Flemish fishermen, etc. In my mind it was a classic case of an hypothesis in a desperate search of facts to support it, rather than merely letting the evidence speak for itself.

Is there anyone who could comment on these NE Scottish U106 folks, their variance etc. Its interesting that Moffat and Wilson indicate a significant amount of U106 and U152 there, Sykes already observed a very high R1b count there years ago and a lack of R1a.  Its odd though that Moffat and Sykes identify an L21 clade (they see L21 as 'western') with the Picts, whose main population centres were in the east.  Its clearly not as simple as that.  If the R1b Scots clade is Pictish then it is a strong suggestion of L21 being important in the NE of Scotland from a remote era. How a Pictish L21 clade fits in with the U152 and U106 in the area is not clear to me.  

I'm not certain that looking at the total U106 variance in northeast Scotland is the best way to look at this question, and once again, I caution against the utility of considering U106 as monolithic. It is divided into subclades, just as is P312. Which method would give us the best understanding of P312 in that area- the variance for all P312, or the distribution by P312 subclade (ie L21, U152, Z196 etc)? What conclusion should one draw if the majority of them are from the same U106 subclade? That the subclade in question must have come from the Normans or Flemish?
Also because so many new U106 SNPs have only recently been discovered, it is all in a state of flux at the moment. Additionally it is very difficult to examine U106 by subclades, due at least in part to the way the project is organized. I think with some effort one could at least make an attempt. Could you list the Scottish counties which comprise the area in question?

EDIT: I just had a look at the U198 (a subclade of U106) project map, and saw that there are none from Scotland north of Glasgow. Presumably then we should assume there were no U198 amongst either the Normans or the Flemish who are claimed to have settled there, despite the fact that U198 has been found in Normandy, Flanders, Holland and northwwest Germany?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 11:11:49 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2011, 07:50:49 AM »

Strong differentiation must have developed a long time later. 
I agree completely with you. These haplogroups are in Europe from Prehistory and the calculations of Nordtvedt Klyosov and all the others must be multiplied at least for 2.5.
. . .

If that is true, then one must multiply the estimates for y haplogroup I by 2.5, as well.

That results in some impossibly old age estimates.

We've been through all that before.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2011, 07:56:36 AM »

According to Moffat and Wilson there is a considerable amount of U106 in north-east Scotland in an area that was too far north for Anglo-Saxon or Danish settlement but too far south for Vikings.  No archaeological, historical or placename evidence for them exists in that area.  So, its either got to be prehistoric or its really late (post-1100AD Medieval settlers like Fleming townsfolk, fishermen, Normans etc).  It would be interesting to look closer at the U106 from NE Scotland (basically Fife to Inverness) and their variance.  

I was delighted when I heard about this in the Moffat and Wilson book. However those who want to preserve the U106 identity as strictly Germanic started frantically looking for something which could explain this in a post Anglo-Saxon context. This gave rise to theories about a large scale influx of Norman barons, Flemish fishermen, etc. In my mind it was a classic case of an hypothesis in a desperate search of facts to support it, rather than merely letting the evidence speak for itself.

Is there anyone who could comment on these NE Scottish U106 folks, their variance etc. Its interesting that Moffat and Wilson indicate a significant amount of U106 and U152 there, Sykes already observed a very high R1b count there years ago and a lack of R1a.  Its odd though that Moffat and Sykes identify an L21 clade (they see L21 as 'western') with the Picts, whose main population centres were in the east.  Its clearly not as simple as that.  If the R1b Scots clade is Pictish then it is a strong suggestion of L21 being important in the NE of Scotland from a remote era. How a Pictish L21 clade fits in with the U152 and U106 in the area is not clear to me.  

I have the Moffat and Wilson book, but I am away from home and don't have it with me. Just how "significant" is their "significant amount" of U106 and U152 in NE Scotland?

I expect there might be something behind this claim that is connected to Tacitus' comment that the Caledonians were possibly of German origin. In other words, someone is going to say that what Tacitus had to say about the Caledonians is supported by the presence of U106 and U152 in NE Scotland.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 07:57:33 AM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2011, 09:47:53 AM »

If that is true, then one must multiply the estimates for y haplogroup I by 2.5, as well.
That results in some impossibly old age estimates.
We've been through all that before.

I haven’t followed hg. I like R, but if I remember well the same Nordtvedt said that the MRCA of some I haplotype brings us to 6000YBP, but that line separated from others at least 18000YBP, then to multiply for 3 isn’t absurd also for hg. I.
Besides we shouldn’t think that every haplogroup mutates at the same Mutation Rate. Recent papers about mtDNA R0a and J/T have demonstrated that they mutated slower than others.
About the origin of R0a2 from Europe (specifically Italy, and mostly Tuscan/Marche) and not from Middle East/Arabia I have already won my battle: see what says the same FTDNA about this haplogroup and my recent data posted about an American of Tuscan origin tested.

Be cautious: I’ll win also all my other battles. See a thread linked to this: perhaps I have won a battle also this morning.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 09:58:51 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2011, 12:27:15 PM »

The Britons were phenotypically variable according to a number of accounts and although the two things are not linked closely, I see no reason to think they were a uniform y-DNA L21 block.  In fact IF the present coastal clade patterns in Holland, Belgium, North-East France applied from early times then its irrational to suppose the Britons were uniformly L21.  The prehistoric southern and eastern Britons really ought to resemble the adjacent parts of the coast and the adjacent part of the coast is not by any means high L21.  The adjacent coast to the Atlantic side of the isles (NW France) does indeed seem to be very high in L21, possibly explaining why L21 is so high in the west of the isles, but that is not true further east.  Eastern Britain would not have been settled from NW France.  The question is...is the high U152 around Belgium and the high U106 old.  Has it been there since early days?  Does the subclade info and the variance indicate that that pattern is ancient?  If it is then I think we can assume that southern and eastern Britons were not a solid L21 block.  Probably a mix including all clades.  

Regarding the Picts.  it is odd that Moffat and Wilson define R1b-Scot as Pictish when it is an L21 subclade. They strongly characterise L21 as an Atlantic thing but the real power of the picts lay in the east.  It seems a little contradictory the way they spin it.  I suspect the Picts were like the other eastern Britons and I suspect the latter included U152 and U106 as well as L21.  I really doubt the difference between east and west in Britain is wholly or even largely down to the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings.  Another thing about NE Scotland is according to Sykes it has very low R1a and very very high R1b (think its nearly 80% in Aberdeenshire).  That does not seem compatible with an historic period origin for the population.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 12:28:17 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2011, 11:02:17 PM »

I'm not certain that looking at the total U106 variance in northeast Scotland is the best way to look at this question, and once again, I caution against the utility of considering U106 as monolithic. It is divided into subclades, just as is P312. Which method would give us the best understanding of P312 in that area- the variance for all P312, or the distribution by P312 subclade (ie L21, U152, Z196 etc)? What conclusion should one draw if the majority of them are from the same U106 subclade? That the subclade in question must have come from the Normans or Flemish?
Also because so many new U106 SNPs have only recently been discovered, it is all in a state of flux at the moment. Additionally it is very difficult to examine U106 by subclades, due at least in part to the way the project is organized. I think with some effort one could at least make an attempt. Could you list the Scottish counties which comprise the area in question?

EDIT: I just had a look at the U198 (a subclade of U106) project map, and saw that there are none from Scotland north of Glasgow. Presumably then we should assume there were no U198 amongst either the Normans or the Flemish who are claimed to have settled there, despite the fact that U198 has been found in Normandy, Flanders, Holland and northwwest Germany?
I agree that U106 should not be considered monolithic. I don't think it is in any more of a state of flux than L21, though. There are many clades with new  SNP discoveries.

I've copied all the U106 haplotypes I could find out of the U106, U198, Null439/L1 and R1b projects as well as about 15 of the largest geographic projects. I've assembled them into the same format as I have with the P312xL21 and L21 spreadsheets.  I posted the U106 data at their Yahoo group but haven't made a big deal of it since I'm an outsider over there so I try to stay out of the middle of their discussions.

I didn't look up Ysearch ID's and origin info like I did for P312 folks, but I classified down to the county / region/province level.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/Haplotype_Data_R-U106All.zip
R-U106 confirmed haplotypes including all subclades, i.e. U198, L48, Z8, etc. The latest SNP and 111 marker haplotypes are also included. 2011-08-18 - M.W. [file is in MS Excel 2010 .xlsm format and can be read by OpenOffice.org 3.3 and resaved to older versions of Excel]

I think the data we collect out of these FTDNA projects is quite deep in terms of STRs and SNPs but there is a problem in that it does not represent a representative geographic cross-section
Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2011, 09:14:43 AM »

While neither U106 nor P312 is monolithic, that does not mean their clades are not all subclades of U106 and P312 respectively. They are not so distinct from their parent haplogroups that the classifications "U106" and "P312" have no meaning and should be disregarded. U106 and P312 do have histories, and they have geographic distributions that are relatively uniform. In other words, U106 (including its clades) tends to clump together, with its center to the east and north of P312. P312 has its center west of U106.

We are really talking mainly about the British Isles here, since the real issue is whether or not U106 represents Migration and/or Viking Period Germanic invader status, and mainly in eastern England.

If one maintains that U106 has been in what is now England in strength since prehistoric times, then it follows logically that the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions had very little genetic impact. If there was very little genetic impact, then it also follows that the switch from Celtic languages to Germanic (English) dialects was accomplished by means of elite dominance or diffusion or a combination of the two, unless one goes with Oppenheimer's idea that some kinds of West Germanic dialects were spoken in what is now SE England from very early on.

I suspect the switch to English was accomplished not by a population replacement (the old "wipe out" theory) but by the fact that old Germanic society was fairly open and egalitarian. Membership in the gefolge or warband was open to any able-bodied warrior. So, Celtic Britons who were able could take service in the warbands of Anglo-Saxon chiefs and, in a short time, become Anglo-Saxon, just as Anglo-Saxons could work for Celtic chieftains. The same sort of thing happened with the Huns when they were driving the Germanic tribes west in the 4th and 5th centuries. Germanic warriors took service in Hunnic warbands.

I stopped keeping track of U106 and its myriad subclades long ago, but it seems to me likely that they suffer from the same sorts of handicaps with which the rest of us must cope. One of those is the glut of British Isles haplotypes and the relative dearth of continental haplotypes. So, one may get a pretty good estimate of the variance of U106 and its subclades in the British Isles, while the picture on the Continent remains less clear.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 09:18:28 AM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2011, 12:16:35 PM »

I would probably go middle ground and say U106 in southern and eastern Britain could well be part prehistoric and part Anglo-Saxon.   Hard to say what proportions.  One thing I dont like is the comparing of England with Holland as seems to be fashionable.  I dont see the need to do that when we know the homelands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc lay in north Germany and Denmark.  I understand that there were other elements in the Germanic settlement and even some that may have come via Holland.  However, there is still no reason to substitute looking at the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands.  This is doubly the case when you consider that the Danes also came from Denmark. 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2011, 02:46:45 PM »

I would probably go middle ground and say U106 in southern and eastern Britain could well be part prehistoric and part Anglo-Saxon.   Hard to say what proportions.  One thing I dont like is the comparing of England with Holland as seems to be fashionable.  I dont see the need to do that when we know the homelands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc lay in north Germany and Denmark.  I understand that there were other elements in the Germanic settlement and even some that may have come via Holland.  However, there is still no reason to substitute looking at the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands.  This is doubly the case when you consider that the Danes also came from Denmark. 

I am essentially in complete agreement with you here. I strongly suspect that some unknown but not insignificant portion of U106 in Britain was there prior to the Romans, probably some of it as early as the Bronze Age.

I think the reason why comparing England with Holland is so fashionable is that Holland has the greatest concentration of U106. When U106 was proclaimed Germanic immediately on its discovery, it  logically followed that the Anglo-Saxon element in England was best determined by comparing it with the U106 hotspot in Holland, especially with what Nordtvedt termed the "Frisian" variety of R1b. We now know that the "Frisian" variety is composed of only a portion of U106 subclade L48 (I don't know if has been associated with a specific SNP below L48 yet or not).

Certainly northern Germany and Denmark work much better as a representative of the homeland of bulk of the Anglo-Saxons. However if we can believe Myres (in my opinion the sampling is too small to be definitive), U106 is only slightly more numerous in Denmark than P312. Nor do we have any idea of the U106 subclade breakdown in that country, although there is evidence to suggest that at least U198 is pretty rare there.  This however destroys the simplicity of identifying the Anglo-Saxon element in England by just counting up U106 there, and most people love simple solutions to these issues.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2011, 04:08:17 PM »

I would probably go middle ground and say U106 in southern and eastern Britain could well be part prehistoric and part Anglo-Saxon.   Hard to say what proportions.  One thing I dont like is the comparing of England with Holland as seems to be fashionable.  I dont see the need to do that when we know the homelands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc lay in north Germany and Denmark.  I understand that there were other elements in the Germanic settlement and even some that may have come via Holland.  However, there is still no reason to substitute looking at the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands.  This is doubly the case when you consider that the Danes also came from Denmark.  

I am essentially in complete agreement with you here. I strongly suspect that some unknown but not insignificant portion of U106 in Britain was there prior to the Romans, probably some of it as early as the Bronze Age.

I think the reason why comparing England with Holland is so fashionable is that Holland has the greatest concentration of U106. When U106 was proclaimed Germanic immediately on its discovery, it  logically followed that the Anglo-Saxon element in England was best determined by comparing it with the U106 hotspot in Holland, especially with what Nordtvedt termed the "Frisian" variety of R1b. We now know that the "Frisian" variety is composed of only a portion of U106 subclade L48 (I don't know if has been associated with a specific SNP below L48 yet or not).

Certainly northern Germany and Denmark work much better as a representative of the homeland of bulk of the Anglo-Saxons. However if we can believe Myres (in my opinion the sampling is too small to be definitive), U106 is only slightly more numerous in Denmark than P312. Nor do we have any idea of the U106 subclade breakdown in that country, although there is evidence to suggest that at least U198 is pretty rare there.  This however destroys the simplicity of identifying the Anglo-Saxon element in England by just counting up U106 there, and most people love simple solutions to these issues.

I was a bit worried my calculations on U198 being the oldest subclade of U106 as being a bit crazy, because I've seen other put L48 as the oldest, with L1 being slightly older than U198....  However, I see Tim Janzen has just posted this on Rootsweb.

U198 does appear to be old and very English centric with its highest  frequencies and highest variance there although it is so rare outside of England its hard to tell much. I hate to say it, but I could guess you could consider U198 presence elsewhere in the same boat as M222. If it originated on the continent, there isn't much left. If it didn't, then who brought them to those few spots on the continent..  monks or viking trading?

Quote from: Tim Janzen
Below are some calculations I did late last year for the approximate ages of
the major SNPS downstream from M269.  These are the best estimates I can give at this time using a 30-year generation interval and a combination of YHRD and John Chandler's mutation rates:

M269:  6500-8500
L23:   6500-8000
L51:   5500-7000
L11:   5000-6500
U106:  4000-5500
U198:  4000-5500

L1:    1300-2300
L48:   2500-4000
L257:  1200-1800
P312:  4000-5500
M153:  1300-1500
M167:  2600-3500
U152:  3500-5000
L2:    3500-4500
L20:   3000-4000
L4:    800-1100
L165:  2000-3200
L21:   3500-5500
L159.2:1100-1500
M222:  1500-2200
L226:  1000-1250
L193:  800-1200
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 04:51:39 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2011, 07:33:27 PM »

I would probably go middle ground and say U106 in southern and eastern Britain could well be part prehistoric and part Anglo-Saxon.   Hard to say what proportions.  One thing I dont like is the comparing of England with Holland as seems to be fashionable.  I dont see the need to do that when we know the homelands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc lay in north Germany and Denmark.  I understand that there were other elements in the Germanic settlement and even some that may have come via Holland.  However, there is still no reason to substitute looking at the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands.  This is doubly the case when you consider that the Danes also came from Denmark.  

I am essentially in complete agreement with you here. I strongly suspect that some unknown but not insignificant portion of U106 in Britain was there prior to the Romans, probably some of it as early as the Bronze Age.

I think the reason why comparing England with Holland is so fashionable is that Holland has the greatest concentration of U106. When U106 was proclaimed Germanic immediately on its discovery, it  logically followed that the Anglo-Saxon element in England was best determined by comparing it with the U106 hotspot in Holland, especially with what Nordtvedt termed the "Frisian" variety of R1b. We now know that the "Frisian" variety is composed of only a portion of U106 subclade L48 (I don't know if has been associated with a specific SNP below L48 yet or not).

Certainly northern Germany and Denmark work much better as a representative of the homeland of bulk of the Anglo-Saxons. However if we can believe Myres (in my opinion the sampling is too small to be definitive), U106 is only slightly more numerous in Denmark than P312. Nor do we have any idea of the U106 subclade breakdown in that country, although there is evidence to suggest that at least U198 is pretty rare there.  This however destroys the simplicity of identifying the Anglo-Saxon element in England by just counting up U106 there, and most people love simple solutions to these issues.

I was a bit worried my calculations on U198 being the oldest subclade of U106 as being a bit crazy, because I've seen other put L48 as the oldest, with L1 being slightly older than U198....  However, I see Tim Janzen has just posted this on Rootsweb.

U198 does appear to be old and very English centric with its highest  frequencies and highest variance there although it is so rare outside of England its hard to tell much. I hate to say it, but I could guess you could consider U198 presence elsewhere in the same boat as M222. If it originated on the continent, there isn't much left. If it didn't, then who brought them to those few spots on the continent..  monks or viking trading?

Quote from: Tim Janzen
Below are some calculations I did late last year for the approximate ages of
the major SNPS downstream from M269.  These are the best estimates I can give at this time using a 30-year generation interval and a combination of YHRD and John Chandler's mutation rates:

M269:  6500-8500
L23:   6500-8000
L51:   5500-7000
L11:   5000-6500
U106:  4000-5500
U198:  4000-5500

L1:    1300-2300
L48:   2500-4000
L257:  1200-1800
P312:  4000-5500
M153:  1300-1500
M167:  2600-3500
U152:  3500-5000
L2:    3500-4500
L20:   3000-4000
L4:    800-1100
L165:  2000-3200
L21:   3500-5500
L159.2:1100-1500
M222:  1500-2200
L226:  1000-1250
L193:  800-1200

I assume the times given by Tim Janzen are years before present?

As for the respective apparent scarcity of M222 and U198 in Scandinavia, most people will tell you that a small amount of M222 is found there because their ancestors were Viking slaves, while U198 is scarce there because they all pulled up roots and moved to England with the Anglo-Saxons. Thus nearly identical evidence is interpreted differently because of established preconceptions about what the results "must" be.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2011, 07:39:18 PM »

If U198 really is a very old subclade (as old as U106 as a whole) and its also oldest in England according to variance then it does tend to support the idea that at least some U106 was a prehistoric entry to England.  Or if it did originate on the continent.  The fact that one lineage grew to be bigger in England is suggestive more of a very successful lineage rather than a large folk movement.  However if that happened then surely the variance would be low for some sort of super lineage that mainly expanded in England.  It seems easier to interpret it as a clade founded in England soon after U106 arrived there.  


How much of English U106 is U198?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2011, 09:47:54 PM »

I would probably go middle ground and say U106 in southern and eastern Britain could well be part prehistoric and part Anglo-Saxon.   Hard to say what proportions.  One thing I dont like is the comparing of England with Holland as seems to be fashionable.  I dont see the need to do that when we know the homelands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc lay in north Germany and Denmark.  I understand that there were other elements in the Germanic settlement and even some that may have come via Holland.  However, there is still no reason to substitute looking at the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands.  This is doubly the case when you consider that the Danes also came from Denmark. 

Much of the Netherlands, especially the eastern part, was settled by Saxons, and the distinction between Frisian and Saxon never was very great. Much of the North Sea coast between the Ijssel and the Elbe was Saxon territory.

Of course, modern Dutch is a descendant of Low Franconian, the language of the Salian Franks.
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 0.126 seconds with 19 queries.