World Families Forums - TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 12, 2014, 12:33:50 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)
| | |-+  TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades  (Read 13063 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #125 on: December 16, 2011, 07:08:10 PM »


U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine


... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)


East of Germany does still look like the higher variance.  Ironically, I trust our DNA project long haplotypes and higher count of haplotypes rather than the academics'.

I'd love to see a bunch more U106 haplotypes from Switzerland and Austria. I just don't think we have enough to say that wasn't the path for U106.

If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

What about the East Midlands of England?  The frequency maps seem to show U106 slightly lower there than most of England.  Does this align with Dane vs Anglo vs Saxon vs Jute or some other kind of movement?

Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

I'm still not switching any positions... just investigating. LOL.


The east midlands of England were heavily settled by Angles during the Anglo-Saxon period. It developed into the Anglian kingdom of Mercia. If the U106 variance there is in fact lower, it could suggest a presence of U106 in England prior to the Angles. This area was also settled to an unknown extent by Danes during the Viking age. It has generally been agreed that it isn't currently possible to distinguish Angles from Danes genetically.

I also find it interesting that U106 variance is higher in England than in Denmark.

When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.

Totally agree.  Saved me a lot of typing!  I have a big soft spot for Poland for no real reason (no Polish roots). 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #126 on: December 16, 2011, 07:49:06 PM »

...When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.
Prussia is one of my problem areas. People often list MDKA's from old Prussia or old Austria that are a bit hard to figure out.  However, all people that I classify in the Haplotype Data spreadsheets, I try to track to the province/county/dept, etc. As I do that, I use modern political boundaries (other than Ulster Ireland.) If a MDKA is in Alsace-Lorraine or Western Poland they may actually have a German lineage. I don't track that. I just track their actual location so Poland is Poland as we know it.

Yes, there is the question about higher variance in Poland, the Baltic Countries, Ukraine, etc.  Are these just people from west to east migrations?   Of course, they could be but I think that leads to two other inquiries.  How can diversity be higher in a target location than in a source? Wouldn't that take years of migrations from multiple sources for that to happen?  I'm not sure if historic period German settlement expansion or religious disaporas are enough to drive up high diversity.  I don't think they are.

Was the Rhineland completely vacated at some point? If so, then perhaps that is the answer.

The next inquiry is a little thornier or at least more sensitive. What are the origins of particular endogamous religious groups? You've got at least three choices right off the top - the Near East, the Rhine and the Khazars. Two of those choices put you back in Central Asia or the Near East.

U106 in the east and also U152 are critical to understand. The one group of U153, Z56, that is causing interclade calculation problems, has some relations to religious diasporas. Probably need to understand the Bashkirs better too.



With respect to Poland, if you get a name such as Schmidt with an EKA in East Prussia, it is almost certain that their origins are in Germany, not Poland. There were no Germans in the Prussian provinces I mentioned before the middle ages. Settlement from Germany continued for several centuries, until such point as the original Slavic or Baltic people became a minority. So if you include these Germans in your variance calculations for Poland, you are not going to get an accurate result. This applies to all of northernmost Poland and a significant portion of southwest Poland (former Silesia). So yes, a high density of an SNP in Poland could be due to German migration in the historic period. You would have to look for U106 in Polish/Baltic/Slavic surnames to get an accurate result. I see your U106 sample from Poland is only nine. I would be willing to bet that most if not all of these 9 have origins in Germany. If I had a way of looking at the surnames and EKA locations, I could give you a fairly accurate estimate.

As far as I know, the Rhineland was never deserted. I suspect it has been a location of comparatively high population density since the Bronze Age, if not before.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 07:59:22 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #127 on: December 16, 2011, 07:51:28 PM »


U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine


... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)


East of Germany does still look like the higher variance.  Ironically, I trust our DNA project long haplotypes and higher count of haplotypes rather than the academics'.

I'd love to see a bunch more U106 haplotypes from Switzerland and Austria. I just don't think we have enough to say that wasn't the path for U106.

If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

What about the East Midlands of England?  The frequency maps seem to show U106 slightly lower there than most of England.  Does this align with Dane vs Anglo vs Saxon vs Jute or some other kind of movement?

Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

I'm still not switching any positions... just investigating. LOL.


The east midlands of England were heavily settled by Angles during the Anglo-Saxon period. It developed into the Anglian kingdom of Mercia. If the U106 variance there is in fact lower, it could suggest a presence of U106 in England prior to the Angles. This area was also settled to an unknown extent by Danes during the Viking age. It has generally been agreed that it isn't currently possible to distinguish Angles from Danes genetically.

I also find it interesting that U106 variance is higher in England than in Denmark.

When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.

Totally agree.  Saved me a lot of typing!  I have a big soft spot for Poland for no real reason (no Polish roots).  

I have had a very strong interest in East Prussia (Ostpreussen) for many years, and have more than a passing familiarity with its history. No known East prussian roots though...
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 07:57:27 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #128 on: December 16, 2011, 08:08:02 PM »

I don't think it would be wise to exclude German surnames from the Polish analysis, since many "Germans" in the East (including eastern Germany) were Germanized Slavs, and that has to be considered, as well as the notion that German surnames in Poland have their ultimate source in the Rhineland (a notion I think is mostly unsupported).

I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but its article on the Ostsiedlung (Eastern Settlement), says, "According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities . . .".

Besides that, the variance in Germany is considerably lower than that in Poland and Eastern Europe. If western Germans formed a substantial part of the Polish U106 population, shouldn't they have dragged the variance down a bit with their closer haplotype resemblance to one another?

I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 08:23:16 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #129 on: December 16, 2011, 08:20:57 PM »

My question about East Midlands was not prompted by U106 variance, but rather by U106 frequency. In the latest maps there appears to be a drop off in U106 in the East Midlands . . .

I think the simple answer is the cline in U106 frequency in England (and in Britain generally) from southeast to northwest. As one moves into the Midlands, he is moving west and north in the general direction of decreasing U106 frequency and increasing L21 frequency.

It seems to me that also represents a move away from the continental sources of U106 along the North Sea littoral.

Naturally, and this seems like mere common sense to me, as one moves north and west across England he is moving in the direction of decreasing Anglo-Saxon penetration and greater British survival.
Logged

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #130 on: December 16, 2011, 11:07:53 PM »

I don't know if it has any bearing on the DNA  types but at school (in England) I was taught that Anglo-Saxon was a term of convenience for various tribes from across the channel. The one thing I do remember is the Jutes came from Jutland and settled in Kent. Hengist and Horsa were supposed to have taken over Kent and they were Saxons. There were umbrians  who settled in the N East i can't remember where the came from. What I want to know is if these peoples DNA matches where they are supposed to come from  e.g is there any similarity between Jutland and Kent. If a certain tribe came from a U106 heavy  area would  that correspond to the area they settled in. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 17, 2011, 02:39:10 AM »

My question about East Midlands was not prompted by U106 variance, but rather by U106 frequency. In the latest maps there appears to be a drop off in U106 in the East Midlands . . .

I think the simple answer is the cline in U106 frequency in England (and in Britain generally) from southeast to northwest. As one moves into the Midlands, he is moving west and north in the general direction of decreasing U106 frequency and increasing L21 frequency.

It seems to me that also represents a move away from the continental sources of U106 along the North Sea littoral.

Naturally, and this seems like mere common sense to me, as one moves north and west across England he is moving in the direction of decreasing Anglo-Saxon penetration and greater British survival.
No, that's not what I mean. Maybe Maciamo Hay's map is just messed up but he has supposedly collected data from Myres, Busby and whatever was out there on U106 to do his frequencies. The cline isn't as you described. It's more solid than that but with a bite out of it.

He has West Midlands, North East, most of South West all with higher frequency than East Midlands. Yorkshire and of course South East and East are higher as well but only far the South West and far North West fringes of England have lower frequencies of U106 than East Midlands. It's like a bite was taken out of the right side (east). I was wondering if the Danes took that bite.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:57:48 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #132 on: December 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM »

Oh, I see the map you're referring to here. Yeah, that is weird. He's got the eastern part of the East Midlands in his 15-20% range as opposed to the 20-30% range he has for much of the rest of England.

From what I recall of Busby's results for England, Maciamo wouldn't need any of that range beyond 25%. The U106 frequency in Busby never got past that in any of the sample locations. The sample in Southwell in Nottinghamshire was about 16%, but the one in Lutterworth in Leicestershire was 24%.

I suspect he may have based that "bite" on the map on the slightly lower U106 frequency in the Southwell sample. It may be more apparent than real.

If it is real, however, I wonder what makes up the deficit. I1?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:36:54 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #133 on: December 17, 2011, 09:32:35 AM »

By the way, I think the cline I described does exist. Busby's English sampling was skewed to the east, with the exception of Exeter in Devon, and, from what I can see from Myres' Table S4, the sample locations are not specified but are only given as "England Central", "England North", "England Southeast", and "England Southwest". Perhaps Myres et al listed the specific sample locations someplace else in their report?

Anyway, if one compares the U106 frequencies with those of L21, he can see that L21 increases steadily as one moves north and west across England. We don't have samples from the actual north and west of England to confirm that, but it does seem the case, especially if one looks at the sample frequencies from Wales and Scotland.

The Busby sample from Exeter in Devon in SW England has L21 at about 38%. U106 never achieves a frequency that high anywhere in England in either Busby or Myres. Busby has U106 at 25% in the Exeter sample, and Myres has U106xU198 at 29% in its "England Southwest" sample (33% U106 if one includes U198 - and I would). That seems odd for the west, but the sample was still taken from southern England nonetheless, and we don't know what Myres et al meant by "England Southwest". I don't have the actual Myres paper anymore, just the spreadsheets.

It looks like the Lutterworth sample from Busby is the same as Myres' "England Central", since the frequencies of the respective haplogroups are exactly the same. I haven't compared the other places in both reports.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:47:35 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 17, 2011, 12:25:27 PM »

....I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source....  
I have two slightly different perspectives related to this.

1) The closeness in age to P312 and U106 can only result in one of two implications or some combination. The first implication is that they are of a close geographical source. That, we'll probably never really know yes or no on as either lineage could have struggled several generations at "home" or just after leaving "home" while he was traveling. The second implication is that this was just a very mobile culture, a network, that was capable of dispersing widely in scattered colonies while still being "close" culturally speaking.  The factors are time (closeness of age), geography and speed of colony travel/startup.  They all come into play. To which is more important?  I don't know.

2) I'm asking for folks to think a little more about the European L11 family.  This is actually an extension of a point Ken Nordtvedt has made in the past. SNP's are not really the essence of a clade. The MRCA for a group of people is. SNP's are just great markers. The "big" founder at the base of a new branch may not have the SNP that 99% of the people on the branch have. This is important to keep in mind. SNP's are just happenstance markers some where along the true lineage branch lines. Also keep in mind that interclade MRCA's can be estimated better than clade MRCA's. The following is from the "time-line" graphic I just posted at the P312 Yahoo Group.
2500 BC - L11* P312&U106 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* U152&L21 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* U152&Z196 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* L21&Z196 interclade MRCA
2000 BC - U106* Z381&Z18 interclade MRCA
Yes, the interclade modal for Z381 and Z18 is younger than the P312's interclade pairs. That doesn't mean U106's MRCA is that much younger than P312 but he could have been.  The above are what Ken calls father-son transmission events.  Each date is an estimate of a single event, causing gates in time that we have to account for and these are within a few hundred years of each other. Granted, the dates estimated are just the midpoints of the error ranges. (My graphic shows this.)
Anyway, L11 is a family that back in 2000 BC could have been considered a "genealogical" time-frame cluster.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?
I agree exactly with this point. How can target geographies have more diversity than the source population unless there are multiple separate old sources?  I don't think we are seeing that for U106. Relatively speaking, it arose and expanded quickly.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 12:37:15 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #135 on: December 17, 2011, 05:08:46 PM »

I think the L11s were very mobile and that U106 could have arisen in an L11 kindred group that had already put considerable distance between itself and the kindred group in which P312 arose.

Proximity is a relative term, of course. One can walk from Moscow to Paris in a single summer.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 05:09:49 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #136 on: December 17, 2011, 05:53:48 PM »

I don't think it would be wise to exclude German surnames from the Polish analysis, since many "Germans" in the East (including eastern Germany) were Germanized Slavs, and that has to be considered, as well as the notion that German surnames in Poland have their ultimate source in the Rhineland (a notion I think is mostly unsupported).

I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but its article on the Ostsiedlung (Eastern Settlement), says, "According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities . . .".

Besides that, the variance in Germany is considerably lower than that in Poland and Eastern Europe. If western Germans formed a substantial part of the Polish U106 population, shouldn't they have dragged the variance down a bit with their closer haplotype resemblance to one another?

I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?

The claim is often made that U106 has its highest variance in Poland. My point is that if that determination is made from a sample of nine, and some of that nine consists of Germans from that portion of Germany which was awarded to Poland after WWII, it is unreliable.

Since you are quoting Wikipedia, I will quote from their article entitled History of German Settlement in Eastern Europe.

"Population growth during the High Middle Ages stimulated the movement of peoples from the Rhenish, Flemish and Saxon territories of the Holy Roman Empire eastwards into the less populated Baltic region and Poland."

The simpe fact is that there no Germans in the area which currently comprisies Poland before the 13th century. It was inhabited by various Slavic and Baltic tribes. Rich, you are always maintaining that the Slavs are R1a and the that U106 is Germanic. If this is correct, by your own definition any U106 whose ancestry comes from what is today Poland should be of Germanic and not Slavic origin, and their ancestry most likely come from Germanic settlers who arrived there in the Middle Ages or later. Whatever variance they have is most likely transplanted from other areas.

However I was speaking primarily aboput East Prussia, a subject I know more than a littlle about. This area was inhabited by heathen Baltic tribes in the 13th century, when it was conquered by a German military order called the Teutonic Knights (Deutsche Ritterorden). They began a practice of encouraging immigration from other parts of Germany (not just the Rhineland, which I merely used as an example), as well as from Holland and Flanders. This included nobles, merchants, craftsmen and peasants.  Migration into East Prussia continued for centuries from Germany and other parts of Europe. No doubt many of the indigenous population became germanicized, but can one assume that the sample of nine only includes descendants of such people?

For souces, see Carsten, F. L., The Origins of Prussia, (he was one of my old professors); and Gause, Fritz, Ostpreussen, Leistung und Schicksal. The latter includes an article tracing the origin of settlers in East Prussia by analyzing dialectical patterns.

I would not be surprised at all if U106 had its highest variance in eastern Europe.  I would be very surprised if it's in the Baltic area, unless someone can demonstrate that the U106 in the Baltic area isn't a result of migation from Germany in the medieval and later periods.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 06:00:21 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #137 on: December 17, 2011, 06:16:48 PM »

I have said that U106 in general is Germanic, but I happen to know from my own reading of German history that many persons with German surnames, especially in eastern Germany and modern Poland (large areas of which once belonged to Germany) are descended from Germanized Slavs. And, since "Slavic" and "Germanic" are largely linguistic and cultural categories, a U106 whose ancestors had been in Poland a long time and had never come from western Germany could be as much a Slav as any R1a. If he converted to Christianity as a result of the missionary efforts of the Germans, began speaking German, and ultimately adopted a German surname, he would switch from Slav to German, all the while never having lived in western Germany or having y-dna ancestors who came from there.

I don't recall Mike saying the Polish U106 sample size was nine, but, if one cannot assume that any of them descend from Germanized Slavs, likewise one cannot assume that any of them descend from Rhinelanders either.

You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.

If the sample size is just nine, and it is already showing higher variance than larger sample sizes, it seems to me likely that the addition of more Polish haplotypes won't alter that relative position much. Of course, I am not a statistician, so I could be wrong about that.


Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #138 on: December 17, 2011, 06:52:11 PM »

By the way, I counted ten U106 in the R1b-U106 Research Project with origins listed in Poland and Slavic, not German, surnames. That does not include the two or three (or however many) with German surnames.

I counted 18 U106 in the Polish Project with Slavic and not German or obviously Jewish surnames. Here they are:

1. Kryzanowo   183916
2. Gasiorkiewicz   42906
3. Sadowski   N8449
4. Majka   205335 and 181492
5. Danko   113462
6. Lapinski   102524
7. Szczublewski   102069
8. Dorszewski   N52352
9. Zablotny   213188
10. Janow   176004
11. Mellerowicz   155290
12. Pacek   202816
13. Jaskulski   N38649
14. Skrobisz   204720
15. Orlowski   N82242
16. Mos(s)akowski   196406
17. Glebocki   N11968
18. Majka   116432 (not a match for the other Majka above and with a different ancestor listed)


I left out the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Latvians listed in that project, and those with German or obviously Jewish surnames, as well.

I also counted eight Polish U106 whose surnames are not listed.

Of course, Mike would have to tell us how many Polish haplotypes he used for his calculations.

Note: Okay, I see above that he used nine. Perhaps he would like to use as many of the 18 above as have sufficient markers (I think that is all but one) and see how that comes out.
 
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 07:15:10 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #139 on: December 17, 2011, 07:52:52 PM »

I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames.

I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples?

Here's another thing. Poland and Lithuania were one under the Jagiellonian Dynasty and included much of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. If some modern Poles descend from Germans, certainly many modern Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Russians descend from Poles. My own mother-in-law, who considers herself Ukrainian, has a Polish mother and was born in Lvov, which has changed hands a number of times. She can speak Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and German.

So perhaps it might be wiser, when looking at U106 haplotype variance, to simply lump all those with Slavic surnames and eastern European origins together, given the fluidity of ancient borders.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 08:06:09 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #140 on: December 17, 2011, 09:47:58 PM »

.... So perhaps it might be wiser, when looking at U106 haplotype variance, to simply lump all those with Slavic surnames and eastern European origins together, given the fluidity of ancient borders.
As far as academic studies data collection goes, they really should only test in rural areas where the surveyee's lineage has been from the area as long as is known.  The National Genographic Project does this. Unfortunately, some of these R1b studies are just rehashing accumulative data. That's not really great science.
If anyone want to take a crack at classifying all of the L21 folks, let me know. I save a column in the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet for surname type. Right now its hidden because I haven't done much with it. In some cases, like in Britain, its a little hard to tell sometimes.

EDIT: You'll also get your complaint or two about subjective judgements. For instance, it can be argued that the Irish made an impact in Mexico so even if you classify a surname as Spanish, I've seen some argue that they may just be Irish immigrants there...  and that is true, could be.  This is why I haven't jumped into surname classifications.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:40:42 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #141 on: December 17, 2011, 10:03:56 PM »

You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.




Comparing me to Faux is a low blow, which I think is unworthy of you. I have never tried to argue that any speciific subclade should be exclusively identified with any particular ethnic group. I have invariably argued against these ideas.

Nor do I have any particular agenda. I am just trying to seek out the truth, while urging people to keep an open mind. This science is in its infancy, and I think far more remains unknown than known. If I have had any particular theme, it is to challenge currently perceived ideas (such as P312= Bell Beaker and U106= Corded Ware, or that no U106 could have reached Britain before the Anglo-Saxons). If I have any general theory, it is merely that the settlement of Europe is likely to be very complex, and that simplistic scenarios should be viewed with great caution.

However once again it is apparent to me that I am  wasting my time, as people will believe what they want to believe. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #142 on: December 17, 2011, 11:57:03 PM »

.. I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples...
In defense of Myres, they don't really ever claim to be classifying by surname ethnicity. That is a subjective matter so I think they are wise to avoid it. The MDKA geographic classification method is objective, at least.

From a parsimonious perspective, why shouldn't we just suppose a U106 in Poland, or a U152 or Z196 or L21 for that matter, is just that? This doesn't mean their lineage did or didn't ever speak German. If the respective MDKA doesn't have any other folklore (i.e. Lurz and the German community in Transylvania or the Askenazi,)  I don't think we should read any more into it. If they do have some folklore like that, let's note it, but that's about all I can see we can do with it.

I'll use myself as an example of the complexities of classifying by surname ethnicity. My MDKA is from Co. Kilkenny, Ireland. That's it.  That's objective.

My surname gets into a lot of subjectivity. It is one of the most common surnames in Ireland so you could classify it as Irish.  However, it is also pretty common in parts of England so should it be classified as English? I don't think so. We have historical documents that say our surname is Anglo-Norman. Should it be classified as Norman? I don't really think so as it's not a typical French Norman name. Irish history puts in the Anglo-Norman class, though. The meaning of the surname is literally "Welsh man" so maybe it should be classified as Welsh, although it is a rare (very rare I think) surname in Wales.

This is why I stay out of the surname classification business, but again, if some one wants to give it crack, I'll add it to the spreadsheet I maintain so we can slice and dice by surname ethnicity. Just download the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet add your ethnicity classification to a column at the end and I'll set up some sorts and filters for the surname ethnicity column.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 12:19:30 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #143 on: December 18, 2011, 01:01:11 AM »

I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames. .....

The U106 Haplotype_Data file is out at the S21/U106 Yahoo Group file section, not the L21 Yahoo group (for anyone who wants to add surname ethnicity.)

The variance calculations I did used the following from our DNA projects where MDKA's are listed as from Poland or from a Prussian type village/city that is in modern day Poland. There are 40 hts below. For the "Linear 36" calculation I just used the first 25 since they are 67 in length.

f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Rogoźno
f176004   Janow   R-U106   Poland
f183916   Krzyzanowo   R-U106*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Wielkopolska
fN89895   Schulz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland,  Lubusz Voivodeship, Żagań
f204720   Skrobisz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326*   Poland
f160294   Barkman   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f71114   Driedger   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f136466   Targ   R-U106   Poland
f181492   Majka   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
f155290   Mellerowicz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Kalisz
f83695   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f193192   Briese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland, Greater Poland, Voivodeship, Gniezno Co., Potrzymowo
fN38649   Jaskulski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland
f196406   Mosakowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Masovian Voivodeship, Ciechanów, Mossaki
f213188   Zablotny   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland
fE8124   Giese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gryfino Co., Mętno Mała, Kleinmantel
f155181   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1   Poland
f70832   Meyer   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f205335   Majka   R-U106   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
fN52352   Dorszewski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198   Poland

« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 11:16:39 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #144 on: December 18, 2011, 10:41:18 AM »

You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.




Comparing me to Faux is a low blow, which I think is unworthy of you. I have never tried to argue that any speciific subclade should be exclusively identified with any particular ethnic group. I have invariably argued against these ideas.

I apologize for creating that impression, but I wasn't comparing you to Faux. I was talking about his disregard for haplotype variance in attempting to make French L21 British and Irish. It seems to me trying to make Polish U106 German does the same sort of thing. That's all.

Nor do I have any particular agenda. I am just trying to seek out the truth, while urging people to keep an open mind. This science is in its infancy, and I think far more remains unknown than known. If I have had any particular theme, it is to challenge currently perceived ideas (such as P312= Bell Beaker and U106= Corded Ware, or that no U106 could have reached Britain before the Anglo-Saxons). If I have any general theory, it is merely that the settlement of Europe is likely to be very complex, and that simplistic scenarios should be viewed with great caution.

My mind is open; we just disagree on the current state of the evidence. I don't think U106 and P312 were so inextricably intermixed in prehistoric and ancient times as to be unclassifiable in general. I get the impression from your arguments that you think they were.

Klyosov has been arguing on Rootsweb that U106 and P312 both originated in Iberia among the first Beaker Folk and spread from there. I guess that is possible, but I don't think that's true; at least for now I don't. I would have to see some convincing evidence.

I personally think we all have agendas; sometimes we just don't recognize them. But if you don't have one, I don't either. I don't really give a flip about U106, honestly. Once I got a U106 negative result from Ethnoancestry and an amen on that from FTDNA, my interest in U106 took a nose drive. Now it matches my interest in most other y haplogroups.

But it doesn't bother me at all when U106 guys claim they're descendants of Anglo-Saxons, or some other type of Germanic barbarian, or Vikings or Normans. Fine. From what I can see of the evidence, they're probably right.

I just can't see how U106 and P312 could have been thoroughly mixed in prehistoric and ancient times and yet come up with the very different distributions we see today. I don't think U106 has been in Britain (not in force, anyway) since the Bronze Age. It couldn't have had much of a Celtic component at all, or it would be more prevalent in places where the Celts used to live.

However once again it is apparent to me that I am  wasting my time, as people will believe what they want to believe.  

Well, I apologize for upsetting you, which I obviously have. I should not have made the remark about Faux, although, honestly, I did not intend to compare you to him but merely to point out the folly of explaining away the high variance of one population by deriving it from another of lower variance.

I don't see why high Polish U106 variance would bother anyone or why it is suddenly a matter of "belief", as if we were arguing theology.

I don't "believe" anything with regard to the haplotype variance of U106 but what Mike tells me or what I hear from other reliable sources who can do the sort of math I cannot. I asked Mike about Polish variance because I remembered him saying that Polish U106 variance was the highest U106 variance. I also recall Tim Janzen saying the same thing sometime ago. Frankly, that is where I got the idea that U106 might be connected to Corded Ware. If its variance had been highest in France or Spain, I might have thought U106 had some connection to Beaker Folk or some other culture.

My idea, which could be totally wrong, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or belief, is that at least part of P312 was Beaker and spoke an early form of Celtic. That's it. As a consequence, I think U106 was probably something Not-Beaker. It seems to me U106 was farther north and east than P312 in its origins.

No big deal. I could be wrong. I understand that. I once thought I was probably U106+, but I was wrong about that. Got that mistake confirmed twice and paid money for it both times.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 10:42:31 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #145 on: December 18, 2011, 10:52:35 AM »

.. I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples...
In defense of Myres, they don't really ever claim to be classifying by surname ethnicity. That is a subjective matter so I think they are wise to avoid it. The MDKA geographic classification method is objective, at least.

From a parsimonious perspective, why shouldn't we just suppose a U106 in Poland, or a U152 or Z196 or L21 for that matter, is just that? This doesn't mean their lineage did or didn't ever speak German. If the respective MDKA doesn't have any other folklore (i.e. Lurz and the German community in Transylvania or the Askenazi,)  I don't think we should read any more into it. If they do have some folklore like that, let's note it, but that's about all I can see we can do with it.

I'll use myself as an example of the complexities of classifying by surname ethnicity. My MDKA is from Co. Kilkenny, Ireland. That's it.  That's objective.

My surname gets into a lot of subjectivity. It is one of the most common surnames in Ireland so you could classify it as Irish.  However, it is also pretty common in parts of England so should it be classified as English? I don't think so. We have historical documents that say our surname is Anglo-Norman. Should it be classified as Norman? I don't really think so as it's not a typical French Norman name. Irish history puts in the Anglo-Norman class, though. The meaning of the surname is literally "Welsh man" so maybe it should be classified as Welsh, although it is a rare (very rare I think) surname in Wales.

This is why I stay out of the surname classification business, but again, if some one wants to give it crack, I'll add it to the spreadsheet I maintain so we can slice and dice by surname ethnicity. Just download the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet add your ethnicity classification to a column at the end and I'll set up some sorts and filters for the surname ethnicity column.



I agree with you. I don't see how it could be otherwise without first doing extensive genealogical screening on all potential test subjects.

Man, would that reduce the pool of test subjects and drive costs up!

If the waters of Poland's U106 haplotype pool have been so muddied by historical period Flemish, Scottish, German, etc., immigration as to be of no value, then what is to be said for the collections of haplotypes of every other European country, regardless of which haplogroup is being examined? Where can we find one that has experienced little or no population movement since the Stone Ages?

« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 11:04:47 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2011, 11:10:06 AM »

I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames. .....

The U106 Haplotype_Data file is out at the S21/U106 Yahoo Group file section, not the L21 Yahoo group (for anyone who wants to add surname ethnicity.)

The variance calculations I did used the following from our DNA projects where MDKA's are listed as from Poland or from a Prussian type village/city that is in modern day Poland. There are 40 hts below. For the "Linear 36" calculation I just used the first 25 since they are 67 in length.

f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Rogoźno
f176004   Janow   R-U106   Poland
f183916   Krzyzanowo   R-U106*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Wielkopolska
fN89895   Schulz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland,  Lubusz Voivodeship, Żagań
f204720   Skrobisz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326*   Poland
f160294   Barkman   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f71114   Driedger   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f136466   Targ   R-U106   Poland
f181492   Majka   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
f155290   Mellerowicz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Kalisz
f83695   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f193192   Briese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland, Greater Poland, Voivodeship, Gniezno Co., Potrzymowo
fN38649   Jaskulski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland
f196406   Mosakowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Masovian Voivodeship, Ciechanów, Mossaki
f213188   Zablotny   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland
fE8124   Giese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gryfino Co., Mętno Mała, Kleinmantel
f155181   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1   Poland
f70832   Meyer   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f205335   Majka   R-U106   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
fN52352   Dorszewski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198   Poland



Are you still getting higher U106 variance in Poland than anywhere else?

I understand the variance we were talking about earlier came from Myres' sample of nine.

Would it be difficult or too much trouble for you to separate out the German surnames and just use the Slavic ones for a calculation? I am curious if that would make much of a difference.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #147 on: December 19, 2011, 02:20:24 PM »

Are you still getting higher U106 variance in Poland than anywhere else?
EDIT3: I'm redoing the numbers. The wierd Joos haplotype was causing a problem. I've fixed the data for him assuming his 446 value was not reflective a large GD # steps difference.

Quote from: rms2
I understand the variance we were talking about earlier came from Myres' sample of nine.
Yes. I don't remember how many STRs they used but their coalescence times included 9 from Poland. The only higher U106 coalescence time from Myres was Estonia on a sample of 10.

We can do just Slavic names but I'd prefer to do all Slavic names including Czech Rep, Slovakia, etc. so we can keep the numbers up.

EDIT1: I do need to double check calculations with the folks from Hungary. There are couple of null  425's in this mix which should be ignored in the calculations, but for some reason there is a wide swing.   EDIT2: ahh! An Hungarian has a 446=0.  Must be a misread.  
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 04:07:37 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #148 on: December 19, 2011, 04:13:45 PM »

I changed the Hungarian Joos' DYS446 to the modal so he won't affect the calculations. This does show Ken N's point on the more STRs the better.  My "mixed STR" calculation was not drawn off as much Joos' abberration versus the "linear 36" STR calculation.

I hate to go into the multiple variance method comparisons, but given we aren't talking about hundreds and hundreds of haploytypes in places like Poland this more comprehensive look is needed.

The net is still that Poland looks older than Germany. It doesn't matter which of the four methods below is used, Poland always comes out higher.  However, the difference is much closer than what I posted originally. I wouldn't say these results are conclusive.

The Nordic Countries usually come out lower (younger) and Germany just a hair older than the Nordic Countries.


All East Europe_____:  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=58)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=19)
Poland______________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=25)
Isles_______________:  Var=0.81 [Linear 36]  (N=637)
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.79 [Linear 36]  (N=89)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=104)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)    

Poland______________:  Var=0.97 [Mixed 49]  (N=25)
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.95 [Mixed 49]  (N=89)   
All East Europe_____:  Var=0.93 [Mixed 49]  (N=58)
Isles_______________:  Var=0.92 [Mixed 49]  (N=637)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.88 [Mixed 49]  (N=46)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.85 [Mixed 49]  (N=19)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.86 [Mixed 49]  (N=104)

Poland______________:  Var=1.12 [Linear 16]  (N=37)
All East Europe_____:  Var=1.02 [Linear 16]  (N=87)
Isles_______________:  Var=1.00 [Linear 16]  (N=795)   
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.98 [Linear 16]  (N=102)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.94 [Linear 16]  (N=143)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.81 [Linear 16]  (N=53)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.79 [Linear 16]  (N=27)   

Poland______________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=25 @67 (to subgroup modal)
Low Ctrys___________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=25 @67   
All East Europe_____:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67
Isles_______________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67
Nordic Ctrys________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=21 @67
Alpine Ctrys________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=20 @67   
Germany_____________:  AvgGD=14, MaxGD=24 @67



Still, it's kind of a "Busby blob" thing.  It's not really clear cut and need more data, especially in the Alpine area.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 05:41:05 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 19, 2011, 06:20:31 PM »

Would it be difficult or too much trouble for you to separate out the German surnames and just use the Slavic ones for a calculation? I am curious if that would make much of a difference.

Here's my attempt at this.  I just looked at the Eastern European countries for what I think are Slavic. Essentially this means taking out some names that appeared German or Jewish.

It appears that generally speaking, focusing on Slavic surnames increase STR variance slightly. The "Slavic Names" calculations take the high variance under all four methods.

Slavic Names________:  Var=0.87 [Linear 36]  (N=29)
Slavic Names________:  Var=1.00 [Mixed 49]  (N=29)
Slavic Names________:  Var=1.16 [Linear 16]  (N=36)   
Slavic Names________:  AvgGD=16, MaxGD=23 @67   


I don't think adding or subtracting one or two will make much difference. I apologize if I have someone wrong.

Lewak   Belarus
Rogov   Belarus
Svoboda   Czech Republic
Zima   Czech Republic
Paroubek   Czech Republic
Jurasits   Hungary
Debesys   Lithuania
Katsev   Lithuania
Zajenkauskas   Lithuania
Janow   Poland
Jaskulski   Poland
Jastak   Poland
Lapinski   Poland
Poland   Poland
Skrobisz   Poland
Szczublewski   Poland
Zablotny   Poland
Mellerowicz   Poland
Glebocki   Poland
Krzyzanowo   Poland
Gasiorkiewicz   Poland
Sadowski   Poland
Majka   Poland
Mosakowski   Poland
Breyza   Poland
Orlowski   Poland
Wojciech   Poland
Pacek    Poland
Majka   Poland
Komarov   Russia
Muska   Slovakia
Evasiuk   Ukraine
Fedorowicz   Ukraine
Ferleyko   Ukraine
Sklyarov   Ukraine
Sudravskiy   Ukraine


The caveat is still there that these differences in variance are not huge and I don't think conclusive.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 06:24:19 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 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 0.108 seconds with 18 queries.