World Families Forums - R-Z156, a Subclade of U106: What is Known?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 26, 2014, 09:52:10 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R-Z156, a Subclade of U106: What is Known?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-Z156, a Subclade of U106: What is Known?  (Read 10344 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: March 15, 2012, 08:31:01 PM »

What do you all know about R-Z156, which is a subclade of U106?

There is an individual on FTDNA's forum claiming it's Irish, but I can't find much evidence of that, if any exists.

I found this site, which lists some Z156+ results. Looking at the surnames there, it looks like they are mostly English and Lowland Scots (i.e., "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland). I see one native-looking Irish surname, O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain".

There are even two German Z156+ and one Belgian Z156+.

It looks to me like Z156 in Ireland is English and Lowland Scots in origin, or maybe Norman in its first advent there.

What do you all think? Maybe you have more information?

Last time I checked the R-U106 Project, the native Irish surnames were about as scarce as hen's teeth.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2012, 10:07:06 PM »

What do you all know about R-Z156, which is a subclade of U106?

There is an individual on FTDNA's forum claiming it's Irish, but I can't find much evidence of that, if any exists.

I found this site, which lists some Z156+ results. Looking at the surnames there, it looks like they are mostly English and Lowland Scots (i.e., "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland). I see one native-looking Irish surname, O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain".

There are even two German Z156+ and one Belgian Z156+.

It looks to me like Z156 in Ireland is English and Lowland Scots in origin, or maybe Norman in its first advent there.

What do you all think? Maybe you have more information?

Last time I checked the R-U106 Project, the native Irish surnames were about as scarce as hen's teeth.

Z156 is downstream of Z381, which is directly downstream of U106. I do not know much about Z156, except that those men who are Z381+ and have 24 at DYS390 have a better chance at testing Z156+.

My maternal grandfather is Z381+, but I have not yet tested him for Z156. Eventually, I will. His line is from the Rhineland in Germany.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2012, 02:52:22 PM »

I noticed that Z156 is a subclade of Z381 (so many new zees!). Z381 looks even less Irish than Z156, which doesn't look very Irish to me.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2012, 03:47:25 PM »

I noticed that Z156 is a subclade of Z381 (so many new zees!). Z381 looks even less Irish than Z156, which doesn't look very Irish to me.

Yeah, like you said, I would expect any Z381/Z156 that pops up in Ireland to probably be of English or Norman heritage rather than Gaelic.

I do know that Z381 is also upstream of L48 and U198, if that means anything. It just seems like it has a more English or Continental flavor than Irish.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2012, 07:09:11 PM »

I don't keep up with U106 and its subclades really. Not all that interesting to me. I was just curious when I saw the claim over on FTDNA's forum.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2012, 08:49:37 AM »

If one looks at the distribution of U106 as a whole, he gets a picture of a haplogroup that corresponds remarkably well to the ancient and medieval Germanic peoples and their subsequent historical movements. It's pretty hard to miss.

Then if one looks at the distribution of U106 in the British Isles, including Ireland, he gets the same picture. Just as the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings were more frequent in the East and South of the British Isles, so it is with U106. In Ireland, at least according to the recent Busby et al samples, U106 reaches its peak in those places where the English, Lowland Scots, and perhaps the Normans and Vikings held sway.

In Busby, U106 (and Z156 is a subclade of U106) ranges from lows of 0%, in the County Cavan and County Mayo samples, to 14.3% in the plantation town of Magherafelt in Northern Ireland. In the other sample locations, it generally reaches 3-4%, but hits almost 7% in Dublin and 8% in Carlow, near Ireland's east coast. How much of that is Z156 is not currently known.

Given these facts, it seems likely that the U106 in Ireland, including Z156, stems from Germanic input, mainly the English, but perhaps also, to a lesser extent, Lowland Scots, Normans, Vikings, and Flemings.

While it is remotely possible that there was some U106 in Ireland in ancient times, it doesn't seem likely, given the distribution of that haplogroup, its obvious connection to Germanic peoples, and the history of Ireland itself, which shows that peoples like the English, with high frequencies of U106, have settled there in the recorded past.

Right now there isn't anything that I can find out about Z156 that makes it look particularly Irish or Irish in origin. In fact, as I mentioned before, in the small pool of known Z156+ men, there are already two Germans and a Belgian, and a number of men with what look like English and Lowland Scots surnames.

I think one has to go where the preponderance of the evidence leads.

U106 Distribution Map
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 04:28:00 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Forsythe
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2012, 09:36:45 AM »

Have you considered the Palelntine plantation from the Rhine River area to northern ireland in the early 1600s? 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2012, 03:21:14 PM »

Have you considered the Palelntine plantation from the Rhine River area to northern ireland in the early 1600s? 

That could be another source, it's true. Thanks.
Logged

Mike Forsythe
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2012, 05:53:38 PM »

I'm sorry.....I need to correct and clarify my last post.  It's been a while since I read up on this....In the early 1700s, almost 3000 Palatines were relocated to rural Ireland.  To this day, the largest concentration of Irish Palatine residents are in Killeheen, Ballingrane, and Courtmatrix.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2012, 02:53:52 PM »

I'm sorry.....I need to correct and clarify my last post.  It's been a while since I read up on this....In the early 1700s, almost 3000 Palatines were relocated to rural Ireland.  To this day, the largest concentration of Irish Palatine residents are in Killeheen, Ballingrane, and Courtmatrix.

Apparently they didn't make that much of a y-dna impression.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2012, 08:33:09 AM »

Concerning R U106 and its presence in Ireland, while there may be some truth in attributing that Haplogroup to invasion or colonizations from England, it would be unwise to regard all Irish R U106 as being derived from Germanic origins. The foundations of such thinking invites some key questions:

Firstly an assumption is made, minus actual hard evidence, that the high amount of UK R U106 is due to so-called Dark Age incursions into Britain by Germanic peoples. However, that concept, based upon, in part, the creation mythology of the English (launched by Bede) now seems to be under some review. The concept of waves of Angles, Frisians and Jutes arriving in huge numbers to displace the Brythonic speaking population is under revision. What invasion or colonization that did take place is being thought of on a far smaller scale, with the model of a Germanic military and political elite gaining control over areas, yet the majority of the population still British 'Celts', alongside Germanic settlements. If this current thinking is valid, and archaeology too is suggesting it, then the current level of R U106 in Britain may not so simply be explained away as 'evidence' of mass invasion by Angles or their Germanic 'cousins'. Indeed we are required to consider that perhaps R U106 reached Britain at an earlier time, who knows maybe even establishing itself as part of an admixture of Haplogroups that arrived prior to the emergence of a Germanic culture?

Similarly with Ireland, it is not unreasonable to consider that during its ancient settlement, prior to the later invasion and plantations of English rule, that R U106 was part of an admixture, that could have arrived, prior even to 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' cultures. Work by Tim Janzen has offered some interesting insight , when examining the variance of R U106, he noted that Ireland recorded highly, which he suggested could be explained by considering that it had arrived in Ireland very quickly after its original emergence. On that basis, given the agreed age of R U106, it may well indeed have entered Ireland at some ancient time, that likely hood seems based on more grounded reasoning than that which insists Ireland's low percentage of R U106 is de facto evidence of entirely Germanic (English) colonization. I wonder too, if those who examine Ireland's limited number of tested Y DNA results,  consider to what extent the demographic/DNA profile of Ireland was distorted by the loss of over a third of its people during the 19th Century. How many of those tragic deaths were suffered by those belonging to R U106 ?

Clearly we operate in an arena of reasoned speculation, and lacking currently the ability to extract from ancient bones any truly testable Y DNA, we rely upon statistical extrapolations, scales of probability, supported by history and known archaeology. It is prudent then to not regard 'Germanic' assertions concerning R U106 as ultimate truth, beyond criticism or examination, misplaced too to confidently ascribe an ethnological culture with a particular Haplogroup.  Unfortunately such thinking has become somewhat fossilized for some, who misunderstanding earlier views of Ken Nordvedt  resulted in a misleadingly affirmation of  R U106 as 'Friesian'. Such a flawed understanding is of course supported by the commonly accepted belief that current frequency distribution of a Haplogroup is evidential proof of ancient location and distribution. Can we really be so confident about such a view? Some consider that variance, rather than frequency offers a more reliable indicator or original location and or emergence.

In closing I suppose all we can say with any certainty is that the uncritical acceptance that R U106 is by definition 'Germanic' is questionable, ancient migrations, population profiles and lineages are surely more complex.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2012, 09:37:25 AM »

Come on. We've been through this before.

Clearly the modern distribution of U106 and its subclades shows a connection to Germanic peoples. The connection is not absolutely exclusive, but it is clear and obvious. When it comes to Ireland, U106 is relatively scarce. It is most frequent in the places, like Northern Ireland and in and around Dublin, where the English and other relative newcomers settled. It is very scarce amongst those with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames. Most of the bearers of U106 who claim Irish origin have English or Lowland Scots surnames. That is true for Z156, a subclade of U106 and the subject of this thread.

You might want to explain what you mean when you say that Tim Janzen said Ireland "recorded highly" in terms of U106 variance, "which he suggested could be explained by considering that it had arrived in Ireland very quickly after its original emergence." Really? I find that extremely hard to believe. Frankly, I doubt it. Please show me where Tim Janzen has ever suggested that U106 "arrived in Ireland very quickly after its original emergence". Since U106 is about 4,000-5,000 years old, are you seriously asking us to believe that U106 arrived in Ireland even 3,000 years ago?

Is it possible that there was U106 in Ireland in ancient times? Sure. Could there have been some J1 in Ireland in ancient times? Sure.

Is it likely that there was or that any of it has survived to this day in actual modern male descendants?

No, not really.

Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2012, 10:09:12 AM »

That's the whole point nothing is 'clearly' shown, what we have is opinion, albeit informed or educated, nevertheless it is not at all beyond probability that R U106 was part of an early  admixture of Haplogroups that may well have arrived in both Britain and or Ireland at a very early point.

Concerning Tim's view, as I mentioned he did indeed provide an interesting insight , when examining the variance of R U106, and noted that Ireland recorded highly, which he suggested could be explained by considering that it had arrived in Ireland very quickly after its original emergence. As you clearly are skeptical perhaps you may care to do further research on that, or perhaps approach Tim directly, I could provide his email address, as we have corresponded on this subject.

As to the notion of R U106 surviving, the question posed concerning that is curious in terms of implication, why of course should L21 have surviving ancient lineages yet not R U106? If it doesn't then are you also claiming that L21 in Ireland is of a similar 'late' arrival to Ireland? If R U106 as you opine could not survive from ancient times, presumably it would apply to other areas of Europe equally? On that basis the current R U106 population of Europe can trace their lineage back to what limited time precisely? Would it be correct to conclude that you are claiming that those of any other Haplogroup in Ireland may derive from an ancient lineage, apart from R U106?

Lastly as indicated in my original comment, the importance of variance over frequency should not be overlooked, and Tim's observations relating R U106 variance in Ireland is an important and authoritative contribution, that suggests an  early arrival of the Haplogroup. As variance is so I understand measured with living individuals, it's difficult to see how the original U106* settlers could have died out, or they wouldn't have the descendants who provide the very data for calculating the variance in question.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 10:32:01 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2012, 09:16:41 PM »

Variance is wind, if you don't provide any support for your claims. I don't post often on Rootsweb, but I do keep tabs on what is posted there. I have never seen the claims you say Tim Janzen made. I won't believe he actually made them unless and until you provide a link to his alleged statements.

Your claims are without substance. There is no evidence that U106 had any ancient presence in Ireland. All the evidence indicates it arrived much later. No need for me to repeat my earlier post.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2012, 05:26:30 AM »

I respect your right to hold a different opinion, that said the points raised remain, as does the fact that Tim did indeed observe R U106 as having a high variance in Ireland and noted that it suggested it arrived there after is original emergence. That being so, it is an important consideration, as is the fact that variance does indeed serve as a reliable indicator, some would say far more so than frequency. As noted previously given Tim's findings on this matter, the fact that R U106 variance in Ireland was assessed by examining data of existing people, tends to question how the original U106* settlers could have died out. Had they done so, as you appear to claim, they wouldn't have the descendants to furnish the data for calculating the Haplogroup's variance in Ireland.

As mentioned previously a few moments search-engine research will unearth Tim's position on this subject, or if preferred a direct communication may prove more reassuring.

Regarding 'evidence' there is none that can conclude with any certainty whatsoever that R U106 did not arrive in Ireland at some early stage, unless there was some sort of genetic screening taking place by ancient Irish immigration staff, that allowed only L21 folks in. What is more realistic however, and I am curious at the resistance to such reason, is that R U106 as part of an admixture was just as mobile and traveled as other Haplogroups that migrated in distant times.

We are operating within the constraints of speculation and our views informed by probability, on that basis there is no convincing argument to suggest that R U106 did not reach Ireland before the arrival of Cambro-Normans, or Elizabethan and Cromwellian colonists.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:07:59 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2012, 07:02:45 AM »

I respect your right to hold a different opinion, that said the points raised remain, as does the fact that Tim did indeed observe R U106 as having a high variance in Ireland and noted that it suggested it arrived here after is original emergence . . .

You keep saying that, post after post, but thus far you have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that Tim Janzen actually said what you claim he said.

You can keep doing that, or you can produce a link to show that Tim actually made the statements you claim he did.

Frankly, I don't believe you.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2012, 07:05:59 AM »

Well, you have every freedom to hold such a position, perhaps you may wish to conduct your own independent search on that subject, the results of which may more convincingly reassure you of the facts.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2012, 07:20:13 AM »

Well, you have every freedom to hold such a position, perhaps you may wish to conduct your own independent search on that subject, the results of which may more convincingly reassure you of the facts.

The burden is on you to support your claims, but I have taken some steps to try to find out whether or not you have been telling the truth.

I'll let you know what I find out.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2012, 07:46:03 AM »

Appreciate that.
Logged
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2012, 10:48:34 AM »

I respect your right to hold a different opinion, that said the points raised remain, as does the fact that Tim did indeed observe R U106 as having a high variance in Ireland and noted that it suggested it arrived here after is original emergence . . .

You keep saying that, post after post, but thus far you have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that Tim Janzen actually said what you claim he said.

You can keep doing that, or you can produce a link to show that Tim actually made the statements you claim he did.

Frankly, I don't believe you.

Perhaps this is the link? See the last paragraph above his signature:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1266736297
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2012, 03:52:38 PM »

Jdean already posted that on that other U106 thread that is currently active and explained that it was very preliminary, off-the-cuff sort of stuff and was based on just nine 67-marker Irish U106 haplotypes that were available at the time.

I would also caution that unless Tim Janzen excluded the non-Irish surnames from his Irish variance calculations, even with just nine haplotypes, he was getting something other than Irish variance.

I would suggest we use this thread to talk about Z156, since we already have a U106 thread being used by Mr. Boylan to assert that U106 is very ancient in Ireland.
Logged

Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2012, 08:01:19 PM »

I'd not seen any TMRCA estimates for R-U106> Z156 and Z305/Z306  Okay, I'm a non swimmer in the deep end of the pool, but in April I made a stab at TMRCA using Klyosov's formula and the haplotypes in Charles Moore's 111 Sandbox spreadsheet from earlier that month.

I only used 67 markers. I treated DYS464c=16 as modal, And I only used the first McMullen and McMillan entries.
For Z156 I counted 542 mutations in 41 haplotypes
TMRCA = (542/41/.12)25 = 2754 years.

I also looked at all the tested and assumed Z305/Z306 entries and counted 330 mutations in 33 haplotypes
TMRCA = (330/33/.12)25 = 2083 years.

Anyone with corrections or alternatives please jump in.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2012, 12:39:15 PM »

Z156 is a brother clade to Z301 which is five SNPs upstream of Z8 and the TMRCA of Z8 is at least 2,400. Your estimate  of Z156 is only 300 years older. Do you know the origins of Z156?
Logged
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2012, 10:42:43 PM »

There is an STR pattern for Z156:

DYS392=13 or 14 which indicates R1b
DYS492=13 which indicates U106
then
DYS390=>24 and DYS464c=16 (thank you Charles Moore)

Its not perfect but when unscientifically eyeballing the data in the U106 project at FTDNA, I was surprised how good a set of indicators these are for Z156 and its subclades, and they do not include many non Z156.

DYS390=23 is closely associated with Z301 and its subclades, but again not perfect.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2012, 02:46:50 PM »

Diversity equalls origin.Z156 diversity in Ireland is highest.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 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 0.094 seconds with 19 queries.