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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 10:59:23 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-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 7833 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 29, 2012, 10:24:07 PM »

Z156 could be as old as 5400 ybp.

It could be. Why did you pick that number?
Logged

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

Posts: 125


« Reply #76 on: August 30, 2012, 11:45:03 AM »

Message Deleted.  Terry
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 04:04:46 PM by Terry Barton » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2012, 01:47:36 PM »

9 x 600. L148 is around 600 ybp at the bottom of the U106 tree.Z12 is thought to be 1200 ybp. That may change in future with more research.I think there are a few very bright people on the forums that could build an ancestral haplotype for R1b and each of the subclades.


Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10449.msg137760#msg137760
date=1346293447
Z156 could be as old as 5400 ybp.

It could be. Why did you pick that number?
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #78 on: August 30, 2012, 08:49:20 PM »

FEC, some good news...another Italian U106+ has accepted the free Z156 offer. That makes the following three:

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 30, 2012, 09:33:17 PM »

9 x 600. L148 is around 600 ybp at the bottom of the U106 tree.Z12 is thought to be 1200 ybp. That may change in future with more research.I think there are a few very bright people on the forums that could build an ancestral haplotype for R1b and each of the subclades.

Quote from: Mikewww

Z156 could be as old as 5400 ybp.

It could be. Why did you pick that number?

Who is doing all of those  estimates and with what methodologies? Are they using SNP counting methodologies....  Nordtvedt's tool, McGee's tool, or what? Are they intraclade estimates?

What do you mean by "9 x 600" ?  I'm not familiar with the nomenclature you are using.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 10:08:48 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 141


« Reply #80 on: September 01, 2012, 12:22:29 PM »

Nine SNPs.Z156 was a private SNP 5000 years ago. Z156,Z301 and Z18 are three of the major branches of U106.U106 and P312 are certainly not brother subgroups of L11.A  father can't have two sons with a GD of six and two seperate SNPs.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #81 on: September 01, 2012, 12:46:41 PM »

Nine SNPs.Z156 was a private SNP 5000 years ago. Z156,Z301 and Z18 are three of the major branches of U106.U106 and P312 are certainly not brother subgroups of L11.A  father can't have two sons with a GD of six and two seperate SNPs.

It is obvious that when people use the term "brother clade", it is not meant to be taken literally.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #82 on: September 01, 2012, 02:47:50 PM »

It is obvious that when people use the term "brother clade", it is not meant to be taken literally.
Neither "father clade" (my R-L150+ for R-L51) should be taken literally.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

F.E.C.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #83 on: September 02, 2012, 04:40:59 AM »

FEC, some good news...another Italian U106+ has accepted the free Z156 offer. That makes the following three:

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy
Happy to hear that, Richard. If we all are positive Z156 must be quite old indeed.

According to FTDNA my results are due on 15th October.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #84 on: September 02, 2012, 09:41:19 AM »

FEC, some good news...another Italian U106+ has accepted the free Z156 offer. That makes the following three:

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy
Happy to hear that, Richard. If we all are positive Z156 must be quite old indeed.

According to FTDNA my results are due on 15th October.

Excellent. I'll post the results of the others here as well as they come in.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2012, 03:45:48 PM »

FEC, you are now confirmed U106+,L257-, L48-, P107-, U106+, U198-, Z156-

If the others also turn in a negative result at Z156 it would be just as interesting. Let's see how that goes.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #86 on: September 08, 2012, 05:23:00 AM »

I think that if Italians would be above all Z156 (and I think also to Brazilian Zeni from Trentino) we should become to think that they are here from ancient times and not due to recent German introgression. We know that your surname and the place of origin of your family didn’t fit with a German origin. And we should think also to the huge presence of U106 in Austria, easily thought like a German origin, and the massive presence in the Ancient Rhaetia of R1a*/R1a1* [probably R1a1*/R1a1a] I spoke about in another thread: you know that there I put the “Italian Refugium”.
Imagine with Z156-! Even though other first subclades shall be investigated, if FEC will be U106*, we shall think to what I wrote about this haplogroup in the past, in private letters and on the forums. I'd want to underline, beyond DYS390=24 (MR 0,002455), above all DYS487=15. This marker has a MR of 0,00079, and 2 mutations from the modal 13 are very meaningful. Above all they link FEC to many "British" (but actually from Scotland) and what we have said also on this forums about U106 in the Isles should be thought again. This haplotype is different from the Baltic one of Mayka (6BKHS) and Zane (8KWDD) with DYS572=12. Of course you know my theory of the "Italian refugium".
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #87 on: September 08, 2012, 09:51:58 AM »

Of course it is also likable that he is Z381+, then the German origin could be possible again. I think that the next test should be this. But with DYS487=15 he would match a Scotsman and not Germans, then what I have said above remains possible.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 10:03:19 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #88 on: September 08, 2012, 12:25:22 PM »

I think that Z156 is an Isles SNP.
Logged
F.E.C.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #89 on: September 10, 2012, 08:03:21 AM »

FEC, you are now confirmed U106+,L257-, L48-, P107-, U106+, U198-, Z156-
Thank you for the heads-up, Richard. I wasn't notified by FTDNA so I didn't know. Back to square one for me...
Logged
F.E.C.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2012, 08:04:54 AM »

I think that the next test should be this.
Would testing negative for this SNP (Z381) mean some special thing in my case?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 08:08:04 AM by F.E.C. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2012, 08:05:38 AM »

FEC, you are now confirmed U106+,L257-, L48-, P107-, U106+, U198-, Z156-
Thank you for the heads-up, Richard. I wasn't notified by FTDNA so I didn't know. Back to square one for me...

They don't notify about SNPs anymore (if they ever did); there are just too many SNP results. You just have to keep checking your Haplotree page for the results.

At least they're faster these days than they used to be.
Logged

F.E.C.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2012, 08:06:53 AM »

At least they're faster these days than they used to be.
They are indeed! :)
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #93 on: September 10, 2012, 08:42:36 AM »

I think that the next test should be this.
Would testing negative for this SNP (Z381) mean some special thing in my case?
If you were negative for Z381, probably you would be U106*, but I bet you are positive and with DYS487=15  you are of the same cluster of these ancient Scotsmen, then either it is true my theory that also U106 was born in the Italian Refugium or we should find another explication as to your haplotype came to Italy.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #94 on: September 11, 2012, 09:43:11 PM »

Kit no. 179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy

Is Z156- as well.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
F.E.C.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #95 on: September 12, 2012, 08:20:40 AM »

If you were negative for Z381, probably you would be U106*, but I bet you are positive and with DYS487=15  you are of the same cluster of these ancient Scotsmen, then either it is true my theory that also U106 was born in the Italian Refugium or we should find another explication as to your haplotype came to Italy.
Ok thanks. I will probably test my Z381 status in the future and I will keep you posted.
Logged
Mac Maolain
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2012, 09:18:35 PM »

Just noticed this thread. For the record and the monitor, the surnames in the Z156 grouping are not Lowland Scot as he has suggested.  McMullen is one (both Catholic and Protestant by the way). Many of these connect to Mac Maolain d,1144 Irish, Traynor same topography (Meath), Taylor=McMullen ( I run the DNA groups), McMillan by their own recorded history from Ireland 12 the century and a highland group.  Not suggesting that Z156 emerged in Ireland Mr Moderator, but your suggested outline is off base.  What this gentleman is suggesting makes more sense based on phylogentic runs done by Mark Jost U106 project which clearly indicates the Scot Mcs downstream from the Irish

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

U106/Z156*  Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2012, 09:54:41 PM »

Just noticed this thread. For the record and the monitor, the surnames in the Z156 grouping are not Lowland Scot as he has suggested.  McMullen is one (both Catholic and Protestant by the way). Many of these connect to Mac Maolain d,1144 Irish, Traynor same topography (Meath), Taylor=McMullen ( I run the DNA groups), McMillan by their own recorded history from Ireland 12 the century and a highland group.  Not suggesting that Z156 emerged in Ireland Mr Moderator, but your suggested outline is off base.  What this gentleman is suggesting makes more sense based on phylogentic runs done by Mark Jost U106 project which clearly indicates the Scot Mcs downstream from the Irish

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.

Hmmm . . .

Pardon me, but I doubt you. Coming on quoting an individual who was banned from this web site as a useless troll is not a good start.

As far as I know, you are another incarnation of him. Your writing style is reminiscent of his.

I don't want to argue about a pretty obviously Germanic subclade of U106 with the second coming of "whoknows".
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 09:58:05 PM by rms2 » Logged

inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2012, 09:58:48 PM »

What is known about McMillans who came to Northern Ireland, I'm interested as I match two people with variations of the surname. I also read that some of them took the name McMullen. As far as I can gather thee there were different groups: Hebridean, Highland and some from near Loch Tay.
Logged

I-L126
H3
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 0.115 seconds with 19 queries.