World Families Forums - How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 04:10:02 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)
| | |-+  How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?  (Read 11007 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #75 on: March 31, 2012, 04:33:47 PM »

Even when U106 is fully broken down into its subclades, will those subclades move beyond the current distribution of U106 as a whole? Will they suddenly appear in large numbers where U106 does not appear now? Will they appear among peoples currently not known to carry much, if any, U106?

Because that is what it would take to alter the current picture.

I think subclade resolution is actually more potentially revealing for P312 than it is for U106. P312, it seems to me, is more widespread and diverse than U106, and by "diverse" I don't mean in terms of haplotypes but in terms of peoples among whom it reaches significant frequencies.

There seems to be a much stronger correlation of U106 to Germanics than there is of P312 to any one particular group, although, if there is such a connection for P312, I would nominate the Celts. But that obviously wouldn't be exclusive, just as the Germanic connection isn't absolutely exclusive for U106.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 04:39:13 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #76 on: March 31, 2012, 04:59:38 PM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?
Logged

Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #77 on: March 31, 2012, 08:32:16 PM »

L164/L45 (the red markers on the below map) is found roughly in the area of Northumbria, Scandinavian York, or the Brigantes, whatever takes your fancy.  GD about 17 if I remember correctly, not sure how far back that puts their common ancestor.
http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #78 on: March 31, 2012, 10:15:17 PM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 10:16:17 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #79 on: March 31, 2012, 10:17:57 PM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

There may or may not be. We just don't know at this point.
Logged
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2012, 12:08:23 AM »

Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?

The People of the British Isles Project promises to provide some long overdue stats, as well as plenty of SNP data to mine:

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

Unfortunately, because it's based on political boundaries, the sample area omits the Republic of Ireland, however hopefully the Irish DNA Atlas project will fill that void:

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-dna-atlas-project-launched-261919-Oct2011/
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 12:10:48 AM by gtc » 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 #81 on: April 01, 2012, 09:15:18 AM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

There may or may not be. We just don't know at this point.

There is a lot we don't know and may never know.

In the meantime, there is a lot we do know both about U106 (including many of its known subclades) and about the history of western Europe, including the British Isles. What we do know enables us to speak with reasonable certainty based on the preponderance of the evidence. We don't have to wait until every last genetic rock has been overturned in the search for exceptions to what is already apparent.

Should a very ancient British or Irish subclade of U106 appear sometime in the future, we can update our knowledge and say, "Well, there's an exception to the general rule." Personally, I doubt that is going to happen. There is too much that militates against it. But, if it does, so be it. If such subclades do turn up, odds are they will be pretty small and do little to change what we know now.

It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Cantabria. Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.

Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2012, 11:24:29 AM »

It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think...
You may saying this in jest and I do think are 4000-5000 ypb ages are about right for the R-L11 and its family.  However, you are definitely right that this is NOT a given. There is the whole issue of mutation rates and non-linearity as we hear from Busby et al, Dienekes, etc.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 11:39:58 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2012, 11:37:54 AM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.
Michael M, a U106 admin, has pointed out for several years that DYS390=23 is modal for U106 except in Poland, where it is 24 (same as WAMH.)  I doubt if he was looking at Italy and Iberia at the time but the point is the same....  that 390=23 may NOT be ancestral for U106 and it may be a mutation surfing the wave of latter period U106 expansions.

Back to RMS's question, "Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?"
I don't know. There might be, the closest thing so far has been U198. I think we'll have the same questions we have with L21 on it though.    Is U198 in Germany or Poland or whatever some remnant of the original population or is it monks, mercenaries, religions, merchants or who knows what in terms of back-migration?

The diversity of U106 (as a whole) in Britain, standing alone, would lead to the conclusion that it is older than the Anglo-Saxons, for sure. However, as has been pointed out multiple times, we need to look for deeper subclades.    I'm sure the diversity of U106 in the USA is older than the Anglo-Saxons as well and that doesn't make a lot of sense.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 09:48:25 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 01, 2012, 11:56:09 AM »

Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?
Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.
Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?
Whoa?
Anyway, I don't know.
Are you thinking that perhaps we'll find out that Wales is really the ultimate birthplace of U106? ;-)
No!
I don't know about Welsh U106 diversity, but I would be really surprised if it were very high relative to that of England.

U106 folks with MDKAs from Wales are found in our DNA projects, abeit not that many.

It turns out their STR diversity is similar to England's and, as is England, older than the Anglo-Saxon Era.
U106 All in Wales (67 length):  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=12);   AvgGD=14.8 @67

However, I wouldn't make a big deal out of this for the same reasons as mentioned before. This is probably a mix of different U106 subclades that may have multiple sources locations.

STR diversity should not be considered as a stand-alone piece of information. It must be in context of subclade resolution and deciphering "launch" points versus "collection/pooling" points.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 09:47:33 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 707


« Reply #85 on: April 01, 2012, 01:17:51 PM »

After I looked at U106 to see if my half maternal brother who were L69 had any close GD clusters is when I discovered a small group that is England based. ...
MJost


I wonder if Mike M has calculated what is the age for those kits who have the DYS390=24  who he thinks are Polish?

Here are the U106+ kits that have allele values which have a DYS390=25, YCA has 19-22 and this English cluster could be L69 positive since my brother is L69+ as tested from 23andme. Interesting that this English cluster that matches my brother has a Coalescence of around 382 AD .

Modal
M-U106   13   23   14   11   11   14   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   25   15   19   29   15   15   17   17   11   11   19   23
England, South East, Hampshire, Romsey   
108758   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   17   17   10   12   19   22
England, East, Suffolk   
109582   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   12   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England   
124936   13   24   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   16   18   11   11   19   22
England, East, Northamptonshire   
45367   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England, Yorkshire and Humber, Sheffield   
46452   13   25   14   10   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   17   17   10   12   19   22
zzzUnkOrigin   
56417   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   12   13   17   15   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   10   19   22
zzzUnkOrigin   
90390   13   25   14   10   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   29   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England   
96037   13   26   14   11   11   12   12   12   12   14   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   17   18   11   10   19   22
Ireland, Ulster, Co. Donegal, Ballymena   
57369   13   25   14   11   11   14   12   12   12   13   13   16   18   9   10   11   11   23   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   23
Arnsberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
G45316   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17      9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   16   17      11   11   19   22

Using the kits with 67 markers tested  N=9 I have ran Nordtvedt's Generation mod by MikeW.

DRAFT v7.1: Interclade MRCA Age / Intraclade Colescence Age Estimator based on Ken Nordtvedt's Generations 7.0 method         
         
Interclade AB: U106* for 390=25/YCA19-22/L69 & U106         1298
Interclade MRCA Estimate   GABw   SigmaGABn   
Generations to A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   119   20   
Years bef. pres. A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   3574   4180   2969
Date of  A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   1574 BC      
         
Clade A: 390=25/YCA19-22/L69         9
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GA   SigmaGA   
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   62   8   
Years before present to A MRCA   1847   2080   1614
Best Estimated Date of A MRCA   153 AD      
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GACoal   SigmaGA   
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   54   8   
Years before present To A Coalescence   1618   1851   1385
Best Estimated Date of A Coalescence   382 AD      
         
Clade B: U106         1289
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GB   SigmaGB   
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   121   9   
Years before present B MRCA   3643   3912   3375
Best Estimated Date of B MRCA   1643 BC      
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GBCoal   SigmaGB   
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   111   9   
Years before present to B Coalescence   3340   3608   3072
Best Estimated Date of B Coalescence   1340 BC      
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 01:49:10 PM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #86 on: April 01, 2012, 04:03:45 PM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?


Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.

It didn't escape my notice. I thought it was so important I printed out a copy of your post.

The reason why it is important is, as we were informed at the time,  that DYS390=24 is the predominant value in U106 subclades Z18 and Z381(XZ301), the latter of which includes Z156. The Z301 subclades, which include U198 and L48, are those most common in Scandinavia and northern Germany and have the later  DYS390=23 mutation. Since it appears that the earlier U106 value at 390 was 24, there is a possibility that much of the U106 in Italy got there at an early date, and not as a result of Germanic incursions in the Migration period, which is the generally accepted theory. There are of course other possible explanations, but I believe it is something worthy of keeping a close eye on.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #87 on: April 01, 2012, 05:18:11 PM »

It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think...

You may saying this in jest and I do think are 4000-5000 ypb ages are about right for the R-L11 and its family.  However, you are definitely right that this is NOT a given. There is the whole issue of mutation rates and non-linearity as we hear from Busby et al, Dienekes, etc.

I wasn't saying it in jest. I agree with you in thinking that the current germ line age estimates are pretty good, but I am open to going back to "hunter-gatherer" mode, should the evidence point that way.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 05:19:34 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #88 on: April 01, 2012, 05:25:26 PM »

. . .

The diversity of U106 (as a whole) in Britain, standing alone, would lead to the conclusion that it is older than the Anglo-Saxons, for sure. However, as has been pointed out multiple times, we need to look for deeper subclades.    I'm sure the diversity of U106 in the USA is older than the Anglo-Saxons as well and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's right. We talked about that before on a very similar sort of U106 thread, as I recall. That diversity represents an upper end. In other words, the U106 in England isn't likely to be any older there than that, but it could definitely be younger.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #89 on: April 01, 2012, 05:37:10 PM »

Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.

It didn't escape my notice. I thought it was so important I printed out a copy of your post.

The reason why it is important is, as we were informed at the time,  that DYS390=24 is the predominant value in U106 subclades Z18 and Z381(XZ301), the latter of which includes Z156. The Z301 subclades, which include U198 and L48, are those most common in Scandinavia and northern Germany and have the later  DYS390=23 mutation. Since it appears that the earlier U106 value at 390 was 24, there is a possibility that much of the U106 in Italy got there at an early date, and not as a result of Germanic incursions in the Migration period, which is the generally accepted theory. There are of course other possible explanations, but I believe it is something worthy of keeping a close eye on.

Interesting that they all seem to have 492=13 and that the difference between 390=24 and 390=23 is 1.

I mean, I have 390=23, and I am L21+.

Even if there is some very early clade of Italian U106 - which I am sure Gioiello would be thrilled about - it would have to be large enough for its diversity to be readily and reliably discernible, that diversity would have to be indisputably oldest in Italy, it would have to predate the Migration Period by a fair margin, and that subclade would have to be pretty much limited to Italy. Even if all those conditions were met, it wouldn't alter the overall picture for U106 and its subclades much at all. It would just be an interesting anomaly.

In the meantime, there is the history of Italy, which shows us a period in which there was considerable input into Italy from U106-rich sources.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 05:38:35 PM by rms2 » Logged

Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #90 on: April 01, 2012, 09:41:24 PM »

Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.
It's interesting that you mention Doggerland in relation to U106.  A recent study has found that well over 80% of North Sea oil rig workers tested positive for U106.

As a U106 on my paternal line, I can and can't understand the quest to be "ancient" British.  It is indeed all relative, and if the Anglo Saxons arrived a millenium later than the "Celts" it is really only just a millennium in the wider scheme of British Isles settlement.  Some of the G, E, and I2a folks who predate the P312 folks by millennia in the Isles must be having a quiet chuckle about all the kerfuffle of who is and who isn't "ancient" in the Isles.
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #91 on: April 02, 2012, 07:29:05 AM »

Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.
It's interesting that you mention Doggerland in relation to U106.  A recent study has found that well over 80% of North Sea oil rig workers tested positive for U106.

That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?

As a U106 on my paternal line, I can and can't understand the quest to be "ancient" British.  It is indeed all relative, and if the Anglo Saxons arrived a millenium later than the "Celts" it is really only just a millennium in the wider scheme of British Isles settlement.  Some of the G, E, and I2a folks who predate the P312 folks by millennia in the Isles must be having a quiet chuckle about all the kerfuffle of who is and who isn't "ancient" in the Isles.

Yeah, only a millennium, but, after all, we are talking about humans here, not stars.

I don't know about any "kerfuffle". This is not about pride of place or anything like that. It's not about the L21 guy defending claims of priority for his haplogroup against U106 interlopers. Frankly, I am pretty sure my haplogroup wasn't first in the Isles, and I don't care. I also don't really care when U106 got there either. If the evidence showed that U106 arrived in the Isles at 5:00 am on July 6, 6,000 BC, that would be fine with me.

For me, this is simply about what the evidence currently indicates, and nothing more. That picture could change as we learn more.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 07:29:37 AM by rms2 » Logged

Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #92 on: April 03, 2012, 06:01:20 AM »

That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?
Exactly my point.
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #93 on: April 03, 2012, 07:26:23 AM »

That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?
Exactly my point.

Your point was to assert that a study showed that 80% of North Sea oil rig workers are U106+ and then fail to post a link to the study?

Or that such a result is hard to believe?
Logged

Richard Callanan
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #94 on: April 06, 2012, 10:06:15 AM »


There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?


I think I'm another of the 'ancient' Irish although the surname Ó Callanáin  doesn't appear (I think) until early 15th c. Do my SNP results tell anyone anything? (I'm new to this and find it all hard to understand.) Am I the product of an extra-paternal incident? - Richard Callanan. - FTDNA 92534 - ysearch X9HCR
Logged

Richard Callanan
R-U106
earliest documented ancestor from Tipperary, Ireland
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #95 on: April 06, 2012, 11:03:46 AM »

Hey Richard, Why not start your line of inquiry on the basis that you have a Gaelic Sept name, right? That your family have been in Ireland for generations, right? Then consider that R U106 may well have been in Eire since distant times, certainly there is no reason why it could not have arrived along with other Haplogroups, long before the coming of the Cambro-Normans, Elizabethan or Cromwellian English (who are claimed by some to be the sole explanation for R U106 in Ireland).

Attaching any Haplogroup to a specific ethnological ethnic grouping be it 'Germanic' or 'Celtic' is too simplistic, but some people prefer an instant answer, who knows your ancestors may well have planted their feet on Eire's soil before the Godelic arrivals. :)
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 11:05:11 AM by whoknows » Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #96 on: April 06, 2012, 11:18:30 AM »

Hey Richard, Why not start your line of inquiry on the basis that you have a Gaelic Sept name, right? That your family have been in Ireland for generations, right? Then consider that R U106 may well have been in Eire since distant times, certainly there is no reason why it could not have arrived along with other Haplogroups, long before the coming of the Cambro-Normans, Elizabethan or Cromwellian English (who are claimed by some to be the sole explanation for R U106 in Ireland).

Attaching any Haplogroup to a specific ethnological ethnic grouping be it 'Germanic' or 'Celtic' is too simplistic, but some people prefer an instant answer, who knows your ancestors may well have planted their feet on Eire's soil before the Godelic arrivals. :)

I agree and have said the same thing to Ciaran Boylan. As long has U106 is old enough to have been in Western Europe before the time the Celts arrived in Ireland, then there is a chance that some U106 men arrived before them. They could have arrived with the Celts as well. Unless the Celts were doing DNA testing to exclude U106.

By the way, I'd bet that most Irish men have U106 among their male Irish ancestors. Just because I'm L21, DF23, that doesn't mean all of my male ancestors were the same. I imagine that every Y haplogroup found in Ireland is found among my male ancestors.

 Thanks, Miles Kehoe
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #97 on: April 06, 2012, 09:26:58 PM »

Gaelic surnames are really rare among U106 men. U106 itself is relatively rare in Ireland. It is most frequent in those places, like Northern Ireland and in and around Dublin, where the English and other newcomers settled.

By far, most U106 who list a most distant ancestor who was born in Ireland have English or Lowland Scots surnames.

The history of Ireland is replete with invasion and settlement by peoples, like the Vikings and the English, who came from places with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. The distribution of U106 shows a strong connection to Germanic peoples and their movements during and subsequent to the Migration Period.

Is it possible that an Irishman who is U106+ could be descended in his y-dna line from a very ancient Irish ancestor? Sure. That is remotely possible. After all, almost anything is possible.

Is it likely, given what we know of U106 and the history of Ireland?

Honestly, no, not at all.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 09:28:15 PM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #98 on: April 07, 2012, 06:54:10 AM »

The relative rarity of R U106 in Ireland, does not of itself constitute empirical evidence that the Haplogroup has not been present there, prior to the later colonizations from England.

Any thinking which concludes otherwise is predicated upon a somewhat flawed assumption, in which frequency of current Haplogroup distribution is regarded as  an evidential determinant of ancient locations and migration patterns.  Plain truth is that in no way is it conclusive evidence, at best it is an informed view, a statistical extrapolation of a present, that is projected upon unknown ancient circumstances.

Meanwhile, others consider that variance is a more reliable indicator of a Haplogroup's point of origin and early migration area, in that context the findings of Tim Janzen with respect to the variance of R U106 is significant, in that it was noted Ireland has a high degree of variance, which suggests that it arrived in Ireland fairly quickly after its initial emergence. Given the agreed age of R U106 we are invited us to consider it settled there, long before the establishment of Germanic culture, if so, and there's no logical reason why the Haplogroup could not have entered Ireland as part of an ancient admixture, then the question is did it survive? Well given that variance is tested using living people, then its difficult to know how the original R U106 settlers could not have survived, had they done so they wouldn't have the descendants to furnish the data for calculating the Haplogroup's variance in Ireland.

As to surnames, the picture in Ireland is complicated, obscured and confused by the Anglicization of many originally Gaelic names, to such an extent that what may appear to the uninformed eye as constituting an English surname has in reality Irish roots. the occurrence of Smith in Ireland being only one such example. There are many others. However that fact apart we need to exercise caution with viewing names as offering any reliable proof, in relation to associating a particular ethnological
grouping with a Haplogroup.

The stake should  be driven through the jaded convention which insists that  English colonization in Ireland offers a convincing argument explaining the existence of Irish R U106, and that by default such people belong to a 'Germanic' Haplogroup. This is wrong on a number of important points, apart from the inherent foolishness with ascribing Haplogroups to a specific ethnology.

There exists an assumption that the high amount of R U106 in the UK is due to so-called Dark Age incursions into Britain by Germanic peoples, what is not considered is that this view is derived, ultimately from a biased political propaganda written by Bede, whose writing gave birth to a creation mythology of the English.

His work on this subject has recently received considerable review, in particular the notion of a flood of Angles, Frisians and Jutes arriving in Britain to displace the British 'Celtic' population. What colonization that did take place is now being viewed as happening on a much smaller scale,  a Germanic military and political elite gaining control over areas, presiding over a majority British population, that found itself living with Germanic settlements. If this present analysis is correct, and archaeology is suggesting that, then the frequency of R U106 in Britain may not so easily asserted  as 'evidence' of mass invasion by Angles or their Germanic 'cousins'. What current thinking on the subject requires is a consideration that maybe R U106 arrived in Britain at an earlier time than such Germanic incursions.

What amount of the over 20% of British R U106 may therefore owe its origins not to the cold, dank shores of Friesia or Jutland, but to other regions of Continental Europe, having arrived long before the emergence of Germanic culture? In that context how may it be said with any certainty that 'English' colonization of Ireland is de-facto proof of Germanic R U106?

To any Irish R U106 reading this remember that there's no 'definitive position' on this subject, likely-hoods for sure, including the probability that Ireland was not populated in ancient times only by L21, and that it is entirely reasonable that R U106 arrived at an equally distant time. Nor should you feel that simply because it has a low frequency in Ireland it was always so, or that somehow that ancient R U106 lineages could not survive.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 06:58:36 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #99 on: April 07, 2012, 07:13:00 AM »

. . .

Meanwhile, others consider that variance is a more reliable indicator of a Haplogroup's point of origin and early migration area, in that context the findings of Tim Janzen with respect to the variance of R U106 is significant, in that it was noted Ireland has a high degree of variance, which suggests that it arrived in Ireland fairly quickly after its initial emergence . . .

No, you are not going to be allowed to continue to claim that Tim Janzen said U106 has high variance in Ireland (relative to everywhere else, I suppose, since the word "high" is relative) and got there shortly after its emergence (a claim patently ridiculous, IMHO) unless and until you produce a link to Tim's actual words.

You continue to make the same claim over on the thread about Z156. Thus far you have failed to produce any sort of support for it, despite the fact that I have asked you several times to back up what you are claiming.

Frankly, I do not believe Tim ever said any such thing.

As for Bede, etc., please. As I said before, the history of Ireland is replete with invasion and settlement, in comparatively recent times, by peoples who came from places, like England and Lowland Scotland, with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. U106 is most frequent in Ireland in precisely the places where those peoples settled.

If you want to believe your y-dna line is very ancient Irish, have at it. No one is stopping you. Who knows? You could be right.

That isn't at all likely, but, like your screen name, who knows?
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8 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 0.141 seconds with 18 queries.