How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?

[rms2]

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

[Mikewww]

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

I wasn't finding that, but there are very few U106 haplotypes from Ireland so I'm not sure a great comparison can be made.

[rms2]

Thanks. I know it is relatively scarce in Ireland and usually associated with English or Lowland Scots surnames.

[Dubhthach]

The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

[rms2]

The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.

[Dubhthach]

The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.

In general I would agree, the issue I see with particular poster is more then likely ideologically driven. Of course a Y-Chromosome is only 2% of one's genome, so I wouldn't base my entire "self-definition" on it. (That and it only reflects one male ancestral line)

One thing I think is a bit of nuisance is studies such as Busby using restricted numbers of SNP's. For example for U106 they just use one "sub-clade" marked by U198. Likewise for L21 they just used M222 (don't think they tried to spilt U152 at all!)

Ideally such large studies should have as many of the higher up subclades as possible so as to at least see if there are any geographical patterns. In case of L21 I would say:
DF21, DF23, L513/DF1, Z253, Z255

[Mikewww]

One thing I think is a bit of nuisance is studies such as Busby using restricted numbers of SNP's. For example for U106 they just use one "sub-clade" marked by U198. Likewise for L21 they just used M222 (don't think they tried to spilt U152 at all!)

Ideally such large studies should have as many of the higher up subclades as possible so as to at least see if there are any geographical patterns. In case of L21 I would say:
DF21, DF23, L513/DF1, Z253, Z255

Here! Here!   ... although I can understand that academic research can't be as current as what we know about these subclades.

Since you mentioned Busby, one log for the fire to burn up that straw/wicker man paper is their use of SNPs. They picked S127/L11 to show lack of differentiation of STR diversity across Europe. They didn't compare that to R1b L11- subclades and paragroup diversity and how that varied across Europe. I don't understand why they neglected that. The information was there.

[Mikewww]

The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.

What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.

[rms2]

I don't think we are likely to see real deep SNP resolution anytime soon. We're lucky when a study tests for L21. Fortunately, there is a lot of interest in the British Isles, so we get some attention every now and then.

One of the problems with ancient dna testing is that researchers don't or can't go very deep with SNPs.

[rms2]

What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.

Well, there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and what is there tends to be most frequent where the English settled, like in the old "Pale" in and around Dublin, for example, and in Northern Ireland.

If you look at the surnames of those U106+ listing an Irish mdka, the vast majority of them are English or Lowland Scots. By far most of those with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames are L21+, or at least something other than U106.

If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames.

The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that U106 just wasn't there. If it was, it made little or no impression.

[alan trowel hands.]

I think there is little doubt that U106 was most likely very rare in the west in pre-Germanic times (in isles terms).  A small amount could have go there in pre-Viking times through Anglo-Saxons as, although not often mentioned, the Northumbrians actually raided Ireland once (or twice?) in pre-Viking times, there were Northumbrian royal refugees in Ireland and the church connections also meant settlement of some people from an Anglo-Saxon background.  However, Anglo-Saxon impact must have been very small and restricted to the Northumbrian Angles as the rest of the British coast facing Ireland remained largely Celtic (Cornwall, Devon, Wales, Cumbria etc).

The big question for me is when did U106 reach south-east and eastern Britain?  I think its much more of a leap to rule out pre-Germanic movement of U106 into south-east and eastern Britain.  In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity.  I suppose the closest we could get to answering that is looking at the variance of U106 and its subclades in different areas, perhaps Poland or Denmark compared to Holland/Belgium and in turn compared to England. 

[Mikewww]

What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.

Well, there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and what is there tends to be most frequent where the English settled, like in the old "Pale" in and around Dublin, for example, and in Northern Ireland.

If you look at the surnames of those U106+ listing an Irish mdka, the vast majority of them are English or Lowland Scots. By far most of those with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames are L21+, or at least something other than U106.

If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames.

The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that U106 just wasn't there. If it was, it made little or no impression.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense except I'll disagree on one thing.  You said "If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it."  U106 could be truly ancient and still be of very low frequency. Diversity, both STR and Hg-wise, is of more importance. Frequency, on the other hand, can be misleading.

[Mikewww]

... If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames....

The SNP testing on the below is a little out of date (60 days) but here are the U106 I'm aware of in Ireland by surname and hg.

Moore   R-U106
Morrow   R-U106
Neely     R-U106
Parker   R-U106*
Peden   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106*
Pickens   R-U106
Rutledge   R-U106
Sloan   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Steenson   R-U106
Sweet   R-U106
Thompson   R-U106
Wade   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
MacMullen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106
McMullan   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106*
McMullen   R-U106
Mullin   R-U106
Taylor   R-U106
Traynor   R-U106
Allen   R-U106
Anderson   R-U106
Barnwell   R-U106
Fitzgibbon   R-U106/Z381
Parke   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8


I am definitely not a surname expert. I'm just presenting what's there. ... The only think I like to say about surnames is that I distrust surname persistence as you go back in time.

[Mikewww]

Here are the U106 I'm aware of in Scotland and Wales by surname and hg.  The McMullen/McMillen group of Ireland and Scotland seem to be a big. Does anyone know their history?

McGoon   R-U106
Bow   R-U106/Z381/Z156*
Donald   R-U106/Z381/Z156
Johnson   R-U106/Z381/Z156
Allen   R-U106/Z18/L257
Arcus   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburn   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Elder   R-U106/Z18/L257
Matheson   R-U106/Z18/L257
Riddell   R-U106/Z18/L257
Ross   R-U106/Z18/L257
Young   R-U106/Z18*
Jackson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Allison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Allison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Gibson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Boyd   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Ferguson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Anderson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Wallace   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Bell   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Bell   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Bell    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Crawford    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Graham    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Jardine    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Little    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Moffatt    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Morrison   R-U106
Abel   R-U106
King   R-U106
Meenach   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106
King   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47
Galbraith   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*
McLeod   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*
Reader   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163/L46/L164
Richards   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163*
McDonald   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Spence   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Carr   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Dunn   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Magoon   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Shortridge   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2*
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Walker   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Gurley   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Armstrong   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Blackburn   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Burns   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Burns   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Carter   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Cates   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Coffin   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Davis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Duguid   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Flick   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Hannah   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Hepner   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Lisk   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Lyles   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
MacPherson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Marjoribanks   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Marjoribanks   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Matheson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
McDonald   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Miller   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Minto   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*
Moffat   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morell   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morrison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morrison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Spruiell   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Young   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Bell   R-U106
Biggs   R-U106*
Broun   R-U106
Cockburne   R-U106
Colston   R-U106
Douglas   R-U106*
Douglas   R-U106
Dowie   R-U106
Downie   R-U106
Dunbar   R-U106
Ferguson   R-U106
Finley   R-U106
Forman   R-U106*
Forrest   R-U106*
Gibson   R-U106
Gillespie   R-U106
Goodlad   R-U106
Gordon   R-U106*
Gordon   R-U106**
Graham   R-U106
Hastie   R-U106
Hughson   R-U106
Johnston   R-U106
Livingston   R-U106
Low   R-U106
Lyles   R-U106
Magoon   R-U106
McArthur   R-U106*
McDiarmid   R-U106
Millar   R-U106
Monteith   R-U106*
Morrison   R-U106
Murray   R-U106
Nichols   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106
Reid   R-U106
Robertson   R-U106*
Sinkler   R-U106*
Smart   R-U106
Templeton   R-U106*
zzzUnkName   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
Cameron   R-U106
Keddie   R-U106
MacMillan   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillan   R-U106
Akins   R-U106*
Bailey   R-U106
Byers   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326

Wales...

Edwards   R-U106/Z18
Cissell   R-U106
Picton   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163/L46
Davis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Ellis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
James   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Jones   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Mathis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Moyle   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Whitfield   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Davies   R-U106
Evans   R-U106
Howell   R-U106
Morgan   R-U106
Rumsey   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Stephens   R-U106
Thomas   R-U106

[Mikewww]

.... In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity. ..

Exactly. I haven't been able to figure out U106 with enough significance in STR diversity to solve this problem, though.  So far, I can't differentiate much, which just implies U106 arrived at about the same time in the Low Countries and in East/SE England.   It must have remained "bottled up" over in the Baltic area for some time before bursting west, or, perhaps, it was really in East/SE England fairly early but could not expand well to the west and north due to the native tribes in those places.

[GoldenHind]

I don't really want to get involved in the ethnic wars again, but will make a few observations.

I haven't studied U106 in Ireland, but have seen mention of a few U106 there with Gaelic surnames. I keep an open mind to the possibility of an early arrival of some U106 there, but it appears to me to be very small in comparison to later arrivals from Scotland and England.

I have often said that determining the history of U106 will depend on an analysis by subclade. I don't think that looking at the overall variance of all of U106 in any individual country is going to be very helpful. A large number of SNPs below U106 have been discovered recently, but I am told that there isn't much interest in testing for them. However some progress is being made.

U106 seems to have a much larger presence in Scotland, and the number with Scottish surnames is not insignificant. There are a number of these on Mike's list. I don't think they can all be explained away as descendants of Anglo-Saxons, Flemings, Normans or Scandinavians. The U106 subclade L48, which appears to predominate in Scandinavia, seems to be much less frequent in Scotland. In L48, in which the so-called 'Frisian haplotype' is found, 390=23 predominates. In the Z257 and Z156 subclades, 390=24 predominates. If  the U106 in Scotland were of exclusively of Anglian or Scandinavian origin, I would expect to see a larger amount of L48 and 390=23 there.

There was someone in Scotland who is U106 who was engaged in a study of it there. He used to post occasionally on the dna forum. It appeared to me he didn't have any particular axe to grind, unlike many who opine on the subject. He was particularly interested in the L257 subclade. This SNP is on a completely different branch of U106 from most of the other subclades. According to him, some of the subclusters of L257 are primarily found in Scotland. He also posited that the L128 subclade (below Z156?) may have been born somewhere in Britain c. 2000 ybp.

It is early days yet, and I think far too soon to draw any definite conclusions. Once again, I merely suggest keeping an open mind about the arrival of U106 in Britain, rather than a mad dash to find ways to explain them away as descendants of later Germanic immigrants.

[Mikewww]

... I have often said that determining the history of U106 will depend on an analysis by subclade. I don't think that looking at the overall variance of all of U106 in any individual country is going to be very helpful. A large number of SNPs below U106 have been discovered recently, but I am told that there isn't much interest in testing for them. However some progress is being made...

I agree we need more info at the U106 subclade level. There are some folks over on the S21/U106 subgroup that are very passionate on SNP testing so I think we are seeing progress.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/messages
It would be nice to have a couple of their high powered people posting here too like Michael M, Ray W, Wayne K (who I think is on this forum), Charlie M, Tim J and a few others. I think we already have Greg M.

[Mark Jost]

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. I then found a larger Group of Isles based U106, The McMillan's. I worked with the Laighin MacMaolain  (Lyn McMullen) back at the end of November last year to produce a 40 or so Ht network that showed a strong Irish base for Z156. So a strong Family Lineage that started early in Ireland.

Lyn wrote me and said, "Z156 so far has a closer distance these names are of the Devon-Cornwall ilk which fits historically to ancient Britons, Brittany etc.  It is a fit with historic analysis ie:  The Laigin from Amorica and Brittany, to Ireland, some say almost at the same time.  The pathway thru is channel islands to south Devon Cornwall to Ireland and on to Scotland for the Strathclyde Britons." McMill lineage seems to have a 8.7 Rho mutations for 1,617.6 +- 360.2 years MRCA.

He also stated:

Amazingly it fits with much of what we have speculated in oral and documented exchanges over many years.  It confirms in an adjustable range that Patrick MacMullen 104866, Charles McMullen 159837 and Lyn 90791 descend from a common ancestor about 1000 years ago.  That ancestor based on historic Irish history was Laighnan Mac Maolain (laity in the book of Kells) Lynan MacMullen.  This family were still located 17th century as erenaghs of churchlands in an barony area called Morgallion Co. Meath.  (Gaileang Mora) ancient Brega gives their last recorded noble as Mac Mic Maolain slain 1144AD. Morgallion was captured by the Normans 1170 AD and allocated to a Norman Lord who created Cruictown (102839) just two miles from Ardmagh Brega where my 9th Gr Grandfather James MacMullen was born. Adjacent him in the Morgallion townland of  Legagh sits the family Traynor 125584.  Taylor 175542 is a perfect DNA match to Lloyd McMullen located on the Ancestry DNA site took over Morgallion in 1699 on the confiscation of the lands from Cruis.  The migration to Scotland is connected then to this Traynor of Meath and Gerard McMullan 84947 of Antrim who claim to be native Irish.  When did the Gerard McMullan family move to Antrim? Hard to say, but clearly the chart confirms that McMillan Scotland 35953 (as their own history states) are descendants of his line.  My personal guesstimate would be Alexander McMulen d. 1497 as the actual documented ancestor of 135048. He had a son named Malcolm, one of whom moved north and became a Cameron 60304 according to their family lore.  35043 is descended from a Malcolm McMillan, who leads to the oldest of that line 35953 who became Chief of the family based on an unconfirmed link to Alexander McMulen.

Further to what I see in your help so far, is many names that connect to Brittany and of course Cornwall and Devon.  Others in the U106 project that connect to the historical pathway in Ireland include:

Cannon, Kelley, Kavanagh, Madden, Callanan and Conley as well as McGowan (smith).

MJost

[alan trowel hands.]

... If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames....

The SNP testing on the below is a little out of date (60 days) but here are the U106 I'm aware of in Ireland by surname and hg.

Moore   R-U106
Morrow   R-U106
Neely     R-U106
Parker   R-U106*
Peden   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106*
Pickens   R-U106
Rutledge   R-U106
Sloan   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Steenson   R-U106
Sweet   R-U106
Thompson   R-U106
Wade   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
MacMullen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106
McMullan   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106*
McMullen   R-U106
Mullin   R-U106
Taylor   R-U106
Traynor   R-U106
Allen   R-U106
Anderson   R-U106
Barnwell   R-U106
Fitzgibbon   R-U106/Z381
Parke   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8


I am definitely not a surname expert. I'm just presenting what's there. ... The only think I like to say about surnames is that I distrust surname persistence as you go back in time.

That list has a lot of non-native Gaelic .  If that is all we have in terms of U106 in Ireland then the evidence is extremely strong that U106 was rare in pre-Viking times in Ireland.  

[alan trowel hands.]

.... In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity. ..

Exactly. I haven't been able to figure out U106 with enough significance in STR diversity to solve this problem, though.  So far, I can't differentiate much, which just implies U106 arrived at about the same time in the Low Countries and in East/SE England.   It must have remained "bottled up" over in the Baltic area for some time before bursting west, or, perhaps, it was really in East/SE England fairly early but could not expand well to the west and north due to the native tribes in those places.

Mike-how big is the difference in variance of U106 between the Baltic area and its more westerly areas like the Low countries/England?

[rms2]

We've been through a lot of this before. According to Busby, there really isn't all that much U106 in Scotland, and what is there can easily be accounted for. For example, as was mentioned before, the 12th century settlement of Northumbrians in Moray and Aberdeenshire by King David I of Scotland.

An early arrival for U106 in SE Britain I think could be plausible, but I just don't believe it for the rest of the Isles. Honestly, I don't believe there was much, if any, U106 anywhere in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. Probably the first U106 in Britain came as Germanic foederati with the Romans. I think there is evidence of Saxons in Roman employ in SE Britain as early as the 3rd century AD.

I really don't see how anyone can look at the distribution of U106 and its subclades and not think "Germanic". After all, U106's subclades are all U106+, so they are included in the general distribution of U106.

To argue that there was an oddball stray U106+ here and there in the very distant past seems to me a waste of time. Sure. Maybe. But perhaps there were other strays - an O or two, maybe - in ancient Ireland. Who knows?

What matters when you are talking about y haplogroups is the overall trend, not the supposition that maybe, perhaps, possibly there were a few stray U106 outside their normal beat.

Take Ireland, for example. In the historical period Ireland suffered a lot at the hands of people who came from places with a plentiful supply of U106. Some of those people settled there. Those facts amount to the U106 elephant in the room. Why strain for the (probably imaginary) ancient U106 gnat there?

I don't understand the apparent desire to "de-Germanize" U106 and make it seem as if it is just impossible to say anything meaningful about it.

Look at the evidence. Historically, what is now England was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who came from precisely those very places where U106 is most frequent. Their impact was so tremendous that the people in what is now England adopted the language of the invaders. That didn't happen elsewhere in Europe, despite the influx of Germanic barbarians during the post-Roman Period.

Later, during the Viking Period, England received some more shots of fresh blood from places where U106 is frequent.

Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.

[Mikewww]

... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.

Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?

I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.

We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

[OConnor]

The Danes were in S/E England, and elsewhere in the Isles.
Could the bulk of the Isles U106 have originated in Scandinavia?

[MHammers]

Here are some numbers I ran back in October for U198 with Ken's Generations5 calculator in an attempt to see if there were any later Germanic connections.  Although the sample could always be larger, I think there is a possible connection with U198.  Maybe it's not all Anglo-Saxon, but partially Germans who the Romans would have brought with them.  It would be interesting to see how U106 lines up with Generations7. 

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch. 
Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp. 

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29  or 2430+/-870 ybp.  Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance.

At the low end of the confidence interval of 2430-870, puts it at 1560 ybp or 440 AD, which is about the same time as the early Anglo-Saxon period in England.  It is puzzling that the variance for the English only sample is not low enough to demonstrate a founder effect in post-Roman Britain.  Perhaps the linguists are right in that it was only a smaller elite migration.  This would explain why L21 who were likely Romano-British, Irish, and Pictish, was able to continue their proliferation.

[Mike Forsyth]

Roman troops, mainly from nearby Germanic provinces, under Emperor Claudius invaded what is now England in AD 43. Over the next few years the province of Britannia was formed, eventually including the whole of England and Wales and parts of Scotland.[2] As a result Roman businessmen and officials came to Britannia to settle by the thousands along with their families. Roman troops from across the Empire as far as Spain, Syria, and Egypt, but mainly from the Germanic provinces of Batavia and Frisia (modern Netherlands, Belgium, and the Rhineland area of Germany) were garrisoned in Roman towns, many intermarrying with local Britons. This diversified Britannia's cultures and religions, while the populace remained mainly Celtic with a Roman way of life.
Later, Britain was independent of the rest of the Roman Empire for a number of years, first as a part of the Gallic Empire, then a couple of decades later under the usurpers Carausius and Allectus.
Christianity came to Britain in the 3rd century. One early figure was Saint Alban, who was martyred near the Roman town of Verulamium, on the site of the modern St Albans, by tradition during the reign of the emperor Decius.