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

[gtc]

"Germanic" is such a nebulous term.  And frankly it really only applied to one or two small tribes near the Rhine in Caesar's time and those Germani were probably Celtic.

Yes, the geographical origin and spread of the Celts is not often recalled in these discussions.

[Jdean]

Since the discussion is centring on a comment made by Tim Janzen in Feb 2010 I thought it may be interesting to have a look at the data he used at the time.

Tim said he used the 67 loci results from the U106 project for his calculations.

In April 2009, which is as close as I can get, there were only 9 such results with an Irish origin, admittedly in the next 10 months a few more would have been added but that's not exactly promising.

Next and with the benefit of hindsight I checked out the current SNP status of these 9 people.

5 were L48+ and the other 4 L48-

1 of the L48+ people have tested Z9+ and another Z7+

Of the 4 L48- people one has tested Z156+ and another Z156-

Without really thinking two hard about this I would say the common ancestor of this group is likely to be Mr. U106 himself and since I think we are reasonably clear (I hope) that Z9, Z7 & Z156 weren't conceived in Ireland it seems a fair guess that most of these lines probably arrived in Ireland independently.


Before I get accused of having a closed mind I would just like to make it clear that my point is to much is being made of a quick calculation Tim Janzen did over 2 years ago, and I’m sure that if he has dropped in on any of the myriad of threads that have been bombarded by person/s about this comment he would be quite bemused.

[rms2]

I'm U106 with mostly Irish, Cornish, Welsh and Highlander ancestry.  I really have no wolfhound in this "fight".  

The only way I can comprehend P312 being so dominant in the ancient Isles vis-a-vis its coeval M269 brother U106, is that the vast majority of U106 was holed up NE of the Elbe for a long time.  I think the high frequency of U106 in the Low Countries is very misleading.  If U106 was in the Low Countries during the Iron Age then I see no reason why a good proportion of U106 in Britain can't be ancient.  But as it happens, the freq distribution of U106 in England very closely matches 5th to 11th Century Angle and Saxon kingdoms.

P312 seems to have gotten first mover advantage in the fertile western European lands and expanded S-N down to Spain and up to Norway (the Atlantic mob).  U106 hugged the Black Sea then pushed NW along the South Baltic.  When it got to the Elbe it struggled to gain much of a foothold west of it.  P312 was already there.

Magna Germania probably sees some U106 spillage SW of the Elbe with Rome having softened up Gauls.

I don't even see the Belgae having much if any U106 at all.

Despite thorough Frankish incursions into present France, frankly the modern U106 distribution in France doesn't say much for the U106 these "Germanic" peoples apparently brought with them, more likely they brought more P312 than anything else.  "Germanic" is such a nebulous term.  And frankly it really only applied to one or two small tribes near the Rhine in Caesar's time and those Germani were probably Celtic.  Low U106 freq in France fits with U106 being confined mostly to north of the Elbe and the Baltic shores in ancient times.

I agree with most of what you wrote, except to say that if you look at the distribution of U106 in France you will see it reaches its highest frequency in the rolling plain of NE France, precisely those areas where the Franks settled, as reflected in the Flemish language, which is a descendant of Old Low Franconian.

As for the Belgae, Caesar erroneously referred to them as Germans but only because they had moved within living memory from east of the Rhine to Belgica west of the Rhine. Their tribal names and the names of their leaders were all Celtic.

But I agree that U106 probably didn't move as far west and south as it is found today until relatively late, probably beginning sometime in the 3rd century BC. Of course, its major push south and west, including into what is now England, came during the Migration Period.

[rms2]

Since the discussion is centring on a comment made by Tim Janzen in Feb 2010 I thought it may be interesting to have a look at the data he used at the time.

Tim said he used the 67 loci results from the U106 project for his calculations.

In April 2009, which is as close as I can get, there were only 9 such results with an Irish origin, admittedly in the next 10 months a few more would have been added but that's not exactly promising.

Next and with the benefit of hindsight I checked out the current SNP status of these 9 people.

5 were L48+ and the other 4 L48-

1 of the L48+ people have tested Z9+ and another Z7+

Of the 4 L48- people one has tested Z156+ and another Z156-

Without really thinking two hard about this I would say the common ancestor of this group is likely to be Mr. U106 himself and since I think we are reasonably clear (I hope) that Z9, Z7 & Z156 weren't conceived in Ireland it seems a fair guess that most of these lines probably arrived in Ireland independently.


Before I get accused of having a closed mind I would just like to make it clear that my point is to much is being made of a quick calculation Tim Janzen did over 2 years ago, and I’m sure that if he has dropped in on any of the myriad of threads that have been bombarded by person/s about this comment he would be quite bemused.

Thanks for that. Tim Janzen has done a lot of stuff like that in the past. Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking it, but I remember in the very early days of L21 when he did some variance calculations and concluded that L21 was oldest in Scotland. That was before we had very many continental results at all. Of course, subsequently, France has consistently had the highest L21 variance.

The important things to remember about variance in a place are 1) that it only provides an upper bound to the possible age of a haplogroup in that particular place, not the date the haplogroup actually arrived there (think of the variance of R1b in North America, for example), and 2) it cannot be looked at out of its historical context (again, think of R1b in North America, for example).

For example, if the variance of R1b in North America shows that it could be 6,000 years old there, it is important to look at history and realize how R1b arrived there, i.e., in fairly recent history, carried by Europeans.

The same sort of thing is true for U106 in Ireland. If haplotype variance shows it could be 4,000 or even 5,000 years old there, one must consider the history of Ireland and the overall distribution of U106 both there and elsewhere in Europe. All of those things strongly militate against a very ancient arrival of U106 in Ireland.

And again it is important to remember that we are talking about what is likely, not what is remotely possible.

[Jdean]

It makes me wonder if we will ever really get to the bottom of where the various R1b groups are oldest though.

U106 is a little more civilised being closer to a tree structure, and I think P312 in general is also reasonably structured, though unfortunately I know less about that than U106 & L21 which is complete mess now with all the new SNPs !!!

[whoknows]

What is NOT remotely possible is that early migrations to Britain or Ireland were composed of a single, homogenous grouping, a sort of L21 expansion that jackbooted its way, with blue-eyed purity into Ireland. Perhaps that fantasy appeals to some, who knows :)

More likely and entirely reasonable to consider that such movements were an admixture, equally probable is that R U106 may well have been an early arrival as a result. What's clearly unlikely is that other Haplogroups moved westwards to enter the Isles yet for some unknown reason R U106 was reluctant to cross the water.

On the subject of the central criticism presented to counter the findings offered by Tim Janzen, which claim that the R U106 individuals, used to assess the variance of the Haplogroup in Ireland, appear in the majority to have 'English' surnames.

We have discussed previously why surnames in Ireland are not always as they seem and there are those, which though appearing  to be of English origin, can be Anglicized versions of Gaelic Sept names. As such it is unwise to place to much reliance upon surnames as any reliable indicator, given to the various changes and corruptions which occur over time.

However if, for the purposes of the current discussion, we accept that the majority of individuals whose R U106 data was examined by Tim Janzen were of English origin we need to relocate the high degree of variance (which his findings indicated the Haplogroup arrived in Ireland quickly after the initial emergence of R U106) to Britain, the home of those supposed English R U106 members. Which again raises the prospect of settlement there, prior to the questionable model of a flood of Germanic invaders during the so-called 'Dark Ages'.

[rms2]

Sigh . . .

Your whole continuing drumbeat hinges entirely on Tim Janzen's variance calculation from back in February of 2010, which you seem to think seals the deal, despite repeated explanations that haplotype variance provides an upper bound on the age of a haplogroup in a place, not the date it arrived there. Not only that, but we don't have any input from Mr. Janzen clarifying his methodology. Did he exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from his Irish variance calculation? We don't know, although that seems doubtful, because if he did that, not many U106 haplotypes would be left to work with.

At least a couple of times you have referred disparagingly to the U106-is-Germanic "orthodoxy". In doing so, you are admitting that your own position is heterodox, and I agree, it most definitely is. The reason the orthodox position is orthodox is because it is the one based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. The reason your own position is heterodox is because it has little going for it. It is mostly based on what Jean Manco characterized on another thread as "MHD" - Male Haplogroup Disorder (or was it "Male Haplogroup Distress"?). Your own distress at finding that your haplogroup assignment did not suit you has produced these desperate flailings and repeated threads that have spanned at least a couple of years now and more than one dna chat forum.

I sympathize with those who experience distress as a consequence of dna test results. But it's time to face facts and move on. All of us have to do that sooner or later.

Yes, as more than one person has told you, it is remotely possible that there could have been a few U106+ guys in Ireland in ancient times. It is remotely possible you are descended from one of them.

But that scenario is not at all likely. And right now, when we discuss y haplogroups as a whole, their distributions, origins, and histories, that is the best we can do - likelihood, probability, based on the evidence. We can't say anything with certainty about every last individual case. You are choosing to grasp that uncertainty and cling to it in the vain and fruitless hope that it will ultimately turn out that your own distant y-dna ancestor was in Ireland before the hated (hated by you, apparently) Germanics, i.e., the Vikings, the Normans, the English, etc., arrived.

Good luck with that, but can't you give it a rest here at World Families?

[whoknows]

I would appreciate it if replies were not personalized, shall we remain focused upon the subject, as opposed to ad hominem.

There are no 'drumbeats' nor any 'single dependency', such assertions are misrepresentation, straw man posturing that misses the point of what I am actually proposing. Moroever, I have no axe to grind and despite your curious claims, nor am I interested in  establishing or 'proving' a personal Irish ancestry.

Now if we may return to the matter in hand.

The 'orthodoxy' in question is not based upon a "preponderance of evidence" but observation and speculation, derived from interpreting current Haplogroup frequencies as de-facto proof. In this regard the R U106 levels in Austria, Netherlands and Germany are taken as convincing 'proof' that the Haplogroup is 'Germanic', yet such a belief in no way forms empirical evidence that R U 106 is 'Germanic', particularly when viewed against its age and the probability that in distant times, along with other Haplogroups it may well have migrated, possibly to Britain and Ireland.

This position is not founded upon any personal 'need'; as I have made clear before my presence here is simply to expose and challenge a dogma that has fossilized around the subject of R U106, rather it advocates an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Haplogroup was part of an early admixture which migrated.

It is of course remotely possible that some R U106 in Britain can be traced to Germanic incursions, however we are left  still with the subject of variance, and as you insist the majority of names assessed by Tim Janzen were English, then his findings, namely that R U106 in Ireland showed a high degree of variance, with the conclusion that it arrived there fairly soon after its emergence on the Continent, is therefore switched to Britain.

So we need now, in light of your assertion regarding those examined under Tim's researches, to consider afresh that the Haplogroup arrived in Britain at an early stage, possibly before the establishment of a Germanic culture. If so then it must also be asked if R U106 entered Britain at such a time why could it not have arrived in Ireland?

We are not discussing 'individual cases' and I care not for my own ethnological background, one way or another, again I would suggest that using fallacious tactics such as red-herring or straw-man arguments only serves to highlight a weakness of thought. I am more than happy to have a mature and civilized exchange on the subject, based upon what I have stated, NOT a cynical misrepresentation. As for 'giving it a rest' I hope that all contributions are valued and respected, not subject to ridicule and personalized attacks, simply because they challenge an orthodoxy.

[alan trowel hands.]

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?

[Jdean]

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?

I think Goldenhind mentioned U198 is more Isles based, certainly the project seems to have a lot less continental people in it than other U106 projects.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults

The Z18 project hasn't got any obvious candidates yet, maybe we’ll find some when FTDNA include it in the deep clade.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults

U106 is a bit better behaved than L21 and there are a lot less branches to worry about.

http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s

Of these the most numerous is L48 and I think the distribution of that is reasonably 'germanic', of course that doesn’t mean branches of L48 didn’t reach the Isles earlier.

[Mikewww]

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?

I think Goldenhind mentioned U198 is more Isles based, certainly the project seems to have a lot less continental people in it than other U106 projects.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults

The Z18 project hasn't got any obvious candidates yet, maybe we’ll find some when FTDNA include it in the deep clade.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults

U106 is a bit better behaved than L21 and there are a lot less branches to worry about.

http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s

Of these the most numerous is L48 and I think the distribution of that is reasonably 'germanic', of course that doesn’t mean branches of L48 didn’t reach the Isles earlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by better behaved. There are quite a number of subclades of U106 now.

I've combined the U106 from their major haplogroups and the major geographic projects here (last updated Mar 30.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/Haplotype_Data_R-U106All.zip

Anyone who wants to can go in and look at variance from about any angle you'd want can dive into the above file. I've been intending to compare Irish U106 versus others but I haven't had time. I'm trying to make sense out of U106 clusters.  

BTW, just in case anyone was wondering - I have only one identifying handle for posting and this is it.

[Jdean]

I'm not sure what you mean by better behaved. There are quite a number of subclades of U106 now.

Only my mild sense of humour :)

U106 spits into Z381 & Z18

Z381 then splits into Z301 and Z156 where as with Z18 there is a simple linear progression through Z14 then Z372 to L257

This contrasts quite a bit with L21 which splits into

DF49 (to be proved) if not DF23
Z251 (to be proved)
DF1
DF21
DF41 (to be proved)
Z253 & Z255

And that’s only the big ones !!!

[Mikewww]

...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  

I've been undecided on if U106 could reach the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times. On other forums (U106 Yahoo) A U106 hobbyist-researcher has provided ways that they could have arrived in the Romano-Britain era (albeit not a large contingent.)

I have agreed here in the past with the idea expressed by others that R-U106ers were probably in Britain before the Angles and Saxons. And also that when the Angles and Saxons came in, they did not replace the native Celtic population. But I would imagine that a significant percentage of persons of ancestry from Britain with R-U106 DNA probably do descend from the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc, or maybe I should say, particularly those on the Z2 branch. But that is just my thought about it, and nothing more.

AS for the U106 being in Britain prior to the Anglo/Saxon migration, I recently read that there are 4 or 5 records where individuals were retiring from the First Cohort of Frisians near Manchester if I remember correctly somewhere around 186 AD. The author said that they were given land and settled there. The First Cohort of Frisians was attached the the 20th Legion stationed at Devra (Chester). They were in Britian for 300 years.

However, going into prehistory I've often thought the key was if U106 was frequent in the Low Countries and the Jutland Peninsula (and its neck) in the Bronze Age.

I'm beginning to lean towards the thought that U106's high frequency areas were bottled up south or east of the Low Countries and the Jutland. Jean posted this on another topic but I think this applies.

Østmo has pinned down for me the answer to a question that has come up periodically: when did the Scandinavians become sea-farers? Answer: the Bronze Age. That is how Bell Beaker could go straight across from Jutland to Southern Norway.

And was was the big attraction of Norway? Lene Melheim provides the answer: prospecting for copper.  

Scandinavians must have been good sea-farers for a long time back in prehistory. More U106 should be spread across the Northern Isles if it was U106 was prominent in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age.

U106 STR diversity is low in Scandinavia as well.

This does not mean that U106 was not heavy in Frisian areas, just that it very well could have gotten their late.

I'm also beginning to think that the old R1b among the Scandinavians were primarily P312 types.

[alan trowel hands.]

...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  

I've been undecided on if U106 could reach the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times. On other forums (U106 Yahoo) A U106 hobbyist-researcher has provided ways that they could have arrived in the Romano-Britain era (albeit not a large contingent.)

I have agreed here in the past with the idea expressed by others that R-U106ers were probably in Britain before the Angles and Saxons. And also that when the Angles and Saxons came in, they did not replace the native Celtic population. But I would imagine that a significant percentage of persons of ancestry from Britain with R-U106 DNA probably do descend from the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc, or maybe I should say, particularly those on the Z2 branch. But that is just my thought about it, and nothing more.

AS for the U106 being in Britain prior to the Anglo/Saxon migration, I recently read that there are 4 or 5 records where individuals were retiring from the First Cohort of Frisians near Manchester if I remember correctly somewhere around 186 AD. The author said that they were given land and settled there. The First Cohort of Frisians was attached the the 20th Legion stationed at Devra (Chester). They were in Britian for 300 years.

However, going into prehistory I've often thought the key was if U106 was frequent in the Low Countries and the Jutland Peninsula (and its neck) in the Bronze Age.  Jean's

I'm beginning to lean towards the though that U106's high frequency areas were bottled up south or east of the Low Countries and the Jutland. Jean posted this on another topic but I think this applies.

Østmo has pinned down for me the answer to a question that has come up periodically: when did the Scandinavians become sea-farers? Answer: the Bronze Age. That is how Bell Beaker could go straight across from Jutland to Southern Norway.

And was was the big attraction of Norway? Lene Melheim provides the answer: prospecting for copper.  

Scandinavians must have been good sea-farers for a long time back in prehistory. More U106 should be spread across the Northern Isles if it was U106 was prominent in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age.

U106 STR diversity is low in Scandinavia as well.

This does nothing to  that U106 is very heavy among the Frisian areas but I'm beginning that the old R1b among the Scandinavians were primarily P312 types.

I dont think many would quibble too much with the possibility of a trickle of U106 among the Belgae (who included some German tribes among them on the continent), Romans soldiers etc etc but that is essentially just a minor tweak.

I think the hypothesis that U106 is late in Britain was an assumption based on the somewhat illogical idea that just because history shines its light in the period 400BC-1066AD that that period defined the genetic map of Europe.  However, although I think that approach is all wrong they may be right when it comes to U106.  My Eureka moment was looking back at your old thread and combining the likely date of 2-3000BC for U106 with the observation that outside eastern Europe the variance is much lower than the total variance for U106.  Contacts between eastern Europe and Britain were very sparse indeed and the probability of U106 making it to England if it remained east of the Elbe or Vistula until perhaps 1000BC (ish) is vastly lower than if it had been in the area between the Elbe and the Rhine 1000 year or so earlier. 

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

[Mikewww]

I dont think many would quibble too much with the possibility of a trickle of U106 among the Belgae (who included some German tribes among them on the continent), Romans soldiers etc etc but that is essentially just a minor tweak.

I think the hypothesis that U106 is late in Britain was an assumption based on the somewhat illogical idea that just because history shines its light in the period 400BC-1066AD that that period defined the genetic map of Europe.  However, although I think that approach is all wrong they may be right when it comes to U106.  My Eureka moment was looking back at your old thread and combining the likely date of 2-3000BC for U106 with the observation that outside eastern Europe the variance is much lower than the total variance for U106.  Contacts between eastern Europe and Britain were very sparse indeed and the probability of U106 making it to England if it remained east of the Elbe or Vistula until perhaps 1000BC (ish) is vastly lower than if it had been in the area between the Elbe and the Rhine 1000 year or so earlier.  

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

The below is based on the 49 non-multicopy STRs of the 1st 67. These are only confirmed subclade tested people.

I've said this before, but I think it might eventually be very more important, but contrary to early reporting, I think U106 is younger than P312... not a lot, though.

The scale for relative variance below is based on 1.0 = P312 all, although keep in mind that U152 is a bit higher than 1.0.


U106 All____________:  Var=0.92 (N=1409)   

Z18_________________:  Var=1.00 (N=104)   
Z381 All(Z301&Z156)_:  Var=0.86 (N=813)         

Z301 All(L48&U198)__:  Var=0.86 (N=713)   
U198________________:  Var=0.68 (N=162)   
L48_________________:  Var=0.86 (N=547)

Z156 All (L1)_______:  Var=0.68 (N=98)
L1__________________:  Var=0.56 (N=65)

Z381 is the bulk of U106 and perhaps we should be considering it more in its own right, rather than U106.

L48 has been around for a long time, being almost as old its ancestors, Z301, Z381. This where the Frisian haplotypes supposedly fit.

Z381's brother, Z18, is older than Z381.

[Mikewww]

Z381's brother, Z18, is older than Z381.

These are not representative frequency counts, just counts of haplotypes by country from our DNA projects.

30 England
22 Scotland
9 Low Countries
8 Sweden
8 Ireland
5 Germany
3 Switzerland
2 France
2 Poland
2 Finland
1 Denmark
1 Russia
1 Lithuania
1 Wales

I couldn't find any from Norway.

Below is the variance by region. These counts are low other than the Isles so I wouldn't make too much of them.

Isles_______________:  Var=1.04 (N=58)
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.97 (N=7)   
Germany and east____:  Var=0.92 (N=9)   
Nordic______________:  Var=0.86 (N=14)

It is still my opinion that one of the last major places U106 reached significantly was the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway.) 

[Mikewww]

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

True U106* is a paragroup. Z381, in particular, and then Z18, seem to consume almost all of U106.

I can only find 6 people who are U106+ (and not Z18) who have tested Z381-.  They are from:

1 Scotland
1 Germany
1 Poland
1 England
2 Unknown

Too few to claim any big conclusion but given how low the testing rates are in Poland, or in Germany compared to the Isles, perhaps it is noteworthy that two of the four with Old World MDKAs are from Poland and Germany.

[Mikewww]

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

This paragroup is interesting, at least as it relates to this topic. This is Z381+ Z156+ but L1(null439)-.      Z156xL1 or Z156*:

9 Ireland
7 England
5 Scotland
2 Germany (Baden-Wurttemberg)
1 Wales
1 Low Countries

Irish/Scottish folks have a lot of McMillen/McMullen variant names mixed in. You don't find much U106 from the south of Germany so it it interesting that a couple of folks are from there. ... umm, could it be possible that some U106s just east of the P312 block got mixed in here?

The relative variance of Z156* is fairly old:

Z156*____________:  Var=0.79 (N=26)

This group is predominately 390=24 with 390=25 as well, which are of course off-modal for U106 but match the L11 and P312 modals. There are even some 393=15 guys.

I would expect some question on the surnames. I feel the same way about surname persistence as Dienekes feels about STR diversity, but here you go. Have at it.

fN10310   Bess   zzzUnkOrigin
f147853   Bow   Scotland
f120386   Donald   Scotland, Grampian, Aberdeenshire, Fintray Parish
fN10078   Goll   Germany, Baden-Württemberg
f111387   Gunter   Wales
f165363   Haile   England
f1543   Jarman   England
f175525   Kidder   England
f19095   Minnir   Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Ernsbach
f134007   Pelan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Antrim, Belfast
fN46336   Pierssens   Belgium, Flemish Region, East Flanders, Belsele
fN35071   Roche   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Wexford, Monart, Ballinure
f117323   Smalley   England, South West, Devonshire, Bideford
f5010   Staple   England
f57352   Stubbs   England, South West, Gloucestershrire, Elmestone
fN32403   Tonckin   England, South West, Cornwall, Camborne
f180037   Westcott   UK
f47991   Wilson   Ireland
f80961   Keddie   Scotland, Fife, Markinch
f90791   MacMullen   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Kilkenny
f33309   McMillan   Scotland
f35043   McMillan   Scotland
f65132   McMillen   Ireland
f93223   McMillen   Ireland
f93708   McMillen   Ireland, Ulster
f94483   McMullan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Monaghan, Lisgorran
f159837   McMullen   Ireland

[Jdean]

I couldn't find any from Norway.

I know you can't use him in your calculations but kit no. 156094 in the Scandinavian project is almost guaranteed to be Z18+.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/scandinavianydna/default.aspx?section=yresults

[Mikewww]

Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

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?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

As far as actually figuring the origins of U106 out, I recommend tracking Z18, the eldest son, along with U106**.

[rms2]

I would appreciate it if replies were not personalized, shall we remain focused upon the subject, as opposed to ad hominem.

What I wrote about your reasons for continuing these types of arguments ad nauseam, despite the tremendous weight of evidence against them, is relevant. You have been doing this for a couple of years now, and in more than one dna chat forum.

There are no 'drumbeats' nor any 'single dependency', such assertions are misrepresentation, straw man posturing that misses the point of what I am actually proposing. Moroever, I have no axe to grind and despite your curious claims, nor am I interested in  establishing or 'proving' a personal Irish ancestry.

Evidently you do not know what a "straw man" is.

Now if we may return to the matter in hand.

The 'orthodoxy' in question is not based upon a "preponderance of evidence" but observation and speculation, derived from interpreting current Haplogroup frequencies as de-facto proof. In this regard the R U106 levels in Austria, Netherlands and Germany are taken as convincing 'proof' that the Haplogroup is 'Germanic', yet such a belief in no way forms empirical evidence that R U 106 is 'Germanic', particularly when viewed against its age and the probability that in distant times, along with other Haplogroups it may well have migrated, possibly to Britain and Ireland.

Ridiculous. To quote Dienekes once again:

The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero[/size].

This position is not founded upon any personal 'need'; as I have made clear before my presence here is simply to expose and challenge a dogma that has fossilized around the subject of R U106, rather it advocates an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Haplogroup was part of an early admixture which migrated.

It's not reasonable because, other than your obvious need, there is no reason to believe what you constantly assert.

If U106 "was part of an early admixture which migrated", it is certainly curious that its bearers apparently decided to settle in precisely those places that later newcomers from U106-rich places would settle.

It is of course remotely possible that some R U106 in Britain can be traced to Germanic incursions, however we are left  still with the subject of variance, and as you insist the majority of names assessed by Tim Janzen were English, then his findings, namely that R U106 in Ireland showed a high degree of variance, with the conclusion that it arrived there fairly soon after its emergence on the Continent, is therefore switched to Britain.

Nonsense. The Germanic incursions into SE Britain are well documented and resulted in the creation of England ("Angle-land") and the replacement of Celtic speech with the Germanic language of the Anglo-Saxons. Later, during the Viking Era, Danish Vikings settled in England. A large part of England was under Danish rule and law, i.e., the "Danelaw".

Once again, the variance of a haplogroup in a place gives an upper bound on its age in that place, not a date of arrival. If Mr. Janzen included English and Lowland Scots in his Irish variance calculation, that merely invalidates it for Ireland. It doesn't then transfer over to England.

The variance of U106 and its subclades in Britain and Ireland must be viewed within the context of British and Irish history, and the distribution of U106 there and in Europe. It would be a foolish error to hold variance up as the sole standard and proclaim that because U106 in England is, say, 4,000 years old in terms of variance, therefore it must have arrived in Britain around 2,000 BC. As I pointed out before, the same sort of ridiculous argument could be made concerning U106 in North America.

So we need now, in light of your assertion regarding those examined under Tim's researches, to consider afresh that the Haplogroup arrived in Britain at an early stage, possibly before the establishment of a Germanic culture. If so then it must also be asked if R U106 entered Britain at such a time why could it not have arrived in Ireland?

Tim Janzen is a guy whose hobby is genetic genealogy. I believe he is a medical doctor, but I could be wrong about that. He did some quick variance calculations on U106 back in late 2009 and posted a bit about it in February of 2010. You are making that thin reed the complete underpinning of your argument. If you wish to call that "researches", okay. Suit yourself.

Once again, there is no real evidence that U106 entered in Britain in any numbers before the historical period. Variance calculations provide an upper bound on the age of a haplogroup in a place, not the date that the haplogroup arrived there.

If U106 variance in Britain is 4k or even 5k years, that doesn't mean it got there that early. It could have arrived there much much later, which is actually what the evidence indicates.

Yet again, think of the variance of U106 in North America, for example. If it turns out to add up to an age of 3k or 4k years, will you argue that U106 arrived in North America three or four thousand years ago?

We are not discussing 'individual cases' and I care not for my own ethnological background, one way or another, again I would suggest that using fallacious tactics such as red-herring or straw-man arguments only serves to highlight a weakness of thought. I am more than happy to have a mature and civilized exchange on the subject, based upon what I have stated, NOT a cynical misrepresentation. As for 'giving it a rest' I hope that all contributions are valued and respected, not subject to ridicule and personalized attacks, simply because they challenge an orthodoxy.

It is not a fallacy to tell the truth and point out the reason for your apparent obsession with this topic, which has stretched over at least a couple of years and spanned more than one dna chat forum.

You are becoming quite famous for this.

[rms2]

Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

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?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

[Mikewww]

Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

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?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

No, for these reasons.
1. Most of these haplogroups are far older than the times of paternally inherited surnames
2. Surnames are oftentimes geographically biased, which is what you'd expect but that does not always reflect deep ancestral relationships.
3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.
4. It seems like many surnames have at least two or three variant/origin interpretations.
5. Perhaps most importantly, I'm not a surname expert, it is a sensitive topic and we are talking about hundreds of haplotypes - so it takes time.
6. Everyone can do it for themselves by downloading the spreadsheet. I think one key to the Irish, etc discussion is probably Z156*. I list the surnames for that one in reply 142.

[rms2]

In came the far away stranger
And settled all over the land.
The horse and the cow
The goat and the sow
Fell into the stranger's hand.

The history of foreign (especially English) settlement in Ireland is well known. The source lands of most of those foreigners are far richer in U106 than Ireland is.

I myself have a number of ancestors in my pedigree who were born in Ireland but were very unlikely to have been native Irish. They were Protestants, for one thing, and did not have native Irish surnames, for another.

While variance is important, it cannot be lifted out of the context of known history, haplogroup distribution, and ethnic and linguistic associations.

If variance is the paramount consideration, then a "high variance" figure for U106 in North America must mean that U106 went there "shortly after its emergence".

[Jdean]

Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

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?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

No, for these reasons.
1. Most of these haplogroups are far older than the times of paternally inherited surnames
2. Surnames are oftentimes geographically biased, which is what you'd expect but that does not always reflect deep ancestral relationships.
3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.
4. It seems like many surnames have at least two or three variant/origin interpretations.
5. Perhaps most importantly, I'm not a surname expert and it is a sensitive topic.
6. Everyone can do it for themselves by downloading the spreadsheet.

However you only have to remove one name, that's questionably Scottish anyway, and 2/3 of the Irish results disappear.

You pretty much pointed this out but I thought I'd repeat it :)