World Families Forums - Is L21 Really Celtic?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 02, 2014, 07:16:06 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)
| | |-+  Is L21 Really Celtic?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is L21 Really Celtic?  (Read 4642 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2012, 02:27:54 PM »

I think the most compelling evidence that L21 was Celtic or at least the major group who became Celtic in the north Atlantic area is its date.  It is rather young in prehistoric terms and it is hard to image a non-IE wave into the isles as late as the Bronze Age.  The Iron Age is too late to explain initial Celticity of many areas and the idea Celtic languages were primariily down to La Tene and Hallstatt has been all but disproved.  That only really leaves the copper/bronze Age.  L21 is the main element in the isles which dates to that period.  The clusters of L21 look very like the result of growth of the elites established in the Bronze Age.  I think it is virtually certain that the Bronze Age elites of the isles were Celtic.  The sheer dominance and cluster structure of L21 really do look like the people with power in the Celtic north-west were predominantly L21.  Elsewhere the Celtic areas are dominanted by other P312 clades.  The only common denomenator of all the Celtic speaking areas is P312.  The only P312 clade that has any doubts about it are the DF27 ones but that is largely down to the Basques and Catalans.  However the Catalans are not linguistically non-Celtic.  They seem to be Romanised people closely linked to Romanised Gauls of western France.  I do not believe the Basque exception should change that.  Its like the tail wagging the dog.  I am pretty sure DF27 has a Celto-Italic base.  In general L21 has an uncanny resemblance to the best survivals of the Celtic languages and the where the reigns of power remained in Celtic hands longest.  I suspect when P312 spread it may not have been fully developed Celtic though, perhaps some sort of western IE or Italo-Celtic branch not yet developed into Celtic but soon to develop into the Celtic languages. Its also about common denomenators.  P312 and the beaker period is the only common denomenator that linked all of the future Celtic world.  Nothing later linked every part of the Celtic language spread.  The date of P312 coincides very well indeed with the beakers.  Having said that some outlying beaker people beyond the main block would have had competition from other groups and were probably much smaller and their dialect may not have prevailed ultimately.  

As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.

I think that is a pretty rational outline based on what we know about the variance of L21, P312 in general and U106 in the west.  Rational analysis should be based on the dates of clades in various areas indicated by variance as well as the archaeological evidence.  I think the evidence is being underused in the arguements in this thread.  I was fairly frosty towards the idea that U106 in the isles was ALL late UNTIL I realised just how young U106 west of the Elbe was.  When that dawned on me that tied in beautifully the DNA, lingusitic and archeological patterns and my skepticism disolved.  The key here is that U106 west of the Elbe only has variance of a 3000 year old clade at best while L21 west of the Rhine has variance indicative that is 50% older than that.  If you reversed it and compared L21 east of the Rhine to U106 east of the Elbe you would find the total reverse with L21 only being 2000 years or so old and U106 being 4000 years old or so.  Its pretty clear they occurred in very different areas, expanded in different direction to different extents and at different times.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 02:31:35 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2012, 02:41:58 PM »

What would you call close matches?
I havent any close matches with any English,Germans,Scandinavians or people from Normandy.




I will say again you need to look at U106 on a case by case basis based on your matches.  As far as I can see FTDNA matches seem to relate to the historic period rather than older.  If a person is really a prehistoric Irish U106 then their matches within that timeframe covered by ftdna matching should be with other Irish or Irish migrants.  If you have non-Irish matches within the last 1000 years or so timespan then your y-line is probaby an historical period intrusion.  Noone can provide a cover all statment on U106 so its on an individual basis.  So, does anyone have the access privelages to look at Irish U106 people's matches?  It would be very interesting.  I know in the past someone looked at the individual matching between England and the continent for U106 so it seems it can be done.  There is no need to guess on this.  Matching will provide the answer.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2012, 02:58:10 PM »

Your position on that would I imagine find agreement with people,and surely having emerged before the birth of either Germanic or Celtic culture, the Haplogroups in question would have established themselves sufficiently to eventually adopt and consolidate either of those cultural identities. The area of debate rests not with that eminently reasonable model but in views that categorize L21 or R U106 as definitively 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' respectively, on the basis of present frequency and distribution. It is an alluring position and I can see how persuasive it is to some, yet in order to accept that perspective as valid there appears to be a requirement to see R U106 as not able to cross the seas to the Isles or to sufficiently secure a presence there to create a lineage. Whereas P312/L21 we are asked to accept, without critique, was far more mobile, vigorous and unlike its DNA brother easily able to enter the Isles. Now I may have my thinking wrong on that but such a conclusion is making some colossal assumptions, which I guess lead to the understand that L21 is 'Celtic' and that belonging to that Haplogroup is proof positive of descending from a 'Celt'.  

U106 appears to be descended from and L11* outlier group west of the Elbe judging by variance and U106 seems to have developed in situ there.  its variance pattern suggests it did not reach the Rhine until the late Bronze Age and perhaps Belgium by the Iron Age.  It is true that the L11* group who gave birth to U106 in the east would have spoken the L11* language (for want of a better term) but at the L11 stage the changes that moved to Celtic from Celto-Italic or west IE had not yet happened.  They couldnt have as even P312 also includes Italic groups.  The changes that formed Celtic probably occurred west of the Rhine through interaction of beaker-descended groups in the late beaker and immediate post-beaker era.  The pocket of L11*/ U106* east of the Elbe was in a seperate interaction zone beyond the Celtic zone and I would think that the first extant dialect that they spoke would have been Germanic after a long period in some langauge half way between western-IE and Germanic.  So, I dont believe that many U106 people spoke Celtic languages until U106 crossed the Rhine in the Iron Age and mixed in with Celtic groups in the eastern part of the Belgic area. If (as variance seems to imply) U106 was east of the Elbe until the cusp of the late Bronze Age then I dont think it was in striking distance of the isles.  Once it was spread as far as the Rhine shortly in the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age it was within striking distance of England.  However the area between the Elbe and Rhine had distinctive non-Celtic cultures that almost all agree were proto-Germanic and there is no sign of these cultures in Britain in prehistory.  When sunstantial arrivals from that area did happen as Rome fell they are easily recognisable as Germanic settlers.  So, all in all I doubt much U106 even in England pre-dates the Roman period.  That is based on the variance evidence, archaeology and linguistics.  HAD U106 been west of the Elbe at an earlier stage it would be a different matter as there were clearly contacts with the area west of the Elbe and eastern Britain (including beakers) but the low variance of U106 until fairly late and its bottling up further east until relativley late hugely reduce the chances of it having made it even to England in prehistory. Believe me I was a skeptic about U106 not making it to Britain in prehistory until I realised that the variance indicates it was bottled up around the Baltic until the late Bronze Age.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2012, 03:10:38 PM »

What would you call close matches?
I havent any close matches with any English,Germans,Scandinavians or people from Normandy.




I will say again you need to look at U106 on a case by case basis based on your matches.  As far as I can see FTDNA matches seem to relate to the historic period rather than older.  If a person is really a prehistoric Irish U106 then their matches within that timeframe covered by ftdna matching should be with other Irish or Irish migrants.  If you have non-Irish matches within the last 1000 years or so timespan then your y-line is probaby an historical period intrusion.  Noone can provide a cover all statment on U106 so its on an individual basis.  So, does anyone have the access privelages to look at Irish U106 people's matches?  It would be very interesting.  I know in the past someone looked at the individual matching between England and the continent for U106 so it seems it can be done.  There is no need to guess on this.  Matching will provide the answer.

Are you tested to 67 markers?  Actually as far as I can see FTDNA matching really doesnt stretch into prehistory much if at all.  My furthest matches on my FTDNA page seem to be within the AD period and probably mostly within the last 1000 years.  Even their furthest matches seem to be not especially ancient.  What I mean is who are your matches other than people who are clearly very closely related? Actually the slighly more distant matches estimated to about 1-2000 years back probably tell you more than very close matches which relate to what you could call the post-migration period in many areas.  Where are your more distant matches from?  Remember that even the furthest matches on your FTDNA page probably are not that old and probably post-date prehistory.  Of course better than STR matching (which becomes problematic back in prehistoric time) is who shares your SNPs downstream of U106. Do you share an SNP below U106 with others?  I certainly think that U106 people should seek their answers in SNP and STR matches given the lack of detailed resolution of the clade compared to L21 for example.    
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 03:11:55 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2012, 03:26:51 PM »

I admire your assemblage of opinion and the flexibility of mind, which you demonstrate that enabled you to now accept the 'all R U106 is Germanic' view, you elaborate upon your change of mind with some attractive ideas, they remain however reasoned speculation, not proven fact, as understood in a scientific sense. It is this limitation which enables various positions to be taken on L 21 being 'Celtic' or the mirror case of R U106 being 'Germanic'. My own position is that both had every opportunity to embrace and display each cultural identity and that despite the somewhat limited statistical indications on the subject, that these Haplogroups had an opportunity to migrate and settle across North Western Europe, including into the Isles. It may well be that further examination of various sub-clades can shed further light into this, however on the basis of reason alone I can find no objection to imagining that like L21, R U106 was able to migrate across the sea to the Isles, possibly before the Germanic expansions of later centuries. Hopefully at some future stage we shall be in a more informed position to establish more conclusively the facts, however for the present it is difficult to be convinced by a statistical analysis dependent upon what some may consider partial and  selective data. Which is hardly  exhaustive or comprehensive and based upon current distributions, that may not, of themselves, be a faithful representation of population/Haplogroup frequency or variance several millenia ago.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 03:30:48 PM by whoknows » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2012, 04:01:06 PM »

I admire your assemblage of opinion and the flexibility of mind, which you demonstrate that enabled you to now accept the 'all R U106 is Germanic' view, you elaborate upon your change of mind with some attractive ideas, they remain however reasoned speculation, not proven fact, as understood in a scientific sense. It is this limitation which enables various positions to be taken on L 21 being 'Celtic' or the mirror case of R U106 being 'Germanic'. My own position is that both had every opportunity to embrace and display each cultural identity and that despite the somewhat limited statistical indications on the subject, that these Haplogroups had an opportunity to migrate and settle across North Western Europe, including into the Isles. It may well be that further examination of various sub-clades can shed further light into this, however on the basis of reason alone I can find no objection to imagining that like L21, R U106 was able to migrate across the sea to the Isles, possibly before the Germanic expansions of later centuries. Hopefully at some future stage we shall be in a more informed position to establish more conclusively the facts, however for the present it is difficult to be convinced by a statistical analysis dependent upon what some may consider partial and  selective data. Which is hardly  exhaustive or comprehensive and based upon current distributions, that may not, of themselves, be a faithful representation of population/Haplogroup frequency or variance several millenia ago.
]]

I agree that the resolution of U106 is unsatisfactory as a clade.  However, as it stands on the variance evidence, U106 was not within the normal striking distance of the isles until rather late on if it was on the Baltic beyond Denmark.  If that is correct, it didnt have the opportunities to reach the isles that othe clades had.  Even a trip to England from Norway and Denmark would be more likely and variance would not even place U106 there until the end of the Bronze Age.  OK this does need to be shown to stand when U106 is better resolved but it it still has these variance patterns at that stage then I would stand by my reasoning that U106 was not in a position to reach even England until fairly late and that probably explains the lack of it among the Celtic fringe areas today. I have no problem in priciple with the idea of U106 being earlier and you can find me on several threads (including the one about NE Scottish U106 arguing for it but that was before the low variance of U106 west of the Elbe dawned on me.  I would agree though that U106 needs broken down much more into subclades before its definitive.  I think I will leave it at that as I dont have anything to add to that.  As for proof, this entire hobby (other than actual ancient DNA) is about making the best of a bad lot and using the best logic of inference we can using what little we have.  Proof may never happen if by that you mean a statistically significant sample of ancient R1b DNA resolved to subclades below L11.     
   
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2012, 04:01:07 PM »

Well hopefully this is where work on ancient-DNA will eventually help alot. For example there are countless samples of early medieval remains held in the likes of the National Musuem of Ireland from digs etc. Hopefully over the next 10 years improvements in ancient DNA extraction should lead to more data regarding historic population structure.

Of course one problem is the fact that cremation was quite popular at various stages in history. No doubt this could lead to gaps in the historical record.

Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2012, 04:13:54 PM »

Well hopefully this is where work on ancient-DNA will eventually help alot. For example there are countless samples of early medieval remains held in the likes of the National Musuem of Ireland from digs etc. Hopefully over the next 10 years improvements in ancient DNA extraction should lead to more data regarding historic population structure.

Of course one problem is the fact that cremation was quite popular at various stages in history. No doubt this could lead to gaps in the historical record.



Thats true there are going to be major problems in terms of the Mesolithic (only one site with cremations from Limerick and a couple of stray human bones representing the first 4000 years of human settlement on Ireland), the mid-late Bronze Age and BC part of the Iron Age (I am not aware of any non-cremation burials from that c. 2000 year span).  However there should be a reasonable amount of non-cremated Neolithic bobes (although cremation was far more common) and luckily the Early Bronze Age immediate post-beaker food vessel phase had a decent amount of inhumations in cists.  As you posted, there is also the pre-Viking part of the Early Christian period too which although late still probably represent an essentially prehistoric population.

I would be happy with a couple of handfuls of ancient Irish DNA results from each of the Early Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Roman Iron Age/Early Christian period.  That would tell us a lot.  Its a shame about the Mesolithic though.  I am kind of fascinated by them as they were the first people in Ireland and had the place to themselves for 4000 years.  I believe there was a late Mesolithic uncremated stray human bone from Ferriters Cove in SW Ireland that was tested to ascertain the . 
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2012, 04:26:27 PM »

There was kind of grave found near where I'm from about 25 years ago.
I think it was a cist burial (think it was dated to 1,500 - 2,000 bc); some pottery that looked like a small vase with zig zag markings, I'm almost certain there were also bone fragments found in it. i think the  find is in the natural history museum in the big smoke.
What kind of burials were cists, from the point of view of similarities to other regions etc
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 04:27:14 PM by inver2b1 » Logged

I-L126
H3
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2012, 04:43:13 PM »


Cists are bronze age burials.


There was kind of grave found near where I'm from about 25 years ago.
I think it was a cist burial (think it was dated to 1,500 - 2,000 bc); some pottery that looked like a small vase with zig zag markings, I'm almost certain there were also bone fragments found in it. i think the  find is in the natural history museum in the big smoke.
What kind of burials were cists, from the point of view of similarities to other regions etc
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2012, 04:57:44 PM »

Indeed ancient DNA analysis that could more definitively establish early population migrations, settlements and related Haplogroups will be a very welcome development, until the let is hope that further SNP testing and looking more closely at sub-Clades will shed more light. Until then, while I respect the choice of others to be satisfied to reach a conclusion on prevailing views and statistical information, I prefer to maintain an open mind on L21, in terms of it be being definitively 'Celtic' or R U106 claimed as 'Germanic' only. Beyond that I feel any further comments would be restating my position.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 04:59:15 PM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2012, 09:48:23 PM »

Man, you just have to laugh at all this verbiage expended because a couple of Irish guys are unhappy with their y-dna test results.

I'm not sure what it's most like: a Benny Hill skit or an episode of The Twilight Zone.

But carry on.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2012, 10:37:00 PM »

Indeed ancient DNA analysis that could more definitively establish early population migrations, settlements and related Haplogroups will be a very welcome development, until the let is hope that further SNP testing and looking more closely at sub-Clades will shed more light. Until then, while I respect the choice of others to be satisfied to reach a conclusion on prevailing views and statistical information, I prefer to maintain an open mind on L21, in terms of it be being definitively 'Celtic' or R U106 claimed as 'Germanic' only. Beyond that I feel any further comments would be restating my position.
I don’t know if this may help, but in these recent data from South-East Europe (“Begoña Martinez-Cruz et al., Y-Chromosome Analysis in Individuals Bearing the Basarab Name of the First Dynasty of Wallachian Kings, PLoS ONE 7(7): e41803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041803) 5 out of 6 R-U106 found have DYS390=24 and 1 has 23, and that is a zone of German migration. This to say what? That probably, as I have said in the past about Italy, these R-U106 could be very ancient and perhaps U106*.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2012, 02:22:04 AM »

I think the most compelling evidence that L21 was Celtic or at least the major group who became Celtic in the north Atlantic area is its date.  It is rather young in prehistoric terms and it is hard to image a non-IE wave into the isles as late as the Bronze Age.  The Iron Age is too late to explain initial Celticity of many areas and the idea Celtic languages were primariily down to La Tene and Hallstatt has been all but disproved.  .

Assumed to be disproved? Placing the celtic languages back to the copper age has no material evidence(inscriptions) to back it up at all!
This is similar but not as extreme as when Stephen Oppenheimer claimed that the palaeolithic Brtons were speakers of the Basque language,unbelievable!
Where's  the inscritptions to show this?
Logged

LDJ
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2012, 02:31:48 AM »

Man, you just have to laugh at all this verbiage expended because a couple of Irish guys are unhappy with their y-dna test results.

I'm not sure what it's most like: a Benny Hill skit or an episode of The Twilight Zone.

But carry on.

You ended by saying "carry on", Rich. I've just re-read some past threads to get a gist of the  issue you describe. As a result, forget Benny Hill & The Twilight Zone, I fancy a new film in the 1960s British 'Carry On' film series.
We've had 'Carry On Doctor', 'Carry On Camping', 'Carry On Up the Khyber' etc, but I think the time has arrived for a Y-DNA based film. How's this for a title for U106+ film buffs?:
'Carry On I'm Germanic'.

Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 03:22:41 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #65 on: July 26, 2012, 04:13:50 AM »

The discussion on this thread was initiated by the Moderator having determined to relocate comments from a separate discussion, it is slightly misleading therefore to denigrate the various exchanges on the subject matter as "verbiage" and the consequence of Irish people unsatisfied with the results of Y DNA testing.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #66 on: July 26, 2012, 04:29:21 AM »

I think many of us can't totally prove our ancient tribal origins. However, although an expert in Y-DNA studies feels I'm of probable Brythonic Celt stock, I know I'd find plenty to be proud of/interested in if I was of Germanic stock, or whatever.
The great thing about all these discussions is that there is so much to be learned. Because I'm not 100% sure of my ancient origins I've researched many of the alternatives. To me they're all fascinating.
Be proud whatever is my motto.
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 04:35:38 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #67 on: July 26, 2012, 05:08:42 AM »

It is not about proving anything, your assertion on R U106 simply panders to a straw-man argument offered by someone with a fossilized view on the Haplogroup. As made very clear during this thread, with respect to L21 and those who claim it proof certain of being descended from a Celt, we simply cannot affirm such in any empirical sense, speculate yes, offer statistics, but not go beyond likely hood, which is not evidence as understood by scientific rigor. As to the parallel assumption that all R U106 is Germanic that claim too is clearly troubling and requires a whole number of assumptions and prejudices in order to be believed. This is the core of the discussion, to question, retain a willingness to consider a range of possibilities, not to  a drum that insists a particular Haplogroup belongs to some ancient ethnology. Concerning the fallacy that people are engaging ideas on this topic as a consequence of some disappointment on receiving YDNA results is a nonsense and presumably is targeted at those who belong to R U106. For the record there are a number of contributors here who perhaps do not belong to that Haplogroup who are open-minded enough to consider that R U106 may well have migrated and established across North West Europe prior to the emergence of Germanic culture. Maliclavelli has offered some informed and interesting comments on this recently and we have read equally important and valid posts here and on other threads from Mike, Ironroad, Goldenhind, Alan and others too. At this moment, minus any Ancient DNA testing, reliant upon current variance/frequency data on location and distribution of Haplogroups, that may well have no meaningful representation (compared to ancient patterns) we are reliant upon informed speculation and data extrapolation. Compared to science where a case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt we simply do not know for sure, all we have is various degrees of probability, of course that circumstance, leaves room for error or indeed another perspective to have equal validity or at the very least be given consideration. What cannot be declared as 'fact' is that an entire people belonging to any one Haplogroup must be either Celtic or Germanic in origin, cases must surely be examined on a case by case basis, further SNP study, and sub-clade analysis conducted (especially within R U106) is required, along with the dreamed of ability to test and determine more consistently and accurately Ancient YDNA before  we can make such declarations with any confidence. Until then the questions remain valid, be they 'Is L21 Really Celtic?' or 'Is All R U106 Germanic?'
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 05:11:14 AM by whoknows » Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #68 on: July 26, 2012, 05:58:54 AM »

My Carry On film ref was a humorous aside (or meant to be!). My serious point re all this is that nothing is set in stone at present. It's the same in genealogy: Few serious researchers expect to uncover an 'Adam & Eve' couple representing each surname. The best that can usually be hoped for are vague statements claiming '75% of Clan X are R1b's' , or whatever.
In some ways, being a minority in a country may make finding one's tribal origins on the continent of Europe, or wherever, a considerably easier task.
I'm assuming you may be one of the U106+ folk? If it's not a rude question, may I ask you this?
If it is eventually found that you are via Germanic stock, or something definitely not closely related to Ireland, would that disappoint you? If so, why? I have a Scottish friend who turns out to have Middle Eastern origins - probably brought here with the Romans. Initially he was hugely disappointed, but now he's thoroughly fascinated by his exotic roots!
Cheers,
Bob
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #69 on: July 26, 2012, 06:24:32 AM »

I have previously made it entirely clear that my personal circumstances are not the motivation for exchanging views on this subject, and I have stated also that I am indifferent to attaching my sense of identity to any particular Haplogroup, be it L21 or whatever. What concerns my interest is simply representing the value of retaining an open mind on the subject and discussing various alternative perspectives to the orthodoxy that tries to claim all R U106 is by definition 'Germanic'. Within that context I can most certainly empathize with anyone from Ireland, who in attempting to reasonably consider non-Germanic theories which may explain the Haplogroup's presence in that country, who are shouted-down or belittled simply because they choose to hold a view which does not conform to one which itself is not proven in terms of science.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #70 on: July 26, 2012, 06:32:49 AM »

OK, I understand. I don't know what your surname is, but perhaps it could reveal clues to demonstrate ancient Irish roots?
Cheers,
Bob
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #71 on: July 26, 2012, 06:39:21 AM »

Appreciate you are seeking to be helpful and welcome the kind suggestion, however as I stated I feel no compulsion or interest in trying to establish any association between a Haplogroup and a particular ethnology relating to my background. It is the topic itself not any personal quest.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 06:40:13 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #72 on: July 26, 2012, 06:44:25 AM »

The discussion on this thread was initiated by the Moderator having determined to relocate comments from a separate discussion, it is slightly misleading therefore to denigrate the various exchanges on the subject matter as "verbiage" and the consequence of Irish people unsatisfied with the results of Y DNA testing.

No, it's not.

It's the truth. You know it, and everyone else knows it. Every chance you get, you bring up the U106-might-really-be-native-Irish thing. The attack on the "Celtic" status of L21 was merely a variation on that constant theme, something like, "If I can't be 'Celtic', then no one can!"

It got split off into a separate thread in this case because it had nothing to do with the thread in which it first appeared.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 06:45:58 AM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #73 on: July 26, 2012, 07:01:47 AM »

The subject matter of this thread is, as you interestingly titled 'Is L21 Really Celtic' I remain happy to continue exchanging views on that and of course there was tangential and salient reference to other Haplogroups, as the general points, in terms of the shortcomings and folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'. Looking for snakes were none are present and issuing personal attacks is not really helpful, nor is misrepresenting what my views actually are. As you know we have been through this before and I wish to stay on topic as the alternative leads to a cul-de-sac.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #74 on: July 26, 2012, 07:09:07 AM »

The subject matter of this thread is, as you interestingly titled 'Is L21 Really Celtic' I remain happy to continue exchanging views on that and of course there was tangential and salient reference to other Haplogroups, as the general points, in terms of the shortcomings and folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'. Looking for snakes were none are present and issuing personal attacks is not really helpful, nor is misrepresenting what my views actually are. As you know we have been through this before and I wish to stay on topic as the alternative leads to a cul-de-sac.

The only misrepresentation here occurs in your posts.

This is absolutely not about the supposed "folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'".

No one has "insisted" on any such thing.

What this is about is an upsetting y-dna result, the inability to cope with it, and the now years-long effort to get someone, anyone, to say, "Yes, I think that variety of U106 is actually native to Ireland!"

Now it's time to move past this and put a stop to it.

Last word on the subject. Thread closed.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 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 0.14 seconds with 19 queries.