World Families Forums - Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 06:58:51 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?  (Read 8469 times)
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2012, 05:35:57 PM »

Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 05:36:15 PM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2012, 06:03:22 PM »

I don't wish to continue discussing U106 in the Isles with you, because I don't believe any of the convoluted *stuff* you are posting is "positive and sincere" in any way, shape, or form.

It's pointless. You want to be told that your U106+ (Z156+) result is prehistoric in Ireland and cannot possibly mean that you are the y-dna descendant of an historical period invader or settler, especially not - God forbid! - one of the hated English.

We've been round and round this thing before.

It's pointless.

My last couple of posts before I stupidly exchanged words with you were in answer to Rich Rocca. Otherwise, I would not have posted on this thread after my initial post. I probably should not have dignified it with any commentary at all.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 06:04:33 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2012, 06:19:50 PM »

Dear rms2 On what factual data do you define the amount you claim here:

"I doubt there was much U106 there prior to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. A little bit, maybe, but not much."

with your comments below in which you suggest some 30% of R U106 in the Isles may have established itself prior to the Germanic expansions:

“In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.” rms2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26106.html)
. . .

By the way, just to clear things up, the words in bold which you take as mine are in fact NOT mine.

If you were more careful, you would see I was quoting Asturrulumbo in order to disagree with him.

Quote
Asturrulumbo
16-10-11, 13:14
In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U152 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable
.


Here was my response:

Quote
My own opinion is there wasn't much U106 at all in what is now England prior to the Migration Period and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. I say that because I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. In the Low Countries there is apparently a north-south gradient for U106 and an opposite, south-north gradient for U152. That indicates that the Flemings are mostly U106 and the Walloons mostly U152. That would tend to support the idea that U106 has no real connection to the Celts directly across the Channel from Britain or at least not much of one.

I suspect the y-dna composition of the Low Countries has changed a lot since the Bronze Age. The bulk of U106 was probably farther east and north at that time.

Of course, only ancient y-dna can sort out these sorts of disagreements
.

Apparently they no longer show the quote boxes in those thread synopses. You would need to click on "View Full Version" at the top to see what actually transpired.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2012, 06:42:56 PM »

Thanks for clarifying your position on that, I must admit I was amused to read those comments and as they were not in quotes, or italics but appeared within a distinct box with your name at the top, had read them as your views. Of course we remain bound by speculation, some attached to orthodoxy, yet none of us are able to declare with any empirical certainty. However as you will know too well there are some who would convince others of the correctness of their opinion simply upon the basis that it was they who announced it. Personally I prefer to ask questions and remain open to various ideas, including that of Germanic migrations contributing to R U106 in the Isles. There are of course other models, including those suggested by fellow contributors, in which the Haplogroup is considered to have entered the Isles at a much earlier period. Clearly you cannot permit yourself to entertain that idea, I respect your freedom to hold a different perspective, all I continue to hope is that those who are willing to be more open-minded are extended an equal degree of courtesy and consideration.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2012, 07:20:24 PM »

The trick is not to be so open-minded that you lose your brain.

Personally I have no interest in remaining open-minded about the possibility that (for example) extra-terrestrials have set up a holiday camp in the Bermuda Triangle. My brain is needed for more useful activities. The fact that I cannot prove empirically that they haven't (they could be invisible extra-terrestrials) is immaterial. The proposition is of no value, no use, no interest, because there is no data to discuss.

One day there might actually be data to support the proposition of U106 in the Isles prior to the Germanic expansion. If and when that happens, I think that you will find people happy to discuss it. Without data, there is nothing to discuss.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 07:23:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2012, 09:14:06 PM »

I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.   

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 09:16:20 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2012, 07:24:35 AM »

No man is an Island. Every Irishhman that is U106 is not alone.He is the representitive of a large group of males on the island. There is a cluster in the South of Ireland. There arent a lot of people living on the Island tested yet and wont be either.


I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.   

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2012, 07:39:28 AM »

"The trick is not to be so open-minded that you lose your brain. Personally I have no interest in remaining open-minded about the possibility that (for example) extra-terrestrials have set up a holiday camp in the Bermuda Triangle. My brain is needed for more useful activities. The fact that I cannot prove empirically that they haven't (they could be invisible extra-terrestrials) is immaterial. The proposition is of no value, no use, no interest, because there is no data to discuss."

This is a clear example of fallacious argument, in particular it is known as 'Appeal To Ridicule' where  ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."  

"One day there might actually be data to support the proposition of U106 in the Isles prior to the Germanic expansion. If and when that happens, I think that you will find people happy to discuss it. Without data, there is nothing to discuss. "

If paucity of evidence is the measurement of what is not permitted as condition for discussion then there would be little conversation on the subject of Y DNA in general as most of the exchanges are a mixture of opinion, speculation and statistical interpretation. Meanwhile a shortage of data is precisely the condition from which discussion and inquiry is forged, remember while some may choose to consider R U106 as a proven case, despite the lack of actual verifiable evidence, in truth we cannot in all certainty be confident of that being so.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 07:41:21 AM by whoknows » Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2012, 07:46:27 AM »

Until this field of inquiry is in a position to have at its disposal more detailed data, further SNP testing and knowledge and supported by ancient DNA analysis we are limited to what at best is an informed speculation, based upon statisitical interpretation and data that of itself may be partial, non-representative or display a bias of some sort. Anyone who values scientific rigor would under those circumstances not affirm any conclusion on the topic as being proven.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2012, 08:55:57 AM »

No man is an Island. Every Irishhman that is U106 is not alone.He is the representitive of a large group of males on the island. There is a cluster in the South of Ireland. There arent a lot of people living on the Island tested yet and wont be either.


I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.  

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    

There are lots of U106 Irishmen.  However, Irish does not=prehistoric genes.  Its not about nationality.  Al countries are composites.  Its just in Ireland there is stronger tendency (as a result of colonial history and politics) to identify prehistoric elements as native and see the remaining settlers as less and less native as time goes on rather than see them all as settlers (which of course they all area). However, I would still stand by the inference that U106 is probably overwhelmingly down to historic period settlers.  I dont see the problem with that as I dont buy into the natives/intruders view.  All countries are composites of wave after wave and their modern descendants are all natives in my view.  I dont correlate genes and nationality.   If someone seeks to see ethnicity in genes then autosomal is far more a representative than yDNA anyway.  Autosmal patterns are the composite of 1000s of years of a group blending into one and that can be seen in detaield autosmal patterns which often form neat patterns overlaying countries.   They are in a sense a self fullfilling prophesy in that a breeding group will eventually form a cluster.  This can probably be broken down further into regions and even smaller clusters although that is getting more and more blurred after generations of island-wide male mobility rather than staying on the family farm.  
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 09:07:24 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2012, 09:03:01 AM »

Until this field of inquiry is in a position to have at its disposal more detailed data, further SNP testing and knowledge and supported by ancient DNA analysis we are limited to what at best is an informed speculation, based upon statisitical interpretation and data that of itself may be partial, non-representative or display a bias of some sort. Anyone who values scientific rigor would under those circumstances not affirm any conclusion on the topic as being proven.

Well even with hard ancient DNA evidence, conclusive negative evidence for a small groups absence is going to be a very very long time and we may as well close the thread for 10 or 20 years.  This hobby is and will remain one of inference and probability and that will only improve in increments over many many years and decades.  Negative evidence is far harder to provide than positive as it requires a far greater number of ancient DNA results.  Most people realise this is a hobby based on the fun of educated inference and probability and most people do not talk in absolutes and tend to qualify their statements with words like 'overwhelmingly' etc.  Demanding clinching negative evidence/evidence of absence is pointless. This hobby is not based on that approach.
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2012, 10:37:48 AM »

I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.
Logged

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

Posts: 92


« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2012, 02:53:53 PM »

A few days ago, I posted a response to a post by Alan in a topic that had been closed by that time, so I couldn't respond in the topic concerned. I would highly appreciate reading Jean M's and Alan's opinion about this. It would of course be possible to open a new topic, but I still think it is related to the issues discussed here (Whoknows' problem is all about U106 migration paths).

Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
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.

There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??


« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 02:54:13 PM by Peter M » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2012, 03:59:07 PM »

There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??

Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2012, 04:50:53 PM »

Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?

Well, this (pre-historic cultures) is not an area I know a lot about. My guess is, the migration of the Z18 south-west took place in the Iron Age (after 750 BC) and as far as I'm aware the Funnel Beaker culture is (much) older; in the Netherlands, where this culture has been present, it is considered Neolithic afaia.

For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 04:51:22 PM by Peter M » Logged
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2012, 04:54:07 PM »

A few days ago, I posted a response to a post by Alan in a topic that had been closed by that time, so I couldn't respond in the topic concerned. I would highly appreciate reading Jean M's and Alan's opinion about this. It would of course be possible to open a new topic, but I still think it is related to the issues discussed here (Whoknows' problem is all about U106 migration paths).

Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
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.

There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??




Going by Alan's estimate of late bronze & your description it seems to stay in the Lusatian region seen in orange: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1075930/1/
Logged
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #66 on: July 30, 2012, 05:03:51 PM »

Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?

Well, this (pre-historic cultures) is not an area I know a lot about. My guess is, the migration of the Z18 south-west took place in the Iron Age (after 750 BC) and as far as I'm aware the Funnel Beaker culture is (much) older; in the Netherlands, where this culture has been present, it is considered Neolithic afaia.

For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??


If you think it’s early iron age its movement could possibly represent Lustian people moving from the expansion of the Pomeranian from the north while avoiding the Jastorf to the west.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #67 on: July 30, 2012, 05:05:23 PM »

I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.

That is a good point.  Another point that struck me recently is the significance of the earliest know Irish word for continental people - Gall which is of course Gaul.   Gall was used as a  term for non-British strangers and does show that Ireland main native (pre-Latin influence) concept of the world beyond the isles was Gaul and Gauls.  There is of course confirmed by archaeological evidence of the Iron Age.  Gall came to be used for the Vikings and Normans and seems to have meant 'foreigners' by then.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #68 on: July 30, 2012, 05:15:17 PM »

I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.

That is a good point.  Another point that struck me recently is the significance of the earliest know Irish word for continental people - Gall which is of course Gaul.   Gall was used as a  term for non-British strangers and does show that Ireland main native (pre-Latin influence) concept of the world beyond the isles was Gaul and Gauls.  There is of course confirmed by archaeological evidence of the Iron Age.  Gall came to be used for the Vikings and Normans and seems to have meant 'foreigners' by then.

Brilliant, so as far as the early Irish were concerned people who were presumably U106 (amongst other haplogroups) were Gauls, we can all breath a sigh of relief (not actually trying to be sarcastic here :).
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #69 on: July 30, 2012, 05:26:54 PM »

If you think it’s early iron age its movement could possibly represent Lustian people moving from the expansion of the Pomeranian from the north while avoiding the Jastorf to the west.

And you think the Jastorf culture might have extended to the River Elbe in the East in those days and the R-Z18 tribe was trying to avoid them ?? Interesting !!

It would be interesting to know if there's a more frequent occurring of a haplogroup (flag haplogroup) in the Jastorf culture.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 05:27:17 PM by Peter M » Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2012, 06:53:28 AM »

Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2012, 07:15:18 AM »

Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?

Eurologist's comments? What "facts" would those contain? I read them.

"[A]lmost 7K years old" puts an upper bound of about 5,000 BC on the birth date of U106. Great. No problem. That doesn't put it in the British Isles prior to the Migration Period.

No offense to "eurologist", whoever he or she is, but those posts are absolute drivel. They're simply bald assertions without any real support. A "La Hoguette" connection for U106? How? On what evidence?

On Neolithic aDNA finds? Hardly.

I know you like claims of Old Stone Age priority for R1b in Europe, Bob, but to stir up the author of this thread with false hopes based on such hogwash is really unconscionable.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2012, 07:26:06 AM »

By the way, note Vince Vizachero's comment:

Quote

Vincent said...

    I suspect the 6.5 kya peak is an estimate for TMRCA of R-M269.

    Monday, July 30, 2012 3:26:00 AM


That makes much more sense.
Logged

ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2012, 08:37:33 AM »

Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?

Eurologist's comments? What "facts" would those contain? I read them.

"[A]lmost 7K years old" puts an upper bound of about 5,000 BC on the birth date of U106. Great. No problem. That doesn't put it in the British Isles prior to the Migration Period.

No offense to "eurologist", whoever he or she is, but those posts are absolute drivel. They're simply bald assertions without any real support. A "La Hoguette" connection for U106? How? On what evidence?

On Neolithic aDNA finds? Hardly.

I know you like claims of Old Stone Age priority for R1b in Europe, Bob, but to stir up the author of this thread with false hopes based on such hogwash is really unconscionable.
 Note that the estimate is for a subclade of U106, not U106 itself.  This is not the thread to argue how to measure time; but it has been agreed to before that SNP counting with a mutation rate of about 10^-8 would be more accurate than STR counting.  Now Dienekes and T Robb, independently, have laid out the temporal occurrence of major Hgs from Adam to the R's.

Your sense of what is conscionable is disturbing.  On the topic of dating, I just don't agree with you!
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 08:38:21 AM by ironroad41 » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2012, 08:56:13 AM »

. . .

Your sense of what is conscionable is disturbing . . .

Do I need to explain it?

This is a case of someone with an easily explicable y-dna test result who is struggling with the very obvious truth of it, desperately seeking some thin excuse to hold onto a preconceived notion of what his result should have been but was not. 

It is unconscionable to introduce highly subjective commentary regarding what Dienekes' himself called an "experiment" in dating to further inflame and aggravate this issue.

Vince Vizachero is quite knowledgeable on these matters and commented that the dating for that subclade of U106 was probably merely an estimate of the TMRCA for R-M269.

Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 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 0.12 seconds with 18 queries.