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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 12, 2014, 10:00:33 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 R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?  (Read 7997 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2012, 03:50:53 PM »

Going to the U106 FTDNA project page is that a very high portion of the U106 do not have native Irish names.  I note that an awful lot have Scottish surnames.  The number with unambously Irish surnames is extremely low.  The percentage of native Irish surnamed U106 compared to total Irish ever tested by FTDNA must be incredibly small and tend to be strays among surnames dominated by non-U106 lineages.  I am surprised by just how much of the Irish U106 have Scottish names, even outside Ulster although there are also Norman, Welsh and English ones. The Roache (Norman) family seem to stand out.   Looking at that makes it even more striking how incredibly rare U106 must have been among the native Irish.  In fact its actually surprising given long periods of Viking mahem and a long period of dominance and settlement by Normans and later British that so few U106 seems to have gotten into the native population.  You really would have expected more U106 among the native Irish EVEN if it was absent in pre-Viking times.   Like I say its almost weird.  It seems like the NPEs just were very rare among the native Irish and very few male lines strayed into the Irish clans from non-Irish sources.  I dread to think what this must have meant for women.  Maybe the secret is that the Normans by becoming very Hibernicised anc forming clans tended to acknowledge all their children and they took their fathers names and became part of the Norman clans. Clans after all became strong through reproduction and not acknowledging offspring may have been rare.  
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 03:55:33 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2012, 04:26:54 PM »

Other than the obvious reasons for Scottish surnames & DNA appearing in Ireland, there were also Flemish/Scottish weavers who settled in that country - north & south. That MAY account for some U106 strains.
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 05:47:06 PM 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
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2012, 05:54:16 PM »

I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

As for Oppenheimer-basically his ideas are all wrong because of his dating methods.  An in terms of the high amount of U106 in Britain, I look on that the same as L21.  Its what happens when an elite group have a long period of dominance.  

Another observation I would make is if U106 in Ireland at an early stage, a society dominated by clan lineages, then it would surely be reflected in some deep lineages of U106 in pre-VIking/Norman descended Irish clans and by some geographical pattern. It doesnt seem that way.  It seems scattered and not dominant in any clan.  I cant be sure but this pattern seems to me to look like an atypical element that got in here and there in Ireland.  

Here is a question - out of all Irish tested (other than those with names suggestive of later incomers), what percentage of Irish are U106.  Basically divide the number of native Irish surmed U106 by all Irish of any clade or haplogroup.  I suspect that would be an absolutely tiny figure.  Why is it so small, non-surname correlated and non-Geographically patterned if it is old?  

Tim Janzen had U106 and P312 both at around 5500-4000 YBP and that just seems like too long of a time between 2000 BC (the earliest) and the Germanic expansions for U106 to have been bottled up somewhere outside of its current high frequency area.

The only evidence we have is M269(xU106) east of the Elbe c. 2600 BC, not the other way around. The other 'quasi-evidence' we have is U106 near the Elbe around c 1000 BC albeit in small numbers.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2012, 07:30:41 PM »

I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

As for Oppenheimer-basically his ideas are all wrong because of his dating methods.  An in terms of the high amount of U106 in Britain, I look on that the same as L21.  Its what happens when an elite group have a long period of dominance.  

Another observation I would make is if U106 in Ireland at an early stage, a society dominated by clan lineages, then it would surely be reflected in some deep lineages of U106 in pre-VIking/Norman descended Irish clans and by some geographical pattern. It doesnt seem that way.  It seems scattered and not dominant in any clan.  I cant be sure but this pattern seems to me to look like an atypical element that got in here and there in Ireland.  

Here is a question - out of all Irish tested (other than those with names suggestive of later incomers), what percentage of Irish are U106.  Basically divide the number of native Irish surmed U106 by all Irish of any clade or haplogroup.  I suspect that would be an absolutely tiny figure.  Why is it so small, non-surname correlated and non-Geographically patterned if it is old?  

Tim Janzen had U106 and P312 both at around 5500-4000 YBP and that just seems like too long of a time between 2000 BC (the earliest) and the Germanic expansions for U106 to have been bottled up somewhere outside of its current high frequency area.

The only evidence we have is M269(xU106) east of the Elbe c. 2600 BC, not the other way around. The other 'quasi-evidence' we have is U106 near the Elbe around c 1000 BC albeit in small numbers.

I dont think it would be especially odd if U106 was bottled up in the east.  These things happen.

I idont think U106 in the urnfield period around the Elbe c. 1000BC is too surprising either.  It doest contadict the idea that U106 started to spread west around that time. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2012, 08:05:07 PM »

I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2012, 08:36:44 PM »

I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

As for Oppenheimer-basically his ideas are all wrong because of his dating methods.  An in terms of the high amount of U106 in Britain, I look on that the same as L21.  Its what happens when an elite group have a long period of dominance.  

Another observation I would make is if U106 in Ireland at an early stage, a society dominated by clan lineages, then it would surely be reflected in some deep lineages of U106 in pre-VIking/Norman descended Irish clans and by some geographical pattern. It doesnt seem that way.  It seems scattered and not dominant in any clan.  I cant be sure but this pattern seems to me to look like an atypical element that got in here and there in Ireland.  

Here is a question - out of all Irish tested (other than those with names suggestive of later incomers), what percentage of Irish are U106.  Basically divide the number of native Irish surmed U106 by all Irish of any clade or haplogroup.  I suspect that would be an absolutely tiny figure.  Why is it so small, non-surname correlated and non-Geographically patterned if it is old?  

Tim Janzen had U106 and P312 both at around 5500-4000 YBP and that just seems like too long of a time between 2000 BC (the earliest) and the Germanic expansions for U106 to have been bottled up somewhere outside of its current high frequency area.

The only evidence we have is M269(xU106) east of the Elbe c. 2600 BC, not the other way around. The other 'quasi-evidence' we have is U106 near the Elbe around c 1000 BC albeit in small numbers.

Another thing is it not impossible by any means that the beaker M269 was L11* and therefore could haee been ancestral to U106* if that SNP had not yet occurred (which is entirely possible in 2600BC).  In terms of bottling up, there does seem to be a pattern that L21 groups did tend to block others from penetrating and formed very distinctive regional blocks.  U106 may simply have been blocked from expansion by other groups.  It is even possible that the area to their west around the North Sea fringe wasnt especially desirable.  The Romans considered the area of coast between the Rhine and Elbe as rough wooded boggy land.   If I recall correctly the possible U106 area on the Baltic had a much richer culture in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age than the area immediatley to the west.  If the variance data is correct then the Lausitz/Lusatian culture may have been where it was located http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2012, 09:35:03 PM »

I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.

Correct Rich, that's why I added the disclaimers.
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2012, 09:40:38 PM »


Another thing is it not impossible by any means that the beaker M269 was L11* and therefore could haee been ancestral to U106* if that SNP had not yet occurred (which is entirely possible in 2600BC).  In terms of bottling up, there does seem to be a pattern that L21 groups did tend to block others from penetrating and formed very distinctive regional blocks.  U106 may simply have been blocked from expansion by other groups.  It is even possible that the area to their west around the North Sea fringe wasnt especially desirable.  The Romans considered the area of coast between the Rhine and Elbe as rough wooded boggy land.   If I recall correctly the possible U106 area on the Baltic had a much richer culture in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age than the area immediatley to the west.  If the variance data is correct then the Lausitz/Lusatian culture may have been where it was located http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

While I agree the BB samples could be L11*, or heck, even L23*. However, everything I've seen of BB patterns, it seems likely that at least the major clades DF27/U152/L21/U106 were already around by 2500 BC.
Logged

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

Posts: 238


« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2012, 11:11:02 PM »

My comment on this relates to the general point of interest and not any personal data.

Bollocks!

You're U106 and you can't accept it.

You are a prolix waste of bandwidth.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2012, 03:38:13 AM »

Not sure what that comment is supposed to mean precisely, but clearly it would be hard to read it as anything but ad hominem. Despite your outburst I shall not exchange insults with you,as this Forum is dedicated to civilized, mature and fair exchanges of opinion and knowledge.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2012, 04:09:49 AM »

Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

I suppose some would rather know what their true tribal origins are, regardless of any hostility those results might  bring. Others who've tested might wish to turn the clock back to a time before they DNA tested & opt to belong to a 'tribe' of their own choosing.

My view is that we'll encourage more testing if we try not to demonize various members of certain haplogroups because of historical differences. I'm not referring specifically to any particular country/countries, but anywhere where division occurs.

On a slightly different tack: We've all faced a  dilemma when deciding to test; namely the problem of uncovering an NPE. Some shy away from taking that chance, others just seek the truth.

Cheers,
Bob
PS For the record, I'm not one who is actively promoting a Saxon label.  However, if pushed, I'd vote for U106+ not being an ancient import into Ireland.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 07:05:46 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
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2012, 04:29:29 AM »

While I agree the BB samples could be L11*, or heck, even L23*. However, everything I've seen of BB patterns, it seems likely that at least the major clades DF27/U152/L21/U106 were already around by 2500 BC.

Also this Z245/L459+ and L21-, if it will be confirmed, had the modal DYS390=23.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2012, 06:30:30 AM »

I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.

Correct Rich, that's why I added the disclaimers.

I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

I have 390=23, so, among my 12-marker matches I have quite a few U106+ guys. If they dig up my body in a couple of thousand years and test me for 12 str markers, they might get the idea that I was U106+, too.

One guy actually matched me at 27 markers over at Ancestry. I talked him into transferring over to FTDNA. When he got his Deep Clade results - shazam! - he was U106+.

Dr. Jim Wilson at the former Ethnoancestry actually tested my sample a second time after I got the first S21- result on the old "S Series" test. He had taken a look at my haplotype and expected me to be S21+ (back then I had just 37 markers and thus no tell tale 492=12). Both runs came up S21-. I was subsequently tested for U106 a third time by FTDNA: same result, U106-.

I guess my point is that 12 markers with a 390=23 are not enough. There are plenty of us out there with 390=23 who are U106-.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 06:58:47 AM by rms2 » Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2012, 08:45:43 AM »


I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

I have 390=23, so, among my 12-marker matches I have quite a few U106+ guys. If they dig up my body in a couple of thousand years and test me for 12 str markers, they might get the idea that I was U106+, too.

One guy actually matched me at 27 markers over at Ancestry. I talked him into transferring over to FTDNA. When he got his Deep Clade results - shazam! - he was U106+.

Dr. Jim Wilson at the former Ethnoancestry actually tested my sample a second time after I got the first S21- result on the old "S Series" test. He had taken a look at my haplotype and expected me to be S21+ (back then I had just 37 markers and thus no tell tale 492=12). Both runs came up S21-. I was subsequently tested for U106 a third time by FTDNA: same result, U106-.

I guess my point is that 12 markers with a 390=23 are not enough. There are plenty of us out there with 390=23 who are U106-.


Indeed, my closest match at 67 markers is a Dutch U106+ kit and second closest is an Irish M222 kit so we should use the finding with caution. The only thing I should add is that U106 in that area is very well established today, so I don't think it is a stretch to assume it to be U106 during the Urnfield period. Has anyone written to the original authors to see if there was DNA left to test?

By the way, I have received a few PMs on this topic, and I should clarify that I have no opinion one way or another if U106 was in Ireland at an early date. My gut feeling is 'no'. That Irish U106 is a transplant from Britain 'sound right' right to me, but its not something I've looked into because of time constraints.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2012, 09:10:29 AM »


I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

I have 390=23, so, among my 12-marker matches I have quite a few U106+ guys. If they dig up my body in a couple of thousand years and test me for 12 str markers, they might get the idea that I was U106+, too.

One guy actually matched me at 27 markers over at Ancestry. I talked him into transferring over to FTDNA. When he got his Deep Clade results - shazam! - he was U106+.

Dr. Jim Wilson at the former Ethnoancestry actually tested my sample a second time after I got the first S21- result on the old "S Series" test. He had taken a look at my haplotype and expected me to be S21+ (back then I had just 37 markers and thus no tell tale 492=12). Both runs came up S21-. I was subsequently tested for U106 a third time by FTDNA: same result, U106-.

I guess my point is that 12 markers with a 390=23 are not enough. There are plenty of us out there with 390=23 who are U106-.


Indeed, my closest match at 67 markers is a Dutch U106+ kit and second closest is an Irish M222 kit so we should use the finding with caution. The only thing I should add is that U106 in that area is very well established today, so I don't think it is a stretch to assume it to be U106 during the Urnfield period. Has anyone written to the original authors to see if there was DNA left to test?

Not that I know of. I agree with you that U106 is well established in the area of Lichtenstein Cave today, so that one ancient Lichtenstein Cave R1b could have been U106. But I tend to agree with Alan. I don't think U106 was directly across the channel from what is now England so long ago. I think the channel coast was P312 (mainly L21 and U152) country until about the 3rd century BC, when the Germanic tribes began to move south and west. Even then I think it took quite awhile for the population change to be completed and for the northern part of the Low Countries to switch from Celtic to Germanic.

I see the language change from Celtic to English in what is now England as a dramatic and nearly unprecedented event requiring a large influx of Germanic-speakers. In other areas of the former Roman Empire - Gaul, for example, - the German barbarians were unable to affect such a switch. The distribution of U106 in Britain is evidence of that influx of Anglo-Saxon barbarians (and, later, Danish Vikings) who ultimately made that part of Britannia England and bequeathed to us the English language.

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

By the way, I have received a few PMs on this topic, and I should clarify that I have no opinion one way or another if U106 was in Ireland at an early date. My gut feeling is 'no'. That Irish U106 is a transplant from Britain 'sound right' right to me, but its not something I've looked into because of time constraints.

That is my feeling, too, which I have made clear in other threads when it has come up. There is just too much that militates against an early U106 presence in Ireland: its low frequency there, its distribution - strongest in those places where historical period invaders settled (invaders who came from places where U106 is much more common than in Ireland) - , its scarcity among those with old Gaelic surnames, etc.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 09:14:34 AM by rms2 » Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2012, 09:18:49 AM »

Not sure what that comment is supposed to mean precisely,

More bollocks.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2012, 09:25:18 AM »

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 28, 2012, 09:41:29 AM by Peter M » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2012, 09:39:04 AM »

Do you think that Z18 a neolithic snp? The TMRCA of Z18 would be around 5000 ybp.



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 but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much more 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 ??



Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2012, 09:44:55 AM »

Do you think that Z18 a neolithic snp? The TMRCA of Z18 would be around 5000 ybp.
We currently think, the age of Z18 is about 90% of the age of U106. If the estimate for U106 is 4,000 - 5,000 ybp, as it is generally considered to be, a reasonable assumption for the age of Z18 would be 3,600 - 4,500 ybp.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 11:08:47 AM by Peter M » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2012, 09:47:40 AM »

Thanks Peter
I was only out by 500 years.
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2012, 09:52:18 AM »

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)

Have you obtained some definitive findings since that last post which  has required you to now claim, and even then tentatively only "a lit bit" of Isles R U106 may be pre-Germanic?. I suppose your changing views on the matter reflect the absence of conclusive or verifiable evidence which grossly disadvantages reaching any definitive conclusion.

Richard I may be misreading your latest comment that:

"That Irish U106 is a transplant from Britain 'sound right' right to me..."

Are you asserting that such a supposed 'transplant' was during or  after Germanic invasions of Britain, or a period much earlier as you considered in your previous comment that:

"With the Rhenish Beakers, I think a very important amount of IE speaking U106+ crossed the channel and I think that excluding U106 from this migration is unrealistic."
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2012, 11:28:52 AM »

I was ran some L11 and subclades through Ken's Gen111T which I modified for 67 markers and some outputs.  I posted the results on L21 Yahoo forum. Here is the P312 and U106 intraclades and the common founder of both that might be of interest.

YrsPerGen*   Count   Coalescence Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Founder's Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Max
30   N=976   P312 xU152  GA coal=   125.7   32.6   3,771.5   978.4   GA=   134.4   33.7   4,031.8   1,011.5   5,043.3

YrsPerGen*   Count   Coalescence Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Founder's Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Max
30   N=1289   U106 All GB coal=   120.0   31.9   3,599.1   955.7   GB=   130.9   33.3   3,926.0   998.2   4,924.1
      Diff =   5.7      172.5      Diff =   3.5      105.8      

56/67Markers                     
YrsPerGen*      TRUE-TMRCA Founder   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP                       
30      GAB=   160.9   9.0   4,828.2   269.1

Coalescence Age = Variance of Whole Population (n)        
Founder's Age = Variance from Modal               


MJost
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)
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2012, 04:03:59 PM »


That's in line with other estimates of the Germanic contribution to Britain, such as "Y -Chromosome evidence for mass Anglo Saxon migration" and a recent study showing 50 percent of British men to carry the Germanic "Frisian" marker. That was reported in the Daily Mail and Der Spiegel, but I've seen no paper. Maybe it'll turn up sometime.


That study  also  included Archaeology!
Logged

LDJ
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2012, 04:15:03 PM »

Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

This why I don't like attaching ethnic labels to haplogroups. It is true, that a particular haplogroup may be very prevalent in one culture and not another.   However, it is NOT true then that everyone who is of one culture, but of a hapogroup that is dominant elsewhere, is a recent immigrant into their culture.

Umm... let me go down the list. I'm not trying to, but I can certainly upset a few folks along the way.

Just because you are L21, doesn't mean you can't be German, even Old German.
Just because you are U106, doesn't mean you can't be Irish, even Old Irish.
Just because you are U152, doesn't mean you can't be Irish, even Old Irish.
Just because you are DF27, doesn't mean you can't be Polish, never having an ancestor who set foot in Iberia.
Just because you are M222 and in Scandinavia, doesn't mean your lineage was brought there by slaves.
This goes on and on.

I would venture to guess there are some limits to this where continental boundaries are substantial.  For instance, I think it is reasonable to propose that if you are L21 you are not Native American, at least prior to Erickson/Columbus et al. Even that can be argued, though.

Sometimes the original ethnic labels stick and even when later data shows something to contrary, much needed testing is hard to come by.


I'm wondering when these haplogroups will be linked to being catholic or whatever?
Logged

LDJ
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2012, 05:24:35 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."

. . .

What is the point in discussing this with you?

You are clearly not interested in the facts.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 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 0.182 seconds with 19 queries.