Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?

[A.D.]

Could there have been any U106 types during the bronze age there have been shields of Nordic type found in Ireland? Also the Bronze age collapse seems to have had a particularly hard effect on the population numbers in Ireland, I imagine that some minority Y- DNA types were wiped out or moved out. Only ancient DNA could prove that. It doesn't look like U 106 had much if any input in the immediate Iron age re-population/social reformation/recovery. Z18 is interesting as it seems small and old, might bring a few surprises. Good luck to the boys working on it.       

[Jean M]

We (another respected member of this forum and yours truly) are doing this analysis on Z18 level ... and we have learned a lot in the process. As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans...

But you haven't found any Z18 from Ireland, have you?

[rms2]

. . . As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans, and thus Anglo-Saxons, came to the isles . . .

Is there anyone here who would not agree that such a thing is possible?

Possible is not really the issue.

Likely is what is at issue. It's the only thing that really can be at issue.

I think we all agree that just about anything is possible.

Given the modern distribution of U106 in Ireland (relatively scarce, but most frequent in those areas settled by the English and other historical period invaders and settlers), given the fact that it is even scarcer among persons with old Gaelic Irish surnames, and given the well known history of Ireland, how likely is it that any U106+ man of Irish ancestry is the y-line descendant of a pre-Roman era U106+ settler?

Not very.

[Mkk]

We (another respected member of this forum and yours truly) are doing this analysis on Z18 level ... and we have learned a lot in the process. As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans...

But you haven't found any Z18 from Ireland, have you?

On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.

[Jean M]

On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.

I see three from Ireland on the prospects list i.e. people who could be Z18 or L257, but are not confirmed. As you say: Dunbar, Cowan and Roche.

[Mark Jost]

Hre is the latest 111 marker U106 and U106 > Z18 ages from my Mod Gen111T using internal Statistic formulas.


YrsPerGen*   Count   Coalescence Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Founder's Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Max   LTSD   VAR
30   N=320   Clade A: U106 All  GA Coal.=   102.3   20.5   3,067.9   615.1   GA=   102.6   20.5   3,077.5   616.1   3,693.6   NA   24.9
YrsPerGen*   Count   Coalescence Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Founder's Age   Generations   StdDev   YBP   + - YBP   Max   LTSD   VAR
30   N=44   Clade B: U106>Z18 All  GB Coal.=   80.8   18.2   2,422.7   546.6   GB=   82.6   18.4   2,479.0   553.0   3,032.0   NA   19.6

MJost

[whoknows]

'Likely' and 'Probably' constitute almost convincing expressions, but they fall short of 'evidence' in terms of empirical understanding. As to 'knowing' a history that in itself hardly offers any definitive or objective 'reality' Plain truth is that we simply do not know, thus any attempt to declare a particular theory as being more valid than other interpretation is supported not on factual evidence but more on assumption and belief, Surnames are no reliable measure, particularly in Ireland, where Gaelic names were Anglicized, or 'English' names adopted or recorded incorrectly. Meanwhile we should always measure a particular enthusiasm for rushing to a conclusion, with the observation that ancient migrations and settlements of peoples/Haplogroups was not some simplistic or homogenous process. 'Possibility' does not mean lack of probability it conveys a truth in that something may well have taken place, alternatively 'probability'  does not mean that possibility is ruled out. Better in light of such a semantic fog to recall that no matter the insistent voice, or 'words clothed in reason's garb' we cannot reach any conclusive decision on any particular Haplogroup, all we can do is choose to accept a view or retain a willingness to consider a range of models.

[Peter M]

A lot of responses, I will try to clarify.

Could there have been any U106 types during the bronze age there have been shields of Nordic type found in Ireland?

It doesn't look like U 106 had much if any input in the immediate Iron age re-population/social reformation/recovery. Z18 is interesting as it seems small and old, might bring a few surprises. Good luck to the boys working on it.

I must say, I have a bit of a parsing problem with your first sentence. I guess, the Bronze Age is a bit too early for Z18, but there could have been Iron Age streams of Z18 flowing into Ireland from Scandinavia. We are trying to find out by testing present-day Irish. Branches of the tree that have died out will not be found that way of course, but it's the only way open to us at the moment.

But you haven't found any Z18 from Ireland, have you?

On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.

I see three from Ireland on the prospects list i.e. people who could be Z18 or L257, but are not confirmed. As you say: Dunbar, Cowan and Roche.

Please keep in mind most Z18 members have been found using the DYS463 proxy and the clusters we've identified. The people we have found tend to comply to one of a small number of patterns. A basic problem is that Z18 is not a very commonly tested SNP and we only rarely find a few completely new ones. We are currently trying to find out about when the various streams of Z18 arrived on the Isles. And there seem to be a few surprises there.

From the known patterns we have learned that Z18 was on the Baltic Coast well before 0AD. So it is very possible there are streams of Z18 that arrived in Ireland before the Romans and Anglo Saxons. In order to find them, we would like to find NEW patterns of Z18. But in order to find those, we need people willing to discuss their U106+ result and/or willing to test Z18. Irish people not responding to email is a very sad truth.

I do not know how old surnames are in Ireland, in the Netherlands the last people to adopt a surname did so to comply to rules introduced by Napoleon !! But as I guess surnames were NOT in common use in Ireland in the times we are talking about here (i.e. first millennium and before), I have some serious doubts about the value of surnames in this discussion. BTW, the Irish Dunbar is a member of the Scottish Dunbar family (and presumably arrived on the Isles as Anglo-Saxon).

@Jean: the link you are giving is to a page that we primarily use to show the structure of the tree downstream of Z18. It's not 100% up to date. I think it would be better to look at the actual test results (see L257.org; select Y-DNA Profiles Z18+ L257- in the menu on the left; the overview is always up to date).

Let's keep the choice between "possible"and "likely" open until we know more about this.

[Jdean]

@Jean: the link you are giving is to a page that we primarily use to show the structure of the tree downstream of Z18. It's not 100% up to date. I think it would be better to look at the actual test results (see L257.org; select Y-DNA Profiles Z18+ L257- in the menu on the left; the overview is always up to date).

Let's keep the choice between "possible"and "likely" open until we know more about this.

True :)

[whoknows]

Peter, Thanks for sharing the current position on testing. As to R U106 and folks in Ireland of that Haplogroup, I am unsure why you have experienced a resistance to testing. Although I gather that in the current fashion of some to insist that anyone from Ireland of that Haplogroup is by definition of 'Germanic' origin, a reluctance to embrace testing may well be a response such myopia. After all 'what's the point of investing money in sub-clade testing when you have supposedly 'authoritative' commentators arguing that all R U106 in Ireland is due to 'Germanic' incursions/settlement?

[Jean M]

I do not know how old surnames are in Ireland ....

Surnames began earlier in Ireland than in any other European country, starting in the 10th century. See Irish surnames and Y-DNA. It is a complicated story, because Gaelic surnames were sometimes Anglicized later on. However surname and Y-DNA research in Ireland has been exceptionally fruitful. You can see some examples on my online page and many more on the pages I link to from there.

The important point for U106 is that Gaelic surnames began long before the settlement of English and Scots in Ireland. So to show that U106 arrived in Ireland in the pre-Roman period, you would need to link it firmly to a Gaelic surname with a cluster of similar results. Some surnames are too common to be useful. Men of many different haplogroups will carry the same surname. But rarer ones have that cluster pattern indicating a common ancestor.   

You would need to show that enough men of one particular Gaelic surname share the same U106 signature to make it clear that they share a progenitor in the pre-Roman period. As far as I can gather no such pattern has been found,  after a very high level of testing of Irish-Americans. Irish-Americans seem extraordinarily keen on testing their own Y-DNA - not surprisingly, since as I say, there has been a great deal of success in matching with surnames.
 

[stoneman]

Are saying that all English and Scots are U106?The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

[Jean M]

Are saying that all English and Scots are U106?

No indeed! :) There are plenty of other haplogroups in Britain. But the discussion on this thread is of U106.

It is very true that some Gaelic names were Anglicized. But that can be taken into account. Some men with the Anglicized form could fit into a cluster with men of the Gaelic form.

[Jean M]

From the known patterns we have learned that Z18 was on the Baltic Coast well before 0AD.

Interesting. Could be the result of Gothic settlement. You may know of the Scandinavian settlement at Grobina, Latvia, founded c. 650 AD. But earlier than that Goths filtered south onto the coast around the Vistula from the Late Bronze Age.

[Mikewww]

... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

Good point. Frequency can be misleading. I think STR diversity and the presence or lack of presence of cousin haplogroups could be helpful info.

[rms2]

'Likely' and 'Probably' constitute almost convincing expressions, but they fall short of 'evidence' in terms of empirical understanding. As to 'knowing' a history that in itself hardly offers any definitive or objective 'reality' Plain truth is that we simply do not know, thus any attempt to declare a particular theory as being more valid than other interpretation is supported not on factual evidence but more on assumption and belief, Surnames are no reliable measure, particularly in Ireland, where Gaelic names were Anglicized, or 'English' names adopted or recorded incorrectly. Meanwhile we should always measure a particular enthusiasm for rushing to a conclusion, with the observation that ancient migrations and settlements of peoples/Haplogroups was not some simplistic or homogenous process. 'Possibility' does not mean lack of probability it conveys a truth in that something may well have taken place, alternatively 'probability'  does not mean that possibility is ruled out. Better in light of such a semantic fog to recall that no matter the insistent voice, or 'words clothed in reason's garb' we cannot reach any conclusive decision on any particular Haplogroup, all we can do is choose to accept a view or retain a willingness to consider a range of models.

Your arguments are laughable.

Do you even know what the word empirical means?

All of the people who would have actually observed U106+ men entering Ireland and settling there prior to the Roman era are long dead, and they would have had no means to test them for U106 anyway.

So, requiring those who disagree with you to produce "empirical" evidence is ridiculous.

Aside from actual observation, the other side of empirical evidence is experiment. What sort of experiment would "prove" that U106 was in Ireland before the Roman era?

Would testing ancient Irish remains for y-dna count as an experiment? Perhaps.

In the meantime, you produce no evidence or ideas of your own, no real reasons to believe that U106 got to Ireland prior to the Roman era. Instead, you make ridiculous demands for absolute "proof" that it did not, and claim that your opponents offer no evidence of their own.

Of course, that last claim is untrue. Plenty of evidence has been offered that indicates U106 probably did not arrive in Ireland until the historical period. You ignore it, or claim it is simply a matter of "opinion", but you never actually counter it, except with impossible demands for "proof" or with silly platitudes about keeping "an open mind". And, of course, you latch onto any small crumb of concession that any other poster here offers you, such as when one of them admits that it is merely possible that U106 got to Ireland early enough to satisfy you.

Man, it's the same old stuff over and over and over.

[rms2]

... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

Good point. Frequency can be misleading. I think STR diversity and the presence or lack of presence of cousin haplogroups could be helpful info.

That might be a good point, but stoneman himself proves it is not - it is ridiculous - when he writes

The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.

And how does he know that?

History.

We know the immigration history of Ireland, too. Loads of invasion and settlement from places, especially England, where the frequency of U106 is a whole lot higher than it is in Ireland. And, oddly enough, where U106 is most frequent in Ireland is exactly where those incomers settled.

[Castlebob]

In the early 1700s, some 3,000+ Huguenot & Palatine Protestants settled in Ireland. Dublin, Lisburn, Portarlington, Cork, Waterford & other centres were their destinations. I would guess the Palatine Protestants could easily account for some U106+ present today?
Are any of the U106+ testees in Ireland from any of the above centres? Are their surnames perhaps shortened, 'Gael-icised' versions of the original German ones?

Cheers,
Bob

[Mkk]

In the early 1700s, some 3,000+ Huguenot & Palatine Protestants settled in Ireland. Dublin, Lisburn, Portarlington, Cork, Waterford & other centres were their destinations. I would guess the Palatine Protestants could easily account for some U196+ present today?

According to this website, most have emigrated to America or elsewhere by now. http://www.exulanten.com/irish.html

[Dubhthach]

There's also the fact that the Palatines came to Ireland after the destruction of the "Gaelic order" in the 17th century. As a result they had no need to gaelicised as the country was ruled by an anglo (speaking/culture/religion) ascendancy at the time.

List of Irish palantine names can be found here:
http://www.irishpalatines.org/about/name.html

[Peter M]

From the known patterns we have learned that Z18 was on the Baltic Coast well before 0AD.

Interesting. Could be the result of Gothic settlement. You may know of the Scandinavian settlement at Grobina, Latvia, founded c. 650 AD. But earlier than that Goths filtered south onto the coast around the Vistula from the Late Bronze Age.

Jean, are you aware of any (sources describing) migrations from the south to the Baltic States in the north in the timeframe of, say, 1,500 to 500 BC ??

My current guess (no, not the slightest prove) is that U106 emerged somewhere in or around Ukraine about 2,000-2,500 BC. That the Z18 subgroup split off and migrated north to arrive at the coast of the Baltic Sea no later than 0BC. And I guess they arrived at the Baltic Sea significantly earlier in order to generate Alan's significant variance east of the river Elbe. Can you identify this migration north (pre-) historically ??

[Peter M]

... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

Good point. Frequency can be misleading. I think STR diversity and the presence or lack of presence of cousin haplogroups could be helpful info.

Good point about those cousins as long as enough samples are available that are fully SNP-tested.

I think STR diversity can be misleading especially for old and migrational SNPs like U106. They lead to remarkable conclusions, like U106 emerged in Ireland (high variance), when there are issues with the sampling.

[A.D.]

quite a few of those names a still popular in the North I have a few friends with them Green(e) (who are incidentally a catholic family, change in religion can go both ways) ans what I imagine are variations Folker e.g. Faulker though this could be a variation on Faulkner. There is a tradition of spelling names the 'protestant way' or the' Catholic way, e.g Quinn= catholic and Quin= protestant.  The huge difference being immediately obvious to everyone LOL.

[Castlebob]

My family tree shows one man's marriage in c1701 led to a total of just over 500 related  individuals by c1900. The family suffered the usual decimation from small pox in the early 1700s, plus river-borne diseases in the time before adequate drainage systems in English towns. I mention that to demonstrate how rapidly a man can make his mark in a country.
Besides the obvious influx from  Britain, plus the Flemish weavers, Huguenots & Palatine arrivals, I'd say the the odds at this stage would have to point to a post-17th C source for U106+ in the country.
Cheers,
Bob

[Jean M]

My current guess (no, not the slightest prove) is that U106 emerged somewhere in or around Ukraine about 2,000-2,500 BC. That the Z18 subgroup split off and migrated north to arrive at the coast of the Baltic Sea no later than 0BC. And I guess they arrived at the Baltic Sea significantly earlier in order to generate Alan's significant variance east of the river Elbe. Can you identify this migration north (pre-) historically

Seems most likely to be Baltic (language). Fatyanovo culture seems to be the origin of Proto-Baltic, which then seems to have spread to the Baltic. Baltic (language) river and lake names show that the Proto-Baltic people were spread over a wider area than that in which Latvian and Lithuanian are spoken today. This was a thickly-forested region, mainly unsuited to agriculture, and only thinly settled. Henning Andersen argues that the Balts moved into areas where previous waves of Indo-Europeans had gone before them. He pictures the forests of north-eastern Europe penetrated time after time by small groups whose descendants were absorbed linguistically by the succeeding wave.