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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 26, 2014, 05:48:50 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 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?  (Read 8112 times)
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #125 on: August 06, 2012, 12:21:35 PM »

16/17 seems late for U-106 to come to Ireland, but thinking on it, Roman times maybe, the Saxons  were to bust in England, Wales, and Scotland right up to Viking times then the Normans came, so Saxon is very unlikely. That leaves Vikings who don't seem to have a big direct contribution ( this is debatable). That leaves Normans/English who give us a lot of names. The Normans/English did bring Welsh and Scots with them. I Don't think the Welsh or Scots were that big on U-106 maybe some from Scotland. Then were into the plantation times.Of course any individual or small group could have entered at any time since U-106 first appeared but looking at small numbers is really down to personal lineages. I think you've got a point. 
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #126 on: August 06, 2012, 03:28:43 PM »

Appeal to ridicule is no substitute for evidence, nor is presenting personalized attacks, however given the fact that any. foolish enough to invest a belief into a myopic and fact-free view that claims all R U106 in the Isles is 'Germanic'. are unable to offer anything apart from speculation and statistical interpretation I suppose we can forgive such fallacious evasion.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #127 on: August 06, 2012, 03:48:28 PM »

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.

I think the term incredibly unlikely would apply.  Scandinavian settlement in Ireland in the Iron Age?  Baltic to Ireland in the Iron Age?  Now that really is incredibly unlikely.  There is not a shred of evidence for any contact with Ireland other than with Britain and Gaul in the Iron Age.  There isnt even evidence of Scandinavian or Baltic settlement in Britain in the Iron Age.  
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 03:49:12 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #128 on: August 06, 2012, 04:11:27 PM »

What about the Bronze age? U106 went into Scandinavia not out of it.U106 is older in Austria than Germany so the Germans are descended from the Austrians.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #129 on: August 06, 2012, 04:32:28 PM »

Why does the word Germanic make people not want to test?  Maybe its down to the narrow idea of Irishness that that some have.  The Germanics are part of the Irish people's heritage and part of the composite Irish but some people just see prehistoric settlers as native while historic settlers as blow ins. The Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans were settlers/conquerors/blow ins in Britian too (the latter two only conquered large chunks of Britain shortly before they reached Ireland) but they are much more embraced as part of the composite identity of the British.  
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 05:42:32 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #130 on: August 06, 2012, 05:17:41 PM »

That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #131 on: August 06, 2012, 05:41:16 PM »

That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.

Well rather than making impossible wishlists for absolute proofs (totally clinching negative evidence that is incontestable will be impossible to achieve even with hundreds of ancient DNA results) an actual methodology for researching this would be more of a positive approach.  I would suggest:

1. Time depth of matching Irish U106 with non-Irish U106. Are these within a 1200-500 years timeframe of a 2000 year plus timeframe.  It would also be instructive to look at whether British U106's matches with the continent are closer to the 1-2000 year mark or 4500 year mark.  


2. Methods of actually locating the likely position of U106 on the continent at various points in prehistory i.e region by region variance.  Its location on the continent would have a huge bearing on the probability of it reaching Britain and then Ireland.  This is a non-Irish issue but had a huge bearing on the subject.

3. Looking for any structural signs for early inclusion of U106 lines in native Irish clands i.e. does Irish U106 show the effects and structure of it being harboured within the Irish Gaelic clan system.

4.  Looking at the overall age of the subclades that Irish U106 belong to, the overall age of these subclades (some may be too young for prehistoric intrusions) and the age and location of the matching.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 06:22:33 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #132 on: August 06, 2012, 05:52:03 PM »

That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.

@whoknows, I'm not asking to be mean spirited, but do you know what "trolling" means?
Logged

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

Posts: 125


« Reply #133 on: August 06, 2012, 06:16:46 PM »

I am aware what offering a sincere opinion means, along with welcoming and respecting the freedom of others to equally offer contributions on this important and valued forum. However I think responses which choose to focus on 'the personal' rather than the topic itself are not entirely constructive, for example simply because say you may (term used to convey speculation, as opposed to declared assertion) hold an opinion that chooses to consider that all R U106 arrived in the Isles wearing a horned helmet and speaking Friesian or Jutish does not justify any accusation of trolling, no matter the exchanges you may make on that subject. Clearly you would be worthy of courtesy and respect for holding an interest. I hope that may assist your understanding and modify any erroneous impression that has formed.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 06:17:47 PM by whoknows » Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2012, 06:23:48 PM »

Alan I totally agree, in that far more work needs to be done before considering anything is conclusively proven. From what I have read from other contributors here there does appear to be interesting as yet not fully examined or tested fields of research in various sub-clades of R U106. Again nothing definitive currently, but while being open to Germanic expansion as contributing towards a presence in the Isles, hope you may concur it would be somewhat foolish to close the door on any other models at this stage of partial understanding.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #135 on: August 06, 2012, 06:58:19 PM »

I am aware what offering a sincere opinion means, along with welcoming and respecting the freedom of others to equally offer contributions on this important and valued forum. However I think responses which choose to focus on 'the personal' rather than the topic itself are not entirely constructive, for example simply because say you may (term used to convey speculation, as opposed to declared assertion) hold an opinion that chooses to consider that all R U106 arrived in the Isles wearing a horned helmet and speaking Friesian or Jutish does not justify any accusation of trolling, no matter the exchanges you may make on that subject. Clearly you would be worthy of courtesy and respect for holding an interest. I hope that may assist your understanding and modify any erroneous impression that has formed.

I only implied it because nobody on this thread has said that 'ALL' U106 is Germanic. You seem to be the only one bringing it up over and over and over and over again.
Logged

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

Posts: 678


« Reply #136 on: August 06, 2012, 07:10:15 PM »

Is it be possible to introduce a rule that if somebody constantly reiterates the same pointless assertion without introducing new evidence that there posts get blocked ?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 07:10:51 PM by Jdean » Logged

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

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #137 on: August 06, 2012, 09:36:28 PM »

Is it be possible to introduce a rule that if somebody constantly reiterates the same pointless assertion without introducing new evidence that there posts get blocked ?

If there is such a thing as single-issue trolling, this is it.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #138 on: August 06, 2012, 09:53:51 PM »

At last, we all get it.

*Sigh of relief*
Logged

Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1661


« Reply #139 on: August 07, 2012, 10:58:19 AM »

This Topic is Closed.
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1661


« Reply #140 on: August 07, 2012, 05:00:07 PM »

I have reopened this Topic at the request of one of the serious users of this Forum.

I hope the discussion can be productive.

Terry
Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #141 on: August 08, 2012, 10:15:28 AM »

I think we were having a very reasonable discussion about Z18 migration in this topic and I would very much like to continue with this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, this is NOT a discussion about U106 in Ireland !!!

Why does the word Germanic make people not want to test?  Maybe its down to the narrow idea of Irishness that that some have.  The Germanics are part of the Irish people's heritage and part of the composite Irish but some people just see prehistoric settlers as native while historic settlers as blow ins. The Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans were settlers/conquerors/blow ins in Britian too (the latter two only conquered large chunks of Britain shortly before they reached Ireland) but they are much more embraced as part of the composite identity of the British.  

We have no good idea as to exactly WHY the Irish loose all interest after discovering they're U106. But this is a fact in a lot of cases. It might have to do with the name Germanics vaguely looking like Germans or even that they associate Germanics with English (possibly in connection with Anglo-saxons). It might be that they don't want to be associated with either.

For the Z18 project, these ideas are a big problem, as we know (!!) that Z18's (I'm talking Z18 here, NOT U106 !!) came to the Isles from/via Scandinavia. Some of these groups might (!!) have come to Ireland directly without ANY relationship with either Germany or England. The problem is, if the Irish don't test, we will never find out.

@Alan: if you would be able and willing to write a short (!!) text explaining to the average Irishman why being U106 does NOT conflict with being Irish, I would be delighted, and you would presumably make a significant contribution to Z18 research !!

Well rather than making impossible wishlists for absolute proofs (totally clinching negative evidence that is incontestable will be impossible to achieve even with hundreds of ancient DNA results) an actual methodology for researching this would be more of a positive approach.  I would suggest <truncated/>:

In the FT-DNA R-Z18 and Subgroups Project we follow a slightly different approach. We try to find highly related subgroups of Z18 and approach people apparently carrying one of these patterns ("Z18 Candidates"; see http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/) to test. We then try to find out the migration path of these subgroups and apply the standard (Ken's) tools to calculate a TMRCA for the subgroup. We are planning an article on the Z18 web site (www.L257.org) describing the results. BTW, we know this site is in urgent need of an update.

Using this approach, we found a few groups that we think migrated to the Isles from Scandinavia. One would expect the DNA pattern of such a group to have arrived on the Isles in very small quantities (a single person or possibly a very small family group) and then to multiply (explode) after arriving at the destination. The actual migration thus forming a bottleneck. The TMRCA of each group would give a first indication of the date of arrival. Because a few groups tend to have a TMRCA of more than 1,500 years, this would allow one to speculate (!!) about a migration before 500AD. We might even be able to discover such a migration to Ireland from Scandinavia this way. Please keep in mind, everything I'm saying is a tentative conclusion drawn from relatively few tests. We need much more Z18 testing being done to prove any of this.

BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 10:36:38 AM by Peter M » Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #142 on: August 08, 2012, 10:29:28 AM »

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.

My (possibly a bit naive) idea is that the people who travelled north to the Baltic coast are the ancestors of the Germanic tribe of the Suebi. My guess (again possibly naive) would be that they spoke a (Proto-) Germanic language. At least a language that was presumably derived from the common language of P312/U106 in the Ukraine area. Would that be in line with your assumption they were Baltic (or spoke a Proto-Baltic language) ??
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 10:29:44 AM by Peter M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #143 on: August 08, 2012, 10:51:32 AM »

... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #144 on: August 08, 2012, 11:38:24 AM »

In the end, R1b U106 is a DNA segment. DNA is not the same as culture and trying to make it look that way is wrong. But neither can it be denied that the spread of U106 is seemingly very closely linked with that of Germanic speakers, particularly their Volkswanderung period. 

Until new aDNA evidence is presented, IMO little else can be said on the topic.

Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #145 on: August 08, 2012, 12:03:50 PM »

My (possibly a bit naive) idea is that the people who travelled north to the Baltic coast are the ancestors of the Germanic tribe of the Suebi. My guess (again possibly naive) would be that they spoke a (Proto-) Germanic language. At least a language that was presumably derived from the common language of P312/U106 in the Ukraine area. Would that be in line with your assumption they were Baltic (or spoke a Proto-Baltic language) ??

Not exactly, but don't worry. Proto-Germanic is a late IE language, that linguists calculate arose about 500 BC in the Jastorf Culture. The common language in Ukraine was the mother-tongue Proto-Indo-European. It split into dialects mainly after groups moved away from the homeland, and then those dialects developed into separate languages, such as Proto-Baltic, which in turn became the parent of a language family.

At the period that you picture Z18 arriving in the Baltic, the linguistic picture would have been pretty fluid, with people able to understand each other across the wide stretch of the Battle Axe cultures. There is no really hard cultural division. So there would be nothing to stop a Z18 man from wandering westwards from the Baltic and even into Jutland.

I will email you.


« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 01:50:23 PM by Jean M » Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #146 on: August 08, 2012, 12:25:13 PM »

... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?

Essentially, I think U106 is a backbone SNP like P312. Possibly not all important SNPs immediately downstream of U106 have been discovered yet, but it goes a long way to the status of P312** of which I'm told (to some extent jokingly) all currently known members could have dinner together in a small restaurant. As such it's a good idea to study U106's age and origin (in relation to L11 and P312) but that's about it. It's like on the other side of the road: nobody would nowadays start an investigation of the migrational path of P312; people are studying L21, U152 and Z196 or below instead.

Shortly after the defining SNP, the U106 branch split into a few subbranches (a few times, btw) that appear to have follwowed different migration paths through Central Europe and those subbranches are very interesting to study in Central and Western Europe. So yes, if you want to do meaningful analysis of recent U106, you should first be well aware of its structure, get many more people to test the SNPs downstream of U106 and then analyse the results per subbranch or even subsubbranch, IMHO.

If one is talking about the age of U106 in, let's say, Scotland, (s)he is talking about a wide variety of people of different sub-clades that arrived there via very different routes and performing ANY algorithm on the set of their profile is completely meaningless, again IMHO.

Edit: no, I guess I should not say meaningless. I guess the result of, say, a TMRCA calculation would result in a number anywhere between 0 and 100% of the total age of the SNP. I think this constant between 0 and 100% for a specific country (in Central or especially Western Europe) is close to impossible to relate to anything that happened in the past.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 02:57:35 PM by Peter M » Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #147 on: August 08, 2012, 01:20:04 PM »

I think we should use terms like "Western Eueopean", "Central and Western European", "Western and Atlantic European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106 and L21.

The terms could be broadened to include Northern and Southern European, and I think people would understand that a bleeding over at the edges is understood.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #148 on: August 08, 2012, 02:59:11 PM »

... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?

Essentially, I think U106 is a backbone SNP like P312. Possibly not all important SNPs immediately downstream of U106 have been discovered yet, but it goes a long way to the status of P312** of which I'm told (to some extent jokingly) all currently known members could have dinner together in a small restaurant. As such it's a good idea to study U106's age and origin (in relation to L11 and P312) but that's about it.

Shortly after the defining SNP, the U106 branch split into a few subbranches (a few times, btw) that appear to have follwowed different migration paths through Central Europe and those subbranches are very interesting to study in Central and Western Europe. So yes, if you want to do meaningful analysis of recent U106, you should first be well aware of its structure, get many more people to test the SNPs downstream of U106 and then analyse the results per subbranch or even subsubbranch, IMHO.

If one is talking about the age of U106 in, let's say, Scotland, (s)he is talking about a wide variety of people of different sub-clades that arrived there via different routes and performing ANY algorithm on their profile is completely meaningless, again IMHO.

Edit: no, I guess I should not say meaningless. I guess the result of, say, a TMRCA calculation would result in a number anywhere between 0 and 100% of the total age of the SNP. I think this constant between 0 and 100% for a specific country (in Central or Western Europe) is close to impossible to relate to anything that happened in the past.

I don't really distinguish the meaning/implications of individual SNPs as such.

I look at it as we are trying to understand the whole,k the whole family tree, so to speak. The more markers we have on different branches of the the tree the better chance we have of understanding who was related to who and eventually where were they at a given timeframe.  This goes all the way up to the current family lineages and our genealogies as we have them.

Some people have more interest in bigger or older branches of the tree, but for the most part, they are best understood in context of each other. The more we have about the relationships and timing (aging) of the branchng the better chance we have of understanding how the tree grew. U106 is important in that regard, but I wouldn't say more important than Z381, or L48 or whatever. They are just signposts on the branches. Of course we want more markers and analysis for the most recent branching of the tree, too.

I agree we have to peel the onion back, but we also have to look at how the pieces fit together, too. It's still an onion.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 03:00:10 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #149 on: August 12, 2012, 09:13:45 AM »

I just read a concise overview of U106 from VinceT that I am sharing here from Yahoo U106 forum.

Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:"Vince" vtilroe
 
"...U106 is spread across central and north-west Europe, with frequency peaking near and in the Low Countries, and significant if not marbled presence between the Rhineland and Austria. In general, there seems to be a clinal divide running from Venice to Scotland, with P312 dominating going south-west, while U106 dominates going north-east, but with moderate bleeding and mixing by both parties across that line in both directions. And, always keep in mind that the original P312 and U106 men were close genetic cousins (if not literal brothers), sharing a common ancestor: both are L11+ as well."

MJost
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 09:14:35 AM by Mark Jost » 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)
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.151 seconds with 19 queries.