World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: rms2 on March 21, 2012, 07:52:03 PM



Title: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 21, 2012, 07:52:03 PM
A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 21, 2012, 10:16:45 PM
A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?
I wasn't finding that, but there are very few U106 haplotypes from Ireland so I'm not sure a great comparison can be made.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 22, 2012, 07:52:59 PM
Thanks. I know it is relatively scarce in Ireland and usually associated with English or Lowland Scots surnames.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Dubhthach on March 24, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 25, 2012, 08:20:29 AM
The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Dubhthach on March 25, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.

Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.



In general I would agree, the issue I see with particular poster is more then likely ideologically driven. Of course a Y-Chromosome is only 2% of one's genome, so I wouldn't base my entire "self-definition" on it. (That and it only reflects one male ancestral line)

One thing I think is a bit of nuisance is studies such as Busby using restricted numbers of SNP's. For example for U106 they just use one "sub-clade" marked by U198. Likewise for L21 they just used M222 (don't think they tried to spilt U152 at all!)

Ideally such large studies should have as many of the higher up subclades as possible so as to at least see if there are any geographical patterns. In case of L21 I would say:
DF21, DF23, L513/DF1, Z253, Z255



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 25, 2012, 09:54:53 AM
One thing I think is a bit of nuisance is studies such as Busby using restricted numbers of SNP's. For example for U106 they just use one "sub-clade" marked by U198. Likewise for L21 they just used M222 (don't think they tried to spilt U152 at all!)

Ideally such large studies should have as many of the higher up subclades as possible so as to at least see if there are any geographical patterns. In case of L21 I would say:
DF21, DF23, L513/DF1, Z253, Z255
Here! Here!   ... although I can understand that academic research can't be as current as what we know about these subclades.

Since you mentioned Busby, one log for the fire to burn up that straw/wicker man paper is their use of SNPs. They picked S127/L11 to show lack of differentiation of STR diversity across Europe. They didn't compare that to R1b L11- subclades and paragroup diversity and how that varied across Europe. I don't understand why they neglected that. The information was there.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 25, 2012, 09:59:31 AM
The ironic thing bout that whole discussion is that the surname Boylan is connected to Clann Colla, which by and large is showing up as L21+, DF21+ (null 425)

I would tend to agree that the earliest U106 given current evidence is probably in the Viking era. Now it could be possible that there is some very early U106 in Ireland, we just don't know.
Interesting.

I agree it is possible there was some very early U106 in early Ireland, but that could be said of any European y-haplogroup one could name. IMHO, it is highly unlikely there was any U106 in Ireland before the Vikings.
What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 25, 2012, 10:00:03 AM
I don't think we are likely to see real deep SNP resolution anytime soon. We're lucky when a study tests for L21. Fortunately, there is a lot of interest in the British Isles, so we get some attention every now and then.

One of the problems with ancient dna testing is that researchers don't or can't go very deep with SNPs.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 25, 2012, 10:08:38 AM

What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.

Well, there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and what is there tends to be most frequent where the English settled, like in the old "Pale" in and around Dublin, for example, and in Northern Ireland.

If you look at the surnames of those U106+ listing an Irish mdka, the vast majority of them are English or Lowland Scots. By far most of those with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames are L21+, or at least something other than U106.

If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames.

The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that U106 just wasn't there. If it was, it made little or no impression.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 25, 2012, 05:19:56 PM
I think there is little doubt that U106 was most likely very rare in the west in pre-Germanic times (in isles terms).  A small amount could have go there in pre-Viking times through Anglo-Saxons as, although not often mentioned, the Northumbrians actually raided Ireland once (or twice?) in pre-Viking times, there were Northumbrian royal refugees in Ireland and the church connections also meant settlement of some people from an Anglo-Saxon background.  However, Anglo-Saxon impact must have been very small and restricted to the Northumbrian Angles as the rest of the British coast facing Ireland remained largely Celtic (Cornwall, Devon, Wales, Cumbria etc).

The big question for me is when did U106 reach south-east and eastern Britain?  I think its much more of a leap to rule out pre-Germanic movement of U106 into south-east and eastern Britain.  In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity.  I suppose the closest we could get to answering that is looking at the variance of U106 and its subclades in different areas, perhaps Poland or Denmark compared to Holland/Belgium and in turn compared to England. 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 11:37:46 AM

What is the evidence that U106 didn't show up before the Vikings? Are you basing this on the frequencies of U106 subclades associated with Anglo-Saxon territories?

I've never seen a detailed look a this. Does anyone have a detailed map of U106*, L148, L1, U198, Z18 frequencies across the British Isles.? It would be interesting to see if something like U106* had a different dispersion at the regional level.

Well, there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and what is there tends to be most frequent where the English settled, like in the old "Pale" in and around Dublin, for example, and in Northern Ireland.

If you look at the surnames of those U106+ listing an Irish mdka, the vast majority of them are English or Lowland Scots. By far most of those with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames are L21+, or at least something other than U106.

If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames.

The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that U106 just wasn't there. If it was, it made little or no impression.
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense except I'll disagree on one thing.  You said "If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it."  U106 could be truly ancient and still be of very low frequency. Diversity, both STR and Hg-wise, is of more importance. Frequency, on the other hand, can be misleading.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: rms2
... If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames....
The SNP testing on the below is a little out of date (60 days) but here are the U106 I'm aware of in Ireland by surname and hg.

Moore   R-U106
Morrow   R-U106
Neely     R-U106
Parker   R-U106*
Peden   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106*
Pickens   R-U106
Rutledge   R-U106
Sloan   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Steenson   R-U106
Sweet   R-U106
Thompson   R-U106
Wade   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
MacMullen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106
McMullan   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106*
McMullen   R-U106
Mullin   R-U106
Taylor   R-U106
Traynor   R-U106
Allen   R-U106
Anderson   R-U106
Barnwell   R-U106
Fitzgibbon   R-U106/Z381
Parke   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8


I am definitely not a surname expert. I'm just presenting what's there. ... The only think I like to say about surnames is that I distrust surname persistence as you go back in time.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 11:51:23 AM
Here are the U106 I'm aware of in Scotland and Wales by surname and hg.  The McMullen/McMillen group of Ireland and Scotland seem to be a big. Does anyone know their history?

McGoon   R-U106
Bow   R-U106/Z381/Z156*
Donald   R-U106/Z381/Z156
Johnson   R-U106/Z381/Z156
Allen   R-U106/Z18/L257
Arcus   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburn   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cockburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Cokburne   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Dunbar   R-U106/Z18/L257
Elder   R-U106/Z18/L257
Matheson   R-U106/Z18/L257
Riddell   R-U106/Z18/L257
Ross   R-U106/Z18/L257
Young   R-U106/Z18*
Jackson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Allison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Allison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Gibson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Boyd   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Ferguson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Anderson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Wallace   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
Bell   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Bell   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Bell    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Crawford    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Graham    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Jardine    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Little    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Moffatt    R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
Morrison   R-U106
Abel   R-U106
King   R-U106
Meenach   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106
King   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47
Galbraith   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*
McLeod   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*
Reader   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163/L46/L164
Richards   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163*
McDonald   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Spence   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Carr   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Dunn   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Magoon   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Shortridge   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2*
Sinclair   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Walker   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
Gurley   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Armstrong   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Blackburn   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Burns   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Burns   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Carter   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Cates   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Coffin   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Davis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Duguid   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Flick   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Hannah   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Hepner   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Lisk   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Lyles   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
MacPherson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Marjoribanks   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Marjoribanks   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Matheson   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
McDonald   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Miller   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Minto   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*
Moffat   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morell   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morrison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Morrison   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Spruiell   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Young   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Bell   R-U106
Biggs   R-U106*
Broun   R-U106
Cockburne   R-U106
Colston   R-U106
Douglas   R-U106*
Douglas   R-U106
Dowie   R-U106
Downie   R-U106
Dunbar   R-U106
Ferguson   R-U106
Finley   R-U106
Forman   R-U106*
Forrest   R-U106*
Gibson   R-U106
Gillespie   R-U106
Goodlad   R-U106
Gordon   R-U106*
Gordon   R-U106**
Graham   R-U106
Hastie   R-U106
Hughson   R-U106
Johnston   R-U106
Livingston   R-U106
Low   R-U106
Lyles   R-U106
Magoon   R-U106
McArthur   R-U106*
McDiarmid   R-U106
Millar   R-U106
Monteith   R-U106*
Morrison   R-U106
Murray   R-U106
Nichols   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106
Reid   R-U106
Robertson   R-U106*
Sinkler   R-U106*
Smart   R-U106
Templeton   R-U106*
zzzUnkName   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
Cameron   R-U106
Keddie   R-U106
MacMillan   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106
McMillan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillan   R-U106
Akins   R-U106*
Bailey   R-U106
Byers   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326

Wales...

Edwards   R-U106/Z18
Cissell   R-U106
Picton   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163/L46
Davis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Ellis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
James   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Jones   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Mathis   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Moyle   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Whitfield   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
Davies   R-U106
Evans   R-U106
Howell   R-U106
Morgan   R-U106
Rumsey   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Stephens   R-U106
Thomas   R-U106


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 12:02:47 PM
.... In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity. ..
Exactly. I haven't been able to figure out U106 with enough significance in STR diversity to solve this problem, though.  So far, I can't differentiate much, which just implies U106 arrived at about the same time in the Low Countries and in East/SE England.   It must have remained "bottled up" over in the Baltic area for some time before bursting west, or, perhaps, it was really in East/SE England fairly early but could not expand well to the west and north due to the native tribes in those places.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 26, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I don't really want to get involved in the ethnic wars again, but will make a few observations.

I haven't studied U106 in Ireland, but have seen mention of a few U106 there with Gaelic surnames. I keep an open mind to the possibility of an early arrival of some U106 there, but it appears to me to be very small in comparison to later arrivals from Scotland and England.

I have often said that determining the history of U106 will depend on an analysis by subclade. I don't think that looking at the overall variance of all of U106 in any individual country is going to be very helpful. A large number of SNPs below U106 have been discovered recently, but I am told that there isn't much interest in testing for them. However some progress is being made.

U106 seems to have a much larger presence in Scotland, and the number with Scottish surnames is not insignificant. There are a number of these on Mike's list. I don't think they can all be explained away as descendants of Anglo-Saxons, Flemings, Normans or Scandinavians. The U106 subclade L48, which appears to predominate in Scandinavia, seems to be much less frequent in Scotland. In L48, in which the so-called 'Frisian haplotype' is found, 390=23 predominates. In the Z257 and Z156 subclades, 390=24 predominates. If  the U106 in Scotland were of exclusively of Anglian or Scandinavian origin, I would expect to see a larger amount of L48 and 390=23 there.

There was someone in Scotland who is U106 who was engaged in a study of it there. He used to post occasionally on the dna forum. It appeared to me he didn't have any particular axe to grind, unlike many who opine on the subject. He was particularly interested in the L257 subclade. This SNP is on a completely different branch of U106 from most of the other subclades. According to him, some of the subclusters of L257 are primarily found in Scotland. He also posited that the L128 subclade (below Z156?) may have been born somewhere in Britain c. 2000 ybp.

It is early days yet, and I think far too soon to draw any definite conclusions. Once again, I merely suggest keeping an open mind about the arrival of U106 in Britain, rather than a mad dash to find ways to explain them away as descendants of later Germanic immigrants.





Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
... I have often said that determining the history of U106 will depend on an analysis by subclade. I don't think that looking at the overall variance of all of U106 in any individual country is going to be very helpful. A large number of SNPs below U106 have been discovered recently, but I am told that there isn't much interest in testing for them. However some progress is being made...
I agree we need more info at the U106 subclade level. There are some folks over on the S21/U106 subgroup that are very passionate on SNP testing so I think we are seeing progress.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/messages
It would be nice to have a couple of their high powered people posting here too like Michael M, Ray W, Wayne K (who I think is on this forum), Charlie M, Tim J and a few others. I think we already have Greg M.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mark Jost on March 26, 2012, 05:27:38 PM
After I looked at U106 to see if my half maternal brother who were L69 had any close GD clusters is when I discovered a small group that is England based. I then found a larger Group of Isles based U106, The McMillan's. I worked with the Laighin MacMaolain  (Lyn McMullen) back at the end of November last year to produce a 40 or so Ht network that showed a strong Irish base for Z156. So a strong Family Lineage that started early in Ireland.

Lyn wrote me and said, "Z156 so far has a closer distance these names are of the Devon-Cornwall ilk which fits historically to ancient Britons, Brittany etc.  It is a fit with historic analysis ie:  The Laigin from Amorica and Brittany, to Ireland, some say almost at the same time.  The pathway thru is channel islands to south Devon Cornwall to Ireland and on to Scotland for the Strathclyde Britons." McMill lineage seems to have a 8.7 Rho mutations for 1,617.6 +- 360.2 years MRCA.

He also stated:

Amazingly it fits with much of what we have speculated in oral and documented exchanges over many years.  It confirms in an adjustable range that Patrick MacMullen 104866, Charles McMullen 159837 and Lyn 90791 descend from a common ancestor about 1000 years ago.  That ancestor based on historic Irish history was Laighnan Mac Maolain (laity in the book of Kells) Lynan MacMullen.  This family were still located 17th century as erenaghs of churchlands in an barony area called Morgallion Co. Meath.  (Gaileang Mora) ancient Brega gives their last recorded noble as Mac Mic Maolain slain 1144AD. Morgallion was captured by the Normans 1170 AD and allocated to a Norman Lord who created Cruictown (102839) just two miles from Ardmagh Brega where my 9th Gr Grandfather James MacMullen was born. Adjacent him in the Morgallion townland of  Legagh sits the family Traynor 125584.  Taylor 175542 is a perfect DNA match to Lloyd McMullen located on the Ancestry DNA site took over Morgallion in 1699 on the confiscation of the lands from Cruis.  The migration to Scotland is connected then to this Traynor of Meath and Gerard McMullan 84947 of Antrim who claim to be native Irish.  When did the Gerard McMullan family move to Antrim? Hard to say, but clearly the chart confirms that McMillan Scotland 35953 (as their own history states) are descendants of his line.  My personal guesstimate would be Alexander McMulen d. 1497 as the actual documented ancestor of 135048. He had a son named Malcolm, one of whom moved north and became a Cameron 60304 according to their family lore.  35043 is descended from a Malcolm McMillan, who leads to the oldest of that line 35953 who became Chief of the family based on an unconfirmed link to Alexander McMulen.

Further to what I see in your help so far, is many names that connect to Brittany and of course Cornwall and Devon.  Others in the U106 project that connect to the historical pathway in Ireland include:

Cannon, Kelley, Kavanagh, Madden, Callanan and Conley as well as McGowan (smith).

MJost


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 26, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: rms2
... If U106 were truly ancient in Ireland, there should be more of it, and it should have a corresponding, reasonable representation among those with old Irish surnames. Instead, U106 is rather scarce in Ireland, and it is even more scarce among the native Irish, i.e., the Catholic families with Gaelic surnames....
The SNP testing on the below is a little out of date (60 days) but here are the U106 I'm aware of in Ireland by surname and hg.

Moore   R-U106
Morrow   R-U106
Neely     R-U106
Parker   R-U106*
Peden   R-U106
Phillips   R-U106*
Pickens   R-U106
Rutledge   R-U106
Sloan   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Smith   R-U106
Steenson   R-U106
Sweet   R-U106
Thompson   R-U106
Wade   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
Wilson   R-U106
zzzUnkName   R-U106
MacMullen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMillen   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106/Z381/Z156
McMullan   R-U106
McMullan   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106
McMullen   R-U106*
McMullen   R-U106
Mullin   R-U106
Taylor   R-U106
Traynor   R-U106
Allen   R-U106
Anderson   R-U106
Barnwell   R-U106
Fitzgibbon   R-U106/Z381
Parke   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8


I am definitely not a surname expert. I'm just presenting what's there. ... The only think I like to say about surnames is that I distrust surname persistence as you go back in time.

That list has a lot of non-native Gaelic .  If that is all we have in terms of U106 in Ireland then the evidence is extremely strong that U106 was rare in pre-Viking times in Ireland.  


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 26, 2012, 06:42:49 PM
.... In fact, I think I would go as far to say that unless U106 had not yet reached the Low Countries in pre-Germanic times then it would almost certainly have been introduced into SE and eastern Britain in pre-Germanic times and the only question would be over quantity. ..
Exactly. I haven't been able to figure out U106 with enough significance in STR diversity to solve this problem, though.  So far, I can't differentiate much, which just implies U106 arrived at about the same time in the Low Countries and in East/SE England.   It must have remained "bottled up" over in the Baltic area for some time before bursting west, or, perhaps, it was really in East/SE England fairly early but could not expand well to the west and north due to the native tribes in those places.

Mike-how big is the difference in variance of U106 between the Baltic area and its more westerly areas like the Low countries/England?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 26, 2012, 08:11:41 PM
We've been through a lot of this before. According to Busby, there really isn't all that much U106 in Scotland, and what is there can easily be accounted for. For example, as was mentioned before, the 12th century settlement of Northumbrians in Moray and Aberdeenshire by King David I of Scotland.

An early arrival for U106 in SE Britain I think could be plausible, but I just don't believe it for the rest of the Isles. Honestly, I don't believe there was much, if any, U106 anywhere in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. Probably the first U106 in Britain came as Germanic foederati with the Romans. I think there is evidence of Saxons in Roman employ in SE Britain as early as the 3rd century AD.

I really don't see how anyone can look at the distribution of U106 and its subclades and not think "Germanic". After all, U106's subclades are all U106+, so they are included in the general distribution of U106.

To argue that there was an oddball stray U106+ here and there in the very distant past seems to me a waste of time. Sure. Maybe. But perhaps there were other strays - an O or two, maybe - in ancient Ireland. Who knows?

What matters when you are talking about y haplogroups is the overall trend, not the supposition that maybe, perhaps, possibly there were a few stray U106 outside their normal beat.

Take Ireland, for example. In the historical period Ireland suffered a lot at the hands of people who came from places with a plentiful supply of U106. Some of those people settled there. Those facts amount to the U106 elephant in the room. Why strain for the (probably imaginary) ancient U106 gnat there?

I don't understand the apparent desire to "de-Germanize" U106 and make it seem as if it is just impossible to say anything meaningful about it.

Look at the evidence. Historically, what is now England was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who came from precisely those very places where U106 is most frequent. Their impact was so tremendous that the people in what is now England adopted the language of the invaders. That didn't happen elsewhere in Europe, despite the influx of Germanic barbarians during the post-Roman Period.

Later, during the Viking Period, England received some more shots of fresh blood from places where U106 is frequent.

Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.




Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 26, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: OConnor on March 27, 2012, 07:38:11 AM
The Danes were in S/E England, and elsewhere in the Isles.
Could the bulk of the Isles U106 have originated in Scandinavia?





Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: MHammers on March 27, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
Here are some numbers I ran back in October for U198 with Ken's Generations5 calculator in an attempt to see if there were any later Germanic connections.  Although the sample could always be larger, I think there is a possible connection with U198.  Maybe it's not all Anglo-Saxon, but partially Germans who the Romans would have brought with them.  It would be interesting to see how U106 lines up with Generations7. 

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch. 
Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp. 

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29  or 2430+/-870 ybp.  Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance.

At the low end of the confidence interval of 2430-870, puts it at 1560 ybp or 440 AD, which is about the same time as the early Anglo-Saxon period in England.  It is puzzling that the variance for the English only sample is not low enough to demonstrate a founder effect in post-Roman Britain.  Perhaps the linguists are right in that it was only a smaller elite migration.  This would explain why L21 who were likely Romano-British, Irish, and Pictish, was able to continue their proliferation.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Forsythe on March 27, 2012, 01:25:42 PM
Roman troops, mainly from nearby Germanic provinces, under Emperor Claudius invaded what is now England in AD 43. Over the next few years the province of Britannia was formed, eventually including the whole of England and Wales and parts of Scotland.[2] As a result Roman businessmen and officials came to Britannia to settle by the thousands along with their families. Roman troops from across the Empire as far as Spain, Syria, and Egypt, but mainly from the Germanic provinces of Batavia and Frisia (modern Netherlands, Belgium, and the Rhineland area of Germany) were garrisoned in Roman towns, many intermarrying with local Britons. This diversified Britannia's cultures and religions, while the populace remained mainly Celtic with a Roman way of life.
Later, Britain was independent of the rest of the Roman Empire for a number of years, first as a part of the Gallic Empire, then a couple of decades later under the usurpers Carausius and Allectus.
Christianity came to Britain in the 3rd century. One early figure was Saint Alban, who was martyred near the Roman town of Verulamium, on the site of the modern St Albans, by tradition during the reign of the emperor Decius.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 27, 2012, 04:13:36 PM

I read elsewhere that there are now 58 different SNPs below U106. A few may be equivalent SNPs, but there is no doubt that the substructure of U106 is just as complex as that of P312. And those currently identified may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

I see no reason to assume that all these subclades have identical histories and distributions. We know that P312 subclades, which have been around for an equivalent time, differ considerably in their distribution. Looking at the variance of all of P312 combined tells one very little about the distribution of its subclades, which can be as diverse as M153 in Iberia is from L238 in Scandinavia. Would comparing the variance of P312 in Scandinavia with that in Iberia demonstrate that? As far as I am concerned, discussing U106 as if it is all identical is essentially pointless.

As I said above, I don't want to get involved in another ethnic war about U106, For reasons which are unclear to me, it arouses very strong passions in a number of people, so I will have no more to say on the subject here.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 27, 2012, 05:13:51 PM

I read elsewhere that there are now 58 different SNPs below U106. A few may be equivalent SNPs, but there is no doubt that the substructure of U106 is just as complex as that of P312. And those currently identified may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

I see no reason to assume that all these subclades have identical histories and distributions. We know that P312 subclades, which have been around for an equivalent time, differ considerably in their distribution. Looking at the variance of all of P312 combined tells one very little about the distribution of its subclades, which can be as diverse as M153 in Iberia is from L238 in Scandinavia. Would comparing the variance of P312 in Scandinavia with that in Iberia demonstrate that? As far as I am concerned, discussing U106 as if it is all identical is essentially pointless.

As I said above, I don't want to get involved in another ethnic war about U106, For reasons which are unclear to me, it arouses very strong passions in a number of people, so I will have no more to say on the subject here.

I am sure you are right about the prematurity of interpreting U106 before it is divided into many more of its subclades and a decent sample looked at.  It is kind of frustrating though that only L21 and Z196 seem to spectacularly resolving into closer focus while others like U106 are not.  L21 lost its monolithic block status very quickly over the last year or two so lets hope the same happens for U106 and U152


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 27, 2012, 05:36:57 PM
... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

I think the last bit is the crux.  How long ago was U106 in the Low Countries?  That is the reason I asked whether there is a really strong variance difference between the east and west for U106.  If U106 is say 4000 years old and it only arrived in the Low Countries in late BC (say 2300 years ago) then there should originally anyway have been a major distinction in variance between east and west.   If there is not then that would make a strong case that U106 was on the shores directly opposite SE England for far too long for it not to have made some impact.  In the late Bronze Age the Hilversum culture in the Low Countries and contemporary cultures in SE England were very closely linked. If U106 was in the Low Countries at the time then it is very hard to believe it didnt cross.  For me everything hinges on establishing the position of U106 in 2000BC, 1000BC, 500BC, 0BC etc on the continent.   Obviously a major problem is the lack of clade resolution and it is possible that they will eventually show multi-period movements of U106 into SE England from the beaker period to the Anglo-Saxons and beyond.  I am definately a believer that the SE Britons in immediate pre-Roman times were already a different mix from most of the Britons and that the simple use of everything but L21 as a proxy for the degree of Anglo-Saxon settlement could be flawed for that reason.  However, I just dont know.  Only close comparison of variance by area may help and it will remain guesswork until U106 is more resolved.  What I think its fair enough to conclude though is that U106 probably (in isles terms) denote a vastly higher chance of having SE/eastern origins within the isles and ultimate ancestry somewhere from Flanders eastwards.  I think the problem comes when trying to apportion the degree what period is responsible for these influxes into SE Britain and the temptation to give ethnic labels from the early historical period.  


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2012, 07:55:57 PM
... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.

I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.

The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.

Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place. If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers. It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.

The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Peter M on March 27, 2012, 08:10:31 PM
As some of you may know, I'm somewhat involved in the research on Z18 and below (e.g. L257). We think to have a reasonable idea about the various migrational streams of Z18 in the past and on how to research those.

The biggest hurdle we experience in the R-Z18 group in relation to Ireland is the Complete Lack of Willingness to Communicate of Irish (and in some cases of Scotish) people once they discover to be in a "Germanic" U106/Z18/L257 clade.

We sometimes tend to make simple jokes about this, but in reality it IS a serious issue.

Is there anybody who would be able to help us get in contact ? e.g. by proposing a piece of text that might help convince an individual that we will only find out about U106/Z18 in Ireland before 0AD if the Irish join research in this area.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 27, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Have you found very many with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames whose ancestry is well established as coming from outside those areas settled by the English and other folks with high frequencies of U106?

I just haven't seen that among U106+. Those with readily identifiable Gaelic surnames are very scarce. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are just too few and far between to be indicative of any kind of very old U106 presence in Ireland.

Good luck with establishing that there was any kind of ancient Irish U106.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 28, 2012, 09:50:48 AM
Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.
I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

Quote from: rms2
I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Quote from: rms2
The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Quote from: rms2
Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place.
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

Quote from: rms2
If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England.

I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

Quote from: rms2
It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

Quote from: rms2
The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Peter M on March 28, 2012, 11:06:31 AM
Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era.
'What exacly do you mean with "much further back" ? Do you mean before 0AD ? or before 250 AD ? or what ??

Would you be able to demonstrate this "good reason" with actual data ? As far as I'm aware, there isn't much (reasonably SNP tested) profile data for the Low Countries - most Dutchmen are scared to death of even the word DNA Test  $:-)

Living in the Low Countries myself, I'm very interested in your point. There's a lot of discussion going on about Low Country History on local Dutch forums and I personally am convinced DNA will tell us more about who's right and to what extent.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 28, 2012, 01:05:28 PM
... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.

I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.

The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.

Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place. If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers. It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.

The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.

I think there is little doubt that lowland Britain received more easterly pulses than the west did but the question is simply were the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings just the most recent of a pattern that was present over a much longer period of time.  I certainly wouldnt go as far as Oppenheimer and his school of thought that the Germanic aspect of lowland England is prehistoric.  Shortly after he published there was a new major study of classical references to Celtic placenames and that basically debunked the idea that there was anything other than Celtic speakers in Britain when the Romans arrived.  The upshot of that is I dont think that the influences from much beyond the Lower Rhine were strong.  I personally am in a sort of middle place between Rich and Mike on this.  I suspect that U106 was in the shores opposite SE England somewhat later than L21 and therefore lacked the first-in advantage.  However, although I think U106 was later, the question remains how much later?  It didnt have to arrive in the Low Countries as late as 100BC etc to already experience the disadvantage of being blocked by a dense non-U106 population.  Britain was described as being very densely populated by the Romans.   


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on March 28, 2012, 01:20:33 PM
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millennia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Several linguists have argued for an Afro-Asiatic substrate in specifically Insular Celtic, akin to Ancient Egyptian/Coptic. That might be a clue that the incoming farmers brought an A-A language to the British Isles, just as they did to North Africa.

Quote
I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.... If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans left us evidence of the linguistic status of the British Isles when they first encountered it. See Celtic tribes of the British Isles (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celtictribes.shtml). The whole of the isles had tribes and places with Celtic names. There are no exceptions, and that includes Belgic SE England. In the Post-Roman period that changed, and Germanic names appeared. Pretty straightforward.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 28, 2012, 01:29:07 PM
Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.
I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

Quote from: rms2
I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Quote from: rms2
The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Quote from: rms2
Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place.
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

Quote from: rms2
If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England.

I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

Quote from: rms2
It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

Quote from: rms2
The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.

Mike-what sort of date would the variance of U106 in the low countries imply for its arrival there.  I am aware it is significantly lower in variance than the east.  I think last time we discussed this U106 as a whole seemed younger than p312 by a few centuries and low countries U106 somewhat younger than that.  That would sound to me like Low Countries U106 was post-beaker in date which might allow us to rule out that particular lowland British-Low Countries contact phase for U106. 

If it did arrive post-beaker in the Low Countries then that takes us to the Wessex etc period in England.  The main Low Countries cultural link with SE Britain in this period was the Hilversum culture which was essentially south Holland and Belgium rather than east of the Rhine.  So, again unless U106 was already over the Rhine by then the Hilversum culture is not likely to have seen a gene flow involving U106. 

So, in short it is important to know if variance suggests low countries U106 dates to after 2000BC or post 1500BC or whatever.  How does the variance of U106 in the Low Countries compare to the variance of L21 or U152 in the isles and France for instance.  I am guessing that the variance may suggest U106 in the Low Countries is maybe c. 1500BC but if anyone has any information I would be interested.  I think we have done this before but I cant recall. 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 28, 2012, 01:50:10 PM
I found this last round of variance discussions on U106

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10221.100

Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.  I know that there are a lot of ifs and buts in this but it would be useful if we can nail down the period when U106 arrived close to SE England.  Then we can look at the archaeological evidence for contact in a tighter timeframe.  


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Peter M on March 28, 2012, 02:33:32 PM
Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.
What does this mean ? What kind of entity is "Low Countries U106" that one can estimate its age like this ??

Do you assume all U106 in the Low Countries descend from a single person ?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 28, 2012, 02:38:35 PM
...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

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

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 28, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.
What does this mean ? What kind of entity is "Low Countries U106" that one can estimate its age like this ??

Do you assume all U106 in the Low Countries descend from a single person ?


In the absence of detailed clade breakdown and a large enough sample all that can be done is to look at U106 as a monolith on a geographical basis.  The link to the old thread shows the results of this by both Myres et al and Mike W of this site.  It indicated that U106 'all' in the west of its main distribution had a significantly lower variance than to the east.  Its far from ideal but its the only way it how clade and haplogroup geographical prehistory is normally analysed. 

The one other method that was brought up in the last discussion is looking at U106 links between Britain and the continent though individual matching similar to that done by FTDNA on the customer's homepages.  I think this has also been looked at by Mike in a past thread.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: eochaidh on March 28, 2012, 05:16:15 PM
Ciaran Boylan is an Irish Catholic with a native Irish surname and he's U106. He lives in the midlands somewhere, I think.

Thanks,  Miles Kehoe


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 28, 2012, 07:46:21 PM
Ciaran Boylan is an Irish Catholic with a native Irish surname and he's U106. He lives in the midlands somewhere, I think.

Thanks,  Miles Kehoe

He is nearly alone in that, and there are other Boylans who are L21+. Odd, don't you think?

As you know, there are any number of ways one can acquire a surname. If his y-dna ancestor were a Viking who fathered a male child on an Irish woman, that child would have been raised among the Irish as Irish. His male descendants would have been Irish, except for their y-dna. When surnames came along, they were in line for an Irish one.

Of course, some other scenario is also possible. The biological father could have been a Norman or an Englishman or a Lowland Scot.

An old Catholic, Gaelic surname on someone who is U106 is rare.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 28, 2012, 08:24:48 PM
I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

That might be the case if it was all there is, but it isn't all there is. There is the tremendous weight of known history, rather than speculation.

Quote from: Mikewww
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

I thought we were talking about Britain being 100% Celtic when it was possible to be Celtic, not before Celtic even existed. Of course, people in Britain spoke something else way back when. But there is no evidence they were speaking anything other than Celtic when the Romans arrived, and there is plenty of evidence that Celtic was being spoken when the Romans did arrive.

That is what I meant by "100% Celtic".

Quote from: Mikewww
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Celtic influence on English is minimal, but plenty of Celtic place names and topographical names survive.

The leaders of the Belgae all had Celtic names, and their tribes had Celtic names. Could there have been a few U106ers among them? Possibly. But their advent in Britain, according to Caesar, was within living memory when he set foot in Britain.

Quote from: Mikewww
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

But it isn't just "absence of evidence". There is plenty of evidence that people from U106-rich areas invaded Britain in the Migration and Viking periods. So, the argument is not made from an "absence of evidence".

The argument that they didn't come earlier than that (in any numbers, anyway) is connected to the distribution of U106 in Britain, its connection to Germanic peoples (no part of Britain was Germanic before the historical period), and to the fact that U106 in Britain is easily accounted for by the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions.

I don't think the danger that we might miss an "ancient British U106" is all that great that we should restrain ourselves from calling the U106 in Britain Germanic.

Quote from: Mikewww
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England. I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

I don't understand what you just wrote, because I don't see a problem.

Perhaps, again, perhaps, the Celtic tribes in Britain were a formidable barrier preventing U106 settlement before the eventual collapse that accompanied the withdrawal of Roman troops.

U106 is much more frequent in England than elsewhere in the Isles, and it is most frequent in England where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings settled.



Quote from: Mikewww
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

I'm not "imagining" anything. Of course the British Celts weren't a single nation, but they were formidable enough against other barbarians whose level of organization and military did not greatly exceed their own. Before they were beaten down by the much more advanced Romans, they very easily could have kept Germans from across the North Sea - people who lived on piles of manure erected in flood zones - at bay.

It is a fact that the Germans were kept at bay, penned up in the north, for centuries by the Celtic tribes of continental Europe. After the Romans broke the backs of the continental Celts, the Germans were free to flood south and west, which they subsequently did.

Prehistoric U106ers versus prehistoric Celts would not be a contest analogous to the medieval Irish versus the well-organized, well-armed, and sophisticated Normans.

Quote from: Mikewww
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.

That's where we differ. The evidence says it is very likely that a U106 Irishman is descended from an historical period invader. That evidence, I think, is overwhelming.

It may be remotely (very remotely) possible that there were Gaelic U106ers in Ireland in the distant, ancient past, but does that seem at all likely?

Really?

Nah.

I remember a guy (whose name I will withhold) a few years ago whose y-dna testing revealed he belonged to y-haplogroup H. At first he claimed all sorts of things about y-haplogroup H. It was "Frankish". It was some kind of Germanic barbarian. Of course, it could have been. But really? How likely was that?

Slowly but surely it dawned on him that H is primarily an Indian (as in from India) y-haplogroup. Since he could trace his paper trail back to England pretty far back in time, he finally figured out that his y-dna progenitor had probably been a gypsy (Romany). H is found among European gypsies but is otherwise rare in Europe.

I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

I would never have told that man he could be right, that maybe his ancestor was a "Frank". At the time, I pointed out to him that H is primarily an Indian y-haplogroup.

So, I'm not going to tell a U106 Irishman he descends from the ancient Irish.

Because I don't think he does.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on March 29, 2012, 10:40:23 AM
As some of you may know, I'm somewhat involved in the research on Z18 and below (e.g. L257). We think to have a reasonable idea about the various migrational streams of Z18 in the past and on how to research those.

The biggest hurdle we experience in the R-Z18 group in relation to Ireland is the Complete Lack of Willingness to Communicate of Irish (and in some cases of Scotish) people once they discover to be in a "Germanic" U106/Z18/L257 clade.

We sometimes tend to make simple jokes about this, but in reality it IS a serious issue.

Is there anybody who would be able to help us get in contact ? e.g. by proposing a piece of text that might help convince an individual that we will only find out about U106/Z18 in Ireland before 0AD if the Irish join research in this area.


Yes, I recall a quite hysterical thread on DNA-Forums by an Irish person with (he said) a Celtic surname who was desperate to "prove" that his U106 ancestry could not have been linked with anything "German" given that they were so barbarous, etc, and nothing like Celts. His arguments against U106 being of Germanic origin were 100% emotional; he would not accept any scientific argument. He only went away when we said he was completely free to believe what he liked about the origin of U106.

I have been trying to recruit more Irish men to the surname project, with limited success. So far those who have joined seem to know very little about their own family history and are looking to answers in the DNA.

I'm hoping that the Irish DNA Atlas Project will kick-start significant interest in genetic genealogy in Ireland and perhaps change some entrenched attitudes when its results are published:

http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=110&a=1966



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 29, 2012, 12:02:29 PM
The Ancient Greeks and Romans left us evidence of the linguistic status of the British Isles when they first encountered it. See Celtic tribes of the British Isles (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celtictribes.shtml). The whole of the isles had tribes and places with Celtic names. There are no exceptions, and that includes Belgic SE England. In the Post-Roman period that changed, and Germanic names appeared. Pretty straightforward.
These are not trick question. I've just never had clarity on this.  What is the nature of the Belgic tribes? Were they purely Celtic, Germanic (I guess not), somehow mixed or some kind of variant of Celtic languages and practices?

That begs another question on the whole topic.  Is there any reason to think the Belgic tribes did not carry some U106 with them? They had Gaul on one side and Germania on the other.  The Low Countries are pretty thick U106 now.

I'll read up on your writing: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/belgicengland.shtml


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 29, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
That begs another question on the whole topic.  Is there any reason to think the Belgic tribes did not carry some U106 with them? They had Gaul on one side and Germania on the other.  The Low Countries are pretty thick U106 now.

I'll read up on your writing: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/belgicengland.shtml
When I look at the Belgic "coins" map that Jean has posted and look at the R1b subclades frequency maps there is a pattern where both U152 and U106 overlay the Belgic areas to some degree.

I'll double check all of this, but I think there is a timing difference between U152 and U106 in England.  U152's diversity is lower in England that further south on the continent whereas U106's is not so discernible.  The implication being that U106 got there first.  I need to update my U106 stuff.  They do have a number of new subclades now to look at.

um.... U152's distribution in the Belgium area vis a vie U106's in the Netherlands would lead one to think there is a possible Belgae U152 link.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on March 29, 2012, 05:47:50 PM
These are not trick question. I've just never had clarity on this.  What is the nature of the Belgic tribes?

They were Celts pushed out of their lands east of the Rhine by the expansion of the  Germani (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/germani.shtml). Once upon a time Celtic-speakers lived both east and west of the Rhine, descendants of the Hallstatt and La Tene Cultures (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ironage.shtml#Hallstatt). By 500 BC Germani had expanded right up to the Rhine, pushing Belgic tribes over the Rhine into North-East Gaul, where Caesar found them when he invaded Gaul, and also into Britain.

The big confusion has arisen because Caesar knew that these tribes had come from the territory by then known as Germania, and actually labelled some of them as Germani, while the linguistic evidence is that they were Celts. This is not to say that there hadn't been some mixing going on during the centuries. There certainly was cultural exchange as people coming out of Jutland met the Hallstatt Culture, from which Proto-Germanic borrowed the Celtic words for "iron" and "king".


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 29, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
Just adding to what Jean wrote, modern Dutch and Flemish descend from Old Low Franconian, i.e., the language of the Salian Franks (a Germanic tribe), who moved into that region as the Romans withdrew. The area was originally Celtic but east of the Rhine had become Germanic in the historical period.

The Belgae may have had a lot of U152; I don't know. They could have even had a bit of U106; again, I don't know. But in either case we aren't talking prehistory for their arrival in Britain. We are talking about a time within living memory of Caesar's.

From what I last heard, the U106 distribution versus the U152 distribution in Belgium corresponds pretty well to the old Fleming (Germanic)/Walloon (Gallo-Roman) divide. The Flemish tend to be predominantly U106, while the Walloons tend to be more U152.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 29, 2012, 07:38:06 PM
Just adding to what Jean wrote, modern Dutch and Flemish descend from Old Low Franconian, i.e., the language of the Salian Franks (a Germanic tribe), who moved into that region as the Romans withdrew. The area was originally Celtic but east of the Rhine had become Germanic in the historical period.

The Belgae may have had a lot of U152; I don't know. They could have even had a bit of U106; again, I don't know. But in either case we aren't talking prehistory for their arrival in Britain. We are talking about a time within living memory of Caesar's.

From what I last heard, the U106 distribution versus the U152 distribution in Belgium corresponds pretty well to the old Fleming (Germanic)/Walloon (Gallo-Roman) divide. The Flemish tend to be predominantly U106, while the Walloons tend to be more U152.


As I recall from Busby, L21 in NE France runs at about 10% right up to pretty close to the Belgian border. Did Busby have any Belgian samples? I don't recall.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know how frequent L21 is in Belgium and whether it, like U152, is mainly a Walloon y haplogroup there.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on March 30, 2012, 08:35:51 AM
My general blurb on the Belgae in Britain (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celtictribes.shtml#Belgae) is at the end of my introduction to the Celtic tribes of Britain and Ireland. It gives references.





Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 30, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age.  I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 30, 2012, 03:57:17 PM
Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age.  I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.
Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though.  If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again.  There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.

Here is an opinion on the origin of U106 from one of their main hobbyist-researchers. He seems to have a lot of credibility on that U106 forum.
Quote from: Charles M
The L11s were confronted around Belgrade, with the Great Hungarian Plain, and major rivers running west or north.  Essentially, my position is that the ones who went west were the ancestors of the P312s, and the ones who went north were the ancestors of the U106s.....

From Budapest, and along the Danube as you proceed west, there are various rivers that flow down from Bohemia into the Danube.  Then, there are various significant rivers that flow north to the Baltic, notably, the Vistula and the Oder, both of which originate north of Budapest.  From the Vistula, there are various rivers running east-west into NEE, and of course, there is the Baltic coast, and Scandinavia beyond.

While undoubtedly, some U106 penetration into this area came from the Rhine eastward along east-west running rivers in Germany, and along the Baltic coast, I would say, particularly if evidence holds of a higher concentration of older L48- in the NEE, that this argues for a U106 origin along the Danube, somewhere closer to the Budapest end than to the Rhine.  Also, the high concentration of U106 in Austria suggests that U106 formed considerably east of the Rhine.

At the Rhine, obviously, the U106 moved down to where they would flourish most, in the Netherlands.  As mentioned, they could take various east-west rivers across Germany, proceed to Denmark and into Scandinavia, and along the Baltic.

I've leaned towards an application of David Anthony's linguistic and archeological analysis. He placed the pre-Germanic PIE dialects as proceeding from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and up along the eastern side of the Carpathian Mountains towards the Baltic.  However, I admit that I've been looking for the genetic data to fit that.  I can't really say that it does in any clear-cut form so Charles M's rendition having U106 come from the Hungarian plains and heading north has a lot of merit.  I guess if I understood the ties between the Beakers and Corded Ware better I'd have a stronger opinion.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 30, 2012, 04:48:09 PM
Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age.  I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.
Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though.  If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again.  There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.

Here is an opinion on the origin of U106 from one of their main hobbyist-researchers. He seems to have a lot of credibility on that U106 forum.
Quote from: Charles M
The L11s were confronted around Belgrade, with the Great Hungarian Plain, and major rivers running west or north.  Essentially, my position is that the ones who went west were the ancestors of the P312s, and the ones who went north were the ancestors of the U106s.....

From Budapest, and along the Danube as you proceed west, there are various rivers that flow down from Bohemia into the Danube.  Then, there are various significant rivers that flow north to the Baltic, notably, the Vistula and the Oder, both of which originate north of Budapest.  From the Vistula, there are various rivers running east-west into NEE, and of course, there is the Baltic coast, and Scandinavia beyond.

While undoubtedly, some U106 penetration into this area came from the Rhine eastward along east-west running rivers in Germany, and along the Baltic coast, I would say, particularly if evidence holds of a higher concentration of older L48- in the NEE, that this argues for a U106 origin along the Danube, somewhere closer to the Budapest end than to the Rhine.  Also, the high concentration of U106 in Austria suggests that U106 formed considerably east of the Rhine.

At the Rhine, obviously, the U106 moved down to where they would flourish most, in the Netherlands.  As mentioned, they could take various east-west rivers across Germany, proceed to Denmark and into Scandinavia, and along the Baltic.

I've leaned towards an application of David Anthony's linguistic and archeological analysis. He placed the pre-Germanic PIE dialects as proceeding from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and up along the eastern side of the Carpathian Mountains towards the Baltic.  However, I admit that I've been looking for the genetic data to fit that.  I can't really say that it does in any clear-cut form so Charles M's rendition having U106 come from the Hungarian plains and heading north has a lot of merit.  I guess if I understood the ties between the Beakers and Corded Ware better I'd have a stronger opinion.

Mike- you previously calculated variance and also cited Myres (see below) and  in both cases it makes much of the U106 Germanic speaking areas look a 25-40% (ish) lower in variance than the area to the east.  My reasoning is that is if U106 as a whole is say 5-4000 years old then the Germanic U106 must be 25-40% less if the variance is a direct indicator.  That would indicate that the U106 of Germanic speaking Europe would be perhaps in the range of 1750BC-400BC, most likely somewhere in the middle of that range.  In order to tighten that up I am keen to see just how the eastern U106 is higher in variance that U106 in the modern Germanic speaking block of continental Europe.   The previous exploration of this is below this post.  If U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking zone of Europe only at a fairly advanced stage in the Bronze Age then this really would make it easier to look at the archaeological options.  Certainly the previous calculations of variance seem to me to hint that U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking block well past beaker times. 

U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine

... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 30, 2012, 05:15:08 PM
Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age.  I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.
Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though.  If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again.  There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.
....
Mike- you previously calculated variance and also cited Myres (see below) and  in both cases it makes much of the U106 Germanic speaking areas look a 25-40% (ish) lower in variance than the area to the east.  My reasoning is that is if U106 as a whole is say 5-4000 years old then the Germanic U106 must be 25-40% less if the variance is a direct indicator.  That would indicate that the U106 of Germanic speaking Europe would be perhaps in the range of 1750BC-400BC, most likely somewhere in the middle of that range.  In order to tighten that up I am keen to see just how the eastern U106 is higher in variance that U106 in the modern Germanic speaking block of continental Europe.   The previous exploration of this is below this post.  If U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking zone of Europe only at a fairly advanced stage in the Bronze Age then this really would make it easier to look at the archaeological options.  Certainly the previous calculations of variance seem to me to hint that U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking block well past beaker times.  

U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)  
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine

... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)
You are right. I forgot there was that much differentiation for U106 and points east.  That does seem to indicate some bottling up east or south of Northern Germany, Frisia and Scandinavia.

This adds support to RMS's point of view that U106 did not get to the Isles until late, because it did not originate and simmer in the Low Countries (a point close to England) since U106's inception.

Quote
East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)  
....
*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine
I'm a little nervous that the "points east" is a scattering of U106 subclades.  I'm looking at the latest data. Hopefully these break-outs like Z156, Z18 and Z381 will provide clarity.

Where is the data on Austria?????


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 30, 2012, 05:30:38 PM

For some time I have suggested an origin, or at least an expansion point, of U106 somewhere along the Danube in the region of Hungary/Romania, rather than a more northerly location such as Poland. I am not as keen on the suggestion that P312 went west and U106 north. I doubt the division will be that simplistic. There is ample P312 in the north, including Scandinavia. While there is little doubt that much of U106 went north, my suspicion is a part of it also went west.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 30, 2012, 07:48:23 PM
That might be the case if it was all there is, but it isn't all there is. There is the tremendous weight of known history, rather than speculation.
I guess this is a glass half-empty versus half-full sort of perspective. I agree there is known history and it should be considered. Prehistory, by definition, is full of unknowns, but in a haplogroup like U106 that is 4-5K years old, at least half of its existence was prehistoric so a lot of things could have happened.

This is why I speculate U106 could have, at least to some degree, found a way to the Isles before the Anglo-Saxon Era... BTW, I'm defining Romano-Britain and Belgic immigration as pre-Anglo-Saxon Era as I think most would.

Quote from: rms2
I thought we were talking about Britain being 100% Celtic when it was possible to be Celtic, not before Celtic even existed.
....
That is what I meant by "100% Celtic".
I understand that you meant was that Britain was 100% Celtic at a fairly late date, like Caesar's time.  I was just making the point that claiming something was 100% is very difficult, especially when we know people were in the Isles long before the Celtic languages, speaking something else. Therefore, the languages of the Isles started out as 0% Celtic and you are standing on the argument that all of the other languages were completely wiped out by the times of Caesar. I don't think that can be proved, nor even 99% wiped out.

Quote from: rms2
... Of course the British Celts weren't a single nation, but they were formidable enough against other barbarians whose level of organization and military did not greatly exceed their own. Before they were beaten down by the much more advanced Romans, they very easily could have kept Germans from across the North Sea - people who lived on piles of manure erected in flood zones - at bay.

It is a fact that the Germans were kept at bay, penned up in the north, for centuries by the Celtic tribes of continental Europe. After the Romans broke the backs of the continental Celts, the Germans were free to flood south and west, which they subsequently did.
The Celtics were not well organized and unified, so to compare their ability to stop all incursions to being the same as the Romans is not a good analogy. I don't think the Normans are a good analogy either. Both of these groups were well organized and unified, compared to the Celts.

... but who said the that U106 people had to come into the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times had to come by violence and force? We all know Gildas' story of Vortigern inviting in Anglo-Saxons, setting the stage for the Anglo-Saxon era. It's just a story but it is obvious that Celts had contact/exchange with people on the other side of the North Sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortigern
Of course, Vortigern wasn't the last Celtic king to invite in foreigners. Irish king MacMurrough invited in the Normans. If Vortigern wasn't the last to invite foreigners, what is to say he had to be the first?
....

Quote from: rms2
That's where we differ. The evidence says it is very likely that a U106 Irishman is descended from an historical period invader. That evidence, I think, is overwhelming.

It may be remotely (very remotely) possible that there were Gaelic U106ers in Ireland in the distant, ancient past, but does that seem at all likely?
Really? Nah
....
So, I'm not going to tell a U106 Irishman he descends from the ancient Irish.
Because I don't think he does.
I've never told a U106 Irishman that he descends from ancient Irish, and don't think I ever would.

I definitely agree that a U106 person in or from Ireland is likely to have Anglo-Saxon descent. I just think that is an over-generalization to assume that a U106 individual from Ireland that has a 4000 year-old haplogroup match (only) with people from England or Frisia has to be Anglo-Saxon. You need to get down to the cluster level. (Goldenhind where are you? I think you'd agree on that.) If all of the STR/cluster matches are from Frisia or SE England I think that is the answer, which may often be the case.

I suppose this is the glass of water perception thing again.  You look at the glass and think there may be a drop or two of water so you might consider the glass essentially dry. I look at it and consider there might be enough for a drink.

I don't know, but for a haplogroup twice the age of an ethnic group, a lot can happen in prehistory.  Well, I think I've bored enough folks on this part of the discussion.  I'm looking for U106 data to see what we can find.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 30, 2012, 09:17:01 PM
I didn't say the Celts' ability to stop invaders was analogous to that of the Romans. I said the Celts could hold off other barbarians who were no more sophisticated than they were (like early Germanics). The Romans were, of course, way beyond the capabilities of either Celts or Germans.

The Germans got lucky because the Romans ruined themselves just as the Germans were coming into their own. They got in on the decline and fall side of things. The Celts bore the brunt of the Romans when the Romans were still vigorous and climbing.

I don't think the very remote possibility that there was some ancient Irish U106 (a possibility oh so slight) should restrain us from concluding, based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, that an Irish U106 is descended from an historical period, Germanic-derived invader.

One could tell him the truth, but with the caveat, "Of course, there is a very slight possibility that U106 has been in Ireland longer than we know", but I think even that is probably too much and just muddying the waters.

The guy who is the cause of this discussion is Z156+.

Take a look at this (http://www.semargl.me/dna/ydna/item-snp/385/).

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on March 30, 2012, 11:43:20 PM
There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?


Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 31, 2012, 02:50:31 AM
I didn't say the Celts' ability to stop invaders was analogous to that of the Romans. I said the Celts could hold off other barbarians who were no more sophisticated than they were (like early Germanics). The Romans were, of course, way beyond the capabilities of either Celts or Germans.

The Germans got lucky because the Romans ruined themselves just as the Germans were coming into their own. They got in on the decline and fall side of things. The Celts bore the brunt of the Romans when the Romans were still vigorous and climbing.

I don't think the very remote possibility that there was some ancient Irish U106 (a possibility oh so slight) should restrain us from concluding, based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, that an Irish U106 is descended from an historical period, Germanic-derived invader.

One could tell him the truth, but with the caveat, "Of course, there is a very slight possibility that U106 has been in Ireland longer than we know", but I think even that is probably too much and just muddying the waters.

The guy who is the cause of this discussion is Z156+.

Take a look at this (http://www.semargl.me/dna/ydna/item-snp/385/).

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?

I make it a policy never to evaluate other people's genealogy, folklore, etc. so I don't care anything about the person you are discussing - and don't really care too....  even if asked.  I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with -  we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.

Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 31, 2012, 02:55:20 AM
Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.
I agree 100%. I've looked for L21 people in over 100 surname projects. Surname persistence isn't what it is cracked up to be.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 31, 2012, 03:08:01 AM
This will give you some idea of the advances of new SNPs in the U106 subclade.
 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/R-U106 Haplo Tree 23 Mar 2012 Rev 4b.pdf

This the the known SNP phylogeny for U106:
R-U106
R-U106/P107
R-U106/L6
R-U106/L217
R-U106/Z18
R-U106/Z18/Z14
R-U106/Z18/Z14/L147
R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372
R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257
R-U106/Z18/L325
R-U106/Z18/L653
R-U106/Z381
R-U106/Z381/Z156
R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1
R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1/L132.1
R-U106/Z381/Z156/P89
R-U106/Z381/Z156/L128
R-U106/Z381/Z156/L128/L127.2
R-U106/Z381/Z156/L782
R-U106/Z381/Z301
R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46/L164
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46/L164/L292
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11/Z12
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11/Z12/L148
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z6
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z6/M157.2
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z343
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/M365.4
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326/L188
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326/L696
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L200
R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L693
R-U106/Z301/L259
R-U106/L199
R-U106/L5

I can find 1960 confirmed U106+ haplotypes in FTDNA projects. 1407 of them are 67 STRs or better. Of those, 313 are 111 STR haplotypes.

The whole file is here.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/Haplotype_Data_R-U106All.zip


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on March 31, 2012, 08:18:18 AM
R-U106/P107

Mr P107 is quite a mystery, and a man we'd like to know more about. We would urge him to contact the U106 Project asap.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 08:37:51 AM
There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?


Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.

They're not as reliable as as some other things - like dna - but it would be ridiculous to totally disregard them, especially where pretty obvious trends exist, as in this case.

What accounts for the lack of old Catholic, Gaelic surnames among U106?

A wave of mass English adoptions of otherwise Gaelic U106 male children?

Given the trend in this case, it is far more likely that the few old Irish surnames that do occur among U106 were acquired by adoption or NPE than otherwise.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 08:54:06 AM

I make it a policy never to evaluate other people's genealogy, folklore, etc. so I don't care anything about the person you are discussing - and don't really care too....  even if asked.  I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with -  we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.

Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.

I don't care about his personal genealogy either, except that he was using it to generalize about U106 in Ireland. That invited scrutiny. If you publicly post about your genealogy, you invite examination and comment, especially if you do it in a confrontational, controversial manner.

The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious. It's a little bit like a man who falls into a vat of manure denying that he smells because he was born 35 years ago and didn't smell like manure back then.

All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.

I think the evidence that the vast vast majority of U106 in Ireland is of fairly recent provenance is overwhelming and undeniable.

But perhaps we are applying different standards of evidence here.

I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.

Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

At this stage, I don't think we can get the latter, so, if that's your standard, of course you will hold out the possibility that a few stray U106ers could have been in Ireland in ancient or prehistoric times.

Maybe there were Hottentots there, too. We can't prove there weren't.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 31, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Mikewww
... Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.
The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious. 
I've never said you can't say anything meaningful about a 4000 year old haplogroup. Applying an ethnicity to a individual person based on a 4000 year old haplogroup is what I challenge.  You could be right in you evaluation of this fellow and you probably are.  I agree, but it doesn't mean you are right.
Quote from: rms2
All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.
I'm glad to see you are using terminology like "predominately" rather than "100%". To apply the generalization to an individual could be incorrect is my point.
Quote from: rms2
I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.
Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In terms of individual genealogies, probably so. I have different standards there than for speculations about ancient groups than commentary applying generalizations to specific cases/individuals.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on March 31, 2012, 10:06:19 AM
They're not as reliable as as some other things - like dna - but it would be ridiculous to totally disregard them, especially where pretty obvious trends exist, as in this case.

Who suggested  "totally disregard"?

I spoke of the case of statistical outliers.

Quote
Given the trend in this case, it is far more likely that the few old Irish surnames that do occur among U106 were acquired by adoption or NPE than otherwise.

Exactly my point.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 03:21:51 PM
Who suggested  "totally disregard"?

I spoke of the case of statistical outliers
.

Note that I didn't say you said to totally disregard surnames. You said they were unreliable. I replied that surnames are not as reliable as some other things but that totally disregarding them would be ridiculous, especially where there is an obvious trend, as in this case.

My point was that they may be less reliable than other types of evidence, but they're not totally worthless.

Quote from: gtc

Exactly my point.

I guess you were agreeing with me then.

Good.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: Mikewww
... Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.
The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious.  
I've never said you can't say anything meaningful about a 4000 year old haplogroup. Applying an ethnicity to a individual person based on a 4000 year old haplogroup is what I challenge.  You could be right in you evaluation of this fellow and you probably are.  I agree, but it doesn't mean you are right.
Quote from: rms2
All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.
I'm glad to see you are using terminology like "predominately" rather than "100%". To apply the generalization to an individual could be incorrect is my point.
Quote from: rms2
I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.
Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In terms of individual genealogies, probably so. I have different standards there than for speculations about ancient groups than commentary applying generalizations to specific cases/individuals.

Look, some folks around here do use the age of y haplogroups to assert that it really is impossible to generalize about them in any way and connect them to historical tribes and/or ethnic groups.

Regarding an individual and his genealogy, I would say both are part of the history of the place his ancestors came from. There is nothing wrong with telling him what you know about that and the haplogroups involved.

To take an extreme case, if I encountered a man who got an E1b1a result whose family had lived in Detroit for a long time, but who insisted his y-dna is Swedish, I would gently try to disabuse him of that notion and honestly tell him that E1b1a is primarily a Subsaharan African y haplogroup and that Detroit is well known for its large African-American population.

Could there have been some E1b1a in Sweden in ancient times? Could this hypothetical man be descended from one of them?

Sure.

Anything is possible.

But how likely is that second scenario really?

Again, I know that is an extreme example, but the basic principle is the same.

I also feel pretty comfortable believing, as I do, that all of you know darned well that U106 in Ireland is not at all likely to be ancient.

But we all enjoy taking a position and arguing it.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on March 31, 2012, 03:42:06 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 03:51:43 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on March 31, 2012, 04:10:56 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 04:15:18 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?

Whoa?

Anyway, I don't know.

Are you thinking that perhaps we'll find out that Wales is really the ultimate birthplace of U106? ;-)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on March 31, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?

Whoa?

Anyway, I don't know.

Are you thinking that perhaps we'll find out that Wales is really the ultimate birthplace of U106? ;-)

No!


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 04:23:10 PM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?

Whoa?

Anyway, I don't know.

Are you thinking that perhaps we'll find out that Wales is really the ultimate birthplace of U106? ;-)

No!

I was kidding, of course (hence, the wink).

I don't know about Welsh U106 diversity, but I would be really surprised if it were very high relative to that of England.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 31, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with -  we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.


Sorry to leave you without any support, but as I said previously I don't care to get involved in another argument about U106. I have stated my view often enough that it doesn't really need to be repeated, though I have been surprised by how often it has been misunderstood.

I think you know I generally agree with much of what you have said on the subject. I think your analogy of the glass is particularly apt- in fact, I have used it myself before. There may be very little water in a glass, but there may still be enough for a sip.

Your chart of U106 subclades underscores my long held position that it is unwise to view U106 as monolithic, which seems to be the current position of almost everyone. I suppose it is possible that every single U106 subclade could have an identical distribution and history, but I would be very surprised if that were to be the case. And if those geneticists who believe there is a new SNP every few generations or so, what we now see may really be just the tip of the iceberg.

On the crucial question of whether U106 could have settled in the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps even as early as the Bronze Age, I can see no reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand. But just because it is possible, it doesn't mean that it actually happened. I think there is some evidence to support such a scenario, but it is capable of other interpretations. Those who deny the possibility will always choose an interpretation that supports their position.

I am hopeful that a full analysis of U106 subclades, which has barely begun, which eventually shed some light on the subject.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 04:33:47 PM
Even when U106 is fully broken down into its subclades, will those subclades move beyond the current distribution of U106 as a whole? Will they suddenly appear in large numbers where U106 does not appear now? Will they appear among peoples currently not known to carry much, if any, U106?

Because that is what it would take to alter the current picture.

I think subclade resolution is actually more potentially revealing for P312 than it is for U106. P312, it seems to me, is more widespread and diverse than U106, and by "diverse" I don't mean in terms of haplotypes but in terms of peoples among whom it reaches significant frequencies.

There seems to be a much stronger correlation of U106 to Germanics than there is of P312 to any one particular group, although, if there is such a connection for P312, I would nominate the Celts. But that obviously wouldn't be exclusive, just as the Germanic connection isn't absolutely exclusive for U106.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2012, 04:59:38 PM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on March 31, 2012, 08:32:16 PM
L164/L45 (the red markers on the below map) is found roughly in the area of Northumbria, Scandinavian York, or the Brigantes, whatever takes your fancy.  GD about 17 if I remember correctly, not sure how far back that puts their common ancestor.
http://g.co/maps/9xswy


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Richard Rocca on March 31, 2012, 10:15:17 PM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on March 31, 2012, 10:17:57 PM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

There may or may not be. We just don't know at this point.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on April 01, 2012, 12:08:23 AM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?

Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.

Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?

The People of the British Isles Project promises to provide some long overdue stats, as well as plenty of SNP data to mine:

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

Unfortunately, because it's based on political boundaries, the sample area omits the Republic of Ireland, however hopefully the Irish DNA Atlas project will fill that void:

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-dna-atlas-project-launched-261919-Oct2011/


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 01, 2012, 09:15:18 AM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

There may or may not be. We just don't know at this point.

There is a lot we don't know and may never know.

In the meantime, there is a lot we do know both about U106 (including many of its known subclades) and about the history of western Europe, including the British Isles. What we do know enables us to speak with reasonable certainty based on the preponderance of the evidence. We don't have to wait until every last genetic rock has been overturned in the search for exceptions to what is already apparent.

Should a very ancient British or Irish subclade of U106 appear sometime in the future, we can update our knowledge and say, "Well, there's an exception to the general rule." Personally, I doubt that is going to happen. There is too much that militates against it. But, if it does, so be it. If such subclades do turn up, odds are they will be pretty small and do little to change what we know now.

It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Cantabria. Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 01, 2012, 11:24:29 AM
It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think...
You may saying this in jest and I do think are 4000-5000 ypb ages are about right for the R-L11 and its family.  However, you are definitely right that this is NOT a given. There is the whole issue of mutation rates and non-linearity as we hear from Busby et al, Dienekes, etc.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 01, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.
Michael M, a U106 admin, has pointed out for several years that DYS390=23 is modal for U106 except in Poland, where it is 24 (same as WAMH.)  I doubt if he was looking at Italy and Iberia at the time but the point is the same....  that 390=23 may NOT be ancestral for U106 and it may be a mutation surfing the wave of latter period U106 expansions.

Back to RMS's question, "Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?"
I don't know. There might be, the closest thing so far has been U198. I think we'll have the same questions we have with L21 on it though.    Is U198 in Germany or Poland or whatever some remnant of the original population or is it monks, mercenaries, religions, merchants or who knows what in terms of back-migration?

The diversity of U106 (as a whole) in Britain, standing alone, would lead to the conclusion that it is older than the Anglo-Saxons, for sure. However, as has been pointed out multiple times, we need to look for deeper subclades.    I'm sure the diversity of U106 in the USA is older than the Anglo-Saxons as well and that doesn't make a lot of sense.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 01, 2012, 11:56:09 AM
Perhaps a bit off tipic but has any U106 been found in Wales?
Yes, more than in Ireland, I believe.
Whoa,ok so what was the diversity of the U106 found in Wales?
Whoa?
Anyway, I don't know.
Are you thinking that perhaps we'll find out that Wales is really the ultimate birthplace of U106? ;-)
No!
I don't know about Welsh U106 diversity, but I would be really surprised if it were very high relative to that of England.

U106 folks with MDKAs from Wales are found in our DNA projects, abeit not that many.

It turns out their STR diversity is similar to England's and, as is England, older than the Anglo-Saxon Era.
U106 All in Wales (67 length):  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=12);   AvgGD=14.8 @67

However, I wouldn't make a big deal out of this for the same reasons as mentioned before. This is probably a mix of different U106 subclades that may have multiple sources locations.

STR diversity should not be considered as a stand-alone piece of information. It must be in context of subclade resolution and deciphering "launch" points versus "collection/pooling" points.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mark Jost on April 01, 2012, 01:17:51 PM
After I looked at U106 to see if my half maternal brother who were L69 had any close GD clusters is when I discovered a small group that is England based. ...
MJost


I wonder if Mike M has calculated what is the age for those kits who have the DYS390=24  who he thinks are Polish?

Here are the U106+ kits that have allele values which have a DYS390=25, YCA has 19-22 and this English cluster could be L69 positive since my brother is L69+ as tested from 23andme. Interesting that this English cluster that matches my brother has a Coalescence of around 382 AD .

Modal
M-U106   13   23   14   11   11   14   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   25   15   19   29   15   15   17   17   11   11   19   23
England, South East, Hampshire, Romsey   
108758   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   17   17   10   12   19   22
England, East, Suffolk   
109582   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   12   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England   
124936   13   24   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   16   18   11   11   19   22
England, East, Northamptonshire   
45367   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England, Yorkshire and Humber, Sheffield   
46452   13   25   14   10   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   31   15   15   17   17   10   12   19   22
zzzUnkOrigin   
56417   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   12   13   17   15   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   10   19   22
zzzUnkOrigin   
90390   13   25   14   10   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   16   17   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   29   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   22
England   
96037   13   26   14   11   11   12   12   12   12   14   13   17   16   9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   15   17   18   11   10   19   22
Ireland, Ulster, Co. Donegal, Ballymena   
57369   13   25   14   11   11   14   12   12   12   13   13   16   18   9   10   11   11   23   15   19   30   15   15   16   17   11   11   19   23
Arnsberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
G45316   13   25   14   11   11   11   12   12   12   13   13   17      9   10   11   11   24   15   19   30   15   16   17      11   11   19   22

Using the kits with 67 markers tested  N=9 I have ran Nordtvedt's Generation mod by MikeW.

DRAFT v7.1: Interclade MRCA Age / Intraclade Colescence Age Estimator based on Ken Nordtvedt's Generations 7.0 method         
         
Interclade AB: U106* for 390=25/YCA19-22/L69 & U106         1298
Interclade MRCA Estimate   GABw   SigmaGABn   
Generations to A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   119   20   
Years bef. pres. A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   3574   4180   2969
Date of  A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   1574 BC      
         
Clade A: 390=25/YCA19-22/L69         9
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GA   SigmaGA   
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   62   8   
Years before present to A MRCA   1847   2080   1614
Best Estimated Date of A MRCA   153 AD      
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GACoal   SigmaGA   
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   54   8   
Years before present To A Coalescence   1618   1851   1385
Best Estimated Date of A Coalescence   382 AD      
         
Clade B: U106         1289
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GB   SigmaGB   
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   121   9   
Years before present B MRCA   3643   3912   3375
Best Estimated Date of B MRCA   1643 BC      
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GBCoal   SigmaGB   
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   111   9   
Years before present to B Coalescence   3340   3608   3072
Best Estimated Date of B Coalescence   1340 BC      


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on April 01, 2012, 04:03:45 PM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?


Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.

It didn't escape my notice. I thought it was so important I printed out a copy of your post.

The reason why it is important is, as we were informed at the time,  that DYS390=24 is the predominant value in U106 subclades Z18 and Z381(XZ301), the latter of which includes Z156. The Z301 subclades, which include U198 and L48, are those most common in Scandinavia and northern Germany and have the later  DYS390=23 mutation. Since it appears that the earlier U106 value at 390 was 24, there is a possibility that much of the U106 in Italy got there at an early date, and not as a result of Germanic incursions in the Migration period, which is the generally accepted theory. There are of course other possible explanations, but I believe it is something worthy of keeping a close eye on.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 01, 2012, 05:18:11 PM
It may turn out that the young ages we currently ascribe to the various y haplogroups are all wrong. Maybe they are older than we think...

You may saying this in jest and I do think are 4000-5000 ypb ages are about right for the R-L11 and its family.  However, you are definitely right that this is NOT a given. There is the whole issue of mutation rates and non-linearity as we hear from Busby et al, Dienekes, etc.

I wasn't saying it in jest. I agree with you in thinking that the current germ line age estimates are pretty good, but I am open to going back to "hunter-gatherer" mode, should the evidence point that way.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 01, 2012, 05:25:26 PM
. . .

The diversity of U106 (as a whole) in Britain, standing alone, would lead to the conclusion that it is older than the Anglo-Saxons, for sure. However, as has been pointed out multiple times, we need to look for deeper subclades.    I'm sure the diversity of U106 in the USA is older than the Anglo-Saxons as well and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's right. We talked about that before on a very similar sort of U106 thread, as I recall. That diversity represents an upper end. In other words, the U106 in England isn't likely to be any older there than that, but it could definitely be younger.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 01, 2012, 05:37:10 PM
Is there a subclade of U106 that is found only in Britain but whose diversity indicates it absolutely predates the advent of the Anglo-Saxons or at least that of the Belgae?

Is there a U106 subclade that meets those sorts of specifications somewhere else, like maybe an exclusively Italian U106 subclade that absolutely predates any sort of Germanic incursions?

Not that I know of, but I did post something interesting in DNA-Forums about 4 or 5 months ago at it received very little attention. U106 in Italy, Iberia and southern France is largely DYS390=24 which of course would give it the same modal as P312 and L11.

It didn't escape my notice. I thought it was so important I printed out a copy of your post.

The reason why it is important is, as we were informed at the time,  that DYS390=24 is the predominant value in U106 subclades Z18 and Z381(XZ301), the latter of which includes Z156. The Z301 subclades, which include U198 and L48, are those most common in Scandinavia and northern Germany and have the later  DYS390=23 mutation. Since it appears that the earlier U106 value at 390 was 24, there is a possibility that much of the U106 in Italy got there at an early date, and not as a result of Germanic incursions in the Migration period, which is the generally accepted theory. There are of course other possible explanations, but I believe it is something worthy of keeping a close eye on.

Interesting that they all seem to have 492=13 and that the difference between 390=24 and 390=23 is 1.

I mean, I have 390=23, and I am L21+.

Even if there is some very early clade of Italian U106 - which I am sure Gioiello would be thrilled about - it would have to be large enough for its diversity to be readily and reliably discernible, that diversity would have to be indisputably oldest in Italy, it would have to predate the Migration Period by a fair margin, and that subclade would have to be pretty much limited to Italy. Even if all those conditions were met, it wouldn't alter the overall picture for U106 and its subclades much at all. It would just be an interesting anomaly.

In the meantime, there is the history of Italy, which shows us a period in which there was considerable input into Italy from U106-rich sources.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 01, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.
It's interesting that you mention Doggerland in relation to U106.  A recent study has found that well over 80% of North Sea oil rig workers tested positive for U106.

As a U106 on my paternal line, I can and can't understand the quest to be "ancient" British.  It is indeed all relative, and if the Anglo Saxons arrived a millenium later than the "Celts" it is really only just a millennium in the wider scheme of British Isles settlement.  Some of the G, E, and I2a folks who predate the P312 folks by millennia in the Isles must be having a quiet chuckle about all the kerfuffle of who is and who isn't "ancient" in the Isles.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 02, 2012, 07:29:05 AM
Maybe U106 was present in "Doggerland" in a big way, as some English U106 guys, who did not want to be relative newcomers to the Isles, used to claim.
It's interesting that you mention Doggerland in relation to U106.  A recent study has found that well over 80% of North Sea oil rig workers tested positive for U106.

That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?

As a U106 on my paternal line, I can and can't understand the quest to be "ancient" British.  It is indeed all relative, and if the Anglo Saxons arrived a millenium later than the "Celts" it is really only just a millennium in the wider scheme of British Isles settlement.  Some of the G, E, and I2a folks who predate the P312 folks by millennia in the Isles must be having a quiet chuckle about all the kerfuffle of who is and who isn't "ancient" in the Isles.

Yeah, only a millennium, but, after all, we are talking about humans here, not stars.

I don't know about any "kerfuffle". This is not about pride of place or anything like that. It's not about the L21 guy defending claims of priority for his haplogroup against U106 interlopers. Frankly, I am pretty sure my haplogroup wasn't first in the Isles, and I don't care. I also don't really care when U106 got there either. If the evidence showed that U106 arrived in the Isles at 5:00 am on July 6, 6,000 BC, that would be fine with me.

For me, this is simply about what the evidence currently indicates, and nothing more. That picture could change as we learn more.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 03, 2012, 06:01:20 AM
That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?
Exactly my point.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 03, 2012, 07:26:23 AM
That's rather hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't so; it's just hard to believe. I don't know of anyplace where U106 reaches a frequency of 80%. Can you post a link to that study?
Exactly my point.

Your point was to assert that a study showed that 80% of North Sea oil rig workers are U106+ and then fail to post a link to the study?

Or that such a result is hard to believe?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Richard Callanan on April 06, 2012, 10:06:15 AM

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?


I think I'm another of the 'ancient' Irish although the surname Ó Callanáin  doesn't appear (I think) until early 15th c. Do my SNP results tell anyone anything? (I'm new to this and find it all hard to understand.) Am I the product of an extra-paternal incident? - Richard Callanan. - FTDNA 92534 - ysearch X9HCR


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 06, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Hey Richard, Why not start your line of inquiry on the basis that you have a Gaelic Sept name, right? That your family have been in Ireland for generations, right? Then consider that R U106 may well have been in Eire since distant times, certainly there is no reason why it could not have arrived along with other Haplogroups, long before the coming of the Cambro-Normans, Elizabethan or Cromwellian English (who are claimed by some to be the sole explanation for R U106 in Ireland).

Attaching any Haplogroup to a specific ethnological ethnic grouping be it 'Germanic' or 'Celtic' is too simplistic, but some people prefer an instant answer, who knows your ancestors may well have planted their feet on Eire's soil before the Godelic arrivals. :)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: eochaidh on April 06, 2012, 11:18:30 AM
Hey Richard, Why not start your line of inquiry on the basis that you have a Gaelic Sept name, right? That your family have been in Ireland for generations, right? Then consider that R U106 may well have been in Eire since distant times, certainly there is no reason why it could not have arrived along with other Haplogroups, long before the coming of the Cambro-Normans, Elizabethan or Cromwellian English (who are claimed by some to be the sole explanation for R U106 in Ireland).

Attaching any Haplogroup to a specific ethnological ethnic grouping be it 'Germanic' or 'Celtic' is too simplistic, but some people prefer an instant answer, who knows your ancestors may well have planted their feet on Eire's soil before the Godelic arrivals. :)

I agree and have said the same thing to Ciaran Boylan. As long has U106 is old enough to have been in Western Europe before the time the Celts arrived in Ireland, then there is a chance that some U106 men arrived before them. They could have arrived with the Celts as well. Unless the Celts were doing DNA testing to exclude U106.

By the way, I'd bet that most Irish men have U106 among their male Irish ancestors. Just because I'm L21, DF23, that doesn't mean all of my male ancestors were the same. I imagine that every Y haplogroup found in Ireland is found among my male ancestors.

 Thanks, Miles Kehoe


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:26:58 PM
Gaelic surnames are really rare among U106 men. U106 itself is relatively rare in Ireland. It is most frequent in those places, like Northern Ireland and in and around Dublin, where the English and other newcomers settled.

By far, most U106 who list a most distant ancestor who was born in Ireland have English or Lowland Scots surnames.

The history of Ireland is replete with invasion and settlement by peoples, like the Vikings and the English, who came from places with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. The distribution of U106 shows a strong connection to Germanic peoples and their movements during and subsequent to the Migration Period.

Is it possible that an Irishman who is U106+ could be descended in his y-dna line from a very ancient Irish ancestor? Sure. That is remotely possible. After all, almost anything is possible.

Is it likely, given what we know of U106 and the history of Ireland?

Honestly, no, not at all.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 06:54:10 AM
The relative rarity of R U106 in Ireland, does not of itself constitute empirical evidence that the Haplogroup has not been present there, prior to the later colonizations from England.

Any thinking which concludes otherwise is predicated upon a somewhat flawed assumption, in which frequency of current Haplogroup distribution is regarded as  an evidential determinant of ancient locations and migration patterns.  Plain truth is that in no way is it conclusive evidence, at best it is an informed view, a statistical extrapolation of a present, that is projected upon unknown ancient circumstances.

Meanwhile, others consider that variance is a more reliable indicator of a Haplogroup's point of origin and early migration area, in that context the findings of Tim Janzen with respect to the variance of R U106 is significant, in that it was noted Ireland has a high degree of variance, which suggests that it arrived in Ireland fairly quickly after its initial emergence. Given the agreed age of R U106 we are invited us to consider it settled there, long before the establishment of Germanic culture, if so, and there's no logical reason why the Haplogroup could not have entered Ireland as part of an ancient admixture, then the question is did it survive? Well given that variance is tested using living people, then its difficult to know how the original R U106 settlers could not have survived, had they done so they wouldn't have the descendants to furnish the data for calculating the Haplogroup's variance in Ireland.

As to surnames, the picture in Ireland is complicated, obscured and confused by the Anglicization of many originally Gaelic names, to such an extent that what may appear to the uninformed eye as constituting an English surname has in reality Irish roots. the occurrence of Smith in Ireland being only one such example. There are many others. However that fact apart we need to exercise caution with viewing names as offering any reliable proof, in relation to associating a particular ethnological
grouping with a Haplogroup.

The stake should  be driven through the jaded convention which insists that  English colonization in Ireland offers a convincing argument explaining the existence of Irish R U106, and that by default such people belong to a 'Germanic' Haplogroup. This is wrong on a number of important points, apart from the inherent foolishness with ascribing Haplogroups to a specific ethnology.

There exists an assumption that the high amount of R U106 in the UK is due to so-called Dark Age incursions into Britain by Germanic peoples, what is not considered is that this view is derived, ultimately from a biased political propaganda written by Bede, whose writing gave birth to a creation mythology of the English.

His work on this subject has recently received considerable review, in particular the notion of a flood of Angles, Frisians and Jutes arriving in Britain to displace the British 'Celtic' population. What colonization that did take place is now being viewed as happening on a much smaller scale,  a Germanic military and political elite gaining control over areas, presiding over a majority British population, that found itself living with Germanic settlements. If this present analysis is correct, and archaeology is suggesting that, then the frequency of R U106 in Britain may not so easily asserted  as 'evidence' of mass invasion by Angles or their Germanic 'cousins'. What current thinking on the subject requires is a consideration that maybe R U106 arrived in Britain at an earlier time than such Germanic incursions.

What amount of the over 20% of British R U106 may therefore owe its origins not to the cold, dank shores of Friesia or Jutland, but to other regions of Continental Europe, having arrived long before the emergence of Germanic culture? In that context how may it be said with any certainty that 'English' colonization of Ireland is de-facto proof of Germanic R U106?

To any Irish R U106 reading this remember that there's no 'definitive position' on this subject, likely-hoods for sure, including the probability that Ireland was not populated in ancient times only by L21, and that it is entirely reasonable that R U106 arrived at an equally distant time. Nor should you feel that simply because it has a low frequency in Ireland it was always so, or that somehow that ancient R U106 lineages could not survive.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 07:13:00 AM
. . .

Meanwhile, others consider that variance is a more reliable indicator of a Haplogroup's point of origin and early migration area, in that context the findings of Tim Janzen with respect to the variance of R U106 is significant, in that it was noted Ireland has a high degree of variance, which suggests that it arrived in Ireland fairly quickly after its initial emergence . . .

No, you are not going to be allowed to continue to claim that Tim Janzen said U106 has high variance in Ireland (relative to everywhere else, I suppose, since the word "high" is relative) and got there shortly after its emergence (a claim patently ridiculous, IMHO) unless and until you produce a link to Tim's actual words.

You continue to make the same claim over on the thread about Z156. Thus far you have failed to produce any sort of support for it, despite the fact that I have asked you several times to back up what you are claiming.

Frankly, I do not believe Tim ever said any such thing.

As for Bede, etc., please. As I said before, the history of Ireland is replete with invasion and settlement, in comparatively recent times, by peoples who came from places, like England and Lowland Scotland, with a lot more U106 than Ireland has. U106 is most frequent in Ireland in precisely the places where those peoples settled.

If you want to believe your y-dna line is very ancient Irish, have at it. No one is stopping you. Who knows? You could be right.

That isn't at all likely, but, like your screen name, who knows?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 08:03:49 AM
Indeed we have accord on 'who knows' which was the motivation for challenging the fact-free assertions that insist R U106 in Ireland arrived later and as a consequence of English linked colonizations. It is entirely reasonable, to suppose it entered along with other Haplogroups, equally credible are the observations on this matter by Tim Janzen. Otherwise we are left with a homogenous early migration into Ireland, a most unlikely scenario.

Clearly you have a position on this which runs counter to such reasoning, I only hope your value of truthful inquiry is not unduly stunted or obscured by any particular interpretation. Hopefully you would agree it's better to keep an open mind on the issue, and my presence here is not about affirming a personal belief but to simply question the 'Germanic' orthodoxy concerning R U106, and that Haplogroup's presence in Ireland.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 08:28:30 AM
Indeed we have accord on 'who knows' which was the motivation for challenging the fact-free assertions that insist R U106 in Ireland arrived later and as a consequence of English linked colonizations. It is entirely reasonable, to suppose it entered along with other Haplogroups, equally credible are the observations on this matter by Tim Janzen. Otherwise we are left with a homogenous early migration into Ireland, a most unlikely scenario.

Clearly you have a position on this which runs counter to such reasoning, I only hope your value of truthful inquiry is not unduly stunted or obscured by any particular interpretation. Hopefully you would agree it's better to keep an open mind on the issue, and my presence here is not about affirming a personal belief but to simply question the 'Germanic' orthodoxy concerning R U106, and that Haplogroup's presence in Ireland.



What I wrote are neither assertions nor "fact free". The distribution of U106 in Europe as a whole and in Ireland are facts, as is the history of Ireland, which includes relatively recent invasions and settlements by U106-rich populations. Likewise a fact is the scarcity of old Catholic, Gaelic surnames among U106+ men identifying an ancestor born in Ireland as mdka.

You are still claiming Tim Janzen said that U106 variance in Ireland is "high". You have yet to produce any proof of that. Let's suppose for a moment that he did say that. Did he cull out the English and Lowland Scots surnames when he calculated "Irish" U106 variance? If he did that, would there be enough U106 left in Ireland to get an accurate reading of the variance?

Well?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
 have really thought hard into this and am a bit of a skeptic that U106in England  is all or almost totally down to historic period Germanic settlement.   In fact I have tended to probe the logic of people who argue it.  However, I recently had a deeper think about it and archaeological evidence and this led me to doubting U106 could have been associated with the beaker period.  Put simply, U106 west of the Elbe is up to 40% lower in variance than in eastern Europe (Poland etc).  Now combine that with the estimate that U106 is only 4-5000 years old (probably more like 4000) then that would make U106 in the countries west of Poland only perhaps 3000 years old or so i.e. late Bronze Age.   That includes both the continent and England.  That of course is the upper age.  Add to this that the fact that the predominant links of England in the post-beaker early-later Bronze Age were with the area across the channel on the west of the Rhine then I dont see a scenario for major movement of U106 to England.  However, I wouldnt rule out the odd U106 reaching England in the Bronze Age due to direct contact between the east of Britain and the area east of the Rhine.  In the Iron Age I suspect from present distribution in terms of the Flemish-French division in Belgium that U106 was not common among the Belgae.  Indeed, English Belgic links seem very much to be with the western end of the Belgae.  Overall from being very open to the idea that U106 could have been in England in some numbers due to the beaker connections, the apparent post-beaker date of U106 in the west has seriously diminished this possible avenue. Overall I suspect that U106 was very minor indeed in England in prehistory although trade links beyond the Rhine mean its not impossible that there was a small amount.  As for Ireland, the relatively late variance derived date for U106 west of Poland (and of course in Britain) does limit the scenarios of it reaching a country as far west as Ireland in the prehistoric period.  Overall the variance dating of U106 west of Poland does kind of support the traditionalist model linking it with a late spread west at the end of the Bronze Age that has been linked to the spread of Germanic in the Jarstoft and Harpstedt cultures that succeeded the Nordic Bronze age and the intermediate cultures in Holland east of the Rhine. Finally as for the pre-Germanic origins for individual Irish (or any U106), is the best way of estimating this not individual matching.  A prehistoric Irish U106 should probably not have matches in England or Europe more recent that 2000 years or so.   


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 09:04:51 AM
Appreciate the input Alan, you raise some very interesting points.

As to the comments of our fellow contributor, firstly, can we establish some fact concerning so-called 'Burden of Proof' as it is being pressed in this exchange, which is actually a somewhat fallacious line of argument. I say that because you are choosing to place the burden of proof on the wrong side, in addition you are using a fallacy in interpreting a lack of evidence for 'side A' as constituting 'evidence' for 'side B' in a case where  the burden of proof actually rests on 'side B'. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

As I mentioned a simple search on the Internet will son reveal what Tim Janzen observed with respect to the variance of R U106 in Ireland and the probable early arrival of that Haplogroup.

I am not sure it assists our exchanges to respond to what are essentially 'straw man arguments' suffice to say that there is no empirical evidence that Ireland's R U106 population owes its origins to later English colonization, nor can it be asserted with any authority or proof that such invasions and settlements, were as you assert (another fact-free claim) "U106-rich populations"

Clearly there's a process of denial operating, evidenced by the unwillingness to accept the very reasonable scenario that R U106, along with other Haplogroups, arrived in Ireland as an admixture, to establish lines that may well indeed have given birth to the very variance which Tim was looking at.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 07, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
Tim did say that variance in Ireland was high in a couple of posts on the Genealogy-Dna mailing list back in 2010

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266736297 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266736297)

he also suggested that U106 could have originated in Ireland in the same discussion

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266775833 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266775833)

It was pointed out that the differences that Tim was talking about were too small to be able to draw conclusions from and that there were no sigmas involved in the calculations.

The conversation didn't last very long and everybody including Tim started talking about Italy afterwards, personally I don't get the impression that he had much conviction in this calculation and I'm not aware that he repeated it elsewhere.

As an aside, in the Z18 project (which is probably only just a little younger than U106) we have a fairly large no. of people with Germanic origins and have yet to find a cluster that doesn’t include people without Germanic origins (there is one young L257 group which is predominately Scottish but even that has a Scandinavian in it)

As far as I know nobody has identified an Irish U106 cluster which you would expect if it had survived there for the last 3-4000 yrs, especially given the extensive testing of that country.








Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 09:59:17 AM
Tim did say that variance in Ireland was high in a couple of posts on the Genealogy-Dna mailing list back in 2010

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266736297 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266736297)

he also suggested that U106 could have originated in Ireland in the same discussion

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266775833 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-02/1266775833)

It was pointed out that the differences that Tim was talking about were too small to be able to draw conclusions from and that there were no sigmas involved in the calculations.

The conversation didn't last very long and everybody including Tim started talking about Italy afterwards, personally I don't get the impression that he had much conviction in this calculation and I'm not aware that he repeated it elsewhere.

As an aside, in the Z18 project (which is probably only just a little younger than U106) we have a fairly large no. of people with Germanic origins and have yet to find a cluster that doesn’t include people without Germanic origins (there is one young L257 group which is predominately Scottish but even that has a Scandinavian in it)

As far as I know nobody has identified an Irish U106 cluster which you would expect if it had survived there for the last 3-4000 yrs, especially given the extensive testing of that country.








It seems likely to me that Irish U106 had multiple very small scale sources - perhaps including late prehistoric (although I am not convinced), a tiny drop of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and later.  That sort of scenario of a small group composed of a number of diverse very minor inputs could lead to raised variance.  I dont know a huge amount about U106 in Ireland though.  What is the subclade situation and what are the age of the Irish U106 folks closest matches.  The latter should tell us something.  Its extremely unlikely that a prehistoric Irish U106 should have matches in Britain or the continent on their FTDNA homepage if they have been in situ since prehistoric times. I think the likelihood of a continental match of an Irish U106 being down to wild geese etc is incredibly low considering how few Irish U106 there are. 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 11:16:45 AM
Indeed, Tim Janzen did offer those findings, which no doubt was not welcome by those who subscribe to the all R U106 is 'Germanic' ideology.

Until such time as Tim formally repudiates the results he determined on the high variance of R U106 in Ireland, and its meaning in terms of that Haplogroup's arrival there, it is perhaps wise not to try to undermine or discredit his conclusions by any subjective impression that he may not regard them as valid.  

Unless Tim Janzen now regards his results as misleading, flawed or of insufficient detail we must presume they remain as they are, learned and authoritative findings that raise important considerations relating to R U106 and its early migration to Ireland. In light of the accepted age of R U106 Tim's results and observations require us to consider if it settled in Ireland before the rise of of Germanic culture. That being the case,  and there's no logical reason why it could not have entered Ireland as part of an ancient admixture, the question is did it survive? As far as I understand, given that a measurement of variance is tested using living people, then its difficult to know how the original R U106 settlers could not have survived, had such perished they wouldn't have the descendants to furnish the data which Time presumably used in his calculations assessing  the Haplogroup's variance in Ireland.

As to the current frequency of the Haplogroup in Ireland presumably that percentage has changed over time according to various demographic dynamics most notably I wonder if, or to what degree, the Famine, with the loss of over a million, distorted or reduced the frequency of Irish R U106 Haplogroup. Moreover, given the numbers of people in Ireland who have been tested, which I imagine is a fairly small percentage of the actual population, can we conclude with absolute certainty that the current figures are entirely or accurately representative? Could it be that there exists a pool of R U106 as yet untested in Ireland?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 07, 2012, 12:43:51 PM
Until such time as Tim formally repudiates the results he determined on the high variance of R U106 in Ireland, and its meaning in terms of that Haplogroup's arrival there, it is perhaps wise not to try to undermine or discredit his conclusions by any subjective impression that he may not regard them as valid.  

Unless Tim Janzen now regards his results as misleading, flawed or of insufficient detail we must presume they remain as they are, learned and authoritative findings that raise important considerations relating to R U106 and its early migration to Ireland.

I don't see why, if people weren’t allowed to questions things after one authoritative figure made a statement research into quantum physics would have been held up for years.

A simple case in point with respect to Tim's variance calculation.

We have a brickwalled American in the Z18 project, he has an Irish name and has put Ireland down as his ancestral origin, however he's part of a cluster that is demonstrably 'Germanic'. I'm not going to turn round and tell him that he's wrong about his ancestry, in fact he quite likely isn't but his line couldn't have been in Ireland close to the beginning of U106 (apart from anything else the cluster isn't old enough) he would have been one of people used in Tim's variance calculation though.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 03:30:12 PM
The facts remain what they are.

Once again, did Tim Janzen first remove those with English and Lowland Scots surnames when calculating "Irish" variance?

I don't think so. If he did, would enough U106 haplotypes remain to actually calculate variance?

Remember too that variance represents the upper limit of the age of a haplogroup in an area. It says the haplogroup could not be any older than that there but that it could be much younger.

If whoknows Boylan wishes to believe he is descended in his y-dna line from a very ancient Irishman, let him. Apparently it is a matter of some pressing importance to him. This is, I believe, the third or fourth dna chat forum where he has pressed his case, despite the preponderance of the evidence that weighs against him so heavily.

As I mentioned on another thread, perhaps we should calculate the variance of North American R1b in order to pave the way for those of us who are brickwalled in West Virginia to claim aboriginal North American status.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
Agreed the fact remains that Tim Janzen did indeed conclude that the variance of R U106 in Ireland as being high, not only so but higher than continental Europe, moreover his findings, as I mentioned, considered that it may well have arrived in Ireland fairly quickly after its initial emergence, which would have been long before Germanic became an established culture. So the questions, posted previously remain.

Again, the facts are that a respected academic and researcher worked with the available data on R U106 in Ireland and reached the above conclusions, that may well be difficult and inconvenient medicine to consume for those who worship at the altar of R U106 is 'Germanic', but so be it.

I shall ignore the somewhat unhelpful tone as my presence here is not to exchange veiled insult but to engage in measured discussion, although any dissent from the orthodox usually invites a particular form of attention, am sure you can concur it is better to maintain a modicum of civility. The fallacious strategy of appealing to ridicule is unworthy of such a friendly and mature community, for my part there is no singular axe to grind I am simply providing an alternative view on the matter, one that is as eminently plausible as any other, and based in part upon the results of a scholar who many hold in high regard.. That said I respect entirely your choice to follow a more orthodox path concerning R U106, however conforming to a prevailing orthodoxy does not of itself invest your position with any greater truth or certainty, as my name declares 'who knows'? I for for one surely don't and neither do you. On that balanced observation we should perhaps conclude our exchange with mutual respect :)



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 04:01:37 PM
Jdean

By all means question, however your original comments simply asserted an 'impression' you felt, which had no basis in fact or more saliently addressed Tim's findings on the subject.

As to the shortcomings of particular data, while your preferred example is noted, in relation to the veracity, accuracy and reliability of Tim's findings, any critical evaluation worthy of consideration would need to be a meticulous appraisal of the same set of information as used by Tim Janzen.

For the purposes of the present discussion it would be extremely helpful if perhaps you could assemble such an assessment, and present an objective critique, it would be an interesting read and challenging too, given the experience, knowledge and insights Tim Janzen within the field.

I would read any such paper with an open mind, until such time I continue have the highest respect for Tim's research and findings, his thoughts on R U106 variance in Ireland remain a highly informed and learned counter-balance to the mind-set which insists on peddling the orthodoxy of R U106 as 'Germanic'.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 04:08:40 PM
By all means question, however your original comments simply asserted an 'impression' you felt, which had no basis in fact or more saliently addressed Tim's findings on the subject.

As to the shortcomings of particular data, while you preferred example is noted, in relation to the veracity, accuracy and reliability of Tim's findings, any critical evaluation worthy of consideration would need to be a meticulous appraisal of the same set of information as used by Tim.

For the purposes of the present discussion it would be extremely helpful if perhaps you could assemble such an assessment, and present an objective critique, it would be an interesting read and challenging too, given the experience, knowledge and insights Tim Janzen within the field.

I would read any such paper with an open mind, until such time I continue have the highest respect for Tim's research and findings, his thoughts on R U106 variance in Ireland remain a highly informed and learned counter-balance to the mind-set which insists on peddling the orthodoxy of R U106 as 'Germanic'.

Tim Janzen has not endorsed your opinions. As I said before, variance calculations do not give the actual age of a haplogroup in a region, they simply give an upper limit beyond which the haplogroup could be no older there (barring something extraordinary, like a bottleneck). It could certainly be a whole lot younger.

Given English, Scottish, Flemish, German, and Scandinavian U106 input into Ireland, if the variance seems high, it is undoubtedly artificially inflated due to the different and varied outside sources of U106 there. North American R1b variance would probably show something similar. Will you argue for some very ancient R1b clans in North America?

As I mentioned before, I seriously doubt that Tim Janzen excised the English, Scottish and other non-Irish surnames from his list of "Irish" U106 before calculating its variance. If he failed to do that, then any such variance result is highly suspect. In fact, it would be invalid for the purpose for which you are employing it, i.e., as your sole argument for the antiquity of U106 in Ireland.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 04:35:52 PM
No one stated that Tim had endorsed my position, that is a misrepresentation, we cannot maintain a balanced or meaningful communication by distorting the comments of those with which we exchange. What was stated was Tim's findings on the high degree of variance within R U106 in Ireland and his view that it may have arrived in Ireland quickly after its original emergence. Again at no stage did any assert that variance assessments provide "the actual age of a haplogroup in a region", what was clearly noted was what Tim Janzen actually reported that given the high degree of variance the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland at some early time following R U106 first appearing.

As to the assertion relating to English, Scottish etc R U106 "input into Ireland" where is the measurable and definitive evidence for that bold comment? I know how much you value supporting statements with verifiable sources, could you kindly offer a credible reference which provides the recorded amount of 'English' R U106 that colonized Ireland? If such a source is not forthcoming readers will have to conclude that what you offered was in truth, a fact-free assertion.

Regarding surnames they hardly constitute an empirical determinant in this subject, and I would advise you to contact Tim to clarify if he considered the  measures you highlight. Meanwhile his findings remain.

My comments here, while drawing upon an important and relevant finding made by a respected scholar, are not entirely structured on Tim's results. as any careful reading of what I stated reveals. Even without such findings it is, on the basis of reason alone, highly likely that R U106 as part of an admixture traveled to Ireland during some early migration. To reject that probable scenario invites the question do you consider such migrations to composed of a homogenous body, one Haplogroup, any barring R U106? It is of course a nonsense and there is no reason whatsoever why early R U106 migrants should have stopped at the Channel and turned back from onward travel to Britain or Ireland.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 04:40:01 PM
Here is a list of the surnames of those in the R1b-U106 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u106/default.aspx?vgroup=u106&section=yresults) listing Ireland as place of ancestral origin. I think the list pretty much speaks for itself, but I have bolded the surnames that appear to me to be Gaelic Irish or possibly Gaelic Irish in origin (I put a question mark after the ones that I have some reservations about).

Nolan
Carr
Wade
McKibbin
Sinclair
Norris
Cole
Barnwell or Barnhill
Chappelow
Morell
Barr
Johnson
Adams
Browne
Moore
Blakely
Steenson
Shields
Lowry
Mitchell
Duff
Cruise?
Hayde
Cotter
Sloan
Callanan
Madden
Matchett
Donaldosn
Roche
Brabazon
Neely
Parke
Denniston
McLaughlin (Scots?)
Dunbar
Conley?
McNeill
Wilson
Fitzgibbon
Anderson
Higgins
Pelan?
McMullan (+ variants)
Traynor

I count eight surnames that are possibly old, Gaelic Irish surnames, and a couple of those are somewhat doubtful.

For the surname Nolan, there is a Nolan DNA Project (http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/nolan/results). Most of those in it are L21+, including some who are M222+. Look at the results for yourself.

The Cruwys, etc., DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/cruwysdna/default.aspx?section=yresults) makes it clear that Cruise, etc., is a surname also found in England. That casts some doubt on its possible Gaelic origins.

Anyway, it is pretty obvious that most of those who are U106+ in the R1b-U106 project who list Ireland as place of ancestral origin have surnames that are not Irish. By way of stark contrast, compare that list with the Ireland category at the R-L21 Plus Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/default.aspx?section=yresults).

Could Tim Janzen have used just eight haplotypes to get his "Irish" variance calculations? I doubt that he would do that, which means he probably included a lot of the haplotypes of those with non-Irish surnames.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 04:58:47 PM
No one stated that Tim had endorsed my position, that is a misrepresentation, we cannot maintain a balanced or meaningful communication by distorting the comments of those with which we exchange. What was stated was Tim's findings on the high degree of variance within R U106 in Ireland and his view that it may have arrived in Ireland quickly after its original emergence. Again at no stage did any assert that variance assessments provide "the actual age of a haplogroup in a region", what was clearly noted was what Tim Janzen actually reported that given the high degree of variance the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland at some early time following R U106 first appearing.

No one misrepresented your position. No need to do that.

It isn't likely that U106 entered Ireland very early in its existence. If it did, it's a remarkable coincidence that its bearers apparently chose to settle in precisely the same locations that much later U106 newcomers, like the Vikings, the English and Lowland Scots, chose to settle, so that U106 overall is scarce in Ireland but highest in frequency in those places.

As to the assertion relating to English, Scottish etc R U106 "input into Ireland" where is the measurable and definitive evidence for that bold comment? I know how much you value supporting statements with verifiable sources, could you kindly offer a credible reference which provides the recorded amount of 'English' R U106 that colonized Ireland? If such a source is not forthcoming readers will have to conclude that what you offered was in truth, a fact-free assertion.

Don't be silly. Pick up any reputable book of Irish history.

England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Germany, and Flanders all have much much higher frequencies of U106 than Ireland has, and all of them have contributed to the Irish population in the historical period.

That is common knowledge. You may even know it, as well.

Regarding surnames they hardly constitute an empirical determinant in this subject, and I would advise you to contact Tim to clarify if he considered the  measures you highlight. Meanwhile his findings remain.

Sure they do! If I propose to calculate Swedish haplotype diversity with an eye to something ancient, and I include recent Chinese immigrants, how accurate will my calculations be?

Similarly, if I am looking for Irish U106 diversity but include the non-Irish, how accurate will my findings be?

My comments here, while drawing upon an important and relevant finding made by a respected scholar, are not entirely structured on Tim's results. as any careful reading of what I stated reveals. Even without such findings it is, on the basis of reason alone, highly likely that R U106 as part of an admixture traveled to Ireland during some early migration. To reject that probable scenario invites the question do you consider such migrations to composed of a homogenous body, one Haplogroup, any barring R U106? It is of course a nonsense and there is no reason whatsoever why early R U106 migrants should have stopped at the Channel and turned back from onward travel to Britain or Ireland.

Yes, U106 could have gone to Ireland very very early indeed, were it in a position to do so. There is no reason to believe it did, however, given its current distribution in Ireland, its relative scarcity there, its especial scarcity among those with Irish surnames, and its distribution in Europe.

There is some reason to doubt that U106 reached the Low Countries before the 3rd century BC. Its highest variance is in Poland. Its variance drops somewhat to the west, as Alan mentioned. U106 has a pretty obvious connection to Germanic-speaking peoples, and they probably did not arrive so far to the west and south until the 3rd century BC. Prior to that, the Low Countries were in Celtic hands.

Even in England, where U106 levels are much much higher than in Ireland, U106 drops off as one moves north and west into the "Celtic Fringe", and L21 begins to predominate. There is no indication that U106 in the British Isles is in any way connected to Celtic-speaking peoples.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Dubhthach on April 07, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Duff, Higgins, Lowry, Madden and Moore could also all be "Gaelic". McNeill is "gaelic" though it's origin in Ireland is usually tied to Gallowglasses from Western Isles of Scotland.

Cruise is a norman name in an Irish context:

Quote
de CRÚIS—XI—de Cruce, de Crosse, Cruice, Cruise, Cross; Norman 'de Grays,' Latin 'de Cruce,' i.e., of the cross, from residence by the roadside or market cross (Middle English crouche, cruche); the name of an Anglo-Norman family who came to Ireland at the time of the invasion and obtained lands in Dublin and Meath. The chief seat of the family was at the Naul, where the ruins of their castle are still to be seen. In 1653, Peter Cruise of the Naul was transplanted to Connacht, and in 1691 many of the name were attainted. There was also an old family of Cruises in Co. Clare.

Quote
Mac CONNLA, Mac CONNLAODHA—IV—M'Connley, M'Conley, M'Conly, Conley, Conly; 'son of Connlaodh'; apparently an Offaly surname

Angliscation of names can be classed via the following processes.
1. Phonetically.
2. By translation.
3. By attraction.
4. By assimilation.
5. By substitution.

Translation/assimilaiton/substitution can result in "Gaelic" names matching english names.

for example "Mac Conraoi" is anglisced as either Conroy (1) or King (2), thence the reason King is quite a common surname in west of Ireland. It's a result of direct translation of Mac Conraoi.

see:
http://www.libraryireland.com/names/anglicisation-irish-surnames.php (http://www.libraryireland.com/names/anglicisation-irish-surnames.php)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 05:08:23 PM
Duff, Higgins, Lowry, Madden and Moore could also all be "Gaelic". McNeill is "gaelic" though it's origin in Ireland is usually tied to Gallowglasses from Western Isles of Scotland.

Cruise is a norman name in an Irish context:

Quote
de CRÚIS—XI—de Cruce, de Crosse, Cruice, Cruise, Cross; Norman 'de Grays,' Latin 'de Cruce,' i.e., of the cross, from residence by the roadside or market cross (Middle English crouche, cruche); the name of an Anglo-Norman family who came to Ireland at the time of the invasion and obtained lands in Dublin and Meath. The chief seat of the family was at the Naul, where the ruins of their castle are still to be seen. In 1653, Peter Cruise of the Naul was transplanted to Connacht, and in 1691 many of the name were attainted. There was also an old family of Cruises in Co. Clare.

Quote
Mac CONNLA, Mac CONNLAODHA—IV—M'Connley, M'Conley, M'Conly, Conley, Conly; 'son of Connlaodh'; apparently an Offaly surname

Angliscation of names can be classed via the following processes.
1. Phonetically.
2. By translation.
3. By attraction.
4. By assimilation.
5. By substitution.

Translation/assimilaiton/substitution can result in "Gaelic" names matching english names.

for example "Mac Conraoi" is anglisced as either Conroy (1) or King (2), thence the reason King is quite a common surname in west of Ireland. It's a result of direct translation of Mac Conraoi.

see:
http://www.libraryireland.com/names/anglicisation-irish-surnames.php (http://www.libraryireland.com/names/anglicisation-irish-surnames.php)

That is one of the difficulties with some Irish surnames. They might be Irish; they might not. Your post itself is a testament to the pervasive historical period English influence there, which on the genetic side no doubt included an infusion of English y-dna.

And of course a Norman surname is a Norman surname.

I have McNeills in my family tree on my mother's side, but they came from Scotland. As a matter of fact, as I recall, one my relatives in that line tested I1.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: OConnor on April 07, 2012, 05:10:47 PM
Tim's comments appear to be from 2010/2
Perhaps more has been learned since then?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 05:13:43 PM
Tim's comments appear to be from 2010/2
Perhaps more has been learned since then?

I sent him an email. I've communicated with him by email in the past, although not recently. If he answers me, I'll try to find out if he included non-Irish surnames in his variance calculations and just what his current opinion is.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 05:17:34 PM
Tim Janzen, as I have stated all along, assessed Irish R U106 and found it to be of a high variance and suggested on those grounds that it may have arrived in Ireland soon after the Haplogroup first emerged, that would as you know probably pre-date Germanic culture. As to the names in question, they offer no conclusive evidence to undermine with any authority the findings of Tim's researches.

For example. leaving aside the minefield of Anglicized Irish names, some of which such as Smith having the alluring appeal of being indicative of 'English' roots are in fact crude renderings of Gaelic Sept names.  Then again there was a practice by some in Ireland to either adopt or were given English sounding names, to in part lessen the prejudice and oppression that was doled out to those bearing Gaelic names. Such considerations, along with the often poorly recorded variants of Irish names in the various Hearth Rolls and other Census and we can see numerous instances where surnames have been transformed and or corrupted into a more English looking form. That reality makes a reliance on seemingly English surnames as evidence to question Tim Janzen's methodology and subsequent results. highly questionable,as such names may in truth mask a lineage whose origins were Gaelic Irish at some point. Nor should you so hastily conclude that an Anglicized Irish name having an equivalent in England is by default evidence of English settlement that is flawed reasoning, as there are a number of Irish names which although on translation into English have some similarity to names in England are in fact unrelated.

However before concluding this happy diversion addressing your red herring, it should be noted that EVEN IF those names could be definitively proven as 'English' the case is still not conclusively demonstrated that they constitute proof that R U106 is by definition 'Germanic' as I mentioned previously the whole concept of Britain being swamped by waves of Germanic peoples is thankfully under serious revision. The model now given serious subscription is of a majority British population dominated by Germanic military, political and possibly economic elite, with some Germanic settlement, but not on the scale hat displaced the British 'Celts'. That being so it raises the question if R U106 had in fact arrived in Britain prior to such 'Dark Age' invasions to establish what would become a fairly significant percentage of the British population. Is R U106 not over 20% of the British population? If so what amount of that considerable figure may be descended from very early migration as opposed top the mythological flood of Germanics into Britain?

On that basis what few of those 'English' names on that list that are genuinely demonstrably of English origin whose ancestors may have 'settled' in Ireland may well have not derived from some Angle, Jute or Frisian ancestry at all but may have been from a R U106 lineage that could have entered Britain  before the establishment of such Germanic cultures.

Herein lies the reality we simply do not know, what we have is a scale of probability and within that it is as equally possible that R U106 reached Britain and Ireland as a result of some ancient migration/s. Your interpretation of surnames does not invalidate that likely-hood and is as I hope has been shown, limited in terms of reliable evidence and inherently flawed.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 05:36:03 PM
Tim Janzen, as I have stated all along, assessed Irish R U106 and found it to be of a high variance and suggested on those grounds that it may have arrived in Ireland soon after the Haplogroup first emerged, that would as you know probably pre-date Germanic culture. As to the names in question, they offer no conclusive evidence to undermine with any authority the findings of Tim's researches.

You are flat out wrong.

If Tim Janzen included the haplotypes of those with non-Irish surnames in his calculations, then what he got was something other than Irish variance. He got some Irish variance plus some English, Scots, etc., variance.

And that does make a difference.

For example. leaving aside the minefield of Anglicized Irish names, some of which such as Smith having the alluring appeal of being indicative of 'English' roots are in fact crude renderings of Gaelic Sept names.  Then again there was a practice by some in Ireland to either adopt or were given English sounding names, to in part lessen the prejudice and oppression that was doled out to those bearing Gaelic names. Such considerations, along with the often poorly recorded variants of Irish names in the various Hearth Rolls and other Census and we can see numerous instances where surnames have been transformed and or corrupted into a more English looking form. That reality makes a reliance on seemingly English surnames as evidence to question Tim Janzen's methodology and subsequent results. highly questionable,as such names may in truth mask a lineage whose origins were Gaelic Irish at some point. Nor should you so hastily conclude that an Anglicized Irish name having an equivalent in England is by default evidence of English settlement that is flawed reasoning, as there are a number of Irish names which although on translation into English have some similarity to names in England are in fact unrelated.

Some Gaelic surnames have been anglicized, it's true, but it is generally known what those are. It is also known that many non-Irish settled in Ireland in the historical period. No doubt some of them adopted Gaelic surnames or fathered children who, despite their non-native y-dna, received Gaelic surnames.

However before concluding this happy diversion addressing your red herring, it should be noted that EVEN IF those names could be definitively proven as 'English' the case is still not conclusively demonstrated that they constitute proof that R U106 is by definition 'Germanic' as I mentioned previously the whole concept of Britain being swamped by waves of Germanic peoples is thankfully under serious revision. The model now given serious subscription is of a majority British population dominated by Germanic military, political and possibly economic elite, with some Germanic settlement, but not on the scale hat displaced the British 'Celts'. That being so it raises the question if R U106 had in fact arrived in Britain prior to such 'Dark Age' invasions to establish what would become a fairly significant percentage of the British population. Is R U106 not over 20% of the British population? If so what amount of that significant figure may be descended from very early migration as opposed top the mythological flood of Germanics into Britain?

On that basis what few of those 'English' names on hat list that are genuinely demonstrably of English origin whose ancestors may have 'settled' in Ireland may well have not derived from some Angle, Jute or Frisian ancestry at all but may have been from a R U106 lineage that could have entered Britain  before the establishment of such Germanic cultures.

Herein lies the reality we simply do not know, what we have is a scale of probability and within that it is as equally possible that R U106 reached Britain and Ireland as a result of some ancient migration/s. Your interpretation of surnames does not invalidate that likely-hood and is as I hope has been shown, limited in terms of reliable evidence and inherently flawed.


It does if Tim Janzen included non-Irish surnames in his variance calculations, but enough of that.

It isn't likely that there was much if any U106 in Britain prior to the Roman Period. As it is, U106 is most frequent in the south and east and drops off, as I mentioned before, as one moves north and west into the "Celtic Fringe", where L21 predominates. Once again, there is no indication that U106 is connected in any way to Celtic-speaking peoples in Britain.

And it is obvious to any unbiased observer that there is a clear connection between u106 and Germanic-speaking peoples. That doesn't mean there aren't or never were non-German U106, but, just the same, the connection is plain as day. That is why it is constantly being remarked upon and why I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to point it out to you.

I know from talking to friends of mine in the R1b-U106 Project that there was at least one Irish U106+ guy who quit that project because they told him the same things I am telling you. Apparently, like you, he strongly disagreed with the consensus opinion, which is the opinion held by those who run the R1b-U106 Project and who study U106 constantly.

But you are free to believe what you will. Heck, send me five bucks, and I'll send you an official certificate of ancient Irishness! ;-)

It doesn't really matter all that much to me.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 07, 2012, 06:13:28 PM
Again I shall ignore the appeals to ridiucule as they are unworthy of attention.

What is entirely reasonable is that neither yourself or I know with any certainty, as I mentioned in the beginning we are in an arena of speculation, not empirical evidence, that you choose to follow an orthodoxy on the subject is your right, it does not though invest the dogma that insists that R U106 is Germanic with any infallibility or universal truth.

It is very probable that R U106 arrived in Britain and Ireland at an early stage, and the evaluation of current frequency and distribution, is no definitive evidence to convince hat such a migration could not have occurred. We also have the subject of variance too, which as I have mentioned is regarded by some as being more reliable an indicator of origins and early migrations. That's why Tim Janzen's findings are of such relevance to this matter.

I have made clear the concerns and shortcomings concerning your somewhat selective interpretation of Irish names, so shall not go over that ground, fellow visitors to the forum can reach their own views on what has been stated.

What you can offer is what all of us are limited to, namely opinion, no mater how many subscribe to a particular line of thinking in this subject, it remains just that a view, informed maybe, reasoned sometimes yet always never able to be proved with the certainty of scientific fact. That's the key point missed by those who line up to swear allegiance to the orthodoxy of R UI106 is 'Germanic', while it may have current frequency peaks in Austria or the Netherlands that does not make it  originally 'Germanic', nor unable to migrate westwards to Britain or Ireland before such cultures emerged.

Let me make something plain I am not engaging in this discussion to press any personal claim in terms of ethnology, so please refrain from misunderstanding my motive, which is in essence to offer a different, yet equally valid line of speculation, in which R U106, like other Haplogroups, migrated at an early stage, and in all likely hood may well have settled in Britain and or Ireland.

It may be an unpalatable consideration, which clearly appears the case, yet it's far better to keep an open mind on the subject than indulge in an interpretive denial built upon a seriously flawed assumption.

As to your ever so generous offer I have no interest in proving Irish origins, simply sowing seeds and exposing a dogma.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 06:28:45 PM
No ridicule. A genuine offer. The certificate is yours for five bucks. ;-)

Believe what you will.

Those with time to kill can read this thread and make up their own minds.

I do want to pay you a compliment, however. If you are Mr. Boylan, and I suspect you are, you have done very well this time in restraining your emotions, which in the past have gotten the better of you. Congratulations.

U106 distribution map (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/THYYn0iOp2I/AAAAAAAACiw/GTn5liL2F68/s1600/u106.jpg)

Quote from: Dienekes

The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 07, 2012, 08:57:11 PM
I'm U106 with mostly Irish, Cornish, Welsh and Highlander ancestry.  I really have no wolfhound in this "fight".  

The only way I can comprehend P312 being so dominant in the ancient Isles vis-a-vis its coeval M269 brother U106, is that the vast majority of U106 was holed up NE of the Elbe for a long time.  I think the high frequency of U106 in the Low Countries is very misleading.  If U106 was in the Low Countries during the Iron Age then I see no reason why a good proportion of U106 in Britain can't be ancient.  But as it happens, the freq distribution of U106 in England very closely matches 5th to 11th Century Angle and Saxon kingdoms.

P312 seems to have gotten first mover advantage in the fertile western European lands and expanded S-N down to Spain and up to Norway (the Atlantic mob).  U106 hugged the Black Sea then pushed NW along the South Baltic.  When it got to the Elbe it struggled to gain much of a foothold west of it.  P312 was already there.

Magna Germania probably sees some U106 spillage SW of the Elbe with Rome having softened up Gauls.

I don't even see the Belgae having much if any U106 at all.

Despite thorough Frankish incursions into present France, frankly the modern U106 distribution in France doesn't say much for the U106 these "Germanic" peoples apparently brought with them, more likely they brought more P312 than anything else.  "Germanic" is such a nebulous term.  And frankly it really only applied to one or two small tribes near the Rhine in Caesar's time and those Germani were probably Celtic.  Low U106 freq in France fits with U106 being confined mostly to north of the Elbe and the Baltic shores in ancient times.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 08, 2012, 01:20:36 PM
At last, a few rays of balanced inquiry are breaking through the fog of 'R U106 is 'Germanic' dogma..very refreshing to note the informed and open-minded contributions of Mike and Golden Hind


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on April 08, 2012, 02:57:10 PM
"Germanic" is such a nebulous term.  And frankly it really only applied to one or two small tribes near the Rhine in Caesar's time and those Germani were probably Celtic.

Yes, the geographical origin and spread of the Celts is not often recalled in these discussions.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 08, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
Since the discussion is centring on a comment made by Tim Janzen in Feb 2010 I thought it may be interesting to have a look at the data he used at the time.

Tim said he used the 67 loci results from the U106 project for his calculations.

In April 2009, which is as close as I can get, there were only 9 such results with an Irish origin, admittedly in the next 10 months a few more would have been added but that's not exactly promising.

Next and with the benefit of hindsight I checked out the current SNP status of these 9 people.

5 were L48+ and the other 4 L48-

1 of the L48+ people have tested Z9+ and another Z7+

Of the 4 L48- people one has tested Z156+ and another Z156-

Without really thinking two hard about this I would say the common ancestor of this group is likely to be Mr. U106 himself and since I think we are reasonably clear (I hope) that Z9, Z7 & Z156 weren't conceived in Ireland it seems a fair guess that most of these lines probably arrived in Ireland independently.


Before I get accused of having a closed mind I would just like to make it clear that my point is to much is being made of a quick calculation Tim Janzen did over 2 years ago, and I’m sure that if he has dropped in on any of the myriad of threads that have been bombarded by person/s about this comment he would be quite bemused.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 08, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
I'm U106 with mostly Irish, Cornish, Welsh and Highlander ancestry.  I really have no wolfhound in this "fight".  

The only way I can comprehend P312 being so dominant in the ancient Isles vis-a-vis its coeval M269 brother U106, is that the vast majority of U106 was holed up NE of the Elbe for a long time.  I think the high frequency of U106 in the Low Countries is very misleading.  If U106 was in the Low Countries during the Iron Age then I see no reason why a good proportion of U106 in Britain can't be ancient.  But as it happens, the freq distribution of U106 in England very closely matches 5th to 11th Century Angle and Saxon kingdoms.

P312 seems to have gotten first mover advantage in the fertile western European lands and expanded S-N down to Spain and up to Norway (the Atlantic mob).  U106 hugged the Black Sea then pushed NW along the South Baltic.  When it got to the Elbe it struggled to gain much of a foothold west of it.  P312 was already there.

Magna Germania probably sees some U106 spillage SW of the Elbe with Rome having softened up Gauls.

I don't even see the Belgae having much if any U106 at all.

Despite thorough Frankish incursions into present France, frankly the modern U106 distribution in France doesn't say much for the U106 these "Germanic" peoples apparently brought with them, more likely they brought more P312 than anything else.  "Germanic" is such a nebulous term.  And frankly it really only applied to one or two small tribes near the Rhine in Caesar's time and those Germani were probably Celtic.  Low U106 freq in France fits with U106 being confined mostly to north of the Elbe and the Baltic shores in ancient times.



I agree with most of what you wrote, except to say that if you look at the distribution of U106 in France you will see it reaches its highest frequency in the rolling plain of NE France, precisely those areas where the Franks settled, as reflected in the Flemish language, which is a descendant of Old Low Franconian.

As for the Belgae, Caesar erroneously referred to them as Germans but only because they had moved within living memory from east of the Rhine to Belgica west of the Rhine. Their tribal names and the names of their leaders were all Celtic.

But I agree that U106 probably didn't move as far west and south as it is found today until relatively late, probably beginning sometime in the 3rd century BC. Of course, its major push south and west, including into what is now England, came during the Migration Period.



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 08, 2012, 05:08:03 PM
Since the discussion is centring on a comment made by Tim Janzen in Feb 2010 I thought it may be interesting to have a look at the data he used at the time.

Tim said he used the 67 loci results from the U106 project for his calculations.

In April 2009, which is as close as I can get, there were only 9 such results with an Irish origin, admittedly in the next 10 months a few more would have been added but that's not exactly promising.

Next and with the benefit of hindsight I checked out the current SNP status of these 9 people.

5 were L48+ and the other 4 L48-

1 of the L48+ people have tested Z9+ and another Z7+

Of the 4 L48- people one has tested Z156+ and another Z156-

Without really thinking two hard about this I would say the common ancestor of this group is likely to be Mr. U106 himself and since I think we are reasonably clear (I hope) that Z9, Z7 & Z156 weren't conceived in Ireland it seems a fair guess that most of these lines probably arrived in Ireland independently.


Before I get accused of having a closed mind I would just like to make it clear that my point is to much is being made of a quick calculation Tim Janzen did over 2 years ago, and I’m sure that if he has dropped in on any of the myriad of threads that have been bombarded by person/s about this comment he would be quite bemused.

Thanks for that. Tim Janzen has done a lot of stuff like that in the past. Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking it, but I remember in the very early days of L21 when he did some variance calculations and concluded that L21 was oldest in Scotland. That was before we had very many continental results at all. Of course, subsequently, France has consistently had the highest L21 variance.

The important things to remember about variance in a place are 1) that it only provides an upper bound to the possible age of a haplogroup in that particular place, not the date the haplogroup actually arrived there (think of the variance of R1b in North America, for example), and 2) it cannot be looked at out of its historical context (again, think of R1b in North America, for example).

For example, if the variance of R1b in North America shows that it could be 6,000 years old there, it is important to look at history and realize how R1b arrived there, i.e., in fairly recent history, carried by Europeans.

The same sort of thing is true for U106 in Ireland. If haplotype variance shows it could be 4,000 or even 5,000 years old there, one must consider the history of Ireland and the overall distribution of U106 both there and elsewhere in Europe. All of those things strongly militate against a very ancient arrival of U106 in Ireland.

And again it is important to remember that we are talking about what is likely, not what is remotely possible.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 08, 2012, 06:41:27 PM
It makes me wonder if we will ever really get to the bottom of where the various R1b groups are oldest though.

U106 is a little more civilised being closer to a tree structure, and I think P312 in general is also reasonably structured, though unfortunately I know less about that than U106 & L21 which is complete mess now with all the new SNPs !!!




Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 09, 2012, 06:58:42 AM
What is NOT remotely possible is that early migrations to Britain or Ireland were composed of a single, homogenous grouping, a sort of L21 expansion that jackbooted its way, with blue-eyed purity into Ireland. Perhaps that fantasy appeals to some, who knows :)

More likely and entirely reasonable to consider that such movements were an admixture, equally probable is that R U106 may well have been an early arrival as a result. What's clearly unlikely is that other Haplogroups moved westwards to enter the Isles yet for some unknown reason R U106 was reluctant to cross the water.

On the subject of the central criticism presented to counter the findings offered by Tim Janzen, which claim that the R U106 individuals, used to assess the variance of the Haplogroup in Ireland, appear in the majority to have 'English' surnames.

We have discussed previously why surnames in Ireland are not always as they seem and there are those, which though appearing  to be of English origin, can be Anglicized versions of Gaelic Sept names. As such it is unwise to place to much reliance upon surnames as any reliable indicator, given to the various changes and corruptions which occur over time.

However if, for the purposes of the current discussion, we accept that the majority of individuals whose R U106 data was examined by Tim Janzen were of English origin we need to relocate the high degree of variance (which his findings indicated the Haplogroup arrived in Ireland quickly after the initial emergence of R U106) to Britain, the home of those supposed English R U106 members. Which again raises the prospect of settlement there, prior to the questionable model of a flood of Germanic invaders during the so-called 'Dark Ages'.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 07:31:35 AM
Sigh . . .

Your whole continuing drumbeat hinges entirely on Tim Janzen's variance calculation from back in February of 2010, which you seem to think seals the deal, despite repeated explanations that haplotype variance provides an upper bound on the age of a haplogroup in a place, not the date it arrived there. Not only that, but we don't have any input from Mr. Janzen clarifying his methodology. Did he exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from his Irish variance calculation? We don't know, although that seems doubtful, because if he did that, not many U106 haplotypes would be left to work with.

At least a couple of times you have referred disparagingly to the U106-is-Germanic "orthodoxy". In doing so, you are admitting that your own position is heterodox, and I agree, it most definitely is. The reason the orthodox position is orthodox is because it is the one based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. The reason your own position is heterodox is because it has little going for it. It is mostly based on what Jean Manco characterized on another thread as "MHD" - Male Haplogroup Disorder (or was it "Male Haplogroup Distress"?). Your own distress at finding that your haplogroup assignment did not suit you has produced these desperate flailings and repeated threads that have spanned at least a couple of years now and more than one dna chat forum.

I sympathize with those who experience distress as a consequence of dna test results. But it's time to face facts and move on. All of us have to do that sooner or later.

Yes, as more than one person has told you, it is remotely possible that there could have been a few U106+ guys in Ireland in ancient times. It is remotely possible you are descended from one of them.

But that scenario is not at all likely. And right now, when we discuss y haplogroups as a whole, their distributions, origins, and histories, that is the best we can do - likelihood, probability, based on the evidence. We can't say anything with certainty about every last individual case. You are choosing to grasp that uncertainty and cling to it in the vain and fruitless hope that it will ultimately turn out that your own distant y-dna ancestor was in Ireland before the hated (hated by you, apparently) Germanics, i.e., the Vikings, the Normans, the English, etc., arrived.

Good luck with that, but can't you give it a rest here at World Families?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 09, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
I would appreciate it if replies were not personalized, shall we remain focused upon the subject, as opposed to ad hominem.

There are no 'drumbeats' nor any 'single dependency', such assertions are misrepresentation, straw man posturing that misses the point of what I am actually proposing. Moroever, I have no axe to grind and despite your curious claims, nor am I interested in  establishing or 'proving' a personal Irish ancestry.

Now if we may return to the matter in hand.

The 'orthodoxy' in question is not based upon a "preponderance of evidence" but observation and speculation, derived from interpreting current Haplogroup frequencies as de-facto proof. In this regard the R U106 levels in Austria, Netherlands and Germany are taken as convincing 'proof' that the Haplogroup is 'Germanic', yet such a belief in no way forms empirical evidence that R U 106 is 'Germanic', particularly when viewed against its age and the probability that in distant times, along with other Haplogroups it may well have migrated, possibly to Britain and Ireland.

This position is not founded upon any personal 'need'; as I have made clear before my presence here is simply to expose and challenge a dogma that has fossilized around the subject of R U106, rather it advocates an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Haplogroup was part of an early admixture which migrated.

It is of course remotely possible that some R U106 in Britain can be traced to Germanic incursions, however we are left  still with the subject of variance, and as you insist the majority of names assessed by Tim Janzen were English, then his findings, namely that R U106 in Ireland showed a high degree of variance, with the conclusion that it arrived there fairly soon after its emergence on the Continent, is therefore switched to Britain.

So we need now, in light of your assertion regarding those examined under Tim's researches, to consider afresh that the Haplogroup arrived in Britain at an early stage, possibly before the establishment of a Germanic culture. If so then it must also be asked if R U106 entered Britain at such a time why could it not have arrived in Ireland?

We are not discussing 'individual cases' and I care not for my own ethnological background, one way or another, again I would suggest that using fallacious tactics such as red-herring or straw-man arguments only serves to highlight a weakness of thought. I am more than happy to have a mature and civilized exchange on the subject, based upon what I have stated, NOT a cynical misrepresentation. As for 'giving it a rest' I hope that all contributions are valued and respected, not subject to ridicule and personalized attacks, simply because they challenge an orthodoxy.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 08:57:50 AM

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 09, 2012, 10:07:09 AM

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?

I think Goldenhind mentioned U198 is more Isles based, certainly the project seems to have a lot less continental people in it than other U106 projects.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults)

The Z18 project hasn't got any obvious candidates yet, maybe we’ll find some when FTDNA include it in the deep clade.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults)

U106 is a bit better behaved than L21 and there are a lot less branches to worry about.

http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s (http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s)

Of these the most numerous is L48 and I think the distribution of that is reasonably 'germanic', of course that doesn’t mean branches of L48 didn’t reach the Isles earlier.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 02:06:43 PM

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.  Although there are a lot of issues analysing U106 as a monolith, it seems to me that the variance would tend to support the idea that U106 only spread west in late prehistory in any sort of numbers.  That would negate the possibilities such as barbed wire beaker links between Holland and England because they are too early for U106.  In fact it really does tend to lean towards support that U106 did expand mainly in the late Bronze AGe and Iron Age with Germanic expansion.  That makes it unlikely IMO that U106 was in England in large numbers in prehistory.  Ireland is of course well removed from the likely main pathway of U106 into the isles and its overwhelmingly likely it arrived in Ireland via England.  However, this is all very dependent on the dubious pooling of all U106.  I wonder if there is any likelihood that when split into clades some U106 in the west will come out earlier than it appears when pooled?

I think Goldenhind mentioned U198 is more Isles based, certainly the project seems to have a lot less continental people in it than other U106 projects.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u198/default.aspx?section=yresults)

The Z18 project hasn't got any obvious candidates yet, maybe we’ll find some when FTDNA include it in the deep clade.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-z18/default.aspx?section=yresults)

U106 is a bit better behaved than L21 and there are a lot less branches to worry about.

http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s (http://www.box.com/shared/v7lra868or7sooa7qg1s)

Of these the most numerous is L48 and I think the distribution of that is reasonably 'germanic', of course that doesn’t mean branches of L48 didn’t reach the Isles earlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by better behaved. There are quite a number of subclades of U106 now.

I've combined the U106 from their major haplogroups and the major geographic projects here (last updated Mar 30.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/Haplotype_Data_R-U106All.zip

Anyone who wants to can go in and look at variance from about any angle you'd want can dive into the above file. I've been intending to compare Irish U106 versus others but I haven't had time. I'm trying to make sense out of U106 clusters.  

BTW, just in case anyone was wondering - I have only one identifying handle for posting and this is it.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 09, 2012, 02:42:07 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by better behaved. There are quite a number of subclades of U106 now.

Only my mild sense of humour :)

U106 spits into Z381 & Z18

Z381 then splits into Z301 and Z156 where as with Z18 there is a simple linear progression through Z14 then Z372 to L257

This contrasts quite a bit with L21 which splits into

DF49 (to be proved) if not DF23
Z251 (to be proved)
DF1
DF21
DF41 (to be proved)
Z253 & Z255

And that’s only the big ones !!!



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 03:58:14 PM
...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

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

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  

I've been undecided on if U106 could reach the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times. On other forums (U106 Yahoo) A U106 hobbyist-researcher has provided ways that they could have arrived in the Romano-Britain era (albeit not a large contingent.)
Quote from: Charles M
I have agreed here in the past with the idea expressed by others that R-U106ers were probably in Britain before the Angles and Saxons. And also that when the Angles and Saxons came in, they did not replace the native Celtic population. But I would imagine that a significant percentage of persons of ancestry from Britain with R-U106 DNA probably do descend from the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc, or maybe I should say, particularly those on the Z2 branch. But that is just my thought about it, and nothing more.

Quote from: Charles M
AS for the U106 being in Britain prior to the Anglo/Saxon migration, I recently read that there are 4 or 5 records where individuals were retiring from the First Cohort of Frisians near Manchester if I remember correctly somewhere around 186 AD. The author said that they were given land and settled there. The First Cohort of Frisians was attached the the 20th Legion stationed at Devra (Chester). They were in Britian for 300 years.

However, going into prehistory I've often thought the key was if U106 was frequent in the Low Countries and the Jutland Peninsula (and its neck) in the Bronze Age.

I'm beginning to lean towards the thought that U106's high frequency areas were bottled up south or east of the Low Countries and the Jutland. Jean posted this on another topic but I think this applies.

Østmo has pinned down for me the answer to a question that has come up periodically: when did the Scandinavians become sea-farers? Answer: the Bronze Age. That is how Bell Beaker could go straight across from Jutland to Southern Norway.

And was was the big attraction of Norway? Lene Melheim provides the answer: prospecting for copper.  
Scandinavians must have been good sea-farers for a long time back in prehistory. More U106 should be spread across the Northern Isles if it was U106 was prominent in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age.

U106 STR diversity is low in Scandinavia as well.

This does not mean that U106 was not heavy in Frisian areas, just that it very well could have gotten their late.

I'm also beginning to think that the old R1b among the Scandinavians were primarily P312 types.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 04:58:36 PM
...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

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

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  

I've been undecided on if U106 could reach the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times. On other forums (U106 Yahoo) A U106 hobbyist-researcher has provided ways that they could have arrived in the Romano-Britain era (albeit not a large contingent.)
Quote from: Charles M
I have agreed here in the past with the idea expressed by others that R-U106ers were probably in Britain before the Angles and Saxons. And also that when the Angles and Saxons came in, they did not replace the native Celtic population. But I would imagine that a significant percentage of persons of ancestry from Britain with R-U106 DNA probably do descend from the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, etc, or maybe I should say, particularly those on the Z2 branch. But that is just my thought about it, and nothing more.

Quote from: Charles M
AS for the U106 being in Britain prior to the Anglo/Saxon migration, I recently read that there are 4 or 5 records where individuals were retiring from the First Cohort of Frisians near Manchester if I remember correctly somewhere around 186 AD. The author said that they were given land and settled there. The First Cohort of Frisians was attached the the 20th Legion stationed at Devra (Chester). They were in Britian for 300 years.

However, going into prehistory I've often thought the key was if U106 was frequent in the Low Countries and the Jutland Peninsula (and its neck) in the Bronze Age.  Jean's

I'm beginning to lean towards the though that U106's high frequency areas were bottled up south or east of the Low Countries and the Jutland. Jean posted this on another topic but I think this applies.

Østmo has pinned down for me the answer to a question that has come up periodically: when did the Scandinavians become sea-farers? Answer: the Bronze Age. That is how Bell Beaker could go straight across from Jutland to Southern Norway.

And was was the big attraction of Norway? Lene Melheim provides the answer: prospecting for copper.  
Scandinavians must have been good sea-farers for a long time back in prehistory. More U106 should be spread across the Northern Isles if it was U106 was prominent in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age.

U106 STR diversity is low in Scandinavia as well.

This does nothing to  that U106 is very heavy among the Frisian areas but I'm beginning that the old R1b among the Scandinavians were primarily P312 types.


I dont think many would quibble too much with the possibility of a trickle of U106 among the Belgae (who included some German tribes among them on the continent), Romans soldiers etc etc but that is essentially just a minor tweak.

I think the hypothesis that U106 is late in Britain was an assumption based on the somewhat illogical idea that just because history shines its light in the period 400BC-1066AD that that period defined the genetic map of Europe.  However, although I think that approach is all wrong they may be right when it comes to U106.  My Eureka moment was looking back at your old thread and combining the likely date of 2-3000BC for U106 with the observation that outside eastern Europe the variance is much lower than the total variance for U106.  Contacts between eastern Europe and Britain were very sparse indeed and the probability of U106 making it to England if it remained east of the Elbe or Vistula until perhaps 1000BC (ish) is vastly lower than if it had been in the area between the Elbe and the Rhine 1000 year or so earlier. 

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 06:27:41 PM
I dont think many would quibble too much with the possibility of a trickle of U106 among the Belgae (who included some German tribes among them on the continent), Romans soldiers etc etc but that is essentially just a minor tweak.

I think the hypothesis that U106 is late in Britain was an assumption based on the somewhat illogical idea that just because history shines its light in the period 400BC-1066AD that that period defined the genetic map of Europe.  However, although I think that approach is all wrong they may be right when it comes to U106.  My Eureka moment was looking back at your old thread and combining the likely date of 2-3000BC for U106 with the observation that outside eastern Europe the variance is much lower than the total variance for U106.  Contacts between eastern Europe and Britain were very sparse indeed and the probability of U106 making it to England if it remained east of the Elbe or Vistula until perhaps 1000BC (ish) is vastly lower than if it had been in the area between the Elbe and the Rhine 1000 year or so earlier.  

However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

The below is based on the 49 non-multicopy STRs of the 1st 67. These are only confirmed subclade tested people.

I've said this before, but I think it might eventually be very more important, but contrary to early reporting, I think U106 is younger than P312... not a lot, though.

The scale for relative variance below is based on 1.0 = P312 all, although keep in mind that U152 is a bit higher than 1.0.


U106 All____________:  Var=0.92 (N=1409)   

Z18_________________:  Var=1.00 (N=104)   
Z381 All(Z301&Z156)_:  Var=0.86 (N=813)         

Z301 All(L48&U198)__:  Var=0.86 (N=713)   
U198________________:  Var=0.68 (N=162)   
L48_________________:  Var=0.86 (N=547)

Z156 All (L1)_______:  Var=0.68 (N=98)
L1__________________:  Var=0.56 (N=65)


Z381 is the bulk of U106 and perhaps we should be considering it more in its own right, rather than U106.

L48 has been around for a long time, being almost as old its ancestors, Z301, Z381. This where the Frisian haplotypes supposedly fit.

Z381's brother, Z18, is older than Z381.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 06:42:31 PM
Z381's brother, Z18, is older than Z381.

These are not representative frequency counts, just counts of haplotypes by country from our DNA projects.

30 England
22 Scotland
9 Low Countries
8 Sweden
8 Ireland
5 Germany
3 Switzerland
2 France
2 Poland
2 Finland
1 Denmark
1 Russia
1 Lithuania
1 Wales

I couldn't find any from Norway.

Below is the variance by region. These counts are low other than the Isles so I wouldn't make too much of them.

Isles_______________:  Var=1.04 (N=58)
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.97 (N=7)   
Germany and east____:  Var=0.92 (N=9)   
Nordic______________:  Var=0.86 (N=14)


It is still my opinion that one of the last major places U106 reached significantly was the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway.) 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

True U106* is a paragroup. Z381, in particular, and then Z18, seem to consume almost all of U106.

I can only find 6 people who are U106+ (and not Z18) who have tested Z381-.  They are from:

1 Scotland
1 Germany
1 Poland
1 England
2 Unknown

Too few to claim any big conclusion but given how low the testing rates are in Poland, or in Germany compared to the Isles, perhaps it is noteworthy that two of the four with Old World MDKAs are from Poland and Germany.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 07:13:43 PM
However, I would definately want to see U106 more broken down into clades and the variance looked at again on a geographical basis before any observations would feel safe.

This paragroup is interesting, at least as it relates to this topic. This is Z381+ Z156+ but L1(null439)-.      Z156xL1 or Z156*:

9 Ireland
7 England
5 Scotland
2 Germany (Baden-Wurttemberg)
1 Wales
1 Low Countries

Irish/Scottish folks have a lot of McMillen/McMullen variant names mixed in. You don't find much U106 from the south of Germany so it it interesting that a couple of folks are from there. ... umm, could it be possible that some U106s just east of the P312 block got mixed in here?

The relative variance of Z156* is fairly old:

Z156*____________:  Var=0.79 (N=26)


This group is predominately 390=24 with 390=25 as well, which are of course off-modal for U106 but match the L11 and P312 modals. There are even some 393=15 guys.

I would expect some question on the surnames. I feel the same way about surname persistence as Dienekes feels about STR diversity, but here you go. Have at it.

fN10310   Bess   zzzUnkOrigin
f147853   Bow   Scotland
f120386   Donald   Scotland, Grampian, Aberdeenshire, Fintray Parish
fN10078   Goll   Germany, Baden-Württemberg
f111387   Gunter   Wales
f165363   Haile   England
f1543   Jarman   England
f175525   Kidder   England
f19095   Minnir   Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Ernsbach
f134007   Pelan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Antrim, Belfast
fN46336   Pierssens   Belgium, Flemish Region, East Flanders, Belsele
fN35071   Roche   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Wexford, Monart, Ballinure
f117323   Smalley   England, South West, Devonshire, Bideford
f5010   Staple   England
f57352   Stubbs   England, South West, Gloucestershrire, Elmestone
fN32403   Tonckin   England, South West, Cornwall, Camborne
f180037   Westcott   UK
f47991   Wilson   Ireland
f80961   Keddie   Scotland, Fife, Markinch
f90791   MacMullen   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Kilkenny
f33309   McMillan   Scotland
f35043   McMillan   Scotland
f65132   McMillen   Ireland
f93223   McMillen   Ireland
f93708   McMillen   Ireland, Ulster
f94483   McMullan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Monaghan, Lisgorran
f159837   McMullen   Ireland



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 09, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
I couldn't find any from Norway.

I know you can't use him in your calculations but kit no. 156094 in the Scandinavian project is almost guaranteed to be Z18+.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/scandinavianydna/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/scandinavianydna/default.aspx?section=yresults)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 07:49:50 PM
Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)
   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

As far as actually figuring the origins of U106 out, I recommend tracking Z18, the eldest son, along with U106**.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
I would appreciate it if replies were not personalized, shall we remain focused upon the subject, as opposed to ad hominem.

What I wrote about your reasons for continuing these types of arguments ad nauseam, despite the tremendous weight of evidence against them, is relevant. You have been doing this for a couple of years now, and in more than one dna chat forum.

There are no 'drumbeats' nor any 'single dependency', such assertions are misrepresentation, straw man posturing that misses the point of what I am actually proposing. Moroever, I have no axe to grind and despite your curious claims, nor am I interested in  establishing or 'proving' a personal Irish ancestry.

Evidently you do not know what a "straw man" is.

Now if we may return to the matter in hand.

The 'orthodoxy' in question is not based upon a "preponderance of evidence" but observation and speculation, derived from interpreting current Haplogroup frequencies as de-facto proof. In this regard the R U106 levels in Austria, Netherlands and Germany are taken as convincing 'proof' that the Haplogroup is 'Germanic', yet such a belief in no way forms empirical evidence that R U 106 is 'Germanic', particularly when viewed against its age and the probability that in distant times, along with other Haplogroups it may well have migrated, possibly to Britain and Ireland.

Ridiculous. To quote Dienekes once again:

Quote from: Dienekes
The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero[/size].

This position is not founded upon any personal 'need'; as I have made clear before my presence here is simply to expose and challenge a dogma that has fossilized around the subject of R U106, rather it advocates an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Haplogroup was part of an early admixture which migrated.

It's not reasonable because, other than your obvious need, there is no reason to believe what you constantly assert.

If U106 "was part of an early admixture which migrated", it is certainly curious that its bearers apparently decided to settle in precisely those places that later newcomers from U106-rich places would settle.

It is of course remotely possible that some R U106 in Britain can be traced to Germanic incursions, however we are left  still with the subject of variance, and as you insist the majority of names assessed by Tim Janzen were English, then his findings, namely that R U106 in Ireland showed a high degree of variance, with the conclusion that it arrived there fairly soon after its emergence on the Continent, is therefore switched to Britain.

Nonsense. The Germanic incursions into SE Britain are well documented and resulted in the creation of England ("Angle-land") and the replacement of Celtic speech with the Germanic language of the Anglo-Saxons. Later, during the Viking Era, Danish Vikings settled in England. A large part of England was under Danish rule and law, i.e., the "Danelaw".

Once again, the variance of a haplogroup in a place gives an upper bound on its age in that place, not a date of arrival. If Mr. Janzen included English and Lowland Scots in his Irish variance calculation, that merely invalidates it for Ireland. It doesn't then transfer over to England.

The variance of U106 and its subclades in Britain and Ireland must be viewed within the context of British and Irish history, and the distribution of U106 there and in Europe. It would be a foolish error to hold variance up as the sole standard and proclaim that because U106 in England is, say, 4,000 years old in terms of variance, therefore it must have arrived in Britain around 2,000 BC. As I pointed out before, the same sort of ridiculous argument could be made concerning U106 in North America.

So we need now, in light of your assertion regarding those examined under Tim's researches, to consider afresh that the Haplogroup arrived in Britain at an early stage, possibly before the establishment of a Germanic culture. If so then it must also be asked if R U106 entered Britain at such a time why could it not have arrived in Ireland?

Tim Janzen is a guy whose hobby is genetic genealogy. I believe he is a medical doctor, but I could be wrong about that. He did some quick variance calculations on U106 back in late 2009 and posted a bit about it in February of 2010. You are making that thin reed the complete underpinning of your argument. If you wish to call that "researches", okay. Suit yourself.

Once again, there is no real evidence that U106 entered in Britain in any numbers before the historical period. Variance calculations provide an upper bound on the age of a haplogroup in a place, not the date that the haplogroup arrived there.

If U106 variance in Britain is 4k or even 5k years, that doesn't mean it got there that early. It could have arrived there much much later, which is actually what the evidence indicates.

Yet again, think of the variance of U106 in North America, for example. If it turns out to add up to an age of 3k or 4k years, will you argue that U106 arrived in North America three or four thousand years ago?

We are not discussing 'individual cases' and I care not for my own ethnological background, one way or another, again I would suggest that using fallacious tactics such as red-herring or straw-man arguments only serves to highlight a weakness of thought. I am more than happy to have a mature and civilized exchange on the subject, based upon what I have stated, NOT a cynical misrepresentation. As for 'giving it a rest' I hope that all contributions are valued and respected, not subject to ridicule and personalized attacks, simply because they challenge an orthodoxy.

It is not a fallacy to tell the truth and point out the reason for your apparent obsession with this topic, which has stretched over at least a couple of years and spanned more than one dna chat forum.

You are becoming quite famous for this.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 07:53:11 PM
Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)
   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 08:05:34 PM
Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)
   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

No, for these reasons.
1. Most of these haplogroups are far older than the times of paternally inherited surnames
2. Surnames are oftentimes geographically biased, which is what you'd expect but that does not always reflect deep ancestral relationships.
3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.
4. It seems like many surnames have at least two or three variant/origin interpretations.
5. Perhaps most importantly, I'm not a surname expert, it is a sensitive topic and we are talking about hundreds of haplotypes - so it takes time.
6. Everyone can do it for themselves by downloading the spreadsheet. I think one key to the Irish, etc discussion is probably Z156*. I list the surnames for that one in reply 142.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from:  To Welcome Paddy Home
In came the far away stranger
And settled all over the land.
The horse and the cow
The goat and the sow
Fell into the stranger's hand.


The history of foreign (especially English) settlement in Ireland is well known. The source lands of most of those foreigners are far richer in U106 than Ireland is.

I myself have a number of ancestors in my pedigree who were born in Ireland but were very unlikely to have been native Irish. They were Protestants, for one thing, and did not have native Irish surnames, for another.

While variance is important, it cannot be lifted out of the context of known history, haplogroup distribution, and ethnic and linguistic associations.

If variance is the paramount consideration, then a "high variance" figure for U106 in North America must mean that U106 went there "shortly after its emergence".



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 09, 2012, 08:12:59 PM
Oh yeah, almost forgot the burning question of the day.

A claim was made over on FTDNA's forum that U106 variance in Ireland is higher than it is in England and Germany. Is that true?

I don't believe it is, but I am having trouble finding such a comparison.

Maybe Mike knows?

Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)
   

I think it is important to peel the onion back and look at the subclades.  The extra variance in Ireland and Scotland seems to be caused by a higher proportion the haplogroup Z156*.  My recommendation is to figure that one out.

Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

No, for these reasons.
1. Most of these haplogroups are far older than the times of paternally inherited surnames
2. Surnames are oftentimes geographically biased, which is what you'd expect but that does not always reflect deep ancestral relationships.
3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.
4. It seems like many surnames have at least two or three variant/origin interpretations.
5. Perhaps most importantly, I'm not a surname expert and it is a sensitive topic.
6. Everyone can do it for themselves by downloading the spreadsheet.


However you only have to remove one name, that's questionably Scottish anyway, and 2/3 of the Irish results disappear.

You pretty much pointed this out but I thought I'd repeat it :)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 08:33:10 PM


Did you exclude English and Lowland Scots surnames from your variance calculation for Ireland?

No, for these reasons.
1. Most of these haplogroups are far older than the times of paternally inherited surnames
2. Surnames are oftentimes geographically biased, which is what you'd expect but that does not always reflect deep ancestral relationships.

Haplogroups are older than surnames, but surnames are part of history, and a man who has an English or Lowland Scots surname but who lists an ancestor born in Ireland is likely to be of English or Lowland Scots descent in his y-dna. To include such surnames in "Irish" variance calculations is to get something other than Irish variance.

Given the history of Ireland, that should be obvious.

3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.

Even with their obvious limitations, to just disregard surnames in this instance is to get an invalid result.

Once again, Irish history is what it is, and if the argument concerns the possibility that U106 is of ancient provenance in Ireland, then obvious newcomers, like those bearing foreign, non-Irish surnames, must be excluded.

Remember when you were calculating Polish U106 diversity and Robert insisted that all non-Slavic surnames be excluded? I agree, that was probably the right thing to do.

4. It seems like many surnames have at least two or three variant/origin interpretations.
5. Perhaps most importantly, I'm not a surname expert, it is a sensitive topic and we are talking about hundreds of haplotypes - so it takes time.
6. Everyone can do it for themselves by downloading the spreadsheet. I think one key to the Irish, etc discussion is probably Z156*. I list the surnames for that one in reply 142.[/b]

I do appreciate the difficulty of the task. Foreign, especially English and Lowland Scots, settlement in Ireland was so pervasive it is difficult sometimes to disentangle the Gordian Knot of Gaelic versus foreign surnames. Some Gaelic surnames have been anglicized (it is generally known what those are, however).

Just the same, until it is done or at least reasonably attempted, U106 variance calculation cannot be used as any kind of evidence of the possibility of an ancient U106 presence in Ireland. The reason why that is so is obvious: it is lumping foreign U106 - the U106 of historical, non-Irish input - together with native Irish U106.

But perhaps ultimately there really is no such thing as native Irish U106, at least if by "native Irish" we mean Celtic, pre-Viking Era Irish.





Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 10:29:22 PM
Haplogroups are older than surnames, but surnames are part of history, and a man who has an English or Lowland Scots surname but who lists an ancestor born in Ireland is likely to be of English or Lowland Scots descent in his y-dna. To include such surnames in "Irish" variance calculations is to get something other than Irish variance.
Surnames may be a part of an individual's personal history/genealogy, but that doesn't mean they are reflective of deep ancestral relationships. The history and prehistory of Celtic ethnicities are much older than the genealogical timeframe.

3. Given the NPE rates that ISOGG recommends (http://www.isogg.org/fgd.htm) the odds of a good lineage (zero NPEs) for only 750 years is only 37%. (.96 to the power of @ gens) so odds are the surnames of any specific individual just aren't right all the way back. Statistical analysis, cluster analysis and STR diversity must be considered in context with the surnames.

Even with their obvious limitations, to just disregard surnames in this instance is to get an invalid result.
I'm not saying you should disregard surnames. I'm just saying we don't have enough analysis of the surnames or haplotypes to adjust for surnames. I don't like subjective measures as it can appear as "cherry picking" data.  I'm not saying anyone else is doing such a thing, but I don't want to.    

Whoever wants to evaluate surnames should do analyses of the appropriate surname projects, geographical locations, haplotype data both of "in" group and "out" group surnames, and then apply statistical theory. I think this is kind of thing that Trinity College has done in the past.  That type methodology is probably very useful.

Remember when you were calculating Polish U106 diversity and Robert insisted that all non-Slavic surnames be excluded? I agree, that was probably the right thing to do.
Yes I remembered and I complied with the request but doesn't mean I agree with surname selection/de-selection or that the identification of Gaelic, Norman, Flemish, Anglo-Saxon, Scottish, etc. surnames and their variants in the Isles is as easy as picking out Slavic surnames.

Just the same, until it is done or at least reasonably attempted, U106 variance calculation cannot be used as any kind of evidence of the possibility of an ancient U106 presence in Ireland. The reason why that is so is obvious: it is lumping foreign U106 - the U106 of historical, non-Irish input - together with native Irish U106.

But perhaps ultimately there really is no such thing as native Irish U106, at least if by "native Irish" we mean Celtic, pre-Viking Era Irish.

You may be right, in fact, I think you are generally right. However, no one that I've seen has done a proper analysis of surnames and haplotypes to determine which Irish are of Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era English descendancy versus something else prior to that.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 11:19:18 PM
Quote from:  To Welcome Paddy Home
In came the far away stranger
And settled all over the land.
The horse and the cow
The goat and the sow
Fell into the stranger's hand.


The history of foreign (especially English) settlement in Ireland is well known. The source lands of most of those foreigners are far richer in U106 than Ireland is.

I myself have a number of ancestors in my pedigree who were born in Ireland but were very unlikely to have been native Irish. They were Protestants, for one thing, and did not have native Irish surnames, for another.

While variance is important, it cannot be lifted out of the context of known history, haplogroup distribution, and ethnic and linguistic associations.

If variance is the paramount consideration, then a "high variance" figure for U106 in North America must mean that U106 went there "shortly after its emergence".

How do you think I feel? My family's poems are about Cromwell.  As you can guess, we don't feel that good about him. I've got a good several hundred word poem on "The Lament for John MacWalter (Walsh.)"  However, I have some Anglo-Saxon lineages so there is no use in lamenting for and against one's self.

... so I'll leave relating poems to genetics to others, but here is the best I can do on North America U106. I always put everyone with an unknown/unlisted or New World MDKA's into their own category.  As you can guess, there are a lot of them.

Here are the Isles countries to compare with:
Here are the relative variance results for U106 All (subclades)...

Ireland________:  Var=0.96 (N=139)
Scotland_______:  Var=0.96 (N=115)   
Germany________:  Var=0.89 (N=112)   
England________:  Var=0.86 (N=370)
   

Here is how the Unknown/New World U106 folks stack up.

Unk/New World__:  Var=0.92 (N=380)

It is an irrelevant number as far as I'm concerned as the USA is obviously a "melting pot" of various cultures....   but LOL, it's hard to beat the Irish anyway.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 09, 2012, 11:21:04 PM

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.

I'm not sure why U106 would get held up in Poland.  The Lichtenstein 1000 BC R1b man who was found in a cave about 100km west of the Elbe, was probably U106.  His haplotype matches five times as many U106 men in ysearch than he does for every one P312.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: gtc on April 09, 2012, 11:26:39 PM
What is NOT remotely possible is that early migrations to Britain or Ireland were composed of a single, homogenous grouping, a sort of L21 expansion that jackbooted its way, with blue-eyed purity into Ireland. Perhaps that fantasy appeals to some, who knows :)

Methinks this is your real agenda: You can't read the word "germanic" in any context without seeing "nazi".






Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 11:49:13 PM

To date the arrival of U106 in either Ireland or Britain we need to know what shores it occupied on the continent at any given time.  When U106 is treated as a block (which may be a problem) it suggests that ALL U106 west of Poland is RELATIVELY late.

I'm not sure why U106 would get held up in Poland.  The Lichtenstein 1000 BC R1b man who was found in a cave about 100km west of the Elbe, was probably U106.  His haplotype matches five times as many U106 men in ysearch than he does for every one P312.
Alan mentioned the Nordwestblock. I'm starting another thread specific to Germanic expansion and alignment with U106.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 10, 2012, 04:53:42 AM
Few points on misrepresentation and selective misinterpretation

I have not asserted the concept of 'native Irish R U106' BUT simply aired the scenario that the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland as part of an early admixture, prior to later invasions from England.

My reference to Tim Janzen's findings on the subject were not to promote, justify or argue any personal objective, but included as obviously salient to the subject of the thread: namely a comparison of R U106 variance in Ireland with other locations.

I am not stating that R U106 in Ireland is composed of entirely ancient lineage that pre-dated  Cambro-Norman, Cromwellian or Elizabethan incursion, what I have proposed is line of reasoning in which the Haplogroup, along with others, probably migrated westwards and that it is difficult to conceive why it alone would not cross into the Isles, whiles others happily did so. On that basis I have considered that it may well have entered Ireland at an early date to establish itself.

It is not my intention to advance any personal agenda, my contributions have sought to question an orthodoxy and to argue the case for maintaining an open mind that can at least accommodate the notion of R U106 as having an early  presence in Ireland or concede that we are not able to definitively exclude such as a probability.

Lastly I agree with the reservations expressed regarding surnames, they are are minefield indeed and while offering some helpful glimpses of themselves cannot be held up with any conviction as definitive evidence. In that context it is a vacuous distraction to focus on seemingly English looking surnames to declare, 'hey presto Tim Janzen's finding's are inherently flawed' As was explained what may appear to non Irish names can often turn out to be corrupted variants of Gaelic names or a crude Anglicized version or early Irish Sept Names. Moreover even if all of the names of those assessed by Mr Janzen had genuinely verifiable English names, all that would do is to relocate the consideration and implication of high variance of R U106 in Ireland, to Britain. Any discussion on that would inevitably raise the question, if it had entered the Isles at such a time would it not have had equal opportunity to arrive in Britain's island neighbor?





Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 10, 2012, 05:25:19 AM
It is not my intention to advance any personal agenda, my contributions have sought to question an orthodoxy and to argue the case for maintaining an open mind that can at least accommodate the notion of R U106 as having an early  presence in Ireland or concede that we are not able to definitively exclude such as a probability.
I don't think anyone, ever, has said categorically that U106 cannot have had an "early presence" in Ireland.  You're shadow sparring.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 10, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
. . .

Here is how the Unknown/New World U106 folks stack up.

Unk/New World__:  Var=0.92 (N=380)

It is an irrelevant number as far as I'm concerned as the USA is obviously a "melting pot" of various cultures....   but LOL, it's hard to beat the Irish anyway.

Ireland is a "melting pot" too, not to the degree the USA is, but in the sense that its U106 population is self-evidently mostly the product of outside, non-Irish input and settlement.

The purpose of looking at North American U106 variance is to illustrate an important lesson, i.e., that variance cannot be regarded as anything but a possible upper bound on the age of a haplogroup in a place, and that it must be considered in the light and context of history and the distribution and ethnolinguistic affiliations of that haplogroup.

Otherwise, if variance were the paramount consideration, and history and other considerations are disregarded, we might conclude that U106 arrived in North America "shortly after its emergence".

The same could be said for U106 in Ireland. Remove its variance from other important considerations and one might make some critical errors concerning its presence there.

Surnames, as imperfect as they are, are important clues to one's origin, especially in Ireland. Yes, haplogroups are older than surnames, but haplogroups are older than most languages and cultures and nations, yet those facts of history cannot be ignored. Including surnames that are plainly of non-Irish origin in an Irish variance calculation renders that calculation virtually meaningless, unless one is not really looking for clues to the age of the haplogroup in Ireland.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 10, 2012, 07:33:52 AM
. . .

Lastly I agree with the reservations expressed regarding surnames, they are are minefield indeed and while offering some helpful glimpses of themselves cannot be held up with any conviction as definitive evidence. In that context it is a vacuous distraction to focus on seemingly English looking surnames to declare, 'hey presto Tim Janzen's finding's are inherently flawed' As was explained what may appear to non Irish names can often turn out to be corrupted variants of Gaelic names or a crude Anglicized version or early Irish Sept Names. Moreover even if all of the names of those assessed by Mr Janzen had genuinely verifiable English names, all that would do is to relocate the consideration and implication of high variance of R U106 in Ireland, to Britain. Any discussion on that would inevitably raise the question, if it had entered the Isles at such a time would it not have had equal opportunity to arrive in Britain's island neighbor?

Reservations or not, the inclusion of non-Irish surnames in the calculation of "Irish" U106 variance renders that calculation invalid for the purpose to which you are putting it, i.e., as some kind of indication of the age of U106 in Ireland. An invalid variance calculation cannot then be transferred over to England.

Look at Mike's U106 variance calculation for North America in his last post. It is higher than most places in Europe. Will you now argue that U106 arrived in North America "shortly after its emergence"? Ready to take on the "orthodoxy" in that case?

Regarding U106 in England or Ireland or anywhere else, it merely provides an upper bound for the possible age of the haplogroup in that place. Barring something strange, like an identifiable bottleneck or proven genetic drift, the haplogroup cannot be any older there than its variance indicates, but it can certainly be a whole lot younger.

Here's an admittedly imperfect analogy. You are a homicide detective working a murder case. Mr. Smith has been found in his office on the 20th floor of the building where he works, slumped over his desk, a bullet wound in the back of his head. You discover that Mr. Smith is 45 years old. Do you immediately conclude that he has been in his office for the last 45 years? Or do you check with the security guards downstairs to find out when Mr. Smith checked in?

BTW, I heard from Tim Janzen regarding his Irish variance calculation. He did not exclude non-Irish surnames before calculating variance:

Quote from: Tim Janzen
Tim Janzen
   
10:21 PM (9 hours ago)
      
to me

Dear Rich,

                I only looked at this by country of origin.  I didn’t do anything in regards to trying to sort out surnames.

Sincerely,

Tim



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 10, 2012, 08:38:38 AM
To equate Ireland as a 'melting pot' with the USA, in terms of scale, intensity and diversity  is asking too much of credulity.

Secondly your claim regarding Ireland that "its U106 population is self-evidently mostly the product of outside, non-Irish input and settlement." is just that an assertion only, it is clearly not demonstrable in terms of empirical evidence, suggested by the use of the term 'evidently' as there is no evidence to determine one way or another. As noted previously we have ultimately only speculation (albeit informed) the rest, including scales of probability, is built upon that foundation. In that factual context we can equally speculate and consider that along with some R U106 arriving via incursions and settlement from England, the Haplogroup had every opportunity to enter Ireland as part of an earlier admixture.

Regarding the observation that: "Reservations or not, the inclusion of non-Irish surnames in the calculation of "Irish" U106 variance renders that calculation invalid for the purpose to which you are putting it, i.e., as some kind of indication of the age of U106 in Ireland. An invalid variance calculation cannot then be transferred over to England."

Such a selective interpretation is semantic sophistry in that  your original criticism to dismiss Tim Janzen's findings was that he used data, which you assert (again you do not know for certain) was drawn from a majority of supposedly English names. That was the contention you presented to claim his results were invalid in terms of R U106 variance in Ireland and the implied conclusions of it arriving at an early stage. If (and that is another significant  area of doubt in the critique) such names were undeniably English then the only aspect of the data that is changed or in any way less  exact is that fact it would then apply to people whose ancestry (according to your evidence free claims) was from Britain. That applying, then the questions concerning R U106 variance would indeed simply be shifted to Britain with the same question and considerations relating to its possible pre 'Germanic' arrival there.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 10, 2012, 09:17:45 AM
To equate Ireland as a 'melting pot' with the USA, in terms of scale, intensity and diversity  is asking too much of credulity....
The size and scope of USA's immigration is different but it is true that Ireland is not monolithic set of genes, even if there is a lot of L21.  Even the legends/myths support the flow of people in (The Book of Invasions.)

I was quite surprised myself to figure out I was really "Welsh-Irish" and not "Old Irish." There are the Normans, Flemings, Belgae, Bretons, Scandinavians and various kinds of Brits/Picts/Scots coming and going.

I have not asserted the concept of 'native Irish R U106' BUT simply aired the scenario that the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland as part of an early admixture, prior to later invasions from England.

My reference to Tim Janzen's findings on the subject were not to promote, justify or argue any personal objective, but included as obviously salient to the subject of the thread: namely a comparison of R U106 variance in Ireland with other locations.
I do remember Tim's post and thought it was odd that he cited Ireland in the way he did.  I don't think there is evidence to support Ireland as the origination point for U106, but rather a pooling point from different sources perhaps.

On the other hand, this does not mean variance calculations, or frequency calculations for that matter, are of little value. They are, they just must be considered in context and weighed with balance.  I'm guessing different folks idea of balance might differ greatly, but a good look from multiple perspectives is usually helpful.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 10, 2012, 10:36:03 AM
Rather than general claims and counter-claims about broad sets of data without additional evidence, why not consider what I've suggested (and what I think Goldenhind would agree with):

When you have a problem, analyze it.  That means break it down into smaller problems, figure them out and then try to re-assemble how everything fits together.  In other words, get down to the cluster level.

You could probably look at some true U106*, but a great place to start might be Z156.

... This paragroup is interesting, at least as it relates to this topic. This is Z381+ Z156+ but L1(null439)-.      Z156xL1 or Z156*:

9 Ireland
7 England
5 Scotland
2 Germany (Baden-Wurttemberg)
1 Wales
1 Low Countries
......
The relative variance of Z156* is fairly old:
Z156*____________:  Var=0.79 (N=26)

This group is predominately 390=24 with 390=25 as well, which are of course off-modal for U106 but match the L11 and P312 modals. There are even some 393=15 guys.
....
Have at it.

fN10310   Bess   zzzUnkOrigin
f147853   Bow   Scotland
f120386   Donald   Scotland, Grampian, Aberdeenshire, Fintray Parish
fN10078   Goll   Germany, Baden-Württemberg
f111387   Gunter   Wales
f165363   Haile   England
f1543   Jarman   England
f175525   Kidder   England
f19095   Minnir   Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Ernsbach
f134007   Pelan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Antrim, Belfast
fN46336   Pierssens   Belgium, Flemish Region, East Flanders, Belsele
fN35071   Roche   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Wexford, Monart, Ballinure
f117323   Smalley   England, South West, Devonshire, Bideford
f5010   Staple   England
f57352   Stubbs   England, South West, Gloucestershrire, Elmestone
fN32403   Tonckin   England, South West, Cornwall, Camborne
f180037   Westcott   UK
f47991   Wilson   Ireland
f80961   Keddie   Scotland, Fife, Markinch
f90791   MacMullen   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Kilkenny
f33309   McMillan   Scotland
f35043   McMillan   Scotland
f65132   McMillen   Ireland
f93223   McMillen   Ireland
f93708   McMillen   Ireland, Ulster
f94483   McMullan   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Monaghan, Lisgorran
f159837   McMullen   Ireland


I have no dog in this fight and I am clearly no Irish historian or surname expert.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 10, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Mike

Personally I have a lot more faith in surnames than yourself and have argued this point before.

Though I understand your point about compounded % chances of NPEs, if somebody can trace there ancestry back to Ireland we are probably only taking a couple of hundred years max and if a surname is reasonably clearly not Irish then their line likely wouldn't have been there for very long before that (in most cases).

However I also understand your point about not wanting to manipulate the data !!

I wonder though, would it make much difference if you removed the 'IS Ire z unk' group.

From looking through the people in that group it appears a majority of them are in fact brickwalled in the US and possibly put Ireland down as a reasonable guess.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 10, 2012, 11:01:02 AM
Mike, you are a voice of reason, as always, and I respect you balanced position on this, along with your obvious knowledge on this subject. I agree with the valid points you raise, although again must emphasize that my discussion here is nothing to do with any personal desire to establish any particular ethnological line. My contributions have been about a principle, in that there are voices asserting as fact, that R U106 is by definition 'Germanic' ,and that as an extension of that claim insist that the Haplogroup's presence in Ireland is due entirely to a later influx of Germanic R U106 via colonization from England.

Clearly not all are equipped with an ability to step beyond orthodoxy to consider different speculations on this matter as being probable, in essence, we are in the presence of a mindset, entirely dismissive of any notion which threatens the cozy reassurances of convention. As you have noted that's not my position and I greatly welcome your perspective as being a timely reminder that there is indeed a middle way based on rational inquiry and a willingness to maintain an open mind.

That said it is clear that a state of polarity has been reached on this thread, I respect the different views held and hope that others may treat my own position with an equal courtesy. On that note of harmony I shall offer no more contributions regarding this particular thread, apart from extending my best wishes to all who have conversed during the past few days.

Sincerely yours 'who knows' with a Haplotype not from Ireland Germany or any place west of Kiev :)


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on April 10, 2012, 11:28:00 AM
There exists an assumption that the high amount of R U106 in the UK is due to so-called Dark Age incursions into Britain by Germanic peoples, what is not considered is that this view is derived, ultimately from a biased political propaganda written by Bede, whose writing gave birth to a creation mythology of the English.

His work on this subject has recently received considerable review, in particular the notion of a flood of Angles, Frisians and Jutes arriving in Britain to displace the British 'Celtic' population. What colonization that did take place is now being viewed as happening on a much smaller scale,  a Germanic military and political elite gaining control over areas, presiding over a majority British population,

If that hypothesis were true English would never had become a dominant language!


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 10, 2012, 02:12:03 PM
Few points on misrepresentation and selective misinterpretation

I have not asserted the concept of 'native Irish R U106' BUT simply aired the scenario that the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland as part of an early admixture, prior to later invasions from England.

My reference to Tim Janzen's findings on the subject were not to promote, justify or argue any personal objective, but included as obviously salient to the subject of the thread: namely a comparison of R U106 variance in Ireland with other locations.

I am not stating that R U106 in Ireland is composed of entirely ancient lineage that pre-dated  Cambro-Norman, Cromwellian or Elizabethan incursion, what I have proposed is line of reasoning in which the Haplogroup, along with others, probably migrated westwards and that it is difficult to conceive why it alone would not cross into the Isles, whiles others happily did so. On that basis I have considered that it may well have entered Ireland at an early date to establish itself.

It is not my intention to advance any personal agenda, my contributions have sought to question an orthodoxy and to argue the case for maintaining an open mind that can at least accommodate the notion of R U106 as having an early  presence in Ireland or concede that we are not able to definitively exclude such as a probability.

Lastly I agree with the reservations expressed regarding surnames, they are are minefield indeed and while offering some helpful glimpses of themselves cannot be held up with any conviction as definitive evidence. In that context it is a vacuous distraction to focus on seemingly English looking surnames to declare, 'hey presto Tim Janzen's finding's are inherently flawed' As was explained what may appear to non Irish names can often turn out to be corrupted variants of Gaelic names or a crude Anglicized version or early Irish Sept Names. Moreover even if all of the names of those assessed by Mr Janzen had genuinely verifiable English names, all that would do is to relocate the consideration and implication of high variance of R U106 in Ireland, to Britain. Any discussion on that would inevitably raise the question, if it had entered the Isles at such a time would it not have had equal opportunity to arrive in Britain's island neighbor?





What I am curious about is what kind of matches Irish U106 have.  Surely that is the way to go in terms of clearing this up one way or another.   I assume matches thought to be within the last 1000 years or so should tell us something. 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 10, 2012, 02:57:22 PM
MPersonally I have a lot more faith in surnames than yourself and have argued this point before.

Though I understand your point about compounded % chances of NPEs, if somebody can trace there ancestry back to Ireland we are probably only taking a couple of hundred years max and if a surname is reasonably clearly not Irish then their line likely wouldn't have been there for very long before that (in most cases). ...
I have no problem at all with anyone who has a genealogy trail to Ireland calling themselves Irish, but only placed in the modern context of that ethnicity.

What I have a problem with is a 200 year genealogy trail and a surname provided as proof of a deep ancestral relationship with the Iron Age Celts, or Germans, or what have you. There is long period of disconnect from the times of fixed surnames and good genealogical records.

This is where evaluating complete surname projects, high resolution gegraphical sampling in Ireland (or whatever),  and statistical analysis of haplotypes, TMRCAs and surname variants comes in to play.

"Most cases" your 200 year-old surname trail may indicate an Iron Age affiliation, but maybe not. How would we know without a true analysis?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Heber on April 10, 2012, 04:17:14 PM
Few points on misrepresentation and selective misinterpretation

I have not asserted the concept of 'native Irish R U106' BUT simply aired the scenario that the Haplogroup may have entered Ireland as part of an early admixture, prior to later invasions from England.

My reference to Tim Janzen's findings on the subject were not to promote, justify or argue any personal objective, but included as obviously salient to the subject of the thread: namely a comparison of R U106 variance in Ireland with other locations.

I am not stating that R U106 in Ireland is composed of entirely ancient lineage that pre-dated  Cambro-Norman, Cromwellian or Elizabethan incursion, what I have proposed is line of reasoning in which the Haplogroup, along with others, probably migrated westwards and that it is difficult to conceive why it alone would not cross into the Isles, whiles others happily did so. On that basis I have considered that it may well have entered Ireland at an early date to establish itself.

It is not my intention to advance any personal agenda, my contributions have sought to question an orthodoxy and to argue the case for maintaining an open mind that can at least accommodate the notion of R U106 as having an early  presence in Ireland or concede that we are not able to definitively exclude such as a probability.

Lastly I agree with the reservations expressed regarding surnames, they are are minefield indeed and while offering some helpful glimpses of themselves cannot be held up with any conviction as definitive evidence. In that context it is a vacuous distraction to focus on seemingly English looking surnames to declare, 'hey presto Tim Janzen's finding's are inherently flawed' As was explained what may appear to non Irish names can often turn out to be corrupted variants of Gaelic names or a crude Anglicized version or early Irish Sept Names. Moreover even if all of the names of those assessed by Mr Janzen had genuinely verifiable English names, all that would do is to relocate the consideration and implication of high variance of R U106 in Ireland, to Britain. Any discussion on that would inevitably raise the question, if it had entered the Isles at such a time would it not have had equal opportunity to arrive in Britain's island neighbor?





What I am curious about is what kind of matches Irish U106 have.  Surely that is the way to go in terms of clearing this up one way or another.   I assume matches thought to be within the last 1000 years or so should tell us something.  

Alan,

You have hit on an interesting point. I don't think anyone have effectively used broad Haplogroup matches to determine a point of origin. I have attempted to take it a step further and plotted my Halpogroup matches, both paternal and maternal, in 23andme, using autosomal Relative Finder and Ancestry Finder. The results are quiet interesting. This is not to be confused with methodologies such as Dienekes Dodecad, which use full autosomal data. I use only the haplogroups from the autosomal matches.

http://m.box.com/view_shared/6np7lxocu4

The vast majority of my matches are paternal haplogroup R with the majority of these L21 and L21*.
The next large group are paternal I and J.
Likewise the vast majority of my matches are maternal haplogroup H with the majority of these being H1 and H1*.
The next large groups are maternal U, J, K and T.
This is consistent with the signatures of the Celtic and pre Celtic settlers in Ireland and is a more powerful confirmation than using single Haplogroup assignment.

Dr Tyrone Bowes uses a similar methodology to link a persons DNA result to a locality and associated clan.

He has produced a series of maps including Surnames, Clan Territories and Castles. Although his sites is commercial in nature, the tools and methodologies used are powerful.

http://www.irishorigenes.com/content/databases
http://www.irishorigenes.com/content/surnames-science
http://www.irishorigenes.com/store/comprehensive-surnames-ireland-map
http://www.irishorigenes.com/store/irish-clan-territories-map

I believe that when we get full Y and MtDNA sequencing, this approach will be validated.

"The idea is quite simple, stick this map on your wall, and stick pins on your Surname and Surnames of the people you match genetically (i.e. your 'Genetic Matches' from Y Chromosome DNA testing) to reveal your GENETIC HOMELAND! The Genetic Homeland is the area where your ancestors lived for 100's if not 1,000's of years surrounded by other Clans with whom he was related, leaving their mark in the place names and DNA of that areas current inhabitants. Each of the approximately 3,600 Surnames on this map have been placed on the area where it clusters based on the 1911 census of Ireland. Each Surname is colour coded based upon its origin (Irish, Norman, English, Viking, or Scottish/Gallowglass)."

Edit: Surnames the science


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jdean on April 10, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
MPersonally I have a lot more faith in surnames than yourself and have argued this point before.

Though I understand your point about compounded % chances of NPEs, if somebody can trace there ancestry back to Ireland we are probably only taking a couple of hundred years max and if a surname is reasonably clearly not Irish then their line likely wouldn't have been there for very long before that (in most cases). ...
I have no problem at all with anyone who has a genealogy trail to Ireland calling themselves Irish, but only placed in the modern context of that ethnicity.

What I have a problem with is a 200 year genealogy trail and a surname provided as proof of a deep ancestral relationship with the Iron Age Celts, or Germans, or what have you. There is long period of disconnect from the times of fixed surnames and good genealogical records.

This is where evaluating complete surname projects, high resolution gegraphical sampling in Ireland (or whatever),  and statistical analysis of haplotypes, TMRCAs and surname variants comes in to play.

"Most cases" your 200 year-old surname trail may indicate an Iron Age affiliation, but maybe not. How would we know without a true analysis?


All in all I think we're on the same page here.

BTW in respect to Alan's question, I did look at quite a large no. of Irish U106 haplotypes a year or so ago when this topic was brought up in an extremely similar fashion at DNA-Forums and found most had reasonably close matches outside of Ireland.

BTW2 There is a Norwegian Z18+ tested chap in the Z18 project, hang my head in shame for having forgotten about him.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: GoldenHind on April 10, 2012, 08:37:49 PM
I don't really want to get caught up in this argument once again.

Since my name has been mentioned with regard to the surname issue, I thought I should clarify my position.

My point about exclusing German surnames from Polish data, which incorporates anyone whose ancestors came from what is currently Poland, was that much of what is now Poland was formerly Germany before 1945. After WWII about a third of eastern Germany was ceeded to Poland, to compensate for the loss of the eastern part of Poland, which was annexed by the Soviets. Someone whose ancestors were Germans from East Prussia and didn't have a drop of Polish blood in them would be listed as Polish because what was formerly East Prussia is now part of Poland. Otto von Bismarck, who was born in the former German province of Pomerania, also now part of Poland, would be classified as Polish. We don't really have the same situation in Ireland.

The main problem I see with looking at Irish surnames is that quite a large number of Irish surnames were anglicized over the centuries. Some surnames in Ireland are undoubtedly English or Scottish in origin, and some are undoubtedly Irish in origin, but I believe there are quite a few which could be either. I have a very Anglo-Saxon surname, but I know there is an Irish surname which has been anglicized into mine. People with that surname in Ireland could have either an Irish or an English origin. It isn't possible to make that determination from the surname alone.




Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 10, 2012, 08:43:39 PM
To equate Ireland as a 'melting pot' with the USA, in terms of scale, intensity and diversity  is asking too much of credulity.

No one did that. I even noted that Ireland is not a melting pot to the same extent the USA is, but it certainly has experienced a lot of foreign input in the historical period. Ireland did not begin to gain its independence from England until the 1920s.

Secondly your claim regarding Ireland that "its U106 population is self-evidently mostly the product of outside, non-Irish input and settlement." is just that an assertion only, it is clearly not demonstrable in terms of empirical evidence, suggested by the use of the term 'evidently' as there is no evidence to determine one way or another. As noted previously we have ultimately only speculation (albeit informed) the rest, including scales of probability, is built upon that foundation. In that factual context we can equally speculate and consider that along with some R U106 arriving via incursions and settlement from England, the Haplogroup had every opportunity to enter Ireland as part of an earlier admixture.

It is an assertion based on the evidence, which is considerable. Your notion, that U106 entered Ireland very early, is not its equal, having nothing to support it accept your assertion that such a thing was "possible". I agree. It was possible. It just wasn't likely and so probably did not happen.

Regarding the observation that: "Reservations or not, the inclusion of non-Irish surnames in the calculation of "Irish" U106 variance renders that calculation invalid for the purpose to which you are putting it, i.e., as some kind of indication of the age of U106 in Ireland. An invalid variance calculation cannot then be transferred over to England."

Such a selective interpretation is semantic sophistry in that  your original criticism to dismiss Tim Janzen's findings was that he used data, which you assert (again you do not know for certain) was drawn from a majority of supposedly English names. That was the contention you presented to claim his results were invalid in terms of R U106 variance in Ireland and the implied conclusions of it arriving at an early stage. If (and that is another significant  area of doubt in the critique) such names were undeniably English then the only aspect of the data that is changed or in any way less  exact is that fact it would then apply to people whose ancestry (according to your evidence free claims) was from Britain. That applying, then the questions concerning R U106 variance would indeed simply be shifted to Britain with the same question and considerations relating to its possible pre 'Germanic' arrival there.

It wasn't "semantic sophistry" (it would help if you would use terms you actually understand). I said exactly what I meant.

An "Irish" variance calculation that includes non-Irish surnames cannot be valid for the purpose for which you are using it, i.e., to establish the possibility that U106 entered Ireland in ancient times.

Such a calculation could not simply be shifted to Britain. The few Irish surnames it includes would have to be excluded first and the other British haplotypes would have to be included.

Another thing you just don't seem to understand is that variance does not establish a date for the arrival of a y haplogroup in a place. It merely sets an upper bound for the possible age of the haplogroup there. If variance says it could be 4k years old in a place, well, it cannot be any older than that there (barring something extraordinary like a bottleneck), but it could certainly be a lot younger.

Mike's calculation of North American U106 variance is a classic illustration. It is "high" compared to most places in Europe, yet no one believes U106 arrived in North America in ancient times.

Variance cannot be the sole consideration. History, the distribution of the haplogroup, and its known ethnolinguistic affiliations have to be taken into account.

Your entire argument posits no evidence of an actual movement of a U106 population to Ireland in ancient times. Instead, your entire position has been that Ireland's U106 variance is old enough that some U106 could have gotten there early. You seem to conclude that because that could have happened, it probably did happen. And that even though your vaunted "high variance" is based on a flawed calculation that includes the haplotypes of people who are pretty obviously non-Irish.

But there is no evidence that U106 entered Ireland early. None. U106 is relatively rare in Ireland and reaches its highest frequencies in the places where foreigners settled. We know from history that Ireland was settled and even ruled in the historical period by peoples from places with a lot more U106 than Ireland itself has.

All of those things are evidence that militates strongly against an early U106 arrival in Ireland. No bald assertions. No "semantic sophistry".



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 10, 2012, 08:57:06 PM
. . .

The main problem I see with looking at Irish surnames is that quite a large number of Irish surnames were anglicized over the centuries. Some surnames in Ireland are undoubtedly English or Scottish in origin, and some are undoubtedly Irish in origin, but I believe there are quite a few which could be either. I have a very Anglo-Saxon surname, but I know there is an Irish surname which has been anglicized into mine. People with that surname in Ireland could have either an Irish or an English origin. It isn't possible to make that determination from the surname alone.

That just means it isn't always easy to sort some English and Scottish-looking surnames that may possibly (but not certainly) be of Gaelic Irish origin.

But if the effort to exclude non-Irish surnames from a supposedly "Irish" variance calculation is not made, then that variance calculation is not reliable for the purposes for which it is being used here, i.e., to lend credence to the idea that U106 could have arrived in Ireland very early.

That is no problem for me, actually. I agree, it could have arrived very early, even in ancient times. I just see absolutely no reason to believe it did and lots of reasons to believe otherwise.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 11, 2012, 03:58:18 AM
Again I shall ignore the sarcasm,appeal to ridicule and other fallacious posturings, as the subject in hand is not about 'personality' but a reasonable speculation that R U106 may well have entered Ireland at an early stage, before Germanic culture had emerged.

Discussions for or against that scenario are equally dependent upon an absence of actual hard evidence, and rely instead on informed interpretation drawn from statistics relating to currently known data, that may or may not reflect accurately an ancient condition. In that regard I feel your comments are an articulate representation, when you assert:

"That is no problem for me, actually. I agree, it could have arrived very early, even in ancient times. I just see absolutely no reason to believe it did and lots of reasons to believe otherwise." (emphasis added)

On closing may I again request that this exchange be concluded on a mature, non hostile and balanced tone, personal attacks, veiled insults are entirely unhelpful. I genuinely value your freedom to hold a different belief on this issue and trust your can respect my right to take an alternative perspective.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 11, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Again I shall ignore the sarcasm,appeal to ridicule and other fallacious posturings, as the subject in hand is not about 'personality' but a reasonable speculation that R U106 may well have entered Ireland at an early stage, before Germanic culture had emerged.

You are right about that. I apologize and will try to refrain from being sarcastic. You should do the same, however, and quit talking about things like "semantic sophistry" and "fallacious posturings", which are both untrue and essentially meaningless.

Discussions for or against that scenario are equally dependent upon an absence of actual hard evidence, and rely instead on informed interpretation drawn from statistics relating to currently known data, that may or may not reflect accurately an ancient condition. In that regard I feel your comments are an articulate representation, when you assert:

"That is no problem for me, actually. I agree, it could have arrived very early, even in ancient times. I just see absolutely no reason to believe it did and lots of reasons to believe otherwise." (emphasis added)

The tremendous preponderance of the evidence is against an early entry of U106 into Ireland. We've been over it again and again and again, so I won't list it in this post (I may repeat it again in a subsequent post, however).

I'm not sure what you mean by "hard evidence", unless by that you mean some actual ancient y-dna. No, we don't have any of that yet, and we may have to wait awhile for it. I don't know of any ancient y-dna testing that has gone as far up the tree as U106. We're lucky if we get a short haplotype that can be predicted to be R1b.

On closing may I again request that this exchange be concluded on a mature, non hostile and balanced tone, personal attacks, veiled insults are entirely unhelpful. I genuinely value your freedom to hold a different belief on this issue and trust your can respect my right to take an alternative perspective.

Again, I will try to sound less hostile, but you need to take your own good advice, as well. Your posts have not been entirely free of the types of things you indict above.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Honestly, do you really believe U106 entered Ireland in ancient times?

If you do, why?

Note that these questions have nothing to do with "could have". I think we all agree U106 "could have" entered Ireland in ancient times. It could have entered China in ancient times, as well. But did U106 actually enter Ireland in ancient times and, if so, what are the reasons for believing that it did?


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on April 11, 2012, 07:14:05 AM

We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millennia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.



Some have argued that the mutations and other oddities with the Insular Celtic languages was cause by an Afro-Asiatic substrate but there's a flaw with that argument, the Afro Asiatic languages were also present in Iberia in the form of Phoenician but Celtiberian shows no evidence of mutations and the other oddities present in modern Celtic languages.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on April 11, 2012, 01:28:46 PM
@ Bren123

Are you sure I posted that on this thread? Doesn't seem to belong here. But anyway - the whole point of the argument for an A-A substrate in Insular Celtic is that these forms do not appear in any form of Continental  Celtic, therefore the contact with A-A was most probably in the British Isles. Phoenician is neither here nor there in this debate. (However the argument for the substrate has been heavily criticised and I wouldn't place a lot of weight on it. )


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 11, 2012, 05:06:30 PM
MPersonally I have a lot more faith in surnames than yourself and have argued this point before.

Though I understand your point about compounded % chances of NPEs, if somebody can trace there ancestry back to Ireland we are probably only taking a couple of hundred years max and if a surname is reasonably clearly not Irish then their line likely wouldn't have been there for very long before that (in most cases). ...
I have no problem at all with anyone who has a genealogy trail to Ireland calling themselves Irish, but only placed in the modern context of that ethnicity.

What I have a problem with is a 200 year genealogy trail and a surname provided as proof of a deep ancestral relationship with the Iron Age Celts, or Germans, or what have you. There is long period of disconnect from the times of fixed surnames and good genealogical records.

This is where evaluating complete surname projects, high resolution gegraphical sampling in Ireland (or whatever),  and statistical analysis of haplotypes, TMRCAs and surname variants comes in to play.

"Most cases" your 200 year-old surname trail may indicate an Iron Age affiliation, but maybe not. How would we know without a true analysis?


All in all I think we're on the same page here.

BTW in respect to Alan's question, I did look at quite a large no. of Irish U106 haplotypes a year or so ago when this topic was brought up in an extremely similar fashion at DNA-Forums and found most had reasonably close matches outside of Ireland.

BTW2 There is a Norwegian Z18+ tested chap in the Z18 project, hang my head in shame for having forgotten about him.

Well if Irish U106 mostly has reasonably close matches outside Ireland, then they probably do not have prehistoric roots on the y-line in Ireland.  The only counteraguement would be to argue that the non-Irish relatively close matches are crypto-Irish but I think that is probably getting into the clutching at straws zone.  I think on an individual basis the answer to Irish U106 folks origins beyond the last 2 or 3 centuries lies in their matches on their FTDNA homepage or otherwise. 


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on April 12, 2012, 09:49:47 AM
@ Bren123

Are you sure I posted that on this thread? Doesn't seem to belong here. But anyway - the whole point of the argument for an A-A substrate in Insular Celtic is that these forms do not appear in any form of Continental  Celtic, therefore the contact with A-A was most probably in the British Isles. Phoenician is neither here nor there in this debate. (However the argument for the substrate has been heavily criticised and I wouldn't place a lot of weight on it. )

Pheonician is an A-A language related to Hebrew which was present in Iberoa, which is why I mentioned Phoenician.
You did post it on this thread,it was  on page 2.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10471.msg128152#msg128152


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Heber on April 12, 2012, 11:13:48 AM
Koch makes a argument for the interaction of Celtic and Phoenician in Tartessian.
Below are my notes from Celtic from the West.

Could this be the link with Jean's Stelae People?
Did the Stelae people come from what was known as Scythia?
I have noted the similarity of the warrior Stelae to Scythian Balbals and similar figures in Fermanagh, Ireland at Lough Erne. Local legend attributes this to the initial landing point of Scythian warrior invaders.

Paradigm Shift? Interpreting Tartessian as Celtic. John T. Koch.
Fig 9.1 The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the south-western Iberian Peninsula: ‘warrior’ stelae, Phoenician colonies, and Tartessian inscriptions. Shows Keltoi Tartessos region.
Fig 9.1 Celtic Expansion from Halstatt/La Tele central Europe.
Fig 9.3 The Ancient Celtic Languages. Shows Halstatt, Early La Tene, Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age with sharp division of Goidelic, Brittonic and gaulish.
Tartessian Inscriptions: There follows over 70 detailed photographs and transcriptions of stelae many of them with depictions of warriors and their their epitaphs.
Where the evidence of Tartessos and Tartessian changes the picture is in showing that one of the most dynamic regions influencing Ireland and Britain during the period c 1300 – c900 BC was probably itself Celtic speaking and also in contact with and receiving influences from non Indo European partners in the eastern Meditteranean and north Africa.
Tartessian Linguistic Elements: A detailed alphabet and index of names and analysis of the grammar follows.
Ancient References to Tartessos. A very interesting compendium of classical references to Tartessos from Greeks, Romans, Assyrians and Hebrews, ranging from Aristotle,Cicero, Hecataeus, Herodotus, Livy, Ovid, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Strabo, Theopompus and biblical references from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Jeremiah, Jonah.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 05:01:37 PM
Did the Stelae people come from what was known as Scythia?

Yes, but it was only known as Scythia much later, after Scythians moved west from the Asian steppe about 700 BC and dislodged the Cimmerians from the European steppe. The Scythians were the descendants of IE-speaking people who had moved onto the Asian steppe about 2100 BC. The making of anthropomorphic stelae lasted longest on the steppe.

The myths about the Scythian origin of peoples of the British Isles are just that - myths. There is no supporting evidence, archaeological, genetic or linguistic. We know from ancient DNA found in Scythian graves that Scythians were strong in R1a1a. (There is very little R1a1a in Ireland.) The Scythians spoke an Eastern Iranian language. The Irish spoke a form of Celtic.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
You did post it on this thread, it was  on page 2.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10471.msg128152#msg128152

Thanks. I see now how it came up. My memory is useless.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Bren123 on April 13, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
Koch makes a argument for the interaction of Celtic and Phoenician in Tartessian.
Below are my notes from Celtic from the West.

Could this be the link with Jean's Stelae People?
Did the Stelae people come from what was known as Scythia?
I have noted the similarity of the warrior Stelae to Scythian Balbals and similar figures in Fermanagh, Ireland at Lough Erne. Local legend attributes this to the initial landing point of Scythian warrior invaders.

Paradigm Shift? Interpreting Tartessian as Celtic. John T. Koch.
Fig 9.1 The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the south-western Iberian Peninsula: ‘warrior’ stelae, Phoenician colonies, and Tartessian inscriptions. Shows Keltoi Tartessos region.
Fig 9.1 Celtic Expansion from Halstatt/La Tele central Europe.
Fig 9.3 The Ancient Celtic Languages. Shows Halstatt, Early La Tene, Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age with sharp division of Goidelic, Brittonic and gaulish.
Tartessian Inscriptions: There follows over 70 detailed photographs and transcriptions of stelae many of them with depictions of warriors and their their epitaphs.
Where the evidence of Tartessos and Tartessian changes the picture is in showing that one of the most dynamic regions influencing Ireland and Britain during the period c 1300 – c900 BC was probably itself Celtic speaking and also in contact with and receiving influences from non Indo European partners in the eastern Meditteranean and north Africa.
Tartessian Linguistic Elements: A detailed alphabet and index of names and analysis of the grammar follows.
Ancient References to Tartessos. A very interesting compendium of classical references to Tartessos from Greeks, Romans, Assyrians and Hebrews, ranging from Aristotle,Cicero, Hecataeus, Herodotus, Livy, Ovid, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Strabo, Theopompus and biblical references from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Jeremiah, Jonah.


Could you elaborate a bit more on the info you provided above Haber,it's interesting!


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 06:37:24 AM
rms2
Board Moderator, Posted on another thread: (Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?)

"It's pretty easy to see that thus far no one can provide any real reason to think that U106 arrived in Ireland in ancient times. That is really the question. Whether such a thing was possible isn't really all that important, since I think most of us acknowledge that it was possible. Again, it is also possible that U106 got to China in ancient times."

Of course  "no one can provide any real reason" why R U106 could not have arrived at some early stage in Ireland as part of an admixture, that likely hood is not diminished by reference to the Haplogroup's possible migration into China, by the way what geographical definition are you referring to? Are you including East Turkestan, currently titled as Xinjiang by China's government? If so you will no doubt be aware of some Caucasian looking mummified remains discovered in that western region, perhaps they were the 'Chinese R U106' you mention, that being so, of course they would have been Germanic, right? :)



Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 06:53:22 AM
No, several of those have been tested and found to be R1a.

What I meant by saying that U106 "could have" gone to China very early (but very probably did not) is that anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

U106 "could have" gone to Ireland very early, but there is no real reason to believe it did.

Really wanting to believe it did is not the same as having some actual reasons to believe it did.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 07:03:45 AM
Yes was aware of the limited testing which indicated some of those as R1a, although would appreciate a reference for that determination, so my mention was gentle humor, nothing more.

As noted previously my comments on this subject are not about any personal agenda or desire to associate with any particular ethnology, but to sow a few seeds and raise reasonable questions.

Equally, simply asserting that likely hood could not have happened on the basis of belief, albeit with reasons, is not the same as evidence, we are constrained by speculation and informed opinion in this matter, you have one view, which I respect, or my part I have no position either way, for me its a principle, that seeks to question any assertion stated as fact, that lacks evidence or can be demonstrated through empirical testing.

We simply do not know and until future developments enable such an assessment, can only make claims reasonable or otherwise.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 12:19:08 PM
. . .

As noted previously my comments on this subject are not about any personal agenda or desire to associate with any particular ethnology, but to sow a few seeds and raise reasonable questions.

. . .

How remarkably coincidental it is then that you popped up here right around the same time that Darren, the moderator over at FTDNA's forum, deleted a bunch of posts by "1798", who was advancing pretty much the same arguments you have been advancing, about Tim Janzen's variance calculations, etc.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 12:50:44 PM
Again I would respectfully request that the focus is not distracted towards the 'personal', it is a pleasure exchanging various ideas and questions on the actual topic, as I mentioned could you suggest any reference that documents how and when the Mummies of East Turkestan were shown to be R1a. Would be most appreciative to read any such reports.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 01:00:04 PM
It's just good to know what is what and why it is what it is.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 05:16:52 PM
All questions that have as their purpose civilized inquiry related to the actual topic are indeed welcome, as Moderator no doubt you have been required to advise when contributors have leaned towards the personal and hostile, as opposed to an objective and mature exchange. Always unfortunate when a decent and sensible conversation is undermined by such distraction, thankfully this present thread has maintained a balanced and interesting tone. I have been doing some research into the Mummies of East Turkestan, but as yet cannot seem to locate any source that verifies your report that they were tested and proven to be R1a. Do you have a link that you could share? Wouldn't it be fun if they turned out to be 'Germanic' R U106, oh how the Chinese authorities would appreciate that, not!


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 06:29:35 PM
Try Jean Manco's excellent Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml) site. Scroll down to the Bronze Age section and look for Xiaohe, Xinjiang, China. The source study is in the column on the far right.

As I mentioned before, no one has tested any ancient y-dna as far up the tree as U106. We are very lucky when we get enough of a haplotype to predict that it is R1b.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: whoknows on April 15, 2012, 07:26:36 AM
Thanks for that excellent information, most helpful and kind of you


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Heber on April 15, 2012, 07:48:10 AM
Koch makes a argument for the interaction of Celtic and Phoenician in Tartessian.
Below are my notes from Celtic from the West.

Could this be the link with Jean's Stelae People?
Did the Stelae people come from what was known as Scythia?
I have noted the similarity of the warrior Stelae to Scythian Balbals and similar figures in Fermanagh, Ireland at Lough Erne. Local legend attributes this to the initial landing point of Scythian warrior invaders.

Paradigm Shift? Interpreting Tartessian as Celtic. John T. Koch.
Fig 9.1 The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the south-western Iberian Peninsula: ‘warrior’ stelae, Phoenician colonies, and Tartessian inscriptions. Shows Keltoi Tartessos region.
Fig 9.1 Celtic Expansion from Halstatt/La Tele central Europe.
Fig 9.3 The Ancient Celtic Languages. Shows Halstatt, Early La Tene, Urnfield and Atlantic Bronze Age with sharp division of Goidelic, Brittonic and gaulish.
Tartessian Inscriptions: There follows over 70 detailed photographs and transcriptions of stelae many of them with depictions of warriors and their their epitaphs.
Where the evidence of Tartessos and Tartessian changes the picture is in showing that one of the most dynamic regions influencing Ireland and Britain during the period c 1300 – c900 BC was probably itself Celtic speaking and also in contact with and receiving influences from non Indo European partners in the eastern Meditteranean and north Africa.
Tartessian Linguistic Elements: A detailed alphabet and index of names and analysis of the grammar follows.
Ancient References to Tartessos. A very interesting compendium of classical references to Tartessos from Greeks, Romans, Assyrians and Hebrews, ranging from Aristotle,Cicero, Hecataeus, Herodotus, Livy, Ovid, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Strabo, Theopompus and biblical references from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Jeremiah, Jonah.


Could you elaborate a bit more on the info you provided above Haber,it's interesting!

Bren,

My notes were take from Celtic from the West by Koch and Cunliffe.

http://archaeologyawards.org/2012/book-of-the-year-2012.htm

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

http://academicbooksofthemonth.blogspot.de/2011/07/tartessian-2.html

http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf

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

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

The Celtic Pagan Stelae in Boa Island influenced later early Christian statues in nearby White Island.

http://www.megalithicireland.com/Boa%20Island.htm

http://www.megalithicireland.com/White%20Island%20Figures.htm

And Celtic Origin Myths claim origin in Scythia, North of the Black Sea via Iberia

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/celticmemory.html

Notice the similarity to Kurgan Stelae and Scythian Balbals from Burana Tower

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

Could this be linked to Jeans Stelae People.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/bellbeaker.shtml

There are many examples of similar warrior Stelae with inscriptions in Tartessos and Galecia.

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html

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

If this can be verified could it provide a link from the Indo European homeland to the emergence of Celtic in Iberia to the migration of Celtic to the Isles?

Whatever about the Origin myths, which are legends, I believe there is ample evidence that some of the Celts arrived in Ireland via Iberia.
There were several waves of settlers who arrived via Iberia and the Atlantic Facade including Megalithic builders, Bell Beakers, Copper Age Miners (Ross Island), Bronze Age Settlers, Iron Age Celts as well as several back migrations from Ireland to Iberia and the Continent. Were these ancestors of the Celts or were they all subclades of M269 or a mixture of R1b, I and J is a matter of debate.
From a language point of view Q-Celtic is Ancestral to P-Celtic and Celt Iberian appears to be Ancestral to Q-Celtic.
Most of the sub clades of L21 have a strong presence in Ireland including DF23, M222, Z253, L226, DF21, P314.2 and many of the Scottish based clades would appear to have migrated from Ireland.
L21 clades L253 and P312 Z196 match both Irish and Ibernian men.
I believe some of the Bell Beakers and Atlantic Bronze Age settlers migrated up the great rivers of Europe, Loire, Rhone, Seine, Rhine to found the Halstatt and Le Tene cultures at the source of those rivers. This provides the last wave of Celtic migrations into the Isles.
When we get more SNPs downstream of L21, we should be able to compare the L21 Tree to the Irish and Scottish Clan Tree and identify which elememts of the genealogy are fact and which are fiction.

http://m.box.com/view_shared/d0nr7768zv18ht6tk28i
















Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: Heber on April 15, 2012, 12:28:08 PM
Bren,

Regarding the connection with the Phoeniciens, the following is interesting:

"Unlike the upper Danube, Herodotus was apparently well informed about the kingdom of Tartessos in what is now south-west Spain and southern Portugal. This is not surprising, since Greek imports were common in the rich orientalizing archaeological culture of Early Iron Age Tartessos, about 775–550 BC. These finds include ceramics and other manufactured luxuries from Cyprus, Phokaia, Rhodes, Samos, and Attika, alongside Phoenician imports from Tyre and Tyre’s colonies in north Africa and southern Spain. A key factor wasTyre’s colony at Cádiz (Phoenician Gadir) near the Straits of Gibraltar and on the southern edge of Tartessos.
As well as information on a species of Tartessian weasel (4.192), Herodotus provides accounts of two remarkable Greek voyages to Tartessos....

§1.163 [The] Phokaians were the earliest of the Greeks to make long sea voyages: it was they who discovered the Adriatic Sea, and Tyrrhenia, and Iberia, and Tartessos . . . When they came to Tartessos they made friends with the king of theTartessians, whose name was Arganthonios [ ’Arganqwnioj]
[trans. Godley].
Arganthonios is a transparently Celtic name or title, meaning something like ‘agent of divine silver’ (*Arianhonydd if the name existed in Welsh today). Arganthonios is, in fact, the only clearly Celtic personal appellation in all of Herodotus’s Histories. The basis of the fabled wealth of Tartessos was metals, silver most especially, but also gold and copper, and tin transhipped from Galicia, Brittany, and Cornwall. It was need of great quantities of silver, demanded as tribute by the Assyrians, that had impelled sailors from Tyre in what is now Lebanon to Tartessos.
According to the Roman historian Velleius Paterculus, the Tyrians founded Gadir 80 years after the Trojan war, or about 1100 BC [see p. 16]. Phoenician metalwork occurs together with Atlantic Late Bronze Age types in the Huelva deposition of about 950 BC. But the Phoenician colony of Gadir is not archaeologically detect- able until about 770 BC, early in the Tartessian Orientalizing Phase of the Iberian First Iron Age. In 573 BC, Babylon conquered Tyre, and there was afterwards a downturn of eastern luxuries reaching the Tartessian aristocracy, which explains Arganthonios’s eagerness, about 20 years later, for the Phokaians to found a colony ‘anywhere they liked’ in Tartessos.

http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/ODonnell.pdf




Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: inver2b1 on July 11, 2012, 12:51:06 PM
Here are the U106 I'm aware of in Scotland and Wales by surname and hg.  The McMullen/McMillen group of Ireland and Scotland seem to be a big. Does anyone know their history?

Zombie thread alert; the McMullen/McMillanconnection intrests me as my surname is Mullen but I am I-L126. There are also two others with variations of McMillan who are I-L126.
I think both surnames have more or less the same gaelic meaning,as far as I know there are three variations of the surname Mullen in Ireland; one from Galway, one from Cork and a Donegal/Derry one.


Title: Re: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
Post by: sernam on July 14, 2012, 08:27:59 PM
the Northumbrians actually raided Ireland once (or twice?) in pre-Viking times,


  This family were still located 17th century as erenaghs of churchlands in an barony area called Morgallion Co. Meath.  (Gaileang Mora) ancient Brega


It may only be a coincidence but guess where those Northumbrians raided