World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: whoknows on April 13, 2012, 07:02:48 AM



Title: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 13, 2012, 07:02:48 AM
Thought it may be helpful to introduce another model relating to R U106 and tangentially its presence in Ireland, a subject which on another thread generated some really interesting and welcome contributions. Without doubt there exists an opinion that considers this Haplogroup to be 'Germanic' moreover by extension of such thinking asserts that R U106 within Ireland is therefore indicative of colonization via England, itself rich in the Haplogroup that some feel may be traced to incursions by Friesians, Jutes or Angles, during the wrongly termed 'Dark Ages'.

So let us for the sake of discussion subscribe to this view, it is after all very appealing and rooted in the observable frequencies of R U106 in 'Germanic' areas such as Austria, Nederlands and in parts of Germany itself. The argument runs that if we examine territories, not thought to be colonized by peoples of 'Germanic' culture, we may note insignificant frequency of the Haplogroup. This eminently reasonable thinking is determined as a persuasive argument for identifying R U106 as  'Germanic'. It is a fairly seamless logic and I can find myself attracted to subscribing to this view, yet there's a hesitation that prevents me from becoming a card carrying member of that school of thought. A consideration that the early migrations of peoples would have been a highly complex dynamic, involving different Haplogroups, that spread across Western Europe to establish a presence. I suppose my natural inclination is to maintain an open mind to the possibility of other scenarios, which may be presently not demonstrable due to lack of data or evidence. So it is that we all drink from the cup of probability, which is why I can understand how and why the view that insists R U106 as being 'Germanic' exerts such appeal, yet despite its logical allure, I prefer to permit myself the space to consider complimentary alternatives. My latest contemplations on this subject has left me perplexed, particularly regarding the earliest migrations and settlement of R U106.

Those who accept this Haplogroup's distribution and frequency across Western Europe as definitive evidence of Germanic expansion, no doubt have no difficulty in agreeing that R U106 may have been in existence for some considerable time before the establishment of such ethnological groups. Do we have a fairly reliable 'guesstimate' for how many centuries its was present in advance of the Goths, Angles, Friesians etc? Upon its original emergence, say 4000 years ago, how many R U106 people would have been established say in the late Neolithic or Bronze Ages? Considerable numbers? Enough to form migratory streams across various parts of Europe? Such musings forced me me to ask, if the Haplogroup, during those periods, was of relatively significant numbers and presumably traveled to settle in various European locations, then would it have been able to establish lineages, measurable today, through an assessment of degree of variance? If not, then are we looking at a case where ancient R U106 for some reason was not able to survive, its possible Neolithic and Bronze Age lines extinguished? Can this be so? It made no sense that a specific Haplogroup would be subject to an extinction, yet others somehow be exempt whereby  their ancient lineages presumably thrived. Are the present populations of R U106 derived, not from such early beginnings, but to the often claimed later expansions of Germanic peoples into those regions of Europe currently with high percentages of the Haplogroup?

Could this be true? What happened then to all those earlier R U106, why and how did their lines presumably disappear? Such questioning drew me to wonder if that scenario was credible, could there be an alternative, which accommodated the existence and continuance of the Haplogroup in differing parts of Europe, alongside the later expansions of Germanic peoples, the very growth mirrored in the current frequency distributions? I suppose I was looking for a Middle Way. So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain movement in a river, called laminar flow in which  a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers. Is it possible that when we look at R U10-6 in Western Europe the current frequency is the upper surface, established following the rise of Germanic culture and invasion and expansion? Yet within that 'surface' much older lines exist, possibly tracing back to the Bronze Age or Late Neolithic? Could such a stratification apply where the earlier migrations and presence of R U106 has been overlain by the much later 'Germanic' movements and colonization?

There are many here on this wonderful forum who are possessed of a far more knowledgeable understanding and I welcome contributions on the subject, as always I remain open minded and am not possessive of any particular theory, but simply asking questions.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 13, 2012, 07:23:38 AM
I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.

The problem I have with that idea is that there is no real compelling reason to believe that is actually what happened. It could have happened, yes. Is that what really happened, though? Frankly, I doubt it.

But perhaps someone knows of archaeological evidence indicating an early movement of people from a place likely to have been rich in U106 to someplace else beyond the core Germanic territory occupied by U106 today.

I am not talking about the historical and archaeological evidence for German soldiers in the service of Rome in Britain. That is well known and so close in time to the Migration Period as to be nearly indistinguishable from it.

With regard to U106 and Ireland, the same question applies. Is there any reason to believe that U106 actually came to Ireland in ancient times in any numbers and settled there? We're not talking about "could have". Sure, it "could have" happened. We're talking reasons to believe it actually did happen.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 13, 2012, 08:37:47 AM
I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.
Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia.  U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: seferhabahir on April 13, 2012, 11:10:28 AM
So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain mover in a river, called laminar flow in which Laminar flow,  a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers.

Hey, this idea is very interesting. Are there any papers out there that use laminar flow or turbulence to describe the flow and migration of two different types of people? I think that turbulence is the much more frequent mixing result of two different layers, and laminar is much less common in nature.  In a former life I used to help molecular dynamics physicists understand various Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz, and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities via supercomputing applications. I wonder if you can really apply this to some presumed historical starting point prior to people intermixing and then seeing if these various types of molecular dynamics interactions result in something that looks similar to modern day haplogroup distribution. You would have to substitute human beings repelling/attracting each other for cultural/genetic reasons for atoms or molecules bumping into each other.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: seferhabahir on April 13, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain mover in a river, called laminar flow in which Laminar flow,  a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers.

Hey, this idea is very interesting. Are there any papers out there that use laminar flow or turbulence to describe the flow and migration of two different types of people? I think that turbulence is the much more frequent mixing result of two different layers, and laminar is much less common in nature.  In a former life I used to help molecular dynamics physicists understand various Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz, and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities via supercomputing applications. I wonder if you can really apply this to some presumed historical starting point prior to people intermixing and then seeing if these various types of molecular dynamics interactions result in something that looks similar to modern day haplogroup distribution. You would have to substitute human beings repelling/attracting each other for cultural/genetic reasons for atoms or molecules bumping into each other.

Here is an example from one of the molecular dynamics scientists I worked with on how agent-based modeling and simulation can be applied to pandemic influenza in the United States. Maybe substitute introduction of farming or linguistic issues for school closures. Same kind of idea, and quoting from the abstract:

"We model the impact that a variety of levels and combinations of influenza antiviral agents, vaccines, and modified social mobility (including school closure and travel restrictions) have on the timing and magnitude of this spread."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458676/


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 13, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
seferhabahir

The analogy (none are ever perfect) with laminar flow, as occurring within a river, came to my mind as I imagined peoples cultures and Haplogroups moving in a horizontal expansion, layering over, yet as with the flow in liquid, no distinct boundary, but sliding layers, with presumably zones of mixing at the interface of each fluid. I wondered if that could serve as a model to explain early R U106 migration, distribution and present frequency within Western Europe. The latest and most easily identifiable layer formed by 'Germanic' expansions, that contributed to the current frequency distributions, what I'm curious to consider is does that most 'recent' flow mask more ancient lines of R U106, which may have spread at an earlier time,?  Or has possible Late Neolithic or Bronze Age R U106 been extinguished?


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: GoldenHind on April 13, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
The latest and most easily identifiable layer formed by 'Germanic' expansions, that contributed to the current frequency distributions, what I'm curious to consider is does that most 'recent' flow mask more ancient lines of R U106, which may have spread at an earlier time,?  

I believe this is the key question, and I don't think we have an answer yet. I am hoping a further resolution of U106 subclade distribution will help to provide an answer.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 13, 2012, 08:06:02 PM
I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.
Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia.  U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but it seems to me in both England and Ireland the settlement areas were pretty similar. Dublin was founded by the Vikings, as were Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick.

In England, of course, Danish Vikings settled in the east, in what became the Danelaw, but that area was (and remained) Anglo-Saxon, as well. There was some settlement in Lancashire in northwestern England by Norwegian Vikings, but I don't think it was as extensive as the Danish settlement in eastern England.

It would be difficult to distinguish Viking input from Anglo-Saxon input since, to a certain extent, they were pretty much the same peoples, just separated in time.

English U106 variance could be higher than Scandinavian variance for the simple reason that England received U106 from more than one source, whereas Scandinavian U106 is, well, Scandinavian U106. There could be other reasons why Scandinavia has lower U106 variance, as well. Of course, one of those could be that U106 in England is actually older than U106 in Scandinavia, but that doesn't have to be the reason.

I know that the British Isles are, comparatively speaking, over-represented in commercial dna testing and Scandinavia is comparatively under-represented.

Does it seem likely to you that there was no U106 in Scandinavia until after the Viking Era?


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 13, 2012, 08:12:30 PM
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.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 06:27:48 AM
I think your response applies more saliently to the other thread, where that discussion relates specifically to the question of R U106 and Ireland. My comments here are really serving different questions, more general and considering a theoretical model which speculates as to early R U106, its possible continuance, to what degree it is masked by later Germanic expansions, did Late Neolithic and Bronze Age R U106 extend across Western Europe, or were such lines extinguished?


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 06:55:39 AM
I think your response applies more saliently to the other thread, where that discussion relates specifically to the question of R U106 and Ireland. My comments here are really serving different questions, more general and considering a theoretical model which speculates as to early R U106, its possible continuance, to what degree it is masked by later Germanic expansions, did Late Neolithic and Bronze Age R U106 extend across Western Europe, or were such lines extinguished?

The very title of this thread assumes there was such an early expansion to be masked by later movements.

There is no reason to believe that is true.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 07:11:49 AM
There is equally no reason for it not be 'true' that is why the post is clearly within a speculative context, with a number of questions on the subject. Have noted your initial reaction and respect again your choice to maintain your view, however I feel our exchanges could run the risk of monopolizing the thread, an action as Moderator I'm sure you may agree would be counterproductive. Hope you may share my enthusiasm to note the views and contributions of fellow subscribers to the Forum, whose knowledge, expertise and understanding of this subject greatly exceeds my own, and so offers valued insight.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 14, 2012, 10:20:36 AM
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.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.
Agreed. I think the reason why SE or East England might be a possibility is the proximity of that area to Frisia and the fact we know sea travel was very capable in ancient time periods.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 11:14:51 AM
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.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.
Agreed. I think the reason why SE or East England might be a possibility is the proximity of that area to Frisia and the fact we know sea travel was very capable in ancient time periods.

I agree. That is why I think a decent argument might be made for a little U106 leaking over into SE Britain in early times.

I don't think it happened, personally, because I think U106 was probably not in the Low Countries or even East Friesland at the time, but that is certainly debatable.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 14, 2012, 11:19:53 AM
....  Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.
Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia.  U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but it seems to me in both England and Ireland the settlement areas were pretty similar. Dublin was founded by the Vikings, as were Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick.

In England, of course, Danish Vikings settled in the east, in what became the Danelaw, but that area was (and remained) Anglo-Saxon, as well. There was some settlement in Lancashire in northwestern England by Norwegian Vikings, but I don't think it was as extensive as the Danish settlement in eastern England.

It would be difficult to distinguish Viking input from Anglo-Saxon input since, to a certain extent, they were pretty much the same peoples, just separated in time.
To be clear, I am not making a firm proclamation or strong opinion, I'm just proposing an alternative "trial" hypothesis to challenge conventional think that Anglo-Saxons and Vikings are pretty much the same genetically. They may be, but the possible youthfulness of U106 in Scandinavia may representative the "southern" contingent of the Germanic expansions.

English U106 variance could be higher than Scandinavian variance for the simple reason that England received U106 from more than one source, whereas Scandinavian U106 is, well, Scandinavian U106. There could be other reasons why Scandinavia has lower U106 variance, as well. Of course, one of those could be that U106 in England is actually older than U106 in Scandinavia, but that doesn't have to be the reason...

Agreed, I just want to consider that the variance may be telling us something, that and the fact that U106 is weaker as you go north and west in Scandinavia.

Does it seem likely to you that there was no U106 in Scandinavia until after the Viking Era?
I would give similar answers to the same question about England. The proximity is such that it seems hard to believe some U106 couldn't have made it to Sweden and Norway prior to the Vikings.  I would differentiate southern Denmark (the lower Jutland) from Sweden and particularly Norway.

The "trial" hypothesis is that expansion of the Jastorf culture from the neck of the Jutland and below expanded contained U106, but U106 was not significantly present in the north of the Jutland and across the straits yet, nor in England.  
Quote from: Wikipedia
Its (Jastorf) area was first restricted to northern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.
Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons movements pushed U106 into the Low Countries, through the old Nordwestblock and over to England, but also northward across the straits and into Sweden and Norway to some degree.

In this case, I would expect the Viking migrations to be light, not devoid, of U106.

Do we see Scandinavian input, i.e. R1a1, in Lancashire, in Wexford and Waterford? or the Northern Scottish isles?  If the ratio of U106 to R1a1 in those areas is less than the ratio of U106 to R1a1 in the south of Sweden or in northern Denmark, then there is some indication that U106 was late to Scandinavia... and really is the "southern contingent" of the Germanic expansion.

We do have examples of things like Z196's L165 that cluster people in the northern Scottish Isles and Scandinavia together. They also have a Viking/surname/clan tradition. Do we have the same kind of clustering of U106 people between the non-English parts of the Isles and Scandinavia?


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 14, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
There is equally no reason for it not be 'true' that is why the post is clearly within a speculative context, with a number of questions on the subject.

No, I disagree. Your speculation on this issue, while possibly true, is not equal to the view that U106 primarily expanded with the Germanic peoples during the Migration Period and Viking Era and then again when the English and the Dutch were advancing their imperial ambitions. The latter has the benefit of loads of evidence to support it. Your speculation about an early layer of U106 covered over by the Germanic layer is really the product of wishful thinking and of personal dissatisfaction with a U106 haplogroup assignment. It can't really be the product of anything else, because there is no real evidence driving it.

These threads about U106 really being something other than mostly Germanic, or U106 being unclassifiable, are almost never (actually never, from what I have seen) inspired by someone noticing what looks like the early movement of an actual ancient or prehistoric group in which U106 was likely to feature prominently.

Instead, they generally appear because someone doesn't like being U106 (U106 isn't associated with the "right" ethnic group, so he must find a rare variety of U106 that is "right") or because someone has an anti-U106 animus for whatever reason, maybe because some U106 guys on dna-forums or somewhere else have been too in-your-face with the "conquering Anglo-Saxons (or Vikings)" stuff.

But those aren't real reasons to believe that there was an early movement of U106 that is now overlain by the later Germanic movement.

Have noted your initial reaction and respect again your choice to maintain your view, however I feel our exchanges could run the risk of monopolizing the thread, an action as Moderator I'm sure you may agree would be counterproductive. Hope you may share my enthusiasm to note the views and contributions of fellow subscribers to the Forum, whose knowledge, expertise and understanding of this subject greatly exceeds my own, and so offers valued insight.

The only way we could monopolize this thread is if no one else posts here. They are free to post, but so am I.

I will post here as long as I feel so inclined, but I will admit that I am getting tired of this topic, especially given the real reason it keeps popping up.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 14, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
There is no 'real reason', nor agenda operating, apart from those possessed of such a perception, as mentioned previously my post on this thread raises questions that are as equally valid as any other, that they speculate to possible different considerations regarding R U106 of course invites response, however, I'm sure you can concur that, others may see the reiteration of R U106 as 'Germanic', to the exclusion of any alternative or reasonable possibility as monopolizing the thread. Personally I rather enjoy reading your posts, however beyond restating the orthodox opinion, like all contributions on the issue, they are bound to remain a chosen opinion, informed yes, but still not a proven fact. Hence we are in the realm of discussion and interpretation, my point is that clearly you have a fixed view, while I have no attachment to asserting any particular ethnology to R U106. I am just questioning. what to all intents seems to be a dogma, and presenting a different position, which has more to do with keeping an  open mind, than declaring as fact (minus actual demonstrable evidence) that SNPs can be conclusively proven to belong to any Haplogroup.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Jean M on April 14, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
Let's see now. The best effort to understand this haplogroup based on logical deduction from the evidence is  "dogma" and "orthodoxy". An open mind is the ability to see wishful thinking as equally valid and deserving of respect. Sounds like Post-Modernism to me. 


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: gtc on April 15, 2012, 05:35:53 AM
I am getting tired of this topic, especially given the real reason it keeps popping up.

Amen to that. The OP seems to be on a single topic treadmill.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 15, 2012, 07:24:14 AM
JeanM

"The best effort to understand this haplogroup based on logical deduction from the evidence is  "dogma" and "orthodoxy". (emphasis added)

What evidence? There exists only informed speculation and that based on an assumption that current Haplogroup frequencies represent a point of emergence and that SNPs can be definitively attached to a particular Ethnology. Hardly empirical proof now is it?

As to open-mindedness, it is surely not defined by misrepresentation, nor a fanciful determination to reject any other likely-hood, in preference to a mindset based upon the spurious foundations mentioned above.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 15, 2012, 07:44:51 AM
The evidence - and it is evidence - has been recited for you over and over and over. It isn't just "speculation" based on modern haplogroup distribution. It is haplogroup distribution and frequency, ethnolinguistic affiliation, recorded history, archaeology, etc.

Those are the reasons it is the "orthodox" thinking on the subject of U106, i.e., because most reasonable people, without a personal agenda or anti-U106 animus, look at the facts and conclude pretty much the same things, admirably expressed by Dienekes as follows (and worth repeating):

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.


What you are doing, whoknows, is speculating based on no evidence whatsoever (none that you have bothered to articulate, anyway).

That is why your view is, indeed, heterodox.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 08:00:10 AM
Logical deduction from the evidence = logical deduction from the evidence. It doesn't make a shred of difference to that whether the evidence is a scrap of watermarked paper on the corpse or a woman standing by saying "I'm his mother and here's his passport". Logic should be applied to whatever evidence exists. Any evidence is better than no evidence. Now if new evidence comes to light, then logic should be applied to that as well. That's the process of deduction that pushes back the boundaries of knowledge, step by step. The willingness to reconsider old evidence in the light of new evidence or a new paradigm is what I would define as open-mindedness, and it is the mark of a great scholar.

Post-Modernism on the other hand is an intellectual cul-de-sac, full of pompous, self-indulgent mediocrity. Prating about the weakness of the existing evidence as an excuse to put forward a preferred theory on the basis of no evidence at all is typical of the anti-rational slurry that has all but suffocated the social sciences.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 15, 2012, 08:07:12 AM
With respect the 'evidence' under question relates to the specific context of R U106, its initial emergence, early movements, settlement and whether it established itself prior to later 'Germanic' expansions, to survive, now possibly obscured by those later expansions. Within that reference, along with the proposal that it may have migrated as part of an admixture, we are indeed speculating and do not possess empirical evidence one way or another, while ethnolinguistic affiliation, recorded history, archaeology, etc. can offer informed insight, they do not constitute verifiable evidence in themselves as relating to proving that R U106 did, or did not, expand across Western Europe during the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age.

Equally absent are 'facts' in the sense of being conclusively determined as such by scientific testing and peer review, again we are all limited to informed speculation, even Dienekes. I remind you that my comments here are not made to support or defend any particular agenda but to simply question an orthodoxy built upon an assumption, albeit an articulate and informed one


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 15, 2012, 08:30:05 AM
Why is it that I am starting to think this is a waste of time?

As for your not having a personal agenda, I think we all know better.

If your motive is really just free inquiry, then produce some evidence to support your position; in other words, put up or shut up.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 08:31:53 AM
Fighting the evidence is folly. It is always folly. There is no point at which it ceases to be folly. If new evidence changes the picture, then the wise will take that into account and develop a new theory. So theory changes, not the wisdom. The wise have always taken into account the evidence available to them at the time.  

Fighting evidence is a waste of energy and time. It achieves nothing at all.

Neither do I propose to waste my time responding constantly to restatements in slightly different words of the Post-Modernist credo that any theory is as good as another, or brandishing of the flag of faux rebellion. The Law of Gravity is orthodoxy. Attacking it for no rational reason whatever is not a badge of intellectual courage. It is a badge of idiocy. In the Post-Modernist world-view, show has taken the place of substance. The value placed on truly independent thinking in the world of rational scholarship has been distorted into the self-indulgent idea that attacking the rational position on anything is a mark of superior thinking. How convenient! So if I want to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, I can congratulate myself on my absolute brilliance. I'm attacking the orthodox position!


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 15, 2012, 09:30:33 AM
Ladies, Gentlemen, really please let's not get personal or abusive, it is not helpful and distracts from your otherwise important and valid contributions. Meanwhile here's some additional food for thought.

Interesting how readily people rush to accept, as irrefutable fact, the views offered by Dienekes that R U106 is 'Germanic' drawn from his observations that:

“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.”

Such an interpretation when applied to R1a1a poses some interesting considerations

In Europe, reportedly the R1a1a sub-clade, is found at highest levels among peoples of Eastern European descent (Sorbs, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians; 50 to 65%). In the Baltic countries R1a frequencies decrease from Lithuania (45%) to Estonia (around 30%).Levels in Hungarians have been noted between 20 and 60%.
Now there is also noted among peoples of Scandinavian descent a fairly significant amount of R1a1a, in Norway and Iceland we are informed between 20 to 30%

So if we apply Dienekes thinking we can create the following 'fact'


“The existence of R1a1a as a major lineage within the Eastern European group is self-evident, as Sorb, Polish, Russian and Ukranian populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors . Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the East European countries...

now comes the contentious, thought provoking element:

….followed by countries where Slavonic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled....


Given that R1a1 has such a significant presence among Scandinavian countries, if we apply the Dienekes model then we should continue our statement by claiming such migration/colonization by Slavic R1a1a peoples took place in countries

….such as Norway, Iceland Sweden Denmark

Now the advocates of the orthodoxy, that R U106 is 'Germanic', and that its presence in Britain, and by default Ireland,is explained by 'Dark Age' invasion of Angles. Frisians etc (who we are asked to accept explains the over 20% frequency of R U106) are required to apply a similar thinking to the presence of R1a1a in said Scandinavian countries.

By such 'reasoning' the frequency of that Haplogroup in Norway for example is due to later Slavonic expansion into Scandinavia, oh but wait a moment, is there any recorded history of a Slavic invasion, of what must have been a considerable magnitude, to displace initial populations and establish such a significant presence of R1a1a?

Admittedly this is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum however it's fun to highlight the shortcomings of an unquestioning belief in the infallibility of those considered as 'expert'.

Now it may well be that my knowledge of Scandinavian history is superficial and that there was indeed, during the so-called Dark Ages, a massive influx of R1a1a into Scandinavian countries. I genuinely welcome helpful sources that document such an event, although one last thought is causing some curiosity, if such a colonization took place and upon such a scale as to establish such a large frequency, then why are the good people of Norway not speaking a Slavonic language,as opposed to a Northern Germanic variety? After all the R U106 orthodoxy would have us believe that Germanic settlers to Britain arrived in such numbers and imposed their language sufficiently, as to create English.

Before reaching for your quills in response, such musings are of course addressed by the generally held view, that  the original expansion of R1a occurred during the  westward migrations of the Corded Ware Culture around 3200 to 1800 BCE, many regard that as constituting the first wave of R1a into Europe, one that seemingly accounts for the presence of the Haplogroup in Scandinavia.

All sounds very plausible of course, but hang on a moment, is this suggesting that the current frequency of the Haplogroup in say Norway is attributed to that early migration and not due to later expansions of Slavic peoples? If the latter then we would need to see indications, such as place-name, Slavic language and recorded history, if not we are   required to accept that the Haplogroup migrated and became established there at some early time.

Which returns us inevitably to the central point of this thread, in that if it's likely that R1a1a is derived from some ancient migration and settlement, why is it not possible that R U106 in Britain or Ireland may owe its origins to a similarly archaic time?


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 10:01:59 AM
What makes you assume that I or anyone else replying to you here has even read  Dienekes on the subject of U106, let alone been guided by his views? I certainly hadn't.

As for R1a1a - my views on that can be read in my text. Its distribution is far wider than that of U106. The two are not parallel cases. R1a1a correlates with a very wide range of IE languages within several language families. U106 does not.

If anyone ever thought that R1a1a in Scandinavia was entirely due to Slavic incomers, or that Slavs conquered India and Iran, then the new SNPs that we have now within R1a1a should disabuse their minds of such silly ideas, which are not supported by linguistics or archaeology and certainly do not qualify as any kind of orthodoxy. [Added] Then again people with such silly ideas can't have been paying any attention to the evidence in the first place, so there is no guarantee that they will pay any attention to yet more evidence.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 16, 2012, 07:32:02 AM
. . .

Such an interpretation when applied to R1a1a poses some interesting considerations

In Europe, reportedly the R1a1a sub-clade, is found at highest levels among peoples of Eastern European descent (Sorbs, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians; 50 to 65%). In the Baltic countries R1a frequencies decrease from Lithuania (45%) to Estonia (around 30%).Levels in Hungarians have been noted between 20 and 60%.
Now there is also noted among peoples of Scandinavian descent a fairly significant amount of R1a1a, in Norway and Iceland we are informed between 20 to 30%

So if we apply Dienekes thinking we can create the following 'fact'


“The existence of R1a1a as a major lineage within the Eastern European group is self-evident, as Sorb, Polish, Russian and Ukranian populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors . Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the East European countries...
. . .

Utter drivel.

No one here has even attempted to apply "such an interpretation" to R1a1a.

The facts for U106 and R1a1a are not the same, and no one here is attempting to say the same sorts of things about R1a1a that have been said about U106.

Besides, this thread, begun by you, has to do with U106, not R1a1a.

So, please, provide some evidence for your position on the actual topic of this thread and quit trying to mask your complete inability to do so with this kind of transparent silliness.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 16, 2012, 08:11:53 AM
Would be more enlightening if responses actually addressed in detail , rather than hurling insults, I respect and value the views offered here by fellow contributors but there's no need for such hostile and abusive tones. So if anyone has a thoughtful, mature or intelligent response, critique of my last post I am happy to read such, but would again ask that people behave with courtesy.

As we have mentioned previously, there is no 'evidence' one way or another, only varying or conflicting probabilities, including the scenario that as part of an admixture R U106 may have traveled across Western Europe to Britain and Ireland prior to the later Germanic expansions. Moreover, I have not asserted that anyone here 'applied' what was clearly a speculative example and analogy  which I offered, that was an entirely reasonable parallel, in that it asks a number of interesting salient questions, most importantly if R1a could reach Scandinavia during some very early migration to establish itself, resulting in over 20% frequency, then would R U106 not have been able to similarly migrate westwards, to say Britain, at an ancient time?

Now on the subject of 'evidence', it is a self-serving ploy to demand such, in the knowledge that in truth none actually exists, instead we are restricted to assertions theories, hypotheses and observations. These may all have varying degrees of persuasiveness of likely hood, yet cannot of themselves be considered as definitive or conclusive evidence. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to request me to furnish anything, apart from an alternative scenario or speculation. Until as yet unforeseen methodology or technical advances make for reliable testing of ancient Y DNA, none of us are able to empirically determine which theories, hypotheses or observations are conclusively true. So it is, that on this subject, we are indeed contained within an arena of opinion, that is not a philosophical claim, nor concealment, but a bald fact, in that context you have every right to express your view , as I do to offer a different consideration. Clearly we are not going to reach agreement, that being so, perhaps we should gently retire to enable other voices to contribute.



Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 16, 2012, 08:15:02 AM
Oh, please.

Just argue for your actual position and provide some evidence for it instead of engaging in obfuscation and continually whining about insults, etc.

If you cannot start doing that soon, I am going to lock this thread down as a complete nuisance.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 16, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
It is not prevarication nor obfuscation, the reality is just that, you have a view on this and I am simply offering a different perspective, there's no need for the threat of censorship, just because I refuse to accept as 'evidence' what are in fact assumptions and assertions. In terms of providing 'proof' the burden actually rests with yourself as it was you who first opposed the speculation that wondered if R U106 may have entered Ireland at some early stage as part of an admixture.

I had explained that ' Burden of Proof' is a fallacy, in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side, your insistence for me to present 'evidence' (when none can be offered, as you know)  is a version of such fallacious posturing where the lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

This is also termed '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.

Such argument is of course entirely unhelpful, but the fact you have felt the need to use such fallacy reveals the truth of what we are discussing here, in that we have an absence of hard evidence, instead being in possession of opinion, no matter how informed or not.

Throughout our exchanges I have sought to maintain a positive and balanced tone, it is very disappointing that the responses to what are valid considerations and genuine questions are being treated with such barely veiled hostility. It's a real shame that otherwise intelligent and helpful contributions are debased in such a fashion, for my part I truly respect those who hold a different opinion on this subject and trust that fellow visitors and contributors to this important and excellent forum extend an equal respect to others, no matter the divergence of views.

Meanwhile it would be more helpful to address the actual topic, rather than chasing red herrings down a road marked 'personal'


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: Arwunbee on April 16, 2012, 09:25:43 AM
there is no 'evidence'

in truth none [evidence] actually exists
Game. Set. Match.

When you do find some evidence, by way of aDNA, or a subclade of Irish U106 with high GD suggesting prehistoric, or something else, I will be genuinely interested.

Cheers


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: whoknows on April 16, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
Arwunbee

Actually more like game set & highly selective misinterpretation and out of context quotation, throughout my posts I have made clear that there is no 'evidence', in the sense understood and determined by scientific assessment for either position on this subject. That is a balanced perspective, in that the door is left open to consider a range of possibilities, be they R U106 having arrived with Cambro-Norman, Elizabethan and Cromwellian plantations OR that equally the Haplogroup as part of an admixture may well have entered during an earlier migration, hence my analogy and questions relating to R1a in Scandinavia. Any careful reading of my contributions here can note that my comments have obviously been placed in a speculative framework, it is not I who trumpets as fact an assertion, that in truth. as you rightly suggest. is based not upon evidence, but assertion and considered opinion.


Title: Re: Early R U106-Extinguished Entirely Or Simply Obscured By Later Expansions?
Post by: rms2 on April 16, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
The facts on R1a are not analogous to those on U106.

You are arguing that one is like the other, therefore, since we cannot conclude that R1a in Europe is mostly Slavic and its presence the result of the movements of Slavic peoples, we cannot conclude that U106 is mostly Germanic and its presence the result of the movements of Germanic peoples.

But that is a bad argument, because the two are not alike.

And you are attempting to obfuscate. You started this thread, ostensibly about the possibility that there were early movements of U106 that have since been overlain by later movements of U106 during the historical period.

It is not unreasonable or a logical fallacy to ask you to provide some real reasons - some evidence - for your side of things. That you have completely and utterly failed to do. You don't even try, as a matter of fact, which only convinces me that what you proposed in your original post is just wishful thinking on your part and a notion entirely bereft of any support whatsoever.

When you propose an idea, the burden is on you to provide some support for it.

Since this is dragging on ad nauseam without any resolution in sight, I am locking this thread down.