World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 10:29:53 AM



Title: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 10:29:53 AM
I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject. Now my understanding of this model is that it is formed of a number of strands, which themselves raise interesting considerations.

Firstly, am I near the mark to claim that according to Busby et al, there is about 20%   R U106 in the population of the Isles? If so it is a significant figure and has been explained as reflecting the second area of inquiry, the sources that first described the Germanic invasions of the Isles, Gildas and later Bede. Both of whose writings set in stone the concept of mass invasion, conquest and settlement, a model which was also to give rise to the idea of massive population displacement of the Romano-British to the west, or overseas to Brittany. This version of events, though coming under scrutiny by some historians, remains an important element in the thinking of those who are followers of the mass invasions by Germanic peoples into the Isles.

Along with the paucity of Brythonic language entering the English language, the dominance of Anglo-Saxon place-names, the alluring testament left by those two commentators is held aloft as evidence of such a process. Yet questions are being asked by historians as to the accuracy and reliability of those sources, if they were free of bias or exaggeration for purposes of politics. Whatever the facts it seems the case is not proven with ongoing debate and indeed revision, in which rather than waves of migrations from Jutes, Angles or Friesians, a military and economic elite may it seems have gained dominance, without the wholesale displacement and marginalization of Romano-British peoples. In this model the emphasis is placed more upon a form of cultural assimilation and political or economic control, where the former British society was able to continue for a period. No doubt this interpretation has its critics, yet we should remember that the archaeology has occasionally supported such a continuum, offering a very different insight concerning the period of Germanic invasion and settlement.

If there is indeed any substance to this revised understanding then the current estimated population total for R U106 is bathed in an interesting light, why do I say this? Well the view that accepts the figure as indicative of that Germanic settlement in reasonably assessing the merit of such a claim would need to examine more closely the foundations upon which that concept is built, most surely the historic sources mentioned, along with a balanced assessment of the current debate regarding the actual extent of Germanic input into the Isles. Such an inquiry would inevitably lead to questions on the significant percentage of the Haplogroup in the Isles and if (given the alternative model suggesting not mass migration and displacement) its current frequency can be attributed to such migrations alone?

Maybe answers can be found in the YDNA surveys that were undertaken within Britain, again no doubt they may not have been without some limitation or detractors, yet they could offer some illumination regarding the question. The findings of both, as far I can understand, did not conclude a massive Anglo-Saxon heritage, the more complete 2003 study for example suggested  that there may have been substantially less Anglo-Saxon migration. While  Sykes and Oppenheimer claimed that even within those regions of Eastern England, often associated with heavy Anglo-Saxon settlement, “no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event and that in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal origin.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Now such interpretations and studies will naturally have their critics, particularly from among those who find it difficult to let go of long held orthodoxies on the subject. Others may suggest that Bodmer's study provides  more comprehensive results that reflect a more dominant Germanic settlement in some regions. Yet no matter such objections clearly if we consider in the whole the revisions of historical sources, emerging archaeology and various genetic studies, notwithstanding their limitations, there does seem to be a case to question the notion of huge numbers of Anglo Saxons displacing the British population.

Back then to this present frequency of R U106, a not inconsiderable figure at nearly a quarter of the entire population, can we so confidently assert, given the aforementioned considerations, that it's due to the period of the Germanic Expansion? Moreover even if we could show that to be the case it begs the question what was the Haplogroup demographic of the assorted Jutes, Angles and Fresians, surely there would have been a spread of various Haplogroups including I1 ,R1a, even possibly Q which some regard as arriving arrived with the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes? That being so the actual percentage of Germanic settlers who were R U106 could have been fairly lower than we can imagine, unless of course such invasions were composed of homogeneous  groups. What circumstances then could evolve and prevail, from which, what we may reasonably imagine to be such a relatively minor number could establish themselves to reach such a present level? Can we really be satisfied with the idea that it is all due to Germanic incursions? Let's ask someone with a long record of debate and knowledge on the subject.

“In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.” rms2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26106.html)

Quite so. Of course those estimations being valid it would leave around 30% non-Germanic R U106 as possibly present in the Isles, that is  sufficiently large enough figure to caution against insisting that simply because an individual is from the Isles and belongs to that Haplogroup they are by definition descended from a Germanic source.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 27, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject.  ...

Your emphasis that all U106 is not Germanic so all you have to do is show evidence that there is some U106 that has high probability of not being Germanic. I think Alan has already suggested the way to approach this.  Can you find U106 in generally non-Anglo-Saxon areas, such as Ireland, that uniquely cluster to themselves and not to U106 in England or Denmark or Northern Germany?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 11:07:56 AM
Thanks for your input Mike, always welcome, informative and helpful. Conversely of course those who may insist that all R U 106 in the Isles is Germanic are required to furnish evidence to conclusively demonstrate that as a fact.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: inver2b1 on July 27, 2012, 11:18:48 AM
What are you closest direct Y matches in FTDNA?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 11:25:58 AM
My comment on this relates to the general point of interest and not any personal data.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 27, 2012, 11:34:55 AM

I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject.  ...

Your emphasis that all U106 is not Germanic so all you have to do is show evidence that there is some U106 that has high probability of not being Germanic. I think Alan has already suggested the way to approach this.  Can you find U106 in generally non-Anglo-Saxon areas, such as Ireland, that uniquely cluster to themselves and not to U106 in England or Denmark or Northern Germany?

Thanks for your input Mike, always welcome, informative and helpful. Conversely of course those who may insist that all R U 106 in the Isles is Germanic are required to furnish evidence to conclusively demonstrate that as a fact.

Is anyone on this forum insisting all R-U106 is in the British Isles is of Old Germanic lineages?

Let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

If no one speaks, then why not drop your declared requirement since no one disagrees or no one cares
? Instead, focus on showing your hypothesis is true.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 12:06:47 PM
Mike I agree with your points, however they appear to rest on an assumption that I was specifically addressing people limited to contributors on the Forum, of course I did not state that. the points and questions raised are general in that regard. Hope that clears that up and maybe we can address what in my opinion is an interesting and valid topic for discussion.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 27, 2012, 12:10:34 PM
Mike I agree with your points, however they appear to rest on an assumption that I was specifically addressing people limited to contributors on the Forum, of course I did not state that. the points and questions raised are general in that regard. Hope that clears that up and maybe we an address what in my opinion is an interesting and valid topic for discussion.

If you are addressing someone on a different, who cares? It's like arguing with the air. Please consider going to the forums where they are are and lay your requirements on them.

As far as your opposing hypothesis, can you show some clusters that appear to be clearly non-Germanic? I don't know, but I personally think the odds are with you. You may have to do some recruiting of people from Ysearch and helping them get upgraded, though.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 12:23:28 PM
Mike, your description of the questions I raise, in a loose and generalized sense, as a 'hypothesis' is stretching definitions a touch, I am merely asking some questions on the topic with reference to various prevailing ideas. I hope within that context and not the petrie dish of examination you seem to be requesting, that they are sufficiently broad and of interest to a wide an audience as possible, including many who may not possess your depth of knowledge or experience in the field.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on July 27, 2012, 12:40:50 PM
I think inver2b1 made a sensible suggestion, whoknows. My approach would be to reveal surname & matches info.  That way, people could perhaps see if you did/didn't  have obvious connections to those with Germanic tribal origins.

Occasionally bizarre situations occur in history which place people in regions they wouldn't normally inhabit. The 17th C  Highland prisoners who were brought to the E Anglian Fens to build waterways being such a case.

If no easily explainable non-Celtic links to you exist, &  an ancient U106+ presence in Ireland becomes a more likely option, then I think more people will be sympathetic to your quest.

Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: razyn on July 27, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
If we need a groundswell of people who also don't care -- and agree with Mike, Rich et al that one unquenchable poster is blowing smoke, under a pretense of being "objective" -- I, for one, don't care in the least.  Even when I'm wide awake and completely sober.  It's a deeply unimportant theoretical question, on which there has been no meaningful disagreement, here.

One might profitably glance at who started the thread -- that information is displayed.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 27, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
@whoknows...

The question you present is very difficult to answer, especially since I spend a lot of time in the P312 world, but I'll give it a shot:

We have two vague reference points from ancient DNA: two M269(xU106) Bell Beaker samples from eastern Germany and the "probable" U106+ Urnfield sample from north-central Germany. These results of these two samples are in direct contrast to the hobbyist view that U106 must have come from the east (Poland/Estonia) because of higher variance. I say this because both BB samples were U106- and because only 1 of the 13 Urnfield samples were "U106". Of course, we should take great caution with this interpretation based on so few samples.

I think it is more likely that U106 sprang up near the source of the Rhine (SW Germany/NE Switzerland) sometime during the (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) and made its way down the Rhine. A more southern origin would explain why such a high percentage of U106 in southern Europe is DYS390=24 instead of the "Frisian" modal of DYS390=23. Then again, I think I recall DYS390=24 being modal in eastern Europe, so again I use caution. 

With the Rhenish Beakers, I think a very important amount of IE speaking U106+ crossed the channel and I think that excluding U106 from this migration is unrealistic. Since these were IE speakers, they would not have left a "Germanic" linguistic impact on the island as the Anglo-Saxons would have later on. Perhaps they were mostly DYS390=24 and DYS390=23 came later. What percentage of British U106 is Rhenish Beakers and what percentage is Anglo-Saxon? Quite honestly, I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone else can either unless there is a deep dive into U106 subclades. The Anglo-Saxon invasions occurred so relatively late that there is no doubt that they were already an alphabet soup of haplogroups.

This is where my speculation ends. I'm sure that someone who has looked at U106 in depth (Peter M?) will cut my observations up and swallow them whole - and it will serve me right for sticking my nose in something I don't know much about! :) But all kidding aside, I think this is an important enough topic for our knowledge of R1b to keep it going with some more insight. Hopefully this hot-button of a topic will help recruit some much needed U106 folks, which in these P312 dominant forums, are sorely needed.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on July 27, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
You cite Oppenheimer and Sykes work as evidence...Their work is a little outdated now, for a few reasons.

Most importantly, their work was published before much was known about the subclades of r1b. This is significant as not much can be told about population history without knowing the regional distribution of R1b subclades. They both used a "clans" system, and Oppenheimer's was based upon just 6 markers.

Another major flaw is their use of the evolutionary rate, which exegerate TRMCA's by 3 times. Thus, "clans" which most likely arrived in Bronze age times, ca. 4000 years, are found to be consistent with post-Ice age dates of over 10,000 years.

And last of all, the most outdated part is their belief in the Iberian Refuge theory.

So what's the truth? At  a basic level the amount of U106 in the Isles proves a large genetic contribution (over half) from North German and Scandinavian areas since atleast the Bronze Age based upon the following assumptions:

-U106 is less than 4500 years old. Most TRMCA estimates so far have come close to this, or a little less.

-U106 originated in Northern Europe and was carried elsewhere by migrants from there.

-The amount of U106 in Northern European populations has remained at a similar level (25-35 percent) throughout this time period. This is probably the biggest of the assumptions, but as there haven't been many significant population movements to Northern Europe since the Bronze age, I'll accept it.

-Following from the above assumption, approximately 30 percent (or possibly less) of these North European immigrants would be carrying U106. U106 varies a little among Germanic population, with a peak in the Netherlands, declining towards the North-East.

If all that is right, then around 2/3rds of English and East Scottish men could have Y-DNA traceable to the North.

Getting around to answering your question, IMO not much of the U106 in Britain is from non-Germanic invaders. There's little U106 in areas known to have been invaded by the Celts. North Spain (Celtiberia) has a lot of L21, the "Celtic"* clade, but not much U106.

And the Bell Beakers? Not much U106 in most areas they were around.

So IMO there's no reason to think those two major migrations to Britain brought much U106 with them. This leaves the third known migration: The Germanic migration period.

If all this is true, then the main contributor to U106 in Britain is indeed most likely post-Roman Germanics. This is an educated guess, but maybe 15 percent of it may be pre-Germanic. If that's right, than the two-thirds (66 percent) would be more like 50-60 percent.

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

* This is based upon another assumption that L21 was largely spread by the Celts.

 







Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
  I agree the whole Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries link should have brough some flow between England and as far east as Holland.  In fact that is no big deal anyway because places like Holland were also stronly linked to the isles in the beaker periodl  
However, U106 in west of the Elbe is just not old enough for that period if the variance is correct.  I believe that  U106 as a whole is dated to 2000BC or a little earlier but U106 west of the Elbe was more like 1000BC.  I dont know what it was as far west as Holland but it cant be very old.  Has anyone got an intraclade variance for Dutch U106.  Believe me I was perfectly happy with the idea that now-U106 rich areas were in contact with England from 2500BC-1500BC or so but it does not seem that U106 was in those now-U106-rich areas like Holland until after that.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 02:09:05 PM
Bob, How curious that I post a topic on a generalized subject with valid and relevant questions and I an expected to serve up personal data in order to appease a supposed skepticism. Your suggestion is saturated with a number assumptions, most importantly that I created this thread for some personal motive. Has it not occurred to you that my post was composed out of general interest and offered in a spirit of open and mature discussion. I trust that deals with your 'straw man' (as in fallacious strategy to deflect) offering.

Rich,

Thank you for your insightful and helpful response, I note with interest the points you raise and welcome sincerely your kindness in accepting my post for what it is, a fair and reasonable set of questions on a subject that far from proven conclusively invites further scrutiny. I trust fellow contributors will display a similar intelligence and open mindedness as your self.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 27, 2012, 02:18:42 PM
Mkk

Appreciate your comments on that, you present a reasoned and persuasive argument, although I am sure some may find questions on various assertions, such is the nature of speculation on a topic for which we remain disadvantaged in terms of scientific evidence to more definitively determine a conclusion. As to my reference to Sykes et al I trust you noted that I did not affirm their findings as conclusive evidence per se and emphasized there are those who consider their findings questionable. Moreover,  I also  cited findings that claimed much higher 'Germanic' frequencies in some regions, so in that sense I sought to offer a balanced view on the subject.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on July 27, 2012, 02:35:47 PM
Whoknows: I assumed you were trying to find your true tribal origins. If you say that your interest  isn't concerned with that, then I'll accept your word.
It is possible that someone on this forum MAY have info to help you, but without knowing your surname etc , they'd have little chance.
I gather you find my posts irritating, so if you wish, please tell me & I'll desist. I was only offering suggestions.
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 02:41:34 PM
I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 02:53:09 PM
@whoknows...

The question you present is very difficult to answer, especially since I spend a lot of time in the P312 world, but I'll give it a shot:

We have two vague reference points from ancient DNA: two M269(xU106) Bell Beaker samples from eastern Germany and the "probable" U106+ Urnfield sample from north-central Germany. These results of these two samples are in direct contrast to the hobbyist view that U106 must have come from the east (Poland/Estonia) because of higher variance. I say this because both BB samples were U106- and because only 1 of the 13 Urnfield samples were "U106". Of course, we should take great caution with this interpretation based on so few samples.

I think it is more likely that U106 sprang up near the source of the Rhine (SW Germany/NE Switzerland) sometime during the (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) and made its way down the Rhine. A more southern origin would explain why such a high percentage of U106 in southern Europe is DYS390=24 instead of the "Frisian" modal of DYS390=23. Then again, I think I recall DYS390=24 being modal in eastern Europe, so again I use caution.  

With the Rhenish Beakers, I think a very important amount of IE speaking U106+ crossed the channel and I think that excluding U106 from this migration is unrealistic. Since these were IE speakers, they would not have left a "Germanic" linguistic impact on the island as the Anglo-Saxons would have later on. Perhaps they were mostly DYS390=24 and DYS390=23 came later. What percentage of British U106 is Rhenish Beakers and what percentage is Anglo-Saxon? Quite honestly, I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone else can either unless there is a deep dive into U106 subclades. The Anglo-Saxon invasions occurred so relatively late that there is no doubt that they were already an alphabet soup of haplogroups.

This is where my speculation ends. I'm sure that someone who has looked at U106 in depth (Peter M?) will cut my observations up and swallow them whole - and it will serve me right for sticking my nose in something I don't know much about! :) But all kidding aside, I think this is an important enough topic for our knowledge of R1b to keep it going with some more insight. Hopefully this hot-button of a topic will help recruit some much needed U106 folks, which in these P312 dominant forums, are sorely needed.

Yes there is no question that the possibility of U106 in Britian all hinge on the position of U106 on the continent at various dates.  Without that there is little point in discussing it.  IF it was around the Rhine in 2500BC then no doubt it would have been in Britain from the beaker period onwards.  IF it was east of the Elbe until 3000 years ago then I think the opposite is true.  However, variance is normally taken as the main tool of establishing age of a clade in any given area.  I understand U106 has a low variance in much of Germanic Europe.  However, I would love to see for example a variance calculation for U106 in the Low Countries or even the latter pooled with Denmark and the north German coast.  As I said, I recall that being done and a low variance being found


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on July 27, 2012, 03:08:53 PM
Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 27, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on July 27, 2012, 03:20:33 PM
Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?
If one did so it'd be best for the men to trace their ancestry. Many Irish men are descended from English and Scottish immigrants.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 27, 2012, 03:22:51 PM
If we need a groundswell of people who also don't care -- and agree with Mike, Rich et al that one unquenchable poster is blowing smoke, under a pretense of being "objective" -- I, for one, don't care in the least.  Even when I'm wide awake and completely sober.  It's a deeply unimportant theoretical question, on which there has been no meaningful disagreement, here.

One might profitably glance at who started the thread -- that information is displayed.

Amen. I don't care either, mainly because of the source and the motivation driving him.

I don't think there is much likelihood that any of the U106 in modern Ireland has a source from before the historical period. I also don't think much U106 got to Britain before the historical period, but there the likelihood may be slightly greater.

That's it for me. I've had enough of this.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: inver2b1 on July 27, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

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

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

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

Very crude but if you look at the ireland project on FTDNA and search for U106+ you get about 100 matches.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage/default.aspx?section=ysnp


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Dubhthach on July 27, 2012, 03:33:33 PM

Very crude but if you look at the ireland project on FTDNA and search for U106+ you get about 100 matches.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage/default.aspx?section=ysnp

I would point out though that most people in the project haven't deep-clade tested, as a result the dominant haplogroup is "R1b-M269" due to FTDNA perdiction system.

Here is data that I had copied from the spreadsheet that was available with regards to Busby/Myers

West Ireland -- 67 samples
L21 = 73.1%
U106 = 4.5%
U152 = 1.5%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 7.5%


South Ireland -- 89 samples
L21 = 74.2%
U106 = 3.4%
U152 = 1.1%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 7.9%


East Ireland -- 149 samples
L21 = 71.1%
U106 = 6.7%
U152 = 4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 7.4%


North Ireland -- 72 samples
L21 = 79.2%
U106 = 4.2%
U152 = 1.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 4.2%


West Scotland -- 21 samples
L21 = 66.7%
U106 = 9.5%
U152 = 1.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = --/--


North West Scotland -- 80 samples
L21 = 48.8%
U106 = 6.3%
U152 = --/--
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 11.3%


North East Scotland -- 67 samples
L21 = 52.2%
U106 = 6.3%
U152 = 19.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 6.0%


North Wales -- 120 samples
L21 = 45%
U106 = 9.2%
U152 = 7.5%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 17.5%


South Wales -- 9 samples
L21 = 55.6%
U106 = 22.2%
U152 = --/--
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 11.1%


England Northwest -- 47 samples
L21 = 40.4%
U106 = 21.3%
U152 = 6.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 10.6%


England Southwest -- 48 samples
L21 = 37.5%
U106 = 25.0%
U152 = 8.3%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 6.3%


Central England -- 165 samples
L21 = 16.4%
U106 = 18.2%
U152 = 9.7%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 15.2%


East England -- 172 samples
L21 = 12.8%
U106 = 25.6%
U152 = 8.1%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 17.4%


England Southeast -- 52 samples
L21 = 15.4%
U106 = 26.9%
U152 = 15.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 21.2%


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 03:50:53 PM
Going to the U106 FTDNA project page is that a very high portion of the U106 do not have native Irish names.  I note that an awful lot have Scottish surnames.  The number with unambously Irish surnames is extremely low.  The percentage of native Irish surnamed U106 compared to total Irish ever tested by FTDNA must be incredibly small and tend to be strays among surnames dominated by non-U106 lineages.  I am surprised by just how much of the Irish U106 have Scottish names, even outside Ulster although there are also Norman, Welsh and English ones. The Roache (Norman) family seem to stand out.   Looking at that makes it even more striking how incredibly rare U106 must have been among the native Irish.  In fact its actually surprising given long periods of Viking mahem and a long period of dominance and settlement by Normans and later British that so few U106 seems to have gotten into the native population.  You really would have expected more U106 among the native Irish EVEN if it was absent in pre-Viking times.   Like I say its almost weird.  It seems like the NPEs just were very rare among the native Irish and very few male lines strayed into the Irish clans from non-Irish sources.  I dread to think what this must have meant for women.  Maybe the secret is that the Normans by becoming very Hibernicised anc forming clans tended to acknowledge all their children and they took their fathers names and became part of the Norman clans. Clans after all became strong through reproduction and not acknowledging offspring may have been rare.  


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on July 27, 2012, 04:26:54 PM
Other than the obvious reasons for Scottish surnames & DNA appearing in Ireland, there were also Flemish/Scottish weavers who settled in that country - north & south. That MAY account for some U106 strains.
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 27, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 07:30:41 PM
I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 27, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 27, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all.  All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old.  Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger.  I hope someone can number crunch that.  What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine.  Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times.   Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 27, 2012, 09:35:03 PM
I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 27, 2012, 09:40:38 PM

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: gtc on July 27, 2012, 11:11:02 PM
My comment on this relates to the general point of interest and not any personal data.

Bollocks!

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

You are a prolix waste of bandwidth.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 28, 2012, 03:38:13 AM
Not sure what that comment is supposed to mean precisely, but clearly it would be hard to read it as anything but ad hominem. Despite your outburst I shall not exchange insults with you,as this Forum is dedicated to civilized, mature and fair exchanges of opinion and knowledge.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on July 28, 2012, 04:09:49 AM
Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

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

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

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

Cheers,
Bob
PS For the record, I'm not one who is actively promoting a Saxon label.  However, if pushed, I'd vote for U106+ not being an ancient import into Ireland.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Maliclavelli on July 28, 2012, 04:29:29 AM
While I agree the BB samples could be L11*, or heck, even L23*. However, everything I've seen of BB patterns, it seems likely that at least the major clades DF27/U152/L21/U106 were already around by 2500 BC.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2012, 06:30:30 AM
I don't think the Lichtenstein Cave R1b was ever actually tested for U106. Someone predicted that it might be U106+ based on haplotype, mainly 390=23, as I recall. So, that is not a confirmed U106+.

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

I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 28, 2012, 08:45:43 AM

I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

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

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

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

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


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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2012, 09:10:29 AM

I missed those, I apologize.

Did you mention it was a 12-marker haplotype?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: gtc on July 28, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Not sure what that comment is supposed to mean precisely,

More bollocks.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 28, 2012, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.
There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??




Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on July 28, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
Do you think that Z18 a neolithic snp? The TMRCA of Z18 would be around 5000 ybp.



Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.
There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much more to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??





Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 28, 2012, 09:44:55 AM
Do you think that Z18 a neolithic snp? The TMRCA of Z18 would be around 5000 ybp.
We currently think, the age of Z18 is about 90% of the age of U106. If the estimate for U106 is 4,000 - 5,000 ybp, as it is generally considered to be, a reasonable assumption for the age of Z18 would be 3,600 - 4,500 ybp.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on July 28, 2012, 09:47:40 AM
Thanks Peter
I was only out by 500 years.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 28, 2012, 09:52:18 AM
Dear rms2 On what factual data do you define the amount you claim here:

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

with your comments below in which you suggest some 30% of R U106 in the Isles may have established itself prior to the Germanic expansions:

“In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.” rms2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26106.html)

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

Richard I may be misreading your latest comment that:

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 28, 2012, 11:28:52 AM
I was ran some L11 and subclades through Ken's Gen111T which I modified for 67 markers and some outputs.  I posted the results on L21 Yahoo forum. Here is the P312 and U106 intraclades and the common founder of both that might be of interest.

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

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

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

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


MJost


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Bren123 on July 28, 2012, 04:03:59 PM

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


That study  also  included Archaeology!


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Bren123 on July 28, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

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

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

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

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

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


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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2012, 05:24:35 PM
Dear rms2 On what factual data do you define the amount you claim here:

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

. . .

What is the point in discussing this with you?

You are clearly not interested in the facts.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 28, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2012, 06:03:22 PM
I don't wish to continue discussing U106 in the Isles with you, because I don't believe any of the convoluted *stuff* you are posting is "positive and sincere" in any way, shape, or form.

It's pointless. You want to be told that your U106+ (Z156+) result is prehistoric in Ireland and cannot possibly mean that you are the y-dna descendant of an historical period invader or settler, especially not - God forbid! - one of the hated English.

We've been round and round this thing before.

It's pointless.

My last couple of posts before I stupidly exchanged words with you were in answer to Rich Rocca. Otherwise, I would not have posted on this thread after my initial post. I probably should not have dignified it with any commentary at all.



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 28, 2012, 06:19:50 PM
Dear rms2 On what factual data do you define the amount you claim here:

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

with your comments below in which you suggest some 30% of R U106 in the Isles may have established itself prior to the Germanic expansions:

“In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.” rms2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26106.html)
. . .

By the way, just to clear things up, the words in bold which you take as mine are in fact NOT mine.

If you were more careful, you would see I was quoting Asturrulumbo in order to disagree with him.

Quote
Asturrulumbo
16-10-11, 13:14
In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U152 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable
.


Here was my response:

Quote
My own opinion is there wasn't much U106 at all in what is now England prior to the Migration Period and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. I say that because I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. In the Low Countries there is apparently a north-south gradient for U106 and an opposite, south-north gradient for U152. That indicates that the Flemings are mostly U106 and the Walloons mostly U152. That would tend to support the idea that U106 has no real connection to the Celts directly across the Channel from Britain or at least not much of one.

I suspect the y-dna composition of the Low Countries has changed a lot since the Bronze Age. The bulk of U106 was probably farther east and north at that time.

Of course, only ancient y-dna can sort out these sorts of disagreements
.

Apparently they no longer show the quote boxes in those thread synopses. You would need to click on "View Full Version" at the top to see what actually transpired.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 28, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
Thanks for clarifying your position on that, I must admit I was amused to read those comments and as they were not in quotes, or italics but appeared within a distinct box with your name at the top, had read them as your views. Of course we remain bound by speculation, some attached to orthodoxy, yet none of us are able to declare with any empirical certainty. However as you will know too well there are some who would convince others of the correctness of their opinion simply upon the basis that it was they who announced it. Personally I prefer to ask questions and remain open to various ideas, including that of Germanic migrations contributing to R U106 in the Isles. There are of course other models, including those suggested by fellow contributors, in which the Haplogroup is considered to have entered the Isles at a much earlier period. Clearly you cannot permit yourself to entertain that idea, I respect your freedom to hold a different perspective, all I continue to hope is that those who are willing to be more open-minded are extended an equal degree of courtesy and consideration.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on July 28, 2012, 07:20:24 PM
The trick is not to be so open-minded that you lose your brain.

Personally I have no interest in remaining open-minded about the possibility that (for example) extra-terrestrials have set up a holiday camp in the Bermuda Triangle. My brain is needed for more useful activities. The fact that I cannot prove empirically that they haven't (they could be invisible extra-terrestrials) is immaterial. The proposition is of no value, no use, no interest, because there is no data to discuss.

One day there might actually be data to support the proposition of U106 in the Isles prior to the Germanic expansion. If and when that happens, I think that you will find people happy to discuss it. Without data, there is nothing to discuss.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 28, 2012, 09:14:06 PM
I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.   

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on July 29, 2012, 07:24:35 AM
No man is an Island. Every Irishhman that is U106 is not alone.He is the representitive of a large group of males on the island. There is a cluster in the South of Ireland. There arent a lot of people living on the Island tested yet and wont be either.


I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.   

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 29, 2012, 07:39:28 AM
"The trick is not to be so open-minded that you lose your brain. Personally I have no interest in remaining open-minded about the possibility that (for example) extra-terrestrials have set up a holiday camp in the Bermuda Triangle. My brain is needed for more useful activities. The fact that I cannot prove empirically that they haven't (they could be invisible extra-terrestrials) is immaterial. The proposition is of no value, no use, no interest, because there is no data to discuss."

This is a clear example of fallacious argument, in particular it is known as 'Appeal To Ridicule' where  ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."  

"One day there might actually be data to support the proposition of U106 in the Isles prior to the Germanic expansion. If and when that happens, I think that you will find people happy to discuss it. Without data, there is nothing to discuss. "

If paucity of evidence is the measurement of what is not permitted as condition for discussion then there would be little conversation on the subject of Y DNA in general as most of the exchanges are a mixture of opinion, speculation and statistical interpretation. Meanwhile a shortage of data is precisely the condition from which discussion and inquiry is forged, remember while some may choose to consider R U106 as a proven case, despite the lack of actual verifiable evidence, in truth we cannot in all certainty be confident of that being so.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 29, 2012, 07:46:27 AM
Until this field of inquiry is in a position to have at its disposal more detailed data, further SNP testing and knowledge and supported by ancient DNA analysis we are limited to what at best is an informed speculation, based upon statisitical interpretation and data that of itself may be partial, non-representative or display a bias of some sort. Anyone who values scientific rigor would under those circumstances not affirm any conclusion on the topic as being proven.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 29, 2012, 08:55:57 AM
No man is an Island. Every Irishhman that is U106 is not alone.He is the representitive of a large group of males on the island. There is a cluster in the South of Ireland. There arent a lot of people living on the Island tested yet and wont be either.


I think the 'proof' demand is unrealistic.  If 1% of U106 in the isles is pre-Germanic then it might take 100 ancient DNA samples from the British Iron Age for it to turn up.  You know that is not going to happen, well maybe by the year 2030!  Also, the most likely group who might have had a small element, the Belgae, cremated!  If you want 'proof' in terms of negative evidence that a small amount of  U106 is prehistoric in the isles then even ancient DNA is not likely to be on the sort of scale that will give proof anytime soon.  Negative evidence proving absense of a hypothetical very small group is not realistically going to be obtained to a high level of confidence.  

Basically looking at the DNA evidence (the geography of variance) together with archaeology and of course modern distribution and (in the case of Ireland) surname evidence would indicate that U106 was absent or as rare as hens teeth in the isles in prehistory which is almost as good as absence for practical purposes.  U106 with native Irish surnames would appear to be an incredibly small percentage of the population (about 1%?), an amount that is surprisingly low given the power the Vikings, Normans and British held over parts of Ireland for so long.  You would actually expect much more even if Irish U106 is purely down to later settlers.  There is also no pattern to the few U106 with native Irish names.  They seem to be scattered singletons rather than forming clan lineages linked to surnames.  If there was native Irish prehistoric U106 I would have expected it to be concentrated somewhere like Leinster (where most tribes with potentially external sounding names were located on Ptolemy's map).  The few native Irish surnamed U106 dont have that pattern at all, just a few guys scattered around among non-U106 surnames.    

There are lots of U106 Irishmen.  However, Irish does not=prehistoric genes.  Its not about nationality.  Al countries are composites.  Its just in Ireland there is stronger tendency (as a result of colonial history and politics) to identify prehistoric elements as native and see the remaining settlers as less and less native as time goes on rather than see them all as settlers (which of course they all area). However, I would still stand by the inference that U106 is probably overwhelmingly down to historic period settlers.  I dont see the problem with that as I dont buy into the natives/intruders view.  All countries are composites of wave after wave and their modern descendants are all natives in my view.  I dont correlate genes and nationality.   If someone seeks to see ethnicity in genes then autosomal is far more a representative than yDNA anyway.  Autosmal patterns are the composite of 1000s of years of a group blending into one and that can be seen in detaield autosmal patterns which often form neat patterns overlaying countries.   They are in a sense a self fullfilling prophesy in that a breeding group will eventually form a cluster.  This can probably be broken down further into regions and even smaller clusters although that is getting more and more blurred after generations of island-wide male mobility rather than staying on the family farm.  


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 29, 2012, 09:03:01 AM
Until this field of inquiry is in a position to have at its disposal more detailed data, further SNP testing and knowledge and supported by ancient DNA analysis we are limited to what at best is an informed speculation, based upon statisitical interpretation and data that of itself may be partial, non-representative or display a bias of some sort. Anyone who values scientific rigor would under those circumstances not affirm any conclusion on the topic as being proven.

Well even with hard ancient DNA evidence, conclusive negative evidence for a small groups absence is going to be a very very long time and we may as well close the thread for 10 or 20 years.  This hobby is and will remain one of inference and probability and that will only improve in increments over many many years and decades.  Negative evidence is far harder to provide than positive as it requires a far greater number of ancient DNA results.  Most people realise this is a hobby based on the fun of educated inference and probability and most people do not talk in absolutes and tend to qualify their statements with words like 'overwhelmingly' etc.  Demanding clinching negative evidence/evidence of absence is pointless. This hobby is not based on that approach.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 29, 2012, 10:37:48 AM
I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 30, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
A few days ago, I posted a response to a post by Alan in a topic that had been closed by that time, so I couldn't respond in the topic concerned. I would highly appreciate reading Jean M's and Alan's opinion about this. It would of course be possible to open a new topic, but I still think it is related to the issues discussed here (Whoknows' problem is all about U106 migration paths).

Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.

There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??




Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 30, 2012, 03:59:07 PM
There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??

Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 30, 2012, 04:50:53 PM
Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?

Well, this (pre-historic cultures) is not an area I know a lot about. My guess is, the migration of the Z18 south-west took place in the Iron Age (after 750 BC) and as far as I'm aware the Funnel Beaker culture is (much) older; in the Netherlands, where this culture has been present, it is considered Neolithic afaia.

For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: sernam on July 30, 2012, 04:54:07 PM
A few days ago, I posted a response to a post by Alan in a topic that had been closed by that time, so I couldn't respond in the topic concerned. I would highly appreciate reading Jean M's and Alan's opinion about this. It would of course be possible to open a new topic, but I still think it is related to the issues discussed here (Whoknows' problem is all about U106 migration paths).

Quote from: alan trowel hands. in "Is L21 Really Celtic?"
As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.

There appears to be a connection between the U106 expansion and the river Elbe. From R-Z18 Research (Z18 is a subclade of U106) my tentative conclusion is, the Z18 people didn't travel west, and would therefore have had to cross the river Elbe close to its end, but travelled south-west and crossed the river Elbe much closer to its source. My question is: is there anything known/accepted as to WHY the Z18 people might have travelled SOUTH-west ? Was there anything that stopped them migrating west ? North-West Block ??




Going by Alan's estimate of late bronze & your description it seems to stay in the Lusatian region seen in orange: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1075930/1/


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: sernam on July 30, 2012, 05:03:51 PM
Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?

Well, this (pre-historic cultures) is not an area I know a lot about. My guess is, the migration of the Z18 south-west took place in the Iron Age (after 750 BC) and as far as I'm aware the Funnel Beaker culture is (much) older; in the Netherlands, where this culture has been present, it is considered Neolithic afaia.

For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??


If you think it’s early iron age its movement could possibly represent Lustian people moving from the expansion of the Pomeranian from the north while avoiding the Jastorf to the west.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 30, 2012, 05:05:23 PM
I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.

That is a good point.  Another point that struck me recently is the significance of the earliest know Irish word for continental people - Gall which is of course Gaul.   Gall was used as a  term for non-British strangers and does show that Ireland main native (pre-Latin influence) concept of the world beyond the isles was Gaul and Gauls.  There is of course confirmed by archaeological evidence of the Iron Age.  Gall came to be used for the Vikings and Normans and seems to have meant 'foreigners' by then.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jdean on July 30, 2012, 05:15:17 PM
I needed comparisons.

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

In the 'Roman Empire period' section

Roman map of Germania in the early 2nd century.

English: The Roman Empire in 116 AD and Germania Magna, with some Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus in CE 98 (quick sketch, should be updated with greater precision).


Can some one explain if this would be non-U106, non Germanic peoples?
   
Some traces of common traditions between various tribes are indicated by Beowulf and the Volsunga saga. One indication of their shared identity is their common Germanic name for non-Germanic peoples, *walhaz (plural of *walhoz), from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, Vlach and others were derived.

That is a good point.  Another point that struck me recently is the significance of the earliest know Irish word for continental people - Gall which is of course Gaul.   Gall was used as a  term for non-British strangers and does show that Ireland main native (pre-Latin influence) concept of the world beyond the isles was Gaul and Gauls.  There is of course confirmed by archaeological evidence of the Iron Age.  Gall came to be used for the Vikings and Normans and seems to have meant 'foreigners' by then.

Brilliant, so as far as the early Irish were concerned people who were presumably U106 (amongst other haplogroups) were Gauls, we can all breath a sigh of relief (not actually trying to be sarcastic here :).


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 30, 2012, 05:26:54 PM
If you think it’s early iron age its movement could possibly represent Lustian people moving from the expansion of the Pomeranian from the north while avoiding the Jastorf to the west.

And you think the Jastorf culture might have extended to the River Elbe in the East in those days and the R-Z18 tribe was trying to avoid them ?? Interesting !!

It would be interesting to know if there's a more frequent occurring of a haplogroup (flag haplogroup) in the Jastorf culture.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: ironroad41 on July 31, 2012, 06:53:28 AM
Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2012, 07:15:18 AM
Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?

Eurologist's comments? What "facts" would those contain? I read them.

"[A]lmost 7K years old" puts an upper bound of about 5,000 BC on the birth date of U106. Great. No problem. That doesn't put it in the British Isles prior to the Migration Period.

No offense to "eurologist", whoever he or she is, but those posts are absolute drivel. They're simply bald assertions without any real support. A "La Hoguette" connection for U106? How? On what evidence?

On Neolithic aDNA finds? Hardly.

I know you like claims of Old Stone Age priority for R1b in Europe, Bob, but to stir up the author of this thread with false hopes based on such hogwash is really unconscionable.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2012, 07:26:06 AM
By the way, note Vince Vizachero's comment:

Quote

Vincent said...

    I suspect the 6.5 kya peak is an estimate for TMRCA of R-M269.

    Monday, July 30, 2012 3:26:00 AM


That makes much more sense.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: ironroad41 on July 31, 2012, 08:37:33 AM
Facts, as opposed to opinion would be very welcome, so in that regard kindly see my original question to you in the positive and sincere spirit it was offered. What facts have you found yourself in possession of which has resulted in you reducing, in little over a year, your estimation of some nearly 30% non-Germanic Isles R ?U106 to what you now describe as maybe a little bit? That a major reduction so guess your revision is based on some factual and verifiable evidence which emerged during the past 12 months? If so can you share that so others may assess its value and reliability? Or are we talking not about 'facts' but simply your opinion?

Go to:www.dienekes.blogspot.com and read the 30 july post re: dating.  He cites a U106 haplotype as being almost 7K years old.  Then read the most recent comments by Eurologist about that kind of person.  I think you may have the "facts" you have been searching for?

Eurologist's comments? What "facts" would those contain? I read them.

"[A]lmost 7K years old" puts an upper bound of about 5,000 BC on the birth date of U106. Great. No problem. That doesn't put it in the British Isles prior to the Migration Period.

No offense to "eurologist", whoever he or she is, but those posts are absolute drivel. They're simply bald assertions without any real support. A "La Hoguette" connection for U106? How? On what evidence?

On Neolithic aDNA finds? Hardly.

I know you like claims of Old Stone Age priority for R1b in Europe, Bob, but to stir up the author of this thread with false hopes based on such hogwash is really unconscionable.
 Note that the estimate is for a subclade of U106, not U106 itself.  This is not the thread to argue how to measure time; but it has been agreed to before that SNP counting with a mutation rate of about 10^-8 would be more accurate than STR counting.  Now Dienekes and T Robb, independently, have laid out the temporal occurrence of major Hgs from Adam to the R's.

Your sense of what is conscionable is disturbing.  On the topic of dating, I just don't agree with you!


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2012, 08:56:13 AM
. . .

Your sense of what is conscionable is disturbing . . .

Do I need to explain it?

This is a case of someone with an easily explicable y-dna test result who is struggling with the very obvious truth of it, desperately seeking some thin excuse to hold onto a preconceived notion of what his result should have been but was not. 

It is unconscionable to introduce highly subjective commentary regarding what Dienekes' himself called an "experiment" in dating to further inflame and aggravate this issue.

Vince Vizachero is quite knowledgeable on these matters and commented that the dating for that subclade of U106 was probably merely an estimate of the TMRCA for R-M269.



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: ironroad41 on July 31, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
. . .

Your sense of what is conscionable is disturbing . . .

Do I need to explain it?

This is a case of someone with an easily explicable y-dna test result who is struggling with the very obvious truth of it, desperately seeking some thin excuse to hold onto a preconceived notion of what his result should have been but was not. 

It is unconscionable to introduce highly subjective commentary regarding what Dienekes' himself called an "experiment" in dating to further inflame and aggravate this issue.

Vince Vizachero is quite knowledgeable on these matters and commented that the dating for that subclade of U106 was probably merely an estimate of the TMRCA for R-M269.


You are stirring me up sir!  You don't have the background to judge dating!

I have been doubtful of the STR approach for years, but I spent time trying to understand all the assumptions and test them.  Variance fails!

I repeat, this "experiment" has been repeated by two independent persons!

How can a interclade estimate of two U106 subclades give the TMRCA for M269 which is several levels above???

This whole house of cards built up on STR dating is crumbling.  I think it is you by not being objective and recognizing that fact who is unconscionable.

I'm outa here.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 31, 2012, 09:56:03 AM
Please do not presume to know my actual motivations regarding the discussion on this subject, nor misrepresent my views as some form of personal desperation. The reason for my tenacity is very simple I don't take kindly, as a principle, to witnessing others trying to force what in truth is at best merely an informed an opinion, as fact, upon others. I suppose it's a cultured streak in me that ever since childhood I was always willing to take on the playground bully, who insisted that it was his ball that would be the best for the game :)

While I respect the freedom of others to hold a different position on the subject of R U106, it is entirely unreasonable for people to demean the discussion through misrepresentation or personalizing matters. I try my best to respect people and value how personal data or family information is regarded as confidential on forums such as this. As to the subject in hand clearly the orthodoxy prevails in which a Germanic answer is sought by the usual suspects every time the Haplogroup is discussed, that's fair enough, what is not so just however is the response which is so contemptuously dismissive of alternative ideas on the matter.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: JeanL on July 31, 2012, 10:00:59 AM
The dates provided by Dienekes are actually lower bound dates, the upper bound dates would be those of the upstream clades, take for example the latest entry posted by Dienekes:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-age-of-y-chromosome-haplogroup-r1b.html

Here is a histogram of presumed TMRCA vs.frequency:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9c7WGlzyxfc/UBfLmLKI0fI/AAAAAAAAFII/7oHsFcOOLV8/s1600/hist.png)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9c7WGlzyxfc/UBfLmLKI0fI/AAAAAAAAFII/7oHsFcOOLV8/s1600/hist.png (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9c7WGlzyxfc/UBfLmLKI0fI/AAAAAAAAFII/7oHsFcOOLV8/s1600/hist.png)

It is not labeled, so it is really hard to make any feasible conclusions as to the different subclades involved, but Dienekes does let’s know that the one of the peaks that occurs around 15 kya belongs to a Puerto Rican (HG00640), who appears to be R1b-M343+, R1b1-L278+, but R1b1-P297-. This is what Dienekes concludes based on upon the findings:

Quote
The estimate of the age difference between HG00640 and the remaining M343+ chromosomes that cluster on the right is: 15,426 years. We now have direct evidence that haplogroup R1b1 is quite old, and R1b-M343 itself must have emerged sometime between 23,657 years (the TMRCA of R1a vs. R1b) and 15,426 years.

So in a sense, what this is telling us, is that because the age of R1b-Z156 vs. R1b-Z301 is 6476 ybp, that R1b-U106 is at least 6500 ybp (Per Dienekes experiment).

It is interesting that there appears to be a small peak around 9-10 kya (With a frequency of around 150-200), I wonder what subclade this peaks belongs to.




Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on July 31, 2012, 11:33:00 AM
The reason for my tenacity is very simple I don't take kindly...

That would be accepted as reasonable if you simply interjected a caveat in discussions that are already taking place on R1b-U106. What creates the impression of personal crusade is the constant starting of new threads on the topic, when there is no new data to discuss, and the posting of endless repetitions of statements made years earlier. This insistence on repeatedly going over the same ground, over and over and over and over again in an unending counter-productive cycle is bound to create the impression of desperation.

This is particularly sad because you are repeatedly attacking people who would agree with you that the question of U106 is a matter of informed opinion. It is a question of deduction from the available evidence. "Orthodoxy" does not enter into it. Bullying is even less in evidence. You keep building a straw man to burn, over and over and over and over and over and over ..... Why? Because you don't like the informed deduction. Which is not that it is completely and utterly impossible for any U106 to have entered the Isles that wasn't Germanic-speaking. The informed deduction is that most U106 in the Isles today probably derives from  Migration Period arrivals. We can't be certain. If new data appears, that can be debated. For now this subject is exhausted.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 31, 2012, 11:34:59 AM
JeanL

And we are asked by a certain line of thinking that R U106, for the overwhelming majority of its calculated minimum age 6500 ybp, was supposedly not able to migrate westwards or have the capacity to reach the Isles until the arrival of Germanic culture. I find it puzzling why such supposed lack of mobility seems only to have affected this Haplogroup.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on July 31, 2012, 11:44:51 AM
I find it puzzling why such supposed lack of mobility seems only to have affected this Haplogroup.

So you have said often before. And it leads nowhere. The fact of the matter is that people move when they feel like moving and the choice of destination is theirs. The age of a haplogroup does not tell us when it arrived at any particular location. Bear in mind that a SNP on the Y-chromosome occurs initially in just one man. In the days before air travel and steam ships, one man could not leave offspring all over the globe. A mutation could sit in one small, comfortable niche for millennia before some motive force moved it out.

We can only observe what actually happened, not what might have happened under different circumstances. The patterns we see are the result of countless individual choices made over millennia.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2012, 11:48:58 AM
JeanL

And we are asked by a certain line of thinking that R U106, for the overwhelming majority of its calculated minimum age 6500 ybp, was supposedly not able to migrate westwards or have the capacity to reach the Isles until the arrival of Germanic culture. I find it puzzling why such supposed lack of mobility seems only to have affected this Haplogroup.

I dont know.  Many yDNA lines are patterned and confined due to many reasons, one of which is probably location of initial existence of an SNP and another the existing of previous settlers prevented them.  There is strong patterning in the L11 major divisions.  Something about the sequence of who settled where first probably is responsible.  L21 is very rare in east-central Europe, Italy etc and clearly its point of origin and other clades with a 'first in' advantage blocked them.  You get the impression that the main subclades of L11 carved up Europe in dominant blocks of each subclade (although there are exceptions). It seems like older non-R1b clades did not have much success in blocking L11 but the various L11 subclades seem to have been good at blocking each other.  They clearly had some advantage over the pre-R1b populations in Europe (what it was depends on the dating) but seem to have not been so good at shifting each other, probably due to being on a very similar par culturally and technologically (which they likely were given that so many of the root L11 subclades are of similar date).  


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 31, 2012, 12:01:40 PM
I have raised questions of interest and exchanged various opinions on a subject that I find of interest, that being why without any actual proven evidence, a few individuals choose to announce as a scientific truth that a certain Haplogroup is by definition Germanic or that its presence in the Isles is all due to Germanic expansion. People do have particular areas of inquiry and I for one do not choose to insult or seek to ridicule simply because a person say has opinions on any specific topic. I have on occasion, as is my right, speculated on the subject, and when required addressed people's differing views. Such exchanges hardly constitutes 'constant attacks' nor is my presence a crusade to advance any personal attachments concerning any particular Haplogroups.  It would be more accurate to describe it as a challenge to a prevailing dogma and what is of interest is just how aggressive and nasty matters become as a result, as if a blasphemy had occurred, that anyone who dared to suggest the earth was not flat, was clearly a heretic and thus deserving of vitriol. Clearly there exists a mindset which is intolerant of a dissenting voice regarding the orthodoxy of R U106 equals Germanic. Yet beyond the statistics, obtuse calculations and speculations the plain fact is that no one can state in any definitive or provable scientific sense when and where the Haplogroup migrated. So it is within that context that I resist the assertions of those who would write off the Haplogroup as entirely explained away and meanwhile I do my best to do so with courtesy and patience, despite the personalized abuse.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 31, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
I have raised questions of interest and exchanged various opinions on a subject that I find of interest, that being why without any actual proven evidence, a few individuals choose to announce as a scientific truth that a certain Haplogroup is by definition Germanic or that its presence in the Isles is all due to Germanic expansion. People do have particular areas of inquiry and I for one do not choose to insult or seek to ridicule simply because a person say has opinions on any specific topic. I have on occasion, as is my right, speculated on the subject, and when required addressed people's differing views. Such exchanges hardly constitutes 'constant attacks' nor is my presence a crusade to advance any personal attachments concerning any particular Haplogroups.  It would be more accurate to describe it as a challenge to a prevailing dogma and what is of interest is just how aggressive and nasty matters become as a result, as if a blasphemy had occurred, that anyone who dared to suggest the earth was not flat, was clearly a heretic and thus deserving of vitriol. Clearly there exists a mindset which is intolerant of a dissenting voice regarding the orthodoxy of R U106 equals Germanic. Yet beyond the statistics, obtuse calculations and speculations the plain fact is that no one can state in any definitive or provable scientific sense when and where the Haplogroup migrated. So it is within that context that I resist the assertions of those who would write off the Haplogroup as entirely explained away and meanwhile I do my best to do so with courtesy and patience, despite the personalized abuse.

@whoknows, by constantly bringing statements like this up, you are doing an incredible disservice to a very interesting topic.

It would be refreshing to hear your take on what happened (time periods, cultures, SNP relationships), rather than a drawn out history of how "some people" said this or that God knows how long ago.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 31, 2012, 12:38:01 PM
Peter, do you have a guess as to what culture may have been associated with its inception? Funnel Beaker? If so, I can see a scenario where Corded Ware (R1a) may have pushed U106 over the Elbe. Perhaps there was a movement already in place near the Low Countries with a very small group of U152 which may have provided the Italic-like features that linguists see as the "Noordwestblok"? Perhaps the Noordwestblok already had some other forms of U106 (Z381)?

Well, this (pre-historic cultures) is not an area I know a lot about. My guess is, the migration of the Z18 south-west took place in the Iron Age (after 750 BC) and as far as I'm aware the Funnel Beaker culture is (much) older; in the Netherlands, where this culture has been present, it is considered Neolithic afaia.

For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??

Peter, is there something specific that leads you to believe that is the direction of the migration?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on July 31, 2012, 12:56:14 PM
... why without any actual proven evidence, a few individuals choose to announce as a scientific truth that a certain Haplogroup is by definition Germanic

Once again the straw man to put to the flame. Has anyone on this thread said anything like this? No. And if anyone did, I would be happy to inform them that no haplogroup can be "by definition" allocated to a particular ethnic group. A haplogroup is a biological feature. It does not come with an ethnic label. What is going on constantly on this and many similar forums is attempted deduction from the data we have before us about the migrations that might have resulted in the haplogroup patterns in populations today. At its best, such discussion is rational and logical.

This kind of discussion goes on about all haplogroups not just U106. If what you object to on principle is any kind of debate, discussion or speculation about any kind of ethnic correlation, or perceived connection, with any haplogroup, then why the constant, unrelenting, obsessive focus on U106? It is not rational.
 


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: princenuadha on July 31, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
And the Hitler/Nazi analogy in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Lol, you two are talking in some hyperbole : )

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
Many yDNA lines are patterned and confined due to many reasons, one of which is probably location of initial existence of an SNP and another the existing of previous settlers prevented them.

 Yes! I have been shocked by the adna that has come out in recent years. What we are finding, is a whole lot of order. The cardial groups seems to mostly reflect only two ydna hgs, the tamarin mummies, one, and the trb Swedes so different from the their hunter gatherer neighbors. Now, even the mtdna shows a lot of structure once we look closer, ie we even can deduce replacement of female lines. I wouldn't have thought things woukd be so structured.

[Warning] I'm getting off topic but, I don't quite know how to summarize the larger concept here. I think, on the small scale things are much more structured than we would have thought. But maybe on the large scale I should say that things are less structed. That's why one group can be dominated by r1a even though r1a is widely distributed amongst many other widely distributed hgs. One analogy I think of, is stiring oil and water together. On the small scale we have structure, oil droplers and water. On the large scale we have less structure, more of a homogenous mix of the two. So, that's my best model of human migration...

Back to the topic at hand, I think is is very well possible for most (which is what most ppl mean.as jean pointed out) the u106 in the isles came during the germanic migration. Of course I must say an Anglo Saxon migration that was mostly germanic : )



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2012, 04:47:26 PM
Even if the age of U106 overall was pushed back to the early farmers of northern Europe c. 4200BC, this would not change the fact that prevous calculations indicated that a lot of this variance was east of the Elbe and that west of the Elbe it was something like a third less which in relative terms would make west of Elbe u106 about 2000BC.  I cant think of a thrust of a long settled group from east of the Elbe towards the Rhine in that sort of period.  That doesnt seem to make sense to me.  TRB was a pretty lightning spread as far as the Rhine area and didnt have the sort of delay of 2000 years you would expect between east and west of the Elbe given the one third(ish) difference in variance.  It just doesnt fit.  

if you push U106 any  further back you are in the Mesolithic.  Cant say I can imagine a Mesolithic group in somewhere like Poland sitting there for 1000s of years only to thrust west across Germany.  That doesnt in any way relate to what I know about the Mesolithic.  

All in all it is very hard to make sense of the relative variance of U106 east and west of the Elbe if you push the date back into the local early Neolithic or Mesolithic.  I would also add that the spread of Corded Ware from the Elbe to the Rhine was also far quicker (a matter of a few centuries-even if we believe the dodgy early dates in the east) than you would expect to produce a one third discrepancy in variance either side of the Elbe.  

I realise this is putting a lot of faith in variance but I cant make sense of the vone third variance diffential either side of the Elbe in either a TRB or Corded Ware scenario.  It really just doesnt fit.  

I would still see U106 as a local L11* mutation that happened in situ in the later beaker period among L11* people who had headed east and become north-eastern outliers in the beaker betwork.  That could be wrong but its the best fit I can see at the moment.   The relative diffrence in variance would appear to fit muvch better a beaker outlier origin of U106 and a back migration west in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on July 31, 2012, 05:05:09 PM
Of course it is most certainly probable that some R U106 entered the Isles during Germanic expansions, some would go further of course, yet the topic question is 'Is R U106 In The Isles ALL Due to Germanic Expansion? What is interesting to note is how forward folks are to press the case for Germanic reasons to explain the Haplogroup's presence in the Isles, yet seem reluctant to consider alternative models that may have possibly contributed. This creates an impression of a somewhat single sided perspective, which is why it is not too difficult to consider, on this Forum at least, that a mindset exists that concludes a Germanic explanation as the only reasonable explanation.

This seems to rest (along with an uncritical reliance upon linguistic considerations, and literary sources such as Bede) upon the interesting assumption that the Haplogroup was for the majority of its considered several thousand of years old age, bottled up somewhere and prevented by some unknown factors from migrating westwards. While any R U106 that may have managed to reach the North Sea coast was not able to cross water it seems, until that is the Germanics came along with their famed seafaring skills.

Now Rich much as I would love to be able to offer a carefully constructed statistical model based on various SNP and Cluster analysis given the basic nature of the questions posed here, we really do not need to go simple reasoning to see that there are questions about the 'R U106 did not make it to the Isles claims'.

Jean M Let me make this clear. I value your knowledge and respect the insights you offer on a range of aspects of this field of research. It is unfortunate that you view my comments through what seems a rather cynical and distrustful lens, I remain willing to learn from your contributions and am interested in your your views, as I am of all fellow contributors, no matter their position on this particular topic. I would hope that mutual respect among contributors would enable civilized and friendly exchanges of opinion, sadly sometimes that seems rather optimistic. Thanks to all who offered various ideas on this thread, including the Moderator for his patience and tolerance in allowing the discussion to ebb and flow, over territory some found terra recognito


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 31, 2012, 05:37:10 PM
For a number of reasons (some very serious and some mainly funny) I tend to relate the migration south-west of Z18 to the migration of the tribe of the Suabi/Suebi, who ended up in south-western Germany and are today called the Schwaben. But this leaves the question open why they went south-west and not west. Were they bypassing something ??

Peter, is there something specific that leads you to believe that is the direction of the migration?

It is my intention to write an article with maps and things for the L257.org web site on this, but it would be nice to have some discussion about the migration patterns of Z18 here. Please consider this is not a well thought-out piece of text; it describes some ideas.

Let's start with L257, a SNP downstream of Z18, because that's most easily used as a "Flag SNP". For me, a Flag SNP is a SNP whose geographic occurrence appears to be indicative of the migration of a group of people in a specific time frame. After that time the geographic distribution of a SNP tends to blur, therefore I'm convinced every SNP has a time period in which it is useful to migration studies. Note: I'm not saying that any SNP is EQUAL to ANY group of people.

Look at the test results (L257.org; select Y-DNA Profiles Z18+ L257+ in the menu on the left). The ordering of the results in the list are from older to newer profiles (as I tend to see them). More to the bottom of the list this ordering is proven by the DYS464x test results going cccg -> ccgg -> cggg -> gggg. (please assume for a moment this sequence necessarily implies an ordering, I will explain it on the web site.) One endpoint of this migration route was Scotland and an on-route station was Central Europe or a bit more precise South-Western Germany (Schwabenland) and Switzerland. The older profiles (more to the top) tend to originate more to the north-east and my assumption is the Baltic states, because L257 occurs there (and because other Z18 groups migrated further to Scandinavia).

So my assumed migration path for L257 is: Baltic States, then south-west to Schwabenland (south-west Germany), and then north-west to Scotland.

My personal guess (!!) would be that U106 emerged somewhere around Hungary/Ukraine; the Z18 subgroup travelled north and went to the Baltic States (e.g. Lithuania, were L257 is found); from there a few Z18 clusters went to Scandinavia and the rest south-west to Germany as described above. It would be nice to be able to prove all of this, but currently there's not enough data to have any hope of that. I guess other U106 subgroups most likely followed other paths (e.g. west from the origin point of U106), but I'm not aware of research in this area.

I'm fully aware that in telling this story, I make a LOT of assumptions (e.g. assuming origins for some people in Germany on the basis of their surname), but there's little else I can do, because of the relative paucity of actual test results from Continental/Eastern Europe.

Any comments that do not contain the word "Ireland" ?? The possible migration of Z18 to Ireland might be a follow-up subject, I guess.

Edit: btw, the word Schwabenland doesn't exist officially, but will be accepted/tolerated and understood by everyone on the European Continent.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on July 31, 2012, 06:35:23 PM
@ Peter M.

Thank you very much for your interesting thoughts. Good to see you here.

A flow from Ukraine to the Baltic? Hmm. Looks like Corded Ware/ Battle Axe.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2012, 07:26:46 PM
@ Peter M.

Thank you very much for your interesting thoughts. Good to see you here.

A flow from Ukraine to the Baltic? Hmm. Looks like Corded Ware/ Battle Axe.

I ran that up the flag pole for U106 awhile back and then again after the two Beaker men from Kromsdorf were both found to be U106-. No one saluted, but I don't expect much of that. :-)



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 31, 2012, 08:17:48 PM
I ran that up the flag pole for U106 awhile back and then again after the two Beaker men from Kromsdorf were both found to be U106-. No one saluted, but I don't expect much of that. :-)
I guess, the U106- findings in Germany suggest that R1b entered Europe as a number of groups and not as a single wave. Could these people have been L21 or U152 ??

BTW, who were you expecting to salute ??


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on July 31, 2012, 08:19:01 PM
@ Peter M.
Good to see you here.

Thanks, Jean !! $:-)


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: sernam on July 31, 2012, 08:26:10 PM
If you think it’s early iron age its movement could possibly represent Lustian people moving from the expansion of the Pomeranian from the north while avoiding the Jastorf to the west.

And you think the Jastorf culture might have extended to the River Elbe in the East in those days and the R-Z18 tribe was trying to avoid them ?? Interesting !!

It would be interesting to know if there's a more frequent occurring of a haplogroup (flag haplogroup) in the Jastorf culture.

Not really,I was trying to fit what you were saying was evidence & connect it, first w Alan’s date of U106 westerly movement & after your mentioned timeframe, so something would make sense. (at least until someone more knowledgeable came along)
Lusatian runs in your direction. caveat emptor

AFA Pomeranian expansion it's just pure speculation as a reason to move.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on August 01, 2012, 04:40:43 AM
Who knows,

You complain that we only use our Volkswanderung model but you as of yet haven't proposed any other models that fit the historical evidence as well as the present distribution of the clades.

Yes, it's good to keep a open mind, but at this point the only evidence is circumstantial, and as I explained before this circumstantial evidence supports the Volkswanderung theory.

Unless some ancient DNA samples are released showing a lot of U106 outside Northern Europe / a lot of U106 in Britain prior to the Germanic migrations, than any debate is basically pointless speculation.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 01, 2012, 05:55:42 AM
Speculation indeed, pointless?, well I for one find the various contributions and deductions offered interesting and informative. As indicated previously whichever model is constructed it is in essence an exercise in interpretation drawn from statistical data, hence each can be debated as having validity or not. That's where I am in this subject, simply not knowing and appraising the value or probability of various suggested theories, I have no difficulty with the likely hood of the Haplogroup entering the Isles during Germanic expansions, but for reasons I have considered previously choose not to dismiss the possibility of earlier migration and settlement.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 01, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Of course it is most certainly probable that some R U106 entered the Isles during Germanic expansions, some would go further of course, yet the topic question is 'Is R U106 In The Isles ALL Due to Germanic Expansion? What is interesting to note is how forward folks are to press the case for Germanic reasons to explain the Haplogroup's presence in the Isles, yet seem reluctant to consider alternative models that may have possibly contributed. This creates an impression of a somewhat single sided perspective, which is why it is not too difficult to consider, on this Forum at least, that a mindset exists that concludes a Germanic explanation as the only reasonable explanation.

This seems to rest (along with an uncritical reliance upon linguistic considerations, and literary sources such as Bede) upon the interesting assumption that the Haplogroup was for the majority of its considered several thousand of years old age, bottled up somewhere and prevented by some unknown factors from migrating westwards. While any R U106 that may have managed to reach the North Sea coast was not able to cross water it seems, until that is the Germanics came along with their famed seafaring skills.

Now Rich much as I would love to be able to offer a carefully constructed statistical model based on various SNP and Cluster analysis given the basic nature of the questions posed here, we really do not need to go simple reasoning to see that there are questions about the 'R U106 did not make it to the Isles claims'.

Jean M Let me make this clear. I value your knowledge and respect the insights you offer on a range of aspects of this field of research. It is unfortunate that you view my comments through what seems a rather cynical and distrustful lens, I remain willing to learn from your contributions and am interested in your your views, as I am of all fellow contributors, no matter their position on this particular topic. I would hope that mutual respect among contributors would enable civilized and friendly exchanges of opinion, sadly sometimes that seems rather optimistic. Thanks to all who offered various ideas on this thread, including the Moderator for his patience and tolerance in allowing the discussion to ebb and flow, over territory some found terra recognito

Noone is saying ALL.  It will never be possible to prove that.  It probability.  I am disappointed that there is not some analysis of STRs of Irish U106 and some discussion on that basis.  Do the Irish U106 haplotypes look like early outliers compared to continental?  It would be good if someone with the skills would look at the haplotypes and give some sort of comment on how distant or close they look to continental.  That would be a good basis for arguement.  Do Irish U106 haplotypes look 4000 years distant from NW continental?  You could also ask that about Britain.  Are British U106 haplotypes 4000 years divergent from continental ?  I recall some look at this being done by Mike W and there was not the sort of divergence you would expect if there was a big separation period.  Surely some form of comparison of matching is the way to go.  IF U106 was around in the beaker period then  and moved into Britain then from the Rhine then they would have to have some sort of STR divergence approaching 4500 years.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 01, 2012, 05:00:52 PM
Alan I agree it would be interesting to have  more detailed examination of STR's regarding the Isles. I could have this wrong but had read some where that Rokus did some work with some R U106 folks. Dees that sound likely?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 05, 2012, 09:04:01 AM
I am disappointed that there is not some analysis of STRs of Irish U106 and some discussion on that basis.  Do the Irish U106 haplotypes look like early outliers compared to continental?  It would be good if someone with the skills would look at the haplotypes and give some sort of comment on how distant or close they look to continental.  That would be a good basis for arguement.

You would be even more disappointed after such analysis and discussion. Afaia, there has been a sort of TMRCA calculation of Irish U106 in the past. The results lead people to believe U106 actually emerged (!!) in Ireland, but this is in conflict with lots of other insights and data. Apparently, these calculations are NOT the way to go (I think U106 and TMRCA/Variance are a VERY incompatible pair).

My personal opinion is that U106 simply is too old and its spread in Europe has "blurred" too much for its investigation to lead to any type of conclusion (apart from where it emerged). This is (again MY opinion) the reason no significant progress whatsoever is being made in the U106 world (people insist analysis must be done on U106 level). I personally am convinced the only way to make progress in the investigation of U106 is to concentrate on downstream SNPs. Most likely, there's a very, very different story for each subgroup of U106 that is not visible on U106 level. BTW, compare this to the problems the Genographic Project had to give a reasonable account of the migration into Europe of R1b (R-M343); this migration cannot be studied without first splitting the R1b tribe into the U106 and P312 branches.

If one goes down a few levels, then results can be obtained. We (another respected member of this forum and yours truly) are doing this analysis on Z18 level (Z18 is a much "smaller" SNP downstream of U106) and we have learned a lot in the process. As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans, and thus Anglo-Saxons, came to the isles. But if this is so, they most likely came from/via Scandinavia. This migration route could have lead to Non-English and possibly Non-Germanic (depending on one's definition of the word Germanic) group(s) of U106 people in Ireland. If this is the case, then, I guess, the best chance is these early arrivals in Ireland were Z18.

Whether this is the case, and how large this group might turn out to be, would be a nice part of the Z18 research and we would be most willing to do this. For this research to be possible, more detailed testing of Irish U106 would be needed. The main problem here is that a lot of Irish simply refuse to do any further testing or respond to simple emails after finding out that they are U106 believing that U106 implies Germanic and Germanic implies either Germany or England. They just don't want to know, but as a result the truth of the matter will not be discovered.

@whoknows: I guess your best bet would be to start convincing Irish U106 to start to respond to emails and to order additional tests to get more information on their background.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: A.D. on August 05, 2012, 10:30:30 AM
Could there have been any U106 types during the bronze age there have been shields of Nordic type found in Ireland? Also the Bronze age collapse seems to have had a particularly hard effect on the population numbers in Ireland, I imagine that some minority Y- DNA types were wiped out or moved out. Only ancient DNA could prove that. It doesn't look like U 106 had much if any input in the immediate Iron age re-population/social reformation/recovery. Z18 is interesting as it seems small and old, might bring a few surprises. Good luck to the boys working on it.       


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 05, 2012, 11:40:34 AM
We (another respected member of this forum and yours truly) are doing this analysis on Z18 level ... and we have learned a lot in the process. As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans...

But you haven't found any Z18 (http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/index.php/test-results/y-dna-snps-z18) from Ireland, have you?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on August 05, 2012, 12:09:32 PM
. . . As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans, and thus Anglo-Saxons, came to the isles . . .

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

Possible is not really the issue.

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

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

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

Not very.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on August 05, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
We (another respected member of this forum and yours truly) are doing this analysis on Z18 level ... and we have learned a lot in the process. As a result I personally DO believe it is possible (!!) for U106 to have arrived in Ireland well before the Romans...

But you haven't found any Z18 (http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/index.php/test-results/y-dna-snps-z18) from Ireland, have you?
On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 05, 2012, 02:19:02 PM
On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mark Jost on August 05, 2012, 06:13:15 PM
Hre is the latest 111 marker U106 and U106 > Z18 ages from my Mod Gen111T using internal Statistic formulas.


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

MJost


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 05, 2012, 07:17:25 PM
'Likely' and 'Probably' constitute almost convincing expressions, but they fall short of 'evidence' in terms of empirical understanding. As to 'knowing' a history that in itself hardly offers any definitive or objective 'reality' Plain truth is that we simply do not know, thus any attempt to declare a particular theory as being more valid than other interpretation is supported not on factual evidence but more on assumption and belief, Surnames are no reliable measure, particularly in Ireland, where Gaelic names were Anglicized, or 'English' names adopted or recorded incorrectly. Meanwhile we should always measure a particular enthusiasm for rushing to a conclusion, with the observation that ancient migrations and settlements of peoples/Haplogroups was not some simplistic or homogenous process. 'Possibility' does not mean lack of probability it conveys a truth in that something may well have taken place, alternatively 'probability'  does not mean that possibility is ruled out. Better in light of such a semantic fog to recall that no matter the insistent voice, or 'words clothed in reason's garb' we cannot reach any conclusive decision on any particular Haplogroup, all we can do is choose to accept a view or retain a willingness to consider a range of models.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 05, 2012, 07:43:40 PM
A lot of responses, I will try to clarify.

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

It doesn't look like U 106 had much if any input in the immediate Iron age re-population/social reformation/recovery. Z18 is interesting as it seems small and old, might bring a few surprises. Good luck to the boys working on it.
I must say, I have a bit of a parsing problem with your first sentence. I guess, the Bronze Age is a bit too early for Z18, but there could have been Iron Age streams of Z18 flowing into Ireland from Scandinavia. We are trying to find out by testing present-day Irish. Branches of the tree that have died out will not be found that way of course, but it's the only way open to us at the moment.

But you haven't found any Z18 (http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/index.php/test-results/y-dna-snps-z18) from Ireland, have you?
On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.
I see three from Ireland on the prospects list i.e. people who could be Z18 or L257, but are not confirmed. As you say: Dunbar, Cowan and Roche.
Please keep in mind most Z18 members have been found using the DYS463 proxy and the clusters we've identified. The people we have found tend to comply to one of a small number of patterns. A basic problem is that Z18 is not a very commonly tested SNP and we only rarely find a few completely new ones. We are currently trying to find out about when the various streams of Z18 arrived on the Isles. And there seem to be a few surprises there.

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jdean on August 05, 2012, 07:50:10 PM
@Jean: the link you are giving is to a page that we primarily use to show the structure of the tree downstream of Z18. It's not 100% up to date. I think it would be better to look at the actual test results (see L257.org; select Y-DNA Profiles Z18+ L257- in the menu on the left; the overview is always up to date).

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

True :)


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 05, 2012, 07:58:39 PM
Peter, Thanks for sharing the current position on testing. As to R U106 and folks in Ireland of that Haplogroup, I am unsure why you have experienced a resistance to testing. Although I gather that in the current fashion of some to insist that anyone from Ireland of that Haplogroup is by definition of 'Germanic' origin, a reluctance to embrace testing may well be a response such myopia. After all 'what's the point of investing money in sub-clade testing when you have supposedly 'authoritative' commentators arguing that all R U106 in Ireland is due to 'Germanic' incursions/settlement?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 06, 2012, 04:48:51 AM
I do not know how old surnames are in Ireland ....

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on August 06, 2012, 05:01:57 AM
Are saying that all English and Scots are U106?The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 06, 2012, 05:04:44 AM
Are saying that all English and Scots are U106?

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 06, 2012, 05:26:01 AM
From the known patterns we have learned that Z18 was on the Baltic Coast well before 0AD.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 06, 2012, 09:01:37 AM
... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on August 06, 2012, 09:10:02 AM
'Likely' and 'Probably' constitute almost convincing expressions, but they fall short of 'evidence' in terms of empirical understanding. As to 'knowing' a history that in itself hardly offers any definitive or objective 'reality' Plain truth is that we simply do not know, thus any attempt to declare a particular theory as being more valid than other interpretation is supported not on factual evidence but more on assumption and belief, Surnames are no reliable measure, particularly in Ireland, where Gaelic names were Anglicized, or 'English' names adopted or recorded incorrectly. Meanwhile we should always measure a particular enthusiasm for rushing to a conclusion, with the observation that ancient migrations and settlements of peoples/Haplogroups was not some simplistic or homogenous process. 'Possibility' does not mean lack of probability it conveys a truth in that something may well have taken place, alternatively 'probability'  does not mean that possibility is ruled out. Better in light of such a semantic fog to recall that no matter the insistent voice, or 'words clothed in reason's garb' we cannot reach any conclusive decision on any particular Haplogroup, all we can do is choose to accept a view or retain a willingness to consider a range of models.

Your arguments are laughable.

Do you even know what the word empirical means?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on August 06, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

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

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

Quote from: stoneman

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


And how does he know that?

History.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on August 06, 2012, 10:05:13 AM
In the early 1700s, some 3,000+ Huguenot & Palatine Protestants settled in Ireland. Dublin, Lisburn, Portarlington, Cork, Waterford & other centres were their destinations. I would guess the Palatine Protestants could easily account for some U106+ present today?
Are any of the U106+ testees in Ireland from any of the above centres? Are their surnames perhaps shortened, 'Gael-icised' versions of the original German ones?

Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on August 06, 2012, 10:15:56 AM
Quote
In the early 1700s, some 3,000+ Huguenot & Palatine Protestants settled in Ireland. Dublin, Lisburn, Portarlington, Cork, Waterford & other centres were their destinations. I would guess the Palatine Protestants could easily account for some U196+ present today?
According to this website, most have emigrated to America or elsewhere by now. http://www.exulanten.com/irish.html


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Dubhthach on August 06, 2012, 10:52:28 AM
There's also the fact that the Palatines came to Ireland after the destruction of the "Gaelic order" in the 17th century. As a result they had no need to gaelicised as the country was ruled by an anglo (speaking/culture/religion) ascendancy at the time.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 06, 2012, 11:03:28 AM
From the known patterns we have learned that Z18 was on the Baltic Coast well before 0AD.

Interesting. Could be the result of Gothic settlement. You may know of the Scandinavian settlement at Grobina, Latvia, founded c. 650 AD. But earlier than that Goths filtered south onto the coast around the Vistula from the Late Bronze Age.
Jean, are you aware of any (sources describing) migrations from the south to the Baltic States in the north in the timeframe of, say, 1,500 to 500 BC ??

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 06, 2012, 11:07:22 AM
... The Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population so that means they have to be descendants of some invader.In fact it is the other way. The majority of Americans today arrrived within the  last 400 years.
If only a hundred U106 men are found in Ireland it doesnt make them recent immigrants.People in Ireland had to change their names to survive the relentless persecution of centuries of occupation.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: A.D. on August 06, 2012, 11:13:29 AM
quite a few of those names a still popular in the North I have a few friends with them Green(e) (who are incidentally a catholic family, change in religion can go both ways) ans what I imagine are variations Folker e.g. Faulker though this could be a variation on Faulkner. There is a tradition of spelling names the 'protestant way' or the' Catholic way, e.g Quinn= catholic and Quin= protestant.  The huge difference being immediately obvious to everyone LOL.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Castlebob on August 06, 2012, 11:51:33 AM
My family tree shows one man's marriage in c1701 led to a total of just over 500 related  individuals by c1900. The family suffered the usual decimation from small pox in the early 1700s, plus river-borne diseases in the time before adequate drainage systems in English towns. I mention that to demonstrate how rapidly a man can make his mark in a country.
Besides the obvious influx from  Britain, plus the Flemish weavers, Huguenots & Palatine arrivals, I'd say the the odds at this stage would have to point to a post-17th C source for U106+ in the country.
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 06, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
My current guess (no, not the slightest prove) is that U106 emerged somewhere in or around Ukraine about 2,000-2,500 BC. That the Z18 subgroup split off and migrated north to arrive at the coast of the Baltic Sea no later than 0BC. And I guess they arrived at the Baltic Sea significantly earlier in order to generate Alan's significant variance east of the river Elbe. Can you identify this migration north (pre-) historically

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: A.D. on August 06, 2012, 12:21:35 PM
16/17 seems late for U-106 to come to Ireland, but thinking on it, Roman times maybe, the Saxons  were to bust in England, Wales, and Scotland right up to Viking times then the Normans came, so Saxon is very unlikely. That leaves Vikings who don't seem to have a big direct contribution ( this is debatable). That leaves Normans/English who give us a lot of names. The Normans/English did bring Welsh and Scots with them. I Don't think the Welsh or Scots were that big on U-106 maybe some from Scotland. Then were into the plantation times.Of course any individual or small group could have entered at any time since U-106 first appeared but looking at small numbers is really down to personal lineages. I think you've got a point. 


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 06, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
Appeal to ridicule is no substitute for evidence, nor is presenting personalized attacks, however given the fact that any. foolish enough to invest a belief into a myopic and fact-free view that claims all R U106 in the Isles is 'Germanic'. are unable to offer anything apart from speculation and statistical interpretation I suppose we can forgive such fallacious evasion.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 06, 2012, 03:48:28 PM
A lot of responses, I will try to clarify.

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

It doesn't look like U 106 had much if any input in the immediate Iron age re-population/social reformation/recovery. Z18 is interesting as it seems small and old, might bring a few surprises. Good luck to the boys working on it.
I must say, I have a bit of a parsing problem with your first sentence. I guess, the Bronze Age is a bit too early for Z18, but there could have been Iron Age streams of Z18 flowing into Ireland from Scandinavia. We are trying to find out by testing present-day Irish. Branches of the tree that have died out will not be found that way of course, but it's the only way open to us at the moment.

But you haven't found any Z18 (http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/index.php/test-results/y-dna-snps-z18) from Ireland, have you?
On that project there are 3 people from Ireland. Two from Northern Ireland, who most likely Scottish or English descended and one with the surname Roche, a Anglo Norman surname. So... No Z18 in native Irish then.
I see three from Ireland on the prospects list i.e. people who could be Z18 or L257, but are not confirmed. As you say: Dunbar, Cowan and Roche.
Please keep in mind most Z18 members have been found using the DYS463 proxy and the clusters we've identified. The people we have found tend to comply to one of a small number of patterns. A basic problem is that Z18 is not a very commonly tested SNP and we only rarely find a few completely new ones. We are currently trying to find out about when the various streams of Z18 arrived on the Isles. And there seem to be a few surprises there.

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

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

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

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

I think the term incredibly unlikely would apply.  Scandinavian settlement in Ireland in the Iron Age?  Baltic to Ireland in the Iron Age?  Now that really is incredibly unlikely.  There is not a shred of evidence for any contact with Ireland other than with Britain and Gaul in the Iron Age.  There isnt even evidence of Scandinavian or Baltic settlement in Britain in the Iron Age.  


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: stoneman on August 06, 2012, 04:11:27 PM
What about the Bronze age? U106 went into Scandinavia not out of it.U106 is older in Austria than Germany so the Germans are descended from the Austrians.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 06, 2012, 04:32:28 PM
Why does the word Germanic make people not want to test?  Maybe its down to the narrow idea of Irishness that that some have.  The Germanics are part of the Irish people's heritage and part of the composite Irish but some people just see prehistoric settlers as native while historic settlers as blow ins. The Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans were settlers/conquerors/blow ins in Britian too (the latter two only conquered large chunks of Britain shortly before they reached Ireland) but they are much more embraced as part of the composite identity of the British.  


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 06, 2012, 05:17:41 PM
That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 06, 2012, 05:41:16 PM
That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.

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

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


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

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

4.  Looking at the overall age of the subclades that Irish U106 belong to, the overall age of these subclades (some may be too young for prehistoric intrusions) and the age and location of the matching.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 06, 2012, 05:52:03 PM
That interesting conflation, and somewhat selective, interpretation is built upon a flawed and baseless assumption that seems to equate, without any seeming reservation, R U106 with 'Germanic'. While some choose to consider that as fact, even with the absence of actual evidence and dependent on limited  data, we are not in any position to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the Haplogroup's arrival into Ireland. While no doubt there was a possibility some arrived via colonization from England, it is absurd to reject the alternative model in which R U106 entered prior to Scandinavian raids, Strongbow's largely Welsh forces or later settlements.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 06, 2012, 06:16:46 PM
I am aware what offering a sincere opinion means, along with welcoming and respecting the freedom of others to equally offer contributions on this important and valued forum. However I think responses which choose to focus on 'the personal' rather than the topic itself are not entirely constructive, for example simply because say you may (term used to convey speculation, as opposed to declared assertion) hold an opinion that chooses to consider that all R U106 arrived in the Isles wearing a horned helmet and speaking Friesian or Jutish does not justify any accusation of trolling, no matter the exchanges you may make on that subject. Clearly you would be worthy of courtesy and respect for holding an interest. I hope that may assist your understanding and modify any erroneous impression that has formed.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: whoknows on August 06, 2012, 06:23:48 PM
Alan I totally agree, in that far more work needs to be done before considering anything is conclusively proven. From what I have read from other contributors here there does appear to be interesting as yet not fully examined or tested fields of research in various sub-clades of R U106. Again nothing definitive currently, but while being open to Germanic expansion as contributing towards a presence in the Isles, hope you may concur it would be somewhat foolish to close the door on any other models at this stage of partial understanding.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 06, 2012, 06:58:19 PM
I am aware what offering a sincere opinion means, along with welcoming and respecting the freedom of others to equally offer contributions on this important and valued forum. However I think responses which choose to focus on 'the personal' rather than the topic itself are not entirely constructive, for example simply because say you may (term used to convey speculation, as opposed to declared assertion) hold an opinion that chooses to consider that all R U106 arrived in the Isles wearing a horned helmet and speaking Friesian or Jutish does not justify any accusation of trolling, no matter the exchanges you may make on that subject. Clearly you would be worthy of courtesy and respect for holding an interest. I hope that may assist your understanding and modify any erroneous impression that has formed.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jdean on August 06, 2012, 07:10:15 PM
Is it be possible to introduce a rule that if somebody constantly reiterates the same pointless assertion without introducing new evidence that there posts get blocked ?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 06, 2012, 09:36:28 PM
Is it be possible to introduce a rule that if somebody constantly reiterates the same pointless assertion without introducing new evidence that there posts get blocked ?

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: rms2 on August 06, 2012, 09:53:51 PM
At last, we all get it.

*Sigh of relief*


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Terry Barton on August 07, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
This Topic is Closed.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Terry Barton on August 07, 2012, 05:00:07 PM
I have reopened this Topic at the request of one of the serious users of this Forum.

I hope the discussion can be productive.

Terry


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 08, 2012, 10:15:28 AM
I think we were having a very reasonable discussion about Z18 migration in this topic and I would very much like to continue with this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, this is NOT a discussion about U106 in Ireland !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 08, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
My current guess (no, not the slightest prove) is that U106 emerged somewhere in or around Ukraine about 2,000-2,500 BC. That the Z18 subgroup split off and migrated north to arrive at the coast of the Baltic Sea no later than 0BC. And I guess they arrived at the Baltic Sea significantly earlier in order to generate Alan's significant variance east of the river Elbe. Can you identify this migration north (pre-) historically

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 08, 2012, 10:51:32 AM
... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mkk on August 08, 2012, 11:38:24 AM
In the end, R1b U106 is a DNA segment. DNA is not the same as culture and trying to make it look that way is wrong. But neither can it be denied that the spread of U106 is seemingly very closely linked with that of Germanic speakers, particularly their Volkswanderung period. 

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



Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Jean M on August 08, 2012, 12:03:50 PM
My (possibly a bit naive) idea is that the people who travelled north to the Baltic coast are the ancestors of the Germanic tribe of the Suebi. My guess (again possibly naive) would be that they spoke a (Proto-) Germanic language. At least a language that was presumably derived from the common language of P312/U106 in the Ukraine area. Would that be in line with your assumption they were Baltic (or spoke a Proto-Baltic language) ??

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

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

I will email you.




Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Peter M on August 08, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 01:20:04 PM
I think we should use terms like "Western Eueopean", "Central and Western European", "Western and Atlantic European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106 and L21.

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


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 08, 2012, 02:59:11 PM
... BTW, in previous posts I've been saying I don't think TMRCA calculations and U106 are a prospective couple. I haven't changed my mind. $:-) I'm talking about TMRCA calculations in smaller groups of highly related profiles. NOT this (in my opinion) nonsense about "the age of U106 in X" (X being any country in Western or Central Europe).
What do you mean? Just that we need to analyze the subclades of U106 at deeper levels?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree we have to peel the onion back, but we also have to look at how the pieces fit together, too. It's still an onion.


Title: Re: Is R U106 In The Isles All Due To Germanic Expansion?
Post by: Mark Jost on August 12, 2012, 09:13:45 AM
I just read a concise overview of U106 from VinceT that I am sharing here from Yahoo U106 forum.

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

MJost