World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 01:38:45 PM



Title: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 01:38:45 PM
I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 03:04:26 PM
I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

I'm not sure I get what you mean, Miles.

Well, let's take your DF23 for instance, Miles. DF23 is a Western European Subclade. You might even define it as an Atlantic Subclade, which would include The Isles and Atlantic parts of the European Continent. This seems a bit vague, Miles. Not really, people will try to precisely define Atlantic Europe, but most people will get the idea and the "bleeding over " part should help. Look Miles, if DF23 is found in La Rochelle then it's French! No, you could call it Atlantic Facade or Bay of Biscay Atlantic. Still, Western European or Atlantic Subclade should get people their basic understanding.

Do you work parties, Miles. No, no parties and no weddings.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 08, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
Well I would vote

L21-north Altantic
U152-central European
U106-north European Plain
L23 (or its major subclades)-SW European

However, its pretty messy and objections could be raised to most of these


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 04:42:02 PM
Yea, but an objection to North European Plain isn't as bad as an objection to Polish or Germanic. And when you say "North Atlantic", people will understand that it is most prevalent in that area with "bleed over" south and east. It's better than saying L21 is an Isles Subclade or a Celtic Subclade. I think you could say that M222 is an Atlantic Isles Subclade and not get into too much trouble.

EDIT: By the way, this really simplifies things for a guy like me who is of mixed heritage (75% Irish/Scots-Irish and 25% French-Canadian). I can say that my Autosomal DNA matches that of Atlantic Europeans. That actually covers perfectly Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Normandy and La Rochelle which accounts for most of my DNA results. My DF23 is Atlantic European and my T2g is Neolithic found in Brittany.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 08, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

I agree with you. The languages and ethnicities as we know them are NOT one for one overlaid with much more ancient branches of the R1b-L11 Y DNA tree.

However, I don't even like the geographic labels much. I'll be a bit cantankerous her, so forgive me and have a laugh.

Why shouldn't R1b-L21 be called a North American subclade? or a Boston subclade? or R1b-DF27 Latin American subclade? or R1b-U152 a San Francisco fisherman subclade (think Joe DiMaggio), etc., etc.

... but the European centric labeling make sense, right? We think we know that R1b-L21 didn't enter North American until the Exploration Age. I agree that it is probably true, which means we are not really calling subclades like R1b-L21 out by their current frequency but by their pre-Exploration Age probable high frequency areas. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that that is always assumed in the label by those who know.  However, it's not necessarily assumed by casual DNA testers. They may misunderstand all the qualifiers that go with the label.

You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system. However, everything is only as of a snapshot in time. What if we backup another 500-700 years from the Exploration Age to the pre-Viking Age, and/or the pre-Germanic Wandering Ages. Things might have looked different, so every label is for a snapshot in time.

What's the harm?  Unfortunately casual testers in some of the most critical locations may lose interest in testing because their ethnicity may appear to be only recently adopted to them. In fact, it could be the opposite, although not modern ethnicity-wise. They could be sitting in the true homeland of their subclade.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 05:16:56 PM
Wow... I think even an idiot like me who might be an absolute causal DNA guy who got a DNA test as a gift would want to know where the Boston L21 Subclade originated. Truly, even an idiot like me knew that DNA would be somewhat divided by race and geography. Plus, I'm a native San Franciscan and I don't know one person so stupid (and my friends are idiots) that they would take a test and be happy to say, "Hey! I'm a San Francisco Fisherman DNA!" with no further investigation. Well, come to think of it, I don't know anyone so stupid that when asked, "What's your ethnicity, or what's your ancestry?" they would answer, "San Franciscan".

I could be way off base , but I think even average people understand etnicity and acestry from an early age. And, even if they went to a Public School, they would know that Europeans came to America and that before that Amerindians lived in North and South America. This, in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be able to read and write.

So, using terms like "Western European" or "Southern European" would be helpful without being absolute about the origin of the guys "San Francisco Fisherman" DNA.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Dubhthach on August 08, 2012, 06:11:10 PM
and here was me thinking the "North American subclade was some branch of Q (or in some cases some branch of Haplogroup C3) ;)

*gets coat*


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 08, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
. . .

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

Doubt it.

It won't stop people taking a look at the evidence and putting two and two together.

If using bland, non-committal geographic terms is designed to spare the feelings of those who get a result they don't like or didn't expect, it will fail there, too, as soon as they see a distribution map or read a thread in which reasonable people are making inferences and drawing conclusions.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
. . .

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

Doubt it.

It won't stop people taking a look at the evidence and putting two and two together.

If using bland, non-committal geographic terms is designed to spare the feelings of those who get a result they don't like or didn't expect, it will fail there, too, as soon as they see a distribution map or read a thread in which reasonable people are making inferences and drawing conclusions.

You, know, it just makes more sense to use terms that are Geographical rather than Political or Ethnic. If people like you insist on identifying  4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it.

To me L21 is a Western European Subclade. To you it's something else. No problem.







Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 08, 2012, 07:46:08 PM
. . .

If people like you . . .


Try to respond to what I wrote without making it personal, which it's not. Use of the second person singular personalizes this unnecessarily.

People will make inferences and draw conclusions based on the evidence. They are not likely to stop at overly broad geographic designations.

And yes, that includes people like me.






Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 09:06:16 PM
Okay, let me rephrase.

"If some posters want to identify 4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it."

I apologise to Rich and all of the posters who were offended by my comment. Using a second person singular was out of line.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: OConnor on August 08, 2012, 10:35:29 PM
I like the idea of breaking up Europe into more distiguishable parcels. From there particular subclades could be added to the conversation.

I would tend to get a little lost if someone was to use N/W Europe as a focal point. It seems so broad.

Or..did I miss the point?

(Edit:)Sorry..but I don't think we are at the place where we can geographically do this with subclades accurately. maybe down the road in 20 years?

just my opinion


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 08, 2012, 11:01:09 PM
I like the idea of breaking up Europe into more distiguishable parcels. From there particular subclades could be added to the conversation.

I would tend to get a little lost if someone was to use N/W Europe as a focal point. It seems so broad.

Or..did I miss the point?

(Edit:)Sorry..but I don't think we are at the place where we can geographically do this with subclades accurately. maybe down the road in 20 years?

just my opinion

So, would it be better to say it's too early to say that L21 probably originated in Western Europe? How about if I were to say that L21 probably originated in Europe?

When someone uses a term like Northwest Europe, do most people think of Spain? Or, do they think of The Isles and the northwestern parts of the Continent and Scandinavia? I would think almost anyone on these forums would think that Northwest Europe was The Isles and the northwestern part of the Continent. Some may include Brittany north and others may not. However, as soon as someone mentions Northwest Europe I know what they're talking about. I am certain they don't mean Spain, Italy or Switzerland.

 I think we're 20 years out (perhaps) from pinpointing the place (by present Country) of origin, but not the region of origin.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Heber on August 09, 2012, 01:51:10 AM
Dr. Jim Wilson concludes his book "The Scots a Genetic Journey" with

“There is a new revolution taking place in genetics whereby the DNA of entire genomes can be read cheaply – all six billion letters of the genetic code. Once we make sense of all this information, it will provide a level of detail far beyond that which we have today, potentially identifying the very fjord a Viking set sail from, and building a family tree for all Scots and all mankind. My six billion letter sequence was completed last week and we will begin the analysis tomorrow.”

I prefer the terms Celtic, Viking, Isles, Scots, Irish, English etc as they are descriptions we can relate to.  I look forward to the day in the near future when we can be more precise and describe provincial, county, townland and village patterns. After all that is what the "The People of the British Isles" and "The Irish DNA Atlas" projects are attempting to do.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 09, 2012, 02:16:51 AM
... I prefer the terms Celtic, Viking, Isles, Scots, Irish, English etc as they are descriptions we can relate to.

I prefer those terms too. We can all relate to cultures and stories, not necessarily to a hill or valley we've never seen. However, the question is not what is pleasing? The question is what is accurate? These ethnic terms may be misapplied at many of the ancient subclade levels we are aware of today. Ultimately it comes down to a lineage by lineage thing, with the possibility that a particular lineage switched from one ever changing culture to another from one time to time.

 I look forward to the day in the near future when we can be more precise and describe provincial, county, townland and village patterns.

I don't how far we'll get. In some cases, the people from the old villages will be gone. I guess a lot of grave digging/testing can resolve that if really go that far.

I absolutely look forward to much better resolution.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 07:59:03 AM
When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money.

I remember laughing about that. It was a good one.

I pretty much knew I was a white guy with Western European ancestry before I ever had my y-dna tested.

It is possible even now, at this early stage in genetic research, to get far better resolution than that.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
Okay, let me rephrase.

"If some posters want to identify 4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it."

. . .


Current political distribution?

We don't know what people were calling the areas where they lived four or five thousand years ago (with the exceptions of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians and maybe one or two other groups), so we're kind of stuck with what we call them today.

How are terms like "Europe" or "Atlantic Europe" any more appropriate than "England" or "Ireland"?

Just because a y haplogroup was born four or five thousand or even twenty thousand years ago doesn't mean its bearers were immune to the rest of history and did not move from an unknown prehistoric ethno-linguistic status to a known ethno-linguistic status.

It is possible to look at the distribution of a y haplogroup and, using what we know of history, archaeology and linguistics, to make some statements about it that are generally true. Notice I said generally true. That means that you can say things about the haplogroup as a whole that don't necessarily apply to each and every last particular individual member of it.

That should be obvious, I think.

But what's all this about, really? It is, ONCE AGAIN (and again and again), about a couple of Irish guys who got a U106+ result and are dissatisfied and unhappy because U106's connection to Germanics is as obvious as a hammer to the head.

Veritas.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 09, 2012, 08:37:59 AM
Seems like there is a lot of nitpicking (and wasted effort) going on lately about cultural tags for SNPs and folks telling others what they can or can't call them. I have a novel idea - how about we call them whatever we fell appropriate in relation to the topic at hand?

It feels to me that this constant nitpicking is the primary cause for very interesting topics getting locked.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 08:46:01 AM
Seems like there is a lot of nitpicking (and wasted effort) going on lately about cultural tags for SNPs and folks telling others what they can or can't call them. I have a novel idea - how about we call them whatever we fell appropriate in relation to the topic at hand?

It feels to me that this constant nitpicking is the primary cause for very interesting topics getting locked.

I agree, but in this case the source of the recent trouble is pretty obvious.

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

As a consequence, we're supposed to abandon any really meaningful statements about any other y haplogroups, as well, lest we offend.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 09, 2012, 09:15:06 AM
I think you were responding to me since you mention Boston and San Francisco and I brought them in to the conversation.
Wow... I think even an idiot like me who might be an absolute causal DNA guy who got a DNA test as a gift would want to know where the Boston L21 Subclade originated. Truly, even an idiot like me knew that DNA would be somewhat divided by race and geography. Plus, I'm a native San Franciscan and I don't know one person so stupid (and my friends are idiots) that they would take a test and be happy to say, "Hey! I'm a San Francisco Fisherman DNA!" with no further investigation. Well, come to think of it, I don't know anyone so stupid that when asked, "What's your ethnicity, or what's your ancestry?" they would answer, "San Franciscan".

I could be way off base , but I think even average people understand etnicity and acestry from an early age. And, even if they went to a Public School, they would know that Europeans came to America and that before that Amerindians lived in North and South America. This, in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be able to read and write.

So, using terms like "Western European" or "Southern European" would be helpful without being absolute about the origin of the guys "San Francisco Fisherman" DNA.

There's no need to bring in language like "even an idiot like me". I in no way implied you were not intelligent. I even agreed with you in my opening line.

I agree with you. The languages and ethnicities as we know them are NOT one for one overlaid with much more ancient branches of the R1b-L11 Y DNA tree.

However, I don't even like the geographic labels much. I'll be a bit cantankerous her, so forgive me and have a laugh.

Why shouldn't R1b-L21 be called a North American subclade? or a Boston subclade? or R1b-DF27 Latin American subclade? or R1b-U152 a San Francisco fisherman subclade (think Joe DiMaggio), etc., etc.

... but the European centric labeling make sense, right? We think we know that R1b-L21 didn't enter North American until the Exploration Age. I agree that it is probably true, which means we are not really calling subclades like R1b-L21 out by their current frequency but by their pre-Exploration Age probable high frequency areas. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that that is always assumed in the label by those who know.  However, it's not necessarily assumed by casual DNA testers. They may misunderstand all the qualifiers that go with the label.

You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system. However, everything is only as of a snapshot in time. What if we backup another 500-700 years from the Exploration Age to the pre-Viking Age, and/or the pre-Germanic Wandering Ages. Things might have looked different, so every label is for a snapshot in time.

What's the harm?  Unfortunately casual testers in some of the most critical locations may lose interest in testing because their ethnicity may appear to be only recently adopted to them. In fact, it could be the opposite, although not modern ethnicity-wise. They could be sitting in the true homeland of their subclade.

Please notice that I thought about your point (before you brought it up) and addressed the concern you brought up about idiots knowing about Boston or San Francisco subclades when I said "You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system."  

I get it but my larger point is that "every label is for a snapshot in time."  The people mix in the Boston may have been different pre-1500 than post 1700 and they may have been different again post 1860 and different again post 2000.  The same things might well have occurred to some degree in places in Ireland. the people mix in pre-1840 (before the Potato famine) Ireland might be different than the ones there now. The mix prior to 1650 (Cromwell and Ulster Plantation) was probably different. Before that we have 1350 and the Plague which supposedly hit the Normans harder than the Gaels and before that the Normans of 1170, and before that Viking incursions, etc., etc.

Nothing stays the same, even in place like Ireland. That's the folly of the anti-migrationist and indigenous wannabe line of thinking. I'm not saying you or anyone else here falls into that line of thinking, but it is an apparent line of reasoning (or lack thereof.)

I'm an equal opportunity advocate for my points.

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

No one has to tip toe around anything but U106 is a an ancient haplogroup, around long before Germanic languages. It's all in the use of the word "generally".  Generally I agree with you that specifically at a point in time a large portion of U106 people were in Germanic speaking groups. Not necessarily all where, though, so I wouldn't generally label U106 as Germanic, particularly since it is way older.  I also wouldn't label L21 as Irish or Britano-Irish.  Most were probably, but not all and before there was an Irishman and before there was a German, both U106 and L21 were something else... maybe even almost essentially the same thing.. Western IE or Central/NW IE.  For all we know the Hallstat people brought U106 into a mix of people that would be come the Jastorf culture.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Jastorf culture is an Iron Age material culture in what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC, forming the southern part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The culture evolved out of the Nordic Bronze Age, through influence from the Halstatt culture farther south.

By the way, a large portion of L21 people are now in Germanic speaking groups, mostly speaking English. Since I have bit of English I can't say I'm not English, but my lineages were mostly other things. I have several lineages that were Slavic, including Bohemia, named for ancient Celtic tribes there. So an R1b line from Bohemia is Celtic or Slavic?


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: vineviz on August 09, 2012, 09:21:48 AM
We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

People who have known me for a while will probably agree that getting me to use ANY sort of label (ethnic, national, geographic, etc.) involves something akin to pulling teeth.

I'm sympathetic to the desire to adjectify haplogroups, though my opinion is that it is best avoided.  

But if not avoided, I don't see any reason to favor vague geographic adjectives over other types:  all sorts need to be accompanied by the same class of caveats about uncertainty, specificity, attribution of origin, etc.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 09:30:29 AM
We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

People who have known me for a while will probably agree that getting me to use ANY sort of label (ethnic, national, geographic, etc.) involves something akin to pulling teeth.

I'm sympathetic to the desire to adjectify haplogroups, though my opinion is that it is best avoided.  

But if not avoided, I don't see any reason to favor vague geographic adjectives over other types:  all sorts need to be accompanied by the same class of caveats about uncertainty, specificity, attribution of origin, etc.

I agree about the necessity of caveats. That is why I said we can say things that are generally true but not necessarily true for every last particular member of a y haplogroup.

For example, suppose some Bashkirs showed up here who object to calling U152 a Central European y haplogroup. Would they be wrong?

Similarly, there are quite a few East European Jews who are L21+. North Atlantic? Not in their cases.

It's possible to raise objections to any sort of handle for a y haplogroup, geographic or otherwise.

Are the exceptions to prevent us from saying anything meaningful about a y haplogroup with sufficient brevity to render it intelligible? Or must we direct every inquirer to all that is known about a y haplogroup with the admonition, "Figure it out for yourself"?


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 09, 2012, 09:39:24 AM
When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 09:42:52 AM
When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.



You missed the point of my story, which wasn't that y dna tests have no value and can't tell us a thing we don't already know.

The point was that bland, broad, non-committal labels don't tell us much. If that's all we could possibly get for the price of a dna test, then dna testing would in fact be a waste of money.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 09, 2012, 09:47:22 AM
When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.



You missed the point of my story, which wasn't that y dna tests have no value and can't tell us a thing we don't already know.

The point was that bland, broad, non-committal labels don't tell us much. If that's all we could possibly get for the price of a dna test, then dna testing would in fact be a waste of money.

I agree that bland, broad non-committal labels don't tell us much. I also place Germanic in that category, but I'm not offended nor overly proud that I have some Germanic blood and speak a Germanic language. I don't speak Gaelic but I probably had ancestors that did and I'm not offended nor overly proud that I have some Gaelic blood, etc. etc.  

I was generally speaking of multiple lineages within the time back my genealogy can see. However, please consider:
1) As we go back 4-5000 years, even an single lineage may have many ethnicities. It all depends on a reference point in time. People were not static. They moved, they adjusted, they integrated, they fled, the overtook.
2) Ethnicities have probably not been very pure of any given 4000 year old haplogroup, at least any recent ethnicities that we might identify with.

That pretty much exhausts my thought on this. I'm not a big stickler (initiator of ethnic concerns) on all of this but like to counter-argue. Time to move on.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: gtc on August 09, 2012, 09:49:01 AM
This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

There's a guy on FTDNA forums who is superficially Eruo-looking and he tested as hg B!

This is so rare that FTDNA re-ran his test a number of times to make sure they weren't in error. He has Spanish roots so there's some suggestion of Moors, etc, but he's quite alone in the various databases.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 10:00:23 AM
I have no problem with the idea of the various streams that flow into my family river. For example, I know from contact with relatives that one of the y lines on my father's side is I-M253. That line has been traced back to England and so is most likely Anglo-Saxon or Danish Viking. Cool. Fine.

Another of the y lines on my father's side is E1b1b. The immigrant ancestor in that case came from Northern Ireland but the surname is English. I think its ultimate source was probably a Roman soldier or merchant (but of course I don't know for sure). That's cool, too.

I identify most strongly with my own y-dna line, but that's by choice and with the understanding that no one, including me, is a "pure" anything.

It's all good.

But the source of the current drama is the exact opposite feeling, that it's not all good, that it would be a bad thing to be of some kind of Germanic extraction on one's y-dna line.

I won't start using bland, non-committal geographic categories merely to pander to persons with that feeling.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: vineviz on August 09, 2012, 10:10:31 AM
Are the exceptions to prevent us from saying anything meaningful about a y haplogroup with sufficient brevity to render it intelligible? Or must we direct every inquirer to all that is known about a y haplogroup with the admonition, "Figure it out for yourself"?

I think the question should always be whether the labels are telling us anything useful or not.  Also, is there a better way to communicate?

If it is true that most R-U106 men come from Germanic-speaking countries, I see no problem in saying that.

Saying that R-U106 is a Germanic haplogroup takes on a whole extra layer of assumptions that make me uncomfortable.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 10:23:51 AM
Are the exceptions to prevent us from saying anything meaningful about a y haplogroup with sufficient brevity to render it intelligible? Or must we direct every inquirer to all that is known about a y haplogroup with the admonition, "Figure it out for yourself"?

I think the question should always be whether the labels are telling us anything useful or not.  Also, is there a better way to communicate?

If it is true that most R-U106 men come from Germanic-speaking countries, I see no problem in saying that.

Saying that R-U106 is a Germanic haplogroup takes on a whole extra layer of assumptions that make me uncomfortable.

I wouldn't put it that last way. I would say something like, "U106 appears to have a strong connection to Germanic peoples", or even that it "appears to be mostly Germanic". Most people would understand that and probably wouldn't need a dozen caveats about exceptions.

In places like Ireland, and this is really just one more thread about U106 and Ireland, the documented history of invasion and settlement by people from places where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland itself is well known.

That makes it very likely, with all the caveats that we don't know for sure about each individual case, etc., that a U106+ result in Ireland means y line descent from one of those invaders or settlers. Very likely, not absolutely certain.

That's about as good as it gets without some kind of good paper trail or excellent, high-resolution match.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: gtc on August 09, 2012, 10:42:44 AM

In places like Ireland, and this is really just one more thread about U106 and Ireland, the documented history of invasion and settlement by people from places where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland itself is well known.

.... not to mention the possibility of the farmer jumping the fence (aka NPE).


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: vineviz on August 09, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
I wouldn't put it that last way. I would say something like, "U106 appears to have a strong connection to Germanic peoples", or even that it "appears to be mostly Germanic". Most people would understand that and probably wouldn't need a dozen caveats about exceptions.

In places like Ireland, and this is really just one more thread about U106 and Ireland, the documented history of invasion and settlement by people from places where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland itself is well known.

That seems reasonable.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Jdean on August 09, 2012, 12:01:08 PM
I wouldn't put it that last way. I would say something like, "U106 appears to have a strong connection to Germanic peoples", or even that it "appears to be mostly Germanic". Most people would understand that and probably wouldn't need a dozen caveats about exceptions.

In places like Ireland, and this is really just one more thread about U106 and Ireland, the documented history of invasion and settlement by people from places where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland itself is well known.

That seems reasonable.

Yep !

Bet somebody moans about it, I can just hear somebody typing myopic in the background :)


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 09, 2012, 12:44:08 PM

I won't start using bland, non-committal geographic categories merely to pander to persons with that feeling.

No one ever said you had to.

I'll use the terms because I think they better fit what we know. L21 is a Western European Subclade. DF23 appears to be an Atlantic Subclade.

I happen to know exactly to the farmhouse where I'm from, but I realize that not everyone does. If an adopted male took a test and found out he was DF23, I would hope that he understands that this doesn't define all of his ancestry. I would also hope that he wouldn't think that being DF23 would make him absolutely Welsh, or absolutely Irish.

A good example is my T2g mtDNA result. Because mtDNA Haplogroup T2 is found in low levels around Europe it hasn't been pinpointed and is given more general descriptions. One generalized description is that it came into Western Europe with Neolithic Farming. Do I know for certain my line came in from farming? No. It could have come to Brittany with the Alans. However, if you left it to the way some people treat Y-DNA, they would go to its area of highest frequency and theorized origin and tell me that I am a Jewish Iranian on my mother's side. :) Wow! All of this time I stupidly thought I was French-Canadian on my Mom's side and I'm really Iranian Jewish!

I have read posts from many on here complaining that people won't test for L21 because they think it is Irish, or from The Isles. Perhaps they would have been more likely to test if they heard it was found mostly in Western Europe and possibly had its origin there.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 12:53:28 PM
People who have serious reservations about what their dna test results might show them should avoid dna testing altogether.

Calling something "Western European" instead of "mostly insular Celtic" or "mostly Germanic" won't protect their sensibilities for long.

What if the person thinks of himself as something other than European and gets a "Western European" result?

What then?

A new classification perhaps? Homo sapiens sapiens?

Hide the distribution maps?


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 09, 2012, 01:19:27 PM
People who have serious reservations about what their dna test results might show them should avoid dna testing altogether.

Calling something "Western European" instead of "mostly insular Celtic" or "mostly Germanic" won't protect their sensibilities for long.

What if the person thinks of himself as something other than European and gets a "Western European" result?

What then?

A new classification perhaps? Homo sapiens sapiens?

Hide the distribution maps?

If a person gets a result that is surprising to them they will try to learn more about it. Hopefully, they will nor run into people on forums who tell them it must be because of an NPE or that an invading army is the reason for their surprising result.

The fact is, that with any surprising result, we don't know how it came about. We can say that, although their certain Haplogroup or Subclade is most often found in an area, there could be many reasons how they ended up with it. Of course, one of the answers may be that their information about their background is incorrect.

Autosomal test have given many of us surprising results. Native Irish guys with cousins from Russia and Germany, people like me with higher than average Caucasus scores, French-Canadians who land squarely among Irish testers on maps and so on. And, of course, you can imagine the answers people come up with on forums!!!! As all of you know, the idea that any Irish person ever left Ireland to go to the Continent is scoffed at, yet there is ample evidence of Irish nannies going to Russia. Still, there is no definite answer. It appears that some Cornish people also have high Caucasus scores and that may show up in my Breton ancestry. We never truly know.

Well, I should say that I don't know. Others on these forums do know and are able to tell anyone with a surprising score just what their background is.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 01:43:35 PM
When has anyone here ever said they know all the answers with absolute certainty?

I know in my own posts I have always qualified everything by talking about likelihood and whether or not something is likely, not whether or not it is merely possible.

We also discuss the evidence and the preponderance of the evidence.

I don't usually mention NPEs because I think that term has a bad or immoral connotation, when in fact NPEs in the past were often the product of informal adoption rather than of marital infidelity (not that infidelity never occurred).

As for invading armies, and all that, sometimes that's the answer. Why withhold information for fear that someone might not like it, unless they tell you up front they don't want to hear about that sort of thing? If they tell you that, then you would know that person has little interest in the truth, and you could ignore him.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: samIsaack on August 09, 2012, 02:11:27 PM

I won't start using bland, non-committal geographic categories merely to pander to persons with that feeling.

A good example is my T2g mtDNA result. Because mtDNA Haplogroup T2 is found in low levels around Europe it hasn't been pinpointed and is given more general descriptions. One generalized description is that it came into Western Europe with Neolithic Farming. Do I know for certain my line came in from farming? No. It could have come to Brittany with the Alans. However, if you left it to the way some people treat Y-DNA, they would go to its area of highest frequency and theorized origin and tell me that I am a Jewish Iranian on my mother's side. :) Wow! All of this time I stupidly thought I was French-Canadian on my Mom's side and I'm really Iranian Jewish!

I feel your pain on that one! I guess our Mito grouping would be considered something of a sister relation (JT split). All I know of my group is that it is found in Northern Germany, Scandinavia and Great Britain.. thats for my specific J1c8 group. So, all I really know or can speculate on is the exact same origin theory/speculation they give to you T's. Though I've heard for J1c, of the varities in the U.K., that it was likely brought there by the Vikings. I guess a broad, general hypothesis is better than nothing. I also have the super-human ability to produce heat in frigid enviroments lol.. though if I contract the aids virus I'm pretty much s.o.l. Quicker than all those H's anyways.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 09, 2012, 02:16:40 PM
I'm not allowed to use the second person singular, but I'd say the the key word used by the guy who wrote the above post is "sometimes". As in, "As for invading armies, and all that, sometimes that's the answer." But do we know for certain which times the "sometimes" are the answer?  :)

So again, we don't know. Sometimes invading armies could be the answer, sometimes it could be something else. Sometimes. I could be. It might be. It's very likely that.

L21 is a Western European Subclade of R1b. It appears to be about 4,000 years old, and may have its origin in areas that were later populated by Celtic people. Some Subclades of L21 can be better defined from early results. Some of these subclades appear to be confined to The Isles and a person having a test result with one of these Isles type Subclades could make the assumption that their Y-DNA line came from the Isles. It is not known at this time how or when L21 entered the Isles.

DF23 is a Subclade of L21 and early results show that it has been found in The Isles and France. The origin of DF23 is unknown at this time. And so on....

What could be wrong with these descriptions?


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 09, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
I'm not allowed to use the second person singular, but I'd say the the key word used by the guy who wrote the above post is "sometimes". As in, "As for invading armies, and all that, sometimes that's the answer." But do we know for certain which times the "sometimes" are the answer?  :)

So again, we don't know. Sometimes invading armies could be the answer, sometimes it could be something else. Sometimes. I could be. It might be. It's very likely that.

L21 is a Western European Subclade of R1b. It appears to be about 4,000 years old, and may have its origin in areas that were later populated by Celtic people. Some Subclades of L21 can be better defined from early results. Some of these subclades appear to be confined to The Isles and a person having a test result with one of these Isles type Subclades could make the assumption that their Y-DNA line came from the Isles. It is not known at this time how or when L21 entered the Isles.

DF23 is a Subclade of L21 and early results show that it has been found in The Isles and France. The origin of DF23 is unknown at this time. And so on....

What could be wrong with these descriptions?

There is nothing wrong with those descriptions, they are very nice.

What is wrong is to expect folks on this forum to use them as a legal disclaimer to start every topic or conversation.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 09, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
I'm not allowed to use the second person singular, but I'd say the the key word used by the guy who wrote the above post is "sometimes". As in, "As for invading armies, and all that, sometimes that's the answer." But do we know for certain which times the "sometimes" are the answer?  :)

So again, we don't know. Sometimes invading armies could be the answer, sometimes it could be something else. Sometimes. I could be. It might be. It's very likely that.

L21 is a Western European Subclade of R1b. It appears to be about 4,000 years old, and may have its origin in areas that were later populated by Celtic people. Some Subclades of L21 can be better defined from early results. Some of these subclades appear to be confined to The Isles and a person having a test result with one of these Isles type Subclades could make the assumption that their Y-DNA line came from the Isles. It is not known at this time how or when L21 entered the Isles.

DF23 is a Subclade of L21 and early results show that it has been found in The Isles and France. The origin of DF23 is unknown at this time. And so on....

What could be wrong with these descriptions?

There is nothing wrong with those descriptions, they are very nice.

What is wrong is to expect folks on this forum to use them as a legal disclaimer to start every topic or conversation.

I'll use them. I don't expect anyone else to use them, nor would I ever wish to force people to use them.

I like them! Honestly, the Atlantic appeals to me for some reason. Terms like Atlantic Facade and Atlantic Arc have the ability to make me feel good. I love looking at a map that shows the Atlantic Arc and when I see the maps of L21 frequency it gives me that "Atlantic" feel. Western Europe also appeals to me. When I think that L21 came to th Isles from Western Europe, my mind immediately pictures a map without borders that runs from what is now The Netherlands to La Rochelle. That may, in fact, not be where L21 came to the Isles from, but gives me a general idea.

When I picture maps without borders, I get a feeling that brings me back to 4,000 years ago and settlements of people. When I think of the Bronze Age, I think of a busy Atlantic and trade up and down the Bay of Biscay and the Isles. That's just me. It's a Google map without borders.

More importantly to me, I'm not Irish because I'm DF23, I'm Irish because of my Dad and his ancestors on both sides as far back as I can trace. I'm not a quarter French-Canadian and a quarter Scots-Irish because of any Haplogroup either. I have that ancestry because of my Mom and her ancestors. They could be L21, J24a, mtDNA T2g, H, anything, it doesn't matter. Nor do the names matter! Hey, you try telling someone you're irish with names like Kehoe, Taaffe and Slamon in your family! Also, in many cases I don't even have a great paper trail! However, I can walk you, along with my cousin, to the gravestone in Kilrush Parish and show you my great, great, great grandfather. Stone trail.

People will find their own identities and they will find their own ways to define their own identities. I have found mine. Unfortunately, there are others who will not allow others to define themselves their own way. One need only read these forums to see that.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 03:34:29 PM
. . .

Unfortunately, there are others who will not allow others to define themselves their own way. One need only read these forums to see that.


You were doing fine until you reached for the shovel and decided to muck out the stable with that last line.

Talking about y haplogroups, their distribution, and what they signify in this or that place has nothing whatsoever to do with not allowing others to "define themselves in their own way".

I mean, who cares what I or anyone else here thinks, anyway?

Define yourself as you will, whoever you are.

That is none of my business, but it won't stop me from expressing my opinion here in this forum, if I have an opinion.



Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: eochaidh on August 09, 2012, 03:38:01 PM
Perfect!


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 03:42:19 PM
Besides, the problem here lately has not even remotely been about not allowing others to define themselves in their own way.

It's been about hardly allowing a thread to go by without some cockamamie wild goose chase into the nightmare world of Irish U106 and how it's "myopic" to think it might be Germanic.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: stoneman on August 09, 2012, 03:46:18 PM
Posting deleted


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 09, 2012, 03:56:39 PM
Chill out folks.  Think back about 4 years when all we had was M269 and all we knew is we were vaguely west Eurasian.  Now we have Europe broken into (overlapping) geographical blocks and of course more localised subclades.  Its progress.  Be happy.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 04:03:10 PM
Chill out folks.  Think back about 4 years when all we had was M269 and all we knew is we were vaguely west Eurasian.  Now we have Europe broken into (overlapping) geographical blocks and of course more localised subclades.  Its progress.  Be happy.

Sometimes I miss those old days! ;-)

(But not much!)


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: seferhabahir on August 09, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Similarly, there are quite a few East European Jews who are L21+. North Atlantic? Not in their cases.

Absolutely agree. I keep trying to be open-minded about our little Jewish subset of L21+ (now maybe DF13* subclade) being something other than Eastern Europe Ashkenazi, but I just don't yet see the evidence that we came from some North Atlantic convert to the tribe. As I've said before, when are some non-Jewish L21+ testers that match our 1111EE haplotype going to show up? Just one would do. In the meantime, I will just cling to my little ethnic haplotype and presume we just came late to the big Rhineland party, joining up with other P312, L459, L21, DF13 folks that arrived way early.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
BTW, there's an L583+ category on the project's Y-DNA Results pages now. Maybe some more guys will test for that one.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: seferhabahir on August 09, 2012, 08:14:02 PM
BTW, there's an L583+ category on the project's Y-DNA Results pages now. Maybe some more guys will test for that one.

I keep asking our third known L583+ to join the project, but he hasn't yet. Not sure why, maybe he went on a vacation. He is a 66/67 match to Burde and a 63/67 to Yurzditsky. I'll keep reminding him.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: seferhabahir on August 09, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
By the way, your colors somehow got turned off at the top of page 3 for the second part of the C. Group on the project pages. Either an FTDNA glitch or an operator error.


Title: Re: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
Post by: rms2 on August 09, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
By the way, your colors somehow got turned off at the top of page 3 for the second part of the C. Group on the project pages. Either an FTDNA glitch or an operator error.

That has happened before. It's a glitch.