PDA

View Full Version : S1855



Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 07:44 AM
I am Germanic with a YDNA u106 profile. My terminal haplogroup is S1855. I come from the UK and have an Anglo-Saxon surname. I have some Swedish ancestors . Does anyone have any further information on the origins of S1855. Clearly there is an Anglo-Saxon element, but might there also be an ancient Scandinavian connection? Please advise. Thank you for your help and support

Wing Genealogist
10-05-2017, 09:50 AM
First of all, if you have not already done so, I would encourage you to join the R-U106 Yahoogroup discussion group by sending an email to: [email protected] Virtually all of the discussion about U106 and its subclades happens in this group, and many of the experts are not members of other forums (such as this one).

S1855 is a small subclade. Most folks who have tested positive for this SNP report their MDKA (Most Distant Known Ancestor) as being from England, Scotland, or (in the case of the Haviland family) the Isle of Guernsey. However, we do have a couple of individuals who fall under the S1859 subclade who report their MDKA from Sweden as well as one individual in the larger FGC17465 subclade reporting a MDKA from Finland. Finally, we also have one individual from the FGC17465 subclade who reports his MDKA from Germany.

IMHO (In my humble opinion) the fact you have some Swedish ancestors has no bearing on whether S1855 has an ancient Scandinavian connection. By the time your surname married these Swedish lines, the family had undoubtedly forgotten about its ancient origins.

Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 11:14 AM
Thank you for your message and information. However, as far as I am aware S1855 is an ancient haplogroup and the fact that some members are found in Sweden and you say Finland, might suggest that it originates there. After all the Swedish Battle Axe culture is U106. The fact that there are Swedish connections today does not logically eliminate the fact that they might be ancient too. The fact that there are some Scandinavian S1855 today also suggests some Scandinavian connectivity. I am already a member of Family tree U106 group and Ian Mc Donald has given some tentative support to my tentative deductions.

Wing Genealogist
10-05-2017, 02:29 PM
For a small sample size (22 S1855+ results in the U106 Project), the fact we do have three individuals who state their MDKA is from either Sweden or Finland may well be significant. However, we are dealing with very small numbers. A small sample size can easily be skewed by what are later discovered to be atypical results.

Likewise a single ancient U106+ result is simply not enough data to do more than speculate about the origins of this clade. It is a tantalizing clue, but we simply need a lot more data.

I am not saying U106 did not originate in Scandinavia. I am only saying we don't have anywhere near enough data (to date) to reach any sort of conclusion.

Wing Genealogist
10-05-2017, 02:55 PM
There appears to be a significant bottleneck within the early history of the U106 clade. With the exception of its dominant subclade (Z381, which continued to spawn a number of subclades in the succeeding generations), the other subclades of U106 appear to have "formed" several hundred years after the origin of U106. A chart at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html shows this gap.

Please note where I placed the word formed in quotations. SNPs are random events, and they do occur even when there is a population bottleneck. But clades as opposed to SNPs are only formed when we see multiple lineages. With the exception of Z381, all of the subclades directly below U106 have a number of equivalent SNPs. This "grouping" of SNPs (where everyone is either positive for all or them or negative for all of them) are an indication of a bottleneck.

Looking at the above chart (which should still be taken with a grain of salt, as the age estimates are still a very rough estimate), The common ancestor to all FGC3861 clade members is roughly dated 1000 years after the formation of U106. It then shows where the common ancestor to all S1855+ (which is labelled S1847 in this chart) persons is roughly 800 years after the origin of FGC3861.

The clade between FGC3861 & S1855 (Z8053/FGC7916) is not included in Iain McDonald's analysis of Big Y results because the location of this SNP within the Y Chromosome is not in the region he uses to base his estimates. See http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/faq.html#whereclades for more details.


Another way of looking at it is that U106 has one equivalent SNP (Z2265). Z381, its major subclade Z301, as well as Z301s major subclade L48 all have no equivalent SNPs. This indicates a relatively short period of time between the formation of the parent clade and the formation of the subclades.
However, FGC3861 has six equivalent SNPs, and Z8053 has two equivalent SNPs and S1855 has seven equivalent subclades.


I bring up this issue due to the fact there was a significant period of time between the formation of the U106 clade and the origin of S1855. Thus, the origins of S1855 could easily have occurred hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the origin of U106.

Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 06:18 PM
I agree entirely that sample sizes teNd to be small. This is a problem throughout thie kind of analysis generally discussed in these columns and generally in this kind of research. There is no estimate either of probabilities, which is what much statistical inference depends. We don't generally approach a normal distribution so non parametric techniques are more appropriate. Having said this, the u106 Swedish battle axe culture occurs around the estimated time of S1855, as far as I am aware, if not before So it is not necessarily the case that S1855 predates u106, in fact S1855 is generally regarded as a subclad of U106 and not the other way round. In any event if you start sample argument then much of what we discuss is a figment of the imagination. However if as you state above FGC3861 is formed after U106 and S1855 after FGC3861, then it is entirely possible that S1855 is of ancient Swedish origin.

Wing Genealogist
10-05-2017, 07:21 PM
According to Iain's work at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/tree.html the Swedish Battle Axe (Corded Ware) culture ended circa 2250 BC or so. It is entirely possible FGC3861 may have been around at this time, but it appears to be too soon for S1855 (estimated date circa 1000 BC which was roughly in the late Nordic Bronze Age).

There is still a LOT of uncertainty in the age estimates, and most anything is possible. However, it is highly unlikely the estimates are so far off to allow S1855 to be around during the Swedish Battle Axe culture.

I cannot recall the quality of the DNA result for RISE 98 (the Swedish Battle Axe U106+ individual). However, I do know he tested negative for all of the currently known subclades of U106, and falls into a subclade that has either died out, or not been found in the population alive today.

Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 07:26 PM
Actually, also there is sometimes nothing wrong with a sample of 1. Take the U106 found in Sweden in one ancient sample. This proves at least two things, although the sample is only one individual
1. U106 was an ancient Scandinavian-occurring gene
2. Ancient remains are found in Sweden.
There are two further deductions from this that are admittedly more tentative but certainly plausible. If ancient evidence of U106 is found in Sweden, it is unlikely to have been an isolated phenomenon. In other words, statistical probability would suggest, given its ancient origins, that there is likely to have been many other persons of U106 of which this is but one example. As a further illustration of this idea, there is only one surviving example of a Viking helmet today but of course many existed at that time.

Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 07:41 PM
Exactly! if U106 Battle axe culture ended 2250 years BC and S1855 1000 years BC (Late Nordic bronze period), then since S1855 is younger than U106 in the Swedish remains ( by your own account) it could have derived from it. In England, although many people are unaware of this fact, there was a Swedish Viking infusion in what has become known as the Wuffinga (Wood,2005) dynasty. I am not saying it is a fact but that it is a possibility that S1855 in the UK derives from that dynasty given the existing Swedish connection today. In my own case I believe my U106 is mainly of Anglo-Saxon origin but with a plausible Swedish connection.

Curleyprow
10-05-2017, 08:25 PM
"I bring up this issue due to the fact there was a significant period of time between the formation of the U106 clade and the origin of S1855. Thus, the origins of S1855 could easily have occurred hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the origin of U106."
Your comment seems to suggest that since S1855 may have occurred miles away from the origins of U106 and yet is part of U106(I am designated as Germanic) then it is quite plausible to have derived from Sweden as it is seen in the UK today or from other parts of Northern Europe. Are you suggesting that I am not U106 at all? That would fly in the face of my YDNA profile for sure!

Wing Genealogist
10-06-2017, 12:38 AM
All I am saying is that we cannot pin down when and where these clades formed with any sort of precision. Yes, S1855 could have been from Scandinavia, but it could equally be from (say) Austria. We simply do not have enough samples from the European mainland to reach any solid conclusions. As such, any claim is is more wishful thinking than it is a reasonable (and scientific) hypothesis.

Curleyprow
10-06-2017, 05:53 AM
I agree with that comment, but if we are to take scientific parsimony as a guiding criterion I would say that most of what we talk about in these columns errs on the imaginative! Ian has suggested, very tentatively, that S1855 is either Anglo-Saxon, Danish Viking or Viking ( i.e. Other-than-Danish Viking or bits of each of these). My name Coldwell, is considered of Anglo-Saxon origin and that, plus my Germanic Y DNA profile, suggests that it is that that I mainly consist of. As a matter of interest, why do you suggest Austria? Are there more Austrian S1855's than Swedish current examples? Please advise.

Curleyprow
10-06-2017, 08:25 AM
Actually, you have raised another issue for which there is no clear answer. What is an acceptable sample size for moving from "wishful thinking" to a plausible scientific hypothesis? (I don't think we are able to move much beyond that in this area of knowledge). We don't have very accurate ideas about population sizes 2-3 000 years BC, so it is impossible to estimate what an acceptable population sample would be in terms of it's representation. Actually, as a general rule I would go so far as to say that genealogists in this area tend to be statistically unsophisticated and to make spurious inferences as a consequence. But I do find it amusing that some hypotheses are more equal than others despite this fact!
What we can say, using Popper's idea of falsification is that when we have but one instance of a 'Black swan', that not 'all swans are white', as in the case of the solitary instance so far of the ancient remains discovered in Sweden of U106.
This discovery, given the slowness and hazards of migration in those times, suggests that this individual was born and died in Sweden. That seems plausible and if so it means that U106 has Scandinavian roots. That is NOT to say that U106 may not also originate in other parts of the Germanic migrations in Europe. It also means that S1855 that comes within the proto Germanic U106 profile might also have origins ( not necessarily the only origins) in Scandinavia. This idea idea is further tentatively bolstered by fairly ancient ancestors in some cases originating in Sweden. This also suggests, in line with Popper's reasoning, that S1855 cannot not be considered of possible Scandinavian origin.

Tancred
10-07-2017, 02:00 AM
I am FGC17465, so this subject is of interest to me. I spend way too much time thinking about what it all means in relationship to my ancestry. Since FGC17465 is thought to have originated around 640BC, there isn't much that's enlightening about being FGC17465. Maybe some day more SNPs will become known. Until then, I'm left to guess. But I do find it interesting that the only other FGC17465 in the U106 group is a Schmidt from Cologne. I have good reason to believe my ancestors were Frankish. The Schmidt in Cologne fits my theory. Doesn't really address any of the issues brought up in this thread, but my SNP never gets mentioned, so I thought I'd take advantage of a rare opportunitiy.

Curleyprow
10-07-2017, 06:45 AM
Yes, I know how it feels! But yours is truly ancient! I agree that your 'wishful thinking', as Swift would put it, has grounds for belief. I think it highly significant ( in a non-statistical sense) that the only other FGC17465 is Schmidt from Cologne. So far that means, using Popper's falsification criterion, 'that all swans are white' because, so far you have not gotten evidence of anything other than that; i.e. that FGC17465 is of Frankish origin. Your tentative hypothesis is therefore supported by the available evidence ( and that is all ANY hypothesis can ever be) but is open to further testing and falsification. As more evidence supporting your hypotheses becomes available so does it become increasingly corroborated, robust and tenable. For now your theory that you ancestors are Frankish is supported.

Wing Genealogist
10-07-2017, 11:41 AM
I am FGC17465, so this subject is of interest to me. I spend way too much time thinking about what it all means in relationship to my ancestry. Since FGC17465 is thought to have originated around 640BC, there isn't much that's enlightening about being FGC17465. Maybe some day more SNPs will become known. Until then, I'm left to guess. But I do find it interesting that the only other FGC17465 in the U106 group is a Schmidt from Cologne. I have good reason to believe my ancestors were Frankish. The Schmidt in Cologne fits my theory. Doesn't really address any of the issues brought up in this thread, but my SNP never gets mentioned, so I thought I'd take advantage of a rare opportunitiy.

When looking at the results for the U106 Project, it is also important to look at the results of subclades. While the FGC17465 clade currently only contains two kits, there are a small number of subclades. In total, the U106 project has 15 individuals who tested positive for FGC17465.

Given the fact this is an old clade, we can expect it to be found in fairly widely scattered locations. The MDKPA for FGC17465+ folks include the Isle of Guernsey (for the de Haviland family), Finland, Scotland, England as well as Germany.

Tancred
10-07-2017, 12:08 PM
I have looked at the other FGC17465 positive results. Since I tested negative for the downstream SNPs that they are positive for, it seems they parted company with my ancestors so long ago that there isn't much useful to gain. If I understand the history correctly, the Germanic people began to spread outward from Scandinavia about the time that FGC17465 developed. There are two new SNPs I could test for, but so far their associated STRs don't match mine—so I'm assuming I'd probably test negative for those. Thanks for the feedback.

Curleyprow
10-11-2017, 06:40 AM
Thank you for your commentary. This is very helpful. If U106 is older than S1855, which I take it to be and we know U106 was obtained in an ancient specimen in Sweden, but with no modern clades, could the U106 not have become in later times S1855 and this S1855 was transferred to the UK through much later Viking incursions? We know that U106 was introduced to the UK by Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Vikings. I agree that the fact that S1855 exists in Sweden today does not mean that it existed at that time, but it is possible that it might have been introduced to England along with other U106 during the Viking incursions. How else might my Swedish/ Scandinavian occurring S1855 have got there? It must have come originally from outside England, like U106 and existing S1855 samples suggest that it could have come from Sweden. Is that not a reasonable if admittedly tentative argument? Please advise.

uintah106
10-29-2017, 05:48 PM
Very reasonable. The odds strongly favor your theory as opposed to some isolated more modern occurence. My own case is somewhat similar. The only two matches at R- U106>s19589>s11493 are in England my male line is Danish.I think the odds favor the origin of this branch being scandinavian.

Wing Genealogist
10-29-2017, 06:18 PM
Very reasonable. The odds strongly favor your theory as opposed to some isolated more modern occurence. My own case is somewhat similar. The only two matches at R- U106>s19589>s11493 are in England my male line is Danish.I think the odds favor the origin of this branch being scandinavian.

Where are you seeing your matches at S11493? The U106 project currently only has one individual who has tested positive for this SNP. If you have tested with FTDNA, I would encourage you to join the U106 Project.

Looking at the origins of folks at the U106 Project who are positive for S19589, we have one individual who claims origins in the Russian Federation, One in Sweden, One in Germany & one of Unknown origin. This certainly points to the origin from the Continent (rather than the "Isles"), but there is still not enough information to "strongly" give a more localized origin.

uintah106
10-29-2017, 09:48 PM
I have taken the R u106 superclade test at yseq. The info you requested is on ftdna's website in regard to y dna matches. I would be happy to give you my yseq id privately. My y line is from the danish islands 3generations ago. My point is it seems more logical that it came to England via Anglo Saxon or scandinavian viking excursions. The s19589 members . One is from sweden, the others are volga germans. Which get back to the point of this post . Its more logical to think these y dna markers are ancient rather than more modern. With respect.

Wing Genealogist
10-29-2017, 10:04 PM
I certainly concur the clade S19589 clade is likely quite ancient, has Continental origins, and likely came to England via either the Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian Viking excursions.

I am also the administrator for the R1b-U106/M405/S21 Group at YBrowse. I note there is one individual in that group who has tested S11493+ and am assuming this is yours.

AFAIK (As far as I know) there is only one individual who is S19589+ and has taken the Big Y. The U106 Age estimation comes from the Big Y results, and we need at least two results to obtain an estimate. Thus we cannot calculate an estimated age for this clade. However, it is currently placed as a subclade directly below U106, so while it appears to be rare (or at least rare in the UK & US), it must be quite old.

uintah106
10-29-2017, 10:28 PM
Would love to take big y test at ftdna, maybe next year. New house. Any thoughts or comments on my y line are greatly appreciated

uintah106
10-29-2017, 10:45 PM
You must feel the anglosaxon danish viking hypohesis for most english R u106 holds water?

uintah106
10-29-2017, 11:09 PM
Sometimes the obvious is the obvious. R u106 is germanic, on steoids, basal markrs all seem to have a germanic origin.

Wing Genealogist
10-29-2017, 11:39 PM
You must feel the anglosaxon danish viking hypohesis for most english R u106 holds water?

To me, the current evidence suggest the majority of U106+ folks in "the Isles" came over during the Anglo Saxon & Viking excursions. It is also quite likely some U106+ folks came over earlier (either in the Roman Empire era, or possibly even earlier) and some U106+ folks came over later.

Unfortunately, there simply is not enough U106+ ancient DNA samples to make an educated guess at the origins and earliest history of U106. The fact the earliest U106+ sample to date is located in the southern tip of what is now Sweden doesn't necessarily mean U106 was there in significant numbers at that early date.

While the "Germanic" label for U106 isn't really accurate (U106 formed roughly 2500 years before the Roman historians described the various Germanic tribes), the areas where U106 is fairly common are areas where one or more of the various Germanic Tribes had a significant presence at some point in history.

uintah106
11-02-2017, 02:49 AM
In the bottom half of your U106 tree under details in your comments to the right of s11493 you state 'may have equivalent snps with Rise 98' I'm assuming this is outdated.? Please explain.

Curleyprow
11-02-2017, 04:51 AM
An interesting poem by Kipling seeks to distinguish the 'group personality' differences between the Normans who, as you know, were of Scandinavian origin and the Saxons in England. They have lived side by side for generations and productively (although I believe that to this day about fifth of the land in England is still owned by people of Norman stock!).
In any event Kipling wrote:

"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.

"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.

They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"

Wing Genealogist
11-02-2017, 08:16 AM
In the bottom half of your U106 tree under details in your comments to the right of s11493 you state 'may have equivalent snps with Rise 98' I'm assuming this is outdated.? Please explain.

The issue with S11493 is that it is not included in Big Y results (and neither are any of its currently equivalent SNPs), nor are any of them found in any of the FGC results we have to date.

These SNPs were discovered and named by Jim Wilson, who at one time ran Ethnoancestry and later was associated with BritainsDNA (and others). These companies are no longer in business and I am not aware of what Dr. Wilson is doing now.

We were able to include S11493 on the U106 SNP pack, and we do have an individual positive for this SNP. There was also a study (which is not yet published) which found a couple of folks who belong to this clade.


The bottom line is we still do not have enough information to firmly place S11493 on the tree. That being given, it is fairly certain the RISE98 ancient DNA sample would be negative for this clade, but even then, we cannot prove one way or the other. It is possible the position of the SNPs (within the Y Chromosome) in this clade may make it difficult for NGS testing to capture.

Curleyprow
11-02-2017, 08:53 AM
"Unfortunately, there simply is not enough U106+ ancient DNA samples to make an educated guess at the origins and earliest history of U106. The fact the earliest U106+ sample to date is located in the southern tip of what is now Sweden doesn't necessarily mean U106 was there in significant numbers at that early date".

Of course this is quite correct, although I have to say that the issue of what constitutes 'significant numbers' is somewhat imponderable as we have no real idea of population sizes in ancient times. So from a statistical point of view it becomes next to impossible to decide what constitutes a representative sample size. From this it follows that the statistical probability of making a Type 1 error in genealogical induction is very large indeed. The fact that RISE98 was discovered in South Sweden proves that U106 it was present there in ancient times. It seems to me that from this discovery, it is perfectly possible that this ancient U106 may have merged with othe ancient clades that are now evident in Sweden and may have been in Sweden at that time too, such as S1855 and, for that matter, S11493 too.

uintah106
11-17-2017, 05:55 AM
I am also positive for s19589 . So it must have the same status in relationship to rise 98?

Wing Genealogist
11-17-2017, 12:46 PM
I am also positive for s19589 . So it must have the same status in relationship to rise 98?

No. The RISE98 sample was negative for all of the SNPs in the S19589 clade and the members of the S19589 clade were negative for all of the (currently private) SNPs RISE98 had below U106.

It appears RISE98 was a member of a clade which is now extinct. Various simulation software has shown where the majority of subclades die off (ie have no living male descendants) and only a small portion of the older part of the "tree" still survives.

S19589 is currently a direct subclade of U106 and RISE98 belonged to a (different) direct subclade of U106.


I say "currently" as the U106 Project administrators received notice overnight from FTDNA where the Big Y conversion from Build37 to Build38 may have revealed a new subclade of U106 which incorporates most, but not all, of the currently known subclades directly below U106. This new SNP mutation is only called sporadically (but only found in U106+ individuals), and appears in the centromere of the Y Chromosome (which is a region very difficult to read). More research is needed to verify (or refute) this brand-new discovery.

uintah106
11-17-2017, 04:27 PM
I'm a little confused, S11493 is or isn't considered a subclade of S19589? Or are all S19589 positive testers also positive for S11493 and haven't taken tests that reveal this mutation.

Wing Genealogist
11-17-2017, 06:26 PM
I am not at home at the moment, so don't have access to the U106 tree. I do remember that S19589 has at least one subclade, and it probably is the S11493 clade you mentioned.

I was just saying there is no direct relationship between the S19589 clade (which includes subclades) and where the RISE98 ancient DNA sample falls under U106. They both fall under different subclades (currently) directly below U106. As I mentioned previously, it is highly likely the clade RISE98 belonged to is now extinct. It remains to be seen if we ever find another ancient DNA specimen that shares any of RISE98 SNPs, but I personally doubt it.

The new SNP discovery would have no affect on the subclades of S19589. Rather, S19589 may (or may not) be a direct subclade of this new SNP, rather than a direct subclade of U106. There are currently very few S19589+ folks who have taken a Big Y test (I am aware of three or so individuals) and this new SNP is only called sporadically, so part of the issue surrounding this new SNP is whether S19589 is positive/derived for this new SNP or negative/ancestral. There are a couple of other small clades where this is an issue as well.

Curleyprow
11-25-2017, 04:39 PM
I think it is quite possible that another U106 like RISE98, is found in Sweden and that it may have non- extinct subclades such as, perhaps S19589 or S1855. In fact I think it highly UNLIKELY that RISE98 is the only existing specimen of ancient U106 in Sweden. That in terms of probability would be next to impossible and it would be illogical to make the deduction you have made, in my view.

Rosebud
08-04-2018, 02:38 PM
I have just learned that our Y-DNA haplogroup was reclassified by 23andMe from R-M405 to R-S1855. From other sources I gather that M405 is synonymous with U106. So maybe S-1855 is a more defined group? My most recent known ancestor on this line came from northern Germany, near the Oder River, was born circa 1830's. So German, Polish, Scandinavian, Finnish roots all seem possible. But English, Scottish, Irish, Celtic seem very unlikely. The migration of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to Britain is probably a link. But MY Saxon(?) grandfathers did not leave Germany. All speculation of course.
This haplogroup information actually came from a cousin whose grandfather is my father's brother.

Wing Genealogist
08-04-2018, 08:49 PM
S1855 (also known as FGC3862) is a rather small subclade of U106. The U106 tree can be found online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

Virtually all of U106 has been found to fall under a recently discovered clade Z2265. Z2265 has a couple of very small clades with everyone else being positive for another recently discovered clade: BY30097.

BY30097 is where the real split in U106 occurs. BY30097 has a VERY large branch (Z381) and a "medium" sized clade (Z18) and a bunch of small clades. The largest of the small clades is FGC3861. S1855 falls under FGC3861.

BYLM
11-25-2018, 02:20 AM
I am interested in this thread because I am Y2404, which is equivalent to S1855, from what I understood.
My father line can be traced back to the 14th century in Normandy, Manche : I saw that some members of S1855 are from Guernesey Island. Some people in England and Ireland have the same name than me, and this name is know to have been linked with the norman conquest.
As per dna specialized sites (ISOGG, Ftdna, Big Y, Yfull, Ytree, etc...), I understand that Y2404 (or S1855) split in two others sub-clades:
- S1859 or L217.1 or Y2405, with a TMRCA of 2300 ybp
- FGC17465 or Y3353, with a TMRCA of 2100 ybp
I do not know yet which one to which I belong, and I have today three hypotheses, which intersect what some have written in this thread:
- a Norman and therefore Scandinavian (Viking) origin
- a Saxon colony on the coast of Neustrie, then assimilated to the normans
- a Frankish origin

Helgenes50
11-25-2018, 07:28 AM
My father line can be traced back to the 14th century in Normandy, Manche

welcome on this forum BYLM,

Where exactly your paternal line, Cotentin?
Are you already part of a group on FTDNA, the Norman project for example?

BYLM
11-25-2018, 12:49 PM
welcome on this forum BYLM,

Where exactly your paternal line, Cotentin?
Are you already part of a group on FTDNA, the Norman project for example?

The "cradle" is the Avranchin, where the name is mentioned since the end of the 11th century.
No, I am not on FTDNA projects : so far I only get results from Living DNA.

Wing Genealogist
11-25-2018, 01:23 PM
You may want to see if there is a surname project for your surname at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). One way to do this is to Google "Family Tree DNA" and your surname. The majority of folks in FTDNA surname projects have not done any SNP testing, and Y2404/S1855 folks would likely be predicted (in red) as R-M269

Most surname projects still concentrate on STR testing. In fact, more than a few of the (volunteer) project admins actually discourage members of their project from doing SNP testing.

If you have not already done so, I would encourage you to join the U106 Yahoogroup by sending an email to: [email protected] You should briefly mention you have tested Y2404/S1855+ at LivingDNA.

The vast majority of experts related to U106 are active participants on this forum.

Curleyprow
02-11-2020, 05:03 PM
Wing, Do we have any further information since our last discussion on S1855?. Please advise. thanks for your help.