View Full Version : If you're R-U106 where does your most distant ancestor comes from?

Caius Agrippa
04-10-2020, 09:57 PM
Other than the steppe, of course. Where R1b-U106 emerged? With particular emphasis on subclades like L47 and L48.
Sorry for the noob question.

How did it arrived in Trentino (where my paternal ancestry comes from)? I've seen on Facebook groups that it's a relatively common haplogroup there since many other Brazilians of North Italian origin are also getting it.

04-10-2020, 10:25 PM
It arrived in Trentino with Germanic people.

Caius Agrippa
04-10-2020, 10:34 PM
It arrived in Trentino with Germanic people.

Is there no chance for it to be pre-Germanic?

04-10-2020, 10:40 PM
Is there no chance for it to be pre-Germanic?

It is possible but not likely. There was a long discussion about it here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18146-Early-U106-A-Hypothesis).

09-24-2020, 07:37 AM
I am a R1b-U106, and my first ancestor was born in Fersental, in late 1400. In this valley still today live a little germanic population.

But mainly in all oriental trentino there was, from XIV to XVII a lot of German immigration.


09-24-2020, 04:02 PM
This is from Iain McDonald:

The large number of U106 clades (~13 compared to P312's ~40) indicates that U106 underwent the same population expansion at the same time as P312. However, while we now have about 40 pre-historic* P312 results in the literature, we only have two pre-historic U106 results. That means that, for whatever reason, the current ancient DNA is selecting against U106 in favour of P312. As a group, we need to look into the cultures where ancient DNA is and isn't, and look at the archaeological practices surrounding burials in them. If U106 formed at a time when people started cremating their dead in a particular culture, then we're a bit stuffed for finding them!

(* We have a few historic burials too, but by the Roman era, the haplogroups are too far spread to be useful indicators at the U106/P312 level. The mid-1st-millenium BC Ergolding result could easily be U106>Z326 too.)

The three results we do have, between about 1300 BC and 2200 BC, indicate that the continental distribution of U106 is likely to have been roughly the same as the modern distribution: i.e., strong in the western regions of the Corded Ware culture: the eastern North Sea coast, the western Baltic coasts, and inland into Germany. It seems that U106 may have been stuck in one or more of these regions for longer than we anticipated.

The only bracket we really have of when significant migration of U106 to Britain took place was between about 1500 BC and 300 AD. And even then, it seems like later migrations (e.g. Danes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans) must have brought in a lot more.

In a wider context, the lack of ancient U106 in the Rhine or Danube valleys, and the lack of haplogroup R and Yamnaya at-DNA in the Globular Amphorae culture suggests the route taken by our common P311 forebears was north of the Carpathians, probably with the Corded Ware culture. I keep changing my mind about how secure this result is, as new data comes in, but I think the latest data add a lot of evidence against the Danubian route. The samborek (Poland) results from before 2672 BC may confirm this. One possibility is that P311 was a coastal culture, which passed around the Baltic coast, and didn't really settle down on land until it reached the Danish Isles. I wouldn't say there's any real evidence for this, necessarily, just that it's an option.

Presumably the raw data will become available on full publication on the articles, at which point it will be interesting to see where any P311xP312xU106 results lie, and whether any further sub-clades can be determined. The distribution of S1194 seems to largely reflect the distribution of U106, which is consistent with them both representing the point from which P311 spread. The rapid uptake of P312 into the Bell Beaker culture, and its rapid spread, means that its modern distribution is more representative of its own founder effect, rather than the P311 founder effect.

If, at this point, I had to guess the contribution to Great British U106 by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Flemish between 410 AD and 1066 AD, I'd say it's likely to be of order 50%, perhaps a little more. We see some lines which look older, and some lines we know came in with the Normans. But there are some lines that look early Celtic, then Germanic, then Anglo-Saxon, then Gaelic. A lot of cultural migration has always gone on in short periods of time, so I'm not inclined to stick labels for particular clades against particular cultures, unless the two are roughly contemporary.

09-30-2020, 11:31 PM
Hi everyone!
My Y-DNA is R1b U 106 L 44+ L 163-.
My grandfather was from San Martino di Lupari ( Padova). According to a genealogical investigation I commissioned, the oldest ancestor of my paternal family arrived in San Martino around 1467, coming from Rota Imagna (the Bergamo valleys). In FTDNA's U106 project, I share a place with people from England, Luxembourg and Ireland. At YFull, I share a place with a man of Czech origin. Right here at Anthrogenica, there is an user, Sirto, a native of Bergamo, who shares similar Y-DNA.

10-01-2020, 06:36 AM
i'm R1b-U106 and i come from Trentino, i also have some ancestors from Asiago, so maybe we share some common ancestors