PDA

View Full Version : R-U106 in Great Britain: Distribution map



Passa
09-02-2015, 12:34 AM
Here's my map on U106 distribution in Great Britain. I took the data from the British Isles' FTDNA Project and counted all U106+ plus all U106+ with DYS492 = 13 samples and excluded those R1b's with DYS492 = 13 of which I could determine their U106- status.

Hope it helps:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5754&stc=1

moesan
09-02-2015, 11:55 AM
globally sensible but I'm amazed by some spots in some regions; and the "holes" in East-Anglia and N-E Yrokshire: would only the Danes be responsible for this lack? and Cornwall denser than Devon? result of recent settlings of English "tourists"? Wales is more expected...
; have you more or less or different data than Maciamo on Eupedia Forum?
Thanks nevertheless

Huntergatherer1066
09-02-2015, 12:46 PM
I can see the influence of my great great great grandfather there in Bideford in northern Devon. That sample size is very small though, you would find more by looking at the u106, z18, and individual county projects like the Devon project.

Passa
09-02-2015, 02:22 PM
globally sensible but I'm amazed by some spots in some regions; and the "holes" in East-Anglia and N-E Yrokshire: would only the Danes be responsible for this lack? and Cornwall denser than Devon? result of recent settlings of English "tourists"? Wales is more expected...
; have you more or less or different data than Maciamo on Eupedia Forum?
Thanks nevertheless

It seems that this lineage is concentrated more on the borders of Anglo-Saxon England, like a human barrier against eventual Pictish and Welsh invasions.

Regarding data, I don't think Maciamo had a lot to work with. There are only a handful of studies reporting U106 figures for Great Britain. So this is probably the first thorough insight into this haplogroup's local distribution, although I admit that sample sizes are not very big.

rms2
09-02-2015, 04:37 PM
I have mentioned this elsewhere before, but a lot of caution needs to be exercised in creating and using maps based on data from FTDNA projects. Mdka info comes from individual project members, and the degree of genealogical rigor applied in obtaining and verifying ancestral info varies wildly. Some of it is solid and can be taken to the bank, but some of it is highly suspect, and some of that is just pure fantasy. Some members are just guessing based on some pedigree posted on Ancestry or some half-assed family tradition. Very often they really do not know for sure that the mdka they have listed is really their ancestor and if he was really born where they think he was or hope he was.

Anyone who has been an FTDNA project admin can testify to these things.

Maps derived from actual scientific population studies are just far more reliable than those derived from FTDNA project data.

avalon
09-02-2015, 05:03 PM
It seems that this lineage is concentrated more on the borders of Anglo-Saxon England, like a human barrier against eventual Pictish and Welsh invasions.

Regarding data, I don't think Maciamo had a lot to work with. There are only a handful of studies reporting U106 figures for Great Britain. So this is probably the first thorough insight into this haplogroup's local distribution, although I admit that sample sizes are not very big.

Passa,

Your map does show some similarity with this one posted by Dubhtacht a few years ago. I think his was based on the Busby samples and it does show more of a cline from the south east of England, but both maps do pick up on the low frequencies in Wales and Western Scotland.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U106-S21-poE-CT.png

Helgenes50
09-02-2015, 05:58 PM
Passa,

Your map does show some similarity with this one posted by Dubhtacht a few years ago. I think his was based on the Busby samples and it does show more of a cline from the south east of England, but both maps do pick up on the low frequencies in Wales and Western Scotland.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U106-S21-poE-CT.png


This map is very interesting.

The pockets of U106 on the Northern French coasts could be linked to the Litus Saxonicum, but difficult to be sure, the North German tribes and the Scandinavians were very close. Without forgetting that the Danes in Danelaw, before coming in Normandy were already mixed with the Anglo-Saxons

avalon
09-03-2015, 09:41 AM
This map is very interesting.

The pockets of U106 on the Northern French coasts could be linked to the Litus Saxonicum, but difficult to be sure, the North German tribes and the Scandinavians were very close. Without forgetting that the Danes in Danelaw, before coming in Normandy were already mixed with the Anglo-Saxons

French history is not my strong point but I do think that U106 is a good bet for a Germanic marker. It has been discussed many times before but in the Isles it is at low frequencies in exactly the places we would expect it to be - Ireland, Western Scotland, North Wales.

Passa
09-03-2015, 10:00 AM
Passa,

Your map does show some similarity with this one posted by Dubhtacht a few years ago. I think his was based on the Busby samples and it does show more of a cline from the south east of England, but both maps do pick up on the low frequencies in Wales and Western Scotland.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U106-S21-poE-CT.png

If I understand well, the stars represent locations, and I can't see any star in the SE of England, so the high frequency of U106 was placed there only to reflect the author's assumptions. Instead I did not make my map fit what I thought was adequate for me.

Dubhthach
09-03-2015, 10:44 AM
The map comes from Busby, here is map of Busby sample points in Britain and Ireland using the Lat/Long in spreadsheet beside each sample point:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/Busby-England-Wales.png

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/busby-scotland.png

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/ireland-busby.png

JohnHowellsTyrfro
09-03-2015, 04:37 PM
Interesting, particularly the apparent clustering on the Welsh Border and especially Herefordshire where my own U106 paternal ancestors came from, back to the 1660's anyway. I would have thought it would have been more evident further East.

Wing Genealogist
09-04-2015, 11:25 AM
Please Delete (I was wrong in my posting)

Sorry.

avalon
09-06-2015, 06:21 AM
Interesting, particularly the apparent clustering on the Welsh Border and especially Herefordshire where my own U106 paternal ancestors came from, back to the 1660's anyway. I would have thought it would have been more evident further East.

Don't take the map too literally. FTDNA samples are mostly from North Americans whose ancestors left the Isles several hundred years ago so this map is not necessarily statistically representative of the modern British population.

Nevertheless, thanks to Passa. His maps probably do give a general guide to distribution.

Dubhthach
09-06-2015, 09:33 AM
Well here's a more interesting map derived from presentation that Dr. Andy Grierson gave, I'm not sure of sample size, but "Offa's Dyke" does seem to have effect on ratio of L21:U106

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/wales-l21-u106.png

avalon
09-06-2015, 04:58 PM
Well here's a more interesting map derived from presentation that Dr. Andy Grierson gave, I'm not sure of sample size, but "Offa's Dyke" does seem to have effect on ratio of L21:U106

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/wales-l21-u106.png

Those frequencies of U106 in North Wales do make sense in light of known history, assuming it is an (Anglo-Saxon) Germanic marker. Offa's Dyke was a very effective barrier for many centuries and I don't think there is any record of a permanent Anglo-Saxon settlement in North Wales. There definitely was some English settlement in North Wales following the conquest of Gwynedd in 1282 but IMO it was small scale and it varied between areas. Most English settlers went to the newly created castle boroughs on the Welsh coast - but the hilly and remote hinterland was largely left to the natives.

You also have to factor in some English migration to the slate quarries of the 19th century and in addition North Wales became opened to tourism from the 19th century so all of this would account for the current levels of U106 ion North Wales IMO.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
09-06-2015, 06:32 PM
Don't take the map too literally. FTDNA samples are mostly from North Americans whose ancestors left the Isles several hundred years ago so this map is not necessarily statistically representative of the modern British population.

Nevertheless, thanks to Passa. His maps probably do give a general guide to distribution.

Good point. As a person with limited knowledge of the complexities, I do find it odd that peoples' tests undertaken within the UK are not plotted automatically on a map of the UK. Surely this would give a clearer picture and wouldn't be that difficult to achieve? If you take Britain's/Cymru DNA, as an example, you would think someone somewhere would be analysing and plotting the results (accepting there would need to be filters to try and adjust for recent population migration)? Even with different companies testing, you might think there would be some level of mutual co-operation.What's the point of collecting this data if it isn't analysed? Maybe it is and I don't know about it.

MacUalraig
09-06-2015, 06:54 PM
What's the point of collecting this data if it isn't analysed?

Making money. For example Ancestry collected some autosomal data in Britain and Ireland to base their ethnicity estimates on. What's in it for them to hand that out to their rivals?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
09-07-2015, 04:54 PM
Making money. For example Ancestry collected some autosomal data in Britain and Ireland to base their ethnicity estimates on. What's in it for them to hand that out to their rivals?

I must admit since starting down this road I have been very surprised and disappointed by the apparent lack of joined-up working and the lack of use of data which is available. As an average person, it doesn't seem a very good way to me to make scientific progress and advance our understanding. I naively assumed that all DNA data collected would be shared and analysed.

xlockx
09-27-2015, 06:26 PM
Im an American but my family is well documented. My family lived in Ilminster, Somerset, England before coming to America.

MitchellSince1893
10-20-2015, 05:35 AM
For anyone interested I counted all the U106 and subclades for the British Isles DNA Project by County at https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BritishIsles?iframe=yresults

With the percentages below, keep in mind that out of 1086 confirmed SNPs (ones in green), 77 were above U106 (1xP311, 75xM269, and 1xM343). Some of these will most likely end up being U106.

Of the 1086 confirmed SNPs, 151 were U106 or a subclade or 13.9%. If you subtract the 77 confirmed SNPs above U106 then it comes out to 15% (151/1009).

In Scotland 22 out of 181 (12.5%)
In Wales 3 out of 33 (9.1%) were U106
In Ireland (including Northern Ireland) 20 out of 192 (10.4%) were U106.
In England, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands 106 out of 680 (15.6%) were U106

Here is the whole breakdown by county
County, Confirmed SNPs, U106 SNPs, %

Aberdeen 5 0 0.0%
Anglesey 2 1 50.0%
Angus 7 0 0.0%
Antrim 19 5 26.3%
Argyllshire 14 1 7.1%
Armagh 6 0 0.0%
Ayrshire 9 0 0.0%
Banffshire 1 0 0.0%
Bedfordshire 9 1 11.1%
Berkshire 4 1 25.0%
Berwickshire 6 1 16.7%
Breconshire 1 0 0.0%
Buckinghamshire 15 3 20.0%
Buteshire 2 0 0.0%
Caernarvon 3 0 0.0%
Caithness 4 2 50.0%
Cambridge 7 1 14.3%
Cardigan 2 0 0.0%
Carmarthen 3 0 0.0%
Cavan 7 0 0.0%
Cheshire 18 4 22.2%
Clackmannanshire 2 0 0.0%
Clare 4 0 0.0%
Cork 18 4 22.2%
Cornwall 21 5 23.8%
Cumberland 8 1 12.5%
Denbighshire 3 1 33.3%
Derbyshire 11 4 36.4%
Devonshire 32 4 12.5%
Donegal 12 0 0.0%
Dorset 15 4 26.7%
Down 8 1 12.5%
Dublin 15 1 6.7%
Dumfries 9 1 11.1%
Dunbarton 3 0 0.0%
Durham 13 2 15.4%
East Lothian 2 1 50.0%
Essex 18 1 5.6%
Fermanagh 8 2 25.0%
Fife 6 2 33.3%
Flintshire 0 0 #DIV/0!
Galway 8 0 0.0%
Glamorgan 7 1 14.3%
Gloucester 20 4 20.0%
Guernsey 3 0 0.0%
Hampshire 5 0 0.0%
Herefordshire 10 2 20.0%
Hertfordshire 12 2 16.7%
Huntingdonshire 2 0 0.0%
Inverness-shire 14 0 0.0%
Isle of Man 7 1 14.3%
Isle of Wight 3 0 0.0%
Kent 31 7 22.6%
Kerry 4 0 0.0%
Kildare 0 0 #DIV/0!
Kilkenny 8 2 25.0%
Kincardineshire 1 0 0.0%
Kinross 2 0 0.0%
Kirkcudbright 2 0 0.0%
Lanarkshire 27 3 11.1%
Lancashire 40 10 25.0%
Leicestershire 8 1 12.5%
Leitrim 0 0 #DIV/0!
Leix*/Laois 3 0 0.0%
Limerick 5 0 0.0%
Lincolnshire 24 2 8.3%
Londonderry 13 0 0.0%
Longford 3 1 33.3%
Louth 1 0 0.0%
Mayo 6 0 0.0%
Meath 0 0 #DIV/0!
Merionethshire 4 0 0.0%
Middlesex 52 8 15.4%
Midlothian 14 4 28.6%
Monaghan 6 1 16.7%
Monmouthshire 2 0 0.0%
Montgomeryshire 2 0 0.0%
Moray 2 0 0.0%
Norfolk 27 2 7.4%
Northamptonshire 11 4 36.4%
Northumberland 18 3 16.7%
Nottinghamshire 12 1 8.3%
Offaly 0 0 #DIV/0!
Orkney* 2 1 50.0%
Oxfordshire 13 1 7.7%
Peebleshire 3 1 33.3%
Pembrokeshire 2 0 0.0%
Perthshire 11 0 0.0%
Radnorshire 2 0 0.0%
Renfrewshire 7 0 0.0%
Roscommon 5 0 0.0%
Ross and Cromarty 2 0 0.0%
Roxburghshire 7 2 28.6%
Rutland 1 0 0.0%
Selkirkshire 1 0 0.0%
Shetland* 4 0 0.0%
Shropshire* 7 1 14.3%
Sligo 1 0 0.0%
Somerset 33 6 18.2%
Staffordshire 23 4 17.4%
Stirlingshire 5 1 20.0%
Suffolk 23 1 4.3%
Surrey 10 1 10.0%
Sussex E 7 2 28.6%
Sussex W 5 1 20.0%
Sutherland 3 1 33.3%
Tipperary 10 0 0.0%
Tyrone 14 1 7.1%
Warwickshire 17 0 0.0%
Waterford 3 0 0.0%
Westlothian 3 1 33.3%
Westmeath 1 0 0.0%
Westmorland 4 0 0.0%
Wexford 2 1 50.0%
Wicklow 2 1 50.0%
Wigtonshire 1 0 0.0%
Wiltshire 15 2 13.3%
Worcestershire 5 1 20.0%
Yorkshire E/Riding 11 1 9.1%
Yorkshire N/Riding 22 4 18.2%
Yorkshire W/Riding 28 3 10.7%

AnnieD
10-20-2015, 05:57 AM
I've just ordered the FTDNA R-U106 subclade special for my father's kit. He thought that his heritage came mostly from Scotland, so it will be interesting to see where he might fall on the map.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-20-2015, 06:46 AM
For anyone interested I counted all the U106 and subclades for the British Isles DNA Project by County at https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BritishIsles?iframe=yresults

With the percentages below, keep in mind that out of 1086 confirmed SNPs (ones in green), 77 were above U106 (1xP311, 75xM269, and 1xM343). Some of these will most likely end up being U106.

Of the 1086 confirmed SNPs, 151 were U106 or a subclade or 13.9%. If you subtract the 77 confirmed SNPs above U106 then it comes out to 15% (151/1009).

In Scotland 22 out of 181 (12.5%)
In Wales 3 out of 33 (9.1%) were U106
In Ireland (including Northern Ireland) 20 out of 192 (10.4%) were U106.
In England, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands 106 out of 680 (15.6%) were U106

Here is the whole breakdown by county
County, Confirmed SNPs, U106 SNPs, %

Not reading too much into it, but at face value those results seem to reflect to some extent what you might expect but there are some oddities. Just out of personal interest (my part of the World ) again Herefordshire features highly but adjacent Monmouthshire which has a lot of recent immigration doesn't. Glamorgan a bit further to the West does.
Also noticeable that again parts of Eastern England don't feature very highly but parts of the North Midlands and even Scotland do. Can't help wondering about combined part - Norman/Saxon/Viking influences. :) Cornwall seems higher than you might expect, but could that be down to in-migration based around tin mining I wonder?
I'm still pondering ordering a FTDNA test. Apparently "You are located at Z326->FGC18842->S21728 at the S21278 haplogroup level." Any advice please as I may have missed any recent developments?

Cofgene
10-20-2015, 11:10 AM
Not reading too much into it, but at face value those results seem to reflect to some extent what you might expect but there are some oddities. Just out of personal interest (my part of the World ) again Herefordshire features highly but adjacent Monmouthshire which has a lot of recent immigration doesn't. Glamorgan a bit further to the West does.
Also noticeable that again parts of Eastern England don't feature very highly but parts of the North Midlands and even Scotland do. Can't help wondering about combined part - Norman/Saxon/Viking influences. :) Cornwall seems higher than you might expect, but could that be down to in-migration based around tin mining I wonder?
I'm still pondering ordering a FTDNA test. Apparently "You are located at Z326->FGC18842->S21728 at the S21278 haplogroup level." Any advice please as I may have missed any recent developments?

No recent developments under S21728 in nullsville. We are within 2 weeks of having the Z326 pack released by FTDNA. That pack will contain a couple of downstream SNPs that might apply to you.

Iain McDonald's first effort at marrying STR marker with SNP results shows that we need to get more individuals to the 111 STR marker level. Getting more individuals tested in under S21728 will make it easier to develop the case from the 111 STR results that this is a Saxon based branch of nulls.

MitchellSince1893
10-20-2015, 05:31 PM
Not reading too much into it, but at face value those results seem to reflect to some extent what you might expect but there are some oddities. Just out of personal interest (my part of the World ) again Herefordshire features highly but adjacent Monmouthshire which has a lot of recent immigration doesn't. Glamorgan a bit further to the West does.
Also noticeable that again parts of Eastern England don't feature very highly but parts of the North Midlands and even Scotland do. Can't help wondering about combined part - Norman/Saxon/Viking influences. :) Cornwall seems higher than you might expect, but could that be down to in-migration based around tin mining I wonder?
I'm still pondering ordering a FTDNA test. Apparently "You are located at Z326->FGC18842->S21728 at the S21278 haplogroup level." Any advice please as I may have missed any recent developments?

Maybe due to small samplings sizes, but yes the results are odd. One would expect much higher percentages in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to lesser extent Lincolnshire, East Ridings. And lower percentages in Western England.

Here's a map of the Great Britain results
6371

And here's the U152 map I did back in June. Again this has very small sample sizes so the results will be skewed.
6372

MitchellSince1893
10-20-2015, 10:00 PM
Here is a regional map. Each region has between 32 and 62 confirmed SNPs

6374

And U152 map for comparison. Note that percentages for the key colors is different between the 2 maps

6375

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-21-2015, 08:59 AM
Maybe due to small samplings sizes, but yes the results are odd. One would expect much higher percentages in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to lesser extent Lincolnshire, East Ridings. And lower percentages in Western England.

Here's a map of the Great Britain results
6371

And here's the U152 map I did back in June. Again this has very small sample sizes so the results will be skewed.
6372

Could it maybe reflect different phases of migration, once the easiest land to access had been claimed, subsequent migrants had to move further West or maybe they go back further than we think? I'm quite curious about the apparent Herefordshire cluster where my paternal ancestors came from, although very near the Welsh border.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-21-2015, 04:41 PM
Some of those areas in the East of England with a lower incidence of u106 than you might expect appear to roughly match the Danelaw?

6377

MitchellSince1893
10-21-2015, 05:52 PM
Some of those areas in the East of England with a lower incidence of u106 than you might expect appear to roughly match the Danelaw?

6377

There does seem to be a correlation between the Saxon areas on your map and the U106 found in the British Isles by County Project. And in the Northumbria areas that were established by the Angles.

Also, the lack of U106 in Wales does match what we would expect.

But what is odd is the sparse showing for U106 in the Angles heartland in East Anglia as well as Essex. Again maybe it just a weakness of the the available samples in this project.

Here's an overlay of your map and the U106 by county map. I couldn't get those 2 maps to align exactly but it's close.
6378

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-21-2015, 07:43 PM
There does seem to be a correlation between the Saxon areas on your map and the U106 found in the British Isles by County Project. And in the Northumbria areas that were established by the Angles.

Also, the lack of U106 in Wales does match what we would expect.

But what is odd is the sparse showing for U106 in the Angles heartland in East Anglia as well as Essex. Again maybe it just a weakness of the the available samples in this project.

Here's an overlay of your map and the U106 by county map. I couldn't get those 2 maps to align exactly but it's close.
6378

Good Map.Yes it does seem more than coincidence. I don't know enough about either genetics or history to account for it, but it seems to contradict in some ways recent conclusions of little evidence of a Viking presence in the UK now, as far as DNA sampling is concerned. Maybe the impact in some places was greater than we appreciate.

MitchellSince1893
10-21-2015, 10:58 PM
6371

This U106 county map reminded me of another map which I finally found.

6383

The two maps have the following similarities:

1. The U106/Germanic hotspot in the Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester area. 7 of 35 or 20% were U106
2. Cornwall has higher U106/Germanic percentage than neighboring Devon
3. Hampshire and Isle of Wight have lower U106/Germanic percentage than surrounding areas.
4. Caithness, Scotland and Orkney Islands has higher U106/Germanic percentages

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-22-2015, 08:06 AM
This U106 county map reminded me of another map which I finally found.

6383

The two maps have the following similarities:

1. The U106/Germanic hotspot in the Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester area. 7 of 35 or 20% were U106
2. Cornwall has higher U106/Germanic percentage than neighboring Devon
3. Hampshire and Isle of Wight have lower U106/Germanic percentage than surrounding areas.
4. Caithness, Scotland and Orkney Islands has higher U106/Germanic percentages

This may be complete nonsense and reveal my lack of historical knowledge, but is it possible that East Anglia before the draining of the Fens may have supported a proportionally smaller Saxon population than some other areas like Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, etc.? A bit simplistic I know and wouldn't account for other inconsistencies. :)

MitchellSince1893
10-22-2015, 12:18 PM
This may be complete nonsense and reveal my lack of historical knowledge, but is it possible that East Anglia before the draining of the Fens may have supported a proportionally smaller Saxon population than some other areas like Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, etc.? A bit simplistic I know and wouldn't account for other inconsistencies. :)

29.6% of Norfolk 21.7% of Suffolk, and 27.8% of Essex were Haplogroup I, so the Germanic groups are there in significant numbers (I haven't broken them down into I1 vs I2 haplogroups yet)., but it may be more Northern Germanic (Scandinavian vs Angles and Saxons) than expected.

MitchellSince1893
10-25-2015, 05:09 PM
Can anyone post a Britain's DNA map for U106/S21? I've done a google search but can't locate an example

zamyatin13
10-25-2015, 08:49 PM
Found this one on the internet during a previous search:

6439

MitchellSince1893
10-30-2015, 04:35 PM
Found this one on the internet during a previous search:

6439

Thank you!

MitchellSince1893
10-30-2015, 07:25 PM
Here is a regional map. Each region has between 32 and 62 confirmed SNPs

6374

And U152 map for comparison. Note that percentages for the key colors is different between the 2 maps

6375


Maybe due to small samplings sizes, but yes the results are odd. One would expect much higher percentages in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to lesser extent Lincolnshire, East Ridings. And lower percentages in Western England.

Here's a map of the Great Britain results
6371

And here's the U152 map I did back in June. Again this has very small sample sizes so the results will be skewed.
6372

I wish I could take these maps down as they just had too few samples and provide skewed results.

Since posting them I've been adding additional samples. Nothing will be ready anytime soon as it will take a long time to go through all the counties, but I can tell you that my samples sizes per region are larger than was available only using the British Isles by County Project.

For example, the Angus, Clackmannan, Fife, Kinross, Perth, Stirling Eastern Scottish region has gone from 33 samples to 147.
The Northeast Scottish Aberdeen, Banff, Kincardine, Moray, Nairn region has gone from 9 to 68 samples
Berwickshire, East Lothian, Peebleshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, Midlothian, Westlothian has gone from 36 to 62 samples
Wales Counties went from 33 to 72.

Ideally to get a 95% confidence level with 5% margin of error you would need around 380 samples per geographic areas with populations greater than 20000.

Getting ~380 samples per county isn't going to happen from what is available on the FTDNA projects

One could either lower the confidence and/or margin of error with smaller samples sizes, or increase the regional sizes (add more counties per region) to get to 380 samples.

When I'm done (assuming I have the stamina to complete this) There will be over 380 samples for Scotland and Ireland each, and possibly Wales (if done at Wales vs Welsh county level).

Currently from a U106 perspective:
England: 114 of 668 (17.1%) is U106
Scotland: 194 of 394 (28.9%) is U106...I've been working on eastern Scotland counties first so this is probably inflating U106 numbers
Ireland: 22 of 187 (11.8%) is U106...I haven't added anything samples beyond what's in the FTDNA British Isles by County project.
Wales: 7 of 72 (9.7%) is U106. I've more than doubled the samples size for Wales, but still need a lot more to get accurate numbers.

For Angus, Clackmannan, Fife, Kinross, Perth, Stirling, 16 of 147 (10.9%) were U106.

Dubhthach
10-30-2015, 08:50 PM
Busby has U106 in Ireland (sample size: n = 476) at 5.25% I'd trust that more than the above project. Most Irish people wouldn't be so keen on joining a project with "British Isles" in it's name.

MitchellSince1893
11-01-2015, 05:49 AM
Busby has U106 in Ireland (sample size: n = 476) at 5.25% I'd trust that more than the above project. Most Irish people wouldn't be so keen on joining a project with "British Isles" in it's name.

Good point.

There are 2694 confirmed SNPs in the FTDNA Ireland DNA project. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage?iframe=yresults.

Of these, 1675 state they were born in Ireland.

Of these 1675 here is the breakdown by haplogroup.
6499

As you see U106 is 4.78% which is in the ball park of Busby's 5.25%, using 3.5 times as many samples for the same geographic area.

L21 = 60%
I = 13.5%
DF27=2.75%
U152=2%
R1a=1.5%

Because of the sample size I think these numbers are going to be close.

avalon
11-11-2015, 04:13 PM
Found this one on the internet during a previous search:

6439

I have to say that I do find the Britain's DNA map quite vague as the regions are quite large. It would be more useful if they could produce a county by county map as this would give us more details about the local variations of U106. It may be that their dataset isn't large enough to give us too much detail though.

We could also then compare BritainsDNA to the FTDNA map that Mitchellsince 1983 has kindly produced.

Dubhthach
11-11-2015, 04:56 PM
Indeed in an Irish context this is particulary so as the boundaries used are our modern concepts of provinces. So for example there only 4, but historically there were 5 (North Leinster was province of Meath -- Kingdom of Southern U Nill).

I would think more finer grained boundaries would be more useful, particulary in case of M222 (Leinster showed up as circa 18% -- what chunk of this was in Dublin I wonder etc.)

MitchellSince1893
11-11-2015, 05:33 PM
... It would be more useful if they could produce a county by county map...

I'm working on this very thing. In some cases though you are going to need to combine a few counties together to get enough samples.
For Suffolk I've found over 110 samples. For Westmoreland I've only found 11.

If I combine Westmoreland with Cumberland I have close to 50 samples. Add Lancashire and I have over 100 for those 3 counties.

I still have a lot more data to add.

avalon
11-11-2015, 07:15 PM
Indeed in an Irish context this is particulary so as the boundaries used are our modern concepts of provinces. So for example there only 4, but historically there were 5 (North Leinster was province of Meath -- Kingdom of Southern U Nill).

I would think more finer grained boundaries would be more useful, particulary in case of M222 (Leinster showed up as circa 18% -- what chunk of this was in Dublin I wonder etc.)

Something like this would be better in an Irish context I suppose. Although I would expect that in Ireland, as in Britain, we would probably see variations even within counties, so that different towns and villages might have variations in Y-DNA SNPs, depending on the local histories, etc.

http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.com/image-files/mapofcountiesofireland99web.jpg

MitchellSince1893
11-11-2015, 09:44 PM
Based on the numbers I'm seeing so far (what's potentially available to me) I'm shooting for regions/county groupings with about 164 samples each. This number per geographic region would provide 80% confidence level with 5% margin of error.

This would result in approximately 10-12 regions, maybe more, in England as opposed to the 6 regions that Britain's DNA used

avalon
11-16-2015, 08:07 PM
Based on the numbers I'm seeing so far (what's potentially available to me) I'm shooting for regions/county groupings with about 164 samples each. This number per geographic region would provide 80% confidence level with 5% margin of error.

This would result in approximately 10-12 regions, maybe more, in England as opposed to the 6 regions that Britain's DNA used

Keep up the good work, a comprehensive county by county map for Britain and Ireland could be very informative. If I recall correctly, the Busby paper took large samples from specific towns but that method leaves gaps and also doesn't pick up on local variation within counties/regions. For example, for the whole of SW England the only sampling location per the Busby paper was Exeter.

I have one question though regarding the FTDNA project samples: given that the samples mostly relate to individuals (MDKAs) who emigrated from Britain in the 1600/1700/1800s, can we be sure that these samples are representative of the y-dna frequencies at a particular point in time? So for example, are the 40 samples from Cheshire in the FTDNA project necessarily representative of the population in Cheshire in say 1700. I was just thinking that it may only have been certain towns that people emigrated from so might not be totally representative.

MacUalraig
11-16-2015, 08:50 PM
I'll be interested to see what overall county totals you come up with. I did a little survey a while ago to try to measure the Irish bias in the database and I was shocked at the low tallies in SW Scotland especially Wigto(w)nshire. The Donegal:Wigto(w)nshire ratio came out at about 8:1 !

MitchellSince1893
11-16-2015, 10:15 PM
Keep up the good work, a comprehensive county by county map for Britain and Ireland could be very informative. If I recall correctly, the Busby paper took large samples from specific towns but that method leaves gaps and also doesn't pick up on local variation within counties/regions. For example, for the whole of SW England the only sampling location per the Busby paper was Exeter.

I have one question though regarding the FTDNA project samples: given that the samples mostly relate to individuals (MDKAs) who emigrated from Britain in the 1600/1700/1800s, can we be sure that these samples are representative of the y-dna frequencies at a particular point in time? So for example, are the 40 samples from Cheshire in the FTDNA project necessarily representative of the population in Cheshire in say 1700. I was just thinking that it may only have been certain towns that people emigrated from so might not be totally representative.

I was just thinking about that today.

Because FTDNA is so North American weighted, and most of the English immigration took place prior to American Revolution, I may be getting a glimpse of what pre-industrial revolution England looked like rather than the present day y-dna haplogroup pattern.

For example, here is what I have for Cheshire so far...I haven't done a thorough search for this county yet, so there will be quite a few more when I'm done.

Samuel LONG; b. c. 1645; Betchton, Cheshire
John Steward, b. abt 1620, Mobberly, Cheshire, Eng
William Hough, 1619 Cheshire, England - 1683 CT
James Jones, b.c.1715, Chester, England
Lawrence Pierson, b.c. 1621 and d. 1673/74
Thomas Dutton,b.1660,Cheshire UK;d.1717,MD USA
Bernard Farral, b.1731 Frodsham, Cheshire, England
Thomas Bird, b:Jan 1599, Broxton, England, d:1623
Richard Massey, b 1661 and d 1740
Roger Phitheon,1539-1604, Brereton,Cheshire,UK
John Jameson,b. c1494 Alvanley,Cheshire
John Johnson, b. 1792, Cheshire
William Torkington, 1789, Offerton, Cheshire, Eng
John Lindley, b.1615, Cheshire, England
Thomas Lamb, b.c. 1690, Cheshire, England
WilliamHarrison,b1859,NJ,ex.Richard,CheshireUK1559
William Brewerton 1765-1805 Cheshire/Flintshire
John Gibson, b.1721, d.1795, Chester, England
William Broomer, b. 1858, Cheshire, poss broomhall
Richard Wright b1772 Farnworth, Widnes, ENG
Nathaniel Booth, 1733-1799, Cheshire, England
Rowland Calkins;Waverton Cheshire Eng.=>Hugh 1603
Fredrick Bunce, Stockport, Cheshire, England
William Brereton c 1755. Wybunbury, Cheshire, En

So yeah, it's mostly early 1600s to mid 1700s

Right now I'm adding in the I1 haplogroup samples...ones that I haven't come across through other searches. It will probably end up adding another 100 samples to what I already have...then on to I2.

avalon
11-17-2015, 09:19 PM
I was just thinking about that today.

Because FTDNA is so North American weighted, and most of the English immigration took place prior to American Revolution, I may be getting a glimpse of what pre-industrial revolution England looked like rather than the present day y-dna haplogroup pattern.


That's right. Provided you have enough samples, you should get a fairly accurate picture of pre-industrial Britain, even allowing for misreported MDKAs. The only issue is that emigration to North America wasn't necessarily uniform across the whole country; that is to say that you may struggle to get enough data from certain counties and districts (17th to 19th century), from where emigration to North America was less significant.

I keep meaning to read it but apparently Albion's Seed goes into quite a lot of detail on the topic.

MitchellSince1893
11-17-2015, 11:42 PM
That's right. Provided you have enough samples, you should get a fairly accurate picture of pre-industrial Britain, even allowing for misreported MDKAs. The only issue is that emigration to North America wasn't necessarily uniform across the whole country; that is to say that you may struggle to get enough data from certain counties and districts (17th to 19th century), from where emigration to North America was less significant.

I keep meaning to read it but apparently Albion's Seed goes into quite a lot of detail on the topic.

Absolutely. I'm seeing Devonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Somerset are over represented compared to today's population.

1971 top 10 English Counties (last census prior to the reorganization that occurred due to the Local Government Act 1972)
1 Greater London (Middlesex)
2 Lancashire
3 Yorkshire, West Riding
4 Warwickshire
5 Staffordshire
6 Hampshire
7 Cheshire
8 Durham
9 Kent
10 Essex


But when I looked at the year 1700 estimate of populations vs what I've found, I was pleasantly surprised.

Year 1700 top 10 counties vs what I've found.

1700
1 MIDDLESEX
2 DEVON
3 NORFOLK
4 Yorkshire WEST RIDING
5 LANCASHIRE
6 SOMERSET
7 LINCOLN
8 ESSEX
9 SUFFOLK
10 KENT


My numbers so far
1 MIDDLESEX
2 SUFFOLK
3 DEVON
4 LANCASHIRE
5 NORFOLK
6 KENT
7 ESSEX
8 SOMERSET
9 Yorkshire WEST RIDING
10 LINCOLN

You can see the disproportionate representation of Suffolk in the Colonies compared to England in 1700, but the top 10 are the same for both. The least populated county in 1700 was Rutland, and that corresponds my least populated county.

This result is encouraging.

Regardless if you compare a county to itself (provided you have enough samples to make it reliable) you can avoid any over representation issues as I doubt one haplogroup within a county would be more likely to immigrate vs another. However, only a few counties have a chance to have enough samples to be statistically useful (see top 4 of my top 10 list above). As I mentioned earlier, to get around this I'm going to put enough counties together into regions.

joeflood
01-30-2016, 10:13 AM
Up to a point what you say is true. However as someone who has been both a professional population researcher and a FTDNA project admin I am far less starry-eyed about "professional studies". The samples we get from FTDNA are far larger and often more rigorously tested than those from so called "scientific studies, most of which have samples that are far too small and inadequately tested. Generally thy end up spending their money on sampling and have little left for testing, and what they do test is years out of date, they are just not on top of the subject. Their smaples generally do not hold water any better than the FTDNA one.

A second advantage of FTDNA is that we are seeing what was, not what is. There has been huge population movement in the last 150 years; and as well very many important lines have died out. Nearly half of Cornwall's male population left after 1850, and we get a fairer representation of true Cornish DNA as it was in 1860 from by combing and combining the diaspora.

The problem I think is not the submissions model of FTDNA but the validation of the submissions. In CORNWALL and DEVON we specifically locate the stated ancestor (in Cornwall we use the most recent, not the furthest) and confirm their relationship to the testee. It actually isn't that time consuming and if more care was taken we would have samples that could not be rivalled by "professional studies".

bradly88
04-25-2016, 05:46 AM
This tells me that in Northern Scotland, R-U106 was because of the Norwegian Vikings. The Norwegian Vikings held lands in Caitness, Sutherland, Ross, and Cromarty.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-25-2016, 07:11 AM
I was looking again at Iain Mc Donalds paper on U106 distribution and out of personal interest what he believes is a relatively high concentration of Z326 around the Essex area. It may just be a broad indicator, but interesting to see how these results might break down across the UK.

Tomenable
07-17-2016, 02:08 PM
Well here's a more interesting map derived from presentation that Dr. Andy Grierson gave, I'm not sure of sample size, but "Offa's Dyke" does seem to have effect on ratio of L21:U106

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/wales-l21-u106.png

And the majority of Welsh U106 probably belongs to S497 / DF98 subclades, does it?

This branch of U106 established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=141441&viewfull=1#post141441

I am talking about samples from Roman-era Eboracum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum) (Martiniano et al. 2016):

Sample 3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Sample 6DRIF-3 - this one was R1b-DF98 (which is also S497+)

======================

My guess is that S497 is not so significantly more frequent to the East of Offa's Dyke.

Dubhthach
07-17-2016, 03:03 PM
And the majority of Welsh U106 probably belongs to S497 / DF98 subclades, does it?

This branch of U106 established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=141441&viewfull=1#post141441

I am talking about samples from Roman-era Eboracum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum) (Martiniano et al. 2016):

Sample 3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Sample 6DRIF-3 - this one was R1b-DF98 (which is also S497+)

======================

My guess is that S497 is not so significantly more frequent to the East of Offa's Dyke.

Given that the above samples were tested for S497 or DF98 who knows.

rms2
07-17-2016, 10:41 PM
And the majority of Welsh U106 probably belongs to S497 / DF98 subclades, does it?

This branch of U106 established its presence in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=141441&viewfull=1#post141441

I am talking about samples from Roman-era Eboracum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum) (Martiniano et al. 2016):

Sample 3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Sample 6DRIF-3 - this one was R1b-DF98 (which is also S497+)

======================

My guess is that S497 is not so significantly more frequent to the East of Offa's Dyke.

And my guess is that by far most of the U106 in Wales was brought there by the English, whose country (I guess you noticed) has a lot more U106 in it than Wales does.

Why look for complicated prehistoric sources when history provides the obvious answer?

kevinduffy
07-18-2016, 12:02 AM
And my guess is that by far most of the U106 in Wales was brought there by the English, whose country (I guess you noticed) has a lot more U106 in it than Wales does.

Why look for complicated prehistoric sources when history provides the obvious answer?

I think a lot of British U106s don't like the fact that their ancestors came to Britain as invaders and would instead like to repackage them as peaceful immigrants.

spruithean
07-18-2016, 02:06 AM
Why look for complicated prehistoric sources when history provides the obvious answer?

Romanticism of the ancient Britons?


I think a lot of British U106s don't like the fact that their ancestors came to Britain as invaders and would instead like to repackage them as peaceful immigrants.

I agree, there seems to not be as prominent a level of romanticism towards being descended from Germanic invaders.

MitchellSince1893
07-18-2016, 03:50 AM
...there seems to not be as prominent a level of romanticism towards being descended from Germanic invaders.

There does seem to be a stigma attached to being associated with Angles and Saxons.

Why is it that being the descendant of Norse and Danish Vikings and Noman invaders is popular, but the same high regard is not extended to their southern neighbors from Jutland and Saxony?

Maybe this will get folks more excited about embracing their inner Alfred :)
https://www.pinterest.com/styygens/anglo-saxons/

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:30 AM
U106s from Eboracum were not "invaders", but gladiators - here is a documentary about them:

"Gladiators: Back From The Dead": http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gladiators-back-from-the-dead-video_13d4008d0.html

In total there were 75 gladiators buried there. But Martiniano published only few Y-DNA samples.

==============

Autosomal DNA suggests that one of those U106s was from Scotland, the other one from Ireland:

Autosomal DNA as well indicates that they spoke either Gaelic, Pictish, Brythonic or Balto-Slavic:

https://s24.postimg.org/bb7qx4wmt/gladiatorzy1.jpg

https://s22.postimg.org/59j4p7ffl/Celtic.png

kevinduffy
07-18-2016, 12:18 PM
U106s from Eboracum were not "invaders", but gladiators - here is a documentary about them:

"Gladiators: Back From The Dead": http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gladiators-back-from-the-dead-video_13d4008d0.html

In total there were 75 gladiators buried there. But Martiniano published only few Y-DNA samples.

==============

Autosomal DNA suggests that one of those U106s was from Scotland, the other one from Ireland:

Autosomal DNA as well indicates that they spoke either Gaelic, Pictish, Brythonic or Balto-Slavic:

https://s24.postimg.org/bb7qx4wmt/gladiatorzy1.jpg

https://s22.postimg.org/59j4p7ffl/Celtic.png

How can autosomal DNA indicate what language they spoke?

spruithean
07-18-2016, 01:11 PM
How can autosomal DNA indicate what language they spoke?

I would also like to know what autosomalDNA has to do with language.

Tomenable, do you have a link to this Eboracum study?


(when are they going to find I1 in all these fancy scenarios?)

Edward J
07-18-2016, 01:34 PM
My U106 line was from the Sunderland area of Northumbria.

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 03:20 PM
Kevinduffy and Spruithean,

If anything, autosomal DNA is a better indicator of what language they spoke, than their Y-DNA.

Autosomal DNA in this case shows that they were mostly of native Ancient British-Irish ancestry.

They were not "first-generation immigrants".

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-18-2016, 09:13 PM
I think a lot of British U106s don't like the fact that their ancestors came to Britain as invaders and would instead like to repackage them as peaceful immigrants.

As a Welsh borders "Y"U106-er I have no problem about where it comes from, it would just be interesting to know which side they might have been on at the Battle of Hastings :) . I certainly don't have a problem being descended from Saxon, Norman or Viking "invaders" because everyone in Britain is descended from people who displaced someone else. There were people in Britain long before the Celtic period.
It's also very simplistic to define your ancestry just based on a very small percentage of "Y" dna.

MitchellSince1893
07-18-2016, 09:40 PM
Maybe it's because almost all the books and movies of that era paint the Britons as the good guys and Anglo-Saxons as the bad guys. e.g. all the King Arthur books and movies.


Who can forget those lovable Saxons from the 2004 movie King Arthur?
http://www.stellanonline.com/karthur4x.jpg


Can anyone name a movie where reverse is true?

Sincerely,

an autosomal Anglo-Saxon (according to Eurogenes K13 and K15)

spruithean
07-18-2016, 09:58 PM
As a Welsh borders "Y"U106-er I have no problem about where it comes from, it would just be interesting to know which side they might have been on at the Battle of Hastings :) . I certainly don't have a problem being descended from Saxon, Norman or Viking "invaders" because everyone in Britain is descended from people who displaced someone else. There were people in Britain long before the Celtic period.
It's also very simplistic to define your ancestry just based on a very small percentage of "Y" dna.

It would be interesting to know which side ones ancestors were on in 1066! It is indeed very simplistic to define ones ancestry based on their y-dna or their mtdna. Those two parts of genetic make-up are indeed small portions of ancestry compared to our autosomal DNA.


Maybe it's because almost all the books and movies of that era paint the Britons as the good guys and Anglo-Saxons as the bad guys. e.g. all the King Arthur books and movies.

Can anyone name a movie where reverse is true?

Sincerely,

an autosomal Anglo-Saxon (according to Eurogenes K13and K15)

There are a number of movies that make the Anglo-Saxons out to be evil-doers. However there is a show on Netflix that seems to put a pretty positive light on the Anglo-Saxons, I think it's called "The Last Kingdom" based on "Uhtred of Bebbanburg" books.

Tomenable, where can I find the data on these Eboracum DNA results?

Huntergatherer1066
07-18-2016, 10:04 PM
Maybe it's because almost all the books and movies of that era paint the Britons as the good guys and Anglo-Saxons as the bad guys. e.g. all the King Arthur books and movies.

Can anyone name a movie where reverse is true?

Sincerely,

an autosomal Anglo-Saxon (according to Eurogenes K13and K15)

In the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, the Normans are the bad guys and the Saxons are the good guys, I guess that is later than King Arthur though. In the epic novel Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd, there are heroes and villains in all involved cultures from 10,000 years ago to the present, which I think is the best portrayal. I personally don't care whether I have Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman etc ancestry; I likely have all of them and there are interesting aspects of all of those cultures.

rms2
07-18-2016, 10:25 PM
U106s from Eboracum were not "invaders", but gladiators . . .

No one said they were, but your post referred to the U106 in Wales, speculating that it was of a type that would prove rare in England.

I think it is far more likely to be traceable to the English.

rms2
07-18-2016, 10:30 PM
Kevinduffy and Spruithean,

If anything, autosomal DNA is a better indicator of what language they spoke, than their Y-DNA.

Autosomal DNA in this case shows that they were mostly of native Ancient British-Irish ancestry.

They were not "first-generation immigrants".

We had all that out when that report was new. To make them absolutely "native Ancient British-Irish", one must assume that there were no similar ancients just the other side of the Channel.

Besides, if we're going to talk y-dna, perhaps we should stick with y-dna. Those gladiators from Roman York, who weren't Welsh or found anywhere near Wales, got half their autosomal dna from their mothers.

rms2
07-18-2016, 10:33 PM
In the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, the Normans are the bad guys and the Saxons are the good guys, I guess that is later than King Arthur though. In the epic novel Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd, there are heroes and villains in all involved cultures from 10,000 years ago to the present, which I think is the best portrayal. I personally don't care whether I have Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman etc ancestry; I likely have all of them and there are interesting aspects of all of those cultures.

I agree; you are undoubtedly right. Those of us with British Isles ancestry are a mix of all the peoples who contributed to the Isles gene pool.

rms2
07-18-2016, 10:50 PM
As a Welsh borders "Y"U106-er I have no problem about where it comes from, it would just be interesting to know which side they might have been on at the Battle of Hastings :) . I certainly don't have a problem being descended from Saxon, Norman or Viking "invaders" because everyone in Britain is descended from people who displaced someone else. There were people in Britain long before the Celtic period.
It's also very simplistic to define your ancestry just based on a very small percentage of "Y" dna.

I know from communicating with some distant cousins that one of my third great grandfathers on my dad's side, Dr. Abner Standish Washburn, was I-M253. His line was from East Anglia. They were Puritans who went to New England in the 17th century. Undoubtedly they were of some kind of Germanic descent, Anglo-Saxon or Viking.

I have a second great grandfather on my dad's side, John Holmes, who was E-V13, which I likewise found out from some distant cousins. His line may have come with the Romans.

Admittedly, I do identify with my own y-dna line, but always with the knowledge that I had plenty of other ancestors and that I should never get carried away and go off the deep end.

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:22 PM
Tomenable, where can I find the data on these Eboracum DNA results?

Here:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/full/ncomms10326.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/extref/ncomms10326-s1.pdf

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:27 PM
(when are they going to find I1 in all these fancy scenarios?)

They already did !!!

The Anglo-Saxon man from the same study - sample NO3423 - was I1. :)

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:43 PM
Here are Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups from this study:

1) Roman-era York (years 100-400 AD):

R1b-L21:

6DRIF-18 - R1b-L21 and H1bs
6DRIF-21 - R1b-DF63 and J1c3e2

R1b-U106:

3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497 and H6a1a
6DRIF-3 - R1b-DF98 and J1b1a1

R1b-U152:

6DRIF-22 - R1b-U152 and H2

R1b-DF19:

6DRIF-23 - R1b-DF19 and H6a1b2

Non-R1b:

3DRIF-26 - J2-L228 and H5

2) Anglo-Saxon Teesside (650–910 AD):

NO3423 - I1-S107 and H1a

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:49 PM
Also, when it comes to autosomal DNA:

The Anglo-Saxon man (NO3423) was autosomally very similar to modern Norwegians and Orcadians.

By contrast, 3DRIF-16 & 6DRIF-3 (U106s from York) didn't resemble any of modern Germanic groups.

Tomenable
07-18-2016, 11:58 PM
Phenotype SNPs (I added haplogroups):

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

Iron Age sample M1489 is dated to years 210 BC - 40 AD:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

DF63 is a sub-clade downstream of R1b-L21.

George Chandler
07-19-2016, 01:19 AM
I will take a look at the papers again when I get a moment (on vacation) as I have them with me on my laptop. I can't remember what "phase" the 6DRIF-3 was so I will let you know when I look at it again. The question I had regarding 6DRIF-18 (that is part of the S1051 haplogroup) was that it was considered "phase 4" which indicated from carbon dating it was likely 4th century. Given that the Romans had abandoned the area in the early 5th century it is "possible" that is the carbon dating was late 4th century (with the error rate) that the body was possibly early Boernician and not from the Roman period of that area. The isotope return doesn't match any known area in the Isles from the Roman period and from a warmer climate. The other possibility was that he was well fed in his early years on a fresh water marine diet. As Richard said..the autosomal return takes both parents and being that H1bs has some matches in Scandinavia, Poland, Lithuania etc he could have inherited his blonde hair and Lithuanian results from his mother and his Welsh results from his father.

I really can't say when the U106 SNP entered the Isles but there could have been (as stated before by others) multiple events at may different times for it's entry. Trying to pull out the facts from this study is the interesting part.

George

George Chandler
07-19-2016, 02:50 AM
I checked the "Headless Romans" paper and there is nothing reported on 6DRIF-3 and mentions 3DRIF-16 was that he was headless and it was a dual burial with SK15.

George

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-19-2016, 06:01 AM
Maybe it's because almost all the books and movies of that era paint the Britons as the good guys and Anglo-Saxons as the bad guys. e.g. all the King Arthur books and movies.


Who can forget those lovable Saxons from the 2004 movie King Arthur?
http://www.stellanonline.com/karthur4x.jpg


Can anyone name a movie where reverse is true?

Sincerely,

an autosomal Anglo-Saxon (according to Eurogenes K13 and K15)

Great Grandad! such a charming man. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-19-2016, 07:47 AM
It would be interesting to know which side ones ancestors were on in 1066! It is indeed very simplistic to define ones ancestry based on their y-dna or their mtdna. Those two parts of genetic make-up are indeed small portions of ancestry compared to our autosomal DNA.



There are a number of movies that make the Anglo-Saxons out to be evil-doers. However there is a show on Netflix that seems to put a pretty positive light on the Anglo-Saxons, I think it's called "The Last Kingdom" based on "Uhtred of Bebbanburg" books.

Tomenable, where can I find the data on these Eboracum DNA results?

Actually Saxons weren't always portrayed as villains - Robin Hood was a Saxon Earl, Robert of Loxley, then there was Hereward the Wake and Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe not to mention King Alfred who burned the cakes, Maybe I'm showing my age. :)
Harold Godwinson was made Earl of Herefordshire and held land there, where my paternal line came from, so there is a remote possibility that I may have had an ancestor at Hastings. :)
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjLpta3g__NAhUmLcAKHdJvCToQFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhtt.herefordshire.gov.uk%2F780.as px&usg=AFQjCNEtDFZzBYcKeDIvcrn5phmuNNmAbA

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-19-2016, 07:53 AM
Anyway, I don't look Saxon. ;)

10511

kevinduffy
07-19-2016, 12:14 PM
Kevinduffy and Spruithean,

If anything, autosomal DNA is a better indicator of what language they spoke, than their Y-DNA.

Autosomal DNA in this case shows that they were mostly of native Ancient British-Irish ancestry.

They were not "first-generation immigrants".

Please explain how autosomal DNA indicates what language they spoke.

kevinduffy
07-19-2016, 12:29 PM
As a Welsh borders "Y"U106-er I have no problem about where it comes from, it would just be interesting to know which side they might have been on at the Battle of Hastings :) . I certainly don't have a problem being descended from Saxon, Norman or Viking "invaders" because everyone in Britain is descended from people who displaced someone else. There were people in Britain long before the Celtic period.
It's also very simplistic to define your ancestry just based on a very small percentage of "Y" dna.

So if some new population invaded Wales today and forced out the current population, you would have no problem with that?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-19-2016, 12:43 PM
So if some new population invaded Wales today and forced out the current population, you would have no problem with that?

Weren't there people in America before Europeans arrived? We can't change the past, it's how early populations migrated for the most part. If Celtic people migrated to Britain, they pushed out the people who were here before.

spruithean
07-19-2016, 01:21 PM
So if some new population invaded Wales today and forced out the current population, you would have no problem with that?

Umm... Where are you going with this?

Tomenable
07-19-2016, 02:11 PM
Please explain how autosomal DNA indicates what language they spoke.

This is how:

1) Autosomal DNA indicates that they were indigenous to Britain, not immigrants from the continent.

And 2) - we know what languages did populations indigenous to Britain speak at that particular time.

Therefore 3) - they spoke one of languages spoken in Britain at that time (and thus - not Germanic).

Tomenable
07-19-2016, 07:56 PM
Anyway, I don't look Saxon. ;)
(...)

You actually look more Saxon than this Saxon reconstruction: :)

3D model: https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea348...c6318d313fb41a4 (https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea3486bac6318d313fb41a4)

Pictures:

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-e...coln-castle.php (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-experts-recreate-face-of-saxon-man-at-lincoln-castle.php)

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotl...-reconstruction (http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotland-saxon-man-facial-reconstruction)

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman001.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman002.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman003.jpg

Tomenable
07-19-2016, 08:04 PM
Seriously, whoever reconstructed that Saxon's face, failed to watch "King Arthur" before... ;)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-19-2016, 08:57 PM
Seriously, whoever reconstructed that Saxon's face, failed to watch "King Arthur" before... ;)

Year ago in the UK there was a TV programme called "Arthur of the Britons" all the "Britons" were dark and all the Saxons fair. I doubt it was that straightforward. :)

alan
07-19-2016, 09:10 PM
You actually look more Saxon than this Saxon reconstruction: :)

3D model: https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea348...c6318d313fb41a4 (https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea3486bac6318d313fb41a4)

Pictures:

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-e...coln-castle.php (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-experts-recreate-face-of-saxon-man-at-lincoln-castle.php)

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotl...-reconstruction (http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotland-saxon-man-facial-reconstruction)

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman001.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman002.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman003.jpg

thing is he wouldnt be at all out of place in Britain, Holland or Germany. Germany has looooads of people who dont look like nordic gods. Just look at most of the top Nazis for a start. That guy could actually be from almost any country across Europe. He is just an average person - albeit he has a bad haircut and looks like he has just remembered he left the bath running 2 hours ago.

alan
07-19-2016, 09:12 PM
Year ago in the UK there was a TV programme called "Arthur of the Britons" all the "Britons" were dark and all the Saxons fair. I doubt it was that straightforward. :)

The Saxons all looked like heavy metal band members while the Britons looked gothic in the musical sense.

alan
07-19-2016, 09:28 PM
Joachim Lw -Germany football manager 10518

alan
07-19-2016, 09:29 PM
Joachim Lw -Germany football manager

10518

spruithean
07-19-2016, 09:44 PM
Year ago in the UK there was a TV programme called "Arthur of the Britons" all the "Britons" were dark and all the Saxons fair. I doubt it was that straightforward. :)

Agreed.


The Saxons all looked like heavy metal band members while the Britons looked gothic in the musical sense.

LOL, perhaps the creators of the TV program confused Saxons for the band Saxon.

corner
07-19-2016, 09:58 PM
You actually look more Saxon than this Saxon reconstruction: :)

3D model: https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea348...c6318d313fb41a4 (https://sketchfab.com/models/a0304bb76ea3486bac6318d313fb41a4)

Pictures:

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-e...coln-castle.php (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/news/2015/dundee-experts-recreate-face-of-saxon-man-at-lincoln-castle.php)

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotl...-reconstruction (http://www.archaeology.org/news/3431-scotland-saxon-man-facial-reconstruction)

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman001.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman002.jpg
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images2/saxonman003.jpgLooks like Dougal from Father Ted.
http://youtu.be/GFTgkibl7DU

kevinduffy
07-19-2016, 10:03 PM
Umm... Where are you going with this?

I wasn't going anywhere with this. I was just curious about his views on ancient population replacement in Britain.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-20-2016, 04:39 AM
thing is he wouldnt be at all out of place in Britain, Holland or Germany. Germany has looooads of people who dont look like nordic gods. Just look at most of the top Nazis for a start. That guy could actually be from almost any country across Europe. He is just an average person - albeit he has a bad haircut and looks like he has just remembered he left the bath running 2 hours ago.

He is probably thinking "Why did I go to that barber?" :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-20-2016, 05:19 AM
I wasn't going anywhere with this. I was just curious about his views on ancient population replacement in Britain.

I wasn't trying to say conquering people is good, just that as far as I can see, when it comes to ancient peoples in the British Isles, there is not much to choose between them and I can't change what they did, or rather what their rulers did. When it comes to Celts and "invaders", I have ancestry from both sides, as do many people.

Bollox79
07-26-2016, 03:25 AM
George! 6drif-3 was the tallest skeleton in the cemetery and the skeleton covered in the documentary Gladiators: Back from the Dead around the 14:00 minute mark. He had sharp blade trauma and blunt truma to the right forearm... and partial decapitation. Same 6drif-3 that is in this little cluster with myself and a few others. All British (and the immediate ancestor groups also British) except for a Swede and Norwegian ;-). I'm the Weaver sample (occupational surname). http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1330