Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corded Ware

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I had to reread this a couple of times so forgive if I am off / behind \ with a bit of the comments.


    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    They could have but where are the branches of my group that survived in Asia? I don't see them.

    The subgroup that I belong to is found mostly in Ireland and Scotland.

    You belong to U106 do you not? I am taking it you do because you never said otherwise when asked earlier.

    U106 is predominantly found in Central Europe NOT Ireland. If you are unaware Central Europe pretty much swallows up every single country from which Vikings and/or their forefathers came from. It spread from the Rhine river which you may not be aware is Germany.

    If you are unaware places where our forefathers "sat" the longest have the highest concentrations of haplogroups. The reason why is very simple - non nomadic persons would reproduce more and spread more than people whom are nomadic [either of their own choosing or through displacement - such as the now hard to identify Celt/Gauls]. Add to the fact that a dominant / conquering party would be the dominant people to reproduce means that the conquering haplogroup would spread and eventually succeed prior existing haplogroups.

    If you need it simplified - imagine two groups of mice. One white, one black not a racist comparison, it's the simplest. Now remove all or extremely limit the white male mice and introduce a few black male mice to the group of white females. Within a couple generations there will be not a single white mouse [except for a very extreme oddity] and you'd have two groups of black mice. If you did it in reverse you'd have two groups of white mice.

    This is why such groups as "aboriginals" are becoming more and more white because governments have so warped the "aboriginal" status that someone with as little as 1/8th legit aboriginal blood can claim status.



    Now, given as you keep citing Scotland, you obviously are unaware of the fact that Scotland, specifically the Orkney islands, has DNA which is very similar to those of people from the Nordic areas.


    U106 is Germanic, most likely coming to the UK with the Vikings / Nords. There is a reason why the "original" [R1b1a2a1a1] of which your type R1b1a2a1a1c1b is but a subgroup is referred to as Proto-Germanic in EVERY haplogroup tree. R1b1a2a1a2 - which my male relatives belong to, is the Italo-Celto-Germanic linage. Being R1b1a2a1a2b makes us closer to the Gauls/Celts (and as such "original" Irish) than you.


    This invasion with more modern haplogroups - your U106 - is supported by the physical appearance - red hair, a predominant modern Irish trait. Many claim that Neanderthals' gave rise to red hair... sorry to say, genetically they're not even the same genes nor mutations for red hair between modern humans and our Neanderthals.

    Unfortunately, for all pro-Ireland people, the more common mutation for red hair developed along the Russian [/ Germanic] Volga region where the people STILL have red hair at nearly the same rate if not higher than the people of Ireland - the Udmurts. I believe unlike the dirty brownish red oftentimes found in Ireland though Volga red are real redheads. Another red hair mutation / gene, as there is more than one, may have been Asiatic - Tocharians [2500-3200BC]. Regardless, red hair follows the R1b mutation which depending on what theory you follow originated in the mid-east or the Steppes and spread from there.

    The R1b itself seems to have started its real stretching / spreading out outside of the Iberian area. Celts or as the Romans called them, the Gauls.

    Now the original Irish were red haired, they were as equally dark haired. One reason there was/still is confusion on which way the red hair went... did the Vikings bring it? Or did they take it away with them? Or was the red hair mutation of the Irish & Scots utterly different - there is after all at least three separate red hair markers that we know of.

    However, there's two Irish types that have sort of lost their meaning in the modern world nowadays. I mean google black Irish and you'll get all sorts of rubbish about them being actually Africans.

    You have the "black" Irish whom despite their name are not black, they are pale skinned and dark haired and typically darker [blue] eyed - my uncle is a "black" Irish, his features are far more striking than the average red / brown haired Irish.

    And then you have the even rarer "dark" Irish as per a dub my grandmother [and she was Irish to her very bones with a very long family history through her father's family] ... the dark Irish are dark haired, darker skinned and dark eyed. Now before someone claims otherwise, "dark" Irish are not some African slave mix-blood child - my great-grandfather (of whom some of my Irish relatives get their ability to tan while their neighbors / relatives burn in the sun) was a "dark" Irishman and I have very little African DNA in me [0.17% south Africa which given my origins could easily be dutch, and 0.12% Paleo African] yet I have quite a bit of distant Iberian & Spanish. Given their features (great-grandfather's portrait and others of darker skin tone on his side of the family, including grandma though she was lighter hued but still darker than pallid white) these would be most likely descendants of the Iberian / Spanish / Roman era - or if you would authentic Celtic descendants. It is unfortunate that they were few and far between to find decades ago, now they probably don't exist or are confused for mixed children.


    As it is, you can twist words as much as you like, with little to no scientific proof, it changes nothing. U106 is "predominantly" in Ireland because it came with the invaders NOT the original Irish people. As for your statement of "predominantly" Ireland ... I don't see where or how:

    Going off the R1b-U106 Y-DNA Haplogroup - Y-DNA Classic Chart provided earlier the most predominant U106 in searching just two pages at the Y-111 marker is England, not Ireland... I even looked at the Y-67 marker and if not England than U106 is predominantly found in the Germanic regions or "unknown" [given most of the names to the "unknowns" they'd be British as well as they're not Scottish nor Irish in origin].

    For the record England is not Ireland, say that to a real Irishman and you will be in for a world of hurt as the saying goes.

    Now looking in the same chart with a find search of Ireland shows me that the match is predominantly R-Z type haplogroups, NOT R-U106. And to say that u106 is predominantly Irish is, I am sorry to say, laughable... there is quite a bit of variation in the subgroups of Ireland.


    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    Sorry, but I don't accept your SNP-counting mania. I can't think of any credible source for your age estimate. Give me one credible genetic genealogist or population geneticist who believes that it's possible that M269 is 10,000 or more years old.
    M269 has been estimated 4,500 years and the very uppermost ideas [which are few] it is 9,000 years. There is a mindset that it didn't even make the Neolithic era though and is much more "modern". One trend is it may have gotten 7,500 years given the mutation rate. So the likeness of it being 10,000 years or more is pretty much slim to nil. If we average 4,500 + 9,000 it only gives us 6,750 years anyways.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
      So www.yfull.com is not a credible source. Is that what you are saying?

      Our main focus should be P311 and then our own personal y lines.

      I started this thread about the CWC to show that ANE does not belong to R1b.
      Really? Let's take a look at what YFull actually says about the age of M269, not your misinterpretation or, maybe, misrepresentation of it.

      Go to http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M269/ and click on the link labeled "info" at the end of the row for R-M269. The heading of the window that opens up is "R-M269 (age: 6337 ybp)."

      You don't help your credibility very much when you cite a source which, it turns out, disagrees with you! So, give me another source for this fantasy that claims that M269 is over 10,000 years old.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        Your knowledge of Irish history is limited.
        I never claimed to have absolute knowledge, anyone who states they have absolute knowledge is foolish. Your knowledge of Irish history will also be limited so I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say.

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        The plantation of Ulster was not the only one in Ireland..
        I never claimed the Ulster Plantation was the only plantation in Ireland.

        If you bothered to read my post I mentioned Ulster in context, since you stated your ancestors were from "the northern part of the island".

        I take it that you don't want to answer my question about which regions your ancestors were from?

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        but it was planted mainly by Scottish Celts from the Strathclyde region, not by people from the south east of England.
        "Scottish Celts"? Are there definite segregated Scottish Celts and Scottish-non-Celts now? That must have been a logistical and administrative nightmare to keep track of. What records are you citing to support such a statement?

        ..and apparently all of these "Scottish Celts" came from the Strathclyde region??...what source are you citing to support this statement? Or is this another one of your moments of "intuition"?

        I do not recall stating anything about south-east England so this is another one of your strawman arguments?

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I know that I don't belong to the same subclades of S5556 as the two other testers because they have positive SNPs from the Chromo 2 that I am negative for. I know that two testers who have a GD of 39 at 111 markers are not related within the last 4000 years.

        Why do you think that people who are in the same clan should have a 4000 years difference between them?
        Same clan? What clan? You haven't even established what subclade you are below S5556.

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        Some people are trying to tie Z2103 and L51 together to make them fit into the Yamnaya theory because they are brother haplogroups. And yet you say that I must be a recent fellow traveler of someone who I not related to within the last 4000 years.
        Keep on topic, I did not mention the Yamnaya.

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I will take the Big Y when it suits my pocket.
        Indeed. So until then you won't be able to draw many conclusions about subclades beyond S556.

        Comment


        • #49
          I am looking at yfull 3.15 & it says the following for M269:

          formed 13,300 YBP (range 14,900 to 11,700)
          MRCA of all M269+ men is 6,400 YBP (range 7,300 to 5,500 YBP)

          The branch that leads to the MRCA of all M269+ diverged from all others 13,300 YBP. It was in this time period (13,300 YBP to 6,400 YBP) that all 83 of the SNPs that Ciaran likes to talk about happened. At the time of the MRCA, all 83 were in place & are shared by all M269+ descendants.

          When one considers the location of M269's parent SNP, sibling SNP & child SNPs, one can easily see that this time was most likely spent in or near the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Anyone who suggests otherwise likely has an agenda that is detracting from his objectivity.

          Timothy Peterman

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by SwedeLover View Post
            I had to reread this a couple of times so forgive if I am off / behind \ with a bit of the comments.





            You belong to U106 do you not? I am taking it you do because you never said otherwise when asked earlier.

            U106 is predominantly found in Central Europe NOT Ireland. If you are unaware Central Europe pretty much swallows up every single country from which Vikings and/or their forefathers came from. It spread from the Rhine river which you may not be aware is Germany.

            If you are unaware places where our forefathers "sat" the longest have the highest concentrations of haplogroups. The reason why is very simple - non nomadic persons would reproduce more and spread more than people whom are nomadic [either of their own choosing or through displacement - such as the now hard to identify Celt/Gauls]. Add to the fact that a dominant / conquering party would be the dominant people to reproduce means that the conquering haplogroup would spread and eventually succeed prior existing haplogroups.

            If you need it simplified - imagine two groups of mice. One white, one black not a racist comparison, it's the simplest. Now remove all or extremely limit the white male mice and introduce a few black male mice to the group of white females. Within a couple generations there will be not a single white mouse [except for a very extreme oddity] and you'd have two groups of black mice. If you did it in reverse you'd have two groups of white mice.

            This is why such groups as "aboriginals" are becoming more and more white because governments have so warped the "aboriginal" status that someone with as little as 1/8th legit aboriginal blood can claim status.



            Now, given as you keep citing Scotland, you obviously are unaware of the fact that Scotland, specifically the Orkney islands, has DNA which is very similar to those of people from the Nordic areas.


            U106 is Germanic, most likely coming to the UK with the Vikings / Nords. There is a reason why the "original" [R1b1a2a1a1] of which your type R1b1a2a1a1c1b is but a subgroup is referred to as Proto-Germanic in EVERY haplogroup tree. R1b1a2a1a2 - which my male relatives belong to, is the Italo-Celto-Germanic linage. Being R1b1a2a1a2b makes us closer to the Gauls/Celts (and as such "original" Irish) than you.


            This invasion with more modern haplogroups - your U106 - is supported by the physical appearance - red hair, a predominant modern Irish trait. Many claim that Neanderthals' gave rise to red hair... sorry to say, genetically they're not even the same genes nor mutations for red hair between modern humans and our Neanderthals.

            Unfortunately, for all pro-Ireland people, the more common mutation for red hair developed along the Russian [/ Germanic] Volga region where the people STILL have red hair at nearly the same rate if not higher than the people of Ireland - the Udmurts. I believe unlike the dirty brownish red oftentimes found in Ireland though Volga red are real redheads. Another red hair mutation / gene, as there is more than one, may have been Asiatic - Tocharians [2500-3200BC]. Regardless, red hair follows the R1b mutation which depending on what theory you follow originated in the mid-east or the Steppes and spread from there.

            The R1b itself seems to have started its real stretching / spreading out outside of the Iberian area. Celts or as the Romans called them, the Gauls.

            Now the original Irish were red haired, they were as equally dark haired. One reason there was/still is confusion on which way the red hair went... did the Vikings bring it? Or did they take it away with them? Or was the red hair mutation of the Irish & Scots utterly different - there is after all at least three separate red hair markers that we know of.

            However, there's two Irish types that have sort of lost their meaning in the modern world nowadays. I mean google black Irish and you'll get all sorts of rubbish about them being actually Africans.

            You have the "black" Irish whom despite their name are not black, they are pale skinned and dark haired and typically darker [blue] eyed - my uncle is a "black" Irish, his features are far more striking than the average red / brown haired Irish.

            And then you have the even rarer "dark" Irish as per a dub my grandmother [and she was Irish to her very bones with a very long family history through her father's family] ... the dark Irish are dark haired, darker skinned and dark eyed. Now before someone claims otherwise, "dark" Irish are not some African slave mix-blood child - my great-grandfather (of whom some of my Irish relatives get their ability to tan while their neighbors / relatives burn in the sun) was a "dark" Irishman and I have very little African DNA in me [0.17% south Africa which given my origins could easily be dutch, and 0.12% Paleo African] yet I have quite a bit of distant Iberian & Spanish. Given their features (great-grandfather's portrait and others of darker skin tone on his side of the family, including grandma though she was lighter hued but still darker than pallid white) these would be most likely descendants of the Iberian / Spanish / Roman era - or if you would authentic Celtic descendants. It is unfortunate that they were few and far between to find decades ago, now they probably don't exist or are confused for mixed children.


            As it is, you can twist words as much as you like, with little to no scientific proof, it changes nothing. U106 is "predominantly" in Ireland because it came with the invaders NOT the original Irish people. As for your statement of "predominantly" Ireland ... I don't see where or how:

            Going off the R1b-U106 Y-DNA Haplogroup - Y-DNA Classic Chart provided earlier the most predominant U106 in searching just two pages at the Y-111 marker is England, not Ireland... I even looked at the Y-67 marker and if not England than U106 is predominantly found in the Germanic regions or "unknown" [given most of the names to the "unknowns" they'd be British as well as they're not Scottish nor Irish in origin].

            For the record England is not Ireland, say that to a real Irishman and you will be in for a world of hurt as the saying goes.

            Now looking in the same chart with a find search of Ireland shows me that the match is predominantly R-Z type haplogroups, NOT R-U106. And to say that u106 is predominantly Irish is, I am sorry to say, laughable... there is quite a bit of variation in the subgroups of Ireland.




            M269 has been estimated 4,500 years and the very uppermost ideas [which are few] it is 9,000 years. There is a mindset that it didn't even make the Neolithic era though and is much more "modern". One trend is it may have gotten 7,500 years given the mutation rate. So the likeness of it being 10,000 years or more is pretty much slim to nil. If we average 4,500 + 9,000 it only gives us 6,750 years anyways.
            A long winded post full of claptrap.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by N21163 View Post
              I never claimed to have absolute knowledge, anyone who states they have absolute knowledge is foolish. Your knowledge of Irish history will also be limited so I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say.



              I never claimed the Ulster Plantation was the only plantation in Ireland.

              If you bothered to read my post I mentioned Ulster in context, since you stated your ancestors were from "the northern part of the island".

              I take it that you don't want to answer my question about which regions your ancestors were from?



              "Scottish Celts"? Are there definite segregated Scottish Celts and Scottish-non-Celts now? That must have been a logistical and administrative nightmare to keep track of. What records are you citing to support such a statement?

              ..and apparently all of these "Scottish Celts" came from the Strathclyde region??...what source are you citing to support this statement? Or is this another one of your moments of "intuition"?

              I do not recall stating anything about south-east England so this is another one of your strawman arguments?



              Same clan? What clan? You haven't even established what subclade you are below S5556.



              Keep on topic, I did not mention the Yamnaya.



              Indeed. So until then you won't be able to draw many conclusions about subclades beyond S5556.
              It is not.

              An Irish historian from 100 ybp. Are the Scottish not descended from the Celts?

              I belong to the S5520 clan which has a majority in Ireland at present.The estimated age has already been given.

              It is time for you and others to stop drawing conclusions for me. I am very adept at my own stuff.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                I am looking at yfull 3.15 & it says the following for M269:

                formed 13,300 YBP (range 14,900 to 11,700)
                MRCA of all M269+ men is 6,400 YBP (range 7,300 to 5,500 YBP)

                The branch that leads to the MRCA of all M269+ diverged from all others 13,300 YBP. It was in this time period (13,300 YBP to 6,400 YBP) that all 83 of the SNPs that Ciaran likes to talk about happened. At the time of the MRCA, all 83 were in place & are shared by all M269+ descendants.

                When one considers the location of M269's parent SNP, sibling SNP & child SNPs, one can easily see that this time was most likely spent in or near the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Anyone who suggests otherwise likely has an agenda that is detracting from his objectivity.

                Timothy Peterman
                I am just pointing out the obvious. You are right about one thing, the scientists don't know which of the 83 SNPs came
                first and they will never know. M269 could have been the first or the last SNP of that bunch but we are stuck with the M269 label.

                Wrong again. Samara dated to 7,500 ybp was P297 but P297 is older than M269 which formed 13,300 ybp. We don't know which downstream branch he belonged to. It could be an extinct branch. And, Z2103 is not a western European subhaplogroup.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Hello all,

                  I know this is the Recreation Room, but it seems this has just unwound into an argument that has been seen multiple other places. If there is nothing new to add please let it go.

                  -Darren
                  Family Tree DNA

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    It is not....

                    It is time for you and others to stop drawing conclusions for me. I am very adept at my own stuff.
                    I'm not drawing any conclusions. Merely pointing out holes in your argument.
                    Your knowledge of Irish history IS limited despite protests you might make. You are not an expert and your knowledge is not absolute. These are facts, if you choose to take them as personal attacks then so be it.

                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    An Irish historian from 100 ybp.
                    Cite a name and a source.

                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    Are the Scottish not descended from the Celts?
                    If you wish to discuss the Pictish, Celtic, Viking, English and Norman French histories that have contributed to the Scots during the times of the Plantations, through to the modern day population of Scots I would be more than happy to oblige

                    While my knowledge would be limited, I would ensure that appropriate supporting resources would be cited source material for any opinions or conclusions drawn.

                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    I belong to the S5520 clan which has a majority in Ireland at present. The estimated age has already been given.
                    What data source are you using to make this claim?

                    You have stated that you are S5556 (downstream from S5520).

                    I have attached a screenshot from the U106 project at FTDNA
                    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

                    I'm not surprised that your results are not there.

                    You will see that the those who state Scotland or Ireland, as their ancestral country of origin, tend to fall under subclade FGC11662 and tend to have surnames of McMillen/McMullen.

                    The three testers listed as S5556 list England and Germany as their ancestral countries of origin, so I'm not sure how your generalised statement has any impact on the S5556 subclade that you belong to...

                    Subclade S5520 and S5556 are not currently listed on the Z156 ytree: http://yfull.com/tree/R-S264/

                    It would be good for those who have tested positive for S5520 to submit their data to yfull. Further analysis can be completed and new subclades may be found. You may even find that you belong to a new subclade under S5556.
                    Attached Files
                    Last edited by N21163; 2 October 2015, 05:02 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                      I am looking at yfull 3.15 & it says the following for M269:

                      formed 13,300 YBP (range 14,900 to 11,700)
                      MRCA of all M269+ men is 6,400 YBP (range 7,300 to 5,500 YBP)

                      The branch that leads to the MRCA of all M269+ diverged from all others 13,300 YBP. It was in this time period (13,300 YBP to 6,400 YBP) that all 83 of the SNPs that Ciaran likes to talk about happened. At the time of the MRCA, all 83 were in place & are shared by all M269+ descendants.

                      When one considers the location of M269's parent SNP, sibling SNP & child SNPs, one can easily see that this time was most likely spent in or near the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Anyone who suggests otherwise likely has an agenda that is detracting from his objectivity.

                      Timothy Peterman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                        I'm not drawing any conclusions. Merely pointing out holes in your argument.
                        Your knowledge of Irish history IS limited despite protests you might make. You are not an expert and your knowledge is not absolute. These are facts, if you choose to take them as personal attacks then so be it.




                        Cite a name and a source.



                        If you wish to discuss the Pictish, Celtic, Viking, English and Norman French histories that have contributed to the Scots during the times of the Plantations, through to the modern day population of Scots I would be more than happy to oblige

                        While my knowledge would be limited, I would ensure that appropriate supporting resources would be cited source material for any opinions or conclusions drawn.



                        What data source are you using to make this claim?

                        You have stated that you are S5556 (downstream from S5520).

                        I have attached a screenshot from the U106 project at FTDNA
                        https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

                        I'm not surprised that your results are not there.

                        You will see that the those who state Scotland or Ireland, as their ancestral country of origin, tend to fall under subclade FGC11662 and tend to have surnames of McMillen/McMullen.

                        The three testers listed as S5556 list England and Germany as their ancestral countries of origin, so I'm not sure how your generalised statement has any impact on the S5556 subclade that you belong to...

                        Subclade S5520 and S5556 are not currently listed on the Z156 ytree: http://yfull.com/tree/R-S264/

                        It would be good for those who have tested positive for S5520 to submit their data to yfull. Further analysis can be completed and new subclades may be found. You may even find that you belong to a new subclade under S5556.
                        I know Irish history and it is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Ireland. I don't have to quote any of my sources for you. Who do you think you are?

                        I have already pointed out that the SNP S5520 was found in my test and I am negative for other SNPs that they have tested positive for from the Chromo 2, do you not understand? The same way that you and I belong to M269 all of the S5520 testers have the same ancestor.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                          Are the Scottish not descended from the Celts?
                          The Scots are descended from a mixture of groups including Celts, Vikings, Angles and Normans.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by kevinduffy View Post
                            The Scots are descended from a mixture of groups including Celts, Vikings, Angles and Normans.
                            These had little impact on the Scottish dna. The Scots are descended from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze-Age people and the Irish of course.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                              A long winded post full of claptrap.
                              Another entry from the 1798-speak dictionary:

                              Claptrap - a well-thought out idea, which has some evidence to support it, but which conflicts with my strongly held beliefs; the opposite of "intuition"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Darren View Post
                                Hello all,

                                I know this is the Recreation Room, but it seems this has just unwound into an argument that has been seen multiple other places. If there is nothing new to add please let it go.

                                -Darren
                                Family Tree DNA
                                Darren,

                                If you object to the repetition, time and again, of the same arguments and counter-arguments, perhaps it's time for you to limit 1798's ability to resurrect these arguments in many, many threads. I'm not advocating censorship, since 1798 has been given ample opportunities to express his views. But at a certain point it becomes really excessive.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X