Unlucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by yahooland
Printable View
Unlucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by yahooland
Well my-dna come from the north-east of France and no one from there except me seems to have been tested .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
Ahh i see. I heard there are laws in France against this sort of thing? Hopefully things will change, that will make genetic information about France much better, and for your own benefit as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by yahooland
Well it's complicated ,Genetic testing like 23andme or Ftdna are not forbidden ,it's non accredited paternity test that are forbidden,French are just not intesrested in it i guess,the fact that both 23andme and ftdna are in english might play a big role too . Anyway with me being tested I got a 50$ reduction on the warrior gene and so now i know I'm a warrior at least haha (3R variant)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
U106 is the common one.Quote:
Originally Posted by safinator
Ahh yeah. Yeah i think something needs to be done to make it more accessible in France...You border north, south, west and central Europe. Bound to be a lot of interesting discoveries if they do...Quote:
Originally Posted by yahooland
You have ascended by a mutation. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Albion
yeah for sure ,We will hopefully find R1b people with weird dys value like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
I got R1a. (swedish paternal line)
and my maternal grandfather got R1a as well. (saami paternal line)
= double R1a :cool:
Paternally Italian BUT my haplogroup is J1. I don't know the sub-clade. Most likely have Jewish ancestors. I don't know how else J1 would end up in Central Italy.
The Neolithic, perhaps. But also, some of the North Africans in Sicily were expelled to other parts of Italy (along the Adriatic coast mostly) and some small towns have elevated amounts of J1 today.. I think one town in Apulia and another in Abruzzo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneandonly
North Africans? That seems like a shot in the dark to me. I scored positive for the "Choen Model" haplotype on ftDNA apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sikeliot
I wasn't thinking J1 was common amongst Jews. I couldn't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneandonly
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml
J1 = Caucasian, Mesopotamian, Semitic (Arabic/Jewish)
Amongst Ashkenazim Jews, it says J1 is 19%. For Sephardics it's 22%.
Wouldn't the North Africans expelled from Sicily have haplogroup E?
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/35323319.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneandonly
J1 is native to most of the Middle East and North Africa and is found in lower frequencies in Europe, probably from the Neolithic and Roman Empire. There are certain subclades associated with certain groups such as L147.1 among the Cohen clan (Cohen is a Jewish surname), but J1 is NOT exclusive to Jews.
If you haplogroup is J1, your paternal ancestry Italian and your surname is Italian then chances are that you basically are just of Italian ancestry. Don't try to be something you're not. Read through the Eupedia on J1 in full and then form an opinion.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J1.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml
Attachment 28822
Turned out to be R1a-Z280+, CTS 1211+, CTS3402+ and negative to the other SNP's downstream of CTS3402. Highest density pockets around the Carpathian, clustering by markers mostly to the Hungarians, Slovaks and Russians.
I am J2a4b-M67, my ancestors are East Slavs.
I am 247141. Me and my closest genetic relatives. What do you think about that? Those are strange results.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
My direct male ancestors, as I recently was informed, are from East Ukraine. Brewer does not know exactly where their ancestor is, may be from England.
The Anonchuk ancestors are from West Ukrain, from Galitia, Roman Catolics.
R1b1b2a1a2f
E1b1b1b2a1a (E-M84), double checked by Adriano Squecco..
Hi Lenny,
Interested in your remark about I1 being a "ruling class" element in the Nordic region. Hadn't heard that before. What is the basis for it?
Also, isn't Iceland at least 35% I1?
E1b1b1b2a
Only Jarl Birger(founder of Stockholm) and his son are proven to be I1 if I rember correctly. The rest of the rulers/chiefs/kings could be anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by Gurgen Khan
Iceland is like 30%-35% I1 indeed but studies on the Iceland are bad sampled
Thanks Artek. I knew about the Jarl Birger line. I think most of the North Germanic ruling families were/are R1 types in the paternal line... :rolleyes2::cool:
Chance would have it that way. Anyway there are some ancient DNA studies going on in Denmark atm from all different time periods, so it might give us an idea of what the haplogroup assortion was like in the past. Might find that there was more or less I1, R1, i suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurgen Khan
I think that the R1b in North Germanics is younger than R1a(and I1 obviously) but in such countries like Denmark or Netherlands it become more successful and overnumbered older lineages. Going after it, samples should go from I1/R1a predominance rather to the R1b predominance in younger periods. Let us hope that the study will prove that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
I think that would be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artek
Where do you get these tests and how much do they cost?
23&me, 99$. that's the cheapest, but is very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by HansBiebel
Well, 23andme told me I2, so I'm pretty sure it's I2*.
Which is pretty rare and ancient, so go me!
I brotherhood! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SkyBurn
23andMe told you that you are I2*, because they probably made a low-resolution insight into your Y-DNA, not because your I2 is ancestral and negative to any younger SNP's.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyBurn
That's why we also have many I1* or R1a1a* in our board...sadly. FTDNA is more professional in those terms but you also need to pay more as well.:(
R1b and R1a are supposed to have overrun Western Europe as invaders - R1a with Indo-Europeans and R1b with Neolithic / Bronze Age migrations apparently. If this were the case then it would favour R1 haplogroups being higher among the aristocracy than others, although in new settled areas like Iceland there may have been opportunists from more humble backgrounds, although I personally haven't looked into their history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurgen Khan
How? Unless R1a and I1 men are less fertile, how would R1b coming into a region presumably as a minority be able to outnumber the other haplogroups? Polygamy? :confused: Why can't we see any cultures for R1b moving into Northern Europe? It's almost as if it crept in undetected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artek
I think I'll have a look at the mythology again, I'm convinced that the Aesir, Vanir, etc describe actual populations (obviously storytellers exaggerated and over time they became gods), Aesir almost certainly being R1a IMO.
They could have come in a few bigger waves and assimilate into existing cultures - so that's why there is no typical R1b-connected culture in the Northern Europe.And if not a fertility - a law and economy could have been at the side of the invaders. Or a weapons to some extent, we don't know for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Anyway, I only said that they made it really successful into Denmark (40% of R1b) and Netherlands(50% of R1b). If such percentages aren't a result of more recent events, of course.
Apparently R1b-U106 is quite young in Scandinavia, and older in central and eastern Europe or something similar, so that's at least 1 type of R1b that probably expanded into the north late. I don't know about P312, it seems to have a reasonable presence in Norway, Sweden and much of Denmark but very scanty around the Netherlands & Frisia due to U106 dominance. An odd situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artek
Yes. If you are really interested in your y-dna, FTDNA will do a more thorough analysis by going deeper. For some haplogroups, like R1a, that can mean a world of difference. For example, one can be R1a from northern India, or R1a form Poland or Germany. They are, literally, a world apart. The only way to know, genetically, is to take a deep clade test at FTDNA. I am not familiar with all y-dna haplogropus. Some may not have as much details (deep clades).Quote:
Originally Posted by Artek
Yes, I'm starting to think that U106 could have been proto-Celtic. There was almost certainly a Celtic influence on the Germanics as can be seen with the strange case of the Cimbri sometimes being seen as Celtic (yet from Denmark) and Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
The Low Countries weren't originally Celtic or Germanic, but belonged to a hypothetical Nordwestblok culture (personally I don't think it was a culture, rather a grey area between Celtic and Germanic cultures where the two blended into each other without any distinct boundaries. Belgae to the south being similar but more leaning to Celtic, Nordwestblok more leaning to Germanics).
The oldest U106 was found at Lichtenstein cave during the Urnfield culture. The Urnfied was ultimately ancestral to the Hallstatt and thus Celts. It could have either spread prior to the Celts or with them, but probably both. Lichtenstein Cave is quite far north, located in the far SE of Lower Saxony. I don't think this strays into the Germanic homeland though.
As for the origins of the Urnfield, I think it is a result of the Bronze Age collapse, R1b diffusing out of Anatolia and into Europe via two routes - one up the Danube into Central and Northern Europe and another probably by sea to Iberia and Britain. This diffusion may be visible from the events at the time in the Near East - Sea peoples raiding Egypt and the Levant (presumably from Anatolia), Mycenean culture ends and Troy destroyed. I think this points to two movements of R1b carrying tribes, one by sea and the other on land wreaking havoc in Anatolia and Greece on the way.
Whether U106 was present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons would be an interesting point to consider. We need more testing of remains.
So I think U106 in Germanics *might* be Celtic for the most part, although some is earlier urnfield.
Yeah i agree with this mostly, i am quite interested in the Nordwestblok idea, although have only read a little bit about it. Well there is a line in northern Germany where you stop getting evidence of Celtic place names, basically the core low German area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
If you think about it to be honest, it looks like P312 has been in the north for a while too, so it could be that R1b-U106 represents the Celtic part of that Nordic-Celtic mix that ended up being Germanic.
As regards to R1b-U106 in Britain in pre-Germanic times, most likely i think. Although looking at say, northern France/Normandy, i think they have about 8% of U106 now and they are part Germanic, so although i think it was there it is probably not likely that it was over 5%, (although it could have been in some parts of the far south-east i guess) but we will see in the future hopefully.
I think U106 can safely be called Germanic though, as it could have been possible that these U106-heavy north-central Europeans were one of the key players in the beginning as you say.
Of course we also have to remember that these are pre-Celtic and pre-Germanic as well, for the most part.
E-V13 baby . ;) E1b1b1a2.
N1c1.
Very common among the people my father descends from.