On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Mike wrote: > From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'.. > >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate > >>that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended > >>from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources > >>attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another > >>branch of R1b-U106. For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable. > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > But why Roman Y? Completely arbitrary. > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. taf

Em domingo, 27 de agosto de 2017 19:40:35 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Mike wrote: > > From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: > > Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'.. > > > > >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate > > >>that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended > > >>from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources > > >>attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another > > >>branch of R1b-U106. > > For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable. > > > > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > > > But why Roman Y? > > Completely arbitrary. > > > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. > > If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. > > taf About R1b-U106 the haplogroup or better his subclade R1b-Z381 in three male-line descendants of Louis XIII of France so it is assumed to be the Capetian Y Haplogroup.

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:40:35 PM UTC+2, taf wrote: > > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > > > But why Roman Y? > > Completely arbitrary. > > > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. > > If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. > I agree. I will add that concerning G2 specifically it is one of the best examples of this point. When the first ancient Y DNA sample results started being published it was a big surprise how common it was, especially among the first wave of Neolithic farmers. Other "Roman, Greek, Middle Eastern etc" haplogroups also seem to have been more common in Europe BEFORE the Romans, such as E-V13 and J2. R1b which is most common in Europe today appears to have swept into northern Europe from the East relatively recently compared to them, explaining why it did not have quite as massive an impact in the eastern Mediterranean.