PDA

View Full Version : Correlations of various R1a and I subclades that might link with R1b subclades?



Mikewww
06-16-2013, 06:58 PM
... Also ignoring the concept of NW Indo-European which is what Corded Ware was likely speaking. Interesting that Centum Germanic R1a is predominantly Z284+ which is downstream of Z283+ while Indo-Iranian R1a is not downstream of Z283+.

The Z93+ and Z283+ split is likely older than that chain of movements. And Abashevo's Indo-Iranian identity is often seen as an intrusive element from the Poltavaka culture.

Newtboard brought this up and since we have threads for possible correlations of autosomal and mt DNA it would make sense to look for Y DNA haplgroup correlations for R1b subclades.

Are there any? There must be some. I noticed that R1a-Z284 appears in Germanic groups. Of course, R1b-U106 has a very strong correlation with Germanic speaking areas. Is this a strong link between U106 or Z284 or Z284 much broader or only significant in elements of Germanic speakers?

What age is Z284 estimated as?

Since this is in the R1b sections, let's look only at R1a [and I] subclades that might correlate with parts of R1b.

EDIT: on 6/27/2013: I'm expanding this to include I subclades, particularly subclades of I1 as they are all interwined in Northern Europe.

Michał
06-16-2013, 09:49 PM
Are there any? There must be some. I noticed that R1a-Z284 appears in Germanic groups. Of course, R1b-U106 has a very strong correlation with Germanic speaking areas. Is this a strong link between U106 or Z284 or Z284 much broader or only significant in elements of Germanic speakers?

Let me cite what I wrote on this subject on another forum:

"The presence of R1a-Z284 among the Proto-Germans is actually one of a few questions on which I used to disagree with JeanM, although she may have changed her view in the meantime. Based on the present distribution of Z284 in Europe, I would assume that this subclade of R1a was not present in any significant proportion among the Proto-Germans living in Denmark and Northern Germany (Jastorf culture), since if this was the case, we would see it spread with all known early migrations of different Germanic tribes, including not only the numerous Eastern Germanic tribes, but also Cimbri, Teutoni, different groups of Suebi (like Marcomani and Quadi), Longobards and Franks. I would also add the Anglo-Saxons to this list, although in their case the image may be significantly blurred by the more recent influx of the Scandinavian Vikings into Britain. Since many of those tribes are frequently believed to have originated in Scandinavia, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for all those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time. It is of course possible that at least some of the above-mentioned tribes did not originate in Scandinavia, although it seems rather unlikely that none of them was born in Scandinavia (especially when including Denmark). Therefore, I would rather accept the view that R1a-Z284 was showing only peripheral location in Scandinavia through the entire period from the Bronze Age until the Early Middle Ages. When we take a look at the distribution of Z284 in Scandinavia, we will notice that it indeed shows the highest frequency in Central and North-Western Norway (and this is actually the only place in Scandinavia where R1a is the most frequent haplogroup), while its presence in South-Eastern Sweden and Denmark is much lower. Thus, I would assume that R1a-Z284 did not spread into other parts of Scandinavia (and to the rest of Europe) before the expansion of the Norse Vikings started in the second half of the first millennium AD. This is of course more or less consistent with the current distribution of R1a-Z284 in Iceland, Britain and along the coast of North-Western Europe.

All this leads us to another interesting question that is related to the very early history of R1a-Z284 in Scandinavia. Most people would agree that R1a-Z284 was likely brought to Scandinavia with the Battle Axe people (a subgroup of Corded Ware), although we still lack any aDNA data that would definitely confirm it. If the hypothesis suggesting a relatively late spread of R1a-Z284 with the Norse Vikings is true, it would mean that following the arrival of the R1a-Z284 people to Scandinavia they were shortly thereafter pushed up to the northern parts of Sweden and Norway, which was most likely associated with the arrival of the R1b (Bell Beaker) people around 2500-2000 BC."



What age is Z284 estimated as?

Most estimations I've seen place the initial expansion of R1a-Z284 at about 4500 ybp. The two major sub-branches of Z284 are defined by L448 and Z287/Z288, respectively. The L448 sub-branch is probably about 2500 years old, while Z287/Z288 seems to be slightly older (closer to 3000 years). There is also a relatively small but still quite significant subgroup of Z284 members who are negative for both L448 and Z287, with some of them likely belonging to another (third) sub-branch of Z284 that is not defined by its own SNP marker yet (although it probably includes the newly discovered clade CTS4205).

alan
06-16-2013, 11:37 PM
Let me cite what I wrote on this subject on another forum:

"The presence of R1a-Z284 among the Proto-Germans is actually one of a few questions on which I used to disagree with JeanM, although she may have changed her view in the meantime. Based on the present distribution of Z284 in Europe, I would assume that this subclade of R1a was not present in any significant proportion among the Proto-Germans living in Denmark and Northern Germany (Jastorf culture), since if this was the case, we would see it spread with all known early migrations of different Germanic tribes, including not only the numerous Eastern Germanic tribes, but also Cimbri, Teutoni, different groups of Suebi (like Marcomani and Quadi), Longobards and Franks. I would also add the Anglo-Saxons to this list, although in their case the image may be significantly blurred by the more recent influx of the Scandinavian Vikings into Britain. Since many of those tribes are frequently believed to have originated in Scandinavia, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for all those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time. It is of course possible that at least some of the above-mentioned tribes did not originate in Scandinavia, although it seems rather unlikely that none of them was born in Scandinavia (especially when including Denmark). Therefore, I would rather accept the view that R1a-Z284 was showing only peripheral location in Scandinavia through the entire period from the Bronze Age until the Early Middle Ages. When we take a look at the distribution of Z284 in Scandinavia, we will notice that it indeed shows the highest frequency in Central and North-Western Norway (and this is actually the only place in Scandinavia where R1a is the most frequent haplogroup), while its presence in South-Eastern Sweden and Denmark is much lower. Thus, I would assume that R1a-Z284 did not spread into other parts of Scandinavia (and to the rest of Europe) before the expansion of the Norse Vikings started in the second half of the first millennium AD. This is of course more or less consistent with the current distribution of R1a-Z284 in Iceland, Britain and along the coast of North-Western Europe.

All this leads us to another interesting question that is related to the very early history of R1a-Z284 in Scandinavia. Most people would agree that R1a-Z284 was likely brought to Scandinavia with the Battle Axe people (a subgroup of Corded Ware), although we still lack any aDNA data that would definitely confirm it. If the hypothesis suggesting a relatively late spread of R1a-Z284 with the Norse Vikings is true, it would mean that following the arrival of the R1a-Z284 people to Scandinavia they were shortly thereafter pushed up to the northern parts of Sweden and Norway, which was most likely associated with the arrival of the R1b (Bell Beaker) people around 2500-2000 BC."


Most estimations I've seen place the initial expansion of R1a-Z284 at about 4500 ybp. The two major sub-branches of Z284 are defined by L448 and Z287/Z288, respectively. The L448 sub-branch is probably about 2500 years old, while Z287/Z288 seems to be slightly older (closer to 3000 years). There is also a relatively small but still quite significant subgroup of Z284 members who are negative for both L448 and Z287, with some of them likely belonging to another (third) sub-branch of Z284 that is not defined by its own SNP marker yet (although it probably includes the newly discovered clade CTS4205).

I pretty well agree with your analysis on R1a in north Germanic areas. It seems to have been very minor in most of the Germanic expansions before the Viking era. I say minor but not absent. I think the recent Tyrol study found some R1a associated with the Germanic speakers if I remember correctly. My general impression is that despite being noted in Corded Ware its impact seems to have been limited outside eastern Europe. I think the most obvious reason for this seems to be R1b/beaker which arrived in Germany by 2600BC about the same time as R1a/corded ware is attested. The latter may have arrived a century or two earlier than R1b in the area but that is not a long time in the grand scheme of things and they didnt have very long unchallenged.

T101
06-17-2013, 01:47 AM
Newtboard brought this up and since we have threads for possible correlations of autosomal and mt DNA it would make sense to look for Y DNA haplgroup correlations for R1b subclades.

Are there any? There must be some. I noticed that R1a-Z284 appears in Germanic groups. Of course, R1b-U106 has a very strong correlation with Germanic speaking areas. Is this a strong link between U106 or Z284 or Z284 much broader or only significant in elements of Germanic speakers?

What age is Z284 estimated as?

Since this is in the R1b sections, let's look only at R1a subclades that might correlate with parts of R1b.

Yes, but a negative correlation!

Mike the question should really be expanded to include (as far as Northern Europe is concerned) I1 (M253)... and for that matter I1-CTS6364, I1-L22, I1-Z58 etc. Then we could begin to explore what haplogroups arrived with what cultures, i.e. the Single Grave culture (which moved into Scandinavia via Dennmark), and the Battle-Axe Culture, (which moved into Scandinavia via the Baltic).

Michal's theory on R1a-Z284 is quite plausible and is an excellent way of explaining the dearth of R1a-Z284 on the mainland of Europe.

However R1a-Z284's scarcity can be more easily explained away by having the Germanic tribes expand out of the North Germanic plain with Jastorf and therefore any origins in Scandinavia can be left to myth!




I pretty well agree with your analysis on R1a in north Germanic areas. It seems to have been very minor in most of the Germanic expansions before the Viking era.

I wouldn't be to sure of that Alan. We still don't really have any idea as to what haplogroups comprised the Eastern Germanic tribes. There are a fair number of R1a-Z280+...CTS3402+ hits in Spain, France, and Italy to raise an eyebrow. Now whether these people comprise the descendants of Germanic peoples, Scythians, Balts, or Polish plumbers... time will only tell!

Calamus
06-17-2013, 09:59 AM
I have looked at correlation of Y-haplogroups in Norway. So my comment may not be true for the rest of Europe.
For Norway T101 is correct, there is a negative correlation between R1b and R1a.
R1a appears to have arrived first, R1b arrived later and partially replaced R1a.
There is a strong correrlation between R1a and Q, and a weak correlation between I1 and J.

But, on the autosomnal side there appears to be a correlation (in Eastern Norway) to R1b-U152.

alan
06-17-2013, 10:06 AM
Yes, but a negative correlation!

Mike the question should really be expanded to include (as far as Northern Europe is concerned) I1 (M253)... and for that matter I1-CTS6364, I1-L22, I1-Z58 etc. Then we could begin to explore what haplogroups arrived with what cultures, i.e. the Single Grave culture (which moved into Scandinavia via Dennmark), and the Battle-Axe Culture, (which moved into Scandinavia via the Baltic).

Michal's theory on R1a-Z284 is quite plausible and is an excellent way of explaining the dearth of R1a-Z284 on the mainland of Europe.

However R1a-Z284's scarcity can be more easily explained away by having the Germanic tribes expand out of the North Germanic plain with Jastorf and therefore any origins in Scandinavia can be left to myth!





I wouldn't be to sure of that Alan. We still don't really have any idea as to what haplogroups comprised the Eastern Germanic tribes. There are a fair number of R1a-Z280+...CTS3402+ hits in Spain, France, and Italy to raise an eyebrow. Now whether these people comprise the descendants of Germanic peoples, Scythians, Balts, or Polish plumbers... time will only tell!

There is R1a in east Tyrol that a recent study showed was only associated with the former Slavic areas and absent in the former Romance area despite the Germanic Bavarian population having spread as an adstrate over both areas. U106 was more uniformly spread and seems to correlate with the Germanic adstrate. This suggests that R1a was Slavic in Tyrol and not present at any significant level among the Bavarian settlers. The more I read about R1a the more it seems R1a was not present or very minor among many of the earlier Germanic migratory groups west.

Maybe Anatole has a point about the apparent retreat of R1a from the Corded Ware period! It does raise of course the possibility that the R1a never made a huge impact. I have always thought that it is possible that, initially at least that, the more visible burials may be atypical and represent a high status minority of the population and give a misleading impression. It may have taken centuries for the elites to actually have the yDNA impact that the high status burials suggest. In the case of corded ware in the area between the Rhine and the Vistula they may not have had long enough at the top of the pile to multiply before the beaker people knocked them off their perch. Most of the post-beaker cultures in western, northern and central Europe have clear beaker roots too.

I think the cranial type evidence for the decline of the beaker skull type in Unetice etc is pretty irrelevant as beaker influence was present for many centuries its clear that beaker people married out and would have taken on local characteristics within a couple of generations. The important thing is culturally these post-beaker cultures are clearly beaker-rooted.

The beaker peoples really appear to have had something about them that made them infiltrate and expand in many different areas and environments that other cultures did not have. The outstanding characteristic of beaker people seems to have been their strong very expansive networking and organisation.

alan
06-17-2013, 10:24 AM
I have looked at correlation of Y-haplogroups in Norway. So my comment may not be true for the rest of Europe.
For Norway T101 is correct, there is a negative correlation between R1b and R1a.
R1a appears to have arrived first, R1b arrived later and partially replaced R1a.
There is a strong correrlation between R1a and Q, and a weak correlation between I1 and J.

But, on the autosomnal side there appears to be a correlation (in Eastern Norway) to R1b-U152.

That certainly fits the current archaeological ideas that are seeing a huge beaker influence on parts of Scandinavia that was not previously realised. This is discussed chapters in the Background to Beakers book. The beaker people must have been a very different group to the corded ware cultures. I am sure this phenomenon in the future Germanic area of a short period of a couple of centuries of corded ware cultures followed by beaker dominance also has something to do with the confusing aspects of pre-Germanic.

Mikewww
06-17-2013, 02:36 PM
Yes, but a negative correlation! ...

There is something to be said to the fact that the higher any haplogroup frequency is, purely mathematically other haplogroup frequencies will have lower frequencies, but what is your support for your statement about a negative correlation of R1b and R1a, at least relative to R1b versus other haplogroups?

Is R1a more or less correlated with R1b than is J1, or J2, or I1, or I2, or E? etc.? I don't know, but I would think that is the only way to show your assertion has meaning beyond pure math.

Here is Eupedia's map of R1 (all) frequency in Europe.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R-borders.gif

To prove a negative is always true, across all regions, is probably hard. This is the reason I set up the topic as where are there correlations? There may be few or none. That's okay.

alan
06-17-2013, 06:51 PM
There is something to be said to the fact that the higher any haplogroup frequency is, purely mathematically other haplogroup frequencies will have lower frequencies, but what is your support for your statement about a negative correlation of R1b and R1a, at least relative to R1b versus other haplogroups?

Is R1a more or less correlated with R1b than is J1, or J2, or I1, or I2, or E? etc.? I don't know, but I would think that is the only way to show your assertion has meaning beyond pure math.

Here is Eupedia's map of R1 (all) frequency in Europe.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R-borders.gif

To prove a negative is always true, across all regions, is probably hard. This is the reason I set up the topic as where are there correlations? There may be few or none. That's okay.

One thing that map seems to show is that generally R1a (eastern Europe) doesnt have as extreme dominance over non R1 groups as R1b (western Europe) does. The R1 map shows this but its actually an even stronger phenomenon than R1 map suggests because western Europe has very little R1a while R1b has a presence well above noise in many of the R1a-dominated areas. However, despite R1 there being bolstered by a significant amount of R1b, the R1a dominated areas still have a higher level of non R1 lineages. In general R1b seems to have been significantly more adept at growing at the expense of non-R1 groups than R1a had. I have no idea why that is.

alan
06-17-2013, 07:05 PM
One thing that map seems to show is that generally R1a (eastern Europe) doesnt have as extreme dominance over non R1 groups as R1b (western Europe) does. The R1 map shows this but its actually an even stronger phenomenon than R1 map suggests because western Europe has very little R1a while R1b has a presence well above noise in many of the R1a-dominated areas. However, despite R1 there being bolstered by a significant amount of R1b, the R1a dominated areas still have a higher level of non R1 lineages. In general R1b seems to have been significantly more adept at growing at the expense of non-R1 groups than R1a had. I have no idea why that is.

Actually I probably should say L11 dominance. Clearly M269* and L23* did not share in the phenomenon of achieving an exceptional level of dominance over other haplogroups.

alan
06-17-2013, 07:12 PM
Actually I probably should say L11 dominance. Clearly M269* and L23* did not share in the phenomenon of achieving an exceptional level of dominance over other haplogroups.

In fact the western European R1 high dominance area is basically a combination of the P312 block that occupied Celtic Europe and the U106 block that ran from the Elbe to the Low Countries. The dominance those two groups achieved was exceptional and this R1 map makes it pretty clear that R1a rarely achieved the same levels of dominance over non-R1 groups. R1a is as early attested as R1b in central Europe and if anything R1a had first in advantage there and in eastern Europe and have actually had longer to grow than R1b. So the higher dominance of R1 in strong R1b areas compared to strong R1a areas seems to be real.

newtoboard
06-17-2013, 07:20 PM
In fact the western European R1 high dominance area is basically a combination of the P312 block that occupied Celtic Europe and the U106 block that ran from the Elbe to the Low Countries. The dominance those two groups achieved was exceptional and this R1 map makes it pretty clear that R1a rarely achieved the same levels of dominance over non-R1 groups. R1a is as early attested as R1b in central Europe and if anything R1a had first in advantage there and in eastern Europe and have actually had longer to grow than R1b. So the higher dominance of R1 in strong R1b areas compared to strong R1a areas seems to be real.

Because farmers multiply faster?

MJost
06-17-2013, 08:30 PM
>Because farmers multiply faster?

Or they had to multiply faster.

The hunter gatherers generally would not have too many children due to continuously moving. Along with child-rearing practices that may have contributed to a lower number of children reaching adult hood.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/16/best-practices-for-raising-kids-look-to-hunter-gatherers.html

What else could have pushed humans towards farming? Farming wasn't any easier. Agriculture, until modern era, was very Labor-intensive.

Farmingů allow the surplus food, produced for additional non-direct farming people. But more people were needed to do all the additional work required to feed these extra mouths. The needs justified having more children. Farmers, by rule, usually have more children to assist in the tasks. The strain on the available resources most assuredly pressed the need for additional farming.

Any study of Agriculture and horticulture in ancient civilization will reveal these facts.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/sub_5.htm


MJost

AJL
06-17-2013, 08:36 PM
>Because farmers multiply faster?

Or they had to multiply faster.

The hunter gatherers generally would not have too many children due to continuously moving. Along with child-rearing practices that may have contributed to a lower number of children reaching adult hood.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/16/best-practices-for-raising-kids-look-to-hunter-gatherers.html

What else could have pushed humans towards farming? Farming wasn't any easier. Agriculture, until modern era, was very Labor-intensive.


Indeed -- farming families generally had over 10 children until quite recently, and if the wife died in childbirth, as was a lot more likely then, the father almost always remarried.

There is also this excellent read which, even if you don't entirely agree with it, will make you think:

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

alan
06-17-2013, 10:27 PM
Because farmers multiply faster?

Not sure that there is that big a contrast between beaker and corded ware economies in central Europe. Corded Ware folks were settled mixed farmers

http://www.academia.edu/1347342/A_Revision_of_Corded_Ware_Settlement_Pattern_-_New_Results_from_the_Central_European_Low_Mountai n_Range

The outstanding difference is the mobility and wide trade networking aspect of beaker people IMO although they too seem to be built on a base of settled mixed farming.

leonardo
06-17-2013, 11:31 PM
I wouldn't be to sure of that Alan. We still don't really have any idea as to what haplogroups comprised the Eastern Germanic tribes. There are a fair number of R1a-Z280+...CTS3402+ hits in Spain, France, and Italy to raise an eyebrow. Now whether these people comprise the descendants of Germanic peoples, Scythians, Balts, or Polish plumbers... time will only tell!
True. I am R1a-L1029 and have a matches on my y-dna (at 111 markers) with a person who is R1a-CTS3402 and from Spain. However, the match is at genetic distance (in alleles) of 27. That might not be old enough for the Germanic invasions of Spain. Perhaps some slave of the Moors?

MJost
06-18-2013, 02:32 AM
Indeed -- farming families generally had over 10 children until quite recently, and if the wife died in childbirth, as was a lot more likely then, the father almost always remarried.

There is also this excellent read which, even if you don't entirely agree with it, will make you think:

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race
icc
This article has alot of interesting facts but a negative twist near the end of the article, "...increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny."

Cuz, what I never understood is why the sour grapes when most hunter gathers mostly ended up in farming, animal husbandry, and other trades needed to grow a society.

MJost

AJL
06-18-2013, 03:20 AM
icc
This article has alot of interesting facts but a negative twist near the end of the article, "...increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny."

Cuz, what I never understood is why the sour grapes when most hunter gathers mostly ended up in farming, animal husbandry, and other trades needed to grow a society.

MJost

True: it's more than a little ironic to be reading a rant against agrarian-originated society in an online magazine. :)

Mikewww
06-18-2013, 03:42 AM
icc
This article has alot of interesting facts but a negative twist near the end of the article, "...increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny."

Cuz, what I never understood is why the sour grapes when most hunter gathers mostly ended up in farming, animal husbandry, and other trades needed to grow a society.
...

I try not to go into this as this is not a political blog but this is one of the reasons I get frustrated with Spencer Wells. He preached on the hunter/gather=good, farmer=bad message a couple of years ago at some big conference in Oslo or Stockholm.

My family loves hunting and fishing but we are from a long long line agriculturists on both sides. If you've ever been to Nebraska and Iowa and seen the miles and miles of corn, soybeans, grain sorghum and wheat you'd get the picture. It's a very productive area.

I understand about carbohydrates from grains/cereals, cooking and teeth decay, etc., etc. I agree that health-wise there are concerns about what agriculture has brought. However, if a parent wants to feed his/her children they do what they need to. Who loves their children more? the farmer who feeds all of his kids, or the hunter who sees half his kids die from a dwindling food source? They probably both do, but one adapted and figured out something that worked. I could go on and on so sorry about the diatribe.

Well, back on topic, there may be several reasons that cause one type of male to grow more populous than another. Agriculture expertise may just be one of them. I noticed that Lawrence said on another thread that much of R1a grew and diversified very quickly. Sounds like the R1b story, at least the L23 and especially the L11 story. I think there is a correlation there and I think it also relates to IE language prevalence.

MJost
06-18-2013, 06:52 AM
The carpathian basin west of Iron gates region been the jumping off point for R1a and R1b?

http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Spring2011/FirstFarmers/tabid/1862/Default.aspx

http://www.academia.edu/2901975/The_Unfolding_of_Old_European_Ritual_Life_A_Mesoli thic_Heritage

http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Spring2011/FirstFarmers/tabid/1862/Default.aspx

http://www.academia.edu/296039/The_Iron_Gates_In_Prehistory_2008_

and finally
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987245/

MJost

alan
06-18-2013, 10:51 AM
Not sure of the relevance though. The idea that corded ware was much different from beaker in terms of agricultural economy is pretty unfounded. They were both mixed farmers. There may have been some difference but nothing really radical.

Actually what might be relevant to both is that there was a major upturn in climate and agriculture from a NW European point of view in this period. This is seen in pollen diagrams.

Jean M
06-18-2013, 01:42 PM
"The presence of R1a-Z284 among the Proto-Germans is actually one of a few questions on which I used to disagree with JeanM, although she may have changed her view in the meantime. Based on the present distribution of Z284 in Europe, I would assume that this subclade of R1a was not present in any significant proportion among the Proto-Germans living in Denmark and Northern Germany (Jastorf culture)....

I'm still inclined to the view that it was. From your project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a,R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a%2cR1a&section=ycolorized) (click for link) we have an example of Z284+ L448- derived from Jacob W°lner, b. ca. 1590, Freiberg, Saxony, Germany, and another derived from Martin Harnisch, b. 1695, Bern, Switzerland. Neither is really likely to have a Viking origin, though some other Z284+ L448- might have.

I doubt if R1a-Z284 entered Scandinavia with the Battle-Axe cultures (i.e. by land via Finland). Z280 looks more Battle-Axe in distribution. Z284+ L448- seems to avoid Finland and therefore is more likely to have arisen in more westerly Corded Ware. Its subclade L448 seems to have arisen in Scandinavia prior to the exodus of farmers south into Jastorf. So we may guess that it was present in Jastorf, but spread north again with returning farmers carrying a Germanic dialect, and then into western Finland with Vikings.

There is no doubt that R1a is more common in northern than southern Scandinavia, so several geneticists have used it as a handy marker for Viking (vs Anglo-Saxon) origin in Britain. I have tentatively followed that thinking, though it is pretty rough-and-ready. If we look at the distribution of L448, we see it in Denmark and Anglian-settled areas of England as well as Norse-settled part of Scotland. The L176 subclade in Scotland is more decisively Viking.

472

Mikewww
06-18-2013, 03:22 PM
I have looked at correlation of Y-haplogroups in Norway. So my comment may not be true for the rest of Europe.
For Norway T101 is correct, there is a negative correlation between R1b and R1a.
R1a appears to have arrived first, R1b arrived later and partially replaced R1a.
There is a strong correrlation between R1a and Q, and a weak correlation between I1 and J..

Calamus and T101, I can see where you are coming from after looking at these maps that Lawrence kindly posted.


Compare the maps:
L664 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/138/)
Z284 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/250/)
M458 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/11/)
Z280 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/249/)

R1b-P312 is spread out so I'm not so sure the negative correlation between R1b and R1a is universal, but I was surprised to see the negative correlation between R1b-U106 and the various R1a subclades. I think we have to ignore the British Isles as they received incursions from all over - the Low Countries, the Jutland Peninsula and from the Scandinavian Peninsula but if we just compare the Scandinavian Peninsula and the neck of the Jutland, Germany, the Low Countries I can see the negative correlation with U106.

I see you also think there is a negative correlation between R1a and I1.

I'm just speculating but I'm leaning towards the possibility that these R1a subclades that are IE were probably of the Balto-Slavic varieties. It looks like the formation of Proto-Germanic was driven mostly by I1 and R1b-U106 with maybe P312 and R1a sprinkled in. If so, then U106 is the primary candidate for carrying the pre-Germanic language dialects of Centum IE. Agree? Disagree?

newtoboard
06-18-2013, 03:57 PM
I'm still inclined to the view that it was. From your project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a,R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a%2cR1a&section=ycolorized) (click for link) we have an example of Z284+ L448- derived from Jacob W°lner, b. ca. 1590, Freiberg, Saxony, Germany, and another derived from Martin Harnisch, b. 1695, Bern, Switzerland. Neither is really likely to have a Viking origin, though some other Z284+ L448- might have.

I doubt if R1a-Z284 entered Scandinavia with the Battle-Axe cultures (i.e. by land via Finland). Z280 looks more Battle-Axe in distribution. Z284+ L448- seems to avoid Finland and therefore is more likely to have arisen in more westerly Corded Ware. Its subclade L448 seems to have arisen in Scandinavia prior to the exodus of farmers south into Jastorf. So we may guess that it was present in Jastorf, but spread north again with returning farmers carrying a Germanic dialect, and then into western Finland with Vikings.

There is no doubt that R1a is more common in northern than southern Scandinavia, so several geneticists have used it as a handy marker for Viking (vs Anglo-Saxon) origin in Britain. I have tentatively followed that thinking, though it is pretty rough-and-ready. If we look at the distribution of L448, we see it in Denmark and Anglian-settled areas of England as well as Norse-settled part of Scotland. The L176 subclade in Scotland is more decisively Viking.

472

Do you see Corded Ware as R1a* or Z283*?

Jean M
06-18-2013, 05:54 PM
Do you see Corded Ware as R1a* or Z283*?

The two samples from Eulau were positive for SRY10831.2 = R1a1. The one known modern close match in STRs is M417+, but Z93- Z280- Z283- Z284- L664- , so therefore R1a1a1* or R1a1a1b*. That's the nearest I can get. There is no guarantee that the men from Eulau had direct male line descendants. I would guess that Z283 will crop up in Corded Ware if more aDNA testing is done. So far we have just a few pieces from a thousand-piece jig-saw.

newtoboard
06-18-2013, 06:12 PM
The two samples from Eulau were positive for SRY10831.2 = R1a1. The one known modern close match in STRs is M417+, but Z93- Z280- Z283- Z284- L664- , so therefore R1a1a1* or R1a1a1b*. That's the nearest I can get. There is no guarantee that the men from Eulau had direct male line descendants. I would guess that Z283 will crop up in Corded Ware if more aDNA testing is done. So far we have just a few pieces from a thousand-piece jig-saw.

That's what I'm thinking. Late Yamnaya is probably Z93+ and gives rise to Timber Grave.

Jean M
06-18-2013, 07:03 PM
Just had a correction. The modern close match in STRs to the Eulau samples is negative for all markers downstream of M417+, and therefore R1a1a1*.

Michał
06-19-2013, 04:23 PM
From your project[/URL] (click for link) we have an example of Z284+ L448- derived from Jacob W°lner, b. ca. 1590, Freiberg, Saxony, Germany, and another derived from Martin Harnisch, b. 1695, Bern, Switzerland. Neither is really likely to have a Viking origin, though some other Z284+ L448- might have.

I hope you are aware that the numbers speak very strongly against you. The very fact that you need to find some very exceptional cases to support your view is very telling. Also, are you saying that it would be totally impossible for these two people to have some Vikings among their ancestors. I am wondering what would you then say about two ethnic Arabs from Saudi Arabia who are L260+ (both are members of our project). Would it be impossible that some of their ancestors were Slavs? And if they don't have any Slavic ancestors, what would be the alternative hypothesis for the origin of L260?

Anyway, I would rather assume that it should be perfectly possible for at least some Vikings to have their descendants spread to Saxony or even to Switzerland.



I doubt if R1a-Z284 entered Scandinavia with the Battle-Axe cultures (i.e. by land via Finland). Z280 looks more Battle-Axe in distribution.

If they were Z280+, we would need to assume that they have died out without any exception, as we don't know a single Z280 lineage that is specific for Scandinavia. In fact, Z280 is extremely rare in Scandinavia. It should suffice to say that we have more Scandinavians who are M458+ than those who are Z280+ (at least this is what we see in our project). Additionally, all those rare cases of Z280 from Scandinavia belong to some very specific (and relatively young) subclades or subclusters of Z280 that are strongly associated with Central or Eastern Europe.

I wouldn't say that I am absolutely convinced that the Battle Axe culture was associated with R1a-Z284, as I am not. However, the Z280 branch does not seem to be a better alternative.



Z284+ L448- seems to avoid Finland and therefore is more likely to have arisen in more westerly Corded Ware. Its subclade L448 seems to have arisen in Scandinavia prior to the exodus of farmers south into Jastorf. So we may guess that it was present in Jastorf, but spread north again with returning farmers carrying a Germanic dialect

Your theory assumes that the Z284 people came from Scandinavia to Denmark and Northern Germany (where Jastorf was founded) but, after a while, all of them went back to some far regions in Scandinavia, so they took no part in the subsequent Germanic expansions towards Central Europe. Could you suggest any specific dates for these hypothetical movements back and forth? Should we assume that when Jastorf was formed, the R1a-Z284 folk did not mixed with their Proto-Germanic "compatriots" representing haplogroups I1 and R1b, so no Z284 people were left in Northern Germany when this "Z284 tribe" went north. I find this scenario rather unlikely, but let's assume that you are right (and ignore the fact that your theory doesn't seem to be supported by any specific data). It would still mean that the Z284 people didn't have much opportunity to significantly contribute to the "creation" of the Proto-Germans, so your scenario is not much different from mine (with the exception that my scenario does not include any extra shuttling of R1a-Z284), as all I tried to say was that it seems highly unlikley that R1a-Z284 played any significant role in developing the Proto-Germanic culture in Jastorf.

Please note that we don't know any subcluster of Z284 that would be at least 2000 years old while being specifically associated with Germany, Austria or Switzerland.



If we look at the distribution of L448, we see it in Denmark and Anglian-settled areas of England as well as Norse-settled part of Scotland.

We need to remember that these maps do not reflect the frequency of R1a-Z284 in particular regions but they only show the total number of people tested, so it is obvious that all regions that show much higher population density (like England vs. Scotland, Norway and Island) will look like showing much higher frequency than in the reality. The frequency of R1a-Z284 in Norway is about 10 times higher than that in England (not to mention its scarcity in most of Germany, Austria and Switzerland) and we know from some previous studies that the frequency of R1a-Z284 in Britain correlates very well with the historical records for the Norse Viking collonization (although I wouldn't of course exclude some more recent influx of Z284 with the Norman conquest).

Jean M
06-19-2013, 06:12 PM
If they were Z280+, we would need to assume that they have died out without any exception, as we don't know a single Z280 lineage that is specific for Scandinavia.

No, sorry I was ambiguous. What I am suggesting is that the Boat Axe Culture arrived in Sweden from Denmark, where there was a similar culture. It is all very confusing as the Boat Axe culture can also come under the Battle Axe heading. http://natmus.dk/en/historisk-viden/danmark/moeder-med-danmarks-oldtid/the-neolithic-period/the-single-grave-culture/the-battle-axe-culture-on-bornholm/

Before the Bronze Age, cultures arrived in Scandia via Finland. With the Bronze Age came seagoing boats, that transported Bell Beaker from Jutland direct to Scandia. So we can presume that other kinds of single-grave culture, including Corded Ware (known here as Single-Grave) and Boat Axe arrived in the same way.

Mikewww
06-20-2013, 10:23 AM
We may have an R1a subclade, R1a-L664, that has a partial intersection with an R1b subclade.


... It is well documented that the North-Western branch L664 (DYS88=10) is indeed nearly absent in other parts of Europe. I have once estimated its frequency in North-Western Europe to reach maximally 1.5-3%, but Martin Voorwinden, a co-admin of our L664 section, suspects that it is only 0.2-0.8%. L664 is present in all countries located around the North Sea, including England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway. Notably, it is relatively frequent in Cornwall and Ireland but very rare in Wales and Scotland (and practically absent in Iceland). All this suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all L664 members could have lived somewhere on the North Sea coast. I would suggest Frisia as the most likely center of expansion, which is consistent with some data suggesting that the DYS338=10 frequency there may reach 3% (though the sample was relatively small). In addition to some peaceful expansion along the maritime trading ways, the two major waves of L664 migrations were likely associated with the Anglo-Saxon invasion (known for the significant Frisian contribution to this process) and the more recent Norman conquest of Britain that was directed towards England, Cornwall and Ireland, but not towards Wales or Scotland. If I remember correctly, England, Netherlands and Germany are the only countries where all four major subclusters of L664 (A, B, C and D) seem to present.
...
Rozhanskii and Klyosov suggest (TMRCA) about 4500 ybp and this seems to be consistent with some other calculations I have seen.

One possibility is that R1a-L664 and R1b-U106 were in some of the same ancient cultures. L664 is very light in frequency, though, and I haven't seen any scientific surveys with it. I guess we should dig up what Klyosov has on it although I don't think he tries to project frequencies.

alan
06-20-2013, 01:47 PM
We may have an R1a subclade, R1a-L664, that has a partial intersection with an R1b subclade.



One possibility is that R1a-L664 and R1b-U106 were in some of the same ancient cultures. L664 is very light in frequency, though, and I haven't seen any scientific surveys with it. I guess we should dig up what Klyosov has on it although I don't think he tries to project frequencies.

Given its age it cannot be ruled out that it crossed to Britain in the beaker period but I personally think it is more likey to be associated with Germanics in the isles. One thing about the Irish ones I would like to know is what are their surnames. That would help indicate when it arrived in Ireland to some degree.

Jean M
06-20-2013, 02:13 PM
I guess we should dig up what Klyosov has on it ...

Why? You have posting on this forum the real experts on R1a1a i.e. those who run the R1a1a and Subclades Project. One of them has already pointed out that Klyosov's work using STRs has been outdated by the discovery of the new SNPs. Given its amateurism and bias, it did not warrant any serious attention in the first place. I realise that this might not be obvious to those whose interests lie with another haplogroup and who have not been following the debate on R1a1a at all closely. But there are people posting in this forum whose work deserves respect.

Mikewww
06-20-2013, 02:31 PM
Why? You have posting on this forum the real experts on R1a1a i.e. those who run the R1a1a and Subclades Project. One of them has already pointed out that Klyosov's work using STRs has been outdated by the discovery of the new SNPs. Given its obvious amateurism and bias, it did not warrant any serious attention in the first place.

I am not saying you do, but I don't have anything against Klyosov, per se. That doesn't mean I think some of his ideas aren't off, but he is a smart person and he documents what he says. I like his willingness to take a position whether I accept it or not.

Everyone's work is outdated by the discovery of new SNPs, on the other hand I haven't found any papers on R1a similar to the Myres R1b/Holocene, Barlaresque/R1b, Busby/R1b, etc.


..., and I haven't seen any scientific surveys with it. I guess we should dig up what Klyosov has on it....

My preceding point (emboldened) was the lack of documentation, hence the need to look at whatever is out there.

Are there broad papers out their on the R1a haplogroup that I'm missing?

It goes without saying, I'm asking anyone out here on this forum who has knowledge to speak up. When I don't know who is or isn't an expert, I go on what I can see and read... although, I trend that way even with known experts.

rossa
06-20-2013, 02:35 PM
Given its age it cannot be ruled out that it crossed to Britain in the beaker period but I personally think it is more likey to be associated with Germanics in the isles. One thing about the Irish ones I would like to know is what are their surnames. That would help indicate when it arrived in Ireland to some degree.


Doing a crude check at the FTDNA Ireland project Gaelic names seem to be in the slight minority. That semargyl website used to have surnames publically available, if one had time you could have checked what their distant matches were.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage/default.aspx?section=ysnp

lgmayka
06-20-2013, 03:33 PM
I hope you are aware that the numbers speak very strongly against you. The very fact that you need to find some very exceptional cases to support your view is very telling. Also, are you saying that it would be totally impossible for these two people to have some Vikings among their ancestors. I am wondering what would you then say about two ethnic Arabs from Saudi Arabia who are L260+ (both are members of our project). Would it be impossible that some of their ancestors were Slavs? And if they don't have any Slavic ancestors, what would be the alternative hypothesis for the origin of L260?

Anyway, I would rather assume that it should be perfectly possible for at least some Vikings to have their descendants spread to Saxony or even to Switzerland.
...
Please note that we don't know any subcluster of Z284 that would be at least 2000 years old while being specifically associated with Germany, Austria or Switzerland.
As you eventually conclude, the real issue is not the mere presence of a clade in a particular region, but rather its age--which we can only estimate from genetic differences in yDNA. You use the term subcluster, but of course singletons are also valid evidence--the difference between a singleton and a subcluster is primarily the sampling intensity. The age estimate of a singleton's branch-off has, of course, a larger confidence interval.

So the real question is whether any Z284 south or east of the Baltic Sea is sufficiently differentiated from "Viking" Z284 (Scandinavian, British Isles, etc.) to suggest an anciently indigenous presence. JeanM gives as examples kits 182600 and 166846.

- 182600 is closely related to 151268, who traces his patrilineage to Kongsberg in Norway. Both 182600 and 151268 publicly attribute their matrilineage to Norway (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=mtresults).

- 166846 has only 37 markers. The evidence to classify him as Z284+ is rather weak. He could reasonably fit into Z280.

However, we do have some more enigmatic cases.

- N23825 (whose ancestral town is slightly west of the modern Polish-German border) is genetically far away from anyone else in Z284+ L448- .

- At the other extreme, 265538 (whose ancestral town is in central Poland) has--if we assume that his Nulls at DYS448 and DYS589 are rather recent mutations--a haplotype fairly close to both Z284 and Z280, despite his Z284+ SNP result. This suggests that his haplotype may actually be close to that of their common ancestor. In the YHRD database, he even has an exact 16-marker match in Iran!

Michał
06-20-2013, 03:52 PM
One possibility is that R1a-L664 and R1b-U106 were in some of the same ancient cultures. L664 is very light in frequency, though, and I haven't seen any scientific surveys with it. I guess we should dig up what Klyosov has on it although I don't think he tries to project frequencies.
I used to like my old hypothesis that the ancestor of L664 was just “accidentally” brought to NW Europe with the wave of R1b migrants from Eastern Europe (maybe together with some very rare Z93* and Z283/2* lineages that are seen today in Western Europe). However, some recent results suggest that certain M417* lineages that are currently very rare could have been originally a part of the Corded Ware population in Western and/or Central Europe, which makes it much more likely that L664 has initially constituted a small North-Western part of the Corded Ware horizon that was subsequently dominated by the R1b newcomers. Most of such West European CW-related R1a species seem to have survived in the form of some dispersed and extremely rare lineages (like the four distantly related sublineages of the Western European cluster 5.E (Z280*) in our project). However, in the case of L664, they could have been pushed up to the North Sea where they managed to survive as a local North-Western (coastal? Frisian?) variety of the Pre-Germanic horizon and were subsequently strongly influenced by the expanding Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture, thus becoming a part of the Early Germanic world.

Michał
06-20-2013, 04:28 PM
However, we do have some more enigmatic cases.
- N23825 (whose ancestral town is slightly west of the modern Polish-German border) is genetically far away from anyone else in Z284+ L448- .

I was not claiming that all Z284 people are descendants of the Scandinavians (or Norse Vikings for that matter), but only that the vast majority of them seem to be descendants of this particular subgroup of Germanic people. Also, even if the above individual does not show any clear association with Scandinavia (other than his Z284 membership itself), this does not provide any evidence for a substantial presence of R1a-Z284 in Jastorf, which was the main subject of my discussion with JeanM.



- At the other extreme, 265538 (whose ancestral town is in central Poland) has--if we assume that his Nulls at DYS448 and DYS589 are rather recent mutations--a haplotype fairly close to both Z284 and Z280, despite his Z284+ SNP result. This suggests that his haplotype may actually be close to that of their common ancestor. In the YHRD database, he even has an exact 16-marker match in Iran!
Despite his Polish origin and all those confusing matches, we (Mariusz and me) were able to predict with very high certainty (based on his STR results alone) not only that he belongs to the Z284 branch but also that he is a member of a very specific potential sub-branch of Z284 (cluster 8.A3). Importantly, this characteristic STR-based cluster is known to be represented in Norway, Sweden and England, which is pretty consistent with the potential Viking ancestry (although Mariusz rather suspects some Gothic associations, with which I would rather disagree).

alan
06-20-2013, 09:21 PM
I used to like my old hypothesis that the ancestor of L664 was just “accidentally” brought to NW Europe with the wave of R1b migrants from Eastern Europe (maybe together with some very rare Z93* and Z283/2* lineages that are seen today in Western Europe). However, some recent results suggest that certain M417* lineages that are currently very rare could have been originally a part of the Corded Ware population in Western and/or Central Europe, which makes it much more likely that L664 has initially constituted a small North-Western part of the Corded Ware horizon that was subsequently dominated by the R1b newcomers. Most of such West European CW-related R1a species seem to have survived in the form of some dispersed and extremely rare lineages (like the four distantly related sublineages of the Western European cluster 5.E (Z280*) in our project). However, in the case of L664, they could have been pushed up to the North Sea where they managed to survive as a local North-Western (coastal? Frisian?) variety of the Pre-Germanic horizon and were subsequently strongly influenced by the expanding Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture, thus becoming a part of the Early Germanic world.

That makes sense to me. Given that at least some R1a filtered into Corded Ware and Corded Ware had a presence as far west as the Rhine, it has always surprised me that today R1a seems to have been rare among the Germanics expanding west (or so it seems). There are a couple of possibilities. Firstly maybe we have the wrong idea about the amount of R1a in corded ware based on that first corded ware site in Germany. The Polish corded yDNA recently tested was not R1b. Unless we want to go down the Anatole killer R1b root it might be worth considering that R1a was not dominant in corded ware. I think the answer is in the tree posted above and it also applies to R1b. Back in 3000BC. Most of the R1a lineages that survive today are clades or lineages that were just coming into existence in the corded ware period. Very like the L11 situation with beaker. Also like R1b, is the rapid expansion in the copper age across a huge chunk of Europe. Put those together and that must mean that it was a small minority in the population for a considerable period, at least many centuries - and that is assuming they retain control of the resources and power to keep undergoing an expansion. That clearly doesnt always happen.

Mikewww
06-27-2013, 03:35 PM
I've been taking the R1a origins thread off on tangents so I'll copy over some information here. I'm trying to figure out how I1 subclades, R1a subclades and U106 might relate positively or inversely relate to each other to see if that helps us understand where U106 came from, thereby, helping us back on the trail to the L11 MRCA as well.

Several I1 subclades are critical in Germanic speaking areas where U106 is prevalent. Of course, the guru of hg I is Ken Nordtvedt so I'll repost these links related to I1.

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Here are the estimates for the major subgroups of I1.
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z58+%20Z60-.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1d%20L22+.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1xL22xZ58.pptx

Here is the message board for Hg I for the month of June if anyone wants to follow along.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 03/15/2013 on Rootsweb,
"This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or Pomerania. Perhaps the late blooming I1 moved up into the north German plain along the Elbe corridor, while M223+ Z161+ moved up using more the Danube/Rhine route? My prejudice for the pre-agriculture staging area for haplogroup I remains the middle Danube basin (present day Bohemia or thereabouts)." http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-03/1363359122

Pomerania ranges from about Warnow to Gdansk along the Baltic. Old Prussia is the continuation east/northeast along the Baltic, or essentially Lithuania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

I received the clarification from Ken. He is talking about the Old Prussian tribal area (essentially Lithuania) so his area of focus is from about Warnow, Germany east through Lithuania. The Old Prussians are thought to be Baltic speaking.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 06/26/2013 on Rootsweb,

"For most of my nine years in the hobby I have believed there is a close association of U106+ R1b..... with I1 x L22
But by Prussia I mean the geographical heartland of the peoples once called Prussians, not the political empire that the Prussians built up among the German peoples in historic times."
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06/1372263039

┴NLEIFR
04-24-2015, 08:58 PM
Could the L448 have split off from the Neuri who are considered Proto-Slavs?

Artmar
04-25-2015, 09:59 AM
Could the L448 have split off from the Neuri who are considered Proto-Slavs?
If that would be so, why R1a-Z284 is so rare among Slavs? Only one Pole, 3 people from Russian Federation, one Lithuanian and one Czech are R1a-Z284. Poland and Russian Federation are well sampled

Krefter
04-25-2015, 10:44 AM
If that would be so, why R1a-Z284 is so rare among Slavs? Only one Pole, 3 people from Russian Federation, one Lithuanian and one Czech are R1a-Z284. Poland and Russian Federation are well sampled

Combined with low amounts of R1b-L11 and I1-M253, makes it appear Germans made little paternal impact on the ancestors of Slavs and Balts. That's kind of strange to me because almost all of East Europe was inhabited by German speakers till the Middle Ages, and then Vikings were there in the Middle Ages.

Also, where you at the Museum to see the presentation about the 4,000YBP Warrior from Poland?

leonardo
04-25-2015, 01:12 PM
Combined with low amounts of R1b-L11 and I1-M253, makes it appear Germans made little paternal impact on the ancestors of Slavs and Balts. That's kind of strange to me because almost all of East Europe was inhabited by German speakers till the Middle Ages, and then Vikings were there in the Middle Ages.

Also, where you at the Museum to see the presentation about the 4,000YBP Warrior from Poland?

Good point,especially when it seems that mtdna is shared more among these groups.

Krefter
04-25-2015, 01:34 PM
Good point,especially when it seems that mtdna is shared more among these groups.

It's often hard to detect admixture with mtDNA when looking at closely related pops. Even autosomally Germans are very similar to Balto-Slavs. So, since their typical Y DNA is rare there it's probably safe to say there's little German ancestry there.

leonardo
04-25-2015, 02:36 PM
It's often hard to detect admixture with mtDNA when looking at closely related pops. Even autosomally Germans are very similar to Balto-Slavs. So, since their typical Y DNA is rare there it's probably safe to say there's little German ancestry there.

Yes, a definite delineation between German and Polish y-dna:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598329/

Artmar
04-27-2015, 04:27 PM
Combined with low amounts of R1b-L11 and I1-M253, makes it appear Germans made little paternal impact on the ancestors of Slavs and Balts.
In Poland, R1b-U152 appears to be found mostly in non-germanic context, rather found in Southern Poland (remnants of some Celtic tribes like Cotini and Budini?). In the subject of I-M253, subclades are very important.

R1a-Z284 seems to be mostly Norse, it's found in all Germanic countries (including Swiss and Dutch) but VERY scarce outside Scandinavia(~1-2% in the Germanic-speaking continental Europe).
It makes me wonder about what Z284 did during Roman-Age.

I generally agree, anyway.


That's kind of strange to me because almost all of East Europe was inhabited by German speakers till the Middle Ages, and then Vikings were there in the Middle Ages.
We still don't know the genetic make-up of East-Germanic speakers and ethno-geno-linguistic reality in such easternmost tribes like Vandalii, Lugii. Although it's almost certain that expansion of Slavs took place at Vth century and onwards, it's interesting whether some Ostgermanic groups had absorbed some Balto-Slavic post-Lusatians or some Proto-Slavic offshoots. I came into such thought by analysing Spanish and Italian R1a.


Also, where you at the Museum to see the presentation about the 4,000YBP Warrior from Poland?
Be patient till the 1st or 2nd of May, when I will take a ride to this museum :)

Tomenable
11-14-2015, 01:24 AM
The main difference between R1b of Poles and R1b of Germans is higher share of xL51 in Poland than in Germany:

R1b-M269 in Poland according to N. Myres 2010 (n=202):

L51 (= 11,91% of Y-DNA and 64,9% of R1b):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,0594 (= 5,94%)
U152 ---------------------- 0,0347 (= 3,47%)
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,0101 (= 1,01%)
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,0099 (= 0,99%)
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,005 (= 0,5%)

xL51 (= 6,44% of Y-DNA and 35,1% of R1b):

L23(xM412) -------------- 0,0544 (= 5,44%)
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,005 (= 0,5%)
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,005 (= 0,5%)

M269 all ------------------ 0,1835 (= 18,35%)

And in Germany also according to Myres 2010 (n=321):

L51 (= 42,05% of Y-DNA and 95,8% of R1b):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,19 (= 19%)
U198 ---------------------- 0,0187 (= 1,87%)
U152 ---------------------- 0,1028 (= 10,28%)
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,0685 (= 6,85%)
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,0187 (= 1,87%)
M222 --------------------- 0,0031 (= 0,31%)
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,0187 (= 1,87%)

xL51 (= 1,83% of Y-DNA and 4,2% of R1b):

L23(xM412) -------------- 0,0062 (= 0,62%)
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,009 (= 0,9%)
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,0031 (= 0,31%)

M269 all ------------------ 0,4388 (= 43,88%)

Here a graph (made by user Hereward from The Apricity):

http://s21.postimg.org/bb07dljdz/Myres_Graph.png

http://s21.postimg.org/bb07dljdz/Myres_Graph.png

More data in Supplementary Table S4:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html

Tomenable
11-14-2015, 01:44 AM
As for my - recently tested - R1b-M269, I'm still not sure whether it's L51 or not.

One advisor said I'm probably xL51 but another one told me that I may be L51 and I must order M343 SNP Pack to get to know:


You have GD=0 with samples from different subclades: CTS4528, P312, and U106.
There is no way to predict your branch more precisely. You should order either more STRs, or R-M343 Pack

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 02:45 AM
As for my - recently tested - R1b-M269, I'm still not sure whether it's L51 or not.

One advisor said I'm probably xL51 but another one told me that I may be L51 and I must order M343 SNP Pack to get to know:

So if you're x L51 you might be Z2013; and if xL23 maybe that less common PF7562 ?

ADW_1981
11-14-2015, 05:25 AM
As for my - recently tested - R1b-M269, I'm still not sure whether it's L51 or not.

One advisor said I'm probably xL51 but another one told me that I may be L51 and I must order M343 SNP Pack to get to know:

For some reason I just assumed you were R1a1. I didn't realize you weren't tested.

RVBLAKE
06-18-2016, 02:08 PM
I've been following with interest your postings on the origins of northwestern Europe's L664 clade. Do you still hypothesize that this group expanded from a Frisian base?
Sincerely, Ronald