PDA

View Full Version : R1b Specific Thread for 10 May 2017 Papers



MitchellSince1893
05-15-2017, 04:45 AM
Trying to keep up with all the various R1b discussions in the various threads is a challenge...at least for me. Thought it might be nice to have one spot for these type discussions.

There is a lot of hidden treasure in the supplementary tables 1-3 from the Northwest Europe paper by Olald et al. and Southeastern Europe paper by Mathieson et al. Supplementary tables 1-5.

The later paper's tables has got a lot of good data in it. Many of which other members have already found and posted on.

For example:

I1734 may be R1b>V88, Ukraine_Mesolithic 7446-7058 calBCE, Vasil'evka, Ukraine: Lat/Long: 48.30 35.14
Possibly oldest known V88 sample...more analysis needed to confirm.

I0559 R1b1a (L754), 3654-3527 calBCE , Baalberge_MN, Quedlinburg, Germany, Lat/Long: 51.79 11.14
Based on age and location, possible missing link between L23 and L11.

RISE436 is R1b1 2868-2580 calBCE Corded_Ware_Germany.SG. Tiefbrunn, Germany Lat/Long: 48.932 12.259.
Interesting because it's R1b in Corded Ware. RISE431 also listed as Corded Ware R1b.

I1390 is P312 2566–2524 calBCE, BB_Central_Europe at Sierentz, Les Villas d'Aurele, Haut-Rhin, France (3 miles from West bank of upper Rhine River, 7 miles from Basil, Switzerland). Lat/Long: 47.65 7.45
One of the oldest P312s found so far along with the RISE563 (see below)

I4144 /RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany (3 miles west of Danube, 21 miles from Austrian border). Lat/Long: 48.691 13.016
Previously undated. Now oldest U152 sample so far.

I4070 is U106 1881–1646 calBCE, BB_The_Netherlands, De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland, Lat/Long: 52.733563 5.096183
Oldest U106 found in Western Europe.



And many more.

rms2
05-15-2017, 05:29 PM
A major development is all the R1b (together with R1a) in Dereivka in Ukraine, which was part of Sredny Stog.

TigerMW
05-15-2017, 07:16 PM
Here is one person's interpretation. I've only glanced through it.

"Migration Pathways, from Paleolithic to Bronze Age" by Roy Key
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-v9vabRcTSItMf5ZhjoO_QC9BgELJGSdld5NSLAPxN4/edit#

ArmandoR1b
05-15-2017, 08:51 PM
I4144 /RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany (3 miles west of Danube, 21 miles from Austrian border). Lat/Long: 48.691 13.016
Previously undated. Now oldest U152 sample so far..
Thank you for pointing that one out. I haven't had the time to go through them all even though I am really waiting for an complete analysis of all of the specimens by the experts once the raw data is available. The date of 2572–2512 cal BCE is very close to the YFull formed 4400 ybp and TMRCA 4400 ybp for U152. The 100 or so years difference is within the time range of the birth of a single SNP which is about 144 years so the difference isn't meaningful. I wonder if the final analysis of all of the specimens with Y-DNA will show the calls that are available being negative for anything too young and all positive calls being at least as old, C14 wise, as the youngest date in the YFull range. The weeks after the raw data being available will be interesting.

TigerMW
05-15-2017, 09:30 PM
Thank you for pointing that one out. I haven't had the time to go through them all even though I am really waiting for an complete analysis of all of the specimens by the experts once the raw data is available. The date of 2572–2512 cal BCE is very close to the YFull formed 4400 ybp and TMRCA 4400 ybp for U152. The 100 or so years difference is within the time range of the birth of a single SNP which is about 144 years so the difference isn't meaningful. I wonder if the final analysis of all of the specimens will show a date close to what YFull has. The weeks after the raw data being available will be interesting.

I emboldened the average mutation rate you are using as we also have to consider greater coverage NGS tests have plowed through these early branches. I'm saying that the 144 years/SNP mutation rate may be too conservative when looking at the differences in SNPs in these well tested early branches. The average years per generation may have also been much shorter in the Bronze Age.

ADW_1981
05-15-2017, 09:32 PM
One thing to note is I2-L1195 seems to be linked with the western hunter gatherers, and I2-L702 with the IE speakers who spread with the R1b folks west of the Carpathians but also present at Dereivka and likely went east with R1b as well. I2-L702 doesn't seem to be linked with CW, so I suspect it's a different group of men.

technetium
05-15-2017, 10:01 PM
The popularity of the Kurgan is at its low point. This is not surprising at all since its supporters where mostly self-declared internet "scientists" (bloggers/linguists). It seems like the Max Planck Institute, Harvard-Broad, Cambridge and Pagani are now tending to the CHG "team". Looking forward to their future papers! The most recent paper related to R1b, "The genomic history of southeastern Europe", debunks the theory:

"One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas [...] our genetic data do not support this scenario[...] An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family [...]"

rms2
05-15-2017, 10:05 PM
The popularity of the Kurgan is at its low point. This is not surprising at all since its supporters where mostly self-declared internet "scientists" (bloggers). It seems like the Max Planck Institute, Harvard-Broad, Cambridge and Pagani are tending to the CHG "team". Looking forward to their future papers!

Surely you jest. The ancient dna test results of the past couple of years have only served to prove that the Kurgan Hypothesis is correct.

technetium
05-15-2017, 10:07 PM
Surely you jest. The ancient dna test results of the past couple of years have only served to prove that the Kurgan Hypothesis is correct.
Haven´t you read the most recent paper "The genomic history of southeastern Europe"? I edited my post.

rms2
05-15-2017, 10:09 PM
Trying to keep up with all the various R1b discussions in the various threads is a challenge...at least for me. Thought it might be nice to have one spot for these type discussions.

There is a lot of hidden treasure in the supplementary tables 1-3 from the Northwest Europe paper by Olald et al. and Southeastern Europe paper by Mathieson et al. Supplementary tables 1-5 . . .

Of course, you omitted to mention all the R1b-L21 in Bell Beaker. One significant L21+ result was that of the "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the famous Amesbury Archer.

But you did say,



And many more.

so, okay.

rms2
05-15-2017, 10:11 PM
Have´t you read the most recent paper "The genomic history of southeastern Europe"? I edited my post.

Yes, so I don't need to edit my post. That paper does nothing to refute the Kurgan Hypothesis. In fact, it strengthens it.

Have you read this (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/late-pie-ground-zero-now-obvious.html)? It's a nice summary.

ADW_1981
05-15-2017, 10:12 PM
Interesting since CHG is richest in the region which is a repository for language isolates. It's quite clear that is not likely the correct answer. If that happens to be reality, it is through transmission of language via CHG wives which is the only possibility. The men of the steppes are uniform in YDNA until the iron age.

technetium
05-15-2017, 10:22 PM
Interesting since CHG is richest in the region which is a repository for language isolates. It's quite clear that is not likely the correct answer. If that happens to be reality, it is through transmission of language via CHG wives which is the only possibility. The men of the steppes are uniform in YDNA until the iron age.
How does the number of language isolates of a region impact the likeliness for an expanding language family? This argumentation is not clear to me..

rms2
05-15-2017, 10:28 PM
Honestly, I don't really think this is the thread to argue about the Kurgan Hypothesis. That's not what it was intended for.

The IE tribes that took the Anatolian languages to Anatolia could have transited the Balkans rapidly, leaving little genetic evidence behind, in much the same way the Celtic Galatians did about 2,000 years later.

That has already been discussed over in the Ancient DNA subforum in the thread on the Mathieson et al paper.

ArmandoR1b
05-15-2017, 10:37 PM
I emboldened the average mutation rate you are using as we also have to consider greater coverage NGS tests have plowed through these early branches. I'm saying that the 144 years/SNP mutation rate may be too conservative when looking at the differences in SNPs in these well tested early branches. The average years per generation may have also been much shorter in the Bronze Age.

Yes, I used the average mutation rate by YFull and I was aware about the disagreement about the mutation rate used by them which is why I am interested in finding out if the final analysis of all of the specimens will show a date close to what YFull has. Of course a lot of them will have a lot of no-calls. So a better wording would have been to have added that I am talking about the calls that are available being negative for anything too young and all positive calls being at least as old, C14 wise, as the youngest date in the YFull range.

TigerMW
05-15-2017, 10:57 PM
Yes, I used the average mutation rate by YFull and I was aware about the disagreement about the mutation rate used by them which is why I am interested in finding out if the final analysis of all of the specimens will show a date close to what YFull has. Of course a lot of them will have a lot of no-calls. So a better wording would have been to have added that I am talking about the calls that are available being negative for anything too young and all positive calls being at least as old, C14 wise, as the youngest date in the YFull range.

This is why I think the timeframe between these L151 subclade MRCAs is so tight:
1. There are only a couple of SNPs difference between these subclades.
2. These early branches have been well tested with fresh DNA and higher coverage tests than the majority of what YFull is using for its least common denominator CombBed approach (necessary but a factor in mutation rates). I think FGC would say we are talking about mutation rates of every 60-70 years.
3. The time based mutation rates might be further reduced by 25% or so because of the short life spans during the pertinent and ancient timeframe.

The absolute dating is important, but not to the logic that L151 and these early subclades fit in a tight range. The range is still tight no matter whether you slide the TMRCAs back or forward.

In context, a tight timeframe and thereby close relationships are important when considering distance between locations, obstacles and survivability/logistics.

Dewsloth
05-15-2017, 10:59 PM
Trying to keep up with all the various R1b discussions in the various threads is a challenge...at least for me. Thought it might be nice to have one spot for these type discussions.

There is a lot of hidden treasure in the supplementary tables 1-3 from the Northwest Europe paper by Olald et al. and Southeastern Europe paper by Mathieson et al. Supplementary tables 1-5.

The later paper's tables has got a lot of good data in it. Many of which other members have already found and posted on.

For example:

I1734 may be R1b>V88, Ukraine_Mesolithic 7446-7058 calBCE, Vasil'evka, Ukraine: Lat/Long: 48.30 35.14
Possibly oldest known V88 sample...more analysis needed to confirm.

I0559 R1b1a (L754), 3654-3527 calBCE , Baalberge_MN, Quedlinburg, Germany, Lat/Long: 51.79 11.14
Based on age and location, possible missing link between L23 and L11.

RISE436 is R1b1 2868-2580 calBCE Corded_Ware_Germany.SG. Tiefbrunn, Germany Lat/Long: 48.932 12.259.
Interesting because it's R1b in Corded Ware. RISE431 also listed as Corded Ware R1b.

I1390 is P312 2566–2524 calBCE, BB_Central_Europe at Sierentz, Les Villas d'Aurele, Haut-Rhin, France (3 miles from West bank of upper Rhine River, 7 miles from Basil, Switzerland). Lat/Long: 47.65 7.45
One of the oldest P312s found so far along with the RISE563 (see below)

I4144 /RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany (3 miles west of Danube, 21 miles from Austrian border). Lat/Long: 48.691 13.016
Previously undated. Now oldest U152 sample so far.

I4070 is U106 1881–1646 calBCE, BB_The_Netherlands, De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland, Lat/Long: 52.733563 5.096183
Oldest U106 found in Western Europe.



And many more.

So we have Bronze Age P312, U152, U106, L21 and DF27.
Still missing: DF99, L238, DF19 (all hiding in a kurgan-shaped Alpine Bond villain fortress).

Oldest known for U106 and each P312 subclade:

U106: Battle Axe/ Nordic LN Sweden Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98] M 2275-2032 BC
U152: I4144/RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany
DF27: I0806 Bell Beaker, Quedlinburg, Germany (2431-2150 BC) [this one is the subject of debate, but is at least ZZ11+]
DF19: is it really all the way out to 6DRIF23 in York (Eboracum) ~200AD?
DF99: ??
L21: I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (The "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the Amesbury Archer) Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)
L238: ??

Bring on that raw data!!

sweuro
05-15-2017, 11:11 PM
Honestly, I don't really think this is the thread to argue about the Kurgan Hypothesis. That's not what it was intended for.

The IE tribes that took the Anatolian languages to Anatolia could have transited the Balkans rapidly, leaving little genetic evidence behind, in much the same way the Celtic Galatians did about 2,000 years later.

That has already been discussed over in the Ancient DNA subforum in the thread on the Mathieson et al paper.
We have the Yamnaya Bulgarian and the Bronze Age Bulgarians who have a lot of Steppe, so that actually strenghtens the Balkans-to-Anatolia theory.

MitchellSince1893
05-16-2017, 12:04 AM
Knowing our luck, some Central European tribe that later adopted Eastern Bell Beaker, raided a Corded Ware or Yamanaya related tribe and wiped everyone out except for this L11/P310 baby boy. The chief of the tribe adopted him as his son, and the boy later became a great chief himself, spreading his genes far and wide.

Or Queen so and so had a fling with a captured slave L11 guy and unbeknownst to her husband, passed his off as the King's son.

Or baby Moses...I mean baby L11, was put in a reed boat and sent down the river and was found and adopted by another culture...totally frustrating our attempts to tie L11 to a specific culture.

For our sake's, I hope it turns out to be a more "conventional" path.

TigerMW
05-16-2017, 12:23 AM
DF27: I0806 Bell Beaker, Quedlinburg, Germany (2431-2150 BC)

I'm just double checking. DF27 is notorious for not being picked up in testing. Do we have a downstream SNP for I0806 or who/how did we call this as DF27+ ?

MitchellSince1893
05-16-2017, 01:34 AM
I'm just double checking. DF27 is notorious for not being picked up in testing. Do we have a downstream SNP for I0806 or who/how did we call this as DF27+ ?

Richard Rocca did some bam file analysis http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448

corner
05-16-2017, 10:16 AM
I'm just double checking. DF27 is notorious for not being picked up in testing. Do we have a downstream SNP for I0806 or who/how did we call this as DF27+ ?I0806, initially reported as P312, was identified as DF27+ by R. Rocca last year, but I don't think a downstream subclade was identified. Autosomal DNA suggests I0806 (over 50 years of age when he died) had some ancestry in the east/Baltic. He was buried further west in what is now the middle of Germany at Quedlinburg.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8860-DF27-Bell-Beaker-Sample-Autosomal-Components

He had a bell beaker and a Corded Ware shaft-hole battle axe. It is interesting that his possessions and autosomal DNA show mixing between Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. Hopefully, there might be a few more DF27 (and other P312 subclades) when the new P312* samples are analysed in similar detail.

Pictures of his axe, beaker and further info here: http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/fix-mix-quedlinburg-middle-saale-beakers.html

http://www.mz-web.de/quedlinburg/quedlinburg-beigaben-im-grab-stammen-aus-verschiedenen-kulturen-7333680

16067

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:20 AM
. . .

I4070 is U106 1881–1646 calBCE, BB_The_Netherlands, De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland, Lat/Long: 52.733563 5.096183
Oldest U106 found in Western Europe.


Also the only ancient U106 thus far found in western Europe.

Here is an interesting post on that one:



I've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. If these groups came from Scandinavia/Northern Germany that would fit the U106 that was preciously found in Scandinavia and absent in BB. In this case it would seem U106 was first brought by CW and not BB.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10492-Largest-study-of-Bell-Beaker-aDNA-coming&p=235133&viewfull=1#post235133

It is curious that of all the BB samples in Olalde et al, only one turned out to be U106, that a late one and under the circumstances described above.

There was more G2a and I2a than U106 found in this round of BB results.

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:34 AM
. . .

I0559 R1b1a (L754), 3654-3527 calBCE , Baalberge_MN, Quedlinburg, Germany, Lat/Long: 51.79 11.14
Based on age and location, possible missing link between L23 and L11 . . .



Of course the link between L23 and L11 is L51, but I am wondering what would make anyone think that I0559 from the Baalberge culture might supply the missing ancient L51 we've been looking for.

Gimbutas thought Baalberge was a mix of intrusive steppe people from Kurgan Wave 1 and Neolithic farmers.

Does anyone know whether or not this Baalberge man had any steppe autosomal dna?

Jean M
05-16-2017, 11:54 AM
I0806, initially reported as P312, was identified as DF27+ by R. Rocca last year, but I don't think a downstream subclade was identified.

Not solidly identified. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org&p=235378&viewfull=1#post235378

Seems to be ZZ11 though.

Bear in mind that:


The geneticists are dealing with degraded DNA. So expected calls may be missing, but
The expectations that we have for modern individuals may not apply to ancient ones. So for example the idea that ZZ11+, but U152- must mean DF27 may be true today (I don't know), but in the past there would have been at some time ZZ11+, U152- and DF27-.

Earl Davis
05-16-2017, 12:53 PM
Not solidly identified. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org&p=235378&viewfull=1#post235378

Seems to be ZZ11 though.

Bear in mind that:


The geneticists are dealing with degraded DNA. So expected calls may be missing, but
The expectations that we have for modern individuals may not apply to ancient ones. So for example the idea that ZZ11+, but U152- must mean DF27 may be true today (I don't know), but in the past there would have been at some time ZZ11+, U152- and DF27-.


Rich checked the other file though and reported

'I think this case is more than just a "maybe". Sample i0806 was sequenced twice and the file I initially looked at (i0806.1240k.bam) did not have a read at DF27, but I just checked file i0806.390k.bam and the single read at the DF27 position is positive.'

Obviously a single read is not what we would ideally want to see but combined with the ZZ11+ and the U152- results it's fairly compelling.

Isidro
05-16-2017, 01:41 PM
The quest for R1b-L51 still in the air.

These last results, suggest L51 expansions definitely connected (not exclusively) with Steppe autosomal DNA, it seems like we could close the books about P312 branches being from the Steppe or on it's way North West Europe.Then, as they suggested expanding further South West. That is the going theory based on this last Bell Beakers study.

I am not sure if anyone feels like no further testing is needed to prove that all these population replacement up to 93% is science or jumping the gun...

We still have to understand from months ago admixtures that showed roughly Steppe admixture as a far third component, Hunter Gatherer and EEF being by far a larger portion of the pie. Today we are talking about Steppe autosomal as the new standard, EEF for example is part of Steppe autosomal and so is WHG, fusing it with EHG. Truly confusing.

Another observation to think about is how the branches DF27, U152 and L21 are so well distributed across the Continent already circa 2500 BC, I noticed that a few years ago when the first German BB turned out to be P312.

The Bell Beaker phenomena, like the Steppe autosomal seems to be tied up with R1b-P312, but we know that BB is more complex based on the limited results from Iberia, where it show such a large diversity of haplogroups in BB compared with Northen Europe.

rms2
05-16-2017, 02:04 PM
Also the only ancient U106 thus far found in western Europe.

Here is an interesting post on that one:



I've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. If these groups came from Scandinavia/Northern Germany that would fit the U106 that was preciously found in Scandinavia and absent in BB. In this case it would seem U106 was first brought by CW and not BB.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10492-Largest-study-of-Bell-Beaker-aDNA-coming&p=235133&viewfull=1#post235133

It is curious that of all the BB samples in Olalde et al, only one turned out to be U106, that a late one and under the circumstances described above.

There was more G2a and I2a than U106 found in this round of BB results.

I mentioned this on another thread, but I think it might be more appropriate here.

Here is an interesting note on those two bodies from the later tumulus, including the U106+ one, from page 17 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information:



Both skeletons were buried in a manner typical for the Middle Bronze Age, stretched on their backs.

That position is not typical for Bell Beaker.

Here is what is said of the Bell Beaker Period skeletons from that site, including the P312+ males, on pages 16-17:



The male individuals were all buried on their left side, facing south. The three females were buried on the right side, facing west or north. All individuals were laid down in a crouched position typical for Beaker burials.

It sounds to me like that one U106 very late Bell Beaker result is probably something other than Bell Beaker.

Dewsloth
05-16-2017, 03:40 PM
Not solidly identified. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org&p=235378&viewfull=1#post235378

Seems to be ZZ11 though.

Bear in mind that:


The geneticists are dealing with degraded DNA. So expected calls may be missing, but
The expectations that we have for modern individuals may not apply to ancient ones. So for example the idea that ZZ11+, but U152- must mean DF27 may be true today (I don't know), but in the past there would have been at some time ZZ11+, U152- and DF27-.


Thanks! I edited my little summary to take your comments into account. :)

ADW_1981
05-16-2017, 04:03 PM
The Iberian paper is still the most peculiar out of the three. I look forward to seeing the supplemental material when it is released. Outside the Hungarian KO1 and Atlantic Neolithic who have not yielded R1b results yet, the only haplotype sharing with the southern Portugese Bronze appears to be the Irish Bronze age to a very limited degree. More Bronze data from southern Europe is definitely needed.

razyn
05-16-2017, 04:34 PM
Thanks! I edited my little summary to take your comments into account. :)

But I didn't edit mine. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=234784&viewfull=1#post234784

As we all know that better evidence is coming, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, I just try to go with the best evidence I've seen. So far, that's I0806, whether Jean likes it or not. For that matter, I'm not persuaded that RISE560 isn't DF27 -- though the evidence either for or against is pretty flimsy. There will be more, and better; and when it comes, people will still be arguing about it. Meanwhile, I have a project to sort.

I'll paste in a screen shot showing, at far left, the two (2) possibilities Alex currently lists below ZZ11+. Obviously this diagram is from samples more recent than the Bronze Age. Still, it's also far more detailed than those can be; and the only possibilities below ZZ11+ we currently know of are DF27 and U152. I'm comfortable with what we know about, and I'm not uncomfortable about possible corrigenda (for the later editions of a printed work) from a hypothetical ZZ11-plus, everything-known-minus that might some day turn up. The likelihood that it has already turned up, and I0806 is it, seems vanishingly slight.

16074

rms2
05-16-2017, 10:48 PM
Here are the R1b-L21 results from Olalde et al.

1. I2453/CQWDO7, feature F.320 skeleton 1126: 2289–2041 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 West Deeping (Lincolnshire, England)

2. I2452/BEDFM2009.12, feature F.66 skeleton 186: 2277–1920 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Dairy Farm (Willington, Bedfordshire, England)

3. I2445/SK 8633 (YCF 95): 2137–1930 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Yarnton (Oxfordshire, England)

4. I2447/SK 8779 (YCF 95): 2400–2040 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Yarnton (Oxfordshire, England)

5. I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (The "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the Amesbury Archer) Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)

6. I2568/GENSCOT15, Burial 10, Cist 2: 2287–2039 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Dryburn Bridge (East Lothian, Scotland)

7. I2653/Skeleton 2/GENSCOT22: 1500–1300 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-CTS1202.1 (under Z253) (Middle Bronze Age) Longniddry, Evergreen House (East Lothian, Scotland)

8. I3256/TRM10, skeleton [3384]: 2204–2029 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Trumpington Meadows (Cambridge, England)

9. I2457/13382: 2480–2031 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)

10. I3082/Burial F4: 1500–1390 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (Middle Bronze Age) Canada Farm (Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, England)

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:19 PM
Here are the R1b-L21 results from Olalde et al.

1. I2453/CQWDO7, feature F.320 skeleton 1126: 2289–2041 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 West Deeping (Lincolnshire, England)

2. I2452/BEDFM2009.12, feature F.66 skeleton 186: 2277–1920 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Dairy Farm (Willington, Bedfordshire, England)

3. I2445/SK 8633 (YCF 95): 2137–1930 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Yarnton (Oxfordshire, England)

4. I2447/SK 8779 (YCF 95): 2400–2040 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Yarnton (Oxfordshire, England)

5. I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (The "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the Amesbury Archer) Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)

6. I2568/GENSCOT15, Burial 10, Cist 2: 2287–2039 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Dryburn Bridge (East Lothian, Scotland)

7. I2653/Skeleton 2/GENSCOT22: 1500–1300 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-CTS1202.1 (under Z253) (Middle Bronze Age) Longniddry, Evergreen House (East Lothian, Scotland)

8. I3256/TRM10, skeleton [3384]: 2204–2029 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Trumpington Meadows (Cambridge, England)

9. I2457/13382: 2480–2031 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)

10. I3082/Burial F4: 1500–1390 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (Middle Bronze Age) Canada Farm (Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, England)

Notice that #7 and #10 are Middle Bronze Age and not actually Bell Beaker.

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:27 PM
I hope they are doing a paper on the Amesbury Archer himself. I am really disappointed that his results weren't included in Olalde et al.

He was supposed to have been born and raised in the Alpine region of continental Europe. An L21+ result from him would have driven a stake through the heart of the Isles origin theory of L21.

The Companion's L21+ result makes it look like the Archer will be L21+ as well.

Good. Great, actually.

Dewsloth
05-16-2017, 11:29 PM
I hope they are doing a paper on the Amesbury Archer himself. I am really disappointed that his results weren't included in Olalde et al.

He was supposed to be born and raised in the Alpine region of continental Europe. An L21+ result from him would have driven a stake through the heart of the Isles origin theory of L21.

The Companion's L21+ result makes it look like the Archer will be L21+ as well.

Good. Great, actually.

Was it isotope testing that gave them the continental reading? They didn't/haven't test the Companion for same? I added the Companion to my list above.

TigerMW
05-16-2017, 11:32 PM
Here are the R1b-L21 results from Olalde et al.
...
4. I2447/SK 8779 (YCF 95): 2400–2040 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 Yarnton (Oxfordshire, England)
...
5. I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (The "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the Amesbury Archer) Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)
...
9. I2457/13382: 2480–2031 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)


The YFull estimate for L21's TMRCA is 4400 ybp or around 2400 BC. It's not looking like a bad estimate.

You know where I'm going with this, but YFull is not aware of the Z290 branch between P312 and L21. This means there are at least three SNPs, Z290, Z260 and Z245, older than L21 that are in line back to the P312 MRCA.

YFull has the P312 MRCA at 4400 ybp or 2400 BC as well. That looks bad and these ancient DNA points are giving us evidence that P312 may need to re-positioned to, let's say, 2900 BC or right on top of the U106 MRCA.

We can look directly at P312 finds.

I1390 is P312 2566–2524 calBCE, BB_Central_Europe at Sierentz, Les Villas d'Aurele, Haut-Rhin, France

I4144 /RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) - This is the oldest U152, right?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/

We need to get Reynolds to send his Z290+ L21- BAM file over to YFull to maybe get them to adjust their globbing of SNPs.

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:33 PM
Was it isotope testing that gave them the continental reading? They didn't/haven't test the Companion for same? I added the Companion to my list above.

Yes, but it looks like the Companion was born and raised locally, or maybe just across the Channel.

Dewsloth
05-16-2017, 11:50 PM
Yes, but it looks like the Companion was born and raised locally, or maybe just across the Channel.

That's the kind of inconclusive result 6DRIF-23 got:



Part-skeletons of horses were deposited with a number of burials, including
6Drif-24 and 6Drif-21, the individuals with the lowest and highest δ
18Op, respectively, but
also with the isotopically less remarkable 6Drif-23, for whom an upbringing in York is
unlikely but who may well have come from Eastern England or an area with similar water
values on the European continent or beyond (see above). If anything, it was therefore not a
common origin, but rather the diversity of their backgrounds which was the defining feature
for the Driffield Terrace Group

rms2
05-16-2017, 11:51 PM
Yeah. Apparently the area right across the Channel is pretty much just like Britain.

Bas
05-17-2017, 12:13 AM
Of course the link between L23 and L11 is L51, but I am wondering what would make anyone think that I0559 from the Baalberge culture might supply the missing ancient L51 we've been looking for.

Gimbutas thought Baalberge was a mix of intrusive steppe people from Kurgan Wave 1 and Neolithic farmers.

Does anyone know whether or not this Baalberge man had any steppe autosomal dna?

For what it's worth, I did an nMonte run on this one a while back. Looks like a typical farmer, with minor HG mix:

"distance%=0.4131 / distance=0.004131"

Baalberge_MN:I0559

LBK_EN:I0025 52.4
Iberia_MN:I0405 27.2
Hungary_N:I1500 9.4
Loschbour:Loschbour 6.0
Villabruna:I9030 5.0
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 0.0
Motala_HG:I0011 0.0
Karelia_HG:I0061 0.0
Iberia_Mesolithic:I0585 0.0
Hungary_HG:I1507 0.0
Bichon:Bichon 0.0
Kotias:KK1 0.0
Motala_HG:I0012 0.0
Motala_HG:I0013 0.0
Motala_HG:I0014 0.0
Motala_HG:I0015 0.0
Motala_HG:I0017 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE240 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE546 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE547 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE548 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE550 0.0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE552 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0231 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0357 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0370 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0438 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0439 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0441 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 0.0
Yamnaya_Samara:I0444 0.0
Satsurblia:SATP 0.0
Iran_Hotu:I1293 0.0
Greece_LN:Klei10 0.0
Hungary_N:I1495 0.0
Hungary_N:I1496 0.0
Hungary_N:I1498 0.0
Hungary_N:I1499 0.0
Hungary_N:I1505 0.0
Hungary_N:I1506 0.0
Hungary_N:I1508 0.0
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ25 0.0
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ27 0.0
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32 0.0

R.Rocca
05-17-2017, 12:16 AM
My thought of the day: We now have a lot of R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2) showing in these studies. When the raw data is released, it will be interesting to see if we can reveal a long lost brother clade to M269 or not. If geography is any indicator, it could be that the Baalberge_MN sample belongs to an extinct Iron Gates Hunter Gatherer lineage. Perhaps it even goes back to Villabruna which is simply R1b1a.

R.Rocca
05-17-2017, 12:17 AM
Second thought of the day: M269 and its subclades have only been found in Yamnaya, Vucedol or Bell Beaker samples to date. Reflect on that for a minute... it is quite shocking IMO.

Silesian
05-17-2017, 01:26 AM
^^In addition-
R1b-M269 and/or Yamnaya component, found in Yamnaya, Vucedol, Bell Beaker,Afanasevo culture,Sarmatians,Scythians,Armenians,f38 Iranian+list below

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k6tfBZoKE4g/Vt-PZZcvYSI/AAAAAAAAEQc/fZdA0XVEazM/s649/D-stats_4Mix_ancestry_proportions2.png

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 05:24 AM
Second thought of the day: M269 and its subclades have only been found in Yamnaya, Vucedol or Bell Beaker samples to date. Reflect on that for a minute... it is quite shocking IMO.

Brushing up on my Vucedol cultural knowledge

Marija Gimbutas characterized the Bell Beaker culture complex as an amalgam of the Vučedol and Yamna culture, formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the Vučedol milieu and the interaction of these peoples for three or four centuries, from circa 3000 BC Wikpedia

On Eurogenes in 2015
Colin Welling said
...~2,870-2,580 cal BC...this is the exact period that yamnaya graves start showing up in the carpathian basin which show isotopic evidence of migration from the east. It should be noted that pre yamnaya burials in the carpathian basin do not show isotopic evidence of migration...
Strontium and oxygen isotope analyses re- veal an earlier period of ‘local’ burials, spanning the period 3300–2900 BC, followed by burials that postdate 2900 BC that exhibit ‘nonlocal’ isotopic signatures. The combination of the isotope values and the grave goods associated with the non- local burials point to the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains as the nearest location representing a possible childhood ori- gin of this nonlocal group...

Probable is the connection between the Sárrétudvari nonlocals and the Transylvanian Livezile group, which is chiefly distributed in the eastern belt of the Apuseni Mountains and shows simi- larities in burial tradition (Ciugudean, 1996, 1998). Both the isotopes and some of the burial objects suggest that the Sárrétudvari nonlocals spent at least a part of their childhoods in a hillier region, possibly the mountainous area southeast of the study site...

Some of our Early Bronze Age study sites in the Northern Pontic have yielded similar 87Sr/86Sr ratios and oxygen values. Therefore we cannot exclude a Northern Pontic place of origin for the Sár- rétudvari individuals. Furthermore, Northern Pontic individuals might have picked up the Transylvanian isotopic signature or a mixed signature on their way to the Eastern Great Hungarian Plain.

The migrants only came into hungary, in the form of yamnaya burials, starting around 2900, and they came from the east!
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/r1b-from-vucedol-period-hungary.html

corner
05-17-2017, 02:14 PM
Not solidly identified. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org&p=235378&viewfull=1#post235378

Seems to be ZZ11 though.

Bear in mind that:


The geneticists are dealing with degraded DNA. So expected calls may be missing, but
The expectations that we have for modern individuals may not apply to ancient ones. So for example the idea that ZZ11+, but U152- must mean DF27 may be true today (I don't know), but in the past there would have been at some time ZZ11+, U152- and DF27-.
This has brought on some thoughts :)

Unlike L21, with its more lengthy phylogenetically equivalent SNP block, there are only two SNPs in ZZ11's equivalent block, ZZ11 and Z38841 (a STR). Alex Williamson found I0806 was positive for both ZZ11 and Z38841 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185313&viewfull=1#post185313). DF27 and U152 are both immediately downstream of ZZ11. Those two 'sons' of ZZ11 did well. How many other ZZ11* (xDF27, xU152) 'brothers' are there likely to have been in Europe then?

From The Big Tree: 16094

I0806 is archaeologically dated to 2431-2150 BC. YFull estimates P312, DF27 and U152 to be around the same age as I0806, c. 2400 BC. Could I0806 be one of the ZZ11* near relatives of Mr ZZ11 himself, a contemporary who's yDNA lineage did not endure to the present-day? He was over 50 when he died, so he is perhaps likely to have had several children. Maybe he lost some SNPs in the ground.

A bit far fetched maybe, but if I0806 is ZZ11*, not DF27, and given the matching dates etc., then U152 and DF27 men today might be potentially looking at the remains and possessions of their 4400 year-old direct paternal common ancestor, or at least a near relative of his, buried at Quedinburg - with his mixed BB/CW cultural features. However, I0806 could have been born more recently than 2400 BC, the margin of error for the archaeological remains is wide at 2431-2150 BC.

Also, there is archaeologically-dated ZZ11>U152 in the new studies that is older than 'ZZ11*' I0806. That is U152+ RISE563 2572-2512 BC Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany. Of course, the U152 'son' can't be older than the ZZ11 'father'. How accurate are these dates? We know SNP based age estimates have wide margins of error.

Back to the idea of I0806 probably being ZZ11>DF27+ (link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448)), have I0806's SNP results been compared to all currently known deep SNPs just downstream of DF27>ZZ12 and DF27>Z195 as seen on The Big Tree? The numbers of new DF27>ZZ12 subclades continue to increase there:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29

Deep subclade ZZ19 (position 25938772-T-A) is the one I'd check first as it is the largest of the more recently identified ZZ12 subclade and our subclade just so happens to be below ZZ19 (over one third of all DF27>ZZ12 NGS kits, n=143, on The Big Tree are ZZ19). Would have a go myself but don't have the gear/skills.

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 02:21 PM
In another thread Cofgene shared info on dating of U106 and P312.



And a recent note from Iain McDonald which includes an update on expanding the U106 age analysis across more of R1b land.

An update to the BigY analysis has been placed on my website:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html
and the short version of the report copied into the BigY archive on this forum:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/%20Big-Y%20files/
An update to the source code is also included in the same folder (version 0.6.8).

P312: Jef Treece has been working on extending this code to P312. There are still some issues we are working out there, but we are getting close to a "version 1" that works sufficiently well over all of P310/P311/L11/L151 for us to release. I won't make any promises in terms of timing, though - currently Jef is the only one able to run the whole of P312+U106 due to memory limitations on my machine. The expansion to P312 has also uncovered many oddities in individual situations, which we are currently exploring and trying to address appropriately.

Early indications are that including P312 reduces the age of U106 by about 80 years compared to my current calculations, but we still need to verify parts of the P312 tree and check it against limits from ancient DNA. We're in touch with Alex Williamson, who is exploring a different way of getting this code into his "Big Tree" in a more integrated fashion.

His latest age estimate for U106 is 3096 BC (3796 BC — 2528 BC) minus 80 = 3016 BC. So P312 might be close to this age as well.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html

Their current estimate for P312 is 2911 BC (see Wing Genealogist post below) and assuming a mutation from Alex William's Ytree happens every 1 to 3 generations (25 to 75 years), would give us the following ages:

DF19 and L238: 2836-2886 BC range

DF99: 2761-2861 BC range

U152, DF27 and DF88: 2611-2811 BC range. If RISE563 is indeed U152 then we know it has to earlier than 2512 BC

L2, L21, Z195, and ZZ12: 2536-2786 BC range. For L2 it has to be earlier than 2242 BCE as I3875 BB_Southern_France U152>L2 2459-2242 BCE


Assuming 30 years per generation gives the following dates:

DF19 and L238: 2821-2881 BC range

DF99: 2731-2851 BC range

U152, DF27 and DF88: 2551-2791 BC range

L2, L21, Z195, and ZZ12: 2461-2761 BC range.

ArmandoR1b
05-17-2017, 03:21 PM
Back to the idea of I0806 probably being ZZ11>DF27+ (link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448)), have I0806's SNP results been compared to all currently known deep SNPs just downstream of DF27>ZZ12 and DF27>Z195 as seen on The Big Tree? The numbers of new DF27>ZZ12 subclades continue to increase there:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29

Deep subclade ZZ19 (position 25938772-T-A) is the one I'd check first as it is the largest of the more recently identified ZZ12 subclade and our subclade just so happens to be below ZZ19 (over one third of all DF27>ZZ12 NGS kits, n=143, on The Big Tree are ZZ19). Would have a go myself but don't have the gear/skills.
That's a good question but the coverage was extremely low though causing even more no-calls than some of the other low coverage specimens such as RISE563. The old (2106?) Mathieson and Lazaridis papers showed the coverage as 0.13x and RISE563 as 0.329x.

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 03:36 PM
In another thread Cofgene shared info on dating of U106 and P312.


Their current estimate for P312 is ~2911 BC (see Wing Genealogist post below) and assuming a mutation from Alex William's Ytree happens every 1 to 3 generations (25 to 75 years), would give us the following ages:

...
U152, DF27 and DF88: 2611-2811 BC range. If RISE563 is indeed U152 then we know it has to earlier than 2512 BC

L2, L21, Z195, and ZZ12: 2536-2786 BC range. For L2 it has to be earlier than 2242 BCE as I3875 BB_Southern_France U152>L2 2459-2242 BCE


Assuming 30 years per generation gives the following dates:

...

U152, DF27 and DF88: 2551-2791 BC[/B] range

L2, L21, Z195, and ZZ12: 2461-2761 BC range.

These dates for U152 and L2 are close to what I got using a modified version of Yfull's dating method.

...U152 formed 4747 ybp (2797 BCE)...
L2 formed around 4603 ybp (2653 BCE)...



http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10566-U152-Specific-Discussions-from-the-New-Papers-released-10-May-2017&p=233838&viewfull=1#post233838

Wing Genealogist
05-17-2017, 04:54 PM
While the work of Jef & Iain is not yet ready for "prime-time", the following are their most recent age estimates for P311, U106 & P312. It is possible the bugs they are working on may cause some adjustment to these dates.


Clade Best guess 95% confidence interval (CI)
P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)
U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)
P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)

NOTE: The wide CI for P311 is in part due to the fact this work starts with P311. A major reason why Iain wanted to extend his analysis from U106 to P311 (and ultimately to M269) is because examining the ancestral clades provides a mechanism to tighten the time-frame for U106. As previously related, simply adding in P311 & P312 caused the estimated age of U106 to go down by roughly 80 years. He does expect that when/if his analysis work encompasses all of M269, the age of P311 will also be reduced a bit.

To give an idea of how much the addition of ancestral clades help with the age estimate, the most recent age estimate Iain came up with for U106 is compared to the estimate provided above:

U106 alone 3096 BC (3796 BC - 2528 BC)
with P311 3021 BC (3652 BC - 2491 BC)

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 05:15 PM
I'd mentioned this before in this thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10566-U152-Specific-Discussions-from-the-New-Papers-released-10-May-2017&p=233838&viewfull=1#post233838

But Yfull's method of averaging the branch average dates to arrive at a date for the main branch can be biased by sub-branches with very few samples. The Z49 branch (largest branch of U152>L2) is a prime example of this effect https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z49/

R-S8183* has 24 samples with an average age of 4587 ybp (2637 BC) for Z49.
R-Z142 has 31 samples with and average age of 4453 ybp (2503 BC) for Z49.

So these two large branches of Z49 have a total of 55 samples. Their overall age is 4512 ybp (2562 BC, taking the average of the 55 samples)

But that's not what Yfull does. It takes the average age of S8183 (4587 ybp), Z142 (4453 ybp), and the two other Z49 branches, L202 (3435 ybp), and *Y18901 (4168 ybp), adds them together and divides by 4. (4587+4453+3425+4168)/4) to get 4161 ybp (2211 BC).

The problem is L202 only has two samples, and Y18901 has 3 samples.

So according to the Yfull method, these 5 samples have the same weight as the other 55 samples. IMO these two tiny branches with their younger dates are skewing the age estimate for Z49.

If you took the average of all 60 Z49 samples you get 4459 ybp, (2509 BC) or about 300 years (7.2%) older than the yfull method.

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 05:18 PM
While the work of Jef & Iain is not yet ready for "prime-time", the following are their most recent age estimates for P311, U106 & P312. It is possible the bugs they are working on may cause some adjustment to these dates.


Clade Best guess 95% confidence interval (CI)
P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)
U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)
P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)

NOTE: The wide CI for P311 is in part due to the fact this work starts with P311. A major reason why Iain wanted to extend his analysis from U106 to P311 (and ultimately to M269) is because examining the ancestral clades provides a mechanism to tighten the time-frame for U106. As previously related, simply adding in P311 & P312 caused the estimated age of U106 to go down by roughly 80 years. He does expect that when/if his analysis work encompasses all of M269, the age of P311 will also be reduced a bit.

To give an idea of how much the addition of ancestral clades help with the age estimate, the most recent age estimate Iain came up with for U106 is compared to the estimate provided above:

U106 alone 3096 BC (3796 BC - 2528 BC)
with P311 3021 BC (3652 BC - 2491 BC)

Ok I edited my posts above to reflect the 2911 BC date for P312

MitchellSince1893
05-17-2017, 05:42 PM
Just connecting some dots...which may not be the correct way...but here goes.

If
~2,870-2,580 cal BC...this is the exact period that yamnaya graves start showing up in the carpathian basin which show isotopic evidence of migration from the east. It should be noted that pre yamnaya burials in the carpathian basin do not show isotopic evidence of migration...
Strontium and oxygen isotope analyses re- veal an earlier period of ‘local’ burials, spanning the period 3300–2900 BC, followed by burials that postdate 2900 BC that exhibit ‘nonlocal’ isotopic signatures. The combination of the isotope values and the grave goods associated with the non- local burials point to the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains as the nearest location representing a possible childhood ori- gin of this nonlocal group...The migrants only came into hungary, in the form of yamnaya burials, starting around 2900, and they came from the east! http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10601-R1b-Specific-Thread-for-10-May-2017-Papers&p=235730&viewfull=1#post235730

and the 2911 BC for P312 is accurate...

then Mr. P312 may have lived in the Carpathian Basin.

So far there hasn't been any ancient L11 found in the lower Danube, so maybe P312 followed U106 up the Dniester with U106 going further north towards the Baltic and P312 taking a left turn towards the Carpathian Basin.


Just brain storming...not saying anything is definitive.

R.Rocca
05-17-2017, 05:43 PM
...A bit far fetched maybe, but if I0806 is ZZ11*, not DF27...

If we start being too cautious due to the quality of the samples and short reads, then we need to throw out a lot of ancient DNA calls. Based on the data, my confidence is pretty high that I0806 is DF27+.


...have I0806's SNP results been compared to all currently known deep SNPs just downstream of DF27>ZZ12 and DF27>Z195 as seen on The Big Tree?

I know I've checked all the Bell Beaker samples against the Big Tree SNPs twice in the past six months or so. Probably others have done it as well.

razyn
05-17-2017, 06:21 PM
I don't know if anybody has seen my previous comment about this after I edited it yesterday, adding a Big Tree screen shot and another paragraph. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10601-R1b-Specific-Thread-for-10-May-2017-Papers&p=235456&viewfull=1#post235456

As far as we know, ZZ11+ and U152- equals DF27+, even if Rich had not gotten a call for DF27+ in one of the two BAM files for this sample. Clearly there is a theoretical possibility of the ZZ11* haplotype JeanM suggests; but we have yet to see one, unless we persuade ourselves that I0806 is it. I'm unable to do that.

TigerMW
05-17-2017, 10:43 PM
As far as we know, ZZ11+ and U152- equals DF27+, even if Rich had not gotten a call for DF27+ in one of the two BAM files for this sample. Clearly there is a theoretical possibility of the ZZ11* haplotype JeanM suggests; but we have yet to see one, unless we persuade ourselves that I0806 is it. I'm unable to do that.

I have to agree with Jean M on this. I think we can assume that based on modern day (surviving) lineages the ZZ11* possibility is pretty remote since we haven't found one across many people testing and paternal lineage have propensity to go extinct.

However, this is back at the time near when the ZZ11 MRCA existed. There could easily have been many other sons or grandsons besides the first U152+ and DF27+ descendants. We know these early subclades of P312 were extremely successful so the odds are good that some ZZ11* existed back then.

kinman
05-17-2017, 11:39 PM
It seems to me that the "Best Guess" estimates for U106 and P312 at about 3000 and 2900 BC are definitely too young. If they arose in the lower Dniester River Valley and U106 shows up in Sweden about 2800 BC, they probably arose about 3200-3500 BC (i.e., in the early part of the date range given). My own best guess is 3500 BC. Even 3200 BC would give U106 four centuries to build up a population (one of which happened to have been found in Sweden). 3500 BC would give them seven centuries. Anyway, it would not surprise me if U106 will be found in Sweden that was 3000 BC (or even earlier).
----------------Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


While the work of Jef & Iain is not yet ready for "prime-time", the following are their most recent age estimates for P311, U106 & P312. It is possible the bugs they are working on may cause some adjustment to these dates.


Clade Best guess 95% confidence interval (CI)
P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)
U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)
P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)

NOTE: The wide CI for P311 is in part due to the fact this work starts with P311. A major reason why Iain wanted to extend his analysis from U106 to P311 (and ultimately to M269) is because examining the ancestral clades provides a mechanism to tighten the time-frame for U106. As previously related, simply adding in P311 & P312 caused the estimated age of U106 to go down by roughly 80 years. He does expect that when/if his analysis work encompasses all of M269, the age of P311 will also be reduced a bit.

To give an idea of how much the addition of ancestral clades help with the age estimate, the most recent age estimate Iain came up with for U106 is compared to the estimate provided above:

U106 alone 3096 BC (3796 BC - 2528 BC)
with P311 3021 BC (3652 BC - 2491 BC)

rms2
05-18-2017, 12:00 AM
U106 shows up in Sweden about 2275 BC, and that's the old end of the range, which is 2275-2032 BC.

How would U106 get to Sweden by 3000 BC or earlier? What I mean by that is, what culture would that involve?

When you come up with these dates, you have to consider the archaeological context. Are you saying U106 predates Corded Ware in Scandinavia?

Wing Genealogist
05-18-2017, 12:47 AM
If the 2911 BC for P312 is accurate...

I have contacted Iain and he indicated the date for P312 may not be accurate (due to issues he and Jef are struggling with). The issue is primarily affecting one subclade, but due to the nature of his calculations, even a single inaccuracy in one clade will reverberate up and down the tree, so would affect the date for P312, P311 and (to a lesser degree) U106.

This is why he has asked this information not be prematurely released, and I had jumped the gun in releasing what little information I did.

TigerMW
05-18-2017, 12:57 AM
I have contacted Iain and he indicated the date for P312 may not be accurate (due to issues he and Jef are struggling with). The issue is primarily affecting one subclade, but due to the nature of his calculations, even a single inaccuracy in one clade will reverberate up and down the tree, so would affect the date for P312, P311 and (to a lesser degree) U106.

This is why he has asked this information not be prematurely released, and I had jumped the gun in releasing what little information I did.

There will be some manual intervention and adjustment no matter who is doing it. I suggest we don't focus on the single "best guess" dates but always look at the ranges. For the McDonald method, Ray posted:

"P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)"
"U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)"
"P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)"

However, I don't think we can cherry pick one end of the date range for one subclade and another end of the date range for the next. In relative terms, the aging is fairly reliable, I think. That's the nature of the Y phylogeny.

As Richard S indicated, this also has to be positioned in context of the cultures and geographies so that the puzzle pieces actually fit, hopefully without special pleading.

MitchellSince1893
05-18-2017, 01:19 AM
There will be some manual intervention and adjustment no matter who is doing it. I suggest we don't focus on the single "best guess" dates but always look at the ranges. For the McDonald method, Ray posted:

"P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)"
"U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)"
"P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)"

However, I don't think we can cherry pick one end of the date range for one subclade and another end of the date range for the next. In relative terms, the aging is fairly reliable, I think. That's the nature of the Y phylogeny.

As Richard S indicated, this also has to be positioned in context of the cultures and geographies so that the puzzle pieces actually fit, hopefully without special pleading.

Keeping in mind that some of the low ends on these date ranges are younger than some of the associated ancient dna sample date ranges e.g. RISE563 is P312 is for sure, and likely U152, 2572–2512 calBCE. I doubt RISE563 just happens to be the first man with P312, so that would make P312 even older than 2512 BC.

I know 95% CI is the standard often used, but it would be nice to see the 75% CI and the 90% CI ranges as well.

TigerMW
05-18-2017, 01:23 AM
Keeping in mind that some of the low ends on these date ranges are youger than some of the associated ancient dna sample date ranges
Let's fix it. Which youthful dates need to have a floor as given by the low end of the eldest aDNA for a descendant?

P312's youngest date has to be older than the oldest U152 RC low end date of the RC range.

MitchellSince1893
05-18-2017, 01:44 AM
Let's fix it. Which youthful dates need to have a floor as given by the low end of the eldest aDNA for a descendant?

P312's youngest date has to be older than the oldest U152 RC low end date of the RC range.

While Richard Rocca seemed confident that RISE563 is U152, it's still called P312, so I'm not sure the best way to treat that one. But for argument's sake let's say RISE563 is the Mr. U152 himself and was conceived around 2550 BC.

Even though they aren't used by Yfull for dating, we know there are at least 3 mutations between U152 and P312. Z38841, ZZ11, Z40481 and possibly 4 if you include Z1904, CTS12684, PF6548 which is in the P312 block on Alex's tree.

Assuming one mutation per conception event, that's 75 (25 yrs x 3 gens) to 120 (30 yrs x 4 gens) years between U152 and P312. IMO the low end for P312 should no later than 2550+75=2625 BC. And that's being very optimistic as RISE563 probably wasn't the 1st U152 man and there typically isn't a mutation every generation.

A more realistic but still optimistic low end estimate would be RISE563 was the grandson of U152 and there's a mutation every other generation. That would put U152 at around 2600 BC and the low end for P312 at ~2800 BC

If we toss out RISE563, then we still have I3875 who is U152>L2 2459–2242 BC. Assume I3875 was conceived in 2275 BC. He isn't going to be Mr L2, so again let's optimistically assume he's the grandson of L2. Mr. L2 would have been born around 2325 BC.
U152 would have been born no later than 2350 BC, but realistically closer to 2375 BC (assumes mutation every other generation).
P312 would have been born no later than 75 years before U152, 2350+75=2425 BC (which is too young because RISE563 is P312)

But more realistically (assuming mutation every other generation), 150 to 240 years later. Or about 2575 BC (2375 BC + ~200 yrs).

So if you accept RISE563 was U152 then low end for P312 would be around 2800 BC.

If you don't accept that RISE563 was U152 then ~ 2550 BC would be the absolute latest low in range for P312, which optimistically assumes RISE563 was the first P312 man...highly doubtful.. A more realistic, but still optimistic date would be ~2600 BC

kinman
05-18-2017, 01:52 AM
I have suggested that U106 may have been among the founders of Corded Ware Culture, somewhere between Ukraine and Scandinavia, and that CWC then spread north into Scandinavia and southwest into Central Europe. If so, the origin of U106 had to predate Corded Ware Culture.

As for the 2800 BC date, I guess that I must have misunderstood what mikewww said about the map (attachment) of Jean M in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=235272&viewfull=1#post235272

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16058



U106 shows up in Sweden about 2275 BC, and that's the old end of the range, which is 2275-2032 BC.

How would U106 get to Sweden by 3000 BC or earlier? What I mean by that is, what culture would that involve?

When you come up with these dates, you have to consider the archaeological context. Are you saying U106 predates Corded Ware in Scandinavia?

MitchellSince1893
05-18-2017, 02:25 AM
nevermind. misunderstood

TigerMW
05-18-2017, 02:56 AM
I have suggested that U106 may have been among the founders of Corded Ware Culture, somewhere between Ukraine and Scandinavia, and that CWC then spread north into Scandinavia and southwest into Central Europe. If so, the origin of U106 had to predate Corded Ware Culture.

As for the 2800 BC date, I guess that I must have misunderstood what mikewww said about the map (attachment) of Jean M in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=235272&viewfull=1#post235272

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16058

That map is from Jean M and the discussions on the origins of Germanic.

I'll stick with contention that the MRCAs of L151/L11/P311, P312, U106 and a handful of others were of the same culture. They are just too close, genetic distance-wise, and therefore time-wise. The answer for all three may be the Yamnaya or Vucedol or the Bell Beakers or Corded Ware. I don't know, but I think their genetic distance has to be a criteria for the solution.

rms2
05-18-2017, 08:17 AM
I have suggested that U106 may have been among the founders of Corded Ware Culture, somewhere between Ukraine and Scandinavia, and that CWC then spread north into Scandinavia and southwest into Central Europe. If so, the origin of U106 had to predate Corded Ware Culture.

As for the 2800 BC date, I guess that I must have misunderstood what mikewww said about the map (attachment) of Jean M in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=235272&viewfull=1#post235272

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16058

Okay, but I understood you to say that U106 would show up in Sweden by 3000 BC or even earlier. That would put it there prior to Corded Ware or any other Indo-Europeans.

kinman
05-18-2017, 05:40 PM
I said could show up (not would show up): "Anyway, it would not surprise me if U106 will be found in Sweden that was 3000 BC (or even earlier)."
If U106 did arise 3500 B.C. and headed north, some of them could have gotten to Sweden 500 years later. Time will tell. Of course, that could well be before Corded Ware Culture formed (if it began 2900 B.C.), to the south (Belarus?, Poland?) where other U106 had presumably settled in larger numbers. I'm just brainstorming a little and figuring out what areas and time periods might interest me the most. I have more P312 ancestors (my main interest), but still have enough U106 ancestry that I want to explore that as well. My Haplogroup I ancestry doesn't seem nearly as interesting as Haplogroup R.


Okay, but I understood you to say that U106 would show up in Sweden by 3000 BC or even earlier. That would put it there prior to Corded Ware or any other Indo-Europeans.

rms2
05-18-2017, 06:03 PM
It doesn't seem likely U106 will show up in Sweden that early, unless it is non-Indo-European, and that would surprise me.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 02:13 AM
Another way to look at the ancient R-L11 et al (R1b1a1a2a1a) is by the earliest dates shown for their date ranges in http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml (Thanks JeanM)

No R1b1a1a2a1a (L11, L52, L51, L151, P310, P311), anywhere before 2572 BC, then a flood gate opens and they start appearing in Germany, France, England, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden, Scotland, and Ireland

Samples with early dates prior to 2000 BC:
RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE
I1390 / 11-Grave68: P312, France, 2566–2299 calBCE
I2457 / 13382: L21, England, 2480–2031 calBCE
I2565 / 1238: L21, England, 2470–2140 calBCE
I2365 / GEN_11a, Grave452, U152>L2, Hungary, 2465-2205 calBCE
I1389 / 10-Grave69, P312, France, 2468–2278 calBCE
E09568_d / Grave 8 Skeleton 1, L151, Germany, 2461–2210 calBCE
I2416 / 25004, P310, England, 2460-2200 BC
I3875 / Vil-Lauz-1316, U152>L2, France, 2459–2242 BCE
I1388 / 9-Grave1, L151, France, 2456–2135 cal BCE
I1382 / 3-Grave515, P312, France, 2435–2136 calBCE
I0806 / QLB 28, P312 (poss. DF27), Germany, 2431-2150 calBCE
I2447 / SK 8779, L21>DF13, England, 2400–2040 calBCE
I1381 / 2-Grave487, L151, France, 2400–1900 BCE
E09569 / Grave I/3, U152>L2, Germany, 2397–2149 calBCE
I3599 / Grave 13, P312, Germany, 2300–2150 BCE
I3588 / Grave 2, L151, Germany, 2300–2150 BCE
I3589 / Grave 3, U152>L2, Germany, 2300–2150 BCE,
I3597 / Grave 12, U152>L2, Germany, 2300–2150 BCE
I4068 / skeleton 228-M3, P312, Netherlands, 2300–1900 BCE
I2453/CQWDO7, feature F.320 skeleton 1126, L21 > DF13, England, 2289–2041 calBCE
I2568 / GENSCOT15, , L21 > DF13, Scotland, 2287–2039 calBCE
I2596 / 5289, L151 / PF6542 / P311, England, 2280–2030 calBCE
I4074 / skeleton 242-M14, P312, Netherlands, 2278–1914 calBCE
I2452 / BEDFM2009.12, feature F.66 skeleton 186, L21 > DF13, England, 2277–1920 calBCE
RISE98, M405 / S21/ U106, Sweden, 2275-2032 BC
[I2567 / GENSCOT14, Burial 5, Cist 1, P312, Scotland, 2275–1884 calBCE
I2566 / 13385, P312, England, 2210–2030 calBCE
I3256 / TRM10, L21>DF13, England, 2204–2029 calBCE
I2478 / Tomb1, P312, Italy, 2200–1930 calBCE
I4073 / skeleton 236-M13, P312, Netherlands, 2196–1903 calBCE
I4069 / skeleton 229-M4, P312, Netherlands, 2188–1887 calBCE
I2598 / 12134, P311, England, 2140–1940 calBCE
I2569 / GENSCOT17, P312, Scotland, 2140–1916 calBCE
I2445 / SK 8633, L21 > DF13, England, 2137–1930 calBCE
I2618 / MOA 1964.2 Box 102A, L151, England, 2135–1951 calBCE
Rathlin1, L21>DF13>DF21, N Ireland, 2026–1885 BC
Rathlin2, L21>DF13, N Ireland, 2024–1741 BC

If you go by mid pt of the date ranges for first appearance of a R1b1a1a2a1a sample:
Germany: 2542 BC
France: 2433 BC
Hungary: 2335 BC
England: 2330 BC
Scotland: 2163 BC
Sweden: 2154 BC
Nethelands: 2100 BC
Italy: 2065 BC
Ireland: 1956 BC

kinman
05-19-2017, 11:41 AM
Oh yes, P312 and U106 were certainly of the same culture when they originated in the Lower Dniester River Valley. However, assuming U106 went north and P312 went west to the Danube, their cultures and languages would have diverged as they contacted different populations. Especially different pottery styles which would have been adopted as they "married" different populations of women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That map is from Jean M and the discussions on the origins of Germanic.

I'll stick with contention that the MRCAs of L151/L11/P311, P312, U106 and a handful of others were of the same culture. They are just too close, genetic distance-wise, and therefore time-wise. The answer for all three may be the Yamnaya or Vucedol or the Bell Beakers or Corded Ware. I don't know, but I think their genetic distance has to be a criteria for the solution.

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 01:59 PM
Oh yes, P312 and U106 were certainly of the same culture when they originated in the Lower Dniester River Valley. However, assuming U106 went north and P312 went west to the Danube, their cultures and languages would have diverged as they contacted different populations. Especially different pottery styles which would have been adopted as they "married" different populations of women.


You agree that P312 and U106 originated in the same culture, but then an added consideration comes into play. The direct descendants of P312 and U106 expanded rapidly and successfully. So far, we are only finding these guys west of a north-south line through the Hungarian Plains.

When Jean M map describes the "long trek" we should consider how plausible the logistics situation was for people originating along the Black Sea to quickly make it into Northern and Western Europe leaving little phylogenetic trail in their wake (so far). I wonder if L51 pre-L151 made the first part of the "long trek", putting L151 on the north, west or south side of the Carpathian Mountains.

I don't know. The Black Sea Yamnaya (east side of Carpathians) may be the origination point for L151, but he certainly had lucky lineages (P312 & U106) if they took two different routes at breakneck speed to Western and Northern Europe and used only anciently related languages.

I may be misreading the importance and time it takes for logistics and colonization, but it seems important. At least our generals think so.

Dewsloth
05-19-2017, 04:01 PM
So we have Bronze Age P312, U152, U106, L21 and DF27.
Still missing: DF99, L238, DF19 (all hiding in a kurgan-shaped Alpine Bond villain fortress).

Oldest known for U106 and each P312 subclade:

U106: Battle Axe/ Nordic LN Sweden Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98] M 2275-2032 BC
U152: I4144/RISE563 2572–2512 cal BCE, BB_Germany_BAVm (Bell Beaker Bavaria) Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany
DF27: I0806 Bell Beaker, Quedlinburg, Germany (2431-2150 BC) [this one is the subject of debate, but is at least ZZ11+]
DF19: is it really all the way out to 6DRIF23 in York (Eboracum) ~200AD?
DF99: ??
L21: I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 (The "Companion", thought to possibly be the son of the Amesbury Archer) Amesbury Down (Wiltshire, England)
L238: ??

Bring on that raw data!!

Okay, if the Companion is really the son of Amesbury Archer, then AA has to be L21, and the oldest known L21 is then really from, in the words of Wessex Archaeology "the Alps region. He was most probably from what is now Switzerland, although it is possible he could have come from areas of Germany near Switzerland, or Austria."

So oldest L21 and oldest U152 not too far from each other (neither in time nor space), and oldest DF27 a 4-day walk north in Quedlinburg.

kinman
05-19-2017, 04:43 PM
U106 and P312 were certainly lucky to have horses, which would have made their migration and success easier (and the tendency to produce more sons than daughters would have helped as well). However, I'm not sure it was at "breakneck speed" (I have predicted P312 reaching NE Austria 300-400 years after having originated in the Moldova area about 3500 B.C.). The population of P312 (and U106) would have been pretty small the first couple of centuries, so any phylogenetic signal would be small. If we get better sampling in the Lower Danube, perhaps we will get lucky and find some old P312 (maybe 3200 BC if my predictions are correct).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You agree that P312 and U106 originated in the same culture, but then an added consideration comes into play. The direct descendants of P312 and U106 expanded rapidly and successfully. So far, we are only finding these guys west of a north-south line through the Hungarian Plains.

When Jean M map describes the "long trek". We should consider how plausible the logistics situation was for people originating along the Black Sea to quickly make it into Northern and Western Europe leaving little phylogenetic trail in their wake (so far). I wonder if L51 pre-L151 made the first part of the "long trek", putting L151 on the north, west or south side of the Carpathian Mountains.

I don't know. The Black Sea Yamnaya may be the origination point for L151, but he certainly had lucky lineages (P312 & U106) if they took two different routes at breakneck speed to Western and Northern Europe and used only anciently related languages.

I may be misreading the importance and time it takes for logistics and colonization, but it seems important. At least our generals think so.

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 05:00 PM
U106 and P312 were certainly lucky to have horses, which would have made their migration and success easier (and the tendency to produce more sons than daughters would have helped as well).
There were a lot of non-R1b Corded Wares folks with horses on the north side of the Carpathians. U106 would have not had an edge there so they had to be lucky to have snaked through some how or perhaps U106 and L151 in general were just an outgrowth of Corded Wares.

The only thing I see on the horizon to give U106 an advantage is some learning from Bell Beaker East. We see that Heyd says the Bell Beakers brought a great communications network AND a new warrior focus/ethos, archery from horseback. They didn't have to fight hand to hand with the battle axe folks of Corded Wares.
Am I wrong or missing something?

Perhaps they learned from the Bell Beaker East folks or they were an outgrowth of them, but not necessarily up in Nordic lands, maybe in Southern Poland, not that far away.


However, I'm not sure it was at "breakneck speed" (I have P312 reaching NE Austria 300-400 years after having originated in the Moldova area).
I disagree with your 300-400 year timeframe which goes back to my contention about the close genetic distances of L151 to P312 and U106 and some of their direct descendants. Your 300-400 year timeframe is special pleading in my thinking. I'd personally be thrilled to see someone pop up on my Big Y results with a difference of only one or two novel SNPs. They'd almost have to have the same surname or geographic origin.

I don't have a good gauge on speed of migration and I certainly could be wrong. I am looking at this in the context of logistics and colonization processes, not just a single Pony Express rider on horseback. He'd probably have been killed out in the hinterlands. He needed a calvary for backup, which needed a supply line, fortifications, etc.


The population of P312 (and U106) would have been pretty small the first couple of centuries, so any phylogenetic signal would be small.
They were both just lucky? We know that Y DNA has to be lucky in some regards to survive, but in this case we have two Y subclades of close relationship that were both lucky in different places.


If we get better sampling in the Lower Danube, perhaps we will get lucky and find some old P312.
That's a symptom of what I mean by lucky. P312 and U106 and L151 and L51 are just plain scarce east of the Hungarian/West Carpathian ridge north-south line (so far.) For them to have been successful in Central Europe from two different routes out of the mouth of the Dniester River must have been taken a lot of luck.

kinman
05-19-2017, 05:59 PM
Early on (when their numbers were small), they (especially P312) would have had a lot of backup from their relatives who would have had larger populations (not just L51* and L151*, but probably a good number of Z2103 as well). But a lot of Z2103, instead of continuing up the Danube, probably turned their attention to crossing the Bosporus and populating Anatolia. Just another direction in which these horse-riders could expand. So were Z2103 just lucky, or did they make their own luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There were a lot of non-R1b Corded Wares folks with horses on the north side of the Carpathians. U106 would have not had an edge there so they had to be lucky to have snaked through some how or perhaps U106 and L151 in general were just an outgrowth of Corded Wares.

The only thing I see on the horizon to give U106 an advantage is some learning from Bell Beaker East. We see that Heyd says the Bell Beakers brought a great communications network AND a new warrior focus/ethos, archery from horseback. They didn't have to fight hand to hand with the battle axe folks of Corded Wares.
Am I wrong or missing something?

Perhaps they learned from the Bell Beaker East folks or they were an outgrowth of them, but not necessarily up in Nordic lands, maybe in Southern Poland, not that far away.


I disagree with your 300-400 year timeframe which goes back to my contention about the close genetic distances of L151 to P312 and U106 and some of their direct descendants. Your 300-400 year timeframe is special pleading in my thinking. I'd personally be thrilled to see someone pop up on my Big Y results with a difference of only one or two novel SNPs. They'd almost have the same surname or geographic origin.

I don't have a good gauge on speed of migration and I certainly could be wrong. I am looking at this in the context of logistics and colonization processes, not just a single Pony Express rider on horseback. He'd probably have been killed out in the hinterlands. He needed a calvary for backup, which needed a supply line, fortifications, etc.


They were both just lucky? We know that Y DNA has to be lucky in some regards to survive, but in this case we have two Y subclades of close relationship that were both lucky in different places.


That's a symptom of what I mean by lucky. P312 and U106 and L151 and L51 are just plain scarce east of the Hungarian/West Carpathian ridge north-south line (so far.) For them to have been successful in Central Europe from two different routes out of the mouth of the Dniester River must have been taken a lot of luck.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 06:05 PM
...I disagree with your 300-400 year timeframe which goes back to my contention about the close genetic distances of L151 to P312 and U106 and some of their direct descendants. Your 300-400 year timeframe is special pleading in my thinking. I'd personally be thrilled to see someone pop up on my Big Y results with a difference of only one or two novel SNPs. They'd almost have to have the same surname or geographic origin.

I don't have a good gauge on speed of migration and I certainly could be wrong. I am looking at this in the context of logistics and colonization processes, not just a single Pony Express rider on horseback. He'd probably have been killed out in the hinterlands. He needed a calvary for backup, which needed a supply line, fortifications, etc.

Maybe they were moving at "Visigothic Speed" :)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg

or "Vandal Speed"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Vandals_Migration_pt.gif/800px-Vandals_Migration_pt.gif

My guess (and that's all it is) is that L11's immediate predecessor(s) grew to a descent size somewhere in/near Western Ukraine, enabling them the ability to defend themselves before moving into "occupied" territory...maybe reaching a critical mass of people that required a migration. Otherwise they could have been easily wiped out. As there presently isn't any L11+ evidence to support a Danube route south of the Carpathians, I'm thinking L11 moved up Dniester River Valley. With at least some of them moving into Moravia and later up the Danube into Germany, and down the Danube into Hungary. U106 may have gone on north and not entered Moravia, or headed north after entering Moravia.

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 06:09 PM
Maybe they were moving at "Visogothic Speed" :)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg
Right, and look at the huge amounts of U106+ we find in Greece, Rome, the Riviera and Iberia.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S21


Early on (when their numbers were small), they (especially P312) would have had a lot of backup from their relatives who would have had larger populations (not just L51* and L151*, but probably a good number of Z2103 as well). ..
It would nice to see L51* and Z2103 as fairly thick in the Germanic homelands to back up U106 there. Instead, if anything in R1b, we see more L151 guys like DF27, L238, L21 and maybe DF19.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 06:33 PM
Right, and look at the huge amounts of U106+ we find in Greece, Rome, the Riviera and Iberia.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S21


It would nice to see L51* and Z2103 as fairly thick in the Germanic homelands to back up U106 there. Instead, if anything in R1b, we see more L151 guys like DF27, L238, L21 and maybe DF19.

You misunderstood. The top map is showing how fast the visigoths moved as a group...used as an example at how fast it could have happened based on how fast the visigoths and vandels moved...not the route of U106. I thought the dates on the map would have made that clear.

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 06:58 PM
You misunderstood. The top map is showing how fast the visigoths moved as a group...used as an example at how fast it could have happened based on how fast the visigoths and vandels moved...not the route of U106. I thought the dates on the map would have made that clear.
I understood. I'm not saying that an individual or small band couldn't move fast but that more likely you need to have colonization, support and a communications network to thrive in your new destination to swamp the locals to any degree.

The Visigoths and Vandals left a mark, but look at the difference. The mark U106 left in the Germanic homelands is huge, but the U106 in the Visigoths and Vandals only left crumbs. They were bands that became elites, not settlers. (Yes, I am assuming U106 was in the Visigoths but I could be wrong.)

Look at Roanoke in North Carolina or Jamestown in Virginia. Do we think most of the Y DNA in the USA comes from there?

Columbus' colonization efforts were not successful at first, but he and Spain kept coming back bringing more settlers, supplies or whatever. They established a successful network and support system.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 07:10 PM
I understood. I'm not saying that an individual or small band couldn't move fast but that more likely you need to have colonization, support and a communications network to thrive in your new destination to swamp the locals.

The Visigoths and Vandals left a mark, but look at the difference. The mark U106 left in the Germanic homelands is huge, but the U106 in the Visigoths and Vandals only left crumbs. They were bands that became elites, not settlers. (Yes, I am assuming U106 was in the Visigoths but I could be wrong.)

Look at Roanoke in North Carolina or Jamestown in Virginia. Do we think most of the Y DNA in the USA comes from there?

Columbus' colonization efforts were not successful at first, but he and Spain kept coming back bringing more settlers, supplies or whatever. They established a successful network and support system.

The point I was making wasn't about the genetic legacy of the Vandals and Visigoths, it solely in response to your comment
I don't have a good gauge on speed of migration

I was providing historic examples of how fast a large group could move over great distances....that's it..nothing more.

kinman
05-19-2017, 07:21 PM
Well, that is why I said "early on". After their numbers increased, they could start providing their own backup or make alliances with non-relatives. As for U106 in particular, nothing to indicate that Z2103 went north with them. But we definitely need a lot more evidence along that northerly route. Something to look forward to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It would nice to see L51* and Z2103 as fairly thick in the Germanic homelands to back up U106 there. Instead, if anything in R1b, we see more L151 guys like DF27, L238, L21 and maybe DF19.

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 07:33 PM
The point I was making wasn't about the genetic legacy of the Vandals and Visigoths, it solely in response to your comment

I was providing historic examples of how fast a large group could move over great distances....that's it..nothing more.

My apologize, I didn't put my statement, "I don't have a good gauge on speed of migration", in context of successful colonizations or migrations that left large footprints. That's what I intended. I don't know what we should expect there but I note that in the Americas the early European colonizations didn't always fare so well and much of the DNA left today is from secondary and tertiary migrations, etc.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 07:44 PM
Yes the Vandals and Visigoths are poor examples to show genetic footprint. They were relatively small groups entering a heavily populated, well establshed Roman Empire population. A better example would have been the genetic impact of the Anglo-Saxons on a relatively well populated Britain. I would imagine the Central/Eastern European Plain of the early 3rd millennium BC was sparsely populated compared to the population density of 5th Century AD Britain.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 07:47 PM
PS there's no need to apologize we were just missing each other's point

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 07:55 PM
Yes the Vandals and Visigoths are poor examples to show genetic footprint. They were relatively small groups entering a heavily populated, well establshed Roman Empire population. A better example would have been the genetic impact of the Anglo-Saxons on a relatively well populated Britain.
The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain is a good example of a successful colonization/migration. I think it started in the late 4th century AD and continued in to the 5th. What's the duration for the migration?

Perhaps we should call it an expansion instead. We can see that U106 were a major group prior to the Anglo-Saxon expansion into Britain. They left huge footprint in the Low Countries and the Nordic and Germanic homeland territories. We have no such footprint for U106 back to the east, southeast down towards the Black Sea.

The distance between the Low Countries and England is quite short versus between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.


I would imagine the Eastern European Plain was sparsely populated compared to the population density of 5th Century Britain.

I don't know. Who can help us here? Were the Corded Ware people territorial and dense enough to control their regions? They had horses and they didn't appear to be nice to the locals they came into contact with.

vettor
05-19-2017, 08:00 PM
Maybe they were moving at "Visigothic Speed" :)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg

or "Vandal Speed"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Vandals_Migration_pt.gif/800px-Vandals_Migration_pt.gif

My guess (and that's all it is) is that L11's immediate predecessor(s) grew to a descent size somewhere in/near Western Ukraine, enabling them the ability to defend themselves before moving into "occupied" territory...maybe reaching a critical mass of people that required a migration. Otherwise they could have been easily wiped out. As there presently isn't any L11+ evidence to support a Danube route south of the Carpathians, I'm thinking L11 moved up Dniester River Valley. With at least some of them moving into Moravia and later up the Danube into Germany, and down the Danube into Hungary. U106 may have gone on north and not entered Moravia, or headed north after entering Moravia.

there are difference between visigoths ( west goths whose origins are from baltic sea - balthi line ) and ostrogoths ( east goths ) who are mixed with scythians - Amal line.

Vandals are a confederation of about 10 minor east -germanic tribes that do not include the other major germanic tribes like, longobards, Burgundians, heruli etc

Visigoths went as far as iberia and north-west Africa and the ostrogoths stayed in Illyricum and italy

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 08:28 PM
The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain is a good example of a successful colonization/migration. I think it started in the late 4th century AD and continued in to the 5th. What's the duration for the migration?

Perhaps we should call it an expansion instead. We can see that U106 were a major group prior to the Anglo-Saxon expansion into Britain. They left huge footprint in the Low Countries and the Nordic and Germanic homeland territories. We have no such footprint for U106 back to the east, southeast down towards the Black Sea.

The distance between the Low Countries and England is quite short versus between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.



I don't know. Who can help us here? Were the Corded Ware people territorial and dense enough to control their regions? They had horses and they didn't appear to be nice to the locals they came into contact with.

Maybe an appropriate comparison is staring us in the face. L21-Bell Beaker's entry into Britain in the 3rd millennium BC. The Amesbury Archer was from the Alps and the genetic impact in Britain was staggering.

From the recent studies and the mid points of carbon dating we know P312 was near the Alps around 2550 BC, L21 was in southern England around 2330 BC, Scotland ~2163 BC.

~500 miles straight line from Alps to southern England, ~300 miles from southern England to Scotland. Roughly same distance (~800 miles) from Black to Baltic Sea.

Works out to about 2 miles per year.

Dewsloth
05-19-2017, 08:36 PM
Maybe an appropriate comparison is staring us in the face. L21-Bell Beaker's entry into Britain in the 3rd millennium BC. The Amesbury Archer was from the Alps and the genetic impact in Britain was staggering.

From the recent studies and the mid points of carbon dating we know P312 was near the Alps around 2550 BC, L21 was in southern England around 2330 BC, Scotland ~2163 BC, Rathlin Island off Northern Ireland Ireland: ~1956 BC.

~500 miles straight line from Alps to southern England, ~300 miles from southern England to Scotland. Roughly same distance(~800 miles) from Black to Baltic Sea.

That's kinda what I was getting at in post #72 :biggrin1:

Those guys may have had front row seats [er ... graves] for the massive population change around the same time.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 08:46 PM
That's kinda what I was getting at in post #72 :biggrin1:
Your post 72 must have been running around in my sub conscience. :)

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 09:06 PM
Maybe an appropriate comparison is staring us in the face. L21-Bell Beaker's entry into Britain in the 3rd millennium BC. The Amesbury Archer was from the Alps and the genetic impact in Britain was staggering.

From the recent studies and the mid points of carbon dating we know P312 was near the Alps around 2550 BC, L21 was in southern England around 2330 BC, Scotland ~2163 BC, Rathlin Island off Northern Ireland Ireland: ~1956 BC.

~500 miles straight line from Alps to southern England, ~300 miles from southern England to Scotland. Roughly same distance from Black to Baltic Sea.

I agree with your line of thought but with a few more facts and a different twist.

First, the distance from Oddessa on the Black Sea to Rostock, Germany is more like 1000 miles so it is not quite the same.

Second, we know the East Bell Beaker movement to the west is both archaeological attested to and laden with L21 friends (clan members) in P312. At the same time, we do have an attested expansion of Corded Wares to the Baltic but we haven't found any U106 clan members in Corded Ware, at least not paternally related. U106's support system along the north and east of the Capathians is a question mark.

Third, the genetic distance of the L21 MRCA to the P312 MRCA is more like 6-7 SNPs whereas U106 to L151 is more like 1-2. L21 had time gather build up his clan closer to home (if that was Central Europe).

Fourth, there actually is an Amesbury Archer and Companion. We don't have a Rostock Axe-man with isotope evidence from Moldova.

Instead, why not consider that U106 had a shorter distance from Austria or Slovakia to Rostock and the Baltic. The Proto-Germanic language formed later than Celtic. Proto-Germanic is a bit stranger and appears to be more of an amalgamation. I don't see the heavy need to put U106 in the initial migration of Yamnaya to the northwest to create Corded Ware. U106 could have joined half-way into the long trek that the R1a guys took to the Nordic region.

Certainly this is all speculation but you can see why Central Europe is a strong consideration for the homeland of L151.

MitchellSince1893
05-19-2017, 09:45 PM
Maybe an appropriate comparison is staring us in the face. L21-Bell Beaker's entry into Britain in the 3rd millennium BC. The Amesbury Archer was from the Alps and the genetic impact in Britain was staggering.

From the recent studies and the mid points of carbon dating we know P312 was near the Alps around 2550 BC, L21 was in southern England around 2330 BC, Scotland ~2163 BC.

~500 miles straight line from Alps to southern England, ~300 miles from southern England to Scotland. Roughly same distance (~800 miles) from Black to Baltic Sea.

Works out to about 2 miles per year.

This is what 2 miles per year looks like starting at the Black Sea Coast in 3000 BC to U106 Battle Axe site (direct 2500 BC, through, Jutland 2300 BC), past the P312 RISE563 site, towards the Quedlinburg site, and into Carpathian Basin from the north.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3f/ad/11/3fad110ead129c408cc2f49eb2f05338.png

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 09:50 PM
This is what 2 miles per year looks like from the Black Sea Coast to U106 Battle Axe site, and P312 RISE563 site and into Carpathian Basin from the north.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/5d/1f/6a5d1f539a31855495a016efbbab19f6.png

I understand but I'll stick with the contention that 500 years is too long for the L151 MRCA along the Black Sea to get his U106 descendant all the way to Baltic Sea, and possibly through unfriendly lands. For this not to be case you have to argue this genetic distance is an exception and there was a long pause in the SNPs.

However, I can agree it is quite rational that both U106 and P312 MRCAs were along side the L151 MRCA on either either the Corded Ware or the Danubian path to Central/North Central Europe.

Its a pick your poison on Italo-Celtic versus Pre-Germanic, but I don't see it as mandatory that U106 was on the start of the Pre-Germanic route since it was amalgamated language and the Proto-Germans were an almagamated people; R1a, R1b-U106, I1 and, yes, R1b-P312 elements too plus a few farmer and HG types.
... and we know the East Bell Beakers and the Corded Ware folks overlapped in Poland.

rms2
05-19-2017, 10:25 PM
At some point U106 and P312 split enough to produce noticeably different distributions, with the former becoming strongly correlated with Germanic speakers, and the latter becoming strongly associated with Italo-Celtic speakers.

The BB results from Olalde et al only reinforce this view. The lone U106 they found looks unlikely to have been a BB result.

Remember that a lot of the P312 in Germanic lands today likely descends from Celtic speakers caught by die Völkerwanderung behind enemy lines.

rms2
05-19-2017, 10:33 PM
Okay, if the Companion is really the son of Amesbury Archer, then AA has to be L21, and the oldest known L21 is then really from, in the words of Wessex Archaeology "the Alps region. He was most probably from what is now Switzerland, although it is possible he could have come from areas of Germany near Switzerland, or Austria."

So oldest L21 and oldest U152 not too far from each other (neither in time nor space), and oldest DF27 a 4-day walk north in Quedlinburg.

Exactly. I hope the reason they did not include the Archer in the Olalde et al paper is because they are planning to release a big paper that features his entire genome, a la Ötzi.

If he is L21+, I will dance a horn pipe (or my best facsimile of one).

TigerMW
05-19-2017, 11:03 PM
At some point U106 and P312 split enough to produce noticeably different distributions, with the former becoming strongly correlated with Germanic speakers, and the latter becoming strongly associated with Italo-Celtic speakers.

The BB results from Olalde et al only reinforce this view. The lone U106 they found looks unlikely to have been a BB result.



Remember that a lot of the P312 in Germanic lands today likely descends from Celtic speakers caught by die Völkerwanderung behind enemy lines.
But not necessarily all, which means some forms of P312 may have been along side U106. Their modern population sizes doesn't distract from an ancient connection. L238 is the prime example, but there may be others.

I'm just re-asserting that L151, P312 and U106 were probably all of the same culture at some point, whatever that culture was. If it was Black Sea Yamnaya, it's a long trek splitting both sides of the Carpathians before their great expansions far from home.

Dewsloth
05-19-2017, 11:08 PM
But not necessarily all, which means some forms of P312 may have been along side U106. Their modern population sizes doesn't distract from an ancient connection. L238 is the prime example, but there may be others.

I'm just re-asserting that L151, P312 and U106 were probably all of the same culture at some point, whatever that culture was. If it was Black Sea Yamnaya, it's a long trek splitting both sides of the Carpathians before their great expansions far from home.

As Gandalf said about the Palantír, "They are not all accounted for." ;)

rms2
05-19-2017, 11:11 PM
L238 is really the only P312 clade that looks non-Celtic. The rest look like they were probably originally Celtic. Some of DF19, DF99, DF27, and U152 in Germanic lands look like they were Celts caught by the Germanic migration, just as much of L21 in what is now England was.

lgmayka
05-20-2017, 01:27 AM
L238 is really the only P312 clade that looks non-Celtic.
Perhaps you recall that JeanM paid for the Big Y of the Polish #109663, the earliest known offshoot of R-L238. We await his Big Y results with bated breath.

kinman
05-20-2017, 01:50 AM
Hi Mitchell,
Very interesting map, although I obviously believe future discoveries will add several hundred years to those dates. Anyway, if older P312 is found in southern Poland, that would tend to favor this more northerly route. However, I strongly believe that the older P312 remains will instead be found along the lower Danube. Only time and more sampling will tell. You might want to add the early L2 in southeastern France to this map, as it shows the same time range as the P312 in Hungary (although I obviously believe far older P312 will be found in Hungary). At 2 miles per year, the record in France would make the time estimates in Germany and Hungary seem too young.
Whether P312 went north of the Carpathians or up the Danube from the Black Sea, that area in northeastern Austria is common to both scenarios, and that is where I believe U152 was born (but perhaps closer to 3100 BC than to 2600 BC). NOTE: Just as in the fossil record of animals and plants, the age of the oldest known fossil is very often just a minimum date. And then along come a fossil much older that shatters the previous dating. The question is whether the older P312 remains will be found in the lower Danube or instead north of the Carpathians (perhaps in southern Poland).
-----------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------


This is what 2 miles per year looks like starting at the Black Sea Coast in 3000 BC to U106 Battle Axe site (direct 2500 BC, through, Jutland 2300 BC), past the P312 RISE563 site, towards the Quedlinburg site, and into Carpathian Basin from the north.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3f/ad/11/3fad110ead129c408cc2f49eb2f05338.png

TigerMW
05-20-2017, 01:57 AM
L238 is really the only P312 clade that looks non-Celtic. The rest look like they were probably originally Celtic. Some of DF19, DF99, DF27, and U152 in Germanic lands look like they were Celts caught by the Germanic migration, just as much of L21 in what is now England was.
We don't know. The DF19 guys* (see below) think they are Germanic but we have to find more ancient DNA. They might be right. They may not.

DF99 is about the wildest thing around. It is all over the place for a small subclade.

DF27 is found in Scandinavia over to Poland too. Remember that it and U152 are old.

There is a broader point. Proto-Germanic looks like it came later than Italo-Celtic.

We don't know what dialects the various Bell Beaker groups spoke but they could have had some input in to one of the Pre-Germanic components.

There is also S1194, the 3rd son of L151, which has a bit of Dutch (modern) bent.

* DF19 project: (BTW, YFull has the TMRCA at 4400 ybp so right back there with P312)
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-df19/about

DF19 is a SNP mutation that defines one of the smaller subclades below R-P312, which is the most common Y-haplogroup in Western Europe (DF19 may be as large as 6-10% of all R-P312). The DF19 mutation most likely happened in a R-P312* man who was born in southern Scandinavia or possibly the northern German coastal region, presumably somewhere between 700 and 300 BC. Shortly after the origin of DF19, the R-DF19 haplogroup was already divided into two major subclades, characterised by the DF88 and Z302 mutations, respectively. During later centuries, the male descendants of the DF19 ancestor could be found among the northern and western Germanic tribes that spread out across Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries. At the time of the great migrations (4th – 6th century AD) the DF19 mutation was most likely present in all major Germanic tribes in that area, alongside other YDNA-Haplogroups such as R-U106, I1 and R-L238. The mass migrations of the Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians have likely been responsible for a first geographic spread of DF19 and its subclades towards the British Isles and across Western Europe. Through the southward expansion of the Saxons, the Franks and later the Vikings, Y-chromosomes carrying the DF19 mutation also started appearing in the rest of Western and Central Europe.

kinman
05-20-2017, 02:50 AM
Why do you think L-238 looks "non-Celtic". I'm not even sure what "non-Celtic" means. I assume it would not include proto-Celtic, but what about proto-Italo-Celtic (would it be non-Celtic because it was before proto-Celtic split from proto-Italian)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


L238 is really the only P312 clade that looks non-Celtic. The rest look like they were probably originally Celtic. Some of DF19, DF99, DF27, and U152 in Germanic lands look like they were Celts caught by the Germanic migration, just as much of L21 in what is now England was.

MitchellSince1893
05-20-2017, 04:50 AM
Why do you think L-238 looks "non-Celtic". I'm not even sure what "non-Celtic" means. I assume it would not include proto-Celtic, but what about proto-Italo-Celtic (would it be non-Celtic because it was before proto-Celtic split from proto-Italian)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L238 is mostly located in Norway, Sweden, and to a lesser degree Finland.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L238?iframe=ymap

MitchellSince1893
05-20-2017, 06:01 AM
Hi Mitchell,
Very interesting map, although I obviously believe future discoveries will add several hundred years to those dates. Anyway, if older P312 is found in southern Poland, that would tend to favor this more northerly route. However, I strongly believe that the older P312 remains will instead be found along the lower Danube. Only time and more sampling will tell. You might want to add the early L2 in southeastern France to this map, as it shows the same time range as the P312 in Hungary (although I obviously believe far older P312 will be found in Hungary). At 2 miles per year, the record in France would make the time estimates in Germany and Hungary seem too young.
Whether P312 went north of the Carpathians or up the Danube from the Black Sea, that area in northeastern Austria is common to both scenarios, and that is where I believe U152 was born (but perhaps closer to 3100 BC than to 2600 BC). NOTE: Just as in the fossil record of animals and plants, the age of the oldest known fossil is very often just a minimum date. And then along come a fossil much older that shatters the previous dating. The question is whether the older P312 remains will be found in the lower Danube or instead north of the Carpathians (perhaps in southern Poland).
-----------------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Like my previous Visigothic and Vandal maps, this map was just a quick exercise to help visualize what a 2 miles per year pace would look like, and to not to suggest what really happened.

It is an interesting exercise to look at the small branches of L151 and P312 on yfull (and bigtree for P312) and note where they are from, and where they aren't presently showing up (yes I know they are found in more places than what shows up on yfull and bigtree

L151 small branches
R-A8039: Ireland
R-A8051: Germany, Scotland
R-S1200: Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Germany
R-S14328: Britain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands

When you look at those small P312 branches on Yfull and bigtree
R-Y18209: Sample from Britain
R-DF99: Sample from Peru (assume it's originally Spain), Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Portugal, Poland. E. France.
R-DF19: Britain, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland,
L238: Britain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland,
ZZ37: Scotland, Ireland, Germany
A9063: Britain

Mostly in Western Europe.

It's tempting to ask what original locations for L151 and P312 would lead to this type of distribution? I know the approach is fraught with danger as so much has happened in the intervening centuries, but based only on the distribution; a north of the Black Sea starting point, wouldn't appear to be an obvious choice...maybe it was further west?

kinman
05-20-2017, 12:55 PM
Thanks Mitchell,
That is very interesting, especially the small branches of P312. Germany seems to be where they branched out, and I predict there will be more Austria in the future (since I believe Austria is where U152 and its brothers originated).

And even though L238 is now mostly in Scandinavia, I think the German and Austrian samples indicate that it was originally Italo-Celtic, but since it went north to Scandinavia, it didn't become as "Celtic" as many of its brother clades who went further up the Danube to the Rhine. It looks like some DF99 went up the Rhine and then to Italy and Spain, while other DF99 went either down the Rhine or across northern France and then across to England. Very similar to the pattern of U152.
-------------Ken
P.S. Since I still favor the "up the Danube" route for P312, an origin near the Black Sea (lower Dniester River area) makes the most sense to me. The small branches of L151 could have easily taken the same route (up the Danube to the Rhine). I don't yet know anything about the various branches of U106, but for the time being I am sticking with the idea that they went up the Dniester and north of the Carpathians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like my previous Visigothic and Vandal maps, this map was just a quick exercise to help visualize what a 2 miles per year pace would look like, and to not to suggest what really happened.

It is an interesting exercise to look at the small branches of L151 and P312 on yfull (and bigtree for P312) and note where they are from, and where they aren't presently showing up (yes I know they are found in more places than what shows up on yfull and bigtree

L151 small branches
R-A8039: Ireland
R-A8051: Germany, Scotland
R-S1200: Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Germany
R-S14328: Britain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands

When you look at those small P312 branches on Yfull and bigtree
R-Y18209: Sample from Britain
R-DF99: Sample from Peru (assume it's originally Spain), Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Portugal, Poland. E. France.
R-DF19: Britain, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland,
L238: Britain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland,
ZZ37: Scotland, Ireland, Germany
A9063: Britain

Mostly in Western Europe.

It's tempting to ask what original locations for L151 and P312 would lead to this type of distribution? I know the approach is fraught with danger as so much has happened in the intervening centuries, but based only on the distribution; a north of the Black Sea starting point, wouldn't appear to be an obvious choice...maybe it was further west?

rms2
05-21-2017, 03:54 PM
. . .

And even though L238 is now mostly in Scandinavia, I think the German and Austrian samples indicate that it was originally Italo-Celtic, but since it went north to Scandinavia, it didn't become as "Celtic" as many of its brother clades who went further up the Danube to the Rhine . . .

The reason I said L238 looks non-Celtic is that it probably got to Scandinavia with the little bit of Bell Beaker that trickled in there before speech that was fully Celtic existed. Yes, if BBs were speaking an early form of Italo-Celtic, then L238 BBs were speaking it too, but they got swamped by the line of linguistic evolution that eventually led to Germanic and became Germanic speakers probably with the very first Germanic speakers, or nearly so.

All that would make them non-Celtic, since they probably never did speak Celtic and were never a part of Celtic culture.

I would have been more correct to say I think the other P312 clades were Italo-Celtic, but I was driving at the impact of die Völkerwanderung in making Germans out of what were once Celtic peoples. The same thing happened in what is now England. Many L21 Britons adopted the speech and culture of the invading Anglo-Saxons and were Germanized into Englishmen.

Romilius
05-21-2017, 04:16 PM
Probably a little off-topic, but it is again about language and origins of R1b: I gave a look to Maju's blog... it seems he sticks with his theories and believes that R-P312 was born in France and spoke vasconic. Given that, it seems also that Maju will abandon his blog in summer... I wonder why...

rms2
05-21-2017, 04:18 PM
Probably a little off-topic, but it is again about language and origins of R1b: I gave a look to Maju's blog... it seems he sticks with his theories and believes that R-P312 was born in France and spoke vasconic. Given that, it seems also that Maju will abandon his blog in summer... I wonder why...

Yikes!

As I recall, he was (or is) one of the last holdouts for the R1b FC Ice Age refuge.

rms2
05-21-2017, 09:11 PM
Yikes!

As I recall, he was (or is) one of the last holdouts for the R1b FC Ice Age refuge.

I remember a few years ago when the R1b FC Ice Age refuge was first coming under serious fire. At both dna forums and on Rootsweb there were more than a few personalities who were very pugnacious in its defense. It must have been hard for them to see what was obviously a treasured belief like that go under.

I've seen a couple of them publicly admit they were wrong in a very straightforward, courageous, and admirable manner. David Faux comes to mind as one of those.

MitchellSince1893
05-21-2017, 09:33 PM
Unless your a professional archaeologist or geneticist with years of your life work invested in a theory I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks to admit they are wrong when new evidence comes out.

Your typical online poster does this as a hobby. Must be an ego thing....people's self worth/view of themselves tied to always being right?
If I'm ever wrong I'm a failure I dunno. I don't get it.

Thomas Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts before finally inventing the light bulb.

I view it as throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. I thought the Danube route was most likely for L11, now I'm not so sure based on new data. I thought ancient U152 was relatively stationary, slowing expanding from a core area in Central Europe. That now appears unlikely based on locations of the ancient U152>L2 samples.

Life goes on and I keep brainstorming.

rms2
05-21-2017, 09:39 PM
Unless your a professional archaeologist or geneticist with years of your life work invested in a theory I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks to admit they are wrong when new evidence comes out.

Your typical online poster does this as a hobby. Must be an ego thing....people's self worth/view of themselves tied to always being right? " If I'm ever wrong I'm a failure?" I dunno. I don't get it.

Thomas Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts before finally inventing the light bulb.

I view it as throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. I thought the Danube route was most likely for L11, now I'm not so sure based on new data. I thought ancient U152 was relatively stationary, slowing expanding from a core area in Central Europe. That now appears unlikely based on locations of the ancient U152>L2 samples.

Life goes on and I keep brainstorming.

Well, some folks have some pretty strong motivation for their arguments beyond personal ego, ethnic pride and nationalism among them. My ancestral homeland (Wales) was never really in the running for the official Urheimat of R1b, so that left me free to go with what I thought looked likely.

Maju, I think, is a Basque, so that may have been a factor.

MitchellSince1893
05-22-2017, 12:51 AM
Well, some folks have some pretty strong motivation for their arguments beyond personal ego, ethnic pride and nationalism among them. My ancestral homeland (Wales) was never really in the running for the official Urheimat of R1b, so that left me free to go with what I thought looked likely.

Maju, I think, is a Basque, so that may have been a factor.

Yes, as an American mutt, I tend to forget the importance some Old World folks place on claiming ownership culture X. It a source pride that seems "foreign" to many Americans.

rms2
05-26-2017, 11:35 PM
Okay, we have Villabruna just north of the headwaters of the Adriatic about 14k years ago. We have some R1b at the Iron Gates on the Danube and in Latvia in the Mesolithic Period. We also have R1b in Ukraine at Vasil'evka in the Mesolithic. None of this is very western.

Then R1b apparently disappears from the Balkans in the Neolithic. Thus far it has not been found in LBK or subsequently in the Balkans during the Neolithic.

But there it is in Ukraine on the Pontic steppe in plenty in the Sredny Stog culture at Dereivka. Remember it was there already at Vasil'evka in the Mesolithic.

16317

Sredny Stog is often associated with the domestication of the horse and with early Indo-European. Connect that with the fact that R1b-L23 and its two major clades, Z2103 and L51, show up in two of the main players in the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, and I think it argues for a Pontic steppe origin for R1b-L23.

rms2
05-27-2017, 01:48 AM
Okay, we have Villabruna just north of the headwaters of the Adriatic about 14k years ago. We have some R1b at the Iron Gates on the Danube and in Latvia in the Mesolithic Period. We also have R1b in Ukraine at Vasil'evka in the Mesolithic. None of this is very western.

Then R1b apparently disappears from the Balkans in the Neolithic. Thus far it has not been found in LBK or subsequently in the Balkans during the Neolithic.

But there it is in Ukraine on the Pontic steppe in plenty in the Sredny Stog culture at Dereivka. Remember it was there already at Vasil'evka in the Mesolithic.

16317

Sredny Stog is often associated with the domestication of the horse and with early Indo-European. Connect that with the fact that R1b-L23 and its two major clades, Z2103 and L51, show up in two of the main players in the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, and I think it argues for a Pontic steppe origin for R1b-L23.

BTW, I think the Ukrainian results, especially the Sredny Stog results, may be the most significant R1b results yet. Sredny Stog could be the fountainhead of Indo-European. There was also at least one R1a result among the Sredny Stog results at Dereivka. I agree with Davidski about patrilocality. That is why you will see different tribes with different dominant y haplogroups, mainly R1b, R1a, and I2a, among the early Indo-Europeans.

TigerMW
05-30-2017, 05:54 PM
While the work of Jef & Iain is not yet ready for "prime-time", the following are their most recent age estimates for P311, U106 & P312. It is possible the bugs they are working on may cause some adjustment to these dates.

Clade Best guess 95% confidence interval (CI)
P311 3170 BC (3994 BC — 2600 BC)
U106 3021 BC (3652 BC — 2491 BC)
P312 2911 BC (3519 BC — 2424 BC)

Thank you, Raymond W. Do Iain M and Jeff T post this on the U106 group files or in the Big Tree?

What does he have for L2, DF27, DF99, DF19, Z290 and L21?

Wing Genealogist
05-30-2017, 08:13 PM
Thank you, Raymond W. Do Iain M and Jeff T post this on the U106 group files or in the Big Tree?

What does he have for L2, DF27, DF99, DF19, Z290 and L21?

They still are working on some bugs in some P312 subclades which they believe are affecting the age estimates results. As such, he has not released any of the results for the P312 portion yet.

I had spoken with Iain about getting in touch with some of the other admins (such as yourself) prior to releasing this data to the public. Hopefully, he is planning on doing so.

rms2
06-25-2017, 10:08 PM
How about this map for the LGM? Is that about right? What details should be added?

17201

Earl Davis
06-26-2017, 10:51 AM
Sorry guys I promise I did read through all of this thread last month but I have forgotten already so did we actually get anywhere on identifying any downstream snips that these ancient samples tested for?

Earl.

rms2
06-26-2017, 11:55 AM
Sorry guys I promise I did read through all of this thread last month but I have forgotten already so did we actually get anywhere on identifying any downstream snips that these ancient samples tested for?

Earl.

Not yet, except Genetiker apparently identified a V88 equivalent that pops up several times in the results of one of those Mesolithic R1bs from the Iron Gates in Romania. So, he was either R1b-V88 or pre-V88.

rms2
06-26-2017, 12:46 PM
Not yet, except Genetiker apparently identified a V88 equivalent that pops up several times in the results of one of those Mesolithic R1bs from the Iron Gates in Romania. So, he was either R1b-V88 or pre-V88.

Here (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-sc1/) is the link.

kinman
06-26-2017, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't put R1b and R1a so far west at that time. I would put them nearer the Sea of Azov (i.e. closer to the Caucasus).


How about this map for the LGM? Is that about right? What details should be added?

17201

rms2
06-27-2017, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't put R1b and R1a so far west at that time. I would put them nearer the Sea of Azov (i.e. closer to the Caucasus).

You could be right, but where they are on the map is supposed to represent a kind of large range of LGM refuge wherein hunter-gatherers wandered, not a precise location bounded by the letters/numbers R1b and R1a.

We do have Villabruna as far west as the headwaters of the Adriatic, then there are those Mesolithic R1bs near the Iron Gates in Romania, and the Mesolithic R1b at Vasil'evka in Ukraine.

I probably should have drawn some arrows indicating that R1b and R1a HGs ranged all over that area hunting steppe bison and woolly mammoth.

TigerMW
06-27-2017, 03:37 AM
You could be right, but where they are on the map is supposed to represent a kind of large range of LGM refuge wherein hunter-gatherers wandered, not a precise location bounded by the letters R1b and R1a.

We do have Villabruna as far west as the headwaters of the Adriatic, then there are those Mesolithic R1bs near the Iron Gates in Romania, and the Mesolithic R1b at Vasil'evka in Ukraine.

I probably should have drawn some arrows indicating that R1b and R1a HGs ranged all over that area hunting steppe bison and woolly mammoth.

It seems that all of haplogroup P, both R and Q had an affinity to bison and mammoth hunting... and tolerance for colder climates. I was just at the very good zoo in Omaha and saw a statue of full sized Woolly and Columbian Mammoths. The elephants had nothing on them.


When Mammoths Roamed the Earth

Mammoths first sprang up in Asia around 1.6 million years ago and gave rise to various species. Animals that moved into Europe and Asia were called steppe mammoths. These evolved into woolly mammoths, which were about 11 feet tall and weighed 6-8 tons.
The mammoths discovered in Nebraska were Columbian mammoths. These were bigger than their woolly cousins: up to 13 feet tall and 8-10 tons heavy. Columbian mammoths were descended from Mammuthus meridionalis, the ancestral mammoth species that first crossed into North America via the Bering Land Bridge about a million years ago.
Columbian mammoths had tusks that could be 9 feet long or more. They had flat teeth for grinding grass, munching on as much as 700 pounds of vegetation a day.
Columbian mammoths had a lifespan of 60 to 80 years.
Mammoths are not the ancestors of modern elephants, though they are closely related. Mammoths evolved around the same time as elephants but died out sooner.
Mammoths went extinct about 11,000 years ago. Many scientists believe dramatic climate change and over-hunting by humans were to blame.
Mammoths lived during the Ice Age, which lasted from 1.65 million years ago to 10,000 years ago. Three layers of hair and about four inches of fat kept them warm.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5173078

I suspect the development teamwork and leadership skills required to kill these things and live in the cold were long term assets.

kinman
06-27-2017, 12:46 PM
I am unclear what time period this map is supposed to represent. Deglaciation after the LGM began about 20,000 years ago. If that is the time period this map is showing, even the Villabruna R1b has plenty of time to go west from places like far eastern Ukraine. And R1b was fairly young at that time so its population would have been small and perhaps not have spread much from its birth place. If this map is supposed to be dated 14,000 years ago or later, then the glaciation shown might not be accurate.


You could be right, but where they are on the map is supposed to represent a kind of large range of LGM refuge wherein hunter-gatherers wandered, not a precise location bounded by the letters/numbers R1b and R1a.

We do have Villabruna as far west as the headwaters of the Adriatic, then there are those Mesolithic R1bs near the Iron Gates in Romania, and the Mesolithic R1b at Vasil'evka in Ukraine.

I probably should have drawn some arrows indicating that R1b and R1a HGs ranged all over that area hunting steppe bison and woolly mammoth.

rms2
06-27-2017, 01:16 PM
I am unclear what time period this map is supposed to represent. Deglaciation after the LGM began about 20,000 years ago. If that is the time period this map is showing, even the Villabruna R1b has plenty of time to go west from places like far eastern Ukraine. And R1b was fairly young at that time so its population would have been small and perhaps not have spread much from its birth place. If this map is supposed to be dated 14,000 years ago or later, then the glaciation shown might not be accurate.

Villabruna did go west, since R1b did not originate in NE Italy, however, we have to go with the ancient y-dna evidence we actually have, which suggests a SE European LGM refuge for R1b, which includes Ukraine and the Balkans.

Like I said, we're talking about a large area ranged over by hunter-gatherers, which, based on the evidence, extended from Villabruna in the west to the Sok River in the east.

The point of the map is not to depict the precise extent of glaciation. A blank map of Europe would have suited the purpose, which was to depict, in general terms, the European LGM refuges. The time period depicted is the LGM. I don't think we know enough to get really precise with exactly where a little band of R1b hunter-gatherers was at any finely known interval.

rms2
06-27-2017, 01:43 PM
Maybe this is a little better and temporally more precise, since it is supposed to be an approximation of the situation during the Younger Dryas. Again, the positions of the haplogroups have to be considered as signifying large areas ranged over by small bands of hunter-gatherers.

17225

kinman
06-27-2017, 04:24 PM
Yes,
I like that one. And eastern Ukraine would be half way between Villabruna and the Sok River. I used to think R1b originated "in or near western Kazakhstan". I think I now prefer a little further to the west: "in or near eastern Ukraine".

However, I still think haplogroup R originated much further east in the area of Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan. Haplogroup R1 is harder to pin down, and could have originated anywhere in between Tajikistan and eastern Ukraine.


Maybe this is a little better and temporally more precise, since it is supposed to be an approximation of the situation during the Younger Dryas. Again, the positions of the haplogroups have to be considered as signifying large areas ranged over by small bands of hunter-gatherers.

17225

vettor
06-27-2017, 06:24 PM
Maybe this is a little better and temporally more precise, since it is supposed to be an approximation of the situation during the Younger Dryas. Again, the positions of the haplogroups have to be considered as signifying large areas ranged over by small bands of hunter-gatherers.

17225

you should also have R1b in NE-Turkey and also I2a in hungary as the recent italian papers states that I2a in north-italy is the same as in Hungary

vettor
06-27-2017, 06:27 PM
Yes,
I like that one. And eastern Ukraine would be half way between Villabruna and the Sok River. I used to think R1b originated "in or near western Kazakhstan". I think I now prefer a little further to the west: "in or near eastern Ukraine".

However, I still think haplogroup R originated much further east in the area of Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan. Haplogroup R1 is harder to pin down, and could have originated anywhere in between Tajikistan and eastern Ukraine.

The R does not match what scholars state that it is a SE-Asian origin ( karafet papers )

I think R1 would be Tajikistan to Turkmenistan areas as its origin

Joe B
06-27-2017, 07:25 PM
It seems that all of haplogroup P, both R and Q had an affinity to bison and mammoth hunting... and tolerance for colder climates. I was just at the very good zoo in Omaha and saw a statue of full sized Woolly and Columbian Mammoths. The elephants had nothing on them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5173078

I suspect the development teamwork and leadership skills required to kill these things and live in the cold were long term assets.
The term "meat locker savannahs" from a Spencer Wells Ted Talk has always stuck with me. Killing a mammoth would be challenging and rewarding. Defending the kill must've been something else. Although much later, dessert kites are interesting killing machines. Maybe funneling techniques were used for the megafauna.
Giant ‘Arrows’ Seen From Space Point to a Vanished World
In the remote heart of Asia, ancient hunting traps hint at ghostly animal herds and boundless human appetites.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/desert-kites-out-of-eden-walk-uzbekistan-iron-age-saiga/

rms2
06-27-2017, 07:25 PM
Yes,
I like that one. And eastern Ukraine would be half way between Villabruna and the Sok River. I used to think R1b originated "in or near western Kazakhstan". I think I now prefer a little further to the west: "in or near eastern Ukraine".

However, I still think haplogroup R originated much further east in the area of Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan. Haplogroup R1 is harder to pin down, and could have originated anywhere in between Tajikistan and eastern Ukraine.

Of course, one has to remember that my map has little to do really with the place of origin of those haplogroups. It's just about where they probably were during the last Ice Age/Younger Dryas.