PDA

View Full Version : Corded Ware origin for P312?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Gravetto-Danubian
07-14-2017, 11:32 PM
The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates -
At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.
During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

I would say the possibility that best fits with this is that Corded Ware developed wholly within R1a areas, although perhaps some P312 & U106 adopted it when they moved into these areas. It looks to me like Corded Ware might have collapsed with R1a being chased Eastwards. P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99) did not seem to adopt it, so it does not really look like a P312 phenomenon.

The idea that BB was a 'reaction against' CWC is still the vogue amongst archaeologists (pre-Olalde paper, at least). We should note however, that some CWC (in Bavaria and central Poland) were R1b, so the categorization isn't quite clear cut..

kinman
07-15-2017, 01:08 AM
I don't understand why you have L51 moving eastwards. I thought that the highest STR variance of U152 was from Slovakia and up the Danube to southern Germany. This makes Bratislava a likely area where U152 was born.

Then it moved up the Danube to the Rhine and went north, west, and south from there. Many of U152's brother clades likely followed similar paths westwards.


The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates -
At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.
During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

I would say the possibility that best fits with this is that Corded Ware developed wholly within R1a areas, although perhaps some P312 & U106 adopted it when they moved into these areas. It looks to me like Corded Ware might have collapsed with R1a being chased Eastwards. P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99) did not seem to adopt it, so it does not really look like a P312 phenomenon.

epp
07-15-2017, 09:47 AM
I don't understand why you have L51 moving eastwards. I thought that the highest STR variance of U152 was from Slovakia and up the Danube to southern Germany. This makes Bratislava a likely area where U152 was born.
Possibly - but it wasn't the case in the FTDNA data that I analysed.


Then it moved up the Danube to the Rhine and went north, west, and south from there. Many of U152's brother clades likely followed similar paths westwards.
My analysis indicates U152 as the most easterly of the P312 subclades - it shows the brother clades moving north, west and south, but from a most likely start point in Northern France.

epp
07-15-2017, 09:58 AM
The idea that BB was a 'reaction against' CWC is still the vogue amongst archaeologists (pre-Olalde paper, at least). We should note however, that some CWC (in Bavaria and central Poland) were R1b, so the categorization isn't quite clear cut..
A possibility is that surviving R1a-M417 collaborated with advancing R1b (perhaps acquiring a form of Indo-European language from it), but with later conflict resulting in a branch of M417 fleeing South Eastwards.

epp
07-15-2017, 12:23 PM
Do you have an opinion on when in this process L238 moved north?

EDIT: For anyone unfamiliar with L238:

17557
I've done very little work on L238, but a limited version of the same process gives a most likely of first millennium BC from Britain (i.e. no link with Corded Ware appears indicated).

kinman
07-15-2017, 12:50 PM
Here is a quote from David Faux indicating highest STR variance of U152 in Slovakia and Germany (and that U152 probably spread west from that area):

”Of interest is the fact that while R-U152 has a clear French-Italian center of weight, the
locations exhibiting highest STR variance are Germany and Slovakia, i.e., Central
Europe. My guess is that R-U152 originated in Central Europe spreading to the west and
south, perhaps with Italo-Celtic speakers or some subset thereof. In its home territory of
Central Europe, its frequency decreased by the introduction of the Germanic and Slavic
speaking elements which dominate the region."

http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Resources.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Possibly - but it wasn't the case in the FTDNA data that I analysed.


My analysis indicates U152 as the most easterly of the P312 subclades - it shows the brother clades moving north, west and south, but from a most likely start point in Northern France.

alan
07-15-2017, 12:55 PM
Any theory that P312 was a minority lineage among a largely R1a CW population immediately raises another headache as the CW culture stretched from NW Ukraine tithe Rhine. However, I still believe the genesis of the P312 beaker culture did invoke contact with SW European influences.

alan
07-15-2017, 01:16 PM
Another thing that really needs explained is this. If P312 is 5000 years old but the P312 beaker culture is c 4500 years old, how do we explain that beaker so far is dominated by U152 and L21 and P312 of undetermined clade. The chances of 2 or 3 lineages with a common ancestor 5 centuries earlier dominating a culture is almost nil unless they had

A All remained in a confined area for 5 centuries

OR

B A network linking scattered P312 lineages had been set up several centuries earlier (say c 3000-2800BC) by Mr P312 or an early descendant and had continued to function until southwesrern influences were absorbed c 2550BC and spread through the network.

epp
07-15-2017, 03:34 PM
I'm really interested in this. If it's not too much trouble (I would like to try your procedure on some U152 SNP blocks), could you walk me through it?

1. I assume your data source is something like the FTDNA P312 project, and that you filter within a SNP block by the country column?

2. When you divide the samples into two groups (within a block) what criteria are you using to group...specifically how are you doing this so I could replicate?

Maybe I could give you a section of the U152 project and you could walk me through it? For example the

U152> L2> Z258,Z367,Z384> L20 et al. (.Please order CTS9733 or Z1910 or Z291 or BY3586 or BY3598 or BY5690 or the R1b-Z367 SNPs pack or BigY)

section on the first page of this link towards the bottom (with default 500 line setting) https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152?iframe=yresults.
It can be a tortuous process! The data source is whichever FTDNA project has the most data (sometimes I use more than one project). I only use samples with confirmed SNPs, broken down as per ISOGG classifications & any other classifications that I can personally verify from the data. I do not filter by country.

The U152 project has 195 confirmed L20 samples, so to analyse it is a big job. A simpler example is your own SNP FGC12401, of which FTDNA has only 7 confirmed samples. You need to run the STRs for these samples through a variance program, then divide the samples into two groups so as to maximise the average variance between the groups, then divide down each of these groups in the same way. If you look at the geographical splits between each mini-group, you can assess the most likely range of geographical location for the branching point.

The samples divide as follows:
Wheatley & Roberts v. Daku, Riccio, Adamthwaite, Guess & Mitchell
with group 2 divided Daku, Riccio v. Adamthwaite, Guess & Mitchell
So the 'most likely' origin point for FGC12401 as a whole is Britain.

The initial split variance is quite large, suggesting a likely early branching date. As this is only a small sample, the results will be not be very reliable (either in terms of dating or geography) and will need combining with other related test results, but it illustrates the basic principle.

However, if you go upstream one level, the results are similar - again, British origin, with an even earlier branching point, so this gives me more confidence in an early North West European origin for this SNP.

epp
07-15-2017, 03:53 PM
Here is a quote from David Faux indicating highest STR variance of U152 in Slovakia and Germany (and that U152 probably spread west from that area):

”Of interest is the fact that while R-U152 has a clear French-Italian center of weight, the
locations exhibiting highest STR variance are Germany and Slovakia, i.e., Central
Europe. My guess is that R-U152 originated in Central Europe spreading to the west and
south, perhaps with Italo-Celtic speakers or some subset thereof. In its home territory of
Central Europe, its frequency decreased by the introduction of the Germanic and Slavic
speaking elements which dominate the region."

http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Resources.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is hard to assess this, as there is no supporting data for the assertion; but my data analysis provides a similar conclusion - estimating an origin point in Southern Germany.

I note that the author only describes his conclusion as a "guess".

Gravetto-Danubian
07-15-2017, 04:09 PM
A possibility is that surviving R1a-M417 collaborated with advancing R1b (perhaps acquiring a form of Indo-European language from it), but with later conflict resulting in a branch of M417 fleeing South Eastwards.

Which branch would that be ?

Generalissimo
07-15-2017, 04:17 PM
A possibility is that surviving R1a-M417 collaborated with advancing R1b (perhaps acquiring a form of Indo-European language from it), but with later conflict resulting in a branch of M417 fleeing South Eastwards.

There's nothing like this in ancient DNA or archeology. You're coming up with some very strange narratives devoid of any reason.

parasar
07-15-2017, 04:43 PM
There's nothing like this in ancient DNA or archeology. You're coming up with some very strange narratives devoid of any reason.

It may be wrong, but it is not devoid of reason. We may have to implicate R1a (and perhaps R1b too) only in the spread of IE not its origin. If the early Hittites and Greeks did not have R1b or R1a we would have to come up with new narratives anyway. Don't you think the Reich group talks in terms of LPIE for a reason?

MitchellSince1893
07-15-2017, 04:43 PM
It can be a tortuous process! The data source is whichever FTDNA project has the most data (sometimes I use more than one project). I only use samples with confirmed SNPs, broken down as per ISOGG classifications & any other classifications that I can personally verify from the data. I do not filter by country.

The U152 project has 195 confirmed L20 samples, so to analyse it is a big job. A simpler example is your own SNP FGC12401, of which FTDNA has only 7 confirmed samples. You need to run the STRs for these samples through a variance program, then divide the samples into two groups so as to maximise the average variance between the groups, then divide down each of these groups in the same way. If you look at the geographical splits between each mini-group, you can assess the most likely range of geographical location for the branching point.

The samples divide as follows:
Wheatley & Roberts v. Daku, Riccio, Adamthwaite, Guess & Mitchell
with group 2 divided Daku, Riccio v. Adamthwaite, Guess & Mitchell
So the 'most likely' origin point for FGC12401 as a whole is Britain.

The initial split variance is quite large, suggesting a likely early branching date. As this is only a small sample, the results will be not be very reliable (either in terms of dating or geography) and will need combining with other related test results, but it illustrates the basic principle.

However, if you go upstream one level, the results are similar - again, British origin, with an even earlier branching point, so this gives me more confidence in an early North West European origin for this SNP.
Thank your for the example. I would disagree with the British origin for FGC12401. Daku is from Hungary and Riccio from Italy. FGC12401 probably came into being around 1000 BC. I think it would possibly be an iron age arrival to Britain from Gaul or Central Europe e.g. Urnfield, Hallstaat, or La Tene or possibly Belgae.

Do you by chance have a link to an online variance program?

Is STR variance an indication of origin or rapid growth? i.e. an indication of lots of branching. I would think it would be due a paternal line getting "Bushy" with lots of branches

Generalissimo
07-15-2017, 04:45 PM
It may be wrong, but it is not devoid of reason. We may have to implicate R1a (and perhaps R1b too) only in the spread of IE not its origin. If the early Hittites and Greeks did not have R1b or R1a we would have to come up with new narratives anyway. Don't you think the Reich group talks in terms of LPIE for a reason?

There should be some sort of fantasy haplogroup wars section on this forum for epp and others.

epp
07-15-2017, 05:02 PM
Which branch would that be ?
I was thinking Z93.

parasar
07-15-2017, 05:04 PM
There should be some sort of fantasy haplogroup wars section on this forum for epp and others.

What epp is saying is nothing new or fantastical. It has been discussed.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3882-R1b-and-its-sibling-R1a-possible-route(s)-into-Europe&p=72707&viewfull=1#post72707
"is it possible that Archaic PIE was on the green squiggly?"

From Michał:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=992&d=1385980504

Generalissimo
07-15-2017, 05:07 PM
I was thinking Z93.

Pretty obvious what happened. It's called the spread of the horse/chariot complex.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sEuJgyJEdEg/WWpLfUUeN_I/AAAAAAAAF4M/ASY7XozLYGou1jGcijJC1b_P6emo7XbDwCLcBGAs/s1600/Allentoft_et_al_2015_Fig_1.png

epp
07-15-2017, 05:10 PM
Quote Originally Posted by epp View Post
A possibility is that surviving R1a-M417 collaborated with advancing R1b (perhaps acquiring a form of Indo-European language from it), but with later conflict resulting in a branch of M417 fleeing South Eastwards.


There's nothing like this in ancient DNA or archeology.
I'm surprised if there isn't. I thought ancient graves had been discovered containing both R1a and R1b individuals together. And I thought there was a consensus that people like the Indo-Aryans moved into Asia from the North.

Generalissimo
07-15-2017, 05:13 PM
I'm surprised if there isn't. I thought ancient graves had been discovered containing both R1a and R1b individuals together. And I thought there was a consensus that people like the Indo-Aryans moved into Asia from the North.

But you're putting a bizarre spin on things and confusing yourself and potentially many others. Really not necessary.

There were various expansions, and one of them was that of the horse/chariot complex, seemingly dominated by R1a. They weren't running away from anyone.

Coldmountains
07-15-2017, 05:13 PM
I was thinking Z93.

Z93 pushed R1b-Z2103 tribes out of the steppe and has most likely a forest-steppe origin somewhere in modern day northern Ukraine or Russia. It is most likely linked to the eastern part of the Corded Ware culture and these areas north of the steppe, where mainly R1a territory since Corded Ware. R1b was south of it and it does not really makes any sense, that R1a-Z93 escaped from R1b southeastwards exact, where R1b was dominant.

parasar
07-15-2017, 05:22 PM
Pretty obvious what happened. It's called the spread of the horse/chariot complex.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sEuJgyJEdEg/WWpLfUUeN_I/AAAAAAAAF4M/ASY7XozLYGou1jGcijJC1b_P6emo7XbDwCLcBGAs/s1600/Allentoft_et_al_2015_Fig_1.png

The eastward migration of chariots to Sintashta shown in the map is utter nonsense, and is contradicted by the dating within the article itself.

"The Sintashta Culture, located in the Trans-Urals, represents the earliest, fully-developed, chariot-using Bronze Age culture. Here an enclave of highly organized fortified settlements, with a systematic layout of houses, appeared around 2100/2000 BC."

The chariot progresses from Sintashta to Abashevo to East/SE Europe to Central Europe.

Silesian
07-15-2017, 05:42 PM
A possibility is that surviving R1a-M417 collaborated with advancing R1b (perhaps acquiring a form of Indo-European language from it), but with later conflict resulting in a branch of M417 fleeing South Eastwards.

The bright red spot on the Steppe[Arkaim/Sintashta and 10+/- settlements] on the map below shows the density of modern day R1b-Z2108 [Yamnaya] on the Steppe before and after R1a-93 Sintashta -Arkaim complex tried in vain to supplant R1b-Z2108 which had existed in the region 1000+/- years prior to R1a-93 with it's swift chariots and metal produced weaponry and fortified fortresses. No Sintashta chariot/burials have been found in India and or signs of massive influx of horses. Also the Sarmatian grave that was located adjacent the Sintashta/Arkaim complex- was also R1b-Z-2108 as was the very old Yamnaya burial. We still do not have any genetic material from the oldest wagon burials, to see/compare with halplogroups that came later. Therefore at the present it is only a guess- wagon/kurgan belonged to.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA).PNG

epp
07-15-2017, 05:47 PM
Do you by chance have a link to an online variance program?
mymcgee supplies an accessible one. Some might question its calibration, but I think it will still supply results that are consistent relative to each other.


Is STR variance an indication of origin or rapid growth? i.e. an indication of lots of branching. I would think it would be due a paternal line getting "Bushy" with lots of branches
SNP variance would probably be indicative of the same thing - although variance would presumably be proportional to procreation, rather than to population growth, and I imagine individuals in bottlenecks would be having sex at a roughly similar rate to individuals in growing populations, even if fewer of their offspring were surviving. In fact, SNP variance might even accelerate in populations under stress, due to the mutations conferring evolutionary advantage.

epp
07-15-2017, 06:05 PM
But you're putting a bizarre spin on things and confusing yourself and potentially many others. Really not necessary.

There were various expansions, and one of them was that of the horse/chariot complex, seemingly dominated by R1a. They weren't running away from anyone.
Perhaps these R1a lads were big and strong with their mighty chariots, but how can you possibly know they weren't running away from anyone?
In fact, some R1a might well have been running away from other R1a, as Z283 seems to have dominated in Eastern Europe, whereas Z93 seemed to move out of it.
We cannot be sure even of what happened, let alone the motivation of the people involved.

epp
07-15-2017, 06:13 PM
There should be some sort of fantasy haplogroup wars section on this forum for epp and others.
I hate to break this to you, Generalissimo, but wars do happen, and not just on video games. Most unfortunately, we are not all one big, happy mixed-haplogroup family.

Let's not turn this pleasant discussion about DNA into a pseudo-conflict!

parasar
07-15-2017, 06:21 PM
Perhaps these R1a lads were big and strong with their mighty chariots, but how can you possibly know they weren't running away from anyone?
In fact, some R1a might well have been running away from other R1a, as Z283 seems to have dominated in Eastern Europe, whereas Z93 seemed to move out of it.
We cannot be sure even of what happened, let alone the motivation of the people involved.

We can't ascribe the disparate distributions to running way. We know the Tarim is Z93- , so did these run away the farthest?

As an aside, the Parthians were reputed to use running away as a strategy - thus the idiom parting shot.

epp
07-15-2017, 06:27 PM
Z93 pushed R1b-Z2103 tribes out of the steppe ...
Quite possibly. Didn't R1a Corded Ware culture and R1b-Z2103 Yamna culture collapse at approximately the same time?


... and has most likely a forest-steppe origin somewhere in modern day northern Ukraine or Russia. It is most likely linked to the eastern part of the Corded Ware culture and these areas north of the steppe, where mainly R1a territory since Corded Ware.
The results of my analysis indicate pretty much the same thing.


R1b was south of it and it does not really makes any sense, that R1a-Z93 escaped from R1b southeastwards exact, where R1b was dominant.
It was a different R1b that I was referring to - L51 (not Z2103), which yfull agrees split from Z2103 two millennia beforehand.

It could have been a domino effect - L51 moves into Z283 territory, causing Z283 to move into Z93 & Z2103 territory, causing Z93 and Z2103 to move even further South and East.

epp
07-15-2017, 06:32 PM
We can't ascribe the disparate distributions to running way. We know the Tarim is Z93- , so did these run away the farthest?

As an aside, the Parthians were reputed to use running away as a strategy - thus the idiom parting shot.

I agree - we cannot know.

That's interesting about Tarim - do we know their precise SNP positions?

By the way, it's now time for my own parting shot - I've got to log off, so I can pick up my daughter ...

alan
07-15-2017, 09:55 PM
Another thing that really needs explained is this. If P312 is 5000 years old but the P312 beaker culture is c 4500 years old, how do we explain that beaker so far is dominated by U152 and L21 and P312 of undetermined clade. The chances of 2 or 3 lineages with a common ancestor 5 centuries earlier dominating a culture is almost nil unless they had

A All remained in a confined area for 5 centuries

OR

B A network linking scattered P312 lineages had been set up several centuries earlier (say c 3000-2800BC) by Mr P312 or an early descendant and had continued to function until southwesrern influences were absorbed c 2550BC and spread through the network.

Bumping my own post as I would appreciate others thoughts on this

MitchellSince1893
07-15-2017, 10:32 PM
Bumping my own post as I would appreciate others thoughts on this

You already know my thoughts...Budzhak Culture which began around 3100 BC is my current top choice for bringing P312 from Yamnaya through TRB/GAC territory before reaching Western Europe.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-16-2017, 12:47 AM
I was thinking Z93.

However the CWC samples from Germany which might have been "pushed out " by BB were R1b and R1a-xZ645; not Z93 or anything else which might show and eastward expansion.
But you are correct at a general level, BB gradually "took over" CWC BB between the Rhine and west Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-16-2017, 01:08 AM
Another thing that really needs explained is this. If P312 is 5000 years old but the P312 beaker culture is c 4500 years old, how do we explain that beaker so far is dominated by U152 and L21 and P312 of undetermined clade. The chances of 2 or 3 lineages with a common ancestor 5 centuries earlier dominating a culture is almost nil unless they had

A All remained in a confined area for 5 centuries

OR

B A network linking scattered P312 lineages had been set up several centuries earlier (say c 3000-2800BC) by Mr P312 or an early descendant and had continued to function until southwesrern influences were absorbed c 2550BC and spread through the network.

Yes I think the embryonic Beaker region was somewhere between the lower Rhine and Moravia, brewing (as it were) from 2800 BC (the first appearance of CWC) and 2500 (the early BB phase). Whatever cultural modifications and genetic mixing took place during this time, and then began to expand from 2500 BC. My analysis of the archaeology makes me postulate that it was still centred around it's 'core zone' in 2400/ 2300 BC, apart from the obvious move to Britain, and individuals progressively moving south to Brittany, S.E. France, and east to Hungary and Poland (I have marked out the respective individual BB-burials responsible in a private map), which gradually gathered pace over time. But even as late as 2100 BC, such individuals might have been a relative minority.
^ So that's Phase 1.

Phase 2 - when L51 really expanded through Western Europe/ completed its expansion (apart from Britain) hasn;t been elucidated yet, IMO. Perhaps it wasn;t so rapid as it was in Britain ? We await MBA data from EUrope to clarify.

As for "Phase 0' (what brought P312 to the west)- there are 3 possible scenarios which I cant yet favour over the other (1. L51 arrived with CWC 2. L51 came with a distinct wave from Carpathian basin, taking over CWC; 3- L51 emerged from 'Cordidized' German Late Neolithic pre-M269).

R.Rocca
07-16-2017, 03:15 AM
However the CWC samples from Germany which might have been "pushed out " by BB were R1b and R1a-xZ645; not Z93 or anything else which might show and eastward expansion.
But you are correct at a general level, BB gradually "took over" CWC BB between the Rhine and west Poland.

Just a reminder that the CWC samples from Germany, even the ones labeled as R1b, are all now now to be R1a. There is only one CWC sample from Poland that is R1b and a Single Grave Culture sample that is R1b-U106.

parasar
07-16-2017, 03:29 AM
Just a reminder that the CWC samples from Germany, even the ones labeled as R1b, are all now now to be R1a. There is only one CWC sample from Poland that is R1b and a Single Grave Culture sample that is R1b-U106.

And even this is based on an L1345+ read which is a 17000ybp+ SNP - hardly of any significance for a less than 5000ybp sample.

epp
07-16-2017, 01:37 PM
Bumping my own post as I would appreciate others thoughts on this
I'm glad you re-brought this.
Perhaps R1b-L51 as a whole did not really have a fixed abode at all, but formed mostly a roaming group of traders linking people and cultures from different areas of Europe - if so, they might have gone back another thousand years, but only really started thriving during the Bell Beaker period.
If they did have a base from which they coordinated, several strands of my own analysis suggest that this would most likely have been the strip between Burgundy, Alsace and Belgium. This would also seem good positioning for an international travelling community, being located near to the sources of the Rhine, Rhone, Seine and Danube.

epp
07-16-2017, 01:50 PM
However the CWC samples from Germany which might have been "pushed out " by BB were R1b and R1a-xZ645; not Z93 or anything else which might show and eastward expansion.
But you are correct at a general level, BB gradually "took over" CWC BB between the Rhine and west Poland.
It's difficult to know exactly who would have been pushed out. R1a-xZ645 was almost certainly "pushed out" of Germany, as it seems very little of it remained. R1a-Z645* (xZ283 &xZ93) was also almost certainly pushed out of somewhere, as it is now virtually non-existent. And there would have been little Z93 to push out, as even yfull agrees that its MRCA only came into existence during the Corded Ware period.

epp
07-16-2017, 02:04 PM
Yes I think the embryonic Beaker region was somewhere between the lower Rhine and Moravia, brewing (as it were) from 2800 BC (the first appearance of CWC) and 2500 (the early BB phase). Whatever cultural modifications and genetic mixing took place during this time, and then began to expand from 2500 BC. My analysis of the archaeology makes me postulate that it was still centred around it's 'core zone' in 2400/ 2300 BC, apart from the obvious move to Britain, and individuals progressively moving south to Brittany, S.E. France, and east to Hungary and Poland (I have marked out the respective individual BB-burials responsible in a private map), which gradually gathered pace over time. But even as late as 2100 BC, such individuals might have been a relative minority.
This makes sense, and is consistent with my own analysis. Do you have any ideas about the origin of the very early Portuguese Bell Beaker samples?

^ So that's Phase 1.

Phase 2 - when L51 really expanded through Western Europe/ completed its expansion (apart from Britain) hasn;t been elucidated yet, IMO. Perhaps it wasn;t so rapid as it was in Britain ? We await MBA data from EUrope to clarify.

As for "Phase 0' (what brought P312 to the west)- there are 3 possible scenarios which I cant yet favour over the other (1. L51 arrived with CWC 2. L51 came with a distinct wave from Carpathian basin, taking over CWC; 3- L51 emerged from 'Cordidized' German Late Neolithic pre-M269).
Is there another possibility (not necessarily one that I favour) - that L51 or pre-L51 (and Bell Beaker) arrived by boat from the Adriatic - perhaps travelling up the Rhone?

Gravetto-Danubian
07-16-2017, 09:45 PM
Just a reminder that the CWC samples from Germany, even the ones labeled as R1b, are all now now to be R1a. There is only one CWC sample from Poland that is R1b and a Single Grave Culture sample that is R1b-U106.

Has Tiefbrunn (RISE 436 CWC Germany) changed from R1b1 ?

alan
07-16-2017, 10:40 PM
I may be significant that the U106 was found battle axe we clearly prospered given it's presence in the Bronze Age in the same area. Together with the Dutch U106 at the end of the beaker era I kind of get the impression of a coastal group with boats rather like L21 further west. Where is he highest variance of U106 today?

alan
07-16-2017, 11:06 PM
I'm glad you re-brought this.
Perhaps R1b-L51 as a whole did not really have a fixed abode at all, but formed mostly a roaming group of traders linking people and cultures from different areas of Europe - if so, they might have gone back another thousand years, but only really started thriving during the Bell Beaker period.
If they did have a base from which they coordinated, several strands of my own analysis suggest that this would most likely have been the strip between Burgundy, Alsace and Belgium. This would also seem good positioning for an international travelling community, being located near to the sources of the Rhine, Rhone, Seine and Danube.

Yeah the way different P312 branches are so associated with beaker from 2500BC despite their common ancestor being centuries older does suggest to me that all P312 stayed part of a closely interacting group that was already in place several centuries before beaker was adopted. The only question is where they remained in a compact area or whether they were already spread out along trade routes at way stations and nodal points in pre beaker times.

alan
07-16-2017, 11:14 PM
Yes I think the embryonic Beaker region was somewhere between the lower Rhine and Moravia, brewing (as it were) from 2800 BC (the first appearance of CWC) and 2500 (the early BB phase). Whatever cultural modifications and genetic mixing took place during this time, and then began to expand from 2500 BC. My analysis of the archaeology makes me postulate that it was still centred around it's 'core zone' in 2400/ 2300 BC, apart from the obvious move to Britain, and individuals progressively moving south to Brittany, S.E. France, and east to Hungary and Poland (I have marked out the respective individual BB-burials responsible in a private map), which gradually gathered pace over time. But even as late as 2100 BC, such individuals might have been a relative minority.
^ So that's Phase 1.

Phase 2 - when L51 really expanded through Western Europe/ completed its expansion (apart from Britain) hasn;t been elucidated yet, IMO. Perhaps it wasn;t so rapid as it was in Britain ? We await MBA data from EUrope to clarify.

As for "Phase 0' (what brought P312 to the west)- there are 3 possible scenarios which I cant yet favour over the other (1. L51 arrived with CWC 2. L51 came with a distinct wave from Carpathian basin, taking over CWC; 3- L51 emerged from 'Cordidized' German Late Neolithic pre-M269).

Cant much argue with that but the interesting thing is that a number of P312 lineages came to dominate various beaker groups across Europe despite their common ancestor being several centuries older than beaker? It would be simple if the common ancestor of all P312 was 2500BC

MitchellSince1893
07-17-2017, 02:32 AM
Are there any examples of an ancient land based trading network that managed to survive for ~350 years. On the surface it seems like a tall order.

The Phoenicians did it from 1200 to 800 BC but I would think a sea based trade network would be easier to defend and maintain compared to a land based one on the European Plain. i.e. to attack a sea based trade network you need mariner skills and infrastructure. A land based network would be much more difficult to defend and maintain for a few centuries.

The Romans had a land based network, but it was defended by a well organized army and multiple outposts. A small group of far flung L11/P312 men wouldn't have this advantage.

The Amber trade might work, but not sure if the dates would fit the chronology.

Dewsloth
07-17-2017, 02:56 AM
Bronze Naue II sword market lasted ~700 years, but didn't begin until ~1300 BC. :)

Gravetto-Danubian
07-17-2017, 04:36 AM
This makes sense, and is consistent with my own analysis. Do you have any ideas about the origin of the very early Portuguese Bell Beaker samples?


Shifts in traditional megalithic communities and new trade routes/ arrival of small groups from lower Rhine.


Is there another possibility (not necessarily one that I favour) - that L51 or pre-L51 (and Bell Beaker) arrived by boat from the Adriatic - perhaps travelling up the Rhone?

I guess its feasible theoretically, but its less parsiminous because Balkan Beaker-age lineages are G2, I2a2, R1b-Z2013.
And I can't recall a clear archaeological trail, either.

alan
07-17-2017, 08:22 AM
Shifts in traditional megalithic communities and new trade routes/ arrival of small groups from lower Rhine.



I guess its feasible theoretically, but its less parsiminous because Balkan Beaker-age lineages are G2, I2a2, R1b-Z2013.
And I can't recall a clear archaeological trail, either.
Yep I can see zero evidence of a southern route for L11 and we now have a good amount of immediately pre beaker DNA for south Europe west of the Adriatic and none is R1b except a few strays from incredibly remote branches of off above P297 of no relevance. The earliest P312 in Southern Europe likely came down the Rhone is small nos with west Central European beaker folk.

epp
07-17-2017, 12:34 PM
I may be significant that the U106 was found battle axe we clearly prospered given it's presence in the Bronze Age in the same area. Together with the Dutch U106 at the end of the beaker era I kind of get the impression of a coastal group with boats rather like L21 further west. Where is he highest variance of U106 today?
My analysis of FTDNA data suggests that the Low Countries have both the greatest absolute variance and a low average variance, indicating that the balance of population frequency most likely shifted eastwards and then back again (the latter perhaps with the Saxonic migrations).

epp
07-17-2017, 01:15 PM
Are there any examples of an ancient land based trading network that managed to survive for ~350 years. On the surface it seems like a tall order.

The Phoenicians did it from 1200 to 800 BC but I would think a sea based trade network would be easier to defend and maintain compared to a land based one on the European Plain. i.e. to attack a sea based trade network you need mariner skills and infrastructure. A land based network would be much more difficult to defend and maintain for a few centuries.

The Romans had a land based network, but it was defended by a well organized army and multiple outposts. A small group of far flung L11/P312 men wouldn't have this advantage.

But I suppose they might have had some other technological, psychological or economic advantage that helped them to prosper more subtly, perhaps as the British controlled India - it's not only the physically strong and numerous who control the levers of power, even today.

R.Rocca
07-17-2017, 01:17 PM
Has Tiefbrunn (RISE 436 CWC Germany) changed from R1b1 ?

Correct, it is more likely to be R1a. See here... http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=240573&viewfull=1#post240573

epp
07-17-2017, 01:31 PM
Shifts in traditional megalithic communities and new trade routes/ arrival of small groups from lower Rhine.
Would this suggest that L51 was probably present in the Lower Rhine long before Corded Ware, if it had happened to pick up or spread BB to Portugal that early?


I guess its feasible theoretically, but its less parsiminous because Balkan Beaker-age lineages are G2, I2a2, R1b-Z2013.
And I can't recall a clear archaeological trail, either.
My estimates are that the first L51 branching occurred almost contemporaneously with L51's spilt from Z2103, and that their MRCA was most likely in the Balkans.
Whether a small group of L51 came into West Central Europe via the Mediterranean/Rhone or via the Danube (possibly in a single fast journey), I can't guess, but I don't think there's any reason why there would necessarily be any evidential trace of such a journey.

epp
07-17-2017, 01:35 PM
I wonder whether early L51 were a small transient, romany-style presence on the fringes of several European cultures, that got both lucky and powerful through trade.

MitchellSince1893
07-17-2017, 04:05 PM
...The Amber trade might work, but not sure if the dates would fit the chronology.


Cultures which are known to have actively traded in amber included Unetice, Otomani, Wessex, Globular Amphora, and, of course, the Romans. Large deposits of Neolithic artifacts made of amber (beads, buttons, pendants, rings, and plaquette figurines) have been found at the Juodkrante and Palanga sites in Lithuania, both dated between 2500 and 1800 BC, and both of which are near Baltic amber mines.

The largest deposit of Baltic amber is near the town of Kaliningrad, where it is believed that 90% of the world's Baltic amber can be found. Historic and prehistoric hoards of raw and worked amber are known from Biskupin and Mycenae and throughout Scandinavia.

https://www.thoughtco.com/baltic-amber-fossilized-resin-170071


Scientists presume that the trade in Amber started as early as in New Stone Age. Amber, obtained in major excavation centres in Jutland and on eastern Baltic Coast began to spread in central Europe reaching even Egypt. Baltic amber beads were found in 3400-2400 BC pharaoh tombs in Tethys pyramid. German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann who in 1871-1890 excavated Troy in addition to other artefacts found amber beads. Scientists established that they were made from amber that had been brought from the Baltic Coast in 3000 BC.
http://www.amberartisans.com/amberroutes1.html



EAST BALTIC AMBER IN THE FOURTH AND THIRD MILLENNIA B.C.
Marija Gimbutas

This article will discuss Baltic amber during the peak period of its processing by the Narva culture and the startling growth of the amber trade from about 3500 to 2500 BC
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43211327?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So the Amber trade is the right time frame; and that "startling growth" description fits with P312; and provides an opportunity to pickup some GAC admixture.

R.Rocca
07-17-2017, 06:46 PM
Yep I can see zero evidence of a southern route for L11 and we now have a good amount of immediately pre beaker DNA for south Europe west of the Adriatic and none is R1b except a few strays from incredibly remote branches of off above P297 of no relevance. The earliest P312 in Southern Europe likely came down the Rhone is small nos with west Central European beaker folk.

I still think the areas where Single Grave Culture, All-Over-Corded and Grand Pressigny flint daggers are found together offer more to the L51 expansion story, but the distribution Auvernier-Corded Ware group axes within areas of the Saône-Rhône Culture in south-east of France sure is interesting...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_Auvernier_Axe_Distribution.png

alan
07-17-2017, 08:11 PM
I still think the areas where Single Grave Culture, All-Over-Corded and Grand Pressigny flint daggers are found together offer more to the L51 expansion story, but the distribution Auvernier-Corded Ware group axes within areas of the Saône-Rhône Culture in south-east of France sure is interesting...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_Auvernier_Axe_Distribution.png

Yes both the Rhone and the Lower Rhine are interesting points where the south-west is connected to the Single grave/CW world near either end of the Rhine. Dating seems a real problem in both cases. As the Iberian derived groups were not P312 then there is a case they met P312 in a non beaker culture around the Rhine. But there is a possibility that the Iberian beaker groups very briefly penetrated up the Danube which could mean beaker pot users from the west influenced a P312 group on the Danube. However Hungarian beaker is derived from Moravian and so I would rule out the meeting of western beaker pot makers and P312 central Europeans taking place anywhere further east than the Czech-Slovak border area. I also think all evidence so far indicates L11 traveled west by a route north of the Carpathians and the first point that the Danube meets people following such a route is again that Czech-Slovak border. So I would place the beakerisation of the P312 group somewhere between Bratislava/Brno and the Rhine. Of course there is a possibility that various branches of P312 had already spread out within that zone when beaker arrived.

Dewsloth
07-17-2017, 08:48 PM
Yes both the Rhone and the Lower Rhine are interesting points where the south-west is connected to the Single grave/CW world near either end of the Rhine. Dating seems a real problem in both cases. As the Iberian derived groups were not P312 then there is a case they met P312 in a non beaker culture around the Rhine. But there is a possibility that the Iberian beaker groups very briefly penetrated up the Danube which could mean beaker pot users from the west influenced a P312 group on the Danube. However Hungarian beaker is derived from Moravian and so I would rule out the meeting of western beaker pot makers and P312 central Europeans taking place anywhere further east than the Czech-Slovak border area. I also think all evidence so far indicates L11 traveled west by a route north of the Carpathians and the first point that the Danube meets people following such a route is again that Czech-Slovak border. So I would place the beakerisation of the P312 group somewhere between Bratislava/Brno and the Rhine. Of course there is a possibility that various branches of P312 had already spread out within that zone when beaker arrived.

Baden culture? I think Gimubutas had them as indo-europeanized replacers of funnelbeaker?
And both Baden and contemporary Iberia (La Chabola/Las Yurdinas) had J2a1a1 mtDNA.


ID Population Site Date Sex Mt Hap Y Hap Cov. HG% ALD Ref
GEN15a Baden Budakal´asz-Luppa cs´arda 3367–3103 M J2a1a1 G2a2b2a1a1c1a 1.66 10.9±1.7 22±9.2
3.-K11 Iberia CA La Chabola de la Hechicera 3627–3363 F J2a1a1 .. 0.12 24.7±2.5 30±12
LY.II.A.10.15067 Iberia CA Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 F J2a1a1 .. 0.30 24.1±2.0 ±

Interestingly, J2a1a1 is also at Atapuerca dated to 2880-2630 BC where the researchers found a population contemporaneous to Beakers, but without the cultural toolkit:

To further investigate the transition between Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic period, we have analyzed the mtDNA in a recently excavated population from El Mirador cave in Atapuerca, Spain. This site is contemporaneous to the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) but does not carry the diagnostic items of this culture that include the distinctive bell-shaped ceramics and weapons. In fact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are very scarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula. It has been suggested [20] that the Bell Beaker culture represented a population movement from the Iberian Peninsula that could explain the genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberians. Thus, the analysis of Iberian samples without the archaeological signature of the Bell Beaker culture such as El Mirador is of great interest to unravel the potential heterogeneity of the European Chalcolithic groups and its affinities with extant populations.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105105

alan
07-17-2017, 09:01 PM
I wonder whether early L51 were a small transient, romany-style presence on the fringes of several European cultures, that got both lucky and powerful through trade.

I definitely think we are talking about an out group if they inhabited the CW zone give the different y line and indeed the heavy domination of just one male lineage. The Irish Traveling people are a good example of an outgroup who are not of different origin to the settled people of Ireland but who divide into scattered clans who move about all over Ireland and Britain without hardly ever intermarrying or even much social mixing with the settled peop!e they live around. When they marry it is almost always to another traveller family including bitter rival clans - hence the frequent violence at their weddings. AFAIK the wife always moves to the husband's clan. Interestingly the Irish travellers were once associated with metal work. Also very associated with horses and violent sports. In many ways they are uncannily like how I imagine the beaker folk to have operated, with the main difference being the travelers never morphed into settled chiefdoms and are marginalised in modern society due to their original roles becoming defunct.

MitchellSince1893
07-17-2017, 09:16 PM
...Of course there is a possibility that various branches of P312 had already spread out within that zone when beaker arrived.
That's a good point. Beaker could have been introduced to P312 in Czech/Slovak area, then quickly spread west to Rhine river Valley e.g. Alsace and Low Countries via an already established trading network.

alan
07-17-2017, 09:40 PM
That's a good point. Beaker could have been introduced to P312 in Czech/Slovak area, then quickly spread west to Rhine river Valley e.g. Alsace and Low Countries via an already established trading network.

One thing that really stood out in hobby testing was a lot of L21 around the Rhineland (middle Rhine) One academic paper didn't support this but IMO that might be a fluke of sampling. I suspect this could be a remnant of a time when L21 may have controlled the middle and lower Rhine in the beaker era. The large amount of L21 in beaker Britain supports this.

alan
07-17-2017, 09:54 PM
That's a good point. Beaker could have been introduced to P312 in Czech/Slovak area, then quickly spread west to Rhine river Valley e.g. Alsace and Low Countries via an already established trading network.

It's hard to see otherwise how P312 could so dominate beaker despite the TMRCA of U152, L21 and other P312 being suggested now to predate beakers appearance in central Europe by several centuries. The only possible explanations are that the SNP dating method is now making P312 centuries older than realty OR all P312 remained in one compact area for centuries until beaker was adopted OR that P312 had geographically spread out but somehow had retained an almost exclusive P312 network for centuries prior to beaker being adopted which meant when one adopted beaker it spread throughout.

alan
07-17-2017, 10:11 PM
That's a good point. Beaker could have been introduced to P312 in Czech/Slovak area, then quickly spread west to Rhine river Valley e.g. Alsace and Low Countries via an already established trading network.

A very close further look at the dates for beaker throughout central Europe from eastern France to Hungary and Poland would be helpful as there seem to be a lot of new RC dates since this was last considered Also now we know Iberia beaker is irrelevant to P312,the focus would be more on the relative ages of beaker within central Europe. I would really like to know if RC dating can pick up a direction of beaker spread within central Europe. However normal RC dating would not be capable of discerning direction of spread if it was very rapid as may well be the case with beaker
.

epp
07-17-2017, 10:15 PM
I definitely think we are talking about an out group if they inhabited the CW zone give the different y line and indeed the heavy domination of just one male lineage. The Irish Traveling people are a good example of an outgroup who are not of different origin to the settled people of Ireland but who divide into scattered clans who move about all over Ireland and Britain without hardly ever intermarrying or even much social mixing with the settled peop!e they live around. When they marry it is almost always to another traveller family including bitter rival clans - hence the frequent violence at their weddings. AFAIK the wife always moves to the husband's clan. Interestingly the Irish travellers were once associated with metal work. Also very associated with horses and violent sports. In many ways they are uncannily like how I imagine the beaker folk to have operated, with the main difference being the travelers never morphed into settled chiefdoms and are marginalised in modern society due to their original roles becoming defunct.
What might have caused wandering L151 Beaker folk to create settled chiefdoms that drove others out from Western Europe? Perhaps it was due to challenge from an increasingly powerful, widespread and unifying R1a Corded Ware culture that had begun to marginalise them?

GoldenHind
07-17-2017, 11:31 PM
It's hard to see otherwise how P312 could so dominate beaker despite the TMRCA of U152, L21 and other P312 being suggested now to predate beakers appearance in central Europe by several centuries. The only possible explanations are that the SNP dating method is now making P312 centuries older than realty OR all P312 remained in one compact area for centuries until beaker was adopted OR that P312 had geographically spread out but somehow had retained an almost exclusive P312 network for centuries prior to beaker being adopted which meant when one adopted beaker it spread throughout.

Another possibility is that not all of P312 became Beakers. I believe the only P312 subclades which have been found in Beaker aDNA are the three largest: L21, U152 and DF27. Perhaps the less numerous P312 subclades never became Beakers, which could possibly explain why they are less numerous today. It is possible that further study of currently available Beaker aDNA will show the presence of the smaller subclades. Otherwise it seems like an assumption lacking proof that all P312 subclades became Beakers, especially if P312 is considerably older than the formation of the Beaker culture.

kinman
07-18-2017, 02:51 PM
Thanks Mitchell,
That is really interesting. I was looking at a map of the Amber Road trading route, and it seems to cross the Danube in between Vienna and Bratislava (where U152 probably originated). If P312 and U106 were involved in the amber trade, they might have traded with each other (with U106 transporting amber down from the north to the area of present-day Czech Republic and their P312 relatives then transporting it south from there). From the Bratislava area, amber and other goods could have also been transported both up and down the Danube. Up the Danube, they (P312 and its subclades) would have eventually reach the Rhine and then started trading up and down the Rhine. And down the Danube, they could trade with their Z2103 relatives who could have transported amber to ancient Troy, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road#/media/File:Amber_Road.jpg


https://www.thoughtco.com/baltic-amber-fossilized-resin-170071


http://www.amberartisans.com/amberroutes1.html



http://www.jstor.org/stable/43211327?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So the Amber trade is the right time frame; and that "startling growth" description fits with P312; and provides an opportunity to pickup some GAC admixture.

Net Down G5L
07-18-2017, 04:16 PM
Another thing that really needs explained is this. If P312 is 5000 years old but the P312 beaker culture is c 4500 years old, how do we explain that beaker so far is dominated by U152 and L21 and P312 of undetermined clade. The chances of 2 or 3 lineages with a common ancestor 5 centuries earlier dominating a culture is almost nil unless they had

A All remained in a confined area for 5 centuries

OR

B A network linking scattered P312 lineages had been set up several centuries earlier (say c 3000-2800BC) by Mr P312 or an early descendant and had continued to function until southwesrern influences were absorbed c 2550BC and spread through the network.



Yes I think the embryonic Beaker region was somewhere between the lower Rhine and Moravia, brewing (as it were) from 2800 BC (the first appearance of CWC) and 2500 (the early BB phase).

As for "Phase 0' (what brought P312 to the west)- there are 3 possible scenarios which I cant yet favour over the other (1. L51 arrived with CWC 2. L51 came with a distinct wave from Carpathian basin, taking over CWC; 3- L51 emerged from 'Cordidized' German Late Neolithic pre-M269).


I have exactly the same thoughts about 'phase 0' and said pretty much that in a presentation last week.

I think Alan's key question is worth re-posting on a regular basis until we have assembled evidence to answer it. As for 'B', I have posted about a possible pre-Beaker network in the past as it makes sense...but...where is there any evidence to support it??

...............What do you all make of this gem presented at a talk by Mike Parker Pearson earlier in the year (but not yet published as far as I know).

Stonehenge and region:
Pre 2475
- Avebury, stonehenge II, Woodhenge
Around 2470
- Pre-Beaker arrivals from the continent
- Posts built round perimeter of Durrington Walls
- Metal Adz marks (10cm wide) in pits found summer 2016 excavations - No flint axes (Grimes Graves production stopped at this point) = metal already introduced pre-Beaker

Post 2470
- West Avebury Henge, Silbury Hill, Marlborough Mound etc "neolithic going out with a bang"

Followed by Beaker - discontinuity in housing, pigs replaced by sheep, emphasis on pastoral but re-introduction of cereal that had ceased to be produced in Late Neolithic.

So...
Were there pre-Beaker continental arrivals who introduced metal working into southern England?
If so, who were they? What DNA may they have carried?
Could this be evidence that a pre-Beaker trading (and migratory?) network was in place?

Net Down G5L
07-18-2017, 05:02 PM
https://www.thoughtco.com/baltic-amber-fossilized-resin-170071


http://www.amberartisans.com/amberroutes1.html



http://www.jstor.org/stable/43211327?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So the Amber trade is the right time frame; and that "startling growth" description fits with P312; and provides an opportunity to pickup some GAC admixture.

Great research.

I agree that we need to understand the significance of the Amber Trade.

Here are a few observations:

1. Narva has R1b but we do not have evidence it is ancestral P312 (not yet at any rate). Narva also has majority I2a1 on samples so far.

2. According to the recent Stochammer presentation Beaker had a N-S Amber trade network - but it was broken by the expansion of the Unetice culture. Unetice has I2a2 - and R1b1 in corded proto-Unetice (Mathieson).

3. The N-S Beaker amber network is replaced by a Baltic - Unetice - Wessex culture - more E-W network. (At a time Wessex Culture is in possible 'conflict' with Beaker Culture e.g. at Net Down (Martin 2011).

4. Mike Parker Pearson recently presented that the Wessex cremation culture possibly represents the surviving Neolithic population. Alex Gibson (President Prehistoric Society) presented at the recent PS conference that post Beaker there is a re-surgance of Neolithic tradition in Britain (pit burials, cremation etc).

5. ? However, Wessex culture uses barrows (kurgan) etc. So is Wessex some sort of Beaker-P312/Neolithic mix that is trading with a Unetice possible P312 / I1a Y DNA mix ...ie both mixes of Neolithic/Steppe cultures? (with R1b becoming very dominant in the Isles over time?)

Can understanding the Amber and metal trade help us understand these relationships (remembering that metal working was present in Poland at a very early date at Oslonki).
Where was DF27 when all this was going on (and how does this all link to the following Atlantic Bronze Age)?

rms2
07-19-2017, 12:08 PM
True. I agree that modern frequency distributions are of little information value, but in my opinion modern distributions of variance within subclades are indicative of most likely point of origin . . .

No! Modern variance within subclades shows where variance his high now and represents only where the subclades wound up after centuries and even millennia of movement and churning. I wonder what what you call "my analysis" would show for P312 variance in the greater New York/New Jersey area? A P312 origin in Hell's Kitchen?

A place that received a lot of varied input from diverse sources can have an artificially high modern variance (thus my New York/New Jersey tongue-in-cheek example). By artificial I mean in terms of telling us anything significant about where the clades originated.

Modern distribution and variance are okay for fairly recent history. They pretty much suck at telling us anything about prehistoric origins. Migrations occurred. People moved, sometimes fairly rapidly and over long distances.

What we know of greatest significance about the origin of R1b-P312 and its clades is that they are closely connected to a kurgan and probably Indo-European culture, Bell Beaker, and strongly correlated with steppe dna.

The idea that they originated somewhere in western Europe among foragers-turned-Neolithic-farmers who were then kurganized somehow by their Corded Ware wives is wishful thinking by those who, for whatever reasons, absolutely do not want R1b to be Indo-European.

jeanL
07-19-2017, 12:35 PM
What we know of greatest significance about the origin of R1b-P312 and its clades is that they are closely connected to a kurgan and probably Indo-European culture, Bell Beaker, and strongly correlated with steppe dna.

The idea that they originated somewhere in western Europe among foragers-turned-Neolithic-farmers who were then kurganized somehow by their Corded Ware wives is wishful thinking by those who, for whatever reasons, absolutely do not want R1b to be Indo-European.

Nope; some of us are just trying to make sense given the available data! Currently there is still a missing link connecting R1b-L51 and its subclades to Yamnaya. However, here are some undeniable truths:

1. R1b most likely spent the LGM in the Balkans and has been in Europe in its ancestral form for at least 15000 ybp. It's closely related to the rise of WHG as the dominant genotype amongst Hunter Gatherers. It's likely linked to the Epigravettian culture.

2. It did not actively participate in the Neolithic conquest of Europe; it was displaced to the Baltic and Ukranian refuges; and can be found in remote places in Germany where WHG survived at greaters numbers.

3. Whether R1b-P312 came from Central European WHG-turned farmers who later mixed with Corded Ware females is besides the point for those who want to distance themselves from having Indo-European ancestry. Bell Beakers in Central Europe had a substantial (i.e. 50%) of Steppe DNA input, so what's difference does it make? Well, in one scenario our forefathers are glorious conquerors, in the other, they are sneaky traders who then went to become glorious conquerors.

4. Every European living today, with a few exceptions carries a hefty those of Steppe DNA, even Spanish Basques carry somewhere in the order of ~23% Steppe DNA; so yeah, say that R1b-P312 is proven to not have been from the Steppe, it doesn't matter! There is no distancing the R1b clade from Indo-European origins. It almost seems as if the Indo-European genetic heritage is void if is initially maternally transmitted. Is not!. At this point, we can only speculate, because unfortunately we do not yet have recovered enough data to find those badly needed clades in the right places.

rms2
07-19-2017, 01:14 PM
Nope; some of us are just trying to make sense given the available data!

That is undeniably what everyone says he is doing. Might as well not bother saying it again. It is trite.



Currently there is still a missing link connecting R1b-L51 and its subclades to Yamnaya. However, here are some undeniable truths . . .

2. It did not actively participate in the Neolithic conquest of Europe; it was displaced to the Baltic and Ukranian refuges; and can be found in remote places in Germany where WHG survived at greaters numbers.

Focus on R1b-L23 and its descendants R1b-L51 and R1b-P312. A large part of Ukraine is taken up by the Pontic steppe where Indo-European is thought to have been born. R1b-L23 has already shown up in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, two cultures thought by many scholars over the years to have been closely connected to the spread of Indo-European languages and culture.

The odd dead-end and vanishingly scarce R1b forager-cum-Neolithic-farmer here or there in Europe is really not relevant.

Some of them were evidently R1b-V88.



3. Whether R1b-P312 came from Central European WHG-turned farmers who later mixed with Corded Ware females is besides the point for those who want to distance themselves from having Indo-European ancestry.

No, it is not beside the point. I don't know about those who wish to distance themselves from Indo-European ancestry. They are beyond my reckoning. But deriving steppe ancestry and Indo-European culture in Bell Beaker from Corded Ware females is the entire point and purpose of those who would distance R1b-L51 from Indo-European ancestry.

If our remote fathers acquired their Indo-European language and culture from their mothers, then our y-dna heritage is not originally Indo-European, and that is the point and goal of those who, for various reasons, want to deny an Indo-European origin to R1b-L51.



Bell Beakers in Central Europe had a substantial (i.e. 50%) of Steppe DNA input, so what's difference does it make?
. . .

It makes a lot of difference. Our y-dna ancestors were either originally Indo-European and from the steppe, or they were not. I'd like to know.

I do know very well that there are a lot of people who hope they were not.



4. Every European living today, with a few exceptions carries a hefty those of Steppe DNA, even Spanish Basques carry somewhere in the order of ~23% Steppe DNA; so yeah, say that R1b-P312 is proven to not have been from the Steppe, it doesn't matter! There is no distancing the R1b clade from Indo-European origins. It almost seems as if the Indo-European genetic heritage is void if is initially maternally transmitted. Is not! . . .

You know or should know that it does matter. We are talking about the heritage our remote fathers and their descendants passed on to us. Most of us would not be involved in this rather expensive endeavor if that did not matter.

Maternal ancestry is not void certainly. But we all know that's not what we're talking about here.

MitchellSince1893
07-19-2017, 01:18 PM
So after 568 posts most of us would agree P312 originated somewhere is the red shaded area. :P Glad we've been able to narrow it down.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/45/2b/9f/452b9f5a80f7c4fae6795b08a2f8c5f4.png

alan
07-19-2017, 01:57 PM
So after 568 posts most of us would agree P312 originated somewhere is the red shaded area. :P Glad we've been able to narrow it down.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/45/2b/9f/452b9f5a80f7c4fae6795b08a2f8c5f4.png
I think it's safe to narrow P312 origins to between Ukraine and the Rhine if you leave crackpot stuff aside 😁

rms2
07-19-2017, 02:11 PM
I think it's safe to narrow P312 origins to between Ukraine and the Rhine if you leave crackpot stuff aside ��

That western boundary would be farther east for R1b-L151, and yet farther east for R1b-L51. The Pontic-Caspian steppe for R1b-L23.

alan
07-19-2017, 02:15 PM
I think it's safe to narrow P312 origins to between Ukraine and the Rhine if you leave crackpot stuff aside ��
I personally think going with the evidence rather than special pleading rules out Southern Europe and even the Lower- mid Danube route is under heavy doubt given the data so far. A person going with the admittedly scanty evidence would conclude the likely origin of L11 was Ukraine, then the northern foothills of the Carpathians then reaching the Danube around.Bratislavs and Vienna by which time P312 had likely left U106 behind to go up the north flowing rivers that led from the Carpathians like The Elbe and Oder to Scandinavia (Amber?). P312 would then follow the upper Danube to the Rhine. The main advantage of commanding the Danube would be control of Alpine and Carpathians copper moving west surely? That sort of model fits and certainly is not in conflict with the evidence. I personally suspect P312 established a network along the Upper Danube and perhaps parts of the Rhine in pre-beaker times probably performing a less developed version of the later beaker role

rms2
07-19-2017, 02:27 PM
It seems to me that either Gimbutas is essentially right, and Bell Beaker/P312 is derived from Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, or Bell Beaker/P312 was present in some Corded Ware tribes.

Beaker was either Yamnaya 2.0 or Corded Ware 2.0.

The fact that the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Olalde et al's Beaker sample set is GAC/TRB favors the Northern European Plain and Corded Ware, but that does not rule out NW movement from the Carpathian Basin and the subsequent absorption of GAC/TRB people, primarily women.

We need some CW/Single Grave y-dna from the Lower Rhine, and we need some y-dna from the thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian Basin.

Dewsloth
07-19-2017, 02:57 PM
So after 568 posts most of us would agree P312 originated somewhere is the red shaded area. :P Glad we've been able to narrow it down.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/45/2b/9f/452b9f5a80f7c4fae6795b08a2f8c5f4.png

You're lucky that "out-of-Egypt" guy doesn't post much anymore.

MitchellSince1893
07-19-2017, 03:28 PM
I think it's safe to narrow P312 origins to between Ukraine and the Rhine if you leave crackpot stuff aside 

Ok Alan for you. "Sane people theories" in red. "crackpot stuff" in yellow. :biggrin1:

Map is only meant for humor. If anyone is offended then by all means reverse the colors...red is "crack pot" and Yellow is sane. :) It's not meant to be taken seriously.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/e8/98/95e898c83dc119a9721e6eed935ce34b.png

alan
07-19-2017, 04:00 PM
Ok Alan for you. "Sane people theories" in red. "crackpot stuff" in yellow. :biggrin1:

Map is only meant for humor. If anyone is offended then by all means reverse the colors...red is "crack pot" and Yellow is sane. :) It's not meant to be taken seriously.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/e8/98/95e898c83dc119a9721e6eed935ce34b.png

Lol! But I think Italy and south Balkans needs added to the crackpot zone . Especially Italy (not naming names)

alan
07-19-2017, 04:16 PM
I personally think going with the evidence rather than special pleading rules out Southern Europe and even the Lower- mid Danube route is under heavy doubt given the data so far. A person going with the admittedly scanty evidence would conclude the likely origin of L11 was Ukraine, then the northern foothills of the Carpathians then reaching the Danube around.Bratislavs and Vienna by which time P312 had likely left U106 behind to go up the north flowing rivers that led from the Carpathians like The Elbe and Oder to Scandinavia (Amber?). P312 would then follow the upper Danube to the Rhine. The main advantage of commanding the Danube would be control of Alpine and Carpathians copper moving west surely? That sort of model fits and certainly is not in conflict with the evidence. I personally suspect P312 established a network along the Upper Danube and perhaps parts of the Rhine in pre-beaker times probably performing a less developed version of the later beaker role

The two main prehistoric routes into Sweden were by land from the east and by sea from Denmark. Swedish U106 doesn't really fit an Eastern entry with battle axe (lack of U106 in north-east European CW derivatives) or a beaker origin (Scandi beaker is Rhenish derived c 2400BC). It also seemed to arrive by a route/time combo that P312 wasn't using. On balance I think it was pre-beaker and travelled north up the Elbe or Oder and crossed to Sweden from Denmark

kinman
07-19-2017, 05:03 PM
Mitchell's map (from early in this thread) is still my favorite. An origin for P312 in or near the red circle makes sense. However, his post brings up the possibility that U152 originated on the north or east side of the Carpathians, rather than after P312 reached the Danube (near Bratislava). I just wonder if David Faux's analysis (showing high STR diversity in Slovakia and upstream in Germany) is badly outdated:
http://www.davidkfaux.org/R1b1c10_Resources.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My current thinking is L51 developed in the western periphery of Yamnaya (red circle on both maps) with U106, P312, DF27, U152 already born as well as some of their subclades. Once this group reached a survivable/sustainable/defenseable size, entered Corded Ware territory up the Dniester Valley on the northern slope of he Carpathians, with a sizable/mostly P312 portion entering Moravia, with some going down the Danube into Hungary and some up the Danube into Germany. Most U106 and some P312 kept going northwest towards the Baltic Sea, Jutland and on to Scandinavia.

One of the reasons for this thought is the present diversity of U152 subclades found on the eastern slopes the Carpathians in the red circle on bottom map (using data we do have in the absence ancient samples).

In that circle we find U152>L2, U152>PF6658, U152>Z56, 2 samples that are U152+ L2-,Z56-Z36-, but we presently find little to no U152>ZZ45. It's almost as if ZZ45 wasn't around until the group entered Moravia. Not a lot of U152 samples in the small circled area, but a lot of diversity within the samples we presently have in that area.

The two samples found in NE Romania that are negative for L2, Z56, and Z36 (largest subclade of ZZ45) are particularly of interest

16354

I wonder if DF27 and U106 notice a similar pattern of subclade diversity in this area.

GoldenHind
07-19-2017, 05:43 PM
I have little doubt that there are some (I am not among them) who would put the origin of P312 in one of the green shaded areas.

vettor
07-19-2017, 06:03 PM
Thanks Mitchell,
That is really interesting. I was looking at a map of the Amber Road trading route, and it seems to cross the Danube in between Vienna and Bratislava (where U152 probably originated). If P312 and U106 were involved in the amber trade, they might have traded with each other (with U106 transporting amber down from the north to the area of present-day Czech Republic and their P312 relatives then transporting it south from there). From the Bratislava area, amber and other goods could have also been transported both up and down the Danube. Up the Danube, they (P312 and its subclades) would have eventually reach the Rhine and then started trading up and down the Rhine. And down the Danube, they could trade with their Z2103 relatives who could have transported amber to ancient Troy, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road#/media/File:Amber_Road.jpg

this is the amber road peoples involved

https://s24.postimg.org/77hd17a5x/amberroad.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/wdib81bg1/)

Liburnians to Corfu was until 700BC when the corinthians-greeks took Corfu from Liburnians

Illyrians in Vienna and other parts of Noricum ( east -Austria ) until the Gallic-celts merged with them slightly before Halstatt culture ~750BC

Guttones are goths who lived on both sides of coastal vistula river

R.Rocca
07-19-2017, 07:10 PM
So after 568 posts most of us would agree P312 originated somewhere is the red shaded area. :P Glad we've been able to narrow it down.

The areas of interest I've mentioned throughout this thread, the Lower Rhine and the Rhone, both fall within the Corded Ware - Bell Beaker zone of interaction (see Cunliffe). It is the pink area on this hypothetical map I've marked up....

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/P312_Spread.png

And just to make people's heads explode, there is always the possibility (less likely IMO) that both P312 and U106 developed in close proximity further to the north and then expanded from the Low Countries as part of the SGC/AOO culture. Remember, the R-L11 level has eight SNPs and its three children expanded almost immediately after they arouse (P312 shares its node with Z1904, U106 with none, S1194 with none).

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/P312_Spread_Scenario_2.png

epp
07-19-2017, 07:13 PM
I think it's safe to narrow P312 origins to between Ukraine and the Rhine if you leave crackpot stuff aside 😁
If you leave the crackpot stuff aside, that leaves the Rhine then. :beerchug:

rms2
07-19-2017, 07:26 PM
The areas of interest I've mentioned throughout this thread, the Lower Rhine and the Rhone, both fall within the Corded Ware - Bell Beaker zone of interaction (see Cunliffe). It is the pink area on this hypothetical map I've marked up....

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/P312_Spread.png

And just to make people's heads explode, there is always the possibility (less likely IMO) that both P312 and U106 developed in close proximity further to the north and then expanded from the Low Countries as part of the SGC/AOO culture. Remember, the R-L11 level has eight SNPs and its two children most successful children expanded almost immediately after they arouse (P312 shares its node with Z1904, U106 with none).

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/P312_Spread_Scenario_2.png

I like those maps. They sum things up pretty well.

epp
07-19-2017, 08:09 PM
No! Modern variance within subclades shows where variance his high now and represents only where the subclades wound up after centuries and even millennia of movement and churning. I wonder what what you call "my analysis" would show for P312 variance in the greater New York/New Jersey area? A P312 origin in Hell's Kitchen?
Yes! Where a precise SNP's modern variance is highest now is an indicator of where it is more likely to be the point of origin than where variance is low now. It might not be the conclusive proof which people vainly seek, but where the sample size of data is large enough and the results of a series of related tests are consistent enough, it can provide a very useful indicator. If the world were perfectly "churned", there would be no areas dominated by one haplogroup or another. And regardless of the increased level of churning permitted by modern means of transport, New York is still unlikely to show greater variance for a precise SNP than the point of that SNP's origin.


Modern distribution and variance are okay for fairly recent history. They pretty much suck at telling us anything about prehistoric origins. I would think probably the opposite. The more recent we get, the greater the ease of travel and the more likely that the result would be skewed by migration.


Migrations occurred. People moved, sometimes fairly rapidly and over long distances. What we know of greatest significance about the origin of R1b-P312 and its clades is that they are closely connected to a kurgan and probably Indo-European culture, Bell Beaker, and strongly correlated with steppe dna. I don't see why this is inconsistent with P312 originating in Western Europe. You yourself just said that "people moved, sometimes fairly rapidly and over long distances" - why then couldn't P312's ancestors have moved from East Central Europe to the Rhine and spawned P312 there?


The idea that they originated somewhere in western Europe among foragers-turned-Neolithic-farmers who were then kurganized somehow by their Corded Ware wives is wishful thinking by those who, for whatever reasons, absolutely do not want R1b to be Indo-European.
I wonder how you claim to know what people are thinking - such a sweeping conclusion is not a sign of dispassionate objectivity on your own part. I for one am totally indifferent to whether R1b is one thing or the other. My testing simply follows a set procedure, and can be replicated by anyone using FTDNA's extensive body of accessible data.

rms2
07-19-2017, 08:21 PM
Yes! Where a precise SNP's modern variance is highest now is an indicator of where it is more likely to be the point of origin than where variance is low now . . .

No! Can't you see that modern variance is a reflection of the situation now, not the situation then?

After centuries and millennia of movement and churning, modern variance is absolutely not a good indication of origin.

Modern distribution and variance in part gave us the bad old FC LGM Refuge crap of about ten years ago.



. . . The more recent we get, the greater the ease of travel and the more likely that the result would be skewed by migration.

Yet you advocate the use of modern variance to determine origin?



I don't see why this is inconsistent with P312 originating in Western Europe. You yourself just said that "people moved, sometimes fairly rapidly and over long distances" - why then couldn't P312's ancestors have moved from East Central Europe to the Rhine and spawned P312 there?

That could have happened, but modern distribution is no good indicator it did happen.



I wonder how you claim to know what people are thinking - such a sweeping conclusion is not a sign of dispassionate objectivity on your own part.

Because I have been around this crap for over ten years now and have seen it all. I can spot the usual motives a mile off.



I for one am totally indifferent to whether R1b is one thing or the other. My testing simply follows a set procedure, and can be replicated by anyone using FTDNA's extensive body of accessible data.

It doesn't matter. You have already said you are using modern variance to indicate origin. That's a bad idea.

If you can't see why, then really your motivation is not the problem.

Besides, I don't really believe claims of objectivity and indifference. Such claims strike me as indications of the exact opposite.

epp
07-19-2017, 08:52 PM
No! Can't you see that modern variance is a reflection of the situation now, not the situation then?

After centuries and millennia of movement and churning, modern variance is absolutely not a good indication of origin.

Modern distribution and variance in part gave us the bad old FC LGM Refuge crap of about ten years ago.



Yet you advocate the use of modern variance to determine origin?



That could have happened, but modern distribution is no good indicator it did happen.



Because I have been around this crap for over ten years now and have seen it all. I can spot the usual motives a mile off.



It doesn't matter. You have already said you are using modern variance to indicate origin. That's a bad idea.

If you can't see why, then really your motivation is not the problem.

Besides, I don't really believe claims of objectivity and indifference. Such claims strike me as indications of the exact opposite.
rms2, I can see how emotional you seem to be about this subject, and realise you might have had it with 10 years of IE deniers with motivation & intelligence problems giving you "crap"! But what you and I seem to be saying is really not that dissimilar - my data analysis suggests that R1b-L23 most likely began in the North Balkans and that a section of it later moved to the Rhine. The only differences between your conclusions and the results of my tests seem to be that mine are a little South West of yours and a little earlier than yours.

I'm on this forum looking for information, not an argument.

rms2
07-19-2017, 09:01 PM
rms2, I can see how emotional you seem to be about this subject . . .

Nope. I see you using arguments that would have been current in 2007 but which no longer carry much if any weight. No emotion involved.




and realise you might have had it with 10 years of IE deniers with motivation & intelligence problems giving you "crap"! But what you and I seem to be saying is really not that dissimilar - my data analysis suggests that R1b-L23 most likely began in the North Balkans and that a section of it later moved to the Rhine. The only differences between your conclusions and the results of my tests seem to be that mine are a little South West of yours and a little earlier than yours.

I'm on this forum looking for information, not an argument.

My problem with what you have posted is your use of modern distribution and variance.

I don't think R1b-L23 originated in the Balkans. There is no indication it did.

vettor
07-19-2017, 09:01 PM
So did the lower rhine group travel to the upper rhine group in southern Germany?

epp
07-19-2017, 09:24 PM
Nope. I see you using arguments that would have been current in 2007 but which no longer carry much if any weight. No emotion involved.




My problem with what you have posted is your use of modern distribution and variance.

I don't think R1b-L23 originated in the Balkans. There is no indication it did.
I don't see why my posting of information about modern variance would give you or anyone else a "problem".
My understanding was that you favoured an origin in the Pontic-Steppes, which is adjacent to the Northern Balkans.
In any case, let's stick to the subject of the thread - P312 and Corded Ware.

rms2
07-19-2017, 09:28 PM
I don't see why my posting of information about modern variance would give you or anyone else a "problem".

I think it's a mistake, that's all. P312 probably did not originate in western Europe.



My understanding was that you favoured an origin in the Pontic-Steppes, which is adjacent to the Northern Balkans.
In any case, let's stick to the subject of the thread - P312 and Corded Ware.

Yes, I think R1b-L23 originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Modern distribution and variance are interesting and have their place, but ancient y-dna is the answer.

epp
07-19-2017, 09:42 PM
I think it's a mistake, that's all. P312 probably did not originate in western Europe.



Yes, I think R1b-L23 originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Modern distribution and variance are interesting and have their place, but ancient y-dna is the answer.
So where is ancient P312, and which subclades are these ancient samples?

Gravetto-Danubian
07-19-2017, 09:56 PM
The predominant lineage in Mesolithic Ukraine which we can consider "native" is I2a2. At some point between the Mesolithic and Yamnaya, R1b-M269 derived clades appear.
The density of distribution of R1b in the Mesolithic appears to be a line from north Balkans to Baltic

epp
07-19-2017, 10:12 PM
The predominant lineage in Mesolithic Ukraine which we can consider "native" is I2a2. At some point between the Mesolithic and Yamnaya, R1b-M269 derived clades appear.
The density of distribution of R1b in the Mesolithic appears to be a line from north Balkans to Baltic
This seems to tie up with my data analysis estimate of a North Balkan L23. How about P312?

Gravetto-Danubian
07-19-2017, 11:35 PM
This seems to tie up with my data analysis estimate of a North Balkan L23. How about P312?

I couldn't say more than the current null hypothesis. Any significant deviation or fine detail requires more data than we currently have.

But it does seem that R1b moved/ increased in the Ukraine steppe during the late Neolithic Sredny Stog horizon, which coincides with the slight 'Balkan shift' noted in the Mathieson paper, and archaeological evidence I have previously mentioned (about formative impulses on the western steppe Eneolithic from Balkan-Carpathian centres).

Then, we have no Y DNA data from Eneolithic/Copper & Yamnaya age Urkaine (apart from the Globular Amphora I2a2s), but a massive shift south-eastward at a genome-wide level (toward CHG/ EHG 55%: 45%).

rms2
07-20-2017, 12:31 AM
So where is ancient P312, and which subclades are these ancient samples?

See the Olalde et al results and the other Bell Beaker results. They represent westward movement already, however, and steppe dna.

rms2
07-20-2017, 12:35 AM
The predominant lineage in Mesolithic Ukraine which we can consider "native" is I2a2. At some point between the Mesolithic and Yamnaya, R1b-M269 derived clades appear.
The density of distribution of R1b in the Mesolithic appears to be a line from north Balkans to Baltic

Balkan Mesolithic R1b appears to be R1b-V88.

rms2
07-20-2017, 12:38 AM
This seems to tie up with my data analysis estimate of a North Balkan L23. How about P312?

We don't have any North Balkan L23 in the ancient results unless you're talking about Hungarian Bell Beaker, which has at least one R1b-U152 and one R1b-Z2103, and a Vucedol R1b-Z2103.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 01:25 AM
Balkan Mesolithic R1b appears to be R1b-V88.

Will see with further analysis and data. But at present there's only 1 Ukrainian Mesolithic R1b, and its not M269 either. Ukraine seems to have been I2a2 zone

MitchellSince1893
07-20-2017, 01:29 AM
So where is ancient P312, and which subclades are these ancient samples?

The most ancient P312 to date is RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE. Near Danube 20 miles from Austrian border with Germany.

R.Rocca
07-20-2017, 03:43 AM
Will see with further analysis and data. But at present there's only 1 Ukrainian Mesolithic R1b, and its not M269 either. Ukraine seems to have been I2a2 zone

The Latvian hunter-gatherers are Pre-M73 R1b1a1a. This means that they share thousands of years worth of mutations with M269 than either M269 or M73 share with the Balkan hunter-gatherers. Seven Iron Gates hunter-gatherers are already known to be xR1b1a1a2 with one of them confirmed V88 and the other confirmed xR1b1a1, so most likely V88 as well. Further west, one of the Baalberge Middle Neolithic, Germany samples is also R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2) and an El Trocs, Spain Neolithic sample is a V88 equivalent. Villabruna?... he was positive for nine R1b1a SNPs, but none in lower branches. When all of this is taken together, there is V88 in Mesolithic, Middle and Late Neolithic Balkans through Western Europe and no M269. So far, M269 has only been found in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, so if I had to guess, the M269 line was north or north/east of the Ukraine during the Mesolithic.

Jean-Pierre
07-20-2017, 04:36 AM
Regarding those maps of R.Rocca: I thought that P312 was already present in Hungaria by 2800 BC.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 07:29 AM
The Latvian hunter-gatherers are Pre-M73 R1b1a1a. This means that they share thousands of years worth of mutations with M269 than either M269 or M73 share with the Balkan hunter-gatherers. Seven Iron Gates hunter-gatherers are already known to be xR1b1a1a2 with one of them confirmed V88 and the other confirmed xR1b1a1, so most likely V88 as well. Further west, one of the Baalberge Middle Neolithic, Germany samples is also R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2) and an El Trocs, Spain Neolithic sample is a V88 equivalent. Villabruna?... he was positive for nine R1b1a SNPs, but none in lower branches. When all of this is taken together, there is V88 in Mesolithic, Middle and Late Neolithic Balkans through Western Europe and no M269. So far, M269 has only been found in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, so if I had to guess, the M269 line was north or north/east of the Ukraine during the Mesolithic.

Yep i understand those aspects. But we have to consider what actually exists also, in which case the relative sparsity of R1b in Mesolithic ukraine requires consideration (of course with the ever present caution that more samples might amend the picture) .
Notwithstanding, as per my earlier post in which I suggested "The density of distribution of R1b in the Mesolithic appears to be a line from north Balkans to Baltic" informs us about the general direction of expansion of R1b (as a whole, at least below L754) during Late Palaeolithic Balkans north to the Baltic, and east to Russia-Ukraine. I did not state that M269 itself expanded from Balkans.

We also should recall that the Samara region (prior to Yamnaya period) has so far turned up an M73, and L754 and some extinct irrelevant Q and R1a.

I am thus also inclined to favour M269 arising north of Ukraine, and am less sure about an 'eastern' origin, unless it expanded from the Kuban - Caucasus region. Ultimately, the mobility of foragers and "luck" of sampling might preclude any neatly delineated homeland zones.

Generalissimo
07-20-2017, 09:09 AM
The relative sparsity of R1b in Mesolithic ukraine requires consideration.

But R1b was common in Ukraine during the Neolithic. So we can safely ignore the Mesolithic data, especially since the Neolithic samples were also foragers.

As things stand, it looks like one of these Ukrainian/South Russian Neolithic forager R1b lineages was M269, and the rest we know.

The problem now, after the release of the latest Mathieson preprint, with the CT and GAC genomes, is that there's no more room left for M269 to have come from west/northwest of the steppe, because that doesn't explain the appearance of the eastern Beakers rich in M269 and Yamnaya ancestry just west of the steppe during the EBA. They couldn't have come from CT or GAC, and positing an expansion of M269 from a forager group living in forests northwest of the steppe doesn't offer any practical explanation why they would be expanding so rapidly and in such numbers.

So the EBA steppe, and in all likelihood Yamnaya, it is, unless extraordinary evidence says otherwise. It's basically the same story for M417 now as well.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 09:34 AM
1)
But R1b was common in Ukraine during the Neolithic.

To avoid repeating what I have stated already, I will quote myself


But it does seem that R1b moved/ increased in the Ukraine steppe during the late Neolithic Sredny Stog horizon, which coincides with the slight 'Balkan shift' noted in the Mathieson paper, and archaeological evidence I have previously mentioned (about formative impulses on the western steppe Eneolithic from Balkan-Carpathian centres).

Then, we have no Y DNA data from Eneolithic/Copper & Yamnaya age Urkaine (apart from the Globular Amphora I2a2s), but a massive shift south-eastward at a genome-wide level (toward CHG/ EHG 55%: 45%).


2)

The problem now, after the release of the latest Mathieson preprint, with the CT and GAC genomes, is that there's no more room left for M269 to have come from west/northwest of the steppe, because that doesn't explain the appearance of the eastern Beakers rich in M269 and Yamnaya ancestry just west of the steppe during the EBA. They couldn't have come from CT or GAC, and positing an expansion of M269 from a forager group living in forests northwest of the steppe doesn't offer any practical explanation why they would be expanding so rapidly and in such numbers.

To avoid repeating what I have stated for those who miss posts, i will merely quote myself, again

I couldn't say more than the current null hypothesis. Any significant deviation or fine detail requires more data than we currently have.

3)


So the EBA steppe, and in all likelihood Yamnaya, it is, unless extraordinary evidence says otherwise. It's basically the same story for M417 now as well.

As per above; and we were discussing the pre-Yamnaya history of said lineages.

4)
So we can safely ignore the Mesolithic data, especially since the Neolithic samples were also foragers.
Beware of he who says "ignore data" :)

Generalissimo
07-20-2017, 09:38 AM
The R1b foragers are from Neolithic Ukraine.

Late Neolithic is a different phase that sees the appearance of CHG and other types of southern ancestry on the steppe. So far we only have one sample from this phase, a female.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 09:38 AM
The R1b foragers are from Neolithic Ukraine.

Late Neolithic is a different phase that sees the appearance of CHG and other types of southern ancestry on the steppe. So far we only have one sample from this phase, a female.

No the female is from Eneolithic (42/4000 BC -> 3000BC), which is a different entity to the "Neolithic" of Ukraine (first appearance of pottery -> Eneolithic "Repin", 'Mikhaliovka', 'Skelya', etc).

alan
07-20-2017, 11:38 AM
The Latvian hunter-gatherers are Pre-M73 R1b1a1a. This means that they share thousands of years worth of mutations with M269 than either M269 or M73 share with the Balkan hunter-gatherers. Seven Iron Gates hunter-gatherers are already known to be xR1b1a1a2 with one of them confirmed V88 and the other confirmed xR1b1a1, so most likely V88 as well. Further west, one of the Baalberge Middle Neolithic, Germany samples is also R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2) and an El Trocs, Spain Neolithic sample is a V88 equivalent. Villabruna?... he was positive for nine R1b1a SNPs, but none in lower branches. When all of this is taken together, there is V88 in Mesolithic, Middle and Late Neolithic Balkans through Western Europe and no M269. So far, M269 has only been found in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, so if I had to guess, the M269 line was north or north/east of the Ukraine during the Mesolithic.

Yep the P297 in Latvian Kunda (the earliest is pre Narva isn't he?) suggest that either the post-swiderians (linked to butovo?) or the swiderians cannot be far removed in origin from that of M269. I still tend to think that P297 is an infusion into an I zone that took place just after the Younger Dryas and coincides appearance of pressure microblades which are known earlier in Butovo further east. Obviously I have had to modify my original theory that all R1b arrived with the micro blades to just P297 as upstream R1b was in Italy (almost certainly via the Balkans epi Gravettian) much earlier

R.Rocca
07-20-2017, 12:43 PM
I am thus also inclined to favour M269 arising north of Ukraine...

Then I agree that we agree that this is the most probable, but not "only" scenario :D I still would not rule out northern Ukraine though as this is still a large unsampled area.

Embarrassingly, a huge omission on my part... V88 has also been found in Mesolithic Ukraine sample I1734 by Mathieson. So, from the Mesolithic through the Early Neolithic, V88 was already present in an area from the Ukraine to Iberia. If M269 was in the Balkans, I think it would have been dragged along with the Neolithic expansion, just like V88 did. Mr. M269, please join the party whenever you are ready!


...and am less sure about an 'eastern' origin

I am as well, but if it did, I don't think it was very far to the east of the Ukraine.


...unless it expanded from the Kuban - Caucasus region.

Their lack of CHG would go against the Balkan shift you mentioned since we only see a very slight increase in WHG, so I do not think the Kuban-Caucasus scenario very likely... but I suspect you don't either.

Generalissimo
07-20-2017, 12:44 PM
No the female is from Eneolithic (42/4000 BC -> 3000BC), which is a different entity to the "Neolithic" of Ukraine (first appearance of pottery -> Eneolithic "Repin", 'Mikhaliovka', 'Skelya', etc).

It makes no difference. R1b is present on the Mesolithic Ukrainian steppe, and common on the Neolithic Ukrainian steppe.

And the most parsimonious theory is that M269 spread from the steppe, maybe the Ukrainian steppe, to Europe along with a Yamnaya-like population.

There are no other viable theories, nor are there any on the horizon as far as I can see.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 01:36 PM
It makes no difference. R1b is present on the Mesolithic Ukrainian steppe, and common on the Neolithic Ukrainian steppe.

And the most parsimonious theory is that M269 spread from the steppe, maybe the Ukrainian steppe, to Europe along with a Yamnaya-like population.

There are no other viable theories, nor are there any on the horizon as far as I can see.

You're failing to understand the flow of the discussion, we're interested in the details.

Where L51 and Z2013 expanded from during the late Copper Age / EBA ("Yamnaya") period does not impinge on where M269 or pre-M269 lineages were concentrated in earlier periods such as the Mesolithic & Neolithic.
Simply assuming that M269 descends directly from Ukrainian Mesolithic R1b1a is needlessly reductionist, esp. given it was x P297, whilst P297 or pre-P297 lineages have been found in the Mesolithic Baltic & Samara valley. Considerable movement could have occurred within the above broad regions.

alan
07-20-2017, 04:01 PM
The greatest clues as to where M269 was in the Mesolithic (post younger dryas) is the P297/M73 in hunters in Latvia and Samara. The river system which appears to close the biggest part of the huge space between those two areas is the Volga. When you look at that river system and tributaries it makes total sense that P297 was found in both Samara and Latvia because they are not far from the east and west ends of that river. See Fig 3 to observe the importance of the Volga-Kama system in the northern branch of the chain of pressure microblade cultures http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2002-t4_(45)-nB-s229-242.pdf

alan
07-20-2017, 06:44 PM
The greatest clues as to where M269 was in the Mesolithic (post younger dryas) is the P297/M73 in hunters in Latvia and Samara. The river system which appears to close the biggest part of the huge space between those two areas is the Volga. When you look at that river system and tributaries it makes total sense that P297 was found in both Samara and Latvia because they are not far from the east and west ends of that river. See Fig 3 to observe the importance of the Volga-Kama system in the northern branch of the chain of pressure microblade cultures http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2002-t4_(45)-nB-s229-242.pdf

Is there any DNA from Butovo culture? Butovo is one of the very earliest appearances of pressure flamed microblades in Europe c9500BC. There is a good possibility that P297 was located in it. http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2010/2010_hartz.pdf

epp
07-20-2017, 08:17 PM
The most ancient P312 to date is RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE. Near Danube 20 miles from Austrian border with Germany.
Thank you, Mitchell, for answering my question. I note also that 80% of the ydna-confirmed Olaide Bell Beaker samples outside of Iberia were claimed to be P312+,and that these were mainly in England, Eastern France, Netherlands, Southern Germany and Hungary. If the sample is P312 (poss. U152), this goes right back to the likely origin of these subclades, as yfull estimates a formation date of 2,400 BC for U152 and a TMRCA of 2,400 BC for P312.

This thread is about P312 origins, not M269, M73, V88 etc. which might very well have wandered around the Steppes. Archaeological and modern DNA evidence seem to point to the same most likely scenario for P312's origin and early development, i.e. that it was located somewhere in an arc running from the Upper Danube, across Southern Germany, the Rhine, the Low Countries and to England - and most likely originated somewhere in Southern Germany.

epp
07-20-2017, 08:33 PM
Would P312's arrival in Southern Germany have been as an integral part of the Corded Ware culture or as the main provider of its cultural replacement?

parasar
07-20-2017, 08:34 PM
Thank you, Mitchell, for answering my question. I note also that 80% of the ydna-confirmed Olaide Bell Beaker samples outside of Iberia were claimed to be P312+,and that these were mainly in England, Eastern France, Netherlands, Southern Germany and Hungary. If the sample is P312 (poss. U152), this goes right back to the likely origin of these subclades, as yfull estimates a formation date of 2,400 BC for U152 and a TMRCA of 2,400 BC for P312.

This thread is about P312 origins, not M269, M73, V88 etc. which might very well have wandered around the Steppes. Archaeological and modern DNA evidence seem to point to the same most likely scenario for P312's origin and early development, i.e. that it was located somewhere in an arc running from the Upper Danube, across Southern Germany, the Rhine, the Low Countries and to England - and most likely originated somewhere in Southern Germany.

That makes the most sense to me too for P312.
I also think that P312 then moved west along with the high dosage of Yamana type coming in with Corded Ware from Upper Dvina/Baltics to central Europe making it look like a continuation of that movement further to Britain.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-20-2017, 09:04 PM
Yep the P297 in Latvian Kunda (the earliest is pre Narva isn't he?) suggest that either the post-swiderians (linked to butovo?) or the swiderians cannot be far removed in origin from that of M269. I still tend to think that P297 is an infusion into an I zone that took place just after the Younger Dryas and coincides appearance of pressure microblades which are known earlier in Butovo further east. Obviously I have had to modify my original theory that all R1b arrived with the micro blades to just P297 as upstream R1b was in Italy (almost certainly via the Balkans epi Gravettian) much earlier


Not necessarily. The Danubian epiGravettian is mixed with the more northern shoulder-backed group, and during the pre-297 stage. Matches up pretty nice. Don't be surprised if epiGravettians in locations further south than the Iron Gates are all I, I2, and C1.

parasar
07-20-2017, 09:38 PM
Not necessarily. The Danubian epiGravettian is mixed with the more northern shoulder-backed group, and during the pre-297 stage. Matches up pretty nice. Don't be surprised if epiGravettians in locations further south than the Iron Gates are all I, I2, and C1.

Which is the oldest Y-I sample from Europe or elsewhere?

Edit:
Paglicci Cave Italy Y-I 28100 ybp to 29,300 non-calibrated
About 33000ybp
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2085779789/2073928400/mmc1.pdf

"The archaeological
stratigraphy spans from Aurignacian (unit 24) where
the oldest radiocarbon date was obtained (34,000+900/-
800 y BP), to Late Epigravettian (unit 2, 11,440 ± 180
y BP) ... basal portion of the stratigraphy
(units 22 to 26) where significant sedimentological
and mineralogical changes are recorded. Radiocarbon
datings of these units span from 34,000+900/-800 y
BP to 26,800 ± 300 y BP, while the archaeological evidences
range from Aurignacian to Early Gravettian."
http://www.stsn.it/images/pdf/serA112/19%20Cremaschi-Ferraro.pdf

Gravetto-Danubian
07-20-2017, 09:48 PM
Is there any DNA from Butovo culture? Butovo is one of the very earliest appearances of pressure flamed microblades in Europe c9500BC. There is a good possibility that P297 was located in it. http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2010/2010_hartz.pdf

A couple of failed attempts , poor soil (but perhaps some more efforts in progress)
My feeling is that these 'eastern blade' contacts were mediated by haplogroup Q (and maybe R1a) because R1b is Missing in LUP - Meso - Neolithic Siberia.

MitchellSince1893
07-20-2017, 11:49 PM
.. yfull estimates a formation date of 2,400 BC for U152 and a TMRCA of 2,400 BC for P312...

There is an ongoing citizen scientist project to date U106 and P312 and subclades. The U106 part is public http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html

And the P312 part will be made public shortly...hopefully by the end of the month.

I can't give out specifics but suffice it to say their current "best guess" date for P312 is more than 10% older than yfull's TMRCA 4400 ybp date. Yfull's formed P312 date is 4800 ybp

kinman
07-21-2017, 01:21 AM
I am hoping that the new version (5.05) of YFull (overdue?) will have older formation dates for P312 and U106. However, they almost certainly will not be as early as my estimated formation date (5,500 years ago). 5,500 years ago might sound too early, but it is still within the 95% confidence interval for TMRCA of this citizen scientist project for U106: 3663 BC — 2441 BC.


There is an ongoing citizen scientist project to date U106 and P312 and subclades. The U106 part is public http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html

And the P312 part will be made public shortly...hopefully by the end of the month.

I can't give out specifics but suffice it to say their current "best guess" date for P312 is more than 10% older than yfull's TMRCA 4400 ybp date. Yfull's formed P312 date is 4800 ybp

R.Rocca
07-21-2017, 03:06 PM
A good summary of the importance of archery in Malopolska Corded Ware (emphasis is mine)...

Piotr Wlodarczak (2014) The Traits of Early-Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Malopolska Groups) and Zlota Culture Communities


In the Final Neolithic grave inventories from Malopolska, flint arroheads are found. In the first half of the 3rd millenium BC, they are recorded in CWC barrow graves (rarely) and also in ZC cemeteries [quite often: 162 items from 48 graves - Witkowska 2013]. Their incidence grows around 2600/2500 BC. The same period witnesses also rich sets of points (the largest from grave 15, Wilczyce - comprises 30 items). The latter are related to the burials of adult men; as a rule they are a component of rich and varied inventories. Equipping the dead with archer's gear is a new tradition in Malopolska - graves with arrowheads are not encounterd either in the GAC circle or in the Baden culture. Likewise, the tradition is not observed in western or northern CWC regions (from here, we know of single features with arrowheads). In these areas, archer's equipment became a frequent component of grave inventories only after ca. 2400 BC and is associated with assemblages displaying the tradition of the Bell Beaker culture. Thus, Malopolska inventories with arrowheads are older than such assemblages by about 200-300 years.

Also an interesting quote related to archery...

Jan Turek (2015) Bell Beaker Stone Wrist-Guards as Symbolic Male Ornament. The Significance of Ceremonial Warfare in 3rd Millennium BC Central Europe


The main concentration of wide arched wrist-guards is east of the Rhine. The fashion of stone wrist-guards perhaps comes from the area of Central Europe and only during the later development of the Bell Beaker Complex spread to the west. Once of the arguments supporting this chronological consideration is the total absence of wrist-guards in burial contexts with the earliest AOO (all over ornamented) Beakers in Western Europe.



When looking for R-L51 in "Early Begleitkeramik" instead of simply "Early Bell Beaker", it really makes for much more focused reading. Probably the most interesting things I've been reading about during the past week are the developments within the Kraków-Sandomierz Corded Ware group of the Małopolska Upland, southern Poland.

1. After an initial phase where single graves were oriented in the typical Corded Ware west-east axis, the Kraków-Sandomierz CW group switches to placing their dead in a north-south axis starting ca. 2700 BC. This is the same orientation of the Moravian Corded Ware Group from Olomouc-Slavonín and the Bell Beaker East group.

2. Also from its inception phase, the Kraków-Sandomierz CW group places a premium on archery equipment in male graves including arrow heads, flint tips and other flake producing tools. This archery toolkit is typical of the Bell Beaker package, but is not common for Corded Ware. Corded Ware grave 1(2) from Żuków shows the importance of archery and includes an S-shaped beaker with zone ornamentation...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Zukow_CWC_Grave.png


3. Around the time when graves switched to the north-south axis, pottery is influenced by Globular Amphora Culutre/Zlota and also TRB. From the Olalde paper, genetic contributions from GAC and TRB are the best Late Neolithic fits for Bell Beaker samples from outside of Iberia.

The similarities between Moravia and the Małopolska Upland continues into the Bell Beaker period. As mentioned in my prior post, just like the Moravian Olomouc-Slavonín BB group lacked decorated pottery, it is missing from the Samborzec Bell Beaker burials as well. Of the three Samborzec males tested by Olalde et al 2017, one low resolution sample belongs to haplogroup R while the other two belong to at least R-M269. Perhaps the raw data will reveal better haplogroup resolution. The I4251 sample has an early date of 2837–2672 calBCE (3990±60 BP, Ki-7926). The date is disputed however. The Samborzec Begleitkeramic sample (Grave III) was not tested, but it is by far the most interesting. The burial contains a male in the typical N-S orientation, but lying on his back with knees bent outward. This position is found in some other Corded Ware graves and earlier Pit Graves. One of the Corded Ware samples is the very sample from Żuków that produced the grave goods above! Also in Samborzec Grave III was a copper tanged dagger which also looks a lot like a Yamnaya dagger. He also checks just about every Eastern Bell Beaker checkbox...bow-shaped pendant made of boar tusk, four holed wrist guard, flint arrowhead, and the archers toolkit (flint, bone and antler tools) and a polypod bowl. Again, of importance is the lack of decorated beakers. Here is an image of the grave goods and his position...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Samborzec_BB_Grave_III.png

Only four Corded Ware samples from Poland have been tested thus far (that I know of)... one is R1a, one is G, one is likely I/J and the fourth is the low quality Corded Ware R1b1a-L1345 sample from Oblaczkowo, Poland that is dated to 2865-2578 BC. This sample could of course belong to L51 just as well as it could to Z2103. Either way, it will be interesting to see if a Corded Ware paper comes out with as much information as the recent Bell Beaker one. If so, I hope they include samples from Moldovian and southern Poland, as it may throw some surprises our way.

rms2
07-21-2017, 03:35 PM
. . .

This thread is about P312 origins, not M269, M73, V88 etc. which might very well have wandered around the Steppes. Archaeological and modern DNA evidence seem to point to the same most likely scenario for P312's origin and early development, i.e. that it was located somewhere in an arc running from the Upper Danube, across Southern Germany, the Rhine, the Low Countries and to England - and most likely originated somewhere in Southern Germany.

Here is what you wrote in Post #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312/page50) in this thread:



At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.

I am surprised no one took you to task for that statement. I was on vacation and not looking at the computer when you made it.

At the start of Corded Ware - around 3000 BC - R1b-L51 was already present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain? Really?

How did it get there and when? Why is it missing thus far from not only Olalde et al's Neolithic samples but everyone else's, as well?

Here is some of the rest of your Post 494:



During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

Evidently you think L51 is native to the western European regions you named, "Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain", and moved eastwards from there.

It seems to me Olalde et al have already rubbished that idea, especially the part about L51 being in Britain prior to Bell Beaker. However, I am interested to find out what culture or cultures you think were involved in this eastward movement of L51.



I would say the possibility that best fits with this is that Corded Ware developed wholly within R1a areas, although perhaps some P312 & U106 adopted it when they moved into these areas. It looks to me like Corded Ware might have collapsed with R1a being chased Eastwards. P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99) did not seem to adopt it, so it does not really look like a P312 phenomenon.

You seem to be saying that P312 and U106 men were native western European Neolithic farmers who adopted a kurgan culture in the form of Corded Ware and became Bell Beaker. How did that happen without the resulting Bell Beaker culture acquiring a healthy dose of R1a?

The old Corded Ware wives thing again?

How did the "P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99)" acquire its kurgan Bell Beaker culture?

You began Post #494 with these words:



The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates - . . .

The words "my analysis" always raise a red flag for me, but, be that as it may, "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases" has led you astray.

The premise of this thread is the possibility that R1b-P312 was present in Corded Ware in its own right as a steppe or steppe-derived lineage as legitimate as R1a and that kurgan Bell Beaker is a cultural derivative of Corded Ware, perhaps of the Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker version of Corded Ware found in the Lower Rhine. It's not about Neolithic sodbusters marrying Corded Ware women who then taught them how to ride horses, bury their dead kurgan style, speak Indo-European, and worship a pantheon of male gods.

I hate to rehash the whole argument over and over and over again, but R1b-L51 is a steppe lineage because ALL of R1b-L23 is a steppe lineage. R1b-L51 is a brother clade of R1b-Z2103 under their father L23. Clearly, devastatingly clearly, R1b-Z2103 has been found in eastern Yamnaya. R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 have been found in non-Iberian Bell Beaker, which is clearly a steppe culture, a culture to which many scholars over the last couple of centuries have attributed the spread of at least some of the Indo-European languages. Non-Iberian Bell Beaker has a strong steppe autosomal dna component, which correlates with y-dna R1b-L23.

R1b-L23 wasn't simultaneously in western Europe (as R1b-L51) in the form of Neolithic farmers and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (as R1b-Z2103) in the form of Yamnaya.

Olalde et al is kind of like one of those before-and-after sets of photos. Western Europe before non-Iberian Bell Beaker: no R1b-L23 and no steppe dna. Western Europe after non-Iberian Bell Beaker: plenty of R1b-L23 and plenty of steppe autosomal dna.

Now, if you think R1b-L51 got its IE culture and steppe dna from Corded Ware women, just say so. That has been dealt with before, but I'd be more than happy to do so again.

MitchellSince1893
07-21-2017, 07:05 PM
A good summary of the importance of archery in Malopolska Corded Ware (emphasis is mine)...

Piotr Wlodarczak (2014) The Traits of Early-Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Malopolska Groups) and Zlota Culture Communities



Also an interesting quote related to archery...

Jan Turek (2015) Bell Beaker Stone Wrist-Guards as Symbolic Male Ornament. The Significance of Ceremonial Warfare in 3rd Millennium BC Central Europe

Yeah that post from early in this thread was what really got me thinking about L11/P312 coming from N/E of Carpathians circa 2700 BC. You got this new burial orientation, the appearance of arrow heads in male graves (not found to the West or North in CW),


Around the time when graves switched to the north-south axis, pottery is influenced by Globular Amphora Culutre/Zlota and also TRB So that helps explain the GAC/TRB admixture via mostly females (typical pottery makers). And the pottery spread from here to Low Countries over the next couple of hundred years.

For me the above facts are a very convincing argument for the arrival of L11/P312 from the east circa 2700 BC. These puzzle pieces fit together rather nicely.

If the 2700 BC date is close, and these features weren't found to the North or West, then it points to P312 originating from somewhere North of the Black Sea (mostly made up of present day Ukraine), or further east still in Pontic Steppe.

epp
07-21-2017, 07:31 PM
Here is what you wrote in Post #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312/page50) in this thread:



I am surprised no one took you to task for that statement. I was on vacation and not looking at the computer when you made it.

At the start of Corded Ware - around 3000 BC - R1b-L51 was already present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain? Really?

How did it get there and when? Why is it missing thus far from not only Olalde et al's Neolithic samples but everyone else's, as well?

Here is some of the rest of your Post 494:



Evidently you think L51 is native to the western European regions you named, "Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain", and moved eastwards from there.

It seems to me Olalde et al have already rubbished that idea, especially the part about L51 being in Britain prior to Bell Beaker. However, I am interested to find out what culture or cultures you think were involved in this eastward movement of L51.



You seem to be saying that P312 and U106 men were native western European Neolithic farmers who adopted a kurgan culture in the form of Corded Ware and became Bell Beaker. How did that happen without the resulting Bell Beaker culture acquiring a healthy dose of R1a?

The old Corded Ware wives thing again?

How did the "P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99)" acquire its kurgan Bell Beaker culture?

You began Post #494 with these words:



The words "my analysis" always raise a red flag for me, but, be that as it may, "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases" has led you astray.

The premise of this thread is the possibility that R1b-P312 was present in Corded Ware in its own right as a steppe or steppe-derived lineage as legitimate as R1a and that kurgan Bell Beaker is a cultural derivative of Corded Ware, perhaps of the Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker version of Corded Ware found in the Lower Rhine. It's not about Neolithic sodbusters marrying Corded Ware women who then taught them how to ride horses, bury their dead kurgan style, speak Indo-European, and worship a pantheon of male gods.

I hate to rehash the whole argument over and over and over again, but R1b-L51 is a steppe lineage because ALL of R1b-L23 is a steppe lineage. R1b-L51 is a brother clade of R1b-Z2103 under their father L23. Clearly, devastatingly clearly, R1b-Z2103 has been found in eastern Yamnaya. R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 have been found in non-Iberian Bell Beaker, which is clearly a steppe culture, a culture to which many scholars over the last couple of centuries have attributed the spread of at least some of the Indo-European languages. Non-Iberian Bell Beaker has a strong steppe autosomal dna component, which correlates with y-dna R1b-L23.

R1b-L23 wasn't simultaneously in western Europe (as R1b-L51) in the form of Neolithic farmers and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (as R1b-Z2103) in the form of Yamnaya.

Olalde et al is kind of like one of those before-and-after sets of photos. Western Europe before non-Iberian Bell Beaker: no R1b-L23 and no steppe dna. Western Europe after non-Iberian Bell Beaker: plenty of R1b-L23 and plenty of steppe autosomal dna.

Now, if you think R1b-L51 got its IE culture and steppe dna from Corded Ware women, just say so. That has been dealt with before, but I'd be more than happy to do so again.
rms2, I do not appreciate you misleading people by quoting me out of context - I did not state the things you quote me as stating, but merely identified these as the indications of 'most likely' estimates derived from my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases.

You say that I "seem to be saying" stuff about Neolithic farmers, kurgan cultures and Corded Ware wives, when I have never mentioned any of these subjects before and indeed have nothing to say about them.

I am not interested in you insulting other people's views and "taking them to task" and it has become tiresome responding to your aggressive diatribes, so I will cease doing so.

If anyone wishes to explore the subject of this thread in a reasonable manner, I am interested in the following issue, raised previously.
If:
1. As MitchellSince1893 says, "The most ancient P312 to date is RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE. Near Danube 20 miles from Austrian border with Germany", which goes right back to when yfull estimates was the formation date for U152 and the TMRCA for P312 itself, and
2. 80% of the ydna-confirmed Olaide Bell Beaker samples outside of Iberia were claimed to be P312+,and that these were mainly in England, Eastern France, Netherlands, Southern Germany and Hungary -
this would seem to represent archaeological and modern DNA evidence pointing to the same most likely scenario for P312's origin and early development, i.e. that it was located somewhere in an arc running from the Upper Danube, across Southern Germany, Eastern France/the Rhine, the Low Countries and to England, most likely in Southern Germany.

In such a scenario, would P312's arrival in Southern Germany have been as an integral part of the Corded Ware culture or as the main provider of its cultural replacement, or perhaps both?

MitchellSince1893
07-21-2017, 08:05 PM
...If:
1. As MitchellSince1893 says, "The most ancient P312 to date is RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE. Near Danube 20 miles from Austrian border with Germany", which goes right back to when yfull estimates was the formation date for U152 and the TMRCA for P312 itself

Just a reminder. Yfull's current best guess formation date for P312 is 4800 ybp (~2850 BC). Another soon to be public source's "best guess" is even earlier.

Yfull version 5.04's 95% confidence interval P312 formation date range goes back to 5300 ybp (3350 BC)

As RISE563 is most likely P312>U152, this pushes the latest possible date of P312 to the ~2600 BC. In all likelihood ~2700 BC based on the multiple STR mutations between P312 and U152 found in ytree.net. This leaves us with a P312 formation range of 3350 BC to ~2700 BC

kinman
07-21-2017, 08:28 PM
I would say that P312 probably moved from Austria to southern Germany about 3000 B.C. (just before the Corded Ware culture began), so at that time P312 couldn't have been an integral part of a culture which did not yet exist.

P.S. I obviously do not believe P312 originated in southern Germany. Looks like Moldova or adjacent Ukraine is a far more likely birth place (around 3500 B.C.).



If anyone wishes to explore the subject of this thread in a reasonable manner, I am interested in the following issue, raised previously.
If:
1. As MitchellSince1893 says, "The most ancient P312 to date is RISE563 / I4144: P312 (poss. U152), Germany, 2572–2512 calBCE. Near Danube 20 miles from Austrian border with Germany", which goes right back to when yfull estimates was the formation date for U152 and the TMRCA for P312 itself, and
2. 80% of the ydna-confirmed Olaide Bell Beaker samples outside of Iberia were claimed to be P312+,and that these were mainly in England, Eastern France, Netherlands, Southern Germany and Hungary -
this would seem to represent archaeological and modern DNA evidence pointing to the same most likely scenario for P312's origin and early development, i.e. that it was located somewhere in an arc running from the Upper Danube, across Southern Germany, Eastern France/the Rhine, the Low Countries and to England, most likely in Southern Germany.

In such a scenario, would P312's arrival in Southern Germany have been as an integral part of the Corded Ware culture or as the main provider of its cultural replacement, or perhaps both?

epp
07-21-2017, 10:37 PM
I would say that P312 probably moved from Austria to southern Germany about 3000 B.C. (just before the Corded Ware culture began), so at that time P312 couldn't have been an integral part of a culture which did not yet exist.
I'm not sure what you mean. If P312 was within the Corded Ware culture when it came into existence, then it must have been integral to it.


P.S. I obviously do not believe P312 originated in southern Germany. Looks like Moldova or adjacent Ukraine is a far more likely birth place (around 3500 B.C.).
My own estimate, based on STR variance, is around 2,950 BC - not dissimilar to yfull's. How do you come by your figure of 3,500 BC?

I'm finding it curious that few of you are ready to countenance the possibility that P312 could have originated in Southern Germany (i) where its modern STR variance is greatest, (ii) where it dominates archaeological Bell Beaker samples close to its estimated formation date and (iii) where its oldest known sample was found.
Instead, it is positioned in Ukraine and the Steppes where it barely exists today (and with minimal STR variance), and where no one seems to know of it being present in any ancient archaeological samples.

Are people similarly convinced that the apparently Western subclades A8039, A8051, S1194, U106, U152, DF19, L21, DF99 and DF27 also all originated in the Steppes?

And as Olaide claimed that P312 dominated ydna-confirmed Bell Beaker samples, does anyone countenance the possibility that P312 was the main conveyor of Corded Ware's replacement and/or collapse?

alan
07-21-2017, 10:55 PM
A good summary of the importance of archery in Malopolska Corded Ware (emphasis is mine)...

Piotr Wlodarczak (2014) The Traits of Early-Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Malopolska Groups) and Zlota Culture Communities



Also an interesting quote related to archery...

Jan Turek (2015) Bell Beaker Stone Wrist-Guards as Symbolic Male Ornament. The Significance of Ceremonial Warfare in 3rd Millennium BC Central Europe
A lot hinges of exact dates but I think yours is the best hypothesis linking the various strands of evidence I have heard and makes a great deal of sense. Is there any physical anthropological data on that south Polish CW group? I have often wondered where the distinctive beaker type arose.

R.Rocca
07-21-2017, 11:17 PM
Just a reminder. Yfull's current best guess formation date for P312 is 4800 ybp (~2850 BC). Another soon to be public source's "best guess" is even earlier.

Yfull version 5.04's 95% confidence interval P312 formation date range goes back to 5300 ybp (3350 BC)

As RISE563 is most likely P312>U152, this pushes the latest possible date of P312 to the ~2600 BC. In all likelihood ~2700 BC based on the multiple STR mutations between P312 and U152 found in ytree.net. This leaves us with a P312 formation range of 3350 BC to ~2700 BC

BTW, you do not need to use the word "possible" for RISE563... it is "absolutely" U152+ :D

R.Rocca
07-21-2017, 11:28 PM
A lot hinges of exact dates but I think yours is the best hypothesis linking the various strands of evidence I have heard and makes a great deal of sense. Is there any physical anthropological data on that south Polish CW group? I have often wondered where the distinctive beaker type arose.

For Malopolska, we have this...

Elizabeta Haduch (2014) Bell Beakers and Corded Ware people in the Little Poland Upland - An Anthropological Point of View


Most skeletons in the present study belong to tall individuals. This mostly concerns male skeletons, which are classified as tall in both the CWC and BBC series. Also, the body proportions of these pastoral groups are similar, being slender stature.

Of course, from the waist up, the crania are different, but as you know, that may be due to cradle boarding or something not genetic.

MitchellSince1893
07-22-2017, 12:55 AM
BTW, you do not need to use the word "possible" for RISE563... it is "absolutely" U152+ :D

I will "most likely " stop using "possible" and start using "absolutely"

Gravetto-Danubian
07-22-2017, 03:23 AM
For Malopolska, we have this...

Elizabeta Haduch (2014) Bell Beakers and Corded Ware people in the Little Poland Upland - An Anthropological Point of View



Of course, from the waist up, the crania are different, but as you know, that may be due to cradle boarding or something not genetic.

Nevertheless, the main conclusion of the said author is one which highlights BB males in Poland as foreign/ intrusive and distinct from CWC.

Another study mentions some anthropology, and discusses the dating of BB in south Poland : "Analysis of the Kornice radiocarbon dates may suggest a somewhat later appearance of Bell Beaker Culture groups north of the Carpathians than is currently supposed. At present, this appearance is dated to approximately 24oo– 225o BC, based on a series of dates from the cemetery at Samborzec in Little Poland "
(New data for research on the Bell Beaker Culture in Upper Silesia, Poland. Fumanek et al).

So maybe P312 reached the west via Poland, but came back as U152 (and modified due to admixture & in-group drift).

MitchellSince1893
07-22-2017, 03:45 AM
So where is ancient P312, and which subclades are these ancient samples?

A quick map with some (not all) of the older samples (before 2000 BC) for P312 and subclades (DF27, U152, L21), and U106. Dates are the middle of the range rounded to nearest 10 years

The yellow shaded areas and arrows are just my hypothesis for where P312 may been and direction it may have gone. It's not meant to be a boundary that P312 didn't cross.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/15/74/8d/15748d7f972a5ac931e64f29c4102fba.png

epp
07-22-2017, 09:12 AM
A quick map with some (not all) of the older samples (before 2000 BC) for P312 and subclades (DF27, U152, L21), and U106. Dates are the middle of the range rounded to nearest 10 years

The yellow shaded areas and arrows are just my hypothesis for where P312 may been and direction it may have gone. It's not meant to be a boundary that P312 didn't cross.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/15/74/8d/15748d7f972a5ac931e64f29c4102fba.png
Of course, your hypothesis is possible, although I feel the yellow shadings and arrows might give a misleading impression of where the samples are found and where the oldest ones are. In fact, based on the ageing of the samples, the arrows would flow in almost exactly the opposite direction, going North Eastwards from South East France, and with no shading at all East of Hungary.

Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?

alan
07-22-2017, 10:51 AM
Of course, your hypothesis is possible, although I feel the yellow shadings and arrows might give a misleading impression of where the samples are found and where the oldest ones are. In fact, based on the ageing of the samples, the arrows would flow in almost exactly the opposite direction, going North Eastwards from South East France, and with no shading at all East of Hungary.

Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?

Many possibilities to explain the movement of P312 though any pre dating 3000BC are v v unlikely. Could be as simple as P312 was a single lineage from western Ukraine that then took part in the great corded ware dash from the Poland-Ukraine border origin point to the Rhine in a generation c 2800/2750bc. Once you remove the dodgy RC dates it is clear most of CW Europe west of Poland was settled in a very narrow span of time which to me indicates a v thin spread of setlers in the first generation or two. That is a perfect scenario for bottlenecks and founder effects. P312 then could have sat somewhere like the Rhine or Upper Danube until contact with the south-west c2550BC gave them a distinctive material culture.

R.Rocca
07-22-2017, 11:58 AM
Nevertheless, the main conclusion of the said author is one which highlights BB males in Poland as foreign/ intrusive and distinct from CWC.

Yes, they conclude that based on skull shape, which again, may or may not be related to cultural practices, not genetics. Both CWC and BB howeer were unusually tall for their time, which cannot be explained by environmental factors alone.


Another study mentions some anthropology, and discusses the dating of BB in south Poland : "Analysis of the Kornice radiocarbon dates may suggest a somewhat later appearance of Bell Beaker Culture groups north of the Carpathians than is currently supposed. At present, this appearance is dated to approximately 24oo– 225o BC, based on a series of dates from the cemetery at Samborzec in Little Poland "
(New data for research on the Bell Beaker Culture in Upper Silesia, Poland. Fumanek et al).

So maybe P312 reached the west via Poland, but came back as U152 (and modified due to admixture & in-group drift).

Absolutely, and this is the scenario I proposed somewhere in this thread... both the later dating in Little Poland and the reduced steppe ancestry there (less than England) means that, "if" the small Polish CWC group did contain L51+, it would have been replaced culturally by Moravian Bell Beaker ~200 years later. So, while it is interesting to compare BB and CWC skeletons from Little Poland, I don't think they need to be identical.

R.Rocca
07-22-2017, 12:08 PM
A quick map with some (not all) of the older samples (before 2000 BC) for P312 and subclades (DF27, U152, L21), and U106. Dates are the middle of the range rounded to nearest 10 years

The yellow shaded areas and arrows are just my hypothesis for where P312 may been and direction it may have gone. It's not meant to be a boundary that P312 didn't cross.

It is a nice map, but I'd prefer a few more lines going from west to east based on archaeology. For example, it is almost universally agreed in archaeology literature that both southern Polish and Hungarian Bell Beaker came from Moravia.

rms2
07-22-2017, 12:59 PM
rms2, I do not appreciate you misleading people by quoting me out of context - I did not state the things you quote me as stating, but merely identified these as the indications of 'most likely' estimates derived from my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases . . .

I quoted just what you wrote and even provided the link to the full post. That is hardly quoting you out of context. I misled no one.

In your original post, #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630) (there's the whole thing again for anyone who wants to read it in full context), you said the following:



At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.


I put the part that interests me in bold, which is a legitimate thing to do. I could have used an ellipsis for the same purpose and cut out the part about R1a-M417.

If you have changed your mind about all that, fine, but don't say I quoted you out of context and am misleading people. Those things are just not true.

R.Rocca
07-22-2017, 01:24 PM
I quoted just what you wrote and even provided the link to the full post. That is hardly quoting you out of context. I misled no one.

In your original post, #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630) (there's the whole thing again for anyone who wants to read it in full context), you said the following:

I put the part that interests me in bold, which is a legitimate thing to do. I could have used an ellipsis for the same purpose and cut out the part about R1a-M417.

If you have changed your mind about all that, fine, but don't say I quoted you out of context and am misleading people. Those things are just not true.

I don't mean to speak for EPP, and certainly he can correct me if I'm wrong, but his statement reads that "At the start of Corded Ware...L51 was present" does not mean it was there before Corded Ware, but arrived there with the earliest Corded Ware.

rms2
07-22-2017, 01:34 PM
I don't mean to speak for EPP, and certainly he can correct me if I'm wrong, but his statement reads that "At the start of Corded Ware...L51 was present" does not mean it was there before Corded Ware, but arrived there with the earliest Corded Ware.

I don't think that is what he meant, given the rest of his post, but he could have cleared that up and said so, if you're right.

Besides, how could he mean that and say, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France . . . and Britain"? As far as I know, there is no evidence Corded Ware ever got to Britain, and it isn't likely it was already in Northern France by about 3000 BC, when it began.

At its starting point Corded Ware was in Northern France and Britain? Really, who thinks that at its starting point, around 3000 BC, Corded Ware was even as far west as the Rhine?

Epp can clear this up if he wants, but I think he meant simply that L51 was already in western Europe, including Britain, by the time Corded Ware was just getting started, in R1a-dominated territory.

From the same post (#494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630)):



I would say the possibility that best fits with this is that Corded Ware developed wholly within R1a areas, although perhaps some P312 & U106 adopted it when they moved into these areas.

epp
07-22-2017, 03:08 PM
I quoted just what you wrote and even provided the link to the full post. That is hardly quoting you out of context. I misled no one.

In your original post, #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630) (there's the whole thing again for anyone who wants to read it in full context), you said the following:



I put the part that interests me in bold, which is a legitimate thing to do. I could have used an ellipsis for the same purpose and cut out the part about R1a-M417.

If you have changed your mind about all that, fine, but don't say I quoted you out of context and am misleading people. Those things are just not true.

For the benefit of people reading this thread, this is exactly what I said in post #494(the important bit in italics):

The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates -
At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.
During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

I did not state the comments you attributed to me either as facts or as personal opinions. I was simply communicating the results of some variance tests on FTDNA data. There is nothing for me to change my opinion about; I did not express any opinion. Until FTDNA adds more samples to its databases, the results will remain the same.

MitchellSince1893
07-22-2017, 03:17 PM
It is a nice map, but I'd prefer a few more lines going from west to east based on archaeology. For example, it is almost universally agreed in archaeology literature that both southern Polish and Hungarian Bell Beaker came from Moravia.

To keep it simple, I was just showing my thoughts on the initial flow from the east. Of course there would be lots of back and forth if P312 was associated with a trading network as some have proposed here.



Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?
Not quite. Some believe P312 or his paternal ancestor (e.g. P310 or P311, and/or L11) originated in the Steppes, with U106 and P312 splitting at some point in time/place with U106 taking a more northerly route. The question for those folks, myself included, is where did L21, U152, DF27, etc form? North of the Alps? somewhere near the Rhine? Czech-Slovakia? Southern Poland? Austria? Hungary? Moldova? Ukraine? Some of the above?

I'm currently inclined to say northeast of Carpathians for at least U152...which might draw in DF27 as well. I base this on dates of U152 (not the Yfull TMRCA date) and the wide variety of U152 subclades found in the few U152 samples from this area.

I could be totally wrong about the reason for the wide variety of U152 subclades northeast of the Carpathians; as it could be associated with post Bell Beaker movements e.g. Hallstatt and La Tene.

However, if ~2700 BC is when P312 arrived into southern Poland area and it came from the east, then U152 would possibly be from near there or further east,south/east.

rms2
07-22-2017, 03:24 PM
For the benefit of people reading this thread, this is exactly what I said in post #494(the important bit in italics):

The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates -
At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.
During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

I did not state the comments you attributed to me either as facts or as personal opinions. I was simply communicating the results of some variance tests on FTDNA data. There is nothing for me to change my opinion about; I did not express any opinion. Until FTDNA adds more samples to its databases, the results will remain the same.

Come on. What are "[t]he results of my analysis" except your own personal opinions on and interpretation of the data?

You made a number of strongly definitive, dispositive statements, which anyone can read for himself in your post. The data themselves, in this case "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases", don't say those things. You said them. They are your interpretation of the data.

Are you saying you think what you posted in Post #494 is wrong, that "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases" is misleading in this case? Or do you stand by your interpretation?

By the way, that is not exactly what you said in post #494. In your post above you omitted part of your original Post #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630), this part, at the end:



I would say the possibility that best fits with this is that Corded Ware developed wholly within R1a areas, although perhaps some P312 & U106 adopted it when they moved into these areas. It looks to me like Corded Ware might have collapsed with R1a being chased Eastwards. P312 that did not move significantly into R1a areas (L21, DF27, DF19, DF99) did not seem to adopt it, so it does not really look like a P312 phenomenon.

R.Rocca
07-22-2017, 05:50 PM
The lack of Corded Ware ceramics in the earliest western-most areas of Corded Ware burials is interesting. (see M. Furholt 2003 - Absolutchronologie und die Entstehung der Schnurkeramik)

Here is a map of Corded Ware burials ca. 2900. As can be seen, the Corded Ware style burials further to the west lack Corded Ware ceramics...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_2900BC.png

It is not until 200 years later, around 2750 BC that the Corded Ware ceramics make their way into Corded Ware style burials in the west.
Interestingly, the western-most Corded Ware ceramics resemble the All-Over-Ornamented (AOO) Bell Beaker ceramics in...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_2750BC.png

rms2
07-22-2017, 05:52 PM
Those pots in the SE portion of your second map above look to me like GAC ceramics.

R.Rocca
07-22-2017, 06:04 PM
Those pots in the SE portion of your second map above look to me like GAC ceramics.

Correct, the GAC-like amphorae are part of the Corded Ware ceramic package.

epp
07-22-2017, 06:07 PM
Let's take a simple example. If there are only 2 people with a SNP, my system formulates that their common ancestor was most likely located somewhere on the line between where each of them live - of course, it is possible that the ancestor lived somewhere else; but excluding other factors, there is nowhere more likely than on this line. In simply drawing a line between 2 locations, there is no element of opinion or interpretation involved.

Of course, there are a few very opinionated people on this forum who act as if they know for sure exactly what happened where thousands of years ago and wish to bully everyone into agreeing with them. I am not one of those people.

rms2
07-22-2017, 06:08 PM
Correct, the GAC-like amphorae are part of the Corded Ware ceramic package.

And I absolutely agree with you that the western-most CW pots look like Bell Beaker pots.

Man, would I love to see some y-dna from Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker Corded Ware.

rms2
07-22-2017, 06:11 PM
Let's take a simple example. If there are only 2 people with a SNP, my system formulates that their common ancestor was most likely located somewhere on the line between where each of them live - of course, it is possible that the ancestor lived somewhere else; but excluding other factors, there is nowhere more likely than on this line. In simply drawing a line between 2 locations, there is no element of opinion or interpretation involved.

Of course, there are a few very opinionated people on this forum who act as if they know for sure exactly what happened where thousands of years ago and wish to bully everyone into agreeing with them. I am not one of those people.

Spare me all that last part. No one is bullying anyone. Defend your opinions or don't.

Twenty people could look at modern variance and come up with twenty different interpretations. It is total bs to say "there is no element of opinion or interpretation involved".

I know I could run the FTDNA data through McGee's or what-have-you, if I were so inclined, and I know for a fact I would still not see things your way.

epp
07-22-2017, 06:19 PM
I don't mean to speak for EPP, and certainly he can correct me if I'm wrong, but his statement reads that "At the start of Corded Ware...L51 was present" does not mean it was there before Corded Ware, but arrived there with the earliest Corded Ware.
To clarify, I did not mean anything more than I said. I simply used my formula to estimate which y-dna was most likely where at a snapshot in time (the start of Corded Ware, which I took as 2,900 BC). I wasn't implying anything going forwards or backwards.

epp
07-22-2017, 06:24 PM
I come on this forum to exchange information, and have no interest in "defending" myself or in attacking anyone else's posts. Neither do I see any point in raging that other people's opinions are all crap, bullshit, bizarre etc.

rms2
07-22-2017, 06:31 PM
I come on this forum to exchange information, and have no interest in "defending" myself or in attacking anyone else's posts. Neither do I see any point in raging that other people's opinions are all crap, bullshit, bizarre etc.


No one said anything of the kind. I said that claiming what you wrote was not an opinion or an interpretation is bs, and it is.

Are you saying that anyone looking at modern variance would conclude that, in your words, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain"?

Really? That's not an opinion?

Come on. Be serious.

epp
07-22-2017, 07:50 PM
No one said anything of the kind. I said that claiming what you wrote was not an opinion or an interpretation is bs, and it is.

Are you saying that anyone looking at modern variance would conclude that, in your words, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain"?

Really? That's not an opinion?

Come on. Be serious.
Quoting me out of context again ... and you've acquired a sidekick now too, I see. Try uploading another aggressive post, and see if he thanks you again.

rms2
07-22-2017, 07:55 PM
Quoting me out of context again ... and you've acquired a sidekick now too, I see. Try uploading another aggressive post, and see if he thanks you again.

Surely you must not understand what "out of context" means, because I did not quote you out of context. I have cited your entire post a number of times. In fact, at one point, I supplied part of it that you yourself omitted.

Do you really think that, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain"?

Btw, how is that quote "out of context"? What is missing that would change its meaning?

Was L51 already "in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain" at the start of Corded Ware (around 3000 BC)?

If you have changed your mind about that, fine. No one will blame you. Otherwise, what do you think about all this? Where did L51 come from originally and when? If Bell Beaker did not stem from Corded Ware, where did it come from?

alan
07-22-2017, 08:08 PM
For the benefit of people reading this thread, this is exactly what I said in post #494(the important bit in italics):

The results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases indicate the following 'most likely' estimates -
At the start of Corded Ware - R1a-M417 was present in Germany, Poland, Belarus, NW Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain.
During Corded Ware - L51 was moving Eastwards (P312/U152 into Southern Germany; U106 into Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden); M417 was mostly moving Eastwards out of Germany.
At the end of Corded Ware - U106 was moving further Eastwards into Poland; some branches of M417 were moving South Eastwards into Ukraine, Southern Russia and South West Asia.

I did not state the comments you attributed to me either as facts or as personal opinions. I was simply communicating the results of some variance tests on FTDNA data. There is nothing for me to change my opinion about; I did not express any opinion. Until FTDNA adds more samples to its databases, the results will remain the same.

There is nothing wrong with most of your ideas but there is absolutely no archaeological signal accepted by the mainstream for steppe derived groups in Northern/ north-central
Europe before 3000bc (2800bc really)

rms2
07-22-2017, 08:13 PM
There is nothing wrong with most of your ideas but there is absolutely no archaeological signal accepted by the mainstream for steppe derived groups in Northern/ north-central
Europe before 3000bc (2800bc really)

If there is nothing wrong with them then they must be right, unless you mean there is nothing wrong with holding opinions, even clearly erroneous ones. I agree with the last sentiment, as long as one recognizes that they are opinions and isn't claiming they are simply what the data indicate to everyone.

ArmandoR1b
07-22-2017, 08:18 PM
Quoting me out of context again ... and you've acquired a sidekick now too, I see. Try uploading another aggressive post, and see if he thanks you again.

Of course I am going to thank him. He is making good points. Most importantly that you are making assumptions based on modern testing and declaring that the ancestors of two people that share an SNP lived in between those two points 2,900 BC. That's pure speculation and there hasn't been a single ancient specimen from 2,900 that has tested positive for P312 or L151 in Western Europe and the autosomal DNA and the archaeology does not agree with your statements either.

You should stop playing the victim because others are shooting holes in your hypothesis. If you are going to make statements then you should be ready to defend them if they are logically sound.

edit: I just thanked alan too and he doesn't agree with you either.

alan
07-22-2017, 09:51 PM
Gotta say the details of any lightening fast movements where a lot of ground is covered in 100 years is not going to be sorted out with confidence by radiocarbon dating as there are a lot of ifs and buts in the method and sugnificant confidence intervals. Problem is CW c2800-2700BC and non Iberian beaker c2500-2400BC both underwent huge expansions to reach much of their full extent in a century. That may be beyond the ability of the technique short of large samples and applying Bayesian analysis. I think it's too fast for RC dating to tell the story and a bigger sample of ancient DNA will be needed

alan
07-22-2017, 10:02 PM
This has been a good thought provoking thread and I am a lot more confident that P312 likely only reached the Danube around Bratislava and Vienna after passing around the northern flanks of the Cawrpathians. What is convincing me is that model fits both the ancient DNA so far and the modern division of Europe into Z2103 and L51 zones. I am ecumenical on the exact cultural origin of P312 but that model places them in the CW zone of Europe.

epp
07-22-2017, 10:43 PM
Surely you must not understand what "out of context" means, because I did not quote you out of context. I have cited your entire post a number of times. In fact, at one point, I supplied part of it that you yourself omitted.

Do you really think that, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain"?

Btw, how is that quote "out of context"? What is missing that would change its meaning?

Was L51 already "in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain" at the start of Corded Ware (around 3000 BC)?

If you have changed your mind about that, fine. No one will blame you. Otherwise, what do you think about all this? Where did L51 come from originally and when? If Bell Beaker did not stem from Corded Ware, where did it come from?
Oh, my God. How many times do I have to say this? No, I don't really think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain". And I don't know whether L51 was already "in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain" at the start of Corded Ware (around 3000 BC), and nor do you. All I said was that the results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases estimate that as 'most likely'. Do you really want me to keep repeating this over and over again, or will you let us all return to the subject of the thread?

epp
07-22-2017, 11:05 PM
There is nothing wrong with most of your ideas but there is absolutely no archaeological signal accepted by the mainstream for steppe derived groups in Northern/ north-central
Europe before 3000bc (2800bc really)
I accept that. Perhaps all the various L51 subclades and sub-subclades and sub-sub-subclades did originate in the Steppe and left it together. Perhaps L51 was Steppe-derived, but only developed more recently than its SNP and STR analysis would suggest. Perhaps the archaeology is so far incomplete, or its evidence has been submerged by rising sea levels. Who knows for sure? No one.

I don't see any explanation so far that fits all the various evidence comfortably, apart from that R1a-M417 and Corded Ware look to me an almost perfect match.

epp
07-22-2017, 11:21 PM
Most importantly that you are making assumptions based on modern testing and declaring that the ancestors of two people that share an SNP lived in between those two points 2,900 BC.
Oh, my God. Now you're at it too. I haven't declared anything of the sort. I said my analysis technique was based on the premise that a common ancestor of 2 people is more likely to be located somewhere on the line between where each of them live than somewhere else.


I just thanked alan too and he doesn't agree with you either.
Boo-hoo! Does this mean none of you are my friends any more?

David Mc
07-22-2017, 11:24 PM
No, I don't really think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain". And I don't know whether L51 was already "in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain" at the start of Corded Ware (around 3000 BC), and nor do you. All I said was that the results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases estimate that as 'most likely'. Do you really want me to keep repeating this over and over again, or will you let us all return to the subject of the thread?

Do you think it's possible that you're not seeing the problems you're creating for yourself? Note the two emboldened sections. You're saying you don't think one thing, but then you say your "analysis" shows that thing to be likely. There are only two ways to understand this tension:

1) You actually do think this, because your analysis shows this to be most likely.

or...

2) Your analysis shows this to be most likely, but you recognize your method is unsound and therefore don't think it is pointing in the right direction.

Given that you've been pretty consistent in defending your method, we can only assume you really do think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain."

That's why you keep getting challenged on this.

epp
07-23-2017, 12:07 AM
Do you think it's possible that you're not seeing the problems you're creating for yourself? Note the two emboldened sections. You're saying you don't think one thing, but then you say your "analysis" shows that thing to be likely. There are only two ways to understand this tension:

1) You actually do think this, because your analysis shows this to be most likely.

or...

2) Your analysis shows this to be most likely, but you recognize your method is unsound and therefore don't think it is pointing in the right direction.

Given that you've been pretty consistent in defending your method, we can only assume you really do think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain."

That's why you keep getting challenged on this.
I don't mind the sensible challenges, but they are mostly puerile at the moment.

I don't really think anything, nor see why most people feel they have to doggedly stick to a fixed opinion about things and engage in adversarial debate. If I were forced to come to an opinion, I would say yes, that on the balance of probabilities L51 was present in at least one of the areas identified above at the start of Corded Ware, but I'm quite prepared to accept that might be wrong. I'm merely noting the discrepancies between different pieces of evidence, and some of the gross implausibilities inherent in current thinking.

There's nothing unsound about my method, which is based on common sense, mathematics and logical reasoning, nor about the FTDNA database which contains detailed information on tens of thousands of samples from across the world (far more samples than provided in the odd archaeological site dotted here and there). Its various conclusions are also very closely consistent with each other, and fairly close to the current orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that the results of the tests that I carried out suggest that pre-L51 most likely emerged from slightly West of where others say it emerged, that it most likely did so a little earlier than others say it did, that it most likely branched out a little West of where others say it did, and that having flourished it most likely moved Eastwards (as well as North, South and West) - a conclusion that appears supported by the ageing of the archaeological sites identified on this thread.

What I'm looking for are any explanations that might marry some of the conclusions of my analysis with other apparently slightly divergent evidence.

kinman
07-23-2017, 12:23 AM
I would say that your analysis technique is based on a "false" premise. Especially when it comes to highly mobile people (or populations of people). A father (common ancestor) of 2 sons, stays put, while those 2 sons go elsewhere either (1) together (in which case your premise is wrong) or (2) they go off in different directions (in which case your premise is only correct if they go in opposite directions (which is not very likely).


I said my analysis technique was based on the premise that a common ancestor of 2 people is more likely to be located somewhere on the line between where each of them live than somewhere else.

David Mc
07-23-2017, 03:07 AM
I have to agree with kinman and others here. Your model, epp, could work for a small static population over a short period of time, but even then, there are no guarantees. Typically people-groups move in one direction, either towards something (opportunity) or away from something (danger/hardship). The halfway point sees both arbitrary and blind to these kinds of movements. It also fails to take into account the new data that ancient DNA has been providing, and the archaeological record itself.

People aren't trying to dismiss you out of hand; they're just holding your hypothesis up to the light of what we now know, and they are identifying its problems.

Dewsloth
07-23-2017, 06:02 AM
I would say that your analysis technique is based on a "false" premise. Especially when it comes to highly mobile people (or populations of people). A father (common ancestor) of 2 sons, stays put, while those 2 sons go elsewhere either (1) together (in which case your premise is wrong) or (2) they go off in different directions (in which case your premise is only correct if they go in opposite directions (which is not very likely).

There could also be unknown cultural rules at,play: much later in history, it was one son to take over (stay put), one son to the Church, and the rest to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Who knows what the rules were during the neolithic/chalcolithic?

jdean
07-23-2017, 06:08 AM
I would say that your analysis technique is based on a "false" premise. Especially when it comes to highly mobile people (or populations of people). A father (common ancestor) of 2 sons, stays put, while those 2 sons go elsewhere either (1) together (in which case your premise is wrong) or (2) they go off in different directions (in which case your premise is only correct if they go in opposite directions (which is not very likely).

Also an assumption all sons of P312 have survived and are present in FTDNA's database.

rms2
07-23-2017, 01:17 PM
Oh, my God. How many times do I have to say this? No, I don't really think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain". And I don't know whether L51 was already "in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain" at the start of Corded Ware (around 3000 BC), and nor do you. All I said was that the results of my analysis of modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases estimate that as 'most likely'. Do you really want me to keep repeating this over and over again, or will you let us all return to the subject of the thread?

How can something you do not think is true be the results of your own analysis unless you think that analysis was fundamentally flawed? Look, "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases" by itself will not tell anyone things as rarefied as your statement that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain". It's just a collection of variance data. It takes a human being interpreting those data and forming an opinion about them to come up with stuff like that. I could look at that data all week long and never conclude that L51 was already in western Europe by the start of Corded Ware.

So, one cannot separate himself from his own interpretation by claiming "this is what the data say", as if anyone looking at the data would come up with the same thing. The only way to disavow such claims is to say something like, "Yeah, that's what I thought at first, but now I think I was wrong."

Modern variance data from FTDNA's database do not indicate that L51 was already in northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain at the start of Corded Ware. They simply show what the variance is in Europe now (assuming FTDNA's database is an accurate reflection of European variance, which is an open question).

epp
07-23-2017, 02:05 PM
I would say that your analysis technique is based on a "false" premise. Especially when it comes to highly mobile people (or populations of people). A father (common ancestor) of 2 sons, stays put, while those 2 sons go elsewhere either (1) together (in which case your premise is wrong) or (2) they go off in different directions (in which case your premise is only correct if they go in opposite directions (which is not very likely).
The premise is clearly not false. Otherwise, can you pick a spot on a map for any ancestors' estimated origin point that you think, on average, would be more likely than somewhere on a line drawn between his two sons' locations? Is it two hundred miles North West of where they now live, or perhaps a thousand miles South West, or do sons generally move about totally at random making them equally likely to be living anywhere on earth?

There are obviously other factors affecting where any individual lives. These factors are largely unknown, so I am excluding them from the analysis.

Comparing one pair of sons will not tell us much, because the sample size is too small. However, if you repeat the same procedure over thousands of such pairs, the average result will likely indicate something informative.

If the premise in my analysis is false, the premise behind the Steppes hypothesis becomes equally false: just because dna is similar between archaeological Steppes samples and modern Northern Europeans, you could similarly argue that these two populations might simply have been sons who went off in opposite directions from an immediate common ancestor in Southern Africa, for instance. Still possible, but not anywhere near as likely as the prospect that they had common Steppes ancestry or even common North European ancestry.

Clearly, there are no guarantees with any analysis of what happened thousands of years ago. And I'm not assuming that all sons of P312 have survived - I'm just tracking the most likely ancestral development of surviving populations based on the mutations in their DNA.

epp
07-23-2017, 02:46 PM
How can something you do not think is true be the results of your own analysis unless you think that analysis was fundamentally flawed? Look, "modern day DNA variance from FTDNA databases" by itself will not tell anyone things as rarefied as your statement that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain".
Yawn. I did not say I think it is not true, and I did not make such a statement.

Can this thread get back to discussing something useful? For instance, I have twice asked this question without really receiving an answer:
Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?
The most divergent FTDNA samples for each of L51, PF7589, CTS6889, L151, A8039, A8051, S1200, U106, P312, DF99, DF19, U152, DF27, L21 are all NW European, and none are from the Steppes. These SNPs branched out over a period estimated by yfull to be 1,800 years. Is it the most likely explanation that all of these SNPs arose in the Steppes, that every one of their surviving male offspring remained put with all the others in the Steppes for a period of 1,800 years, then they all moved together about 2,000 km away to North Western Europe leaving no one back anywhere in the Steppes, then having been wholly constrained to the Steppes for 1,800 years they decided to spread out rapidly populating all corners of Western Europe within the space of a few hundred years?

rms2
07-23-2017, 02:56 PM
Yawn. I did not say I think it is not true, and I did not make such a statement . . .

Yes, you did. In Post #494 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=260630&viewfull=1#post260630), you said, "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain". Subsequently, in Post #660 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=264060&viewfull=1#post264060), you said the following:



Oh, my God. How many times do I have to say this? No, I don't really think that "At the start of Corded Ware . . . R1b-L51 was present in Northern France, along the Rhine, in the Low Countries and Britain".


In common parlance, whatever comes after *I don't really think that* is something one does not think is true. When someone prefaces such a denial with Oh, my God. How many times do I have to say this?, it becomes particularly emphatic.

ArmandoR1b
07-23-2017, 02:57 PM
Oh, my God. Now you're at it too. I haven't declared anything of the sort. I said my analysis technique was based on the premise that a common ancestor of 2 people is more likely to be located somewhere on the line between where each of them live than somewhere else.
I failed to write what I meant. As others have brought up, it is your premise that is causing a flawed analysis technique that is causing conclusion that doesn't agree with ancient DNA or archaeology about where R1b-L51 was present at the start of Corded Ware.


Boo-hoo! Does this mean none of you are my friends any more?
It means that I am not anyone's side-kick as you stated rather curtly and for some weird reason. I thank people that challenge statements that are groundless. None of this has to do with you. It has to do with a lack of proof that your premise is well-founded and how much it goes against the other available data points which you think have no bearing although many of us think they have to be explained and we don't see you explaining them.

rms2
07-23-2017, 03:17 PM
. . .

Can this thread get back to discussing something useful? For instance, I have twice asked this question without really receiving an answer:
Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to? . . .

Who has said anything like that?

Has anyone participating in this thread suggested that all of the subclades of L51 arose on the steppe? Not that I have seen.

I think R1b-M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L51, and probably R1b-L151 all arose on the steppe. R1b-P312 might have, or it might have arisen among the R1b-L151 tribes that had already moved west of the Dniester.

IMHO, P312's major subclades arose in east-central and central Europe.

As for "leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from", we don't yet have any ancient Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe. We only have it from the Caspian steppe and the Volga-Ural steppe. We don't yet have any ancient y-dna from Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin. The ancient y-dna we do have from the eastern steppe is strongly R1b-L23, most of it belonging to L51's brother clade under L23, Z2103.

We do have lots of P312 in the obviously steppe-derived Bell Beaker culture, strongly correlated with steppe autosomal dna, and we have Indo-European languages spread all over Europe, including western Europe.

MitchellSince1893
07-23-2017, 03:51 PM
I have twice asked this question without really receiving an answer:
I answered your question on post 642.

rms2
07-23-2017, 04:06 PM
Here's another thing that really should not need to be said in a thread like this one:

Thus far there isn't a trace of R1b-M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L51 or any of their subclades in western Europe before Bell Beaker.

Not a trace.

George Chandler
07-23-2017, 04:54 PM
I have to agree with kinman and others here. Your model, epp, could work for a small static population over a short period of time, but even then, there are no guarantees. Typically people-groups move in one direction, either towards something (opportunity) or away from something (danger/hardship). The halfway point sees both arbitrary and blind to these kinds of movements. It also fails to take into account the new data that ancient DNA has been providing, and the archaeological record itself.

People aren't trying to dismiss you out of hand; they're just holding your hypothesis up to the light of what we now know, and they are identifying its problems.

A couple of other factors to consider when large population groups are on the move are available resources and strength of leadership. If a large population group is on the move and they have used up their domestic food sources (cattle, goats, harvested grain etc) then begin to exhaust the local wildlife, crops ect very quickly and sometimes splitting the group and going in different directions (as long as they are strong enough to defend themselves) is better than a starving larger group. Sometimes there are leaders within a population who disagree on the best route to take around a mountain rage..so instead of a civil war the population is divided according who they want to follow..regardless if that is the correct route or not.

George

GoldenHind
07-23-2017, 05:36 PM
Perhaps relevant to this discussion, we do have DF27 in Armenia. It could be due to some back-migration, but also could be a remnant population.

jdean
07-23-2017, 06:04 PM
Perhaps relevant to this discussion, we do have DF27 in Armenia. It could be due to some back-migration, but also could be a remnant population.

There's also U 106 and 152 found in the Urals which must be from a back migration, no other possible explanation : )

jdean
07-23-2017, 07:04 PM
And then of course there's the early Hungarians who managed to turn up with Siberian MtDNA and West European Y-DNA (U106 again). Classic marauding horseman behaviour, slay the women but offer to take the men along for the ride ?

lgmayka
07-23-2017, 07:46 PM
Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?
No one claims that, because your question includes two obvious errors:

- "Thousands of years" is nonsense. YFull's TMRCA for R-L151 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L151/) is 4800 ybp, for R-U106 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/) 4800 ybp, for R-S1200 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/) 4800 ybp, for R-P312 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-P312/) 4400 ybp, for R-U152 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/) 4400 ybp, for R-DF27 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/) 4400 ybp, for R-L21 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L21/) 4400 ybp, and for R-DF19 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF19/) 4400 ybp. This pattern of rapid fan-out continues into many subclades whose estimated TMRCAs are at or near 4400 ybp. Thus, we are debating a demographic explosion that occurred over a period of roughly 400 years.

- "Leaving no traces" is nonsense. Various early offshoots (singletons and small subclades) survive in Eastern and Central Europe--i.e., in the vast territory between the steppe and Western Europe. The territory is undersampled and undertested, of course--particularly war-torn and impoverished Ukraine--but some such lineages have appeared on YFull's haplotree, such as the mysterious R-BY653 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-BY653/).

The rest of your post repeats these two gross errors.

epp
07-23-2017, 08:33 PM
I think R1b-M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L51, and probably R1b-L151 all arose on the steppe. R1b-P312 might have, or it might have arisen among the R1b-L151 tribes that had already moved west of the Dniester.

IMHO, P312's major subclades arose in east-central and central Europe.

As for "leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from", we don't yet have any ancient Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe. We only have it from the Caspian steppe and the Volga-Ural steppe. We don't yet have any ancient y-dna from Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin. The ancient y-dna we do have from the eastern steppe is strongly R1b-L23, most of it belonging to L51's brother clade under L23, Z2103.
Thank you for this more reasonable and useful post.

The scenario you've outlined is a little more plausible.

However, I'm told that L51 was not in Western Europe pre-Corded ware, as there is no archaeological evidence of it, and that it must have originated in the Steppe - even though you now tell me that we don't yet have any ancient Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic Steppe or the Carpathian Basin at all (and presumably no L51 in the Caspian Steppe or Volga-Ural Steppe) either. I don't see why the burden of proof should be different between one hypothesis and the other.

George Chandler
07-23-2017, 08:36 PM
No one claims that, because your question includes two obvious errors:

- "Thousands of years" is nonsense. YFull's TMRCA for R-L151 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L151/) is 4800 ybp, for R-U106 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/) 4800 ybp, for R-S1200 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/) 4800 ybp, for R-P312 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-P312/) 4400 ybp, for R-U152 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/) 4400 ybp, for R-DF27 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/) 4400 ybp, for R-L21 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L21/) 4400 ybp, and for R-DF19 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF19/) 4400 ybp. This pattern of rapid fan-out continues into many subclades whose estimated TMRCAs are at or near 4400 ybp. Thus, we are debating a demographic explosion that occurred over a period of roughly 400 years.

- "Leaving no traces" is nonsense. Various early offshoots (singletons and small subclades) survive in Eastern and Central Europe--i.e., in the vast territory between the steppe and Western Europe. The territory is undersampled and undertested, of course--particularly war-torn and impoverished Ukraine--but some such lineages have appeared on YFull's haplotree, such as the mysterious R-BY653 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-BY653/).

The rest of your post repeats these two gross errors.

Even if the YFull age estimates are slightly conservative and the founder ages for all of those SNP's are actually a few hundred years older they were still in their infancy. Regardless if they were born out of the area of that is modern Germany or modern Bulgaria..trying to find a positive sample from ancient remains will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack the closer it gets to the founder period.

epp
07-23-2017, 08:36 PM
I answered your question on post 642.
Apologies, and your answer was a very reasonable one. When I get so many negative replies to respond to, it's hard to keep a track of them all.

epp
07-23-2017, 08:40 PM
Here's another thing that really should not need to be said in a thread like this one:

Thus far there isn't a trace of R1b-M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L51 or any of their subclades in western Europe before Bell Beaker.

Not a trace.
Yes, there's not a trace of L51 anywhere else either, despite yfull's estimate of its formation date as 4,200 BC. Therein lies the mystery.

epp
07-23-2017, 08:55 PM
No one claims that, because your question includes two obvious errors:

- "Thousands of years" is nonsense. YFull's TMRCA for R-L151 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L151/) is 4800 ybp, for R-U106 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/) 4800 ybp, for R-S1200 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/) 4800 ybp, for R-P312 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-P312/) 4400 ybp, for R-U152 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/) 4400 ybp, for R-DF27 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/) 4400 ybp, for R-L21 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L21/) 4400 ybp, and for R-DF19 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-DF19/) 4400 ybp. This pattern of rapid fan-out continues into many subclades whose estimated TMRCAs are at or near 4400 ybp. Thus, we are debating a demographic explosion that occurred over a period of roughly 400 years.

- "Leaving no traces" is nonsense. Various early offshoots (singletons and small subclades) survive in Eastern and Central Europe--i.e., in the vast territory between the steppe and Western Europe. The territory is undersampled and undertested, of course--particularly war-torn and impoverished Ukraine--but some such lineages have appeared on YFull's haplotree, such as the mysterious R-BY653 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-BY653/).

The rest of your post repeats these two gross errors.
Why have you chosen to ignore L51 - formation date per yfull 6,200 ybp? 6,200 ybp minus 4,400 ybp = a 1,800 years time span.

yfull gives four BY693 samples, only one of which is Ukrainian, the other three being British and Italian (areas replete with BY693's brother clades); and BY693's estimated TMRCA is in any case only 4200 ybp (late Bell Beaker) - not so mysterious.

People keep telling me I'm writing "nonsense" and "crap" when the shoe is actually on the other foot.

epp
07-23-2017, 09:20 PM
My analysis of FTDNA data calculates the maximum diversity of R1b-L51 and of each one of its subclades and of each one of its sub-subclades to be in the same relatively small area, extending from South Germany and up the Rhine to Britain. I don't think this is a coincidence, particularly as this area quite closely matches the locations of archaeological Bell Beaker sites. Also, the extent of R1a-M417's estimated range at that time closely matches the extent of Corded Ware. This would place L51 (the most populous subclade of which was P312) on the Southern and Western edges of M417/Corded Ware territory.

I think it would therefore be reasonable to hypothesise that P312 most likely had exposure to Corded Ware, and was probably influenced by it to some degree. However, P312's spread seems likely to have been too limited for it to have been responsible for Corded Ware's expansion across its range.

George Chandler
07-23-2017, 10:01 PM
Why have you chosen to ignore L51 - formation date per yfull 6,200 ybp? 6,200 ybp minus 4,400 ybp = a 1,800 years time span.

yfull gives four BY693 samples, only one of which is Ukrainian, the other three being British and Italian (areas replete with BY693's brother clades); and BY693's estimated TMRCA is in any case only 4200 ybp (late Bell Beaker) - not so mysterious.

People keep telling me I'm writing "nonsense" and "crap" when the shoe is actually on the other foot.

What Larry is saying isn't nonsense..unless he wants to correct me I think the point he is trying to make is that in using the TMRCA age instead of the founder age will give you a more accurate picture (possibly) in terms of migration events, demographic explosion etc. The founder age may be much older "but" given that there are some unplaced SNP's from various historical events like war, famine that it's not until the population expands rapidly and that population haplogroup survives that you can start to see the "demographic explosion" that he is referring to.

See what I'm saying? I see what you're saying as well.

alan
07-23-2017, 10:45 PM
Yawn. I did not say I think it is not true, and I did not make such a statement.

Can this thread get back to discussing something useful? For instance, I have twice asked this question without really receiving an answer:
Do people on this forum really think the most likely scenario, based on the evidence, is that all of the main subclades of each of L51, L151 and P312 originated and branched apart in the Steppes over thousands of years before all coming together to move to Western Europe en masse, leaving no traces of any of them in the places they came from, but dispersing widely across the region they moved to?
The most divergent FTDNA samples for each of L51, PF7589, CTS6889, L151, A8039, A8051, S1200, U106, P312, DF99, DF19, U152, DF27, L21 are all NW European, and none are from the Steppes. These SNPs branched out over a period estimated by yfull to be 1,800 years. Is it the most likely explanation that all of these SNPs arose in the Steppes, that every one of their surviving male offspring remained put with all the others in the Steppes for a period of 1,800 years, then they all moved together about 2,000 km away to North Western Europe leaving no one back anywhere in the Steppes, then having been wholly constrained to the Steppes for 1,800 years they decided to spread out rapidly populating all corners of Western Europe within the space of a few hundred years?
If you just looked at modern pops you wouldn't have guessed P297/M73 in the Latvian Mesolithic. Many argued that Z2103 looked non IE based on modern populations and no one dreamed it would be dominant in Yamnaya. I am pretty sure Z2103 is rare in the steppe zone and frequent in SW Asia now and has its highest variance outside the steppes in sonewhere like Romania or western n Turkey. i just don't think variance works with mobile groups or on the highways of migration. Look at the Tyrol study. L51xL11 is common in areas without Slavic place names but in adjacent areas of Tyrol with such placenames it's been totally erased. The Slavic migration clearly wiped out lineages of they fled.

alan
07-23-2017, 11:05 PM
Yes, there's not a trace of L51 anywhere else either, despite yfull's estimate of its formation date as 4,200 BC. Therein lies the mystery.

The v modest amount of survivers of branching between L51 and L11 and the not very high variance of the collective modern representatives strongly suggests it was either a line that didn't much grow about certain survival before L11 or that it suffered catastrophic pruning at some point between the L51 and L11 SNPs. It may be a bit if both. If it was a small line struggling to survive 4500-3000BC then it's absence in ancient DNA is expected -- it would take a fluke to find it. If it was pruned drastically by some event or climatic downturn then modem variance will be misleading.

alan
07-23-2017, 11:20 PM
If you look at Irish clans, some expanded into new territories and eventually lost or abandoned their original territory while retaining the lands they had moved into. This happened to the Oriel and qui Thuirtre clans in the 10th to 12th centuries.
So both the frequency and variance would totally mislead you about the origin point. This would be typical in societies where clan is paramount and remains even if territory changes.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-23-2017, 11:50 PM
M269 could be as old as 6000 BC.
L23's brother - PF7562 tends to be found in SEE & Anatolia.
So i think it is possible that L23 expanded from the lower Danube region, with Z2103 going east, and L51 going northwest.

David Mc
07-23-2017, 11:53 PM
However, I'm told that L51 was not in Western Europe pre-Corded ware, as there is no archaeological evidence of it, and that it must have originated in the Steppe...

Precisely. Except it's not just an absence of archaeological evidence; it's the positive evidence supplied by some exceptional ancient DNA studies that have come out over the past year.

1) We now have a solid picture of which haplogroups were in western Europe in the neolithic. L51 wasn't one of them.
2) With the appearance of Eastern Bell Beaker peoples, L51 appears in abundance, quickly overwhelming older populations.
3) One of the things that sets early L51 apart from the earlier European peoples is it carries a large amount of Yamnaya or Steppe-like DNA. In fact, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware seem to bring that with them.

Simply put, if there is no archaeological or genetic trace of L51 in Western Europe until it arrives with Eastern Beaker and (perhaps?) Corded Ware and these two groups also bring Steppe-like DNA with them, Occam's razor more or less dictates that they came from the east. We may not have the missing link, yet, but we do know where the extended family used to live, so it's just a matter of time.

kinman
07-24-2017, 12:57 AM
I believe that M269 actually originated about 11,000-12,000 BC, and it was over 80 SNPs later that L23 arose (4300 BC or earlier; 4800 BC is my estimate).

L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 very soon after and were probably domesticators of the horse. Therefore, I suspect that they were living further east (perhaps near the Volga River, possibly part of the Khvalynsk Culture), and that the horse would allow Z2103 (and perhaps L51 with them) to then spread west in Kurgan Wave 1 (4200 BC), and Sredny Stog culture was finally replaced about 3400-3500 BC (Kurgan Wave 2).

When Z2103 finally reached the Danube region is uncertain, but almost certainly before 3000 BC, at which time domesticated horses were in Romania and Z2103 probably crossed the Bosporus about that time (perhaps being among the founders of Troy around 2900 BC). The L51-L11-P312 line perhaps went north of the Carpathians mainly because their Z2103 relatives already filled the lower Danube niche. Of course, it is still possible that some members of the L51-L11-P312 went up the Danube (south of the Carpathians), but they wouldn't have picked up the GAC/TRB admixture of those who went north of the Carpathians.


M269 could be as old as 6000 BC.
L23's brother - PF7562 tends to be found in SEE & Anatolia.
So i think it is possible that L23 expanded from the lower Danube region, with Z2103 going east, and L51 going northwest.

lgmayka
07-24-2017, 01:42 AM
Why have you chosen to ignore L51 - formation date per yfull 6,200 ybp? 6,200 ybp minus 4,400 ybp = a 1,800 years time span.
Perhaps you don't understand YFull's terminology. The so-called formation date is the date at which the branch began to diverge from its siblings. In contrast, the TMRCA is the date at which the branch began to spawn new sub-branches which survive until today. From the interval between the formation date and the TMRCA, exactly one lineage survives. To debate exactly where that one single lineage survived across many centuries is essentially a waste of time. At most, one might hypothesize that the formation date represents the time of initial isolation or migration, and the TMRCA represents the time of first major expansion (possibly after a bottleneck event).

An even better example is I-M253, also known as I1 (https://yfull.com/tree/I1/). Its so-called formation date is 27,500 ybp, but its TMRCA is 4600 ybp. Exactly one lineage survived that 23K-year interval! It is rather absurd to debate exactly where that one lineage might have wandered throughout those 23,000 years. Even if we discover, say, a 7000-year-old Hungarian skeleton with pre-I1 Y-DNA, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the one I1 lineage we actually care about was anywhere in the neighborhood at the time.


yfull gives four BY693 samples, only one of which is Ukrainian, the other three being British and Italian (areas replete with BY693's brother clades); and BY693's estimated TMRCA is in any case only 4200 ybp (late Bell Beaker) - not so mysterious.
One BY653 man who lived 4200 years ago sired male descendants who rapidly stayed in or migrated to Ukraine, Sardinia, and the British Isles. The four entries have no further SNPs in common, suggesting an almost simultaneous multiway migration, probably all the way to their final destinations. (If the migration to Britain, for example, had been slower, the two British entries would almost certainly share at least one SNP--but they don't.)

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2017, 01:44 AM
I believe that M269 actually originated about 11,000-12,000 BC, and it was over 80 SNPs later that L23 arose (4300 BC or earlier; 4800 BC is my estimate).

L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 very soon after and were probably domesticators of the horse. Therefore, I suspect that they were living further east (perhaps near the Volga River, possibly part of the Khvalynsk Culture), and that the horse would allow Z2103 (and perhaps L51 with them) to then spread west in Kurgan Wave 1 (4200 BC), and Sredny Stog culture was finally replaced about 3400-3500 BC (Kurgan Wave 2).

When Z2103 finally reached the Danube region is uncertain, but almost certainly before 3000 BC, at which time domesticated horses were in Romania and Z2103 probably crossed the Bosporus about that time (perhaps among the founders of Troy around 2900 BC). The L51-L11-P312 line perhaps went north of the Carpathians mainly because their Z2103 relatives already filled the lower Danube niche. Of course, it is still possible that some members of the L51-L11-P312 went up the Danube (south of the Carpathians), but they wouldn't have picked up the GAC/TRB admixture of those who went north of the Carpathians.

That's an interesting theory, but it has some factual errors in it.

* L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 very soon after and were probably domesticators of the horse
It is now clear that the horse was domesticated in northern Kazakhstan. I;'m not sure which lineages were involved, but I doubt it was L51 this far east. Probably Q would appear.

*Therefore, I suspect that they were living further east (perhaps near the Volga River, possibly part of the Khvalynsk Culture)
As per above. The Khvalynsk culture didnt domesticate the horse. In fact, archaeozoological studies has conclusively demonstrated that the Khvalysnk people were still fisher-foragers-hunters, not purveyors of domesticates.

Moreover, we have Y DNA from Khvalysnk, none of which is M269, let alone L51

* to then spread west in Kurgan Wave 1 (4200 BC), and Sredny Stog culture was finally replaced about 3400-3500 BC (Kurgan Wave 2).
That's not really how the typo-chronology evolves. Well, it is according to Gimbutas, but our understanding has come a long way since the 60s.

kinman
07-24-2017, 01:53 AM
There is no proof that the Botai of northern Kazakhstan were the first to domesticate horses (and the Botai Culture beginning about 3700 BC just seems too late in time if horses facilitated Kurgan Wave 1 several centuries earlier). Domestication could easily have begun closer to the Volga and then spread both east and west from there.

I only said L23/L51/Z2103 were "possibly" part of the Khvalysnk Culture, so I am not strongly wedded to that idea. However, although Khvalysnk people were initially fisher-foragers-hunters, that would not rule out members of the Late Khvalysnk culture as domesticators of the horse (I'll have to learn more about the timelime of that culture). Horse domestication could have marked the transition from Khvalysnk to Yamnaya. L51 didn't have to have lived at Khvalysnk to have been a member of that culture.


That's an interesting theory, but it has some factual errors in it.

* L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 very soon after and were probably domesticators of the horse
It is now clear that the horse was domesticated in northern Kazakhstan. I;'m not sure which lineages were involved, but I doubt it was L51 this far east. Probably Q would appear.

*Therefore, I suspect that they were living further east (perhaps near the Volga River, possibly part of the Khvalynsk Culture)
As per above. The Khvalynsk culture didnt domesticate the horse. In fact, archaeozoological studies has conclusively demonstrated that the Khvalysnk people were still fisher-foragers-hunters, not purveyors of domesticates.

Moreover, we have Y DNA from Khvalysnk, none of which is M269, let alone L51

* to then spread west in Kurgan Wave 1 (4200 BC), and Sredny Stog culture was finally replaced about 3400-3500 BC (Kurgan Wave 2).
That's not really how the typo-chronology evolves. Well, it is according to Gimbutas, but our understanding has come a long way since the 60s.

MitchellSince1893
07-24-2017, 01:54 PM
FYI. The initial P312 and subclade dates from Iain McDonald led effort are now up

Clade Best guess (95% confidence interval)
P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
DF19 2747 BC (3596 BC — 1773 BC)
U152 2737 BC (3320 BC — 2233 BC)
DF27 3028 BC (3741 BC — 2423 BC)
L21 2934 BC (3638 BC — 2362 BC)
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/ge...312/table.html

As I said in the other thread, keep in mind this is version 1.0. Much data has come in since the 6 Jun 2017 cut off for this version. So expect things to adjust a little in the next version.

Other P312 links e.g. tree structure found here. http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html

NOTE: Not every subclade is going to be listed. If it doesn't show up in the BigY vcf files, it won't be in the tree...unless Iain has manually gone in and added it...but the more he does this the more it skews his date methodology, so he's hesitant to add them. An example of this is U152>L2 (largest U152 subclade). It doesn't show up in the BigY vcf file. Iain manually added it and it only increased the age of P312 by 9 years, so he felt comfortable leaving it in.


Also future versions may include adjustments based on carbon dating of ancient samples. e.g. RISE563 (it's absolutely U152) is dated to 2572-2512 BC. That would affect the low in date range for U152.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2017, 02:01 PM
There is no proof that the Botai of northern Kazakhstan were the first to domesticate horses (and the Botai Culture beginning about 3700 BC just seems too late in time if horses facilitated Kurgan Wave 1 several centuries earlier). Domestication could easily have begun closer to the Volga and then spread both east and west from there.

Well, one not knowing of the said proof does not equate with it not existing ;)
And perhaps we need to have a rethink as to what the "Kurgan I wave" actually represents, again, based on current state of the art.

rms2
07-24-2017, 02:14 PM
FYI. The initial P312 and subclade dates from Iain McDonald led effort are now up . . .

L21 2934 BC (3638 BC — 2362 BC)
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/ge...312/table.html
. . .


Sorry for an L21-specific aside, but if those dates are right, they pretty much kill the idea that L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland, especially given the results of Olalde et al.

MitchellSince1893
07-24-2017, 02:20 PM
Sorry for an L21-specific aside, but if those dates are right, they pretty much kill the idea that L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland, especially given the results of Olalde et al.

I've been going through a lot of R1b FTDNA data this past week, provided by Robert Casey, (~3000 non UK & non Irish European samples with geographic locations); and as I'm sure you know (having been an L21 project admin), there are quite a few L21 samples from Eastern and southeastern Europe.

rms2
07-24-2017, 02:40 PM
Thank you for this more reasonable and useful post.

You're welcome.



The scenario you've outlined is a little more plausible.

However, I'm told that L51 was not in Western Europe pre-Corded ware, as there is no archaeological evidence of it, and that it must have originated in the Steppe - even though you now tell me that we don't yet have any ancient Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic Steppe or the Carpathian Basin at all (and presumably no L51 in the Caspian Steppe or Volga-Ural Steppe) either. I don't see why the burden of proof should be different between one hypothesis and the other.

Other folks have answered you, but I wanted to throw in my two cents.

First off, what is the other hypothesis? By that I think I mean your hypothesis, since it is apparent you think L51 did not come from the steppe and was not originally Indo-European. What was it and where did it come from then?

As for the burden of proof, well, we now have quite a bit of ancient y-dna from Europe prior to Bell Beaker, and none of it is even M269, let alone L23 or L51. So, when it comes to western Europe, people have been looking and testing.

When it comes to the likely L51 source populations on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian Basin, however, no one has been looking or testing. So, we don't have any L51 from there yet. What a surprise! There's nothing like looking for something, if one wants to find it.

On the other hand, we have loads of L51, mostly in the form of its descendant, P312, in non-Iberian Bell Beaker. Bell Beaker is very obviously a steppe or steppe-derived culture that could not have been formed in western Europe. In addition, non-Iberian Bell Beaker has a substantial steppe autosomal dna component. The only exceptions to that, according to Olalde et al, were all non-R1b (see page 66 of the Supplementary Information).

R1b-L23 is the father of both R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103. Z2103 has already been found in eastern Yamnaya, in Csepel Bell Beaker, and in Vucedol. It isn't likely its brother, L51, was simultaneously at the opposite end of the continent hoeing beets as Neolithic farmer stuff.

Here's the enormous elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore, even when he sits on them. Indo-European languages are spoken throughout Europe, including western Europe. How did that happen? Keep in mind that steppe dna and y-dna R1b-L23 are now widespread in western Europe, as well, and neither was present there before Bell Beaker.

Just out of curiosity, and in the interest of transparency, what is your y-dna haplogroup, epp?

Webb
07-24-2017, 03:05 PM
FYI. The initial P312 and subclade dates from Iain McDonald led effort are now up

Clade Best guess (95% confidence interval)
P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
DF19 2747 BC (3596 BC — 1773 BC)
U152 2737 BC (3320 BC — 2233 BC)
DF27 3028 BC (3741 BC — 2423 BC)
L21 2934 BC (3638 BC — 2362 BC)
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/ge...312/table.html

As I said in the other thread, keep in mind this is version 1.0. Much data has come in since the 6 Jun 2017 cut off for this version. So expect things to adjust a little in the next version.

Other P312 links e.g. tree structure found here. http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html

NOTE: Not every subclade is going to be listed. If it doesn't show up in the BigY vcf files, it won't be in the tree...unless Iain has manually gone in and added it...but the more he does this the more it skews his date methodology, so he's hesitant to add them. An example of this is U152>L2 (largest U152 subclade). It doesn't show up in the BigY vcf file. Iain manually added it and it only increased the age of P312 by 9 years, so he felt comfortable leaving it in.


Also future versions may include adjustments based on carbon dating of ancient samples. e.g. RISE563 (it's absolutely U152) is dated to 2572-2512 BC. That would affect the low in date range for U152.

I started a new thread under P312 about this very thing.

MitchellSince1893
07-24-2017, 03:12 PM
I started a new thread under P312 about this very thing. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11435-Iain-McDonald-s-New-P312-Analysis
good idea, otherwise we will pull this thread off track on non P312 corded ware discussions.


But for argument's sake; for a moment let's all assume P312 was born around 3150 BC and see where that takes us. How does that affect our discussion in this thread?

From my perspective it puts P312 starting point in Eastern Europe.

rms2
07-24-2017, 03:17 PM
good idea, otherwise we will pull this thread off track on non P312 corded ware discussions.

But for argument's sake; for a moment let's all assume P312 was born around 3150 BC and see where that takes us. How does that affect our discussion in this thread?

From my perspective it puts P312 starting point in Eastern Europe.

I agree. Pontic steppe, most likely.

TigerMW
07-24-2017, 03:37 PM
I agree. Pontic steppe, most likely.
This may be an additional piece of evidence supporting P312 originating in Yamnaya proper versus Corded Ware.

We have a new Big Y from a guy from Armenia who may be true P312*. We need his BAM file. We've already had some DF27+ people from this same subgroup of Armenia but they were A431+ which would indicate a more westerly origin. If we start find more true P312* folks from a particular region that may help us out.

MitchellSince1893
07-24-2017, 03:46 PM
This may be an additional piece of evidence supporting P312 originating in Yamnaya proper versus Corded Ware.

We have a new Big Y from a guy from Armenia who may be true P312*. We need his BAM file. We've already had some DF27+ people from this same subgroup of Armenia but they were A431+ which would indicate a more westerly origin. If we start find more true P312* folks from a particular region that may help us out.

So if P312 was born 3150 BC or earlier then it's too old to be Corded Ware? That is interesting. Corded Ware date related info form wiki

The earliest radiocarbon dates for Corded Ware indeed come from Kujawy and Lesser Poland in central and southern Poland and point to the period around 3000 BCE. However, subsequent review has challenged this perspective, instead pointing out that the wide variation in dating of the Corded Ware, especially the dating of the culture's beginning, is based on individual outlier graves, is not particularly in line with other archaeological data and runs afoul of plateaus in the radiocarbon calibration curve; in the one case where the dating can be clarified with dendrochronology, in Switzerland, Corded Ware is found for only a short period from 2750 BCE to 2400 BCE. [11] Furthermore, because the short period in Switzerland seems to represent examples of artifacts from all the major sub-periods of the Corded Ware culture elsewhere, some researchers conclude that Corded Ware occurred more or less simultaneously throughout North Central Europe in the early 2900 BCE, in a number of "centers" which subsequently formed their own local networks.[2]:297 Carbon-14 dating of the remaining central European regions shows that Corded Ware appeared after 2880 BCE[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

rms2
07-24-2017, 03:53 PM
So if P312 was born 3150 BC or earlier then it's too old to be Corded Ware? That is interesting. Corded Ware date related info form wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

Of course P312 could be primarily Corded Ware, even if the SNP itself was born well before that culture began. All it would take is for enough P312 men to become part of the culture, whether or not they were its creators. If kurgan Bell Beaker is the offspring of Corded Ware, say, Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker, then the great bulk of P312 would be CW descended.

rms2
07-24-2017, 04:34 PM
. . .

We have a new Big Y from a guy from Armenia who may be true P312*. We need his BAM file . . .

I guess you mean he belongs to a branch of P312 that split from the rest of us very early, and is non-western, not that he really is P312*.

kinman
07-24-2017, 04:50 PM
I like those numbers (much better than YFull). And now my estimate for the formation of P312 (about 3500 BC) is looking better, now being 398 years within the 95% confidence interval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FYI. The initial P312 and subclade dates from Iain McDonald led effort are now up

Clade Best guess (95% confidence interval)
P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
DF19 2747 BC (3596 BC — 1773 BC)
U152 2737 BC (3320 BC — 2233 BC)
DF27 3028 BC (3741 BC — 2423 BC)
L21 2934 BC (3638 BC — 2362 BC)
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/ge...312/table.html

R.Rocca
07-24-2017, 05:39 PM
A warning from Iain McDonald:


Most clades can only be dated to within about a millennium. Use the "best guess" dates as a guide, but you should quote the uncertainty ranges in any correspondence. About 5% of dates will not be contained within these uncertainty ranges: we currently know that the Royal Stewart line is among these 5%.

TigerMW
07-24-2017, 06:06 PM
I guess you mean he belongs to a branch of P312 that split from the rest of us very early, and is non-western, not that he really is P312*.

He may be a true P312*. There are no known public subclades that this guy is showing up in at a first pass, other than P312. He is clearly DF19- L238- L21- U152-. DF27 and ZZ12 can be tricky but he is negative for Z195 and negative for everything downstream of ZZ12 that is covered.

To clarify what I think we mean by an asterisk or paragroup is that that a fellow is tested negative for all known public downstream SNPs. Of course, the guy must have private SNPs that his brother (if he has one) or his father or sons would have.

He is a early branch away from P312 or DF27, a kind of a lonely fellow in either case.

This is the origins background information I have.

There are a handful of people from Syunik (Armenia) who are P312+ DF27+ A431/A432/Y3267+ Y7363+, but all other Armenians are above P312 and U106.

A true P312* or DF27* Aremenian would be a new find, which this person appears to be.

A CTS4528+ (which is L51+ L151+ U106- P312-) Armenian has been found too.

TigerMW
07-24-2017, 06:13 PM
I've been going through a lot of R1b FTDNA data this past week, provided by Robert Casey, (~3000 non UK & non Irish European samples with geographic locations); and as I'm sure you know (having been an L21 project admin), there are quite a few L21 samples from Eastern and southeastern Europe.

I've got an R1b-L21>DF13>L513 fellow from the Czech Rep. with Big Y pending. He doesn't fit any of our L513 STR clusters so it could be interesting. I'm looking for the day when a couple of people break up the L513 phylogenetic equivalent block.

alan
07-24-2017, 06:57 PM
Sorry for an L21-specific aside, but if those dates are right, they pretty much kill the idea that L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland, especially given the results of Olalde et al.

Yep the central date for L21 is half a millennium older than beaker in the isles. It's extremely hard to imagine a pre beaker location for L21 other than in western CW 2800-2500BC. AFAIK both ends of the Rhine had been reached by CW/single grave culture by 2800-2750BC. So it's not impossible L21 arrived on the Rhine with CW or singie grave.

epp
07-24-2017, 07:03 PM
If you just looked at modern pops you wouldn't have guessed P297/M73 in the Latvian Mesolithic.
I personally would have guessed it - modern M73 has a diverse range, extending from Siberia to the Atlantic. R1b in general is a very mobile haplogroup, and I doubt it would have been constrained to the Steppes.

rms2
07-24-2017, 07:05 PM
He may be a true P312*. There are no known public subclades that this guy is showing up in at a first pass, other than P312. He is clearly DF19- L238- L21- U152-. DF27 and ZZ12 can be tricky but he is negative for Z195 and negative for everything downstream of ZZ12 that is covered.

To clarify what I think we mean by an asterisk or paragroup is that that a fellow is tested negative for all known public downstream SNPs . . .

I figured that is what you meant, but that is not what I would call a "true P312*". It isn't likely any modern man exists who is a true P312*, that is, whose true terminal SNP is P312.

Enough testing in Armenia, Turkey, etc., would probably reveal other men who share whatever this modern man's true "public" terminal SNP is.

MacUalraig
07-24-2017, 07:12 PM
A warning from Iain McDonald:


Yep the central date for L21 is half a millennium older than beaker in the isles.

cough.

epp
07-24-2017, 07:15 PM
The v modest amount of survivers of branching between L51 and L11 and the not very high variance of the collective modern representatives strongly suggests it was either a line that didn't much grow about certain survival before L11 or that it suffered catastrophic pruning at some point between the L51 and L11 SNPs. It may be a bit if both. If it was a small line struggling to survive 4500-3000BC then it's absence in ancient DNA is expected -- it would take a fluke to find it.
Agreed. In such circumstances, the absence of archaeological L51 from this era in Western Europe - or anywhere else - is not surprising, wherever it developed. We live in hope of such a fluke. Until then, modern DNA is the best guide that we have.

If it was pruned drastically by some event or climatic downturn then modem variance will be misleading.
I don't think so. Nearly all haplogroups have had bottlenecks and drastic prunings at one point or other. As my analysis of modern DNA generally yields consistent results, I would say it is unlikely to be materially misleading.

rms2
07-24-2017, 07:17 PM
cough.

Remember too that the youngest end of McDonald's L21 age estimate would render it nearly impossible for L21 to have originated in the British Isles or Ireland, because Bell Beaker was just arriving in Britain from the Continent around that time and did not get to Ireland until about 100 years later.

So, use the youngest estimate, if you would like. L21 still probably did not originate in the Isles.

epp
07-24-2017, 07:20 PM
M269 could be as old as 6000 BC.
L23's brother - PF7562 tends to be found in SEE & Anatolia.
So i think it is possible that L23 expanded from the lower Danube region, with Z2103 going east, and L51 going northwest.
Sorry to taint your post by agreeing with it, but this would seem to me to be entirely possible and consistent with the evidence.

rms2
07-24-2017, 07:23 PM
. . .

I don't think so. Nearly all haplogroups have had bottlenecks and drastic prunings at one point or other. As my analysis of modern DNA generally yields consistent results, I would say it is unlikely to be materially misleading.

It is your interpretation that is materially misleading.

Modern variance simply tells one what the variance in a particular place is now. It says nothing about what the variance was in the third millennium BC, where the ancestors of those modern men whose y-dna variance you are calculating came from or how they got there and when.

If you are reading modern variance as saying R1b-L51 has been in western Europe since before Bell Beaker, then you are mistaken.

MacUalraig
07-24-2017, 07:31 PM
Remember too that the youngest end of McDonald's L21 age estimate would render it nearly impossible for L21 to have originated in the British Isles or Ireland, because Bell Beaker was just arriving in Britain from the Continent around that time and did not get to Ireland until about 100 years later.

So, use the youngest estimate, if you would like. L21 still probably did not originate in the Isles.

I wasn't attempting to enter the fray in that respect. Alan threw away a CI of well over a millenium despite the plea from the author not to, then complained that the mid point was a mere half millenium out ;-)

epp
07-24-2017, 07:34 PM
Precisely. Except it's not just an absence of archaeological evidence; it's the positive evidence supplied by some exceptional ancient DNA studies that have come out over the past year.

1) We now have a solid picture of which haplogroups were in western Europe in the neolithic. L51 wasn't one of them.
2) With the appearance of Eastern Bell Beaker peoples, L51 appears in abundance, quickly overwhelming older populations.
3) One of the things that sets early L51 apart from the earlier European peoples is it carries a large amount of Yamnaya or Steppe-like DNA. In fact, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware seem to bring that with them.

Simply put, if there is no archaeological or genetic trace of L51 in Western Europe until it arrives with Eastern Beaker and (perhaps?) Corded Ware and these two groups also bring Steppe-like DNA with them, Occam's razor more or less dictates that they came from the east. We may not have the missing link, yet, but we do know where the extended family used to live, so it's just a matter of time.
Of course they came from the East and shared Steppe-like dna. That doesn't mean that L51 or even pre-L51 didn't arrive from the East and develop in the West. As you say, there is no archaeological trace of L51 - either in the West or the East, until we first find it in the West during the Bell Beaker period.
I thought people were arguing that where the extended family used to live is irrelevant, as populations can be very mobile - or perhaps we can only use this fact to support one side of the debate?

TigerMW
07-24-2017, 07:34 PM
I figured that is what you meant, but that is not what I would call a "true P312*". It isn't likely any modern man exists who is a true P312*, that is, whose true terminal SNP is P312.

Enough testing in Armenia, Turkey, etc., would probably reveal other men who share whatever this modern man's true "public" terminal SNP is.
Regardless of the definition of a paragroup, the importance is the early branching. If we find early eastern branching that does not reside anywhere in Western and Central Europe it is evidence to consider.

rms2
07-24-2017, 07:38 PM
I wasn't attempting to enter the fray in that respect. Alan threw away a CI of well over a millenium despite the plea from the author not to, then complained that the mid point was a mere half millenium out ;-)

Alan was using the mid-point best guess, which is a reasonable thing to do, it seems to me. It isn't likely L21 is as old as the high end or as young as the low end of McDonald's range.

Dr. Olalde told me via email that he and his colleagues are going to try again with the Amesbury Archer. If he is L21+, that should settle things. We already know the Companion, a relative, possibly the Archer's son, and buried only a few meters away, was L21+.

Many of the British Bell Beaker men from Olalde et al were already DF13+ and not just L21+.

epp
07-24-2017, 07:47 PM
Perhaps you don't understand YFull's terminology. The so-called formation date is the date at which the branch began to diverge from its siblings.
Perhaps it is only certain data on yfull that you are unable to see. Your first response missed off L51 entirely, and this response ignores that L51's TMRCA is very close to its formation date (5900 ybp) - 1,500 years before it estimates that P312's TMRCA arose (4400 ybp).


One BY653 man who lived 4200 years ago sired male descendants who rapidly stayed in or migrated to Ukraine, Sardinia, and the British Isles. The four entries have no further SNPs in common, suggesting an almost simultaneous multiway migration, probably all the way to their final destinations.
But where from? There is nothing to suggest it was from Ukraine. Indeed, the likelihood would seem to be Western Europe, where the other 3 samples are from and where all BY653's brother clades exist with the greatest diversity.

rms2
07-24-2017, 07:50 PM
Of course they came from the East and shared Steppe-like dna. That doesn't mean that L51 or even pre-L51 didn't arrive from the East and develop in the West. As you say, there is no archaeological trace of L51 - either in the West or the East, until we first find it in the West during the Bell Beaker period.

Bell Beaker is a steppe or steppe-derived culture that could not have been born in western Europe and was chock full of R1b-L23, including P312 and even at least one Z2103 thus far.

R1b-L51 and steppe autosomal dna in Bell Beaker and Indo-European languages spread throughout Europe are all strong evidence that L51 came from the steppe.



I thought people were arguing that where the extended family used to live is irrelevant, as populations can be very mobile - or perhaps we can only use this fact to support one side of the debate?

You've got that backwards. The argument was that modern variance is not really a good indication of where L51 was in the third millennium BC.

Where L51 used to live back before it got to western Europe is the actual thing at issue. It's hardly irrelevant.

epp
07-24-2017, 08:12 PM
First off, what is the other hypothesis? By that I think I mean your hypothesis, since it is apparent you think L51 did not come from the steppe and was not originally Indo-European. What was it and where did it come from then?
The other hypothesis is that L51 developed largely or entirely in the West. It's not really my hypothesis, as I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but that's what my data per se indicates as most likely. I do think that L51 (or at least immediately pre-L51) most likely came from the East, somewhere at least close to the Steppe. I do think that it most likely spoke an Indo-European language. But I am generally cautious and do not jump to definite conclusions about anything.


Just out of curiosity, and in the interest of transparency, what is your y-dna haplogroup, epp?
I am told that I am R1b, but have no idea other than that.

epp
07-24-2017, 08:19 PM
Of course P312 could be primarily Corded Ware, even if the SNP itself was born well before that culture began. All it would take is for enough P312 men to become part of the culture, whether or not they were its creators. If kurgan Bell Beaker is the offspring of Corded Ware, say, Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker, then the great bulk of P312 would be CW descended.
I would say that P312 was likely fringe, rather than central, to the Corded Ware zone. However, it might have adopted elements of Corded Ware, just as it might have adopted elements of Bell Beaker from populations on its other side.

rms2
07-24-2017, 08:24 PM
The other hypothesis is that L51 developed largely or entirely in the West. It's not really my hypothesis, as I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but that's what my data per se indicates as most likely.

Sorry, but once again, modern variance data do not indicate anything of the kind. They merely show what the variance in the West is now.

So the hypothesis is yours. You own it. You're basing it on modern variance, but it's your idea.



I do think that L51 (or at least immediately pre-L51) most likely came from the East, somewhere at least close to the Steppe. I do think that it most likely spoke an Indo-European language. But I am generally cautious and do not jump to definite conclusions about anything.

Okay, but if YFull is close to right in its age estimate for the tmrca of R1b-L51, 3900 BC, that is a bit early for the arrival of steppe people in the West and certainly predates Bell Beaker by over a millennium.

Those are huge problems for your hypothesis.



I am told that I am R1b, but have no idea other than that.

If you are interested, you should look into testing with FTDNA.

epp
07-24-2017, 08:34 PM
Where L51 used to live back before it got to western Europe is the actual thing at issue. It's hardly irrelevant.
We have no proof where it lived. We are told that it could have moved from the Steppe en masse to Western Europe because the L51 population could have been highly mobile. If it were highly mobile, then its 'extended family' in the Steppe could have been highly mobile too and have moved there en masse from somewhere entirely different. If you are going to be objective and rely on a premise about mobility, then you have to allow it to be applied to both sides of the argument and not just one.

rms2
07-24-2017, 08:46 PM
We have no proof where it lived.

Thus far, we have proof of it in ancient Bell Beaker, along with steppe autosomal dna, and lots of other very strong circumstantial evidence it came from the steppe: a preponderance of the evidence, in fact.

Absolute, smoking-gun proof may be wanting for awhile yet, but it will come.



We are told that it could have moved from the Steppe en masse to Western Europe because the L51 population could have been highly mobile. If it were highly mobile, then its 'extended family' in the Steppe could have been highly mobile too and have moved there en masse from somewhere entirely different. If you are going to be objective and rely on a premise about mobility, then you have to allow it to be applied to both sides of the argument and not just one.

The other side of the argument (your side, evidently) can apply it all day long, but it's weak.

Steppe dna is called steppe dna for a good reason.

Indo-European languages spread to and triumphed in western Europe. They came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and got to western Europe somehow. R1b-L51 and steppe dna are common there now, as well. None of these things was present in western Europe before the advent of Bell Beaker.

R1b-L23 is the father of both L51 and Z2103 and has been found in Yamnaya on the Caspian steppe and the Volga-Ural steppe. L51 has been found, mostly as P312, in east central and central European Bell Beaker of the mid third millennium BC. Bell Beaker is a steppe or steppe-derived culture.

The logical conclusion to all this is that Indo-European language and culture came from the steppe and were carried into western Europe by steppe people whose men were mostly R1b-L51.

In other places, Indo-European language and culture were borne by related tribes whose men were mostly R1a or R1b-Z2103.

epp
07-24-2017, 08:49 PM
So the hypothesis is yours. You own it. You're basing it on modern variance, but it's your idea.
I am pretty sure I am not the only person to have ever suggested the possibility that L51 developed in the West. If I do own this idea, then I cede ownership.


Okay, but if YFull is close to right in its age estimate for the tmrca of R1b-L51, 3900 BC, that is a bit early for the arrival of steppe people in the West and certainly predates Bell Beaker by over a millennium.
Firstly, I am not at all clear that Bell Beaker was developed solely by L51 - after all, it was present with non-R1b populations in Iberia, and I thought I read that the earliest Bell Beaker site was found in Portugal.
Secondly, I thought Bell Beaker was principally a phenomenon of only one sub-subclade of L51 - P312. Various other L51 branches might have been here pre-Bell Beaker and had nothing to do with the origin and development of this culture.


If you are interested, you should look into testing with FTDNA.
Sorry if this disappoints you, but I am not really sufficiently interested.

epp
07-24-2017, 09:17 PM
He may be a true P312*. There are no known public subclades that this guy is showing up in at a first pass, other than P312. He is clearly DF19- L238- L21- U152-. DF27 and ZZ12 can be tricky but he is negative for Z195 and negative for everything downstream of ZZ12 that is covered.

To clarify what I think we mean by an asterisk or paragroup is that that a fellow is tested negative for all known public downstream SNPs. Of course, the guy must have private SNPs that his brother (if he has one) or his father or sons would have.

He is a early branch away from P312 or DF27, a kind of a lonely fellow in either case.

This is the origins background information I have.

There are a handful of people from Syunik (Armenia) who are P312+ DF27+ A431/A432/Y3267+ Y7363+, but all other Armenians are above P312 and U106.

A true P312* or DF27* Aremenian would be a new find, which this person appears to be.

A CTS4528+ (which is L51+ L151+ U106- P312-) Armenian has been found too.
Reference to Armenian L51 is interesting, as the introduction to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles suggests that the first Britons came from Armenia, arriving in Ireland from the South, and that they were later joined by a related people who came from Scythia, arriving there from the North. It is a strange story that could have an element of truth in it. If this is a reference to the first migrations of L51 to Western Europe from the East (as seems likely), it would appear to suggest an expeditionary force arriving quickly over the water, and not a slow migration Westwards that would have left archaeological footprints along the way.
Perhaps the the first wave of 'Britons' were L51xL151 who might have migrated through Europe and to Ireland via something like the Seine, and the second wave were pre-Bell Beaker L151 who arrived from Western Corded Ware?

Only a suggestion for consideration.

rms2
07-24-2017, 10:47 PM
I am pretty sure I am not the only person to have ever suggested the possibility that L51 developed in the West. If I do own this idea, then I cede ownership.

Yeah, ten years ago that was all the rage, back before we had ancient y-dna.

I would like you to quit claiming that this is not what you say but what the modern variance data say. It is what you say. Other people, like myself, look at the same data and don't get out of them what you do.



Firstly, I am not at all clear that Bell Beaker was developed solely by L51 - after all, it was present with non-R1b populations in Iberia, and I thought I read that the earliest Bell Beaker site was found in Portugal.

We were talking about non-Iberian Bell Beaker, the kurgan kind, not the sort of questionable Bell Beaker of collective Neolithic megalithic tombs and Mediterranean skeletons.

Besides, Olalde et al dealt the death blow to the idea that Bell Beaker came out of Iberia.



Secondly, I thought Bell Beaker was principally a phenomenon of only one sub-subclade of L51 - P312. Various other L51 branches might have been here pre-Bell Beaker and had nothing to do with the origin and development of this culture.

R1b-P312 is predominant in Bell Beaker thus far, but we should not overlook Z2103 and the other subclades found in Bell Beaker.



Sorry if this disappoints you, but I am not really sufficiently interested.

It's your y-dna heritage. If you don't care, then you and I have little in common.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2017, 11:07 PM
M269 could be as old as 6000 BC.
L23's brother - PF7562 tends to be found in SEE & Anatolia.
So i think it is possible that L23 expanded from the lower Danube region, with Z2103 going east, and L51 going northwest

Sorry to taint your post by agreeing with it, but this would seem to me to be entirely possible and consistent with the evidence.

Not at all; I'm happy to go against the grain if it 's the best interpretation of data..

Now, to clarify, I am tempted to think that pre-P312 was focussed around northern Europe/ the Baltic c. 4500 BC, rather than the steppe.
But I still think that as far as the period 3500 BC - 2500 BC is concerned, L51 likely expanded from Transylvania or western steppe.

rms2
07-25-2017, 12:19 AM
There is quite a bit of R1b in Sredny Stog at Dereivka, and Sredny Stog is thought by some to be the fountainhead of PIE. I realize some of it is xP297 and some xM269, but some of it is simply L754. It is possible the line leading to M269 and L23 was in Sredny Stog.

The Mesolithic forager R1b of the Balkans, however, gives every appearance of having been R1b-V88.

George Chandler
07-25-2017, 01:21 AM
He may be a true P312*. There are no known public subclades that this guy is showing up in at a first pass, other than P312. He is clearly DF19- L238- L21- U152-. DF27 and ZZ12 can be tricky but he is negative for Z195 and negative for everything downstream of ZZ12 that is covered.

To clarify what I think we mean by an asterisk or paragroup is that that a fellow is tested negative for all known public downstream SNPs. Of course, the guy must have private SNPs that his brother (if he has one) or his father or sons would have.

He is a early branch away from P312 or DF27, a kind of a lonely fellow in either case.


This is the origins background information I have.

There are a handful of people from Syunik (Armenia) who are P312+ DF27+ A431/A432/Y3267+ Y7363+, but all other Armenians are above P312 and U106.

A true P312* or DF27* Aremenian would be a new find, which this person appears to be.

A CTS4528+ (which is L51+ L151+ U106- P312-) Armenian has been found too.

Mike,

How was he tested? Was this an FTDNA panel test? If so has he been double checked using YSEQ or another company for those same SNP's?

George

rms2
07-25-2017, 01:22 AM
There is quite a bit of R1b in Sredny Stog at Dereivka, and Sredny Stog is thought by some to be the fountainhead of PIE. I realize some of it is xP297 and some xM269, but some of it is simply L754. It is possible the line leading to M269 and L23 was in Sredny Stog.

The Mesolithic forager R1b of the Balkans, however, gives every appearance of having been R1b-V88.

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ytKhbeXC4yzUvYLTgFkhKsu31HsQefzKwnBO4276cU/edit?usp=sharing) is a Google sheet of ancient y-dna from Mesolithic Vasil'evka and Neolithic Dereivka (Sredny Stog) from Mathieson et al, The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616).

17732

kinman
07-25-2017, 02:05 PM
I agree that it is possible. However, I still believe the line leading to M269 and L23 was further east---easternmost Ukraine or even the Volga River. This would place them closer to the origins of the plague bacterium in Kazakhstan about 5700-6000 years ago. If some of these R1b men had been among the first to develop some immunity to the disease (but could still be carriers), it would have made it easier to fight populations in southeast Europe.

Just as the Spanish Conquistadors in comparatively small numbers would conquer the Aztecs after giving them diseases like small pox (to which they had no immunity), the Kurgan fighters could have accidentally done something similar with the plague. So perhaps having horses to ride was just one of many advantages that they had over the farmers of southeast Europe.


There is quite a bit of R1b in Sredny Stog at Dereivka, and Sredny Stog is thought by some to be the fountainhead of PIE. I realize some of it is xP297 and some xM269, but some of it is simply L754. It is possible the line leading to M269 and L23 was in Sredny Stog.

The Mesolithic forager R1b of the Balkans, however, gives every appearance of having been R1b-V88.

rms2
07-25-2017, 02:28 PM
Whatever the case may be, in the Sredny Stog culture at Dereivka in what is now Ukraine there was a boatload of R1b during the Neolithic. We don't have to wonder where it was or wonder what happened to it, as in most of the rest of Europe, or grasp at the odd dead end.

When the raw data become available, we'll know more.

kinman
07-25-2017, 02:48 PM
Yes, more raw data to look forward to. By the way, what percentage of those R1b at Dereivka "might" have been V88 ?


Whatever the case may be, in the Sredny Stog culture at Dereivka in what is now Ukraine there was a boatload of R1b during the Neolithic. We don't have to wonder where it was or wonder what happened to it, as in most of the rest of Europe, or grasp at the odd dead end.

When the raw data become available, we'll know more.

rms2
07-25-2017, 02:58 PM
Yes, more raw data to look forward to. By the way, what percentage of those R1b at Dereivka "might" have been V88 ?

All of them. L754 was as far as they got with any of them, at least in the preprint. Four of them are xP297, but we don't know whether or not those were derived for L389, which would mean they could not be V88.

Dewsloth
07-25-2017, 05:04 PM
When the raw data become available, we'll know more.

The Anthrogenica mantra! :biggrin1:

epp
07-25-2017, 10:45 PM
Yeah, ten years ago that was all the rage, back before we had ancient y-dna.

I would like you to quit claiming that this is not what you say but what the modern variance data say. It is what you say. Other people, like myself, look at the same data and don't get out of them what you do.



We were talking about non-Iberian Bell Beaker, the kurgan kind, not the sort of questionable Bell Beaker of collective Neolithic megalithic tombs and Mediterranean skeletons.

Besides, Olalde et al dealt the death blow to the idea that Bell Beaker came out of Iberia.



R1b-P312 is predominant in Bell Beaker thus far, but we should not overlook Z2103 and the other subclades found in Bell Beaker.



It's your y-dna heritage. If you don't care, then you and I have little in common.
Could I offer you some advice? I would like to learn something from you, but I'm afraid I just don't find much of what you say that convincing. Perhaps it's the crass, domineering, polemical, slam-dunk style you adopt that makes it harder to follow your chain of reasoning in a measured manner. When I say I'm not sufficiently interested (to pay for a more detailed DNA test for myself), you firstly exaggerate my reply by emotionalising it to "if you don't care", then you try to ostracise me from yourself by saying "then you and I have little in common". This must just be a tactical ploy, as surely a little slither of dna can't be the defining be-all and end-all of your life, but I'm finding the style of your delivery frustrating, as I feel sure you have a lot more that you could usefully contribute.

If this advice is unwelcome, please just ignore it!

epp
07-25-2017, 10:59 PM
Not at all; I'm happy to go against the grain if it 's the best interpretation of data..

Now, to clarify, I am tempted to think that pre-P312 was focussed around northern Europe/ the Baltic c. 4500 BC, rather than the steppe.
But I still think that as far as the period 3500 BC - 2500 BC is concerned, L51 likely expanded from Transylvania or western steppe.
That is interesting. My data suggests that L51 or pre-L51 most likely initially moved from somewhere close to Transylvania towards the Upper Rhine, and that its most successful subclades P312 and U106 later had a common origin further North than that (around the North Sea), before expanding back Southwards and Eastwards again, partly as Bell Beaker.
The data also suggests that pre-Corded Ware R1a was probably in that region for some time before R1b arrived.

epp
07-25-2017, 11:07 PM
I agree that it is possible. However, I still believe the line leading to M269 and L23 was further east---easternmost Ukraine or even the Volga River. This would place them closer to the origins of the plague bacterium in Kazakhstan about 5700-6000 years ago. If some of these R1b men had been among the first to develop some immunity to the disease (but could still be carriers), it would have made it easier to fight populations in southeast Europe.

Just as the Spanish Conquistadors in comparatively small numbers would conquer the Aztecs after giving them diseases like small pox (to which they had no immunity), the Kurgan fighters could have accidentally done something similar with the plague. So perhaps having horses to ride was just one of many advantages that they had over the farmers of southeast Europe.
Speculative, but I can see you could very easily be right with mass infections and selective immunities being prime factors behind tribal wipeouts, SNP bottlenecks and the sudden flourishing of previously sluggish populations like L51.

Isidro
07-25-2017, 11:23 PM
The only thing I fail to grasp is it does seem to affect only males?. Maybe I am missing some information on the subject?.


Speculative, but I can see you could very easily be right with mass infections and selective immunities being prime factors behind tribal wipeouts, SNP bottlenecks and the sudden flourishing of previously sluggish populations like L51.

GoldenHind
07-26-2017, 12:38 AM
This may be an additional piece of evidence supporting P312 originating in Yamnaya proper versus Corded Ware.

We have a new Big Y from a guy from Armenia who may be true P312*. We need his BAM file. We've already had some DF27+ people from this same subgroup of Armenia but they were A431+ which would indicate a more westerly origin. If we start find more true P312* folks from a particular region that may help us out.

I have meant to contact him and request he send his Big Y raw data file to Alex for analysis. As you know, he could well be some variety of DF27. I will try to get that done tomorrow.

kinman
07-26-2017, 12:51 AM
The early plague would have affected both males and females, but it was probably mainly males on horseback who carried the disease westward. This early form of plague bacterium did not yet have the gene to allow them to live in fleas, so it was instead passed from person to person (like influenza).
Here is a quote from a 2015 article on this research (and below that is a weblink to the whole article):
"DNA samples revealed that a group of nomadic herders, the Yamnaya, swept into Europe from the plains of today’s Russia and Ukraine sometime between 5000 and 4800 years ago, bringing their culture and, perhaps, the Proto-Indo-European language with them. But archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenberg in Sweden wondered whether they also brought disease—and suggested that researchers test the DNA of Bronze Age humans in Europe and Asia to find out."

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/bronze-age-plague-wasnt-spread-fleas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only thing I fail to grasp is it does seem to affect only males?. Maybe I am missing some information on the subject?.