PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker R1b-L21



Pages : [1] 2 3

rms2
06-03-2017, 01:56 PM
Ever since L21 was rediscovered and made available for commercial testing in late 2008, its probable birthplace has been hotly debated. The initial gusher of L21 among Irishmen and men of Irish descent led many to conclude that L21 must have been born in Ireland. A "back migration" was posited for L21 found elsewhere. Sometimes it was attributed to wandering Irishmen, e.g., "randy monks", and "Wild Geese". When it was discovered in the course of testing that the y-dna L21 in Ireland was exclusively DF13 (and subclades), enthusiasm for an Irish origin waned. Some then turned to Britain as the likely birthplace of L21. Others believe that L21 was born somewhere on the European continent.

Since it is widely (but not universally) believed that Bell Beaker men brought L21 or the y-dna line immediately ancestral to L21 to the British Isles and Ireland, how has the recent spate of Bell Beaker y-dna test results affected the problem of the L21 Urheimat?

Of the ten British Bell Beaker y-dna test results in the recent Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962), eight were R1b-L21, and of those eight, six were R1b-DF13.

Bell Beaker R1b-L21 (https://tinyurl.com/ydyd52l8)

16617

The oldest of those R1b-L21 Bell Beaker skeletons, by more than a century, as one can see, are as follows:

I2457 2480-2031 BC (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2255 BC

I2565 2470-2140 (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2305 BC ("The Companion")

I2447 2400-2040 BC (Yarnton, Oxfordshire) Midpoint: 2220 BC

I2565 above is the oldest of the three, at least based on the mid-point of his rc-based age estimate. He is the Amesbury Bell Beaker man known as "The Companion", because his skeleton was found only a few meters from the burial of the famous Amesbury Archer. The Archer and The Companion share unusual bone structure in their feet, which indicates that they were related. Here are some remarks on that from Wessex Archaeology:



An analysis of the bones later showed that he [The Companion] and the Archer were related as they both had the same unusual bone structure in their feet – the heel bone had a joint with one of the upper tarsal bones in the foot. This proves they were related, and it is even possible that they were father and son, though this is not certain.

Isotope analysis indicated that the Archer probably grew up on the Continent, perhaps in the region of the Alps, but that The Companion may have been raised in southern England or someplace on the Continent geologically similar to southern England.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5

Unfortunately, Olalde et al did not publish the Archer's y-dna test results, possibly because of poor coverage, or perhaps (hopefully) because they are saving them for a separate paper. Anyway, if The Companion was the Archer's son, then the Archer himself was R1b-L21, as well. Certainly, at any rate, the Archer and The Companion were closely related. If the Archer was R1b-L21, that would make it extremely unlikely that L21 originated in Britain, since the Archer was evidently born and raised on the Continent.

YFull's current estimate for the birth of the mrca of L21 is about 2400 BC. If that is right, then L21 had a very narrow window in which to be born in Britain, since the earliest known Bell Beaker burials there date to about that time. The earliest in Ireland date to about 2300 BC. Olalde et al found no R1b or steppe dna at all in Britain predating Bell Beaker, so it is extremely unlikely that L21 was already there before the Beaker Folk arrived.

IMHO, L21 is older by at least a couple of centuries than YFull's current estimate (which is based on the NGS test results submitted to them by living men). If I am right, that would render it almost impossible for Britain or Ireland to have been the birthplace of L21.

The Companion:

16618

rms2
06-03-2017, 03:43 PM
So, if not in Britain or Ireland, where did L21 originate?

This is just my opinion, and I could be wrong (obviously), but I think L21 probably arose somewhere in Central Europe, probably in the Alpine region in the vicinity of the headwaters of both the Danube and the Rhine. I am basing that opinion on the isotope analysis of the Amesbury Archer's tooth enamel and on the fact that British Bell Beakers were autosomally closest to Bell Beakers from the Lower Rhine, which I think indicates a migration path from Central Europe down the Rhine Valley to the North Sea coast and across to SE Britain.

This is from the abstract of the Olalde et al paper, page 3:



Beginning with the Beaker period, and continuing through the Bronze Age, all British individuals harboured high proportions of Steppe ancestry and were genetically closely related to Beaker-associated individuals from the Lower Rhine area.

This is from pages 6-7:



British Beaker Complex individuals (n=19) show strong similarities to the central European Beaker Complex both in genetic profile (Extended Data Fig. 1) and in material culture: the great majority of individuals from both regions are associated with “All Over Corded” Beaker pottery. The presence of large amounts of Steppe-related ancestry in the British Beaker Complex (Fig. 2a) contrasts sharply with Neolithic individuals from Britain (n=35), who have no evidence of Steppe genetic affinities and cluster instead with Middle Neolithic and Copper-Age populations from mainland Europe (Extended Data Fig. 1). Thus, the arrival of Steppe ancestry in Britain was mediated by a migration that began with the Beaker Complex. A previous study showed that Steppe ancestry arrived in Ireland by the Bronze Age, and here we show that – at least in Britain – it arrived by the Copper Age / Beaker period.

Among the different continental Beaker Complex groups analysed in our dataset, individuals from Oostwoud (Province of Noord-Holland, The Netherlands) are the most closely related to the great majority of the Beaker Complex individuals from southern Britain (n=14). They had almost identical Steppe ancestry proportions (Fig. 2a), the highest shared genetic drift (Extended Data Fig. 4b) and were symmetrically related to other ancient populations using f4-statistics (Extended Data Fig. 4a), showing that they are consistent with being derived from the same ancestral population without additional mixture into either group.

RGM
06-03-2017, 08:57 PM
Great write-up, thanks.

Is there a simple breakdown of continental L21 men and their subclades? Even if it is accepted that L21 originated on the continent, I'm wondering if what you've written here necessarily counters the back migration theories.

rms2
06-03-2017, 09:03 PM
Great write-up, thanks.

Is there a simple breakdown of continental L21 men and their subclades? Even if it is accepted that L21 originated on the continent, I'm wondering if what you've written here necessarily counters the back migration theories.

If you are talking about modern men, probably the best source is the R L21, Z290 and Subclades Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about/background), although it may require some fishing through the DNA Results pages.

Personally, I think ancient y-dna always trumps modern y-dna and theories based on modern y-dna.

rms2
06-03-2017, 09:28 PM
. . . Even if it is accepted that L21 originated on the continent, I'm wondering if what you've written here necessarily counters the back migration theories.

I was just thinking about that part of what you wrote, and I think I get what you were driving at, which is, even if L21 was born on the Continent, some of the L21 there now may be the result of British and Irish men migrating there.

No doubt that is true, but the back migration idea was always part of the L21 Isles-origin hypothesis, which is why I answered the way I did. You will find some continental L21 here and there that descends pretty obviously from some Isles progenitor, but much of it does not. I know from my days as the admin of the old R L21 Project (now in new and very capable hands) that most of our continental L21s have no close Isles STR matches, and some of them have no STR matches of any kind.

razyn
06-03-2017, 09:36 PM
I'm wondering if what you've written here necessarily counters the back migration theories.

I'm recalling the recent re-posting of some comments from the "Deconstructing" paper by Christian Jeunesse, including this nugget:

• The hypothesis of Rckstrom: for obvious reasons, which it is not
necessary to detail here, another pillar of current research on the
Bell Beaker, the thesis of the Rckstrom would never have been
created.

A lot of that back migration, reflux stuff is perhaps a house built upon the sand. Not to say that there is, or was, no back migration; but it should not be assumed, as the default explanation of anything that contradicts what we've been thinking for a while. The thread on which this was discussed a bit, before some posters lost their civility, was here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10651-Statistics-in-the-Bell-Beaker-paper-Table-S2&p=237275&viewfull=1#post237275

rms2
06-03-2017, 10:53 PM
I think the L21 Isles-origin idea is about dead, but the coup de grace would have come had the Amesbury Archer's results been included in Olalde et al and shown he was R1b-L21.

The Companion's R1b-L21 does almost as well, IMHO, but the diehards will never accept it.

MitchellSince1893
06-03-2017, 11:39 PM
So, if not in Britain or Ireland, where did L21 originate?

This is just my opinion, and I could be wrong (obviously), but I think L21 probably arose somewhere in Central Europe, probably in the Alpine region in the vicinity of the headwaters of both the Danube and the Rhine. I am basing that opinion on the isotope analysis of the Amesbury Archer's tooth enamel and on the fact that British Bell Beakers were autosomally closest to Bell Beakers from the Lower Rhine, which I think indicates a migration path from Central Europe down the Rhine Valley to the North Sea coast and across to SE Britain

I agree, somewhere along the Rhine River between the Alps and the the North Sea would be a logical choice. I'm gonna stay neutral and say Switzerland :D

rms2
06-04-2017, 12:10 AM
I got it! :biggrin1:

RGM
06-04-2017, 07:29 AM
I'm a complete novice on the subject, so apologies if I'm stumbling out onto old battlefields. I promise my questions come from ignorance rather than ignorance.


You will find some continental L21 here and there that descends pretty obviously from some Isles progenitor, but much of it does not. I know from my days as the admin of the old R L21 Project (now in new and very capable hands) that most of our continental L21s have no close Isles STR matches, and some of them have no STR matches of any kind.

Well, that goes for many men regardless of origin. I have M222 men of Irish origin in my project with no STR matches. STRs, while very useful, have of course given way to SNPs. The reason I made that comment is because I've looked at this L21 tree of many men who have done advanced SNP testing: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=3 . I noticed that while there are a number of continental men sprinkled throughout, the vast majority seem to be part of Isles-dominated subclades. I suppose my thinking was that if L21 originated all the way out in the middle of Europe, wouldn't there be distinctly continental subclades with no Isles presence at all? What would explain the lack of such subclades?

I realize that link is hardly all-encompassing, and perhaps such subclades do in fact exist. That was why I was asking if there are other resources. I suppose I can trudge through the L21 project myself and see what's in there. I was hoping I wouldn't have to do any work!

RGM
06-04-2017, 07:32 AM
The thread on which this was discussed a bit, before some posters lost their civility, was here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10651-Statistics-in-the-Bell-Beaker-paper-Table-S2&p=237275&viewfull=1#post237275

I will check that out, thanks.

rms2
06-04-2017, 11:14 AM
I'm a complete novice on the subject, so apologies if I'm stumbling out onto old battlefields. I promise my questions come from ignorance rather than ignorance.



Well, that goes for many men regardless of origin. I have M222 men of Irish origin in my project with no STR matches. STRs, while very useful, have of course given way to SNPs. The reason I made that comment is because I've looked at this L21 tree of many men who have done advanced SNP testing: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=3 . I noticed that while there are a number of continental men sprinkled throughout, the vast majority seem to be part of Isles-dominated subclades. I suppose my thinking was that if L21 originated all the way out in the middle of Europe, wouldn't there be distinctly continental subclades with no Isles presence at all? What would explain the lack of such subclades?

I realize that link is hardly all-encompassing, and perhaps such subclades do in fact exist. That was why I was asking if there are other resources. I suppose I can trudge through the L21 project myself and see what's in there. I was hoping I wouldn't have to do any work!

I'm not sure the work would be worthwhile, honestly, not when we have ancient y-dna evidence telling the story. I know I am not willing to sift through all of the continental Big Y and other NGS testing results to see if there are unique continental subclades, not to test or resolve a controversy that ancient y-dna is settling beyond dispute.

Back a few years ago, when modern test results were all we had, such exercises were commonplace (well, not with NGS test results - we didn't have them either).

There may be some uniquely continental subclades, but one must also recall that it is likely most of whatever Bell Beaker clans or tribes who went to Britain did so in a wave of advance, pretty much lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind. Outside of France, where it is still well represented, L21 is not very numerous on the Continent. After the exodus to Britain, a lot happened behind the emigres.

For an example of something similar, look at present day Ukraine. It certainly looks like R1b-L23 came from the Pontic steppe. R1b has been found there in by far most of the Neolithic samples from Dereivka and in a Mesolithic sample from Vasil'evka. Yet Ukraine today is only about 2% R1b. Our ancestors pulled up stakes, and a lot happened behind them, back in their old stomping grounds, after they left.

RGM
06-04-2017, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure the work would be worthwhile, honestly, not when we have ancient y-dna evidence telling the story. I know I am not willing to sift through all of the continental Big Y and other NGS testing results to see if there are unique continental subclades, not to test or resolve a controversy that ancient y-dna is settling beyond dispute.

But I'm not disputing the origin. Again, my questions are regarding this concept of "back migration" and whether continental L21 men are or are not tied to the Isles. It didn't sound like that had been settled.


There may be some uniquely continental subclades, but one must also recall that it is likely most of whatever Bell Beaker clans or tribes who went to Britain did so in a wave of advance, pretty much lock, stock, and barrel, leaving few behind. Outside of France, where it is still well represented, L21 is not very numerous on the Continent. After the exodus to Britain, a lot happened behind the emigres.

If that were the case, and the lot of them came to Britain together, wouldn't it seem to support "back migration" rather than dismiss it?

rms2
06-04-2017, 12:00 PM
I think we're speaking different languages. A modern German or Hungarian descended from a Briton or Irishman here or there can hardly be called a "migration", back, forward or sideways. Where is the historical evidence of actual migration from Britain or Ireland to the Continent, outside the exodus of Britons to Armorica in the immediate post-Roman period?

If you're looking for continental men descended from Isles ancestors, I think it's a case-by-case, individual-by-individual slog. No "back migrations".

As for cases of continental men being "tied to the Isles", that was settled long ago. They exist. In our own DF41 Project we have Stewarts in the Royal Stewart line whose y-dna ancestors went to the Continent fleeing the troubles of "the '45" and the bad outcome of the Jacobite Rebellion. We have Corsican Stewarts and even Spanish Estuartes. There were non-Stewart Jacobites who fled to the Continent, as well. I guess it depends on what one classes as a migration whether that was one or not.

jdean
06-04-2017, 01:33 PM
If that were the case, and the lot of them came to Britain together, wouldn't it seem to support "back migration" rather than dismiss it?

Whilst this doesn't count as proof of anything if you'd like an exercise in futility try and find even slightly meaningful Isles STR matches (or just matches for that matter) for continental DF49 x M222 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-df49?iframe=yresults) folk. BTW I wouldn't spend too long on this if I were you : )

Muircheartaigh
06-04-2017, 02:36 PM
I think the L21 Isles-origin idea is about dead, but the coup de grace would have come had the Amesbury Archer's results been included in Olalde et al and shown he was R1b-L21.

The Companion's R1b-L21 does almost as well, IMHO, but the diehards will never accept it.

My question is, how many were involved in the migration to the Isles - did L21 arrive in the Isles alone, which wouldn't seem to be much of a migration, or was he accompanied by others, and if so by whom? Perhaps his Sons, DF13, DF63 etc. and his Grandsons Z251, Z253, Z255 and the other 20 or so. Did they also originate on the continent and migrate as a tribe to the Isles or are they products of the post migration, originating in the Isles?

rms2
06-04-2017, 05:46 PM
My question is, how many were involved in the migration to the Isles - did L21 arrive in the Isles alone, which wouldn't seem to be much of a migration, or was he accompanied by others, and if so by whom? Perhaps his Sons, DF13, DF63 etc. and his Grandsons Z251, Z253, Z255 and the other 20 or so. Did they also originate on the continent and migrate as a tribe to the Isles or are they products of the post migration, originating in the Isles?

Well, most of the British Bell Beaker remains from Olalde et al were already R1b-DF13 at least, including one of the three oldest that I listed: I2447, from Yarnton, Oxfordshire. When the raw data become available we'll learn more.

I don't know which L21 subclades were already in existence when Bell Beaker arrived from the Continent.

However, the issue I was addressing in the original post was the old controversy over the birthplace of L21. I wouldn't say that arriving with Bell Beaker wasn't much of a migration. Evidently it was the most significant migration in British and Irish history: the last one to substantially change the British and Irish genome.

Muircheartaigh
06-04-2017, 06:46 PM
Well, most of the British Bell Beaker remains from Olalde et al were already R1b-DF13 at least, including one of the three oldest that I listed: I2447, from Yarnton, Oxfordshire. When the raw data become available we'll learn more.

I don't know which L21 subclades were already in existence when Bell Beaker arrived from the Continent.

However, the issue I was addressing in the original post was the old controversy over the birthplace of L21. I wouldn't say that arriving with Bell Beaker wasn't much of a migration. Evidently it was the most significant migration in British and Irish history: the last one to substantially change the British and Irish genome.

So if it was a migration involving large numbers of Bell Beaker people, it must have either included Haplogroups other than L21 in large numbers and/or significant numbers of L21 people. So unless there has been an almost complete extinction of Haplogroups other than L21 the migrating Bell Beaker People must have been predominantly L21 and if they arrived in significant numbers it follows that they included the L21 Sub-groups that have survived until today.

rms2
06-04-2017, 07:06 PM
Rathlin 1 from Cassidy et al was R1b-DF21, and he dates to 2026-1885 BC, midpoint 1955 BC, still in the Beaker period. He belonged to the Food Vessel culture, but it was a Bell Beaker spin-off.

I don't think we know exactly which subclades were born on the Continent before Bell Beaker arrived with L21. I'm guessing DF13 at least was already present, and there may have been other L21 subclades that have not survived.

Apparently, in the course of a few hundred years after the Bell Beaker people arrived, there was a near extinction of the y-dna haplogroups of the Neolithic farmers already present in Britain before Bell Beaker. Olalde et al came up with a 93% +/- 2% population replacement rate. This is from page 7:



In either case, our results imply a minimum of 932% local population turnover by the Middle Bronze Age (Supplementary Information, section 6). Specifically, for individuals from Britain around 2000 BCE, at least this fraction of their DNA derives from ancestors who at 2500 BCE lived in continental Europe. An independent line of evidence for population turnover comes from Y-chromosome haplogroup composition: while R1b haplogroups were completely absent in the Neolithic samples (n=25), they represent 95% and 75% of the Y-chromosomes in Beaker Complex-Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age males in Britain, respectively (Fig. 3b; Supplementary Table 3).

rms2
06-04-2017, 10:12 PM
. . .

If that were the case, and the lot of them came to Britain together, wouldn't it seem to support "back migration" rather than dismiss it?

Anthrogenica is pretty slow this weekend for some reason, so I thought I would quote part of your post again and answer that part.

As I said, outside of France, L21 is relatively scarce in continental Europe, which is why you responded as you did. If L21 is relatively scarce in continental Europe because the BB clans or tribes left there pretty much lock, stock, and barrel, then there wasn't much of a "back migration" either.

Since I think ancient y-dna is currently dealing the death blow to the Isles origin idea, I am not too concerned with ferreting out continental L21 men who might be descended from randy Irish monks, Wild Geese, or whiskey-sipping Scottish merchants. They are all part of yesterday's arguments in favor of an Isles origin for L21, and those arguments are even weaker today than they were in 2009.

RGM
06-07-2017, 09:36 AM
Whilst this doesn't count as proof of anything if you'd like an exercise in futility try and find even slightly meaningful Isles STR matches (or just matches for that matter) for continental DF49 x M222 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-df49?iframe=yresults) folk. BTW I wouldn't spend too long on this if I were you : )

I'm not sure what you mean. The DF49 subclades outside M222 are dominated by Isles men.

RGM
06-07-2017, 09:51 AM
If you're looking for continental men descended from Isles ancestors, I think it's a case-by-case, individual-by-individual slog. No "back migrations".

No, I'm looking for continental men who are definitely NOT descended from Isles ancestors.

rms2
06-07-2017, 10:58 AM
They should be easy enough to find, but this is the wrong thread for that.

You are creating the impression of someone who is trying to make a point rather than of someone who is looking for something.

Are you trying to argue that all the modern continental L21 is the result of a back migration from the Isles? Sure sounds like it.

jdean
06-07-2017, 11:30 AM
No, I'm looking for continental men who are definitely NOT descended from Isles ancestors.

Then look at the R-DF49 project, of course it's impossible to prove 'definitely NOT' but there are clear examples of 'HIGHLY unlikely' : )

RGM
06-07-2017, 12:22 PM
They should be easy enough to find, but this is the wrong thread for that.

You are creating the impression of someone who is trying to make a point rather than of someone who is looking for something.

Are you trying to argue that all the modern continental L21 is the result of a back migration from the Isles? Sure sounds like it.

That's really not fair. I'm not arguing anything. I'm trying to understand the subject. I've been trying to keep my questions as simple and straightforward as possible.

In your initial posts, you implied that a Central European origin for L21 and an Isles origin for most (not all) continental L21 men are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to understand why that is. I'm sorry if this is a very basic and annoying line of questioning. I'm not arguing that you're wrong - I didn't know this debate existed a week ago - it was just something that jumped out at me in the midst of a post that I found to be otherwise very well-presented. You have been so dismissive of it that I feel I must be missing something obvious and I would like very much to know what that is.

Also, if the term back migration implies movement of a sizable population, I apologize for being unclear. I was thinking on a smaller scale. Thus far, as you pointed out, the number of continental L21 men is fairly low.

Isidro
06-07-2017, 01:36 PM
I am not sure how familiar you are with people that post here but FYI there are a very limited group of individuals with a large amount of posts that are not here to see things with a global approach considering all possibilities.



That's really not fair. I'm not arguing anything. I'm trying to understand the subject. I've been trying to keep my questions as simple and straightforward as possible.

Jean M
06-07-2017, 02:36 PM
A lot of that back migration, reflux stuff is perhaps a house built upon the sand.

I suspect that rms2 is not talking about the various archaeological theories around Bell Beaker, but the appearance of L21 for example in Brittany, where we know that a lot of Britons settled in the Post-Roman period. In other words L21, having arisen, he argues, in Continental Europe and migrated into the British Isles, then in some cases migrated back to Continental Europe from Britain and Ireland at various times subsequently.

razyn
06-07-2017, 02:48 PM
I suspect that rms2 is not talking about the various archaeological theories around Bell Beaker, but the appearance of L21 for example in Brittany
In broad terms I agree with rms2 about most of this stuff; and I'm aware of the later travels of Isles people, a large fraction of whom were probably L21, by then.

But what I said here about back migration was in response to RGM, who had raised it. Not rms2. He and I are among those who feel this caveat raised by Jeunesse may still be underappreciated.

rms2
06-07-2017, 05:17 PM
I am not sure how familiar you are with people that post here but FYI there are a very limited group of individuals with a large amount of posts that are not here to see things with a global approach considering all possibilities.

There are also some people who are seriously butt hurt because things have not gone the way they thought they would or should.

There are even some who seem to have a globe that is limited to the southwestern end of Europe and who consider all possibilities encompassed within its bounds.

rms2
06-07-2017, 05:23 PM
That's really not fair. I'm not arguing anything. I'm trying to understand the subject. I've been trying to keep my questions as simple and straightforward as possible.

In your initial posts, you implied that a Central European origin for L21 and an Isles origin for most (not all) continental L21 men are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to understand why that is. I'm sorry if this is a very basic and annoying line of questioning. I'm not arguing that you're wrong - I didn't know this debate existed a week ago - it was just something that jumped out at me in the midst of a post that I found to be otherwise very well-presented. You have been so dismissive of it that I feel I must be missing something obvious and I would like very much to know what that is.

Also, if the term back migration implies movement of a sizable population, I apologize for being unclear. I was thinking on a smaller scale. Thus far, as you pointed out, the number of continental L21 men is fairly low.

I think I have answered you just about every way I know how. I've said there are continental L21 men who no doubt have an Isles y-dna ancestor. I also think there are plenty who do not. I was not being unfair. It seemed to me your line of questioning was starting to resemble an all-too-familiar agenda.

Back when I was the admin of the R L21 Project, I could have been of more help, because I could have looked at the matches, etc., of all the continentals in the project in detail, but I am no longer any kind of admin there.

Actually, the number of continental L21 men is not low. The frequency of L21 in some areas is low, but in terms of absolute numbers there are quite a few of them. In France L21 is frequent, as well as numerous and widespread. It isn't limited to Bretagne and cannot be explained away by the exodus of Britons to Armorica in the immediate post-Roman period.

Jean M
06-07-2017, 05:47 PM
Actually, the number of continental L21 men is not low. The frequency of L21 in some areas is low, but in terms of absolute numbers there are quite a few of them. In France L21 is frequent, as well as numerous and widespread. It isn't limited to Bretagne and cannot be explained away by the exodus of Britons to Armorica in the immediate post-Roman period.

As I understand it, your case is not really about numbers though. It is that L21 is too old to have been born in Bell Beaker Britain/Ireland (2400 BC +). It obviously spread with BB. So that leaves us looking for an L21 source in BB in Continental Europe. Makes sense to me.

You always thought this, as best I recall. And now you are proved right by the aDNA. So I'm glad I followed your reasoning on this. :)

rms2
06-07-2017, 05:56 PM
As I understand it, your case is not really about numbers though. It is that L21 is too old to have been born in Bell Beaker Britain/Ireland (2400 BC +). It obviously spread with BB. So that leaves us looking for an L21 source in BB in Continental Europe. Makes sense to me.

You always thought this, as best I recall. And now you are proved right by the aDNA. So I'm glad I followed your reasoning on this. :)

Thanks.

You are right, it's not about numbers, but I mentioned the numbers because RGM said the following:



Thus far, as you pointed out, the number of continental L21 men is fairly low.

I began this thread talking about just what you wrote above, Jean, i.e., the pretty obvious evidence from Olalde et al that R1b-L21 was brought to the Isles from the Continent by Bell Beaker men and is too old to have been born in the Isles anyway. I was really not interested in getting into the old "back migration boogie" of a few years ago.

vettor
06-07-2017, 07:05 PM
I think I have answered you just about every way I know how. I've said there are continental L21 men who no doubt have an Isles y-dna ancestor. I also think there are plenty who do not. I was not being unfair. It seemed to me your line of questioning was starting to resemble an all-too-familiar agenda.

Back when I was the admin of the R L21 Project, I could have been of more help, because I could have looked at the matches, etc., of all the continentals in the project in detail, but I am no longer any kind of admin there.

Actually, the number of continental L21 men is not low. The frequency of L21 in some areas is low, but in terms of absolute numbers there are quite a few of them. In France L21 is frequent, as well as numerous and widespread. It isn't limited to Bretagne and cannot be explained away by the exodus of Britons to Armorica in the immediate post-Roman period.

Are these continentals part of the reich/guardian papers of a "dutch BB " replacing stone-henge britons ? ..............and some state they are rhenish/dutch BB ?
even though rhenish area is the upper rhine lands ( near switzerland and not lower rhine , near the north sea) and so they are proto-celtic/gallic BB people

rms2
06-07-2017, 09:59 PM
Are these continentals part of the reich/guardian papers of a "dutch BB " replacing stone-henge britons ? ..............and some state they are rhenish/dutch BB ?
even though rhenish area is the upper rhine lands ( near switzerland and not lower rhine , near the north sea) and so they are proto-celtic/gallic BB people

We were talking about modern men.

Jean M
06-08-2017, 11:19 AM
Are these continentals part of the reich/guardian papers of a "dutch BB " replacing stone-henge britons ? ..............and some state they are rhenish/dutch BB ?

Yes indeed. The Bell Beaker people who began to arrive in Britain c. 2400 BC replaced the Neolithic farmers who had been in Britain since about 4000 BC. I know what you meant, but for the sake of clarity for any newcomers reading this thread, the Guardian newspaper did not actually write a paper or contribute to writing a paper. They merely (mis)reported the pre-print Iigo Olalde et al (including David Reich), The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962 .


even though rhenish area is the upper rhine lands ( near switzerland and not lower rhine , near the north sea)

The word Rhenish just means 'of the Rhine'. So it can be used of anything relating to the Rhine. Most people know it as a wine specific to a particular region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinhessen_(wine_region), which is not on the Lower Rhine, as you say. But archaeologists using the word about a style of Bell Beaker are not referring to the Rhenish wine region. Easy mistake for wine-lovers to make, I suppose. :biggrin1:

But as it happens you are right and the Guardian was totally wrong in announcing that Britain was invaded by the Dutch!!! (Eeeek!) because:


and so they are proto-celtic/gallic BB people

Sort of. Proto-Celtic was probably not yet spoken when the first Bell Beaker people reached Britain. They would probably be speaking a dialect of PIE. But Proto-Celtic could have been spoken by people around the head of the Rhine by about 2200 BC and travelled down the Rhine with migrants down the Rhine to Britain and Ireland around then. But Proto-Celtic is not the same as Gaulish, which was a type of P-Celtic spoken a lot later. Sorry to be a pedant, but if we don't aim for precision, newcomers could get plunged into confusion.

16742

Jean M
06-08-2017, 02:26 PM
I was really not interested in getting into the old "back migration boogie" of a few years ago.

I'm not surprised. I shudder at the memory. You were persistently pummelled by anguished Irish-Americans acting like you were trying to take away their green beer. Every time you mentioned the Rhine, there would be plaintive cries of “Are you saying I'm German?” Until I explained that the etymology of the river name “Rhine” is Celtic and that there were positively no Germanic speakers in the vicinity at the time. That includes Dutch speakers, folks.

Just to clarify my own Eeeek! in the post above, the Netherlands did not exist as a nation at the time. The Germanic-speaking Dutch were not there until millennia later.

Kopfjger
06-08-2017, 04:30 PM
I'm not surprised. I shudder at the memory. You were persistently pummelled by anguished Irish-Americans acting like you were trying to take away their green beer. Every time you mentioned the Rhine, there would be plaintive cries of “Are you saying I'm German?” Until I explained that the etymology of the river name “Rhine” is Celtic and that there were positively no Germanic speakers in the vicinity at the time. That includes Dutch speakers, folks.

Just to clarify my own Eeeek! in the post above, the Netherlands did not exist as a nation at the time. The Germanic-speaking Dutch were not there until millennia later.

It's pretty amazing how Bell Beaker Netherlands was almost uniformly P312, but transitioned to being majority U106, obviously due to Germanic migration. It just goes to show that modern frequencies are not representative of the distant past. Hell, look at the ancient R1b in Ukraine.

Kopfjger
06-08-2017, 04:31 PM
It's pretty amazing how Bell Beaker Netherlands was almost uniformly P312, but transitioned to being majority U106, obviously due to Germanic migration. It just goes to show that modern frequencies are not representative of the distant past. Hell, look at the ancient R1b in Ukraine.

By the way, I'm pulling for at least some of that P312 in the Netherlands to be L21!!

rms2
06-08-2017, 05:15 PM
By the way, I'm pulling for at least some of that P312 in the Netherlands to be L21!!

I think Olalde et al would have caught L21, but maybe some or all of them will be positive for one of the other L21 level SNPs. ISOGG is now showing Z290 and Z260 as one step upstream of L21. It will be interesting to see how those Dutch Bell Beaker men come out on those.

Kopfjger
06-08-2017, 05:22 PM
I think Olalde et al would have caught L21, but maybe some or all of them will be positive for one of the other L21 level SNPs. ISOGG is now showing Z290 and Z260 as one step upstream of L21. It will be interesting to see how those Dutch Bell Beaker men come out on those.

Ah, so it's pretty safe to assume these samples are L21- then.

vettor
06-08-2017, 05:22 PM
Yes indeed. The Bell Beaker people who began to arrive in Britain c. 2400 BC replaced the Neolithic farmers who had been in Britain since about 4000 BC. I know what you meant, but for the sake of clarity for any newcomers reading this thread, the Guardian newspaper did not actually write a paper or contribute to writing a paper. They merely (mis)reported the pre-print Iigo Olalde et al (including David Reich), The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962 .



The word Rhenish just means 'of the Rhine'. So it can be used of anything relating to the Rhine. Most people know it as a wine specific to a particular region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinhessen_(wine_region), which is not on the Lower Rhine, as you say. But archaeologists using the word about a style of Bell Beaker are not referring to the Rhenish wine region. Easy mistake for wine-lovers to make, I suppose. :biggrin1:

But as it happens you are right and the Guardian was totally wrong in announcing that Britain was invaded by the Dutch!!! (Eeeek!) because:



Sort of. Proto-Celtic was probably not yet spoken when the first Bell Beaker people reached Britain. They would probably be speaking a dialect of PIE. But Proto-Celtic could have been spoken by people around the head of the Rhine by about 2200 BC and travelled down the Rhine with migrants down the Rhine to Britain and Ireland around then. But Proto-Celtic is not the same as Gaulish, which was a type of P-Celtic spoken a lot later. Sorry to be a pedant, but if we don't aim for precision, newcomers could get plunged into confusion.

16742

Even though my cousin has a winery :) I was referring to rhenish as the linguistic area which sits south of franconian language on the rhine or as some may say in the region of modern baden-baden/freiburg lands

Whatever the case, the "dutch BB" are not germanic in ethnicity but in majority have gallic ethnicty or proto-gallic .

The side question is who are the stone-henge britons that these BB people replaced

in regards to your celtic-tree which looks like someone recently changed ( within the last year ) , the lepontic link with P-celtic needs to be looked at because IIRC camunic and eastern-alps celtic was predominantly Q-celtic .............do you have anything on this?

rms2
06-08-2017, 05:34 PM
. . .
The side question is who are the stone-henge britons that these BB people replaced . . .


Olalde et al said they resembled Neolithic Iberians. Here's what they found in terms of y-dna, from pages 66-67 of the Supplementary Information.



Another striking observation is the haplogroup composition of Neolithic males in Britain (n=25), who displayed entirely I2a2 and I2a1b haplogroups. Thus, there is no evidence at all for a contribution to Neolithic farmers in Britain of the Y chromosome haplogroups (e.g., G2) that were predominant in Anatolian farmers and in Linearbandkeramik northern European farmers.

We detect 10 males who belonged to R1b-L21/M529, all of them dated to the Beaker and Bronze Age periods and excavated in Britain. This matches the high frequency of this clade in modern populations from the British Isles.


They also found no steppe autosomal dna in Neolithic Britons but plenty in Bell Beaker men, with the exception of a single I2a BB in England who had low steppe dna.

I would post more details, but I just ran out of lunch break.

vettor
06-08-2017, 05:39 PM
Olalde et al said they resembled Neolithic Iberians. Here's what they found in terms of y-dna, from pages 66-67 of the Supplementary Information.



They also found no steppe autosomal dna in Neolithic Britons but plenty in Bell Beaker men, with the exception of a single I2a there who had low steppe dna.

I would post more details, but I just ran out of lunch break.

If you study the neolithic iberians terminology then the exacting term means only from modern catalan areas+ southern france to the rhone river+ the pyrennes people up to the basques..........there was no iberian tribe anywhere else in modern Spain or Portugal

The southern france "iberians" where replaced my gallic tribes basically from south of normandy like the cenomani and volcae tribes .................cenomani then moved to modern verona/brescia in north-italy and the volcae somewhere in bavaria

rms2
06-08-2017, 10:48 PM
If you study the neolithic iberians terminology then the exacting term means only from modern catalan areas+ southern france to the rhone river+ the pyrennes people up to the basques..........there was no iberian tribe anywhere else in modern Spain or Portugal

The southern france "iberians" where replaced my gallic tribes basically from south of normandy like the cenomani and volcae tribes .................cenomani then moved to modern verona/brescia in north-italy and the volcae somewhere in bavaria

That is not what I was talking about nor what Olalde et al were talking about. I was talking about what they meant by Neolithic Iberians, i.e., the Neolithic samples from Iberia that they tested.

The Neolithic British samples tested by Olalde et al were like the Neolithic Iberian samples tested by them. That's it. They weren't talking about literal Iberes, and neither was I.

rms2
06-11-2017, 01:23 PM
I don't know if I should mention this, but this morning I wrote to both Wessex Archaeology and Dr. Reich's assistant at Harvard to try to find out why the genome of the Amesbury Archer was not included in the Olalde et al Bell Beaker paper. I'm hoping they are planning a separate paper solely on the Archer, similar to what was done with tzi, and that the Archer was not excluded because of poor coverage.

We'll see if I get a response, from whom, and how soon.

rms2
06-11-2017, 03:28 PM
Here are all ten R1b-L21s from Olalde et al, the eight Bell Beaker men and the two from the Middle Bronze Age.

16785

R1b-L21 in Olalde et al Beaker Phenomenon (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWzzqFO-9woOWIA9H7DkAEFRSyv3YHrkCGhDihuDkhU/edit#gid=0)

rms2
06-11-2017, 11:59 PM
Hey!

I just got a very nice email from Iigo Olalde himself. He said they tried with the Amesbury Archer, but his sample failed the aDNA analysis. He said they might try again in the near future.

I hope so. It was nice of Dr. Olalde to take the time to respond personally to my inquiry. I really appreciate that.

rms2
06-13-2017, 12:49 PM
This morning I got a nice email from Dr. Alistair Barclay of Wessex Archaeology.

He said they have to be careful with the Archer because his skeleton is on display, is a finite resource, and collecting a sample always involves a certain amount of damage.

He did end his email with the following remark, however:

"I am sure it will happen."

I hope he is right and that it happens sooner rather than later.

Mikewww
06-13-2017, 12:59 PM
I think I have answered you just about every way I know how. I've said there are continental L21 men who no doubt have an Isles y-dna ancestor. I also think there are plenty who do not. I was not being unfair. It seemed to me your line of questioning was starting to resemble an all-too-familiar agenda.

Back when I was the admin of the R L21 Project, I could have been of more help, because I could have looked at the matches, etc., of all the continentals in the project in detail, but I am no longer any kind of admin there.

Actually, the number of continental L21 men is not low. The frequency of L21 in some areas is low, but in terms of absolute numbers there are quite a few of them. In France L21 is frequent, as well as numerous and widespread. It isn't limited to Bretagne and cannot be explained away by the exodus of Britons to Armorica in the immediate post-Roman period.

I'll get to this and do some work up on the continental L21 (modern) men. There are some that are of early branching subclades. I think those are the ones that count as they are probably not any kind of migration from the British Isles.
However, I also thing that many seemingly pure British Isles subclades may have actually originated on the continent, but with testing penetration low in France in particular we don't have any evidence.

Unfortunately, there is too much going on to do the analysis now. We've got Big Y tests coming in like crazy. Anyone can go to my R1b-L21_Haplotypes spreadsheet over thousands of L21+ people and extract what's needed.

Muircheartaigh
06-13-2017, 02:47 PM
I'll get to this and do some work up on the continental L21 (modern) men. There are some that are of early branching subclades. I think those are the ones that count as they are probably not any kind of migration from the British Isles.
However, I also thing that many seemingly pure British Isles subclades may have actually originated on the continent, but with testing penetration low in France in particular we don't have any evidence.

It may not be evidence but it follows that if the migration to the Isles was predominantly R-L21, and was not a single person but was a significant force, then it must have included subclades of R-L21, and the bigger the migration the more subclades that must have been included. I have seen arguments that there was insufficient time between the R-L21 event (based on the Yfull estimate) and the migration to have included subclades. However recent aDNA results have cast doubt on the Yfull age for R-L21 and its contemporary Haplogroups, and it now seems likely that the event was several centuries previous to the Yfull estimate.
What is also relevant is the fact that the more prolific a haplogroup is, the more SNPs it will produce in a given time period. If we expect new SNPs on average one every 4 or 5 generations it follows that if a man produces say 5 sons we can expect on average one mutation in that generation.
The several centuries that it took for R-L21 to dominate the Isles suggests that it was a very prolific and successful Haplogroup.

Mikewww
06-13-2017, 03:24 PM
...
What is also relevant is the fact that the more prolific a haplogroup is, the more SNPs it will produce in a given time period. If we expect new SNPs on average one every 4 or 5 generations it follows that if a man produces say 5 sons we can expect on average one mutation in that generation.
The mutation rates are really per father-son transmission so if you have several sons it is likely one will have a new mutation but of course that is not accumulated across the sons. Those are independent branches or subclades at their formation.

We should keep in mind that these early branches have been very well examined by very high Y chromosome coverage tests so the father-son transmission mutation rates are faster than what we are used to. Not faster per location but more frequent because of the greater coverage.

See this thread.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10785-What-mutation-rates-should-we-consider-for-Y-SNPs
I quote Dave-V from reply #9 on that thread:
"FGC Elite has 23 Mbp coverage yielding a SNP every 53 years." Given 30 years per generation that is an SNP every 1.8 generations or every 1.8 father-son transmissions.


However recent aDNA results have cast doubt on the Yfull age for R-L21 and its contemporary Haplogroups, and it now seems likely that the event was several centuries previous to the Yfull estimate.

I haven't really seen that YFull's estimates are way off other than I think they should have P312 older for reasons already stated. They have both the TMRCA for L21 and DF13 as
4400 ybp
4600-3900 ybp 95%

TMRCA dates are different than formation/birth dates. There could be L21 lineages in the ancient DNA that are dead ends (clearly) so it is to be expected that there could be an L21 ancient DNA find that is older than a calculated TMRCA date. What would be important in looking for a TMRCA for L21 is the ancient finds of DF13 and DF63 positive skeletons.

We have the Yarnton, Oxfordshire, England DF13+ person at RC dating of 4400-4040 ybp. We can say for sure that the L21 TMRCA is at least as old as 4400-2040 ybp (2400-2040 BC).

What I'm saying is I would not call the YFull estimates significantly off, carte blanche.



The several centuries that it took for R-L21 to dominate the Isles suggests that it was a very prolific and successful Haplogroup.
It could also suggest, particularly given the change over brought a lot of new autosomal DNA, that L21's tribe, and L21 within that tribe, was already a force before it reached the British Isles.

dkm1987
06-13-2017, 06:07 PM
It could also suggest, particularly given the change over brought a lot of new autosomal DNA, that L21's tribe, and L21 within that tribe, was already a force before it reached the British Isles.Do you think that this was a rather large and significant "en masse" movement of that that tribe? Or do you think it was more of a "trickle" effect which compounded over time?

Mikewww
06-13-2017, 06:14 PM
Do you think that this was a rather large and significant "en masse" movement of that that tribe? Or do you think it was more of a "trickle" effect which compounded over time?

I am speculating but I think it is probably both. The Olalde paper and Reich's presentations indicate there was a massive turnover of the people with the coming of the Bell Beakers to the British Isles.

We also see though a number of other migrations and exchanges from the continent including those fleeing the Roman Empire's victories over the Gauls.

Muircheartaigh
06-13-2017, 10:37 PM
The mutation rates are really per father-son transmission so if you have several sons it is likely one will have a new mutation but of course that is not accumulated across the sons. Those are independent branches or subclades at their formation.

Which is exactly what we see below DF13 - 20 or so subclades that are still found in the present population and very likely many more that are now extinct. What is interesting is that we have a sudden explosion of subclades immediately below DF13 followed by long unbroken strings of SNPs in many of the subclades, and in the case of my own Z253>S841 Clade a further explosion around 2000YBP, the latter perhaps the result of improved climatic conditions.

dkm1987
06-13-2017, 10:51 PM
Which is exactly what we see below DF13 - 20 or so subclades that are still found in the present population and very likely many more that are now extinct. What is interesting is that we have a sudden explosion of subclades immediately below DF13 followed by long unbroken strings of SNPs in many of the subclades, and in the case of my own Z253>S841 Clade a further explosion around 2000YBP, the latter perhaps the result of improved climatic conditions.

We see the same in S1051. About 16 variants directly below but then long strings of synonymous snps within most of these variants before some start to show some branching post Roman era.

dkm1987
06-13-2017, 10:57 PM
I just wanted to say this has been one of the most refreshing threads. I actually gleaned a lot of good information from all those who had input.

Thanks.

I am also curious now if this could be one reason why I see so little admixture results pointing to my dutch side. My biological admixture should be something around 25% Dutch, 25% Lithuanian, 25% Irish and 25% British. But most admixture results show about 50% British, 25% Irish and 25% Eastern European.

Does anyone know if Olalde's atDNA results on the BB's tested has been or will be put up on Gedmatch for comparison?

rms2
06-14-2017, 12:38 AM
I just wanted to say this has been one of the most refreshing threads. I actually gleaned a lot of good information from all those who had input.

Thanks.

I am also curious now if this could be one reason why I see so little admixture results pointing to my dutch side. My biological admixture should be something around 25% Dutch, 25% Lithuanian, 25% Irish and 25% British. But most admixture results show about 50% British, 25% Irish and 25% Eastern European.

Does anyone know if Olalde's atDNA results on the BB's tested has been or will be put up on Gedmatch for comparison?

Once the official paper appears and the raw data become available, then no doubt someone will put it on Gedmatch. Not sure when that will happen, however.

dkm1987
06-14-2017, 10:57 PM
Here is a spreadsheet from Eurogenes which lists all the samples, Ydna and mtDNA, ages and locations.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f_9s-3Xd-AfRasuLGc_8s4IHpnLzBZwbvfxne2X09bQ/edit#gid=998207542

r_r_abril
06-14-2017, 11:25 PM
Some linguists were puzzled by the apparent scarcity of pre-Celtic placenames in Ireland.

Now, we have a good expanation for this phenomenon: The pre-IE Neolithic populations were virtually wiped out by the BB invaders.

r_r_abril
06-14-2017, 11:30 PM
Which is exactly what we see below DF13 - 20 or so subclades that are still found in the present population and very likely many more that are now extinct. What is interesting is that we have a sudden explosion of subclades immediately below DF13 followed by long unbroken strings of SNPs in many of the subclades, and in the case of my own Z253>S841 Clade a further explosion around 2000YBP, the latter perhaps the result of improved climatic conditions.

Evidently, the BB invasion of Great Britain took place little time after the apparition of the L21 mutation. This invasion probably prompted an extraordinary demografic expansion that transformed R1b-L21 in a fully fledged and numerous haplogroup (founder effect).

rms2
06-15-2017, 11:47 AM
Evidently, the BB invasion of Great Britain took place little time after the apparition of the L21 mutation. This invasion probably prompted an extraordinary demografic expansion that transformed R1b-L21 in a fully fledged and numerous haplogroup (founder effect).

I agree, and the thing I really wanted to see was the genome of the famous Amesbury Archer, especially his y-dna. It figures that didn't work out. As rich as his grave was, he might have been a significant founder, perhaps even the ancestor of many men currently alive today. And his results could have put the final stake through the heart of the Isles-origin hypothesis.

The fact that "The Companion", found buried three meters from the Archer, is some kind of close relative, perhaps the Archer's son, is almost as good, since he is R1b-L21, but it would have been just too good to get the Archer's results.

Sigh . . .

dkm1987
06-15-2017, 12:35 PM
What I also find fascinating is the mTDNA. Notice how K appears in many of the BB Britain samples. Yet there is very little K mTDNA in the BB Europe sample, instead there appears a larger number of K in the Scotland Neolithic.

rms2
06-15-2017, 01:11 PM
What I also find fascinating is the mTDNA. Notice how K appears in many of the BB Britain samples. Yet there is very little K mTDNA in the BB Europe sample, instead there appears a larger number of K in the Scotland Neolithic.

Recall, however, that British Bell Beaker did not carry British Neolithic farmer autosomal dna, so those BBs with mtDNA K apparently did not acquire it from native Scottish Neolithic farmer mothers. Their K evidently had a continental source.

dkm1987
06-15-2017, 02:07 PM
Very good point and I understand that.

It just seems odd to me that if the EBA K mtDNA was acquired via continental sources wouldn't there or rather shouldn't there have been a higher incidence of it in the European BB samples? What I am seeing in these results is that both J and K haplogroups persisted and was seen in the EBA samples. The J haplogroup can be explained and seen in the Central Europe BB samples. The only other samples with a large number of K is Iberia, which is also seen not to have a close affinity with the British BB but as the author admits, may have some since they have found some steppe ancestry in a couple spanish samples.

So just making note of something I see as peculiar but the sample sizes in the paper aren't all too encompassing nor do I guess will be unless a butt load more remains are found, dated and tested.

rms2
06-15-2017, 02:20 PM
According to David Reich, a lot more ancient dna samples are coming soon. I don't know how many of those will be Bell Beaker though.

I think you have to compare specific mtDNA sub-haplogroups, not just broad categories like K. I count six Ks among British Bell Beakers, and five among continental Bell Beakers. There were three more Ks among the British Early Bronze Age samples. Doesn't seem like a huge imbalance to me, but the subgroups differ. They're not all the same kind of K.

alan
06-15-2017, 02:30 PM
I seem to remember that the percentage of L21xDF13 which is continental in hobby testing was far higher than the % of DF13 which is continental. That suggested to me that L21 very likely came into being on the continent while DF13 may or may not have.

alan
06-15-2017, 02:38 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is AFAIK the RC dates in northern France for beaker are no earlier than the isles so it is possible that if the DF13 sudden expansion echos arrival in virgin territory that that virgin territory c. 2500-2400BC might have included the south side of the English channel

rms2
06-15-2017, 02:48 PM
I seem to remember that the percentage of L21xDF13 which is continental in hobby testing was far higher than the % of DF13 which is continental. That suggested to me that L21 very likely came into being on the continent while DF13 may or may not have.

One of the three oldest British Bell Beaker samples from Olalde et al was R1b-DF13, so I'm guessing DF13 at least was already in existence on the Continent before Bell Beaker got to Britain.

I2447 Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 2400-2040 BC (Yarnton, Oxfordshire) Midpoint: 2220 BC

r_r_abril
06-15-2017, 02:50 PM
According to David Reich, a lot more ancient dna samples are coming soon. I don't know how many of those will be Bell Beaker though.

May I ask where those DNA samples come from?

rms2
06-15-2017, 02:54 PM
May I ask where those DNA samples come from?

I don't think he said exactly, but given the context, I thought he was talking about Europe.

alan
06-15-2017, 03:07 PM
This seems a good recent paper on the arrival of beaker in the isles from an archaeological perspective. This suggests to me that it may not be a simple transfer of people from the Rhine to the isles
http://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

alan
06-15-2017, 03:18 PM
One of the three oldest British Bell Beaker samples from Olalde et al was R1b-DF13, so I'm guessing DF13 at least was already in existence on the Continent before Bell Beaker got to Britain.

I2447 Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 2400-2040 BC (Yarnton, Oxfordshire) Midpoint: 2220 BC

My feeling is DF13 did exist on the continent at least for a short. It is possible that the heavy branching just below DF13 suggestive of a line hitting virgin territory may have commenced on the south side of the English Channel where beaker seems no older than in the isles. A key factor in DF13s ability to seed the isles with lines must be a period on the continent shore in which marine access was acquired

dkm1987
06-15-2017, 04:53 PM
According to David Reich, a lot more ancient dna samples are coming soon. I don't know how many of those will be Bell Beaker though.

I think you have to compare specific mtDNA sub-haplogroups, not just broad categories like K. I count six Ks among British Bell Beakers, and five among continental Bell Beakers. There were three more Ks among the British Early Bronze Age samples. Doesn't seem like a huge imbalance to me, but the subgroups differ. They're not all the same kind of K.

I understand that and I was only using K for simplicity sake. But when you look at all the K subclades you see the younger samples carrying K (any sub) had to get it from somewhere and what we are seeing in this sampling is it didn't come from the Continental samples but is shown in higher numbers in the Neolithic and Iberian samples. Since they are making the distinction that the Neolithic samples showed almost no Steppe ancestry as well as the Iberian samples who were the admixtures responsible for bringing in the K genotypes? So was it a matter of simple hit and miss in the sample? Quite possible since the sampling size is relatively small. Or is that perhaps less turnover took place in some geographic origins and there was indeed some intermixing of Neolithic with Steppe ancestry on the Isle. When looking at the map of sampling sites it truly only represents a fraction of Britain. Hopefully more samples will show a more concise answer?? I am not disputing their findings but just curious.
BB_Central_Europe BB_Germany_BAV E09537_d .. K1a 2464-2212 calBCE Germany
BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Arr2 I0462 .. K1a+195 2566-2346 calBCE Spain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I2979 I2a1b1 K1a+195 3334-2942 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I3085 .. K1a+195 3339-3027 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I3133 I2a1b1 K1a+195 3800-3200 BCE Great Britain
BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Arr2 I0461 .. K1a1b1 2348-2200 calBCE Spain
BB_Iberia NA I0458 I2a2a K1a1b1 2458-2206 calBCE Spain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I2651 .. K1a1b1 3330-3090 calBCE Great Britain
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU I2450 .. K1a1b1g 2460-2200 calBC Great Britain
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU I2447 R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 K1a26 2400-2040 BCE Great Britain
BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Cer I0260 .. K1a2a 2850-2250 BCE Spain
BB_Northern_Italy BB_Italy_Par I2478 R1b1a1a2a1a2 K1a2a 2200-1930 calBCE Italy
Britain_Bronze_Age Scotland_EBA I2569 R1b1a1a2a1a2 K1a3a 2140-1916 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic England_Neolithic I0518 I2a2 K1a3a1 3360-3100 BCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I2630 I2a1b1 K1a4 2581-2464 calBCE Great Britain
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU I2418 .. K1a4a1 2440-2200 calBCE Great Britain
BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Cer I0825 G2 K1a4a1 2474-2300 calBCE Spain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I3138 .. K1a4a1 3800-3200 BCE Great Britain
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU I2446 .. K1b1a1 2460-2140 calBCE Great Britain
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU_outlier I2416 R1b1a1a2a1a K1b1a1 2460-2200 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Bronze_Age England_EBA I2566 R1b1a1a2a1a2 K1b1a1 2210-2030 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I2637 I2a1b K1b1a1 3510-3340 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Neolithic Scotland_Neolithic I2978 I2a1b K1b1a1 3336-3024 calBCE Great Britain
BB_Central_Europe BB_Germany_BAVm I4144 R1b1a1a2a1a2 K1c1 2572-2512 calBCE Germany
BB_Southern_France BB_France_AHP I2575 no_data K1c1 2476-2211 calBCE France
BB_The_Netherlands BB_Netherlands_Tui I4076 .. K1d 2300-1900 BCE The Netherlands
BB_Britain BB_England_SOU I2453 R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 K2a 2289-2041 calBCE Great Britain
Britain_Bronze_Age England_EBA I2609 .. K2a 2023-1772 calBCE Great Britain

rms2
06-15-2017, 05:23 PM
Well, since the British Bell Beaker samples did not carry any British Neolithic or Iberian Neolithic autosomal dna, it is extremely unlikely that those were the sources of their mtDNA. MtDNA K was not limited to either Britain or to Iberia. In addition, Olalde et al concluded that, in the few hundred years after Bell Beaker arrived in Britain, a population replacement of 93% +/- 2% occurred. Given those facts, the answer seems pretty straightforward to me. Bell Beaker did not do a whole lot of intermarrying with the Neolithic farmer locals, so those BBs who were mtDNA K did not get it from local women or from Iberian women.

Jean M
06-15-2017, 05:43 PM
This seems a good recent paper on the arrival of beaker in the isles from an archaeological perspective. This suggests to me that it may not be a simple transfer of people from the Rhine to the isles
http://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

Yes Fitzpatrick 2013 is excellent I feel. It is one of the papers I cited in The Bloody Celts (as Jim Mallory calls my book.) :biggrin1:

dkm1987
06-15-2017, 06:26 PM
Given those facts, the answer seems pretty straightforward to me. Bell Beaker did not do a whole lot of intermarrying with the Neolithic farmer locals, so those BBs who were mtDNA K did not get it from local women or from Iberian women.Hmmm I am not seeing that in the publication. In fact the opposite is implied.
See
We next investigated the
magnitude of population replacement in Britain with qpAdm2 by modelling Beaker Complex
and Bronze Age individuals as a mixture of continental Beaker Complex (using the Oostwoud
individuals as a surrogate) and the British Neolithic population (Supplementary Information,
section 6). Fig. 3a shows the results of this analysis, ordering individuals by date and showing
excess Neolithic ancestry compared to continental Beaker Complex as a baseline. For the
earliest individuals (between ~24002000 BCE), the Neolithic ancestry excess is highly
variable, consistent with migrant communities who were just beginning to mix with the
previously established Neolithic population of Britain. During the subsequent Bronze Age we
observe less variation among individuals and a modest increase in Neolithic-related ancestry
(Fig. 3a), which could represent admixture with persisting populations with high levels of
Neolithic-related ancestry(or alternatively incoming continental populations with higher
proportions of Neolithic-related ancestry).

Muircheartaigh
06-15-2017, 07:42 PM
One of the three oldest British Bell Beaker samples from Olalde et al was R1b-DF13, so I'm guessing DF13 at least was already in existence on the Continent before Bell Beaker got to Britain.

I2447 Y-DNA: R1b-DF13 2400-2040 BC (Yarnton, Oxfordshire) Midpoint: 2220 BC

Agreed, and if the subclades of DF13 didn't originate on the Continent, then who exactly could have accompanied HIM on HIS migration, because it surely wasn't a one man force?

alan
06-16-2017, 10:23 AM
Agreed, and if the subclades of DF13 didn't originate .on the Continent, then who exactly could have accompanied HIM on HIS migration, because it surely wasn't a one man force?

Good point. If DF13 was born in Britain there would have had to be an L21xDF13 migration but AFAIK it's rare.

alan
06-16-2017, 10:35 AM
Good point. If DF13 was born in Britain there would have had to be an L21xDF13 migration but AFAIK it's rare.

What I do recall is despite the huge isles bias, hobby testing quickly threw up a good no L21xDF13 folks in France at an unexpected rate. Anyone got up to date info on this ?

rms2
06-16-2017, 11:01 AM
Hmmm I am not seeing that in the publication. In fact the opposite is implied.

Really? The opposite is implied? The opposite of what I wrote would be that Bell Beaker intermarried extensively with the local population. No, sorry. Not possible. Either you are wrong or Olalde et al are wrong.



See
We next investigated the
magnitude of population replacement in Britain with qpAdm2 by modelling Beaker Complex
and Bronze Age individuals as a mixture of continental Beaker Complex (using the Oostwoud
individuals as a surrogate) and the British Neolithic population (Supplementary Information,
section 6). Fig. 3a shows the results of this analysis, ordering individuals by date and showing
excess Neolithic ancestry compared to continental Beaker Complex as a baseline. For the
earliest individuals (between ~2400–2000 BCE), the Neolithic ancestry excess is highly
variable, consistent with migrant communities who were just beginning to mix with the
previously established Neolithic population of Britain. During the subsequent Bronze Age we
observe less variation among individuals and a modest increase in Neolithic-related ancestry
(Fig. 3a), which could represent admixture with persisting populations with high levels of
Neolithic-related ancestry(or alternatively incoming continental populations with higher
proportions of Neolithic-related ancestry).

Did you read the heading of the section from which you drew that quote?

From page 6:


Nearly complete turnover of ancestry in Britain

The phrase "just beginning to mix" does not negate the overall fact that Olalde et al found little British Neolithic farmer dna subsequent to the arrival of Bell Beaker. "[A] modest increase in Neolithic-related ancestry" in the Middle Bronze Age represents a slight comeback from next-to-nothing.

You stopped quoting before Olalde et al arrived at the salient information on page 7:



In either case, our results imply a minimum of 932% local population turnover by the Middle Bronze Age (Supplementary Information, section 6). Specifically, for individuals from Britain around 2000 BCE, at least this fraction of their DNA derives from ancestors who at 2500 BCE lived in continental Europe. An independent line of evidence for population turnover comes from Y-chromosome haplogroup composition: while R1b haplogroups were completely absent in the Neolithic samples (n=25), they represent 95% and 75% of the Y-chromosomes in Beaker Complex-Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age males in Britain, respectively (Fig. 3b; Supplementary Table 3).


That language seems pretty plain and easy to understand to me. Somehow the native Neolithic farmer population got knocked off for the most part, and there was not a lot of mixing.

alan
06-16-2017, 11:08 AM
This seems a good recent paper on the arrival of beaker in the isles from an archaeological perspective. This suggests to me that it may not be a simple transfer of people from the Rhine to the isles
http://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

My impression of the very earliest beaker migrants to the isles for a long time has been the same as this paper. The beaker folk who first crossed to Britain and Ireland seem to have been positioned on the continent in an area where both Rhenish (ultimately eastern) beaker people were also recieving influence from the western beaker complex. The first graves are not the sort of single inhumation cists and an east-west alignment we see slightly later in Britain. neither were the first isles beaker graves Neolithic style long term community collective graves open over centuries. instead they were liked nuclear family graves that were reopenable at least for a number of years, a generation maybe. This reminds me a lot of the sort of rite seen in the beaker phase original use of wedge tombs in Ireland. These tombs appear in their original period of use to have just featured maybe 1-3 bodies typically. from what I have read, they were introduced right at the start of the Irish beaker period and rapidly spread as the founder population spread through the island. My impression is the western influence was more cultural than genetic though and the disparity between British and Iberian beaker y and autosomal DNA as well as crania bear this out. Nevertheless I suspect this early wave to the isles may have arrived from a bit west of the Rhine. Normandy is interesting in this respect as it shows clear Rhenish aspects which were penetrating west where in Brittany they met much more Iberian derived looking beaker culture and Brittany is or course a metal bearing area. I just have a hunch that the earliest DF13 line to reach the isles had already spread west of the Rhine and some distance west along the north French coast prior to crossing to the isles and may have settled both islands at same time.

rms2
06-16-2017, 11:14 AM
This seems a good recent paper on the arrival of beaker in the isles from an archaeological perspective. This suggests to me that it may not be a simple transfer of people from the Rhine to the isles
http://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

Interesting that Fitzpatrick says the Beaker burials at Amesbury are among the very earliest in Britain. Bingo! We have R1b-L21 there. If those were some of the earliest BB burials in Britain, and at least some of the remains in them were R1b-L21, that means it isn't likely there was time for L21 to arise in Britain. It had to already be present in the original incoming Beaker population from the Continent.

alan
06-16-2017, 11:27 AM
I think the concept that the short-term reusable graves shown in the earliest British beaker burials like the Amesbury archer etc is the same rite we see in wedge tombs gets even more interesting when you consider they are at least as old as the earliest British burials. The fact one has an earth and wood chambers and the other stone is not cultural but geological. It appears to me that both islands were settled by the same beaker pop at the same time around 2400bc or just before but the slightly later wave with the classic single burial tradition was overwhelmingly south and especially eastern Britain. Certainly the companion who is almost certainly the son of the archer is clear evidence that the carrier wave was L21

alan
06-16-2017, 11:34 AM
See the later British beaker L21 burials? Are any of them classic east-west single burials with AOC beakers? If so then both the 1st and 2nd beaker waves into the isles were L21 , something that would imp!y they totally controlled the coast from the Rhine westwards for quite some time.

rms2
06-16-2017, 11:37 AM
As for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker outside Iberia (including British Bell Beaker), here's what Olalde et al say, on pages 73-74 of the Supplementary Information:



In contrast, for Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia, models using Iberian populations as a source for their Neolithic ancestry are rejected. We obtain a good fit for Globular_Amphora_LN and TRB_Sweden_MN, two populations with a hunter-gatherer component close to KO1 on the cline defined by LaBraa1-KO1 (Extended Data Fig. 2; Table S5), and beyond Loschbour on the cline defined by LaBraa1-Loschbour (Table S6).

The native Neolithic farmer population of Britain, unlike British Bell Beaker, was closest to Neolithic Iberians.

From the abstract, page 3:



British Neolithic farmers were genetically similar to contemporary populations in continental Europe and in particular to Neolithic Iberians, suggesting that a portion of the farmer ancestry in Britain came from the Mediterranean rather than the Danubian route of farming expansion.

And from the Supplementary Information, page 70:



Interestingly, Neolithic populations from Britain, Ireland and southern France share significantly more alleles with Iberia_EN than with central European Early Neolithic populations.

So, while British Neolithic farmers were like Neolithic Iberians, British Bell Beaker people were not. The Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker is most like Globular Amphora and TRB from north central Europe.

rms2
06-16-2017, 11:45 AM
See the later British beaker L21 burials? Are any of them classic east-west single burials with AOC beakers? If so then both the 1st and 2nd beaker waves into the isles were L21 , something that would imp!y they totally controlled the coast from the Rhine westwards for quite some time.

Did you mean north-south? Isn't east-west the Corded Ware orientation?

alan
06-16-2017, 01:24 PM
Did you mean north-south? Isn't east-west the Corded Ware orientation?

I believe Rhenish has a lot of east-west beaker and also eastern Britain but I am drawing from memory. May be in the Fitzpatrick paper

rms2
06-16-2017, 01:37 PM
I believe Rhenish has a lot of east-west beaker and also eastern Britain but I am drawing from memory. May be in the Fitzpatrick paper

I haven't had time to thoroughly check them all, but just glancing through the Olalde Supplementary Information, and running Find on "orient", it appears most if not all the British BB burials were N-S.

MitchellSince1893
06-16-2017, 03:08 PM
Interesting that Fitzpatrick says the Beaker burials at Amesbury are among the very earliest in Britain. Bingo! We have R1b-L21 there. If those were some of the earliest BB burials in Britain, and at least some of the remains in them were R1b-L21, that means it isn't likely there was time for L21 to arise in Britain. It had to already be present in the original incoming Beaker population from the Continent.

From the Fitzpatrick paper

modelling of the radiocarbon dates from these three Scottish graves suggests that the date to 2340–2250 cal BC (at 95% probability) or 2320–2280 cal BC (at 68% probability). This is slightly later than in Wessex where earliest burials at Boscombe Down date to 2420–2300 cal BC (at 95% probability) or 2373–2318 cal BC (at 68 % probability). This suggests that the first Beaker burials appeared by 2375 BC in Wessex and by 2350 BC in Scotland (Barclay & Marshall 2011)

It amazing how rapidly they spread from their first appearance to cover almost the whole of Great Britain.


The date and location of the finds suggest that the Bell Beaker Set was distributed across these islands both rapidly and widely in the 25th, but mainly 24th centuries BC.

I know this is an L21 thread, but just to tie it back to P312.
By ~2300 BC we've got U152 in Germany, Hungary, France, L21 in England and Scotland, and DF27 in North Central Germany

rms2
06-16-2017, 05:20 PM
Now we need them to back up a little and figure out how Bell Beaker got started and what went into the creation of Kurgan Bell Beaker.

Did it come directly from Yamnaya?

Did it come from Corded Ware?

Can we identify the pre-Beaker culture? Where and when did it start?

Where did the P312 in Bell Beaker come from? (That's what I really want to know.)

Mikewww
06-16-2017, 05:28 PM
I haven't had time to thoroughly check them all, but just glancing through the Olalde Supplementary Information, and running Find on "orient", it appears most if not all the British BB burials were N-S.
I just want to make sure I understand the significance. The north-south burial orientation is common in which cultures?

Heyd said it was in East Bell Beakers as elites were buried facing the east, which he interpreted as meaningful of sun worship, the rising sun.

What orientations does Corded Ware have? Danubian Yamnaya? I believe early Southwestern (Iberian and SW France) Beakers did not even use single grave burials, right?

How about back in the Yamnaya regional cultures of the Steppes?

Fitzgerald down played the single grave burial line in his maps and his classification of Western, Eastern, etc. Bell Beakers but perhaps it should "up" played.

dkm1987
06-16-2017, 06:44 PM
Really? The opposite is implied? The opposite of what I wrote would be that Bell Beaker intermarried extensively with the local population. No, sorry. Not possible. Either you are wrong or Olalde et al are wrong.



Did you read the heading of the section from which you drew that quote?

From page 6:



The phrase "just beginning to mix" does not negate the overall fact that Olalde et al found little British Neolithic farmer dna subsequent to the arrival of Bell Beaker. "[A] modest increase in Neolithic-related ancestry" in the Middle Bronze Age represents a slight comeback from next-to-nothing.

You stopped quoting before Olalde et al arrived at the salient information on page 7:



That language seems pretty plain and easy to understand to me. Somehow the native Neolithic farmer population got knocked off for the most part, and there was not a lot of mixing.

I never said there was a lot. But there obviously was some. You can see that in S Table 9. In either case I sent off an email to Professor Reich and Olalde posing this question and perhaps they will enlighten me. If so I will pass along their comments.

MitchellSince1893
06-16-2017, 09:13 PM
I just want to make sure I understand the significance. The north-south burial orientation is common in which cultures?

Heyd said it was in East Bell Beakers as elites were buried facing the east, which he interpreted as meaningful of sun worship, the rising sun.

What orientations does Corded Ware have? Danubian Yamnaya? I believe early Southwestern (Iberian and SW France) Beakers did not even use single grave burials, right?

How about back in the Yamnaya regional cultures of the Steppes?

Fitzgerald down played the single grave burial line in his maps and his classification of Western, Eastern, etc. Bell Beakers but perhaps it should "up" played.

From what Rocca and Alan have posted, the North-South orientation has been found in South-Polish Corded Ware
Krakw-Sandomierz CW group switches to placing their dead in a north-south axis starting ca. 2700 BC...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 and
is the norm in both Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo

rms2
06-16-2017, 09:57 PM
I never said there was a lot. But there obviously was some. You can see that in S Table 9. In either case I sent off an email to Professor Reich and Olalde posing this question and perhaps they will enlighten me. If so I will pass along their comments.

There wasn't much. That is the point. I understand the desire to be a descendant of the builders of Stone Henge, but it looks like the Bell Beaker people pretty much took the place of the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain, who were probably largely wiped out by a combination of Bell Beaker violence and disease (plus the Neolithic population had already suffered a downturn).

You cannot use Olalde et al to make much of a case for British Neolithic farmer survival. That 93% +/- 2% comes after the modest Neolithic resurgence by the Middle Bronze Age. The arrival of the Bell Beaker people wasn't a good thing for British Neolithic farmers.

rms2
06-16-2017, 09:58 PM
North-south burial orientation was the standard Bell Beaker practice.

Dewsloth
06-16-2017, 10:03 PM
From the Fitzpatrick paper


It amazing how rapidly they spread from their first appearance to cover almost the whole of Great Britain.



I know this is an L21 thread, but just to tie it back to P312.
By ~2300 BC we've got U152 in Germany, Hungary, France, L21 in England and Scotland, and DF27 in North Central Germany

Plus, by default, Amesbury Archer's isotopes' origins point to L21 in the Swiss/Aut/Ger Alpine region more or less contemporaneously with first known L21 in the UK.
Does anyone know offhand of any estimates of age at time of death of AA and Companion?

rms2
06-16-2017, 10:12 PM
Plus, by default, Amesbury Archer's isotopes' origins point to L21 in the Swiss/Aut/Ger Alpine region more or less contemporaneously with first known L21 in the UK.
Does anyone know offhand of any estimates of age at time of death of AA and Companion?



When he died, the Amesbury Archer was 35-45 years old.

The Archer's Burial (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer_burial.html)


Another grave was found close to the Archer’s. Here archaeologists found the skeleton of a man aged between 25 and 30 dating from same time as the Archer.

The Archer's Companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)

If the Archer was around 45 years old, and the Companion was around 25 years old, they could have been father and son.

MitchellSince1893
06-16-2017, 10:14 PM
Plus, by default, Amesbury Archer's isotopes' origins point to L21 in the Swiss/Aut/Ger Alpine region more or less contemporaneously with first known L21 in the UK.
Does anyone know offhand of any estimates of age at time of death of AA and Companion?


A few metres away from the grave of the Amesbury Archer was the burial of a 20–25 year-old man who had died a generation, possibly two, after him (2350–2260 cal BC) https://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

Midpoint 2305 BC

So the archer would have been ~40 years older than the companion or born around 2345 BC possibly in the Alps.

r_r_abril
06-16-2017, 11:21 PM
https://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

Midpoint 2305 BC

So the archer would have been ~40 years older than the companion or born around 2345 BC possibly in the Alps.

Could the Amesbury Archer be, perhaps, the founder of our haplogroup?

(Yfull estimates that the L21 mutation took place circa 2400 BC)

rms2
06-16-2017, 11:28 PM
Could the Amesbury Archer be, perhaps, the founder of our haplogroup?

(Yfull estimates that the L21 mutation took place circa 2400 BC)

Probably not of the entire haplogroup, but maybe a founder of much of British R1b-L21.

alan
06-17-2017, 06:39 AM
One point relevant to L21 is the spread of beaker and presumably L21 through the isles is just too sudden and widespread to explain it as coming from a founder effect from just a handful of L21 brothers or close cousins. Even the randiest babe magnets can't produce enough decendants to cover the British Isles in a couple of generations!

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 10:43 AM
One point relevant to L21 is the spread of beaker and presumably L21 through the isles is just too sudden and widespread to explain it as coming from a founder effect from just a handful of L21 brothers or close cousins. Even the randiest babe magnets can't produce enough decendants to cover the British Isles in a couple of generations!

In 2000 there were circa 3 million Afrikaners living in South Africa. It is estimated that most of them descend from the 4.000 European settlers that migrated to the Dutch Cape Colony in the period 1653-1707. Benjamin Franklin observed that, when there was enough arable land, the population doubled every 25 yeats (indeed, that was the case of the British North American colonies).

Thus, in my opinion there was also an exponential growth ot the L21 population in Britain, due to the avalaibility of fertile land, that had been abandoned by the exterminated Neolithic populations.

dkm1987
06-17-2017, 11:34 AM
I understand the desire to be a descendant of the builders of Stone Henge,I never gave two cents about that. I was only talking about the data.

I just see where there is a case to be made of Neolithic Britain genetic survival especially on the mitochondrial side, perhaps. More time and more samples will tell I guess.

If I hear back from either I will pass along their remarks.

rms2
06-17-2017, 11:45 AM
I never gave two cents about that. I was only talking about the data.

I just see where there is a case to be made of Neolithic Britain genetic survival especially on the mitochondrial side, perhaps. More time and more samples will tell I guess.

If I hear back from either I will pass along their remarks.

The data indicate a pretty thorough-going wipe-out of the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain. Are you expecting Olalde and Reich to alter what they wrote in their Bell Beaker paper?

Did some native Neolithic farmer folk survive? Sure, barely. They went from around 100% of the population to about 7% or less by the Middle Bronze Age, and that's after adding in the little bump up in population they enjoyed by that time.

The arrival of the Bell Beaker people, as the paper makes clear, marked the last really major change in the British genome (and probably the Irish one, as well). Modern British people remain pretty much like the Bell Beaker people and cluster with other northern Europeans. There isn't much British Neolithic farmer dna left. If there was, modern British people would cluster with Iberians the way British Neolithic farmers clustered with Iberian Neolithic farmers.

Cassidy et al found that the Neolithic Ballnahatty woman was closest to modern Sardinians, as I recall. That is not true at all of the modern Irish.

If British Bell Beaker people derived much of their mtDNA from the earlier Neolithic inhabitants of Britain, they would have carried a lot more British Neolithic farmer autosomal dna than they evidently did.

razyn
06-17-2017, 11:46 AM
I understand the desire to be a descendant of the builders of Stone Henge

In that regard, a new program about Stonehenge is supposed to air in just a few days. [Do shows on cable TV actually "air," or is there a better word?] I posted the few available details on a more specific forum, but more people are following this thread. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10972-Science-Channel-to-air-quot-Ghosts-of-Stonehenge-quot

Muircheartaigh
06-17-2017, 12:08 PM
Could the Amesbury Archer be, perhaps, the founder of our haplogroup?

(Yfull estimates that the L21 mutation took place circa 2400 BC)

Surely it goes without saying that the chances that they dug up the L21 founder are infinitesimally small. However if we knew how many ''Private" SNPs the Companion was carrying it would give us a clue to the age and origin of L21 but we don't know that figure from the information released. What would be ideal is a NGS on the Y chromosome rather than a search for SNPs present in today's population. That would reveal how many SNPs he was carrying downstream of his Current Terminal SNP. The odds are also extremely high that the Archer's and the Companion's lines of descent are long extinct but they would be carrying SNPs not found in today's population.

rms2
06-17-2017, 12:29 PM
Surely it goes without saying that the chances that they dug up the L21 founder are infinitesimally small. However if we knew how many ''Private" SNPs the Companion was carrying it would give us a clue to the age and origin of L21 but we don't know that figure from the information released. What would be ideal is a NGS on the Y chromosome rather than a search for SNPs present in today's population. That would reveal how many SNPs he was carrying downstream of his Current Terminal SNP. The odds are also extremely high that the Archer's and the Companion's lines of descent are long extinct but they would be carrying SNPs not found in today's population.

One never knows. The Archer's burial was one of the richest European BB burials, not just in Britain, but anywhere. He might have been some sort of chief or king, fathered numerous sons, and had numerous progeny. Or not.

I just wish they had been able to get his genome.

rms2
06-17-2017, 12:37 PM
Speaking of the apparent replacement of the native Neolithic farmer population of Britain by Bell Beaker people beginning around 2400 BC, here's what Henri Hubert said in his book, The History of the Celtic People, pages 172-173:



The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.


Hubert said the Bell Beaker people "assimilated the previous occupants of the country". Apparently not a lot of assimilation went on.

Muircheartaigh
06-17-2017, 01:46 PM
One never knows. The Archer's burial was one of the richest European BB burials, not just in Britain, but anywhere. He might have been some sort of chief or king, fathered numerous sons, and had numerous progeny. Or not.

I just wish they had been able to get his genome.

If the Archer was the Founder of R-L21, then what haplogroup were the rest of the force that migrated to the Isles with him?

Goodman
06-17-2017, 01:56 PM
Cover up? Withholding information? I hope not.

Goodman
06-17-2017, 02:23 PM
Cover up? Withholding information? I hope not.
To clarify my post: I hope they're not covering up the results if there are any from the AA as they could be described as sensitive data in this day and age. Maybe I'm just too suspicious in life 😁

rms2
06-17-2017, 02:28 PM
If the Archer was the Founder of R-L21, then what haplogroup were the rest of the force that migrated to the Isles with him?

I never said he was the founder of R1b-L21, nor is that what I intended. I do NOT think the Archer is the mrca of all R1b-L21. I said he could be the ancestor of many living British R1b-L21 men, and by that I did not mean that the Archer was necessarily L21*. I have no idea what his terminal SNP was.

Since the Archer was apparently a chief, king, or some kind of wealthy individual, he could have fathered many sons, and at least some of them may have male descendants alive today. Or not. It is also possible the Archer's y-dna line petered out a long time ago.

A lot depends on just how old L21 actually is, where it originated, how old its various subclades are, etc. I don't know the exact answers to those questions, but I do think it is pretty obvious that L21 originated somewhere on the European Continent and not in Britain or Ireland.

rms2
06-17-2017, 02:30 PM
To clarify my post: I hope they're not covering up the results if there are any from the AA as they could be described as sensitive data in this day and age. Maybe I'm just too suspicious in life ��

If they were doing that, they would not have released The Companion's results, since he is known to be a relative of the Archer and possibly his son.

Dr. Olalde said the Archer failed the aDNA analysis but that he and his colleagues may try again soon.

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 02:40 PM
If the Archer was the Founder of R-L21, then what haplogroup were the rest of the force that migrated to the Isles with him?

P312.

rms2
06-17-2017, 02:49 PM
P312.

I2457, one of the other Amesbury Bell Beaker burials, was one of the oldest, and I believe predates the Archer by a little or is at least contemporaneous with the Archer.

He was also R1b-L21.

I2447 from Yarnton, Oxfordshire, was close to the Archer's time, as well, and he was R1b-DF13.

Goodman
06-17-2017, 02:50 PM
If they were doing that, they would not have released The Companion's results, since he is known to be a relative of the Archer and possibly his son.

Dr. Olalde said the Archer failed the aDNA analysis but that he and his colleagues may try again soon.ok thanks for letting me know.
Ive been trying to keep up to date with things, I must have missed that. Cheers.

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 02:53 PM
A table with the data of the L21 findings in Olalde's thesis was posted in another thread.

Anyone has the link?

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 02:59 PM
Look at this interesting information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendants_of_Brigham_Young

"In 1902, 25 years after Brigham Young death, the New York Times established that Young's direct descendants numbered more than 1000."

Are we all descended of a Bronze Age Brigham Young? :-)

rms2
06-17-2017, 03:00 PM
A table with the data of the L21 findings in Olalde's thesis was posted in another thread.

Anyone has the link?

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RUiG0Lo_jUdbFeQFTH3iGX_HpVgVHjU_7PxQuiklUng/edit?usp=sharing) is the link to my Google sheet of Bell Beaker R1b-L21.

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWzzqFO-9woOWIA9H7DkAEFRSyv3YHrkCGhDihuDkhU/edit?usp=sharing) is a link to basically the same sheet but with the Middle Bronze Age L21s included.

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 03:03 PM
Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RUiG0Lo_jUdbFeQFTH3iGX_HpVgVHjU_7PxQuiklUng/edit?usp=sharing) is the link to my Google sheet of Bell Beaker R1b-L21.

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWzzqFO-9woOWIA9H7DkAEFRSyv3YHrkCGhDihuDkhU/edit?usp=sharing) is a link to basically the same sheet but with the Middle Bronze Age L21s included.

Thank you.

r_r_abril
06-17-2017, 03:06 PM
There are striking similarities between the colonization of New England by Englishmen in the 17th century and the settlement of Britain by BB invaders:

1) In both cases there was a nearly complete replacement of the original population of the area.

2) There was a huge biological expansion of the invading communities.

"One such obscure emigrant of 1633, Simon Huntington, died on the voyage, but his widow landed with her five children; and from these are descended at least nine-tenths of all the Huntingtons living in America today, numbering 5,500 born with that name, beside 1,500,000 Americans of other surnames. The 5,500 with the name today are the subject of this book, taken as a true sample of the whole Puritan, i.e. New England stock, and written up as a very interesting, novel, and valuable study in sociology and genetics, based on a new method--that of surname group--which should have wide utility to sociologists." (After Three Centuries: A Typical New England Family. By Ellsworth Huntington and Martha Ragsdale. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1935.)

dkm1987
06-17-2017, 03:58 PM
Prof Olalde's response.

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your interest in our paper. We do see a mild increase in Neolithic-related ancestry after the initial pulse of migration. This could represent some degree of admixture with local populations or instead with additional waves of migration carrying more Neolithic ancestry than the initial wave. In table S9 we use Britain_Neolithic to represent Neolithic ancestry, but since Neolithic populations from Britain are genetically very similar to Neolithic populations in mainland Europe, we cannot exclude the possibility that the observed minor increase in Neolithic ancestry is derived from continental populations.

Best,

Iigo

rms2
06-17-2017, 04:05 PM
Prof Olalde's response.

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your interest in our paper. We do see a mild increase in Neolithic-related ancestry after the initial pulse of migration. This could represent some degree of admixture with local populations or instead with additional waves of migration carrying more Neolithic ancestry than the initial wave. In table S9 we use Britain_Neolithic to represent Neolithic ancestry, but since Neolithic populations from Britain are genetically very similar to Neolithic populations in mainland Europe, we cannot exclude the possibility that the observed minor increase in Neolithic ancestry is derived from continental populations.

Best,

Iigo

In other words, he reiterated what he and his colleagues wrote in the paper.

If there was much native British Neolithic farmer dna survival in British Bell Beaker and Middle Bronze Age people, their Neolithic farmer component wouldn't have a best fit with Globular Amphora and TRB from north central Europe. It would look like Iberia_EN the way British Neolithic farmers do, and the modern British would group more closely to modern Iberians or Sardinians than they do.

It was good of Dr. Olalde to answer you so quickly and courteously.

alan
06-17-2017, 07:06 PM
A good way of ascertaining the speed of spread of beaker people which is is unique to Ireland is the Wedge Tombs. These are a unique to Ireland and their period of construction and initial use has been proven to be the beaker era (not to be confused with the reuse of them which took place up to 2500 years after their original phase of use. They were probably at best constructed 2400-2000BC although I suspect it could have been a short as 2400-2200BC. The original beaker phase of use indicates there were only a very few burials in each, perhaps a nuclear family or household. They are so similar they clearly spread across Ireland from an original founding model and so they may well track the spreading out of a lineage across Ireland over 2 or 3 centuries. They are not an influence of the local Neolithic farmers as they had abandoned megalithic tombs building 600years before. They tend to be in the rocky west, north and a few other upland areas which make sense if they were metal prospectors and also meant they were exploring a lot of areas less popular with the previous farmers. Now the interesting thing is in that 2-300 years span of wedge tombs construction at least 500 were built.

rms2
06-17-2017, 07:09 PM
Okay, I'm going to beat this to death because I don't have anything better to do today (well, I choose not to do anything better).

If L21 arose in the Isles, the earliest Bell Beaker burials there should be P312 or maybe Z290 or Z260 rather than L21. Instead, one of the oldest is already DF13.

It's almost too bad the most virulent Isles-origin guys have been banned from Anthrogenica (but don't get me wrong: I don't want them back).

MitchellSince1893
06-17-2017, 10:27 PM
...I2447 from Yarnton, Oxfordshire, was close to the Archer's time, as well, and he was R1b-DF13.
I2447 2400–2040 BCE with midpoint of 2220 BC. So it's reasonable to assume the original DF13 was born prior to 2220 BC.

Just for fun, there are 754 DF13 samples at Yfull with an average age of 4398 ybp (2448 BC). Yfull's method for DF13 gives 4221 ybp (2271 BC). For the reasons I've mentioned before, I would be inclined to go with the overall average age vice the yfull method which is often skewed by average age of tiny branches.

If DF13 was indeed born ~2450 BC then he was living at roughly the time right after Bell Beaker first entered the Isles

first Beaker burials appeared by 2375 BC in Wessex and by 2350 BC in Scotland (Barclay & Marshall 2011)

On bigtree we see the following SNPs between P312 and DF13
R-P312/S116*> Z290
S461 Z290
Z260
S245 Z245
Z21145
FGC3218? S552? Y2598?
L21 S145 M529
L459
FGC3218 S552 Y2598
CTS241 DF13 S521

Based on the above there were a minimum 1 to 4 generations from L21 and DF13 depending on the order of the SNP blocks

1 Generation if the order was
L459
FGC3218 S552 Y2598
L21 S145 M529
CTS241 DF13 S521
CTS8221 Z2542

4 generations if the order was

L21 S145 M529
L459
2 FGC3218 S552 Y2598
3 CTS8221 Z2542
4 CTS241 DF13 S521

That would put L21's at 2480 BC to 2570 BC at the latest (2480BC =1 generation between L21 and DF13, 2570=4 generations between L21 and DF13). Obviously L21's TMRCA could very well be earlier, but at least we might have a rough idea of the latest timeframe for L21.

Based on the above assumptions and dates, I would be inclined to place the original L21 on the continent and original DF13 in Britain.

However, as the ~24th Century BC Amesbury archer demonstrates via isotope testing, there was a flow of men from the continent after the initial BB arrivals in 25th Century BC. So DF13 could have been a born on the continent as well.

rms2
06-18-2017, 11:09 AM
I'm guessing L21 and DF13 are both at least a few centuries older than the current estimates and both were born on the Continent.

I hope now that the Olalde Bell Beaker Behemoth has appeared the researchers are not done with Bell Beaker and ready to move on to the ancient Hottentots or something. I'd like to see some follow-up, especially in the direction of finding out how Kurgan Bell Beaker came to be.

rms2
06-18-2017, 09:22 PM
I'm guessing L21 and DF13 are both at least a few centuries older than the current estimates and both were born on the Continent.

I hope now that the Olalde Bell Beaker Behemoth has appeared the researchers are not done with Bell Beaker and ready to move on to the ancient Hottentots or something. I'd like to see some follow-up, especially in the direction of finding out how Kurgan Bell Beaker came to be.

I guess Olalde et al really have put the stake through the heart of the Isles origin hypothesis. Time was when saying what I said above would have stirred a hornets nest of attack responses.

I guess this is good, but it is kind of dull.

boab007
06-18-2017, 10:15 PM
Hi. I am new to dna testing and have just received my results from livingdna. I am haplogroup R-L21 subclade R-DF13. I've been having a look through some posts and have to say I am completely baffled! Am I right in thinking that there are further 'subclades' after R-DF13? I have read that Royal Stuart is also R-L21 (not that I have any inkling of such a connection). Paper trail wise, I can trace my maIe line back to c.1790 in Perthshire. My surname is Brodie. I would appreciate any information which might help me understand things a bit better. Thanks!

sktibo
06-18-2017, 11:03 PM
Hi. I am new to dna testing and have just received my results from livingdna. I am haplogroup R-L21 subclade R-DF13. I've been having a look through some posts and have to say I am completely baffled! Am I right in thinking that there are further 'subclades' after R-DF13? I have read that Royal Stuart is also R-L21 (not that I have any inkling of such a connection). Paper trail wise, I can trace my maIe line back to c.1790 in Perthshire. My surname is Brodie. I would appreciate any information which might help me understand things a bit better. Thanks!

Hi, Welcome. I think this is a thread about how Bell Beaker relates to L21, so you might have posted in the wrong area. I've been looking for people with Perthshire ancestry who have tested with Living DNA and I've sent you a private message regarding that. I'm not sure if you're able to access your inbox or send messages until you make another couple of posts. I suggest looking through this section http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?123-DF13 or starting a thread within that section.

rms2
06-18-2017, 11:04 PM
Hi. I am new to dna testing and have just received my results from livingdna. I am haplogroup R-L21 subclade R-DF13. I've been having a look through some posts and have to say I am completely baffled! Am I right in thinking that there are further 'subclades' after R-DF13? I have read that Royal Stuart is also R-L21 (not that I have any inkling of such a connection). Paper trail wise, I can trace my maIe line back to c.1790 in Perthshire. My surname is Brodie. I would appreciate any information which might help me understand things a bit better. Thanks!

Welcome to Anthrogenica!

I hate to tell you to spend more money, but you are going to want to get a 111-marker test with Family Tree DNA so you can get some matches and see the lay of the land. Then, if you can afford it, the Big Y test is a great idea.

Get some STRs first though, at least 67. Then we can be of more help.

boab007
06-19-2017, 04:23 PM
Ok, I'll take a look at those. Thanks.

Jean M
06-19-2017, 05:29 PM
Am I right in thinking that there are further 'subclades' after R-DF13? I have read that Royal Stuart is also R-L21 (not that I have any inkling of such a connection).

Yes there are many subclades under DF13. This tree shows where Royal Stewart fits.

17041

boab007
06-19-2017, 05:29 PM
SKTIBO - Thanks for your reply. I didn't know where to post to be honest, I saw L21 and thought good a place as any! Unfortunately, I can't reply to your private message until I make 15 posts. I would like to respond though, but I am now conscious it would be considered off topic here. Any suggestions? I'll have a look at the section you suggest anyway. Thanks.

boab007
06-19-2017, 05:30 PM
Thanks Jean M!

sktibo
06-19-2017, 11:39 PM
SKTIBO - Thanks for your reply. I didn't know where to post to be honest, I saw L21 and thought good a place as any! Unfortunately, I can't reply to your private message until I make 15 posts. I would like to respond though, but I am now conscious it would be considered off topic here. Any suggestions? I'll have a look at the section you suggest anyway. Thanks.

Thanks for getting back to me, Apologies for the off topic here folks but I've no other way of communicating with boab007!
Would you please go to this thread:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9647-Living-DNA-Results/page96
Post your living DNA results in as much detail as possible, screenshots of your results in every view ideally, and tell us as much as you can about your ancestry?
thanks very much!

alan
06-20-2017, 08:10 AM
Looking over the dating evidence for wedge tombs, it's possible that were all constructed across the period 2350-2150. Not enough are dated but generally when dating is more plentiful and Bayesian analysis applied the period of construction of a particular class of monument tends to narrow. There are c 500 known but as they tend to be low and often fairly small there could be a number lost under peat. I wouldn't be surprised if there were originally around 1000. Anyway 1000 built across 8 generations could have been achieved by just 10 founding men who (and there descendants over the following 200 years) averaged 2 surviving sons. Or any variant of that sort of scale . Sounds small-scale but if you included some and children that would be perhaps 6000 beaker folk

alan
06-20-2017, 08:17 AM
Looking over the dating evidence for wedge tombs, it's possible that were all constructed across the period 2350-2150. Not enough are dated but generally when dating is more plentiful and Bayesian analysis applied the period of construction of a particular class of monument tends to narrow. There are c 500 known but as they tend to be low and often fairly small there could be a number lost under peat. I wouldn't be surprised if there were originally around 1000. Anyway 1000 built across 8 generations could have been achieved by just 10 founding men who (and there descendants over the following 200 years) averaged 2 surviving sons. Or any variant of that sort of scale .
However Wedge tombs are only one type of beaker grave in Ireland but the corner type are subsurface

alan
06-21-2017, 07:46 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304925443_Behind_the_warriors_Bell_Beakers_and_ide ntities_in_Atlantic_Europe_third_millennium_BC?enr ichId=rgreq-d0c1efff98214e842fe00a1c9a94ea76-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwNDkyNTQ0MztBUzozODA4N jY1NTI0NTEwNzJAMTQ2NzgxNzA3MDEzNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf the more I think about it the more convinced I am that the earliest wave of beaker folk in the isles came from France. Perhaps around the Seine area

alan
06-21-2017, 08:03 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laure_Salanova/publication/302942778_Chronologie_et_facteurs_d%27evolution_de s_sepultures_individuelles_campaniformes_dans_le_N ord_de_la_France/links/5948f2fbaca272f02e0f0310/Chronologie-et-facteurs-devolution-des-sepultures-individuelles-campaniformes-dans-le-Nord-de-la-France.pdf. In French but v useful. Note the RC dates for beaker individual burial in northern France include several that are likely significantly older than the earliest isles ones

Gravetto-Danubian
06-21-2017, 08:25 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304925443_Behind_the_warriors_Bell_Beakers_and_ide ntities_in_Atlantic_Europe_third_millennium_BC?enr ichId=rgreq-d0c1efff98214e842fe00a1c9a94ea76-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwNDkyNTQ0MztBUzozODA4N jY1NTI0NTEwNzJAMTQ2NzgxNzA3MDEzNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf the more I think about it the more convinced I am that the earliest wave of beaker folk in the isles came from France. Perhaps around the Seine area

Both great papers; although im yet to read the second link in detail.
However, Salanova is convinced that BB males were "locals" opposing CWC newcomers from the east. (see her "Heads North: An analysis of bell Beaker graves in Western Europe").
She sees that all their ornaments, daggers, etc are local or from the south; not east.

rms2
06-21-2017, 03:45 PM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304925443_Behind_the_warriors_Bell_Beakers_and_ide ntities_in_Atlantic_Europe_third_millennium_BC?enr ichId=rgreq-d0c1efff98214e842fe00a1c9a94ea76-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwNDkyNTQ0MztBUzozODA4N jY1NTI0NTEwNzJAMTQ2NzgxNzA3MDEzNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf the more I think about it the more convinced I am that the earliest wave of beaker folk in the isles came from France. Perhaps around the Seine area

Given the results from Olalde et al showing the close genetic relationship between the British Bell Beaker skeletons and those from the Lower Rhine, and this map from Salanova of the distribution of the main regional BB pottery styles, it looks like the source of British Bell Beaker was that coastal region from Flanders to Friesland.

17119

Dewsloth
06-21-2017, 04:15 PM
If Amesbury Archer came from the Alps, it's worth noting he and his friends could have followed the Rhine all the way from its Swiss origins to the North Sea via the deltas in the Netherlands.
It would seem to be a lot simpler than taking a left at Strasbourg and travelling overland.

rms2
06-21-2017, 06:12 PM
If Amesbury Archer came from the Alps, it's worth noting he and his friends could have followed the Rhine all the way from its Swiss origins to the North Sea via the deltas in the Netherlands.
It would seem to be a lot simpler than taking a left at Strasbourg and travelling overland.

I think they did move down the Rhine from near its source, settling in the Lower Rhine region before crossing over to Britain. The Companion was probably the Archer's son and at any rate was a close relative. Isotope testing showed he was raised in what is now southern England or someplace on the continent geologically similar to southern England. The Lower Rhine area is geologically similar to southern England. The Archer being from the Alps, and his son being from the Lower Rhine (if he was), could represent the path taken by Bell Beaker R1b-L21 to Britain.

17120

alan
06-22-2017, 06:16 PM
I think a position in north-east France makes sense as is on the path where Rhenish beaker came into France and around the Seine it met groups with more western origins. They overlap too. The very earliest bell beaker folk in the isles to me seem to have been in what Case called something like an interaction corridor between the Rhenish and western. Beaker groups. He appeared to believe that was in northern France. there are slightly later waves like the north-east isles seaboard group with solo bodies on an east-west axis that appear likely to have come from the Rhine to me. But I am slightly splitting hairs because it's obvious that any groups along the English channel west of the Rhine are Rhenish in origin. they are all likely L21. The more landlocked beaker groups are probably mainly U152 as far perhaps as Alsace.

alan
06-22-2017, 06:48 PM
We can probably conclude from ancient DNA that the Rhenish group are an offshoot from the bell beaker east group and that offshoot was likely only a generation later than the commencement of the east group judging by RC dates. Most likely there was a founder effect that meant a minority lineage in the donor group became dominant opposite southern England. I think the key to L21s domination of the isles is they were the only p312 clade that acquired seafaring ability. That advantage probably came from Rhenish group and their offshoots in NE France and contacts they made during a century living on the channel coast 2500-2400BC before the isles were settled. They had a few generations living near native coastal peoples before crossing. The Rhenish groups may have originated in the east but they did have contact with the west as arrowhead preferences and some maritime pots show. Those maritime western beaker groups were clearly genetically very different (until a later beaker reflux). The genetic impact of those western beaker folks on Rhenish groups was apparently minimal but the archaeological record does show cultural contact. It seems to me that the non steppe non P312 western beaker folk probably dominated the whole of western France including Brittany before reflux and there may have been a frontier between them and the P312 beaker groups along the Seine around 2500BC. That probably made NE France a cultural mixing corridor where the Rhenish derived P312 groups there could absorb influences but not much genes from I beaker groups in Armorica around the period 2500-2400BC. Again that contact could have been important to acquiring marine travel given that it's usually assumed the maritime groups had seafaring skills.

rms2
06-23-2017, 02:30 PM
I think a position in north-east France makes sense as is on the path where Rhenish beaker came into France and around the Seine it met groups with more western origins. They overlap too. The very earliest bell beaker folk in the isles to me seem to have been in what Case called something like an interaction corridor between the Rhenish and western. Beaker groups. He appeared to believe that was in northern France. there are slightly later waves like the north-east isles seaboard group with solo bodies on an east-west axis that appear likely to have come from the Rhine to me. But I am slightly splitting hairs because it's obvious that any groups along the English channel west of the Rhine are Rhenish in origin. they are all likely L21. The more landlocked beaker groups are probably mainly U152 as far perhaps as Alsace.

I realize modern y haplogroup frequencies may not be indicative of much, but it is interesting that in the Brabant Project (N=871) L21 was ~9% and in nearby Lille, in Busby et al (N=68), it was 10.3%.

alan
06-23-2017, 06:37 PM
I realize modern y haplogroup frequencies may not be indicative of much, but it is interesting that in the Brabant Project (N=871) L21 was ~9% and in nearby Lille, in Busby et al (N=68), it was 10.3%.

Yep given 4500 years has passed and the area subsequently was Overrun by numerous waves like Urnfield, Belgae, the Roman Empire, Franks and other Germanics etc I think 10% is significant and likely a major dilution of the % 3 or 4
Thousand years ago.

alan
06-23-2017, 06:54 PM
Yep given 4500 years has passed and the area subsequently was Overrun by numerous waves like Urnfield, Belgae, the Roman Empire, Franks and other Germanics etc I think 10% is significant and likely a major dilution of the % 3 or 4
Thousand years ago.
My general feeling is that L21's niche on the continent was likely control of the English Channel, initially the part between the Rhine and The Seine/Normandy in the beaker era and later around the end of the beaker era taking control of Armorica. I would read the beaker culture of Armorica and the French Atlantic coast as far south as the Garrone as being at least initially Iberian non-steppe type thqt, like Iberia, was probably only settled by P312 steppe gene carrying at the end of the beaker era. However, the beaker in that area is badly dated and reuse and disturbance of megalithic tombs means little is clear and a lot may be hidden

alan
06-23-2017, 07:06 PM
I see beaker era control of the sea divided like this: L21 beaker folk controlling the shorter crossings of the English Channel from the Rhine to at least Normandy, non Steppe Iberian the type western beaker folk controlling the west Med, western Iberia and Atlantic France including Brittany; and U106 groups controling the Baltic. The other area - the North Between the Rhine east bank and Denmark/Norway may have been a bit of a no man's land area contested by several groups including L21 but U106 ultimately won out.

alan
06-23-2017, 07:16 PM
It's interesting to note that Nordic Europe had a totally different boat evolution than the isles/continental coast opposite. The former has an evolution of open sea craft from log boats and the latter probably skin boats then sewn planks at the close of the beaker era. Despite the Nordic worlds latter excellence this was a late flourish and they were very late to take up the sail too compared to Atlantic Europe which likely had it by 1000Bc

alan
06-24-2017, 08:46 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laure_Salanova/publication/302942778_Chronologie_et_facteurs_d%27evolution_de s_sepultures_individuelles_campaniformes_dans_le_N ord_de_la_France/links/5948f2fbaca272f02e0f0310/Chronologie-et-facteurs-devolution-des-sepultures-individuelles-campaniformes-dans-le-Nord-de-la-France.pdf. In French but v useful. Note the RC dates for beaker individual burial in northern France include several that are likely significantly older than the earliest isles ones

Notice her figure 79 which indicates archery bracers, v buttons and copper tanged knives as not present in the initial phase of French beaker. Kind of reminds me of the concept of Heyd that there was an initial beaker proto package in Iberia that lacked aspects of the fully developed beaker package. It seems to echo the conclusion that key parts of the package came from the east later.

rms2
06-24-2017, 11:29 AM
Notice her figure 79 which indicates archery bracers, v buttons and copper tanged knives as not present in the initial phase of French beaker. Kind of reminds me of the concept of Heyd that there was an initial beaker proto package in Iberia that lacked aspects of the fully developed beaker package. It seems to echo the conclusion that key parts of the package came from the east later.

Is there a paper, article or book someplace that lists which aspects of Bell Beaker are supposed to have originated in Iberia? I keep wondering what is to be attributed to Iberia.

alan
06-24-2017, 12:16 PM
Is there a paper, article or book someplace that lists which aspects of Bell Beaker are supposed to have originated in Iberia? I keep wondering what is to be attributed to Iberia.

Just H&H who have a fig showing the proto Vs full beaker package

alan
06-24-2017, 12:29 PM
Notice her figure 79 which indicates archery bracers, v buttons and copper tanged knives as not present in the initial phase of French beaker. Kind of reminds me of the concept of Heyd that there was an initial beaker proto package in Iberia that lacked aspects of the fully developed beaker package. It seems to echo the conclusion that key parts of the package came from the east later.

One other thing that comes clear in her work is there is a real problem dating the whole Atlantic half of France's beaker arrival and phasing due to so many of the tombs - both collective and individual being stone built,surface visible and normally disturbed both in antiquity and more recent looting. So it's hard to know when beaker arrived there although it seems a reasonable presumption there was a maritime wave originating in Iberia. I was looking at a paper in French on researchgate that looked brilliant re NW France including the beaker people but a glitch closed it and I cannot find it. However I read enough to see great maps of the beaker era in Armorica and there are around a dozen single graves of the beaker era which include pits, megalithic cists (not reused neoIithic tombs) and I think there were ring barrows as well as the reuse of old Neolithic timbre for individualised burials. I am so frustrated I lost the paper before I read much of it.

Jean M
06-24-2017, 01:03 PM
Is there a paper, article or book someplace that lists which aspects of Bell Beaker are supposed to have originated in Iberia? I keep wondering what is to be attributed to Iberia.

The idea of a BB proto-package in Iberia seems to have been ditched by Heyd since he realised that there was a Yamnaya-influenced flow into Iberia before Bell Beaker pots appear there. Certainly I have had to backtrack on the idea that the boar's tusk pendants (which were present in Yamnaya) only appear in BB East. I thought that they were a convenient marker of BB East. In fact they do appear in Iberia and appear to be the origin of the gold lunula developed in what is now Portugal and spread from there to Ireland. V-buttons appear in Iberia, along with two-hole wrist guards. Palmela points are distinctive of early (Southern) BB. So what we are left with as characteristic of BB East is the "accompanying pottery". But what we have to bear in mind all the time is that that the influences on the BB culture were Yamnaya. It did not arise from Neolithic cultures in Iberia.

MitchellSince1893
06-24-2017, 04:32 PM
Notice her figure 79 which indicates archery bracers, v buttons and copper tanged knives as not present in the initial phase of French beaker. Kind of reminds me of the concept of Heyd that there was an initial beaker proto package in Iberia that lacked aspects of the fully developed beaker package. It seems to echo the conclusion that key parts of the package came from the east later.

Google Translation

The dating of the vases makes it possible to characterize these Assemblies by step (Figure 79). During Stage 1, the Furniture associated with vases is rare, apart from Tombs with an AOC cup. In Step 2, the Assemblages are more diverse and In some cases the emblematic objects of Campaniforme ("archer equipment"), in In other cases, a great variety of adornments or tools Bone and flint. Finally, the sepulchres of Step 3 are In addition to the vessels, by elements of the equipment Of archer (metal daggers and armbands Essentially), as well as V-buttons that appear Belatedly in our regions. This evolution of the campaniform founder assemblage In northern half of France is consistent with The evolution observed elsewhere: during the period of regionalization Styles, furniture is diversified and expresses A plurality of statuses, and then follows a step of impoverishment Of financial furniture whose individual expression Will only reappear with the introduction of Bronze ornaments (Drenthe, Lohof, 2005, Kim, 2005; Needham, 2005).

In figure 75 they show dates for Steps 1, 2, and 3
Step 1 begins 2500 BC
Step 2 begins in 2400 BC
Step 3 begins in 2150 BC and ends in 1950 BC.

From the Fitzpatrick paper

modelling of the radiocarbon dates from these three Scottish graves suggests that the date to 2340–2250 cal BC (at 95% probability) or 2320–2280 cal BC (at 68% probability). This is slightly later than in Wessex where earliest burials at Boscombe Down date to 2420–2300 cal BC (at 95% probability) or 2373–2318 cal BC (at 68 % probability). This suggests that the first Beaker burials appeared by 2375 BC in Wessex and by 2350 BC in Scotland (Barclay & Marshall 2011)

As Step 2, the inclusion of archer equipment begins around 2400 BC in northern half of France, isn't this a little late as the source for Beaker in Britain?...or cutting it very close?
Maybe it was entering northern France at the same time it was entering Britain from near the mouth of the Rhine?

alan
06-24-2017, 10:56 PM
Google Translation


In figure 75 they show dates for Steps 1, 2, and 3
Step 1 begins 2500 BC
Step 2 begins in 2400 BC
Step 3 begins in 2150 BC and ends in 1950 BC.

From the Fitzpatrick paper


As Step 2, the inclusion of archer equipment begins around 2400 BC in northern half of France, isn't this a little late as the source for Beaker in Britain?...or cutting it very close?
Maybe it was entering northern France at the same time it was entering Britain from near the mouth of the Rhine?

Perhaps but while it's a short time archaeologically 50 years in actually a long period if you think of it personally. One thing that is really intriguing me now - but the data doesn't seem sufficient to be sure - is it seems to me that RC dated associated with beaker in Ireland might commence as early as Britain and it's not impossible that it was slightly earlier.

MitchellSince1893
06-25-2017, 01:23 AM
Perhaps but while it's a short time archaeologically 50 years in actually a long period if you think of it personally. One thing that is really intriguing me now - but the data doesn't seem sufficient to be sure - is it seems to me that RC dated associated with beaker in Ireland might commence as early as Britain and it's not impossible that it was slightly earlier.

Regardless of the dates (there could very well be earlier dates in France that haven't been discovered and in support your point); I don't know much about 25th century BC watercraft, but if I was going from the continent to Britain in a rudimentary boat, I would much prefer to do it from northeastern France rather than from the Netherlands. 20 miles/32 Km at the closest point between France and England vs. 87 miles/140 km between Netherlands and England. The North Sea isn't known for it's tranquil waters.

1000 years later (1575-1520 BC) they were using something like thishttps://doveruk.s3.amazonaws.com/user-files/16377-dsc06158.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Bronze_Age_Boat

Gravetto-Danubian
06-25-2017, 01:29 AM
Salanova's Stage 1 is interesting: she paints a 2 pronged arrival to France

a) of the Maritime beakers from Iberia to Brittany.
b) Burials oriented west-east (as per CWC), containing AOC beakers, and flint daggers from G-P.

Neither of these are the BB East -type material assemblages; which she attributes to start from phase 2.

rms2
06-25-2017, 11:45 AM
. . . So what we are left with as characteristic of BB East is the "accompanying pottery".

And of course, single graves in pits under a round tumulus, the prevalence of horses and horseback riding, shaft-hole axes, sex-based distinctions in burial rites, etc., etc., all of which I know you did not intend to leave out.



But what we have to bear in mind all the time is that that the influences on the BB culture were Yamnaya. It did not arise from Neolithic cultures in Iberia.

So basically nothing in Bell Beaker actually originated in Iberia?

Gravetto-Danubian
06-25-2017, 11:56 AM
Salanova's Stage 1 is interesting: she paints a 2 pronged arrival to France

a) of the Maritime beakers from Iberia to Brittany.
b) Burials oriented west-east (as per CWC), containing AOC beakers, and flint daggers from G-P.

Neither of these are the BB East -type material assemblages; which she attributes to start from phase 2.

Of course we should note that the idea of corded decoration seen in maritime pots is ultimately from the east, probably reaching the Tagus via the lower Rhine. So the maritime Beaker could be the influence of corded styles on Copos, as currently espoused; just like the actual Corded ware culture pots are thought to evolve from Funnel Beakers with added Cord decoration.

rms2
06-25-2017, 12:42 PM
My impression may not be worth a whole lot, since I am neither an archaeologist nor a pottery aficionado, but I have always thought those copos look nothing at all like Bell Beaker pots. Frankly, I don't see how one could be derived from the other, unless one is simply determined to find something, anything, in ancient Iberia to make it the birthplace of the Bell Beaker.

alan
06-25-2017, 07:44 PM
It's rather unfortunate P312 is linked to one of the most complex and baffling archaeological cultures. Certainly not a simple wave of advance type culture with a single origin point and simple replication of the culture as it spread. Ancient
DNA has made it a bit less mysterious but a lot is still unclear

Jean M
06-25-2017, 07:45 PM
My impression may not be worth a whole lot, since I am neither an archaeologist nor a pottery aficionado, but I have always thought those copos look nothing at all like Bell Beaker pots. Frankly, I don't see how one could be derived from the other, unless one is simply determined to find something, anything, in ancient Iberia to make it the birthplace of the Bell Beaker.

Rich - we have been over and over this ground for years, and right now I am too ill to write a lot of stuff repeating what I have said before. But the important thing to realise is that horses were used in Iberia in the Copper Age before Bell Beaker. I have said this repeatedly and indeed published it with references. Anything that came from Yamnaya could well be present in the Copper Age in Iberia, given that we now have the site published by Heyd in western Spain with obvious Yamnaya origins. But this does not repeat not mean that Bell Beaker arose from Neolithic cultures in Iberia. It means that some people of Yamnaya origin arrived in Ibeia. Sorry that I really, really, really cannot contribute anything new to this discussion, and am just about fainting as I try to wirite.

alan
06-25-2017, 07:53 PM
My impression may not be worth a whole lot, since I am neither an archaeologist nor a pottery aficionado, but I have always thought those copos look nothing at all like Bell Beaker pots. Frankly, I don't see how one could be derived from the other, unless one is simply determined to find something, anything, in ancient Iberia to make it the birthplace of the Bell Beaker.

I have been reading into beaker a bit more recently and I think the Rhine to Iberia via Brittany route of influence may be underestimated. There are serious problems in the archaeological record of Armorica due to coastal erosion, acid soils destroying bone, complex reuse and disturbance of collective graves etc and it's possible our understanding of it is v wrong

alan
06-25-2017, 07:58 PM
Rich - we have been over and over this ground for years, and right now I am too ill to write a lot of stuff repeating what I have said before. But the important thing to realise is that horses were used in Iberia in the Copper Age before Bell Beaker. I have said this repeatedly and indeed published it with references. Anything that came from Yamnaya could well be present in the Copper Age in Iberia, given that we now have the site published by Heyd in western Spain with obvious Yamnaya origins. But this does not repeat not mean that Bell Beaker arose from Neolithic cultures in Iberia. It means that some people of Yamnaya origin arrived in Ibeia. Sorry that I really, really, really cannot contribute anything new to this discussion, and am just about fainting as I try to wirite.

now there is a target for DNA testing!

rms2
06-25-2017, 08:04 PM
Rich - we have been over and over this ground for years, and right now I am too ill to write a lot of stuff repeating what I have said before. But the important thing to realise is that horses were used in Iberia in the Copper Age before Bell Beaker. I have said this repeatedly and indeed published it with references. Anything that came from Yamnaya could well be present in the Copper Age in Iberia, given that we now have the site published by Heyd in western Spain with obvious Yamnaya origins. But this does not repeat not mean that Bell Beaker arose from Neolithic cultures in Iberia. It means that some people of Yamnaya origin arrived in Ibeia. Sorry that I really, really, really cannot contribute anything new to this discussion, and am just about fainting as I try to wirite.

Sorry you are not feeling well, Jean. Hope you feel better soon.

alan
06-25-2017, 08:08 PM
I would like to see testing of that group of fairly early beaker users along the west Med coast and islands who are usually interpreted as most clearly an out of Iberia group. I think they very likely are but it would be nice to confirm that they are genetically similar to the beaker using Iberians tested. Ditto the French Atlantic maritime groups.

alan
06-25-2017, 08:10 PM
Rich - we have been over and over this ground for years, and right now I am too ill to write a lot of stuff repeating what I have said before. But the important thing to realise is that horses were used in Iberia in the Copper Age before Bell Beaker. I have said this repeatedly and indeed published it with references. Anything that came from Yamnaya could well be present in the Copper Age in Iberia, given that we now have the site published by Heyd in western Spain with obvious Yamnaya origins. But this does not repeat not mean that Bell Beaker arose from Neolithic cultures in Iberia. It means that some people of Yamnaya origin arrived in Ibeia. Sorry that I really, really, really cannot contribute anything new to this discussion, and am just about fainting as I try to wirite.

Hope you feel better soon Jean.

rms2
06-25-2017, 08:15 PM
To my untrained eye, copos look nothing like Bell Beakers, but the pottery of the branch of Corded Ware called Protruding Foot Beakers sure does.

17196

Gravetto-Danubian
06-25-2017, 11:40 PM
To my untrained eye, copos look nothing like Bell Beakers, but the pottery of the branch of Corded Ware called Protruding Foot Beakers sure does.

17196

You have a point. But i think archaeologists believe that the Copos acquired - in addition to corded decoration - a more sigmoidal (less flat) shape with time. Eg see Humphrey Case or jan Turek who uphold the multi-compnent influences on Maritime Beaker (being local Copos, Rhenish CWC and Morrocan).
Also a detailed study using ceramic temper analysis and Xray: "Pre-Bell Beaker ware from Estremadura..." G. Carvallo-Amarao.

Whatever the case, I now see the Maritime Beaker as representing the incorporation of west Iberia into a wider sphere of Copper Age Europe.
It is again important to highlight that it is only the Estremadura region which is though to be pertinent to early Bell Beaker. By contrast, many parts of Iberia become part of the BB phenomenon no earlier than 2500 BC, and in the south as late as 2200 BC - and then only fleetingly.

To link in your question about the overall role of/ processes in Iberia, I see :

- a continuity from Neolithic to Copper Age in Iberia, with culmination of development of the local Neolithic base, with formation of Megalithic societies.

- in the south, the local groups began a process toward social heirarchization: with agglomerations, building up of forts. This had led some in the past to suggest the role of colonists from the East Mediterranean. However, more recent archaeological interpretations, and now the aDNA, interprets this as the local groups moving with the 'general sway' of the trans-Mediterranean Chalcolithic - converging with similar tastes and styles; and with Copper technology coming from Alps or Italy. These south Iberian elites traded ivory & other exotic with the Mediterranean, and even (somehow) as far as the steppe, with explains some of the steppe -like artefacts seen around Concepcion. Possibly, individuals from steppe arrived to south Iberia, like that one Yamnaya-like burial. but ultimately, south Iberia stagnated. It did not fully integrate into the Bronze Age of central Europe, and took increasingly to hilltops and isolationism, which collapsed by the middle Bronze Age

- The Tagus in west Iberia is somewhat different. As much as archaeologists talk of the early Beaker presence there (c. 2700 BC), it nevertheless looks like a new (? intrusive) phenomenon, initially limited to a few sites in the Tagus estuary. I think the Maritime Beaker phenomenon represents an early, low-grade interaction scenario, linking Portugal, Brittany & the Netherlands. I think the Maritime Beaker was a female status symbol, and was spread by females, mostly.

The problem is of chronology, - we can't details the specifics because the radiocarbon calibration curve is "flat" in the period 2900-27000 BC, also poor preservation of remains in France & Iberia (acidic soils).
One might be tempted to follow the Dutch model, and just claim that Maritime beaker emerged from the PFB, however, even Dutch archaeologists aren't too comfortable with such a scenario.
Whatever the exact details, I think the Maritime Beaker was an emerging Atlantic cultural phenomenon incorporating various groups.

lastly, i mentioned when the Oldalde study came out that they hadn't sampled any individual burials from Iberia. it is sometimes thought that the only collective burials were used in Iberia & southern France during the BB period. This isn;t quite true, although it is for the most part of cases. However, there are in fact individual burials in BB fashion but within collective graves in Iberia & France. These guys show the trappings of BB set: arrowheads, or daggers, oriented with head North, and within an individualised or sealed off part of the Megalith. This would be important to test to see what lineages / autosome they belong to. But there are very few such individuals.
The curious thing is in France, there are indivdualised males with BB panopoly within Megaliths and BB individuals in isolated pit burials. What was the meaning of such distinction?

alan
06-26-2017, 02:51 PM
Interesting observations on radiocarbon dating Irish beaker https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10963-016-9093-0.pdf

Bit contradictory but interesting that Bayesian analysts of radiocarbon dates of Wedge Tombs suggests they are not first generation beaker monuments, starting more like 2300BC. Also Carlin seems to date beaker commencing in Ireland quite a bit earlier than Britain. Personally I think none of that is conclusive and a date around 2400BC could cover both and that is indeed most usual shorthand date quoted for both.

Mikewww
06-26-2017, 03:24 PM
Interesting observations on radiocarbon dating Irish beaker https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10963-016-9093-0.pdf

Bit contradictory but interesting that Bayesian analysts of radiocarbon dates of Wedge Tombs suggests they are not first generation beaker monuments, starting more like 2300BC. Also Carlin seems to date beaker commencing in Ireland quite a bit earlier than Britain. Personally I think none of that is conclusive and a date around 2400BC could cover both and that is indeed most usual shorthand date quoted for both.
We have to keep the belt beaker types separate. What are the earliest of those that are Rhenish derived?

razyn
06-26-2017, 03:59 PM
Interesting observations on radiocarbon dating Irish beaker https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10963-016-9093-0.pdf

That paper is interesting, but its focus is very telescopic. A wide-angle view that included genetic stuff already available in 2016 would have improved it, IMO. One does not see (in its bibliography) the names Allentoft, Busby, Lazaridis, Matthieson, Myres, Reich... The day is coming when the aDNA work, at least, is going to tip the scales. Some of the 15-marker STR type surveys are already obsolete, though the realization of that hasn't sunk in, quite yet. And it won't much shock me if a lot of this radiocarbon dating starts getting corrected by the genetics, before much longer. We need a little bit more reliability and consensus in our clock faces; but the genetic clock has been ticking along for thousands of years (like the radiocarbon "clock"), and we are understanding it better, at a pace that is rapid and probably still accelerating.

Refinements of the genetic clock are even beginning to correct some of the competing theories of 21st century linguistics gurus. And those guys know everything.

alan
06-26-2017, 06:14 PM
You have a point. But i think archaeologists believe that the Copos acquired - in addition to corded decoration - a more sigmoidal (less flat) shape with time. Eg see Humphrey Case or jan Turek who uphold the multi-compnent influences on Maritime Beaker (being local Copos, Rhenish CWC and Morrocan).
Also a detailed study using ceramic temper analysis and Xray: "Pre-Bell Beaker ware from Estremadura..." G. Carvallo-Amarao.

Whatever the case, I now see the Maritime Beaker as representing the incorporation of west Iberia into a wider sphere of Copper Age Europe.
It is again important to highlight that it is only the Estremadura region which is though to be pertinent to early Bell Beaker. By contrast, many parts of Iberia become part of the BB phenomenon no earlier than 2500 BC, and in the south as late as 2200 BC - and then only fleetingly.

To link in your question about the overall role of/ processes in Iberia, I see :

- a continuity from Neolithic to Copper Age in Iberia, with culmination of development of the local Neolithic base, with formation of Megalithic societies.

- in the south, the local groups began a process toward social heirarchization: with agglomerations, building up of forts. This had led some in the past to suggest the role of colonists from the East Mediterranean. However, more recent archaeological interpretations, and now the aDNA, interprets this as the local groups moving with the 'general sway' of the trans-Mediterranean Chalcolithic - converging with similar tastes and styles; and with Copper technology coming from Alps or Italy. These south Iberian elites traded ivory & other exotic with the Mediterranean, and even (somehow) as far as the steppe, with explains some of the steppe -like artefacts seen around Concepcion. Possibly, individuals from steppe arrived to south Iberia, like that one Yamnaya-like burial. but ultimately, south Iberia stagnated. It did not fully integrate into the Bronze Age of central Europe, and took increasingly to hilltops and isolationism, which collapsed by the middle Bronze Age

- The Tagus in west Iberia is somewhat different. As much as archaeologists talk of the early Beaker presence there (c. 2700 BC), it nevertheless looks like a new (? intrusive) phenomenon, initially limited to a few sites in the Tagus estuary. I think the Maritime Beaker phenomenon represents an early, low-grade interaction scenario, linking Portugal, Brittany & the Netherlands. I think the Maritime Beaker was a female status symbol, and was spread by females, mostly.

The problem is of chronology, - we can't details the specifics because the radiocarbon calibration curve is "flat" in the period 2900-27000 BC, also poor preservation of remains in France & Iberia (acidic soils).
One might be tempted to follow the Dutch model, and just claim that Maritime beaker emerged from the PFB, however, even Dutch archaeologists aren't too comfortable with such a scenario.
Whatever the exact details, I think the Maritime Beaker was an emerging Atlantic cultural phenomenon incorporating various groups.

lastly, i mentioned when the Oldalde study came out that they hadn't sampled any individual burials from Iberia. it is sometimes thought that the only collective burials were used in Iberia & southern France during the BB period. This isn;t quite true, although it is for the most part of cases. However, there are in fact individual burials in BB fashion but within collective graves in Iberia & France. These guys show the trappings of BB set: arrowheads, or daggers, oriented with head North, and within an individualised or sealed off part of the Megalith. This would be important to test to see what lineages / autosome they belong to. But there are very few such individuals.
The curious thing is in France, there are indivdualised males with BB panopoly within Megaliths and BB individuals in isolated pit burials. What was the meaning of such distinction?

There was a fairly recent paper or chapter that talked about the individualised beaker burials within older collective burial megalithic tombs in Spain. I think Jean may have drawn my attention to it but I couldn't find it online again. It certainly was these as versions of central European single burial traditions but basically they are bodies treated like central and north-est European beaker folk. I think though the paper didn't do a lot to clarify the date of their appearance in Iberia or that they weren't terribly early. I wish I could find it again. I am certain they are P312 guys. I really want to get a better handle on the Chronology of these beaker people in Iberia who have treatment of the body that is clearly similar to beaker folk further east. When did they arrive?

alan
06-26-2017, 06:20 PM
One point worth raising is beaker people spreading into some areas may have encountered fairly non impressive native burial and ritual traditions that didn't exactly blow their minds - like granny buried under the floor etc BUT in megalithic Europe they must have been very impressed by some of the monuments and complex rituals they encountered. Is that not in fact one of the reasons people see for the Amesbury Archer etc travelling to the Stonehenge area. Here is copper age video of their sense of wonder https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DqAXzzHM8zLw&ved=0ahUKEwjqitaDkNzUAhWGbxQKHZFfDbMQ3ywILDAB&usg=AFQjCNFl3esHqNn5TrQhhNX6Fb9Ny6SbiQ

alan
06-26-2017, 07:17 PM
You have a point. But i think archaeologists believe that the Copos acquired - in addition to corded decoration - a more sigmoidal (less flat) shape with time. Eg see Humphrey Case or jan Turek who uphold the multi-compnent influences on Maritime Beaker (being local Copos, Rhenish CWC and Morrocan).
Also a detailed study using ceramic temper analysis and Xray: "Pre-Bell Beaker ware from Estremadura..." G. Carvallo-Amarao.

Whatever the case, I now see the Maritime Beaker as representing the incorporation of west Iberia into a wider sphere of Copper Age Europe.
It is again important to highlight that it is only the Estremadura region which is though to be pertinent to early Bell Beaker. By contrast, many parts of Iberia become part of the BB phenomenon no earlier than 2500 BC, and in the south as late as 2200 BC - and then only fleetingly.

To link in your question about the overall role of/ processes in Iberia, I see :

- a continuity from Neolithic to Copper Age in Iberia, with culmination of development of the local Neolithic base, with formation of Megalithic societies.

- in the south, the local groups began a process toward social heirarchization: with agglomerations, building up of forts. This had led some in the past to suggest the role of colonists from the East Mediterranean. However, more recent archaeological interpretations, and now the aDNA, interprets this as the local groups moving with the 'general sway' of the trans-Mediterranean Chalcolithic - converging with similar tastes and styles; and with Copper technology coming from Alps or Italy. These south Iberian elites traded ivory & other exotic with the Mediterranean, and even (somehow) as far as the steppe, with explains some of the steppe -like artefacts seen around Concepcion. Possibly, individuals from steppe arrived to south Iberia, like that one Yamnaya-like burial. but ultimately, south Iberia stagnated. It did not fully integrate into the Bronze Age of central Europe, and took increasingly to hilltops and isolationism, which collapsed by the middle Bronze Age

- The Tagus in west Iberia is somewhat different. As much as archaeologists talk of the early Beaker presence there (c. 2700 BC), it nevertheless looks like a new (? intrusive) phenomenon, initially limited to a few sites in the Tagus estuary. I think the Maritime Beaker phenomenon represents an early, low-grade interaction scenario, linking Portugal, Brittany & the Netherlands. I think the Maritime Beaker was a female status symbol, and was spread by females, mostly.

The problem is of chronology, - we can't details the specifics because the radiocarbon calibration curve is "flat" in the period 2900-27000 BC, also poor preservation of remains in France & Iberia (acidic soils).
One might be tempted to follow the Dutch model, and just claim that Maritime beaker emerged from the PFB, however, even Dutch archaeologists aren't too comfortable with such a scenario.
Whatever the exact details, I think the Maritime Beaker was an emerging Atlantic cultural phenomenon incorporating various groups.

lastly, i mentioned when the Oldalde study came out that they hadn't sampled any individual burials from Iberia. it is sometimes thought that the only collective burials were used in Iberia & southern France during the BB period. This isn;t quite true, although it is for the most part of cases. However, there are in fact individual burials in BB fashion but within collective graves in Iberia & France. These guys show the trappings of BB set: arrowheads, or daggers, oriented with head North, and within an individualised or sealed off part of the Megalith. This would be important to test to see what lineages / autosome they belong to. But there are very few such individuals.
The curious thing is in France, there are indivdualised males with BB panopoly within Megaliths and BB individuals in isolated pit burials. What was the meaning of such distinction?

One thing I think is not given enough attention is the all over corded beakers with a non Atlantic distribution in Iberia. The dates from them are also old - I think they have dates from before 2600BC even though very few are dated. They predate beaker of any type outside of Iberia and therefore have to be influences from a central European pre beaker culture. Personally given the few corded beaker sites that have been dated in Iberia it's highly unlikely these are the earliest dates and I think it's very likely they could be as old as beaker anywhere. Personally I find it too much of a coincidence that corded beaker and indeed beaker shaped pots appear around the same time as CW reached the Rhine and Yamnaya was on the middle Danube. These ideas are almost certainly spreading west to Iberia from further east with some sort of low visibility early connections between central Europe and Iberia c 2750-2700BC. However it's pretty clear that numbers of people moving east to west along any such shadowy tentative contact network c2750BC-2600BC were tiny and influence on existing Iberian society was very small so the basic social structure and traditions of pre-beaker Iberia barely changed. I suppose it's not impossible an outgroup of central Europeans entered Iberia in such small numbers they are invisible or could have gone native to such a degree they are archaeologically indistinguishable apart perhaps by the role they performed (thinking about that sites where beaker pot users and metallurgy (dated to 2750BC) was all in one section of an Iberian Zambujal type enclosure). However another possibility is the concepts that led to beaker came with wives coming into Iberia from central Europe.

I think the big problem in seeing this is that the full width of France lay between early beaker Iberia and central Europe to the east of the Rhine. There are only two obvious paths between central Europe and Iberia c 2750-2600BC - down the Rhone and along the Med coast or from the north via NW France or the Loire. I never could find any evidence of the former but we do know the flint trade from the big source in north-western France linked both to the Rhine via northern France https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N-RnCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=grand+pressigny+flint&source=bl&ots=OkqjTWP_d6&sig=qGEToPFLYoKflptrOro7XocYKMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3hKH9mNzUAhUJvhQKHSAoBPE4ChDoAQgvMAY#v =onepage&q=grand%20pressigny%20flint&f=false

They are unknown in Iberia or Italy but do run right up to the France-Spanish border. So I do wonder if NW France's confused,very badly dated and difficult archaeology is obscuring a much more important role in linking Iberia and central Europe in the period 2750-2550BC

alan
06-27-2017, 08:59 AM
One point worth raising is beaker people spreading into some areas may have encountered fairly non impressive native burial and ritual traditions that didn't exactly blow their minds - like granny buried under the floor etc BUT in megalithic Europe they must have been very impressed by some of the monuments and complex rituals they encountered. Is that not in fact one of the reasons people see for the Amesbury Archer etc travelling to the Stonehenge area. Here is copper age video of their sense of wonder https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DqAXzzHM8zLw&ved=0ahUKEwjqitaDkNzUAhWGbxQKHZFfDbMQ3ywILDAB&usg=AFQjCNFl3esHqNn5TrQhhNX6Fb9Ny6SbiQ

I forgot to make the point I set out to in that post.IMO beaker people were much more likely to be impressed by and wish to reuse older burial monuments when they were impressive megaliths than low visibility ones . Indeed it wouldn't even have been an option in areas where older graves were not surface visible. So it's possibly wrong to place too much significance on the practice of reuse of impressive existing megaliths in the Atlantic zone. Much more telling is the way the body was treated and provisioned regardless of the monument the grave was placed in.

rms2
07-24-2017, 03:00 PM
Check out this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=264596&viewfull=1#post264596). Here it is below, quoted in full (I bolded the L21 info):



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/genetics/p312/tree.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.


This is significant because, if those dates are right, they pretty much kill the idea that L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland.

Mikewww
07-24-2017, 03:29 PM
Check out this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=264596&viewfull=1#post264596). Here it is below, quoted in full (I bolded the L21 info):

This is significant because, if those dates are right, they pretty much kill the idea that L21 originated in the British Isles or Ireland.
I agree but Iain lists pretty wide error ranges, which I think are probably more realistic than YFull's error ranges.

I added the U106 estimate.

U106 2993 BC (3663 BC — 2441 BC)

P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)

P312 subclades:
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)

I think there are subclades in L21 with longer branches (more SNPs) than other branches listed above. L21 has several times more Big Y testing than any of the other branch of P312 and so is biasing P312's estimate.

P312 should be right on top of U106, regardless of the absolute age estimates. If you look at genetic distances from each other L151, P312, U106 and a few others (including U152, DF27, DF19), all are really of the same "clan" if that word can be used. Iain McDonald has said that mutation rates seem to be faster for faster growing populations. I'm not sure but if the males in these populations start having children earlier and keep having them longer then I can rationalize it. We are talking about the Irish and the Scots when we are talking about the L21 bias in testing.

The genetic distance in valid SNPs from P312 to L21's MRCA still exists. We have P312 to Z290, Z245, Z260 and then L21, L459 before the R1b-L21 subclade MRCA. These are not convoluted STRs nor insertion/deletion events but actual SNPs. There should be a separation in ages between P312's and L21's MRCAs. There should not be much separation between L151, P312 and U106.

George Chandler
07-24-2017, 04:10 PM
I total agree with those numbers.

Dewsloth
07-24-2017, 04:24 PM
I agree but Iain lists pretty wide error ranges, which I think are probably more realistic than YFull's error ranges.

I added the U106 estimate.

U106 2993 BC (3663 BC — 2441 BC)

P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)

P312 subclades:
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)

I think there are subclades in L21 with longer branches (more SNPs) than other branches listed above. L21 has several times more Big Y testing than any of the other branch of P312 and so is biasing P312's estimate.

P312 should be right on top of U106, regardless of the absolute age estimates. If you look at genetic distances from each other L151, P312, U106 and a few others (including U152, DF27, DF19), all are really of the same "clan" if that word can be used. Iain McDonald has said that mutation rates seem to be faster for faster growing populations. I'm not sure but if the males in these populations start having children earlier and keep having them longer then I can rationalize it. We are talking about the Irish and the Scots when we are talking about the L21 bias in testing.

The genetic distance in valid SNPs from P312 to L21's MRCA still exists. We have P312 to Z290, Z245, Z260 and then L21, L459 before the R1b-L21 subclade MRCA. These are not convoluted STRs nor insertion/deletion events but actual SNPs. There should be a separation in ages between P312's and L21's MRCAs. There should not be much separation between L151, P312 and U106.

That's a pretty huge spread for DF19! I guess there's still a lot of uncertainty. When are those "P312somethingelse" Beaker results coming out, anyway?

rms2
07-24-2017, 04:26 PM
I agree but Iain lists pretty wide error ranges, which I think are probably more realistic than YFull's error ranges.

Even so, if one takes the very youngest end of McDonald's L21 estimate, it becomes nearly impossible for L21 to have arisen in Britain or Ireland.



I added the U106 estimate.

U106 2993 BC (3663 BC 2441 BC)

P312 3155 BC (3898 BC 2568 BC)

. . .

P312 should be right on top of U106, regardless of the absolute age estimates. If you look at genetic distances from each other L151, P312, U106 and a few others (including U152, DF27, DF19), all are really of the same "clan" if that word can be used . . .

That clan was probably Yamnaya, but it doesn't seem that both U106 and P312 went into Bell Beaker, at least not thus far.

alan
07-24-2017, 07:51 PM
I do have a slight concern that the older SNP counting datings for the expansion of both P312 and Z2103 are out of step with the archaeological and ancient DNA evidence where they suddenly appear closely linked to beaker and Yamnaya from 3300BC and 2550BC respectively. I understand that there will be a delay in expansion of a line and it reaching a level where they will be found in modest ancient DNA sampling but 500 years? If the first 500 years of the impressive branching of P312 is really pre beaker then it will be picked up in ancient DNA in a pre beaker culture. If it doesn't appear then we may have to consider it something increased the mutation rate - like having kids to an older age, variations in solar radiation or arsenic poisoning?

Mikewww
07-24-2017, 08:11 PM
I do have a slight concern that the older SNP counting datings for the expansion of both P312 and Z2103 are out of step with the archaeological and ancient DNA evidence where they suddenly appear closely linked to beaker and Yamnaya from 3300BC and 2550BC respectively. I understand that there will be a delay in expansion of a line and it reaching a level where they will be found in modest ancient DNA sampling but 500 years? If the first 500 years of the impressive branching of P312 is really pre beaker then it will be picked up in ancient DNA in a pre beaker culture. If it doesn't appear then we may have to consider it something increased the mutation rate - like having kids to an older age, variations in solar radiation or arsenic poisoning?
I recognize this isn't politically correct but I think you have to also consider polygamy in a dynastic situation. It wouldn't hard at all, depending on the social structure, for a wealthy and powerful man to have 30 or 40 sons. If his sons could maintain his production and his grandsons, only if to a degree, then we have a situation where a lot of L151 men could be around within a century. The coming of a Yamnaya driven Bronze Age may have provided the social platform.

rms2
07-24-2017, 08:14 PM
I recognize this isn't politically correct but I think you have to also consider polygamy in a dynastic situation. It wouldn't hard at all, depending on the social structure, for a wealthy and powerful man to have 30 or 40 sons. If his sons could maintain his production and his grandsons, only if to a degree, then we have a situation where a lot of L151 men could be around within a century. The coming of a Yamnaya driven Bronze Age may have provided the social platform.

I agree. All most of us have to do is remember how we were when we were young and imagine what access to numerous nubile young wives and concubines would have meant in the days before effective contraception.

razyn
07-25-2017, 01:51 AM
I agree. All most of us have to do is remember how we were when we were young and imagine what access to numerous nubile young wives and concubines would have meant in the days before effective contraception.

Even I can remember how we were. And besides the dynastic situation, there was also the traveling salesman effect. The new guy had some things that increased his access to the said nubile female population. Some of them were things he could swap with her daddy, e.g. "Have some pretty beads and a shiny knife, have some more mead/wine, and by the way it's a chilly night, I'd like your daughter to warm my furs." Some of them were, no doubt, things with which he could beat the crap out of daddy if he said "No." But a competent salesman doesn't really need to be a Conqueror, if he has skills and supplies. As the noted 20th century social scientist Ogden Nash has reminded us,

Candy
is dandy
but liquor
is quicker.

Nubile young things may on occasion have sealed intertribal treaties, but they also were items of commerce and prestige; and if one walked into France (for example) by way of the Baltic, they were items that could be had for some beach pebbles. I would bet that every Bronze Age young stud carried a pouch of amber, for just such opportunities. (Or tin, gold, shiny minerals, whatever had value.) Also, once the new religion and power elite was in place, the patriarch's clan didn't even need beads. They got to make the laws. Jus primae noctis, criteria for which male babies would grow up fertile, and that sort of thing.

rms2
07-30-2017, 06:30 PM
Too bad this one wasn't included in the Olalde et al results:

Racton Man: Analysis shows famous skeleton was a 6ft Bronze Age superman (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/racton-man-analysis-shows-famous-skeleton-was-a-6ft-bronze-age-superman-9926899.html)

Racton Man apparently died in a knife fight sometime between 2300 BC and 2150 BC.

rms2
07-31-2017, 04:29 PM
Too bad this one wasn't included in the Olalde et al results:

Racton Man: Analysis shows famous skeleton was a 6ft Bronze Age superman (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/racton-man-analysis-shows-famous-skeleton-was-a-6ft-bronze-age-superman-9926899.html)

Racton Man apparently died in a knife fight sometime between 2300 BC and 2150 BC.

He must have been slashed pretty deeply for it to show up on his humerus. That must have opened up his brachial artery, which explains why he did not survive it.

Dubhthach
08-01-2017, 10:34 AM
I go on holiday for two weeks and my inbox is full of interesting email about dating etc. where to start ... :D

Dubhthach
08-01-2017, 10:47 AM
I recognize this isn't politically correct but I think you have to also consider polygamy in a dynastic situation. It wouldn't hard at all, depending on the social structure, for a wealthy and powerful man to have 30 or 40 sons. If his sons could maintain his production and his grandsons, only if to a degree, then we have a situation where a lot of L151 men could be around within a century. The coming of a Yamnaya driven Bronze Age may have provided the social platform.

We have several accounts of it from medieval Ireland, though generally on range of 15-25 sons. Of course within Gaelic society there was (a) widespread divorce (b) no concept of illegitimacy

From Kenneth Nicholls 'Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages'
https://www.amazon.com/Gaelic-Gaelicized-Ireland-Middle-Ages/dp/1843510030/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
(The Kindle version is good value)



One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away; and this phenomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant stocks at the expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan] and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince;, and this could have been said without adaptation , of any important Gaelic or Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland.

In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mr in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man. the spread of his descendants can be seen by the genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been in the possession of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh, having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate which an Irish clan could itself must not be underestimated. Turlough an fhona O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons.
Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers, and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line.

Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan societies of southern Africa already cited.

(the above is my transcription so excuse any spelling mistakes)

Even the Cambro-Normans got in on the act, given mention of Oliver Burke of Tirawley. The same family of course used a pre-existing inauguration site and were basically 'more Irish than the Irish themselves'.

Now Ireland in the middle ages isn't probably a good proxy, but it did reflect society attitudes back to at least 500AD. When for example we see TMRCA of several of major subclades associated with Irish lineages.

Jon
08-02-2017, 12:57 PM
"In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mr in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man....Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers, and we know of at least fifty grandsons... "

My word...with examples such as these, perhaps it does make sense to look at pure numbers. In which case, the Maguires nowadays seem to be vast majority L513 = perhaps (one of the) chiefly lines?

Dubhthach
08-02-2017, 04:02 PM
"In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mr in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man....Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers, and we know of at least fifty grandsons... "

My word...with examples such as these, perhaps it does make sense to look at pure numbers. In which case, the Maguires nowadays seem to be vast majority L513 = perhaps (one of the) chiefly lines?

Well if we look at Maguire BigY results (I don't see a McManus L513 BigY -- pity as they branched from Maguires in the late 13th century) and how the SNP's are dated in Dr. Iain McDonald's page we see:



FGC9804 666 AD (231 AD — 1031 AD)

FGC32571 1083 AD (591 AD — 1526 AD)
FGC9775 1140 AD (742 AD — 1440 AD)

FGC9790 1421 AD (1146 AD — 1632 AD)

BY2598 1713 AD (1414 AD — 1910 AD)

FGC9775 is part of a block of 5 SNP's that are currently equivalent, a dating to mid 12th century is interesting as the family only came to power at end of the 13th century. The titular Uidhir been the grandfather of Donn Mr.

Jon
08-02-2017, 09:47 PM
Came to power at the end of the 13th century...interesting. I can see why some people have posited Norman influence to the spread of L513. I've never really bought that myself though. It seems too old, and too focused on Scotland and Ireland for that. Although testing bias, yadda yadda. I'm just trying to sort out the connections that could link the bigger L513 groups in Ireland (Maguires in the north/O'Shea in Munster, for example) with the big Scottish groups (e.g. Mackenzie, Maclean etc.).

To get back round to Bell Beaker topic - perhaps L513 was with that big L21 Beaker drive isles-ward and then diverged into the branches we see nowadays? I'm still struggling to see the Scotland/Ireland link-up, given Iain's (excellent) age estimates. Maybe something connected to the Sil Conairi?

rms2
08-04-2017, 12:53 AM
Came to power at the end of the 13th century...interesting. I can see why some people have posited Norman influence to the spread of L513. I've never really bought that myself though. It seems too old, and too focused on Scotland and Ireland for that. Although testing bias, yadda yadda. I'm just trying to sort out the connections that could link the bigger L513 groups in Ireland (Maguires in the north/O'Shea in Munster, for example) with the big Scottish groups (e.g. Mackenzie, Maclean etc.).

To get back round to Bell Beaker topic - perhaps L513 was with that big L21 Beaker drive isles-ward and then diverged into the branches we see nowadays? I'm still struggling to see the Scotland/Ireland link-up, given Iain's (excellent) age estimates. Maybe something connected to the Sil Conairi?

Maybe some L513 will show up in the raw data from Olalde et al when they become available. One never knows.

Jon
08-04-2017, 06:12 AM
Anyone know if there's an expected publication date for the Olalde data?

rms2
08-04-2017, 09:50 AM
Anyone know if there's an expected publication date for the Olalde data?

They're still tying up loose ends, like retesting the Amesbury Archer. I really hope they succeed on that score.

Dubhthach
08-04-2017, 10:03 AM
Came to power at the end of the 13th century...interesting. I can see why some people have posited Norman influence to the spread of L513. I've never really bought that myself though. It seems too old, and too focused on Scotland and Ireland for that. Although testing bias, yadda yadda. I'm just trying to sort out the connections that could link the bigger L513 groups in Ireland (Maguires in the north/O'Shea in Munster, for example) with the big Scottish groups (e.g. Mackenzie, Maclean etc.).

To get back round to Bell Beaker topic - perhaps L513 was with that big L21 Beaker drive isles-ward and then diverged into the branches we see nowadays? I'm still struggling to see the Scotland/Ireland link-up, given Iain's (excellent) age estimates. Maybe something connected to the Sil Conairi?

Sil Conairi -- belongs to the 'legendary' part of the genealogies. You have to realise that the traditional genealogies are only really good from the late 7th century onwards, even then there was manuipulation of them for political reasons eg.

the Dl gCais lineage associated with L226 -- giving it connection to the Eoghanachta (CTS4466) so as to reflect a right to kingship of Munster
The creation of the Argialla lineage putting them as a early branch of the Dl Cuinn (U Nill and Connachta), created to reflect their switch to been military vassals of the Northern U Nill etc.

Jon
08-04-2017, 06:07 PM
Thanks for the info. So many of the lineages that might link Munster with Ulster (L513 for example), are going so far back into history that I just don't know which accounts can be taken seriously and which are, as you say, 'legends'. Would you happen to know of any reliably historical explanation of this Munster-Ulster-Scotland link? Maybe old Brythonic lines?

rms2
08-04-2017, 06:59 PM
Thanks for the info. So many of the lineages that might link Munster with Ulster (L513 for example), are going so far back into history that I just don't know which accounts can be taken seriously and which are, as you say, 'legends'. Would you happen to know of any reliably historical explanation of this Munster-Ulster-Scotland link? Maybe old Brythonic lines?

The answer to that question might be better suited to another thread, leaving this one for Bell Beaker stuff.

Jon
08-04-2017, 07:40 PM
Yes, sorry guys...the conundrum of L513 is never far from my thoughts :beerchug:

Nibelung
08-04-2017, 08:40 PM
Thanks for the info. So many of the lineages that might link Munster with Ulster (L513 for example), are going so far back into history that I just don't know which accounts can be taken seriously and which are, as you say, 'legends'. Would you happen to know of any reliably historical explanation of this Munster-Ulster-Scotland link? Maybe old Brythonic lines?

I did a fair amount of research on all this years ago, including creating a number of related articles at the encyclopedia. Start with these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1irine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corcu_Lo%C3%ADgde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%ADl_Conairi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_%C3%93engus

With the exception of the first, to which I contributed some, the rest I wrote. There are some more but my time right now is very limited. In any event, there are numerous ancient and early medieval connections between Munster and northeast Ireland and Scotland.

rms2
08-04-2017, 08:42 PM
It might be appropriate to repost this Bell Beaker video in this thread to bring us back to Bell Beaker:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo

rms2
08-05-2017, 01:37 PM
Here's Part Two of the Bell Beaker video above, in case you missed it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNNePv5Hu5Y

Jon
08-05-2017, 03:23 PM
I did a fair amount of research on all this years ago, including creating a number of related articles at the encyclopedia. Start with these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1irine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corcu_Lo%C3%ADgde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%ADl_Conairi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_%C3%93engus

With the exception of the first, to which I contributed some, the rest I wrote. There are some more but my time right now is very limited. In any event, there are numerous ancient and early medieval connections between Munster and northeast Ireland and Scotland.

Nibelung - I've read these many times in my research: thank you for contributing this. So as not to hijack this thread any longer, could I invite you over to the L513 subsection when you have some time? It strikes me that L513 is quite unique in its frequency patterns (se Joe Flood's analysis, for example), and this Munster-Ulster-Scotland pattern is very interesting. I'm sure there would be many interested in taking this further under the L513 section.

rms2
08-16-2017, 10:28 PM
Apparently the word about the Olalde et al paper and its results has not spread all that far. People do not yet realize the impact of Bell Beaker on the genomic make-up of the British and Irish.

dkm1987
09-12-2017, 01:22 PM
He must have been slashed pretty deeply for it to show up on his humerus. That must have opened up his brachial artery, which explains why he did not survive it.
DEATH BY COMBAT AT THE DAWN OF THE BRONZE AGE? PROFILING THE DAGGER-ACCOMPANIED BURIAL FROM RACTON, WEST SUSSEX
Stuart Needham (a1), James Kenny (a2), Garrard Cole (a3), Janet Montgomery (a4) ...
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581516000688Published online: 20 July 2017
Abstract
A previously unresearched Early Bronze Age dagger-grave found in 1989 at Racton, West Sussex, is profiled here through a range of studies. The dagger, the only grave accompaniment, is of the ‘transitional’ Ferry Fryston type, this example being of bronze rather than copper. Bayesian analysis of relevant radiocarbon dates is used to refine the chronology of the earliest bronze in Britain. While the Ferry Fryston type was current in the earlier half of the twenty-second century bc, the first butt-riveted bronze daggers did not emerge until the second half. The Racton dagger is also distinguished by its elaborate rivet-studded hilt, an insular innovation with few parallels.

The excavated skeleton was that of a senior male, buried according to the appropriate rites of the time. Isotopic profiling shows an animal-protein rich diet that is typical for the period, but also the likelihood that he was brought up in a region of older silicate sedimentary rocks well to the west or north west of Racton. He had suffered injury at or close to the time of death; a slice through the distal end of his left humerus would have been caused by a fine-edged blade, probably a dagger. Death as a result of combat-contested leadership is explored in the light of other injuries documented among Early Bronze Age burials. Codified elite-level combat could help to explain the apparent incongruity between the limited efficacy of early dagger forms and their evident weapon-status.

Supplement (discusses mostly about the dagger and little about the wounds)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquaries-journal/article/death-by-combat-at-the-dawn-of-the-bronze-age-profiling-the-daggeraccompanied-burial-from-racton-west-sussex/158A26B4E2E37532959DC00CD25725D2#fndtn-supplementary-materials

dkm1987
09-12-2017, 07:29 PM
If any one gets their hands on the full paper I would love to know more about their isotopic findings. PM me if you have it, I would appreciate it.

Thanks

"Isotopic profiling shows an animal-protein rich diet that is typical for the period, but also the likelihood that he was brought up in a region of older silicate sedimentary rocks well to the west or north west of Racton."

RC info
Racton, West Sussex
Type 1C dagger; burial
Human tooth dentine
3826 33

rms2
12-17-2017, 02:23 AM
When I stop and think about it, it seems to me we are pretty well blessed. We actually have a pretty good idea of how our ancestors arrived in Britain and Ireland and who they were. That is pretty damned amazing when you think about it.

Now I want to know more about the evolution of the non-Iberian Bell Beaker people.

dkm1987
12-17-2017, 03:43 PM
When I stop and think about it, it seems to me we are pretty well blessed. We actually have a pretty good idea of how our ancestors arrived in Britain and Ireland and who they were. That is pretty damned amazing when you think about it.

Now I want to know more about the evolution of the non-Iberian Bell Beaker people.

I would like to know more about their evolution post arrival in Britain. How they dispersed and their connection to the various DF13 subs? How many subclades of DF13 didn't make it?

rms2
12-17-2017, 06:02 PM
I would like to know more about their evolution post arrival in Britain. How they dispersed and their connection to the various DF13 subs? How many subclades of DF13 didn't make it?

That's less interesting to me, but to each his own.

What I really want to know is how Bell Beaker on the Continent came to be and where the P312 in it came from.

rms2
02-21-2018, 11:59 PM
The final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738), appeared in Nature today.

The Amesbury Archer's results are not there, but here is something interesting about the Amesbury site from page 106 of the Supplementary Information that may yet save the day:



The site has some of the best evidence from Britain for early Beaker non-local connections indicated by isotopic (strontium/oxygen) analysis and material culture providing direct links with mainland Europe – in particular the ‘Amesbury Archer’.

Did we get the results for some other BB skeletons there with indications that they were not native to Britain? If so, which ones?

We may already have evidence that indicates that L21 had a continental origin, if we have one or more of the right skeletons.

I'm going to try to find out, if I can.

Celt_??
02-23-2018, 01:57 AM
The Amesbury Archer's results are not there, but here is something interesting about the Amesbury site from page 106 of the Supplementary Information that may yet save the day: Did we get the results for some other BB skeletons there with indications that they were not native to Britain? If so, which ones?

We may already have evidence that indicates that L21 had a continental origin, if we have one or more of the right skeletons. I'm going to try to find out, if I can.

A huge number of DNA British ancient DNA results for pre-Beaker, Beaker and post-Beaker skeletons were reported - more than 150, I believe. What did you learn? Is there someone who keeps a list of these results other than Jean Manco who is swamped at the moment.

The R1b_U152 project has a list of their ancient results kept by Mark Mitchell. Rich Rocca keeps an ancient DNA map for U152. Are their anythings similar for R1b-L21? The reason I inquire is that I am an Admin for a surname project with British members with results like these:

21685

Any interpretive thoughts would be much appreciated. Thank a million.

rms2
02-23-2018, 11:54 AM
I keep lists of the L21 Bell Beaker and Bronze Age results. I also keep track of all the Kurgan Bell Beaker results (those with steppe dna and Yamnaya-like cultural traditions), which includes the L21 BB guys. I am in the process of updating everything with this new info, but unfortunately the final Olalde et al paper appeared in the middle of the work week, and I just have not had time yet to get caught up. I haven't even had time to read through everything the way I would like.

I'll post everything when I get up to speed.

castle3
02-23-2018, 01:29 PM
That's less interesting to me, but to each his own.

What I really want to know is how Bell Beaker on the Continent came to be and where the P312 in it came from.

Me too!

George Chandler
02-23-2018, 05:53 PM
The final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738), appeared in Nature today.

The Amesbury Archer's results are not there, but here is something interesting about the Amesbury site from page 106 of the Supplementary Information that may yet save the day:

Did we get the results for some other BB skeletons there with indications that they were not native to Britain? If so, which ones?

We may already have evidence that indicates that L21 had a continental origin, if we have one or more of the right skeletons.

I'm going to try to find out, if I can.

Was this just a repeat of the original test results that revealed some of the A.A copper was from Continental Europe?

rms2
02-23-2018, 06:42 PM
Was this just a repeat of the original test results that revealed some of the A.A copper was from Continental Europe?

No. At least some of this has to do with isotope testing of teeth, and there are some new British Bell Beaker L21+ results.

George Chandler
02-23-2018, 06:46 PM
RMS have you arrived at the portion of the paper regarding the "Derived allele frequencies at three SNP's of functional importance"? The three being eye and hair colour plus LCT?? I don't have the time to read the paper right now but saw the three charts regarding them. Just wondering what they pulled out of the testing?

George

George Chandler
02-23-2018, 06:50 PM
It would be interesting if those new L21's had isotope results matching A.A. His L21 grave "partner" was tested wasn't he?

rms2
02-23-2018, 07:02 PM
It would be interesting if those new L21's had isotope results matching A.A.

That's what I am wondering. I'm trying to find out, but I don't have an answer yet.



His L21 grave "partner" was tested wasn't he?

I mentioned that in the first post in this thread. The Companion is believed to be the Archer's son because he was buried just 3 meters east of him and because the two share an anomaly in the bones of their feet that makes it almost certain they are closely related. The Companion tested L21+, so it is extremely likely the Archer is L21+, too. But, as bad luck would have it, Olalde et al were unable to get any dna from the Archer. They would like to try again, but the Archer's fame, and his prominence in the museum where he is housed, make getting another sample difficult.

rms2
02-24-2018, 02:34 AM
Here is my Google spreadsheet of the R1b-L21 Bell Beaker in Olalde et al.

R1b-L21 Bell Beaker in Olalde et al (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWzzqFO-9woOWIA9H7DkAEFRSyv3YHrkCGhDihuDkhU/edit?usp=sharing)

Here is my Google spreadsheet of Bronze Age R1b-L21 from Olalde et al:

Bronze Age R1b-L21 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UAB_UIgrbLsesoNGCl1Yp0F56EchSS9X2Ua8gEtjgds/edit?usp=sharing)

If you spot any errors or omissions, let me know.

I still need to update my total Kurgan Bell Beaker spreadsheet, which includes the R1b-L21 BB guys and all the other R1b-M269 Bell Beaker guys.

rms2
02-24-2018, 09:55 PM
I just finished updating my Kurgan Bell Beaker Google spreadsheet a few minutes ago. It was a lot of work because of all the new samples. There was a humongous boatload of new L2 results, especially from the Czech Republic, and a fair number of new L21 results from Britain.

Again, if you spot any errors or omissions, please kindly let me know.

Here it is:

Kurgan Bell Beaker (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K4UrW2A2vCGkM5jJVwO75K-dd5s2bLyLNRaQBahy0II/edit?usp=sharing)

To me Kurgan Bell Beaker means R1b Bell Beaker with steppe autosomal dna and Yamnaya-like cultural traditions.

George Chandler
02-24-2018, 10:05 PM
I just finished updating my Kurgan Bell Beaker Google spreadsheet a few minutes ago. It was a lot of work because of all the new samples. There was a humongous boatload of new L2 results, especially from the Czech Republic, and a fair number of new L21 results from Britain.

Again, if you spot any errors or omissions, please kindly let me know.

Here it is:

Kurgan Bell Beaker (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K4UrW2A2vCGkM5jJVwO75K-dd5s2bLyLNRaQBahy0II/edit?usp=sharing)

To me Kurgan Bell Beaker means R1b Bell Beaker with steppe autosomal dna and Yamnaya-like cultural traditions.

Nothing has been pulled out past the DF13+ samples?

rms2
02-24-2018, 10:15 PM
Nothing has been pulled out past the DF13+ samples?

Not in Bell Beaker. There are a couple of Bronze Age samples derived for stuff a little bit downstream of Z253, and of course one of the EBA Rathlin guys was DF21+.

I guess we're waiting on Genetiker to see if he can squeeze anything past DF13 out of the samples.

rms2
02-24-2018, 10:38 PM
I forgot to mention that the two highlighted samples on the Kurgan Bell Beaker spreadsheet are the two with osteological evidence of extensive horseback riding.

You know you've got to spend a lot of time on horseback for it to show up in your very bones.

razyn
02-24-2018, 10:41 PM
If you spot any errors or omissions, let me know.

Very useful. I for one am still comfortable with the ID (by Rich Rocca) of the twice-sequenced I0806 as ZZ11+ and DF27+; and I feel little to no need to stick to the published haplogroups the 144 authors have agreed upon, using an April 2016 ISOGG tree. But, you know me.

I think Chris Corner also spotted a potential Rox2 guy (another DF27 subgroup) in the new results. But like so many of these results, it can be argued against, by the truly argumentative. Much remains to be parsed, but the embargo is up, and it will get parsed.

George Chandler
02-24-2018, 10:44 PM
I find the I2416 sample interesting (FGC11381/Y8397+) 2200-2500 BCE...just in terms of it's distance from P312.

rms2
02-24-2018, 10:47 PM
I find the I2416 sample interesting (FGC11381/Y8397+) 2200-2500 BCE...just in terms of it's distance from P312.

Personally, I think Y8397 is kind of a new SNP to be found in Bell Beaker. It could be a false positive. YFull has its tmrca at 300 A.D.

George Chandler
02-24-2018, 10:51 PM
Personally, I think Y8397 is kind of a new SNP to be found in Bell Beaker. It could be a false positive. YFull has its tmrca at 300 A.D.

I'm think more in terms of the formation age estimate of ~ 4,300 years ago for it they are showing...

rms2
02-24-2018, 10:52 PM
Very useful. I for one am still comfortable with the ID (by Rich Rocca) of the twice-sequenced I0806 as ZZ11+ and DF27+; and I feel little to no need to stick to the published haplogroups the 144 authors have agreed upon, using an April 2016 ISOGG tree. But, you know me.

That was an error on my part. I just fixed it. It now shows R1b-DF27.



I think Chris Corner also spotted a potential Rox2 guy (another DF27 subgroup) in the new results. But like so many of these results, it can be argued against, by the truly argumentative. Much remains to be parsed, but the embargo is up, and it will get parsed.

That one might turn out to be right, but I think it is doubtful. When a young SNP like Y8397 turns up way before its time in Bell Beaker, one has to wonder. I doubt Y8397 went through a bottleneck of over 2600 years while the rest of Bell Beaker was prospering and replacing the Neolithic population of Britain.

rms2
02-24-2018, 10:55 PM
I'm think more in terms of the formation age estimate of ~ 4,300 years ago for it they are showing...

But if the tmrca of Y8397 is 300 A.D., that would mean a bottleneck of over 2600 years for Y8397, while the rest of P312 was replacing the Neolithic British population.

Possible, yes, but likely?

corner
02-24-2018, 11:22 PM
Again, Y8397 (FGC11381 is the equivalent in question) formed 4300 ybp +/- a big margin of error at YFull. It's just one of dozens and might be an early one. Wide-ranging BB families like I2416's (teeth isotopes) didn't necessarily hang around in one place, they might have just moved somewhere distant and quite for a few thousand years (or any number of scenarios) to produce a lengthy bottleneck.

George Chandler
02-24-2018, 11:27 PM
But if the tmrca of Y8397 is 300 A.D., that would mean a bottleneck of over 2600 years for Y8397, while the rest of P312 was replacing the Neolithic British population.

Possible, yes, but likely?

The testing trail down from DF27 looks good in terms of it not being a false positive. Even if the YFull age estimate shows that age for existing samples the fact that I2416 has been carbon dated (if I have read correctly?) for that period..and found the bones in a beaker culture gave then it places the SNP from at least around 4,200 years ago. When you factor it's distance from P312 in terms of the founder age estimate and then combine that with SNP's in the area that have yet to be placed...

I still have DF13 with a founder age of 4,500 years ago +/- 200 years but I'm leaning more in the direction of 4,700 years ago. Personally I suspect that the companion of the A.A will turn up positive for DF13 but we'll have to wait and see. Obviously DF27 and DF13 are different branches but I still find it difficult to believe that a very small family group of DF13 became so prolific in the Isles unless they entered later when it was a bit more secure or the DF13 "tribe" was a bit larger at the time of the crossing into Britain.

rms2
02-24-2018, 11:43 PM
Again, Y8397 (FGC11381 is the equivalent in question) formed 4300 ybp +/- a big margin of error at YFull. It's just one of dozens and might be an early one. Wide-ranging BB families like I2416's (teeth isotopes) didn't necessarily hang around in one place, they might have just moved somewhere distant and quite for a few thousand years (or any number of scenarios) to produce a lengthy bottleneck.

It might be right, but it just seems doubtful to me. If it had been just DF27 or something downstream of DF27 of an age likely to show up in Bell Beaker, I would buy it. I just don't think a single isolated result and a bottleneck of over 2600 years make sense at a time when Bell Beaker P312 was on a roll and replacing the Neolithic population of Britain.

But, okay, I may soon be making the same kind of argument for some variety of L21 that you're making for Y8397 right now.

Could be right.

razyn
02-25-2018, 12:04 AM
The thing I find hard to believe (and, really, don't believe) is that U152 and DF27, brother clades below ZZ11 -- and with fairly similar representation in today's global population (DF27 probably being the more numerous) -- would skew so thoroughly in favor of one over the other, in aDNA. Probably it's just the luck of the burial rite, and the fact that DF27 is hard to test convincingly. Both sons of ZZ11 are pretty clearly present in the Beaker population that's moving into Central Europe from the steppe, one way and another. At the moment, U152/L2 is just a lot more clearly present.

rms2
02-25-2018, 12:34 AM
The thing I find hard to believe (and, really, don't believe) is that U152 and DF27, brother clades below ZZ11 -- and with fairly similar representation in today's global population (DF27 probably being the more numerous) -- would skew so thoroughly in favor of one over the other, in aDNA. Probably it's just the luck of the burial rite, and the fact that DF27 is hard to test convincingly. Both sons of ZZ11 are pretty clearly present in the Beaker population that's moving into Central Europe from the steppe, one way and another. At the moment, U152/L2 is just a lot more clearly present.

Let's just hope some of that P312 or other upstream stuff pops for DF27 in Genetiker's analysis.

It is amazing how the L2 guys made out like bandits from the new samples in Olalde et al.

167273
02-25-2018, 12:49 AM
Hello im new here. I found that i7043 from BA Hungary from Nagyrev culture is r1b-L11 P312- U106-. Could be DF100?

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 02:22 AM
Again, Y8397 (FGC11381 is the equivalent in question) formed 4300 ybp +/- a big margin of error at YFull. It's just one of dozens and might be an early one. Wide-ranging BB families like I2416's (teeth isotopes) didn't necessarily hang around in one place, they might have just moved somewhere distant and quite for a few thousand years (or any number of scenarios) to produce a lengthy bottleneck.

For I2416 it was positive DF27/Z2571/Y8841/Y8397/FGC11381 regardless if Y8397 if it is equivalent to FGC11381 or not. The very fact that a British Beaker skeleton from that time was found to be positive for that many SNP's below DF27 is important, especially when considering factors such as SNP quality, segment damage and sequencing coverage. When you combine other evidence such as the Rathlin sample results and where they tested below DF13 that margin of error in terms of the founder age estimate shrinks.


George

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 02:27 AM
Hello im new here. I found that i7043 from BA Hungary from Nagyrev culture is r1b-L11 P312- U106-. Could be DF100?


Sorry I don't have the raw data or I would check for you. All it mentions in RMS's spreadsheet is that he was a brother of I7043.

Welcome to the forum.

rms2
02-25-2018, 02:38 AM
For I2416 it was positive DF27/Z2571/Y8841/Y8397/FGC11381 regardless if Y8397 if it is equivalent to FGC11381 or not. The very fact that a British Beaker skeleton from that time was found to be positive for that many SNP's below DF27 is important, especially when considering factors such as SNP quality, segment damage and sequencing coverage. When you combine other evidence such as the Rathlin sample results and where they tested below DF13 that margin of error in terms of the founder age estimate shrinks.


George

I am no expert, but I believe the whole thing rises or falls together. If one part of that strand is a false positive, the whole thing is.

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 02:52 AM
Why would they do that? We get false positives with problematic positions quite often with the NGS? I can understand if the SNP in question didn't belong in the tree (like L21 showing a positive) but FGC11381 is in that group of un-positioned SNP's next to Y8397 (which he was also positive for)??

rms2
02-25-2018, 02:57 AM
Why would they do that? We get false positives with problematic positions quite often with the NGS? I can understand if the SNP in question didn't belong in the tree (like L21 showing a positive) but FGC11381 is in that group of un-positioned SNP's next to Y8397 (which he was also positive for)??

Like I said, I am no expert, but dealing with ancient samples is different from dealing with modern samples. That strand apparently represents one read. If one part of it is bad, there is no reason to believe any of the rest of it. If Y8397 is a mistake, how can we rely on any of the rest of it?

It would be different if we had two or three other reads showing positive results at P312 and DF27, but we don't.

Can we go back to talking about Bell Beaker L21 now? I have my doubts about the status of that sample, but if others want to believe it really is Y8397+, fine. Genetiker himself said it's a possibility, but he wasn't willing to call it that. If he was convinced it was right, he would have made that his call.

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 03:12 AM
I understand the stricter QC (especially when people are putting their name behind the paperwork), but it just seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't it? I know segment damage on ancient samples can make you remove some SNP results but when the rest of the pattern is there it seems a bit harsh. Guessing you're right they couldn't get multiple reads off the others like P312 or DF27? Even if you can't get multiple reads (how many multiple reads do they usually get anyway?). If you see the pattern leading up to P312 then get P312+>DF27+ etc etc.

I had something similar with the 6DRIF-18 results I was going through and one of the five close to S1051 was damaged. If you look at the totality and see L21+ S1051 missing and (FGC9655 or DF13 damaged can't recall which) but FGC9661+, FGC9658+, FGC9854+. Then combine that with a very low level Gedmatch against 6DRIF-18 between me and my father the evidence is there.

Seems like a waste to discard the data because of a couple of damaged segments.

Celt_??
02-25-2018, 03:51 AM
RMS have you arrived at the portion of the paper regarding the "Derived allele frequencies at three SNP's of functional importance"? The three being eye and hair colour plus LCT?? I don't have the time to read the paper right now but saw the three charts regarding them. Just wondering what they pulled out of the testing? George

On page 5 there is this paragraph:

"Our ancient DNA transect-through-time in Britain also enabled us to track the frequencies of alleles with known phenotypic effects. Derived
alleles at rs16891982 in SLC45A2 and rs12913832 in HERC2/OCA2, which contribute to reduced skin and eye pigmentation in Europeans,
considerably increased in frequency between the Neolithic period and the Beaker and Bronze Age periods (Extended Data Fig. 7). The arrival
of migrants associated with the Beaker complex therefore markedly altered the pigmentation phenotypes of British populations.

However, the lactase persistence allele at SNP rs4988235 in LCT remained at very low frequencies across this transition, both in Britain and continental
Europe, which shows that the major increase in its frequency occurred within the last 3,500 years."

corner
02-25-2018, 10:45 AM
Why would they do that? We get false positives with problematic positions quite often with the NGS? I can understand if the SNP in question didn't belong in the tree (like L21 showing a positive) but FGC11381 is in that group of un-positioned SNP's next to Y8397 (which he was also positive for)??I2416 is positive for P310 and FGC11381, the sample was low quality but at least they got something. Apparently the neighbouring grave of the Amesbury Archer produced no DNA.

rms2
02-25-2018, 01:46 PM
On page 5 there is this paragraph:

"Our ancient DNA transect-through-time in Britain also enabled us to track the frequencies of alleles with known phenotypic effects. Derived
alleles at rs16891982 in SLC45A2 and rs12913832 in HERC2/OCA2, which contribute to reduced skin and eye pigmentation in Europeans,
considerably increased in frequency between the Neolithic period and the Beaker and Bronze Age periods (Extended Data Fig. 7). The arrival
of migrants associated with the Beaker complex therefore markedly altered the pigmentation phenotypes of British populations.

However, the lactase persistence allele at SNP rs4988235 in LCT remained at very low frequencies across this transition, both in Britain and continental
Europe, which shows that the major increase in its frequency occurred within the last 3,500 years."

Yeah, I saw that, and it was in the original pre-print, as well. Evidently the BB people were considerably fairer than the Neolithic British. They did nudge the LP up a tad, too, although it remained low.

I'll be glad to see the phenotype data, when they come out. I'm interested in the red hair variants on the MC1R gene, since I carry one of them, Arg160Trp.

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 07:02 PM
RMS when you wrote: "That strand apparently represents one read. If one part of it is bad, there is no reason to believe any of the rest of it. If Y8397 is a mistake, how can we rely on any of the rest of it?". If they checked every available SNP in the tree proceeding that defining haplogroup I have no doubt they would find a single damaged segment (or segments) way back in the SNP tree. I understand if that specific segment is damaged and they want to remove that specific segment from the data. Someone could correct me on this but I don't recall that FGC11381 was found on the same segment as DF27, Z2571, Y8841 or Y8397?

George

rms2
02-25-2018, 07:07 PM
RMS when you wrote: "That strand apparently represents one read. If one part of it is bad, there is no reason to believe any of the rest of it. If Y8397 is a mistake, how can we rely on any of the rest of it?". If they checked every available SNP in the tree proceeding that defining haplogroup I have no doubt they would find a single damaged segment (or segments) way back in the SNP tree. I understand if that specific segment is damaged and they want to remove that specific segment from the data. Someone could correct me on this but I don't recall that FGC11381 was found on the same segment as DF27, Z2571, Y8841 or Y8397?

George

Honestly, I don't know, and I would rather talk about L21 Bell Beaker and leave the DF27 results to others. It's one lone result with a very young, unlikely SNP as a consequence and no other DF27+ or even P312+ reads as scaffolding, so I doubt it, and evidently Genetiker doubts it, too, or he would have called it for DF27.

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 07:30 PM
If you scroll down on Genetikers page for I2416 it shows the DF27 result and below but the haplogroup designation still shows L151. I've seen this before even with 6DRIF-18 where the haplogroup designation is the safer bet or just not updated.

I only mentioned the DF27 results on the L21 page because it may help with the founder age estimate for L21.

George