PDA

View Full Version : A deeper think about beakers in Britain and R1b DNA "from the West"



Net Down G5L
10-21-2013, 09:24 PM
Hi all. I am an amateur hobbyist and I am studying beakers, tumuli and Celtic fields in Southern England (particularly Wessex). I note that the recent 'deeper think about beakers' ranged far and wide but had limited discussion about archaeological evidence in the Isles and did not discuss if DNA evidence could support Barry Cunliffe's "Celtic from the West" hypothesis (unless I missed it). This is my first forum post and I have seen you prefer newbies to keep their initial posts and ideas brief. So my brief starting point for discussion is my hypothesis, based on posted L11* and P312* variance data and published archaeology papers, ........

that beaker type pots and people with P312 DNA were both "parachuted" in to Iberia / France by boat - from the Southern Baltic- via the Megalithic Superhighway (http://bronzeagecelt.info/megalithicsuperhighway.html).

I am interested to explore the recent suggestion of an L11 South Baltic Modal Haplotype . (Ballardgen - closed facebook group) and the possible origin / spread of P312 from that area. [ Also what might DF100 tell us when we have more information.]
I am interested in your (collective) expert analysis of STR data for L11* and P312* (what are the differences between STRs and STR variance data for the southern Baltic and the Italian Alps). Could this data support L11/P312 via a Northern route and the Megalithic Superhighway or does it better support the recent speculation (e.g. by Alan) that P312 came to the west "through the Alps and Italy" (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes/page22) .
Net Down G5L a.k.a. Bobsky

razyn
10-21-2013, 11:49 PM
I'm not at all sure that we know, yet, but I'm happy to see somebody else on the planet looking at the Baltic (with a T in it), and not exclusively at the Balkans (with a K) -- after which the argument deteriorates to the question, on which side of the Alps must one's big overland migration have passed?

I think I was making foolish suggestions about the Vistula and so on in about May, 2011. Some of that was on DNA-Forums and is now invisible; some can still be dredged up on Eupedia, or later on the WorldFamilies R1b forum, and most was somehow related to Z196 -- which has turned out to be probably a little too far out one branch of DF27, and therefore putatively too young to be relevant to a Megalithic Superhighway. [A Copper Age highway looks about early enough.] For purposes of discussion, L11* is probably a much better genetic target; but the available data on it were then, and are still, pretty thin. But without even casting one's gaze in that direction (the Baltic, and maybe some old coastlines that are under it now), one gets into the "absence of evidence" trap.

Good luck getting a rise out of this group, anyhow.

Jean M
10-22-2013, 12:35 AM
Hi all. This is my first forum post and I have seen you prefer newbies to keep their initial posts and ideas brief.

Welcome to Anthrogenica! I think you will find brevity appreciated on most forums. :)


that beaker type pots and people with P312 DNA were both "parachuted" in to Iberia / France by boat - from the Southern Baltic

The insurmountable problem with that idea is that Bell Beaker was later in the Baltic. See Volker Heyd, When the West Meets the East: The Eastern Periphery of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon and Its Relation with the Aegean Early Bronze Age (http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=10) (2008)

As Heyd explains, the Baltic Bell Beaker was on the eastern periphery of BB and blended with local cultures to become a local variety. It has similarities to BB in Jutland (also late).

Jean M
10-22-2013, 01:01 AM
The origins of the various Bell Beaker types in Poland (click to enlarge):

793

From Janusz Czebreszuk and Marzena Szmyt, Bell Beakers and the cultural milieu of the North European Plan, chapter 6 in Background to Beakers (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/106362709/Fokkens-Nicolis-Eds-2012-Background-to-Beakers

razyn
10-22-2013, 01:22 AM
That's as may be, but Figs. 5 through 8 in the same paper appear to assume that these people were still afraid to get out on the Baltic or North Seas in wooden boats (with or without sails). And I don't believe that. The parachuting theory in Bobsky's post assumes that they were kind of OK with oceans. And I do believe that.

But there is a lot less old pottery to look at on the ocean.

Jean M
10-22-2013, 01:52 AM
To get from Poland (2300-2200 BC) to Britain (2450 BC), they would need not just boats, but a time machine.

razyn
10-22-2013, 02:53 AM
Or, to start earlier than you currently think. I'm not arguing with the evidence these authors have, but only suggesting things might have happened for which the physical evidence isn't available (or, has been dated wrong).

TigerMW
10-22-2013, 03:22 AM
...I note that the recent 'deeper think about beakers' ranged far and wide but had limited discussion about archaeological evidence in the Isles and did not discuss if DNA evidence could support Barry Cunliffe's "Celtic from the West" hypothesis (unless I missed it).
I actually mentioned Koch and "Celtic from the West" but it is was a veiled reference to mid-period Beakers and and a possible Tartessos connection with Rio Tinto and advanced metallurgy (over the first Beakers.)


This is my first forum post and I have seen you prefer newbies to keep their initial posts and ideas brief.
I don't think there is any reason to worry about what the rest of us think other than the general forum rules/policies. Someone new to the forum has every right to fully describe an idea, although I'm sure conciseness will always be appreciated.


... I am interested to explore the recent suggestion of an L11 South Baltic Modal Haplotype . (Ballardgen - closed facebook group) and the possible origin / spread of P312 from that area. [ Also what might DF100 tell us when we have more information.]

What is the L11 South Baltic Modal Haplotype? Unfortunately our L11* data is scant and its hard to differentiate from what I can tell.


... I am interested in your (collective) expert analysis of STR data for L11* and P312* (what are the differences between STRs and STR variance data for the southern Baltic and the Italian Alps)...

P312* may have just disappeared on us. DF27 really takes the bite out of it after you've already subtracted both U152 and L21. DF19 and L238 take two smaller bites out of the remainder and the folks in those two groups do think think they are related to Northern European areas.

After that, P312* may truly be gone other than a new discovery, DF99. I can't say it is from a particular area but we clearly don't have any reason yet to think it is Iberian or Mediterranean.

I'm not an expert but I have access to long haplotype project data. What would you like to compare? I have spreadsheets that calculate variance about anyway you want it (geographically) but I don't think enough true P312* or L11* is around to compare diversity by region.


... that beaker type pots and people with P312 DNA were both "parachuted" in to Iberia / France by boat - from the Southern Baltic- via the Megalithic Superhighway I don't really see that but I do find it ironic. On other threads we have discussions on P312 being Celtic and U106 being Germanic so it would be quite ironic if P312 got to the Atlantic fringe via the Baltic.;)

[[[EDIT: I meant DF99 appears to take the last bite out of P312*, not DF100. It is now corrected above.]]]

Net Down G5L
10-22-2013, 06:28 AM
Thanks for the response Jean (I am astonished by your bredth of knowledge as shown in your book)...re:

"The insurmountable problem with that idea is that Bell Beaker was later in the Baltic. See Volker Heyd, When the West Meets the East: The Eastern Periphery of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon and Its Relation with the Aegean Early Bronze Age (2008)"

I am not suggesting that P312 carried Bell Beaker pots to Iberia. The Megalithic Superhighway was almost certainly in use from Mesolithic times. The distribution of Megalithic monuments suggests that people with I and G DNA used this route extensively - pre-R1b in the area. People with I DNA could have carried TRB pottery to Iberia any time from say 4000BC. Jan Turek ( 2012 Origin of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. The Moroccan connection - Chapter 8, of Background to Beakers) suggests that the designs for Bell Beaker pots travelled North to Iberia from Morocco (on the Megalithic Superhighway). Iberia and Coastal France could just have been meeting points where TRB pots, Moroccan (and other) designs, and ultimately R1b all met up.

So in my view, no time machine is necessary. Bell Beaker pots/culture did not originate in the Baltic/Jutland - just some of the components.

Net Down G5L
10-22-2013, 06:54 AM
Thanks Razyn for your comments. Re:

"That's as may be, but Figs. 5 through 8 in the same paper appear to assume that these people were still afraid to get out on the Baltic or North Seas in wooden boats (with or without sails). And I don't believe that. The parachuting theory in Bobsky's post assumes that they were kind of OK with oceans. And I do believe that.

But there is a lot less old pottery to look at on the ocean."

It seems to me that 'Bell Beaker folk' were primarily people of the sea and rivers (see distribution maps e.g. Vander Linden). They initially seem to overlay a variable/developing culture on what was already present (though in some places /later times they seemed to want to dominate (e.g. Mark Vander Linden M 2004 Polythetic Networks, Coherent People A new historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker phenomenon.)

They may not have left pottery floating on the oceans - but there are increasing numbers of bronze age boats being discovered. (e.g. Van de Noort R (2012) Exploring agency behind the Beaker Phenomenon. The navigator's tale.) If (granted - a very big if) 'Beaker folk' were primarily travellers by boat it makes more sense to me to build your boat at the coast, move along the coast and up the rivers. Not to build your boat in the Alps and work your way down.

Net Down G5L
10-22-2013, 07:55 AM
Hi Mike, thanks for your response and questions. You say you are not an expert...but when it comes to understanding DNA I see you as Barcelona playing in the World Supercup - and I am Hyde United playing in the Northern Premier League (that is soccer to all of you in the States...all you need to know is Barcelona are very very good ...and Hyde United......not). So I was sort of hoping you may have some creative ideas.....


What is the L11 South Baltic Modal Haplotype? Unfortunately our L11* data is scant and its hard to differentiate from what I can tell.

Good question ....I was hoping you could answer that. Ballardgen posted that as intro to their closed facebook group - so I can not see the discussion or the data behind it. They also seem to suggest that L11* migrated to Central England and the Alps at a very much later date. They could be right. Or, L11* could have reached England very early - e.g. along with I DNA people when the builders of the long barrows who first arrived (from Jutland?) in the early Neolithic.



I'm not an expert but I have access to long haplotype project data. What would you like to compare? I have spreadsheets that calculate variance about anyway you want it (geographically) but I don't think enough true P312* or L11* is around to compare diversity by region.

Putting variance on hold for the moment - I was wondering if there was a pattern of STR markers in Baltic and Alpine L11 that could suggest P312 is most closely related to/descends from one or the other. (Can I get access to such raw data anywhere?) That is based on an assumption that an L11 split could have occurred to the East and one branch of L11 moved North to the South Baltic and one East towards the Alps. (I have long thought that the Northern route was the route where U106 spun off - and where lactase persistence got so embedded in to the west coast R1b's.) However, after Alan's deeper think about beakers thread I am open minded to the Alpine route.


I don't really see that but I do find it ironic. On other threads we have discussions on P312 being Celtic and U106 being Germanic so it would be quite ironic if P312 got to the Atlantic fringe via the Baltic.;)

Yes. And P312 and even early U106 could still both be early / proto Celtic speakers if they arrived via the Northern route. And if (an even bigger if) Celtic was / became the lingua franca of the Megalithic Superhighway. Barry Cunliffe has the West Coast as Celtic speaking by 3000BC in Britain Begins. While he is probably not always right about everything, he is - in my opinion - probably Britain's leading living archaeologist. We ignore him at our cost and we should test his ideas thoroughly.

Rathna
10-22-2013, 08:47 AM
Good question ....I was hoping you could answer that. Ballardgen posted that as intro to their closed facebook group - so I can not see the discussion or the data behind it. They also seem to suggest that L11* migrated to Central England and the Alps at a very much later date. They could be right. Or, L11* could have reached England very early - e.g. along with I DNA people when the builders of the long barrows who first arrived (from Jutland?) in the early Neolithic.

Putting variance on hold for the moment - I was wondering if there was a pattern of STR markers in Baltic and Alpine L11 that could suggest P312 is most closely related to/descends from one or the other. (Can I get access to such raw data anywhere?) That is based on an assumption that an L11 split could have occurred to the East and one branch of L11 moved North to the South Baltic and one East towards the Alps. (I have long thought that the Northern route was the route where U106 spun off - and where lactase persistence got so embedded in to the west coast R1b's.) However, after Alan's deeper think about beakers thread I am open minded to the Alpine route.


I may answer your question with some posts I published here and elsewhere:
"This could be very interesting. I agreed with ballardgen's hypothesis that his R-L11* was of Italian origin but from a Langobard descent and this could explain the rarity of R-L11* in Italy and this was a lack in my theory of the Italian Refugium, but I have posted some posts also about very varied Italian R-L11*, and my hypothesis was that these samples were the witness of the most ancient R-L11* from the Italian Refugium. If these "German" R-L11* were actually" R-DF100* and the Italian R-L11+/DF100-, this could be good for me".

This I wrote to ballardgen on Worldfamilies:
Quote from: ballardgen on October 02, 2013, 02:43:12 PM
We accept the current pathway from Anatolia/Armenia that places the evolved P310*/L11* peoples in the area of Germany and Sth Baltic.


I remember to you all what I wrote here (thread: R-L11 in Italy):

Now the few Italian R-L11 (and some could be amongst the Italians tested by SMGF I put on ySearch, but about them there isn’t the certitude of the SNP test) are just outliers amongst the R-L11 known.

This sample from Boattini’s:

DYS390=25
DYS391=12
DYS388=14
DYS389I=12
DYS448=20
H4=12
DYS438=13
DYS635=24

And here are the Zohrab's values from Armenia:
N9165 Zohrab b Erevan, Armenia ca 1580 d New Julfa 1620 Armenia R1b1a2a1a1
14 24 15 10 10-14 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9-10 11 11 24 14 19 27 15-15-17-17 11 11 19-23 15 15 16 17 36-39 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23-23 17 10 12 12 16 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12

In the "ht 35 FTDNA Project" there is this only R-L11 and no R-L51, whereas Italy had probably the highest percentage of this haplogroup. I agree that probably R-L11 (but there is the possibility that they are all R-DF100) is linked with Germans, but not that R-L51 and R-L11 came from Armenia. All this could be the witness that the Armenian R-L23 came from the Balkans (and before from Italy) with the first migrations of Indo-Europeans, but the subclades didn't reach the Caucasus".

I remark: the Italian sample of Boattini has the highest variance so far known of an R-L11* all over the world.

Jean M
10-22-2013, 09:09 AM
I am not suggesting that P312 carried Bell Beaker pots to Iberia..

I'm leaving the P312 response to people here who live and breathe P312. What I am pointing out is that Bell Beaker did not go from the Baltic in any direction. It arrived in the Baltic quite late in the Bell Beaker story and was clearly derived from elsewhere. It developed its own little quirks in the Baltic, which did not travel out from there. Not even one component of the pottery design. The pottery design was fully formed in Portugal several centuries earlier than it arrived in the Baltic.


Jan Turek ( 2012 Origin of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. The Moroccan connection - Chapter 8, of Background to Beakers) suggests that the designs for Bell Beaker pots travelled North to Iberia from Morocco

Yes it is amusing. You will find many such papers floating around which are written from a local perspective and optimistically derive some element or another of BB design from some previous local pottery, unaware that said element can be found in a number of other places. The Moroccan Neolithic pottery is just a type of Impressed Ware. Neolithic Impressed Ware is found pretty much all around the Mediterranean. Cord-impressed ware is found on the steppe. This appears to be the origin of the cord impressions on both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker.

Jean M
10-22-2013, 10:58 AM
It seems to me that 'Bell Beaker folk' were primarily people of the sea and rivers (see distribution maps e.g. Vander Linden).

Yes that is very obvious. There would be no other way to get to Britain, Ireland, Sardinia, Morocco etc. except by sea. Bell Beaker pottery conspicuously clusters around major rivers. However they were not the first people to use river and sea transport to migrate and trade. Neolithic farmers did the same. Mesolithic people did the same, as you know. It was a handy way to get about with loads without having to carry them in the days before packhorses and wheeled vehicles. People could then spread out from a base near water.

By the Copper Age, the new forms of transport were available, but overland trekking could still be slower and more difficult without established trackways. Water transport could by-pass mountains and dense forests. But we should not imagine that Copper Age people could not move more than a mile or two from a major waterway. They could and did. They had horses. They needed copper (and later tin) and homed in on sources of it. They needed to farm and raise stock. They visited community meeting places such as Stonehenge far from the sea or a major river. They got about.

alan
10-22-2013, 12:44 PM
I dont know about Cunliffe. He is obviously a great archaeologists but he tends to write books with a very wide brief. Noone is the greatest expert on every place at all periods in terms of archaeology, genes, lingustics, history etc. There is always a price for trying to cover everything. I certainly think on a pan European scale his wish to find generalised patterns and his thing about geographical/maritime patterning and liking for breaking down major cultures into a few simple blocks does lead him astray at times as it leads to oversimplification. I think his books are great reads but I certainly think he has flaws.

Some of his ideas like Celtic speaking passage tomb builders for instance are borderline mad. I also think its important to remember that Koch, of great interest though he is, is pushing a minority theory not a mainstream one. Many linguists doubt that Tartessian was originally Celtic. The idea that Celtic developed out of Lusitanian also seems lunatic fringe to me. They were parallel languages, not ancestor and descendant.

The archaeology of Atlantic Iberia shows a very long period of disconnect with the rest of the future Celtic speaking world between the beaker and Atlantic Bronze Age period at- at least 2200-1000BC. Indeed Atlantic Iberia was a late addition to the later Atlantic network of the Late Bronze Age, not the originator of it and it also soon broke off again after just a couple of centuries. Iberia's role in the Atlantic Bronze Age was one of joining late and leaving early a networking which had existed for centuries before and continued for a while after Iberia's brief participation. Read 'The Atlantic Iron Age; book for a detailed analysis of this - and that is from an author who is into the Atlantic thing to a degree that seems unwarranted at times. He really shows that the Atlantic zones role was often to put its own spin on central European ideas, usually in northenr France and the isles, before transferring them through the isles along the channel and down the western seaways of France. Iberia was just a late southern extension of this and appears to really be in the main a receiver of ideas and metal from the north Atlantic (via Altantic France) rather than anything else. Now I understand more about how this worked, the only possible role I would give Iberia in this is that it is possible that Celtic reached NW and SW Iberia from NW France through those contacts. leaving the more archaic beaker-relic Lusitanian dialect in between. Basically I think Celtic as a distinct dialect probably really slowly converged from earlier Italo-Celtic dialects of the beaker period and that this happened first in the contact zone between Unetice, NW France and the Isles from 2000BC onwards and was probably a constant process with no sharp beginning or end. That triangle of elite contacts between those areas was still the main one in the Late Bronze Age. I have very little doubt that Celtic emerged over a wide area of elite contact in central and NW Europe and went though 1000 years of evolution and convergence. At some point in this evolution the shifts that linguists define Celtic by took place although that is in a sense an arbitrary concept of linguists because shared evolution continued for long after that as we can see by the way the Q-P shift could spread without much migration.






Hi Mike, thanks for your response and questions. You say you are not an expert...but when it comes to understanding DNA I see you as Barcelona playing in the World Supercup - and I am Hyde United playing in the Northern Premier League (that is soccer to all of you in the States...all you need to know is Barcelona are very very good ...and Hyde United......not). So I was sort of hoping you may have some creative ideas.....


Good question ....I was hoping you could answer that. Ballardgen posted that as intro to their closed facebook group - so I can not see the discussion or the data behind it. They also seem to suggest that L11* migrated to Central England and the Alps at a very much later date. They could be right. Or, L11* could have reached England very early - e.g. along with I DNA people when the builders of the long barrows who first arrived (from Jutland?) in the early Neolithic.




Putting variance on hold for the moment - I was wondering if there was a pattern of STR markers in Baltic and Alpine L11 that could suggest P312 is most closely related to/descends from one or the other. (Can I get access to such raw data anywhere?) That is based on an assumption that an L11 split could have occurred to the East and one branch of L11 moved North to the South Baltic and one East towards the Alps. (I have long thought that the Northern route was the route where U106 spun off - and where lactase persistence got so embedded in to the west coast R1b's.) However, after Alan's deeper think about beakers thread I am open minded to the Alpine route.



Yes. And P312 and even early U106 could still both be early / proto Celtic speakers if they arrived via the Northern route. And if (an even bigger if) Celtic was / became the lingua franca of the Megalithic Superhighway. Barry Cunliffe has the West Coast as Celtic speaking by 3000BC in Britain Begins. While he is probably not always right about everything, he is - in my opinion - probably Britain's leading living archaeologist. We ignore him at our cost and we should test his ideas thoroughly.

Net Down G5L
10-22-2013, 01:29 PM
This sample from Boattini’s:

DYS390=25
DYS391=12
DYS388=14
DYS389I=12
DYS448=20
H4=12
DYS438=13
DYS635=24

And here are the Zohrab's values from Armenia:
N9165 Zohrab b Erevan, Armenia ca 1580 d New Julfa 1620 Armenia R1b1a2a1a1
14 24 15 10 10-14 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9-10 11 11 24 14 19 27 15-15-17-17 11 11 19-23 15 15 16 17 36-39 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23-23 17 10 12 12 16 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12

In the "ht 35 FTDNA Project" there is this only R-L11 and no R-L51, whereas Italy had probably the highest percentage of this haplogroup. I agree that probably R-L11 (but there is the possibility that they are all R-DF100) is linked with Germans, but not that R-L51 and R-L11 came from Armenia. All this could be the witness that the Armenian R-L23 came from the Balkans (and before from Italy) with the first migrations of Indo-Europeans, but the subclades didn't reach the Caucasus".

I remark: the Italian sample of Boattini has the highest variance so far known of an R-L11* all over the world.

Thanks Rathna,
I had seen those posts through google and found them interesting.
With my limited knowledge of the DNA...... how much can we tell from just the two samples of Boattini and Zohrab? Are they part of a pattern found in Italy and Armenia?

R.Rocca
10-22-2013, 02:24 PM
Hi Mike, thanks for your response and questions. You say you are not an expert...but when it comes to understanding DNA I see you as Barcelona playing in the World Supercup - and I am Hyde United playing in the Northern Premier League (that is soccer to all of you in the States...all you need to know is Barcelona are very very good ...and Hyde United......not). So I was sort of hoping you may have some creative ideas.....

Good question ....I was hoping you could answer that. Ballardgen posted that as intro to their closed facebook group - so I can not see the discussion or the data behind it. They also seem to suggest that L11* migrated to Central England and the Alps at a very much later date. They could be right. Or, L11* could have reached England very early - e.g. along with I DNA people when the builders of the long barrows who first arrived (from Jutland?) in the early Neolithic.

Putting variance on hold for the moment - I was wondering if there was a pattern of STR markers in Baltic and Alpine L11 that could suggest P312 is most closely related to/descends from one or the other. (Can I get access to such raw data anywhere?) That is based on an assumption that an L11 split could have occurred to the East and one branch of L11 moved North to the South Baltic and one East towards the Alps. (I have long thought that the Northern route was the route where U106 spun off - and where lactase persistence got so embedded in to the west coast R1b's.) However, after Alan's deeper think about beakers thread I am open minded to the Alpine route.

Yes. And P312 and even early U106 could still both be early / proto Celtic speakers if they arrived via the Northern route. And if (an even bigger if) Celtic was / became the lingua franca of the Megalithic Superhighway. Barry Cunliffe has the West Coast as Celtic speaking by 3000BC in Britain Begins. While he is probably not always right about everything, he is - in my opinion - probably Britain's leading living archaeologist. We ignore him at our cost and we should test his ideas thoroughly.

Just a word of caution about L11*, as its presence may be a red herring of sorts. From the 500 male samples from the "Genome of the Netherlands" study:

L11+...........n=270
........U106+...........n=165
........P312+...........n=93
........DF100+.........n=12

So, previously L11(xU106,P312) in the Netherlands is not a diverse group of L11* and the study tells us that with the inclusion of DF100, true L11* frequency in that study is ZERO. L11(xU106,P312) in the ht35 project looks to be WAMH-ish.

R.Rocca
10-22-2013, 02:51 PM
To add to my own post, the lone unresolved L11* sample from the 1000 Genomes Project (HG00148 from Kent, UK) and the two unresolved L11* from the Personal Genomes Project (PGP45 from Georgia, USA and PGP124 from the USA) were also DF100+. So, of all the L11* full Y-sequences to date, there has been no true L11*.

Rathna
10-22-2013, 03:05 PM
Of course I'd be curious to test for DF100 that sample of R-L11* from Boattini's, and to answer also to Net Down G5L I'd say that between the L11* from Pistoia and the Armenian haplotype there could be also 5000 (or more) years to a MRCA.

Rathna
10-22-2013, 03:12 PM
To add to my own post, the lone unresolved L11* sample from the 1000 Genomes Project (HG00148 from Kent, UK) and the two unresolved L11* from the Personal Genomes Project (PGP45 from Georgia, USA and PGP124 from the USA) were also DF100+. So, of all the L11* full Y-sequences to date, there has been no true L11*.

But what does this mean? They may be a subclade of L11* like Z2103/Z2105* is of L23* parallel to L51 etc. The interesting thing would be to find some L11+ which is DF100- or probably to ascertain the fact that L11* doesn't exist anymore like L23* P297* and infinite others.

Net Down G5L
10-22-2013, 03:27 PM
Hi alan, great to exchange with you. I have really enjoyed trying to catch up with all your posts ...it took me mths of intensive reading!


Some of his ideas like Celtic speaking passage tomb builders for instance are borderline mad. I also think its important to remember that Koch, of great interest though he is, is pushing a minority theory not a mainstream one. Many linguists doubt that Tartessian was originally Celtic. The idea that Celtic developed out of Lusitanian also seems lunatic fringe to me. They were parallel languages, not ancestor and descendant.

Many people called Alfred Wegener mad when he put forward his theories of continental drift. I did not stop him being right.

So what language did the passage tomb builder use? And what is the evidence for it?
I have seen so many different versions of Indo-European language trees and so many different dates...I am no expert to judge which could and could not be correct.


The archaeology of Atlantic Iberia shows a very long period of disconnect with the rest of the future Celtic speaking world between the beaker and Atlantic Bronze Age period at- at least 2200-1000BC. Indeed Atlantic Iberia was a late addition to the later Atlantic network of the Late Bronze Age, not the originator of it and it also soon broke off again after just a couple of centuries.

I think you miss my point. I specifically refer to the Megalithic Superhighway as it was clearly of great importance during the pre-beaker period. Look at any distribution map of megalithic culture / dolmens etc. Iberia was clearly part of an important maritime network before the development of the beaker culture. I am not argueing that it was the centre/most important part of the network. Or that the maritime network did not wane during periods of the Bronze Age. I am also equally open to the idea of maritime contacts to Liguria. I am only saying I can see no reason to reject the possibility of Iberia, France, the Isles, Netherlands, Denmark having maritime links at the start of the Beaker period - and no reason to reject the possibility of ideas, pottery, skills, people/DNA moving at that time.



Iberia's role in the Atlantic Bronze Age was one of joining late and leaving early a networking which had existed for centuries before and continued for a while after Iberia's brief participation. Read 'The Atlantic Iron Age; book for a detailed analysis of this - and that is from an author who is into the Atlantic thing to a degree that seems unwarranted at times. He really shows that the Atlantic zones role was often to put its own spin on central European ideas, usually in northenr France and the isles, before transferring them through the isles along the channel and down the western seaways of France. Iberia was just a late southern extension of this and appears to really be in the main a receiver of ideas and metal from the north Atlantic (via Altantic France) rather than anything else. Now I understand more about how this worked, the only possible role I would give Iberia in this is that it is possible that Celtic reached NW and SW Iberia from NW France through those contacts. leaving the more archaic beaker-relic Lusitanian dialect in between.
Basically I think Celtic as a distinct dialect probably really slowly converged from earlier Italo-Celtic dialects of the beaker period and that this happened first in the contact zone between Unetice, NW France and the Isles from 2000BC onwards and was probably a constant process with no sharp beginning or end. That triangle of elite contacts between those areas was still the main one in the Late Bronze Age. I have very little doubt that Celtic emerged over a wide area of elite contact in central and NW Europe and went though 1000 years of evolution and convergence. At some point in this evolution the shifts that linguists define Celtic by took place although that is in a sense an arbitrary concept of linguists because shared evolution continued for long after that as we can see by the way the Q-P shift could spread without much migration.

My own view is that looking at the Iron Age is looking too late (that is a period of refinement). Most discussion on recent threads points to R1b becoming very established in the Isles during the Bronze Age - and I agree with that.

Before we reject Cunliffe out of hand... what is the evidence against:
- a proto celtic language existing on the west coast (Megalithic Superhighway) before 2000BC (lets call it an early form of Q Celtic or insular celtic for the sake of arguement)
- P312 expanding somewhere in France having adopted the language.
- son DF 27 heading south in to Spain/Iberia and expanding to dominate the DNA.
- son L21 heading north and expanding in the Isles - with Celtic - and expanding to dominate the western Isles DNA
- son U152 heading East in to the Alps and North to meet corded ware people somewhere round the Rhine (and perhaps developing the P celtic dialect or continental Celtic).
- at a similar time brother U106 could have been slowly heading South (from Northern europe) - possibly mixed in with corded ware peoples.

So could the early maritime beakers include some P312 DNA among others. Say with some E3b1a2 specialist metalworkers from the Balkans (sorry Razyn) thrown in (Oppenheimer 2010)?


Please feel free to call me mad....but I would prefer it if you gave me some evidence against the above first.

TigerMW
10-22-2013, 04:31 PM
Just a word of caution about L11*, as its presence may be a red herring of sorts. From the 500 male samples from the "Genome of the Netherlands" study:

L11+...........n=270
........U106+...........n=165
........P312+...........n=93
........DF100+.........n=12

So, previously L11(xU106,P312) in the Netherlands is not a diverse group of L11* and the study tells us that with the inclusion of DF100, true L11* frequency in that study is ZERO. L11(xU106,P312) in the ht35 project looks to be WAMH-ish.

Yes, that is what I meant by L11* is hard to differentiate. It could easily blend in as another subclade under P312 rather than beside it. Busby's study concludes that S127 (L11) as a whole showed no significant diversity clines across Europe. I have to agree. I guess "parachuting in" could cause that but I don't think that is the most likely. Busby used the term "localized origin" if I remember in reference to L21, U152, U106, etc. I guess that is what they thought happened after the parachuting.

razyn
10-22-2013, 04:35 PM
Mike W was suggesting that "three sons and a brother of Mr. P312" scenario about 2 1/2 years ago, just before Z196 was named. I think they were Ricardo, Richard (probably pronounced the French way), Reichardt... something like that. It was posted on DNA-forums and went bye-bye, as far as I know. Ultimately it had to do with the ages of the several large L11 clades, appearing to converge almost at a point.

Btw the Google Doodle today is about "parachuting in."

R.Rocca
10-22-2013, 06:44 PM
Yes, that is what I meant by L11* is hard to differentiate. It could easily blend in as another subclade under P312 rather than beside it. Busby's study concludes that S127 (L11) as a whole showed no significant diversity clines across Europe. I have to agree. I guess "parachuting in" could cause that but I don't think that is the most likely. Busby used the term "localized origin" if I remember in reference to L21, U152, U106, etc. I guess that is what they thought happened after the parachuting.

Of interest in the GoNL data, the counts show that there are two L51(xL11) samples that are not derived for Z2115, which has been found in every L51(xL11) sequence in the 1KG, PGP and Francalacci datasets (Tuscany, Sardinia, Puerto Rico, and USA).

TigerMW
10-22-2013, 07:15 PM
Mike W was suggesting that "three sons and a brother of Mr. P312" scenario about 2 1/2 years ago, just before Z196 was named. I think they were Ricardo, Richard (probably pronounced the French way), Reichardt... something like that. It was posted on DNA-forums and went bye-bye, as far as I know. Ultimately it had to do with the ages of the several large L11 clades, appearing to converge almost at a point.

Btw the Google Doodle today is about "parachuting in."

I think someone else used the term "Mr. P312" and I did not intend to convey the sons and brother thing literally, if that is the terminology I used.

Based on the likely close GDs, I was trying to convey it more in terms of a DNA clan project. It would be like seeing a group of people on your matches screen and in your subgrouping with some surname variants of yours. The advanced testers might have been noted as having newly discovered private SNPs like U152, L21, L2, etc. It would have been the the L11 clan, apparently big in the transportation business and prolifically successful.

The part why I think they were not likely parachuted in is their diversification and long surviving growth in several places. I'm thinking about the early European explorers/settlers as an analogy. The explorers and traders might have been hailed by some natives, and massacred by others or first one then the other. They might not have even been well suited for the climates. Transportation is all about logistics and it is when the logistical chains and defense outposts were well in place that I think population growth and migration could have been more prolific. In other words, population growth is more about the settlers than the explorers. The first colonizers probably didn't hang on in many places. It was the large migrations that mattered.

Don't we see the same thing in England? It was hard for elites to make a big dent in the population in places like France, named for the Franks. Meanwhile, the constant and large flow of Anglo-Saxon types, commoner folks, into England actually did make a difference.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 10:55 AM
I would like to introduce the second theme of the title of this thread. - the archaeological evidence in Britain.

I was motivated to post in the forum by your discussions about the Harrison/Heyd paper in the initial deeper think about beakers and DNA thread. I was struck by some of the similarities with a study in Wessex and thought I should share it with you. So more of that below - but I would just like to set the Wessex scene for those of you who may be less familiar with the area and its archaeology:

Wessex is an area in central southern England. It contains Stonehenge, Avebury and a spectacular array of other Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Wessex is located on the eastern side of an apparent (pre-beaker) Neolithic east west divide. For example, to the east we find grooved ware pottery and to the west we find stone circles (see maps in Cunliffe p195, Britain Begins). Wessex is an area of 'overlap' (or interaction?) with both grooved ware and (occasional) stone circles. The famous blue stones of Stonehenge were transported from the west side of the divide (Wales) to the east side/area of overlap/interaction. It was certainly an area of complex activity in the period before the beakers arrived.
When the beakers arrived it was a also complex affair. Cunliffe suggests four divisions in the practices of beaker groups arriving (see map page 210 Britain begins):

some maritime bell beakers, wedge tombs in the far west (similar to Amorica),
maritime derived beakers with tumulus burials in Wessex
finger nail and incised beakers with tumulus burials north of the Thames
all over corded beakers north of the wash
I put this forward as general context for the detailed study I will refer to in my next post.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 11:53 AM
This is an extract from your recent discussion on the Harrison/Heyd (2007) paper Transforming Europe in the Third Millennium BC" - that prompted me to start posting:

This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This is important as c say,
"The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
...The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
...shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the geographical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
...Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC,.
Was something very similar happening in England at about the same time...

You are probably all familiar with Mike Parker Pearson's recent accounts of the changes that took place at Stonehenge and Durringon Walls at this time.
However, I guess you have probably not come accross Andrew Martin's account of anomolies in Wessex barrows: ( Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books)

There is a convenient extract from this copyright article on the web at:
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/a%20_specific_analysis_of_barrows.html

I suggest you may like to read the section " A Specific Analysis of Barrows" on that web page.

My simple summary....
In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

So who were these clans, when did they arrive, and what type(s) of DNA dominated the people in each clan?

Well of course no-one is looking at ancient DNA of these burials yet. So there is plenty of time for anyone who wishes to speculate.........

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 02:35 PM
The first part of this post got off track on Corded Ware so I moved it over here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=17255&viewfull=1#post17255). The 2nd half of the post is left intact.
....
... mentioned there is very little "Central European Bell Beaker influence in Atlantic France." Is that also true for northern/northwestern France along the Atlantic and English Channel? I don't know. This is a good area to investigate and right up the alley of this particular thread. This is the hotbed area for L21.

I don't think Bell Beakers in Great Britain can be considered "Early Bell Beakers" as those of Iberia and perhaps of southern France. Bell Beakers (people) are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers. There well may have been regional and time frame differences. The Bell Beaker folks of Britain showed up more like the 2400-2000 BC timeframe, several hundred years after the Yamnaya reached the Hungarian Plains. This is also several hundred years after metallurgy in Iberia and the start of the Early Bell Beakers in Iberia.

This is probably a great time to dig up an Amesbury Archer discussion.:)

The importance of the finds in Wessex Archeology online.

Perhaps the most significant fact about the Archer is that he was from the Alps region.
...
Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, said: 'This was a time of great change in Britain – the first metals were being brought here from abroad and great monuments such as Stonehenge were being built.
We have long suspected that it was people from the continent of Europe who initiated the trade that first brought copper and gold to Britain, and the Archer is the first discovery to confirm this.
He would have been a very important person in the Stonehenge area and it is fascinating to think that someone from abroad – probably or Switzerland, Germany or Austria – could well have played an important part in the construction of Britain’s most famous archaeological site.' ” http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer_finds.html

I'm not trying to say the Eastern Bell Beakers reached the Atlantic intact. If the Y DNA traveled that direction, it may have been in a variant culture by the time it reached Britain, i.e. Rhenish type folks or even something more closely recognizable as Proto-Celtic.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 04:24 PM
Here are a couple of other dots that were connected trade-wise, and might have genetic connections too.


"The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture. Unetice metalsmiths mainly used pure copper; alloys of copper with arsenic, antimony and tin to produce bronze became common only in the succeeding periods. The cemetery of Singen is an exception, it contained some daggers with a high tin-content (up to 9%). They may have been produced in Brittany, where a few rich graves have been found in this period. Irish tin was widely traded as well, a gold lunula of Irish design has been found as far south as Butzbach in Hessen (Germany). Amber was traded as well, but small fossil deposits may have been used as well as Baltic amber." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture

Jean M
10-23-2013, 05:07 PM
@ Net Down G5L

Thank you for pointing out that interesting publication. The switch in political power c. 2425 BC within BB that Harrison/Heyd detected at Sion would have had long distance implications. It indicates that power centres north of the Alps (Eastern Bell Beaker) had come to predominate over those in Iberia. I had assumed that there would be repercussions in the British Isles, but had not seen any study that detected rival BB groups there hitherto.

If I am interpreting aright, some of the earliest BB arrivals in Britain and Ireland would have arrived up the Atlantic route and would have been speaking a variety of Italo-Celtic close to PIE itself. Later the bulk of arrivals would have come along the Rhine route and be speaking something closer to Celtic. I theorize that the Atlantic group might carry DF27. The Rhine group I expect carried L21.

However we must bear in mind that there were probably rivalries even with the thrusting Rhine group. Their Celtic descendants were seldom united.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 07:00 PM
Mike - I think the OP really, really wants to talk about Bell Beaker. That's the impression I have.

[[[Moderator/Mikewww on 23Oct2013: Sorry, Jean's probably right. The tangent off into U106 and potential BB/CW/Unetice or not links is better elsewhere so I moved it over the more general BB thread. I'm not trying to short change anyone. See this thread if interested. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes ]]]

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 07:21 PM
@ Net Down G5L

Thank you for pointing out that interesting publication. The switch in political power c. 2425 BC within BB that Harrison/Heyd detected at Sion would have had long distance implications. It indicates that power centres north of the Alps (Eastern Bell Beaker) had come to predominate over those in Iberia. I had assumed that there would be repercussions in the British Isles, but had not seen any study that detected rival BB groups there hitherto.

If I am interpreting aright, some of the earliest BB arrivals in Britain and Ireland would have arrived up the Atlantic route and would have been speaking a variety of Italo-Celtic close to PIE itself. Later the bulk of arrivals would have come along the Rhine route and be speaking something closer to Celtic. I theorize that the Atlantic group might carry DF27. The Rhine group I expect carried L21.

However we must bear in mind that there were probably rivalries even with the thrusting Rhine group. Their Celtic descendants were seldom united.

Yes, I agree exactly - except my provisional thoughts are that the Atlantic group carried L21 and the Rhine group carried U152. That is the only way I can make sense of current distributions. I also still currently think that the Atlantic arrivals could have had the 'insular' Celtic dialect and the continental arrivals...the continental dialect.

Yes, and their Celtic descendants were frequently 'at war' in southern England in the Iron Age but that should be another later thread?

Jean M
10-23-2013, 07:54 PM
Yes, and their Celtic descendants were frequently 'at war' in southern England in the Iron Age but that should be another later thread?

I am justly reproved. ;)

[[[Mikewww/Moderator: Actually, from the circumstances, you were correct, but such are the hidden desires of the hearts of men.]]]

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 08:57 PM
This is probably a great time to dig up an Amesbury Archer discussion.:)

The importance of the finds in Wessex Archeology online.

Perhaps the most significant fact about the Archer is that he was from the Alps region.
...
Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, said: 'This was a time of great change in Britain – the first metals were being brought here from abroad and great monuments such as Stonehenge were being built.
We have long suspected that it was people from the continent of Europe who initiated the trade that first brought copper and gold to Britain, and the Archer is the first discovery to confirm this.
He would have been a very important person in the Stonehenge area and it is fascinating to think that someone from abroad – probably or Switzerland, Germany or Austria – could well have played an important part in the construction of Britain’s most famous archaeological site.' ” http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer_finds.html


Mike,
I think there is lots of new stuff to add to the Andrew Fitzpatrick web report. Primarily the amesbury archer is not now thought to be connected to the building of Stonehenge but later.
this is from a TV programme with Mike Parker pearson because I have not seen it published yet....

Stonehenge phase 1
Stonehenge Bluestone monument was built 500 years earlier than thought in 3000BC
Built as burial ground for Neolithic elite families
3000-2800BC 63 cremation burials of men, women and children

Stonehenge phase 2
2500BC remodelling of Stonehenge with the sarson stones - bluestones moved to centre of new monument
Durrington Walls "builders camp" - larges neolithic settlement in Europe
80,000 atrtefacts including many cattle, pig bones and pottery
livestock slaughtered at mid-winter for feasting - cattle brought from all over Britain including Northern Scotland from strontium isotope analysis ('bring a pig parties')
e.g. Isotopes and pottery suggest people from Orkney visited - 700 miles to north with ocean crossing
central meeting point for people in Britain - upto 4000 at mid-winter - a huge proportion of the British population then.
festivities focussed on procession - durrington - along river avon to Stonehenge Avenue.

ABRUPT END c.2,450BC

Phase 3
Beaker arrival
Amesbury Archer - from Alps - single grave burial under tumulus = NEW

BUT isotope analysis of other beaker burials = local people eg "Shrewton Man" - grew up on local chalk - took on trappings of beakers.

What the programme did NOT say.
Shrewton man could well be Net Down 5K (see http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/la...f_barrows.html )
What are the detailed dates??? There was a lot happening in a short time with atlantic, eastern, north eastern interactions.

Got any questions for Mike Parker Pearson?? He is coming to give a talk to our local archaeology group on 13th November :)

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 09:06 PM
Mike,
I think there is lots of new stuff to add to the Andrew Fitzpatrick web report. Primarily the amesbury archer is not now thought to be connected to the building of Stonehenge but later.
this is from a TV programme with Mike Parker pearson because I have not seen it published yet....

Stonehenge phase 1
Stonehenge Bluestone monument was built 500 years earlier than thought in 3000BC
Built as burial ground for Neolithic elite families
3000-2800BC 63 cremation burials of men, women and children

Stonehenge phase 2
2500BC remodelling of Stonehenge with the sarson stones - bluestones moved to centre of new monument
Durrington Walls "builders camp" - larges neolithic settlement in Europe
80,000 atrtefacts including many cattle, pig bones and pottery
livestock slaughtered at mid-winter for feasting - cattle brought from all over Britain including Northern Scotland from strontium isotope analysis ('bring a pig parties')
e.g. Isotopes and pottery suggest people from Orkney visited - 700 miles to north with ocean crossing
central meeting point for people in Britain - upto 4000 at mid-winter - a huge proportion of the British population then.
festivities focussed on procession - durrington - along river avon to Stonehenge Avenue.

ABRUPT END c.2,450BC

Phase 3
Beaker arrival
Amesbury Archer - from Alps - single grave burial under tumulus = NEW

BUT isotope analysis of other beaker burials = local people eg "Shrewton Man" - grew up on local chalk - took on trappings of beakers.

What the programme did NOT say.
Shrewton man could well be Net Down 5K (see http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/la...f_barrows.html )
What are the detailed dates??? There was a lot happening in a short time with atlantic, eastern, north eastern interactions.

Got any questions for Mike Parker Pearson?? He is coming to give a talk to our local archaeology group on 13th November :)

That's great that you have contact with Pearson.

When did the Bell Beaker elite come into Britain and from where? Was the Amesbury Archer one of the first of his kind there? If not who else was coming in and from where with Beaker packages?

Does he think they spoke Celtic, or pre-Celtic of some type?

Does he consider the Amebury Archer to come with Harrison and Heyd's full Yamnaya package?

How does this contrast with Early/western/Iberian Bell Beaker arrivals either on Britain or Ireland? if there are any to speak of?

I couldn't read the article about the Shrewton man. How does that fit in?

Net Down G5L
10-24-2013, 06:37 AM
Thanks for the questions - I will try my best.


I couldn't read the article about the Shrewton man. How does that fit in?
I am trying again with the link
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/a%20_specific_analysis_of_barrows.html

I have just tested it and it seems to work ... but then I also tested the previous..and it later stopped working.

alan
10-24-2013, 07:32 AM
My issue is that the idea of an Atlantic group look OK on those very generalised maps Cunliffe puts together but its a heck of a lot less convincing in detail. Genetically anyway the Atlantic is pretty sharply divided between the L21 of the north Atlantic and DF27 of Portugal. I think the reality is that influences converged from both directions to differing degrees before they reached the isles. The converging happened the whole length of the French and Low Countries coasts opposite the isles and so varied.

I personally dont believe U106 was anywhere near Britain or its opposite shores until way after the beaker period. I just find it impossible to believe how little U106 would enter the west if they were neighbours on the same islands for the last 4500 years. Studies on the continent confirm that U106 falls off dramatically at the Germanic-Romance borders in very much the same way that U106 falls in the isles almost in proportion to how late the areas were Anglicised. I personally think U106 didnt exist until the end of the beaker era if not later and that it started off as a late L11* lineages living at the same time as earlier P312 clades. I find it very improbable that the P312 and L11* lines would be in different cultural groups originally. however, the beaker culture was enormous and some lineage must have overextended and strayed to its very edges and got kind of cut off and absorbed by locals. If I had to guess, I think the L11* line leading onto U106* may have come about by a beaker line that had reached Poland or somewhere like that.


Yes, I agree exactly - except my provisional thoughts are that the Atlantic group carried L21 and the Rhine group carried U152. That is the only way I can make sense of current distributions. I also still currently think that the Atlantic arrivals could have had the 'insular' Celtic dialect and the continental arrivals...the continental dialect.

Yes, and their Celtic descendants were frequently 'at war' in southern England in the Iron Age but that should be another later thread?

alan
10-24-2013, 07:52 AM
The links of people between the Orkneys and other areas like Stonehenge is not really the surprise it seems. The whole henge, stone circle and grooved ware complex was very widespread with elements of it probably even originating on Orkney. I woudnt be surprised if Neolithic 'Glastonbury' type gatherings brought people from all over. They may have been famous in their day. Some have suggested that some kind of theocracy operated in the final pre-beaker Neolithic somewhat like the Druids as described in classical and Irish sources as being mobile, being protected across tribal borders and attending national gatherings.

Interestingly when the late Bronze Age systems collapse occurred, there was a return to something very similar. This was especially striking in Ireland where hillforts with hengiform type enclosing elements, timber circles and strong associations with festivals in early Irish literature seem to show that when elite metal trading networks failed, group bonding through large scale ritual feasting and gathering became more prominent with remarkable similar behavour. This suggests to me that there may have always been parallel sources of power between the showy metal trading secular elites and a kind of a proto-Druid class who had existed since the pre-beaker late Neolithic and that the relative power of each could vary.



Mike,
I think there is lots of new stuff to add to the Andrew Fitzpatrick web report. Primarily the amesbury archer is not now thought to be connected to the building of Stonehenge but later.
this is from a TV programme with Mike Parker pearson because I have not seen it published yet....

Stonehenge phase 1
Stonehenge Bluestone monument was built 500 years earlier than thought in 3000BC
Built as burial ground for Neolithic elite families
3000-2800BC 63 cremation burials of men, women and children

Stonehenge phase 2
2500BC remodelling of Stonehenge with the sarson stones - bluestones moved to centre of new monument
Durrington Walls "builders camp" - larges neolithic settlement in Europe
80,000 atrtefacts including many cattle, pig bones and pottery
livestock slaughtered at mid-winter for feasting - cattle brought from all over Britain including Northern Scotland from strontium isotope analysis ('bring a pig parties')
e.g. Isotopes and pottery suggest people from Orkney visited - 700 miles to north with ocean crossing
central meeting point for people in Britain - upto 4000 at mid-winter - a huge proportion of the British population then.
festivities focussed on procession - durrington - along river avon to Stonehenge Avenue.

ABRUPT END c.2,450BC

Phase 3
Beaker arrival
Amesbury Archer - from Alps - single grave burial under tumulus = NEW

BUT isotope analysis of other beaker burials = local people eg "Shrewton Man" - grew up on local chalk - took on trappings of beakers.

What the programme did NOT say.
Shrewton man could well be Net Down 5K (see http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/la...f_barrows.html )
What are the detailed dates??? There was a lot happening in a short time with atlantic, eastern, north eastern interactions.

Got any questions for Mike Parker Pearson?? He is coming to give a talk to our local archaeology group on 13th November :)

Net Down G5L
10-24-2013, 10:10 AM
Thanks for the helpful thoughts.



My issue is that the idea of an Atlantic group look OK on those very generalised maps Cunliffe puts together but its a heck of a lot less convincing in detail. Genetically anyway the Atlantic is pretty sharply divided between the L21 of the north Atlantic and DF27 of Portugal. I think the reality is that influences converged from both directions to differing degrees before they reached the isles. The converging happened the whole length of the French and Low Countries coasts opposite the isles and so varied.

I don't have an issue with the maps personally because all the sights I know well seem to show up on them correctly. However, I am sure you can tell me of many that do not.

I think your key point is that U106 and L21 and DF27 are much later on the scene. Understanding their place and time of origin and spread is a much later matter than beaker. So, understanding the beaker convergence along the French, low countries coast in beaker times is looking at earlier DNA - as would fit better with current TMRCA calculations. I will try to work with that thought and the way it links to the archaeological evidence. I have tried that before but kept getting distracted by thoughts of L21 and U152!

However, for my 'own site' and in general terms, I am really keen to understand just when and where L21 and U152 did appear on the scene and if they had any real visible impact on British/west European archaeology (or were they low impact later settlers?)

By the way (post 38), my 'own site' has a bronze age/iron age transition midden site. Lots of evidence of feasting. Similar sites locally and up in to the Vale of Pewsey (ref. Paul Tubb PhD and book)

Jean M
10-24-2013, 10:36 AM
I think your key point is that U106 and L21 and DF27 are much later on the scene.

Alan is simply saying that U106 most probably did not arrive in the British Isles until (mainly) the Post-Roman period i.e. with the Anglo-Saxons.

The pattern of L21 - highest density in those regions of the British Isles which retained Celtic languages longest and in Brittany which received an out-pouring of Britons fleeing the Anglo-Saxons - suggests that it arrived in Britain and Ireland before the Anglo-Saxons. So estimated times of arrival have varied by author according to when they think Celtic-speakers arrived. Estimated dates for its birth would fit Bell Beaker.

L21 is of a lower density than DF27 in Iberia and does not appear to be the earliest R1b there. So it is unlikely to represent a nice neat arrow from Iberia to the British Isles along the Atlantic as visualized in the "Celtic from the West" theory. Alan points out that said nice neat arrow very probably over-simplifies a complex process, in which BB from Iberia met and mingled with BB from the Rhine along the coast of France. So people entering Britain and Ireland from the Atlantic coast of France might actually be L21 (Rhenish) rather than DF27 (Iberian), depending on period. This is not to argue that L21 did not move along the Rhine with Rhenish BB. It just adds a very plausible layer of complication.

Of course you did not argue that U106 entered Britain with Rhenish BB. You argued for U152. That is a different story entirely. I will leave that for someone else.

rms2
10-24-2013, 11:29 AM
My own impression - and I could be totally wrong - is that U152 did not enter the Isles, at least in any numbers, until the Iron Age and then mainly with the Belgae and, subsequently, the Romans. It could also have received an additional impulse with the Anglo-Saxons.

I believe this because U152 is not, in my opinion, frequent enough in the Isles to have entered in any numbers during the Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk. Its distribution is also mainly southeastern, following the distribution, first, of the Belgae, then of the main Roman settlements, and, finally, of the Anglo-Saxons.

I also don't think U152 was far enough north during the Bronze Age to have been in position to cross into the Isles. I think it advanced northward with the spread of the La Tene culture, or perhaps Hallstatt, during the Iron Age.

That is not to say U152 was not part of Beaker. I think it definitely was, but just not the part that settled in the British Isles during the Bronze Age. I am speaking generally, of course; a few U152 guys could have entered the Isles any time since the birth of U152.

Net Down G5L
10-24-2013, 01:18 PM
My own impression - and I could be totally wrong - is that U152 did not enter the Isles, at least in any numbers, until the Iron Age and then mainly with the Belgae and, subsequently, the Romans. It could also have received an additional impulse with the Anglo-Saxons.

Thanks rms2, I greatly appreciate your input.

My 'problem', is that I think I can see 'waves' of east - west movement in the Bronze Age archaeology of southern England. That could well be my misinterpretation of the data. For example, I think I can see an initial beaker wave from south and/or east; a "Wessex" wave causing conflict; and a Middle Bronze Age celtic field wave (with conflict in Cornwall) and/or an Urnfield wave. And possibly during this time, L21 became very established in the West.

So the waves quite possible do not exist apart from in my imagination (possibly the most likely); or the waves are different groups derived from the same overall clan; or the waves may be new clans of similar or different DNA mixes. And if L21 snook in to the West (from Amorica?), perhaps as expanding settlers, when does that best fit from DNA evidence (with my level of knowledge I can only best guess 'sometime during the Bronze Age').

I know we need aDNA to help resolve, but any educated insights would be appreciated.

Net Down G5L
10-25-2013, 02:01 PM
I'm not an expert but I have access to long haplotype project data. What would you like to compare? I have spreadsheets that calculate variance about anyway you want it (geographically) but I don't think enough true P312* or L11* is around to compare diversity by region.


Still standing back:

Back to my stupid question from a newbie :)
Ref http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit/page33 post 330

I guess the scientist in me wants to get back to raw data. And I guess it is complicated because we have, for example, P312 all / P312* etc. I am particularly interested latest information for locations of high variance for .......

U106.............
P312.............
DF 19............
DF 27............
U152............
L21...............
DF 99.............
L238 ..............
DF 100...........

Z381..............

I don't want to waste your time.....so

Do you have such data easily available?
In your opinion can it be analysed / presented in way that is useful as a guide to place of origin?
If so could you possibly post summarised raw data.

Thanks Bob

TigerMW
10-25-2013, 04:23 PM
Still standing back:

Back to my stupid question from a newbie :)
Ref http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit/page33 post 330

I guess the scientist in me wants to get back to raw data. And I guess it is complicated because we have, for example, P312 all / P312* etc. I am particularly interested latest information for locations of high variance for .......

U106.............
P312.............
DF 19............
DF 27............
U152............
L21...............
DF 99.............
L238 ..............
DF 100...........

Z381..............

I don't want to waste your time.....so

Do you have such data easily available?
In your opinion can it be analysed / presented in way that is useful as a guide to place of origin?
If so could you possibly post summarised raw data.

Thanks Bob

All of the public project data that I can find is available and stored via the pertinent respective subclade project yahoo groups. You can see the links, etc. over at the "New approach for R1b.." thread. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?507-New-approach-for-the-R1b-(M343)-and-Subclades-project&p=17281&viewfull=1#post17281http://)

I think the data is most useful for the Isles itself because we have so much deep clade tested, long haplotype data for the Isles. Much of Europe and Asia are not thoroughly tested. As an alternative, I like that some of the scientific studies at least attempted to use data in a representative sampling, but for the most part they have very short haplotypes and are not very deeply SNP tested. In my ad hoc test runs, in the FTDNA vernacular, using less than 67 STR haplotypes produces inconsistent results.

If I gave you a short summary, it would be misleading or could easily be misconstrued. How valuable the information is depends on the situation. Sorry, that's not a very satisfying answer but your requests require some discussion, caveats, etc. per each subclade. There are threads already open for most of the subclades you listed and origins have been discussed in most situations.

TigerMW
10-25-2013, 04:44 PM
... L21 is of a lower density than DF27 in Iberia and does not appear to be the earliest R1b there. So it is unlikely to represent a nice neat arrow from Iberia to the British Isles along the Atlantic as visualized in the "Celtic from the West" theory. Alan points out that said nice neat arrow very probably over-simplifies a complex process, in which BB from Iberia met and mingled with BB from the Rhine along the coast of France. So people entering Britain and Ireland from the Atlantic coast of France might actually be L21 (Rhenish) rather than DF27 (Iberian), depending on period. This is not to argue that L21 did not move along the Rhine with Rhenish BB. It just adds a very plausible layer of complication...

Here's an added complexity or nuance on L21 in Iberia. It looks to be mostly a Pyrenees area sort of thing. That could be related to a potential late movement of Rhenish Beaker folks towards the Iberian Peninsula or some later Celtic or Gaulish movement. I think it could also just be part of the "tin road" from the Isles into the Med. L21 is not very diverse in the Pyrenees region.

Jean M
10-25-2013, 05:00 PM
Here's an added complexity or nuance on L21 in Iberia. It looks to be mostly a Pyrenees area sort of thing.

Plus Galicia, where Britons settled, though not as heavily as in Brittany. Hadn't considered the tin road, but thought about the other possibilities you mention, plus Basques bringing it into Iberia in the Post-Roman period.

R.Rocca
10-25-2013, 05:23 PM
Here's an added complexity or nuance on L21 in Iberia. It looks to be mostly a Pyrenees area sort of thing. That could be related to a potential late movement of Rhenish Beaker folks towards the Iberian Peninsula or some later Celtic or Gaulish movement. I think it could also just be part of the "tin road" from the Isles into the Med. L21 is not very diverse in the Pyrenees region.

Mike, does anything stand out about L21 in Basque Country? Is it high in any particular downstream SNP?

TigerMW
10-25-2013, 06:01 PM
Mike, does anything stand out about L21 in Basque Country? Is it high in any particular downstream SNP?
I'll have to confirm, but I think Z253 stands out. At first glance, this is telling because it L226/Irish III/Dalcassian is also Z253, however, so is L1066/Irish IV/Continental, which reaches to Switzerland and is all over the place.

R.Rocca
10-25-2013, 06:16 PM
I'll have to confirm, but I think Z253 stands out. At first glance, this is telling because it L226/Irish III/Dalcassian is also Z253, however, so is L1066/Irish IV/Continental, which reaches to Switzerland and is all over the place.

OK, I see now that Z253>Z2534 is very dominant there. So on the SNP front, it also looks like a low diversity group.

Net Down G5L
10-25-2013, 06:38 PM
All of the public project data that I can find is available and stored via the pertinent respective subclade project yahoo groups. You can see the links, etc. over at the "New approach for R1b.." thread. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?507-New-approach-for-the-R1b-(M343)-and-Subclades-project&p=17281&viewfull=1#post17281http://)

I think the data is most useful for the Isles itself because we have so much deep clade tested, long haplotype data for the Isles. Much of Europe and Asia are not thoroughly tested. As an alternative, I like that some of the scientific studies at least attempted to use data in a representative sampling, but for the most part they have very short haplotypes and are not very deeply SNP tested. In my ad hoc test runs, in the FTDNA vernacular, using less than 67 STR haplotypes produces inconsistent results.

If I gave you a short summary, it would be misleading or could easily be misconstrued. How valuable the information is depends on the situation. Sorry, that's not a very satisfying answer but your requests require some discussion, caveats, etc. per each subclade. There are threads already open for most of the subclades you listed and origins have been discussed in most situations.

OK thanks Mike. I need to dig deeper perhaps.

I did spend over 6 months trying to catch up on the last 3 years of discussions on various sites, before I joined the forum. And I have files on P312 etc with all the variance data that I could find (also by googling).

I have just opened one of the files and copied a sample of one of your posts below from 2011. As the phylogenetic tree is developing so quickly I am unsure I have the knowledge to know if data like that is still relevent. I don't just want to cherry pick data that is out of date because it happens to fit an idea.

I had understood that this forum is for people to share data, ideas (hypotheses) and to help each other test them. I hope I can rigourously test my own ideas with up to date DNA data and archaeology knowledge. And also help others test their ideas by sharing my own knowledge of British archaeology (in particular - as the previous beaker deep think thread had a comment that more input on British archaeology was needed) and other wider research.

I think this is the right place and the right people to do that. But do tell me if I have it wrong and I will butt out :).

Bob




Variance of R-P312 lineages highest in eastern Europe

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-08/1313004810
From: Mike W <[email protected]>
Subject: [DNA] The fate of R-L11 in Europe
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:33:30 -0500

For the last two years, whenever I've calculated variance by country for
R-P312 "All" I get results that match Myres' 2010 study in that France
always has a very high variance. One problem, however, is there just aren't
many R-P312 haplotypes available in our DNA projects with MDKA's from
East/Central Europe (anything east of Germany.)

With the advent of R-P312 subclade Z196 and additional testing, the number
of haplotypes is edging up so I ran the variance calculations again. To keep
the sample size up, I backed down to 37 or greater length haplotypes. I used
only the 25 non-multicopy markers and calculated sum of the variance
relative to a base = 1.0 to make it easier to compare. I express the caveats
that we still need larger samples, a better cross-section of Europe/W/SW
Asia and I'd prefer to use only 67 length haplotypes.

I was startled a bit to find East/Central Europe came up higher than France,
so I broke the countries out as best I could. It didn't change the essence
of the ranking.

Hungary_____________: Var=1.31 (N=15)
Baltic states_______: Var=1.24 (N=15)
Belarus/Russia/Ukrai: Var=1.23 (N=26)
Poland______________: Var=1.15 (N=26)
France______________: Var=1.12 (N=188)
Czech Rep.__________: Var=1.10 (N=12)
England_____________: Var=1.03 (N=540)
Nordic area_________: Var=1.02 (N=71)
Germany_____________: Var=1.01 (N=181)
Switzerland_________: Var=0.98 (N=43)
Italy_______________: Var=0.96 (N=60)
Ireland_____________: Var=0.94 (N=935)
Wales_______________: Var=0.93 (N=91)
Iberia______________: Var=0.92 (N=494)
Low Countries_______: Var=0.91 (N=43)
Scotland____________: Var=0.90 (N=463)

It's a bit of twist, but the variance runs just about polar opposite to the
frequency.

I've never been able to figure out how a Mediterranean route into Europe
worked for R-P312, at least when looking at the Y STR variance and the SNP
phylogenetic trail. It seems like the more data and the more resolution, the
more indications are that R-P312 moved east to west across the core of the
continent. We still don't have many R-P312 haplotypes from the Balkan
Peninsula, but if I add the Italian Peninsula together with Greece, Croatia,
Algeria and Malta I get this result:

East Mediterranean__: Var=0.90 (N=27)

If I just look at the Balkans, this is all we get. I don't think this is a
high enough count (only 4) to mean anything, but here it is:

Greece/Croatia______: Var=0.85 (N=4)

This is not to say that some R-L11* or R-M269 L11- uncles and cousins didn't
come across the boot of Italy and into Iberia at an early period, but I
don't think that's what happened with R-P312. Keep in mind, R1b in Western
Europe is about 96% R-L11 (P312 + U106 + L11*.)

It has always been perplexing that R-U106, R-P312 and R-L11 all have TMRCA
aging of about the same time, but (according to Myres) R-U106 showed higher
variance in the Baltic states than in Western Europe whereas R-P312 showed
higher variance in France. The jury is still out, but perhaps R-P312's
launching points are pretty close to U106's after all.

I wish we had more R-P312 data from the Near East, Anatolia and the
Caucasus. We know there is some R-P312 in Anatolia. I guess I should wish
for more Romanian data as well. We probably have to look deeper at the
R-L11* brothers in these areas as well as R-L23 L11- cousins.

Any new news on the R-U106 or R-L11* fronts?

Regards,
Mike

TigerMW
10-25-2013, 07:12 PM
....
Variance of R-P312 lineages highest in eastern Europe

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-08/1313004810
From: Mike W ...
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:33:30 -0500
.....
"To keep the sample size up, I backed down to 37 or greater length haplotypes. I used
only the 25 non-multicopy markers"

Bob, I wouldn't go too far with that. That was over two years ago and before we had breakdowns on DF27. Also, some time between here and there I backed off using haplotypes less than 67 STR haplogtypes. I just posted #44 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1489-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-in-Britain-and-R1b-DNA-quot-from-the-West-quot&p=17500&viewfull=1#post17500)below "In my ad hoc test runs, in the FTDNA vernacular, using less than 67 STR haplotypes produces inconsistent results."

I've run a number comparisons of haplogroups, which are groups of people known to be related to each other, regardless of geography. I found that results were consistent and phylogenetically older haplogroups came up with higher variance, like they should, most consistently when using 67 STR length haplotypes and throwing out the multi-copy/null STRs, ending up with 49 useful STRs. In contrast, when using lesser numbers of STRs, I'd occasionally run into illogical results, particularly within U106. Since, an actuary told me he has run a number of simulations and we would need 50 STRs or we would be crazy. I think the # STRs is actually more important than the # people tested, but there needs to be some representativeness to the sample as well. When you compare across geographies, things get even more risky, because of exchange and pooling the people in location may not be that closely related but just have two different sources.

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 11:30 AM
I may be missing it but I can not find any discussion about Alistair Moffats new book - The British a genetic Journey.

I have extracted some bits for discussion - first info on the pre-Beaker context (pre R1b according to Moffat).

British palaeolithic / hunter gatherer DNA
P58: DNA representing Palaeolithic hunter gatherer colonisers after 9,600BC = in 500,00 men in Britain today:"250,000 carrying I-M284, a lineage common in South West France, while the remaining half carry I-M26, a marker that is now massively present in Sardinia at a frequency of 37% of all men on the island."
P70: did S24 (I1b2a) 10% of men in Lower Saxony and 4,8% men in England. develop on Doggerland? S185 (I2a1b2 L161.1/S185) also an early marker? 0.6% in England.
P81. Ferriters Cove, Dingle peninsula
Pre-c. 4,350BC Cattle bones and sheeps tooth = first domesticated animals on the Isles = coastal transport arrival - possibly from Iberia ref. similar snails in the two areas.
P85 M26 (I2a1a L158/PF4073/S433, L159.1/S169.1, M26/PF4056) from ice age refuges and
S185 from Doggerland.
Mt DNA - most indiginous - H and V
some 'sailed with the Neolithic farmers') e.g. K arose in Near East = 8% of British women. J in 10% of British women = arrived with first farmers?
(West Kennet barrow - 3300 BC = skeletons with arrow wounds = time of conflict?)

Early Farmers in Britain
P89. post 4200BC farmers in to Britain = two routes - G DNA - English Channel (LBK) and Atlantic coast (from France/Iberia - Impressed ware / Cardinal ware).
Orkney - Origin of grooved ware - plus temples of Ness of Brodger - ideas spread.
P83. Otzi - the Iceman c. 2,300Bc Italian Alps, lactose intolerant, haplogroup G - linked to early farming.
Treilles, SW France, 29 skeletons c. 3000BC, G haplogroup. From as far East as Cyprus and Turkey?
Europe - G most common in Sardinia (14% and N Italy (10%) England 2.5%, Ireland 1.5% and Scotland 1.1%

One point that came out loud and clear to me - the importance of the coastal superhighway. He streeses the importance pre-megalithic and through to Beaker times (in fact through the Bronze Age as well - see next post).

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 11:43 AM
Beaker
R1b M269 - gene surfing = shows east-west movement and expansion.
P99 "In the deeper past, R1b-M269 came from the Near East. and it may have reached Germany by a more direct route. alternatively it could have come to Portugal through the Mediterranean before men who carried it took the skills to create the beaker package north into Europe. the mtDNA markers, I1 and K1, are also originally from the Near East. ..... And its (M269) dynamic movement to every corner of the continent shows something unarguable, that a new wave of farmers was not a process of acculturation or adoption. Rather, it was the cultural cargo of an invasion, the deposit of a takeover by new people, and bearers of the marker R1b-M269.
Recent research has dated the origin of the cluster of R1b Y-chromosone markers to the middle of the third millenium BC. and attached its dramatic spread across Europe to the advance of the Beaker people. and it seems there was conflict., perhaps even something close to genocide." NB or disease.
P97. Amesbury Archer c. 2300BC Analysis of teeth show he grew up in Alps - Germany, Austria or probably Switzerland. Came to Britain as a young man.
His (possible) son grew up in Britain - may have spent time in Midlands and north-east Scotland.
P100. Boscombe Bowmen c. 2300BC - analysis of tooth enamel suggests they may be from Wales or the Lake District.
P100. Stonehenge archer c. 2300BC - killed by a group of archers? many arrows heads embedded in skeleton. Local man, ritually executed?
P101 "The archaeological consensus agrees that Britain's beaker people and their new ways of life crossed the English channel and the southern basin of the North sea in an arc from Brittany to the Low Countries. This in turn implies two migration routes: one that traversed continental Europe and another from the south, an Atlantic approach, probably sea borne. It seems that people with the skills that necessarily complemented those of the Amesbury archer and other coppersmiths came to Britain from the latter direction."
P103. "The Y DNA marker E-V13 originated in the Balkans where it was to be found at its highest frequency, 39% of all men in the region of southern Serbia and Kosovo. ........ But what is very striking is its appearance in North Wales., very close to the mines at Great Orme Head. In a survey of men living at Abergele, about 4 miles east of the mines, a very surprising 38% carried the Balkan marker."

Interesting that Moffat suggests that the Amesbury Archer arrived by sea along the Atlantic coastal route. This would tie in with the earliest beaker people arriving from the south/west into England. Also possibly including P312/L21 dna within the clan. I have long thought that there may be a link between P312/L21 DNA and inhumations. But if so, what DNA was carried by the clans that brought cremation style burials from the east during the Wessex phase? Could P312/U106 or P312/U152 be in the Wessex clans and later?

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 12:04 PM
Moffat a 2013 The British a Genetic Journey - Middle Bronze age
P120 "By the middle of the second milennium BC, there is a sense of two zones of seaborne trade, linked but distinct. In the west, the Atlantic routes from Iberia, Biscay and Brittany to the Irish Sea and as far as the Hebrides see a much more emphatic presence of the sub-group of R1b that has been labelled S145 [L21]. It probably originated in Iberia and south-west France but it is found in a very high frequency in Ireland 67% of all men and at 45% in Scotland. By contrast in England it falls to 20%. This was probably the consequence of continuing contact over a long period, not of a concentrated phase of migration as happened when the farmers came to Britain and Ireland the centuries either side of 4000Bc and then again with the arrival of the Beaker people.
A different sub-group of R1b, S21 [U106], skews eastward. Only 6% of Irish men carry it, while 21% of Englishmen do. S21 is present in 13% of scots, but these men are found mainly along the east coast. ..... Again this bias is likely not the result of an event but of a process of trade and exchange."

Moffat suggests that U106 has been in Britain since the Bronze age. I agree with that as a probability. The pattern of U106 matches Anglo Saxon 'invasion'. But it also matches, for example, the extent of Celtic Field and the extent of Iron Age hillforts. I see no reason why it must only be due to the Anglo Saxon 'invasion'.

Moffat talks about U152 on page 148. He suggests that it could have reached Britain early and could be present in the Amesbury Archer. However, he favours the Roman legions as the cause of the distribution. Strangely, although he talks earlier about Hallstatt, he does not talk about DNA from the Iron Age period.

Jean M
10-30-2013, 12:16 PM
British palaeolithic / hunter gatherer DNA
P58: DNA representing Palaeolithic hunter gatherer colonisers after 9,600BC = in 500,00 men in Britain today:"250,000 carrying I-M284, a lineage common in South West France, while the remaining half carry I-M26, a marker that is now massively present in Sardinia at a frequency of 37% of all men on the island."


He really has no clue. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/haplogroupi.shtml

Haplogroup I is too young to have arrived in Europe with the first anatomically modern Homo, but it is almost restricted to those of European descent, so it probably arose in Europe from IJ sometime before the Last Glacial Maximum. But that does not mean that men in Britain carrying some form of I arrived in Britain in the Palaeolithic, or even the Mesolithic (which is what he really means with the date he gives). Haplogroup I1 in Britain seems to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic. I2a1a (M26) seems linked to Cardial Ware. How any of it got to Britain I couldn't say. Sailors, traders, etc. ?

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 12:40 PM
He really has no clue. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/haplogroupi.shtml

Haplogroup I is too young to have arrived in Europe with the first anatomically modern Homo, but it is almost restricted to those of European descent, so it probably arose in Europe from IJ sometime before the Last Glacial Maximum. But that does not mean that men in Britain carrying some form of I arrived in Britain in the Palaeolithic, or even the Mesolithic (which is what he really means with the date he gives). Haplogroup I1 in Britain seems to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic. I2a1a (M26) seems linked to Cardial Ware. How any of it got to Britain I couldn't say. Sailors, traders, etc. ?

My mistake using the term Palaeolithicabove - not his. He did talk a lot about the Palaeolithic but I did not end up putting any extracts from that period in.
With the limitations of TMRCA, variance, etc probably everybody who currently tries to make links between archaeology and dna will get some things right and some things wrong. What do you think he might have got right in those extracts?

Jean M
10-30-2013, 01:03 PM
Some background on Moffat and the controversies he has stirred up.

The drama started with an injudicious radio interview by Alistair Moffat in July 2012 promoting his collaboration with Jim Wilson. It demonstrated a poor grasp of genetics. Prof. Mark Thomas and his UCL colleague David Balding listened to it and asked questions of the Britain’s DNA scientific team; the questions have not been satisfactorily answered. Instead, a threat of legal action was issued by solicitors for Mr Moffat. The story went public in December 2012 on the blog Genomes Unzipped, under the heading "Exaggerations and errors in the promotion of genetic ancestry testing": http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2012/12/exaggerations-and-errors-in-the-promotion-of-genetic-ancestry-testing.php

Undeterred, Alistair Moffat gave a presentation at a Who Do You Think You Are roadshow. I quote someone present "It was excruciatingly painful to listen to, if you knew anything serious about Haplogroups and genetic diversity and movement." The chap I quote had given out two free tickets for Mark Thomas and David Balding to attend. It stoked the fires of grievance. The last straw was Jim Wilson's claim to the press in connection with said WDYTYA show that "One million Brits are 'descended from Romans' " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9888402/One-million-Brits-descended-from-Romans.html . This is on the basis of the marker R1b-U152/S28, which most probably arrived in Britain with La Tene. Prof. Mark Thomas is enraged by them and went into print in the Guardian in February this year to say so: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/feb/25/viking-ancestors-astrology

This provoked a response by other geneticists, who have a separate beef with Prof. Thomas: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?767-Unfair-to-compare-genetic-ancestry-testing-to-astrology

The most recent (I think) headline grabbing nonsense from Moffat was: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1015-A-controversial-theory-holds-invaders-from-Iberia-may-have-massacred-much-of-Ireland (Invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland).

alan
10-30-2013, 01:40 PM
I agree. IMO Moffat is like a tabloid writer the way he spins stuff. His crazy spin about Iberians wiping out the Irish so he could tap into the Milesian myth was a horrible bit of publicity seeking spin IMO because he must know that L21 is overwhelming in Ireland and DF27 is overwhelming in Atlantic Iberia and L21 cannot derive from DF27. He knows there is a market out there for a large amount of people who desperately want to believe that the Milesian myth has some truth in it. I lost all respect for him after that because he is either clueless or very cynical. I half expect some Atlantis survivor test next.


He really has no clue. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/haplogroupi.shtml

Haplogroup I is too young to have arrived in Europe with the first anatomically modern Homo, but it is almost restricted to those of European descent, so it probably arose in Europe from IJ sometime before the Last Glacial Maximum. But that does not mean that men in Britain carrying some form of I arrived in Britain in the Palaeolithic, or even the Mesolithic (which is what he really means with the date he gives). Haplogroup I1 in Britain seems to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic. I2a1a (M26) seems linked to Cardial Ware. How any of it got to Britain I couldn't say. Sailors, traders, etc. ?

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 02:28 PM
Undeterred, Alistair Moffat gave a presentation at a Who Do You Think You Are roadshow. I quote someone present "It was excruciatingly painful to listen to, if you knew anything serious about Haplogroups and genetic diversity and movement." The chap I quote had given out two free tickets for Mark Thomas and David Balding to attend. It stoked the fires of grievance. The last straw was Jim Wilson's claim to the press in connection with said WDYTYA show that "One million Brits are 'descended from Romans' " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9888402/One-million-Brits-descended-from-Romans.html . This is on the basis of the marker R1b-U152/S28, which most probably arrived in Britain with La Tene. Prof. Mark Thomas is enraged by them and went into print in the Guardian in February this year to say so: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/feb/25/viking-ancestors-astrology

This provoked a response by other geneticists, who have a separate beef with Prof. Thomas: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?767-Unfair-to-compare-genetic-ancestry-testing-to-astrology

The most recent (I think) headline grabbing nonsense from Moffat was: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1015-A-controversial-theory-holds-invaders-from-Iberia-may-have-massacred-much-of-Ireland (Invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland).

I am familiar with the 'controversies' but I do not see that as a reason to reject everything he writes.

If you refer to his presentation at WDYTYA 2013 - yes I was at that too. I was very disappointed because he did not mention any specific DNA at any point in his talk. He just told a general history story - and some in the audience really enjoyed it (not me).

However, if you read his book he does give examples of disease being a big killer when new people arrive in an area, and of the impact of volcanic activity. He does exagerate the possible genocide of Irish farmers (I too find his spin tiresome). However, in the context of the book, he is clearly seems to be suggesting that around the period of the arrival of L21 there was a big impact on existing populations - violence, disease and climate/environmental factors all taken together in that general period of time. I actually agree with that - although not necessarily the scale of decline as population would still have been relatively small. From published studies there clearly was a period of population decline during the Neolithic in Ireland. The growth and decline of population during the Irish Neolithic was clearly a complex affair.

And yes, U152 probably first arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age. We all have our opinions - and only some will turn out to be right.

Jean M
10-30-2013, 02:57 PM
I cannot review a book I have not read. It is of course perfectly possible that Moffat has got something right somewhere, but I'm spending my money on other publications.


violence, disease and climate/environmental factors all taken together in that general period of time.

Yes indeed there have been several papers on boom and bust in the European Neolithic - at different dates in different places. I cite a number of them.


yes, U152 probably first arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age.

Might have done, but I plump for La Tene (Iron Age) as the most likely major influx. As you say - we await ancient DNA for confirmation of our deductions. You sensibly asked for opinions, not concrete in-the-ground proof, which none of us has at the moment.

J1 DYS388=13
10-30-2013, 03:15 PM
I notice that Dr. Jim Wilson was not a co-author of this book.

Net Down G5L
10-30-2013, 05:33 PM
I notice that Dr. Jim Wilson was not a co-author of this book.

No - not even an acknowledgement.

alan
10-30-2013, 05:49 PM
I have an open mind on U152's arrival although my suspicion is it didnt reach the channel coast until after L21 had had some time to get dominant in much of the isles. My best guess is similar to Jean's. I am pretty convinced though that U106 didnt make any impact much before the Roman period. Believe me by habit I like to test the non-favourite theories but I do think the fall away of U106 today has such a strong correlation with the Celtic/Romance-German boundaries that it looks almost too contrary to not accept the U106-Germanic correlation until any evidence comes up to challenge it. There is variance evidence that U106 may have been a latecomer to the Rhine which may well explain why it didnt seem to make much of a showing in non or late Germanicised populations in Britain and Gaul.

J1 DYS388=13
10-30-2013, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by J1 DYS388=13
I notice that Dr. Jim Wilson was not a co-author of this book.

No - not even an acknowledgement.

Does the book at least reference academic papers as sources?

GoldenHind
10-30-2013, 06:19 PM
Moffat suggests that U106 has been in Britain since the Bronze age. I agree with that as a probability. The pattern of U106 matches Anglo Saxon 'invasion'. But it also matches, for example, the extent of Celtic Field and the extent of Iron Age hillforts. I see no reason why it must only be due to the Anglo Saxon 'invasion'.



That U106 may have first arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age has been my position for some years, but it has gained me a great deal of emnity from others. I think at the very least it should be considered as an open possibility. Yet every time any variety of U106 is found in areas which are difficult to reconcile with the Anglo-Saxon incursions, some people will jump through hoops to find ways to explain it away. I think the problem is that the earlier U106 has largely been masked by much larger numbers arriving later with the Anglo-Saxons.

alan
10-30-2013, 06:29 PM
I understand Moffat has mighty impressive background - has a history and other degrees but was then organiser of the Edinburgh Festival, a top TV man and all sorts. Seems to be a clever and obviously very well connected Media guy with an interest in Politics etc but he seems to have spent most of his life doing what sound like high flying jobs with nothing to do with what he is now dabbling. Like it or not you only have one life and that sort of CV does have a massive impact on how much time studying in his current areas of interests he could have done compared to someone like a Jim Mallory who has spend nearly half a century researching these areas.

Jean M
10-30-2013, 07:08 PM
A undergraduate history degree does not qualify anyone to become an historian. Or perhaps I should say that the usual route into research is a PhD. Moffat is not an academic historian. His great gift is for conjuring up the past in a colourful and captivating way. I can well imagine him doing a ripping job on relatively recent times, where there is plenty of easily accessible evidence. He over-reached himself by trying to push back into prehistory. That was my impression from the only book of his I have read: The Scots: A Genetic Journey.

J1 DYS388=13
10-30-2013, 07:50 PM
I think I'll give that book a miss. But thanks Net Down for the notes.

R.Rocca
10-30-2013, 08:14 PM
I have an open mind on U152's arrival although my suspicion is it didnt reach the channel coast until after L21 had had some time to get dominant in much of the isles. My best guess is similar to Jean's. I am pretty convinced though that U106 didnt make any impact much before the Roman period. Believe me by habit I like to test the non-favourite theories but I do think the fall away of U106 today has such a strong correlation with the Celtic/Romance-German boundaries that it looks almost too contrary to not accept the U106-Germanic correlation until any evidence comes up to challenge it. There is variance evidence that U106 may have been a latecomer to the Rhine which may well explain why it didnt seem to make much of a showing in non or late Germanicised populations in Britain and Gaul.

U152 is sometimes seen as a La Tene marker in the Isles. However, U152 is not at all frequent in Ireland (perhaps half as frequent as U106). Isn't La Tene material plentiful in Ireland making a U152 lead La Tene migration in the isles unlikely?

Jean M
10-30-2013, 08:23 PM
Isn't La Tene material plentiful in Ireland

Not as much so as in Britain. It appears almost exclusively in the northern half of the country and probably arrived via northern Britain, rather than direct from the Continent. My guess is that M222 (from northern Britain) is more the La Tene marker in Ireland.

I think we tend to link La Tene to Ireland because the artistic tradition continued there, whereas it sank beneath the Roman tide within the empire.

alan
10-30-2013, 08:42 PM
One thing not mentioned often is that the Picts were P-Celts but the area of Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde line in the eastern half of the country which is considered their heartland is very very poor in La Tene material, making Ireland look rich is such material in comparison. What little La Tene material there is is almost all very late stuff from the 1st century AD. There is a sprikling of trinkets like fibulae in Brochs etc but its not much. I was at a conference on the Iron Age in Scotland years back and the general conclusion was that Iron Age Scotland was monument rich and high status find poor while Ireland was the opposite.

alan
10-30-2013, 08:53 PM
I think there is no direct correlation in a meaningful sense. I am not sure for example that U152 is especially dominant in the area of Champagne-Mosselle origin area of the early La Tene chiefdoms or the Bourges offshoot in the Loire. So, I dont think it can really make that claim. Besides it was clearly spread by a complex mixture of migration and non-migratory elite interaction. Its probably fairer to say that U152 was central European/Alpine and therefore had a chance of being included when genes accompanied cultural impulses from that area. I have a feeling it started to intrude up towards Belgium and central France in the late Bronze Age but I think it was just an element in a very mixed group. However, its guessology.


U152 is sometimes seen as a La Tene marker in the Isles. However, U152 is not at all frequent in Ireland (perhaps half as frequent as U106). Isn't La Tene material plentiful in Ireland making a U152 lead La Tene migration in the isles unlikely?

R.Rocca
10-31-2013, 12:28 AM
I think there is no direct correlation in a meaningful sense. I am not sure for example that U152 is especially dominant in the area of Champagne-Mosselle origin area of the early La Tene chiefdoms or the Bourges offshoot in the Loire. So, I dont think it can really make that claim. Besides it was clearly spread by a complex mixture of migration and non-migratory elite interaction. Its probably fairer to say that U152 was central European/Alpine and therefore had a chance of being included when genes accompanied cultural impulses from that area. I have a feeling it started to intrude up towards Belgium and central France in the late Bronze Age but I think it was just an element in a very mixed group. However, its guessology.

U152 was alive and well all along the Rhine during the Bell Beaker period and was likely the most frequent subclade of P312 there just as it is today.

alan
10-31-2013, 01:30 AM
You sound very sure - have you bought a time machine :O)

I agree it was on the Rhine but I am not so sure about the Lower Rhine given its modest showing in many areas with Rhenish beakers including many part of the isles and northern Holland. I would not say it wasnt there but I doubt it was a big player in the Lower Rhine. I see U152 as slowly increasing in the north as the Bronze Age reached its later phases and central European influences gradually got stronger and stronger in France, Belgium etc from the Urnfield period onwards.


U152 was alive and well all along the Rhine during the Bell Beaker period and was likely the most frequent subclade of P312 there just as it is today.

alan
10-31-2013, 01:45 AM
To me U152 is a very poor match for the Lower-Rhine beaker groups but bears a very strong resemblance to the French Rhine-Suisse-France Orientatal Urnfield expansion. North Atlantic distinctiveness slowly was pushed back progressively from that period onwards.

R.Rocca
10-31-2013, 02:09 AM
You sound very sure - have you bought a time machine :O)

I agree it was on the Rhine but I am not so sure about the Lower Rhine given its modest showing in many areas with Rhenish beakers including many part of the isles and northern Holland. I would not say it wasnt there but I doubt it was a big player in the Lower Rhine. I see U152 as slowly increasing in the north as the Bronze Age reached its later phases and central European influences gradually got stronger and stronger in France, Belgium etc from the Urnfield period onwards.

A modest showing also is an apt description of L21's modern day frequency. What makes you think the modest day showing of L21 in Holland made it a big player in the Lower Rhine during the Bell beaker period, but that the same logic cannot not be applied to other P312 subclades?

Jean M
10-31-2013, 11:04 AM
U152 has a different type of distribution from L21. It spreads all around from a central density point. That sort of distribution suggests a population much more static than we would expect in a period of major migration. I picture it filtering slowly outwards from a point of origin over many centuries. Once that gradual spread had reached a fairly wide area, then migrations from anywhere within that area would include U152. As Alan says, we would not expect it to be the only haplogroup caught up in any such migration, because it nowhere reaches that kind of level of dominance. But it is a very useful marker for the Iron Age movements of the Gauls. It turns up in Central Anatolia, for example, where the Galatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia) settled. So why not in other regions settled by Gauls in the Iron Age?

R.Rocca
11-01-2013, 12:01 PM
U152 has a different type of distribution from L21. It spreads all around from a central density point. That sort of distribution suggests a population much more static than we would expect in a period of major migration. I picture it filtering slowly outwards from a point of origin over many centuries. Once that gradual spread had reached a fairly wide area, then migrations from anywhere within that area would include U152. As Alan says, we would not expect it to be the only haplogroup caught up in any such migration, because it nowhere reaches that kind of level of dominance. But it is a very useful marker for the Iron Age movements of the Gauls. It turns up in Central Anatolia, for example, where the Galatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia) settled. So why not in other regions settled by Gauls in the Iron Age?

Can't we say the same about L21? The only thing keeping its distribution from being considered as being "spread all around from a central density point" is the North Atlantic.

Net Down G5L
11-01-2013, 12:43 PM
Can't we say the same about L21? The only thing keeping its distribution from being considered as being "spread all around from a central density point" is the North Atlantic.

Between 2450BC and 2250BC pre-barrow beakers and then beakers with barrow burials arrived in Southern England. In the early 20th century archaeologists called these invaders from Amorica due to the archaeological links - then invasion went out of fashion (P312/L21 spreading from a central point?).

About 2250 BC (?) the Wessex 1 barrow burials started to arrive and conflict with existing beakers. the Wessex folk cremated their dead. Were these people invaders (from the east?) and if so where exactly from? Cremations were traditional in Hungary. But a can not find clear evidence of a migration of the cremation practice in the late Neolithic / early Bronze Age timeframe.
Does anyone know the possible origin / route of the 'import of this practice' -(I am looking for solid academic references, because I can not find them myself)?

If we can pin this down we can then consider the DNA implications.

TigerMW
11-01-2013, 12:51 PM
Can't we say the same about L21? The only thing keeping its distribution from being considered as being "spread all around from a central density point" is the North Atlantic.

I agree with you, Richard. We can not make assessments based on modern distribution patterns, stand-alone. We have to link them to archaeology or history and that is problematic since the people didn't know what genes they had. I'm not saying we'd shouldn't try or that we shouldn't speculate, but we just have to recognize what it is - speculation.

I think there is hope in understanding diversity patterns, but STR variance is so close amongst many of these geographies and there may have been massive migrations that carried diversity with them. This approach has its severe limitations.

I think a better approach will ultimately be available through a dearth of new SNPs documenting the phylogenetic tree. We can use comparative methods using the phylogenetic tree. Within the Isles themselves, and possibly touching on northern France, I think we are getting there on L21. However, I think Germany might be prove interesting yet, along with southeastern France, Switzerland maybe even northern Italy. The only reasons I say that are the L21 hotspots in Bologna, SE France and some anomalies in my own haplogroup, L513, in Germany... also that Z253 that shows up in places like Switzerland and the Pyrenees.

um.. just thought of something on Z253. They are the L21 dose of guys along the Tin Road/Aquitaine, but there is a very prolific element of Z253, L226, that is about as Irish as you can get, clearly Munster focused and often associated with the Dalcassians. Does Munster have any particular affinities to tin?

Jean M
11-01-2013, 01:05 PM
We can not make assessments based on modern distribution patterns, stand-alone. We have to link them to archaeology or history ...

You are absolutely right. I am ignoring the hot spot in Brittany in looking at L21, because this is most likely the result of the known outpouring of Britons which changed the name of Armorica to Brittany. I am also ignoring the lower levels in southern Britain, as these are pretty clearly due to known incoming Belgae, Anglo-Saxons etc.

We must be sensible in interpreting all modern distributions, because the original pattern will have been disturbed by subsequent movement. For example there is a notable break (or drop) in the distribution of Y-DNA R1a where the steppe corridor cuts through it, which we can easily interpret because of known migrations along that corridor.

Jean M
11-01-2013, 01:12 PM
We can use comparative methods using the phylogenetic tree.

I agree entirely that this has huge potential to track movement, along with ancient DNA.

alan
11-01-2013, 01:33 PM
Rich - I am just guessing. IMO the entire R1b pattern in Holland has been altered since late prehistory by U106, especially north/east of the Rhine and along the coast. I suspect L21 once dominated the north Atlantic Bronze Age zone but may have not penetrated all that far inland. I think in a zone where maritime skills matter, central European have major issues making an impact. My feeling about L21's dominance in the isles is that it was the branch of P312 that had the sort of Maritime skills needed in the north Atlantic and to cross to the isles. The Med. is like a millpond compared to the Atlantic. In fact there can be no real doubt about a link between L21 and domination of the north Atlantic seaway at least as far as the Rhine.

A very valid question would be where did these people pick up those skills? The main evidence for this is not in the rather confusing and mixed picture we get from isles beakers, burial types and objects. The most clearcut aspect is the network of metal trade first using the Ross Island Fahlore, Irish Gold and then then in all probabilily Cornish Tin. You can see that the network indicated by this phase of metalwork distribution included Ireland, Britain and northern France and lightly scattered beyond towards the Lower Rhine could only have happened if a group of beaker people in the period 2400-2000BC had a network based on maritime ability.

That this network existed was presumably to supply a zone that was otherwise a stretch to reach from other sources. Maritime beaker is known as far as the Loire and a little in Brittany but it was at the extreme northern end of strong evidence for that network. The evidence for mining in Brittany itself, despite some sources is not strong as yet. So, IMO the L21 networks main function may have been to supply copper, gold and later also tin to a zone that was remote from the sources in Iberia and the Alps. My feeling is that L21 in the beaker phase had a distribution rather similar to the much later Atlantic Bronze Age minus Atlantic Iberia and probably ran from Atlantic France to the Rhine mainly along the coast and the lower ends of the north flowing rivers. Further inland in France and central Europe in general I have doubts L21 was a major factor.

After the initial copper age beaker phase this L21 network's importance may have been sustained by having rare tin within its power more than copper as central European copper became more important as the beaker phase progressed even in the isles. The inclusion of NW France may have also been a source of tin. Later the lead in that area may have been useful too.

The other aspect would have been middlemen. I suspect Wessex was important in that role lying as it did within reach of NW France and between central European trade coming up the Thames and other materials coming from the west. We often think of Holland as important in terms of beakers but they had no metal sources to offer and the beaker settlements must surely have been middlemen similar to SE England who passed western metals east and south and central European metals west.

I think if I am honest that I would expect a complex situation in pre-U106 Holland with a mixture of L21, U152, DF27 etc given that role on a major highway between Atlantic and central Europe but I think proportions would vary a lot depending on which part of the Rhine we are talking about. I think in the past there was a tendency for middlemen to enclaves of outsiders who were from the intended destination of trade. That makes practical sense to me as it is only middlemen from the intended destination who know the intended destination well. However, that might produce a confusing pattern. For example middlemen bringing Irish copper and gold to Britain and the continent opposite were likely from Britain and the continent. Middlemen bringing cornish tin might have been from a variety of locations along the opposite shores where tin was in demand. Middlemen bringing continental copper to the isles might have been British people located in the Rhine mouth. The Wessex culture probably had its early roots in beaker middlemen between the Rhine and western routes. The extreme SE of England might have had middlemen from Wessex. The detail would depend of source-destination patterns which changed over time too.

My guess for the origins of L21 is among a group who had been operating as middlemen from somewhere metal-poor and at the very end of the continental supply chains coming form Iberia, the Alps and eastern Europe. They mau have come from the metal-poor area seeking sources by trade. So, we should perhaps look as far away as possible from the early beaker metal sources rather than towards them.

If you apply this kind of model it could turn the entire beaker phenomenon and interpretation of the clade patterns on its head.


A modest showing also is an apt description of L21's modern day frequency. What makes you think the modest day showing of L21 in Holland made it a big player in the Lower Rhine during the Bell beaker period, but that the same logic cannot not be applied to other P312 subclades?

alan
11-01-2013, 02:57 PM
OK thinking a little out of the box, seeing beaker period clades as the spread of middlemen enclave groups rather than actual metal production creates some totally different expectations.

1. Firstly, the origin of the main spreading phase of the phenomenon would be among the seekers rather than the producers. It is the seekers, not the primary producers who know where the metal is needed in terms of specifics. Beaker metal sources sometimes had pre-beaker roots and it has been argued that other than extending the geographical range beaker did not contribute a lot to copper technology. So, the middlemen role may have been the most important aspect of the beaker culture in its developed state.

2. Groups of middle men might have set up enclaves close to metal sources or in useful nodes between the source and home in order to create a supply for their origin points. They bring their y lines with them. These middlemen are welcomed as providing outlets to supply areas where metal has more value than at source. Iberia in particular has pre-beaker copper age with hallmarks of copper not having much status at home and being more of a trading commodity to get other exotica from elsewhere.

3. The first sources people may have moved towards could have been pre-beaker - Liguria etc. This area at least has a link to a culture, Remedello, which does seem to show signs of pretty wide networking. They would not settle at the source but at useful points to act as middlemen. Hence the cultures strongest areas are often at a remove from ore sources. We see this in north Italy and the southern Alps in pre-beaker times.

4. There is strong radiocarbon evidence for the closure of the Ligurian mines around the beaker period, placing the locals in north Italy further from metal sources. Middlemen moving towards new sources would be desirable. There is also good evidence that the newly arrived corded ware people around Switzerland and the Rhine were a bit of a stretch from the ore sources that culture used.

5. Perhaps these groups around the western Alps and north-west Italy sent out middlemen to Atlantic Iberia and towards Hungary, perhaps establishing enclaves and creating two-way networks in which yDNA moved closer to the ore sources or some nice nodal point in between. It is possible that groups also moved to the west-central European ore sources to act as middlemen too and ultimately to the isles.

6.Admittedly the isles is a little different in that it appears that mining skills were brought to Ireland in particular. However, mining skills and primary metallurgical knowledge existed across a wide swath of pre-beaker Europe so their is plenty of scenarios where that skillset could have also been present.

7. DF27 could be due to a subset of P312 Alpine peoples acting as middlemen for Iberian ore. That would create a two way flow - I have suggested before that a reverse flow of mtDNA through alliance marriages that guaranteed the metal flowing the other way could have tracked back to source and beyond. U152 could have spread similarly by alternative sources being sought in the Czech-Slovak, Carpathian and north Alpine sort of areas by Alpine peoples. The concept matters more than the details. Again females from the Alps might have flowed north, some of them being themselves from Iberian sources in the previous generations.

8. L21 clearly has a distribution that would make sense in my middlemen model if they originated in the areas where we see the early flow of Irish gold and copper and subsequenly British tin. The distribution maps of these objects other than in Ireland are in Britain and along the other side of the English channel overwhelmingly. So, it would make sense if the source population who sent middlemen all over the isles (only one mine is dated to this era so it was also mainly middlemen) are seen in the scatter of receiving groups of early Irish-British beaker metal along the south channel.

9. The continental side of the English channel was probably one of the remotest places from the known beaker period metal sources in Iberia and central Europe so a wish to link into a new metal source via middlemen in the isles and along the south channel coast might have appealed to groups in metal-poor area like northern France and the Low Countries.

10. This logic can be extended ad infinitum. For example the guys in rich beaker Wessex would appear to be middlemen far from source but who probably had a role in distributing the Irish metals and later cornish tin. However, who would they be serving? Well the really metal poor areas were eastern Britain and the Low Countries. So, middlemen from there in eastern Britain also makes sense. What about the reverse? Well slightly later in the beaker period continental copper sources flowed the other way into the isles and probably came from central Europe via the Rhine. The Lower Rhine was the perfect position for an isles enclave to locate itself to establish links and take metal back. The Dutch themselves were copper poor and may have at varying times and geographies sent enclaves to Britain to bring back British ore or sent enclaves down the Rhine.

11. This model needs more work and you can see right away that it is a bit mind boggling in terms of its implications for clade distribution. However, I think it may be correct and explain some of the anomalies in tying R1b to beaker. Its clear that many of the richest beaker elites were middlemen rather than primary extractors of metal. For example in Wessex, the Rhine, the Csepel groups etc a role originating as a middleman enclave. Such a model also explains why beaker people tended to take on characteristics that were a blend of local and foreign. It may explain a counterflow of mt DNA and also cultural flow. Also, what is outstandingly different about the beaker culture its outward looking nature, its ability to spread into existing cultures etc rather than any actual strong links with new copper technology, extraction technology etc.

alan
11-01-2013, 03:09 PM
Cremation was pretty traditional in the isles right up until the beaker period and continued as at least one option in the beaker period in Ireland and Scotland anyway as far as I recall. So, there is no need to look far for explanations for cremation. A number of isles food vessel and urn burial traditions at the end of the beaker period look very much like and adaption of beaker traditions to local pre-beaker traditions to me. Remember that the people we see in beaker barrows were probably a tiny minority of the population.


Between 2450BC and 2250BC pre-barrow beakers and then beakers with barrow burials arrived in Southern England. In the early 20th century archaeologists called these invaders from Amorica due to the archaeological links - then invasion went out of fashion (P312/L21 spreading from a central point?).

About 2250 BC (?) the Wessex 1 barrow burials started to arrive and conflict with existing beakers. the Wessex folk cremated their dead. Were these people invaders (from the east?) and if so where exactly from? Cremations were traditional in Hungary. But a can not find clear evidence of a migration of the cremation practice in the late Neolithic / early Bronze Age timeframe.
Does anyone know the possible origin / route of the 'import of this practice' -(I am looking for solid academic references, because I can not find them myself)?

If we can pin this down we can then consider the DNA implications.

alan
11-01-2013, 03:25 PM
Cremation was pretty traditional in the isles right up until the beaker period and continued as at least one option in the beaker period in Ireland and Scotland anyway as far as I recall. So, there is no need to look far for explanations for cremation. A number of isles food vessel and urn burial traditions at the end of the beaker period look very much like and adaption of beaker traditions to local pre-beaker traditions to me. Remember that the people we see in beaker barrows were probably a tiny minority of the population.


Between 2450BC and 2250BC pre-barrow beakers and then beakers with barrow burials arrived in Southern England. In the early 20th century archaeologists called these invaders from Amorica due to the archaeological links - then invasion went out of fashion (P312/L21 spreading from a central point?).

About 2250 BC (?) the Wessex 1 barrow burials started to arrive and conflict with existing beakers. the Wessex folk cremated their dead. Were these people invaders (from the east?) and if so where exactly from? Cremations were traditional in Hungary. But a can not find clear evidence of a migration of the cremation practice in the late Neolithic / early Bronze Age timeframe.
Does anyone know the possible origin / route of the 'import of this practice' -(I am looking for solid academic references, because I can not find them myself)?

If we can pin this down we can then consider the DNA implications.

alan
11-01-2013, 04:09 PM
yDNA is clearly a palimpsest so I agree you need every tool you can get your hands on to have any chance of making sense of it - phylogeny, variance, frequency, archaeology, linguistics, climate, history etc. I think combining some of these things has produced good understandings of possibilities.

For example U106 in particular where the variance, frequency by linguistic barrier, history and archaeology has all combined to make it clear that at least most of it west of the Rhine and in the isles is down to Germanic migration - probably about as clear as you could dare to hope for after the passing of all that time. A lot of other clades are less clear though. Without combining the various strands of information there would be a lot more doubt IMO.


I agree with you, Richard. We can not make assessments based on modern distribution patterns, stand-alone. We have to link them to archaeology or history and that is problematic since the people didn't know what genes they had. I'm not saying we'd should try or that we shouldn't speculate, but we just have to recognize what it is - speculation.

I think there is hope in understanding diversity patterns, but STR variance is so close amongst many of these geographies and there may have been massive migrations that carried diversity with them. This approach has its severe limitations.

I think a better approach will ultimately be available through a dearth of new SNPs documenting the phylogenetic tree. We can use comparative methods using the phylogenetic tree. Within the Isles themselves, and possibly touching on northern France, I think we are getting there on L21. However, I think Germany might be prove interesting yet, along with southeastern France, Switzerland maybe even northern Italy. The only reasons I say that are the L21 hotspots in Bologna, SE France and some anomalies in my own haplogroup, L513, in Germany... also that Z253 that shows up in places like Switzerland and the Pyrenees.

um.. just thought of something on Z253. They are the L21 dose of guys along the Tin Road/Aquitaine, but there is a very prolific element of Z253, L226, that is about as Irish as you can get, clearly Munster focused and often associated with the Dalcassians. Does Munster have any particular affinities to tin?

Arcturus.Iuventus
11-05-2013, 07:27 AM
So not true (the need for a time machine). There is more than enough sufficient time to allow for a few days, weeks, months, and years of coastal navigation back and forth in between those two periods mentioned. Furthermore, we should consider the shorelines of Northern Europe at this time as well; the Baltic Sea and North Sea may have been smaller than what we see today. I'm impressed when I see Bronze Age shipwrecks in Britain with artifacts from some pretty far flung places such as Northern Africa. Why should it be any different from the Baltic to Britain?

Jean M
11-05-2013, 11:46 AM
@ Arcturus Iuventus

The time machine would only be needed to spread Bell Beaker pottery and technology from a place where it was late to a place where it was early i.e. the initial arrival of the culture. Trade is another matter. Travel between the far-flung Bell Beaker groups definitely went on, once those colonies were established. That includes Baltic or Scandinavian amber arriving in Britain. That does not imply a major migration from the Baltic to Britain. That was not the major direction of flow.

alan
11-06-2013, 10:51 AM
I can see why Brittany is problematic but from all the L21 experts I have got the impression that it overwhelmingly doesnt have British matches which leads me to believe that the movement of Britons was really history repeating itself using a well established route and most of the L21 there is not British derived.


You are absolutely right. I am ignoring the hot spot in Brittany in looking at L21, because this is most likely the result of the known outpouring of Britons which changed the name of Armorica to Brittany. I am also ignoring the lower levels in southern Britain, as these are pretty clearly due to known incoming Belgae, Anglo-Saxons etc.

We must be sensible in interpreting all modern distributions, because the original pattern will have been disturbed by subsequent movement. For example there is a notable break (or drop) in the distribution of Y-DNA R1a where the steppe corridor cuts through it, which we can easily interpret because of known migrations along that corridor.

Jean M
11-06-2013, 11:18 AM
I have got the impression that it overwhelmingly doesn't have British matches..

That would be absolutely astonishing if true. Watch me fall off my chair in amazement if a scholarly paper is published which proves that no L21 in Brittany is derived from or similar to that in Cornwall. So far there are a few L21 with a Breton origin in the http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/ project. I do not see them clustered into a separate group marked "weird, incomprehensible, totally different from British, no Cornish matches".

alan
11-06-2013, 11:46 AM
I dont really look into matching etc myself but Rich and Mike have said often that they dont have the sort of matching you would expect from a historic period movement which is in contrast to the matching L21 tends to have across the isles. Obviously some must be due to British movement but the lack of matching apparently suggests a much older connection. As you know, the connections with NW France and the isles has a very long prehistory. I would have to defer to Rich and Mike on this as I basically never look at STRs myself.


That would be absolutely astonishing if true. Watch me fall off my chair in amazement if a scholarly paper is published which proves that no L21 in Brittany is derived from or similar to that in Cornwall. So far there are a few L21 with a Breton origin in the http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/ project. I do not see them clustered into a separate group marked "weird, incomprehensible, totally different from British, no Cornish matches".

Jean M
11-06-2013, 11:52 AM
I think it might be wise to wait for an academic study using scientific sampling and SNPs. The ban on DNA testing in France has left us with limited data from there via direct-to-consumer companies. The historic and linguistic evidence of Brittany being settled by Britons is overwhelming. You would need to have really astonishing genetic data to overturn that.

[Added] I don't mean to imply that the influx of Britons represented a complete male replacement. The picture is liable to be complex.

I see that there is an FTDNA Brittany project with some SNP testing under L21, which is a start: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Bretagne/

R.Rocca
11-06-2013, 12:52 PM
I think it might be wise to wait for an academic study using scientific sampling and SNPs. The ban on DNA testing in France has left us with limited data from there via direct-to-consumer companies. The historic and linguistic evidence of Brittany being settled by Britons is overwhelming. You would need to have really astonishing genetic data to overturn that.

[Added] I don't mean to imply that the influx of Britons represented a complete male replacement. The picture is liable to be complex.

I see that there is an FTDNA Brittany project with some SNP testing under L21, which is a start: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Bretagne/

It looks like Basque country has the third highest modern frequency after the Isles and Brittany. Perhaps the L21 SNPs that are pre-Briton in Brittany can be attributed to an earlier migration that carried L21 to Basque Country and the rest are Briton diaspora? I would imagine that the earliest time period for the migration into modern day Basque Country would be the Atlantic Bronze Age.

Jean M
11-06-2013, 01:44 PM
It looks like Basque country has the third highest modern frequency after the Isles and Brittany.

That is not showing on the map of L21 which you provided for my book. Where has this data come from? Are you referring to the Spanish Basque Country? That appears to have been settled by Basque-speakers from France in the Post-Roman period.

R.Rocca
11-06-2013, 01:56 PM
That is not showing on the map of L21 which you provided for my book. Where has this data come from? Are you referring to the Spanish Basque Country? That appears to have been settled by Basque-speakers from France in the Post-Roman period.

This was seen in the Martínez-Cruz (2012) study which came out after the Myres (2010) and Busby (2011) studies.

Jean M
11-06-2013, 02:03 PM
I do cite the Martínez-Cruz (2012) study. I think that is where I got the figure of L21 in c. 20% of Basque-speakers.

[Added] or is it? I'm looking at the table, which shows the highest percentage as 13.

R.Rocca
11-06-2013, 02:06 PM
I do cite the Martínez-Cruz (2012) study. That was of the Spanish Basque Country.

Correct, those frequencies and that of other non-Isles L21 frequencies were discussed here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1222-L21-hotspots-that-aren-t-British-Isles-or-Bretagne&p=11565&viewfull=1#post11565

Jean M
11-06-2013, 02:32 PM
The R1b in the Basques also has its own thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1370-What-about-the-all-of-the-R1b-in-the-Basques

alan
11-06-2013, 04:23 PM
When you look closely at the chronology of the Atlantic Bronze Age phenomenon via its metalwork its earliest in the north. The badly named 'Atlantic Iron Age' book discusses this in detail. The phenomenon was basically about central European ideas reaching metalworking nodes in the isles and NW France via the Rhine and Loire and then after spinning them to local tastes the metalwork and/or ideas spread south down the Atlantic from there. Atlantic France south of the Loire was a later expansion and Iberia even later. Indeed, the concept of a phenomenon c. 1300-800BC is misleading as the phenomenon of interaction between Britian, NW France and central Europe had been going on for ages since at least 2000BC with the Wessex-Armonican Dagger-Unetice contacts and had never ceased.

The novel thing about he Atlantic Bronze Age was that about 300 years into its existence it also spread to Atlantic Iberia, creating an indirect link with Central Europe via Atlantic France that had been missing for 1000 years. It appears to have created a major economic stimulus in Atlantic Iberia after a long period of being a very isolated area with very little evidence for heirarchy. The timing is pretty close to the first contacts in SW Iberia with Phoenicians and I strongly suspect that some leap in naval technology was involved in this new connection i.e the sail.

So, IMO its far more likely that the spread was north-south if indeed the Atlantic Bronze Age was migratory. I doubt there was much migration given the lack of L21 in the more involved areas like Portugal. The centre-west area between the Loire and Garrone seems more involved than the modern Basque areas anyway in the Atlantic Bronze Age. There is strong evidence that the Basques were displaced from Aquitania in Gaul anyway and they could have brought a mix of clades from there including L21 and they may not have been the only refugees. The Basque country in Spain is a natural retreat zone rather than an origin point of anything IMO.
There autosomal genetics do not generally link them with other L21 areas either so I think its just a male line that got lucky in the AD era.


I do agree though that the value of the Basque group is potentially it is indirect evidence of L21 in more southerly parts of Atlantic Gaul.


It looks like Basque country has the third highest modern frequency after the Isles and Brittany. Perhaps the L21 SNPs that are pre-Briton in Brittany can be attributed to an earlier migration that carried L21 to Basque Country and the rest are Briton diaspora? I would imagine that the earliest time period for the migration into modern day Basque Country would be the Atlantic Bronze Age.

TigerMW
11-06-2013, 09:35 PM
I think it might be wise to wait for an academic study using scientific sampling and SNPs. The ban on DNA testing in France has left us with limited data from there via direct-to-consumer companies. The historic and linguistic evidence of Brittany being settled by Britons is overwhelming. You would need to have really astonishing genetic data to overturn that.

[Added] I don't mean to imply that the influx of Britons represented a complete male replacement. The picture is liable to be complex.

I see that there is an FTDNA Brittany project with some SNP testing under L21, which is a start: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Bretagne/

I clearly would not argue against some kind of migration of Britons into Bretagne during the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era... of course there was. The language and history speaks for itself.

However, I don't think we can assume that L21 did not already have a significant presence in Bretagne, and/or that other L21 came in later.

You are right, since the data is too limited we just don't know. Here is anecdotal look at L21 Bretagne from the only folks who list Bretagne specific MDKAs.

f233265 Le Gall 253-2534- uas
f290162 Le Gall 253-2534- uas
f264254 Le Gall 253-2534- uas
fN56523 Le Bras 253-2534-2185-1066- uas
fN66966 Gery X1363-6919- uas
f117607 Feunteun z1017
f147885 Laumenech z43714
f72148 dit Laliberte z56511-13
fN32273 LeRoy z56511-13
fE11062 Tatard z5651115
fN98545 Le Guennec zDF13unassigned
f175379 Bodet zL21unassigned
fN69948 De Quelen zL21unassigned
f231728 Dussault zL21unassigned
fE8944 Huet zL21unassigned
fN16093 Jacques zL21unassigned
f225950 Kerochiou zL21unassigned
f63279 Le Com zL21unassigned
f36204 Martin dit Pelland zL21unassigned
fN81310 Sebille zL21unassigned


The "uas" stands for unassigned also. The above generally "stand-alone" as far as being unable to associate with Isles folks. A couple of them are the tips of little French clusters. For instance, the closest guy I can find to Tatard is a guy without an MKDA location but his name is Thibault.

The interesting exception as far as an Isles connection is f117607 Feunteun z1017. This cluster/variety I call z1017 is bit a loose so it is speculative. The other two surnames in it are Howell and Lewis, very Welsh-like. Feunteun's closest GD to them is 12 at 67, which isn't very strong but it is what one might expect for a family that might have branched off 1500-2000 years ago.

All in all, I can't say there is genetic evidence to support that the majority of L21 in Bretagne is from Britain. My speculation is that Brythonic incomers settled and dominated successful colonies in Bretagne but over time the integration with the local or other incoming Gauls washed them out quite a bit. I wouldn't want to try to put any percentages on any such speculations. One consideration for language change to Brythonic in Bretagne might be the escapees from Britain potentially had higher proportions of women than men. Has anyone compared mt DNA between Wales and Bretagne? I contend that modern Wales is a better proxy for Old Britain than Cornwall.

An alternative view is that the L21 Bretons could represent mostly branches that died out in Britain. I'm away from my home computer. What's the direct comparison of Wales L21 frequency versus Bretagne L21 frequency?


That would be absolutely astonishing if true. Watch me fall off my chair in amazement if a scholarly paper is published which proves that no L21 in Brittany is derived from or similar to that in Cornwall... ... [In the L21 project]
I do not see them clustered into a separate group marked "weird, incomprehensible, totally different from British, no Cornish matches".

The L21 trend for France in general mostly does not cluster well with Isles folks and does have higher relative proportions of early branching DF63 and DF13*. I definitely would never say L21 in Bretagne or France in general was "weird... totally different", etc. but I don't see the close relationship with British L21. The L21 project does not classify by STRs so off-beat STR signatures don't get their own designations.

I clearly grant there are probable cases of a relationship, though (i.e. z1017 in Bretagne).

Jean M
11-06-2013, 10:03 PM
Meanwhile, over in the Brittany project, we have a few Bretons who have tested downstream of L21, as I mentioned. Did you take a look?

Z2534 - ancestor Mathieu LE GALL, 1605 - 1669, Brittany. That is actually upstream of Irish type III, so I would take it as "old" L21.
L1066 - ancestor Hyerosme Le Bras, b.1619, Brasparts, Brittany.

L21>DF13>DF41>L744/L746>L745 The royal Stewart line, from a Breton ancestor.

TigerMW
11-06-2013, 10:57 PM
Meanwhile, over in the Brittany project, we have a few Bretons who have tested downstream of L21, as I mentioned. Did you take a look?

Z2534 - ancestor Mathieu LE GALL, 1605 - 1669, Brittany. That is actually upstream of Irish type III, so I would take it as "old" L21.
L1066 - ancestor Hyerosme Le Bras, b.1619, Brasparts, Brittany.

L21>DF13>DF41>L744/L746>L745 The royal Stewart line, from a Breton ancestor.

The LeGall's look to be R1b-P312>L21>DF13>Z253>Z2534*. As noted, Le Gall is not Irish III, which relates to a relatively (to L21) youthful subclade marked by L226+. L226 is Dennis Wright's speculative Dalcassians. The GDs at 67 from Z2534* to R1b-P312>L21>DF13>Z253>Z2534>L226 (Irish III) range from 18 to 31, which would probably place their split well before the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era.

Z253 is quite old, probably almost as old as DF13. Z2534 looks to be almost as old as Z253 as you can tell from the GDs between L226- and L226+ people, which is not even including L1066 into the mix.

R1b-P312>L21>DF13>Z253>Z2534>Z2185>L1066 contains, but is not relegated to what Nordtvedt called Irish IV/Continental. Le Bras is not tested to 67 markers but the Irish IV signature off-modals at 37 are a pretty distinctive 391=10 385a=12 426=13 464c=16 464d=18 460=10 H4=10. Le Bras only matches on those off-modals at 391 and 460. He clearly is not Irish IV and with his L21 modal 426=12 464=15,15,17,17 looks like an early branch under L1066. L1066 looks to be quite old and is spread all the way to Switzerland. I doubt if all of that was spread by Old Britons fleeing during the Anglo-Saxon era.

Remember I posted earlier about Z253, the main type (so far) of L21 found among the Basques? "um.. just thought of something on Z253. They are the L21 dose of guys along the Tin Road/Aquitaine." (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1489-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-in-Britain-and-R1b-DNA-quot-from-the-West-quot&p=18014&viewfull=1#post18014) Diodorus Siculus wrote,
"The inhabitants of that part of Britain which is called Belerion are very fond of strangers and from their intercourse with foreign merchants are civilised in their manner of life. They prepare the tin, working very carefully the earth in which it is produced. The ground is rocky but it contains earthy veins, the produce of which is ground down, smelted and purified. They beat the metal into masses shaped like knuckle-bones and carry it off to a certain island off Britain called Iktis. During the ebb of the tide the intervening space is left dry and they carry over to the island the tin in abundance in their wagons ... Here then the merchants buy the tin from the natives and carry it over to Gaul, and after travelling overland for about thirty days, they finally bring their loads on horses to the mouth of the Rhone."

Myres, I think it was, found a minor hotspot for L21 near the mouth of the Rhone. I think there are parts of Z253 that might line up nicely with this Tin Road.

Iberia needs to be throughly tested for L21, DF13 (its subclades) and DF63, but it does not look like Iberia, nor the Basques, contain a lot of the early branching of L21. Hence, I'm looking for explanations of how Z253 got around. Another subclade that might play in to this is L513. It was found in Sardinia and in the lab in Italy (P66) but doesn't seem to have anything to do with Iberia at all.

Alternatively, since we see a pocket of L21 in northern Italy and with the Swiss Z253 (L1066), perhaps L21 came from that direction in the first place. Where's the Amesbury Archer from?

Jean M
11-06-2013, 11:20 PM
The LeGall's look to be R1b-P312>L21>DF13>Z253>Z2534*. ... their split well before the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era.

Interestingly, the surname "Le Gall", meaning "The Gaul", was given to people who settled in Brittany from other parts of what is now France. So this line actually derives from elsewhere in France some time in the period of surname development. Apparently it is pretty common in Brittany.

Jean M
11-06-2013, 11:28 PM
Diodorus Siculus wrote... I think there are parts of Z253 that might line up nicely with this Tin Road.

A clever idea.

alan
11-07-2013, 10:52 AM
Mike-thanks for reiterating your observations on French L21 not matching isles closely. One thing that I would be interested to know is if Basque L21 is closer to any French L21 than British or if its simply a separate entity in itself.

I would add that I am still somewhat amazed by the large amount of L21 in SW Germany not being reiterated in academic studies. I know there is a Rhineland factor involved but that doesnt explain why L21 as a percentage of Rhineland P312 hobbiest testing is much higher than in the academic studies. I still believe there is a pocket there that hasnt been picked up due to testing sites. I understand that they also do not match isles L21.

In generally L21 to me has a refuge type distribution being picked up in pockets in traditional refuge areas like NW France, the Basques, the French Alps etc.

Jean M
11-07-2013, 11:36 AM
Mike-thanks for reiterating your observations on French L21 not matching isles closely.

That is not what Mike said. He was discussing those samples in his database which give a specifically Breton ancestor. He had most of them labelled "unassigned". I fully accept that you were simply reporting what Mike had said. However in fact some of them can be assigned to a subclade of L21 by SNP and have been by the FTDNA Brittany project (and Mike has now assigned them correctly in the L21 Project). As more SNP testing gets done, I think we shall be able to get a clearer picture.

Three of Mike's samples actually give the same ancestor - Mathieu Le Gall (1605-1669). One of them (233265) is also in the Brittany project and has been tested for SNPs. He is Z2534. That is a fairly old type of L21. But it is not Breton. As I noted, the surname Le Gall shows that Mathieu descended from a man who settled in Brittany from another part of France. As it happens there is a Cornish sample in this subclade.

The position with older Breton lineages may well be rather more complex. So far too few of them have been tested for SNPS downstream of L21 to see any particular pattern emerging. One sample in both projects (N56523) has the Breton ancestor Hyerosme Le Bras, b.1619. He is L1066. That is a subclade found scattered about in the British Isles and on the Continent. Almost all the samples in the L21 project are from the Isles.

Another sample in both projects is N66966, with the ancestor Achille Gery (1917). He is revealed by the Brittany project to be L21> DF63> CTS6919. That subclade contains samples from England, Germany, Ireland and Scotland.

Another interesting case is the royal Stewart line L21>DF13>DF41>L744/L746>L745, since we have a relatively long family tree, so some estimates can be made of how this lineage moved around. DF41 is old and could be widespread. It predates surname formation. It includes people in the British Isles and the notable Breton, Alan of Dol, ancestor of the Stewarts.

alan
11-07-2013, 02:07 PM
I was really talking about what Mike and Rich have said about STR matching or the lack of it. Naturally its a matter of degree but they have always said that there is not the sort of STR matching we see within the isles. So, its natural to think its a more distant relationship. In terms of SNPs, the really old ones dont really help either. We are all well aware of is that one French hit is probably worth 100 hits in the isles in terms of hobbiest sampling. So, I dont think hobbiest numbers give us any idea of what is continental and what is isles in terms of the earlier SNP defined subclades of L21. I personally think that Breton L21 is probably a mix of ancient prehistoric and sub-Roman Britons creating a double doze of L21 in Brittany. The repeated prehistoric and historic links between Brittany and Normandy and Britain would seem likely to make this unlikely to be resolved easily. The only strong evidence to unravel that and ID the British migrants to Armorica would be finding early AD period clades common in Armorica. However, I am not sure the clade gods are going to oblige us with handy southern British subclades dating to the ideal period.

PS-Its a real shame that Rich S has departed. Please come back Rich!


That is not what Mike said. He was discussing those samples in his database which give a specifically Breton ancestor. He had most of them labelled "unassigned". I fully accept that you were simply reporting what Mike had said. However in fact some of them can be assigned to a subclade of L21 by SNP and have been by the FTDNA Brittany project (and Mike has now assigned them correctly in the L21 Project). As more SNP testing gets done, I think we shall be able to get a clearer picture.

Three of Mike's samples actually give the same ancestor - Mathieu Le Gall (1605-1669). One of them (233265) is also in the Brittany project and has been tested for SNPs. He is Z2534. That is a fairly old type of L21. But it is not Breton. As I noted, the surname Le Gall shows that Mathieu descended from a man who settled in Brittany from another part of France. As it happens there is a Cornish sample in this subclade.

The position with older Breton lineages may well be rather more complex. So far too few of them have been tested for SNPS downstream of L21 to see any particular pattern emerging. One sample in both projects (N56523) has the Breton ancestor Hyerosme Le Bras, b.1619. He is L1066. That is a subclade found scattered about in the British Isles and on the Continent. Almost all the samples in the L21 project are from the Isles.

Another sample in both projects is N66966, with the ancestor Achille Gery (1917). He is revealed by the Brittany project to be L21> DF63> CTS6919. That subclade contains samples from England, Germany, Ireland and Scotland.

Another interesting case is the royal Stewart line L21>DF13>DF41>L744/L746>L745, since we have a relatively long family tree, so some estimates can be made of how this lineage moved around. DF41 is old and could be widespread. It predates surname formation. It includes people in the British Isles and the notable Breton, Alan of Dol, ancestor of the Stewarts.

R.Rocca
11-07-2013, 03:39 PM
Mike-thanks for reiterating your observations on French L21 not matching isles closely. One thing that I would be interested to know is if Basque L21 is closer to any French L21 than British or if its simply a separate entity in itself.

I would add that I am still somewhat amazed by the large amount of L21 in SW Germany not being reiterated in academic studies. I know there is a Rhineland factor involved but that doesnt explain why L21 as a percentage of Rhineland P312 hobbiest testing is much higher than in the academic studies. I still believe there is a pocket there that hasnt been picked up due to testing sites. I understand that they also do not match isles L21.

In generally L21 to me has a refuge type distribution being picked up in pockets in traditional refuge areas like NW France, the Basques, the French Alps etc.

I'm not sure where this perception comes from. Looking at the FTDNA L21 project, the area around Mainz is the only one that stands out. When compared to the FTDNA U152 project, the same hotspot has about half of the L21 samples as U152 has, and the surrounding areas even less, so the academic study ratios seem to be representative. When we look at the U106 project, it gives the academic ratios even more credibility. Even if in Mainz the frequency of L21 is a little higher, I think the upper limit for L21 there is probably ~4-5% instead of the academically tested ~1-2% in surrounding areas. To me, that cannot be classified as "a large amount", especially compared to other areas of L21.

Very few of the central Rhine samples are tested beyond L21, but the ones that do all match Isles groups, even including an M222 sample.

TigerMW
11-07-2013, 08:06 PM
I want try to put the discussion of L21 subclades in context because the reality is there are many missing SNPs and while two SNP marked subclades may appear like brothers on the current tree, they may have arisen in vastly different timeframes.

GDs and modals are rough tools, but they are easy to understand and calculate. Looking at a maximum GD to a modal does not account for abberations but at least it avoids biases from dominance from one sub-subclade. The below calculations are based 67 STR haplotypes on SNP confirmed only individuals.

For more context, and in hopes of finding Wales types that compare with French types, I 'll start with the L1335 because it has an an Old Briton flavor to it, including a true Welsh element, Wales II. However, I can't find a single L1335 from France and it appears the Wales II element is relatively young, younger than the onset of the Anglo-Saxon Era. This could easily be explained away as a post Anglo-Saxon Invasion ancillary movement of L1335 types from northern Britain to Wales. This actually fits the "men of the north" Wales II "Cadgwon" tradition.

L1335 maxGD=25 n=130 (Scots plus Wales II)
L1065 maxGD=15 n=77 (Scots, a subset of L1335)
L1335* maxGD=5 n=10 (Wales II, a subset of L1335)

L371/Wales I remnants do not appear to have arose until after the onset of the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era either so they are also not necessarily good candidates to be expected among early Bretons.

L371 maxGD=10 n=17 (Wales I)

Z253 is the varied subclade of DF13 that is "all over the place." Please note that Z2534 is quite old. It actually has a higher max GD to its modal than Z253 but that is just an anomaly. Regardless it is quite old, well before the Anglo-Saxon Era which means it could be a candidate as an early true Breton (from Britain.) Z2534 has been found as diversely as Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and of course, France.

L1066, which is where Irish IV/Cont sits, is probably quite old too, in the same time range as Z253 and Z2534. Ironically, I have not found any confirmed Z253 in Wales yet, but I think there is a Williams family and Win family from there that would test out L1066+.

On the other hand, the remnants of L226/Irish III are quite young and would probably have just started flourishing over in Ireland in the latter part of the Anglo-Saxon Era.

Z253 maxGD=25 n=295
Z2534 maxGD=28 n=198 (subset of Z253)
L1066 maxGD=26 n=47 (subset of Z2534 and superset of Irish IV/Cont)
L226 maxGD=12 n=123 (Irish III/Dalcassian, a subset of Z2534)

DF41 is where the Stewart's who have the Breton/royal tradition sit, They fall under DF41 subclade L744/L745. DF41 is still not well explored but it looks to be quite old. The L744 remnants are not that old and could easily have arisen in 1000-1200 years ago. There are no L744 types found in France, although we do see some DF41* there. We find DF41* in Wales and England so I could easily be persuaded that DF41 would have been found amongst the Old Britons and be excellent candidates for true early Bretons.

There is a only one confirmed French DF41*, Bontron-Majors. I think he actually might be in a small subclade that encompasses L563+. I don't know what to make of them but below is a STR variety that I call 41-1411.

DF41 maxGD=21 n=91
L744 maxGD=9 n=32 (incl. Stewart's, a subset of DF41)

41-1411:
fN67581 Bontron-Major R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 France, Franche-Comté, Doubs, Montussaint
f222670 Bismire R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 England, London, Middlesex
f85107 Dugger R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41** zzzUnkOrigin
f142157 Dwyer R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 zzzUnkOrigin
f7889 Ellis R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 Wales
f92380 Hall R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41** Ireland
f71100 MacKenzie R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41>L563+ Scotland
f35212 McCrere R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41>L563+ Isle of Man (in Irish Sea near Scotland)
f38965 McCrere R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41>L563+ UK
f181546 Nuckolls R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41>L563+ zzzUnkOrigin
f255048 O'Hare R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF41 Ireland

I will add one more Welsh type subclade, which falls under L513/DF1 umbrella. I have to add this because it my favorite. We do have one Frenchman to go with the Welsh, but he's from a little further south of Bretagne. L706.2 could well be of the same time frame as L744/L745 which is probably the tail end of the Anglo-Saxon Era.

L706.2 maxGD=9 n=18 (Wales III)
f85844 Bergeron R1b-P312>L21>DF13>L513>L706.2>L705.2+ France, Poitou-Charentes, Charente-Maritime, La Rochelle

TigerMW
11-07-2013, 09:34 PM
I'm not sure where this perception comes from.....

I tend to agree that I don't see southern Germany has having a very high frequency of L21. On the other hand it does exist and some of it branched away early. In projects I can count 55 confirmed L21+ from Germany. They are a mixed bag that includes five M222+ (NWIrish), two L1065 (Scots), and one CTS4466 (Irish II) types that are fairly young Isles types of subclades.

Here are some of the unusual haplotypes from older DF13 subclades:

f208773 Reith R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF21 Germany, Lower Saxony, Hanover
f113882 Müller R1b-P312>L21>DF13>L513 Germany, Thuringia, Saalfeld-Rudolstadt, Oberweißbach

I always take note of DF63+, just because it is DF13- and therefore a very early branch from L21:

fN110523 Brunhoeber R1b-P312>L21>DF63>CTS6919+ Germany
fH1922 Schaefer R1b-P312>L21>DF63>CTS6919+ Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, Neuwied, Linz am Rhein

It always worth noting true DF13* guys. They've had to take a battery of tests to achieve this status and their branching away from DF13 was very early.

f166617 Wiegand R1b-P312>L21>DF13* Germany, Hesse, Darmstadt, Eifa

There are 29 L21 confirmed folks that I can't fit with anyone else STR wise. To net it out, even though there are some clear young Isles type subclades in Germany, there are other folks out there alone so they could have been there a long time.

I also can't say that by looking at DNA project data we have much reason to think that Bavaria or the Rhineland dominates L21's presence in Germany. I guess I defer to the academic frequency maps but L21 is pretty low across Germany as far as I can see.

.....

... PS-Its a real shame that Rich S has departed. Please come back Rich! Yes, we need our German instructors on board. Hopefully, he'll find his way back.

TigerMW
11-07-2013, 10:05 PM
...Another sample in both projects is N66966, with the ancestor Achille Gery (1917). He is revealed by the Brittany project to be L21> DF63> CTS6919. That subclade contains samples from England, Germany, Ireland and Scotland...
We don't really know how old CTS6919. To put it in the same context as those cited earlier, the maxGD=17 to the CTS6919 67 STR modal based on n=12. I think DF63 and CTS6919 have a good chance at looking like they are older than we see them today.

The outlier in CTS6919 driving that GD=17 is Gery. Given the potential timeframe of the split, sometimes I wonder if we don't underestimate how much the Roman Empire impacted movement from Gaul into the Isles.

The alternative view still holds that Gery could be of a type from Britain that was largely wiped out in the Isles as his lineage went to Bretagne. I think the fact that there is a CTS6919 guy in Germany diminishes this possibility a bit.

alan
11-08-2013, 12:05 AM
Certainly it was a surprise that the middle Rhine group was not a bit more impressive in size simply because this area lit up like a beacon as soon as L21 was found. I suppose this was the Palatine German migration to America that created this impression.


I tend to agree that I don't see southern Germany has having a very high frequency of L21. On the other hand it does exist and some of it branched away early. In projects I can count 55 confirmed L21+ from Germany. They are a mixed bag that includes five M222+ (NWIrish), two L1065 (Scots), and one CTS4466 (Irish II) types that are fairly young subclades Isles types of subclades

Here are some of the unusual haplotypes from older DF13 subclades:

f208773 Reith R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF21 Germany, Lower Saxony, Hanover
f113882 Müller R1b-P312>L21>DF13>L513 Germany, Thuringia, Saalfeld-Rudolstadt, Oberweißbach

I always take note of DF63+, just because it is DF13- and therefore a very early branch from L21:

fN110523 Brunhoeber R1b-P312>L21>DF63>CTS6919+ Germany
fH1922 Schaefer R1b-P312>L21>DF63>CTS6919+ Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, Neuwied, Linz am Rhein

It always worth noting true DF13* guys. They've had to take a battery of tests to achieve this status and their branching away from DF13 was very early.

f166617 Wiegand R1b-P312>L21>DF13* Germany, Hesse, Darmstadt, Eifa

There are 29 L21 confirmed folks that I can't fit with anyone else STR wise. To net it out, even though there are some clear young Isles type subclades in Germany, there are other folks out there alone so they could have been there a long time.

I also can't say that by looking at DNA project data we have much reason to think that Bavaria or the Rhineland dominates L21's presence in Germany. I guess I defer to the academic frequency maps but L21 is pretty low across Germany as far as I can see.

Net Down G5L
11-08-2013, 04:33 PM
Certainly it was a surprise that the middle Rhine group was not a bit more impressive in size simply because this area lit up like a beacon as soon as L21 was found. I suppose this was the Palatine German migration to America that created this impression.

I have answered my own question about the origins of Wessex Beaker cremation burials (from 2200BC). The work of Needham (e.g. 2005 and subsequent), Fokkens (e.g. 2012 etc) and many others shows a clear Middle Rhine link for Wessex beaker pottery and cremation burials. This fits well with R1b migration into the Isles. However, this does not tell us whether R1b reached the Netherlands from Central Europe or from Iberia or from France. This is a question that still needs an answer.
So although "Wessex beaker" in the Netherlands could have included P312 or earlier, it could also have contained early L21 and taken it in to the Middle Rhine - from central Europe or from France or from Iberia.

Net Down G5L
11-08-2013, 04:52 PM
I still maintain that this is a key period we need to understand much better in terms of DNA.

Archaeology
The Early beaker has long been recognised as having a 'Bretton' link.
Piggot (1938) said "we have reason to connect Wessex to Brittany in the period of B1 beakers' and he presented lots of evidence.

Recent isotopic (although ambiguous) and other research also suggests a Brittany link - summarised by:
Sheridon A . (2012) A Rumsfield Reality Check: What we know, what we don't know and what we don't know we don't know about the Chalcolithic in Britain and Ireland

P43: "New people: migrants from the continent
While, despite popular belief, the application of isotope analysis (principally of strontium and oxygen isotopes) to the study of human remains can not pinpoint their area of origin precisely, there can be no doubt that the Amesbury archer had not been brought up in Britain but therefore represents a continental immigrant (Chenery & Evans 2011), perhaps from central Europe; Andrew Fitzpatrick favours Switzerland oe environs as the candidate area of origin (Fitzpatrick 2011, 232-4). Chenery and Evans are more circumspect about the origins of the three adults among the Boscombe Bowmen who have isotopic values characteristic of radiogenic rocks, citing various parts of Britain as geological candidate areas as well as south-east Ireland, Brittany and the Massif Central of France, parts of Portugal and the Black Forest. If the form of their grave and the associated artefactual assemblage are also taken in to consideration, however, none of the British regions emerges as a plausible source area, whereas Brittany does cf. Salanova 2000 fig 6).
Only one other individual con currently be pointed at as a potential continental immigrant on isotopic grounds, and that is the young adult buried at Sorisdale on the Hebridean island of Coll at some point between 2470 and 2215 cal BC (Sheridan 2007, 2008) and who's isotopic signature suggest an origin in an area of Cenozoic or Cretaceous geology; the Netherlands cannot be ruled out as a possibility.
P50: the Ross Island metalworking evidence points to Atlantic France as an area of origin.
P51 "Further, much ,more needs to be understood about the Atlantic strand that was involved in the introduction of Beakers and associated novelties to Ireland (and perhaps to western parts of Britain as well)."

There clearly was a "Chalcolithic" 'maritime beaker' migration into southern England (e.g. Shrewton/Net Down man) and Ireland (see Mallory 2013 The Origins of the Irish chapter 4. O'Brian 2004 etc)


The key question that needs an answer is:

Did the c. 2450 atlantic Beaker migration into Britain and Ireland carry R1b via Amorica/Brittany? If so - what haplogroup. and if not - what non R1b haplogroups?

alan
11-09-2013, 04:39 PM
Last time I saw maps maritime beaker is a rarity in both Britain and Ireland. Remember that the isles were not settled by beaker people until around2450bc compared to the the suggests date of its invention of c 2900/2800bc. So the question is not where maritime originates but rather who was still using it 400 years after it's invention and in a position to bring it to the isles?

Net Down G5L
11-09-2013, 10:14 PM
Last time I saw maps maritime beaker is a rarity in both Britain and Ireland. Remember that the isles were not settled by beaker people until around2450bc compared to the the suggests date of its invention of c 2900/2800bc. So the question is not where maritime originates but rather who was still using it 400 years after it's invention and in a position to bring it to the isles?


Maritime beakers in England are concentrated in the South - opposite Northern France. Maritime beaker production persisted in Amorica/Brittany but is not present as a distinct or lengthy horizon in the evolution of beakers in the Netherlands.

Beakers in Amorica/Brittany are thought to originate in the Tagus estuary (Cardoso et al).
http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/42/5.pdf

It seems almost certain to me that the early 'Chalcolithic' maritime beakers in southern England arrived along the Atlantic coast - and Brittany is the obvious significant and close (and long lived) centre of production.

Hence:

Did the c. 2450 atlantic Beaker migration into Britain and Ireland carry R1b via Amorica/Brittany? If so - what haplogroup. and if not - what non R1b haplogroups?

Jean M
11-09-2013, 11:12 PM
Did the c. 2450 atlantic Beaker migration into Britain and Ireland carry R1b via Amorica/Brittany? If so - what haplogroup.

My money is on DF27.

alan
11-10-2013, 01:29 AM
Northern France seems to have been a meeting point between Rhenish and southern influences.

This looks interesting in terms of individual beaker burials in France

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Late+neolithic+and+beaker+France.-a0268601267

I find interpretation of L21 in terms of beaker zones tricky because its easiest to see Maritime as DF27 and extremly hard to see it as L21 linked but at the same time modern clade distribution makes it hard to feel confident of L21 as Rhenish in origin. Northern France lies in between. It is tempting to see L21 as somehow related to this middle area of mix. From the summary article above it does see that there were even groups of single burials around the Loire despite other megalithic type groups where beaker seem intrusive into older monuments. So, there may have been a mix of clades in the area at the same time. I think northern France is a potentially crucial area in understanding L21 but there just seems very little published in English or free on the web relating to beaker in this area. Even the P312 clade pattern across northern France seems to indicate complexity and multiple inputs.

L21 is hard to correlate with a particular beaker group compared to say linking DF27 with maritime. This might be because L21 is rather younger and it is more of a late clade from the time when large sweeping regional blocks had become more complicated. It may IMO have a pre-L21 trail that survives in the P312xL21xU152x DF27 clades. Even if there is no true P312*, these clades could still have come from the same line as L21 IF their defining SNPs are younger than L21. At present such clades seem to be most common around Belgium.

R.Rocca
11-11-2013, 01:25 AM
Northern France seems to have been a meeting point between Rhenish and southern influences.

This looks interesting in terms of individual beaker burials in France

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Late+neolithic+and+beaker+France.-a0268601267

I find interpretation of L21 in terms of beaker zones tricky because its easiest to see Maritime as DF27 and extremly hard to see it as L21 linked but at the same time modern clade distribution makes it hard to feel confident of L21 as Rhenish in origin. Northern France lies in between. It is tempting to see L21 as somehow related to this middle area of mix. From the summary article above it does see that there were even groups of single burials around the Loire despite other megalithic type groups where beaker seem intrusive into older monuments. So, there may have been a mix of clades in the area at the same time. I think northern France is a potentially crucial area in understanding L21 but there just seems very little published in English or free on the web relating to beaker in this area. Even the P312 clade pattern across northern France seems to indicate complexity and multiple inputs.

L21 is hard to correlate with a particular beaker group compared to say linking DF27 with maritime. This might be because L21 is rather younger and it is more of a late clade from the time when large sweeping regional blocks had become more complicated. It may IMO have a pre-L21 trail that survives in the P312xL21xU152x DF27 clades. Even if there is no true P312*, these clades could still have come from the same line as L21 IF their defining SNPs are younger than L21. At present such clades seem to be most common around Belgium.

Alan, this has been my observation all along. It would seem to me that the first L21 or his immediate P312(xL21) father was born in an area stretching from Belgium to Calais.

alan
11-11-2013, 11:22 AM
Some sort of importance near the crossings to the isles seems pretty much certain. It would have been tempting to see L21 as a founder effect that went viral once it reached the isles. However, the archaeology rather seems to imply repeated contacts with the continent. As I posted before, L21 might simply have been a family that had had the skills and technology for open sea travel. That would create an enormous advantage in the isles, not only getting there but travelling around within the isles.


Alan, this has been my observation all along. It would seem to me that the first L21 or his immediate P312(xL21) father was born in an area stretching from Belgium to Calais.

Net Down G5L
11-11-2013, 05:54 PM
Alan, this has been my observation all along. It would seem to me that the first L21 or his immediate P312(xL21) father was born in an area stretching from Belgium to Calais.

Ok, I like this idea a lot. I have been having a major re-think....

If an L21 carrying clan spread from Belgium-Calais, around say 1600BC, it could be responsible for the spread and distribtion of stock farming type celtic fields in to the Netherlands (possibly as far as Denmark and s e Sweden) and Britain (in particular). This could have been triggered by a decline in arable farming cause by the Santorini eruption. [Dare I also suggest that the clan could also be a carrier/speaker of proto-celtic that becomes Q-celtic / insular celtic - that may or may not already have been spoken to the west.]
The TMCRA dates for the development of L21 sub-clades seems to possibly fit? Earliest arrival L21 in Ireland from 1600BC (forest clearances) but followed by later waves of L21 that began in Britain - gradually building up to dominate DNA in Ireland and Britain - particularly the east and north (but not exclusively)- to be added to/'driven west' by later 106/152/anglo saxon / viking etc incursions.

TigerMW
11-11-2013, 10:18 PM
Alan, this has been my observation all along. It would seem to me that the first L21 or his immediate P312(xL21) father was born in an area stretching from Belgium to Calais.


Some sort of importance near the crossings to the isles seems pretty much certain. It would have been tempting to see L21 as a founder effect that went viral once it reached the isles. However, the archaeology rather seems to imply repeated contacts with the continent. As I posted before, L21 might simply have been a family that had had the skills and technology for open sea travel. That would create an enormous advantage in the isles, not only getting there but travelling around within the isles.

I tend to agree that L21 arose on the continent somewhere close to the English Channel or slightly inland. I think there is an outside chance this actually happened further inland and towards the Alps (can't get the Amebury Archer out of my head) with the corollary being that L21's real expansion wasn't until he was pretty close to the English channel. I'm not saying he couldn't sail or row, but I'm still overland inclined. I don't think he was Celtic from the southwest as in Iberian or Maritime, but I think L21 was late enough to have arisen as a full IE speaker and with the whole package.


.. to be added to/'driven west' by later 106/152/anglo saxon / viking etc incursions.
Net Down, you might add the Roman Empire in that list but maybe you are hitting that with U152. I also think there were multiple pre-Roman Era movements into the Isles.

TigerMW
11-11-2013, 10:45 PM
Did the c. 2450 atlantic Beaker migration into Britain and Ireland carry R1b via Amorica/Brittany? If so - what haplogroup.

My money is on DF27.

I'm not sure if this directly ties to Early Maritime Beakers or not, but for the folks who think DF27 was along the Atlantic very early here is one point on the scoreboard for them.

DF27* confirmation takes some pretty decent testing and our first true DF27* (or DF27** if you prefer) guy is an Irishman - Kennedy. Paragroups are fleeting kinds of things but there is an Isles variety that looks DF27* and at the very least they were an early branch from the DF27 known subclades.

DF27* thread for more info. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1543-DF27*-(the-real-deal)-(DF27-Z196-Z225-L617-L86-2-L881-L1231-)&p=18377&viewfull=1#post18377)

alan
11-12-2013, 02:24 AM
I tend to think maritime skill was vital to spread through the isles. Places like western Scotland are broken into dozens of islands, headlands etc and yet somehow L21 got to almost all of them. L21 seems to have often prospered in area that really could not be reached comfortably without maritime skill. Almost from the off, beaker people were over in Ireland and supplying most of Britain and to a lesser extent northern France with Irish copper and gold. A couple of centuries later tin appeared and new copper sources too. Much of this could not have been controlled without maritime power. I do not think maritime skills would have been uniform within the beaker world and probably only modestly developed in inland area - to a degree suitable for river transport at best. We have to remember though that this was pre-sail so boats were rowed even out at sea. I would guess this pre-sewn plank boat era would have meant only oar powered skin boats were seaworthy and I wouldnt get too carried away in terms of the usual sort of voyages such boats would make - almost certainly the shortest, safest possible routes. That might actually agree with the concept of a route from NE France for L21. The safest route for the SW Irish copper would seem to me to have been something like Wexford to south Wales or the Bristol Channel then along the Avon then portage close to Stonehenge into to the Thames system. Other links may have led to the Channel from Wessex. Although I have wondered a bit about direct Breton-Ireland links it would have been a heck of a journey in a sail-less skin boat. Not one to take lightly. So routes may have been less direct than we might imagine.


I tend to agree that L21 arose on the continent somewhere close to the English Channel or slightly inland. I think there is an outside chance this actually happened further inland and towards the Alps (can't get the Amebury Archer out of my head) with the corollary being that L21's real expansion wasn't until he was pretty close to the English channel. I'm not saying he couldn't sail or row, but I'm still overland inclined. I don't think he was Celtic from the southwest as in Iberian or Maritime, but I think L21 was late enough to have arisen as a full IE speaker and with the whole package.


Net Down, you might add the Roman Empire in that list but maybe you are hitting that with U152. I also think there were multiple pre-Roman Era movements into the Isles.

razyn
11-12-2013, 02:45 AM
Alan, I don't believe the dates you are giving for the flourishing of L21 in the Isles (1600 BC) are earlier than the widespread use of sewn-plank boat technology. In any case, I think we are much more conversant with the pottery than with the boats, that far back and in that wet an environment.

I also suspect that DF27 may look more like the long-distance sea and river traders than L21, who seem more inclined to settle down, whether near navigable water or not. But I agree in broad outline with the drift this conversation is taking, anyhow. Hope it doesn't drift too far forward in time from the Beakers.

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 03:37 AM
Other than DF81 which other SNPs does kit 193923 need to test for in order to qualify as being DF27* ?

DF27+, P312+, DF17-, DF19-, DF79-, DF83-, L1231-, L176.2-, L20-, L21-, L226-, L238-, L617-, L86.2-, L881-, M153-, M228.2-, M65-, U106-, U152-, Z196-, Z225-

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/NuevaGaliciaDNA/default.aspx?section=ysnp

Are the SNPs that need to be tested part of the Geno 2.0 test?


Armando, those are good questions for the DF27* thread in the R1-DF27 section. Click here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1543-DF27*-%28the-real-deal%29-%28DF27-Z196-DF81-DF83-Z225-L617-L86-2-L881-L1231-%29). 193923 looks pretty close those. I think all you need is a DF81 status. David Car over in the DF27 area has looked at Geno 2 raw results so he will probably know about DF81.
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-DF27_Descendency_Tree.jpg

Good work on your testing!

MJost
11-12-2013, 04:20 AM
Roberta J Estes posted this update in her blog

DNAeXplained - Genetic Genealogy

2013 Family Tree DNA Conference Day 2

Session 1 – Michael Hammer - Origins of R-M269 Diversity in Europe

http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2

MJost

Net Down G5L
11-14-2013, 10:34 AM
That's great that you have contact with Pearson.

How does this contrast with Early/western/Iberian Bell Beaker arrivals either on Britain or Ireland? if there are any to speak of?



I went to an excellent talk by Mike Parker Pearson last night. He exclusively talked about pre-beaker Stonehenge. He went over a lot of what I posted earlier in the thread. The key new element for me was the Mesolithic story at Stonehenge.
Off thread but very interesting - a unique Mesolithic ceremonial site (very close to the stones) and an occupation site - 3000 years continuous (this is also unique) adjacent to the river Avon (by the Vespathian camp) with 2 small trenches revealing 30,000 (!) Mesolithic flints (excavations ongoing). So Stonehenge was a focal/gathering point from 7-8000 BC.

On thread - I managed a short chat with him and asked a couple of questions:
There are earlier beaker burials than the Amesbury Archer - maritime type - but there are no preserved skeletal remains with them as far as he knows.
There are a couple of Beaker isotopic results other than the Amesbury Archer that show some travel - one from the Peak district of England (possibly the Archers companion? - I did not manage to establish that)
He thinks care is needed when thinking/talking about migrations - 'because people were moving about in all directions'.

My biggie question was about ancient DNA.
(I am particularly interested as I have Iron Age, Roman and Dark Ages skeletal samples - from 'my site' - submitted to another lab for aDNA analysis. That was 18 months ago and they have disappeared into a black hole - neither I or anyone else can get any response from them about any progress)

Mike said:

University College London started an ancient DNA project about a month ago.
They have a £1M grant from the Wellcome Trust.
They will be looking at the sequence of DNA from Neolithic through the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Mike gave me a couple of names to contact. Brian Swann has been talking to aDNA specialists in London so I need to check with him before contacting them.

Info about UCL:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/gallery/ancient

A couple of interesting papers including members of their team - you may well have already read them:

Shennan S, Downey SS, Timpson A, Edinborough K, Colledge S, Kerig T, Manning K, Thomas MG (2013) Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. 4:2486 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3486
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2013/Shennan_NatComs13_B_B

Thomas MG, Kivisild T, Chikhi L, Burger J (2013). Europe and western Asia: genetics and population history. In: (Ed. Immanuel Ness) The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration: Prehistory. Chapter 18
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2013/wbeghm818.pdf

Generalissimo
11-15-2013, 12:21 PM
What do you think guys, all of these frequency peaks look like Bell Beaker expansion zones, huh?

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/1082/u24y.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/5839/zqbi.png

alan
11-15-2013, 12:35 PM
I do not understand that take on L21 and boats. L21 is about as maritime as you can get being based on islands where settlement and trade (even between Britain and Ireland) requires significant boat skills. The mastery of the Irish Sea (a far more dangerous crossing than Dover to France) is well represented even in pre-beaker times and especially immediate pre-beaker times when grooved ware, passage tomb details, timber circles, henges and a lot more showed constant interaction. The main source of copper in the isles in early beaker times as well as gold appears to have come from Ireland and this extended into northern France. Indeed the copper sources as in the SW of Ireland and likely had to make the wider crossing to the Bristol Channel to reach southern Britain. If anything it seems likely that the Irish Sea interaction from the Orkneys to Ireland, Wales and beyond seems to hint that the maritime skillset was probably more advanced in the west even in pre-beaker times. In some places like the Hebrides etc it must have been essential.


Alan, I don't believe the dates you are giving for the flourishing of L21 in the Isles (1600 BC) are earlier than the widespread use of sewn-plank boat technology. In any case, I think we are much more conversant with the pottery than with the boats, that far back and in that wet an environment.

I also suspect that DF27 may look more like the long-distance sea and river traders than L21, who seem more inclined to settle down, whether near navigable water or not. But I agree in broad outline with the drift this conversation is taking, anyhow. Hope it doesn't drift too far forward in time from the Beakers.

Jean M
11-15-2013, 12:36 PM
University College London started an ancient DNA project about a month ago. They have a £1M grant from the Wellcome Trust. They will be looking at the sequence of DNA from Neolithic through the Bronze and Iron Ages.


Excellent news! We can only hope that this includes Y-DNA.

alan
11-15-2013, 12:40 PM
Interesting map although I have the usual grumble that the Ireland map seems based on something from decades ago and lots of beaker has been found since then. Even then the northern blob looks to be in the wrong place. The west and north of Ireland also has many 100s of Wedge Tombs which are of beaker period construction and which many excavated have produced beaker pot. If you add those then the map changes completely.


What do you think guys, all of these frequency peaks look like Bell Beaker expansion zones, huh?

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/1082/u24y.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/5839/zqbi.png

alan
11-15-2013, 12:43 PM
Actually the more I look at the map the weirder it seems. Where did you get it?


What do you think guys, all of these frequency peaks look like Bell Beaker expansion zones, huh?

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/1082/u24y.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/5839/zqbi.png

Generalissimo
11-15-2013, 12:45 PM
Here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

Jean M
11-15-2013, 12:59 PM
You can have mine if you prefer:


924

Still not up-to-date on Ireland, because all the latest stuff is yet to be published in a convenient form. Well - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. :)

Bernard
11-17-2013, 02:39 PM
This is a very interesting recent master report about Bell Beakers in France: https://www.academia.edu/4097818/GADBOIS-LANGEVIN_R._2013_-_Le_Campaniforme_en_France_Etude_spatiale_de_levol ution_dun_territoire_Master_2_Universite_de_Bourgo gne_Dijon_vol._1_334_p

There is an interesting map of Bell Beaker sites in France from a comprehensive inventory (2013):
929

palamede
11-19-2013, 10:04 AM
This is a very interesting recent master report about Bell Beakers in France: https://www.academia.edu/4097818/GADBOIS-LANGEVIN_R._2013_-_Le_Campaniforme_en_France_Etude_spatiale_de_levol ution_dun_territoire_Master_2_Universite_de_Bourgo gne_Dijon_vol._1_334_p

There is an interesting map of Bell Beaker sites in France from a comprehensive inventory (2013):
929

Thanks Bernard for this very nice map of the French vineyards and seafood farms between 2800-2200BC
Generally Bell Beakers were able to find the better vineyard grounds as showed the map. They were fine gourmets and drinkers.

For the vineyards :
- Languedoc-Roussillon, Provence, Côtes du Rhone, Côtes d'Auvergne (Chanturgue) around Clermont-Ferrand, Côtes d'Or ( Golden Coast around between Dijon and Chalons/Saone), Côtes du Jura around Arbois and Poligny, Côtes de Moselle, Alsace around Colmar, Armagnac and Cognac, , Saumur and Chinon (confluence of Loire and Vienne), Orleans and Coteaux de Vendome, Champagne of Marne river, Fronton, Gaillac, Cahors, Médoc, Blaye, Saint-Emilion, Charente, Poitou and Vendée vines.
Probably it was a sweet climate, because we have also reputated vineyards in sweet 13th century AD : Vernon and Argenteui along Seine riverl, Aisne river.

Cider from Pont-Labbé, Fouesnant , Villedieu les Poeles, Coteaux de la Vire, plaine de Caen.

Oyster from Maremmes-Oleron, Etang de Thau, Cancale

Some ports and fishing ports: Etaples, La Hougue, Granville, Saint-Malo, Saint-Brieuc, Concarneau, Vannes, Nantes, La Rochelle, Bordeaux, Sète, Marseille, Toulon to export towards Dutch, British, Danish and Norvegian bell beaker settlements which maybe re-exported farther like in Middle Ages.

Anyway European map edited by Jean Manco shows the same thing they knew Morrocan vines (around Meknes and Boualane); in Spain Rioja (around Logrono on Upper Ebro), Xeres and other Andlousia vines and olives; In Italy Chianti and other Toscan and Venitian vines, Marsala in West Sicily; in Germany Rhein vines, specially the famous Johanisberg near Mayenz.

The proof is done : Bell Beakers were not R1b warriors, but peaceful wine growers, fishers, seafoof farmers and merchants.

You can consider I am joking, say it is normal to find Bell Beakers along sea coasts and big rivers mainly and thet vineyards, seafood farms come with Greeks and Romans , but certain big Bell Beakers concentrations (like Côte d'or and Côte du Jura and not along Saone river, Rioja and other locations) are very disturbing.

TigerMW
11-19-2013, 12:43 PM
... certain big Bell Beakers concentrations (like Côte d'or and Côte du Jura and not along Saone river, Rioja and other locations) are very disturbing.
I don't know the areas but what are you implying about the important Bell Beaker sites in these specific regions?

palamede
11-19-2013, 01:18 PM
I don't the areas but what are you implying about the important Bell Beaker sites in these specific regions?

Certainly, I exagerated a little, but it is disturbing;

Spanish Rioja is at the end of the red stain starting from Santander (Cantabry) and Bilbao(West Basque Country).

I tried to repair the concentrations of sites in Inland France : Cote d'Or (The most famous Burgundy vines between Dijon and Chalons Sur Saone, west of the Saone river at some distance and Cotes du Jura (reputated vines) along Ain river north of Lons Le Saunier east of Saone at some distance, seems 2 concentrations of sites.

Other concenrtation : Moselle river north of Pont à Mousson had got a vineyard in the continuation of the more reputated Moselle vineyards in Luxemburg and Germany.
A slight concentration around Colmar, justly the area of the most famous Alsace onse.

Others : Gaillac on Tarn river, Cahors on Lot river , Saumur, Chinon, Bourgueil, Beaugency along Loire river.
A big concentarion around Clermont-Ferrant with the Cotes d'Auvergne label.

Probably the vine was not unknown in this time in Western Europe but technics of improving, conserving and travelling the vines came with Etruscans and Greeks.

Bernard
11-19-2013, 03:00 PM
It seems that Bell beakers arrived in France from the sea: the Mediterranean shore in south-east France and the Atlantic coast between Gironde estuary and Finistère in Brittany. Then bell beakers entered the land through the main rivers: the Rhône river in the south-east, the Loire river in the west, and the Seine and the Marne rivers in the north. Interestingly, there is a hot spot between the Loire and the Seine rivers. The Doubs river links the Rhône river to the Rhine river and the Danube river through the Saone river. The Moselle river links the Rhine river.
940

alan
11-19-2013, 11:36 PM
I have always thought that the linkage between the Rhone and practically everywhere via the river systems makes it look a crucial part of the spread of P312 and subclades. However, I do not think it arrived from the sea. I think P312 could have originated somewhere in the Alps to the east. It has been claimed that the beaker people of Sion for example were essentially the same as pre-beaker people albeit taking in some new influences. If that were true it would make them the direct descendants of the people around the Alps who used Remedello dagger imagery, in some cases since c. 3500BC.

So there is no need to actually see new settlers. In fact new settlers had little to offer in an area with a long established copper working and mining tradition through the whole Remedello/Ligurian mines network. What that area may have wanted was Iberian copper (the Ligurian mines were running down by the beaker period) but they didnt need Iberians as they already had possessed the full suite of metallurgical skill for many centuries. It seems grossly improbable that the metal Remedello dagger elites of the Alps who had based their prestige on their copper mines and metalwork would happily let small groups of Iberians come in and take over their patch.

Its far more likely to me that importers from nearer the western Alps seeking new sources to replace the ailing Ligurian mines went to Iberia, settling in small numbers, and brought back copper from there along with wives and new fashions, perhaps establishing intermediate settlements along the south French coast bypassing the aloof, ore-self-sufficient and trade-hostile non-beaker Languedoc copper using group. The Iberian connection seems to me to be down to raw materials/ore. It has a precocious copper production in immediate pre-beaker times but yet it appears copper was not high status due to its sheer ubiquity in Iberia. In pre-beaker Iberia its main function seems to have been a trade item that it could offer in return for exotica. The large fortifications of pre-beaker Iberia sited with access to the sea some distance from the ore sources is indicative of the export of copper in exchange for exotica. So export of copper, albeit a different zone in pre-beaker times, was well established.

The notion of Iberians moving out to seek copper sources from a place that was so rich in the ore makes no sense. However, continuation of the pre-beaker model of trading out copper makes a great deal of sense. The question then arises whether traders came to them or they took their copper elsewhere and brought back exotica. I believe trade in that period would make a great deal more sense if people came to Iberia and took the traded copper back to where it was needed. That makes a lot more sense as it ensures the required copper arrived back to exactly where it was needed. I think this also makes sense in terms of the beaker era.

I would say something similar about the Csepel group. That only makes sense if they were basically middlemen looking to take a role in distribtion of Carpathian metal. The beaker people really do not appear to have offered anything new in the way of skills etc compared to what was already available across the entire Med, the Alps, the Carpathians, the Balkans etc and it has even been shown that corded ware metal was similar to beaker.

So, the beaker network was not about technology except in northern Europe. Its real difference was networking and the ability to penetrate many societies, territories etc. In other words they had a rather different social structure than what went before in most areas.


It seems that Bell beakers arrived in France from the sea: the Mediterranean shore in south-east France and the Atlantic coast between Gironde estuary and Finistère in Brittany. Then bell beakers entered the land through the main rivers: the Rhône river in the south-east, the Loire river in the west, and the Seine and the Marne rivers in the north. Interestingly, there is a hot spot between the Loire and the Seine rivers. The Doubs river links the Rhône river to the Rhine river and the Danube river through the Saone river. The Moselle river links the Rhine river.
940

alan
11-20-2013, 12:11 AM
To simplify, bell beaker was a network with two main phases

1. An early one characterised by Alpine/Ligurian/adjacent elites who already had long established metal skills procuring copper from Iberia.

2. A phase where areas without prior developed metallurgy or far from copper sources were penetrated by beaker using groups who had a unique opportunity to supply a need.

The question remains whether the people involved in both phases were the same. There is not the data to answer that but I would say that there is no certainty that somewhere in the chain new lineages that were not the same as other beaker people could have carried beaker ideas further on to new places. Craniological evidence is suggestive of this IMO. Other evidence might be the continuity between pre-beaker and beaker phases suggested at Sion by dental traits. There could have been a number of beaker using groups who were not genetically similar and it may only have been some specific beaker using groups who further expanded their lineages. Clearly the biggest opportunities for beaker using groups would come where they really could make themselves invaluable by entering areas with no skills or no/very poor supply or both. Skills in metallurgy and mining existed in pre-beaker times across a wide swath of southern, Alpine, central and eastern Europe so could have been spread from many different points and the metallurgy/beaker combo that entered the areas lacking metallurgical traditions and skills c. 2500BC could have come from anywhere that had the those skills and beaker had met each other.

R.Rocca
11-20-2013, 01:51 AM
It seems that Bell beakers arrived in France from the sea: the Mediterranean shore in south-east France and the Atlantic coast between Gironde estuary and Finistère in Brittany. Then bell beakers entered the land through the main rivers: the Rhône river in the south-east, the Loire river in the west, and the Seine and the Marne rivers in the north. Interestingly, there is a hot spot between the Loire and the Seine rivers. The Doubs river links the Rhône river to the Rhine river and the Danube river through the Saone river. The Moselle river links the Rhine river.
940

Thanks Bernard, this is pretty much the scenario I've seen in other papers as well.

I have a question - when the Ramos-Luis data was initially presented, most of French ancestry were adamant that the lack of R1b in central France was due to the testing of more recent immigrants with French last names. Could it be that the central areas of France, which received less Bell Beaker influences than the coastal areas, retained more Neolithic Y-DNA groups?

Bernard
11-20-2013, 08:15 AM
I have always thought that the linkage between the Rhone and practically everywhere via the river systems makes it look a crucial part of the spread of P312 and subclades. However, I do not think it arrived from the sea. I think P312 could have originated somewhere in the Alps to the east. It has been claimed that the beaker people of Sion for example were essentially the same as pre-beaker people albeit taking in some new influences. If that were true it would make them the direct descendants of the people around the Alps who used Remedello dagger imagery, in some cases since c. 3500BC.

For the moment I am not convinced by the arrival of R1b people in Central Europe before Bell Beakers. The ancient dna doesn't tell this: Ötzi in the Alps is G2a and the remains of the Treilles Cave in chalcolithic France about 3000 BC are overwhelmingly G2a. Finally, Olivier Lemercier expert of Bell Beakers in south-east France thinks that Bell Beakers in south-east France came from Iberia.

Bernard
11-20-2013, 08:57 AM
I have a question - when the Ramos-Luis data was initially presented, most of French ancestry were adamant that the lack of R1b in central France was due to the testing of more recent immigrants with French last names. Could it be that the central areas of France, which received less Bell Beaker influences than the coastal areas, retained more Neolithic Y-DNA groups?
I have no details about the results of Ramos-Luis by region. Where did you get them ? In the last weeks I exchanged email with Eva Ramos-Luis and she told me that she has just submitted a new paper about Y-DNA in France with all the details by region. So we have to wait for this new publication.
About Bell Beakers in central France, I don't know. There are some bell Beakers sites in Auvergne, and it is possible that the areas without discovered Bell Beakers sites are due to the lack of archaeological researches.

vettor
11-20-2013, 09:37 AM
I have no details about the results of Ramos-Luis by region. Where did you get them ? In the last weeks I exchanged email with Eva Ramos-Luis and she told me that she has just submitted a new paper about Y-DNA in France with all the details by region. So we have to wait for this new publication.
About Bell Beakers in central France, I don't know. There are some bell Beakers sites in Auvergne, and it is possible that the areas without discovered Bell Beakers sites are due to the lack of archaeological researches.

You must be talking about this one as I was studying it for the T markers in Alsace and Auvergne

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4139/u4kb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/u4kb.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

GTC
11-20-2013, 09:45 AM
In the last weeks I exchanged email with Eva Ramos-Luis and she told me that she has just submitted a new paper about Y-DNA in France with all the details by region. So we have to wait for this new publication.


Quite a few of us would be very interested to see that! Please let us know when it's available.

Bernard
11-20-2013, 09:52 AM
You must be talking about this one as I was studying it for the T markers in Alsace and Auvergne

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4139/u4kb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/u4kb.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Thanks a lot vettor. Where do you get this table from ?

Jean M
11-20-2013, 10:05 AM
Where do you get this table from ?

You have access to a copy of it Bernard in my library. It was obtained by Richard Rocca from the Ramos-Luis 2009 team and posted on the now defunct DNAForums.

Bernard
11-20-2013, 10:49 AM
You have access to a copy of it Bernard in my library. It was obtained by Richard Rocca from the Ramos-Luis 2009 team and posted on the now defunct DNAForums.
Thanks Jean! I get it.

Bernard
11-20-2013, 01:24 PM
I have a question - when the Ramos-Luis data was initially presented, most of French ancestry were adamant that the lack of R1b in central France was due to the testing of more recent immigrants with French last names. Could it be that the central areas of France, which received less Bell Beaker influences than the coastal areas, retained more Neolithic Y-DNA groups?
From Ramos-Luis the R1b results are the following: 56% for Île de France, 56% for Provence-Alpes Côte d'Azur, 62% for Nord-Pas de Calais, 81% for Bretagne, 60% for Midi-Pyrénées, 59% for Alsace and 53% for Auvergne. I am not sure that the lack of R1b in Auvergne is really significant due to the small numbers of samples in this study: between 45 and 115 per region.

palamede
11-20-2013, 03:55 PM
The most obvious prove of recent populations in Ramos-Luis study is the line E*(xE1b1b1) which is a Sub-Saharian paragroup

10,99% IDF Ile De France Paris North-Centre France
0% PAA Provence-Côte d'Azur Marseille/Nice South-East France
1,47% NPC Nord-Pas de Calais Lille/Boulogne North France
0% BRT Bretagne Nantes/Rennes/Brest Brittany West France
1,49% MPY Midi-Pyrénées Toulouse South-West France
0% ALS Alsace Strasbourg East France
2,25% AUV Auvergne Clermont-Ferrant South-Centre France

alan
11-20-2013, 04:27 PM
I must admit I have generally thought the lower R1b in central France is it being remote from the main beaker concentrations which seem to lie all around the edge of France.

R.Rocca
11-21-2013, 12:59 PM
I must admit I have generally thought the lower R1b in central France is it being remote from the main beaker concentrations which seem to lie all around the edge of France.

That is also reinforced if we add to the Ramos-Luis data the higher levels of R1b found by Myres in SE France in the Rhone Valley.

By the way, the same R1b prevalence in BB areas is also observed in the Italian Peninsula.

Bernard
11-22-2013, 08:09 AM
The Eupedia site gives also the Y-DNA distribution for France and confirms that Auvergne is the region where the frequency of R1b is the lowest:
956
Interestingly, it is also Auvergne that is the region where the frequency of G is the highest. So we can conclude that neolithic G people resist better in Auvergne than in other region as Richard told in a previous post.

GTC
11-22-2013, 09:12 AM
The Eupedia site gives also the Y-DNA distribution for France and confirms that Auvergne is the region where the frequency of R1b is the lowest:
956
Interestingly, it is also Auvergne that is the region where the frequency of G is the highest. So we can conclude that neolithic G people resist better in Auvergne than in other region as Richard told in a previous post.

Would love to see those regional R1b figures broken down to show U106 vs P312.

alan
11-22-2013, 09:40 AM
However, there are exceptions to the beaker-p312 peak correlation. In Iberia it is not a great fit in that R1b peaks in the south-east and Basque areas which while the early beakers are concentrated in Portugal.


That is also reinforced if we add to the Ramos-Luis data the higher levels of R1b found by Myres in SE France in the Rhone Valley.

By the way, the same R1b prevalence in BB areas is also observed in the Italian Peninsula.