PDA

View Full Version : R1b-M412* or R1b-L51* in the Griko-speaking community of Grecìa Salentina (?)



Carbotti
08-31-2018, 10:05 AM
(R1b-M412 or R1b-L51* in Apulia, Italy) ) "The R1b-M412* (R1b-L51*) is observed in all the four Southern Italian samples, all from the ancient Magna Graecia area, but only sporadically in population groups from Northern Italy. The R1b-M412* Y chromosomes could, therefore, represent the legacy of an Eastern Mediterranean input associated with the early Hellenic colonisation, and/or the more recent Byzantine domination. This scenario is supported by the high frequency of R1b-M412* in the Griko-speaking community of Grecìa Salentina (13.4%), where haplogroup R1b-M412* probably reflects ancient colonisation events from Greek-speaking islands rather than continental Greece. " https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

POSSIBLE? R-1b-L51* is absent in Greece, so these Greeks of Salento (Apulia, Italy) or are not of Greek origin or the Greeks of 2000 years ago are not the same as today!

What do you think?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

Carbotti
11-03-2018, 04:53 PM
This can prove two things: either they are not Greeks, or that today's Greeks have little to do with the Greeks of 2000 years ago. The Greek is spoken by 10 million people, Latin for more than 700 million. Here is all the difference.

Ethereal
11-03-2018, 05:06 PM
It isn’t to do with Greeks. It’s to do with the fact that L51 is derived from L23, which is actually West Asian in origin, and went West across the mediterranean in search of metals (the other descendent of L23, Z2103, went North to colonise the Steppe, forming Yamnaya).

Basically, yet more evidence that L51 isn’t Steppe in origin.

Carbotti
11-03-2018, 05:14 PM
Then these R-L51 "greeks of puglia" in south italy
either they are not Greeks!

Kanenas
11-03-2018, 06:43 PM
(R1b-M412 or R1b-L51* in Apulia, Italy) ) "The R1b-M412* (R1b-L51*) is observed in all the four Southern Italian samples, all from the ancient Magna Graecia area, but only sporadically in population groups from Northern Italy. The R1b-M412* Y chromosomes could, therefore, represent the legacy of an Eastern Mediterranean input associated with the early Hellenic colonisation, and/or the more recent Byzantine domination. This scenario is supported by the high frequency of R1b-M412* in the Griko-speaking community of Grecìa Salentina (13.4%), where haplogroup R1b-M412* probably reflects ancient colonisation events from Greek-speaking islands rather than continental Greece. " https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

POSSIBLE? R-1b-L51* is absent in Greece, so these Greeks of Salento (Apulia, Italy) or are not of Greek origin or the Greeks of 2000 years ago are not the same as today!

What do you think?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

13.4% is not that high. That haplogroup could have existed in the region before the Greek colonization.
Now the Greeks of 2000 years ago are certainly not the same as today. Even some groups who were considered isolated are not as isolated as some would like to think.

I personally don't believe any R1b subclade was common among classical Greeks, though, but we will see.

Erikl86
11-03-2018, 08:33 PM
Could be Anatolian Hellenes, Greek colonies were not necessarily only set up by mainland Greeks.

Carbotti
11-03-2018, 08:43 PM
R-L51* in Anatolia? is not it simpler and more probable that they are ancient italics?

Erikl86
11-03-2018, 08:53 PM
It might indeed represent a remnant of pre-Greek South Italians, however, my assumption is then that it would be also more widely distributed in the rest of Italy. The fact it's quite rare in Northern Italy, might make two scenarios plausible:

1. It was more common among pre-Greek Southern Italian population than North Italians to begin with.
2. It has entered via Greek colonization, but not mainland Greece where it doesn't seem to exist.

I find scenario 1 to be plausible, but less likely than scenario 2.

Carbotti
11-03-2018, 09:07 PM
Example: ". Latino-Faliscians occupied the Tyrrhenian coast between the current Lazio and Calabria and overlapped and mingled with the oldest Neolithic peoples. They had cremation burials and possessed advanced metallurgical techniques. Major tribes included: Latins and Falisci in Lazio, Oenotrians (and Itali?) in Calabria, Ausones, Aurunci and Opici in Campania and perhaps Sicels in Sicily. " ?

ADW_1981
11-03-2018, 09:16 PM
I personally don't believe any R1b subclade was common among classical Greeks, though, but we will see.

Even though it's already turned up in aDNA from the classical period? (which it has) I'd agree with you if you suggested the Neolithic period.

Mr. Snow
11-03-2018, 09:22 PM
my assumption is then that it would be also more widely distributed in the rest of Italy

https://i.imgur.com/n8jTjHT.jpg
If instead you add M269* + L23* + L51* you get:

11-13% in Calabria
9-10% in Sicily
6-13% in Apulia
9% in Tuscany
11% in Liguria

How many M269* or L23* or L51* are there in Bell Beaker? Zero, right? Because those people in southern Italy are ancestral to Bell Beaker not derivative of them.

rms2
11-03-2018, 09:34 PM
Another study of modern y-dna.

Such studies, however, do take us back in time . . . but only to about 2007 or so, when yacking on and on about modern y-dna was nearly all there was to do.

Interesting that modern people in southern Italy should be regarded as ancestral to Bell Beaker in the 3rd millennium BC. Marvelous!

R.Rocca
11-03-2018, 10:05 PM
Another study of modern y-dna.

Such studies, however, do take us back in time . . . but only to about 2007 or so, when yacking on and on about modern y-dna was nearly all there was to do.

Interesting that modern people in southern Italy should be regarded as ancestral to Bell Beaker in the 3rd millennium BC. Marvelous!

Yeah, like trying to argue that vinyl records sound better. It's 2018 people, get with the program!

alan
11-03-2018, 10:13 PM
Has it not already been shown that the MRCA of L51xL11 lines dates to about 3700BC? ? It’s not ancestral to L11, it’s parallel. Anyone got a MRCA for just the south Italian subset? It may be that they are not terribly old. The

alan
11-03-2018, 10:36 PM
I think that is a huge underestimate of the number of scenarios which exist to explain how one minor branch of L51 got its distribution. There’s maybe 5700 years of movements between the common ancestor of living L51 and today. Little things like the Roman Empire with it’s ability to move peoples around need to be considered. Even pure chance of one stray guy moving. There is also a concentration in Tyrol. Who knows? The Romans could have overrun a small tribe with a mining tradition and enslaved them to work various mines across the empire.

Mr. Snow
11-04-2018, 12:14 AM
Yeah, like trying to argue that vinyl records sound better. It's 2018 people, get with the program!

Are you aware of the fact that even though the original Allentoft study claimed their Remedello samples were from between 3483BC-1773BC that claim was false and has been corrected?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/
All the Remedello samples are actually from Remedello I 5.5–5.1 kya, we have 0 (Zero) samples from Remedello II. Researchers can sample another 10000 ancient steppe males and find no L51 or they can start looking in the right place.

alan
11-04-2018, 02:14 AM
Are you aware of the fact that even though the original Allentoft study claimed their Remedello samples were from between 3483BC-1773BC that claim was false and has been corrected?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/
All the Remedello samples are actually from Remedello I 5.5–5.1 kya, we have 0 (Zero) samples from Remedello II. Researchers can sample another 10000 ancient steppe males and find no L51 or they can start looking in the right place.

There is no chance that beaker is derived from Remello II. And I don’t see now L51xL11 in Italy would lead to thay conclusion anyway. That branch and the P312 branch leading to beaker split long before remedello II existed. So
It’s not ancestral to beaker P312.

ADW_1981
11-04-2018, 03:12 AM
https://i.imgur.com/n8jTjHT.jpg
If instead you add M269* + L23* + L51* you get:

11-13% in Calabria
9-10% in Sicily
6-13% in Apulia
9% in Tuscany
11% in Liguria

How many M269* or L23* or L51* are there in Bell Beaker? Zero, right? Because those people in southern Italy are ancestral to Bell Beaker not derivative of them.

Or you could be looking at the data the wrong way. The lineages you are adding up may have absolutely nothing to do with the lineages of R1b (L11) in northern Europe, but may have arrived with J2 or some other migration from Anatolia or the western Middle East. Since J2 and R1b-L23 correlate with one another, but L11+ correlates only with I2-M223 and I1.

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 03:51 AM
Another study of modern y-dna.

Such studies, however, do take us back in time . . . but only to about 2007 or so, when yacking on and on about modern y-dna was nearly all there was to do.

Interesting that modern people in southern Italy should be regarded as ancestral to Bell Beaker in the 3rd millennium BC. Marvelous!

I don't see what's so unreasonable about looking at the distribution of the more ancient subclades of a particular branch of Y DNA to track migrations. It just so happens that for L51*, this is firmly in the West Mediterranean (and not in Eastern Europe). To me, that points to a Western origin of the Central European Beaker folk.

Principe
11-04-2018, 04:23 AM
I highly doubt R1b-M412 is due to Greek origin, that high percent is probably due to a founder effect, Salento is in Puglia and the frequency is 2% in Puglia, which kind of makes it closer to the rest of the averages, R1b-M412 probably entered Italy pre Bronze Age or was a minor Italic lineage.

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 10:19 AM
26879 This is the diffusion map of R1b-L51* (PF7589) according to the GENO 2.0 tests From this map I see that it is higher in South Italy, Sicily, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland

What is the common denominator between south Italy, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland?

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 10:24 AM
From this map I see that it is higher in South Italy, North East Italy, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland . What is the common denominator? 26880

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 11:44 AM
I highly doubt R1b-M412 is due to Greek origin, that high percent is probably due to a founder effect, Salento is in Puglia and the frequency is 2% in Puglia, which kind of makes it closer to the rest of the averages, R1b-M412 probably entered Italy pre Bronze Age or was a minor Italic lineage.

It is surely due to a founder effect, but even without this particular case the frequencies in that area are still relatively high compared to almost anywhere else outside of the West Med

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 11:46 AM
From this map I see that it is higher in South Italy, North East Italy, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland . What is the common denominator? 26880

This map seems a lot better:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/05/57/ca05571d5b8d5e1d2bfc9cabdcb811fb.png

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 12:34 PM
This map seems a lot better:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/05/57/ca05571d5b8d5e1d2bfc9cabdcb811fb.png

Help me to understand: how can we say that in France there is the highest frequency of R-L51 * if France is poorly tested? Help me!

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 12:45 PM
Help me to understand: how can we say that in France there is the highest frequency of R-L51 * if France is poorly tested? Help me!

Well it’s as a percentage

alan
11-04-2018, 01:29 PM
26879 This is the diffusion map of R1b-L51* (PF7589) according to the GENO 2.0 tests From this map I see that it is higher in South Italy, Sicily, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland

What is the common denominator between south Italy, England, Normandy, Belgium, Holland?
Norman Knights would explain England, Normandy and Sicily and recall too that the Norman’s actually included Flemings from the Low Countries.

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 01:39 PM
Well it’s as a percentage

but France apart from Normandy, it is not tested

R.Rocca
11-04-2018, 02:44 PM
Help me to understand: how can we say that in France there is the highest frequency of R-L51 * if France is poorly tested? Help me!

I made this map in 2012. It was based on the data found in the study Myres et al 2010. Unlike testing bias found in commercial testing companies that make every group seem like its from southern Italy (where a large percentage of Italian American testers are from), it is unbiased. In that study they found 0% L51 in Greece.

ADW_1981
11-04-2018, 03:28 PM
I don't see what's so unreasonable about looking at the distribution of the more ancient subclades of a particular branch of Y DNA to track migrations. It just so happens that for L51*, this is firmly in the West Mediterranean (and not in Eastern Europe). To me, that points to a Western origin of the Central European Beaker folk.

That's not even a fact, L51(xL11) is quite common in Germany for instance. I'm not sure what study had it firmly west Mediterranean but lacking in central Europe, but that is contrary to what the FTDNA data will tell you.

R.Rocca
11-04-2018, 03:43 PM
For those on this thread that have pointed at high modern frequency (four samples) as an indicator of L51 origin in Southern Italy (which is absurd), then you need to revise your stance every time a high frequency pops up. The highest modern frequency of L51* (which just so we are all clear is really just subclade L51>Z2111) is in East Tyrol Austria at 16.67%, which is tied with U152 (also 16.67%) and second to U106 (30.56%):

26882

rms2
11-04-2018, 03:51 PM
I don't see what's so unreasonable about looking at the distribution of the more ancient subclades of a particular branch of Y DNA to track migrations. It just so happens that for L51*, this is firmly in the West Mediterranean (and not in Eastern Europe). To me, that points to a Western origin of the Central European Beaker folk.

How is the y-dna borne by one modern man of the 21st century any more ancient than the y-dna borne by any other contemporary modern man of the 21st century?

There are no modern men who are truly L51*, as if they were throwbacks to the original L51-and-nothing-beyond-it progenitor.

Finding a relatively rare (meaning unsuccessful) L51 subclade someplace does not make that subclade the fountainhead of the rest of L51 and that locale the Urheimat of L51. I wish we could get past that silliness.

Ancient y-dna coupled with the rest of the ancient genome is the answer.

Ask yourself why David Reich refers to the R1b-P312 of ancient Iberia as steppe-derived.

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 03:57 PM
You should know that "full of Normans" is quite vague and concerning the historians of the 19th century, they would be much to say. As far as we know, the genealogies of the Norman families we can trace back to the Normans are very little and show there was a little number of Norman adventurers that finally settled. Alberto Varvaro counts 274 knights or families actually from Normandy who settled in the 11th - 12th century and all together with other "French" immigrants : 385. For Sicily alone : 99 Normans out of 139 from France. Their influence and their role were much more considerable than their number. That is the reason why the Normans are largely mythologized in Southern Italy and Sicily until today.

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 04:06 PM
As far as we know, the genealogies of the Norman families we can trace back to the Normans are very little and show there was a little number of Norman adventurers that finally settled. Alberto Varvaro counts 274 knights or families actually from Normandy who settled in the 11th - 12th century and all together with other "French" immigrants : 385. For Sicily alone : 99 Normans out of 139 from France. Their influence and their role were much more considerable than their number. That is the reason why the Normans are largely mythologized in Southern Italy and Sicily until today.

Helgenes50
11-04-2018, 04:39 PM
As far as we know, the genealogies of the Norman families we can trace back to the Normans are very little and show there was a little number of Norman adventurers that finally settled. Alberto Varvaro counts 274 knights or families actually from Normandy who settled in the 11th - 12th century and all together with other "French" immigrants : 385. For Sicily alone : 99 Normans out of 139 from France. Their influence and their role were much more considerable than their number. That is the reason why the Normans are largely mythologized in Southern Italy and Sicily until today.

The best known among these Norman adventurers, those of the Tancred family come from North West Normandy, from Cotentin to be precise, next to Coutances, where there is a cathedral, the latter having been built in large part thanks to the victory of the Normans in Mediterranean.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/50570+Hauteville-la-Guichard/@49.1835384,-1.5722559,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x480b8eb06ae88309:0x771cb6057fa58 37e!8m2!3d49.127327!4d-1.299744

https://www.google.com/search?q=cath%C3%A9drale+de+coutances&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTqN6VlrveAhUD3RoKHRLTCoUQ_AUIDygC&biw=1650&bih=942

R.Rocca
11-04-2018, 04:57 PM
As far as we know, the genealogies of the Norman families we can trace back to the Normans are very little and show there was a little number of Norman adventurers that finally settled. Alberto Varvaro counts 274 knights or families actually from Normandy who settled in the 11th - 12th century and all together with other "French" immigrants : 385. For Sicily alone : 99 Normans out of 139 from France. Their influence and their role were much more considerable than their number. That is the reason why the Normans are largely mythologized in Southern Italy and Sicily until today.

Looks like you missed my post above as it completely removes any need for talking about Greeks, Southern Italy or Normans, at least according to the flawed "high frequency = origin" thinking:

For those on this thread that have pointed at high modern frequency (four samples) as an indicator of L51 origin in Southern Italy (which is absurd), then you need to revise your stance every time a high frequency pops up. The highest modern frequency of L51* (which just so we are all clear is really just subclade L51>Z2111) is in East Tyrol Austria at 16.67%, which is tied with U152 (also 16.67%) and second to U106 (30.56%):

26882

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 05:20 PM
Looks like you missed my post above as it completely removes any need for talking about Greeks, Southern Italy or Normans, at least according to the flawed "high frequency = origin" thinking:

For those on this thread that have pointed at high modern frequency (four samples) as an indicator of L51 origin in Southern Italy (which is absurd), then you need to revise your stance every time a high frequency pops up. The highest modern frequency of L51* (which just so we are all clear is really just subclade L51>Z2111) is in East Tyrol Austria at 16.67%, which is tied with U152 (also 16.67%) and second to U106 (30.56%):

26882



Richard , either they are not Greeks? Yes ?

R.Rocca
11-04-2018, 06:05 PM
Richard , either they are not Greeks? Yes ?

Yes they are Greek speakers.... doesn’t mean those L51 weren’t already in southern Italy before the Greeks got there though.

Carbotti
11-04-2018, 06:11 PM
Looks like you missed my post above as it completely removes any need for talking about Greeks, Southern Italy or Normans, at least according to the flawed "high frequency = origin" thinking:

For those on this thread that have pointed at high modern frequency (four samples) as an indicator of L51 origin in Southern Italy (which is absurd), then you need to revise your stance every time a high frequency pops up. The highest modern frequency of L51* (which just so we are all clear is really just subclade L51>Z2111) is in East Tyrol Austria at 16.67%, which is tied with U152 (also 16.67%) and second to U106 (30.56%):

26882

Richard, in this study the L51 * are L11- (negative)! Why do you refer to U152? I do not understand!

Principe
11-04-2018, 06:26 PM
Yes they are Greek speakers.... doesn’t mean those L51 weren’t already in southern Italy before the Greeks got there though.

Just to mention I1 is found at 2.4% among Salentini and we know for sure this line was neither Greek nor Italic.

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 06:36 PM
For those on this thread that have pointed at high modern frequency (four samples) as an indicator of L51 origin in Southern Italy (which is absurd), then you need to revise your stance every time a high frequency pops up. The highest modern frequency of L51* (which just so we are all clear is really just subclade L51>Z2111) is in East Tyrol Austria at 16.67%, which is tied with U152 (also 16.67%) and second to U106 (30.56%):

26882

That doesn't really change the overall distribution too heavily, though, and because of the isolated mountain lifestyle there is probably a heightened number due to founder effects. But the OVERALL distribution cannot reasonably be put down to founder effects, and that distribution is broadly West Mediterranean (seemingly around the French and Italian Rivieras (or just more broadly, Southern France and Northern Italy)).


How is the y-dna borne by one modern man of the 21st century any more ancient than the y-dna borne by any other contemporary modern man of the 21st century?

There are no modern men who are truly L51*, as if they were throwbacks to the original L51-and-nothing-beyond-it progenitor.

Finding a relatively rare (meaning unsuccessful) L51 subclade someplace does not make that subclade the fountainhead of the rest of L51 and that locale the Urheimat of L51. I wish we could get past that silliness.

Ancient y-dna coupled with the rest of the ancient genome is the answer.

Ask yourself why David Reich refers to the R1b-P312 of ancient Iberia as steppe-derived.

Why can't the distribution of the more "archaic" subclades of L51 be used to roughly guesstimate its origin?

Also, I will say, that France in particular is barely sampled around the 3000-2500 BC range. Perhaps there would be L51 samples hiding out there...

rms2
11-04-2018, 07:14 PM
. . .

Why can't the distribution of the more "archaic" subclades of L51 be used to roughly guesstimate its origin?

Because the L51 subclade of one modern man is as "archaic" as the L51 subclade of any other modern man.

What makes you think there are modern men walking around who belong to y-dna subclades that are throwbacks to some more primitive form of L51? Where does one find these living museum pieces?

Modern men living in the 21st century are all the products of y chromosome lines that are roughly equally distant from their common L51 ancestor. They have all had roughly the same amount of time to accumulate mutations. There aren't any men around today descended from lines whose SNP clocks stopped in the 3rd millennium BC.



Also, I will say, that France in particular is barely sampled around the 3000-2500 BC range. Perhaps there would be L51 samples hiding out there...

Why would we expect there to be? There's no good reason for it. Since no L23 or even M269 has been found there or anywhere nearby earlier, that would mean any L51 found in what is now France c. 3000-2500 BC would have had to come from someplace else. Where?

Beside the fact that L51 isn't turning up in Europe before the mid third millennium BC, when it does finally turn up, it's always with a healthy dose of steppe autosomal dna.

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 07:31 PM
Because the L51 subclade of one modern man is as "archaic" as the L51 subclade of any other modern man.

What makes you think there are modern men walking around who belong to y-dna subclades that are throwbacks to some more primitive form of L51? Where does one find these living museum pieces?

Modern men living in the 21st century are all the products of y chromosome lines that are roughly equally distant from their common L51 ancestor. They have all had roughly the same amount of time to accumulate mutations. There aren't any men around today descended from lines whose SNP clocks stopped in the 3rd millennium BC.



Why would we expect there to be? There's no good reason for it. Since no L23 or even M269 has been found there or anywhere nearby earlier, that would mean any L51 found in what is now France c. 3000-2500 BC would have had to come from someplace else. Where?

Beside the fact that L51 isn't turning up in Europe before the mid third millennium BC, when it does finally turn up, it's always with a healthy dose of steppe autosomal dna.

I understand that, but the point is they belong to branches that branched off from the rest of the L51 group at an early stage. That surely indicates their paternal ancestor that was the first to belong to that mutation was around at roughly the same time as L51 came to be, or at least close to that stage (given the age estimates). Which suggests they were in roughly the same place too. That definitely makes sense...

And the point is that the first time L51 turns up on the record is around that time, and not beforehand. It could have come from West or East. And the distribution of the older branched-off branches of Y DNA heavily favours an origin in the West. I use the same logic to come to the conclusion that L23 was originally West Asian, and M269 Balkan. Which also happens to match up extremely well with the spread of metallurgy.

So far, the evidence is overwhelming that Yamnaya was Z2103. Vucedol was even Z2103. Where could L51 have come from if from the East? The only option is with Corded Ware as some hidden elite lineage, but that is so unlikely.

And what about the distribution of IE languages? Check out this map (approx. of IE around 2000 BC):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Indo-european_languages_-_expansion_2000_BC_-_map.jpg

Does the distribution of Western IE remind of, oh I don't know, the Corded Ware culture? This is well after the Beaker folk invaded Western Europe. Yet both Iberia and Britain were part of a non-Indo-European Bronze Age trading complex. ALL Western IE can be traced back to U106 and U152 - the only two branches of L51 to have Central European origins (zones of development inside the former CWC).

And by the way, Bell Beaker = P312 and Unetice = U106 (also explaining similarities of Germanic with Balto-Slavic). That doesn't contradict either of our hypotheses though, but just saying...

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 07:42 PM
Because the L51 subclade of one modern man is as "archaic" as the L51 subclade of any other modern man.

What makes you think there are modern men walking around who belong to y-dna subclades that are throwbacks to some more primitive form of L51? Where does one find these living museum pieces?

Modern men living in the 21st century are all the products of y chromosome lines that are roughly equally distant from their common L51 ancestor. They have all had roughly the same amount of time to accumulate mutations. There aren't any men around today descended from lines whose SNP clocks stopped in the 3rd millennium BC.



Why would we expect there to be? There's no good reason for it. Since no L23 or even M269 has been found there or anywhere nearby earlier, that would mean any L51 found in what is now France c. 3000-2500 BC would have had to come from someplace else. Where?

Beside the fact that L51 isn't turning up in Europe before the mid third millennium BC, when it does finally turn up, it's always with a healthy dose of steppe autosomal dna.

Here's something I posted on a different forum:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37281-R1b-L23-Migration-Map-Hypothesis

I'm pretty confident in it, even if the map is scruffy and very approximate (but I explain what it all means in the first post). It is wrong in some places though, but I haven't gotten round to correcting it, but the details are minor.

alan
11-04-2018, 08:33 PM
If Remedello 2 did turn out to have L51xL11 the it would be a parallel, not ancestral, movement relative to L11. The date of the split between the two branches is given (and it’s probably an underestimate) by the yfull MRCA cate of 3700BC which is nearly a milleneum before Remedello 2. So the idea that Beaker P312 lineages derives from an L51x L11 Remedello2 group in Italy just doesnt work. What is more a possibility is that Remedello 2 could have been a seperate break off from an L51 group 2900/2800BC in east-central Europe while beaker was a stay-home L11 part of the same group who only expanded a little later later c 2600BC. But this is just a guess till we have Remedello 2 samples. They may just turn out to be kurganised non-steppe local/displaced Balkans farmer types

Ethereal
11-04-2018, 10:42 PM
If they ever find L51 on the Steppe, and it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt (and old, obviously, so not P312/U106 or anything like that), I'll give the first person to quote this £50.

I'm serious - I just don't see how it could possibly be Steppe given the Y DNA distribution (of early branched subclades), and also the fact that Yamnaya (and its influences like Vucedol) were clearly Z2103.

rms2
11-04-2018, 11:32 PM
I understand that, but the point is they belong to branches that branched off from the rest of the L51 group at an early stage. That surely indicates their paternal ancestor that was the first to belong to that mutation was around at roughly the same time as L51 came to be, or at least close to that stage (given the age estimates). Which suggests they were in roughly the same place too. That definitely makes sense...

No, it doesn't. How do you know which groups branched off L51 earliest? Just because a subclade wasn't successful and is therefore relatively rare doesn't mean it stems from a line that branched off early.

Too much time has passed since the third millennium BC to allow us to use modern y-dna to say much about the origin of L51.

Ancient dna is the only way.



And the point is that the first time L51 turns up on the record is around that time, and not beforehand. It could have come from West or East. And the distribution of the older branched-off branches of Y DNA heavily favours an origin in the West . . .

No, it doesn't. No M269 or L23 has been found in central or western Europe before the advent of the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people. L51 could not have come from a place with no M269 or L23. So L51 did not come from the West.



So far, the evidence is overwhelming that Yamnaya was Z2103. Vucedol was even Z2103. Where could L51 have come from if from the East? The only option is with Corded Ware as some hidden elite lineage, but that is so unlikely.

R1b-L11xP312,U106 has been found in Proto-Nagyrev in Hungary c. 2500 BC. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from Late Vucedol to Nagyrev (it was derived from Late Vucedol). That's nearly as good as finding L11 in Vucedol.

Thus far, we have no ancient y-dna from Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, from Mikhailovna or Kemi Oba, from Budzhak, or from much of the western steppe.

We have quite a bit of Neolithic farmer stuff from central and western Europe, however, and none of it is even M269, let alone L51. When L51 finally appears in the middle of the third millennium BC, it is with steppe-derived, Indo-European people.



And what about the distribution of IE languages? Check out this map (approx. of IE around 2000 BC):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Indo-european_languages_-_expansion_2000_BC_-_map.jpg

Does the distribution of Western IE remind of, oh I don't know, the Corded Ware culture? This is well after the Beaker folk invaded Western Europe. Yet both Iberia and Britain were part of a non-Indo-European Bronze Age trading complex. ALL Western IE can be traced back to U106 and U152 - the only two branches of L51 to have Central European origins (zones of development inside the former CWC).

And by the way, Bell Beaker = P312 and Unetice = U106 (also explaining similarities of Germanic with Balto-Slavic). That doesn't contradict either of our hypotheses though, but just saying...

That's a crappy map, because by 2000 BC Indo-European had already spread to shores of the Atlantic. You selectively reduced the scope of Indo-European to make its spread look like it supports your ideas. That's not honest.

I'm not sure what your motivation is, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

rms2
11-04-2018, 11:40 PM
If they ever find L51 on the Steppe, and it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt (and old, obviously, so not P312/U106 or anything like that), I'll give the first person to quote this £50.

I'm serious - I just don't see how it could possibly be Steppe given the Y DNA distribution (of early branched subclades), and also the fact that Yamnaya (and its influences like Vucedol) were clearly Z2103.

L51 means any kind of L51. P312 and U106 are both old enough to turn up on the steppe.

What "early branched subclades"?

Like I said in my prior post, R1b-L11xP312,U106 has already been found in Proto-Nagyrev, which represents the transition period between Vucedol and full-blown Nagyrev.

Why does David Reich refer to R1b-P312 as being of steppe origin? You know more than he does?

rms2
11-05-2018, 12:44 AM
This is from pages 239-240 of David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here:



This Yamnaya expansion also cannot have been entirely friendly, as is clear from the fact that the proportion of Y chromosomes of steppe origin in both western Europe26 and India27 today is much larger than the proportion of steppe ancestry in the rest of the genome. This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups. The most striking example I know of is from Iberia in far southwestern Europe, where Yamnaya-derived ancestry arrived at the onset of the Bronze Age between forty-five hundred and four thousand years ago. Daniel Bradley's laboratory and my laboratory independently produced ancient DNA from individuals of this period.28 We found that approximately 30 percent of the Iberian population was replaced along with the arrival of steppe ancestry. However, the replacement of Y chromosomes was much more dramatic: in our data around 90 percent of males who carry Yamnaya ancestry have a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time. It is clear there were extraordinary hierarchies and imbalances in power at work in the expansions from the steppe.


Clearly that "Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time" was R1b-P312.

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 01:12 AM
No, it doesn't. How do you know which groups branched off L51 earliest? Just because a subclade wasn't successful and is therefore relatively rare doesn't mean it stems from a line that branched off early.

Too much time has passed since the third millennium BC to allow us to use modern y-dna to say much about the origin of L51.

Ancient dna is the only way.



No, it doesn't. No M269 or L23 has been found in central or western Europe before the advent of the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people. L51 could not have come from a place with no M269 or L23. So L51 did not come from the West.



R1b-L11xP312,U106 has been found in Proto-Nagyrev in Hungary c. 2500 BC. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from Late Vucedol to Nagyrev (it was derived from Late Vucedol). That's nearly as good as finding L11 in Vucedol.

Thus far, we have no ancient y-dna from Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, from Mikhailovna or Kemi Oba, from Budzhak, or from much of the western steppe.

We have quite a bit of Neolithic farmer stuff from central and western Europe, however, and none of it is even M269, let alone L51. When L51 finally appears in the middle of the third millennium BC, it is with steppe-derived, Indo-European people.



That's a crappy map, because by 2000 BC Indo-European had already spread to shores of the Atlantic. You selectively reduced the scope of Indo-European to make its spread look like it supports your ideas. That's not honest.

I'm not sure what your motivation is, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

What about ATP3? That has the SNP calls all the way up to M269, and was in Spain over 5000 years bp. That R1b-L11* is interesting - it could still represent an Eastern migration of L51 folk though, especially as if I'm not mistaken there's a big gap in time between L51 and L11. It reminds of this map (though I don't think I associate early Beaker pottery with L51 - and yes that map also supports your hypothesis, but I'm just pointing it out in reference to that L11 you mentioned):

https://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-5_societal/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1_peopling-europe/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1-11/BellBeakerGroups.jpg

Also, I wasn't trying to purposefully deceive anybody - but the consensus is that IE languages didn't reach the Atlantic coast until the spread of the Celts from Hallstatt. I don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about, when I can GUARANTEE you have absolutely no evidence of IE languages by the Atlantic as early as 2000BC. The earliest I could even possibly imagine would be around the time of the Sea Peoples (which I think were U152 folk, but that is definitely an unfounded view), but even then mainstream consensus is much much later than even that.

Also, Reich isn't some god. I'm working on the information that's public, that's all. About the clear association of the first appearance of L51 and Steppe autosomal DNA - firstly, ATP3 has a Steppe-like component (though I don't think it actually comes from the Steppe - calling all combinations of EHG and CHG "Steppe" is misleading), but secondly, I think that the spread of the Beaker folk across Western Europe was due to interaction with the recent arrivals of the Corded folk in Germany. Again, also explains why IE wasn't present in Western Europe while all these Beaker folk were.

You definitely don't have to be arrogant, though. I'm more than capable enough to understand this topic, and you assuming otherwise is just impolite - for whatever that counts for nowadays.

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 01:26 AM
L51 means any kind of L51. P312 and U106 are both old enough to turn up on the steppe.

What "early branched subclades"?

Like I said in my prior post, R1b-L11xP312,U106 has already been found in Proto-Nagyrev, which represents the transition period between Vucedol and full-blown Nagyrev.

Why does David Reich refer to R1b-P312 as being of steppe origin? You know more than he does?

Looks like that Proto-Nagyrev sample isn't even that Steppe, according to the Eurogenes comments section it scored the following:

Barcin: 57.7
Yamnaya: 24
WHG: 12.7
CHG: 4.9

Who knows though, maybe we just got an unlucky "impure" sample due to mixing with farmers right, and that Z2103 with 74% Steppe-related ancestry had more by chance, right?

With an open mind, does it not look like Hungary is the meeting point between Yamnaya's Danubian expansion, and the L51 folk?

And not only that, it looks like this L11 isn't even that early a sample - it's dated between 2500-2200 BC (and we have P312 somewhat earlier than that I believe, if we take it to mean about 2350 BC). So it basically means nothing - just that a group containing L11 migrated to Hungary at some point. It could have been before the Beakers arrived in Central Europe in your hypothesis, or it could have been an Eastwards migration to Hungary (before meeting the Yamnaya culture "wall") in my hypothesis. I presume that U152 was found amongst this L11 given its dating and the fact that U152 dominated Hungarian BB folk, so what does that look like? The chronology is on my side for the Eastern migration to Hungary, given the R1b of the earlier Vucedol culture was Z2103, and only later do we find L11 along with U152!

rms2
11-05-2018, 01:36 AM
What about ATP3? That has the SNP calls all the way up to M269 . . .

No, it doesn't. That was discussed long ago. ATP3 was a low quality sample that could not be assigned a y haplogroup.

Here is anglesqueville's analysis of what there is of ATP3's BAM file (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13871-Oldest-Steppe-Bell-Beakers-Saxony-Anhalt-Germany&p=416033&viewfull=1#post416033).

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 01:40 AM
No, it doesn't. That was discussed long ago. ATP3 was a low quality sample that could not be assigned a y haplogroup.

Here is anglesqueville's analysis of what there is of ATP3's BAM file (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13871-Oldest-Steppe-Bell-Beakers-Saxony-Anhalt-Germany&p=416033&viewfull=1#post416033).

Well Genetiker and him disagree then, but it isn't a smoking gun regardless

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-atp3/

rms2
11-05-2018, 01:55 AM
Looks like that Proto-Nagyrev sample isn't even that Steppe, according to the Eurogenes comments section it scored the following:

Barcin: 57.7
Yamnaya: 24
WHG: 12.7
CHG: 4.9

Oh, well, of course the comments section of Eurogenes is authoritative.

How did they manage to get CHG and Yamnaya? CHG is a component part of Yamnaya.



Who knows though, maybe we just got an unlucky "impure" sample due to mixing with farmers right, and that Z2103 with 74% Steppe-related ancestry had more by chance, right?

Vucedol was the product of the mixing of steppe pastoralists and European Neolithic farmers. Nothing "impure" about that. Those Proto-Nagyrev samples don't help your argument, just the opposite. When L51 begins to appear in Europe, it does so with steppe dna and in steppe-derived cultures.



With an open mind, does it not look like Hungary is the meeting point between Yamnaya's Danubian expansion, and the L51 folk?

There wasn't any M269 or L23 let alone L51 there prior to the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people, who were descendants of the Yamnaya people.

L51 did not meet anyone in Hungary until it arrived there from the steppe.



And not only that, it looks like this L11 isn't even that early a sample - it's dated between 2500-2200 BC (and we have P312 somewhat earlier than that I believe, if we take it to mean about 2350 BC). So it basically means nothing - just that a group containing L11 migrated to Hungary at some point. It could have been before the Beakers arrived in Central Europe in your hypothesis, or it could have been an Eastwards migration to Hungary (before meeting the Yamnaya culture "wall") in my hypothesis. I presume that U152 was found amongst this L11 given its dating and the fact that U152 dominated Hungarian BB folk, so what does that look like? The chronology is on my side for the Eastern migration to Hungary, given the R1b of the earlier Vucedol culture was Z2103, and only later do we find L11 along with U152!

Proto-Nagyrev came from Vucedol, not Bell Beaker. You argue that the R1b-L11xP312,U106 found in it doesn't mean much, because it is not helpful to your cause.

Steppe-derived Bell Beaker people did not originate in the west and then migrate east. Their culture was a steppe pastoralist culture, and they carried steppe dna, as well as y-dna of steppe origin.

rms2
11-05-2018, 02:04 AM
. . .

Also, I wasn't trying to purposefully deceive anybody - but the consensus is that IE languages didn't reach the Atlantic coast until the spread of the Celts from Hallstatt. I don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about, when I can GUARANTEE you have absolutely no evidence of IE languages by the Atlantic as early as 2000BC . . .

Quite a few scholars over the years have attributed the spread of some form of Indo-European, perhaps early Italo-Celtic, to the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people, and they were established in the British Isles, Ireland, Italy, and Iberia by 2000 BC, so your map was bogus.



Also, Reich isn't some god . . .


That would be an answer, had I asserted that Reich is divine. I didn't do that. Instead I quoted him clearly saying that 90 percent of the Y-chromosome lines in Iberia were replaced by Y-chromosome lines of steppe origin beginning about 4500 years ago.

Pretty obviously that was R1b-P312.

Reich may not be divine or even semi-divine, but he is one the world's foremost experts on ancient dna. He also has knowledge of thousands of as-yet unpublished ancient samples.

Maybe you'd care to explain why you think he is mistaken.

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 02:19 AM
Oh, well, of course the comments section of Eurogenes is authoritative.

How did they manage to get CHG and Yamnaya? CHG is a component part of Yamnaya.



Vucedol was the product of the mixing of steppe pastoralists and European Neolithic farmers. Nothing "impure" about that. Those Proto-Nagyrev samples don't help your argument, just the opposite. When L51 begins to appear in Europe, it does so with steppe dna and in steppe-derived cultures.



There wasn't any M269 or L23 let alone L51 there prior to the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people, who were descendants of the Yamnaya people.

L51 did not meet anyone in Hungary until it arrived there from the steppe.



Proto-Nagyrev came from Vucedol, not Bell Beaker. You argue that the R1b-L11xP312,U106 found in it doesn't mean much, because it is not helpful to your cause.

Steppe-derived Bell Beaker people did not originate in the west and then migrate east. Their culture was a steppe pastoralist culture, and they carried steppe dna, as well as y-dna of steppe origin.

Stop being so patronising - I'm aware CHG was part of Yamnaya, I believe I mentioned it earlier, but regardless I presume it means excess CHG that isn't covered by any amount of the constant EHG:CHG proportions of Yamnaya.

You seem to have missed my point again too - what I clearly mean is that I don't think it's a coincidence that the Hungarian Steppe sample with 74% (compared to 24% here) was the one with Z2103 (compared to L51).

You saying L51 did not meet anyone in Hungary until it arrived there from the Steppe is just stating your hypothesis - I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that Proto-Nagyrev was derived from Vucedol (or at least, I took your word for it). You again, though, have skipped over another point - that the L11 was found with U152 at a point later than the Vucedol culture, which we can presume to have been Z2103. This points to an EASTWARDS migration.

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 02:21 AM
Quite a few scholars over the years have attributed the spread of some form of Indo-European, perhaps early Italo-Celtic, to the steppe-derived Bell Beaker people, and they were established in the British Isles, Ireland, Italy, and Iberia by 2000 BC, so your map was bogus.



That would be an answer, had I asserted that Reich is divine. I didn't do that. Instead I quoted him clearly saying that 90 percent of the Y-chromosome lines in Iberia were replaced by Y-chromosome lines of steppe origin beginning about 4500 years ago.

Pretty obviously that was R1b-P312.

Reich may not be divine or even semi-divine, but he is one the world's foremost experts on ancient dna. He also has knowledge of thousands of as-yet unpublished ancient samples.

Maybe you'd care to explain why you think he is mistaken.

Because I think he is merely associating P312 (more broadly L51) with Steppe DNA and just assuming that meant it came from the Steppe. From all the talks of his I've watched, that seems to be the case.

rms2
11-05-2018, 02:31 AM
Proto-Nagyrev was later than Vucedol itself. It was a transitional phase between Vucedol, its parent culture, and full-blown Nagyrev. No U152 has been found in Proto-Nagyrev or in Vucedol.

What you don't seem to understand is that, since Vucedol itself was the product of the amalgam of steppe pastoralists and Old European Neolithic farmers, it's not surprising to find Neolithic farmer dna mixed with steppe dna in Proto-Nagyrev.

We have a fair amount of Balkan Neolithic farmer y-dna, and none of it is M269 or L23, let alone L51.

If L51 was already in Hungary before Yamnaya got there, then we should be finding it somewhere west of the steppe before the arrival of Yamnaya. We aren't, which is not restating my hypothesis; it's explaining that there was no L51 in Hungary before Yamnaya. Similarly, L51 did not greet the arrival of steppe people in Iberia, because it got there with them and, as Reich said, wasn't there before then.

There were at least two Kurgan waves out of the steppe before Yamnaya, which was Wave 3. If L51 was already in Hungary before Yamnaya (which I doubt), it arrived with steppe pastoralists from one or both of those earlier waves.

rms2
11-05-2018, 02:35 AM
Because I think he is merely associating P312 (more broadly L51) with Steppe DNA and just assuming that meant it came from the Steppe. From all the talks of his I've watched, that seems to be the case.

He strikes me as much more careful than that. I don't think he would call P312 "a Y-Chromosome type of steppe origin", if he did not know that to be true.

If he didn't know it to be true and was merely assuming it, then it would make absolutely no sense to draw the contrast he does between the steppe autosomal dna replacement in Iberia (30% in that quote) and the steppe y-dna replacement (90%).

Reich based his whole discussion of the imbalance of power on that contrast. That would not make sense if he was merely assuming that P312 is a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin.

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 02:38 AM
Proto-Nagyrev was later than Vucedol itself. It was a transitional phase between Vucedol, its parent culture, and full-blown Nagyrev. No U152 has been found in Proto-Nagyrev or in Vucedol.

What you don't seem to understand is that, since Vucedol itself was the product of the amalgam of steppe pastoralists and Old European Neolithic farmers, it's not surprising to find Neolithic farmer dna mixed with steppe dna in Proto-Nagyrev.

We have a fair amount of Balkan Neolithic farmer y-dna, and none of it is M269 or L23, let alone L51.

If L51 was already in Hungary before Yamnaya got there, then we should be finding it somewhere west of the steppe before the arrival of Yamnaya. We aren't, which is not restating my hypothesis; it's explaining that there was no L51 in Hungary before Yamnaya. Similarly, L51 did not greet the arrival of steppe people in Iberia, because it got there with them and, as Reich said, wasn't there before then.

There were at least two Kurgan waves out of the steppe before Yamnaya, which was Wave 3. If L51 was already in Hungary before Yamnaya (which I doubt), it arrived with steppe pastoralists from one or both of those earlier waves.

Beaker Hungary and the Nagyrev culture can't have been worlds apart, so it's true that I grouped it with Hungarian Beaker to make that U152 connection.

I do understand that about the mixing with farmers, I was just asking why is it the case that the L11 sample was majorly diluted whereas the Z2103 sample was not. And would you have predicted to find V88 in Iron Gates? I majorly majorly doubt it, but it seems like the Balkans was the breeding ground for R1b. It isn't a surprise all our Neolithic samples are what they are, as they bred like rabbits lol.

rms2
11-05-2018, 02:44 AM
V88 separated from the line leading to L51 thousands of years ago and cannot be lumped together with it. V88 has a very different history and trajectory than that of L51.

Z2103, on the other hand, is a brother clade to L51 under L23.

Kanenas
11-05-2018, 03:44 AM
Even though it's already turned up in aDNA from the classical period? (which it has).

Where?

Ethereal
11-05-2018, 04:56 AM
V88 separated from the line leading to L51 thousands of years ago and cannot be lumped together with it. V88 has a very different history and trajectory than that of L51.

Z2103, on the other hand, is a brother clade to L51 under L23.

Yeah I know, but I just mean R1b developed mostly in the Balkans since the epipaleolithic at least

MitchellSince1893
11-05-2018, 05:02 AM
Per the discussion on L51+ L11- present locations/concentration. The new FTDNA haplogroup TREE page has the following for L51> R-PF7589 (I removed the New World and UK & Ireland locations from the list)

1. Belgium: 3 of of the 353 samples are R-PF7589 (.85%)
2. Croatia: .66%
3. Switzerland .56%
4. Sweden .35%
5. Italy .25%
6. Austria .21%
7. Germany .2%
8. Spain .15%
9. Turkey .13%
10. Hungary .125%

Total R-PF7589 per country
Germany 16
Switzerland 7
Italy 7
Spain 3
Belgium 3
Sweden 1
Turkey 1
Croatia 1
Hungary 1
Austria 1

The overall number of samples per European country (excluding UK & Ireland) in the FTDNA database with 50 or more samples
Germany 7,281
Russia 3566
Sweden 2818
Italy 2738
France 2476
Finland 2373
Spain 2048
Norway 1520
Switzerland 1249
Ukraine 1240
Netherlands 975
Hungary 800
Turkey 758
Portugal 716
Lithuania 707
Greece 604
Belarus 590
Denmark 547
Czech Rep 489
Austria 477
Armenia 466
Romania 393
Belgium 353
Slovakia 315
Bulgaria 286
Georgia 239
Latvia 153
Croatia 151
Iceland 132
Serbia 125
Bosnia & Herzegovina 113
Slovenia 109
Azerbaijan 105
Estonia 87
Macedonia 66
Albania 64
Moldova 55

rms2
11-05-2018, 12:07 PM
Yeah I know, but I just mean R1b developed mostly in the Balkans since the epipaleolithic at least

What makes you think that?

Carbotti
11-05-2018, 01:14 PM
Returning to the Greeks of Salento R-L51* xL11 , they could be of Doric or Mycenaean origin and came with the ancient Greeks? "Dorians were Indo-European so that makes them either R1b or R1a..." ..." Dorians were indeed a branch of Central European Celts"? ..."They might have migrated together out of the Steppe, but some stopped on the way, only to migrate into Greece after a few hundred years. So it's possible Dorians, if they existed, were the same R1b clade as Myceneans" and Celts and ancient tribe italic? Taranto in Apulia , South Italy was a Doric colony....

Always of indieuropeans

What do you think?

ADW_1981
11-05-2018, 02:18 PM
Where?

There is a YouTube video from a conference on aDNA in Greece. It's been posted a couple of times, and I know I have posted it at least once. The results are not published yet, and I'm not sure which lab they are associated with. I can dig it up but it may take some time, unfortunately I don't bookmark these things like i should.

Carbotti
11-05-2018, 05:17 PM
Italy has the oldest haplotyes

R-L51PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39 * L51/M412/S167/PF6536+2 SNPsformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpinfo
• id:ERS257000ITA [IT-CA]
• R-L51*
• R-Z2118Z2118/PF7589 * Z2113 * Z2112+5 SNPsformed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybpinfo
o id:YF06757USA [US-PA]
o id:YF03838TUR [TR-34]
o id:YF01968
o R-Z2118*
 id:ERS256999ITA [IT-CA]
o R-Z4416Y37628 * FGC38687 * Y37612+36 SNPsformed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 225 ybpinfo
 id:YF11089BRA [BR-MG] ITALY
 id:YF10304BRA [BR-MG] ITALY
o R-Z2116Z2116/CTS10379formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
 R-Z2116*
 R-Y5149Y5149 * ZS9422/Y5148 * Y5143+1 SNPsformed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybpinfo
 R-Y5149*
 id:YF14994ITA [IT-VE]new
 R-Y5141Y5146 * PH840 * Y5144+11 SNPsformed 4200 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybpinfo
 R-Y5141*
 id:NA20785ITA
 R-Y37283Y37283 * Y37351 * Y37353+4 SNPsformed 2200 ybp, TMRCA 1150 ybpinfo
 R-Y37283*
 id:YF10878GBR
 R-Y40983Y41438 * Y40983formed 1150 ybp, TMRCA 475 ybpinfo
 id:YF15128ENGnew
 id:YF01827ENG

Clearly these last English men derive from Romans.

R.Rocca
11-06-2018, 02:33 PM
Italy has the oldest haplotyes

R-L51PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39 * L51/M412/S167/PF6536+2 SNPsformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpinfo
• id:ERS257000ITA [IT-CA]
• R-L51*
• R-Z2118Z2118/PF7589 * Z2113 * Z2112+5 SNPsformed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybpinfo
o id:YF06757USA [US-PA]
o id:YF03838TUR [TR-34]
o id:YF01968
o R-Z2118*
 id:ERS256999ITA [IT-CA]
o R-Z4416Y37628 * FGC38687 * Y37612+36 SNPsformed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 225 ybpinfo
 id:YF11089BRA [BR-MG] ITALY
 id:YF10304BRA [BR-MG] ITALY
o R-Z2116Z2116/CTS10379formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
 R-Z2116*
 R-Y5149Y5149 * ZS9422/Y5148 * Y5143+1 SNPsformed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybpinfo
 R-Y5149*
 id:YF14994ITA [IT-VE]new
 R-Y5141Y5146 * PH840 * Y5144+11 SNPsformed 4200 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybpinfo
 R-Y5141*
 id:NA20785ITA
 R-Y37283Y37283 * Y37351 * Y37353+4 SNPsformed 2200 ybp, TMRCA 1150 ybpinfo
 R-Y37283*
 id:YF10878GBR
 R-Y40983Y41438 * Y40983formed 1150 ybp, TMRCA 475 ybpinfo
 id:YF15128ENGnew
 id:YF01827ENG

Clearly these last English men derive from Romans.

Gimbutas saw a Yamnaya>Vucedol>Bell Beaker progression and, lo and behold, the oldest L23(xL51,Z2103) comes from Yamnaya Culture sample I0443 (3300-2700 BC) from Samara, Russia and the oldest L11(x312,U106) comes from Vucedol derivative sample I7043 (2500–2200 BC) from Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor, Hungary. The narrative that L51 originated in Italy because of heavily biased modern samples is outdated.

rms2
11-06-2018, 04:41 PM
Gimbutas saw a Yamnaya>Vucedol>Bell Beaker progression and, lo and behold, the oldest L23(xL51,Z2103) comes from Yamnaya Culture sample I0443 (3300-2700 BC) from Samara, Russia and the oldest L11(x312,U106) comes from Vucedol derivative sample I7043 (2500–2200 BC) from Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor, Hungary. The narrative that L51 originated in Italy because of heavily biased modern samples is outdated.

There's a certain Italian guy who always argues that from anecdotes based on the results of modern men, mostly FTDNA customers who have sent their BAM files to YFull. I'll leave him unnamed, but you know who he is.

alan
11-06-2018, 11:25 PM
As I’ve posted many times before, there is no mystery why L51 has proven hard to find prior to L11 in ancient DNA. The reason is manifest in the L51 tree. This clearly shows very limited growth down to L11 and indeed no other major branch ever formed. So the chances of stumbling across a sample of ancient DNA of a pre-L11 L51 guy is clearly v remote if this was a small line that was barely surviving. No mystery at all IMO. Much more likely IMO is finding an early L11/ early P312 guy in a pre-beaker culture some time in that period c. 3000-2600BC. I’ve though very hard about the cultural traits of Central European bell beaker and concluded P312 was a lineage that stayed behind in or adjacent to the steppes and able to absorb new steppe innovations long after the big R1a corded ware wave headed far to the west c 2800BC. Personally I think L11 travelled around the east then north side of the Carpathians before heading west c 2600BC following a similar route west that CW had used 200 years before. However, it is possible that other minor L51 lineages took the route intwest south of the Carpathians and reached Austria and through the Alpine passes into north Italy and from there into the rest of Italy and southern France. I actually would not be surprised if it was present in small numbers in Remedello 2 as parts of its distribution would fit that well and the influence of Remedello is seen in the French Alps and Rhône area too suggestive of prospecting. However as I posted above it’s clear that would have to have been a cousinly relationship to the L11 story not an ancestral one because L11 line split from the L51xL11 ones nearly a millennium before Remedello 2.

alan
11-06-2018, 11:49 PM
I never really bought into the stelae people idea in so far as it had anything to do with P312 or brought it to Iberia and re-expanded as beaker people from there. Each bit of DNA evidence that emerged flatly contradicted the model. However I have long wondered if Jean was partly right and whether then L51xL11 was a cousinly (relative to L11) much less successful vanguard of prospectors who took a different route west to north Italy and southern France a few centuries before the much bigger L11/P312 wave took a different more northerly route west. But rather like the Remedello 2 zone of influence, it was a much smaller affair and and was eclipsed by P312/beaker groups from further north a few centuries later. If that was the case then it would suggest that L51 already had an affinity with prospecting and metals by c. 2900/2800BC when Remedello 2 appeared. That would push back that role 2-300 years pre the P312 Beaker group. That would also not surprise me as I doubt the beaker type role of very mobile networking groups linked to metals and trades just appears from nowhere in 2600BC with the Beaker-P312 group. It seems likely that P312 as well as perhaps other L51 lineages has a similar lifestyle prior to the existence of the P312-beaker culture in 2600BC. This lifestyle might be something associated these lineages back to 3000BC and earlier when they were in other cultural guides like

Carbotti
11-07-2018, 05:57 AM
There's a certain Italian guy who always argues that from anecdotes based on the results of modern men, mostly FTDNA customers who have sent their BAM files to YFull. I'll leave him unnamed, but you know who he is.


A friend of yours from Ireland answered that to my Italian friend:
“Midpoint for this 10443 sample is 3,000 BC and not the ancestor of Z2103 nor L51. A dead line probably.

Midpoint for 17043 sample is 2,350 and not the ancestor of either P312 nor U106. L11 was born 3,000 BC which means that the Hungarian sample was the result of a reflux from France and that sample only had 25% Steppe dna.

L11 had to be living in France to give birth to P312. P312 was not born in Hungary nor the Ukraine”.
My Italian friend, who is an administrator of our FB page “R1b-L51-PF7589”, didn’t reply so far. He is waiting that D. Reich publishes his results from Italy from 6000 to 5000 years ago (and of course is waiting also for those from 12000 to 6000). For older times he says that he has Villabruna 14000 years ago and Les Iboussiéres 12000 (R1b as to Genetiker, R1* as to him), anyway linked to Balzi Rossi and Arene Candide of Liguria, Italy.

Romilius
11-07-2018, 10:58 AM
A friend of yours from Ireland answered that to my Italian friend:
“Midpoint for this 10443 sample is 3,000 BC and not the ancestor of Z2103 nor L51. A dead line probably.

Midpoint for 17043 sample is 2,350 and not the ancestor of either P312 nor U106. L11 was born 3,000 BC which means that the Hungarian sample was the result of a reflux from France and that sample only had 25% Steppe dna.

L11 had to be living in France to give birth to P312. P312 was not born in Hungary nor the Ukraine”.
My Italian friend, who is an administrator of our FB page “R1b-L51-PF7589”, didn’t reply so far. He is waiting that D. Reich publishes his results from Italy from 6000 to 5000 years ago (and of course is waiting also for those from 12000 to 6000). For older times he says that he has Villabruna 14000 years ago and Les Iboussiéres 12000 (R1b as to Genetiker, R1* as to him), anyway linked to Balzi Rossi and Arene Candide of Liguria, Italy.

First of all, it's impossible to predict how was 6000 years ago from modern data. It's like surnames: one surname could have been born in a place, then in that place people bearing that surname changed it or simply went to extinction, but some managed to migrate in other place where multiplied.

Then, I looked at the data of Genetiker about Iboussières and Villabruna: it seems they are a parallel line to that leading to V88, but, probably, not the line that goes to P297. Perhaps, we are in front of a third line that went to a dead end.

Joe B
11-07-2018, 06:35 PM
First of all, it's impossible to predict how was 6000 years ago from modern data. It's like surnames: one surname could have been born in a place, then in that place people bearing that surname changed it or simply went to extinction, but some managed to migrate in other place where multiplied.

Then, I looked at the data of Genetiker about Iboussières and Villabruna: it seems they are a parallel line to that leading to V88, but, probably, not the line that goes to P297. Perhaps, we are in front of a third line that went to a dead end.
There are R1b-M343 subclades that have yet to be discovered or exploited by NGS testing. For example, there is a guy from the west coast of India that is tested M343+, L278+ (PH155-, M335-, L754-, V88-, L389-). That sample will hopefully be NGS tested over the holidays. Should yield about 19,000 years worth of SNPs or varients.

R.Rocca
11-07-2018, 09:30 PM
A friend of yours from Ireland answered that to my Italian friend:
“Midpoint for this 10443 sample is 3,000 BC and not the ancestor of Z2103 nor L51. A dead line probably.

Midpoint for 17043 sample is 2,350 and not the ancestor of either P312 nor U106. L11 was born 3,000 BC which means that the Hungarian sample was the result of a reflux from France and that sample only had 25% Steppe dna.

L11 had to be living in France to give birth to P312. P312 was not born in Hungary nor the Ukraine”.
My Italian friend, who is an administrator of our FB page “R1b-L51-PF7589”, didn’t reply so far. He is waiting that D. Reich publishes his results from Italy from 6000 to 5000 years ago (and of course is waiting also for those from 12000 to 6000). For older times he says that he has Villabruna 14000 years ago and Les Iboussiéres 12000 (R1b as to Genetiker, R1* as to him), anyway linked to Balzi Rossi and Arene Candide of Liguria, Italy.

So do you see the dilemma you have created for yourself? On the one hand you are trying to pin the origin of L51 on four modern men and on the other you are choosing to believe someone who is telling you that an L23* man from 3000 BC and an L11* man 2350 BC cannot be the ancestors of modern L23 and L11 men respectively. I have a suggestion: stop asking for people's opinions. Read the ancient DNA papers from the past three years and form your own opinion. And please read up on the correlation between Steppe ancestry and L23 and how both show up at the same time in Central and Western Europe. Then read Reich's book where he refers to P312 as a "steppe" marker.

rms2
11-08-2018, 01:32 AM
. . . Then read Reich's book where he refers to P312 as a "steppe" marker.

Amen!

And one thing Reich points out is the thousands of ancient results he has in his lab that haven't been published yet because the paper writing can't keep up with the ancient dna testing.

Reich knows a lot that we don't. If he says P312 is a "Y-chromosome type of steppe origin", I think you can take that to the bank.