PDA

View Full Version : Mike Hammer goes for post-Neolithic entry of R into Europe



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Webb
03-30-2014, 12:09 AM
What other studies are those? I don't mean that in an adversarial way; I really am interested. Frankly, I was surprised that those pie charts showed so little unclaimed L11.

However, I would say that Hammer deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it seems extremely unlikely that his pie charts are too far off.

By the way, I perused the Greek DNA project at FTDNA. There are 8 R1b lineages with Greek surnames out of roughly 40 samplings. If L11 had offspring somewhere centrally in Europe, I would think it possible that some went east instead of west. I'm referring to the gray slice in the Balkans.

rms2
03-30-2014, 12:15 AM
By the way, I perused the Greek DNA project at FTDNA. There are 8 R1b lineages with Greek surnames out of roughly 40 samplings. If L11 had offspring somewhere centrally in Europe, I would think it possible that some went east instead of west. I'm referring to the gray slice in the Balkans.

My own opinion (which could be wrong as heck) is that those gray slices of unclaimed L11 in the Balkans will turn out to be some varieties of Balkan L11 not very common, or perhaps even unknown, in the West.

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 12:52 AM
Geno 2.0 is not testing all 6.

My apologies. I failed to note you were only looking at Geno 2 results, which do not include DF27, DF99 and I think L238. As a member of one of the smaller subclades, I sometimes get overly sensitive about being ignored.

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 12:59 AM
What other studies are those? I don't mean that in an adversarial way; I really am interested. Frankly, I was surprised that those pie charts showed so little unclaimed L11.

However, I would say that Hammer deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it seems extremely unlikely that his pie charts are too far off.

One that comes to mind is the Old Norway Project, which showed that about 40% of the Norway coastal samples (n=82) who are R1b are P312*. Unless one assumes that they are all Z195(XSRY2627), that seems inconsistent with Hammer's pie chart, whose silver portion for Norway is the thickness of a pencil line. L238 alone in Norway is likely to account for considerably more than that.

My recollection is that the Myres and/or Busby data showed a fair amount of P312* in central England as well, and I think it is highly unlikely they are all Z195.

rms2
03-30-2014, 01:23 AM
One that comes to mind is the Old Norway Project, which showed that about 40% of the Norway coastal samples (n=82) who are R1b are P312*. Unless one assumes that they are all Z195(XSRY2627), that seems inconsistent with Hammer's pie chart, whose silver portion for Norway is the thickness of a pencil line. L238 alone in Norway is likely to account for considerably more than that.

My recollection is that the Myres and/or Busby data showed a fair amount of P312* in central England as well, and I think it is highly unlikely they are all Z195.

How recent is the Old Norway Project? Did it test for DF27 or Z195? If it did not, then much of that unclaimed P312* could be what is now accounted for by Z195 in Hammer's pie chart.

Busby did not test for either. If Hammer - or someone - has tested Busby's samples for Z195 (I do not know that is the case, however), the Z195 pie slice would account for most of the English P312* that appears in Busby.

How far off do you think Hammer's pie charts could be relative to unclaimed L11?

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 03:24 AM
Here is another relating to Scandinavia. Last year Maciamo did an analysis of R1b in the Scandinavian and Danish Ydna projects at FTDNA. He found 111 who had tested beyond M269. Of these, 74 were P312, as opposed to only 43 U106. Since he included DF27 and L238, his P312* category should be composed solely of DF19, DF99 and P312**. Here are his totals for P312:

P312* 13
L238 6
DF27 4
L21 28
U152 10

I wouldn't claim these figures constitute a scientific survey, but they don't suggest the large amount of DF27 which would be required to reconcile the Old Norway data with Hammer's pie charts for Scandinavia. But the the combination of the two is sufficient to give me pause in unreservedly accepting the accuracy of a slide show, without any supporting data whatsoever. Nor would I accept his pie charts without knowing what data he based them on in any case.

evon
03-30-2014, 11:09 AM
Where in Norway did those samples come from, as there is a clear East/West divide relating to two "Genepools"..The east has far more R1a, and the West more R1b ect..

rms2
03-30-2014, 12:53 PM
Here is another relating to Scandinavia. Last year Maciamo did an analysis of R1b in the Scandinavian and Danish Ydna projects at FTDNA. He found 111 who had tested beyond M269. Of these, 74 were P312, as opposed to only 43 U106. Since he included DF27 and L238, his P312* category should be composed solely of DF19, DF99 and P312**. Here are his totals for P312:

P312* 13
L238 6
DF27 4
L21 28
U152 10

I wouldn't claim these figures constitute a scientific survey, but they don't suggest the large amount of DF27 which would be required to reconcile the Old Norway data with Hammer's pie charts for Scandinavia. But the the combination of the two is sufficient to give me pause in unreservedly accepting the accuracy of a slide show, without any supporting data whatsoever. Nor would I accept his pie charts without knowing what data he based them on in any case.

I wouldn't characterize Dr. Hammer's presentation as a mere "slide show", which makes it sound as if it were on the same level as a Sponge Bob cartoon, especially when contrasted with figures gleaned from FTDNA projects for four different countries (FTDNA's Scandinavian Project includes Finland), some of whose members have only very tenuous claims to Scandinavian ancestry. Still, 21% P312* is a much bigger slice than the little gray slivers in Dr. Hammer's pie charts for Scandinavia. Hard for me to imagine that his figures could be that far off (on the order of, say, 400% or more), but who knows? The figure is about 31% if one adds in the L238, since Hammer did not show any L238 on his pie charts, and L238 would presumably be contained in the little slivers of unclaimed L11.

Really hard to imagine his pie charts being off by such an extreme order of magnitude.

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 07:41 PM
Where in Norway did those samples come from, as there is a clear East/West divide relating to two "Genepools"..The east has far more R1a, and the West more R1b ect..

I assume you refer to the Old Norway project data rather than Maciamo's results from various Scandinavian YDNA projects. The Old Norway data for Norway itself was divided into Norway Coastal, which I referred to, and Norway Inland. The coastal areas included Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger, Fjord, Møre (Tingvoll) and Sognefjord. The inland areas were Namdalen, Gudbrandsdalen and Hedemark (please pardon any spelling errors). It also included sampling from northern Jutland and three areas from southern Sweden, though I didn't refer to those.

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 08:03 PM
Here is another comparison for Holland. Dr. Hammer's pie chart for that country shows R1b at roughly 50%. Of the R1b portion, U106 is about 75% and P312 at about 25% (my estimates from looking at the size of the slices). Z195 and L21 each appear to be about 10% of the R1b portion, and U152 appears to be about 5%. P311* (which includes DF27XZ195, DF19, DF99, L238, P312** and P311*) doesn't even merit a pencil line- in other words, zero.

Compare this against the Genes of the Netherlands Project data, which was a sample of 500 males. U106 was 36% of the total, P312 18.6%. The largest P312 subclade was U152 at 7.2%, compared to Hammer, who has it as the smallest. Z195 was 4.4%, L21 at 3.2% (less than half the size of U152). The equivalent of Hammer's P311* group (DF19, DF99, DF27XZ195 and P312**- there were zero L238) was 3.8%, larger than L21.

GoldenHind
03-30-2014, 08:16 PM
I believe I have solved the mystery of the source of Dr. Hammer's data for his pie charts. The first clue was that it didn't include DF27, a rather obvious choice if culled from FTDNA projects or private sampling. The second is that it tested Z195, which very few people have tested, rather than the common Z196. Next, there is no distinction between U106 and L48- they are both listed, but depicted as equivalents, which they most certainly aren't. The final confirmation came from the fact that the gray slice is for M269/L11/P311, not for P312, which isn't included in the pie charts.

I have very little doubt his charts were taken from Geno 2 results. Geno 2 tests for Z195 but not DF27 or Z196, and does not include either L48 or P312, though it does include U106 and L11/P310/311.

So his data may be accurate as far as it goes, but I wouldn't consider Geno 2 results to be the equivalent of a larger survey. I don't know how many Geno 2 results there are for countries such as Norway or Holland, but I will take the Old Norway data and the Genes of the Netherlands data over Dr. Hammer's charts.

Incidentally, I have no explanation for the increasing P311 slice as one proceeds southeast. I haven't seen anything that would explain it. It could possibly something which is P311*.

rms2
03-30-2014, 09:14 PM
That makes sense. However, remember that the Genographic Project has access to more than just commercial samples, so it's not clear that Hammer's data relied merely on them.

I do agree that DF19 at least should show up on Hammer's pie chart for the Netherlands. It makes me wonder if that pie chart is intended to represent the Netherlands or the Low Countries as a whole.

Honestly, - and I meant to say this earlier - I have never liked pie charts. I would rather see listed percentages rather than look at pie charts.

Webb
03-30-2014, 09:19 PM
I believe I have solved the mystery of the source of Dr. Hammer's data for his pie charts. The first clue was that it didn't include DF27, a rather obvious choice if culled from FTDNA projects or private sampling. The second is that it tested Z195, which very few people have tested, rather than the common Z196. Next, there is no distinction between U106 and L48- they are both listed, but depicted as equivalents, which they most certainly aren't. The final confirmation came from the fact that the gray slice is for M269/L11/P311, not for P312, which isn't included in the pie charts.

I have very little doubt his charts were taken from Geno 2 results. Geno 2 tests for Z195 but not DF27 or Z196, and does not include either L48 or P312, though it does include U106 and L11/P310/311.

So his data may be accurate as far as it goes, but I wouldn't consider Geno 2 results to be the equivalent of a larger survey. I don't know how many Geno 2 results there are for countries such as Norway or Holland, but I will take the Old Norway data and the Genes of the Netherlands data over Dr. Hammer's charts.

Incidentally, I have no explanation for the increasing P311 slice as one proceeds southeast. I haven't seen anything that would explain it. It could possibly something which is P311*.

Good eye on the Z195. Geno 2.0 tests for it as opposed to Z196. And you are correct about the chip not testing for DF27. I am still amazed that the gray slice is that large in the Balkans.

rms2
03-30-2014, 09:39 PM
Remember the Brabant Y-DNA Project? It did not test for DF27xZ196, DF19, L238, or DF99. Its unresolved P312*, which doubtless was made up mostly of those clades, was 9.6% of the total. The unclaimed L11 was just 0.7% of the whole.

The sample size was an impressive 871, of which 524 (60%) were R1b.

There was a post about the Brabant stats at Eupedia here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29129-Deeper-R1b-subclade-resolution-for-the-Brabant-Y-DNA-Project-%28Belgium%29?p=417250&viewfull=1#post417250), but I will quote it below.




The Brabant DNA Project, with 1000+ members from all Belgium and a few from bordering areas (especially North Brabant in the Netherlands), has re-tested the Y-DNA of all R1b members for the following subclades.

- Under U106: Z18, Z381, L48, and U198
- Under P312: L21/M529 and Z195/Z196
- Under U152: L2 and L20

The new distribution is as follows:

Belgium (n=871 with confirmed Belgian ancestors )

TOTAL R1b : n=524 (60%)

P25 : n=1 (0.1%)
P297 : n=1 (0.1%)
M269 (+ L23) : n=16 (1.8%)
P310/L11 : n=6 (0.7%)

- All U106/S21 : n=218 (25%)
-- U106* : n=15 (1.7%)
-- Z18 : n=18 (2%)
-- Z381 : n=72 (8.3%)
--- U198 : n=9 (1%)
--- L48 : n=104 (11.9%)

- All P312/S116 : n=282 (32.3%)
-- P312* : n=84 (9.6%)
-- L21 : n=78 (8.9%)
-- Z196* : n=27 (3.1%)
-- SRY2627 : n=6 (0.7%)
-- U152* : n=28 (3.2%)
--- L2 : n=46 (5.2%)
---- L20 : n=13 (1.5%)


This is extremely interesting since we have for the first accurate percentage of R1b-L21 for Belgium and it is a bit higher than expected (nearly 9%).

L48 makes up nearly half of all U106 lineages, which is to be expected considering that this is a huge branch with plenty of subclades of its own. It is perhaps more surprising that 8.3% of Z381 are U198- and L48-, which means that they could either belong to the more mysterious Z153 and/or another subclade yet to be identified.

On the U152 side, just above two third of the lineages are L2+, including 15% of L20+. The proportion of L2 to U152 is in the average for northern Europe. This leaves only 3.2% for Z36, Z56 and Z192.

There is still 9.6% of P312 not accounted for. This might include some of the 7 other clades of DF27 beside Z196, which is already at a surprisingly high 3.8%. We can surely expect between 5% and 10% of DF27 in Belgium.

rms2
03-30-2014, 10:00 PM
Interesting to note the inversely related clines in U106 and P312 as one moves from the Netherlands to Belgium, as reflected in the Genes of the Netherlands Project stats cited by Goldenhind and the Brabant Y-DNA Project stats cited by Maciamo above.

U106 goes from 36% of the total in the Netherlands to 25% of the total in Belgium, and P312 goes from about 19% of the total in the Netherlands to 32% of the total in Belgium. The unaccounted for P312 goes from 3.8% in the Netherlands to nearly 10% in Belgium, and L21 goes from 3.2% in the Netherlands to about 9% in Belgium (a nearly threefold increase).

Dubhthach
03-31-2014, 08:39 AM
Interesting to note the inversely related clines in U106 and P312 as one moves from the Netherlands to Belgium, as reflected in the Genes of the Netherlands Project stats cited by Goldenhind and the Brabant Y-DNA Project stats cited by Maciamo above.

U106 goes from 36% of the total in the Netherlands to 25% of the total in Belgium, and P312 goes from about 19% of the total in the Netherlands to 32% of the total in Belgium. The unaccounted for P312 goes from 3.8% in the Netherlands to nearly 10% in Belgium, and L21 goes from 3.2% in the Netherlands to about 9% in Belgium (a nearly threefold increase).

It wouldn't surprise me that what we are seeing here is the linguistic boundary between Romance (Walloon, Belgian-French) and Germanic (Flemish/Dutch). It would be interesting to see the break-down between Flanders and Wallonia especially if surname origin is taken into account. I do believe there was some report recently about haplogorups associated with "french language" surnames in Flanders.

-Paul
(DF41+)

rms2
03-31-2014, 12:01 PM
It wouldn't surprise me that what we are seeing here is the linguistic boundary between Romance (Walloon, Belgian-French) and Germanic (Flemish/Dutch). It would be interesting to see the break-down between Flanders and Wallonia especially if surname origin is taken into account. I do believe there was some report recently about haplogorups associated with "french language" surnames in Flanders.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Yes, I recall that, too, but I cannot remember the name of the report. Rich Rocca posted about it here at Anthrogenica someplace awhile back. As I recall, it showed the same sort of pattern, i.e., more U106 among Germanic speakers and less P312, and the reverse among Romance speakers (who would mostly be the descendants of Romanized Celts). There was also a report from Switzerland that showed something similar, if I am not mistaken.

rms2
03-31-2014, 04:32 PM
According to the stats of the Genome of the Netherlands Project posted by Goldenhind a few posts back, 3.8% was unresolved P312 (DF19, DF99, DF27xZ195 and P312*). However, if I recall correctly, 4 of the 500 samples were DF99+, which is 0.8% of the total, leaving 3% of the P312 unaccounted for. It would be nice to know how that 3% breaks down.

It would also be interesting to know how the 9.6% unresolved P312 in the Brabant Y-DNA Project would break down. Would most of it be DF27xZ195? Would there be an increase in DF99 over its 0.8% showing in the Netherlands? It would also be nice to know the frequencies of the different haplogroups among Flemings and Walloons, rather than in undifferentiated Belgium as a whole.

GoldenHind
03-31-2014, 06:53 PM
According to the stats of the Genome of the Netherlands Project posted by Goldenhind a few posts back, 3.8% was unresolved P312 (DF19, DF99, DF27xZ195 and P312*). However, if I recall correctly, 4 of the 500 samples were DF99+, which is 0.8% of the total, leaving 3% of the P312 unaccounted for. It would be nice to know how that 3% breaks down.

It would also be interesting to know how the 9.6% unresolved P312 in the Brabant Y-DNA Project would break down. Would most of it be DF27xZ195? Would there be an increase in DF99 over its 0.8% showing in the Netherlands? It would also be nice to know the frequencies of the different haplogroups among Flemings and Walloons, rather than in undifferentiated Belgium as a whole.

The Netherlands study did indeed break down P312. I didn't mention it, because it wasn't germane to my point. Of the 19 in question:
DF19 10 2%
DF99 4 .8%
L238 0

The remaining 5 (1%) were unresolved, They could be either DF27XZ195 (they did not test for DF27) or P312**. Incidentally the figures aren't mine, but were extracted from the data by Rich R.

I would love to know how these figures would compare with the Brabant project. Unfortunately they were contacted to see if they intended to further test their unresolved P312, but replied they did not have the funds to do so. However one would really need to see the Belgian data divided into French and Flemish speaking areas for it to be informative. For example, we do have two DF99 with an EKA in Flanders (they are related, so really only count as one). However we have yet to have any from any French speaking country or region, though they may well exist.

rms2
04-01-2014, 07:56 AM
I agree. Belgium is too much like England in that regard, in part composed of a Germanic-derived population and in part composed of a Celtic-derived population (for the most part). I suspect just about every kind of P312 will be higher in the Walloon or French-speaking sections of Belgium than in the Flemish areas, but I could be wrong.

GoldenHind
04-01-2014, 10:01 PM
I suspect just about every kind of P312 will be higher in the Walloon or French-speaking sections of Belgium than in the Flemish areas, but I could be wrong.

My suspicion is just the opposite. P312 as a whole is clearly pan-European and old enough to have been present in the formation of both the Celtic and Germanic worlds. The distribution of its subclades is very different.

L238 is almost exclusively confined to Scandinavia. It may well be descended from early Beaker settlers there, but isn't a shred of evidence of a Celtic element in it. I thought it was interesting that none were found among the 500 in the Netherlands sample.

DF27 is clearly pan-European, and I think it is pretty clear that it had a foothold in both the Celtic and Germanic populations.

I haven't really studied DF19, but I know those who have believe it to be primarily if not exclusively Germanic. Even Maciamo has now labeled it as "Anglo-Saxon."

It is really far too early to say about DF99, but I am pretty confident that at the very least there is a strong Germanic element in it. There may well be a Celtic component as well, but so far I haven't found any evidence of it. I don't rule out the possibility that at least part of it was located along the Rhine in early days and became Germanized over time.

The French/Flemish P312 subclade divide in Belgium would be very helpful in resolving these questions.

Webb
04-01-2014, 10:36 PM
My suspicion is just the opposite. P312 as a whole is clearly pan-European and old enough to have been present in the formation of both the Celtic and Germanic worlds. The distribution of its subclades is very different.

L238 is almost exclusively confined to Scandinavia. It may well be descended from early Beaker settlers there, but isn't a shred of evidence of a Celtic element in it. I thought it was interesting that none were found among the 500 in the Netherlands sample.

DF27 is clearly pan-European, and I think it is pretty clear that it had a foothold in both the Celtic and Germanic populations.

I haven't really studied DF19, but I know those who have believe it to be primarily if not exclusively Germanic. Even Maciamo has now labeled it as "Anglo-Saxon."

It is really far too early to say about DF99, but I am pretty confident that at the very least there is a strong Germanic element in it. There may well be a Celtic component as well, but so far I haven't found any evidence of it. I don't rule out the possibility that at least part of it was located along the Rhine in early days and became Germanized over time.

The French/Flemish P312 subclade divide in Belgium would be very helpful in resolving these questions.

Very well said. I firmly believe that we are trying to untangle a very complicated web. If what you are saying is likely, which I believe, then every Germanic tribe that entered Celtic Europe could be a regurgitation of the same P312 clades that were already there. Particularly if P312, at the height of its spread made through parts of Germany and into the coastal areas of Scandinavia. The only way to untangle it is numerous more downstream snp's.

rms2
04-02-2014, 01:06 AM
My suspicion is just the opposite. P312 as a whole is clearly pan-European and old enough to have been present in the formation of both the Celtic and Germanic worlds. The distribution of its subclades is very different.

L238 is almost exclusively confined to Scandinavia. It may well be descended from early Beaker settlers there, but isn't a shred of evidence of a Celtic element in it. I thought it was interesting that none were found among the 500 in the Netherlands sample.

DF27 is clearly pan-European, and I think it is pretty clear that it had a foothold in both the Celtic and Germanic populations.

I haven't really studied DF19, but I know those who have believe it to be primarily if not exclusively Germanic. Even Maciamo has now labeled it as "Anglo-Saxon."

It is really far too early to say about DF99, but I am pretty confident that at the very least there is a strong Germanic element in it. There may well be a Celtic component as well, but so far I haven't found any evidence of it. I don't rule out the possibility that at least part of it was located along the Rhine in early days and became Germanized over time.

The French/Flemish P312 subclade divide in Belgium would be very helpful in resolving these questions.

I don't see what makes you think that. How you can say that your suspicion is "just the opposite", i.e., that just about every kind of P312 will be higher in the Flemish parts of Belgium than in the Walloon, is beyond me, given the Dutch results. The Flemings are essentially the same people as the Dutch. Why would you expect their results to differ substantially from those of the Genome of the Netherlands Project?

DF27 may be "pan-European", but it has a clear distribution: it is most frequent in the West, especially Iberia and SW France, and fades pretty drastically as one moves east.

1675

DF19 may be Anglo-Saxon, but if it is, one would expect a little better showing in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. It wouldn't be hard to improve on that 2% DF19 figure.

The jury is out on DF99, as well, but 0.8% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project, with such a large sample size, is not much indication of a strong Germanic element. But who knows? Maybe more will turn up when there is a good scientific study of Germany that includes DF99 testing. Just the same, DF99 would not have to do much better in Walloon Belgium to best a showing of 0.8%.

And, remember, in the Brabant Project there was 9.6% of P312 unaccounted for. That leaves room for a lot better DF19, D99, DF27xZ195, and P312* showing than the paltry 3.8% those groups had left to them in the Genome of the Netherlands Project.

L238 is an anomaly. It appears to have been born in Scandinavia, but it is exceptional among P312 clades in that regard, and one has to look at the overall distribution of P312.

All three of these clades, DF19, DF99, and L238, appear to be pretty small, at least judging by the Genome of the Netherlands Project results you posted.

P312 is pan-European in the sense that it turns up nearly everywhere in Europe, but not always at very high frequencies. It has a very clear distribution and frequency clines. It is strongest in the West and fades as one moves east.

Aside from how much of a part P312 played in the formation of the Germanic world, you have the simple facts apparent in the inverse P312 and U106 frequencies from the Genome of the Netherlands Project to those of the mostly Belgian Brabant Project. What accounts for the obvious difference if not the presence in Belgium of a Romance-speaking, Gallo-Roman-descended population that is lacking in the Netherlands?

Webb
04-02-2014, 03:55 AM
I don't see what makes you think that. How you can say that your suspicion is "just the opposite", i.e., that just about every kind of P312 will be higher in the Flemish parts of Belgium than in the Walloon, is beyond me, given the Dutch results. The Flemings are essentially the same people as the Dutch. Why would you expect their results to differ substantially from those of the Genome of the Netherlands Project?

DF27 may be "pan-European", but it has a clear distribution: it is most frequent in the West, especially Iberia and SW France, and fades pretty drastically as one moves east.

1675

DF19 may be Anglo-Saxon, but if it is, one would expect a little better showing in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. It wouldn't be hard to improve on that 2% DF19 figure.

The jury is out on DF99, as well, but 0.8% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project, with such a large sample size, is not much indication of a strong Germanic element. But who knows? Maybe more will turn up when there is a good scientific study of Germany that includes DF99 testing. Just the same, DF99 would not have to do much better in Walloon Belgium to best a showing of 0.8%.

And, remember, in the Brabant Project there was 9.6% of P312 unaccounted for. That leaves room for a lot better DF19, D99, DF27xZ195, and P312* showing than the paltry 3.8% those groups had left to them in the Genome of the Netherlands Project.

L238 is an anomaly. It appears to have been born in Scandinavia, but it is exceptional among P312 clades in that regard, and one has to look at the overall distribution of P312.

All three of these clades, DF19, DF99, and L238, appear to be pretty small, at least judging by the Genome of the Netherlands Project results you posted.

P312 is pan-European in the sense that it turns up nearly everywhere in Europe, but not always at very high frequencies. It has a very clear distribution and frequency clines. It is strongest in the West and fades as one moves east.

Aside from how much of a part P312 played in the formation of the Germanic world, you have the simple facts apparent in the inverse P312 and U106 frequencies from the Genome of the Netherlands Project to those of the mostly Belgian Brabant Project. What accounts for the obvious difference if not the presence in Belgium of a Romance-speaking, Gallo-Roman-descended population that is lacking in the Netherlands?

The populations that you are referencing are what is there currently, which could be far different than what was in the Netherlands in ancient times. The Norman army consisted of Normans, Bretons, Burgundians, and Flemish. Remember that Williams sons mother was the Duchess of Flanders and the Flemish Duchy goes all the way back to the Franks. I have a feeling the German element in the Netherlands might be more recent than at least the Franks. I know Van der Vliet in the Z220 group is Dutch and my line shares a common ancestor with Vander Hoevan, at around 1060. We also know that the people who are currently Friesians, are probably not the same people as the tribe that invaded England. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume U106 did to the Netherlands, what they did to England, plus it is very difficult to say when the Rhine delta became Germanisized. P312 could have been the predominant group in the delta at some point. Lastly, I would like to point out that L165, a parallel clade to SRY2627 is found in the western Scottish isles and is thought to be Scandinavian in origin as it is found there as well. Remember this is a Z195 clade is is like L238, very Scandinavian. However in L165's case it is even more of an anomaly as the brunt of Z195 is found, as you mentioned, south west.

rms2
04-02-2014, 11:58 AM
I do think the Lower Rhine was predominantly P312 before the Germans started arriving there; but, as Caesar noted, the Germans shoved the Celts across the Rhine, which is why you see the sort of cline you do now, with U106 and P312 inversely represented among Germanic speakers (Dutch and Flemings) and Romance speakers (French and Walloons). IMHO, most of the P312 in the Genome of the Netherlands Project represents the descendants of Celts who were Germanized. There were more Celts to the southwest in Belgium, most of whose descendants are modern Walloons, so P312 is quite a bit more frequent in Belgium than in the Netherlands. The frequency of P312 only increases, and U106 declines, as one moves west into the even more Celtic or Gallo-Roman country of France.

You see the same sort of thing in the Isles, with U106 more frequent in the south and east, where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and P312 more frequent in the north and west, where the Celts and their languages and culture held out the longest. There is a similar situation in Switzerland between the German and Romance speaking regions.

I have heard it said that L165 is supposed to be Scandinavian, but honestly, I have yet to see any real evidence of that. L238 is Scandinavian pretty obviously, but it is also P312+. Its P312 ancestor had to get to Scandinavia somehow and from somewhere; it didn't just spring up there out of nothing. If its source was Beaker Folk, which seems likely, then they were probably speaking Italo-Celtic or a very early form of Celtic at some point. They were Germanized very early, and the bearers of L238, as opposed to their P312 forebears, may never have spoken a Celtic or Italo-Celtic tongue.

That is not to say that all of this is a simple, black-and-white picture, where U106 always is German and P312 is always Celtic. But in general, as a pretty obvious rule of thumb, P312 does appear to be mostly connected to the old Celts and U106 to the old Germans. I don't see how an honest person could miss that.

GoldenHind
04-02-2014, 11:12 PM
I don't see what makes you think that. How you can say that your suspicion is "just the opposite", i.e., that just about every kind of P312 will be higher in the Flemish parts of Belgium than in the Walloon, is beyond me, given the Dutch results. The Flemings are essentially the same people as the Dutch. Why would you expect their results to differ substantially from those of the Genome of the Netherlands Project?

DF27 may be "pan-European", but it has a clear distribution: it is most frequent in the West, especially Iberia and SW France, and fades pretty drastically as one moves east.

1675

DF19 may be Anglo-Saxon, but if it is, one would expect a little better showing in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. It wouldn't be hard to improve on that 2% DF19 figure.

The jury is out on DF99, as well, but 0.8% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project, with such a large sample size, is not much indication of a strong Germanic element. But who knows? Maybe more will turn up when there is a good scientific study of Germany that includes DF99 testing. Just the same, DF99 would not have to do much better in Walloon Belgium to best a showing of 0.8%.

And, remember, in the Brabant Project there was 9.6% of P312 unaccounted for. That leaves room for a lot better DF19, D99, DF27xZ195, and P312* showing than the paltry 3.8% those groups had left to them in the Genome of the Netherlands Project.

L238 is an anomaly. It appears to have been born in Scandinavia, but it is exceptional among P312 clades in that regard, and one has to look at the overall distribution of P312.

All three of these clades, DF19, DF99, and L238, appear to be pretty small, at least judging by the Genome of the Netherlands Project results you posted.

P312 is pan-European in the sense that it turns up nearly everywhere in Europe, but not always at very high frequencies. It has a very clear distribution and frequency clines. It is strongest in the West and fades as one moves east.

Aside from how much of a part P312 played in the formation of the Germanic world, you have the simple facts apparent in the inverse P312 and U106 frequencies from the Genome of the Netherlands Project to those of the mostly Belgian Brabant Project. What accounts for the obvious difference if not the presence in Belgium of a Romance-speaking, Gallo-Roman-descended population that is lacking in the Netherlands?

I should have stated my position more clearly. I took your comment to mean that all P312 would be higher among the Walloons than among the Flemish. I meant to say that my suspicion is the opposite- that not all of the P312 subclades would be higher, but that some of them would be lower among the Walloons than in the Flemish.

I think we are asking different questions. You are focusing on what portion of P312 eventually developed into Celts. My question is rather how much of the R1b portion of the Germanics was P312 as opposed to U106. My answer to that question is that the evidence suggests P312 and U106 were in roughly equal portions among the Germanics. The data from Busby and Myhres showed P312 and U106 are roughly equal in Scadinavia, which largely settled the issue for me. Look at Hammer's pie charts (which you have so vigorously defended) for Scandinavia. In both Norway and Denmark, P312 and U106 are approximately equal. In Sweden, P312 is shown to be several times greater than U106. I know the usual explanations about Viking slaves and migration from Britain, but I can see no reason these events would have exclusively involved P312 subclades.

Nor can I agree with your argument that L238 abandoned their proto-Italo-Celtic language to adopt Germanic. My guess is that at the time P312 and U106 originated, they spoke a very similar if not identical proto-IE language. By the time they met (I don't exclude the possibility that at least some of both traveled there together) in the Bronze Age in Scandinavia, I suspect they were speaking a very similar language, which when merged with the other people there, eventually developed into Germanic.

Finally I sincerely hope, as one might infer from your last post, that you don't think that anyone who disagrees with you must be dishonest. I quote from Ancestral Journeys, which you have reviewed very favorably:

"If and when scientists find ancient Y-DNA from men whom we can guess spoke proto-Germanic, it is most likely to be a mixture of I1, R1a1a, R1b-P312 and R1b-U106, to name only the most common haplogroups found in speakers of Germanic languages today. All of these are far older than the Germanic languages…." (p.205) (emphasis mine)
"So it is reasonable to assume some P312* and L21 arrived in Scandinavia with Bell Beaker folk, or in Bronze Age trade." (p. 209)

alan
04-02-2014, 11:40 PM
I tend to think that U106 was pretty exclusive to the proto-Germanic area in Europe but that P312 was non-exclusive and spread around Celts, Italic and Germanics in one form or other. Hence while I think U106 looks like a late spread Germanic marker to me, P312 probably spread much wider and much earlier and at a time when language blocks were still forming and fluid. I have said it before, my belief is that U106 probably sprung among the little group of L11* beaker folks who wandered to the very edges of the beaker world and ended up as a minority who were detached from the area where celtic developed.

Barellalee
04-03-2014, 12:14 AM
This is all relative to inquiries I had before regarding the dates of origin for Italian Haplotypes as proposed by the latest papers. I think I'm getting closer to the full comprehension. In any case Y-DNA Haplogroups in Italy appear to be younger than MtDNA Haplogroups, and this probably applies in most if not all countries. Lastly, the most recent data insists that, as we've seen, Italy's majority Y-DNA heritage traces to "few common ancestors, living during the late Neolithic and early Metal Ages". Not a mention at all of specific named archaeological cultures is brought up, but it is stated that the "clusters" observed today in Italy for Y-DNA lineages "fall within the range of the Metal Ages". To me, the earlier stated "early Metal Ages" implies Chalcolithic and Bronze Age eras, but the later "Metal Ages" could be anywhere from the Chalcolithic through the Iron Age. Therefore, at least in Italy's or Europe's terms, could this then include the settlement of Phoenician and Greek colonists? Nothing of that is mentioned, and the overall impression one gets, is that we are discussing "pre-colonial" times, at least in my opinion. Phoenician and Greek contacts would have been no earlier than sometime in the 800's B.C. Is this included as "Metal Ages Italy", or is this later?

Barellalee
04-03-2014, 12:25 AM
I don't know it's quite confusing to me. It says Italy's majority Y-DNA lineages arrived in the late Neolithic and early Metal Ages, and the split time we see between the North and the South is over 5,000 YBP. This is definitely pre-colonial, so what is confusing is the "clusters" fall within the range of the "Metal Ages".

alan
04-03-2014, 12:57 AM
Certainly it appears more and more that modern Y DNA frequency and distribution tends to reflect historical and later prehistoric (certainly post-Neolithic) times and is relatively limited in telling us much about before 5000 years ago. Indeed a surprisingly large amount of y DNA in places like Ireland and Scotland appears to relate to descendants of a few high status individuals of only 2000-1000 years ago although this is probably due to the exceptionally late survival of a top-down clan system with superbreeding elites until the 18th century AD whereas such a system had probably died out throughout the remainder of western Europe by c. 100AD.

rms2
04-04-2014, 12:05 AM
I tend to think that U106 was pretty exclusive to the proto-Germanic area in Europe but that P312 was non-exclusive and spread around Celts, Italic and Germanics in one form or other. Hence while I think U106 looks like a late spread Germanic marker to me, P312 probably spread much wider and much earlier and at a time when language blocks were still forming and fluid. I have said it before, my belief is that U106 probably sprung among the little group of L11* beaker folks who wandered to the very edges of the beaker world and ended up as a minority who were detached from the area where celtic developed.

My own opinion is that U106 was not associated with Beaker. Of course, I could be wrong about that. It seems to me if any Beaker site should have turned out to be U106+, it should have been Kromsdorf, but it did not.

rms2
04-04-2014, 12:50 AM
I should have stated my position more clearly. I took your comment to mean that all P312 would be higher among the Walloons than among the Flemish. I meant to say that my suspicion is the opposite- that not all of the P312 subclades would be higher, but that some of them would be lower among the Walloons than in the Flemish.

Which ones? DF19 was only 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. That does not bode well for a strong showing among the Flemish. DF99 was only 0.8% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. Again, not exactly a forecast of a high frequency of DF99 among the Flemish. In fact, with such a large sample (500), very low frequency results like that tend to indicate that both DF19 and DF99 may not be particularly Germanic at all. Of course, there is much more to the Germanic-speaking world than the Netherlands. Perhaps both DF19 and DF99 are much more frequent in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Scandinavia than in the Netherlands.

One could not be blamed for suspecting that the Netherlands is not exactly a hotspot for either DF19 or DF99, especially the latter.

With the Genome of the Netherlands Project results, one actually has a large sample and the frequency in the Netherlands of both DF19 and DF99, which in both cases was very low. We can also guess that the frequency of DF99 in Britain is probably no higher than in the Netherlands, since the recent Chromo2 release showed, as I recall, just four DF99+ results. I don't know how many DF19+ results, if any, were in the Chromo2 release.

DF99 has been found in at least one man of Italian descent, however, and in at least one Peruvian of unknown extraction. We don't know how frequent or infrequent DF99 is in Italy or, possibly, if the Peruvian DF99+ is of Spanish ancestry, Iberia.



I think we are asking different questions. You are focusing on what portion of P312 eventually developed into Celts. My question is rather how much of the R1b portion of the Germanics was P312 as opposed to U106. My answer to that question is that the evidence suggests P312 and U106 were in roughly equal portions among the Germanics. The data from Busby and Myhres showed P312 and U106 are roughly equal in Scadinavia, which largely settled the issue for me. Look at Hammer's pie charts (which you have so vigorously defended) for Scandinavia. In both Norway and Denmark, P312 and U106 are approximately equal. In Sweden, P312 is shown to be several times greater than U106. I know the usual explanations about Viking slaves and migration from Britain, but I can see no reason these events would have exclusively involved P312 subclades.

I did not vigorously defend Hammer's pie charts. I said it was hard to imagine that they could be too wildly inaccurate.

U106 and P312 are distributed differently. U106 has a much more eastern and northern distribution than P312. R1b in general is more infrequent in Scandinavia and the other Germanic countries than in the West, but U106 has its highest frequencies in Germanic lands. Most of the clades of P312 found in Germanic regions are found at much higher frequencies elsewhere. They appear to have gotten there from someplace else. Just when that happened is the question. Of course, L238 is the exception. It appears to be of Scandinavian origin but is obviously descended from a P312 parent.



Nor can I agree with your argument that L238 abandoned their proto-Italo-Celtic language to adopt Germanic. My guess is that at the time P312 and U106 originated, they spoke a very similar if not identical proto-IE language. By the time they met (I don't exclude the possibility that at least some of both traveled there together) in the Bronze Age in Scandinavia, I suspect they were speaking a very similar language, which when merged with the other people there, eventually developed into Germanic.

Well, we do disagree. I think the Beaker Folk were Italo-Celtic speaking in their earliest stages. Later most of their northern groups spoke an early form of Celtic. Undoubtedly a number of them were absorbed and assimilated by peoples who spoke other languages: Germanic, Slavic, Romance, etc. I don't think U106 was involved in Beaker but was in on the very early stages of Proto-German. P312, on the other hand, was closely connected to Beaker and was largely Italo-Celtic.

Besides that, I did not say that L238 abandoned an Italo-Celtic language for Germanic. I said its immediate P312 ancestor did that after arriving in Scandinavia from elsewhere. If you go back and re-read my post, you will see that I said that the bearers of L238 may have been Germanic-speaking from the first.



Finally I sincerely hope, as one might infer from your last post, that you don't think that anyone who disagrees with you must be dishonest.

I did not say that anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest. Here is what I wrote:

But in general, as a pretty obvious rule of thumb, P312 does appear to be mostly connected to the old Celts and U106 to the old Germans. I don't see how an honest person could miss that.

I still do not see how an honest person could miss that.



I quote from Ancestral Journeys, which you have reviewed very favorably:

"If and when scientists find ancient Y-DNA from men whom we can guess spoke proto-Germanic, it is most likely to be a mixture of I1, R1a1a, R1b-P312 and R1b-U106, to name only the most common haplogroups found in speakers of Germanic languages today. All of these are far older than the Germanic languages…." (p.205) (emphasis mine)
"So it is reasonable to assume some P312* and L21 arrived in Scandinavia with Bell Beaker folk, or in Bronze Age trade." (p. 209)

How does that differ from anything I have written? Some P312 may have been part of the Germanic world early, but I don't think its roots were in the very earliest Proto-German source population. I think it comprised peoples who were Germanized very early on.

Dubhthach
04-04-2014, 11:41 AM
Certainly it appears more and more that modern Y DNA frequency and distribution tends to reflect historical and later prehistoric (certainly post-Neolithic) times and is relatively limited in telling us much about before 5000 years ago. Indeed a surprisingly large amount of y DNA in places like Ireland and Scotland appears to relate to descendants of a few high status individuals of only 2000-1000 years ago although this is probably due to the exceptionally late survival of a top-down clan system with superbreeding elites until the 18th century AD whereas such a system had probably died out throughout the remainder of western Europe by c. 100AD.

I don't know if you can extrapolate the "Clann system" back into the pre-christian era. It and the obsession with genealogy in some ways appears to be a hallmark of the new elites that developed in the early Christian period in Ireland (5th-6th centuries). It's quite probable that there existed a more "tribal" system beforehand. (use of term "moccu" in ogham Irish for example)

alan
04-04-2014, 11:59 AM
I must admit I am not sure either way about whether the lineage system replaced a tribal one in the AD era or not. I have read the books/papers that raised this possibility but I still dont think its clear. I am not sure about there being a sharp distinction anyway as a lot of real lineages in Medieval documents tagged on what are essentially mythological figures/gods in the early part of their genealogies.

Although not nearly as well known, the Welsh also appear to have operated a similar type conical patrilineal clan type system in Medieval times, often with very similar terminology as the Gaelic one. Although it is possible one borrowed from the other, it is easier to see this system as the default basal Celtic system on which more sophisticated layers might be built.

I really dont know what to think but I have become less of a believer in the idea of a tribal to lineage system change in early AD. On the other hand I have to admit that a lot of Irish lineages do seem to originate in the first millenium AD.


I don't know if you can extrapolate the "Clann system" back into the pre-christian era. It and the obsession with genealogy in some ways appears to be a hallmark of the new elites that developed in the early Christian period in Ireland (5th-6th centuries). It's quite probable that there existed a more "tribal" system beforehand. (use of term "moccu" in ogham Irish for example)

Dubhthach
04-04-2014, 01:04 PM
As a hint the word "Clann" is a borrowing from Latin via Welsh ;)

planta -> plant (welsh) -> Cland (old Irish) -> Clann (m. Irish) -> Clan (English)

Of course in Irish the word specifically means "children" as oppose to family.

Tá sí ag iompair Chlainne (She is carrying child eg. pregnant) etc.

GoldenHind
04-04-2014, 11:32 PM
Which ones? DF19 was only 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. That does not bode well for a strong showing among the Flemish. DF99 was only 0.8% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project. Again, not exactly a forecast of a high frequency of DF99 among the Flemish. In fact, with such a large sample (500), very low frequency results like that tend to indicate that both DF19 and DF99 may not be particularly Germanic at all. Of course, there is much more to the Germanic-speaking world than the Netherlands. Perhaps both DF19 and DF99 are much more frequent in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Scandinavia than in the Netherlands.

One could not be blamed for suspecting that the Netherlands is not exactly a hotspot for either DF19 or DF99, especially the latter.

With the Genome of the Netherlands Project results, one actually has a large sample and the frequency in the Netherlands of both DF19 and DF99, which in both cases was very low. We can also guess that the frequency of DF99 in Britain is probably no higher than in the Netherlands, since the recent Chromo2 release showed, as I recall, just four DF99+ results. I don't know how many DF19+ results, if any, were in the Chromo2 release.

DF99 has been found in at least one man of Italian descent, however, and in at least one Peruvian of unknown extraction. We don't know how frequent or infrequent DF99 is in Italy or, possibly, if the Peruvian DF99+ is of Spanish ancestry, Iberia.




Most of the clades of P312 found in Germanic regions are found at much higher frequencies elsewhere. They appear to have gotten there from someplace else. Just when that happened is the question. Of course, L238 is the exception. It appears to be of Scandinavian origin but is obviously descended from a P312 parent.








Is it your position that all P312 subclades, with the exception of L238, are found in their highest frequencies outside the Germanic world? Including DF19 and DF99?

This is my position. I do not contend that DF19 and DF99 are exclusively found inside the Germanic world. What I do say is that based on what is currently known about its distribution, DF19 at least clearly appears to be primarily Germanic. One would have to jump through hoops to argue otherwise. The very few Irish have Scottish or English surnames. Both of the French are from Normandy. There are a lot of Scots, but few if any with Gaelic surnames. If there is a Celtic component, it is well hidden.

DF99 is really too new to say much concrete about it. It certainly appears to be old enough to have a widespread distribution. However most of those currently identified appear to be of English or German origin. Despite the enormous Irish segment in the FTDNA database, not a single Irish DF99 has been identified. There are a couple of possibles, but they are from the north of that country and have English surnames.

The presence of DF99 in northern Italy hardly precludes a Germanic component, as several Germanic tribes settled there in the migration age. Since the Italian DF99 has no Italians amongst his matches, it doesn't appear to me that DF99 is going to be very numerous there.

The Peruvian from the 1KG Project is anonymous, and there is no way of knowing if he is of Iberian descent. There has been considerable migration since the early 19th century to Peru from a number of European countries, including England and Germany. I don't see anything that suggests a strong DF99 component in Iberia. A DF99 of Iberian origin has yet to be identified in the FTDNA database, and I don't believe there have even been any found who are DF27-, U102- and L21-. Even if one assumes DF99 is present in Iberia, it is reasonable to assume that Spain has a genetic trace remaining from the Germanic incursions there as well.

I have yet to see anything that suggests the primary distribution of DF99 lies outside the Germanic world.

One thing is certain. One of us is wrong. Only time and a great deal more data will provide the answer.

alan
04-05-2014, 04:12 PM
The main reason I find it hard to see the earliest cultural story of P312 and U106 as different is simply that they are united by L11 which at present doesnt seem much older than either of them. Clearly they did split but they originated shortly earlier in one L11 man. The big question is where and what culture did Mr L11 live in?

GoldenHind
04-05-2014, 07:32 PM
The main reason I find it hard to see the earliest cultural story of P312 and U106 as different is simply that they are united by L11 which at present doesnt seem much older than either of them. Clearly they did split but they originated shortly earlier in one L11 man. The big question is where and what culture did Mr L11 live in?

If I remember correctly, both Ken Nordtvedt and Vinve Vizaccero, whose opinions I hold in the highest esteem, have both said they believe P312 and U106 arose at approximately the same time and in the same geographic area.

vettor
04-05-2014, 08:09 PM
If I remember correctly, both Ken Nordtvedt and Vinve Vizaccero, whose opinions I hold in the highest esteem, have both said they believe P312 and U106 arose at approximately the same time and in the same geographic area.

And where would that be?

Hammer has it in the Harz mountains

rms2
04-05-2014, 09:30 PM
Is it your position that all P312 subclades, with the exception of L238, are found in their highest frequencies outside the Germanic world? Including DF19 and DF99?

I do not know, but neither DF19 nor DF99 is very frequent in the Netherlands, at least based on the stats you cited from the Genome of the Netherlands Project.

I do think most clades of P312 are at their most frequent outside the Germanic world, but one must remember that much of even that world was once occupied by Celts. What is now Germany was never wholly Germanic, and pretty obviously what is now England was not either. Neither was the Netherlands.

Unless DF19 is just a very rare subclade (which is a possibility), a finding of 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project means that the Netherlands is a not a DF19 hotspot. Could it be of far greater frequency in neighboring Germany? Perhaps. We won't know until some study tests for it there with samples of sufficient size.

The same thing could be said of DF99, but its frequency in the Genome of the Netherlands Project was even lower: 0.8%. A frequency of 0.8% means that DF99 is rare among the Germanic Dutch. Unless DF99 is extremely rare everywhere, it is hard to imagine that 0.8% makes the Netherlands a DF99 hotspot.




This is my position. I do not contend that DF19 and DF99 are exclusively found inside the Germanic world. What I do say is that based on what is currently known about its distribution, DF19 at least clearly appears to be primarily Germanic. One would have to jump through hoops to argue otherwise. The very few Irish have Scottish or English surnames. Both of the French are from Normandy. There are a lot of Scots, but few if any with Gaelic surnames. If there is a Celtic component, it is well hidden.

I don't think you can really tell from the DF19+ (including subclades) members of the P312 Project. That finding of just 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project certainly gives me pause. I think we need more DF19 testing in northern Germany and elsewhere.

I suspect you won't like me saying this, but not all German (or even Dutch) results are Germanic. The Celts once occupied much of both of those countries. There is a good deal of U152, for example, in Germany. Obviously it is German now, and the ancestors of many of its bearers may have been Germanized relatively early, but few people think of U152 as a Germanic clade.

At least one of the DF19+ men in the P312 Project is Belgian but has a French surname: Henrotte. I remember him, because I originally recruited him for that project. He is not a Fleming.



DF99 is really too new to say much concrete about it. It certainly appears to be old enough to have a widespread distribution. However most of those currently identified appear to be of English or German origin. Despite the enormous Irish segment in the FTDNA database, not a single Irish DF99 has been identified. There are a couple of possibles, but they are from the north of that country and have English surnames.

The presence of DF99 in northern Italy hardly precludes a Germanic component, as several Germanic tribes settled there in the migration age. Since the Italian DF99 has no Italians amongst his matches, it doesn't appear to me that DF99 is going to be very numerous there.

The Peruvian from the 1KG Project is anonymous, and there is no way of knowing if he is of Iberian descent. There has been considerable migration since the early 19th century to Peru from a number of European countries, including England and Germany. I don't see anything that suggests a strong DF99 component in Iberia. A DF99 of Iberian origin has yet to be identified in the FTDNA database, and I don't believe there have even been any found who are DF27-, U102- and L21-. Even if one assumes DF99 is present in Iberia, it is reasonable to assume that Spain has a genetic trace remaining from the Germanic incursions there as well.

I have yet to see anything that suggests the primary distribution of DF99 lies outside the Germanic world.

I think you have to start with what we know about DF99. It may be new, but fortunately it was included in the Genome of the Netherlands Project testing. As I said before, unless DF99 is about as rare as hen's teeth, a finding of 0.8% means the Netherlands is not a DF99 hotspot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there 2,000 individual results in that recent Chromo2 release? Of which 4 were DF99+? That means DF99 is probably even less common in Britain than it is in the Netherlands. Of course, we cannot call commercial Chromo2 testing the equivalent of a scientific study. It may have included numerous close relatives, for example.

Unfortunately, we do not yet know how common DF99 is in Germany. It doesn't seem likely it is very common in the part of Germany nearest the Netherlands, but perhaps farther east or south it is more common.

I would caution against relying too much on FTDNA project members' results, although I don't see anything strikingly Germanic about the list of DF99+ men in the P312 Project, honestly. The reason I advise caution is because of my own experience with L21. Early on, we got a rash of L21+ members with German ancestry. I was really beginning to think the Rhineland might turn out to be an L21 hotspot, but then the spigot began to dry up. Finally, the Busby et al study came out and showed that L21 had disappointingly low frequencies among its German samples.

I am aware that we do not know whether or not that Peruvian DF99+ is of Iberian ancestry. The odds are he is, but we do not know for sure one way or the other, unfortunately.

I am also aware of Italy's history and of the Germanic settlements there.

What I do see is this, however: DF99 is rare in the Germanic Netherlands and perhaps in Britain, as well. I don't see any reason based on a DF99+ result to suspect some kind of Germanic origin for the Peruvian or the Italian.

Honestly, I have yet to see anything that suggests the primary distribution of DF99 lies inside the Germanic world. It could, but there is nothing to indicate that it does; not yet anyway.



One thing is certain. One of us is wrong. Only time and a great deal more data will provide the answer.

I do think it likely that most if not all of the P312 clades have their highest frequencies outside the Germanic world. Of course, that depends on how far along the branches to the twigs one goes. One might, for example, find a new and fairly rare SNP shared by a handful of P312+ families that were Germanized early, a SNP not found outside of Germany. Still that SNP would be a twig off of a branch whose highest frequencies are found outside the Germanic world, just as P312 itself is most frequent outside the Germanic world.

rms2
04-05-2014, 09:39 PM
The main reason I find it hard to see the earliest cultural story of P312 and U106 as different is simply that they are united by L11 which at present doesnt seem much older than either of them. Clearly they did split but they originated shortly earlier in one L11 man. The big question is where and what culture did Mr L11 live in?

Well, they originated in two different L11 men (one apiece), who may have lived quite far from one another in Europe. Their distributions are separate and distinctive, although, obviously, there is overlap.

I think U106's traveling buddy was I-M253. Their distributions are very much alike.

1687 1688

Here, by way of contrast, is the map of P312 from Myres.

1689

Jean M
04-05-2014, 09:46 PM
I think U106's traveling buddy was I-M253. Their distributions are very much alike.

Could well be. I missed that.

alan
04-05-2014, 10:04 PM
I suppose at the core of the problem is that this is the story of a lineage rather than large population movement. The most popular beaker model of small groups involved in trade moving into already settled areas without conflict does fit well with the general picture of P312 and its rapid branching into subclades. In that its a fairly distinctive phenomenon.

Does U106 show the same very early rapid branching? I am not sure about the current dating of the U106 subclades. Does U106 show the same rapid immediate branching as can be seen for P312? If not then it would be interesting as at would indicate different behavour.


Well, they originated in two different L11 men (one apiece), who may have lived quite far from one another in Europe. Their distributions are separate and distinctive, although, obviously, there is overlap.

I think U106's traveling buddy was I-M253. Their distributions are very much alike.

1687 1688

Agamemnon
04-05-2014, 10:16 PM
I suspect you won't like me saying this, but not all German (or even Dutch) results are Germanic. The Celts once occupied much of both of those countries. There is a good deal of U152, for example, in Germany. Obviously it is German now, and the ancestors of many of its bearers may have been Germanized relatively early, but few people think of U152 as a Germanic clade.

I think this needs to be stressed, Germany once lied at the center of Celtic territory and was home to the Hallstatt & La Tène cultures.
People often naively assume that because Germany comes from the same root as "Germanic", the Proto-Germanic homeland has to lie within contemporary Germany...
Which is ridiculous given that Germany is a very recent entity (without even mentioning the fact that Germans call themselves "Deutsch", Danes call them "Tysker" & so on), and that the Proto-Germanic homeland was most likely centered around Denmark, Germany's northern fringes & Southern Scandinavia (the Nordic Bronze Age & Jastorf cultures are potential candidates)... All this while keeping in mind the fact that Proto-Germanic took loans from Celtic languages during the Iron age (so there was a non-trivial amount of contact between Pre-Proto-Germans and Celts).

The high U152 frequencies tend to highlight Germany's Celtic past, that's how most would interpret its appearance in Germany, Switzerland, Austria & Alsace (traditionally Germanic areas).

vettor
04-06-2014, 01:50 AM
I think this needs to be stressed, Germany once lied at the center of Celtic territory and was home to the Hallstatt & La Tène cultures.
People often naively assume that because Germany comes from the same root as "Germanic", the Proto-Germanic homeland has to lie within contemporary Germany...
Which is ridiculous given that Germany is a very recent entity (without even mentioning the fact that Germans call themselves "Deutsch", Danes call them "Tysker" & so on), and that the Proto-Germanic homeland was most likely centered around Denmark, Germany's northern fringes & Southern Scandinavia (the Nordic Bronze Age & Jastorf cultures are potential candidates)... All this while keeping in mind the fact that Proto-Germanic took loans from Celtic languages during the Iron age (so there was a non-trivial amount of contact between Pre-Proto-Germans and Celts).

The high U152 frequencies tend to highlight Germany's Celtic past, that's how most would interpret its appearance in Germany, Switzerland, Austria & Alsace (traditionally Germanic areas).

What do you mean by "center of celtic territory"?

original Germanic people only came from modern areas of north Germany and Denmark.

We also have this confirmed early this year by the 27 royal celtic graves discovered near modern Frankfurt ( i attached a paper on this ).

At best, going by Hammer's placement of U-152 and U-106 ...........they are both of celtic origin, one western central germany and the other the old east germany (south ).

Also Bavarians/swabians and all southern germans where the last to become "germans" and that was after the fall of the Roman Empire .....around 400AD

Agamemnon
04-06-2014, 02:21 AM
What do you mean by "center of celtic territory"?

original Germanic people only came from modern areas of north Germany and Denmark.

We also have this confirmed early this year by the 27 royal celtic graves discovered near modern Frankfurt ( i attached a paper on this ).

At best, going by Hammer's placement of U-152 and U-106 ...........they are both of celtic origin, one western central germany and the other the old east germany (south ).

Also Bavarians/swabians and all southern germans where the last to become "germans" and that was after the fall of the Roman Empire .....around 400AD

What I meant by "center of celtic territory" is a reference to the area which stood at the center of the celtic-speaking regions during the Iron Age, which saw the emergence of La Tène, Hallstatt and Urnfield prior to these when going back to the Bronze Age.

You're referring to Hammer's map, right?

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/04/06/2eow.png

If so, I fail to see how U-106 qualifies as "Celtic", it seems to have more to do with Pre-Proto-Germanic speakers than Italo-Celtic speakers... The paucity of U106 in traditionally Celtic and Italic-speaking areas does a big disfavour to such a view of things.
Yet again who is to say what U106 folk originally spoke? This is out of reach for now, and while some early form of Celtic speech remains a possibility, its low to non-existent frequency in non-Germanic areas casts doubt on such a theory.

Germany is an artificial entity based solely on linguistic criteria, prior to the emergence of nationalism, religion was the game-changer (with the south being Catholic and the north Lutheran). The Holy Roman Empire itself highlights how fragile & novel the concept of a unified "German" entity is.

Either way, I think the fact that most of modern-day Germany was Celtic-speaking during the Iron Age is as uncontroversial as it gets, Germanic seems to have spread southwards during the Jastorf culture's latest stages... We're faced with a paradigm here, population genetics, archeology and linguistics tend to corroborate such a view.

I agree that Bavaria, Austria, Baden-Wurttemberg (along with Alsace, though the Suebi settled in Franche-Comté and Alsace earlier on), Helvetia and Bohemia were "Germanised" relatively late and only during the Völkerwanderung, which is why there still is a non-negligible amount of U152 in these areas (which, IMO, is a strong hint to these areas' originally Celtic make up).

The problem, however, lies further north with U106's entry in Scandinavia and its association with the Germanic label, it will be very interesting to see how aDNA samples from Denmark fit into the story.

vettor
04-06-2014, 03:50 AM
What I meant by "center of celtic territory" is a reference to the area which stood at the center of the celtic-speaking regions during the Iron Age, which saw the emergence of La Tène, Hallstatt and Urnfield prior to these when going back to the Bronze Age.

You're referring to Hammer's map, right?

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/04/06/2eow.png

If so, I fail to see how U-106 qualifies as "Celtic", it seems to have more to do with Pre-Proto-Germanic speakers than Italo-Celtic speakers... The paucity of U106 in traditionally Celtic and Italic-speaking areas does a big disfavour to such a view of things.
Yet again who is to say what U106 folk originally spoke? This is out of reach for now, and while some early form of Celtic speech remains a possibility, its low to non-existent frequency in non-Germanic areas casts doubt on such a theory.

Germany is an artificial entity based solely on linguistic criteria, prior to the emergence of nationalism, religion was the game-changer (with the south being Catholic and the north Lutheran). The Holy Roman Empire itself highlights how fragile & novel the concept of a unified "German" entity is.

Either way, I think the fact that most of modern-day Germany was Celtic-speaking during the Iron Age is as uncontroversial as it gets, Germanic seems to have spread southwards during the Jastorf culture's latest stages... We're faced with a paradigm here, population genetics, archeology and linguistics tend to corroborate such a view.

I agree that Bavaria, Austria, Baden-Wurttemberg (along with Alsace, though the Suebi settled in Franche-Comté and Alsace earlier on), Helvetia and Bohemia were "Germanised" relatively late and only during the Völkerwanderung, which is why there still is a non-negligible amount of U152 in these areas (which, IMO, is a strong hint to these areas' originally Celtic make up).

The problem, however, lies further north with U106's entry in Scandinavia and its association with the Germanic label, it will be very interesting to see how aDNA samples from Denmark fit into the story.

I agree with most of what you say.
But celtic skeletons in central Germany ( and royal skeletons ) indicates the hub of celtic society, where kings are buried. When they finally do the DNA , we will see the results. The celts did not push into the Alps until ~700BC the earliest. But celts are not germans or germanic linguistically at that time.

As you see from the map.....U152 origin is in central Germany and then moved south into Italy . There are not 2 U152 points of origin according to that map.

As for U106 , it's basically southern old east Germany , again, the fringes of east celtic civiliation where it met baltic tribes in the early iron age ( or before).............Leipzig area.

If I knew the mach older named tribes from that time, I would have named them.

Webb
04-06-2014, 01:56 PM
What I meant by "center of celtic territory" is a reference to the area which stood at the center of the celtic-speaking regions during the Iron Age, which saw the emergence of La Tène, Hallstatt and Urnfield prior to these when going back to the Bronze Age.

You're referring to Hammer's map, right?

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/04/06/2eow.png

If so, I fail to see how U-106 qualifies as "Celtic", it seems to have more to do with Pre-Proto-Germanic speakers than Italo-Celtic speakers... The paucity of U106 in traditionally Celtic and Italic-speaking areas does a big disfavour to such a view of things.
Yet again who is to say what U106 folk originally spoke? This is out of reach for now, and while some early form of Celtic speech remains a possibility, its low to non-existent frequency in non-Germanic areas casts doubt on such a theory.

Germany is an artificial entity based solely on linguistic criteria, prior to the emergence of nationalism, religion was the game-changer (with the south being Catholic and the north Lutheran). The Holy Roman Empire itself highlights how fragile & novel the concept of a unified "German" entity is.

Either way, I think the fact that most of modern-day Germany was Celtic-speaking during the Iron Age is as uncontroversial as it gets, Germanic seems to have spread southwards during the Jastorf culture's latest stages... We're faced with a paradigm here, population genetics, archeology and linguistics tend to corroborate such a view.

I agree that Bavaria, Austria, Baden-Wurttemberg (along with Alsace, though the Suebi settled in Franche-Comté and Alsace earlier on), Helvetia and Bohemia were "Germanised" relatively late and only during the Völkerwanderung, which is why there still is a non-negligible amount of U152 in these areas (which, IMO, is a strong hint to these areas' originally Celtic make up).

The problem, however, lies further north with U106's entry in Scandinavia and its association with the Germanic label, it will be very interesting to see how aDNA samples from Denmark fit into the story.

I think the only thing missing from the map, and this might be what GoldenHind is trying to explain, is a push of P312 from its dot in Germany, to Scandinavia through the Netherlands. When that push occurred or what cultural/linguistic associations were with that push is a moot point I think, because you can't link culture/linguistics with genetics 100% of the time. I think in this case it's futile. So whatever they were practicing or speaking, P312 made a push to Scandinavia never the less. The second point I'd like to make to Rm2 is, let's for a second take this map as gospel, I know it's not gospel, but let's pretend for a second. The P312 dot is not far from the Netherlands. If you knew that the arrow from the U106 dot to the Netherlands happened late then that would mean that P312 beat U106 to the punch in settling that area. The Rhine delta has always been very volitile. Many tribes settling and then leaving. The Romans actually cleared it out from settlement because, due to flooding and other issues, they were tired of displaced tribes from the delta running amok through their empire. The next point is we have no idea what a mass exodus does to the place of departure genetically. We can use England as an example of what it does to the place of arrival, but what about the place of departure. I would imagine it creates a vacuum that is filled by different tribes meaning genetically the Netherlands could have a much different place post exodus than it was pre-exodus, depending on how many males exited.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 02:15 PM
I think you have to start with what we know about DF99. It may be new, but fortunately it was included in the Genome of the Netherlands Project testing. As I said before, unless DF99 is about as rare as hen's teeth, a finding of 0.8% means the Netherlands is not a DF99 hotspot.


I will beat a dead horse: A hotspot for a given haplogroup does not necessarily have to correlate with that haplogroup being the dominant haplogroup in a region, i.e. a hotspot of DF99 is where the most frequently occurring instances of it are and it could be outnumbered by other subclades in that area. You are adhering to the opposite, you say Netherlands is not a hotspot because DF99 was found at 0.8% in that study but DF99 could be found at less than 0.8% anywhere else in the world; as such in relation to the rest of the world that 0.8% could mark the "hotspot", place of most frequent occurrence.

Story time:

There is a basket of apples and there is a basket of oranges. Both baskets are in a house on top of a ramp that leads into a basement that has been divided into two rooms. Midway down the ramp there is a divider that makes two lanes for the ramp; laneA goes to roomA and laneB goes to roomB. Also, the basket of apples is larger than the basket of oranges and there are more apples than there are oranges to begin with.

A man pushes over the baskets of oranges and apples and the fruits begin to slide down the ramp. As expected, midway down the divider separates two groups of fruit that are still travelling towards their immanent destination. After all the fruit has made it down the shoot the man proceeds to the basement and analyzes the distribution of the fruit. In both rooms there are more apples than there are oranges, but in roomA there are more oranges than there are in roomB, ergo roomA is the hotspot for oranges over roomB.

Treat R1bDF99 in a similar way.

ADW_1981
04-06-2014, 02:16 PM
At best, going by Hammer's placement of U-152 and U-106 ...........they are both of celtic origin, one western central germany and the other the old east germany (south ).



R1b-U106 as "Celtic origin" is a tough sell. Not sure any evidence supports this. There is overlap between both major haplogroups (P312/U106) and geography but this is to be expected. I1 has been found in old SE Germany, does that make it "Celtic" too?

rms2
04-06-2014, 06:54 PM
I will beat a dead horse: A hotspot for a given haplogroup does not necessarily have to correlate with that haplogroup being the dominant haplogroup in a region, i.e. a hotspot of DF99 is where the most frequently occurring instances of it are and it could be outnumbered by other subclades in that area. You are adhering to the opposite, you say Netherlands is not a hotspot because DF99 was found at 0.8% in that study but DF99 could be found at less than 0.8% anywhere else in the world; as such in relation to the rest of the world that 0.8% could mark the "hotspot", place of most frequent occurrence.

Geez. I said that already. Did you read what I wrote? I already said that unless DF99 is as rare as hen's teeth, then 0.8% means that the Netherlands is NOT a DF99 hotspot.

That is not difficult to understand. First, it is highly unlikely that the Netherlands is a DF99 hotspot. Secondly, the Netherlands could be a DF99 hotspot but ONLY IF DF99 IS SO RARE THAT 0.8% DF99 IS A LOT OF DF99.

Do you believe DF99 is so rare that a frequency of 0.8% is, comparatively speaking, a lot of DF99?



Story time:

There is a basket of apples and there is a basket of oranges. Both baskets are in a house on top of a ramp that leads into a basement that has been divided into two rooms. Midway down the ramp there is a divider that makes two lanes for the ramp; laneA goes to roomA and laneB goes to roomB. Also, the basket of apples is larger than the basket of oranges and there are more apples than there are oranges to begin with.

A man pushes over the baskets of oranges and apples and the fruits begin to slide down the ramp. As expected, midway down the divider separates two groups of fruit that are still travelling towards their immanent destination. After all the fruit has made it down the shoot the man proceeds to the basement and analyzes the distribution of the fruit. In both rooms there are more apples than there are oranges, but in roomA there are more oranges than there are in roomB, ergo roomA is the hotspot for oranges over roomB.

Treat R1bDF99 in a similar way.

Advice time:

You should learn not to address people as if they were morons, especially when you obviously did not understand what they wrote and what it is you are attempting to respond to. See what I wrote above.

rms2
04-06-2014, 07:03 PM
Let me make my point clear, since apparently some folks missed what I actually wrote.

Unless DF99 is extremely rare, a finding of 0.8% frequency means that the Netherlands is NOT a DF99 hotspot.

The other side of that same coin is that, if DF99 is extremely rare, then perhaps 0.8% DF99 is a lot of DF99. I should not have had to write that last sentence, since it was already explicit in the one that preceded it.

If 0.8% DF99 is "a lot" of DF99, then there is not a lot of DF99 around anywhere.

Personally, I suspect it will be found to be more common somewhere else. Where that will be I do not know, but 0.8% won't be hard to beat.

I don't see how it could be any less frequent in the Brabant DNA Project among the Walloons than it was in the Genome of the Netherlands Project among the Dutch. In fact, I strongly suspect DF99 is more frequent among the Walloons.

Were I recruiting for DF99 testing, I wouldn't stop with "Germanics". I would try to drum up a few Spaniards and Italians for testing.

Apparently some folks would far prefer to belong to an extremely small and rare subclade, as long as it is "Germanic", than to a bit beefier subclade that might be more common among non-Germanics.

vettor
04-06-2014, 07:05 PM
R1b-U106 as "Celtic origin" is a tough sell. Not sure any evidence supports this. There is overlap between both major haplogroups (P312/U106) and geography but this is to be expected. I1 has been found in old SE Germany, does that make it "Celtic" too?

In regards to I1..........Unsure who they where but we definitely know there where no Germans south of the Danube river until after 400AD ( only germans there where the ones fighting in the Roman armies ie mercenaries).

only others, I recall from early Iron-age ( which is too late for this discussion ) would be the Nori ( an illyrian people living in Noricum before they got assimilated into celtic society).
If we believe that Illyrian origins are central Europe and that they moved south as scholars state, then we could have this "proto-illyrian" peoples, especially since the P312 spot is in modern Hungaria which was ancient Pannonia, in which the Pannonians are one of the illyrians tribes who eventually mixed with Dacians

rms2
04-06-2014, 07:47 PM
I think the only thing missing from the map, and this might be what GoldenHind is trying to explain, is a push of P312 from its dot in Germany, to Scandinavia through the Netherlands. When that push occurred or what cultural/linguistic associations were with that push is a moot point I think, because you can't link culture/linguistics with genetics 100% of the time. I think in this case it's futile. So whatever they were practicing or speaking, P312 made a push to Scandinavia never the less.

Some P312 got to Scandinavia, it's true. When that happened is the question, but one thing we know for sure is the overall distribution of P312, which has a center of gravity farther to the west and south than that of U106, which has a center of gravity closer to Scandinavia. That means whatever P312 there is in Scandinavia, it is farther from its center of gravity than is the U106 there. In addition to that, we know of immigration into Scandinavia during the historical period from places with much higher frequencies of P312. That is not to say that relatively recent immigration accounts for all of the P312 in Scandinavia, but it probably accounts for some of it, and maybe quite a lot of it.

IMHO, the Beaker Folk account for some of the P312 in Scandinavia. A number of scholars, including, most recently, David Anthony, believe or believed that the Beaker Folk are responsible for the spread of Italo-Celtic languages to the west and north. I think their arguments are good. Most of the Beaker evidence corresponds pretty well to the distribution of P312, and P312 corresponds pretty well to the distribution of the Celtic tribes. If the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic or early Celtic, then when they went to Scandinavia they took that language with them, as well as their P312 y-dna. Pretty obviously they lost their original language, but their y-dna remained to become part of the Scandinavian genetic profile.

What some folks want is some form of P312 that never passed through a Celtic or Italo-Celtic phase. They would rather it be nothing but Germanic. Maybe some such P312 exists, like L238, but I think that, whatever it is, it had a P312 predecessor that probably was born into that Italo-Celtic milieu. Just my opinion.



The second point I'd like to make to Rm2 is, let's for a second take this map as gospel, I know it's not gospel, but let's pretend for a second. The P312 dot is not far from the Netherlands. If you knew that the arrow from the U106 dot to the Netherlands happened late then that would mean that P312 beat U106 to the punch in settling that area. The Rhine delta has always been very volitile. Many tribes settling and then leaving. The Romans actually cleared it out from settlement because, due to flooding and other issues, they were tired of displaced tribes from the delta running amok through their empire. The next point is we have no idea what a mass exodus does to the place of departure genetically. We can use England as an example of what it does to the place of arrival, but what about the place of departure. I would imagine it creates a vacuum that is filled by different tribes meaning genetically the Netherlands could have a much different place post exodus than it was pre-exodus, depending on how many males exited.

I don't know of any Roman clearance of the Netherlands. They recruited many tribesmen from that area for their own army, but that is another topic.

The Celts once occupied the Low Countries, including what is now the Netherlands. The Germans did not start moving into the area until about 700 BC, and they did not succeed in pushing the Celts across the Rhine until after 200 BC. The Dutch and Flemish languages both descend from Old Low Franconian, the language of the Salian Franks. What is now Belgium was never thoroughly Germanized, but, being on the west side of the Rhine, remained to a large extent Gallo-Roman, even after the Franks came to dominate what was once Gaul. As a consequence, we see the difference in the Genome of the Netherlands Project (Germanic Dutch) results from those of the Brabant DNA Project (which includes Gallo-Roman Walloons) that were cited earlier.

As one moves west and south, away from the old Rhenish frontier with Germania, P312 grows in frequency and U106 declines in frequency. Move in the reverse direction, and the opposite occurs: U106 becomes more frequent, and P312 declines. It's not a simple black-and-white picture, because Germany itself was not cleared of the descendants of the Celts. Many of them simply became Germans. In general, however, even in Germany P312 has a southwest to northeast cline (i.e., more frequent in the SW than in the NE).

Given the far greater frequency of P312 in the old homelands of the Celts, it's not to hard to figure out why that is.

GoldenHind
04-06-2014, 09:53 PM
I do not know, but neither DF19 nor DF99 is very frequent in the Netherlands, at least based on the stats you cited from the Genome of the Netherlands Project.

I do think most clades of P312 are at their most frequent outside the Germanic world, but one must remember that much of even that world was once occupied by Celts. What is now Germany was never wholly Germanic, and pretty obviously what is now England was not either. Neither was the Netherlands.

Unless DF19 is just a very rare subclade (which is a possibility), a finding of 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project means that the Netherlands is a not a DF19 hotspot. Could it be of far greater frequency in neighboring Germany? Perhaps. We won't know until some study tests for it there with samples of sufficient size.

The same thing could be said of DF99, but its frequency in the Genome of the Netherlands Project was even lower: 0.8%. A frequency of 0.8% means that DF99 is rare among the Germanic Dutch. Unless DF99 is extremely rare everywhere, it is hard to imagine that 0.8% makes the Netherlands a DF99 hotspot.




I don't think you can really tell from the DF19+ (including subclades) members of the P312 Project. That finding of just 2% in the Genome of the Netherlands Project certainly gives me pause. I think we need more DF19 testing in northern Germany and elsewhere.

I suspect you won't like me saying this, but not all German (or even Dutch) results are Germanic. The Celts once occupied much of both of those countries. There is a good deal of U152, for example, in Germany. Obviously it is German now, and the ancestors of many of its bearers may have been Germanized relatively early, but few people think of U152 as a Germanic clade.

At least one of the DF19+ men in the P312 Project is Belgian but has a French surname: Henrotte. I remember him, because I originally recruited him for that project. He is not a Fleming.



I think you have to start with what we know about DF99. It may be new, but fortunately it was included in the Genome of the Netherlands Project testing. As I said before, unless DF99 is about as rare as hen's teeth, a finding of 0.8% means the Netherlands is not a DF99 hotspot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there 2,000 individual results in that recent Chromo2 release? Of which 4 were DF99+? That means DF99 is probably even less common in Britain than it is in the Netherlands. Of course, we cannot call commercial Chromo2 testing the equivalent of a scientific study. It may have included numerous close relatives, for example.

Unfortunately, we do not yet know how common DF99 is in Germany. It doesn't seem likely it is very common in the part of Germany nearest the Netherlands, but perhaps farther east or south it is more common.

I would caution against relying too much on FTDNA project members' results, although I don't see anything strikingly Germanic about the list of DF99+ men in the P312 Project, honestly. The reason I advise caution is because of my own experience with L21. Early on, we got a rash of L21+ members with German ancestry. I was really beginning to think the Rhineland might turn out to be an L21 hotspot, but then the spigot began to dry up. Finally, the Busby et al study came out and showed that L21 had disappointingly low frequencies among its German samples.

I am aware that we do not know whether or not that Peruvian DF99+ is of Iberian ancestry. The odds are he is, but we do not know for sure one way or the other, unfortunately.

I am also aware of Italy's history and of the Germanic settlements there.

What I do see is this, however: DF99 is rare in the Germanic Netherlands and perhaps in Britain, as well. I don't see any reason based on a DF99+ result to suspect some kind of Germanic origin for the Peruvian or the Italian.

Honestly, I have yet to see anything that suggests the primary distribution of DF99 lies inside the Germanic world. It could, but there is nothing to indicate that it does; not yet anyway.



I do think it likely that most if not all of the P312 clades have their highest frequencies outside the Germanic world. Of course, that depends on how far along the branches to the twigs one goes. One might, for example, find a new and fairly rare SNP shared by a handful of P312+ families that were Germanized early, a SNP not found outside of Germany. Still that SNP would be a twig off of a branch whose highest frequencies are found outside the Germanic world, just as P312 itself is most frequent outside the Germanic world.

You have said you believe all P312 subclades, except L238, are predominantly of Celtic origin. I challenged you on that, primarily with regard to DF19, which many have accepted to be primarily Germanic, and to a lesser extent on DF99, although I think we are at least in agreement that it is so new we can't be too definitive about it.

I do know the two people who are most expert in DF19 believe it is Germanic. Maciamo, who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind, has labeled it Anglo-Saxon. Additionally, not long ago he changed his label for P312 from Italo-Celtic to Celtic/Germanic. You seem to be among a shrinking amount of those who insist on labeling P312 as Celtic.

Your argument that DF19 is primarily Celtic seems to be that it only amounted to 2% in the Dutch study, and that those may have been of Celtic origin anyway. You also caution against relying too much on FTDNA project results. Yet you are quick to emphasize a single Belgian with a French surname among about 75 confirmed DF19+, and the one northern Italian DF99+. So are they only reliable when they support your position?

I should clarify that when I speak of Germanics, I refer to those people who were speaking a Germanic language by the time of the Roman Iron Age. One can make a reasonable attempt to identify them. I do not know what the genetic composition was of the Jastorf culture or the peoples of the Nordic Bronze Age, but neither does anyone else, including you. As I said in my first post on the subject, I do not rule out the possibility that at least DF99 may have have been settled in the Rhine area in Beaker times, and only became Germanized later in the Bronze or Iron Age.

You continually refer to the distribution of P312 as a whole as evidence of your position. However that essentially merely illustrates the combined distribution of the largest P312 subclades of L21, U152 and DF27. It tells us absolutely nothing about the distribution of the smaller P312 subclades such as L238, DF19 and DF99. It doesn't even tell us anything about the distribution of the various subclades beneath L21, U152 and DF27. I think there is a good chance that as we progress down the tree from subclades of the Neolithic to subclades born during the Iron Age, we may well find that some of these are Germanic as well. Only time will tell.

You repeatedly emphasize that DF19 and DF99 were only a small percentage of the Dutch study, and theorize they must have their hotspots outside Netherlands. There is absolutely no proof that is the case. They may not be quite as rare as hen's teeth, but based on the currently available evidence, I suspect neither of them is going to have a hotspot outside the Germanic speaking nations. We must wait for further data to know for sure.

You mention that there were only four DF99 identified in the 2000 recently released BritainsDNA results. Their database consists of samples from all parts of Britain and Ireland. All four of the DF99 were from England, and none were from Ireland or Scotland.
This confirms the current data I have seen which indicates the concentration of DF99 in the Isles is in England, which hardly establishes that it is primarily of Celtic origin.

You continue to mention the Peruvian DF99 and suggests Iberia may be a hotspot for it. The 1000 Genomes data is particularly rich in Iberian samples. There were 110 from Iberia itself, as well as an additional 355 from Spanish colonial countries, including Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia and Peru. The Peruvian (there were actually two, but as father and son, should only count as one) was the sole DF99 out of a total of 462. And there is no proof that the Peruvian is actually of Iberian origin. The four out of 500 in Holland is three or four times greater than the one out of 462 Iberian samples. Following your argument that the small amount of DF99 in Holland disproves a Germanic component to DF99, the even greater paucity in Iberia ought to disprove its presence amongst the Celts as well. Do you believe that the Celtic people had differing gentic composition, but that the Germanics were all the same?

You also emphasize the DF99 from Liguria as evidence that DF99 is primarily Celtic. For some reason though, you ignore the Russian DF99. How do you fit him into your Celtic scenario?

I suggest we continue this argument in a year or two when we should have much more informative data.

rms2
04-06-2014, 10:54 PM
You have said you believe all P312 subclades, except L238, are predominantly of Celtic origin. I challenged you on that, primarily with regard to DF19, which many have accepted to be primarily Germanic, and to a lesser extent on DF99, although I think we are at least in agreement that it is so new we can't be too definitive about it.

Yes, predominantly, and I think L238 stems from a P312 predecessor that probably got to Scandinavia with Beaker Folk who spoke Italo-Celtic or perhaps even early Celtic.



I do know the two people who are most expert in DF19 believe it is Germanic. Maciamo, who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind, has labeled it Anglo-Saxon. Additionally, not long ago he changed his label for P312 from Italo-Celtic to Celtic/Germanic. You seem to be among a shrinking amount of those who insist on labeling P312 as Celtic.

Absent actual evidence, that is meaningless. I don't know that DF19 is not more common in the Germanic zone than it is outside it. All I said is that the Genome of the Netherlands result makes one wonder. And, yes, I think P312 is predominantly Celtic. Not only that, but I think that is really pretty obvious.



Your argument that DF19 is primarily Celtic seems to be that it only amounted to 2% in the Dutch study, and that those may have been of Celtic origin anyway. You also caution against relying too much on FTDNA project results. Yet you are quick to emphasize a single Belgian with a French surname among about 75 confirmed DF19+, and the one northern Italian DF99+. So are they only reliable when they support your position?

Please try to get what I said right. I did not argue that DF19 is primarily Celtic. I said P312 is. DF19 might be Celtic; I do not know.

I mentioned Henrotte only because you disagreed with me about the likelihood of just about every P312 clade being more frequent among Walloons than Flemings in the Brabant DNA Project. I am fully aware that Henrotte is but one man and not actual evidence. I also mentioned him because there isn't a lot of evidence to talk about when it comes to DF19 beyond the Genome of the Netherlands Project results.



I should clarify that when I speak of Germanics, I refer to those people who were speaking a Germanic language by the time of the Roman Iron Age. One can make a reasonable attempt to identify them. I do not know what the genetic composition was of the Jastorf culture or the peoples of the Nordic Bronze Age, but neither does anyone else, including you. As I said in my first post on the subject, I do not rule out the possibility that at least DF99 may have have been settled in the Rhine area in Beaker times, and only became Germanized later in the Bronze or Iron Age.

So Germanics include Celts and others who were Germanized by the Roman Iron Age, circa 1 A.D.?

I had in mind those who were in on the very beginnings of Germanic languages and culture, not those who had a fairly extensive time as Celts or other non-Germans.



You continually refer to the distribution of P312 as a whole as evidence of your position. However that essentially merely illustrates the combined distribution of the largest P312 subclades of L21, U152 and DF27. It tells us absolutely nothing about the distribution of the smaller P312 subclades such as L238, DF19 and DF99. It doesn't even tell us anything about the distribution of the various subclades beneath L21, U152 and DF27. I think there is a good chance that as we progress down the tree from subclades of the Neolithic to subclades born during the Iron Age, we may well find that some of these are Germanic as well. Only time will tell.

All of those xL21,U152,DF27 clades had P312 parents, and the bulk of P312 has a definite center of gravity west and south of the Germanic world. Even within the Germanic world, P312xL21,U152,DF27 is fairly infrequent, at least judging from Busby et al and the Genome of the Netherlands stats.



You repeatedly emphasize that DF19 and DF99 were only a small percentage of the Dutch study, and theorize they must have their hotspots outside Netherlands. There is absolutely no proof that is the case. They may not be quite as rare as hen's teeth, but based on the currently available evidence, I suspect neither of them is going to have a hotspot outside the Germanic speaking nations.

You mention that there were only four DF99 identified in the 2000 recently released BritainsDNA results. Their database consists of samples from all parts of Britain and Ireland. All four of the DF99 were from England, and none were from Ireland or Scotland.

You could be right, but you could be wrong, as well. There is no real indication from the currently available evidence that DF99 is going to have a hotspot inside the Germanic-speaking nations. It may, but there is no evidence of that yet. The only real scientific evidence I know of are the stats from the Genome of the Netherlands Project. Again, unless DF99 is very rare, that indicates there is at least one Germanic-speaking nation that is not a DF99 hotspot. (Note to Telfermagne: Explicit within that sentence is the notion that if DF99 is in fact very rare, 0.8% may actually indicate a hotspot for DF99. No need to toss any more fruit.)



You continue to mention the Peruvian DF99 and suggests Iberia may be a hotspot for it. The 1000 Genomes data is particularly rich in Iberian samples. There were 110 from Iberia itself, as well as an additional 355 from Spanish colonial countries, including Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia and Peru. The Peruvian (there were actually two, but father and son, so should only count as one) was the sole DF99 out of a total of 462. The four out of 500 in Holland is three or four times greater than the one out of 462 Iberian samples. Following your logic that the small amount of DF99 in Holland disproves a Germanic component to DF99, the even greater paucity in Iberia should disprove its presence amongst the Celts as well.

Well, I was not aware of that. Perhaps DF99 is just a really rare subclade and 0.8% is a high frequency for DF99 anywhere.

I still suspect that it is probably higher among the Walloons than in the Flemings of the Brabant DNA Project and certainly than in the Dutch of the Genome of the Netherlands Project, but it is easy for me to say that (or anything else) until we know for sure.



You also emphasize the DF99 from Liguria as evidence that DF99 is primarily Celtic. For some reason though, you ignore the Russian DF99. How do you fit him into your Celtic scenario?

I suggest we continue this argument in a year or two when we should have much more informative data.

Please stop mischaracterizing what I wrote. I did not say that DF99 is primarily Celtic (at least I don't recall saying that). I said P312 is primarily Celtic. I suspect DF99 may be Celtic or even Ligurian, but I don't know that for sure. It could pop up at 5% or something in the next German sample in the next big study. Who knows? Of course, being found in Germany is not the same thing as being Germanic. Perhaps DF99 will pop up at 2 or 3% in Norway or something like that.

I would like to continue to consider the evidence, which I think is fairly ample already, although certainly not complete, but I will probably start another to thread to do that.

This one is already far too long.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 11:14 PM
Geez. I said that already. Did you read what I wrote? I already said that unless DF99 is as rare as hen's teeth, then 0.8% means that the Netherlands is NOT a DF99 hotspot.



You do not seem to grasp the fundamental logic of my analogue, so I will repeat it. And if it is still too difficult to comprehend I will draft another analogue after it.

There is a basket of apples and there is a basket of oranges. Both baskets are in a house on top of a ramp that leads into a basement that has been divided into two rooms. Midway down the ramp there is a divider that makes two lanes for the ramp; laneA goes to roomA and laneB goes to roomB. Also, the basket of apples is larger than the basket of oranges and there are more apples than there are oranges to begin with.

A man pushes over the baskets of oranges and apples and the fruits begin to slide down the ramp. As expected, midway down the divider separates two groups of fruit that are still travelling towards their immanent destination. After all the fruit has made it down the shoot the man proceeds to the basement and analyzes the distribution of the fruit. In both rooms there are more apples than there are oranges, but in roomA there are more oranges than there are in roomB, ergo roomA is the hotspot for oranges over roomB.

Another version:

There is a planet that consist of four lands. On this planet there is land-A, there is land-B, there is land-C, and there is land-D. In land-A a given haplogroup occurs among 0.5% of the population. In land-B the very same haplogroup occurs among 0.2% of the population. In land-C the very same haplogroup occurs among 0.1% of the population. In land-D the very same haplogroup does not occur at all, 0%. Even though this haplogroup is not the majority-haplogroup, or even a significant haplogroup, in any of the four lands it still occurs more frequently in land-A as such land-A is the hotspot for that haplogroup. Simple enough.

rms2
04-06-2014, 11:15 PM
. . .

I would like to continue to consider the evidence, which I think is fairly ample already, although certainly not complete, but I will probably start another to thread to do that.

. . .

Oh, when I wrote that, I did not mean I plan to continue blabbing on about DF19 and DF99. I meant I would like to discuss the whole notion of P312 and its clades being predominantly Italo-Celtic or Italo-Celtic derived (stemming originally from Italo-Celts).

rms2
04-06-2014, 11:17 PM
You do not seem to grasp the fundamental logic of my analogue, so I will repeat it. And if it is still too difficult to comprehend I will draft another analogue after it.

There is a basket of apples and there is a basket of oranges. Both baskets are in a house on top of a ramp that leads into a basement that has been divided into two rooms. Midway down the ramp there is a divider that makes two lanes for the ramp; laneA goes to roomA and laneB goes to roomB. Also, the basket of apples is larger than the basket of oranges and there are more apples than there are oranges to begin with.

A man pushes over the baskets of oranges and apples and the fruits begin to slide down the ramp. As expected, midway down the divider separates two groups of fruit that are still travelling towards their immanent destination. After all the fruit has made it down the shoot the man proceeds to the basement and analyzes the distribution of the fruit. In both rooms there are more apples than there are oranges, but in roomA there are more oranges than there are in roomB, ergo roomA is the hotspot for oranges over roomB.

Another version:

There is a planet that consist of four lands. On this planet there is land-A, there is land-B, there is land-C, and there is land-D. In land-A a given haplogroup occurs among 0.5% of the population. In land-B the very same haplogroup occurs among 0.2% of the population. In land-C the very same haplogroup occurs among 0.1% of the population. In land-D the very same haplogroup does not occur at all, 0%. Even though this haplogroup is not the majority-haplogroup, or even a significant haplogroup, in any of the four lands it still occurs more frequently in land-A as such land-A is the hotspot for that haplogroup. Simple enough.

No, you do not get it. You are explaining something simple, something I said ALREADY and more than once. You are belaboring the obvious at great length for what reason? Good grief.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 11:21 PM
No, you do not get it. You are explaining something simple, something I said ALREADY and more than once. You are belaboring the obvious at great length for what reason? Good grief.

You did not say what I said. You said quite the opposite. You stated that the Netherlands is disqualified from hotspot status because of a 0.8% occurrence regarding a given haplogroup. This does not fit with the definition of what a hotspot is, hotspot = place of most frequent occurrence and if 0.8% turns out to be the highest frequency then that marks the hotspot to date, subject to change but given the expected trend and what is already known there's not much else in the way of candidates; it's a very rare haplogroup to begin with and it's most frequent occurrence so far has been Netherlands and among English surnamed lines. And my analogue is what demonstrates that definition, not the quoted posts that were authored by you.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 11:29 PM
Advice time:

You should learn not to address people as if they were morons, especially when you obviously did not understand what they wrote and what it is you are attempting to respond to. See what I wrote above.

Advice time:

Analogues have been widely used throughout history to demonstrate fundamentals in logic. Such was my task and my post is logically consistent. This will mark my only response to an emotionally charged post from you.

rms2
04-06-2014, 11:33 PM
You did not say what I said. You said quite the opposite. You stated that the Netherlands is disqualified from hotspot status because of a 0.8% occurrence for a given haplogroup. This does not fit with the definition of what a hotspot is, hotspot = place of most frequent occurrence and if 0.8% turns out to be the highest frequency then that marks the hotspot to date, subject to change but given the expected trend and what is already known there's not much else in the way of candidates; it's a very rare haplogroup to begin with and it's most frequent occurrence so far has been Netherlands and among English surnamed lines. And my analogue is what demonstrates that definition, not the quoted posts by you.

Wrong. Way wrong.

Once again: I said that unless DF99 is very rare, a result of 0.8% means that the Netherlands is not a DF99 hotspot. I am betting that by far most people understood that first clause, the "unless DF99 is very rare" part, to indicate that if DF99 is in fact very rare, a result of 0.8% might indicate that the Netherlands actually is a DF99 hotspot. You see, that is why I constructed the sentence that way, with that unless clause.

Understand now?

The sentence I wrote the first time, and then explained at some length the second time, actually contained within it - easily and without strain - the fact that I recognized that if DF99 is very rare everywhere, a result of 0.8% might be a high frequency for DF99.

rms2
04-06-2014, 11:37 PM
Advice time:

Analogues have been widely used throughout history to demonstrate fundamentals in logic. Such was my task and my post is logically consistent. This will mark my only response to an emotionally charged post from you.

Had you understood what I wrote the first time, you might have spared us all the unnecessary pedantry and condescension.

Anglecynn
04-06-2014, 11:38 PM
Some P312 got to Scandinavia, it's true. When that happened is the question, but one thing we know for sure is the overall distribution of P312, which has a center of gravity farther to the west and south than that of U106, which has a center of gravity closer to Scandinavia. That means whatever P312 there is in Scandinavia, it is farther from its center of gravity than is the U106 there. In addition to that, we know of immigration into Scandinavia during the historical period from places with much higher frequencies of P312. That is not to say that relatively recent immigration accounts for all of the P312 in Scandinavia, but it probably accounts for some of it, and maybe quite a lot of it.

IMHO, the Beaker Folk account for some of the P312 in Scandinavia. A number of scholars, including, most recently, David Anthony, believe or believed that the Beaker Folk are responsible for the spread of Italo-Celtic languages to the west and north. I think their arguments are good. Most of the Beaker evidence corresponds pretty well to the distribution of P312, and P312 corresponds pretty well to the distribution of the Celtic tribes. If the Beaker Folk spoke Italo-Celtic or early Celtic, then when they went to Scandinavia they took that language with them, as well as their P312 y-dna. Pretty obviously they lost their original language, but their y-dna remained to become part of the Scandinavian genetic profile.

What some folks want is some form of P312 that never passed through a Celtic or Italo-Celtic phase. They would rather it be nothing but Germanic. Maybe some such P312 exists, like L238, but I think that, whatever it is, it had a P312 predecessor that probably was born into that Italo-Celtic milieu. Just my opinion.



I don't know of any Roman clearance of the Netherlands. They recruited many tribesmen from that area for their own army, but that is another topic.

The Celts once occupied the Low Countries, including what is now the Netherlands. The Germans did not start moving into the area until about 700 BC, and they did not succeed in pushing the Celts across the Rhine until after 200 BC. The Dutch and Flemish languages both descend from Old Low Franconian, the language of the Salian Franks. What is now Belgium was never thoroughly Germanized, but, being on the west side of the Rhine, remained to a large extent Gallo-Roman, even after the Franks came to dominate what was once Gaul. As a consequence, we see the difference in the Genome of the Netherlands Project (Germanic Dutch) results from those of the Brabant DNA Project (which includes Gallo-Roman Walloons) that were cited earlier.

As one moves west and south, away from the old Rhenish frontier with Germania, P312 grows in frequency and U106 declines in frequency. Move in the reverse direction, and the opposite occurs: U106 becomes more frequent, and P312 declines. It's not a simple black-and-white picture, because Germany itself was not cleared of the descendants of the Celts. Many of them simply became Germans. In general, however, even in Germany P312 has a southwest to northeast cline (i.e., more frequent in the SW than in the NE).

Given the far greater frequency of P312 in the old homelands of the Celts, it's not to hard to figure out why that is.

But what would you say about the apparent dominance of P312 over U106 in Sweden? Although R1b is fairly low there, there is decidedly significantly more P312 than U106 in many places there. And i recall that U106 is quite young in Scandinavia.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 11:43 PM
Wrong. Way wrong.

Once again: I said that unless DF99 is very rare, a result of 0.8% means that the Netherlands is not a DF99 hotspot. I am betting that by far most people understood that first clause, the "unless DF99 is very rare" part, to indicate that if DF99 is in fact very rare, a result of 0.8% might indicate that the Netherlands actually is a DF99 hotspot. You see, that is why I constructed the sentence that way, with that unless clause.

Understand now?

The sentence I wrote the first time, and then explained at some length the second time, actually contained within it - easily and without strain - the fact that I recognized that if DF99 is very rare everywhere, a result of 0.8% might be a high frequency for DF99.

It does seem to be very rare. Look at the P312 that is already accounted for, plus how long it took to even discover that DF99 existed; this alludes to its rarity.

Your original "rare as hen's teeth" implies that it does not exist at all since hens do not have teeth, so such is a poor rendering on your behalf as DF99 actually exists even though it is quite rare.

Furthermore, its marked rarity is irrelevant to my premise which regards basic definitions. Hotspot = place of most frequent occurrence i.e. spot of highest frequency. And if 0.8% is the highest frequency then that marks the hotspot, even it it is only a relative hotspot (meaning a hotspot relative to the current information available); and it could be removed from such status upon the discovery of a new hotspot.

rms2
04-06-2014, 11:49 PM
I don't think you need for me to explain to you that rare as hen's teeth is simply a hyperbolic idiom that means that something is very rare or non-existent. Obviously I don't think DF99 is non-existent.

DF99 would have to be very rare indeed for a frequency of 0.8% to constitute a hotspot.

If 0.8% is a high frequency for DF99, you all are going to have a tough row to hoe to find much of it and figure out what it means.

Once again, you keep "explaining" something I said already with that unless clause that I had to explain repeatedly to you, something I think we all already understood. Hotspots are relative. Got it.

Telfermagne
04-06-2014, 11:55 PM
I don't think you need for me to explain to you that rare as hen's teeth is simply a hyperbolic idiom that means that something is very rare or non-existent. Obviously I don't think DF99 is non-existent.

DF99 would have to be very rare indeed for a frequency of 0.8% to constitute a hotspot.

If 0.8% is a high frequency for DF99, you all are going to have a tough row to hoe to find much of it and figure out what it means.

Once again, you keep "explaining" something I said already with that unless clause that I had to explain repeatedly to you, something I think we all already understood. Hotspots are relative. Got it.

But I want you to explain it again and keep on explaining it! Forever. Forever. For - ev -er.

rms2
04-07-2014, 12:07 AM
But what would you say about the apparent dominance of P312 over U106 in Sweden? Although R1b is fairly low there, there is decidedly significantly more P312 than U106 in many places there. And i recall that U106 is quite young in Scandinavia.

Upon what are you basing that assertion?

The P312 in Busby's very odd but numerically adequate Swedish sample is mostly L21. The total P312 was 11.5%. Of that, 7.2% was L21+, 2.2% was U152+, and 2.2% was P312xL21,U152. The Danish results were somewhat similar, although the percentage of P312xL21,U152 was higher than in Sweden (I can cite the figures, if you would like).

rms2
04-07-2014, 12:13 AM
Upon what are you basing that assertion?

The P312 in Busby's very odd but numerically adequate Swedish sample is mostly L21. The total P312 was 11.5%. Of that, 7.2% was L21+, 2.2% was U152+, and 2.2% was P312xL21,U152. The Danish results were somewhat similar, although the percentage of P312xL21,U152 was higher than in Sweden (I can cite the figures, if you would like).

I'm guessing - just guessing - that much of the 2.2% P312xL21,U152 in Busby's Swedish sample would be taken up by L238 and DF27, with not much left over for anything else.

rms2
04-07-2014, 12:23 AM
Upon what are you basing that assertion?

The P312 in Busby's very odd but numerically adequate Swedish sample is mostly L21. The total P312 was 11.5%. Of that, 7.2% was L21+, 2.2% was U152+, and 2.2% was P312xL21,U152. The Danish results were somewhat similar, although the percentage of P312xL21,U152 was higher than in Sweden (I can cite the figures, if you would like).

I know 7.2+2.2+2.2 = 11.6, but Busby still has the total P312 listed as 11.5. Go figure.

Of that 7.2% Swedish L21 figure, 1.4% is M222+.

rms2
04-07-2014, 12:35 AM
Busby's Malmö, Sweden, result of just 4.3% U106 is odd. I'm not doubting it - well, maybe just a little - but it does seem odd given the frequencies not too far away, in Denmark: ~24% in the North Denmark sample, and 12.2% in the southeast Denmark sample. There was 21.1% U106 in the Denmark West sample, but the sample size for that one is just 19, so I think that has to be disregarded or regarded with extreme caution.

alan
04-07-2014, 01:10 AM
I think there is a very very strong case that Celto-Italic was spread by P312. Its not just Celtic and the Italic branches but also apparently very closely related languages like Ligurian and Lusitanian which I dont think should be classed as Celtic or Italic but are clearly from the same branch. Venetic is almost certainly also from this branch. Liburnian of the NW Balkans is thought to be related to the latter.

In all of these cases, they geographical spread seems to rule out a link with Corded Ware unless special pleading is used. Also, its fair to say that an R1b connection is far more plausible that an R1a one.

Germanic is an odd situation. It sits in a location where a corded ware culture was quickly overlaid by a beaker one. I think personally that Germanic is a weird language that may have more than one IE input into it as well as a big non-IE one. I suspect in terms of IE that both a corded ware eastern input (Baltic-like??) and a beaker driven western Italo-Celtic input is present. In terms of genetics I think this could correspond with the R1a and b elements respectively. This would make sense to me and in a way the linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence do seem to be in harmony in showing the future Germanic zone as an overlap area between eastern and western input.

Agamemnon
04-07-2014, 01:57 AM
Germanic is an odd situation. It sits in a location where a corded ware culture was quickly overlaid by a beaker one. I think personally that Germanic is a weird language that may have more than one IE input into it as well as a big non-IE one.

Which could account for the similarity one encounters with Balto-Slavic, there's much to bet that R1a-Z284 is seen as the driving force in this process since it is more likely to have remained close to the Pre-Balto-Slavic speech areas prior to an eventual migration towards Scandinavia.

GoldenHind
04-07-2014, 05:35 PM
So Germanics include Celts and others who were Germanized by the Roman Iron Age, circa 1 A.D.?

I had in mind those who were in on the very beginnings of Germanic languages and culture, not those who had a fairly extensive time as Celts or other non-Germans.



i











You obviously missed the point I was trying to make, so I will put it another way. When someone's earliest known ancestor lived in a Germanic speaking country or region and has a Germanic name, it is fairly easy for me to recognize. Working out where their ancestors were living in the Bronze Age is rather more challenging. If you have worked out a reliable way of divining this, other than checking one box if they are P312 and another if they are U106, please let me know.

Anglecynn
04-07-2014, 06:07 PM
Given that U106 does have a correlation with Germanic languages, but that all Germanic regions also have P312, it might be more appropriate to say that in Germanic regions the R1b also includes a major (or dominant in many areas) component of U106, in addition to the P312, while in Celtic areas it's mostly or entirely P312. Rather than having a discrete U106 = Germanic P312 = Italo-Celtic divide. Probably one day as more people test and knowledge increases of all the little sub-groups, we'll have a better idea of which groups can be associated to language or ethnic groups in that way, and which ones can't.

Agamemnon
04-07-2014, 06:13 PM
^^ Well I, for one, find P312's association to the Italo-Celtic label quite appealing.
It does offer a crude yet useful insight onto R1b's phylogeny in Western Europe, though I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find out that some P312 clades had very little to do with Italo-Celtic speakers.
The devil lies in the details, as usual.

However, I think there are more crucial questions which need to be answered, such as R1b's emergence and its history with Indo-European (was it Indo-Europeanised, for instance?).
I am fairly confident that time (understand "more research") will tell.

I would like to see more data on R1b-Z2103 for example, and I'd be delighted to find out how it ended up in Alawites, Assyrians & Kohanim.

GoldenHind
04-07-2014, 06:45 PM
But what would you say about the apparent dominance of P312 over U106 in Sweden? Although R1b is fairly low there, there is decidedly significantly more P312 than U106 in many places there. And i recall that U106 is quite young in Scandinavia.


Upon what are you basing that assertion?

The P312 in Busby's very odd but numerically adequate Swedish sample is mostly L21. The total P312 was 11.5%. Of that, 7.2% was L21+, 2.2% was U152+, and 2.2% was P312xL21,U152. The Danish results were somewhat similar, although the percentage of P312xL21,U152 was higher than in Sweden (I can cite the figures, if you would like).

Perhaps he was referring to the Hammer pie charts you presented earlier. The one for Sweden showed P312 at about four times the number of U106. Even the undifferentiated P311 was larger than U106.

The Malmo data, which I believe came from Myres, showed P312 as more than double the U106 (16 vs. 6).

Finally we have the data from the Old Norway Project, which included three areas in Sweden. Like Hammer, the data is also presented in pie charts, but at least they give the numerical totals. Only in Blekinge/Kristianstad (n=39) was U106 predominant over P312. In Ostergotland/Jonkoping (n=39) U106 and P312 are roughly equal. In Skaraborg/Ostergotland (n=45) P312 is about 60% of R1b, U106 about 40%.

alan
04-08-2014, 01:39 AM
I am in the camp that U106 is a Germanic marker and absence of it is a Celtic trait. However, I dont think the reverse that p312 is all Celto-Italic/non-Germanic is anywhere near as clearcut.

I have said it before that I believe Germanic had an eastern and a western aspect to it. There are a numer of traits that are Celto-Italo-Germanic. Celto-Italic and pre-Germanic are usually seen as the earliest break offs after Anatolian and Tocharian. That does create an issue whereby if Corded Ware c.3000bc and its middle dnieper and Fatyanovo variants c. 3200BC are associated with Balto-Slavic then it doesnt fit the language branching to link Germanic to corded ware in its zone c. 2800bc as Germanic is usually considered a significantly earlier branching that balto-slavic. So, I doubt the story of Germanic is as simple as being a corded ware creation as corded ware did not move off away from the steppe contact zone until perhaps 2800BC into what would later be the Germanic speaking world.

On this theme, it must also be observed that in order to match the indo-European dialect branching tree Italo-Celtic cannot have actually first arisen in the beaker culture in a literal sense as its too late. It seems to me that Celto-Italic must have broken off significantly before the corded ware culture given that it is most plausibly associated with relatively late branching balto-slavic. So, I think Celto-Italic must have had a pre-3000BC pre-beaker home for at least a few centuries after its initial break off from the other dialects.

Germanic or rather pre-Germanic is usually placed as an early break off also around the time of Celto-Italic in the language tree and would make more sense if it had already broken off in pre-corded ware times. Perhaps Germanic is a mixture of a celto-italic linked strand which split off early in SE Europe but arrived later in the pre-Germanic world with the beakers plus another corded ware strand which split off later but yet arrived earlier in the present Germanic zone - and Germanic is a hybrid of the two that formed after mixing of beaker and corded elements c. 2600BC.

rms2
04-08-2014, 11:49 AM
Given that U106 does have a correlation with Germanic languages, but that all Germanic regions also have P312, it might be more appropriate to say that in Germanic regions the R1b also includes a major (or dominant in many areas) component of U106, in addition to the P312, while in Celtic areas it's mostly or entirely P312. Rather than having a discrete U106 = Germanic P312 = Italo-Celtic divide. Probably one day as more people test and knowledge increases of all the little sub-groups, we'll have a better idea of which groups can be associated to language or ethnic groups in that way, and which ones can't.

Well, the problem with that is that the stats actually show that the P312 even in Germanic lands has a decidedly Celtic tilt. The Busby stats show this. P312 is most frequent in the old Celtic regions of Germany and increases as one moves south and west. It drops precipitously when one reaches North Germany but then jumps back up a bit in North Denmark, southern Sweden, and in Norway. I find that rather odd and suspect at least some of the P312 in Scandinavia is the product of historical period immigration.

My own view is that P312 in Celtic-Germanic contact zones like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and England is almost all originally of Celtic derivation, some of it Germanized relatively early but almost none of it originally Germanic.

The sudden jump in P312 in Scandinavia after passing through a slump in North Germany I think reflects relatively recent immigration with perhaps some early seaborne settlement by Beaker Folk in North Denmark and SW Norway.

I want to start a new thread on this subject, but I have not finished looking at the data.

Most of the P312 in Busby's Swedish Malmö sample was L21+, and some of that was M222+. Otherwise, there really was little P312 in that sample (just 2.2% P312xL21,U152 and 2.2% U152).

Here is a Google map showing the percentages of P312xL21,U152 in Busby's continental "Germanic" sample locations. Click on the balloons to see the map coordinates and frequency of P312xL21,U152. The bulk of the P312 in Germany and Switzerland is U152. Busby's "Alps" location in northern Italy is low in P312xL21,U152, but the U152 there is about 26%. Even in the Netherlands one witnesses an increase in P312xL21,U152 as he moves from more Germanic Friesland into increasingly less Germanic territory in the southern Netherlands.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zimpEGGHFtrk.kpsKIbOSEkyo

Western and southern Germany were Celtic originally. The balloon for Busby's "Germany West", for example, which shows P312xL21,U152 at 10%, is in or near Siegen, which was in Celtic territory.

Note: I did not include any locations where the sample size was under 25. Busby has a couple with just 19 and one, Austria's, with just 18.

GoldenHind
04-09-2014, 03:06 AM
Well, the problem with that is that the stats actually show that the P312 even in Germanic lands has a decidedly Celtic tilt. The Busby stats show this. P312 is most frequent in the old Celtic regions of Germany and increases as one moves south and west. It drops precipitously when one reaches North Germany but then jumps back up a bit in North Denmark, southern Sweden, and in Norway. I find that rather odd and suspect at least some of the P312 in Scandinavia is the product of historical period immigration.




I have no doubt that some of the P312 in Scandinavia is due to immigration in the historical period. But I believe most of the immigration into Sweden (at least) before WWII came from Germany, Denmark and Norway. So some of the U106 in Sweden is due to immigration as well, but no one seems to acknowledge that.

rms2
04-09-2014, 11:19 AM
Some of the U106 in Scandinavia, including Sweden, is no doubt due to immigration. Some of it may have come with Anglo-Saxon slaves carried from England to Scandinavia during the Viking Period. I'm sure the Vikings did not stop to do cheek swabs and SNP testing before deciding whom to carry off. Besides, most of the Viking activity in Britain took place in U106 Anglo-Saxon territory.

Do you have a link to the stats for the Old Norway Project? I could not find it anywhere.

Heber
04-09-2014, 11:48 AM
Will anyone attend this conference in Cardiff this week. It would be good to get an account of the proceedings.

"Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages - One day conference

Posted on 20 March 2014
On Saturday the 12th of April, a one-day multidisciplinary conference will explore aspects of later prehistory in Atlantic Europe and Celtic origins, bringing together experts in archaeology, historical linguistics, and genetics.

The conference is part of an ongoing research project at the University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies (CAWCS) entitled Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages (AEMA): questions of shared language.

Supported by a research grant from The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the three year project explores the archaeological background and development of language in Atlantic Europe (Britain, Ireland, northwest France, western Iberia) from 2900 BC to the arrival of Latin (AD 400). It aims to test the hypothesis that Celtic probably evolved from Indo-European in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age.

The prestigious research team is being led by Professor John Koch at CAWCS, in collaboration with the University of Oxford, King's College London, Bangor University, and the National Library of Wales.

Project leader Professor John Koch will open the conference with a talk on the current debate over whether the first attested language of western Europe, Tartessian, is a Celtic language and what this implies about where and when Celtic emerged."

http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Centre/2014/rhaglen-programmeAEMA2014.pdf

Jean M
04-09-2014, 12:53 PM
Will anyone attend this conference in Cardiff this week.

I'm going.

razyn
04-09-2014, 01:15 PM
Supported by a research grant from The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the three year project explores the archaeological background and development of language in Atlantic Europe (Britain, Ireland, northwest France, western Iberia) from 2900 BC to the arrival of Latin (AD 400). It aims to test the hypothesis that Celtic probably evolved from Indo-European in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age.
Typo? Also, the word "probably" doesn't seem quite appropriate to something being tested.

Agamemnon
04-09-2014, 02:49 PM
Will anyone attend this conference in Cardiff this week. It would be good to get an account of the proceedings.

"Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages - One day conference

Posted on 20 March 2014
On Saturday the 12th of April, a one-day multidisciplinary conference will explore aspects of later prehistory in Atlantic Europe and Celtic origins, bringing together experts in archaeology, historical linguistics, and genetics.

The conference is part of an ongoing research project at the University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies (CAWCS) entitled Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages (AEMA): questions of shared language.

Supported by a research grant from The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the three year project explores the archaeological background and development of language in Atlantic Europe (Britain, Ireland, northwest France, western Iberia) from 2900 BC to the arrival of Latin (AD 400). It aims to test the hypothesis that Celtic probably evolved from Indo-European in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age.

The prestigious research team is being led by Professor John Koch at CAWCS, in collaboration with the University of Oxford, King's College London, Bangor University, and the National Library of Wales.

Project leader Professor John Koch will open the conference with a talk on the current debate over whether the first attested language of western Europe, Tartessian, is a Celtic language and what this implies about where and when Celtic emerged."

http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Centre/2014/rhaglen-programmeAEMA2014.pdf

I'm curious about the linguistic topic here, it seems to echo Barry Cunliffe's position... Nevertheless, I'm really intrigued.

Edit: Damn, I really need to buy a pair of glasses... John Koch is participating, should've seen this coming. I also spotted Barry Cunliffe's name, would be interesting to hear what they have to say.
I hope they'll film the whole thing and post it online.

Heber
04-09-2014, 03:03 PM
I'm going.

Jean,
That is great. Will you be tweeting or blogging.:).
Professor Martin Richards is doing the archeogenetics slot.
15.55 Martin Richards (Huddersfield): New developments in archaeogenetics.
I suspect he will play it safe and defer judgement until we get more aDNA.

Jean M
04-09-2014, 04:12 PM
Jean, That is great. Will you be tweeting or blogging.:).

I don't have a blog any more. It disappeared along with DNA Forums. And I don't know how to tweet! So you can expect reports from me and others on this forum, I imagine.

GoldenHind
04-09-2014, 05:32 PM
Some of the U106 in Scandinavia, including Sweden, is no doubt due to immigration. Some of it may have come with Anglo-Saxon slaves carried from England to Scandinavia during the Viking Period. I'm sure the Vikings did not stop to do cheek swabs and SNP testing before deciding whom to carry off. Besides, most of the Viking activity in Britain took place in U106 Anglo-Saxon territory.

Do you have a link to the stats for the Old Norway Project? I could not find it anywhere.

I printed it out from the old DNA Forums. If you do an image search on Google for the Old Norway Project, the chart will turn up.

jamesdowallen
04-11-2014, 12:52 PM
The main reason I find it hard to see the earliest cultural story of P312 and U106 as different is simply that they are united by L11 which at present doesnt seem much older than either of them. Clearly they did split but they originated shortly earlier in one L11 man. The big question is where and what culture did Mr L11 live in?

Yes. And what about when? Surely the mutation rate is now known closely enough to estimate the dates directly from the 1000 Genome data. There are so many threads and posts here. Is there a thread or search-string specific to accurate R1b-L11 dates?

Does the following calibration look correct? (Standard error ca 6%)
85k - split C/F/D/E
62k - split G/H/K
58k - split P/L
54k - split I/J
38k - split R/Q
35k - split I1/I2
32k - split R1/R2
25k - split R1a/R1b


By the way, I don't like Hammer's map -- it assumes migration paths likely to be counterfactual.

alan
04-11-2014, 03:07 PM
I agree. Population studies may be all we have to go on in terms of genetics but interpretations should also make sense with the archaeology if there is a reasonable amount of such evidence in the given area. Also climate, glaciation etc needs to correlate. I think the problem is most studies only look at the modern populations. I certainly find the MP - P -R/Q sequence idea of a move to SE Asia then a move back pretty unlikely. Seems much more likely that M just took unusual path or was later displaced when you consider the rest of the N, O, P, Q, R distributions and those of K and upstream. The archaeology cannot fit the Hammer proposals IMO.


Yes. And what about when? Surely the mutation rate is now known closely enough to estimate the dates directly from the 1000 Genome data. There are so many threads and posts here. Is there a thread or search-string specific to accurate R1b-L11 dates?

Does the following calibration look correct? (Standard error ca 6%)
85k - split C/F/D/E
62k - split G/H/K
58k - split P/L
54k - split I/J
38k - split R/Q
35k - split I1/I2
32k - split R1/R2
25k - split R1a/R1b


By the way, I don't like Hammer's map -- it assumes migration paths likely to be counterfactual.

rms2
04-11-2014, 05:54 PM
Well, I very respectfully do not agree that P312 and U106 had similar trajectories through Europe simply because they are both descendants of L11. As I said before, P312 and U106 are the descendants of two different L11+ men who may have lived quite far from each other. After all, the distributions of their descendants are quite separate and distinct, despite some obvious overlap.

Obviously, I could be all wrong, but this is what I think, anyway. Pie charts stink because they don't really show geographic clines very well.

Heber
05-07-2014, 11:10 PM
Solving an Old Debate

"As Dr. Wells describes it, “The team looked across a transect in an archeological dig in Germany and, over a span of several thousand years, were able to decipher what happened genetically when different cultures appeared.”

The researchers learned that, 7,500 years ago, the original indigenous hunter-gatherers were largely replaced by farmers coming from what is now Turkey. Then, about 4,800 years ago, a cultural innovation appeared: pottery with a particular corded pattern.

Dr. Wells goes on to say that before researchers were able to extract and analyze maternal mitochondrial DNA from the teeth of skeletons found in the area, we could have assumed that the hunter-gatherers learned to farm and then a few millennia later, learned to make pottery. “What’s truly new in our understanding is the insight that as the cultures changed, the genetic patterns changed,” he explains. “Before, we could see only the end results of who was living where, but we didn’t necessarily understand the ebb and flow of genes over time.”

Solving an Old Debate
Importantly, the genetic research has helped to resolve a 100-year-old debate in archaeological research: do cultures diffuse to people, or do people spread cultures? Dr. Wells and his colleagues used unprecedented numbers of individual genetic samples in their answer to this question, and today we know that, at least in this example from Central Europe, it wasn’t cultures moving among groups, but rather the major cultural changes appear to have come about when new people appeared on the scene, carrying novel genetic lineages. “With modern genetics we are able to see the past dynamics,” says Dr. Wells."

http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/genographic-project-records-global-population-gene-flow-over-time/77900120/

alan
05-08-2014, 02:21 PM
I agree. I am hoping that we see some of the experts weigh in about the SNP counting estimates for L11, P312 and its major divisions and U106. From what I can see there is still a big debate going on about the various variables. It does seem to me that we must be on the cusp of being able to do this. Its only really when some agreement on dating is reached that we can truly see what the archaeological options are. There is still a lot of disagreement even with SNPs with dating for those SNPs varying from about 2000-4000BC. it is nevertheless comforting that noone is suggesting dates in the Mesolithic or from the early Neolithic which at least seems in line with the absence from ancient DNA of the Mesolithic or early Neolithic in Europe.


Yes. And what about when? Surely the mutation rate is now known closely enough to estimate the dates directly from the 1000 Genome data. There are so many threads and posts here. Is there a thread or search-string specific to accurate R1b-L11 dates?

Does the following calibration look correct? (Standard error ca 6%)
85k - split C/F/D/E
62k - split G/H/K
58k - split P/L
54k - split I/J
38k - split R/Q
35k - split I1/I2
32k - split R1/R2
25k - split R1a/R1b


By the way, I don't like Hammer's map -- it assumes migration paths likely to be counterfactual.

Jean M
05-08-2014, 02:51 PM
Solving an Old Debate

"As Dr. Wells describes it ...

He's talking about Brandt, G. et al. (2013), Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity, Science, vol. 342, no. 6155 (2013), pp. 257-261. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257.abstract

parasar
05-08-2014, 11:03 PM
Where is the evidence from Italy, Greece, the Balkans? The people living in these regions were distinctly different from the La Brana/Motala type.
We need that to confirm absence of R1b from South-SW* Europe in the period at issue.

*Edit: SE
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004353

alan
05-09-2014, 02:04 AM
I agree that ancient DNA has not been recovered in large enough numbers from a large enough area of Europe to be absolutely definitive about its absence before the late Neolithic/copper age but the chances of that are diminishing IMO and its getting harder and harder to believe it is just chance that no R1b has been found in pre-beaker samples in Europe.

Its even more convincing when it is considered that this is bang in line with most peoples current calculations for the age of the dominant forms of R1b in Europe (outside its SE fringe) which are almost all post-4000BC in date - and probably significant younger than that.

I would also say that because much of Europe in the early Neolithic was essentially swept by just a couple of cultural groups, I dont think its necessary to have samples from all areas to get a handle on what the yDNA was likely to be. You just need to build up some samples from the cultures - geography is less important. I think LBK already looks resoundingly non-R1b. Although the Cardial sample is less impressive, there are nonetheless a number of samples from along the Med within the period 5000-3000BC and none are R1b.

The only part of Europe where I think its not impossible that R1b could have had a presence in pre-copper age times is the Balkans. Its such a complicated patchwork of an area in the Neolithic that I wouldnt like to rule out anything. Its also got some older looking R1b clades.

Heber
05-18-2014, 09:34 PM
"The Festival Interceltique de Lorient (French), Gouelioù Etrekeltiek An Oriant (Breton) or Inter-Celtic Festival of Lorient in English, is an annual Celtic festival, located in the city of Lorient, Brittany, France. It was founded in 1971 by Polig Montjarret.

This annual festival takes place in the heart of the city every August and is dedicated to the cultural traditions of the Celtic nations (pays celtes in Brittany), highlighting celtic music and dance and also including other arts such as painting, photography, theatre, sculpture, traditional artisan as well as sport and gastronomy.

Each year over 700,000 participants come from Brittany, Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, the Isle of Man, Cape Breton Island, Galicia, Asturias, Acadia, and the entire Celtic diaspora."

Perhaps this would be a good place to promote a pan Celtic DNA project. Collecting samples might be tricky because of DNA testing laws in France.
It will be interesting to see what conclusions Cunliffe and Koch come to from the latest "Celtic from the West" conference in Cardiff.

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

http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/project/CE10AF6F-5655-4EC2-9A39-14D0A73C0816

alan
05-23-2014, 11:43 AM
I went to that festival when I was on holiday in Brittany - must have been over 10 years ago now. I was introduced to the delicacy of mussels in the shells in a big bowl with chinese curry sauce poured all over. Sounds weird but tastes amazing.


"The Festival Interceltique de Lorient (French), Gouelioù Etrekeltiek An Oriant (Breton) or Inter-Celtic Festival of Lorient in English, is an annual Celtic festival, located in the city of Lorient, Brittany, France. It was founded in 1971 by Polig Montjarret.

This annual festival takes place in the heart of the city every August and is dedicated to the cultural traditions of the Celtic nations (pays celtes in Brittany), highlighting celtic music and dance and also including other arts such as painting, photography, theatre, sculpture, traditional artisan as well as sport and gastronomy.

Each year over 700,000 participants come from Brittany, Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, the Isle of Man, Cape Breton Island, Galicia, Asturias, Acadia, and the entire Celtic diaspora."

Perhaps this would be a good place to promote a pan Celtic DNA project. Collecting samples might be tricky because of DNA testing laws in France.
It will be interesting to see what conclusions Cunliffe and Koch come to from the latest "Celtic from the West" conference in Cardiff.

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

http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/project/CE10AF6F-5655-4EC2-9A39-14D0A73C0816

rossa
05-23-2014, 04:02 PM
I'll venture a guess that it was a Scot that came up with the idea if mixing curry and mussels.

alan
05-23-2014, 05:18 PM
As far as I know its a French and/orBreton thing called Moules au curry. Sometimes comes with french fries. Not exactly the most traditional or delicate of French cuisine but its really tasty. My big regret is that when I visited Brittany I hadnt really got my shellfish stripes yet and was pretty conservative about what I ate. Pity is that its one of those places - Galicia in NW Spain is another - that really specialises in sea food with big platters and tanks of crabs and lobsters etc in a lot of the eating places. I just wish I had been a bit more open minded at the times - now I love pretty well anything from the sea -mussles, clams, scallops, oysters, prawns etc.


I'll venture a guess that it was a Scot that came up with the idea if mixing curry and mussels.

rossa
05-23-2014, 07:15 PM
I grew up near the sea so I'm used to seafood but not so much shellfish. At home mussels are ate as is, just boiled in a bit of water. I had them once but never liked them, when I moved to the US there was a great place near where I used to live and they done mussels may different way; spicy tomato sauce, white wine and garlic etc
I really got to like them then.
On one of Anthony Bourdains show he ate scallops right form the shell (in a boat after they were caught) with balsamic vinegar, I'd say that's an interesting taste.

Agamemnon
06-17-2014, 01:44 AM
I tend to think that U106 was pretty exclusive to the proto-Germanic area in Europe but that P312 was non-exclusive and spread around Celts, Italic and Germanics in one form or other. Hence while I think U106 looks like a late spread Germanic marker to me, P312 probably spread much wider and much earlier and at a time when language blocks were still forming and fluid. I have said it before, my belief is that U106 probably sprung among the little group of L11* beaker folks who wandered to the very edges of the beaker world and ended up as a minority who were detached from the area where celtic developed.

This actually makes a lot of sense, on a purely linguistic basis I mean.


As far as I know its a French and/orBreton thing called Moules au curry. Sometimes comes with french fries. Not exactly the most traditional or delicate of French cuisine but its really tasty. My big regret is that when I visited Brittany I hadnt really got my shellfish stripes yet and was pretty conservative about what I ate. Pity is that its one of those places - Galicia in NW Spain is another - that really specialises in sea food with big platters and tanks of crabs and lobsters etc in a lot of the eating places. I just wish I had been a bit more open minded at the times - now I love pretty well anything from the sea -mussles, clams, scallops, oysters, prawns etc.

Hahahaha, well that's not very Kosher to say the least :)

Not that I care much though, it's practically impossible to eat Kosher where I live lol (and even if I could, I'm not sure I would, though I do love Jewish food).

Used to love sea food when I was a kid (moules-frites was my favourite).

Webb
06-17-2014, 03:29 PM
I grew up in Virginia not far from the Chesapeake Bay. We ate a lot of shellfish. Oysters mainly, but small bay scallops and clams. Mussels are the only one of the group that should be cooked as they come from freshwater and should never be eaten raw. Anything from saltwater is generally safe to eat raw. In Virginia and Maryland, it is very common to eat oysters raw, on the half shell with a little Tobasco sauce. They just slide down pretty well.

Heber
10-22-2014, 06:17 AM
Roberta Estes did a good job of summarizing Mike Hammers recent talk at the FTDNA conference.

Peopling of Europe 2014 – Identifying the Ghost Population

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/21/peopling-of-europe-2014-identifying-the-ghost-population/

razyn
10-22-2014, 03:16 PM
I agree with your assessment of the job Roberta did in her blog. I keep having little "what am I, chopped liver?" moments with Hammer's presentations. The one last year mapped Z195 (which works on the Geno2 chip, otherwise we'd still be calling those guys Z196 as we did since 2011) instead of its parent DF27 -- leaving a large part of DF27 out of the picture. The 2014 update remedies that... by leaving out all (rather than just a substantial part) of DF27. I refer to the slide headed "Post-Neolithic Centers of Renewed Expansion Hypothesis." Roberta's one-sentence summation (that follows the slide) picks up on what he's saying, and IMO he's still not quite getting it.

But what am I, chopped liver?

I mean, apart from being an admin of the FTDNA haplogroup project for DF27.

TigerMW
10-22-2014, 03:32 PM
I agree with your assessment of the job Roberta did in her blog. I keep having little "what am I, chopped liver?" moments with Hammer's presentations. The one last year mapped Z195 (which works on the Geno2 chip, otherwise we'd still be calling those guys Z196 as we did since 2011) instead of its parent DF27 -- leaving a large part of DF27 out of the picture. The 2014 update remedies that... by leaving out all (rather than just a substantial part) of DF27. I refer to the slide headed "Post-Neolithic Centers of Renewed Expansion Hypothesis." Roberta's one-sentence summation (that follows the slide) picks up on what he's saying, and IMO he's still not quite getting it.

But what am I, chopped liver?

I mean, apart from being an admin of the FTDNA haplogroup project for DF27.

I'm not an academic type or scientist so I can only speculate why he limits his discussion of SNPs. Did you ask him where he positions DF27 or if he is aware of it or needs data on it? I'm sure we could send him a ton of stuff.

My speculation is that he only speaks publicly within the realms of his formal research. Since that is Geno 2 based apparently he can't make any conclusions about DF27. I don't know, but I am just trying to imagine how a scientist might view public speaking. I could see myself being concerned about people confusing formal research with general discussion so data outside of formal research I would not want to "go on record" with. I don't know. I'm just guessing how these guys might think.

razyn
10-22-2014, 05:11 PM
I'm one of those guys, so I know how we think; but apart from that -- I don't actually disagree with Hammer's interpretation of what was going on, and more or less when. It's based on genetic branching, which is a sight better than basing it on the Book of Invasions, or whatever myth one has embraced.

I'll just be glad when the people with the big pulpits get beyond the Jordan of the Geno2 chip, and join us on Canaan's happy shore of NextGen sequencing (and the implications, for this topic, of what that reveals).

Heber
10-22-2014, 05:25 PM
It is strange that there is a complete absence of reference to DF27 which would appear to be the most extreme expansion within P312 (L21 and U152). This was originally identified by Tyler Smith, Xue and Wei in 2012 in the expansion of R1b and M269 and Patterson and linked to the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia. Ignoring it because it is not tested by the Geno 2.0 chip indicates that we have a long way to go in understanding these migrations and may require better analysis. The absence of R1b in the (eastern) Hungarian study and the the linkage between Iberia and the Iron Age Britons in the Hinxton samples makes for interesting analysis. I believe the key to understanding this is identifying where did R1b-P312 undergo its extreme expansion.

http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.abstract

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2012/09/next-generation-resequencing-data.html

rms2
10-22-2014, 07:01 PM
I don't think we should speak of a "Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia", as if the Beaker Folk expansion was unidirectional. Certain aspects of Beaker came out of Iberia, perhaps the pots, but even they were made using techniques and based on models developed on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It seems likely to me the R1b component of Beaker came from the East, perhaps out of Yamnaya, and may have imposed itself on a non-R1b population that came out of Iberia. Then Beaker moved west and northwest. P312 and its sons were involved in that reflux movement, and DF27 is not ultimately native to Iberia.

As Alan mentioned elsewhere, and I have read in more than one source, the classic Beaker skeleton, especially the skull and especially among Beaker males, differs markedly from those of early southwestern Beaker Folk. These later differences represent a contribution from the East, IMO.

The latest ancient dna recovered from the sites in Hungary skips from the Neolithic to the late Bronze Age with relatively few samples and an exemplar from what strikes me as a very minor offshoot of Urnfield. That missed R1b altogether, which, of course, has been recovered from the only Beaker site thus far to yield any ancient y-dna: the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany.

I think you'll see more R1b as more Beaker sites yield ancient y-dna and also once the results of testing of Yamnaya remains are published.

The little bit of apparent Iberian in the autosomal make-up of the Hinxton Iron Age Celts probably reflects the legacy of the Neolithic and earlier population of the Isles, especially the WHG Mesolithic population, whose ancestors peopled the Isles after emerging from the FC Ice Age Refuge. Those people would have carried no R1b among them, as other ancient y-dna results are making abundantly clear.

alan
10-22-2014, 07:33 PM
I probably should transfer my post on beaker to here instead of in the one about the Cambridgeshire Britons and A-S. Will move it in a minute

alan
10-22-2014, 07:35 PM
My feeling based on the evidence to date is that beaker is some sort of meeting of western influences and mtDNA with eastern derived R1b in the copper age and that central Europe maybe the most likely place where this fusion happened. There are echos of old theories about beaker in this picture. Right now, if the issue of the very small sample is ignored and taken at face value, the ancient DNA would not support R1b having any sort of extensive spread across Europe until the beaker period which makes that culture even more intriguing. I am still tending to the likelihood that the first beaker pots were not made by R1b men and were made by the daughters of non-R1b western Europeans who combined with R1b men in central Europe who were on an east to west trajectory. The cranial evidence would back the idea that the early beaker makers in the far SW were not the same people that we see with the distinctive beaker cranial traits in central and northern Europe. These kind of skulls are rare in pre-beaker times across Europe and SW Asia and the only places I have heard these types of skulls in this period other than beaker are Remedello in north Italy and also recently in the Okunevo culture around the beaker era which was interspersed with Afanasova in Siberia and for which a mysterious claim of M269 being present in ancient DNA was made.

I suspect personally that the secret of the odd combination of western beaker traits being taken up by a lineage of likely easterly origin of some sort is probably gender based. Many of the beaker elements of the earlier proto-beaker phase can be argued to fall into the females sphere - pottery, complex textiles, perhaps the copper awls while other traits like single burial, copper knives etc probably are of more eastern in origin-certainly Italy/the Alps/Rhine and eastwards c 3000BC.

alan
10-22-2014, 07:36 PM
I am getting less confident about the idea of a significant pre-beaker spread of R1b west by an Alpine to SW Europe route. The sample is very small but right now there is no evidence that pre-beaker copper age people in western or southern Europe were R1b and some evidence against it. It looks to me that contrary movements of R1b and beaker met c. 2600BC in central Europe rather than the far west or south. The sample is so small that could easily be wrong but if you take the hard evidence that is the picture.

It still seems to me that one of the groups who might have been keen on making links and alliances/marriages with SW Europe would be the westernmost corded ware people who were a heck of a distance away from the main Carpathian copper sources in the corded ware phase - we also know that the Monte Loreto and some other mines declined around this time. Around 2600BC or so early beaker groups of probable SW origin were present along the south coast of France as far as the western edge of the southern Alps and up the Rhone. The corded ware groups had also arrived around this time in Switzerland and were only a pass away from the early beaker groups coming from the south-west.

I wonder if the sort of hybriding that led to the developed beaker culture of west-central Europe happened through the west Alpine passes and the head of the Rhone where the two groups met c. 2600BC. There is a great deal of chronological and geographical logic to this IMO and it may fit rather well the location where some people place the maximum variance of P312.

In this picture R1b elements from the south-westernmost Corded Ware population in the north Alps mixed with the southern beaker people in the south-west Alps as well as probably Alpine locals. The deal may have seen woman from the south-west derived early beaker pot using culture pass north into the Corded Ware zone.

Maybe the distinctive skulls are due to this hybridizing or just inbreeding or both. Some time after the R1b beakerised west central European develops, perhaps this group performed an aggressive takeover of the network from the actual original non-R1b south-western beaker pot users. That is certainly one way I feel the whole issue of genes, cultures etc can be resolved. However this theory will require R1b to be found in pre-beaker groups in west-central Europe, corded ware or otherwise, by or before 2600BC. Certainly this is not a new idea although less discussed these days because people are obsessing with pot chronology when pots and yDNA may not have always been in synch - especially when you consider that pottery is not generally a male craft.

GoldenHind
10-22-2014, 10:16 PM
It is strange that there is a complete absence of reference to DF27 which would appear to be the most extreme expansion within P312 (L21 and U152). This was originally identified by Tyler Smith, Xue and Wei in 2012 in the expansion of R1b and M269 and Patterson and linked to the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia. Ignoring it because it is not tested by the Geno 2.0 chip indicates that we have a long way to go in understanding these migrations and may require better analysis. The absence of R1b in the (eastern) Hungarian study and the the linkage between Iberia and the Iron Age Britons in the Hinxton samples makes for interesting analysis. I believe the key to understanding this is identifying where did R1b-P312 undergo its extreme expansion.

http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.abstract

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2012/09/next-generation-resequencing-data.html

As long as FTDNA ignores the existence of DF27, they will be unable to accurately analyze the expansion of R1b in Europe.

TigerMW
10-23-2014, 04:50 AM
As long as FTDNA ignores the existence of DF27, they will be unable to accurately analyze the expansion of R1b in Europe.

I'm not trying to be a debbie-downer too much, but folks, I don't think we can expect the scientists, book authors (sorry Jean), testing institutions and the like to lead here. I think it was big news last year about this time when Dr. Hammer presented that R1b was Neolithic or even-post Neolithic into Europe. This was quite old news to all of us. I think Rick Arnold and Rich Stevens figured out the language R hg alignment several years ago.

I remember several years ago challenging Vince V's presentation of R1b in Europe being approximately Neolithic (which was a big thing at the time) as I always felt a simpleton's (like myself) pure review of the data made it hard to see R1b in Europe any earlier than the mid to late Neolithic - more of Bronze Age phenomenon. I'm not that smart, but it's just not that hard. The formal researchers have many gates to go through and careers and reputations to protect so I don't mind their apparent slowness. We need them to be sure, which means slow. Hopefully, their past stances and old facts don't get in the way of new facts, though.

When my speculations are wrong, I can just admit it, change directions and go on. These guys who have careers in this stuff have to be a little more plodding.

rms2
10-23-2014, 02:53 PM
Over on a thread in the DF27 subforum, Heber (Gerard) posted a link to a description of Dr. Hammer's presentation at this year's FTDNA conference. It's a nice update to the topic of this thread. I do not see the link yet in this thread, so I thought it might be of service to post it here:

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

Check out the "Connecting the Dots" slide especially.

TigerMW
10-23-2014, 04:06 PM
Over on a thread in the DF27 subforum, Heber (Gerard) posted a link to a description of Dr. Hammer's presentation at this year's FTDNA conference. It's a nice update to the topic of this thread. I do not see the link yet in this thread, so I thought it might be of service to post it here:

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

Check out the "Connecting the Dots" slide especially.

I'm glad a scientist is willing to say something that is not politically correct, but may be true anyway. Dr. Mike Hammer wrote,

"Hg R1b has not yet been found in ancient European contexts prior to a Bell Beaker burial from Germany (4.8-4.0 kya), and the related R1a lineage has a first known occurrence in a Corded Ware burial also from Germany (4.6 kya). The late introduction of these paternal lineages, which now predominate in Europe corresponds to the autosomal signal of the Asian/Eastern European steppe invaders into western Europe.

The different timing and extent of NYR and mtDNA discontinuities may reflect sex-specific processes such as the wholesale replacement of farming men by men with horses and swords."

He has clearly stated there is discontinuity between the male and female lineages in Europe. This pretty much completely defeats an R1b out of Iberia proposal, even as part of some Bell Beaker migrations. I've long agreed with the adage pots and are not people and Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers.

I guess the ANE autosomal DNA signal closes the deal from a geneticist point of view.

The coincidental ties of both large R haplogroups to Indo-European languages together with age estimates and SNP branch geographic layering was hard to pass for the simple minded (I'm talking about myself), but I guess the ANE and aDNA was needed for conclusiveness although it is still true that lack of finding something (in Europe) is not proof it wasn't there.

Does anyone know if David Anthony of "The Horse, the Wheel, the Language, How Bronze-age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the Modern World" has seen and commented on Hammer's latest conclusions?

alan
10-23-2014, 04:58 PM
Right now seems to be the time where everything is starting to come together at a fast pace in terms of genetics of ancient population movement and the mist is really clearing. Its really been an amazing year or so. We might be looking for new hobbies in a couple of years the way its going. Dont know about you but it gives me pause for a thought for the older folks who were with us in this hobby earlier in the millennium who didnt made it to to see it all starting to come together and whose posts are still in the rootsweb archives. We should salute them.

Jean M
10-23-2014, 05:05 PM
Does anyone know if David Anthony of "The Horse, the Wheel, the Language, How Bronze-age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the Modern World" has seen and commented on Hammer's latest conclusions?

Since Mike Hammer is saying much the same thing as Ancestral Journeys, I think we can take it that David Anthony's review of the latter can stand as a proxy.


Jean Manco has written a surprisingly readable book on a highly technical subject that this reviewer believes will revolutionize prehistoric archaeology generally, and Indo-European studies specifically, within the next decade: ancient human DNA, or aDNA. Rapidly improving methods and tools are changing the cost and reliability of aDNA analyses faster than an outsider can reasonably follow, and the trend suggests that aDNA could become a tool that archaeologists will use as often as stable isotope analysis is used today. Several large studies of European aDNA will begin to be published in the next two years; Manco mentions two of these pending projects (A.M.I.S. B.E.A.N.), and there are others. Many of the prominent questions archaeologists pursue, particularly those concerned with prehistoric (group) identity and (individual) identities, will be answered convincingly from a biological perspective—who was related to whom, who migrated where—and because kinship, identity, and language were closely linked in the ancient world, hard data on kinship will significantly change the nature of our interpretations.

It was a very long review, but just that snippet gives you a taste of his enthusiasm for ancient DNA. He was involved in the Harvard study of aDNA at Samara on the Volga.

Gray Fox
10-23-2014, 05:06 PM
I've thought much the same, Alan. I'm 26 now, so hopefully I'll be around for quite some time and get to see this stuff move into unprecedented levels. It is a bit humbling to think some of the people that are leading the way now may not get to see that.

vettor
10-23-2014, 05:32 PM
I'm glad a scientist is willing to say something that is not politically correct, but may be true anyway. Dr. Mike Hammer wrote,

"Hg R1b has not yet been found in ancient European contexts prior to a Bell Beaker burial from Germany (4.8-4.0 kya), and the related R1a lineage has a first known occurrence in a Corded Ware burial also from Germany (4.6 kya). The late introduction of these paternal lineages, which now predominate in Europe corresponds to the autosomal signal of the Asian/Eastern European steppe invaders into western Europe.

The different timing and extent of NYR and mtDNA discontinuities may reflect sex-specific processes such as the wholesale replacement of farming men by men with horses and swords."

He has clearly stated there is discontinuity between the male and female lineages in Europe. This pretty much completely defeats an R1b out of Iberia proposal, even as part of some Bell Beaker migrations. I've long agreed with the adage pots and are not people and Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers.

I guess the ANE autosomal DNA signal closes the deal from a geneticist point of view.

The coincidental ties of both large R haplogroups to Indo-European languages together with age estimates and SNP branch geographic layering was hard to pass for the simple minded (I'm talking about myself), but I guess the ANE and aDNA was needed for conclusiveness although it is still true that lack of finding something (in Europe) is not proof it wasn't there.

Does anyone know if David Anthony of "The Horse, the Wheel, the Language, How Bronze-age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the Modern World" has seen and commented on Hammer's latest conclusions?

Has Hammer found a trail from Hinxton 100% R1 finds iron-age to continental europe and then middle-east or steppes ?............I do not see it , especially since the hungarian finds reveal zero R1 covering a period of 5000BC to 900BC............there has to be a trail...........there was no "red-indian" type of migration, ie, pack up tents and move to next area system

vettor
10-23-2014, 05:39 PM
He has clearly stated there is discontinuity between the male and female lineages in Europe. This pretty much completely defeats an R1b out of Iberia proposal, even as part of some Bell Beaker migrations. I've long agreed with the adage pots and are not people and Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers.



I think you are saying........BB is only about pot styles and not about haplogroups,
I have always thought this especially since the ancients where trading long distances in the midlle and late bronze-ages.

rms2
10-23-2014, 06:19 PM
Has Hammer found a trail from Hinxton 100% R1 finds iron-age to continental europe and then middle-east or steppes ?............I do not see it , especially since the hungarian finds reveal zero R1 covering a period of 5000BC to 900BC............there has to be a trail...........there was no "red-indian" type of migration, ie, pack up tents and move to next area system

There is a big gap in those recent Hungarian finds between the Neolithic and the late Bronze Age, so it's not like they achieved blanket coverage and can say with authority that R1b was never there.

Besides, we already know there was R1b recovered from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany, circa 2600-2500 BC.

TigerMW
10-23-2014, 06:21 PM
Since Mike Hammer is saying much the same thing as Ancestral Journeys, I think we can take it that David Anthony's review of the latter can stand as a proxy.

It was a very long review, but just that snippet gives you a taste of his enthusiasm for ancient DNA. He was involved in the Harvard study of aDNA at Samara on the Volga.

Very good, Anthony and yourself look pretty smart!:)

Jean M
10-23-2014, 06:26 PM
Anthony and yourself look pretty smart!

We are not the only ones excited by ancient DNA. Plenty of people now posting on this forum are just as keen. :)

TigerMW
10-23-2014, 06:32 PM
There is a big gap in those recent Hungarian finds between the Neolithic and the late Bronze Age, so it's not like they achieved blanket coverage and can say with authority that R1b was never there.

Besides, we already know there was R1b recovered from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany circa 2600-2500 BC.

Agreed, this gets what I've pointed out before, but cuts both ways. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence without massive surveys. The ancient DNA findings will probably never provide the coverage we want. However, we can see that, as in genetic genealogy, comparisons between findings are critical and that if we find evidence of a clade in a person dead long ago, a but at a youthful point for the clade, it's geography can be critical. I'm talking about our R1 M'alta boy as discussed on the Ancient human genomes thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans/page43)

rms2
10-23-2014, 06:36 PM
I think you are saying........BB is only about pot styles and not about haplogroups,
I have always thought this especially since the ancients where trading long distances in the midlle and late bronze-ages.

While I don't totally disagree, I do to a certain extent. Pots aren't people, as they say, but I think ancient peoples who did not live in cities had societies that were largely kindred and clan based. While there was no doubt some mixing, I think it was limited, and thus we will find that often one or maybe two y haplogroups will predominate, especially in patriarchal groups, where perhaps mtDNA will be more varied and diverse.

rms2
10-24-2014, 11:29 AM
Agreed, this gets what I've pointed out before, but cuts both ways. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence without massive surveys . . .

True, but I think the difference in the direction of the cuts in this case is that those recent Hungarian finds do have a serious gap in them, jumping as they do from the Neolithic to the late Bronze Age and skipping the intervening periods, and we know that R1b was recovered from a Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany, dated circa 2600-2500 BC.

When it comes to the European scene in general, the absence of R1b among any finds from before the Copper Age has become statistically significant, even if that never amounts to absolute proof. One would think that, if R1b was in western or central Europe in the Mesolithic Period or the Neolithic Period, an R1b body would have turned up by now at a Neolithic site at least.

vettor
12-08-2014, 06:32 PM
according to this , there are no ancient R1 in the levant......did it move via north and south caucasus to europe

https://www.academia.edu/9666892/Y-Chromosomal_Haplogroup_R1b_Diversity_in_Near_East_ is_Structured_by_Recent_Historical_Events

rms2
12-08-2014, 07:05 PM
It makes sense that R1b did not come out of the Near East as part of a Neolithic wave. If it did, it should have been picked up by now in ancient y-dna from one of the European Neolithic sites.

razyn
12-08-2014, 07:23 PM
But that doesn't in itself mean that Levantine R1b must therefore have been left there by Crusader Christian rapists... as suggested in that article. (He also posted a link to it on the ISOGG Facebook group.)

Kind of puts me in mind of the "randy Irish monks" controversy a few years ago. Too much detail in the theories, based on too few SNPs in the data.

jdean
12-08-2014, 08:49 PM
according to this , there are no ancient R1 in the levant......did it move via north and south caucasus to europe

https://www.academia.edu/9666892/Y-Chromosomal_Haplogroup_R1b_Diversity_in_Near_East_ is_Structured_by_Recent_Historical_Events

Clearly an expert

http://originhunters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/dna-mysteries-iberian-r1b-v88-in-africa.html

???

alan
12-08-2014, 09:09 PM
While I don't totally disagree, I do to a certain extent. Pots aren't people, as they say, but I think ancient peoples who did not live in cities had societies that were largely kindred and clan based. While there was no doubt some mixing, I think it was limited, and thus we will find that often one or maybe two y haplogroups will predominate, especially in patriarchal groups, where perhaps mtDNA will be more varied and diverse.

In a sense though non-specialist domestically made pots are people because its a home craft that is clearly passed down along families lines and not traded- probably normally maternal lines. Its pretty well been proven now that it was pot makers and their knowledge that moved, not the pots themselves - the beakers are made of local clays wherever they are found. That is very different from highly specialised and traded items like metalwork or mass produced commercial Greek or Roman pottery. It pretty clearly points to people, their knowledge, traditions etc physically moving. When you look at burials like the Amesbury archer the pots strongly imply that a potter with a continental background was also present in his circle, perhaps a wife or sister. In general ancient pottery of the Neolithic, copper age etc is not the sort of thing that people travelling long distances would have brought with them - its far too breakable and easier to just make on the spot.

alan
12-08-2014, 09:22 PM
It makes sense that R1b did not come out of the Near East as part of a Neolithic wave. If it did, it should have been picked up by now in ancient y-dna from one of the European Neolithic sites.

I very much doubt that M269 came out of the middle east directly into the Balkans. It doesnt seem present in the Neolithic of central or western Europe. That is not to say P25* wasnt present in SW Asia as it does today look strongest in north Iran. From those sort of lineage V88 could have arisen. However none of these appear to have entered farming Europe in the Neolithic and I suspect they were peripheral to the Neolithic revolution, perhaps cooped up in north Iran/Caucasus area before expanding south during the Kura-Araxes culture which extended into the Levant after 3500BC.

However, none of this has anything to do with M269 which along with M73 share the P297 SNP which P25 and V88 doesnt. The common ancestor of them all is P25 and before P297 both of which are very ancient. I dont know how many SNPs after P25 are shared by the P297 positive and negative groups - that would be interesting to know. However, even without that knowledge I believe P297 is at least 10000 years old if not significantly older than that judging by the direction SNP counting is taking us.

So for me V88 and P25 are so remotely related to M269 and M73 that its almost meaningless and their common ancestor might have lived no more recently than the upper palaeolithic. What is more significant IMO is the way M269 is closer to cental Asia/Urals M73 than any other group. I suspect now that they split from each other a very long time ago at the very start of the Mesolithic when different branches of pressure microblade using groups moved to the Urals and into Ukraine.

rms2
12-09-2014, 12:17 PM
Clearly an expert

http://originhunters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/dna-mysteries-iberian-r1b-v88-in-africa.html

???

It sounds as if he stopped reading anything on y-dna about six or eight years ago.

jdean
12-09-2014, 12:39 PM
It sounds as if he stopped reading anything on y-dna about six or eight years ago.

I wounder if he's read anything at all, he doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the phylogeny of R1b at all. This was something that occurred to me when I had a look at his piece on the Near East, he seemed unaware that the vast majority of R1b their was likely on a different branch than that found in Europe which he should have known if he'd read Myres ?

Heber
11-15-2015, 01:35 PM
Here are Jennifer Zinck's notes on the Dr. Mike Hammer talk at the FTDNA conference.

"Dr. Michael Hammer from the University of Arizona presented “R1B and the Peopling of Europe: an Ancient DNA Update.” As of 2014, there were 15 sites and 74 samples of ancient European DNA. This year we have more than 160 samples.
There are about 85 million SNPs that have been identified in the human genome. In 2014 we had the first study to fully sequence genomes of Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans.
There are three basic European Ancestral Components, WHG, EEF, and ANE.
Who were the ANE and how did they make such a large contribution to the European Gene Pool? It turns out that R1b into Europe can be traced to the ANE. There are two laboratories publishing this year in the June issue of Nature, both reaching the same conclusion. Massive migrations from the Russian Steppe in the Bronze Age represents the third major source of genetic material found in Europeans today. Dr. Hammer also showed the work of Allentoft et al. “Genomics Supports Steppe Contribution to Bronze Age Europe.” Their conclusions are summarized on the bottom of the slide. He also showed that “Yamanaka genetic contribution to Neolithic European Gene Pool” and their conclusions. He looked at the way the two studies agreed. The Haak paper noticed that there was a resurgence of the hunter-gatherer ancestry during the Middle Neolithic 7,000 – 5,000 years ago.
Dr. Hammer worked with Rui at Family Tree DNA to find Bronze Age Y-chromosome SNPs in Europeans.
Looking for Western Hunter-Gatherers, they were prominent in Balkans and Macedonia.
It has been a Y Chromosome roller coaster for the last 7-10 years."

Tomenable
11-15-2015, 10:21 PM
I think it's incorect to say that ANE introduced new haplogroups into Europe, because we are yet to find a 100% ANE population that is younger than Upper Paleolithic (R*-bearing Mal'ta boy), assuming that such a population continued to exist into Mesolithic times, let alone into post-Neolithic times. If populations that were "pure ANE" ceased to exist in Upper Paleolithic times, melting with other populations, then we should rather say that those "other populations" introduced new haplogroups to Europe in post-Neolithic times. Also let's note note that ANE apparently did not introduce R1 to the Americas, so it's possible that R1-rich populations arose only long after "pure ANE" groups split and melted with other groups. It is possible that all of R1 stems from ANE, but what I'm saying is that by the time of reaching Europe, those people probably already weren't 100% ANE.

Also let's remember about that Neolithic farmer with R1b-V88 in Iberia - as far as I know, he had no ANE autosomal component.

So at least not all of subclades of R1b were introduced into Europe by people with ANE (let alone by "pure ANE").

rms2
11-15-2015, 10:25 PM
I think it's incorect to say that ANE introduced a haplogroup into Europe, because we are yet to find a 100% ANE population that is younger than Upper Paleolithic (Mal'ta boy), assuming that such a population continued to exist into Mesolithic times, let alone into post-Neolithic times. If for example "pure ANE" ceased to exist in Upper Paleolithic, melting with other populations, then IMO we should say that those "other populations" introduced new haplogroups to Europe in post-Neolithic times. Let's remember, that ANE did not introduce R1 to the Americas.

I think Hammer is saying R1b introduced ANE to central and western Europe, and I would add that R1a did that, as well, at least to eastern and central Europe, not that ANE itself introduced anything, as if it were a single, "pure" block.

But it does seem pretty obvious that it wasn't present until it was introduced to Europe beyond the Dniester by Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

Tomenable
11-15-2015, 10:42 PM
^ Yes, that's probably what Hammer meant. :) But Jennifer Zinck noted:

"It turns out that R1b into Europe can be traced to the ANE."

It should be the other way around: ANE into Western Europe can be traced to R1b-bearing immigrants, who were part-ANE.

See here - 5 samples of Bell Beaker were autosomally 16.19% ANE, 5 samples of Corded Ware a bit more, 22.75%:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/pubhtml

In Iberian Neolithic there was no ANE, but there was a bit of R1b-V88 (but it was not the main haplogroup).

Later ANE came there with R1b-M269 post-Neolithic migrants.

VinceT
11-16-2015, 02:32 AM
Hallast's Swedish Battle Axe - RISE98 - R-U106>FGC36477 dude was 18.34% ANE, according to the Gedmatch Eurogene ANE-K7 calculator (kit# F999941). My father has 15.46% ANE, incidentally -- 4000+ years later.

TigerMW
11-16-2015, 02:18 PM
^ Yes, that's probably what Hammer meant. :) But Jennifer Zinck noted:

"It turns out that R1b into Europe can be traced to the ANE."

It should be the other way around: ANE into Western Europe can be traced to R1b-bearing immigrants, who were part-ANE.

See here - 5 samples of Bell Beaker were autosomally 16.19% ANE, 5 samples of Corded Ware a bit more, 22.75%:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/pubhtml

In Iberian Neolithic there was no ANE, but there was a bit of R1b-V88 (but it was not the main haplogroup).

Later ANE came there with R1b-M269 post-Neolithic migrants.

We might even want to start taking more specifically than the R1b-M269 level. It looks like we could go down a level to R1b-L23.

YFull's estimates for the M269 marked subclade has it being formed about 13,200 ybp while the TMRCA is 6,400 ybp. That's quite a range.

R1b-L23 marked subclade is listed as forming about 6,400 ybp while the the TMRCA is 6,200 ybp. That's nicely fenced in just before 4000 BC.

I'm assuming we have not found any R1b L23- Yamnaya ancient DNA yet. Right?

rms2
11-19-2015, 01:32 AM
^ Yes, that's probably what Hammer meant. :) But Jennifer Zinck noted:

"It turns out that R1b into Europe can be traced to the ANE."

It should be the other way around: ANE into Western Europe can be traced to R1b-bearing immigrants, who were part-ANE.

See here - 5 samples of Bell Beaker were autosomally 16.19% ANE, 5 samples of Corded Ware a bit more, 22.75%:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/pubhtml

In Iberian Neolithic there was no ANE, but there was a bit of R1b-V88 (but it was not the main haplogroup).

Later ANE came there with R1b-M269 post-Neolithic migrants.

My own ANE on the Gedmatch Eurogenes K7 ANE calculator is 16.39%. Not too far off the Bell Beaker total. Most of my heritage is from the Celtic Fringe of the British Isles and Ireland.

I think R1b-V88 was probably descended from men who originally had a lot of ANE but whose descendants diluted it to zero by a long stay in the Near East, where it became part of the Neolithic farmer scene.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-19-2015, 01:46 AM
YFull's estimates for the M269 marked subclade has it being formed about 13,200 ybp while the TMRCA is 6,400 ybp. That's quite a range.

R1b-L23 marked subclade is listed as forming about 6,400 ybp while the the TMRCA is 6,200 ybp. That's nicely fenced in just before 4000 BC.

Not too strange, IMO.
not everything under M269 is the common clades we know and are used to. Thanks to commercial testing, they have found a "PF 7562" which is collateral to L23. It is found in western Asians and southern Europeans (Sicilians and Bulgarians, etc).
YFull have L23 itself forming 6200 YBP and beginning to expand thereafter - ie 4000 BC (which corresponds to the End of the Balkan Copper Age Tells and proto-Majkop)
I suspect that there were several M269 sub-clades in existence around the steppe and potentially south of the Caucasus before 4000 BC. Most became extinct, in no small part due to the expansion of their L23 'cousin' lineage.


I'm assuming we have not found any R1b L23- Yamnaya ancient DNA yet. Right?

Not yet, no. And that's with sampling of Yamnaya right up to the Don. But we don't have any Yamnaya from Ukraine or other proto-Bronze Age groups from Romania, NE Bulgaria, etc.

Krefter
11-19-2015, 01:53 AM
The most important thing to understand is Y DNA does not equal full ancestry. Much of West Europeans connection to R1b is to random high-ranking men who had millions of women and millions of sons. It isn't a very deep connection. R1b from before 3000 BC has little to do with West Europeans. FTDNA, 23andme, etc. treat Y DNA as on of the primary signature of your ancestry. They can't be giving the false idea that R1b exterminated people who lived there before.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-19-2015, 03:00 AM
The most important thing to understand is Y DNA does not equal full ancestry.

Yes . One would think even 'newbies' understand that


Much of West Europeans connection to R1b is to random high-ranking men who had millions of women and millions of sons.

I don't think that's quite how it went. I don't think any man had more than several wives, no matter how "high ranking" or precocious

A lot of it has to do with drift and stochastocity, amplified by differential reproductive success of males; some men have few or no offspring, others have more (Quite simply it's easier for women to get love then men :)).

Amplified over time - you can get the R1b pattern seen in Western Europe today. But you will note its founder effect is mostly in the Atlantic fringes- parts of which had low densities after the early neolithic until the middle Bronze Age.

But given the sparse aDNA coverage still, we really don't quite know just how fast R1b expanded; we are only guided by modern genome SNP patterns.



It isn't a very deep connection. R1b from before 3000 BC has little to do with West Europeans. FTDNA, 23andme, etc. treat Y DNA as on of the primary signature of your ancestry. They can't be giving the false idea that R1b exterminated people who lived there before.

Yep-any autosomal input is pretty much negligible after 8 generations. But it's still a very good guide
For tracking migrations- deep and not so deep. Ie current Y DNA patterns still inform us about events as late as the Middle Ages- the final jolt in the make up of current Europeans.

GTC
11-19-2015, 11:23 AM
Dr Hammer's slide show from the 2015 FTDNA Conference viewable here:

http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update

rms2
11-19-2015, 12:50 PM
The most important thing to understand is Y DNA does not equal full ancestry.

True, but who thinks it does?

If it seems there is too much emphasis on the y chromosome in this thread and others here, just remember this is the y haplogroup R subforum.

And, although y-dna does not equal full ancestry, what does except the entire genome? Even the entire genome does not equal full ancestry in anything but a genetic sense. It does not account for everything else that goes into one's heritage: language, culture, religion, etc., etc.

Y-dna may not equal full ancestry, but it is not unimportant. Every last one of our male forebears carried a y chromosome. If we're lucky we can find out to what y haplogroups some of them belonged.

Since the dna on the y chromosome is mostly non-recombinant, it is a lot easier to track chronologically and geographically than autosomal dna, which is like a will-o-the-wisp flitting here and there in the dark, taking one shape here and another there. Each of us knows and can be sure he got his y chromosome from his father, and he from his father before him, and so on and on back through time. Autosomal dna, however, is a much more difficult, intricate and complex proposition.

There is another factor that makes y-dna very important. It is the psychological or perhaps even spiritual factor, if one is inclined to go so far as to call it that. Many of us males identify strongly with our fathers and with all the males in our pedigree. Obviously between us and most of our male ancestors, females stand as genetic intermediaries, and we know we did not get our y chromosome from them. But our direct paternal line bequeathed to us a badge to mark its passing, a sign that enables us to trace those who carried it before us back through time. It gives us a chance to know them in a way not possible with most of our forebears, a way that prompts us to name them our fathers.



Much of West Europeans connection to R1b is to random high-ranking men who had millions of women and millions of sons. It isn't a very deep connection. R1b from before 3000 BC has little to do with West Europeans. FTDNA, 23andme, etc. treat Y DNA as on of the primary signature of your ancestry. They can't be giving the false idea that R1b exterminated people who lived there before.

I am not interested in lording it over anyone or in claiming that my direct paternal line exterminated anyone. But 3,000 BC was a long time ago, and there is certainly enough R1b in western Europe now to make it the default y haplogroup of many if not most of the male ancestors we have even outside our direct y-dna line. Most of the lines I know about in my own pedigree are R1b of one kind or another.

The primary signature of one's ancestry is whatever he chooses it to be, the one he most identifies with. For me that is in fact my y-dna. I think it's pretty important, and I am very pleased with it and thankful for it. All the other dna testing I have paid for is parsley adorning the plate upon which the sizzling steak of y-dna sits. (Okay, maybe the mtDNA is the baked potato.)

TigerMW
11-19-2015, 12:54 PM
Dr Hammer's slide show from the 2015 FTDNA Conference viewable here:

http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update

I really appreciate Hammer's attention to R1b. I don't know if he is an R1b guy but I don't care as long as he continues to study us and present. He gives additional credibility to the most probable expansion of R1b (L51>P311) across Europe. I'm not sure what his relationship is to FTDNA but he seems to access to their database.

I don't think he needs to show drawings of glamorized knights or beautiful maidens. It's okay but those depictions only draw the ire of those with different views. Besides, he could have gone with cowboys! :) No, I suspect the reality was sometimes related to innovation, strategy, loyalty, courage and some other highflutin virtues, but more often was just plain cut throat, hegemonious, attrition oriented and cruel beyond imagination (well, I guess it is imaginable now.) :( ... but all of this throws one crazy theory out the window with the Mal'ta boy showing the way.

Heber
11-19-2015, 01:27 PM
Dr Hammer's slide show from the 2015 FTDNA Conference viewable here:

http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update

The clearest presentation of R1b and the peopling of Europe, I have seen to date.

razyn
11-19-2015, 04:58 PM
The clearest presentation of R1b and the peopling of Europe, I have seen to date.

I'll be interested to see one in the next year or two that includes DF27 as a brother to U152 -- both sharing ancestry at least as recent as the Chalcolithic, and far to the east of the Danube valley. Those pileup maps, such as Rich Rocca's modern P312* (xU152, xL21) as a "surrogate" for DF27 -- or Maciamo Hay's Eupedia map of DF27 -- would look less like pointers to a place of origin if they were side by side with Hammer's slide #46.

6650

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28933-New-map-of-R1b-DF27-%28SRY2627-M153%29

And so far none of these but Maciamo's are being drawn on a base map that includes the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and the lower reaches of the Volga. Seems to me that rewriting the narrative to include the Haak et al findings is going to require redrawing those maps, before long. In the past couple of years both Hammer and Spencer Wells have had some map slides that included more of the steppe (because they do know where those Yamnaya bodies were buried), and one or two have included a longish, westward-pointing arrow for Z196, as a whispered hint at DF27. I still suspect that arrow should be fletched many hundreds of miles farther east than Austria (and, maybe, captioned as ZZ11); but progress is progress.

TigerMW
11-20-2015, 02:31 AM
I'll be interested to see one in the next year or two that includes DF27 as a brother to U152 -- both sharing ancestry at least as recent as the Chalcolithic, and far to the east of the Danube valley...
Unfortunately, although we've been able to get FTDNA to do special things to recognize DF27 and you've built up the DF27 project, this does not apply to the National Genographic Project. Wells is gone but their new product still lacks DF27. I'm not sure what Hammer is looking at for a database, but if he is looking for tens of thousands of results we don't have them for him so DF27 just may not be on his radar.

Maciamo over at Eupedia doesn't have the same restrictions (some might call it discipline). He's doing speculative work and can base it on whatever data he wants and extrapolate from it to fill in the holes, just like you or I.

vettor
11-20-2015, 06:25 AM
Then Michael dropped the bomb on us – R1b is ANE and specifically is found among the Yamnaya. We had discussed this possibility last year, because no R1b is found in the earliest hunter-gatherer ancient remains in Europe. Subsequent research proved it. R1b comes from the Russian Steppes as is proven in the Haaks paper published in June 2015.

Today, 10 ancient Yamnaya samples have been analyzed, and all 10 are R1b. Hmmmm….


from Ftdna 11th international conference 2015

Is this for real .............is Yamnya the "home" of R1b ?

rms2
11-20-2015, 12:03 PM
. . .

Is this for real .............is Yamnya the "home" of R1b ?

I think Yamnaya is the likely source of most of the R1b-L23 in Europe today. If that is what is meant by "home", then yes.

IMHO, Yamnaya fused with late Vucedol to form the kind of Bell Beaker that spread P312 into central and western Europe. U106 or the L11 line that led to U106 rode with Corded Ware and R1a into Scandinavia and what is now far northern Germany, to spread farther south later with Germanic-speaking peoples.

kinman
11-20-2015, 01:02 PM
The fusion of Yamnaya with Vucedol (and others along the Danube) would probably have been mainly Yamnaya men with Vucedol women. Those women would have been influential in the kind of pottery that was used, while the men were more concerned with their weapons and horses. Do we know much about the mitochondrial haplogroups of Vucedol and related populations?
-----------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think Yamnaya is the likely source of most of the R1b-L23 in Europe today. If that is what is meant by "home", then yes.

IMHO, Yamnaya fused with late Vucedol to form the kind of Bell Beaker that spread P312 into central and western Europe. U106 or the L11 line that led to U106 rode with Corded Ware and R1a into Scandinavia and what is now far northern Germany, to spread farther south later with Germanic-speaking peoples.

razyn
11-20-2015, 02:06 PM
Do we know much about the mitochondrial haplogroups of Vucedol and related populations?

I think a place to start looking would be the splendid 2015 dissertation of Anna Szécsényi-Nagy, Molecular Genetic Investigation of the Neolithic Population History in the western Carpathian Basin (and the references therein). I'll try to post a url to it from another thread here:
http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte...75/pdf/doc.pdf

Note that it links to a download, don't click it if you don't want a new book in your digital library.

But note also that the various caveats about the uniparental markers on the groom's side of the church apply also to those on the bride's side. Neither addresses the autosomal issues very well (ANE, etc.); those are based on principal components from all those other pesky chromosomes.

rms2
11-20-2015, 04:28 PM
The fusion of Yamnaya with Vucedol (and others along the Danube) would probably have been mainly Yamnaya men with Vucedol women. Those women would have been influential in the kind of pottery that was used, while the men were more concerned with their weapons and horses. Do we know much about the mitochondrial haplogroups of Vucedol and related populations?
-----------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that, according to Gimbutas, Vucedol had already been kurganized by earlier waves of steppe pastoralists before Yamnaya arrived. Yamnaya was Wave 3, the biggest and final wave. So Vucedol may have already had some steppe R1b in it from before the arrival of Yamnaya.

kinman
11-20-2015, 05:58 PM
I personally regard those first two waves of R1b men as Early Yamnaya. I suppose you could call them Khvalynsk since that is the culture they came from, but once they reach Ukraine, I doubt that hardly anyone would call them Khvalynsk. Therefore I think Early Yamnaya would be appropriate. There is no clear boundary (in time or space) between the two, so I guess one could argue it either way, and one could argue endlessly just how broadly we should define Yamnaya.
------------Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Remember that, according to Gimbutas, Vucedol had already been kurganized by earlier waves of steppe pastoralists before Yamnaya arrived. Yamnaya was Wave 3, the biggest and final wave. So Vucedol may have already had some steppe R1b in it from before the arrival of Yamnaya.

rms2
11-20-2015, 07:39 PM
If I recall correctly, Gimbutas' Kurgan Wave 1 corresponds to Anthony's Suvorovo, and her Kurgan Wave 2 corresponds to what Anthony calls Mikhailovka.

In the context of what you were talking about earlier, that is, Vucedol, what one calls the first two waves doesn't matter so much as the fact that they occurred. For Gimbutas, Vucedol itself was the product of the kurganization of elements of Baden produced by those first two waves of steppe pastoralists. So Vucedol itself was already a kurgan culture or at least a kurganized culture. It just received a further and stronger shot with the arrival of Yamnaya and morphed into Bell Beaker.

You had asked about Vucedol mtDNA. That Vucedol period R1b from Hungary belonged to mtDNA haplogroup T2b23. The Gata/Wieslburg R1b-M269 from about 1950 BC belonged to mtDNA haplogroup U5b1.

Coon and others of the old anthropologists said that many of the Beaker Folk were "Dinarics", that is, they had brachycephalic skulls, jutting jaws, and were tall and of robust build. It's interesting that much of Vucedol's territory included the Dinaric Alps, from which the so-called Dinarics took their name and where people of that type were most frequently found.

rms2
11-21-2015, 07:02 PM
I like Dr. Hammer's slideshow on ancient R1b (http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update), but I have to admit I cringed when I saw slide 34, featuring the famous painting of Cú Chulainn and the words, "Off with their heads and onto their women!"

That's a little too much in-your-face triumphalism. I know if I wasn't R1b such a slide would kind of piss me off. As it is, it just kind of embarrasses me.

I'm not trying to be critical of Dr. Hammer, but that sort of slide is best reserved for some sort of private meeting of an R1b-only club.

MitchellSince1893
11-21-2015, 11:48 PM
I like Dr. Hammer's slideshow on ancient R1b (http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update), but I have to admit I cringed when I saw slide 34, featuring the famous painting of Cú Chulainn and the words, "Off with their heads and onto their women!"

That's a little too much in-your-face triumphalism. I know if I wasn't R1b such a slide would kind of piss me off. As it is, it just kind of embarrasses me.

I'm not trying to be critical of Dr. Hammer, but that sort of slide is best reserved for some sort of private meeting of an R1b-only club.

I scratched my head on slide 36...don't get me wrong, Red Sonya is hot, but she seemed out of place for a serious discussion.

RCO
11-22-2015, 12:22 AM
In South America the Amerindian Y-DNA Q Men took some Spanish Women, not in our Portuguese half of South America ;) but capturing women in warfare unfortunately has been a "bad" custom in almost all wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%C3%B3n

We can imagine Steppe Y-DNA R taking Southern Women here but we should wait more data and stop the imagination because R1 has never prevailed in the Northern Near Eastern as in places like Central and Western Europe !

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/%C3%81ngel_DELLA_Valle_-_La_vuelta_del_mal%C3%B3n_-_Google_Art_Project_%28cropped%29.jpg

RCO
11-22-2015, 12:25 AM
http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/2894/p2894_p_v7_aa.jpg

GoldenHind
11-22-2015, 02:01 AM
In South America the Amerindian Y-DNA Q Men took some Spanish Women, not in our Portuguese half of South America ;) but capturing women in warfare unfortunately has been a "bad" custom in almost all wars



As I recollect, a DNA study in Columbia a few years ago showed most of the males had European YDNA, while the women overwhelmingly had native MTDNA. That's not to say native men taking European wives never happened, just that it looks like the exception rather than the rule. Meanwhile the European men routinely took native wives.

GTC
11-22-2015, 02:18 PM
Here's an annotated version of Dr Hammer's slide presentation at the 2015 FTDNA Conference in PDF format, prepared by Doug Marker (Administrator for DF100-CTS4528 Project):

http://www.southbalticmodalhaplotype.org/Dnaevents/files/r1b_and_the_peopling_of_europe.pdf

Heber
11-23-2015, 09:33 PM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1014185488623133&id=151911074850583

Generalissimo
11-23-2015, 09:52 PM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1014185488623133&id=151911074850583

Why is he calling them Asian nomads? Wells' geography not too good?

Megalophias
11-23-2015, 10:18 PM
It's the Daily Mail, by their standards the article is a shining model of accurate reporting (seriously, it's not that bad). Some of the Yamnaya *were* from Asia, after all.

George
11-23-2015, 10:23 PM
Why is he calling them Asian nomads? Wells' geography not too good?

Not very.

rms2
11-24-2015, 08:07 PM
I got the impression some years ago that part of the vitriol aimed at the idea that R1 came from the East was derived in part from the fear that our father-line ancestors might somehow be Asiatic.

I always kind of liked the idea myself, but ever since I was a kid I've thought the Huns were cool.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-24-2015, 08:20 PM
It's the Daily Mail, by their standards the article is a shining model of accurate reporting (seriously, it's not that bad). Some of the Yamnaya *were* from Asia, after all.

Ha ha. I think calling the Samara Valley "Europe" is a bit of a stretch

Maybe the word Eurasian is a bit more appropriate?

kinman
11-25-2015, 01:02 AM
Actually, it depends on where one draws the line between Europe and Asia. I was taught (and thus I've always liked) the Ural Mountains were the dividing line, which I guess would make the Samara Valley part of far eastern Europe. So if the first R1b man was born west of the Urals, one could say that Haplogroup R1b was European from the very beginning.
Asian Russia (Siberia) is everything east of the Urals. But whether to include Anatolian Turkey in Europe or Asia is another matter of debate. I could go either way on that one, but tend to think of it as more European.
--------------Ken

Arch
11-26-2015, 08:23 AM
Ha ha. I think calling the Samara Valley "Europe" is a bit of a stretch

Maybe the word Eurasian is a bit more appropriate?

I for one could care less whether it is appropriate or not since since Europe is not really a continent but rather an 'extension' of Asia. Getting hung up on trivial issues like this is pointless. Origins in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, etc. does not mean inferiority or superiority.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-26-2015, 08:34 AM
I for one could care less whether it is appropriate or not since since Europe is not really a continent but rather an 'extension' of Asia. Getting hung up on trivial issues like this is pointless. Origins in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, etc. does not mean inferiority or superiority.

Im not sure where you're getting that anyone is implying anything about inferiority or superiority ?!
Any educated person is aware that Europe is but a peninsula of Asia, hence my appeal to the term central Eurasia for the Samara area.

But "Europe' most definitely has cultural - historical & genetic connections linking it strongly. Im just not sure if the pre-Russian VOlga region really qualifies as such.

kinman
11-26-2015, 03:36 PM
I would suggest that the "cultural - historical & genetic connections" of Haplogroups R1b and R1a very strongly link the Volga region to the rest of Europe. And just for fun I looked at the Wikipedia articles for "Volga River" and "List of rivers of Europe", and they both list the Volga River as the longest river "in Europe". And the Ural River is listed as the third longest river in Europe. The homeland of R1b and R1a was probably either on or near the Volga or Ural Rivers, so I would regard this region as extremely important in the early history of Ancient "Europe".
----------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Im not sure where you're getting that anyone is implying anything about inferiority or superiority ?!
Any educated person is aware that Europe is but a peninsula of Asia, hence my appeal to the term central Eurasia for the Samara area.

But "Europe' most definitely has cultural - historical & genetic connections linking it strongly. Im just not sure if the pre-Russian VOlga region really qualifies as such.

Generalissimo
11-26-2015, 04:54 PM
It's the Daily Mail, by their standards the article is a shining model of accurate reporting (seriously, it's not that bad). Some of the Yamnaya *were* from Asia, after all.

They were migrants to Asia.

parasar
11-26-2015, 06:36 PM
They were migrants to Asia.

It is from these populations that we get the name Asia, not from populations living in India or China or Arabia.

Plus you are keeping up this pointless Asia-Europe distinction. Calling something Asia is totally meaningless when we are see so much difference within Asia.

kinman
11-26-2015, 07:11 PM
Well, the distinction may be somewhat trivial to some people, but I wouldn't call it meaningless. The name Asia actually goes back to the Assyrians from the word meaning sunrise. So they were basically refering to Iran and everything east of there. Draw a line north from there and it will pretty much run along the Ural Mountains. So those of us (and there are a lot of us) who still use the Urals as the dividing line between Europe and Asia are following the original meaning of Asia. The ancient Greeks later somewhat muddied the meaning of Asia by including Turkey (as Asia Minor). Part of Turkey is definitely in Europe, so I am not surprised many refer to all of Turkey as being in Europe.
---------------Ken


It is from these populations that we get the name Asia, not from populations living in India or China or Arabia.

Plus you are keeping up this pointless Asia-Europe distinction. Calling something Asia is totally meaningless when we are see so much difference within Asia.

parasar
11-26-2015, 08:23 PM
Well, the distinction may be somewhat trivial to some people, but I wouldn't call it meaningless. The name Asia actually goes back to the Assyrians from the word meaning sunrise. So they were basically refering to Iran and everything east of there. Draw a line north from there and it will pretty much run along the Ural Mountains. So those of us (and there are a lot of us) who still use the Urals as the dividing line between Europe and Asia are following the original meaning of Asia. The ancient Greeks later somewhat muddied the meaning of Asia by including Turkey (as Asia Minor). Part of Turkey is definitely in Europe, so I am not surprised many refer to all of Turkey as being in Europe.
---------------Ken

Possible, but I think it is from the ethnonym Asur/Asi (Scandinavian Aesir).

Gravetto-Danubian
11-26-2015, 08:40 PM
I would suggest that the "cultural - historical & genetic connections" of Haplogroups R1b and R1a very strongly link the Volga region to the rest of Europe. And just for fun I looked at the Wikipedia articles for "Volga River" and "List of rivers of Europe", and they both list the Volga River as the longest river "in Europe". And the Ural River is listed as the third longest river in Europe. The homeland of R1b and R1a was probably either on or near the Volga or Ural Rivers, so I would regard this region as extremely important in the early history of Ancient "Europe".
----------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact point of origin of the expanding clades remains to be found, but I doubt it was from the Ural mountains.

Secondly, of course the Bronze Age linguistic expansions are crucial for European history, but it was more a pan-Eurasian phenomenon.

To historians, "Europe" was a cumulative process of cultural convergences over the prehistoric to the modern ages: The legacy of Greece Rome Celts Vikings franks.. I doubt that the Urals region really was impacted by many of these events. In fact the concept of Europe was born during the middle ages and they had a pretty strict criteria as to what constitutes Europe - and this was certainly not through the one eyed lens of 'genetic genealogy'.

An objective mind can clearly see that the Volga-Ural region was more linked to central Asia and Siberia . This is not a value judgment, but sober fact. But I'm really not fussed about retentive clinging to definitions, which aren't overly helpful, and have no problem with it being considered European. My very initial comment was tongue in cheek.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-26-2015, 09:32 PM
Well, the distinction may be somewhat trivial to some people, but I wouldn't call it meaningless. The name Asia actually goes back to the Assyrians from the word meaning sunrise. So they were basically refering to Iran and everything east of there. Draw a line north from there and it will pretty much run along the Ural Mountains. So those of us (and there are a lot of us) who still use the Urals as the dividing line between Europe and Asia are following the original meaning of Asia. The ancient Greeks later somewhat muddied the meaning of Asia by including Turkey (as Asia Minor). Part of Turkey is definitely in Europe, so I am not surprised many refer to all of Turkey as being in Europe.
---------------Ken

Pretty sure the name "Asia" goes back to the Asi- a Sarmatian-like tribe near Bactria

Generalissimo
11-26-2015, 09:43 PM
It is from these populations that we get the name Asia, not from populations living in India or China or Arabia.

Plus you are keeping up this pointless Asia-Europe distinction. Calling something Asia is totally meaningless when we are see so much difference within Asia.

I couldn't care less. I know where Europe ends and begins. And I also know now that the populations living around the southern Urals during the Copper and Bronze Ages were by far most similar to modern Europeans, like, say, Lithuanians.

To call them Asian is misleading.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-26-2015, 09:55 PM
I couldn't care less. I know where Europe ends and begins. And I also know now that the populations living around the southern Urals during the Copper and Bronze Ages were by far most similar to modern Europeans, like, say, Lithuanians.

To call them Asian is misleading.

maybe north central Eurasians - the anthropologically correct term ? Admittedly more of a mouthful
There were no yet Europeans in the Bronze Age

Krefter
11-26-2015, 11:12 PM
We should stop separating Europe and Asia into two differnt continents. Kids in school have the wrong idea they are very separate like islands. We should call it Eurasia or something shorter. And have sub-regions, Europe should be a sub-region like South Asia.

kinman
11-27-2015, 12:33 AM
I think Eurasia is short enough and certainly clear enough. There are pretty clearly four subregions: Europe, Siberia, Southwest Asia, and Southeast Asia
But that still leaves us with the question of whether to use Europe (sensu stricto) or Europe (sensu lato). The Wikipedia article on Eurasia delimits them very well (IMO): "The concepts of Europe and Asia as distinct continents date back to antiquity and their borders are geologically arbitrary, with the Ural and Caucasus ranges being the main delimiters between the two."
-----------Ken
P.S. How many kids actually believe Europe is an island? I hope not a lot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We should stop separating Europe and Asia into two differnt continents. Kids in school have the wrong idea they are very separate like islands. We should call it Eurasia or something shorter. And have sub-regions, Europe should be a sub-region like South Asia.

rms2
11-27-2015, 12:44 AM
I would suggest that the "cultural - historical & genetic connections" of Haplogroups R1b and R1a very strongly link the Volga region to the rest of Europe. And just for fun I looked at the Wikipedia articles for "Volga River" and "List of rivers of Europe", and they both list the Volga River as the longest river "in Europe". And the Ural River is listed as the third longest river in Europe. The homeland of R1b and R1a was probably either on or near the Volga or Ural Rivers, so I would regard this region as extremely important in the early history of Ancient "Europe".
----------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I swam in the Volga River. There were a lot of good looking girls there in thong bathing suits. That's one of the things I most clearly remember about it, and the kids walking along the beach shouting, "Kukuruza! Goriachi Kukuruza!" (Corn! Hot corn!)

They had pails of hot corn on the cob for sale.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-27-2015, 12:58 AM
I swam in the Volga River. There were a lot of good looking girls there in thong bathing suits. That's one of the things I most clearly remember about it, and the kids walking along the beach shouting, "Kukuruza! Goriachi Kukuruza!" (Corn! Hot corn!)

They had pails of hot corn on the cob for sale.


Ha ha
Now I'm convinced

Krefter
11-27-2015, 01:43 AM
I think Eurasia is short enough and certainly clear enough. There are pretty clearly four subregions: Europe, Siberia, Southwest Asia, and Southeast Asia

I agree.

But that still leaves us with the question of whether to use Europe (sensu stricto) or Europe (sensu lato). The Wikipedia article on Eurasia delimits them very well (IMO): "The concepts of Europe and Asia as distinct continents date back to antiquity and their borders are geologically arbitrary, with the Ural and Caucasus ranges being the main delimiters between the two."

In antiquity they didn't know the world went further east than Central Asia. Europe and Asia were equal in size. But now we lump all the land mass east of the Urals and Greece into Asia. From the point of view of Greece, three worlds: Asia, Europe, Africa makes sense. But with knowledge of the whole earth making Europe it's own continent doesn't make sense. It's not nearly big enough.


P.S. How many kids actually believe Europe is an island? I hope not a lot.


None, what I meant is people treat Europe and Asia as being as separate as America is from Asia. Calling Turkey and China Asia is not helpful. It's too much land treated as a region as small as Europe.

kinman
11-27-2015, 02:35 AM
Europe is larger than Australia. So I think Europe is definitely big enough.
I was surprised to learn that schools in many countries teach that America is one big continent, not two. I guess they don't realize that South America was once connected to Africa before it drifted west. Anyway, it is all somewhat arbitrary, one way or another.
-----------Ken
P.S. Actually I think there are probably some kids who do think Europe is an island. Jay Leno on the Tonight Show used to quiz college students, and some of them were horribly uneducated when it came to geography.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree.

In antiquity they didn't know the world went further east than Central Asia. Europe and Asia were equal in size. But now we lump all the land mass east of the Urals and Greece into Asia. From the point of view of Greece, three worlds: Asia, Europe, Africa makes sense. But with knowledge of the whole earth making Europe it's own continent doesn't make sense. It's not nearly big enough.

None, what I meant is people treat Europe and Asia as being as separate as America is from Asia. Calling Turkey and China Asia is not helpful. It's too much land treated as a region as small as Europe.

Isidro
11-27-2015, 03:45 AM
Not too far into the distant past, some intellectuals and politicians of high caliber were hailed for claiming that Europe ended at the Pyrenees: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100121115655AAxpaiB.

Since Europa was named after a Lebanese princess one could draw some unexpected conclusions there. :pop2:

parasar
11-27-2015, 07:31 AM
I couldn't care less. I know where Europe ends and begins. And I also know now that the populations living around the southern Urals during the Copper and Bronze Ages were by far most similar to modern Europeans, like, say, Lithuanians.

To call them Asian is misleading.

So perhaps we should call them Lithuanians.