PDA

View Full Version : R-L21+ = Bell Beaker?



evon
12-23-2013, 11:55 AM
What is the current general consensus on this? or is R-21+ associated with Celtic speakers?

rms2
12-23-2013, 12:23 PM
My own guess, based on my understanding of the available evidence, is that, while Beaker wasn't limited to a single y haplogroup or subclade, much of it was probably P312+, or came to be, anyway. And some of that was L21+, especially the part that ended up going to the British Isles and Ireland. Something gave Beaker men a social advantage, perhaps advanced metal working skills, and they were able to out-reproduce the native men in the Isles. In time, L21 came to be the dominant y haplogroup there.

Here is something from the book, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland during the Middle Ages, by Kenneth Nicholls, that could help provide an example from later history of how that process probably worked. It was first posted by Paul Duffy on another forum. Although it deals with the top-down expansion in medieval Ireland, I think the same principle could easily (and probably accurately) be applied to the rapid expansion of L21 in the British Isles beginning in the Bronze Age.



One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away'; and this phenomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant stocks at the expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan] and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince', and this could have been said, without adaptation, of any important Gaelic or Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland. In Fermanagh, for example, the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mór in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man. The spread of his descendants can be seen by the genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been in the possession of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh, having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate at which an Irish clan could multiply itself must not be underestimated. Turlough an fhíona O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons. Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers, and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose sons became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line. Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan societies of southern Africa already cited.


As for Celtic, I think the Beaker Folk brought an early form of it to the British Isles. That has been the view of a number of scholars, including Henri Hubert, Myles Dillon, and Nora Chadwick, among others.

rms2
12-23-2013, 02:02 PM
Re the Beaker/Celtic connection, here is something from David Anthony's book, The Horse the Wheel and Language, p. 367.



The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.


Here is something from The Celtic Realms, by Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick.



About 2000 BC came Bell Beaker people, whose burials are in single graves, with individual grave-goods. The remarkable Wessex Culture of the Bronze Age which appears about 1500 BC is thought to be based upon this tradition. The grave-goods there suggest the existence of a warrior aristocracy 'with a graded series of obligations of service . . . through a military nobility down to craftsmen and peasants', as in the Homeric society. This is the sort of society which is described in the Irish sagas, and there is no reason why so early a date for the coming of the Celts should be impossible. We shall see that there are considerations of language and culture that tend rather to support it. (The Celtic Realms, p. 4.)

If we suppose that the Celts emerge as a separate people about 2000 BC, Goidelic may be a very early form of Celtic, and Gaulish (with British) a later form; and the first Celtic settlements of the British Isles may be dated to the early Bronze Age (c. 1800 BC), and even identified with the coming of the Beaker-Folk in the first half of the second millennium. (Ibid, p. 214.)

Mikewww
12-23-2013, 04:35 PM
My own guess, based on my understanding of the available evidence, is that, while Beaker wasn't limited to a single y haplogroup or subclade, much of it was probably P312+, or came to be, anyway. And some of that was L21+, especially the part that ended up going to the British Isles and Ireland. Something gave Beaker men a social advantage, perhaps advanced metal working skills, and they were able to out-reproduce the native men in the Isles. In time, L21 came to be the dominant y haplogroup there.

Here is something from the book, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland during the Middle Ages, by Kenneth Nicholls, that could help provide an example from later history of how that process probably worked. It was first posted by Paul Duffy on another forum. Although it deals with the top-down expansion in medieval Ireland, I think the same principle could easily (and probably accurately) be applied to the rapid expansion of L21 in the British Isles beginning in the Bronze Age.
Kenneth Nicholls wrote ("Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland during the Middle Ages"),
"One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away'; and this phenomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant stocks at the expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this type."

Richard or Paul, I can confess I don't really understand the clan-based system. What are the characteristics of clans in Celtic societies that contributed to this? Was it concentration in villages to go with polygamy? or was it a feudal type system where field working males were literally ground to bone and didn't live long? or some kind of apartheid like system where royal males had so much power that father-in-law's wanted their daughters to marry into them?

Dubhthach
12-23-2013, 05:04 PM
Mike,

I'd recommend Nichol's book the Kindle version is $9.78
http://www.amazon.com/Gaelic-Gaelicised-Ireland-Kenneth-Nicholls-ebook/dp/B007ZQY61G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387816736&sr=8-1&keywords=gaelic+and+gaelicised+ireland

-- basically going from memory (I've the physical book at home) but he explains the "Clann" basically as a "family corporation". Each member thus would have "a share". It's a feature of land holding elites. The leadership been decided by membership of a 4 generational grouping called the "Deirbhfhine" (Deirbfine). It's a form of "agnatic kinship", not based on primogeniture but technically on "democratic" election, to be candidate you have to be at least within four generations of a previous ruler.

So for example the MacWilliam Burkes of Mayo (Cambro-Norman's who became more Irish then Irish themselves) had four branches, the rotated the "Lordship" between each branch. If member was "Lord" (Tiarna) at the time obviously he would gain income both from his own personal lands but also from the mensal lands associated with the lordship.

Underneath the Lords obviously there was a fully developed system of clientship. With large farmers (freeholders and tenants) all way down to peasants. As a "client" one was epected to provide stuff like lodging/dining to your Lord (certain number of nights per year), provide accomadation for troops (Kern and Gallowglass) etc.

Anyways a quick glossary:

Fine -> Family -- actual word in Irish that is used instead of "Clann" -- Clann been more restrictive use
Clann -> literally one's children eg. Clann Mhike = "Children of Mike", loanword from Latin (Planta) via Welsh (Plant)
Slíocht -> "Sept" -- literally "seed of" -- a branch within wider family
righdamhna -> "Kingly body" -- literally members of the Deirbhfhine who were eligble for Kingship

One of 17th century writers (it might have been "Mac Firbsigh") decried the peasants as curls who didn't even know who their "Great-Grandfather" was. In context of a Deirbhfhine it was essential someone in a Lordly family knew their full pedigree, if one couldn't get your hands on reins of power of course your specific "sub-lineage" would drop out of the Deirbhfhine and fall gradually down the pecking order.

Generally Irish society was very must pastoralist, so for example large parts of society were "semi-nomadic" which was driven by the large herds of Cattle (the main source of wealth) which would be moved to winter pastor etc. This has a knock on effect when it comes to lack of urbanism and even to remarks that the "houses of Lords" seemed minimalistic. Mainly as they were built to be "thrown away" if needs be. So I don't think you can compare it directly to Feudal society, though of course you had the idea of division of society into Classes (with "Honour prices" linked to each class in society).

-Paul
(DF41+)

evon
12-23-2013, 06:05 PM
Guess i need to do some research into Celtic culture and linguistics...I wonder if there are any signs of such a linguistic tradition in Western Norway during the time, especially a region famed for its Copper deposits and very early settlements (Its capital named Copper bay):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karm%C3%B8y

But so far ive not found any L21+ or YDNA links to this region, while further north where i currently live in the medieval trading center of Bergen ive found several of both Autosomal and YDNA links it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen#History

I will be eager to check if Celtic languages have the same commonality ive found between a Extinct Iranic language (Sogdian) and modern European languages, which i found fascinating..

vettor
12-23-2013, 06:23 PM
What is the current general consensus on this? or is R-21+ associated with Celtic speakers?


R-L2 is the main/founding line of the celts, this incorporates the 2 main centres of celtic influence in the alps, La Tene and other.
Mix in raetic, vindelic, illyric, camuni and venetic peoples with their very very similar script languages of camunic, raetic, venetic and lepotic and there you get the birth of celtic...........my opinion

rms2
12-23-2013, 06:45 PM
R-L2 is the main/founding line of the celts, this incorporates the 2 main centres of celtic influence in the alps, La Tene and other.
Mix in raetic, vindelic, illyric, camuni and venetic peoples with their very very similar script languages of camunic, raetic, venetic and lepotic and there you get the birth of celtic...........my opinion

I disagree. I won't deny that there were Celts who were R-L2, but there are large parts of the Celtic beat where L2 dwindles to next to nothing. I don't claim L21 was the "main/founding line" of the Celts either. I think it was farther upstream, probably at the P312 level, and the founders were Beaker Folk.

P312 is the common denominator. Various subclades, like U152, L21, and DF27, predominated in different areas, but they were all Celtic, and no one of them can, I think, lay claim to being the "main/founding line".

evon
12-23-2013, 06:58 PM
Interestingly my maternal side is U152, so both my paternal and maternal Males have lineages "associated" with Celtic culture...

Mag Uidhir 6
12-23-2013, 08:18 PM
Paul,
Thanks for the link and clear explanations. I can almost admit to understanding the line of succession a bit more now. However, in my case, when the line has a Senior and Junior branch, I gotta wonder, what the heck caused THAT? Physical distance? Political in fighting? Survival during the influx of English dominion?
Decisions in the past are rarely accompanied by "reasons", we just have to dig more.
Brad

Dubhthach
12-23-2013, 10:15 PM
Brad,

Well the problem with the system was that even though it appears "democratic" eg. all members of the Deirbhfhine are eligble as election to position of Tiarna (Lord) in reality you ended up with alot of fighting and spilts. With arrival of Cambro-Norman's (and later English administration particulary form 1495 onwards) you often saw a game of "Divide and Conquer" going on.

So for example the O'Connor's of Connacht mainline eventually got spilt into two lines these been "Donn" (Brown -- Don) and "Rua" (Redheaded -- Roe). The Burkes of Mayo supported one branch, where'as the Clanrickard Burkes of Galway support the other. The two branches of the Burkes of Connacht been divided since the "Burke Civil War" in 1333-38.

The Burke is well worth the buy in my opinion though I'd recommend a notepad and a pen when working through it, as there would be fair bit of terms that are linguistically foreign to most people -- even to most Irish people, for example:



Turastal: A payment made to attach a person to the service of the giver. Sometimes large, it was on other occasions litle more then symbolic. Acceptance of turastal involved acceptence of the superiority, or at least of the leadership of the giver. Usually rendered in English as 'stipend'


That's from the "GLOSSARY" at the back of text. One example he gives of turastal in the book is:


While the amounts given for turastal were often substantial, they seem on occasions to have been little more than honorific, their value been less important than their symbolism; in 1549 Conn Bacach Ó Néill gave to Maguire, to attach him in his service, eight horses a 'jack' or tunic of quilted leather (which was used as a kind of armour) and a mailshirt.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Heber
12-23-2013, 11:35 PM
I agree with RMS that there were three main branches of Celts.

Atlantic Celts: R1b-L21 (From Iberia to the Isles, Ireland)
Alpine (River) Celts: U152 (From Halstatt, Le Tene, Gaul, Brythonnic Isles)
Celt Iberian: DF 27 (Iberia and Atlantic Facade)

There is posibly a hybrid celtization of U106 on the Western Peripheral.

I believe there were many backward migrations of Celts from Iberia to the Alps, from Iberia along the Atlantic Facade, From Lorient to the Alps and from the Alps to the Isles via Gaul. These societies were highly mobile and moved en mass to occupy new lands.

I posted this on another board which sums up the SNP evidence.


We know from Busby and Myres that the highest frequency of R1b is in Ireland and in particular the West of Ireland and the next highest is in Iberia and the West of Iberia.
However if we look at the data from the FTDNA projects using more detailed SNPs we get a similar story.
In Ireland L21 has its highest frequency in Ireland and specifically in the West of Ireland with M222 in Donegal and Mayo and DF21 in Galway.
In Iberia DF27 has its highest frequency in Iberia and specifically in the West of Iberia, Asturias.
In fact the recent Genographic project which tested 100 random samples in Mayo and Asturias confirmed these findings.
In addition there were significant traces of L11 in Iberia.
The key SNPs under P312 are DF27, L21 and U152.

M269
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-m269/

P312
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/

DF27
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/

L21
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/

U152
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u152-l2/

The latest draft Phylogenetic Trees in preparation by academics (CTS), Citizen Scientists (Magoon, Rocca, Morley), DTC (FTDNA) and Standards (ISOGG) all show clearly the extreme expansion of R1b via P312 and its sub clades (DF27), L21-DF13, and U152-L2.,
The most extreme of these expansions was DF27 in Iberia followed by L21-DF13 in Ireland.
This can only have happened if L11 or P312 moved to Iberia.

Even the great archaeologists agree with this theory.

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

The arrival of a Tsunami of SNPs in mid February should help clarify these ideas.

razyn
12-24-2013, 02:22 AM
The opinion that DF27 is by its very nature "Celt Iberian" is by no means unanimous. Some of the subclades of DF27 are (now) numerically prominent in Iberia; others aren't, and there is little or no evidence that the son (so to speak) of P312 who had the DF27 mutation was more western than his brothers (so to speak). We can agree, in retrospect, that some lineages of Mr. DF27's descendants were very successful producers of surviving sons at that end of the European peninsula.

We do have a young DF27 project; and like the much better defined L21, our haplogroup is about to get inundated with new SNPs. This will help sort the phylogenetic tree, and create a more clearly focused picture to associate with language families and geography. For the moment, referring to DF27 as Celtiberian (or anything else that specific) is premature. And it is in part the baggage of widely discussed speculations about LGM refugia, and/or the origins of the Basques, that were around for a few years before the discovery of DF27, Z196 and other important branches of the tree in question.

vettor
12-24-2013, 02:42 AM
I agree with RMS that there were three main branches of Celts.

Atlantic Celts: R1b-L21 (From Iberia to the Isles, Ireland)
Alpine (River) Celts: U152 (From Halstatt, Le Tene, Gaul, Brythonnic Isles)
Celt Iberian: DF 27 (Iberia and Atlantic Facade)

There is posibly a hybrid celtization of U106 on the Western Peripheral.

I believe there were many backward migrations of Celts from Iberia to the Alps, from Iberia along the Atlantic Facade, From Lorient to the Alps and from the Alps to the Isles via Gaul. These societies were highly mobile and moved en mass to occupy new lands.

I posted this on another board which sums up the SNP evidence.


We know from Busby and Myres that the highest frequency of R1b is in Ireland and in particular the West of Ireland and the next highest is in Iberia and the West of Iberia.
However if we look at the data from the FTDNA projects using more detailed SNPs we get a similar story.
In Ireland L21 has its highest frequency in Ireland and specifically in the West of Ireland with M222 in Donegal and Mayo and DF21 in Galway.
In Iberia DF27 has its highest frequency in Iberia and specifically in the West of Iberia, Asturias.
In fact the recent Genographic project which tested 100 random samples in Mayo and Asturias confirmed these findings.
In addition there were significant traces of L11 in Iberia.
The key SNPs under P312 are DF27, L21 and U152.

M269
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-m269/

P312
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/

DF27
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/

L21
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/

U152
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u152-l2/

The latest draft Phylogenetic Trees in preparation by academics (CTS), Citizen Scientists (Magoon, Rocca, Morley), DTC (FTDNA) and Standards (ISOGG) all show clearly the extreme expansion of R1b via P312 and its sub clades (DF27), L21-DF13, and U152-L2.,
The most extreme of these expansions was DF27 in Iberia followed by L21-DF13 in Ireland.
This can only have happened if L11 or P312 moved to Iberia.

Even the great archaeologists agree with this theory.

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

The arrival of a Tsunami of SNPs in mid February should help clarify these ideas.

It still does not answer the question that celts where neither germanic, gallic, italic or slavic when they emerged

Heber
12-24-2013, 11:36 AM
Razyn,

We don't have aDNA for DF27, L21, and U152.
Until we do discover it we have to make assumptions based on the data we do have ie. the large number of samples in the projects data, the relatively few and generally out of date scientific papers and the dramatic expansion of the Phylogenetic Tree which tells a clear story. I agree we will learn a lot more with the arrival of the new SNPs and we should be able to adjust our assumptions.
Regarding R1b I believe current thinking is that it's expansion is associated with the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, L11, P312, DF27, U152, L21 with the Bronze Age. There is no suggestion that is linked to LGM Refugium.
Regarding Celt Iberians, if P312 is assumed to be Italic Celtic and L21 Isles Celtic and U152 Alpine Celtic and DF27 is the dominant expansion in Iberia, and the latest research on the Celts suggests an expansion of Celtic from the West and specifically Tartessos, what should we call it?
If we find aDNA tomorrow or new SNPs which disproves it or if Cunliffe and Koch say they have made a big mistake I will be the first to adjust my thinking on this.

rms2
12-25-2013, 01:41 AM
Well, we know that there were no "Celtiberians" until the Celts fought the Iberians and the two peoples merged. I am not sure what the predominant Iberian y-haplogroup was, but I think the Celtic element was P312 of some kind, perhaps DF27. In other words, IMHO, DF27, like much of P312, is predominantly Celtic, and was very prevalent among the Gauls probably before it became the "Celt" part of "Celtiberian".

Mikewww
12-25-2013, 04:41 AM
Well, we know that there were no "Celtiberians" until the Celts fought the Iberians and the two peoples merged. I am not sure what the predominant Iberian y-haplogroup was, but I think the Celtic element was P312 of some kind, perhaps DF27. In other words, IMHO, DF27, like much of P312, is predominantly Celtic, and was very prevalent among the Gauls probably before it became the "Celt" part of "Celtiberian".

I'm just speculating, but I think the early western Bell Beaker folks may have not had much R1b, or at least not had much R1b-L11.

It was latter Bell Beaker groups coming from the east, who had contact with the Yamanya (or who's males were Yamanaya), that I think were most likely to have carried L11. They may have carried a new kind of metalworking, furnace smelting, according to Amzallag. These people were those that won the conflicts at Sion in Switzerland and eventually made Rio Tinto what it it became. They were not not the early/western Beakers of Portugal. Remember, the Wessex culture of the Amesbury Archer, etc., had ties to the Unetice folks, who were from Central Europe.

The Celts were the latter (from the east) Bell Beakers, Unetice and latter waves of then clearly identifiable Celts (i.e. Hallstatt), again, IMHO.

Keep in mind that is does NOT negate the idea of early Celtic from the west or Tartessos.. the Koch/Cunliffe concept. This was later in time than the latter/Eastern Bell Beaker and Unetice expansions. When you think of Tartessos, think of Rio Tinto. It's the same location, very rich in copper and know for being very advanced in metalworking. When the Romans took over Rio Tinto, there was little advancement in metalworking there. In other words, Rio Tinto was already very advanced. IMHO, it wasn't the Phoenicians who advanced Rio Tinto, but it was a much earlier Celtic group at Rio Tino. However, it was not the earliest early/western Portugal Beakers of Zambujal or the Iberians/Argar Culture of Los Millares. Those were people with continuity from the megalith people.

The new Beaker folks from the east who won at Sion and became Wessex and Rio Tinto, had a have Indo-European flair, just about right in timing for Proto-Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

Well, anyway, that's just a thought that ties PIE/Yamnaya up the Danube to Eastern Bell Baker/Unetice and some aspects of Corded Ware to a genetic spread that could fit L11 nicely.

razyn
12-25-2013, 07:50 AM
I don't believe I have a problem with what Mike says here. Or what Rich mentions about the Gauls. Basically it's a question of timing, and we don't have a very good stopwatch on it yet; but it looks to me as if the preponderance of the known DF27 subclades that make that haplogroup the part of P312 most prevalent now in Iberia are pretty late buds on the DF27 tree. A possible exception is DF81 (don't know enough about it yet to know whether it's late, or for that matter numerous, but it's looking like another Basque marker); and probably there are other DF27 Iberian subclades yet to be discovered, and then dated. But there are probably also undiscovered pockets and subclades of DF27 elsewhere -- we already know it's in France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Poland... how about Romania, Ukraine, etc.?

As Mike sometimes says, we don't know what we don't know... and one of the many things we don't know is that DF27 is Celtiberian. Some of the condensed captioning on Maciamo's maps or whatnot might lead one to that impression, but that sort of shorthand is not very refined and really not very accurate. Such a map is analagous to a snapshot, where we really need a movie; and we don't yet have reliable data for the early frames of the movie we need. However, a lot of sophisticated tests are in the pipeline, and we've made significant progress -- even in the few years I've been following this field.

rms2
12-26-2013, 03:28 PM
I'm just speculating, but I think the early western Bell Beaker folks may have not had much R1b, or at least not had much R1b-L11.

It was latter Bell Beaker groups coming from the east, who had contact with the Yamanya (or who's males were Yamanaya), that I think were most likely to have carried L11. They may have carried a new kind of metalworking, furnace smelting, according to Amzallag. These people were those that won the conflicts at Sion in Switzerland and eventually made Rio Tinto what it it became. They were not not the early/western Beakers of Portugal. Remember, the Wessex culture of the Amesbury Archer, etc., had ties to the Unetice folks, who were from Central Europe.

The Celts were the latter (from the east) Bell Beakers, Unetice and latter waves of then clearly identifiable Celts (i.e. Hallstatt), again, IMHO.

Keep in mind that is does NOT negate the idea of early Celtic from the west or Tartessos.. the Koch/Cunliffe concept. This was later in time than the latter/Eastern Bell Beaker and Unetice expansions. When you think of Tartessos, think of Rio Tinto. It's the same location, very rich in copper and know for being very advanced in metalworking. When the Romans took over Rio Tinto, there was little advancement in metalworking there. In other words, Rio Tinto was already very advanced. IMHO, it wasn't the Phoenicians who advanced Rio Tinto, but it was a much earlier Celtic group at Rio Tino. However, it was not the earliest early/western Portugal Beakers of Zambujal or the Iberians/Argar Culture of Los Millares. Those were people with continuity from the megalith people.

The new Beaker folks from the east who won at Sion and became Wessex and Rio Tinto, had a have Indo-European flair, just about right in timing for Proto-Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

Well, anyway, that's just a thought that ties PIE/Yamnaya up the Danube to Eastern Bell Baker/Unetice and some aspects of Corded Ware to a genetic spread that could fit L11 nicely.

I agree with most of that, although I don't have all the details worked out in my mind. I tend to think the Beaker Folk coming from the East were mostly P312+ and that U106 had little or nothing to do with Beaker or with Italo-Celtic. I think U106 went north and east and became an integral part of the story of the Germanic languages, perhaps through Corded Ware. It did not come west until the Germans (Germans in the broadest sense) did, starting around 700 BC. Remember, too, that the Germans did not succeed in pushing the Celts across the Lower Rhine until about 200 BC. I think these things explain why U106 still has such an apparently close association with Germanic speakers. If it had been part of Beaker, it would be more widely dispersed in the West and would not fade so drastically with distance from Germanic lands and settlements.

MJost
12-26-2013, 06:13 PM
If variance is any qualification, the numbers are showing the following from a run I did in the end of last August.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNclBKWVJRRjVET3c/edit?usp=sharing


MJost

rms2
12-26-2013, 07:47 PM
I'm not sure how much variance from commercial dna testing tells us, with its heavy Isles bias. The fact that Poland shows up with high U106 variance, despite its relative scarcity in FTDNA's y-dna database, is noteworthy, though, I think.

rms2
12-26-2013, 08:10 PM
Maybe because Poland is the sink not the source.

Maybe. That is always a problem with variance. A place that receives a y haplogroup from a number of different sources can display inflated variance. The USA would be an obvious example. I imagine the U106 variance here is pretty high, yet no one thinks U106 originated here.

I definitely think that is the case with Scotland in Mark's calculations.

MJost
12-26-2013, 08:19 PM
Maybe. That is always a problem with variance. A place that receives a y haplogroup from a number of different sources can display inflated variance. The USA would be an obvious example. I imagine the U106 variance here is pretty high, yet no one thinks U106 originated here.

I definitely think that is the case with Scotland in Mark's calculations.
And England I suspect. Looking Poland column you see that only subclades of U106 are appearing there. It could be the hunter gather effect such as occurred in the European part of I Haplogroup (cant remember where I read it being talked about) with no major expansion over 1000's of years.

MJost

newtoboard
12-26-2013, 10:32 PM
Maybe. That is always a problem with variance. A place that receives a y haplogroup from a number of different sources can display inflated variance. The USA would be an obvious example. I imagine the U106 variance here is pretty high, yet no one thinks U106 originated here.

I definitely think that is the case with Scotland in Mark's calculations.

I'm definitely not excluding U106 from originating within Corded Ware or using Corded Ware to expand. I just think variance shouldn't be used as an argument. Hopefully ancient DNA particularly from Western Corded Ware will resolve this.

Mikewww
12-26-2013, 10:51 PM
... I just think variance shouldn't be used as an argument. ...
I think variance is fine to use as an element of a argument, just not the whole argument. In fact, it's probably more indicative of ancient movements than frequency. All factors should be considered in context.

I think low variance may be a better (but negative) indicator in contrast to high variance. For instance, an area of low variance for a group of related individuals should be diminished in terms of its probability of being an origin. Still, an area of high variance is not a guaranteed origin or launch point. As has been mentioned, it could be a pooling area for multiple sources, but it clearly should not be ruled out because of its high variance.

I think when considering whether an area is a pooling point or not, if we know that it has received multiple inputs from multiple locations, that increases its probability of being a pooling point. Another factor might be the massiveness of a movement. A massive movement of people would more likely carry its diversity with it, thereby deceiving us variance-wise.

I think that though this is not guarantee for this to be the case, the fact that the Anglo-Saxon Era invasions of Great Britain were large movements of whole families and settlements, perhaps evacuating flooding lands and poor climate, that would account for high U106 variance in Great Britain. Not that I enjoy quoting Bede, but of the Angles, Wikipedia has that
Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain, leaving their former land empty It's hard to believe it was totally emptied, but it would make sense that Britain would have similar variance to the Low Countries.

evon
12-26-2013, 11:26 PM
I'm not sure how much variance from commercial dna testing tells us, with its heavy Isles bias. The fact that Poland shows up with high U106 variance, despite its relative scarcity in FTDNA's y-dna database, is noteworthy, though, I think.

23andme have a large US based Polish representation, its one of the biggest communities in the database as far as i can tell, i can try to get some data from the site, but it will take some time, will try to invite them here and start a thread on Polish DNA in general...Will do it tomorrow morning..

rms2
12-27-2013, 12:41 PM
23andme have a large US based Polish representation, its one of the biggest communities in the database as far as i can tell, i can try to get some data from the site, but it will take some time, will try to invite them here and start a thread on Polish DNA in general...Will do it tomorrow morning..

In terms of FTDNA's y-dna database, however, Poland is under represented: Ancestral Origins shows just 4,762 tested to 12 markers and higher (i.e., that's the total).

evon
12-27-2013, 03:25 PM
In terms of FTDNA's y-dna database, however, Poland is under represented: Ancestral Origins shows just 4,762 tested to 12 markers and higher (i.e., that's the total).

Its started:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1775-Polish-DNA-info-collection-thread&p=24708#post24708

Poles are quite numerous, but not as many as Irish yet, whom seem to be the most numerous European ethnic group.

Scarlet Ibis
04-07-2015, 07:30 AM
Interestingly my maternal side is U152, so both my paternal and maternal Males have lineages "associated" with Celtic culture...

I really can't believe I'm only seeing this well over a year later. Was this U152 tested with FTDNA?

evon
04-07-2015, 08:46 AM
I really can't believe I'm only seeing this well over a year later. Was this U152 tested with FTDNA?

No, only tested my maternal uncle via 23andme, I have also tested his uncle (my great uncle) via FTDNA, but only for Familyfinder so far...

Dubhthach
04-07-2015, 02:03 PM
Evon, did you get further than DF13* at any stage?

Scarlet Ibis
04-07-2015, 04:46 PM
No, only tested my maternal uncle via 23andme, I have also tested his uncle (my great uncle) via FTDNA, but only for Familyfinder so far...

Ah ok, a Norwegian (I'm assuming Norwegian?) U152 would have been an interesting addition to the FTDNA project

ADW_1981
04-07-2015, 04:57 PM
R-L2 is the main/founding line of the celts, this incorporates the 2 main centres of celtic influence in the alps, La Tene and other.
Mix in raetic, vindelic, illyric, camuni and venetic peoples with their very very similar script languages of camunic, raetic, venetic and lepotic and there you get the birth of celtic...........my opinion

Amazing how quickly you change your tune. At least half a dozen threads have you chiming in that cultures, farmers, hunter-gatherers were not comprised of a single male lineage, and here you are a year earlier stating that Celts were founded by a single male lineage. Hypocritical much?

For the record, 2 of 3 La Tene Celts can be predicted R1b-L23* on haplotype.

evon
04-07-2015, 09:26 PM
Evon, did you get further than DF13* at any stage?

Used my surplus cash for a FamilyFinder test for my great uncle, but I would like to test more, just dont know which SNP to choose, as I dont want to waste too much money while fumbling in the dark..Any tips?


Ah ok, a Norwegian (I'm assuming Norwegian?) U152 would have been an interesting addition to the FTDNA project

Yes, I might do that in the summer, I have traced that YDNA line back to Leikanger, Norway in 1661, should be able to go back to around 1500's, just havent been motivated yet, been focusing on the Jewish ancestry these last few months..

MJost
04-07-2015, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=evon;78082]Used my surplus cash for a FamilyFinder test for my great uncle, but I would like to test more, just dont know which SNP to choose, as I dont want to waste too much money while fumbling in the dark..Any tips?
[QUOTE]

Since you are F+DF13*, I would recommend YSEQ R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel. You can review it here:
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=4321&osCsid=9ed87b7a8ac8714c6962ff5de0942201

MJost

evon
04-08-2015, 08:47 AM
Used my surplus cash for a FamilyFinder test for my great uncle, but I would like to test more, just dont know which SNP to choose, as I dont want to waste too much money while fumbling in the dark..Any tips?


Since you are F+DF13*, I would recommend YSEQ R1b-L21 Super-Clade Orientation Panel. You can review it here:
http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=4321&osCsid=9ed87b7a8ac8714c6962ff5de0942201

MJost

Will think about it for a few days, need to order a plane ticket for my sisters wedding this summer also, so better do that before i start spending money on DNA tests for myself :D