PDA

View Full Version : The most recent common ancestor of P312+ clades



sheepslayer
02-14-2022, 06:27 PM
I imported the YFull ages for L151 and removed duplicate ages, keeping the age for the furthest downstream branches (U106 through Z9 were marked as 4600 ybp, so only Z9 kept 4600). I then simulated the ages in between using mutation counts. I set L151's tMRCA to 3200 BC or 5200 YFull years (YFull does not use 1950 for present day) and the result fits U106's narrative: https://imgur.com/a/chO5O68
To me the 3000s BC seems too early for P312. Isn't our earliest P312+ aDNA in 2600s BC Sicily? Either way I want to see if overriding P312's age makes better estimates because DF13 appearing in the 2700s BC seems silly.
So when do you think the MRCA for the clade R-P312 lived? I've set up a poll, but similar to the L151 thread I started (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24655-The-most-recent-common-ancestor-of-L151-clades), this is a place for you to share your thoughts and expertise on the subject because I am no expert

McDonald in 2016: 3155 BC
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

McDonald's algorithm on Williamson's tree: 2676 BC
https://www.ytree.net/BlockInfo.php?blockID=1

YFull now: 2500 BC (rounded)
2828 BC (raw)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/
https://www.yfull.com/branch-info/R-P312/

Dewsloth
02-14-2022, 07:09 PM
McDonald's algorithm on Williamson's tree suffers greatly if there are insufficient data points.

Something I've been pointing out since 2017 :lol:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12370-The-YFull-TMRCA-vs-Iain-McDonald-methods&p=300401&viewfull=1#post300401

^^His old estimate (in the 2016 link above in the OP) for P312>DF19>Z302/DF87 was 1159 AD (432 AD — 1602 AD); but I5748 (NLD_Bell_Beaker) is about 3400 years older than that and is P312>DF19>Z302/DF87.

Pylsteen
02-17-2022, 09:34 PM
From the simple method I use based on Y700 data I am able to look at, using only the amount of mutations and a fixed mutation rate of 83y/mutation, I get median TMRCA's of ~2615 BC for U152, extrapolating this gives ~2698 BC for Z11, ~2864 BC for Z40481, ~2947 BC for P312 and ~3113 BC for L151 which seems fairly reasonable to me.

alan
02-17-2022, 11:16 PM
using archaeological reasoning i think P312 must be considerably older than 2500BC.Itís obvious that by the time big P312 beaker expansion commencing within a generation of 2500BC and already reaching central Europe, Iberia and the British Isies by c. 2450BC, it was already divided into U152, L21 and DF27. Indeed a case can be made that DF13 existed by the time beaker was about to migrate to Britain and Ireland. So personally I would think the common P312 ancestor had to exist several centuries before 2500BC.

Indeed for quite a sudden and high impact expansion, itís hard to imagine this being possible if P312 hadnít already grown into a large population, probably already spit into at least three big clans before 2450BC. The strong directionally of the L21, U152 and DF27 expansions and their speed to settle large areas almost mutually exclusively suggest to me that all of the three big subdivisions of P312 must have each had decent sized clans (surely at least low 100s) by 2450BC and also by then already some subtle geographical distinction in their pre-expansion territories may have already been apparent (maybe different stretches of the Rhine?) in order to explain the almost mutually exclusive expansion directions.

I think from Gaelic literature that a single clan will tend to stretch and divide into branches with much autonomy about 6 generations from founding ancestor though they may remain part of the same tribe with other parallel clans composing the trunks whole. My view is it is likely that by 2450BC 3 well established separate (but still closely connected) big P312 clans with their own territories at various stretches of the Rhine existed with male populations in the lower hundreds and that the common P312 ancestor likely existed at least 2-3 centuries earlier. So that reasoning would tend to place the P312 common ancestor no later than 2650-2750BC. CW arrived along the Rhine in the 2800-2750BC era I understand so the most likely scenario is that the P312 common ancestor was a person from the general L151 CW wetward north Europe migration who (or a small clan of with a recent MRCA) arrived with CW on the Rhine c. 2800BC while U106 stopped around the Elbe and didnít continue as far west as P312.

so hypothetical chronology
L151 - c. 3000BC or just before
P312-c. 2800BC-2750BC

alan
02-17-2022, 11:56 PM
in geveral I think the idea that a few beaker men conquered vast swathes of Europe by founder effects in a one generation from a starting point c 2450BC is utterly impossible. P312 must have already comprised several distinct large clans of hundreds of men each by that date in order for this to happen The fact the big P312 clans all drastically expanded at the same time and under a single cultural guese -bell beaker -suggests P312 and it’s big subclans had grown for centuries together in the same area. Though each of the big P312 clans must have had its own pre-beaker territory, they must have stayed neighbours for centuries prior to their expansion.

Dewsloth
02-18-2022, 12:04 AM
in geveral I think the idea that a few beaker men conquered vast swathes of Europe by founder effects in a one generation from a starting point c 2450BC is utterly impossible. P312 must have already comprised several distinct large clans of hundreds of men each by that date in order for this to happen The fact the big P312 clans all drastically expanded at the same time and under a single cultural guese -bell beaker -suggests P312 and it’s big subclans had grown for centuries together in the same area. Though each of the big P312 clans must have had its own pre-beaker territory, they must have stayed neighbours for centuries prior to their expansion.


Well yeah. I5748 in Oostwoud is dated 2579-2211 calBCE, and is a subclade of a subclade of P312.

Also, the P312 clans may not have all embraced the whole "Bell Beaker" culture package simultaneously, as I5748 is buried below and centuries before the site's real Beaker layer.

alan
02-18-2022, 01:22 AM
Well yeah. I5748 in Oostwoud is dated 2579-2211 calBCE, and is a subclade of a subclade of P312.

Also, the P312 clans may not have all embraced the whole "Bell Beaker" culture package simultaneously, as I5748 is buried below and centuries before the site's real Beaker layer.
That’s true. Some P312 either never made it into the P312 beaker origin zone or they drifted outstrip that zone prior to that. It does seem pretty clear U152, DF27 and L21 did remain in the zone where P312 formed the beaker culture and exploded around 2450BC. But some smaller clades likely were not in that zone.

It’s a curious thing not often commented on but bell beaker of the P312 had never been definitively proven to be much older than its big expansion c 2450BC. This suggests to me that whatever caused the creation of P312 beaker culture also caused it’s rapidly following demographic explosion.

vasil
02-18-2022, 06:41 AM
Wasn't there that one sample from CW early that's pre-P312? So are we talking that branch or the one that moved west?

alan
02-18-2022, 11:29 AM
at present the idea that P312 (or it’s immediate L151 ancestor) arrived on the Lower Rhine with single grave CW c. 2800BC and stayed there till P312 bell beaker was created by them and expanded seems to be the leading theory.

However Heyd in his 2021 paper has alternative ideas that struck me too years ago. He sees the mid to upper rhine as the origin of bell beakers (Alsace etc)

https://www.academia.edu/67425075/_2021_V_Heyd_Yamnaya_Corded_Wares_and_Bell_Beakers _on_the_Move

and points to the strangely similar (and also L51) later CW group in southern Poland that is contemporary with or maybe a a couple of generations earlier than early beaker and displays many of its characteristics (typical beaker gender placemdcte orientations, archery sets, a lot of copper smith graves etc. Though puzzlingly that group also seems linked to the Catacomb phenomenon on the western steppes. I think he is hinting at some later thrust through central Europe to the mid/upper rhine area in the 26th century BC. Or maybe a bidirectional movement from east central Europe. It’s facinating but baffling



https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/bps-2018-0006

Heyd’s paper makes me want to have a hard think about whether it’s possible P312 bell beaker actually might not have emerged from single grave on the lower Rhine but could have been a later east to west expansion maybe 2550BC from Poland and possibly liked to NW Ukraine in some way. Both areas had a late GAC influx so I don’t see any major reason why the beaker autosomal signal couldn’t have developed there. There was clearly some sort of reservoir of L51 somewhere on the treck between the Polish/adjacent north Carpathians and Ukraine. It’s v odd that beaker-like/prefiguring traits and L51xL151 seem to appear around 2500BC (or perhaps 50 years or so earlier) then suddenly P312 bell beaker appears with many similar traits and a different branch of L151.

The problem is the dates are so similar it’s hard to be 100% sure of directionality. Then there is the similar problem that P312 bell beaker is basically nowhere then suddenly everywhere around 2450BC. Anothet possible explanation might be that the combo of P312 and beaker traits arose somewhere in between and spread in both directions but I know of no clear archaeological or ancient dna evidence for this. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too skeptics that a 2nd wave could have spread from eastern europe to the Rhine in under a century as after all that is not much different to what happened with early CW in 2900-2800BC.

The problem is P312 beaker just spread so fast it’s impossible to pinpoint it’s origin point. The only places I would rule out are nordic europe (dates are a bit younger in Denmark etc) and SW Europe (totally wrong autosomals). Bell beaker itself in poland is a little younger too but beaker-like traits in CW are as old and probably older than beaker elsewhere in Europe. So I don’t think bell beaker itself evolved in Poland but a neighbour to the west might have been partly created by influences from south Polish CW or been another seperate branch of the same late eastern CW origin.

I can also see the argument that somehow bell beaker emerged soon after 2500BC from late single ware in Holland but it isn’t particularly compelling as it doesn’t explain the strange multiple parallels between bell beaker culture and the south Polish CW group around the same time or shortly before. Culturally and geographically it would seem more logical for P312 to have arisen somewhere like the mid to upper Elbe near the Polish -German border/Moravia c.2550BC and to have moved west along the upper danube to the upper Rhine then a multi direction burst c. 2450BC up the Rhine, down the Rhone, through the Alps etc etc

alan
02-18-2022, 12:50 PM
Wasn't there that one sample from CW early that's pre-P312? So are we talking that branch or the one that moved west?

was it a czech L151 CW sample c.2750BC ? Iím a bit hazy on it. There was GAC substrate as far south as Czech I think which might explain beaker autosomal pattern. Not far away a bit further north on the elbe was an M269 bell beaker at Kromsdorg with an exceptionally early date of 2550BC who surely is v likely P312. So there is an argument that P312 combined with beaker traits could have emerged as an entity in the mid to upper Elbe area of SE Germany and Czech Republic. Which places it relatively close to the zone where beaker-line traits appeared in south Polish CA c. 2550BC at a time when the latter was also linked to Ukraine.
r
Though I can see the simplicity of the lower rhine model of beaker emerging from single grave (and iíd semi bought into it for the last year), it is a model that fails to tick a lot of archeological boxes relike advanced metallurgy and the appearance of a burial tradition that has more in common with CW in Poland at the time than western CW. So I honestly donít think i believe the model having thought about it again. The problem is the sheer speed of beaker but the earliest dates I am aware of are in Germany and similar but female burials around Alsace. This would rather favour a movement west from maybe the SE German/Czech area through south Germany to the mid/upper Rhine around 2550BC then a century long delay until the huge secondary expansion of beaker in all directions from an secondary expansion point centred along the Rhine. That kind of origin makes far more archaeological sense than an in situ lower rhine single grave one. But until we get some ancient DNA from pre beaker CW along the Rhine c.2800-2400BC itíll be impossible to see if P312 arrived there with CW c.2800BC or if it was a much later 2nd wave from the east c.2550-2450BC. As do little CW remains exist in Holland due to acid soils it may be more likely that the problem is resolved by finding P312 in pre beaker CW elsewhere between the Rhine and Poland

vasil
02-18-2022, 01:34 PM
was it a czech L151 CW sample c.2750BC ? I’m a bit hazy on it.

Yeah I think it was from Bohemia but I am bit hazy on the dating too, I just remember it was Early CW before the R1a stuff. If we are talking about the age of that branch then we are definately somewhere north of 2800bc probably 2900s but even 3000s is not impossible. If we are talking specificaly about P312 then given the paralel nature of that branch and how BB Bohemia was already L2 then something like 2700s even 2800s is what I would bet on.

alan
02-18-2022, 02:10 PM
Yeah I think it was from Bohemia but I am bit hazy on the dating too, I just remember it was Early CW before the R1a stuff. If we are talking about the age of that branch then we are definately somewhere north of 2800bc probably 2900s but even 3000s is not impossible. If we are talking specificaly about P312 then given the paralel nature of that branch and how BB Bohemia was already L2 then something like 2700s even 2800s is what I would bet on.
I think it’s not so much that there is pan European early v late CW yDNA. I think it looks like even early on there were parallel streams of R1a dominated in some areas and R1b dominated in others. There was then a big R1a thrust around or just before 2700BC that might have erased earlier more diverse CW patterning in its path but this thrust may aldo have left some other CW groups unaffected. I also think we can’t rule out R1b CW groups having expansions after the big R1a thrust but before bell beaker as that seems to have happened in south Poland c.2550BC where suddenly an L51xL11 line gets dominant.

I think the picture is likely complex with no common pattern if you had a good enough sample to look at CW c.2900-2500BC century by century on a region by region basis. The sample is not big enough to do that anywhere as yet. Most areas have far too small a sample to do that and in some areas there are zero (or v close to that) published CW samples

vasil
02-18-2022, 02:23 PM
I think it’s not so much that there is pan European early v late CW yDNA. I think it looks like even early on there were parallel streams of R1a dominated in some areas and R1b dominated in others. There was then a big R1a thrust around or just before 2700BC that might have erased earlier more diverse CW patterning in its path but this thrust may aldo have left some other CW groups unaffected. I also think we can’t rule out R1b CW groups having expansions after the big R1a thrust but before bell beaker as that seems to have happened in south Poland c.2550BC where suddenly an L51xL11 line gets dominant.

I think the picture is likely complex with no common pattern if you had a good enough sample to look at CW c.2900-2500BC century by century on a region by region basis. The sample is not big enough to do that anywhere as yet. Most areas have far too small a sample to do that and in some areas there are zero (or v close to that) published CW samples

Yeah some CW groups even in the early period like Battle Axe are R1a based after all they didnt have genetics back then to know who is R1a or R1b and local groups are bound to be dominated by specific branches due to tribalism. What I meant was that it was from the period before the replacement in that area happened with an R1a dominated group coming in from somewhere else.

vasil
02-18-2022, 04:28 PM
at present the idea that P312 (or itís immediate L151 ancestor) arrived on the Lower Rhine with single grave CW c. 2800BC and stayed there till P312 bell beaker was created by them and expanded seems to be the leading theory.

However Heyd in his 2021 paper has alternative ideas that struck me too years ago. He sees the mid to upper rhine as the origin of bell beakers (Alsace etc)

https://www.academia.edu/67425075/_2021_V_Heyd_Yamnaya_Corded_Wares_and_Bell_Beakers _on_the_Move

and points to the strangely similar (and also L51) later CW group in southern Poland that is contemporary with or maybe a a couple of generations earlier than early beaker and displays many of its characteristics (typical beaker gender placemdcte orientations, archery sets, a lot of copper smith graves etc. Though puzzlingly that group also seems linked to the Catacomb phenomenon on the western steppes. I think he is hinting at some later thrust through central Europe to the mid/upper rhine area in the 26th century BC. Or maybe a bidirectional movement from east central Europe. Itís facinating but baffling



https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/bps-2018-0006

Heydís paper makes me want to have a hard think about whether itís possible P312 bell beaker actually might not have emerged from single grave on the lower Rhine but could have been a later east to west expansion maybe 2550BC from Poland and possibly liked to NW Ukraine in some way. Both areas had a late GAC influx so I donít see any major reason why the beaker autosomal signal couldnít have developed there. There was clearly some sort of reservoir of L51 somewhere on the treck between the Polish/adjacent north Carpathians and Ukraine. Itís v odd that beaker-like/prefiguring traits and L51xL151 seem to appear around 2500BC (or perhaps 50 years or so earlier) then suddenly P312 bell beaker appears with many similar traits and a different branch of L151.

The problem is the dates are so similar itís hard to be 100% sure of directionality. Then there is the similar problem that P312 bell beaker is basically nowhere then suddenly everywhere around 2450BC. Anothet possible explanation might be that the combo of P312 and beaker traits arose somewhere in between and spread in both directions but I know of no clear archaeological or ancient dna evidence for this. Perhaps we shouldnít be too skeptics that a 2nd wave could have spread from eastern europe to the Rhine in under a century as after all that is not much different to what happened with early CW in 2900-2800BC.

The problem is P312 beaker just spread so fast itís impossible to pinpoint itís origin point. The only places I would rule out are nordic europe (dates are a bit younger in Denmark etc) and SW Europe (totally wrong autosomals). Bell beaker itself in poland is a little younger too but beaker-like traits in CW are as old and probably older than beaker elsewhere in Europe. So I donít think bell beaker itself evolved in Poland but a neighbour to the west might have been partly created by influences from south Polish CW or been another seperate branch of the same late eastern CW origin.

I can also see the argument that somehow bell beaker emerged soon after 2500BC from late single ware in Holland but it isnít particularly compelling as it doesnít explain the strange multiple parallels between bell beaker culture and the south Polish CW group around the same time or shortly before. Culturally and geographically it would seem more logical for P312 to have arisen somewhere like the mid to upper Elbe near the Polish -German border/Moravia c.2550BC and to have moved west along the upper danube to the upper Rhine then a multi direction burst c. 2450BC up the Rhine, down the Rhone, through the Alps etc etc

Here is a German article about regional Corded Ware variants, Google Translate works pretty well. There is some pretty interesting stuff in there about the Upper Rhine/Southern Germany region.
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt.pdf

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 05:29 AM
Every time I go over the dates there are too many variables. First of all the 14C dating isn't precise enough for the upper and lower limit to be within a single century. There are too many specimens that have to low coverage to have a call for P312. The coverage is also too low of ancient specimens to determine if there were private variants in order to determine how far downstream from known SNPs they were which would at least help calculate how many generations they were removed from the known SNPs which we could use with the 14C dating to get calculated date of the known SNPs. Regardless, I am going to guess R-P312's most recent common ancestor lived between 12-15 generations before 2500 BC. So about between 2900 BC and 3000 BC but that is based on the dates of I4144 and I5748. If they were more than 3 generations removed from the first U152 and Z302 then those generations would push back my guess to 3100 BC or 3200 BC. When the scientists have stated they have tested all of the ancient specimens between 3500 BC and 2500 BC and that there will not be additional testing of previously tested specimens hopefully we have a better idea.

alan
02-20-2022, 05:17 PM
Every time I go over the dates there are too many variables. First of all the 14C dating isn't precise enough for the upper and lower limit to be within a single century. There are too many specimens that have to low coverage to have a call for P312. The coverage is also too low of ancient specimens to determine if there were private variants in order to determine how far downstream from known SNPs they were which would at least help calculate how many generations they were removed from the known SNPs which we could use with the 14C dating to get calculated date of the known SNPs. Regardless, I am going to guess R-P312's most recent common ancestor lived between 12-15 generations before 2500 BC. So about between 2900 BC and 3000 BC but that is based on the dates of I4144 and I5748. If they were more than 3 generations removed from the first U152 and Z302 then those generations would push back my guess to 3100 BC or 3200 BC. When the scientists have stated they have tested all of the ancient specimens between 3500 BC and 2500 BC and that there will not be additional testing of previously tested specimens hopefully we have a better idea.

I think a date around 2900-2800BC would make sense for P312. It’s obvious that it’s early history c.2900/2800BC-around 2500BC was largely spent in an a v poorly sampled section of the CW world. That P312 was in fact growing rather well in those centuries is shown by the significant degree of surviving early branches that commenced in those 3-400 years prior to 2500BC. It looks like a relatively flourishing lineage in pre beaker times.

It looks to me (by the way its main three branches all became visible under the same bell beaker cultural guise within a generation or two of 2500BC, despite no common ancestor for 300+ years) that the descendants of Mr P312 largely stayed in a single zone in close contact from 2800/2900BC-2500BC. So there must be an unsampled/v poorly sampled area of the CW world where the P312 tribe grew for 3-4 centuries prior to the beaker explosion c. 2500BC that suddenly took it everywhere. Bayesian analysis of RC dating shows it suddenly appeared through Germany, France, Iberia, Czech, Alps, British Isies etc c. 2450BC. That could only happen if a quite large fairly compact P312 pop/tribe/clan or group of related tribes/large clans numbering at least several 1000 suddenly for some reason underwent a major diaspora in all directions simultaneously.

It’s noticeable that nobody really asks why a group who had stayed compact and growing in one area for maybe 3-400 years would suddenly in perhaps a single generation (far too quick to explain as a demographic wave of advance like the neolthic farmers) appear everywhere. It sounds almost like an ‘event’ or short dramatic phase that caused this. Such events are known in later history where sudden events cause a rapid expansion/diaspora - including internal population pressure, being pushed by enemies, sudden climatic changes, floods, droughts etc.

I personally haven’t been able to find any climatic explanation for the sudden diaspora c.2500-2450BC of a previously clearly compact and growing P312 population. The big negative climatic event of this era was at the end not the start of the P312 beaker era - the v arid 4.2 kiloyear event. Only thing I can think off is the period before that might have had raised water tables and flooding which could have been important if the pre beaker CW P312 population had lived in riverine or lake areas. Interestingly a lot of the Swiss lakes CW sites were abandoned in the beaker era due to rising water table.

sheepslayer
02-20-2022, 06:31 PM
https://imgur.com/a/DuNtaVe how we feeling about this? 2900s BC P312, cutting off at 2200 BC

My memory isn't the best, are there DF88+ remains older than the 2200s BC? Also pictured: 2700s BC Z39589 DF27 and U152, 2600s BC DF49

Dewsloth
02-20-2022, 07:02 PM
https://imgur.com/a/DuNtaVe how we feeling about this? 2900s BC P312, cutting off at 2200 BC

My memory isn't the best, are there DF88+ remains older than the 2200s BC? Also pictured: 2700s BC Z39589 DF27 and U152, 2600s BC DF49

As mentioned above, the wide spreads on the carbon dates are not incredibly helpful. These are the three oldest known DF19s:


ID Date Burial YDNA Culture
I5748 2579-2211 calBCE Oostwoud, Noord-Holland P312>DF19>Z302* Aceramic Single Grave/Beaker
I13028 2456-2141 calBCE Ottoland-Kromme, Zuid-Holland P312>DF19>DF88* Barbed Wire Beaker
I26830 1620-1311 calBCE Wervershoof-Zwaagdijk, Noord-Holland P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281 Netherlands_MBA/Tumulus/SŲgel-Wohlde

DF19 has three known immediate subclades: DF88, Z302 and Z39380.
The third one so far shows up mainly in one family with the surname "Coker" which historically starts from Cotentin(Normandy)>Britain, and all in that subclade share another ~40 SNPs, and so could have appeared on the Atlantic coast at any time in a 3000 year span. :confused::noidea:

Dewsloth
02-20-2022, 07:18 PM
Wasn't there some random ancient P312>L238 sample that showed up in something closer to Switzerland/Upper Rhine?

Second Edit: Maybe I was thinking about RISE926 from Olalde - is he potentially L238?

He's also known as I5661
https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/246907/EB2BFD9F-FB54-4234-99D2-F26C88342D3A.pdf

He's an outlier in that Bavarian cemetery:
Irlbach (County of Straubing-Bogen, Bavaria, Germany)
1109 Contact person: Volker Heyd
1110 The site is a cemetery of 24 graves, excavated in 1987-89 in a rescue excavation by the
1111 county archaeologist of Straubing-Bogen

Ÿ I5661/RISE926, grave 16: 2500–2000 BCE. Left-sided crouched burial;
anthropologically adult man.
Chronologically, all graves belong to the later, so-called Begleitkeramik (accompanying
pottery) -phases A2b, B1 and B2 of the southern German Bell Beaker chronology94,
with graves nos. 5 and 10 of the central group likely being the founding graves (phase
A2b). There is however not a single decorated Bell Beaker in this cemetery. The four
graves of the eastern grave group are the latest interred, also representing the latest Bell
Beaker stage (phase B2) in Bavaria. Two of them, numbers 6 and 11, and grave 16 of
the western group, are isotopically determined as outliers93.

From:
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno

5645 I5661_published I5661 RISE926 tooth 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Allentoft, Morten Context: Archaeological period 4200 144 2500-2000 BCE Germany_BellBeaker_published Irlbach LKR Germany 48.841 12.75 1240K 1 0.08 90529 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) R1b1a1b1a1a2d1 81.5 K1b1b1 .. .. [0.973,0.983] 0.102 .. .. .. .. .. -0.043 0.048 Model_Misspecified [0,0.051] ds.half S5661.E1.L1 PASS (literature)

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 08:07 PM
I think a date around 2900-2800BC would make sense for P312. It’s obvious that it’s early history c.2900/2800BC-around 2500BC was largely spent in an a v poorly sampled section of the CW world. That P312 was in fact growing rather well in those centuries is shown by the significant degree of surviving early branches that commenced in those 3-400 years prior to 2500BC. It looks like a relatively flourishing lineage in pre beaker times.

It looks to me (by the way its main three branches all became visible under the same bell beaker cultural guise within a generation or two of 2500BC, despite no common ancestor for 300+ years) that the descendants of Mr P312 largely stayed in a single zone in close contact from 2800/2900BC-2500BC. So there must be an unsampled/v poorly sampled area of the CW world where the P312 tribe grew for 3-4 centuries prior to the beaker explosion c. 2500BC that suddenly took it everywhere. Bayesian analysis of RC dating shows it suddenly appeared through Germany, France, Iberia, Czech, Alps, British Isies etc c. 2450BC. That could only happen if a quite large fairly compact P312 pop/tribe/clan or group of related tribes/large clans numbering at least several 1000 suddenly for some reason underwent a major diaspora in all directions simultaneously.

It’s noticeable that nobody really asks why a group who had stayed compact and growing in one area for maybe 3-400 years would suddenly in perhaps a single generation (far too quick to explain as a demographic wave of advance like the neolthic farmers) appear everywhere. It sounds almost like an ‘event’ or short dramatic phase that caused this. Such events are known in later history where sudden events cause a rapid expansion/diaspora - including internal population pressure, being pushed by enemies, sudden climatic changes, floods, droughts etc.

I personally haven’t been able to find any climatic explanation for the sudden diaspora c.2500-2450BC of a previously clearly compact and growing P312 population. The big negative climatic event of this era was at the end not the start of the P312 beaker era - the v arid 4.2 kiloyear event. Only thing I can think off is the period before that might have had raised water tables and flooding which could have been important if the pre beaker CW P312 population had lived in riverine or lake areas. Interestingly a lot of the Swiss lakes CW sites were abandoned in the beaker era due to rising water table.

Those are good points. The good thing is my guess has c.2900 BC as part of the range. I can't argue against 2900-2800BC because of the unknown variables.

I was just guessing because there are so many variables, some that I didn't even mention, that it's really hard to tell what happened in which century. Here are some things I would like to learn about. Is there a belief that most people c. 3000-2700 BC that could be L151 were buried? Or was it just some of them? What is the evidence of one or the other? I'm guessing just those questions could start a whole new thread. I think I saw something recently where it was mentioned that they could have come from a group of people that did not bury their dead. I can't remember where I read it or who was said or who was quoted. Is it possible that the common P312 was not born into CW but for some reason into another culture that had Steppe autosomal DNA.

Another unknown variable is, How many wives,or concubines, and children did the L151 people have? The more children and grandchildren and so on means that more mutations show up sooner meaning. Since we don't know that we don't know which mutation rate to use. We also don't know what average time span between generations to use for them. Average for most families is 32.5 in a male paternal line but can be much less in some families in a 200-400 year time span. Was the infant mortality rate low?

It's because of those unknown variables, that I hadn't mentioned previously, and the wide range for 14C dating and too few remains positive for P312 c.2450 BC that I chose about 100 years for every 3 generations which in turn is about 1 Y-DNA SNP mutation. Even at 83 years per mutation, if there are 32.5 years per generation, is only 2 mutations in a 200 year span. Additionally I figured that there are data points missing so I should round up and not try to be exact.

I concur one scenario wouldn't make sense where there was a small group of people that descended from the first P312 that based in one location and different sons and grandsons gradually radiated out with small groups. It doesn't seem like a recipe for those people to have had the impact that they did. So it does look like an explosion, as it has always looked that way, and before the explosion, it seems, is the group holed somewhere for a few centuries at least. This is where I wonder, How many remains from those possible locations are there left to test? Was it in the forest Steppe or not?

If there was a population explosion in a short time period that caused them a need to migrate then their village(s) should have remains that should be found. But are they yet to be discovered?

Nick Patterson has reported on some blogs, one being Eurogenes, that he is "working hard on the 4th and 5th millennium Steppe and for the genetic origins of the Yamnaya a clear story is emerging, More (I hope) soon." That unfortunately might not help with finding the P312 ancestor common to the subclades that survived until now. I wonder if there is someone working on the P312 answers we are looking for just like Nick is for Yamnaya.

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 08:17 PM
Second Edit: Maybe I was thinking about RISE926 from Olalde - is he potentially L238?

He's also known as I5661
https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/246907/EB2BFD9F-FB54-4234-99D2-F26C88342D3A.pdf

He's an outlier in that Bavarian cemetery:
Irlbach (County of Straubing-Bogen, Bavaria, Germany)
1109 Contact person: Volker Heyd
1110 The site is a cemetery of 24 graves, excavated in 1987-89 in a rescue excavation by the
1111 county archaeologist of Straubing-Bogen

Ÿ I5661/RISE926, grave 16: 2500–2000 BCE. Left-sided crouched burial;
anthropologically adult man.
Chronologically, all graves belong to the later, so-called Begleitkeramik (accompanying
pottery) -phases A2b, B1 and B2 of the southern German Bell Beaker chronology94,
with graves nos. 5 and 10 of the central group likely being the founding graves (phase
A2b). There is however not a single decorated Bell Beaker in this cemetery. The four
graves of the eastern grave group are the latest interred, also representing the latest Bell
Beaker stage (phase B2) in Bavaria. Two of them, numbers 6 and 11, and grave 16 of
the western group, are isotopically determined as outliers93.

From:
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno

2500–2000 BCE. The frustration with the 14C is that wide range. Is there something that they could do to improve the results? I'm guessing there isn't. I know with Y-DNA for a higher resolution they can use shotgun sequencing, instead of the 1240K, but that is reported to be very expensive and I think it needs more material.

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 08:20 PM
https://imgur.com/a/DuNtaVe how we feeling about this? 2900s BC P312

c 2950 BC is basically what I guessed at, between 2900 BC and 3000 BC. It would be nice to find out how close I am to reality with more precise data points than we have now. I could be off by several centuries though.

Dewsloth
02-20-2022, 09:00 PM
5645 I5661_published I5661 RISE926 tooth 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Allentoft, Morten Context: Archaeological period 4200 144 2500-2000 BCE Germany_BellBeaker_published Irlbach LKR Germany 48.841 12.75 1240K 1 0.08 90529 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) R1b1a1b1a1a2d1

This is P312>L238>Z2245 according to Yfull formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp so is dated right around the formation of the subclade as an upper limit, and is a theoretical generational equivalent to P312>DF19>Z302 and P312>DF19>DF88. Not sure how many steps along after P312 the ancient U152 sample went.
This of course is assuming the samples didn't originally have more data that time has erased.

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 09:03 PM
Two people voted for "Before 3500 BC" I think that is way off even with so many variables. If a man has two sons survive to manhood and each son has two sons and so on in just 15 generations that is 32,768 males and by then there should easily be multiple subclades. That shows that even I guessed high since there were probably more sons for a lot of the generations. Even if the 14C date for I4144/RISE563, I5021 is really 2572 BC and he is 300 years removed from the first U152 I don't see the common P312 ancestor as more than 628 years from the first U152. It's possible but I think it is extremely unlikely. At 83 years per mutation that is 7.56 mutations. It's 4 mutation events to get to U152 from P312. Although at 144.4 years per mutation it's 4 they aren't normal SNP mutations and YFull doesn't use those kind of mutations and it's still unlikely that I4144/RISE563, I5021 is 300 years removed from the first U152 and that the 14C date is the upper date.

sheepslayer
02-20-2022, 09:06 PM
I13028 2456-2141 calBCE Ottoland-Kromme, Zuid-Holland P312>DF19>DF88* Barbed Wire Beaker

Thanks for the list! Unless I13028 is the first Monsieur DF88, it looks like my program's age estimate for the DF88 block is a little too young. I'll see what needs to change in order for it to shift into the 26-2400s BC

sheepslayer
02-20-2022, 09:07 PM
Two people voted for "Before 3500 BC" I think that is way off even with so many variables.

A good few people did this on my L151 poll too, and while "Before 3200 BC" is more likely for L151, I think they're just trolling

Dewsloth
02-20-2022, 09:15 PM
Thanks for the list! Unless I13028 is the first Monsieur DF88, it looks like my program's age estimate for the DF88 block is a little too young. I'll see what needs to change in order for it to shift into the 26-2400s BC

Yfull has DF19, DF88 and Z302 (and the Coker clan they call Z39400) all with the same "formation" date estimate of 4500ybp :confused: :)

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 09:59 PM
This is P312>L238>Z2245 according to Yfull formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp so is dated right around the formation of the subclade as an upper limit, and is a theoretical generational equivalent to P312>DF19>Z302 and P312>DF19>DF88. Not sure how many steps along after P312 the ancient U152 sample went.
This of course is assuming the samples didn't originally have more data that time has erased.

The problem is that the true date for I5661 RISE926 could be closer to the lower bound date of 2000 BC. Other problems are that it doesn't have extremely good coverage and they used 1240k capture so only the positions included in that test are used. So it is hard to tell how far removed from the first Z2245 that I5661 RISE926 lived based on mutations. If the 14C dating didn't have such a large range and the coverage were higher and shotgun sequencing were used then the specimen would be great because there are 7 SNPs in the L238 block and Z2245 is below those.

P312>DF19>Z302 and P312>DF19>DF88 are at least 4 SNPs below P312 and the 14C dates for those are decent and the coverage is decent. What are the results for the phylogenetic equivalents of Z302 and DF88? Are all of the phylogenetic equivalents of Z302 and DF88 included in the 1240k capture? I haven't had time to look for that info. They are data points that could possibly clear some things up. Regardless using the mean of I5748 and a mutation rate of 83 years then his P312 ancestor was born before 2727 BC and most likely at least 100 years prior since it is unlikely we have the first direct descendant positive for Z302. So that puts his P312 ancestor around 2827 BC and since we are trying to figure out the most recent common ancestor for all P312 subclades then the date is probably a few generations back to at least 2900 BC for R-P312's most recent common ancestor. I'm feeling better already about my guess of about between 2900 BC and 3000 BC. Pylsteen also has ~2947 BC for P312 and sheepslayer has c 2950 BC in an image and alan has a date around 2900-2800BC. So the four of us think it's within a 200 year time frame. We need some more data points to agree upon a single century.

The ancient U152 sample, I4144/RISE563, I5021, has no-calls for L2 and other SNPs directly or even several steps below U152. They used 1240k capture so no chance of finding anything not included in that test and his coverage is low.

alan
02-20-2022, 10:00 PM
Those are good points. The good thing is my guess has c.2900 BC as part of the range. I can't argue against 2900-2800BC because of the unknown variables.

I was just guessing because there are so many variables, some that I didn't even mention, that it's really hard to tell what happened in which century. Here are some things I would like to learn about. Is there a belief that most people c. 3000-2700 BC that could be L151 were buried? Or was it just some of them? What is the evidence of one or the other? I'm guessing just those questions could start a whole new thread. I think I saw something recently where it was mentioned that they could have come from a group of people that did not bury their dead. I can't remember where I read it or who was said or who was quoted. Is it possible that the common P312 was not born into CW but for some reason into another culture that had Steppe autosomal DNA.

Another unknown variable is, How many wives,or concubines, and children did the L151 people have? The more children and grandchildren and so on means that more mutations show up sooner meaning. Since we don't know that we don't know which mutation rate to use. We also don't know what average time span between generations to use for them. Average for most families is 32.5 in a male paternal line but can be much less in some families in a 200-400 year time span. Was the infant mortality rate low?

It's because of those unknown variables, that I hadn't mentioned previously, and the wide range for 14C dating and too few remains positive for P312 c.2450 BC that I chose about 100 years for every 3 generations which in turn is about 1 Y-DNA SNP mutation. Even at 83 years per mutation, if there are 32.5 years per generation, is only 2 mutations in a 200 year span. Additionally I figured that there are data points missing so I should round up and not try to be exact.

I concur one scenario wouldn't make sense where there was a small group of people that descended from the first P312 that based in one location and different sons and grandsons gradually radiated out with small groups. It doesn't seem like a recipe for those people to have had the impact that they did. So it does look like an explosion, as it has always looked that way, and before the explosion, it seems, is the group holed somewhere for a few centuries at least. This is where I wonder, How many remains from those possible locations are there left to test? Was it in the forest Steppe or not?

If there was a population explosion in a short time period that caused them a need to migrate then their village(s) should have remains that should be found. But are they yet to be discovered?

Nick Patterson has reported on some blogs, one being Eurogenes, that he is "working hard on the 4th and 5th millennium Steppe and for the genetic origins of the Yamnaya a clear story is emerging, More (I hope) soon." That unfortunately might not help with finding the P312 ancestor common to the subclades that survived until now. I wonder if there is someone working on the P312 answers we are looking for just like Nick is for Yamnaya.

There is such a small amount of ancient DNA sample processed to date to cover such a vast area and large time period 3000-2500BC that we only have a very patchy and very chronologically coarse grain understanding of CW. We are probably missing the bulk of the story. There are plenty of skeletons preserved that could be tested in many areas though there are exceptions - areas of acid soils like Holland and perhaps Denmark and other areas where classic CW single burials are rare

I think reading Heydís paper from last year and seeing him raise much the same archaeological arguments as I had thought about myself in the past has made me think that I may have jumped on the Lower Rhine bandwagon against my instincts. Heyd is right that bell beaker burial has a great deal in common with a south Polish later CW variant that appeared there before bell beater itself did and this period also saw renewed links with the western steppes there and the appearance of L51xL151. Itís just too many coincidences IMO and makes me wonder if P312 could have actually spent much of 2900-2500BC much further east than the Rhine and closer to where the beaker like south Polish later CW burials are located. These south Polish later CW groups were high steppe suggestive of recent geneflow and archaeologically there were links to the Catacomb phenomena and to the Middle Dnieper culture, But there still is the question of directionality in all these links and even CW culture was basically absent in that part of Poland prior to this late group so where did they come from ?

ArmandoR1b
02-20-2022, 10:08 PM
A good few people did this on my L151 poll too, and while "Before 3200 BC" is more likely for L151, I think they're just trolling

They did it again. Oh well. I'll ignore it from here on out.

Dewsloth
02-20-2022, 10:14 PM
Here is a German article about regional Corded Ware variants, Google Translate works pretty well. There is some pretty interesting stuff in there about the Upper Rhine/Southern Germany region.
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt.pdf

Oh boy, I need to go over this and the Netherlands paper together. The CW paper above talks about aceramic graves with flint blades and ring ditches -- this is the manner of burial of I5748 in Oostwoud. Thank you!

Mittelelbe-Saale and Jutland:

In view of this data, the question arises as to whether
The "Kalbsrieth horizon" postulated by Fischer (1956) in the Middle Elbe-Saale region was brought back into the discussion
should be. It's a W-O group
aligned male graves, mostly extreme right stool,
which were laid down without ceramic additions or without any additions. Fischer therefore saw them as the earliest stage of
Corded Ware, because in most cases it is a matter of primary burials in such mounds in which
find Corded Ware secondary burials with ceramic offerings. Furthermore, the sole addition of a flint blade represents a parallel to the early EGK [Single Grave culture] in Jutland, a
likewise possibly the double occurrence of a circular ditch, which is otherwise unknown in the MES.
Research has largely rejected the assumption of such a horizon, on the one hand because it is a
not very large number of graves, six "classic"
Graves showing all the features specified by Fischer, plus nine "Kalbsrieth-like" burials. The fixation of research on the formation of typologically uniform
groups meant that the database of the Kalbsrieth group was considered too small and not consistent enough
(Kluttig 1994, 316).
Furthermore, the lack of pottery made the desired one more difficult
Assignment of these graves to a predefined archaeological culture, which is why the connection to the Corded Ware ware was questioned.

Oostwoud:

The oldest burial (575
also known as ‘Jan van Oostwoud’) was buried in a wooden
chamber without grave gifts other than two small flint blades
and without a burial mound. After that the burial site was
converted into arable land. At least two layers of arable land
are present over this Bell Beaker period grave. The plough
lands contain many small Bell Beaker and Barbed Wire
Beaker potsherds.
***
From the combined evidence it has become clear that the
oldest burial in the area was burial 575, excavated by De
Weerd in 1963 (fig. 34, 35). The individual was interred in a
chamber-like structure, lying on its left side with the head
facing southeast.
A narrow ring ditch with a diameter of about 8 m
surrounded the grave (cf. fig. 21; fig. 34). Lanting notes that
it had a laminated fill and therefore has remained open for a
while (field diary Lanting 28th of June 1978). This happened
between 2556 and 2204 cal Bc (Table 1; fig. 36). What
happened to the soil that came out of the ditch is not clear,
but there is evidence that it cannot have formed a low mound
of any kind (cf. below). A round pit was possibly dug near
the grave, in which several times fires burnt, somewhere
between 2341 and 2149 cal Bc.

sheepslayer
02-21-2022, 01:46 AM
sheepslayer has c 2950 BC in an image

I just want to clarify that my 2950 BC estimate for P312 is just a "what-if" scenario based on the suggestion that P312 might have coalesced in the 2900s BC. It's not really based on any data I have, I just wanted to estimate what the ages for other branches would be in a scenario where P312's MRCA lived in the "middle" of that century. :) I'll probably also try 3050 or the "3000s BC" later, in an attempt to pull back DF88's age

bgd73
02-22-2022, 03:08 AM
this whole thread is fascinating.

the focus on north of the alps route has a few problems.
counting one grave is not a good idea.

I am of p312, and >80% greek in ancient graves.
my entire path to 1100+ years of south irish is south of the alps.


at mytrueancestry I am learning a lot
my closest modern population is spanish at a huge genetic distance of 8.3
it jumps into the 9s after that...and finally past ten.

my irish is invisible.
a top match of 96% at the boscombe bowmen
ballynahatty and raithlin 1 is my #3 and 4 match at GED match archaic section.. the top is hungary (aligns with the r1b steppes theory)

Anyway, my Y dna test threw me at L238, and deleted my entire family. The test went immediately wrong after y12.
I then knew i should not have gone there by myself.

I wish I could donate more to this history digging by getting my paternal living relatives into the y database.. but I ended up deleted before we could fix it,

A lesson from me...
wait for more participants.

my last name is donovan BTW.
I am well aware of being written as a primate of the isles...but I am just another r1b- m269 , matching 7500 year old hungary graves.