PDA

View Full Version : Amesbury Archer DNA Test Results in the Near Future?



rms2
01-07-2015, 08:27 PM
Check this (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5) out from Wessex Archaeology's Dr. Andrew Fitzpatrick:



[T]he new earrings are the same style as the Archer’s. Only half a dozen finds of these earrings have ever been made before. Yet here, side by side, are the graves of two men with these symbols of power. We will be looking to DNA analyses to say if these two men [the Archer and another Beaker man buried nearby] were linked genetically.


Oh, man! I hope they don't just stop at mtDNA. I hope they go for as much of these two genomes as they can get, especially including y-dna.

rms2
01-07-2015, 08:45 PM
Check this (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5) out from Wessex Archaeology's Dr. Andrew Fitzpatrick:

. . .

Oh, man! I hope they don't just stop at mtDNA. I hope they go for as much of these two genomes as they can get, especially including y-dna.

Come to think of it, since they suspect the younger man buried near the Archer is his son, won't they be going for y-dna to confirm that connection? Autosomal would do that, too, but I hope they are going for y-dna. (Honestly, I hope they get some high coverage results all the way 'round.)

R.Rocca
01-07-2015, 09:19 PM
I guess that the Hinxton Iron Age samples both being L21+ has sort of driven up the odds of the Archer being L21 as well, but it will be nice to see if that is the case.

rms2
01-07-2015, 09:52 PM
I guess that the Hinxton Iron Age samples both being L21+ has sort of driven up the odds of the Archer being L21 as well, but it will be nice to see if that is the case.

I hope both the men are L21+, honestly, but there's no telling until the results come in (if they ever do).

I sent Dr. Fitzpatrick an email a few minutes ago asking for some details, like when we can expect the results and whether or not they are trying for y-dna.

Krefter
01-07-2015, 10:59 PM
Because the Amsbery archer grew up in central Europe around 4,300 years ago, he'll probably be similar to the Bell beaker genomes from Germany of about the same age Reich will be posting online with a paper within the next month(or so he claims). Because the BB genomes Reich has are most similar to modern central-north Euros, and are mostly Yamna, he probably will be to.

My best guess is that he had R1b, specifically P312 and L21, and maybe even spoke an Indo European language.

"At first they thought this was as a result of an invasion, but more recently the attribute this to trade and cultural links."

I don't know if there was any sort of central European Bell beaker invasion of Britain, but modern Brits are very similar to Bell beaker from Germany, not Neolithic west Europeans. It seems Archaeologist usually go for spread of ideas not genes, and have been shown to be wrong with the spread of farming and Indo European languages into Europe.

MitchellSince1893
01-07-2015, 11:39 PM
Because of his central European origin I'm thinking he will be U152...assuming U152 arrived in Britain that early.

MJost
01-08-2015, 01:26 AM
What about being a DF27'er lineage?

MJost

rms2
01-08-2015, 01:59 AM
He could be anything, but I think circa 2300 BC (the estimate for the Archer) is too early for either U152 or DF27 in Britain. I could be wrong though, obviously. I think the odds are on L21, but then I am biased.

I think DF27 and U152 were both represented in Beaker, but maybe not in Britain that early.

alan
01-08-2015, 02:04 AM
Because the Amsbery archer grew up in central Europe around 4,300 years ago, he'll probably be similar to the Bell beaker genomes from Germany of about the same age Reich will be posting online with a paper within the next month(or so he claims). Because the BB genomes Reich has are most similar to modern central-north Euros, and are mostly Yamna, he probably will be to.

My best guess is that he had R1b, specifically P312 and L21, and maybe even spoke an Indo European language.

"At first they thought this was as a result of an invasion, but more recently the attribute this to trade and cultural links."

I don't know if there was any sort of central European Bell beaker invasion of Britain, but modern Brits are very similar to Bell beaker from Germany, not Neolithic west Europeans. It seems Archaeologist usually go for spread of ideas not genes, and have been shown to be wrong with the spread of farming and Indo European languages into Europe.

To be honest most archaeologists still considered beaker as a clear intrusion into Britain-far more clearcut than in later prehistoric periods. The problem is a few universities are exceptionally funded and dominate but that doent mean they have the best ideas. A lot of academics look for new angles to make a name for themselves too and anti-migration was one of those trends. Once established by a clique of academics all naysayers were sort of treated like Dinosaurs. For one period I am best versed in I know for a fact that a fairly absurd theory became mainstream on that basis even though every single shred of positive evidence was against it. Its the way it goes and its getting worse as since the 90s academics are under much more pressure to come out with a stream of published papers regardless of whether they have the muse.

I knew the co-author of the standard book on British prehistory used in many universities in the 80s and mid 90s, who was an expert in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, and he always thought the idea that beaker wasnt a migration was utter nonsense and believed it was the most clearcut migration in the archaeological record between the Neolithic and the Romans. I agreed with him then and still think so. The only question in my mind then and now is the matter of scale.

alan
01-08-2015, 02:16 AM
He could be anything, but I think circa 2300 BC (the estimate for the Archer) is too early for either U152 or DF27 in Britain. I could be wrong though, obviously. I think the odds are on L21, but then I am biased.

I think DF27 and U152 were both represented in Beaker, but maybe not in Britain that early.

I would bet my shirt on him being P312 of some sort but yeah I agree its hard to say beyond that. Still too much disagreement about the age of L21, DF13 etc to have any confidence. The odds are that he is L21 or P312* though as he is a first-in sort of phase and first-in advantage is usually how the dominance of L21 in the isles is explained. That of course is not certain. It could be that DF13 took of in the later beaker period or early Bronze Age when there was a lot of interaction around the isles and the channel area. Anything is possible and we definitely cannot see modern distribution as a frozen picture of 4500 years ago. I still tend to think that L21 has to have been much more common at one time across all of northern coastal France and the Lower Rhine (the simplest crossing to the isles) or its hard to explain how L21 came to be so very dominant in the isles.

Krefter
01-08-2015, 02:24 AM
What's the age estimate for L21, and Isles-specific clades? Does it look like L21 has been there for a long time? What's the age estimate for the most popular L21 clades in the Isles? Besides maybe Bell Beaker what archaeological evidence is there of a people movement into Briton that could be early Celts?

alan
01-08-2015, 02:33 AM
The old head measurers seem to have got a lot more right than people credited them for for a long time. So its interesting that skulls of the Iron Age Britons, sometimes called Celtic-Nordic, were also called something like Dinaricised Atlanto-Meds by some of them. That is pretty well exactly what you would expect if a northern beaker population mixed with a Neolithic farming one. I suppose autosomal DNA also agrees that the British and Irish are a mix of ENF, WHG and ANE so its certainly not contradicting the idea.

I still also think ANE is probably a good signal to track the IEs/beaker people arriving in the west. No doubt they were also, probably predominantly. a WHG. ENF mix themselves but they seem to have had ANE and ANE has, through its absence in the west until the copper age, the value of being like a tracking device for post-Neolithic movement to the west from eastern and northern Europe. To my mind ANE was surely linked to R1a and b and appears to be strong in many areas where those yhaplogroups are big. Its not a perfect fit by any means but there are so many possible explanation for why it isnt a perfect fit. Certainly R1a alone cannot explain high ANE among the Celtic fringers today. Only R1b seems possible in those areas as a y line that could be linked to the post-Neolithic appearance of ANE.

alan
01-08-2015, 02:51 AM
Just had a thought -maybe a eureka moment. You know how ANE is pretty variable and can be high or relatively low in different areas that are high in P312? This could tell us something about the paths and story of the various P312 clades.

L21 is associated predominantly in areas where ANE and WHG is high.

U152 is concentrated in areas where ANE and WHG is perhaps middling.

DF27 seems to lie in an area where ANE and WHG is not as high.

And yet all have a close common ancestor in P312

None of these areas are likely to have seen ANE until the end of the Neolithic. This is surely telling us something. What strikes me is L21 dominates in areas that have the highest ANE and WHG of the P312 dominated areas. In some ways L21 dominated areas i.e the Celtic fringe of the isles has an autosomal component ratio that is actually more akin to areas where P312 is not anywhere near as dominant i.e. the north European plain. Is this suggestive that L21 has something in its history that has caused it to be more akin to areas where P312 is not so dominant than it is to much of the P312 world. While we could argue that we can explain the similar proportion of WHG and ENF away as just an ancient pan-northern European thing dating back to the Mesolithic-Neolithic mixing, this does not explain away the raised ANE in L21 populations. This raised ANE seems overwhelmingly likely to be a post-Neolithic thing. So based on ANE, L21 rich populations are more like other non-P312 dominated northern European plain populations than they are like other high P312 areas. That then of course raised the question as to whether the similar WHG/ENF proportions across northern Europe are not at least party also post-Neolithic.

This IMO could be telling us something important. L21 would in this scenario appear to have spent a significant part of its time mixing with north European plain copper age populations that other P312 clades did not do to anything like the same degree. The obvious conclusion is that L21 or its immediate ancestor spent time overlapped with the corded ware culture, probably in the Lower Rhine area.

NB Please note that WHG and ANE is especially high in the isles in the Celtic fringe areas so later Germanic migration is an impossible explanation for why these areas have these raised counts. If that had been the case the Celtic fringe would have the least.

This to me kind of suggests that L21 had a history of mixing with north European plain populations that other P312 clades do not share to the same degree.

I need to have a think through a bit further

Chad Rohlfsen
01-08-2015, 02:51 AM
He could be L11 or L51. Around Mercia is a hotspot for L11. Maybe even U106. Isn't its highest diversity just south of where the archer is supposedly from? U106 would make a good candidate for the explosion out of the Netherlands, with Barbed wire Beaker as well.

alan
01-08-2015, 03:07 AM
What's the age estimate for L21, and Isles-specific clades? Does it look like L21 has been there for a long time? What's the age estimate for the most popular L21 clades in the Isles? Besides maybe Bell Beaker what archaeological evidence is there of a people movement into Briton that could be early Celts?

Very hard to give a short answer to that. What I do recall is the rare earlier L21 clades seem to be much more common on the continent when you consider that the hobby testing in the isles is vastly higher than any continental country. My feeling is that, as in the isles, L21 has a fringe position on the continent, was probably early dominant opposite Britain but has since been pushed west and diluted n the east hugely giving it a north-west fringe concentration in the isles and on the continent. There is a strong case I think that it was first in the lower Rhine and northern France when you consider its dominance in the isles and the strong beaker links in the isles with the Rhine and north France. Beaker dates in that area seem to commence in the 2500-2400 range fairly late by beaker standards as do those in the isles. The current continental distribution of L21 and other ylines across nothern France and the lower Rhine doesnt make a lot of sense when you consider the total dominance of L21 among the Britons and Irish. It surely has to have been the case that at one period L21 had totally sewn up the most commonly used approaches into the isles which in the beaker period would have been the Lower Rhine and northern France. It is not necessary for them to have been dominant widely - just that they dominated the coastal zone. If L21 didnt totally dominate the coastal zone how on earth did the Britons and Irish become so very L21 dominated? As I noted in a post above, a position close to the non-P312 dominated areas and mixing with different (north European) groups is the only way to explain why ANE is high among the Celtic fringe people of the isles today. This could not have come about if L21 had taken a westerly approach to the isles from Iberia for example. IMO the L21-ANE-autosomal correlations are strongly suggestive of a period of mixing with ANE harbouring north European populations and the Rhine mouth seems a very good candidate for this.

The only alternative way of explaining this is that somehow ANE got diluted heavier as P312 passed south and south-west from central Europe. However that is the reverse of the implication of the geographical chronology of beaker which moves in the opposite direction.

Krefter
01-08-2015, 03:19 AM
Just had a thought -maybe a eureka moment. You know how ANE is pretty variable and can be high or relatively low in different areas that are high in P312? This could tell us something about the paths and story of the various P312 clades.

L21 is associated predominantly in areas where ANE and WHG is high.

U152 is concentrated in areas where ANE and WHG is perhaps middling.

DF27 seems to lie in an area where ANE and WHG is not as high.

And yet all have a close common ancestor in P312

None of these areas are likely to have seen ANE until the end of the Neolithic. This is surely telling us something. What strikes me is L21 dominates in areas that have the highest ANE and WHG of the P312 dominated areas. In some ways L21 dominated areas i.e the Celtic fringe of the isles has an autosomal component ratio that is actually more akin to areas where P312 is not anywhere near as dominant i.e. the north European plain. Is this suggestive that L21 has something in its history that has caused it to be more akin to areas where P312 is not so dominant than it is to much of the P312 world. While we could argue that we can explain the similar proportion of WHG and ENF away as just an ancient pan-northern European thing dating back to the Mesolithic-Neolithic mixing, this does not explain away the raised ANE in L21 populations. This raised ANE seems overwhelmingly likely to be a post-Neolithic thing. So based on ANE, L21 rich populations are more like other non-P312 dominated northern European plain populations than they are like other high P312 areas. That then of course raised the question as to whether the similar WHG/ENF proportions across northern Europe are not at least party also post-Neolithic.

This IMO could be telling us something important. L21 would in this scenario appear to have spent a significant part of its time mixing with north European plain copper age populations that other P312 clades did not do to anything like the same degree. The obvious conclusion is that L21 or its immediate ancestor spent time overlapped with the corded ware culture, probably in the Lower Rhine area.

NB Please note that WHG and ANE is especially high in the isles in the Celtic fringe areas so later Germanic migration is an impossible explanation for why these areas have these raised counts. If that had been the case the Celtic fringe would have the least.

This to me kind of suggests that L21 had a history

I need to have a think through this but

There is no such thing as a P312 population. We can't put Irish and Spanish on the same scale, because there are many other elements in play besides P312. Spanish have much more Neolithic farmer ancestry, who were not the original P312 carriers, and so it's southern Europeans with alot of P312 who are most different from the original carriers, not Brits and Irish.

Irish fit in northern Europe(and with German Bell beakers, who had R1b), because they mostly descend from bronze age IEs of east-central Europe, like other north Europeans, not because of continuous admixture.

alan
01-08-2015, 04:53 AM
There is no such thing as a P312 population. We can't put Irish and Spanish on the same scale, because there are many other elements in play besides P312. Spanish have much more Neolithic farmer ancestry, who were not the original P312 carriers, and so it's southern Europeans with alot of P312 who are most different from the original carriers, not Brits and Irish.

Irish fit in northern Europe(and with German Bell beakers, who had R1b), because they mostly descend from bronze age IEs of east-central Europe, like other north Europeans, not because of continuous admixture.

I dont know. In pre-copper age times it seems likely that a near pure WHG population was then replaced or overlaid by a ENF group. So far there is no reason to believe that prior to the copper age there should have been a big difference between the north and south of western Europe. I chose ANE though because it does seem new in the copper age and something must explain why its frequency varies across Europe. Much of western, north-west, southern and central Europe experience beaker and have today have large P312 derived populations. The variation across what had once been Neolithic farmer Europe seems to be down to post-Neolithic times. Even northern Neolithic farmers seemed autosomally southern in modern terms. It seems that the input of post-Neolithic elements was simply far stronger in the north than in the south. Something must explain that and P312 frequency alone doesnt work - Iberia and Ireland for example are little like each other autosomally. So, IMO different P312 clades for some reason brought significantly different autosomal impacts. The variation in ANE for example is interesting because in the west it almost has to be down to P312 clades and yet its frequency varies significantly. So, it seems to me that prior or during spread different P312 clades were spreading different autosomal patterns. This is not surprising to me because both beaker in one area to another and P312 derived clades may differ by up to 300 years or more.

This is one working theory I have. P312 emerged in westernmost corded ware. DF27 split off and entered Iberia and gave rise to the beaker culture there. After a 200 year plus period in Iberia Iberian P312 beaker elements started to penetrate back towards southern France and then into central Europe. However, in contrast L21 may have never moved from the Rhine area at all and were later beakerised by their distant DF27 cousins. That could easily explain autosomal differences in post-Neolithic P312 derived populations. I am not sure where U152 fits into this but I suspect it arose at some point from corded ware in the western Alps area.

For some reason that I have never really fathomed it has been considered banned to talk about R1b and corded ware but there are a huge pile of reasons why this scenario is miles from being one that can be ruled out. Its impossible to ignore the glaring fact that a huge part of Europe from Ukraine to the French eastern border was occupied by corded ware in the 2900 to the beaker period. Why this has been like an almost not allowed option I just dont know. It is by far the biggest culture that bridges the enormous expanse between IE homelands around Ukraine and far western Europe. If the comment in the Spanish beaker burials deriving the tradition from corded ware is correct then you could say corded ware traditions span almost all of Europe c. 2700BC from Ukraine to the Atlantic. We might be talking small groups in some areas so we cannot know what sort of skull shapes etc to expect. As a female craft we cannot know exactly what the outcome of form and fabric will be in hybriding cultures. So, I am going to say that I think that the pre-beaker location of P312 was western corded ware.

I think what we see in terms of distribution of P312 today to a large extent is fooling us and today IMO it has a distinctively retreat kind of pattern with hotspots in mountainous and far Atlantic areas which I strongly doubt is original and is suggestive of at least moderate displacement. This is probably true of P312's subclades too. L21 today is highest in the Celtic fringes but as Hixton shows it probably once dominated the south-east of Britain too. It also seems virtually certain that L21 was once dominant all along the continental side of the English channel and Lower Rhine. I would suggest a similar process happened to U152 and it may not have been so Alpine originally but I dont know enough about it.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-08-2015, 05:11 AM
There was a north and south difference. Gok2 has more WHG than most Europeans, while Oetzi is like NE1 and Stuttgart.

Krefter
01-08-2015, 05:57 AM
There was a north and south difference. Gok2 has more WHG than most Europeans, while Oetzi is like NE1 and Stuttgart.

IMO, there aren't enough genomes to be sure of this. C01 lived in Hungary and had as much WHG as English, sure Hungarians today are more similar to Poles than Serbians, but geography wise it's pretty far south. Basque have alot of WHG, and Spainish's WHG was probably diluted by east Mediterranean admixture, maybe connected to Rome and the Phoenicians.

The only place in Europe WHG drops way below 40% is the southern Balkans and Italy.

Near eastern and ANE appear to be what cause most genetic differentiation between Europeans.

rms2
01-08-2015, 01:05 PM
He could be L11 or L51. Around Mercia is a hotspot for L11. Maybe even U106. Isn't its highest diversity just south of where the archer is supposedly from? U106 would make a good candidate for the explosion out of the Netherlands, with Barbed wire Beaker as well.

I know this is only my opinion, and I could be very wrong, but I don't think there was much if any U106 in Beaker for a number of reasons. First, Beaker is believed by a number of scholars, including David Anthony, to have a connection to the spread of Italo-Celtic; U106's distribution is a best fit for Germanic and a poor fit for Italo-Celtic. P312 is a much much better fit for Italo-Celtic. Second, and as a consequence of its apparent connection to Germanic speech, it isn't likely that U106 was as far west as the Netherlands and the mouth of the Rhine as early as the Beaker Period. The Germans did not start moving into the Lower Rhine area until about 750 BC. They did not really succeed in pushing the Celts across the Rhine until about 200 BC or so. Third, the distribution of U106 in both the Isles and on the Continent is a far better fit for die Völkerwanderung than it is for Beaker. For example, U106 in the Isles is most frequent in the South and East in precisely those areas most thickly settled by the Anglo-Saxons and, later, by the Danish Vikings. It declines precipitously as one moves north and west into the places where the Celts held out the longest and is very infrequent in Ireland.

Lastly, the Kromsdorf Beaker results were tested for U106 and found to be U106-, and that in an area that is strongly U106+ today.

Hando
01-08-2015, 04:01 PM
The old head measurers seem to have got a lot more right than people credited them for for a long time. So its interesting that skulls of the Iron Age Britons, sometimes called Celtic-Nordic, were also called something like Dinaricised Atlanto-Meds by some of them. That is pretty well exactly what you would expect if a northern beaker population mixed with a Neolithic farming one. I suppose autosomal DNA also agrees that the British and Irish are a mix of ENF, WHG and ANE so its certainly not contradicting the idea.
So what then do you think Northern beaker were like before they mixed with Neolithic farmers? Where did they originate from and what DNA do you think they had?
I assume Celtic Nordic was a mix of northern beaker and Neolithic farmer...

Webb
01-08-2015, 05:26 PM
What about being a DF27'er lineage?

MJost

I think it possible. There are several different varieties of DF27 in the Isles. The variety found in Ireland that is not SRY2627 or North/South cluster appears to be showing a pattern with individuals who have gaelic surnames. Z195/Z196 varieties found in Ireland are most likely more recent. The question is how recent are the Z195/Z196 varieties in regards to Britain? How old are the non Z196/Z195 varieties found in Britain? Then you have L165 which is now showing up in mostly Scottish Gaelic surnames from the East of Scotland and amongst surnames from the West of England.

ADW_1981
01-08-2015, 06:13 PM
He could be anything, but I think circa 2300 BC (the estimate for the Archer) is too early for either U152 or DF27 in Britain. I could be wrong though, obviously. I think the odds are on L21, but then I am biased.

I think DF27 and U152 were both represented in Beaker, but maybe not in Britain that early.

I suspect the first Celtic family speakers in UK/Ireland were descended from the L21+ founder. Especially if they first crossed from NW France, or southern Belgium. The L21+ founder was likely in the region "west of the Rhine" and saturated the islands. I don't suspect there is any rhyme or reason for this other than the majority of men descended from the L21+ founder. There's no reason why L21+ would be successful over U106, U152, or DF27 other than those guys were simply floating around a different part of Europe. It's possible a small number of DF27+ men were among the L21+ guys, but it was obviously a minority.

Webb
01-08-2015, 06:38 PM
I suspect the first Celtic family speakers in UK/Ireland were descended from the L21+ founder. Especially if they first crossed from NW France, or southern Belgium. The L21+ founder was likely in the region "west of the Rhine" and saturated the islands. I don't suspect there is any rhyme or reason for this other than the majority of men descended from the L21+ founder. There's no reason why L21+ would be successful over U106, U152, or DF27 other than those guys were simply floating around a different part of Europe. It's possible a small number of DF27+ men were among the L21+ guys, but it was obviously a minority.

I agree with your assesment, however, it would be nice to start seeing some evidence from DNA to start putting together a timeline as to which M269 groups were in Britain at which timeframe. In the Webb DNA project, the majority of the lineages are P312 and the vast majority of those are L21. I am Z220, like you, however, I am actually a Wilder.

ADW_1981
01-08-2015, 08:42 PM
I agree with your assesment, however, it would be nice to start seeing some evidence from DNA to start putting together a timeline as to which M269 groups were in Britain at which timeframe. In the Webb DNA project, the majority of the lineages are P312 and the vast majority of those are L21. I am Z220, like you, however, I am actually a Wilder.

Yep, and I am also confirmed CTS4065-. I would have expected CTS4065+ to be either German or French in origin, perhaps arriving in Britain with Normans or Anglo-Saxons. Either way it's a very small cluster.

rms2
01-09-2015, 12:24 PM
Of course, the Archer could belong to just about any y haplogroup. He might not even be R1b, for all we know. Anyway, I am looking forward to the results, if they are ever made public. BTW, I have not heard back from Dr. Fitzpatrick yet.

2015 could be a banner year for ancient dna. I hope some interesting news starts breaking soon; it's been kind of boring around here lately.

rms2
01-09-2015, 08:17 PM
Just speculating a bit (why not?), the reason I think the odds favor the Archer and his son being L21 is that L21 is the most frequent y haplogroup in the Isles as a whole (outrageously dominant in some places, like Ireland, Wales, and Scotland), which implies an early advent. Since no R1b of any kind has turned up in European remains older than c. 2600-2500 BC, and L21 appears to be too young to have gotten to the Isles before the late Neolithic at the earliest, that leaves Beaker as the likeliest candidate, and, as we all know, the Amesbury Archer and his son were Beaker men.

Then there is the likely connection, made by a number of scholars, between Beaker and the advent of Celtic or Italo-Celtic in the Isles, and the fairly obvious match between the distribution of L21 and the survival of Celtic speakers there. Not only that, but L21 reaches its peak in the places where Gaelic, the descendant language of the more archaic of the two divisions of the Celtic languages, survived the longest and still survives.

All that doesn't mean the Archer and his son are L21+, but those are the reasons why I think it is likely.

They could be DF27 or U152, but those two P312 clades are most frequent in SE England, which may indicate a relatively late arrival in the Isles, perhaps with the Belgae and/or the Romans.

MitchellSince1893
01-14-2016, 01:38 PM
Any news on the Amesbury Archer's y-dna results? It must be known but not made public?

I used to think he was a strong candidate for being U152, but now I think it's more likely he was L21. Based on Yfull SNP dates and U152 distribution, I'm now of the opinion that U152 was primarily a later arrival in Britain i.e. Late Bronze, early Iron Age.

miiser
01-14-2016, 02:57 PM
My money is on P312*. I think all the big subclades of P312, such as L21, U152, and DF27, if they existed, were young enough to still be only a small fraction of the population from which he came. He's probably from some extinct subclade.

alan
01-14-2016, 03:03 PM
Amesbury archer is an early guy who has collective aspects to his grave chamber. On the other hand he has a round skull like a central European bell beaker. He is also not early by European standards. I think he will be P312 but he could be any clade. Still would say L21 is most likely.

alan
01-14-2016, 03:10 PM
Any news on the Amesbury Archer's y-dna results? It must be known but not made public?

I used to think he was a strong candidate for being U152, but now I think it's more likely he was L21. Based on Yfull SNP dates and U152 distribution, I'm now of the opinion that U152 was primarily a later arrival in Britain i.e. Late Bronze, early Iron Age.

I would agree with that. U152 is distinctly not maritime in distribution so they were not naturals to settled the isles. Probably U152 was largely contained initial in beaker then through various central European cultures and in the Urnfield culture in the late Bronze Age. The English channel area of France and NW France resisted that culture although some of it went up the Rhine towards the mouth. I think it may only have been in the Iron Age that any significant amount of U152 reached southern and eastern Britain and may have primarily have been later La Tene and Belgic elements in the main. I am not saying the Belgae were all or even predominantly U152 but I think they had an element of it due to it creeping to the Rhine mouth in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age. Actually think the Belgae also had a fair amount of L21 and perhaps DF27.

alan
01-14-2016, 03:21 PM
Amesbury archer is an early guy who has collective aspects to his grave chamber. On the other hand he has a round skull like a central European bell beaker. He is also not early by European standards. I think he will be P312 but he could be any clade. Still would say L21 is most likely.

The Boscome Bowmen also had a collective aspect. Certainly not classic single burials in a cist. That is interesting.

As an aside, I just read there something I didnt know. Ross Island produced a hollow based arrowhead or so. So, that is another central European aspect to add to the British-Rhenish type of pottery. Beaker groups in the isles seem to have combined central European and western beaker elements in a random way. Probably this is because both western and more easterly beaker elements had met and combined before reaching the isles rather late c. 2400BC and after. That makes it very hard to make simple deductions about origin.

That reminds me of the same phenomenon 1500 years early and why it is hard to exactly pinpoint the continental origin of the isles farmers. Basically there is a natural barrier at the English channel that means a number of strands can build up across its whole length from Brittany to the Rhine and mix for generations before crossing. The crossing itself then bring about cultural founder effects.

Jon
01-14-2016, 05:24 PM
Amidst all the aDNA flurry right now, I'm looking forward to seeing if any L513 pops up in the mix. Unlike U152, it is well represented in coastal areas of Scotland and Ireland, at least so far. Probs too old to be isles-born, but some subclades no doubt.

alan
01-14-2016, 06:25 PM
Amidst all the aDNA flurry right now, I'm looking forward to seeing if any L513 pops up in the mix. Unlike U152, it is well represented in coastal areas of Scotland and Ireland, at least so far. Probs too old to be isles-born, but some subclades no doubt.

deleted post

alan
01-14-2016, 06:34 PM
Amidst all the aDNA flurry right now, I'm looking forward to seeing if any L513 pops up in the mix. Unlike U152, it is well represented in coastal areas of Scotland and Ireland, at least so far. Probs too old to be isles-born, but some subclades no doubt.

If its just one down from DF13 as per a chart I looked at then I think its borderline as to whether it is isles or continental originated. That would seem to make it a similar age to DF21 (sorry I thought it was a descendant of it in my last post). It all depends then if the 5 SNPs below DF21 in Rathlin sample are near the average speed of SNP production or if it is an unusual run IMO. I would tend to split the difference and sit on the fence and say DF21 (and therefore L513 which is also one down from DF13) dates to around the time beaker was approaching the isles and could have been born on either side of the channel.

Jon
01-14-2016, 06:59 PM
Seems plausible. In fact L513 and DF21 seem to occur quite often together, and in Scotland, there are even some surname overlaps. L193 in particular seems to be heavy in coastal Scotland and western isles.

GoldenHind
01-14-2016, 10:10 PM
I know this is only my opinion, and I could be very wrong, but I don't think there was much if any U106 in Beaker for a number of reasons. First, Beaker is believed by a number of scholars, including David Anthony, to have a connection to the spread of Italo-Celtic; U106's distribution is a best fit for Germanic and a poor fit for Italo-Celtic. P312 is a much much better fit for Italo-Celtic. Second, and as a consequence of its apparent connection to Germanic speech, it isn't likely that U106 was as far west as the Netherlands and the mouth of the Rhine as early as the Beaker Period. The Germans did not start moving into the Lower Rhine area until about 750 BC. They did not really succeed in pushing the Celts across the Rhine until about 200 BC or so. Third, the distribution of U106 in both the Isles and on the Continent is a far better fit for die Völkerwanderung than it is for Beaker. For example, U106 in the Isles is most frequent in the South and East in precisely those areas most thickly settled by the Anglo-Saxons and, later, by the Danish Vikings. It declines precipitously as one moves north and west into the places where the Celts held out the longest and is very infrequent in Ireland.

Lastly, the Kromsdorf Beaker results were tested for U106 and found to be U106-, and that in an area that is strongly U106+ today.

The fact that one or two German Beaker are U106- is hardly proof that none of them were. The Beakers very probably consisted of a variety of R1b subclades and possibly other HGs as well. I don't think there is as yet sufficient evidence to establish whether or not U106 was present among the Beakers. Presumably ancient DNA will eventually provide further evidence. In the meantime I am keeping an open mind.

There was little to no settlement by Vikings in the south of England. The primary areas of Scandinavian settlement during the Viking age was to the north, in the area of the Danelaw, and, judging by surviving place names of Scandinavian origin, was probably heaviiest in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

Mallory has recently proposed that the Beakers were associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects called "Northwest Indo-European," ancestral not only to Celtic, but equally to Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Heber
01-14-2016, 10:20 PM
I am reposting this here as it refers to the Amesbury Archer and Boscombe Bowman.

As the Amesbury Archer and Boscombe Bowman were both found with skulls intact, there is a good chance that ancient DNA testing using the Inner Petrous bone will provide high yields of useful DNA for NGS testing. Pinhasi and Bradley have obtained yields of aDNA up to 177 times higher using this method.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0129102

From a recent seminar on Bell Beaker in UCD in Dublin:

"In total almost 100 objects were found on and around the body. The Amesbury archer was placed in a semi-foetal position on his left hand side. He was about 30-45 years old at the age of death and most likely an individual of high status. Isotopic analysis has revealed that the archer grew up in a colder place than Britain but excluding Scandinavia, as the beaker culture was no earlier than Britain in that area. Dr. Fitzpatrick believes that the man was originally a native of an Alpine region before Journeying to Britain.

There is a debate as to how Bell-beaker individuals came into England. Some scholars theorise that people would have journeyed up the Rhine and across the Channel. Dr. Fitzpatrick is sceptical of this narrative. He suggested that the line of contact went through the south and west. I.E. through France and Spain.

The burial of the Amesbury Archer was rich with goods. Some of the finds were 3 copper daggers, several gold objects, and stones relating to metalworking among other objects. This is the most elaborate bell-beaker grave in Europe to date. Dr. Fitzpatrick's research of other bell-beaker graves brought up comparable finds in Germany. In Germany, the idea of such a richness of objects associated with a high status burial also seems likely. This model correlates with the Amesbury Archer's grave.

A year later, another series of graves were found nearby. These were known as the Boscome Bowmen. The burials were of at least 7 individuals, mostly male and with unsexed children and no certain females. The remains were disrupted by road works and electricity cables which meant that whilst a pelvis and leg bones were found in a certain individual grave, the other bones were in a jumbled mess.

The skulls of the bowmen show a possible familial connection. At the very least, we can deduce that they were closely related. In terms of grave goods, these burials were not as wealthy as the Amesbury archer. There were 3 individuals that were eligible for isotopic analysis. The results show that these individuals led a nomadic life and moved from place to place over 10 years. Definitively, these people were not from Wessex. Possibly they originated in Wales, Brittany, Germany, France or Iberia but unfortunately, unlike the Amesbury Archer, it was difficult to speculate.
Dr. Fitzpatrick concluded by attempting to place these burials within a bigger picture. The burials suggest that bell-beaker peoples migrated rather than the idea transferring. The graves also fit into a wider, pan-European copper age tradition. Whilst we can see a clear difference in material culture with the coming of these people, we struggle to see in the record other changes such as settlements and temples.

Dr. Fitzpatrick stressed that bell-beaker cultures could not have thrived as they did without interacting peacefully with local cultures. They probably wouldn't have had the access to metals and other materials without help and guidance from indigenous communities. So any ideas of bell-beaker isolation are unreliable except in terms of the culture of the people themselves.
Questions of how people travelled at this time are still unanswered and may never be answered. Could they have known were they were going? Did families travel in groups? Did they intend to return? It is difficult to speculate. What we do know is that there does not seem to be one single homeland for the bell-beaker people.

In conclusion, Dr. Fitzpatrick demonstrated that the discovery of the Amesbury Archer has a much wider significance than just relating to Stonehenge, England and Britain. Whilst we still don't know how he reacted with indigenous communities or how he came to Wessex, what we do know can shed a light on bell-beaker people and their spread in Europe and inform us further of the culture's rich material heritage."

http://ucd-archsoc.blogspot.nl/

rms2
01-15-2016, 12:13 AM
The fact that one German Beaker is U106- is hardly proof that none of them were. The Beakers very probably consisted of a variety of R1b subclades. I don't think there is as yet sufficient evidence to establish whether or not U106 was present among the Beakers. Presumably ancient DNA will eventually provide further evidence. In the meantime I am keeping an open mind.

There was little to no settlement by Vikings in the south of England. The primary areas of Scandinavian settlement during the Viking age was to the north, in the area of the Danelaw, and, judging by surviving place names of Scandinavian origin, was probably heaviiest in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

Mallory has recently proposed that the Beakers were associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects called "Northwest Indo-European," ancestral not only to Celtic, but equally to Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

As I understand it, both Kromsdorf Bell Beaker men were U106-. And none of the other Bell Beaker remains has tested U106+, while two of the German Bell Beaker men have tested P312+. Make that five P312+ Bell Beaker results, if one counts the Rathlin Island men as a part of a Bell Beaker variant (which is how Food Vessel is regarded). That makes seven Bell Beaker U106- results (six if only one of the Kromsdorf men tested U106-). The German Bell Beaker U106- results (and you can count the P312+ results among them) were recovered in places that today are loaded with U106 (and Germanic speakers).

A number of reputable scholars over the years have linked Bell Beaker with Italo-Celtic. The Bell Beaker distribution coincides remarkably well with that of the Italo-Celtic languages and not well at all with any of the other IE languages. The distribution of P312 also matches Beaker and Italo-Celtic remarkably well, while that of U106 does not. It is a much better fit for Germanic, which is pretty obvious to most people.

RISE98 from the Lilla Beddinge Battle Axe culture cemetery in Sweden was U106+ and dates to c. 2275-2032 BC. We may not be able to firmly place that one in the Nordic Battle Axe culture, but it was certainly buried in the right place . . . and the wrong place for Bell Beaker. That's the oldest and only ancient U106 we have thus far, and it turned up in Scandinavia, which seems kind of unsurprising for a y haplogroup so obviously connected to Germanic languages.

IMHO, P312/Bell Beaker emerged from Yamnaya's up-the-Danube route, while U106 took a more northerly route on the North European Plain, possibly with Corded Ware. Thus their different distributions and different language group associations.

alan
01-15-2016, 03:22 AM
Certainly now I think with Rathlin and others the SNP counting is strongly suggesting that L11 predates the presence of bell beaker in central Europe. Rathlin is something like 10 SNPs down from L11 that would be allowed in the best counts so that would date it to 3300BC. Even if it was 500 years younger than that L11 would still be older than bell beaker anywhere. So, even allowing for major uncertainties and a non-constant SNP clock, L11 surely must significantly pre-date the existence of beaker anywhere, which would in turn explain why only the P312 derived parts of L11 are clearly beaker linked.

northkerry
01-15-2016, 06:40 AM
Certainly now I think with Rathlin and others the SNP counting is strongly suggesting that L11 predates the presence of bell beaker in central Europe. Rathlin is something like 10 SNPs down from L11 that would be allowed in the best counts so that would date it to 3300BC. Even if it was 500 years younger than that L11 would still be older than bell beaker anywhere. So, even allowing for major uncertainties and a non-constant SNP clock, L11 surely must significantly pre-date the existence of beaker anywhere, which would in turn explain why only the P312 derived parts of L11 are clearly beaker linked.

According to Mjost, Rathlin is 22 YSNPs down from L11.
"R-L11-L11/S127/PF6539 (12)
R-P312-P312/S116/PF6547 (2)
R-L21-L21/M529/S145 (6)
R-DF13-DF13/S521/CTS241 (2)"


YSNP may not be the most reliable method but it is a lot more accurate than YSTR counting. France looks like it is the origin place of L21 and the main source population for Ireland. The Rathlin Islander's pathway looks like France>Germany>Scotland >Ireland. A lot of Ireland's L21 pathways looks like France>Cornwall>Ireland.