PDA

View Full Version : Gimbutas and Celtic from the West



Net Down G5L
03-31-2015, 04:44 PM
Gimbutas and Celtic from the West

In the recent thread Pre-Beaker-R1b-in-the-Isles-can-we-rule-it-out? I posed possible evidence that could suggest R1b entered the Isles in the Neolithic. My own judgment of the responses on that thread is that I can still not rule out the possibility. In particular the only real DNA evidence against it was the lack of R1b aDNA to show a trail to the Isles.
So I am going to present a "what if hypothesis" for Indo-European 'people' reaching the Isles in the Neolithic (by that I mean the Neolithic as dated in archaeological schemes in the Isles as the Neolithic ends much earlier in some other places).

ADW_1981
03-31-2015, 04:47 PM
Gimbutas and Celtic from the West

In the recent thread Pre-Beaker-R1b-in-the-Isles-can-we-rule-it-out? I posed possible evidence that could suggest R1b entered the Isles in the Neolithic. My own judgment of the responses on that thread is that I can still not rule out the possibility. In particular the only real DNA evidence against it was the lack of R1b aDNA to show a trail to the Isles.
So I am going to present a "what if hypothesis" for Indo-European 'people' reaching the Isles in the Neolithic (by that I mean the Neolithic as dated in archaeological schemes in the Isles as the Neolithic ends much earlier in some other places).

L21 is the dominant branch in the UK/Ireland and it's pretty clear it does not have an Iberian origin, despite a significant frequency in the north of Spain. If you ask me, P312+ appears to have an origin in Western Germany near the Rhine, or possibly in France and the rest is history.

Net Down G5L
03-31-2015, 04:47 PM
Gimbutas and Celtic from the West
So I am going to present a "what if hypothesis" for Indo-European 'people' reaching the Isles in the Neolithic (by that I mean the Neolithic as dated in archaeological schemes in the Isles as the Neolithic ends much earlier in some other places).

Frog's Indo-European (Celtic) from the West hypothesis (or to be more accurate an extension to the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis)
I am going to make this very high level as an introduction to the hypothesis:

Gimbutas Wave 2 -
Key features:
- round earthen tumuli covering mortuary houses surrounded by stone walls or rings
- stelae, stone circles, "sun worshiping people of a Kurgan tradition" (Gimbutas)
Possible distribution:
"Northern route" - penetration at least as far as Baden and Globular Amphora cultures (Gimbutas)

"Southern route" Frog's extended hypothesis
also via Greece (Zeus Chieftains etc E O James - arrived from the Black Sea - new people into Mediterranean)
- conflict with megalithic culture - phases of destruction, rebuilding and modification of megalithic monuments.
- Original passage graves = I2 DNA
- modified solar aligned monuments including stone circles, menhirs = Indo-European speakers related to Gimbutas' wave 2
- Evidence in Isles -
e.g. Newgrange - solar aligned burial chamber under tumulus surrounded by stone wall and later stone circle. dominated by cremated remains. Newgrange (= similarities to Gimbutas' Royal burials?)
e.g. Stonehenge - movement of bluestone from the west to place on cursus monument. Later redevelopment of monument with sarsan stones. Important solar alignment - sun god worship. Cremated remains.
e.g. ? Severn Cotswold long barrows - when remodeled with orthostats. Indo-European - proto-Celtic.
Frog suggests that R1b entered the Isles along the Atlantic coast in the Neolithic ("Celtic from the West....from the Black Sea...).
NB This does not preclude further R1b entering the Isles from "northern route" more directly from the East.

Gimbutas wave 3
R1a - Corded ware
R1b -P312 Beaker -
- single burial in pit graves

Net Down G5L
03-31-2015, 07:56 PM
L21 is the dominant branch in the UK/Ireland and it's pretty clear it does not have an Iberian origin, despite a significant frequency in the north of Spain. If you ask me, P312+ appears to have an origin in Western Germany near the Rhine, or possibly in France and the rest is history.

Frogs definintions:

Closed mind - somebody who rejects a hypothesis before knowing what it is.
Open mind - somebody who uses evidence to test a hypothesis.

Unfortunately your evidence quoted is not relevant to rejecting the hypothesis.

How much do you know about the archaeology of the Isles?
Can you explain all the archaeology of the Isles?

ADW_1981
03-31-2015, 08:12 PM
Frogs definintions:

Closed mind - somebody who rejects a hypothesis before knowing what it is.
Open mind - somebody who uses evidence to test a hypothesis.

Unfortunately your evidence quoted is not relevant to rejecting the hypothesis.

How much do you know about the archaeology of the Isles?
Can you explain all the archaeology of the Isles?

The phylogeny doesn't support it. A far more reasonable explanation is L21 to hop to the isles from West Germany near the Rhine, or NW France. Guess what, the autosomes support this too.

Gray Fox
03-31-2015, 08:37 PM
This is a warning. Personal attacks etc. will not be tolerated. This conversation is being monitored.

Net Down G5L
03-31-2015, 08:42 PM
The phylogeny doesn't support it. A far more reasonable explanation is L21 to hop to the isles from West Germany near the Rhine, or NW France. Guess what, the autosomes support this too.

The hypothesis does not say anything about L21 coming from the Atlantic. The hypothesis talks about P312 being related to (later) Beaker. The hypothesis does not specify whether the Indo Europeans are P312, some other R1b or even non R1b Indo Europeans. That is all open for discussion. For example, Neolithic R1b in the Isles could be L11 that travelled the Atlantic Ocean - but L11 leading to the P312 mutation may have taken an inland route.

You also state "the autosomes do not support this". I would like this thread to present evidence for discussion to support opinions - not just opinions. I am very happy to debate the autosomes - if I know what specifically you are referring to.

Agamemnon
03-31-2015, 09:59 PM
The hypothesis does not say anything about L21 coming from the Atlantic. The hypothesis talks about P312 being related to (later) Beaker. The hypothesis does not specify whether the Indo Europeans are P312, some other R1b or even non R1b Indo Europeans. That is all open for discussion. For example, Neolithic R1b in the Isles could be L11 that travelled the Atlantic Ocean - but L11 leading to the P312 mutation may have taken an inland route.

You also state "the autosomes do not support this". I would like this thread to present evidence for discussion to support opinions - not just opinions. I am very happy to debate the autosomes - if I know what specifically you are referring to.

That's extremely unlikely, to say the least. First, in order to take this idiosyncratic theory seriously, we need to ignore all of the archeogenetic data we've uncovered in Europe, then you have to explain why R1b-L51 has an east-to-west phylogeography. Finally, you need to explain why the Beaker folk carried non-negligible amounts of the Yamna-like component obtained by Haak et al. 2015.
And this is the least of your worries, as I said if we take neolithic remains into account the "Neolithic R1b" theory dies a swift death given the extreme paucity of R1b in Neolithic remains (only one sample to date).

At this point, trying to label R1b "Neolithic" is a self-defeating endeavour.

rms2
03-31-2015, 10:24 PM
So, Net Down G5L, you are saying you think R1b came to the Isles via Gimbutas' Kurgan Wave 2?

When most of us think of R1b arriving "during the Neolithic", we think someone means with Near Eastern-derived farmers.

Apparently that's not what you mean, right?

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 01:57 AM
So, Net Down G5L, you are saying you think R1b came to the Isles via Gimbutas' Kurgan Wave 2?

When most of us think of R1b arriving "during the Neolithic", we think someone means with Near Eastern-derived farmers.

Apparently that's not what you mean, right?

Yes, correct. The Chalcolithic arrives in the Isles very late - lets say very roughly 2,500BC. So it was still the Neolithic in the Isles thousands of years after the Chalcolithic had started elsewhere.
If Gimbutas was correct with her three waves then Indo-European 'people' started moving out of the Steppe some 2000 years before the Neolithic ended in the Isles - so 2000 years to travel between the Black Sea and the Isles and still arrive there in the Neolithic.

It is my perception that the majority of people who post here link Beaker and Corded Ware closely together and linked both to Gimbutas wave 3.

If that is correct it leaves people related to waves 1 and 2 with plenty of time 'earlier' (pre Corded/Beaker) to move into niches west of the Steppe. Gimbutas 1979 presents plenty of evidence to support waves 1 and 2.

Re: aDNA If you take, for example, Haak's samples - they are generally from cultures, times and places where the results would fit Gimbutas' three waves model (ie from times places she thinks IE had not reached). I should really get out the Haak paper and check...but if I remember correctly the Baalberge samples threw up an R? in Germany round about 3,600BC - right when and where Gimbutas suggested Indo-European expansion may have reached.

It is my opinion that more R1b will be found beyond the Steppe when more samples are available from cultures/times/places where Gimbutas predicted wave 2 penetration into Central Europe.

While Gimbutas did not suggest evidence of wave 2 people progressing beyond Italy (her stelae example) I have seen no aDNA or modern DNA evidence to date that I believe rules out the possibility.

That I2 is related to passage graves is confirmed by aDNA results to date. But the archaeology shows that the "Megalithic" is a complex involving a mix of people over time - so probably not exclusively I2. The "Megalithic" includes a wide range of monuments and evidence of building/destruction and rebuild. Now that could be explained by 'continuity' and 'changes in fashion'. It could also be explained by migration of people and conflict between them. I favour the migration and conflict as being most probable. And that raises the question of who may have been involved in the migration(s) and conflict(s).

Hence me asking the question - could Indo-Europeans have been involved in such a migration and conflict before 2500 BC?

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 02:14 AM
That's extremely unlikely, to say the least. First, in order to take this idiosyncratic theory seriously, we need to ignore all of the archeogenetic data we've uncovered in Europe, then you have to explain why R1b-L51 has an east-to-west phylogeography. Finally, you need to explain why the Beaker folk carried non-negligible amounts of the Yamna-like component obtained by Haak et al. 2015.
And this is the least of your worries, as I said if we take neolithic remains into account the "Neolithic R1b" theory dies a swift death given the extreme paucity of R1b in Neolithic remains (only one sample to date).

At this point, trying to label R1b "Neolithic" is a self-defeating endeavour.

Disagree with your opinion.

If "all the archaeogenetic data we have uncovered in Europe does not fit" try giving me some examples that do not fit. I have given examples above that fit perfectly....and I will even extend that to all Haak's samples.

The last time I looked at a map the Isles were west of the Black Sea - so that fits as well.

And if Beaker is related to Gimbutas wave 3 that explains why "they carried non-negligable amounts of the Yamna-like component".

It is my opinion that all your points above actually support the hypothesis.

David Mc
04-01-2015, 04:13 AM
Yes, correct. The Chalcolithic arrives in the Isles very late - lets say very roughly 2,500BC. So it was still the Neolithic in the Isles thousands of years after the Chalcolithic had started elsewhere.
If Gimbutas was correct with her three waves then Indo-European 'people' started moving out of the Steppe some 2000 years before the Neolithic ended in the Isles - so 2000 years to travel between the Black Sea and the Isles and still arrive there in the Neolithic.

It is my perception that the majority of people who post here link Beaker and Corded Ware closely together and linked both to Gimbutas wave 3.

If that is correct it leaves people related to waves 1 and 2 with plenty of time 'earlier' (pre Corded/Beaker) to move into niches west of the Steppe. Gimbutas 1979 presents plenty of evidence to support waves 1 and 2.

Re: aDNA If you take, for example, Haak's samples - they are generally from cultures, times and places where the results would fit Gimbutas' three waves model (ie from times places she thinks IE had not reached). I should really get out the Haak paper and check...but if I remember correctly the Baalberge samples threw up an R? in Germany round about 3,600BC - right when and where Gimbutas suggested Indo-European expansion may have reached.

It is my opinion that more R1b will be found beyond the Steppe when more samples are available from cultures/times/places where Gimbutas predicted wave 2 penetration into Central Europe.

While Gimbutas did not suggest evidence of wave 2 people progressing beyond Italy (her stelae example) I have seen no aDNA or modern DNA evidence to date that I believe rules out the possibility.

That I2 is related to passage graves is confirmed by aDNA results to date. But the archaeology shows that the "Megalithic" is a complex involving a mix of people over time - so probably not exclusively I2. The "Megalithic" includes a wide range of monuments and evidence of building/destruction and rebuild. Now that could be explained by 'continuity' and 'changes in fashion'. It could also be explained by migration of people and conflict between them. I favour the migration and conflict as being most probable. And that raises the question of who may have been involved in the migration(s) and conflict(s).

Hence me asking the question - could Indo-Europeans have been involved in such a migration and conflict before 2500 BC?

The main problem I see with your hypothesis is that the Megalithic culture is always associated with I2a. You can call it a complex, and you can suggest that it involved a mix of people over time. But all of the aDNA is I2a, and the samples range from 4200 BC to 2750/2725 BC, and include both Spanish and French sites. That adds up to an amazing level of continuity, with no signs of R1b in the mix.

If you look east to the (non-megalithic) samples taken at Treilles, you find overwhelming levels of G2a, with (again), a smattering of I2a, and that's from 3000 BC.

So right up until around 2725 BC we see a mixture of G2a and I2a in Western Europe. Given the samples we have, do you see why most people find R1b arriving just bit later with Beaker folk a more likely option? Particularly as all of the Beaker remains we have tested are R1b?

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 06:01 AM
The main problem I see with your hypothesis is that the Megalithic culture is always associated with I2a. You can call it a complex, and you can suggest that it involved a mix of people over time. But all of the aDNA is I2a, and the samples range from 4200 BC to 2750/2725 BC, and include both Spanish and French sites. That adds up to an amazing level of continuity, with no signs of R1b in the mix.

If you look east to the samples taken at Treilles, you find overwhelming levels of G2a, with (again), a smattering of I2a, and that's from 3000 BC.

So right up until around 2725 BC we see a mixture of G2a and I2a. Given the samples we have, do you see why most people find R1b arriving just bit later with Beaker folk a more likely option? Particularly as all of the Beaker remains we have tested are R1b?

Yes, I agree entirely. That is why this idea had been kicking round in my head for months and gone nowhere.
But, I just see too many bits of other evidence that do not fit a simple e-w Gimbutas wave 3 arrival for all R1b. So I thought I would give it an airing and for a robust challenge!

Lets just take one 'less scientific' strand of evidence. If Gimbutas is right, Sun God related culture and solar motifs are Indo-European from the steppe and other cultures did not worship a sun god.
Now Newgrange is classed as Megalithic but it is solar aligned and covered in solar motifs. So, either Newgrange was constructed by Indo Europeans of unknown DNA type....
OR I2 worshiped sun gods and drew solar motifs but were not Indo European (so Gimbutas wrong?)....
OR some I2 became 'Indo Europeanised' by 'religion' (if not by language as well) and built Newgrange.

Am I missing any alternatives? I have not seen anyone suggest any of those 3 options before.

Even less scientific.... I think most people relate Druids with the Celts. The Druids last stronghold was Anglesey - an interesting area re. the POBI study. 'Modern Druids' consider Stonehenge, stone circles and wood circles 'their most sacred places'.

Then we have cremations - associated with Newgrange and Stonehenge. If the people who built those monuments practiced cremation - I am not aware of any DNA studies of cremated remains. So I would expect a lack of aDNA results.

Then we have Gimbutas' list of evidence of Wave 1 and 2 expansion. I think it is true to say that aDNA studies to date have not been designed to specifically test her theory. It would be possible to design a project to test her wave 1 and 2 theory by targeted sampling - though it would need lots of samples to be statistically valid.

I do not think the Haak autosomnal evidence is straight forward or conclusive. For example, the fact that corded R1a seems much closer to R1b Yamnaya than R1b Beaker suggests greater mixing and/or a greater time separation between Beaker and Yamnaya compared to corded/Yamnaya. So, another way of interpreting that data is that '(pre)Beaker' left the Steppe with wave 2 and had more time to develop its admixture before the Quedlinburg samples c.2250BCE - compared to the Corded samples c. 2,375 BC (yes they are over 100 years older so had less time for admixture but would that account for such a significant difference in admixture?).

I just don't think that there are any 'done deals' with the R1b story with the aDNA data we have available to date.

Jean M
04-01-2015, 11:06 AM
If Gimbutas is right, Sun God related culture and solar motifs are Indo-European from the steppe and other cultures did not worship a sun god.


I don't know if Gimbutas claimed that solar motifs were unique to the Indo-Europeans, but if she did, we don't have to simply take her word for it, so that if we find solar worship among the Aztecs (for example), we conclude that they spoke an Indo-European language and carried Y-DNA R1b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity


The Neolithic concept of a "solar barge" (also "solar bark", "solar barque", "solar boat" and "sun boat", a mythological representation of the sun riding in a boat) is found in the later myths of ancient Egypt, with Ra and Horus. Predynasty Egyptian beliefs attribute Atum as the sun-god and Horus as a god of the sky and sun. ... Mesopotamian Shamash plays an important role during the Bronze Age.... Similarly, South American cultures have a tradition of Sun worship, as with the Incan Inti..

Gimbutas had the idea that the Neolithic farmers were peaceful, matriarchal people who worshipped a fertility goddess. You can find a quick summary of the argument and modern criticism of it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas

Jean M
04-01-2015, 11:14 AM
'Modern Druids' consider Stonehenge, stone circles and wood circles 'their most sacred places'.

Modern Druids don't have any continuity with ancient ones. They have no secret knowledge handed down to them by druids of old. They know nothing whatever about the practices of druids that is not culled from literature available to us all. The idea that the druids built Stonehenge has its origin in antiquarian muddle.* Modern druids have clung to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary advanced by modern archaeologists.

*John Aubrey surveyed Stonehenge in the late 17th century and considered it the work of natives of Britain, rather than the Romans. He was of course right about that, but prehistory was a closed book at the time. Or rather people knew nothing about it because no books were written in prehistory. Aubrey knew from Classical texts of pre-Roman British priests called druids and so attributed Stonehenge to them.

Jean M
04-01-2015, 12:19 PM
I just don't think that there are any 'done deals' with the R1b story with the aDNA data we have available to date.

More evidence will come along shortly. Should it conclusively prove that Newgrange was not built by men carrying R1b-L21, there is no reason for gloom. :) Your direct paternal line is just one of many lineages you carry. Judging by the level of EEF in modern Europeans generally, we must all have ancestors among the early farmers in Europe. Newgrange and Stonehenge are part of the collective European heritage of the Neolithic era, to be treasured and protected.

rms2
04-01-2015, 01:47 PM
Gimbutas' Kurgan Waves 1 and 2 appear to correspond to Anthony's descriptions of the Suvorovo settlements in the lower Danube valley (Wave 1), beginning in about 4200 BC, and the subsequent expansion of Mikhailovka into pretty much the same area, beginning about 3400 BC (Wave 2). But my impression is that those waves were much more limited than Wave 3. They were devastating to much of what Gimbutas called "Old Europe", but they did not involve the large numbers of immigrants that Wave 3 did, and Wave 3 got much farther up the Danube, with literally thousands of kurgans in eastern Hungary. Since only the elite got kurgans, Wave 3 must have been a massive migration.

So, I doubt that people involved in Wave 1 or 2 got as far as the British Isles or Ireland.

Isidro
04-01-2015, 02:18 PM
If we associate Y-DNA lineages contributing to the "Celts package legacy" I don't see the necessity to demonstrate massive migrations in any crucial period, be Neolithic or Chalcolithic. One male, P312 (his birth location) is anecdotal in my opinion, as I say one male accounts for hundreds of millions of descendants within 200 generations (?). Based on what is known today about ancient migrations and the R1b tree, Mr. P312 is the real mystery, and I hope I am wrong, but seemingly not a tangible one.
Autosomal is the way to go for me, even if P312 was born and buried 60 miles from my birth town in the Cave of Els Trocs, where an R1b1 was found 240 (?) generations earlier.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 02:28 PM
More evidence will come along shortly. Should it conclusively prove that Newgrange was not built by men carrying R1b-L21, there is no reason for gloom. :) Your direct paternal line is just one of many lineages you carry. Judging by the level of EEF in modern Europeans generally, we must all have ancestors among the early farmers in Europe. Newgrange and Stonehenge are part of the collective European heritage of the Neolithic era, to be treasured and protected.

Ha Ha, thanks Jean.

Looking forward to new aDNA and certainly will not feel gloomy whatever the evidence:). And I do recognise the sun god and druid lines as very weak evidence which is why I flagged them up as not really scientific. But I do not feel I have sufficient evidence to dismiss the hypothesis just yet. I have no particular affinity to Stonehenge - visited once and that was enough. More interested in the wider landscape surrounding it. So I will be just as happy if it turns out I2 or whoever, built it. Even if R1b was present I personally would not plump for L21 being a main mover at the time (no pun intended, though it could be quite a good one).

Happy to declare my own interest. My surname Kenyon is thought by some to be derived from Old English for mound of the chief - ie tumulus. The village of Kenyon (where Kenyons descend from) was built next to a Bronze Age tumulus - hence probably the name of the place. Even before I knew of that name connection I felt a strong affinity towards Bronze Age barrows. So I have no doubt at all that I have a subconscious bias in my analysis towards linking L21 and Bronze Age barrows - and I do think that there is a probability of Middle Bronze Age barrows having many L21 cremations beneath them (....see there I go). But I could always be wrong on that as well. Who knows - we may get aDNA from cremation remains one day. I would not have expected useful radio-carbon dates from cremated remains but apparently technology now makes that possible.

edit - my avatar - yes that is me - standing on top of my local Middle Bronze Age tumulus - ...subconscious bias....pretty much guaranteed!

rms2
04-01-2015, 02:56 PM
Well, one thing that demonstrates a massive migration out of the steppe circa 3,000 BC is the presence of over 3,000 Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary alone, not counting the other ones in Bulgaria and in Romania and elsewhere. Only the elite were buried in kurgans, so each one represents a large following, as well as those few individuals buried inside them.

Jean M
04-01-2015, 04:26 PM
Looking forward to new aDNA and certainly will not feel gloomy whatever the evidence :).

That's the spirit.


My surname Kenyon is thought by some to be derived from Old English for mound of the chief - ie tumulus. The village of Kenyon (where Kenyons descend from) was built next to a Bronze Age tumulus

My place-name book has Kenyon, Lancashire as


possibly a shortened form of an Old Welsh name Cruc Einion "mound of a man called Einion".

You can find a similar etymology online from The Institute for Name-Studies, except that it goes for Primitive Welsh (older than Old). http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/map/place/Lancashire/Kenyon . It is near another place with a Primitive Welsh origin, Culcheth (narrow wood): http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/map/place/Lancashire/Culcheth . Fits the pattern of landscape features retaining Celtic names amid the Old English settlement names.

rms2
04-01-2015, 04:38 PM
. . .

Looking forward to new aDNA and certainly will not feel gloomy whatever the evidence:) . . .

Since you mentioned new aDNA, and I have nothing better to do (well, I have better things to do, but I'm a procrastinator), I want to take this opportunity to make some predictions regarding aDNA.

I think y-dna from Yamnaya's routes west will produce both R1b-L51 (in some downstream form, possibly even P312 and U106) and R1a (Z93 maybe?), which will pretty much settle things and demonstrate that most modern European R1a's and R1b's are descended from the steppe pastoralists who first brought Indo-European languages to Europe.

No R1b will show up in the Isles prior to the arrival of the Beaker Folk, but if it does, it will be like Els Trocs and belong to that P297- branch that left north Eurasia before the Neolithic for the Near East and, subsequently, points farther west.

David Mc
04-01-2015, 04:55 PM
Happy to declare my own interest. My surname Kenyon is thought by some to be derived from Old English for mound of the chief - ie tumulus. The village of Kenyon (where Kenyons descend from) was built next to a Bronze Age tumulus - hence probably the name of the place. Even before I knew of that name connection I felt a strong affinity towards Bronze Age barrows. So I have no doubt at all that I have a subconscious bias in my analysis towards linking L21 and Bronze Age barrows - and I do think that there is a probability of Middle Bronze Age barrows having many L21 cremations beneath them (....see there I go). But I could always be wrong on that as well. Who knows - we may get aDNA from cremation remains one day. I would not have expected useful radio-carbon dates from cremated remains but apparently technology now makes that possible.

edit - my avatar - yes that is me - standing on top of my local Middle Bronze Age tumulus - ...subconscious bias....pretty much guaranteed!

It's possible that I'm needing a caffeine boost, and I'm not reading this correctly, but you realise that R1b moving west with the Beaker folk is not antithetical to R-L21 Bronze age barrows in the British Isles, right? Many of us suspect that the Amesbury Archer, if he were tested, could turn out to be R-L21.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 05:03 PM
Well, one thing that demonstrates a massive migration out of the steppe circa 3,000 BC is the presence of over 3,000 Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary alone, not counting the other ones in Bulgaria and in Romania and elsewhere. Only the elite were buried in kurgans, so each one represents a large following, as well as those few individuals buried inside them.
Thanks,
Yes, absolutely no doubting that. Though in my experience many (most?) professional archaeologists still seem see it as transfer of burial fashion by word of mouth without migration of people.

What still confuses me is the sequence of events (in simplified event and chronological order):

1 Burials in the Isles under tumuli for hundreds of years before Beaker arrives (Megalithic related??). Cremations widespread particularly from 3000BC?
2. Maritime Beaker (from the South we assume) arriving in the Isles as intrusions into Megalithic monuments but no tumuli...what DNA...P312?.
3. Beaker (P312 we assume) arriving in the Isles from the East under flat burials - as single grave I-E burials - but with no kurgan.
(3a Beaker seemingly moving West to East in Central Europe - towards the Steppe - at a similar time to 3 and 4)
4. Beaker burials in the Isles under tumuli/kurgans soon after and spreading east-west.
5. More competing burials under tumuli/kurgans - seemingly moving from Scotland south to Ireland and east to Wessex - if we believe the pottery evidence - and with cremation...what DNA?.
6. 'Different' Middle Bronze Age smaller tumuli apparently replacing 4 and 5 and with cremation Very obviously including L21(....but then I may just be biased there).

As much as I may like a simple wave 3 kurgan P312 from the Steppe arriving with Beaker people who were buried under kurgans 'taking over' from I2 and lets say also 'G2a and farming friends' .......... the archaeology is inconveniently complex and suggests there must be complications on that model.

So..I feel I can model the Bronze Age - early Iron Age of the Isles well...but then it does not fit easily 'back' (in time) to a simple Steppe - to isles E-W Neolithic model (because of the complications above). Hence me scratcing around for alternative Neolithic models.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 05:14 PM
That's the spirit.



My place-name book has Kenyon, Lancashire as



You can find a similar etymology online from The Institute for Name-Studies, except that it goes for Primitive Welsh (older than Old). http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/map/place/Lancashire/Kenyon . It is near another place with a Primitive Welsh origin, Culcheth (narrow wood): http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/map/place/Lancashire/Culcheth . Fits the pattern of landscape features retaining Celtic names amid the Old English settlement names.

Yes aware of those as well....just prefer the link to the tumulus version(!) I must stop as this is WAY off thread....

rms2
04-01-2015, 05:28 PM
Thanks,
Yes, absolutely no doubting that. Though in my experience many (most?) professional archaeologists still seem see it as transfer of burial fashion by word of mouth without migration of people.

Were their anthropometrics transferred by word-of-mouth? As I understand it, the skeletons in those kurgans that have been excavated are physically similar to those buried on the steppe.




What still confuses me is the sequence of events (in simplified event and chronological order):

1 Burials in the Isles under tumuli for hundreds of years before Beaker arrives (Megalithic related??). Cremations widespread particularly from 3000BC?

Long barrows: apples to oranges (collective burial, different types of skeletons, different grave goods).



2. Maritime Beaker (from the South we assume) arriving in the Isles as intrusions into Megalithic monuments but no tumuli...what DNA...P312?.

Again, different skeletons. different grave goods, etc. I doubt they were P312.



3. Beaker (P312 we assume) arriving in the Isles from the East under flat burials - as single grave I-E burials - but with no kurgan.
(3a Beaker seemingly moving West to East in Central Europe - towards the Steppe - at a similar time to 3 and 4)
4. Beaker burials in the Isles under tumuli/kurgans soon after and spreading east-west.
5. More competing burials under tumuli/kurgans - seemingly moving from Scotland south to Ireland and east to Wessex - if we believe the pottery evidence - and with cremation...what DNA?.
6. 'Different' Middle Bronze Age smaller tumuli apparently replacing 4 and 5 and with cremation Very obviously including L21(....but then I may just be biased there).

As much as I may like a simple wave 3 kurgan P312 from the Steppe arriving with Beaker people who were buried under kurgans 'taking over' from I2 and lets say also 'G2a and farming friends' .......... the archaeology is inconveniently complex and suggests there must be complications on that model.

So..I feel I can model the Bronze Age - early Iron Age of the Isles well...but then it does not fit easily 'back' (in time) to a simple Steppe - to isles E-W Neolithic model (because of the complications above). Hence me scratcing around for alternative Neolithic models.

I get the feeling you're confusing yourself by making too much of some differences that are minor and too little of differences that are significant.

I agree with Haak et al.



Thus, it appears that before ~4,500 years ago, the frequency of R1a and R1b in Europe outside Russia was very low, and it rose in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age period. The young, star-like phylogenies of these two haplogroups also suggest relatively recent expansions. The ubiquity of these haplogroups in Russia, Siberia, and Central Asia suggest that their rise in Europe was likely to have been due to a migration from the east, although more work is needed to trace these migrations and also to correlate them with regions of the world that have not yet been studied with ancient DNA (such as southern Europe, the Caucasus, the Near East, Iran, and Central and South Asia). Nonetheless, the Y-chromosome results suggest the same east-to-west migration as our analysis of autosomal DNA.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 05:36 PM
It's possible that I'm needing a caffeine boost, and I'm not reading this correctly, but you realise that R1b moving west with the Beaker folk is not antithetical to R-L21 Bronze age barrows in the British Isles, right? Many of us suspect that the Amesbury Archer, if he were tested, could turn out to be R-L21.

Thanks David. Sure I am aware. I can model the Bronze Age with L21 arriving as Amesbury Archer...but I feel my current 'best fit' model has L21 arriving in Southern England later - and related to Bronze Age "Celtic" field systems. So L21 as a pastoral/mixed farmer rather than metal specialist. However, dating the 'celtic fields' is extremely difficult and very few radio-carbon dated examples exist. They allegedly cover the period from 2000BC to Post Roman and all look very similar morphologically. Anyhow - 'my' Middle Bronze Age tumuli are very well tied in with Middle Bronze Age field systems and a major population expansion in the Isles ....oh and maybe L21 (my bias again?)....or sub-clades of DF13.. That is where I would like to understand much more - the dates, sequence and location of expansion of DF13 sub-clades. That would be very informative. Mark Jost produced fluxus diagrams for our FGC 5494 'clan'. that was very useful in helping understand origins and possible spread of FGC 5494 sub-clades - though not foolproof I am sure. I would love to see similar for all the DF13 sub-clades.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 05:54 PM
Were their anthropometrics transferred by word-of-mouth? As I understand it, the skeletons in those kurgans that have been excavated are physically similar to those buried on the steppe.




Long barrows: apples to oranges (collective burial, different types of skeletons, different grave goods).



Again, different skeletons. different grave goods, etc. I doubt they were P312.



I get the feeling you're confusing yourself by making too much of some differences that are minor and too little of differences that are significant.

I agree with Haak et al.

Thanks for helpful post...
Agree re anthropometrics...I can not understand those who refuse to move on in light of the overwhelming evidence.

Long Barrows - oversimplified? According to Woodward 2000 British Barrows - round barrows were in the Isles from about 3,600 BC - as distinct from the Long Barrows that arrived somewhat earlier.

maritime Beaker - different skeletons yes - but similar to I2??? However, early Beaker package had similarities in grave goods to later developed Beaker package. so a clear link between the two...and if I2 and P312....why the close link.

points 3-6 - I have studied the evidence very closely and I firmly believe all points 1-6 stand as equal importance in understanding R1b expansion in the Isles.

rms2
04-01-2015, 06:22 PM
Well, I've never heard of round barrows that early. I'll have to take your word for it, but that just sounds dubious to me.

I think there are good reasons to doubt that any R1b made it to the Isles before Beaker in the mid 3rd millennium BC.

We have a pretty good and growing store of Neolithic y-dna results, and only one of those is R1b. And that one, Els Trocs, seems to me to support the Haak et al R1b steppe origin hypothesis, since it is M269- and M73- and therefore likely P297- and V88+. No pre-Neolithic R1b has been recovered in Europe outside of Russia.

Autosomally, modern Europeans have a substantial proportion of a Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like component, and that in places with little R1a, and the same can be said of ANE, which had to come from somewhere and with some people. Most Europeans speak Indo-European languages now, and those had to come from somewhere and with some people, as well. Funny coincidence how so many scholars believe Indo-European originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and now it looks like R1b came from there, as well.

If R1b were in the Isles as early as the Neolithic, one would think it would be showing up nearby on the Continent, but it isn't. I counted 24 Neolithic y-dna results from France, 12 from Germany, and 9 from Spain. Only one was R1b, and that was Els Trocs, which, again, I think is the exception that actually proves the rule.

Jean M
04-01-2015, 07:06 PM
According to Woodward 2000 British Barrows - round barrows were in the Isles from about 3,600 BC - as distinct from the Long Barrows that arrived somewhat earlier.


Really? That is astonishing and does not fit the English Heritage monument class descriptions, conveniently online: http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/intro2.htm The earliest date they have for a round barrow (bowl barrow) is 3000 BC. One oval barrow is earlier, but only 3210+/-45 BC.

David Mc
04-01-2015, 07:35 PM
Thanks David. Sure I am aware. I can model the Bronze Age with L21 arriving as Amesbury Archer...but I feel my current 'best fit' model has L21 arriving in Southern England later - and related to Bronze Age "Celtic" field systems. So L21 as a pastoral/mixed farmer rather than metal specialist. However, dating the 'celtic fields' is extremely difficult and very few radio-carbon dated examples exist. They allegedly cover the period from 2000BC to Post Roman and all look very similar morphologically. Anyhow - 'my' Middle Bronze Age tumuli are very well tied in with Middle Bronze Age field systems and a major population expansion in the Isles ....oh and maybe L21 (my bias again?)....or sub-clades of DF13.. That is where I would like to understand much more - the dates, sequence and location of expansion of DF13 sub-clades. That would be very informative. Mark Jost produced fluxus diagrams for our FGC 5494 'clan'. that was very useful in helping understand origins and possible spread of FGC 5494 sub-clades - though not foolproof I am sure. I would love to see similar for all the DF13 sub-clades.

Thank you for elaborating. So to be clear, you believe R1b entered into the Isles in the Neolithic, but the R-L21 subclade arrived in the Late Bronze Age? I'm still a bit confused by these two statements which seem contradictory... you write, "I feel my current 'best fit' model has L21 arriving in Southern England later - and related to Bronze Age "Celtic" field systems," but then you go on to say, "'my' Middle Bronze Age tumuli are very well tied in with Middle Bronze Age field systems and a major population expansion in the Isles ....oh and maybe L21 (my bias again?)....or sub-clades of DF13..." Which are you actually arguing for, early-mid Bronze Age R-L21 or Late Bronze Age?

Also, at the beginning of this thread it seemed like you were arguing for R-L21 coming in with the megalithic, over and against a later Beaker Folk entry. Now it seems like you're arguing that R-L21 came in later than the Beaker period. Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake today, but I guess I still don't understand what your hypothesis is.

Heber
04-01-2015, 08:11 PM
Just got this update from IrelandsDNA Newsletter.

"A paper published in the journal, Nature, by Wolfgang Haak of the Austrian Centre for Ancient DNA, David Reich of the Broad Institute in Boston and others promises to revolutionise current thinking about the peopling of Europe after the end of the last ice age. Using ancient DNA taken from 69 individuals who lived between 8,000 and 3,000 years ago. Haak and his colleagues now believe that there were two major migrations of farmers into Europe. The first took place between c8,000 years ago and c7,000 years ago, and the new people came from the Near East.

The new research shows that this migration was followed by a period when the native hunter-gatherer populations were resurgent. Then, there followed a second, massive migration about 4,000 years ago. This came from a different direction, from the steppes that stretch between the northern shores of the Black Sea to the Caspian. Known as the Yamna or the Pit Grave culture, these people were pastoralists who grazed and tended their herds and flocks on the wide grasslands. Characteristic of this culture were the kurgans, grave mounds that were often large and could be seen on the vast horizon of the steppe. Many of the Yamna herders moved westwards around 4,000 years ago and Wolfgang Haak and his fellow authors have produced evidence from ancient DNA to show that the steppe migrants replaced about 75% of the ancestry of central Europeans.

What makes this discovery even more important is its impact on thinking about the theories around language shift. Some believe that the progenitor of almost all European languages, what is known as Proto-Indo-European came from the east, but now it seems that at least some early Indo European languages arrived in the mouths of the Yamna. New farming and herding techniques needed new terms to describe them and perhaps they were first used on the steppe grassland, what is now Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia."


My current thinking on R1b and Celtic from the West can be summarized below. Ancient DNA shows a strong showing for R1b-M269 in the Steppes and a branch possible related to Neolithic Cardial in Iberia, however I believe the real expansion of R1b-P312 was in the Atlantic Zone. I am open to revise my view if we find additional significant samples of aDNA downstream of R1b-M269 (L23, L51, L11, P312, L21, U152, DF27 etc.)

https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/the-stelae-people/

razyn
04-01-2015, 08:48 PM
I believe the real expansion of R1b-P312 was in the Atlantic Zone. I am open to revise my view if we find additional significant samples of aDNA downstream of R1b-M269 (L23, L51, L11, P312, L21, U152, DF27 etc.)

How far east will each of the above have to be found, sequentially, to encourage such revision?

Heber
04-01-2015, 09:03 PM
How far east will each of the above have to be found, sequentially, to encourage such revision?

L23 in Steppes and Balkans
L51 in Balkans and Alpine
L11 in Balkans and Alpine and Atlantic
P312 in Atlantic
L21 in Atlantic and Isles

No revision required. This is similar to what I proposed in 2010.

Belgrade is interesting.
West of the Danube / Rhine corridor could be the beginning of the expansion.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 09:13 PM
Woodward page 36
"Kinnes was able to show that round barrows did not occur first in the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age Beaker period, but had been present from the early Neolithic. Some were contemporary with long barrows but many are dated a little later when they become the main barrow type of the later Neolithic. The human remains found in round barrows are usually single complete skeletons - a significant departure from the groups of disarticulated bones from beneath long barrows."

I cannot say I have tried to research the early Neolithic round barrows and I have taken Woodward at face value as her work seems to be well regarded.

rms2
04-01-2015, 09:21 PM
. . . Ancient DNA shows a strong showing for R1b-M269 in the Steppes and a branch possible related to Neolithic Cardial in Iberia, however I believe the real expansion of R1b-P312 was in the Atlantic Zone. I am open to revise my view if we find additional significant samples of aDNA downstream of R1b-M269 (L23, L51, L11, P312, L21, U152, DF27 etc.)


How about the P312+ result for the Beaker man from Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2296-2206 BC, and the two from Kromsdorf, Germany, circa 2600-2500 BC, who were probably also P312+, since they were R1bxU106?

Personally, I suspect P312 will be found in some Yamnaya remains on its western route into peninsular Europe.

I think the whole Atlantic facade thing is over emphasized.

That branch in Iberia was M269- and M73-. That means it was probably also P297- and V88+.

Net Down G5L
04-01-2015, 10:17 PM
Thank you for elaborating. So to be clear, you believe R1b entered into the Isles in the Neolithic, but the R-L21 subclade arrived in the Late Bronze Age? I'm still a bit confused by these two statements which seem contradictory... you write, "I feel my current 'best fit' model has L21 arriving in Southern England later - and related to Bronze Age "Celtic" field systems," but then you go on to say, "'my' Middle Bronze Age tumuli are very well tied in with Middle Bronze Age field systems and a major population expansion in the Isles ....oh and maybe L21 (my bias again?)....or sub-clades of DF13..." Which are you actually arguing for, early-mid Bronze Age R-L21 or Late Bronze Age?

Also, at the beginning of this thread it seemed like you were arguing for R-L21 coming in with the megalithic, over and against a later Beaker Folk entry. Now it seems like you're arguing that R-L21 came in later than the Beaker period. Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake today, but I guess I still don't understand what your hypothesis is.

Ok, I will try and explain.....

At the beginning of the thread I specifically said I did not specify L21 into the Isles in the (Isles) Neolithic. Someone else raised L21 - not me. I specifically said I would leave it open for discussion - but later gave a possible example where L11 may have split with L11* reaching the Isles and L11 - pre p312 taking an inland route - the inland componant leading to Beaker.

some rationale for the MBA linkage:

YFull have TMRCAs for DF13 sub-clades from round about 1800BC which fits the Middle Bronze Age major poulation expansion. L11* in the Isles late Neolithic is pushing it with YFull TMRCA of about 3000BC - but in the same rough ballpark.

In trying to understand R1b expansion/migration I believe we need to look at the whole model from Neolithic to Iron Age - trying to identify critical points and working forward and back from those points.

I see beaker as a key point - but very confusing.
I see Middle Bronze Age as a key point - because if my understanding is correct - the most significant population boom took place across the whole of England and Ireland (not so sure about Scotland and Wales data for that period but possibly the whole of the Isles),

So what DNA could have boomed in the Isles at that time. Presumably R1b

Too early for U106 I think is the consensus.
Too early for U152 - urnfield being the large expansion into the Isles I think is the consensus?

That leaves DF27 and L21. We know DF13 had a population boom about that time and expanded to dominate the Isles in the Bronze and Iron Ages with U152 having a significant incursion during that period.

I have to look at DF13 as the favourite for Middle Bronze Age expansion. If that assumption is correct - then using archaeology and dna information - working forward and back in time - it is possible to construct an archaeogenetic model.

Likewise taking an alternative assumption of L21 arriving as Beaker form the east it is also possible to construct a model.

I just think of the options - the assumption I have considered where MBA=DF13 expansion works best.

Other options:
Of course L21 as Beaker and Df13 as MBA are compatible as single a model option. However, I find the radical change from a relatively rich metal working/trading specialist to a poor stock rearing culture difficult to explain. Yes there are hundreds of years to change - but other options give greater continuity.

So basically I am working back and forward looking at each identifyable archaeological event (possible migration / expansion) trying to explain each in a logical sequence that fits the DNA.

I have got to something very odd happening around 3000BC that does not have an obvious dna explanation in any of my model options.

Maybe it is just internal change within the broader I2 led communities. However, the evidence seems to be building for a period of conflict between different ideologies - and that to me suggests migration of a group with different lead dna. And if that were true I can only come up with R1b as a viable alternative DNA type to be leading a migration at that time. And if it was R1b that would mean early arrival of Indo-European...so i look for signs...and also at aDNA to see if it supports or refutes the option. Refute is great because it cuts out the option . But for me refute means refute. The old addage absence of evidence is not evidence of absence applies. Especially if the people I am considering activly practiced cremation. Why would I expect to find lots of their ancient DNA in samples taken from Neolithic skeletons from other cultures?

Sorry - longwinded answer - but just saying I am trying to take an holistic approach across a 3000 year plus period would not make any sense to anyone.

jamesdowallen
04-02-2015, 10:33 AM
As I stated in another thread recently (though without enthusiastic support :\ ) I think the origin of R1b-P312 can now be settled.

The Aha! moment for me came when I looked at the map at the top of Wikipedia's Bell Beaker page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture). The directional arrows of Bell Beaker influence match exactly with the known centers of P312 and U106 expansion. (I won't try to guess exactly where on the Rhine-->Iberia trajectory P312-MRCA lived.) Even the Beaker expansion into Sardinia helps confirm this: that's where R-Z2115 is found, sibling to R-L151. And the dates of these Bell Beaker expansions match the dates shown at Yfull.com. (I notice Yfull changed their dates -- they seem to be getting closer and closer to a consensus.) Another site that helped me understand Bell Beaker is the Bell Beaker section of what looks like a very interesting book. (https://books.google.co.th/books?id=oP48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141).

But the Yfull dates might be off by several centuries, and the specific directionalities of influence are persistent and might apply to influences of other times. To "prove" that R-L151 expanded with Bell Beaker from the Rhine area (U106); traveled southwest and expanded as P312, we need to establish 3 points:

(1) Could the relevant SNPs have happened in the East, with P312 tribe traveling a long distance together and expanding centuries later? I think this defies Occam's Razor, and would have led to more blurring in the subclades' geographical distributions.

(2) Could the P312 TMRCA be much later than 2800 BC? Unlikely, given the recent P312 skeleton with 2250 BC date.

(3) Could the P312 TMRCA be much earlier than 2800 BC? AFAIK, there is no known major cultural influence directed from Germany to southern France or Iberia before the Bell Beaker expansion.

Left unsettled is: How did U106 and P312 overwhelm the population of Western Europe? How many centuries did that take? Did it involve large massacres or just the inexorable procreation advantage of a royal caste? The ancient Gaelic Derbfine rules may be vestiges of a Bell Beaker royal caste system.

The Bell Beaker elite may have spoken an I-E language ancestral to Celtic, but I think linguists date the fanout of proto-Celtic itself to many centuries after Beaker.

rms2
04-02-2015, 10:56 AM
I don't know exactly how this worked, but, personally, I don't think U106 had much if anything to do with Beaker. I think U106 was part of the Yamnaya route west that went around the north side of the Carpathians and fed into Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware. No U106 has turned up in those cultures yet, but I think it will. For one thing, a number of scholars over the years have associated Beaker with the Italo-Celtic subfamily of Indo-European, and U106 appears to be inversely related to Italo-Celtic. P312, on the other hand, appears to be directly related to Italo-Celtic. The distribution of U106 matches that of Germanic speakers very well, and Corded Ware is often connected with the development of Germanic (as well as Balto-Slavic).

Had U106 been a part of Rhenish Beaker, it should show up in Copper and Bronze Age Britain and Ireland. I don't think we will see that. U106's distribution in the Isles too closely matches the advent, spread, and settlement of the Anglo-Saxons. It does not look like a y haplogroup that got to the Isles as early as the Copper Age.

IMHO, U106 was intimately involved with the evolution of Germanic. The Germans did not arrive in the area of the lower Rhine until the late 8th century BC, long after Beaker, and it took them until around 200 BC to push the Celts across the Rhine.

razyn
04-02-2015, 01:53 PM
I don't know exactly how this worked, but, personally, I don't think U106 had much if anything to do with Beaker.

and so on... not that I disagree with this; but would it not suggest therefore that L11 and its predecessor L51 (at least) did not occur nearly as far west as Heber's model (and indeed most models, to date) would posit?


L23 in Steppes and Balkans
L51 in Balkans and Alpine
L11 in Balkans and Alpine and Atlantic
P312 in Atlantic
L21 in Atlantic and Isles

I'm poorly informed, and at some level disinterested, in the archaeological cultures involved -- unless and until we have actual associations of separate YDNA lineages under discussion with the material remains that have defined those cultures. My suspicion (for several years) of more eastern ancestry, and more northern migratory routes, for R1b into western Europe has been based on the phylogeny I thought I was seeing in the spring of 2011. It just did not, and does not, look to me as if the P312 tree trunk (and the roots from which it grew) should be found in peninsular Europe, much less Iberia. We may need to quibble about whether DF27 or P312 or L11 is more usefully perceived as the "trunk," but that's fine. Those things seem to me more helpful, and more susceptible to resolution by the convergence of theory with aDNA evidence.

Reconciliation of these phylogenetic branching points with archaeologically visible, prehistoric "cultures" would be a good thing, too. But to me it doesn't make too much sense to start with the cultures, and deduce their likely DNA branches. Either material culture or languages (for which our solid evidence is typically much younger) may readily be shared by persons who are no kin to one another, in their YDNA or otherwise.

Heber
04-02-2015, 03:12 PM
According to Hallast Data (and confirmed by FTDNA Project Data), the R1b Tree appears to have burst into leaf in the Atlantic.

4233

4234

4235

https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327.full

I believe that once the Bell Beakers had established the route between the Steppes and the Atlantic, there were reflux and back migrations along these trading routes from Steppes, CEU, Balkans, Alpine, Atlantic Zones.

GoldenHind
04-02-2015, 07:25 PM
According to Hallast Data (and confirmed by FTDNA Project Data), the R1b Tree appears to have burst into leaf in the Atlantic.

4233

4234

4235

https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327.full

I believe that once the Bell Beakers had established the route between the Steppes and the Atlantic, there were reflux and back migrations along these trading routes from Steppes, CEU, Balkans, Alpine, Atlantic Zones.

I don't know the source of this diagram, but I doubt very much that the rapid expansion of P312 occurred as far west as the Atlantic. Many of the P312 subclades don't have much of a presence along the Atlantic at all, and their concentrations are either entirely or primarily well to the east of the Atlantic fringe.

Net Down G5L
04-03-2015, 06:15 AM
Really? That is astonishing and does not fit the English Heritage monument class descriptions, conveniently online: http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/intro2.htm The earliest date they have for a round barrow (bowl barrow) is 3000 BC. One oval barrow is earlier, but only 3210+/-45 BC.

OK - quick check of the Early Neolithic Round Barrows
Example mound...Baysian dated...
Seems to have origin about 3,600BC linked to impressed ware. so possibly a link back to the Mediterranean and Turkey - possibly G2a DNA in skeletal remains?
BUT
Interesting gap in use. Then re-use. With cremation burials around the time the main round barrow mound was created.
"Burial E, the highermost died probably between 2815-2735 cal BC (68% probability). It is to this period that the cremation burials must also belong and the finding of skewer pins similar to those from the Duggleby cremations associated with middle Neolithic cremations at Stonehenge, Dorchester-on-Thames and Cairnpapple Hill support this hypothesis."

References
Space and Episodic Ritual at the monumental Neolithic round mound of Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire, England (http://http://pm.revues.org/924)
Mezraa-Teleilat Settlement "Impressed" Ware and Transferring Neolithic Life Style (http://https://www.academia.edu/404527/Mezraa-Teleilat_Settlement_Impressed_Ware_and_Transferrin g_Neolithic_Life_Style)
/Neolithic_circular_enclosures_in_Central_Europe (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_circular_enclosures_in_Central_Europe)
Gimbutas The Living Godess (Yes Jean, you were right - she does talk about solar alignments in Old Europe)
Conclusion...
Skewer pins = cremations in round barrows = grooved ware = stonehenge and durrington walls = cremations at stonehenge = link to Gimbutas Roundels = Solar Aligned = Old Europe
....but what DNA the "Cremation People?"

Net Down G5L
04-03-2015, 06:28 AM
Conclusion...
Skewer pins = cremations in round barrows = grooved ware = stonehenge and durrington walls = cremations at stonehenge = link to Gimbutas Roundels = Solar Aligned = Old Europe
....but what DNA the "Cremation People?"

Old hypothesis at start of thread now rejected and binned (thanks for help with that)......replacement model below....

The "C People Model"
While I was asleep last night the whole box of frogs were hopping around like mad and had come up with a new hypothesis about Gimbutas and Celts from the West. Head frog told me...
- 'listen to what the forum is saying and keep it simple stupid.'
- think of Eurasia west of Caucuses (roughly between 4000Bc and 2800BC) as split in two with a dividing 'zone' running west of the Black sea up the Danube and roughly up the Elbe.
- take Cunliffe and Kock's Celts from the West and get rid of the term Celt because it is emotive and confuses the issue. Frog said what about the "C People" They spent a lot of time at 'sea' ...but also inland as far as the Danube. They also possibly practiced cremation. So C for Sea and C for Cremation. They possibly come out of Anatolia (according to Cunliffe / Kock and also those who sought an 'origin' for Neolithic cremation). So the "C People" with Anat DNA (DNA to be discussed and agreed later).

So NE of the dividing zone we have the Indo Europeans from the Steppe.
Gimbutas IE Zone
Lets Put gimbutas waves 1 2 and 3 (up to 2800BC) in this zone. Lets assume Eastern Beaker (later) also fits with this Zone. If Eastern Beaker autosomnal DNA has no east med componant (Anatolian componant) it puts Eastern Beaker / P312 firmly in the Gimbutas Indo-European part of the model.
The C People Zone
The C People are a migration out of Anatolia. A particular wave of "C People" reach the Isles around 3200-3000BC. This wave is first clearly visible at Newgrange where they build solar aligned monuments with a particular mid winter alignment. Their cremated remains are found at the monument. The same C People can be seen at Maeshowe in Orkney round about 3000-2900BC. where they build a midwinter aligned monument very similar to Newgrange. They also built stone circles nearby. The "C people were responsible for the large round barrows built in Britain around 2900-2800BC. They contained their cremations in barrows like the one at Duggleby. The "C People took the bluestones from Prescely and assembled them at Stonehenge around 3000BC and they placed cremated remains beneath the stones and adjacent. Around 2600Bc the C People had a huge camp at Durrington Walls where they had their base for building the Stonehenge Sarson triathlons. At Durrington Walls they had mid-winter feasting. Isotope data shows that they brought their animals from Cornwall, Wales, Orkneys etc to join in the mid-winter feasting. The 'C People' were a united band (culture?). they had grooved ware pottery, skewer pins, cremation burials in common. They had a united culture.

Lets assume RMS is right and there is no relationship between Eastern and Maritime Beaker.
Did Maritime Beaker also belong to this DNA family?
And what is the DNA of this family? Is it Anatolian in origin?

There is a new Anatolian DNA study due out very soon -so I am going to sit tight and lets see comes out of that before suggesting final conclusions on the DNA. Even then - the C Peoples "Anat DNA" may not even be from Anatolia. They may be of a different origin.

rms2
04-03-2015, 12:21 PM
and so on... not that I disagree with this; but would it not suggest therefore that L11 and its predecessor L51 (at least) did not occur nearly as far west as Heber's model (and indeed most models, to date) would posit?



I'm poorly informed, and at some level disinterested, in the archaeological cultures involved -- unless and until we have actual associations of separate YDNA lineages under discussion with the material remains that have defined those cultures. My suspicion (for several years) of more eastern ancestry, and more northern migratory routes, for R1b into western Europe has been based on the phylogeny I thought I was seeing in the spring of 2011. It just did not, and does not, look to me as if the P312 tree trunk (and the roots from which it grew) should be found in peninsular Europe, much less Iberia. We may need to quibble about whether DF27 or P312 or L11 is more usefully perceived as the "trunk," but that's fine. Those things seem to me more helpful, and more susceptible to resolution by the convergence of theory with aDNA evidence.

Reconciliation of these phylogenetic branching points with archaeologically visible, prehistoric "cultures" would be a good thing, too. But to me it doesn't make too much sense to start with the cultures, and deduce their likely DNA branches. Either material culture or languages (for which our solid evidence is typically much younger) may readily be shared by persons who are no kin to one another, in their YDNA or otherwise.

My own view, and I could be wrong, obviously, is that L51 arose back on the steppe, and probably L11 did, too. P312 was present in the Yamnaya people who went west via the up-the-Danube route and began expanding in central Europe. It was probably the predominant y-haplogroup in Vucedol, Zok-Mako, and Samogyvar-Vinkovci, which gave rise to Beaker. Beaker went gangbusters and spread P312 to the Atlantic. U106, as I speculated before, went around the east and north sides of the Carpathians and into Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware with R1a-Z93.

I don't think we're starting with the cultures. We're looking at the phylogenies in both time and geography and trying to connect them with cultures that have the same or similar chronology and phylogeography.

rms2
04-03-2015, 12:37 PM
Old hypothesis at start of thread now rejected and binned (thanks for help with that)......replacement model below....

The "C People Model"
While I was asleep last night the whole box of frogs were hopping around like mad and had come up with a new hypothesis about Gimbutas and Celts from the West. Head frog told me...
- 'listen to what the forum is saying and keep it simple stupid.'
- think of Eurasia west of Caucuses (roughly between 4000Bc and 2800BC) as split in two with a dividing 'zone' running west of the Black sea up the Danube and roughly up the Elbe.
- take Cunliffe and Kock's Celts from the West and get rid of the term Celt because it is emotive and confuses the issue. Frog said what about the "C People" They spent a lot of time at 'sea' ...but also inland as far as the Danube. They also possibly practiced cremation. So C for Sea and C for Cremation. They possibly come out of Anatolia (according to Cunliffe / Kock and also those who sought an 'origin' for Neolithic cremation). So the "C People" with Anat DNA (DNA to be discussed and agreed later).

So NE of the dividing zone we have the Indo Europeans from the Steppe.
Gimbutas IE Zone
Lets Put gimbutas waves 1 2 and 3 (up to 2800BC) in this zone. Lets assume Eastern Beaker (later) also fits with this Zone. If Eastern Beaker autosomnal DNA has no east med componant (Anatolian componant) it puts Eastern Beaker / P312 firmly in the Gimbutas Indo-European part of the model.
The C People Zone
The C People are a migration out of Anatolia. A particular wave of "C People" reach the Isles around 3200-3000BC. This wave is first clearly visible at Newgrange where they build solar aligned monuments with a particular mid winter alignment. Their cremated remains are found at the monument. The same C People can be seen at Maeshowe in Orkney round about 3000-2900BC. where they build a midwinter aligned monument very similar to Newgrange. They also built stone circles nearby. The "C people were responsible for the large round barrows built in Britain around 2900-2800BC. They contained their cremations in barrows like the one at Duggleby. The "C People took the bluestones from Prescely and assembled them at Stonehenge around 3000BC and they placed cremated remains beneath the stones and adjacent. Around 2600Bc the C People had a huge camp at Durrington Walls where they had their base for building the Stonehenge Sarson triathlons. At Durrington Walls they had mid-winter feasting. Isotope data shows that they brought their animals from Cornwall, Wales, Orkneys etc to join in the mid-winter feasting. The 'C People' were a united band (culture?). they had grooved ware pottery, skewer pins, cremation burials in common. They had a united culture.

Lets assume RMS is right and there is no relationship between Eastern and Maritime Beaker.
Did Maritime Beaker also belong to this DNA family?
And what is the DNA of this family? Is it Anatolian in origin?

There is a new Anatolian DNA study due out very soon -so I am going to sit tight and lets see comes out of that before suggesting final conclusions on the DNA. Even then - the C Peoples "Anat DNA" may not even be from Anatolia. They may be of a different origin.

Here's my prediction, and if I am wrong, I am wrong. Those pre-Beaker folks in the Isles will be I2a, G2a, and perhaps some F*. None of them will be R1b, unless an oddball stray R1bxP297 possibly V88+ managed to stumble his way up north, which I doubt.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the I2a were I-M26 like those two from the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte near Paris.

I doubt any of the pre-Beaker inhabitants of the Isles was a newcomer directly from Anatolia. Some of them may have had distant ancestors who came from Anatolia, however.

Heber
04-03-2015, 11:29 PM
I don't know the source of this diagram, but I doubt very much that the rapid expansion of P312 occurred as far west as the Atlantic. Many of the P312 subclades don't have much of a presence along the Atlantic at all, and their concentrations are either entirely or primarily well to the east of the Atlantic fringe.

Here is my analysis by region, Atlantic, North, Mediterranean, Central and Balkan

4249

and by Branch P312, L11, M269, U106 and DF27

4250

and here is the data

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327/suppl/DC1

Agamemnon
04-04-2015, 12:13 AM
I think the whole Atlantic facade thing is over emphasized.

From a linguistic POV, it makes absolutely no sense... The way I see it, Koch (who happens to be one of the leading authorities in Celtic studies) engaged in a form of professional suicide by associating his name to the "Celtic from the West" theory. But again, seems to me that he has a weak spot for outlandish theories (such as Tartessian being Celtic, for example). It's a shame really.

Jean M
04-04-2015, 12:44 AM
From a linguistic POV, it makes absolutely no sense... The way I see it, Koch (who happens to be one of the leading authorities in Celtic studies) engaged in a form of professional suicide by associating his name to the "Celtic from the West" theory.

Not suicide exactly. Since he is already a professor, he's reached the pinnacle of his profession, and can do what he likes. He doesn't have to please reviewers. He can experiment with an outside bet that takes his fancy. If it hits the buffers (as I agree this one will), he is not going to get ritually crucified by the Luminous Brethren of the Linguistrati. More like an elevated eyebrow or two in the Common Room.

Agamemnon
04-04-2015, 01:36 AM
Not suicide exactly. Since he is already a professor, he's reached the pinnacle of his profession, and can do what he likes. He doesn't have to please reviewers. He can experiment with an outside bet that takes his fancy. If it hits the buffers (as I agree this one will), he is not going to get ritually crucified by the Luminous Brethren of the Linguistrati. More like an elevated eyebrow or two in the Common Room.

Quite so, he's gonna get away with it as long as he breathes... However, I'm not exactly sure future generations of linguists will refrain from judging him harshly, take Georges Dumézil (a personal idol of mine), he received extremely harsh criticism for his attempts to link Quechua to Turkic languages as well as his assertion that the Hyksos were Indo-European (which is reminiscent of the older IE Amorite theories).
Usually, as soon as a famous linguist dies, the controversial parts of the late linguist's work get torn to shreds by fellow linguists (another example, closer to my area of expertise, is Anson Rainey and his approach towards the traditional classification of the NW Semitic branch).

Net Down G5L
04-04-2015, 07:30 AM
According to Hallast Data (and confirmed by FTDNA Project Data), the R1b Tree appears to have burst into leaf in the Atlantic.

4233

4234

4235

https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327.full

I believe that once the Bell Beakers had established the route between the Steppes and the Atlantic, there were reflux and back migrations along these trading routes from Steppes, CEU, Balkans, Alpine, Atlantic Zones.

Not sure I fully understand your data. Seems very radically different?
The table TMRCA dates suggest Neolithic origin for L21 and DF13 in Ireland but you have R1b arriving with Bell Beaker from the Steppe somewhat later?

M269 branches Med, Central, Atlantic
L11 branches Atlantic and North
P312 branches predominantly Atlantic

That suggests a Steppe origin/connection with M269 at latest?... with L11 'in the west' well pre-Beaker.

Could you clarify your interpreation of the data please?

Heber
04-04-2015, 11:47 AM
Not sure I fully understand your data. Seems very radically different?
The table TMRCA dates suggest Neolithic origin for L21 and DF13 in Ireland but you have R1b arriving with Bell Beaker from the Steppe somewhat later?

M269 branches Med, Central, Atlantic
L11 branches Atlantic and North
P312 branches predominantly Atlantic

That suggests a Steppe origin/connection with M269 at latest?... with L11 'in the west' well pre-Beaker.

Could you clarify your interpretation of the data please?

This graphic may illustrate it better:
4257

Expansion of R1b-M269 in the Steppes (Kemi Obi)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-m269/

Expansion of R1b-L23 in the Balkans (Vinca)
Expansion of R1b-L11 in the Alps (Sion)

Extreme Expansion of P312 and DF25, U152, L21 in the Atlantic Zone (Avalon)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/
Expansion of DF27 in Iberia (Tartessos, Tagus)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/
Expansion of U152 in France, Alpine (Halstatt)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u152-l2/
Expansion of L21 in the Atlantic Zone (Brittany, Isles)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/

This is similar to Kochs recent conference on "Indo European from the East, Celtic from the West".
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/

I find the recently published YFull TMRCA estimates still too high.
I understand they are settling down and converging to more recent dates.

Radboud
04-04-2015, 11:50 AM
I don't know exactly how this worked, but, personally, I don't think U106 had much if anything to do with Beaker. I think U106 was part of the Yamnaya route west that went around the north side of the Carpathians and fed into Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware. No U106 has turned up in those cultures yet, but I think it will. For one thing, a number of scholars over the years have associated Beaker with the Italo-Celtic subfamily of Indo-European, and U106 appears to be inversely related to Italo-Celtic. P312, on the other hand, appears to be directly related to Italo-Celtic. The distribution of U106 matches that of Germanic speakers very well, and Corded Ware is often connected with the development of Germanic (as well as Balto-Slavic).

Had U106 been a part of Rhenish Beaker, it should show up in Copper and Bronze Age Britain and Ireland. I don't think we will see that. U106's distribution in the Isles too closely matches the advent, spread, and settlement of the Anglo-Saxons. It does not look like a y haplogroup that got to the Isles as early as the Copper Age.

IMHO, U106 was intimately involved with the evolution of Germanic. The Germans did not arrive in the area of the lower Rhine until the late 8th century BC, long after Beaker, and it took them until around 200 BC to push the Celts across the Rhine.

This post makes total sense! R1b U106 correlates very well with Germanic speakers and probably played an important role for Proto-Germanic. I have read some stuff about R1b U106 being initially a haplogroup from Hallstatt Culture and later being Germanized but that doesn't add up.

razyn
04-04-2015, 11:51 AM
I believe that once the Bell Beakers had established the route between the Steppes and the Atlantic, there were reflux and back migrations along these trading routes from Steppes, CEU, Balkans, Alpine, Atlantic Zones.

That still sounds to me as if the suggested Celtic Backwash is a matter of credo, more than scio. And the phenomenon itself -- whatever it was -- is becoming ever more susceptible to resolution by science. I'm not deeply uncomfortable with the backwash thing; if it happened it happened, but it seems to me an unnecessarily ingenious construct. In principle, not too unlike the construct of the simplest beakers starting in Portugal, gradually becoming more complex as they moved eastward and added impressed cords -- ending up in Hungary, Romania or someplace before they lost their flat bases and looked like the stuff in the lower Volga basin a thousand years earlier.

Just maybe, Occam needs to strop his razor a bit. Maybe not. But I don't think all the evidence is saying the same thing, yet.

rms2
04-04-2015, 12:00 PM
This graphic may illustrate it better:
4257

Expansion of R1b-M269 in the Steppes (Kemi Obi)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-m269/

Expansion of R1b-L23 in the Balkans (Vinca)
Expansion of R1b-L11 in the Alps (Sion)

Extreme Expansion of P312 and DF25, U152, L21 in the Atlantic Zone (Avalon)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/
Expansion of DF27 in Iberia (Tartessos, Tagus)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/
Expansion of U152 in France, Alpine (Halstatt)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u152-l2/
Expansion of L21 in the Atlantic Zone (Brittany, Isles)
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/

This is similar to Kochs recent conference on "Indo European from the East, Celtic from the West".
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/

I find the recently published YFull TMRCA estimates still too high.
I understand they are settling down and converging to more recent dates.

We are already at least one step downstream of L23 on the Volga-Ural steppe circa 3,000 BC: Z2103/Z2105. So, it doesn't seem likely to me that L23 expanded in the Balkans. I think what hit the Balkans with Yamnaya, if not with Suvorovo and Mikhailovka before Yamnaya, was probably already L11 at least, if not P312. We have a confirmed P312+ Beaker result from Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2300-2200 BC, and IMHO P312 got into Beaker because Vucedol and its successors got hold of Beaker and kurganized it, including giving it a transformative shot of their y-dna.

Webb
04-04-2015, 01:01 PM
We are already at least one step downstream of L23 on the Volga-Ural steppe circa 3,000 BC: Z2103/Z2105. So, it doesn't seem likely to me that L23 expanded in the Balkans. I think what hit the Balkans with Yamnaya, if not with Suvorovo and Mikhailovka before Yamnaya, was probably already L11 at least, if not P312. We have a confirmed P312+ Beaker result from Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2300-2200 BC, and IMHO P312 got into Beaker because Vucedol and its successors got hold of Beaker and kurganized it, including giving it a transformative shot of their y-dna.

Yes, the map does not account for L238 and DF99. So I would move P312 back into the middle of France at least, if not closer to the headwaters of the Rhine/Danube. In fact I think you could move every sublcade back one space on the map.

rms2
04-04-2015, 01:10 PM
Yes, the map does not account for L238 and DF99. So I would move P312 back into the middle of France at least, if not closer to the headwaters of the Rhine/Danube. In fact I think you could move every sublcade back one space on the map.

I would move them back farther than that. I have no proof, so I am just speculating, but I suspect P312 may have been present in Yamnaya on its march west to the Hungarian plain. I think it may have been the big cheese in Vucedol and its successors (Zok-Mako, Samogyvar, Vinkovci), and they are the ones who kurganized Beaker and sent it back west with something important to say.

4259 4260

Net Down G5L
04-04-2015, 02:10 PM
I find the recently published YFull TMRCA estimates still too high.
I understand they are settling down and converging to more recent dates.

So what is your best guess date for R1b reaching the Isles?

R.Rocca
04-04-2015, 03:24 PM
We are already at least one step downstream of L23 on the Volga-Ural steppe circa 3,000 BC: Z2103/Z2105. So, it doesn't seem likely to me that L23 expanded in the Balkans. I think what hit the Balkans with Yamnaya, if not with Suvorovo and Mikhailovka before Yamnaya, was probably already L11 at least, if not P312. We have a confirmed P312+ Beaker result from Quedlinburg, Germany, circa 2300-2200 BC, and IMHO P312 got into Beaker because Vucedol and its successors got hold of Beaker and kurganized it, including giving it a transformative shot of their y-dna.

Vucedol (~3000 BC) slightly pre-dates, or is contemporary with, the large Yamnaya migrations into the Danube (~2950 BC) that Heyd sees influencing the creation (transformation?) of Bell Beaker. Bell Beaker then appears in Hungary, N. Italy and Iberia ~2800 BC. So if anything, it would look like the same migratory event is likelier to have created both Vucedol and the earliest Bell Bell Beaker, and not one producing the other. As far as material culture goes, Vucedol isn't at all Kurgan like, and materially looks a lot more like Baden. If Vucedol's autosomal DNA is anything like Baden's, then these are not the people we are looking for, since Baden is typical Starčevo derived EEF. It seems unlikely to me that the Balkan Yamnaya shed its EHG for higher WHG anywhere in the Balkans. It seems like the reason why we don't see any Yamnaya settlements or many stelae in the Balkans, is because they didn't stick around long enough to settle in.

rms2
04-04-2015, 03:33 PM
Vucedol (~3000 BC) slightly pre-dates, or is contemporary with, the large Yamnaya migrations into the Danube (~2950 BC) that Heyd sees influencing the creation (transformation?) of Bell Beaker. Bell Beaker then appears in Hungary, N. Italy and Iberia ~2800 BC. So if anything, it would look like the same migratory event is likelier to have created both Vucedol and the earliest Bell Bell Beaker, and not one producing the other. As far as material culture goes, Vucedol isn't at all Kurgan like, and materially looks a lot more like Baden. If Vucedol's autosomal DNA is anything like Baden's, then these are not the people we are looking for, since Baden is typical Starčevo derived EEF. It seems unlikely to me that the Balkan Yamnaya shed its EHG for higher WHG anywhere in the Balkans. It seems like the reason why we don't see any Yamnaya settlements or many stelae in the Balkans, is because they didn't stick around long enough to settle in.

From what I have read, and I have not finished sorting it all out (there's a lot to sort), Vucedol produced successor cultures with tumulus burials in kurgan fashion. Glin-Schneckenburg is believed by some to have preceded the Bell Beaker Csepel group, and Glin-Schneckenburg was part of the whole Somogyvar-Vinkovci complex that may have evolved from Vucedol. There are burials in eastern Hungary containing Glin pottery that so resemble Yamnaya burials that archaeologists have had trouble classifying them as one or the other.

Here's a paper I have not yet finished reading that you may have already seen: Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in South-west Transdanubia (https://www.academia.edu/1153594/Early_Bronze_Age_settlemen[email protected]&email_was_taken=true), by Maria Bondar.

rms2
04-04-2015, 03:43 PM
From what I have read, and I have not finished sorting it all out (there's a lot to sort), Vucedol produced successor cultures with tumulus burials in kurgan fashion. Glin-Schneckenburg is believed by some to have preceded the Bell Beaker Csepel group, and Glin-Schneckenburg was part of the whole Somogyvar-Vinkovci complex that may have evolved from Vucedol. There are burials in eastern Hungary containing Glin pottery that so resemble Yamnaya burials that archaeologists have had trouble classifying them as one or the other.

Here's a paper I have not yet finished reading that you may have already seen: Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in South-west Transdanubia (https://www.academia.edu/1153594/Early_Bronze_Age_[email protected]gmail.com&email_was_taken=true), by Maria Bondar.

It's also possible, if Vucedol in fact dates from c. 3,000 BC, that it stems from one of Gimbutas' first two Kurgan waves, which seem to correspond to Suvorovo and Mikhailovka, respectively.

Gimbutas was the one who identified Vucedol as a predecessor of Beaker. Sorry to repeat something I have posted before, but here are the relevant quotes from Gimbutas' book, The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:



The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan characteristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction . . . (p. 104)

In western Hungary and northwestern Yugoslavia, the Vucedol complex was followed by the Samogyvar-Vinkovci complex, the predecessor of the Bell Beaker people. Furthermore, the exodus of the horse-riding Bell Beaker people in the middle of the 3rd millennium, or soon thereafter, from the territories of the Vucedol complex, may not be unconnected with the constant threat from the east. They carried to the west Kurgan traditions in armament, social structure, and religion. The fact of paramount importance of Bell Beaker mobility is the presence of the horse. Seven Bell Beaker sites at Budapest in Hungary have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna (pp. 258-259).

Heber
04-04-2015, 05:23 PM
So what is your best guess date for R1b reaching the Isles?

YFull has
4700 ybp for L21, U152 and Df27.
4700 ybp for P312
5700 ybp for L11
6300 ybp for L23
7000 ybp for M269

GoldenHind
04-05-2015, 01:04 AM
Yes, the map does not account for L238 and DF99. So I would move P312 back into the middle of France at least, if not closer to the headwaters of the Rhine/Danube. In fact I think you could move every sublcade back one space on the map.

I agree that an understanding of P312 requires taking into consideration all six P312 subclades (including DF19 as well), and not just the three more numerous subclades. L21 and DF27 do have a strong presence on the Atlantic, but both are present in significant numbers in central Europe, Scandinavia and other areas removed from the Atlantic. U152 is considerably less numerous along the Atlantic, and I think it is pretty obvious that its concentration is in central Europe, especially the Alpine area. The other three P312 subclades- DF19, DF99 and L238- have essentially no presence at all along the Atlantic.

Yfull assigns the same date for the emergence of all six P312 subclades. I believe that is more important than whether the date they propose is accurate. If all these subclades emerged from P312 at the same time, I think it is reasonable to assume their P312 forebears were located in fairly close proximity. I doubt very much that this was as far west as mid France. L238 is almost entirely limited to Scandinavia and has no presence in France whatsoever. No DF99 of French origin has yet been found, and although this could change, the data currently suggests its concentration is east of France. I believe the only DF19 found in France to date is from Normandy, and otherwise it also has no presence in France. I do not think this is reconcilable with an expansion for all of P312 either along the Atlantic or anywhere in France.

I believe the cumulative evidence suggests the P312 subclades started spinning off somewhere along the lower Danube, perhaps in the vicinity of Vienna, and certainly not west of the upper Rhine. Once they emerged, I think it is pretty obvious they proceeded to move in different directions. I suspect the larger subclades very likely were multi-directional. At least some portion of them very probably continued westward to the Atlantic. The smaller subclades do not seem to have done so.

If this is the case, P312 itself must have been born east of this area. I would guess this may have been somewhere along the Danube river valley between Vienna and the Black Sea. I wouldn't however rule out an origin in the steppes, although I would guess that is less likely.

razyn
04-05-2015, 03:00 AM
Yfull assigns the same date for the emergence of all six P312 subclades.

I got the impression this week that we're in the throes of discovering a seventh subclade, though the SNP initially chosen to characterize it (L624) is a bit recurrent. Since it appears (to me, anyway) that we have at least a couple of better choices, chances are one of the equivalent (but more stable) SNPS should be tagged as defining the new group. Not to be oracular about it: 19314263, G to T and 21465748, G to T seem also to travel with this new group -- and w/o L624's extra baggage of recurrence (i.e., separate instances of the same mutation) in haplogroup I, or elsewhere under P312. At the moment, it's five guys in group F of the P312 project. Don't expect that condition to last.

There has been speculation that this subclade (either under the name L624, or what BritainsDNA calls it, S389) may be Pictish -- but that seems a bit too specific, for a lightly tested SNP directly under P312. Assuming that's where it really fits in the phylogeny. Early days, yet; at any rate, we are getting a much more high-resolution picture of western Europe's most populous YDNA lineage, as time goes by (and nuclear aDNA is studied, and NextGen test results pour in). That picture is looking more diverse, more complex, more eastern, and perhaps older than it used to... way back five or ten years ago.

Heber
04-10-2015, 08:47 AM
This chart from Mike clearly shows the Phylogeny of R1b and the extreme expansion of P312.

4301

Although it is based on the FTDNA project data, this extreme expansion is confirmed by Hallast et Al and by the Chris Tyler Smith, Wei and Zhu original study.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561879/