PDA

View Full Version : R1b findings by (Allentoft et al. 2015)



alan
06-12-2015, 10:46 PM
The general thread on this is too much of a mix of all sorts of stuff and angles and needs broken up. Can anyone provide a summary of the final conclusions on the R1b findings - preferably in laymans terms as a lot of the lest often quoted SNPs are obscure to the non-specialist.

jdean
06-12-2015, 11:05 PM
The general thread on this is too much of a mix of all sorts of stuff and angles and needs broken up. Can anyone provide a summary of the final conclusions on the R1b findings - preferably in laymans terms as a lot of the lest often quoted SNPs are obscure to the non-specialist.

There isn't one yet, only a few have the knowledge to process BAM files and only one of them (that I know of) is providing the full results, none of which are R1b. So at the moment we are getting dribs and drabs which is akin to hear say.

rms2
06-12-2015, 11:52 PM
Someone posted this link to a y-dna spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit?pli=1#gid=1195386997) over on that other thread that at least provides some idea of the y-dna breakdown.

It's a let down to me because no one is testing Yamnaya along its route into the West, and we need some y-dna testing of the very earliest Iberian Beaker to see what it was.

I'm also wondering when we will get some Beaker y-dna from the British Isles and Ireland.

alan
06-13-2015, 12:10 AM
Someone posted this link to a y-dna spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit?pli=1#gid=1195386997) over on that other thread that at least provides some idea of the y-dna breakdown.

It's a let down to me because no one is testing Yamnaya along its route into the West, and we need some y-dna testing of the very earliest Iberian Beaker to see what it was.

I'm also wondering when we will get some Beaker y-dna from the British Isles and Ireland.

Possible L51xL11 in early CW (predating beaker in that area by 200 years) may be a clue about that step west. It hard not to wonder if BB is some kind of oddball offshoot of CW with a founder effect because CW covered almost all of temperate Europe from Ukraine to the east boundary of France in the period when beaker came into existence in the west.

Looks like Remedello is ruled out and that was the only other culture other than CW which I thought could be a missing link.

Think we are left with two possibilities

1. A low visibility intrusion of CW or closely related people into Iberia c. 2750BC to form the beaker culture.

2. BB originally not R1b and instead P312 only joining BB around 2600-2500BC in west central Europe.

What I would like to know is what is the oldest individual/individualised beaker burial in Iberia? Is that as old as the pottery? I say that because I now believe the change to this form of burials is more significant than the actual pots.

Generalissimo
06-13-2015, 12:32 AM
I haven't looked at the Corded Ware Y-DNA closely, but this figure (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/fig_tab/nature14507_SF6.html) shows R1, R1a and R1b.

The R1 is probably just R1a and R1b, although R1 can't be ruled out.

At least a substantial part of Bell Beaker R1b might well be from Corded Ware, or Bell Beaker itself might be a Corded Ware group modified by mixture, both cultural and genetic, in Germany and Bohemia (?).

jdean
06-13-2015, 12:32 AM
Possible L51xL11 in early CW (predating beaker in that area by 200 years) may be a clue about that step west. It hard not to wonder if BB is some kind of oddball offshoot of CW with a founder effect because CW covered almost all of temperate Europe from Ukraine to the east boundary of France in the period when beaker came into existence in the west.

Looks like Remedello is ruled out and that was the only other culture other than CW which I thought could be a missing link.

Think we are left with two possibilities

1. A low visibility intrusion of CW or closely related people into Iberia c. 2750BC to form the beaker culture.

2. BB originally not R1b and instead P312 only joining BB around 2600-2500BC in west central Europe.

What I would like to know is what is the oldest individual/individualised beaker burial in Iberia? Is that as old as the pottery? I say that because I now believe the change to this form of burials is more significant than the actual pots.

Until variance files are posted that can be referenced and inspected by all we are in danger of missing potently important information !!

BTW Have you any idea of the rough dates for the BB samples ?

razyn
06-13-2015, 02:15 AM
It could be that bell beaker was founded by a CW related intrusion that hybrided after arriving into Iberia c. 2700BC creating the BB culture. Could have been a small group with huge founder effect. After arriving they may have been a back-flow back towards origin and indeed the first beaker outside Iberia appears to be around the Rhone. What I am wondering is if this flow of beaker out of Iberia followed a trade route that retraced the steps in reverse that had led to CW elements entering Iberia and creating beaker in the first place. It is noticeable that AOO beaker in Iberia is much more eastern than Maritime and yet it has some early dates - again its earliest in Spain by a century or two. It has no local template but IMO could be in some way derived from Corded Ware which is old enough to have inspired it.

The alternative is as you say that the earliest beaker was not R1b at all. I favoured this for a long time but now think the above scenario is as likely.

Another alternative is that "the earliest Beaker" was in a culture (the male component of which was) predominantly R1b, but was not Iberian at all... yet. rms2 cited this recent argument (about March 20), and I mentioned it on that rambling Allentoft et al thread, but couldn't readily find the citation. I've just recovered it: C. Jeunesse, The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 16, 2014, 158–166 [doi10.12766/jna.2014.5].

Seems eminently sensible, to me. Is there some compelling reason to preserve this dogma -- at base, just the forcefully argued (but by now, long held) opinion of some highly respected archaeologists -- contra any other evidence (in this case, aDNA) that may be independent of such essentially dogmatic considerations? Note that the part that is faith-based has to do with the chronological sequence of artistically simpler Maritime pottery, and more complex forms (of rather similar antiquity and cultural associations) found much further east. It does not require any denial of the Tagus valley pots, but questions whether they are demonstrably the ancestors of all the other beaker-associated phenomena, before and after death, throughout the rest of Eurasia.

Our earlier (brief) discussion of the Jeunesse paper was here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=75237&viewfull=1#post75237

alan
06-13-2015, 03:09 AM
Until variance files are posted that can be referenced and inspected by all we are in danger of missing potently important information !!

BTW Have you any idea of the rough dates for the BB samples ?

They seem undated when I skimmed the supplementary information. Generally though once dodgy samples are removed, beaker appears to commence not long before 2500BC in central and northern Europe. That is calibrated. The early Csepel dates are dodgy ones considered unsafe. Funny enough the earliest safe looking central European date I have seen is Kromsdorf which is centred on 2550BC. Unetice was already suceeding beaker in some areas by 2300BC. If I had to guess an date for the samples I would place them at 2400BC plus or minus 100 years.

alan
06-13-2015, 03:34 AM
Another alternative is that "the earliest Beaker" was in a culture (the male component of which was) predominantly R1b, but was not Iberian at all... yet. rms2 cited this recent argument (about March 20), and I mentioned it on that rambling Allentoft et al thread, but couldn't readily find the citation. I've just recovered it: C. Jeunesse, The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 16, 2014, 158–166 [doi10.12766/jna.2014.5].

Seems eminently sensible, to me. Is there some compelling reason to preserve this dogma -- at base, just the forcefully argued (but by now, long held) opinion of some highly respected archaeologists -- contra any other evidence (in this case, aDNA) that may be independent of such essentially dogmatic considerations? Note that the part that is faith-based has to do with the chronological sequence of artistically simpler Maritime pottery, and more complex forms (of rather similar antiquity and cultural associations) found much further east. It does not require any denial of the Tagus valley pots, but questions whether they are demonstrably the ancestors of all the other beaker-associated phenomena, before and after death, throughout the rest of Eurasia.

Our earlier (brief) discussion of the Jeunesse paper was here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=75237&viewfull=1#post75237

Rather too many of the earliest west Iberian RC dates are from settlement sites rather than burials for my taste. There are always a lot of problems with RC dating with each material having its own issues. I have been disappointed that, in a situation when interpretation of the origin of a culture depends on it, a really systematic look at all the samples and contexts of pre-2600BC bell beaker dates has not been done looking at the material, isotopic indicators of diet - which can effect human bone dates, and contexts. I have read the João Luís Cardoso paper from last year but it falls way short of the really detailed descriptions of the context, materials and potential distortion factors of each date leaving a lot to trust.

My own feeling is beaker use arose probably not long before 2700BC and IMO its inspiration is most likely from CW. My hunch is that around this time some CW offshoot from the head of the Rhone-Rhine area started to form a network of contact down the river, along the south France shoreline to Iberia. I dont think it was initially direct to west Iberia. By 2600BC there clearly was contact operating between the south of France and west Iberia and this penetrated into the western Alps and up the Rhone almost like a return leg to origin. However, I think this is complex. Once a route like that is established a two-way flow is likely to commence, perhaps not very visible in the record at first but slowly increasing. Pottery of course is a generally female craft so I suspect the original model for beaker came from CW women marrying into Iberians and then we see beaker pottery with Iberian links spreading into southern France by 2600BC. The pottery IMO is not as important an indicator of movement INTO Iberia as the sudden totally unexpected arrival of single or individualised burial traditions albeit often re-using old collective burial megaliths. A couple of recent papers have emphasised the way this tradition seems to owe a lot to CW type traditions, albeit with unique twists.

alan
06-13-2015, 05:02 AM
Another alternative is that "the earliest Beaker" was in a culture (the male component of which was) predominantly R1b, but was not Iberian at all... yet. rms2 cited this recent argument (about March 20), and I mentioned it on that rambling Allentoft et al thread, but couldn't readily find the citation. I've just recovered it: C. Jeunesse, The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 16, 2014, 158–166 [doi10.12766/jna.2014.5].

Seems eminently sensible, to me. Is there some compelling reason to preserve this dogma -- at base, just the forcefully argued (but by now, long held) opinion of some highly respected archaeologists -- contra any other evidence (in this case, aDNA) that may be independent of such essentially dogmatic considerations? Note that the part that is faith-based has to do with the chronological sequence of artistically simpler Maritime pottery, and more complex forms (of rather similar antiquity and cultural associations) found much further east. It does not require any denial of the Tagus valley pots, but questions whether they are demonstrably the ancestors of all the other beaker-associated phenomena, before and after death, throughout the rest of Eurasia.

Our earlier (brief) discussion of the Jeunesse paper was here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=75237&viewfull=1#post75237

Interesting read - I totally missed that conversation. The problem I have of coming to a really solid view on Iberian beaker is the piecemeal way and often non-English format of much of the new publications on it. I also find the general approach to presenting crucial radiocarbon evidence for the earliest dates really unsatisfactory as it is rarely if ever done in such a way where a reader can really make their own judgement. Crucially I still dont know one vital thing. What is the earliest RC date from an articulated beaker single burial in Iberia? The shift in burial is much more profound than a change in pottery IMO. I get that, normal radiocarbon caveats aside, there seems to be evidence of beaker pottery in use in Iberia by 2700BC. However, using beaker pot IMO is not a safe indicator of a male lineage migration given it is a female craft. Single burial - even if inserted into old collective tombs- suggests however a profound change in beliefs, ideology, religion etc. So to me it is important to know the earliest Iberian date for this. Also of crucial importance is that the bones are also subject to isotope analysis to check for potential distorting factors like fish in the diet etc which can make dates younger.

IMO its possible there could be a couple of phases to the genesis of beaker in Iberia. Initial contact could have been trade with wives going in opposite directions. I have noted before that most aspects of the proto- beaker package in Iberia could be seen as female crafts or female objects. A phase like that could have lasted a generation or two. Then in time honoured tradition some groups further east could have decided to follow the chain of goodies back to source and tried to cut out the middle men and slowly have encroached along the route into Iberia. Because a two way flow may have been established this could have been confusing in terms of archaeological remains because influences, wives etc could have been going two-ways along this chain even before a male intrusion into Iberia to take control of the entire network. So IMO there may have been stages in the process of how this all worked. At some point a crucial male intrusion clearly happened in Iberia, clearly coming from the east. I am sure this is marked by the single burial tradition. This has only ever to my knowledge been seen as similar but a little different from the corded ware single burial tradition - although I would not that it actually particularly has very strong parallels with the northern battle axe groups in terms of orientations etc albeit with the male and female orientations reversed. Not implying a geographically totally implausible direct link but clearly some shared ancestral traditions there.

I have never understood why the Corded Ware link has sort of been taken off the table. Clearly beaker is a complex development with a number of cultural inputs other than CW but is also got a lot in common with CW and more importantly CW basically occupied central and northern Europe from a Baltic-Ukraine line to the French border c. 2750-2500BC and even beyond after beaker appeared. With the Med. and south Alpine pre-beaker copper age culture ancient DNA samples all looking non R and non-steppic, it hard to not conclude that it would be close to impossible for R1b not to have had to pass through corded ware territory. In fact the only way they could have avoided it is if it actually was in a vanguard immediately ahead of CW as it spread west.

rms2
06-14-2015, 06:29 PM
It would be nice if we could get a final set of solid y-dna findings from this paper. Rumors seem to be flying, and some are questioning even the very basic haplogroup designations listed in the paper.

rms2
06-15-2015, 11:23 AM
Has this thread been abandoned for that big, rambling, catch-all thread on Allentoft et al in the ancient dna subforum? Difficult to track a particular line of discussion or thought in that one.

ArmandoR1b
06-15-2015, 12:49 PM
It would be nice if we could get a final set of solid y-dna findings from this paper. Rumors seem to be flying, and some are questioning even the very basic haplogroup designations listed in the paper.

It's best to let the dust settle until everyone has gone through all of the Y-DNA results. Some people are even thinking of paying YFull to analyze the files which I think is a good idea.

rms2
06-15-2015, 02:04 PM
It's best to let the dust settle until everyone has gone through all of the Y-DNA results. Some people are even thinking of paying YFull to analyze the files which I think is a good idea.

Well said, and submitting the files to YFull does sound like a good idea.

There are a couple of rumors that, if true, could be really consequential. It's important to get things right. Ancient y-dna results don't come around every day.

rms2
06-15-2015, 03:50 PM
Here (https://drive.google.com/a/acps.k12.va.us/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1mNdlB4LTgzN2ZMNW8/view) is a very nicely done document that Jean M has put together (she does all things well).

Notice RISE98 of the Swedish Battle Axe culture that is R1b-U106? That result, if right, is gratifying to me, since quite some time back, I predicted that U106 would be found in Corded ware rather than Beaker (and the Swedish Battle Axe culture was a Scandinavian Corded Ware subgroup). Of course, I will end up with egg on my face when a Beaker man who is U106+ turns up, but for now I can bask in the warm glow of feeling lucky.

I do think this RISE98 U106 result tends to confirm the long term connection between U106 and the evolution of Germanic.

alan
06-15-2015, 04:15 PM
Here (https://drive.google.com/a/acps.k12.va.us/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1mNdlB4LTgzN2ZMNW8/view) is a very nicely done document that Jean M has put together (she does all things well).

Notice RISE98 of the Swedish Battle Axe culture that is R1b-U106? That result, if right, is gratifying to me, since quite some time back, I predicted that U106 would be found in Corded ware rather than Beaker (and the Swedish Battle Axe culture was a Scandinavian Corded Ware subgroup). Of course, I will end up with egg on my face when a Beaker man who is U106+ turns up, but for now I can bask in the warm glow of feeling lucky.

I do think this RISE98 U106 result tends to confirm the long term connection between U106 and the evolution of Germanic.

Is he of battleaxe culture rather than Nordic Bronze age. If he is the former then of course that has the implication that L11 originated somewhere where it could have fed into the CW and related culture's genesis. That is usually placed around the Middle Dneiper/Dniester/south Poland sort of area. It also seems that most CW was not R1b so there could also be an implication that he penetrated into CW homeland from Yamnaya. One further implication is that L11 to feed into the CW genesis in its origin area has to have existed around 2800BC in order for bifurcating to happen between the L11 line heading to U106 in CW and P312 heading into beaker. It seems unlikely such a split could have happened west of the west Ukraine/Moldova sort of area as further west the Carpathians would prevent a split between a north and a west moving group until the Czech/Austria sort of contact zone was reached. So, IMO it appears to be evidence that L11 was originally located somewhere in Ukraine.

rms2
06-15-2015, 04:24 PM
Is he of battleaxe culture rather than Nordic Bronze age . . .

Jean's spreadsheet has him listed as "Swedish Battle Axe", which, as far as I can tell, was a Corded Ware subgroup. I have not seen an estimated date for his remains yet.

I do think you may be right about Corded Ware being the conduit into Beaker for both R1b and much of their similarities in burial rite and lifestyle, unless Yamnaya fed directly into Beaker in the Danube Valley, which also seems likely.

ArmandoR1b
06-15-2015, 04:58 PM
Page 12 of the Supplementary Information PDF at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html#supplementary-information has Supplementary Table 1: Sample information which lists RISE98 as being from Sweden Battle Axe/Nordic LN 2275-2032 cal BC and page 42 has him as baSca (Bronze Age Scandinavian) wheres RISE175 is labeled as being from Sweden Nordic BA from 1395-1132 cal BC on page 12 and also baSca on page 42.

alan
06-15-2015, 05:27 PM
Jean's spreadsheet has him listed as "Swedish Battle Axe", which, as far as I can tell, was a Corded Ware subgroup. I have not seen an estimated date for his remains yet.

I do think you may be right about Corded Ware being the conduit into Beaker for both R1b and much of their similarities in burial rite and lifestyle, unless Yamnaya fed directly into Beaker in the Danube Valley, which also seems likely.

yeah I checked and it was battle axe. As for beaker and whether its Yamnaya, linked to CW or was some specialist group that could pass through more than one culture is impossible to call. If radiocarbon dating was a full sample of sites and a perfect accurate tool rather than an estimate with confidence intervals and multiple potential distorting factors then we could simply look at the earliest date for beaker and the earliest date for CW at its west end and draw a conclusion. The earliest dates for beaker in Iberia seem to be around 2750BC but with the proviso of course that the material dated -bone, wood etc-could have been alive for a long time before burial/burning which makes me more confident of saying for sure beaker was in Iberia by 2700BC. Those earliest beaker dates in Iberia seem very similar to the earliest CW dates at its SW extreme in Switzerland which if I recall right are about 2720BC. It seems too close to call whether beaker actually went ahead of the CW wave front heading west as a vanguard or beaker quickly passed out of the western end of the CW zone to Iberia. I think I have a favoured theory now for the 'gap' in France between beaker and CW that happened for a century or two. A route out of the meeting zone of the heads of the Rhine and Rhone and down the Rhone to the Med. then shore hugging west while avoiding the existing hostile pre-beaker copper using groups in Languedoc etc would bypass most of France to reach eastern Spain. There is also the very long east-west Tagus river which looks like it would be navigable by small boats for a lot of its length to the Atlantic.

rms2
06-15-2015, 06:18 PM
At least we appear to be getting somewhere significant with this RISE98 Swedish Battle Axe R1b-U106 result. It strikes me as pretty doggoned important, and is apparently a second Corded Ware R1b (if RISE1 is indeed R1b, and maybe L51xL11, if we're very lucky).

Heber
06-15-2015, 10:14 PM
Here is my current understanding of the R1b results.

4882

Kopfjäger
06-16-2015, 02:57 PM
Here is my current understanding of the R1b results.

4882

Forgive me if this has already been established, but RISE1 is not confirmed R1b?

rms2
06-16-2015, 03:43 PM
Forgive me if this has already been established, but RISE1 is not confirmed R1b?

I believe the Allentoft paper reports it as R1b, so perhaps they have confirmed it. I know the paper says at least one of the CW men is R1b. (I'm not at liberty to check the paper itself at the moment, so I'm going from memory.)

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 12:27 PM
From the new paper on Iberian R1b lineages, we see a map that would be somewhat consistent with a Corded Ware movement followed by a P312 movement from Iberia (for the abstract see: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=90371&viewfull=1#post90371)

http://r1b.org/imgs/ejhg2015114f1.jpg

Of course, the value of the paper is in the L11 sub-lineages data and the fact that they recognize an east to west movement. Of course, they seem to have totally disregarded ancient DNA by saying this:


The scenario proposed here would be most compatible with an arrival of M269 from the East occurring in Palaeolithic times. The Wurm glaciation had numerous ups and downs in temperature that would have led to the existence of multiple glacial refugia, which has been proposed both for mtDNA and Ychr. Improved weather conditions would allow colonization of more northern territories from all refuges simultaneously. Similarly, the mtDNA-H and Ychr-R lineages that evolved in the East from Palaeolithic times, could have expanded westwards during the Neolithic period, thereby mixing with other H and R lineages that arrived to Western Europe in Paleolithic times and evolved independently in these western territories. This may be one reason for the complexity of interpreting the results, in addition to the assumption that post-Neolithic movements may be masking and confounding the oldest traces.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 12:35 PM
From the new paper on Iberian R1b lineages, we see a map that would be somewhat consistent with a Corded Ware movement followed by a P312 movement from Iberia (for the abstract see: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=90371&viewfull=1#post90371)

http://r1b.org/imgs/ejhg2015114f1.jpg

Of course, the value of the paper is in the L11 sub-lineages data and the fact that they recognize an east to west movement. Of course, they seem to have totally disregarded ancient DNA by saying this:

I wonder if an expansion of dairy farming from NW Anatolia is feasible as a secondary neolithic wave.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 12:41 PM
I wonder if an expansion of dairy farming from NW Anatolia is feasible as a secondary neolithic wave.

From what we know of ancient DNA, R1b came from the steppe, not Anatolia. The starting point on their map is consistent with the movement of Yamnaya into Corded Ware however.

rms2
06-17-2015, 04:27 PM
The scenario proposed here would be most compatible with an arrival of M269 from the East occurring in Palaeolithic times . . .

Caramba! I thought we had just about left that sort of thing behind a couple of years ago, yet there it is again.

alan
06-17-2015, 04:39 PM
From the new paper on Iberian R1b lineages, we see a map that would be somewhat consistent with a Corded Ware movement followed by a P312 movement from Iberia (for the abstract see: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=90371&viewfull=1#post90371)

http://r1b.org/imgs/ejhg2015114f1.jpg

Of course, the value of the paper is in the L11 sub-lineages data and the fact that they recognize an east to west movement. Of course, they seem to have totally disregarded ancient DNA by saying this:

The big picture is definitely an option but needs major modification. M269 is far too old to be placed as far west as that and incredibly unlikely given a major L23 subclade is dominating the eastern half of Euro-steppe Yamnaya and the 'out of the Pyrenees' picture for P312 makes no archaeological sense at all. Also the age of P312 as far as I understand is similar to U106 which is now being placed around 3000BC. I dont see any Pyrenees centred culture c. 3000BC sending out branches.

Much more likely IMO is that P312 should be placed no further west than the Rhine-Rhone meeting zone which is possible if it dates to say 2750BC. However, if its older than that, not even Corded Ware had made it further west than that zone by that date and so it would need to be placed further east. If it dates to 2800/900 it would need to be placed back towards the CW genesis area much further east around the Middle Dnieper and adjacent. If it dates to 3000BC then not even CW is old enough. Personally I believe L11 was probably in western steppe Yamnaya c. 3000BC and just south of the CW genesis zone. The date of P312 is of course crucial to determine as it dictates our range of options. Has there been any further rethinking on the age of P312 through SNP counting etc?

Jean M
06-17-2015, 05:04 PM
Here (https://drive.google.com/a/acps.k12.va.us/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1mNdlB4LTgzN2ZMNW8/view) is a very nicely done document that Jean M has put together (she does all things well).

Would that were true! :biggrin1:

We have moved on a bit since I produced that pdf. Some results from the community have now been uploaded to my usual online aDNA tables. Here are the R1b results so far, including those not yet uploaded :

Sample> Culture > Allentoft haplogroup > Community results

RISE1. Corded Ware. R1b. This sample is very low coverage and uncertain below R, it seems from discussion Genetiker, Richard Rocca and JDean.
RISE47. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2* (M520/PF6410), according to Genetiker and VinceT.
RISE98. Swedish Battle Axe. R1b. R1b1a2a1a1 (U106) say Genetiker, Felix, Greg Magoon and Vince T.
RISE276. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2a (Genetiker) - I await confirmation.
RISE397. Late Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b>M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>CTS7763>Y:18249219(A/C) Finding from Smal for which you need his tree.
RISE413. Middle Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE524. Mezhovskaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6494) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE546. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6482/YSC0000203) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE547. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS9416) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added > Z2106+ . The latter is not on ISOGG - see YFull.
RISE548. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (Z2105) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs not on ISOGG. See his tree.
RISE550. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker and Felix). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs equiv R-Z2103 on Y-Full = R1b1a2a2.
RISE555. Early Bronze Age Stalingrad Quarry. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS7340/Z2107) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNP > Z2106+.
RISE560. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2 (L150.1/PF6274.1/S351.1) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE563. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1a2b (U152), say Genetiker, Alex Williamson and Richard Rocca.
RISE564. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1 (L51/M412/PF6536/S167) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.
RISE566. Bell Beaker Czech Republic. R1b. R1b1a2a1a (P310/PF6546/S129) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.

alan
06-17-2015, 05:06 PM
From what we know of ancient DNA, R1b came from the steppe, not Anatolia. The starting point on their map is consistent with the movement of Yamnaya into Corded Ware however.

Yamnaya and corded ware were separated by the Carpathians when you get as far west as they plot M269. Obviously that position is wrong anyway as the area between the Don and the north borders of Khazakstan was dominated by L23 derivatives. IMO M269 probably originates nearer the Volga and L23 sprang not too far from there as well. The last natural area of contact between L23 derived Yamanaya and R1a-rich earliest CW was probably along middle reaches of rivers like the Dnieper and Dniester. Now we have a U106 in battle axe and another R1b in CW I think this indicates that L11 was located in a position very close but not in the CW genesis area around the middle Dnieper. If U106 is 5000 years old then L11 must be as old as Yamnaya and almost certainly older.

I think the common denominator is Sredny Stog roots including cultures like Repin who subsequently expanded as Yamnaya. Sredny Stog itself may well have derived from a wave from further east in the Euro steppes - certainly their burial traditions are seen to be more early represented in the east. So in a sense it prefigures Yamnaya. Sredny Stog seem to have controlled the first unifying elite network across the Euro steppes until their network seems to have collapsed around 4000BC. So IMO they are the only pre-Yamnaya culture capable of having converged the dialects over the entire Euro steppe. If that is agreed then some of the IEs - not just the Anatolian branch - may not be from Yamnaya. The way I look at it is that linguistic innovations and knowledge of wheel vocab etc could easily have been absorbed by other stay-home Sredny Stog descended IEs from their Yamnaya neighbours without it being obvious today in linguistic reconstructions. The Anatolians are different in that they are argued by Anthony to be Sredny Stog descendants who c. 4200BC put significant distance between theirselves and the innovation centres that led to full PIE. Many other non-Yamnaya cultures remained on the steppe and should not be considered in the same way as those who migrated away early and were remote from linguistic innovations on the steppe.

TigerMW
06-18-2015, 03:31 PM
Sample> Culture > Allentoft haplogroup > Community results
We don't have any Unetice Y DNA yet.

Yamnaya and corded ware were separated by the Carpathians when you get as far west as they plot M269. ... .
The Unetice did not start as early as the Corded Ware or the Bell Beaker but all three have a period of overlap and a geography of overlap. I just can't help thinking there is a significance to Desideri's findings that the men (dental traits) were similar at this intersection while the women were not. Along with that, the metalworking at the intersection was the same.

The archeological and genetic evidence (distribution of R1b subclades) point at several consecutive waves towards eastern and central Germany between 2800 BCE and 2300 BCE. The Unetice culture was probably the first culture in which R1b-L11 lineages played a major role... http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml
I don't agree with everything on Eupedia, however.

What do you all think about the beginnings of the Unetice, who would have broad trade ties all the way to the Atlantic and even England?

Michał
06-18-2015, 03:59 PM
Now we have a U106 in battle axe and another R1b in CW I think this indicates that L11 was located in a position very close but not in the CW genesis area around the middle Dnieper.
That Scandinavian R1b-U106 sample (RISE98) cannot be securely assigned to Battle Axe/Corded Ware (as explained elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015/page13)), while the other reported case of R1b found in the very low quality CWC sample from Poland (RISE1) has not been confirmed as R1b after being analysed by several members of this forum. Thus, we still lack any confirmed R1b result evidently associated with Corded Ware.

R.Rocca
06-18-2015, 05:11 PM
That Scandinavian R1b-U106 sample (RISE98) cannot be securely assigned to Battle Axe/Corded Ware (as explained elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015/page13)), while the other reported case of R1b found in the very low quality CWC sample from Poland (RISE1) has not been confirmed as R1b after being analysed by several members of this forum. Thus, we still lack any confirmed R1b result evidently associated with Corded Ware.

RISE1 is R1b1-L1345+. The only reason why genetiker said it wasn't R1b is because it is too upstream for his liking given its age. To me, that is not a convincing enough reason to not label it what the data says it is, which is R1b1. Apparently the authors of the paper were comfortable enough that they designated it as such.

Megalophias
06-18-2015, 06:05 PM
We don't have any Unetice Y DNA yet.
Have the 3 Unetice Y-DNA samples (all I2) from Haak et al been discredited or something?

parasar
06-18-2015, 06:12 PM
RISE1 is R1b1-L1345+. The only reason why genetiker said it wasn't R1b is because it is too upstream for his liking given its age. To me, that is not a convincing enough reason to not label it what the data says it is, which is R1b1. Apparently the authors of the paper were comfortable enough that they designated it as such.

Is the M269 status of this sample known? If it is indeed confirmed M269- would it not actually support Genetiker's position in conjunction with Els Trocs that R1b is much older in Europe than the steppe input?

alan
06-18-2015, 06:32 PM
Is the M269 status of this sample known? If it is indeed confirmed M269- would it not actually support Genetiker's position in conjunction with Els Trocs that R1b is much older in Europe than the steppe input?

Nope Corded Ware only dates from about 2800BC and Yamnaya existed from around 3300BC. The reading simply is too poor to resolve it further than R1b1. It doesnt imply its actually some basal clade of R1b. I would bet that its some form of L23 derivative and probably an L11 derivative.

Michał
06-18-2015, 08:04 PM
RISE1 is R1b1-L1345+. The only reason why genetiker said it wasn't R1b is because it is too upstream for his liking given its age. To me, that is not a convincing enough reason to not label it what the data says it is, which is R1b1. Apparently the authors of the paper were comfortable enough that they designated it as such.
How many reads are available for L1345? Is it the only position for known SNPs from the M343>...>L11 levels that is readable for that sample?

Jean M
06-18-2015, 08:52 PM
Have the 3 Unetice Y-DNA samples (all I2) from Haak et al been discredited or something?

Not to my knowledge.

EUL 57B = I2. L68+, P158+
ESP 2 = I2a2
ESP 4 = I2c2

Jean M
06-19-2015, 10:13 AM
Update:

RISE1. Corded Ware. R1b. This sample is very low coverage and uncertain below R, it seems from discussion Genetiker, Richard Rocca and JDean.
RISE47. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2* (M520/PF6410), according to Genetiker and VinceT.
RISE98. Swedish Battle Axe. R1b. R1b1a2a1a1 (U106) say Genetiker, Felix, Greg Magoon and Vince T.
RISE276. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2a (Genetiker) - I await confirmation.
RISE397. Late Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b>M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>CTS7763>Y:18249219(A/C) Finding from Smal for which you need his tree: http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_16_05_25_2015.pdf
RISE413. Middle Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE524. Mezhovskaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6494) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE546. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6482/YSC0000203) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE547. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS9416) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added > Z2106+ . The latter is not on ISOGG - see YFull.
RISE548. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (Z2105) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs not on ISOGG. See his tree: http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_16_05_25_2015.pdf
RISE550. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker and Felix). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs equiv R-Z2103 on Y-Full = R1b1a2a2.
RISE555. Early Bronze Age Stalingrad Quarry. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS7340/Z2107) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNP > Z2106+.
RISE560. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1a2-M12124(xM12050) = P312/S116 (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE563. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1a2b (U152), say Genetiker, Alex Williamson and Richard Rocca.
RISE564. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1 (L51/M412/PF6536/S167) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.
RISE566. Bell Beaker Czech Republic. R1b. R1b1a2a1a (P310/PF6546/S129) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.

alan
06-19-2015, 10:22 AM
Update:

RISE1. Corded Ware. R1b. This sample is very low coverage and uncertain below R, it seems from discussion Genetiker, Richard Rocca and JDean.
RISE47. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2* (M520/PF6410), according to Genetiker and VinceT.
RISE98. Swedish Battle Axe. R1b. R1b1a2a1a1 (U106) say Genetiker, Felix, Greg Magoon and Vince T.
RISE276. Nordic Bronze Age. R1b. R1b1a2a (Genetiker) - I await confirmation.
RISE397. Late Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b>M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>CTS7763>Y:18249219(A/C) Finding from Smal for which you need his tree.
RISE413. Middle Bronze Age Armenia. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE524. Mezhovskaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6494) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE546. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (PF6482/YSC0000203) (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE547. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS9416) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added > Z2106+ . The latter is not on ISOGG - see YFull.
RISE548. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (Z2105) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs not on ISOGG. See his tree.
RISE550. Yamnaya. R1b. R1b1a2 (Genetiker and Felix). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNPs equiv R-Z2103 on Y-Full = R1b1a2a2.
RISE555. Early Bronze Age Stalingrad Quarry. R1b. R1b1a2a2 (CTS7340/Z2107) (Genetiker). Smal confirmed and added downstream SNP > Z2106+.
RISE560. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1a2-M12124(xM12050) = P312/S116 (Genetiker). I await confirmation.
RISE563. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1a2b (U152), say Genetiker, Alex Williamson and Richard Rocca.
RISE564. Bell Beaker Germany. R1b. R1b1a2a1 (L51/M412/PF6536/S167) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.
RISE566. Bell Beaker Czech Republic. R1b. R1b1a2a1a (P310/PF6546/S129) says Genetiker. I await confirmation.

any thoughts on the Armenian R1b and its origins, date etc Jean. Haven the time to look into it myself.

Jean M
06-19-2015, 11:17 AM
any thoughts on the Armenian R1b and its origins, date etc Jean. Haven the time to look into it myself.

I have been fully occupied myself, what with one thing and another. ;)

I have added a link to Smal's tree to my post above. Here it is again: http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_16_05_25_2015.pdf

I can do no more than state the obvious. RISE397 is in the same R1b1a2a2 branch as most modern Armenian R1b, but the modern samples of the specific terminal SNP found by Smal are scattered: one Sardinian, one with a Sicilian surname, but one has an Armenian surname. Obviously it had arrived in Armenia before 1048-855 BC, which is the date of RISE397.

At that date, the language of the region was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language , which is not Indo-European. It was replaced by Armenian centuries later. However some presence of R1b in the Late Bronze Age could be explained by contact with IE-speakers of Anatolia.

rms2
06-24-2015, 12:34 PM
I apologize for not wanting to go back and hunt through every post in this thread, but what ever happened with RISE1, that Polish Corded Ware that was supposed to be R1b of some kind? Was that ever confirmed or eliminated? And what of RISE00, the Estonian Corded Ware that someone said might also be R1b? Any word on that?

Thanks in advance.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 12:52 PM
I apologize for not wanting to go back and hunt through every post in this thread, but what ever happened with RISE1, that Polish Corded Ware that was supposed to be R1b of some kind? Was that ever confirmed or eliminated? And what of RISE00, the Estonian Corded Ware that someone said might also be R1b? Any word on that? Thanks in advance.

RISE00 - Female.
RISE1 - One of the worse quality samples in the dataset. Allentoft 2015 labelled it R1b it seems on the absence of any negative calls between P and R1b1-PF6266. Given the absence of any positive calls in that same range, Genetiker preferred to label it P, but jdean reported that it appears to be postive for Y435 (2934185 C to T) which according to Ybrowser is 'Approx. hg: R-M207' [R]. So we can't get much further than R with any certainty, it appears.

jdean
06-24-2015, 01:02 PM
I apologize for not wanting to go back and hunt through every post in this thread, but what ever happened with RISE1, that Polish Corded Ware that was supposed to be R1b of some kind? Was that ever confirmed or eliminated? And what of RISE00, the Estonian Corded Ware that someone said might also be R1b? Any word on that?

Thanks in advance.

Smal pointed out that Rise one was positive for a SNP at the R1b1 level


21558298 (G->T) is a well known marker, L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224, positioned in the R-L754 node.

That's probably as good as we will be able to get it, Rise1 was more holes than cheese : )

RISE00 was a stupid mistake on my part, I noticed the sample was female after posting my 'observation' : )

Still note sure why Felix posted Y data for the fairer sex though ?

ADW_1981
06-24-2015, 01:10 PM
At that date, the language of the region was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language , which is not Indo-European. It was replaced by Armenian centuries later. However some presence of R1b in the Late Bronze Age could be explained by contact with IE-speakers of Anatolia.

2 of the samples are also E-M123 and 1 J2b2 within a plausibly Hurrian speaking time frame. Some others have jumped the gun and made an association of R1b to Hurrian, but it shows a great deal of bias considering we have 3 very different male lineages in a small geography over a short span of time.

rms2
06-24-2015, 01:16 PM
Karmin et al. 2015



21558298 (G->T) is a well known marker, L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224, positioned in the R-L754 node.

Smal pointed out that Rise one was positive for a SNP at the R1b1 level



. . .

So those SNPs you listed in the quote from smal are at the R1b1 level? I couldn't find any of them on ISOGG's R Tree. Is that pretty solid then? In other words, can we say we have our first Corded Ware R1b with some confidence, or is it still iffy?

jdean
06-24-2015, 01:28 PM
So those SNPs you listed in the quote from smal are at the R1b1 level? I couldn't find any of them on ISOGG's R Tree. Is that pretty solid then? In other words, can we say we have our first Corded Ware R1b with some confidence, or is it still iffy?

According to Smal L1345 is well know and suggest Karmin 2015 as one source, I did find an open access link to this paper but I failed when I looked just now :)

I found at least one vagally R SNP and another for P so it doesn't look to bad, however this sample is the proverbial Swiss Cheese !!!

Megalophias
06-24-2015, 05:10 PM
According to Smal L1345 is well know and suggest Karmin 2015 as one source, I did find an open access link to this paper but I failed when I looked just now :)

I found at least one vagally R SNP and another for P so it doesn't look to bad, however this sample is the proverbial Swiss Cheese !!!
Yeah, L1345 is in Karmin 2015 on their R1b1'14 branch (the one uniting V88 and P297) listed as an equivalent to L754. So just a general marker of R1b1, excluding only the very basal R1b found in Tajikistan and Bhutan.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 05:33 PM
Smal pointed out that Rise one was positive for a SNP at the R1b1 level


Yeah, L1345 is in Karmin 2015 on their R1b1'14 branch (the one uniting V88 and P297) listed as an equivalent to L754. So just a general marker of R1b1, excluding only the very basal R1b found in Tajikistan and Bhutan.

I missed that. Thanks! So I can reassign RISE1 from R1b (Allentoft assignment) to R1b1'14? Or, as that is not on ISOGG, do I stick with R1b?

R.Rocca
06-24-2015, 06:53 PM
I missed that. Thanks! So I can reassign RISE1 from R1b (Allentoft assignment) to R1b1'14? Or, as that is not on ISOGG, do I stick with R1b?

A quick check against some 1000 Genome samples...seven samples that are at least R1b1 are all L1345+, four R1a samples are all L1345- and for good measure, two R2 samples are also L1345-...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/L1345.png

alan
06-24-2015, 07:12 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on the U106 in the CW-Battle Axe Swedish sample? Obviously its relatively late, beaker existed and Michal raised some unusual aspects of the burial itself. Is the general feeling that this probably is evidence of U106 in a non-beaker derived man of CW extraction. He is from Sweden so seeking a beaker explanation would look like special pleading to me. Is the general feeling then that L11 and U106 were in CW and not some stray from another culture?

alan
06-24-2015, 07:24 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on the U106 in the CW-Battle Axe Swedish sample? Obviously its relatively late, beaker existed and Michal raised some unusual aspects of the burial itself. Is the general feeling that this probably is evidence of U106 in a non-beaker derived man of CW extraction. He is from Sweden so seeking a beaker explanation would look like special pleading to me. Is the general feeling then that L11 and U106 were in CW and not some stray from another culture?

If L11 both headed north as a minority in CW and also west to form the P312 block associated with beaker then my favoured idea for the original location of L11 would be within western Yamanaya but bordering the origin areas of CW closely so a little L11 could bleed through into CW. It seems to me that L11 bordered and could pass in small nos into CW but was really part of it. That would tend to place CW in the lower stretches of the westernmost steppe rivers.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 07:39 PM
A quick check against some 1000 Genome samples...seven samples that are at least R1b1 are all L1345+

Thanks, but I was looking for guidance on exact assignment. Can I say R1b1? Or leave it at R1b (as at present). Slightly confused by the R1b1'14.

jdean
06-24-2015, 08:01 PM
Thanks, but I was looking for guidance on exact assignment. Can I say R1b1? Or leave it at R1b (as at present). Slightly confused by the R1b1'14.

Not much help I'm afraid but '14 seams to be some sort of indication of the level

An M269 equivalent SNP is described as R1b1'12

P312 as R1b1'5

L23 as R1b1'11

As I said not really very helpful : )

lgmayka
06-24-2015, 08:03 PM
Yeah, L1345 is in Karmin 2015 on their R1b1'14 branch (the one uniting V88 and P297) listed as an equivalent to L754. So just a general marker of R1b1, excluding only the very basal R1b found in Tajikistan and Bhutan.
YFull shows L1345 as a 4-star SNP, so it's very reliable. But its level is listed as R1b1 <-> R1b. In other words, YFull cannot place it securely at one level or the other (based on samples seen so far), so it is simply left off the tree for now.

To distinguish between the levels, YFull needs an R1b* sample.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 08:16 PM
YFull shows L1345 as a 4-star SNP, so it's very reliable. But its level is listed as R1b1 <-> R1b. In other words, YFull cannot place it securely at one level or the other (based on samples seen so far), so it is simply left off the tree for now.

To distinguish between the levels, YFull needs an R1b* sample.

Thank you so much. Really helpful. I will stick with R1b.

R.Rocca
06-24-2015, 08:29 PM
Thank you so much. Really helpful. I will stick with R1b.

I think you should list it as R1b1 and reference Karmin 2015 because it means they had enough basal R1b samples to distinguish it. I don't think Y-Full has that.

smal
06-24-2015, 08:40 PM
Thank you so much. Really helpful. I will stick with R1b.

Jean M, look at my consensus tree for the R1b early subclades (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-(SNP-based-family-tree)&p=75080&viewfull=1#post75080).

rms2
06-24-2015, 09:31 PM
Thanks for that flurry of discussion. What I can take to the bank then is that RISE1 is solidly R1b1 but of too low coverage to squeeze anything further out of him. The possibility that he was L11 derived cannot be eliminated.

So, we have at least one Corded Ware R1b and that in Poland.

Jean M
06-24-2015, 09:32 PM
Jean M, look at my consensus tree for the R1b early subclades (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-(SNP-based-family-tree)&p=75080&viewfull=1#post75080).

OK - so it is between R1b1 and R1b1a or R1b1c. So I put R1b1. Thank you. :)

[Added] Up now on http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

rms2
06-24-2015, 09:56 PM
If L11 both headed north as a minority in CW and also west to form the P312 block associated with beaker then my favoured idea for the original location of L11 would be within western Yamanaya but bordering the origin areas of CW closely so a little L11 could bleed through into CW. It seems to me that L11 bordered and could pass in small nos into CW but was really part of it. That would tend to place CW in the lower stretches of the westernmost steppe rivers.

I know I have posted this more than once, but IMHO R1b-U106 traveled with R1a, maybe as its western vanguard, as part of Corded Ware around the east and north sides of the Carpathians onto the North European Plain, while its brother clade under L11, R1b-P312, headed south of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley. Thus the different distributions of R1b-U106 and R1b-P312 and the apparent connection of the former to Germanic and of the latter to Italo-Celtic.

Krefter
06-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on the U106 in the CW-Battle Axe Swedish sample? Obviously its relatively late, beaker existed and Michal raised some unusual aspects of the burial itself. Is the general feeling that this probably is evidence of U106 in a non-beaker derived man of CW extraction. He is from Sweden so seeking a beaker explanation would look like special pleading to me. Is the general feeling then that L11 and U106 were in CW and not some stray from another culture?

Davidski found that RISE98(has U106) is just like modern Scandinavians, while an earlier Battle Axe person was just like Corded Ware on the mainland.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/bad-asses-of-bronze-age-analysis-of.html

rms2
06-24-2015, 10:17 PM
Davidski found that RISE94(has U106) is just like modern Scandinavians, while an earlier Battle Axe person was just like Corded Ware on the mainland.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/bad-asses-of-bronze-age-analysis-of.html

The difference in ages provides enough time for the later of the two to derive from a lineage that had mixed with the locals to a greater extent than the older one.

R.Rocca
06-25-2015, 12:17 AM
Thanks for that flurry of discussion. What I can take to the bank then is that RISE1 is solidly R1b1 but of too low coverage to squeeze anything further out of him. The possibility that he was L11 derived cannot be eliminated.

So, we have at least one Corded Ware R1b and that in Poland.

Not as high a probability, but RISE1 could also be R-Z2103 since it is ~5-6% in Poland.

Joe B
06-25-2015, 01:05 AM
There is a new and very cool cladogram that shows the Y haplogroup assignment of 16 aDNA R1b samples from Haak et al. 2015 and Allentoft et al. 2015. It's posted on the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project background page along with a .pdf download link. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/background
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/359/18912028790_475d10254a_m.jpg (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/background)
Thanks smal!

Jean M
06-25-2015, 09:15 AM
There is a new and very cool cladogram that shows the Y haplogroup assignment of 16 aDNA R1b samples from Haak et al. 2015 and Allentoft et al. 2015. It's posted on the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project background page along with a .pdf download link.

I'm afraid that those without a login to Family Tree DNA can no longer see content. So your image does not enlarge for me.

jdean
06-25-2015, 09:27 AM
I'm afraid that those without a login to Family Tree DNA can no longer see content. So your image does not enlarge for me.

This should work

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/359/18912028790_29cd1d6fcf_h.jpg

Jean M
06-25-2015, 10:55 AM
This should work

I found it here as well: http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf
So I can link to it where I cite Smal on my aDNA tables. Great!

TigerMW
06-25-2015, 12:06 PM
Davidski found that RISE98(has U106) is just like modern Scandinavians, while an earlier Battle Axe person was just like Corded Ware on the mainland.

What is the dating of RISE98? I feel like I'm about ready to say I'm wrong on something. If U106 was very early in Scandinavia, prior to Jastorf I mean, then U106 was not bottled up to the east or southeast at that time.

In that case, the lack of U106 on the Atlantic Seaboard may truly be according to Richard S's thoughts on this and the pre-Celtic/Italo-Celtic (or whatever those P312 folks were) people provided a societal wall dominating the Atlantic Coast.

...... well, as is usual, it is a little more complicated and there is always the need for more data. Is this person Z301+ or Z301- ? It makes a difference. Z301, where L48 and U198 sit, is the dominant U106 subclade in the Isles and apparently NW Europe. It might make some sense that they were bottled up to the east and south prior to Jastorf and some of the other parts of U106 were out in the North Sea area early. I see Yfull thinks Z301 has a TMRCA of about 2800 BC. In comparison they have the P312 TMRCA at 2600 BC.

This scenario actually would make at least one Z156+ person (U106+ but Z301-) very happy, the original Irishman. He might have been from the U106 scouting party (which may not have been pre-Germanic at all). Meanwhile, the Z301 group who's population grew the most and were pre-Germanic came later ... possibly.

rms2
06-25-2015, 12:43 PM
. . .
In that case, the lack of U106 on the Atlantic Seaboard may truly be according to Richard S's thoughts on this and the pre-Celtic/Italo-Celtic (or whatever those P312 folks were) people provided a societal wall dominating the Atlantic Coast.

...... well, as is usual, it is a little more complicated and there is always the need for more data. Is this person Z301+ or Z301- ? It makes a difference. Z301, where L48 and U198 sit, is the dominant U106 subclade in the Isles and apparently NW Europe. It might make some sense that they were bottled up to the east and south prior to Jastorf and some of the other parts of U106 were out in the North Sea area early. I see Yfull thinks Z301 has a TMRCA of about 2800 BC. In comparison they have the P312 TMRCA at 2600 BC.

Here's some relevant stuff from Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language.

RE R1b-P312 and the Italo-Celtic migration:



After a pause of only a century or two, about 3100-3000 BCE, a large migration stream erupted from within the western Yamnaya region and flowed up the Danube valley and into the Carpathian Basin during the early Bronze Age. Literally thousands of kurgans can be assigned to this event, which could reasonably have incubated the ancestral dialects for several western Indo-European language branches, including Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (p.305).

RE R1b-U106 and the Germanic migration stream (I'm not ignoring Balto-Slavic, but my focus here is on R1b-U106 and Germanic):



After this movement slowed or stopped, about 2800-2600 BCE, late Yamnaya people came face to face with people who made Corded Ware tumulus cemeteries in the east Carpathian foothills, a historic meeting through which dialects ancestral to the northern Indo-European languages (Germanic, Slavic, Baltic) began to spread among eastern Corded Ware groups (pp. 305-306).



This scenario actually would make at least one Z156+ person (U106+ but Z301-) very happy, the original Irishman. He might have been from the U106 scouting party (which may not have been pre-Germanic at all). Meanwhile, the Z301 group who's population grew the most and were pre-Germanic came later.

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek. That guy just needs to embrace his inner Anglo-Saxon.

rms2
06-25-2015, 12:46 PM
Not as high a probability, but RISE1 could also be R-Z2103 since it is ~5-6% in Poland.

I'm guessing he was R1b-U106, but you're right. It's too bad the coverage wasn't better. At least we know he was R1b1.

Krefter
06-25-2015, 01:20 PM
3736 BP (c. 1736 BC)

The date given by Allentoft for RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=2120948378

ADW_1981
06-25-2015, 01:22 PM
At least we know he was R1b1.

Most of us... ;)

Krefter
06-25-2015, 01:23 PM
well, as is usual, it is a little more complicated and there is always the need for more data. Is this person Z301+ or Z301- ?

I think he's negative for all basal clades of U106, but I'm not sure.

rms2
06-25-2015, 01:35 PM
The date given by Allentoft for RISE98 is 2275-2032 BC.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=2120948378

You're right. Bonehead error on my part. Thanks for the correction.