PDA

View Full Version : Dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia, Valverde.et.al.2015



Pages : [1] 2 3

jeanL
06-17-2015, 02:10 PM
New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2015114a.html)




The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 02:42 PM
New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2015114a.html)

Their map supports an East to West migration, which we have known about for a long time based on phylogeny alone...

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

They really missed the boat IMO when they call for a Paleolithic movement, as if they completely ignored recent ancient DNA.

The high frequencies for DF27 in Iberia are not surprising. The surprising number however is the amount of unresolved P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19) in Ireland (17.81%) and Basque Country (12.61%). Unfortunately DF99 was not tested.

ArmandoR1b
06-17-2015, 02:54 PM
The high frequencies for DF27 in Iberia are not surprising. The surprising number however is the amount of unresolved P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19) in Ireland (17.81%) and Basque Country (12.61%). Unfortunately DF99 was not tested.
Do you think there was a problem with the test? It seems way too high to me. At least for the Basque Country.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 03:07 PM
This study appears to show a few caveats that are extremely interesting nonetheless, per Table-S1 one can observe the following:

1-All the R1b-M269 found in people living in the Basque Country(both Native and nonNative) and Irish people is R1b-L11+ derived.

2- The greatest frequency(92.23%) of R1b-L11 and by extension R1b-M269 is found in Rural Basques(n=193)(which are more likely to be Native Basques instead of descendants of XIX century immigrants from other parts of Spain). This is confirmed when sampling people with Basques surnames (n=230) who attain a frequency of R1b-M269 of 92.17%.

3- Notice the stark contrast between the R1b frequency of Basque natives(n=230 R1b-M269 92.17%) and residents in the Basques Country without Basques surnames(n=111 R1b-M269 62.16%). The fact that the same pattern repeats itself in the Urban(n=148 R1b-M269 69.59%) vs Rural (n=193 R1b-M269 92.23%) is further proof that Urban environments tend be misleading when it comes to haplogroup frequencies because the population might not be native to area and more often than not is not.

4-Another interesting thing is that most of the migration to the Basque Country occurred from areas that were once part of the Celtic Stronghold of Iberia(i.e. Galicia, Extremadura, Castillay Leon) yet their frequency of R1b-M269 is far lower than that found amongst Basques. This points to the fact that there might have been a substantial non-R1b component in Celtic speakers in nonBasque Iberia. Notice the frequency of R1b-M269 in Galicia(n=70) is 61.43% the second lowest in Iberia, and the lowest frequency of R1b-M269 is in Asturias(n=63) yet another Celtic Stronghold only having 57.14% R1b-M269. Though I caution the lower samples sizes might create distortion, but this is something that has been observed before(i.e. Adam.et.al.2008, Myres.et.al.2011).

5- This leads me to believe that the introduction of R1b-L11 lineages into the Basques must have happened from the North, not the South, otherwise we would see far lower frequencies of R1b-L11 in them. Now the interesting part is that French Basque actually have lower frequencies of R1b-M269+ at around 75% than Spanish Basques, but then again this could be due to low sample size in the French Basque side.

6- In sharp contrast to the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study we see no increased frequency of R1b-L21/M529 in Basques, while the frequency is indeed somewhat greater(2.17% vs 1.8%) in Native Basques than in their nonNative citizens is still falls far too short of the ~20% frequencies reported by Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012. It could be that most of those 20%+ frequencies were drawn from samples of ~50 people, which could point to a small sample size bias. Nonetheless we see that R1b-L21 peaks in Asturias(6.35%), Galicia(7.14%) and Cantabria(6.25%) bringing up the links between those areas and the rest of Atlantic Europe during the Atlantic Bronze Age. It also worth noting that rural inhabitants of the Basque Country actually have lower R1b-L21 frequency than their Urban counterparts. Also notice the drop in R1b-L21 frequency as one moves east and south of Cantabria.

7- R1b-U152 appears to peak in Galicia and Asturias at 7.94% and 8.57%, yet it is found at frequencies above 4% in all of Iberia except for Basques and Portuguese(n=110 R1b-U152=3.64%) where the maximum frequency peaks at 2.59% in the rural inhabitants of the Basque Country or 2.17% in the Native Basques. I wonder if this is the result of Roman influence in Iberia or the result of Celtic migrations from Central Europe.

8- The greatest frequency of R1b-D27 happens in the Basque Country, and specially in rural inhabitants of the Basque Country at 71.50%, as well as Native Basques at 70.87%, however this frequency peak is by virtue of the overall frequency of R1b-M269 in the region. Here is the frequency of R1b-DF27 as a percentage of R1b-S116/P312 in all of the sample:

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Valverde.et.al.2015_Table-S1-Modified_zpsh2bq4v3h.jpg (http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/Valverde.et.al.2015_Table-S1-Modified_zpsh2bq4v3h.jpg.html)

9-Notice that while the relative frequency of R1b-D27/R1b-S116 does have the third(After Portugal(n=110) and Madrid(n=99)) highest value in Iberia in the Basque Country, the frequency amongst rural inhabitants of the Basque Country is lower at 77.97% than their Urban counterparts at 81.25%, likewise the Native Basques have a lower frequency at 77.99% than their nonNative citizen counterparts at 82.81%. Now of interests is the frequency peaks of R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,L21,DF19,L238) in Irish(n=146) at 23.85% and Native Basques(n=230) at 17.22%, also notice the contrast between the frequency of R1b-S116* between rural(n=193) inhabitants of the Basque Country at 17.51% and Urban(n=148) inhabitants of the Basque Country at 12.50%, likewise nonNative Basques(n=111) citizens have 10.94% R1b-S116*. Also of interest is the 0% R1b-S116* found in Galicia and Asturias though this could be due to low sample size. I'm guessing some of these R1b-S116* amongst Native Basques might be R1b-M65, anybody want to take a guess at what it might be amongst Irish and Basques? R1b-DF99????

Thoughts??

PS: Here is a 2013 R1b-P312 tree for easy visualization:

http://www.norwaydna.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/R1b-P312_Descendency_Tree.jpg

RCO
06-17-2015, 03:08 PM
I would be a good article pre-NGS-Y full sequences without the Paleolithic nonsense error. At least we have the first complete article with Iberian DF27 proportions. We can observe in the Y Full tree that R-P312-S116 branched fastly and intensively with various minor branches, so the unresolved P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19) results are quite expected.
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

The table
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2015114x2.xls

jeanL
06-17-2015, 03:09 PM
The high frequencies for DF27 in Iberia are not surprising. The surprising number however is the amount of unresolved P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19) in Ireland (17.81%) and Basque Country (12.61%). Unfortunately DF99 was not tested.

See my analysis above, the Basque Country sample is biased by having nonNative Basques in it. I'm betting some of it might be R1b-M65.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 03:18 PM
Do you think there was a problem with the test? It seems way too high to me. At least for the Basque Country.

I can't say if there was a problem or not, but 43 samples out of 341 does sound like a lot.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 03:27 PM
See my analysis above, the Basque Country sample is biased by having nonNative Basques in it. I'm betting some of it might be R1b-M65.

Pardon my ignorance...M65 is a branch below P312/S116?

jeanL
06-17-2015, 03:28 PM
Pardon my ignorance...M65 is a branch below P312/S116?

I think it is, but I'm not 100% sure. It's very rare, so it has been deemed a private SNP.

ArmandoR1b
06-17-2015, 04:02 PM
so the unresolved P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19) results are quite expected.
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

The table
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2015114x2.xls

The YFull tree only has two people of likely Iberian ancestry that would fit the what the study has for P312(xDF27, U152, L21, L238, DF19). One is from Puerto Rico and the other is DF99 from Peru. The problem with YFull is that it still has a lot less samples than the study. The study has 1095 samples and the YFull only has 104 HGDP Iberian and Latin American samples. There are at least another 5 Iberian and Latin Americans that aren't HGDP that are DF27 or L21. They are from Mexico, Brazil, and Spain.

Regardless, I still think that there was a problem with the DF27 test.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 04:16 PM
Pardon my ignorance...M65 is a branch below P312/S116?

The only person I've found outside the sampled French Basque from an old study is a cousin from 23andMe of British origins.

rms2
06-17-2015, 04:18 PM
. . .

They really missed the boat IMO when they call for a Paleolithic movement, as if they completely ignored recent ancient DNA . . .

Yes, kind of an anachronism, a paper reminiscent of about 2006, except now they are restricting the claim to P312 (S116) rather than to all of M269, as was once done.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 04:27 PM
Yes, kind of an anachronism, a paper reminiscent of about 2006, except now they are restricting the claim to P312 (S116) rather than to all of M269, as was once done.

Given that we have no more than 3 Mesolithic Samples from West of Germany and South of Sweden, and no more than 35 Neolithic samples from France/Iberian/British Isles I would hold on onto making conclusions about the status of P312 in Western Europe. Thus I don't think the authors need to ignore ancient DNA to make any claims, because most of the Western European ancient DNA comes from a single burial in Treilles, France, thus there are vast regions that remain to be sampled.

Now what do you make of the big proportion of R1b-S116* in the Irish, DF99??

Piquerobi
06-17-2015, 04:29 PM
R1b-M269 (and its son R1b-P312) has not been found in any site in Neolithic Western Europe. R1b-M269 appears for the first time in Bell Beaker (R1b-P312 being the majority there), Corded Ware and Battle-Axe Sweden (R1b-U106 on this case) sites. It can't be "old" as in Neolithic Europe. Furthermore, in Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Battle-Axe Sweden an autosomal Yamnayan component was detected. Back at Yamnaya, nearly all samples have been R1b-M269 so far. It fits with the mainstream model of the spread of IE languages in Western Europe, including the timeframe.

Clearly, a 2nd "IE homeland", as Gimbutas called it, was established somewhere in Central Europe (after the steppe invasion) and from there R1b-P312 came to conquer Western Europe (the UK, France and Iberia, as well as Northern Italy).

rms2
06-17-2015, 04:34 PM
Given that we have no more than 3 Mesolithic Samples from West of Germany and South of Sweden, and no more than 35 Neolithic samples from France/Iberian/British Isles I would hold on onto making conclusions about the status of P312 in Western Europe. Thus I don't think the authors need to ignore ancient DNA to make any claims, because most of the Western European ancient DNA comes from a single burial in Treilles, France, thus there are vast regions that remain to be sampled.

I think you are one of very few people who thinks that, jeanL, but whatever.

It seems to me if the single biggest y haplogroup in Western Europe had been there since the Paleolithic Period, at least one instance of it would have shown up by now in the Mesolithic or Neolithic results.



Now what do you make of the big proportion of R1b-S116* in the Irish, DF99??
t

It seems strange. It could be DF99, I suppose, although none of that has shown up in native Irish Big Y results thus far.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 04:37 PM
The frequencies of R1b in Iberia are rather consistent outside the Basque population at 55-65%. The higher rate among Basque may be simply due to their relative isolation and lack of immigrants to their regions. The spread of P312 and descendants almost mimics Beaker pottery to a tee. The arrival of these newcomers in the late Neolithic, and whatever their origins needs to be determined. They appear to have distinct traditions from the earlier farmers whom they supplanted and/or absorbed.

The Danish rate of R1b 37.36% is a little lower than I usually see (40-44%), but can be explained by the fact Beaker was not as influential in the north west as it was in the SW of Europe.

ADD: The higher rate of R1b can be explained in Basque if BB were almost exclusively a varied mix of P312, coupled with a lack of immigration to the region. This appears to be the case from aDNA.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 04:38 PM
Yet not a single R1b-L11 derived lineage has been found east of Germany, and most of the Yamnaya samples have been R1b-Z2105 derived, which is a cousin clade to European R1b-L51 but not ancestral to it. As for the autosomal component, Corded Ware is the one that has massive amounts of Yamnaya-like ancestry and R1a majority haplogroups. The German Beaker amount of Yamnaya-like component can be easily explained with interaction with the next door neighbors who had 70%+ of the components. We know that 2000 BC Northern Iberians were still much like Neolithic farmers and Lactose Intolerant, yet 3000 BC Peripheral Basques have lactose tolerance in them.

Now I would kindly ask everybody to try to focus our attention to the thread topic which is the dissection of R1b-S116 in Iberians and to a lesser extent some Western European populations, let's leave the Paleolithic/Neolithic/Yamnaya discussion for the appropriate thread.

rms2
06-17-2015, 04:42 PM
But the Paleolithic assertion is an essential part of this paper. And not a single ancient R1b-L11 derived lineage has been found west of Germany either.

Wasn't there a paper some years ago by a group of Indian scientists that placed the origin of R1a in India? This sort of looks like an occidental version of the same sort of thing.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 04:48 PM
Given that we have no more than 3 Mesolithic Samples from West of Germany and South of Sweden, and no more than 35 Neolithic samples from France/Iberian/British Isles I would hold on onto making conclusions about the status of P312 in Western Europe. Thus I don't think the authors need to ignore ancient DNA to make any claims, because most of the Western European ancient DNA comes from a single burial in Treilles, France, thus there are vast regions that remain to be sampled.

Fair enough, but this thread is about a study that chose to ignore ancient DNA and that is IMO a major oversight. But to your point, there are plenty of active topics on ancient DNA to carry on about it here.


Now what do you make of the big proportion of R1b-S116* in the Irish, DF99??

Ireland is so well tested at FTDNA, and so few DF99 is found there, that I don't think it is DF99. Perhaps as someone suggested, there is something wrong with their data and/or testing?

jeanL
06-17-2015, 04:51 PM
Let me make something clear, I do am not advocating a Paleolithic/Neolithic origin of R1b-P312 in Western Europe, I'm simply mentioning that there is a great lack of ancient DNA in Western Europe, and want to add that the widespread presence of ANE/Yamnaya component in Europe, specially in Western European can be attributed to an immensely number migrations(Roman Empire, Vikings,, Celts, Germanics, etc) that have occurred in Europe since the Bronze Age. Also keep in mind that Basques who have one of the greatest(if not the greatest) frequencies of R1b-P312 in Europe have a local minimum in ANE/Yamnaya ancestry related, even lower(though not by much) than their Iberian neighbors who have far lower frequencies of R1b-M269. Yes I know we can attribute it to a founder's effect, etc, well then let's try to explain the modest R1b-U152 frequency in Sardinians and their even lower amount of Yamnaya/ANE ancestry, or how about the higher Yamnaya/ANE in Italians compared to Iberians. It's clear that R1b was not the only vector that carried ANE/Yamnaya into Southern Europe. Now I find it fascinating that the German Beaker samples are so uniformly R1b, and that the very first R1b-P312 in Europe have popped up in there, but let's wait until we get more Megalithic samples from Western Europe.

Remember a single R1b-P312 sample from Western Europe dating back to 3000 BC and looking like Neolithic farmers autosomally and lacking Yamnaya/ANE in them would throw the "R1b_L11 in Western Europe is from Steppe" theory upside down on its axis. Right now we have a 5000 BC farmer, who might or might not have been R1b-V88, let's keep an open mind.

rms2
06-17-2015, 05:01 PM
. . .
Remember a single R1b-P312 sample from Western Europe dating back to 3000 BC and looking like Neolithic farmers autosomally and lacking Yamnaya/ANE in them would throw the "R1b_L11 in Western Europe is from Steppe" theory upside down on its axis . . .

That's very true, but it seems less and less likely with each succeeding ancient y-dna result.


Right now we have a 5000 BC farmer, who might or might not have been R1b-V88, let's keep an open mind.

My mind is ready to open, but someone is going to have to knock on the door of it bearing some convincing evidence. A 7,000-year-old Neolithic farmer who was M269- and probably P297-, like those V88+ guys in Africa, doesn't do it for me.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 05:02 PM
Just curious - you guys don't think Bell Beaker is relevant to this thread on origins of P312 in Iberia? :P Just throwing that out there... It's clearly not what the paper is saying, but I am using this as a counter argument.

rms2
06-17-2015, 05:10 PM
Just curious - you guys don't think Bell Beaker is relevant to this thread on origins of P312 in Iberia? :P Just throwing that out there... It's clearly not what the paper is saying, but I am using this as a counter argument.

Beaker and its origins are the things that most puzzle me. Fully developed Beaker is very "kurgan" looking, but supposedly its oldest sites are in Iberia.

It's confusing. The idea that Beaker began in Iberia could be wrong (see this recent paper (http://www.academia.edu/11325848/The_dogma_of_the_Iberian_origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker _attempting_its_deconstruction) by Christian Jeunesse), or perhaps early Beaker in Iberia lacked any P312 but acquired it in Central Europe. Another possibility is the one suggested by Jean M in her "Stelae People" idea, i.e., a steppe people bearing P312 came to Iberia fairly early and became involved in the Iberian genesis of Beaker.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 05:13 PM
I'm wondering if the R1b-U152 and R1b-L21 presence in Iberia is far more recent, one R1b-L21 due to Atlantic trades with the Isles and R1b-U152 due to the Romans or if they came with the original R1b-P312 population, in any case it's obvious that R1b-P312 entered Iberia from the North and diffused throughout, thus the North African entry given by Klyosov is I think highly unlikely, same thing with an origin of R1b-P312 in Iberia, it's very clear that Iberia is a recipient of R1b-P312 not a donor. As for the German Beakers it is my understanding that the only subclade of R1b-P312 found has been R1b-U152 thus far.

So some food for thought, an R1b-DF27 population enters Iberia? Or does an R1b-xDF27 population enter Iberia and R1b-DF27 is born in Iberia? Is that the very first layer of R1b-P312 in Iberia, or was there significant amount of R1b-U152/L21/others siblings? If we assume the birth of R1b-DF27 was outside of Iberia, then where?

jeanL
06-17-2015, 05:14 PM
It's confusing. The idea that Beaker began in Iberia could be wrong (see that recent paper by Christian Jeunesse - I need to find the link again), or perhaps early Beaker in Iberia lacked any P312 but acquired it in Central Europe. Another possibility is the one suggested by Jean M in her "Stelae People" idea, i.e., a steppe people bearing P312 came to Iberia fairly early and became involved in the Iberian genesis of Beaker.

How does the lack of the R1b/Yamnaya/ANE haplogroup/component in the Remedello culture play with their supposed indo-Europeaness and Stelae presence?

rms2
06-17-2015, 05:23 PM
How does the lack of the R1b/Yamnaya/ANE haplogroup/component in the Remedello culture play with their supposed indo-Europeaness and Stelae presence?

Were the stelae present in Remedello I? I have to confess that I am not the authority on Remedello, but I believe those I2a results are from Remedello I. Rich probably knows the answers.

alan
06-17-2015, 05:49 PM
Were the stelae present in Remedello I? I have to confess that I am not the authority on Remedello, but I believe those I2a results are from Remedello I. Rich probably knows the answers.

Someone reckoned they fell into both phases. When we add in the Ice Man who at least had connections with Remedello, Trielles, those Iberians c. 3000BC etc then pre-beaker southern and south Alpine Europe are not looking like R1b-M269 derived areas. In contrast R1b (almost certainly almost all L23 derivatives) are popping up all over pre-beaker eastern, central and northern Europe despite the small sample. Of course the problem is positive evidence only needs a small sample but negative evidence only gives confidence in a large sample. If taken at face value I am starting to seriously doubt that the relevant strands of R1b entered Europe south or west of the Alps until the beaker phase or perhaps one generation before.

Gray Fox
06-17-2015, 06:15 PM
Ireland is so well tested at FTDNA, and so few DF99 is found there, that I don't think it is DF99. Perhaps as someone suggested, there is something wrong with their data and/or testing?

I agree. I think the waters are often muddied when we start trying to include these minority snp's, which often have clear distribution patterns (L238- Northern Euro/Scandinavia, DF19- Low countries/Belgium etc.) to the mix. On average these groups usually only end up being a percentage or two of the main sample. I personally believe, due to the difficulty in testing DF27 and the fact that it may be showing up in a region that its not really known to do so, that it may be getting overlooked here. There is a small, but growing, number of Irish DF27 that aren't limited to men with planter surnames. In fact, it appears that those of Native stock tend to be showing up in older, more basal forms. Whereas Z196 is more in line with Planter/Norman stock. When it comes to the larger percentages, especially in the more western areas, I still the think the big three (U152, L21 and DF27) are going to show the most prominence. Especially L21 and DF27, which dominate the western end of of the Continent. DF99 just doesn't fit the bill, which from what I've seen is more central European in character.

RCO
06-17-2015, 06:32 PM
DF27 is extremely regular in almost all Iberian regions (around 40-50%) and we can observe in the YFull tree several basal DF27 Iberian individuals
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/
Only in the Basque Country DF27 is superior than 60% and rural or native Basque surnames are superior to 70%, so the concentration and the point of entrance was from the Basque Atlantic Pyrenees to the West and South. DF27 was born there or immediately adjacent because they were the main Iberian peopler and only minor branches moved to other distant places but never with a big concentration comparable with that pioneer region of distribution.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 06:49 PM
DF27 is extremely regular in almost all Iberian regions (around 40-50%) and we can observe in the YFull tree several basal DF27 Iberian individuals
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/
Only in the Basque Country DF27 is superior than 60% and rural or native Basque surnames are superior to 70%, so the concentration and the point of entrance was from the Basque Atlantic Pyrenees to the West and South. DF27 was born there or immediately adjacent because they were the main Iberian peopler and only minor branches moved to other distant places but never with a big concentration comparable with that pioneer region of distribution.

That would make sense. I'd still like to compare these large Iberian data sets against French ones...but I don't recall many recent ones that measure DF27, U152, L21, and U106. I'm expecting a NE to SW diagonal which cuts through ancient Gaul and each group populates the respective region. L51* and L11* are statistically common in central Europe.(Germany) The fact that Ireland has a large P312 (xDF27) segment (in this study at least) may hold some weight that DF27+ guy originated in central France or maybe even further south.

GoldenHind
06-17-2015, 07:28 PM
Fair enough, but this thread is about a study that chose to ignore ancient DNA and that is IMO a major oversight. But to your point, there are plenty of active topics on ancient DNA to carry on about it here.



Ireland is so well tested at FTDNA, and so few DF99 is found there, that I don't think it is DF99. Perhaps as someone suggested, there is something wrong with their data and/or testing?

Since I have spent a great deal of time trying to determine the distribution of DF99, I thought I would respond to the question of whether the large amount of P312/S116* reported in Ireland and Iberia in this study could be DF99. But I should start with noting that DF99 was only discovered less than two years ago, and is not included in Geno 2 or in a number of other DNA surveys such as the one in question. The current data must be considered preliminary and could change in the future.

DF99 IN IRELAND

Ireland probably has the highest percentage representation of any European country in the FTDNA database. I believe it includes some 21,000 individuals of Irish ancestry. Compare this to Sweden, which has double the population of Ireland, but only 3000 samples in the FTDNA database. To date only two DF99 have been found with irish ancestry, and both have English surnames and ancestry from Ulster. Neither of them has any matches with people with irish surnames, and there is little doubt both are descendants of English settlers to Ulster in the 17th century. There could well be scattered DF99 throughout Ireland, but if so, they have remained well hidden. In my opinion, the possibility that there is a very large DF99 population in Ireland is essentially nil.

DF99 IN IBERIA

Two DF99 have been found with apparent Iberian ancestry. The first is composed of two cousins whose ancestors went from Spain to Mexico to the USA. However one of them has discovered that their earliest known ancestor was a silk merchant from Flanders who moved to Bilboa in the 17th century. It should be noted that Flanders was under Spanish rule at that time, so it is not as odd as it sounds. A legal record from that time identifies his ancestor as a "Flamenco," ie a person from Flanders, and he has found his ancestor's baptismal entry from a place near Liege in Flanders.

The second is an anonymous (again there are actually two, but they are father and son) DF99 from Lima, Peru in the 1000 Genomes data. He is anonymous, and nothing is known of his ancestral origins. However the 1000 Genomes study was rich in Iberian samples, and this was the only DF99 found among them. If DF99 was well represented in Iberia, it seems odd that this was the only one to be included in the 1000 genomes data. Contrary to common perception, there has been considerable migration to Peru since the early 19th century from a number of European countries other than Spain. Personally I would be willing to wager this man's ancestry is from northern or central Europe rather than Spain. However there is no way of determining this.

I certainly wouldn't take the position that there is no DF99 in Iberia, but again I think the chances it is very common there are also essentially nil.

What we do know of the distribution of DF99 suggests it is concentrated in northern and central Europe, rather than the Atlantic coast and southern Europe..

I can't comment on the reliability of the testing in this study, but I can suggest another possibility to explain the substantial amount of P312* found in this study. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is at least one, and very probably two or more subclades of P312 yet to be identified. There are a number of people in the FTDNA P312 project who have tested negative for all known P312 subclades, including DF99. Most of these are of British origin, but there are samples from the continent as well. Some of these unidentified P312 subclades may well be present in Ireland and Iberia, though I would be very surprised if they are common enough to represent the large P312* component of this study.

razyn
06-17-2015, 07:35 PM
the concentration and the point of entrance was from the Basque Atlantic Pyrenees to the West and South. DF27 was born there or immediately adjacent because they were the main Iberian peopler and only minor branches moved to other distant places

The subclades of DF27 that are best known to be numerous in the modern Basque population are quite young (born a few centuries AD, not two or three millennia BC). They are found in an early Basque cemetery, but it likewise is several centuries AD. There has so far been no confirmed association of DF27, or any subclade of it, in Copper or Bronze Age Iberia. Many of the other subclades/branches of DF27 have their distribution weighted far to the north, northeast, and east of any place in Iberia, Basque or otherwise. Including the Nordic countries, Poland, Ukraine, and Armenia -- not just the nearby Isles, or Netherlands, where many have been misled into thinking their YDNA lineage is Basque. Some of the branches found in abundance elsewhere (especially Z295 and above) are the ancestors, not the descendants, of the DF27 Basques who live there now.

It is a very, very common error to equate modern population density with ancient presence in the same place. Once that idea takes hold, it is really hard to overturn with mere evidence.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 07:41 PM
I'm wondering if the R1b-U152 and R1b-L21 presence in Iberia is far more recent, one R1b-L21 due to Atlantic trades with the Isles and R1b-U152 due to the Romans or if they came with the original R1b-P312 population, in any case it's obvious that R1b-P312 entered Iberia from the North and diffused throughout, thus the North African entry given by Klyosov is I think highly unlikely, same thing with an origin of R1b-P312 in Iberia, it's very clear that Iberia is a recipient of R1b-P312 not a donor. As for the German Beakers it is my understanding that the only subclade of R1b-P312 found has been R1b-U152 thus far.

So some food for thought, an R1b-DF27 population enters Iberia? Or does an R1b-xDF27 population enter Iberia and R1b-DF27 is born in Iberia? Is that the very first layer of R1b-P312 in Iberia, or was there significant amount of R1b-U152/L21/others siblings? If we assume the birth of R1b-DF27 was outside of Iberia, then where?

I agree that the origin came from the north. More specifically, I think that the first Iberian DF27 Clan was almost exclusively DF27 (at the exclusion of U152 & L21). I don't have a good enough feel for the true DF27* to say if we are talking about an origin point north or south of the Pyrenees however. If I went on gut feel, I would say north.

ArmandoR1b
06-17-2015, 07:43 PM
I can't comment on the reliability of the testing in this study, but I can suggest another possibility to explain the substantial amount of P312* found in this study. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is at least one, and very probably two or more subclades of P312 yet to be identified. There are a number of people in the FTDNA project who have tested negative for all known P312 subclades, including DF99. Most of these are of British origin, but there are samples from the continent as well. Some of these unidentified P312 subclades may well be present in Ireland and Iberia, though I would be very surprised if they are common enough to represent the large P312* component of this study.

Right. The 6-12% P312/S116* for the Iberians in the study is just too big compared to what has been found through individual testing and the HGDP samples for the cause to be attributed to unidentified subclades.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 07:43 PM
The subclades of DF27 that are best known to be numerous in the modern Basque population are quite young (born a few centuries AD, not two or three millennia BC). They are found in an early Basque cemetery, but it likewise is several centuries AD. There has so far been no confirmed association of DF27, or any subclade of it, in Copper or Bronze Age Iberia. Many of the other subclades/branches of DF27 have their distribution weighted far to the north, northeast, and east of any place in Iberia, Basque or otherwise. Including the Nordic countries, Poland, Ukraine, and Armenia -- not just the nearby Isles, or Netherlands, where many have been misled into thinking their YDNA lineage is Basque. Some of the branches found in abundance elsewhere (especially Z295 and above) are the ancestors, not the descendants, of the DF27 Basques who live there now.

It is a very, very common error to equate modern population density with ancient presence in the same place. Once that idea takes hold, it is really hard to overturn with mere evidence.

So where did the R1b-DF27 in Basques come from, BTW it appears that every clades of R1b-DF27 is well represented in Iberia?

GoldenHind
06-17-2015, 07:53 PM
Their map supports an East to West migration, which we have known about for a long time based on phylogeny alone...

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



In my opinion this map is completely misleading. I believe P312 started peeling off from L11 at about the same time and place as U106. The path represented as P312 in the map I believe was likely taken by only some portion of P312, largely DF27, but again only some portion of that. The majority of L21 went northwest rather than southwest, and I think U152 split off long before P312 elements got to Spain. All subclades of P312 are well represented in Scandinavia, and I doubt very much this is due to a back migration from Iberia. I think some portion of P312 is likely to have gone north at a very early date.

R.Rocca
06-17-2015, 08:09 PM
How does the lack of the R1b/Yamnaya/ANE haplogroup/component in the Remedello culture play with their supposed indo-Europeaness and Stelae presence?

It clearly goes against their "Indo-Europeaness". In the latest phases of Remedello, both Bell Beaker and to a lesser extent, Corded Ware material shows up. Without a doubt, the earlier stelae had Remedello daggers represented on them.

Krefter
06-17-2015, 08:42 PM
See my analysis above, the Basque Country sample is biased by having nonNative Basques in it. I'm betting some of it might be R1b-M65.

Is R1b-M65 a basal branch of P312?

EDIT: I saw you already answered his question.

Krefter
06-17-2015, 08:49 PM
Yet not a single R1b-L11 derived lineage has been found east of Germany, and most of the Yamnaya samples have been R1b-Z2105 derived, which is a cousin clade to European R1b-L51 but not ancestral to it. As for the autosomal component, Corded Ware is the one that has massive amounts of Yamnaya-like ancestry and R1a majority haplogroups. The German Beaker amount of Yamnaya-like component can be easily explained with interaction with the next door neighbors who had 70%+ of the components. We know that 2000 BC Northern Iberians were still much like Neolithic farmers and Lactose Intolerant, yet 3000 BC Peripheral Basques have lactose tolerance in them.

Now I would kindly ask everybody to try to focus our attention to the thread topic which is the dissection of R1b-S116 in Iberians and to a lesser extent some Western European populations, let's leave the Paleolithic/Neolithic/Yamnaya discussion for the appropriate thread.

That would mean German/Czech Bell beaker was over 60% Corded Ware. Of course an EEF origin is possible. And I agree the focus should be on "the dissection" of R1b-S116/P312 in Iberia.

Heber
06-17-2015, 09:12 PM
I believe this study supports the expansion of P312 in the Atlantic zone as indicated by the Hallast data.
By Atlantic, I mean the Isles, France and Iberia, with L21 and DF27 further West and U152 further East and extending into Germany.
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/iberian-dna/
My preferred route to Iberia and reflux migrations is via the Stelae People route.
It is also the shortest route either by sea or by road. If early Neolithic used boats then Bronze Age BBs could use boats and we know they were proficient coastal traders.
I am sure there was constant traffic in both directions.
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/the-stelae-people/
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/kemi-oba/
Remedello is noted by Allendoft as Neolithic and Bell Beaker as Bronze Age.
The pointed daggers images of late Remedello could have been adopted on early BB Stelae.
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/european-bronze-age/
The expansion of DF27 appears to have happened in Iberia.
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/
and DF21 in the Isles
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/

razyn
06-17-2015, 09:19 PM
So where did the R1b-DF27 in Basques come from,

DF27 is a brother to U152; both descend from one of the sons of P312/S116 (and L21, from a different son of P312). The ancient U152 Bell Beaker sample in southeastern Germany 4400 ybp [RISE563] is one indicator of the route of this population into Europe. It looks neither Iberian nor Mediterranean, except to those whose presuppositions incline them to see it as a novel exception to what they have previously hypothesized (in order to fit other, non-genetically based theories). I posted about it:


U152's pedigree includes an upstream SNP (below P312) that is also the ancestor of DF27. The origin of U152 doesn't necessarily have any proven proximity to the burial site of the oldest bearer of it yet found -- although he is in a pretty good place, given its later distribution...

But it does have to do with an upstream mutation, shared by the first Mr. DF27 and all his descendants; that whole side of the P312 clan descends from one man, who was there when it happened. Whether "there" was Bavaria, or someplace else, it was on the P312 route (from Yamnaya country? Middle Dniepr? Lower Danube?) to Bavaria. So, that narrows the search area to just a couple thousand miles; and the aDNA narrows the time frame to a few hundred years. Seems like good progress, to me.

The U106 Corded Ware sample RISE98 in Sweden is another. I'll let someone else have the floor on that:


U106 in CW does of course support the idea that L11 originated quite far east, perhaps Ukraine.

I don't entirely agree with Alan's train of thought from beginning to end, but he at least is thinking about the phylogeographical implications of the new aDNA evidence. A much more complete statement of this was posted on a different thread. And I disagree with a little of it, toward the end -- but believe he is on the right basic track. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-%28a-Corded-Ware-subgroup%29&p=90160&viewfull=1#post90160

I don't agree with your other statement (or question) about the many clades of DF27:


BTW it appears that every clades of R1b-DF27 is well represented in Iberia?

The discovery process for new clades and subclades is still ongoing and rapid, with more FGC and BigY tests being completed and analyzed. Some few of them are represented in Iberia, usually in small amounts (perhaps in part because we have less current sampling from there). A number of the subclades, some very old, are not yet known to be represented there at all. The well-represented few (strongly, or even predominantly, Iberian subclades of DF27) are those that were discovered in the 1000 Genomes project -- in which btw Iberia (via descendants in the western hemisphere) was proportionately over-represented, not under.

This overlong response to JeanL's queries should not be perceived as having anything directly to do with what Rich and Gerard have posted in the meanwhile. Some significant fraction of "the expansion of DF27" indeed happened in Iberia -- after it got there -- but I think the actual question was about its origin.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 09:40 PM
My question is whether the original population movement into Iberia by R1b bearers was carried out by exclusively R1b-D27 majority with some unknown R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,L21,DF19,L238), which appear to be the second largest "clade" in many Iberian populations, or if the minority R1b-L21 and R1b-U152 also came with them. Whatever the case might be I believe R1b-DF27 originated somewhere in the following area:

4933

RCO
06-17-2015, 09:47 PM
We can say the only relatively homogeneous regularity in all the Iberian Peninsula (except in the Basques) is DF27, because all other haplogroups and SNPs will have big Iberian regional variations. Another important question is DF27 basal diversity and again we can find Iberian branches in almost all DF27 branches, including several unique individual basal Iberian only DF27 branches, so we can think DF27 was the original Iberian R1b settler in terms of diversity, size and regular distribution in all Iberia.

alan
06-17-2015, 09:51 PM
It clearly goes against their "Indo-Europeaness". In the latest phases of Remedello, both Bell Beaker and to a lesser extent, Corded Ware material shows up. Without a doubt, the earlier stelae had Remedello daggers represented on them.

And of course it is only Remedello II that made people wonder about steppic influence - I have even heard it described as a kind of southern version of the social changes seen in CW. There is nothing in Remedello I to suggest IEs. Certainly it is looking very clear that the initial spread of copper across southern Europe from Italy westwards c. 3600-3100BC looks totally unrelated to the steppes and none of the ancient DNA is R1 in that zone/period. My understanding is the Remedello ancient DNA crosses the Remdedello I/II divide but looks the same as if there was no genetic change. Do we know how many separate sites the Remedello ancient DNA came from? If there are all different sites then this is stronger evidence than several from one cemetery or very nearby to each other. The sample is still very small but going with the evidence a more northerly route looks supported than any other. We now have pre-beaker copper age samples from north Italy and southern France that are emphatically non-R1b. Also from memory some Spanish samples that date to around the time of the earliest copper age in Iberia.

IMO its looking very much a route along the Danube or through central Europe to the north of the Danube for the ancestors of P312 people. A more southern route goes against all the ancient evidence to date. Usual caveat of very small sample though.

alan
06-17-2015, 09:52 PM
We can say the only relatively homogeneous regularity in all the Iberian Peninsula (except in the Basques) is DF27, because all other haplogroups and SNPs will have big Iberian regional variations. Another important question is DF27 basal diversity and again we can find Iberian branches in almost all DF27 branches, including several unique individual basal Iberian only DF27 branches, so we can think DF27 was the original Iberian R1b settler in terms of diversity, size and regular distribution in all Iberia.

I agree and I think the unusually high L21 around the Basque areas may owe something to displaced people from Aquitania who were a mix of Celts and Vasconic lines.

alan
06-17-2015, 09:57 PM
My question is whether the original population movement into Iberia by R1b bearers was carried out by exclusively R1b-D27 majority with some unknown R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,L21,DF19,L238), which appear to be the second largest "clade" in many Iberian populations, or if the minority R1b-L21 and R1b-U152 also came with them. Whatever the case might be I believe R1b-DF27 originated somewhere in the following area:

4933

It depends of age. If U106 could date to 3000BC or even slightly earlier then so does P312. If P312 dates to around 3000BC then DF27 cannot have been a great deal younger. My feeling is DF27 might be a little too old to have actually originated in beaker in Iberia which having recently chewed over the dates cannot be certain to be much more than a generation older than 2700BC. I suspect personally that DF27 emerged in west central Europe and had a founder effect in Iberia.

alan
06-17-2015, 10:03 PM
In my opinion this map is completely misleading. I believe P312 started peeling off from L11 at about the same time and place as U106. The path represented as P312 in the map I believe was likely taken by only some portion of P312, largely DF27, but again only some portion of that. The majority of L21 went northwest rather than southwest, and I think U152 split off long before P312 elements got to Spain. All subclades of P312 are well represented in Scandinavia, and I doubt very much this is due to a back migration from Iberia. I think some portion of P312 is likely to have gone north at a very early date.

I agree with most of that. Archaeologically an out of the Pyrenees origin for P312 is absolute gibberish with no support at all. Also judging by the age now being suggested for U106 and its presence in CW and battleaxe P312 likely existed before beaker existed and probably before even CW existed. So I think its origin is WAY to the east of what is being suggested here. I actually find it hard to make sense of a 5000 year old steppe originated lineage (as surely all L23 is) originating anywhere much west of Ukraine. Frequencies mean absolutely nothing - that is a lesson we have learned again and again.

jeanL
06-17-2015, 10:12 PM
I agree and I think the unusually high L21 around the Basque areas may owe something to displaced people from Aquitania who were a mix of Celts and Vasconic lines.

There appears to be conflicting evidence as the levels of L21 in Basques, for example according to Table-S1 of this study the Native Spanish Basque sample(n=230) has a frequency of R1b-M529/L21 of 2.17%, or 5 people out of 230 have R1b-L21.

The Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091/suppl/DC1) study Table-S3 the Spanish Basques sample(n=231=>GUI 47, GSO 57, ALA 51, BBA 57, BOC 19) has 42 people bearing R1b-L21 or 18.2%, however there appears to be a sharp contrast between the province of Guipuzcoa where 22/104 or 21.15% have R1b-L21, whereas in Vizcaya 9/72 or 12.5% have R1b-L21. According to the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study:


A total of 886 unrelated individuals from 18 geographical areas from the Basque country and surrounding Spanish and French-speaking regions were collected. For all subjects, written informed consent was obtained, and Ethics Committees at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Pasteur, Universite´ Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3, and the CCPPRB (Comite´ Consultative de Protection des Personnes dans la Recherche Biome´dicale d’Aquitaine) approved all procedures. All individuals were interviewed in order to assess the geographical origin of their grandparents and their speaking dialect. DNA was extracted from fresh blood by standard phenol–chloroform methods.

Now since they did use the Basque surname criteria to indicate Nativity, and instead use Grandparent origin, it is possible that the L21 was due to that, but in this study we see that people from the Basque Country without Basque surname actually have a lower frequency of L21.

alan
06-17-2015, 10:34 PM
Beaker and its origins are the things that most puzzle me. Fully developed Beaker is very "kurgan" looking, but supposedly its oldest sites are in Iberia.

It's confusing. The idea that Beaker began in Iberia could be wrong (see this recent paper (http://www.academia.edu/11325848/The_dogma_of_the_Iberian_origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker _attempting_its_deconstruction) by Christian Jeunesse), or perhaps early Beaker in Iberia lacked any P312 but acquired it in Central Europe. Another possibility is the one suggested by Jean M in her "Stelae People" idea, i.e., a steppe people bearing P312 came to Iberia fairly early and became involved in the Iberian genesis of Beaker.

Or simply the beaker rapidly occurred when an founder effect of P312 people from westernmost CW or some specialist group with a cousinly relationship entered it c. 2700BC or just before. I favour a route down the Rhone then east Iberia and perhaps following the Tagus for a rapid arrival in Portugal. For me the Pyrenees was peripheral to the beaker phenomenon and I believe most likely the Basques are Aquitanians displaced from France - possibly the real reason why they seem to have much more L21 than is normal in Iberia.

alan
06-17-2015, 11:23 PM
In terms of a founder effect, the fact there appears to be a gap the width of France between earliest beaker in Iberia (which I think is a localised result of a central European intrusion) and the central European cultures of eastern origin like CW and others is a perfect scenario for a founder effect. This gap between beaker and CW - and an even bigger gap to Yamanaya in Hungary does suggest a very small group entered Iberia to form the beaker culture. If a larger movement had been involved it would have left a CW type trail passing through France. Its clearly got to have been a very small movement, IMO almost certainly related to west central Europeans trying to connect to Iberia's pre-beaker copper wealth. In other words a classic founder effect scenario where a single branch like DF27 could enter and massively grow.

I dont believe for a moment that P312 in Iberia formed and sent out all the clades into the rest of Europe i.e U152, L21 etc. Anyway, I suspect P312 and even the founding SNPs of the main branches will prove to pre-date the 2700-2750BC date of the earliest beaker in Iberia. So all these branches will have a pre-beaker pre-Iberian existence in another pre-beaker culture. I believe if U106 or its immediate L11 ancestor was able to pass up rivers like the Dnieper, Dniester etc into the CW complex and battle axe beyond then P312 was also located not far away around the same time.

Agamemnon
06-18-2015, 12:21 AM
DF27 being phylogenetically closer to U152 is rather interesting, as it could have some important implications with regards to the branching and dissemination of (para-)Italo-Celtic dialects. While I maintain population genetics should have no influence on diachronic linguistic perspectives, I think that genetic parallels can prove useful and eventually hint to the likeliness of a given classification and/or branching model.


Frequencies mean absolutely nothing - that is a lesson we have learned again and again.

Hear, hear!

R.Rocca
06-18-2015, 12:46 AM
There appears to be conflicting evidence as the levels of L21 in Basques, for example according to Table-S1 of this study the Native Spanish Basque sample(n=230) has a frequency of R1b-M529/L21 of 2.17%, or 5 people out of 230 have R1b-L21.

The Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091/suppl/DC1) study Table-S3 the Spanish Basques sample(n=231=>GUI 47, GSO 57, ALA 51, BBA 57, BOC 19) has 42 people bearing R1b-L21 or 18.2%, however there appears to be a sharp contrast between the province of Guipuzcoa where 22/104 or 21.15% have R1b-L21, whereas in Vizcaya 9/72 or 12.5% have R1b-L21. According to the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study:



Now since they did use the Basque surname criteria to indicate Nativity, and instead use Grandparent origin, it is possible that the L21 was due to that, but in this study we see that people from the Basque Country without Basque surname actually have a lower frequency of L21.

An increase of L21 in the past several hundred years was also observed in the Brabant Belgium/Netherlands as per a study from a few years back.

R.Rocca
06-18-2015, 01:02 AM
Remedello is noted by Allendoft as Neolithic and Bell Beaker as Bronze Age.
The pointed daggers images of late Remedello could have been adopted on early BB Stelae.

It is common to use Late Neolithic instead of Copper Age. Make no mistake though, Remedello is a full Copper Age culture. Remedello Culture burials have daggers (which are know to archaeologists as "Remedello Daggers") from 3400 BC, which is hundreds of years before Bell Beaker. Also, Otzi the Iceman carried with him a Remedello Culture copper axe.

jeanL
06-18-2015, 02:34 AM
So I went ahead and ordered the Z296 SNP at yseq, if it turns out positive which ones should I order next? If it turns out negative I guess I'll order S228/Z198.

ArmandoR1b
06-18-2015, 02:56 AM
So I went ahead and ordered the Z296 SNP at yseq, if it turns out positive which ones should I order next? If it turns out negative I guess I'll order S228/Z198.
The DF27panel is cheaper over the long run. You probably have time to change the test. http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=10749.

rms2
06-18-2015, 11:21 AM
My opinion is still that U106 sprang from an L11 lineage on the Yamnaya route around the north and east sides of the Carpathians onto the North European Plain, i.e., the Corded Ware contact zone. P312, on the other hand, arose from an L11 lineage on Yamnaya's up-the-Danube Valley route. To me, this explains the very distinct distributions of the two chief brother clades under L11.

Alan has mentioned a couple of times that Yamnaya only gets us as far as Hungary, but certainly it must have impacted local cultures and spun off hybrids, in both the cultural and genetic sense. Gimbutas attributed the genesis of Beaker to Vucedol, Somogyvar, and Zok-Mako. Some or all of those may have been in the Danube Valley before Yamnaya or contemporaneous with it, but they were probably heavily influenced by it, and those cultures may themselves have been products or hybrids of one or both of Gimbutas' first two "kurgan waves" (Yamnaya was Wave 3).

This map is a good visual of the situation I'm talking about.

4939

I'm adding a pic of some pedestalled and cross-footed bowls that I think are illustrative.

4941

rms2
06-18-2015, 11:57 AM
My opinion is still that U106 sprang from an L11 lineage on the Yamnaya route around the north and east sides of the Carpathians onto the North European Plain, i.e., the Corded Ware contact zone. P312, on the other hand, arose from an L11 lineage on Yamnaya's up-the-Danube Valley route. To me, this explains the very distinct distributions of the two chief brother clades under L11.

Alan has mentioned a couple of times that Yamnaya only gets us as far as Hungary, but certainly it must have impacted local cultures and spun off hybrids, in both the cultural and genetic sense. Gimbutas attributed the genesis of Beaker to Vucedol, Somogyvar, and Zok-Mako. Some or all of those may have been in the Danube Valley before Yamnaya or contemporaneous with it, but they were probably heavily influenced by it, and those cultures may themselves have been products or hybrids of one or both of Gimbutas' first two "kurgan waves" (Yamnaya was Wave 3).

This map is a good visual of the situation I'm talking about.

4939

I'm adding a pic of some pedestalled and cross-footed bowls that I think are illustrative.

4941

I wanted to add that another possibility is that L11 or even L51 came west with one of Gimbutas' first two kurgan waves and actually predates the Wave 3 Yamnaya incursion. As I recall, the first wave began about 4300 BC and the second about 3900 BC (I'm working from memory though, so I might be off on those dates).

alan
06-18-2015, 12:26 PM
I wanted to add that another possibility is that L11 or even L51 came west with one of Gimbutas' first two kurgan waves and actually predates the Wave 3 Yamnaya incursion. As I recall, the first wave began about 4300 BC and the second about 3900 BC (I'm working from memory though, so I might be off on those dates).

I was into the first wave idea for a while but less into it now. There is one issue. If L51 was in say south Ukraine and if the Anatolians are more like Z2103 than any other clade then they would have had to pass through L51 territory several times without picking up much L51. I mean by this that Suvorovo probably came form the Dnieper area into the Balkans and Lower Danube and then Z2103 Yamnaya ancestors of the Greeks, Armenians, Albanian=Dacians came in waves starting over a 1000 years later than Suvorovo. So how did they all manage to pass from the steppe into the Balkans and Anatolia without picking up L51. There are too many variables and possibilities to say that that is an insurmountable problem but it does deserve thinking about as it may have implications on how L51 and L11 were moving and when. It could for example pose the possibility that L11 actually spilled into CW formation area c. 3000BC and got itself upstream in the Dnieper from the path of the Z2103 waves who seem to have sequentially been spilling into the Balkans over a long long period. It all kinds of suggests L11 positioned itself to the north - perhaps just upstream on the Dnieper etc - and allowed a whole sequence of Z2103 associated IE waves to pass it by the south. This would mean that CW would be most likely to be the transporter of L11 westwards.

rms2
06-18-2015, 12:46 PM
I just put that out as an afterthought. It is possible though that a particular kindred/tribe can move through a place to another territory without acquiring outsiders, especially if they transit through the area without settling for very long.

Heber
06-18-2015, 12:57 PM
Nice to see the work of these researchers acknowledged in this paper.

References
1. Rocca RA, Magoon G, Reynolds DF, Krahn T, Tilroe VO, Op den Velde Boots PM, Grierson AJ: Discovery of Western European R1b1a2 Y chromosome variants in 1000 genomes project data: an online community approach. PLoS One 2012; 7: e41634.
2. International Society of Genetic Genealogy 2014. Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2014, Version: 9.71, Date: 21 July 2014, http://www.isogg.org/tree/.

sweuro
06-18-2015, 01:11 PM
This study appears to show a few caveats that are extremely interesting nonetheless, per Table-S1 one can observe the following:

1-All the R1b-M269 found in people living in the Basque Country(both Native and nonNative) and Irish people is R1b-L11+ derived.

2- The greatest frequency(92.23%) of R1b-L11 and by extension R1b-M269 is found in Rural Basques(n=193)(which are more likely to be Native Basques instead of descendants of XIX century immigrants from other parts of Spain). This is confirmed when sampling people with Basques surnames (n=230) who attain a frequency of R1b-M269 of 92.17%.
Same thing with the Barcelona sample, normally Catalans are on the ~75-80% range for R1b, but Barcelona is heavily mixed with descendants of immigrants from other parts of Spain.

Isidro
06-18-2015, 01:46 PM
Here is how I see the location and founder effect of branches under S116, based on DNA that does not contradict findings of ancient DNA to date in addition to the extensive archaeological
records accumulated so far where S116 branches flourish today.

S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.

DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.

U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.

L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.

M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly.

There is a possibility that L21 was born in France or the UK regions, again one of the main rules for a founder effect is a supporting agricultural and pastoral society and that, over the centuries has been and still now has a gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.

razyn
06-18-2015, 02:05 PM
Here is how I see the location and founder effect of branches under S116, based on DNA that does not contradict findings of ancient DNA to date in addition to the extensive archaeological
records accumulated so far where S116 branches flourish today.

S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.

DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.

U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.

L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.

M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly.

There is a possibility that L21 was born in France or the UK regions, again one of the main rules for a founder effect is a supporting agricultural and pastoral society and that, over the centuries has been and still now has a gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.

Kind of nice to have it all laid out, to illustrate what I'm up against. (Basically, all of this.)

R.Rocca
06-18-2015, 02:21 PM
Here is how I see the location and founder effect of branches under S116, based on DNA that does not contradict findings of ancient DNA to date in addition to the extensive archaeological
records accumulated so far where S116 branches flourish today.

S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.

DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.

U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.

L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.

M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly.

There is a possibility that L21 was born in France or the UK regions, again one of the main rules for a founder effect is a supporting agricultural and pastoral society and that, over the centuries has been and still now has a gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.

On the contrary...IMO, ancient DNA very clearly contradicts all of these scenarios. Also, there is nothing in ancient nor modern DNA that would lead anyone to believe that L21 is a Basque marker. The one thing I still haven't ruled out in my mind is an early Corded Ware movement into Iberia that then a re-expansion to the rest of Europe in the form of P312. This however is less likely (again IMO) than an already P312+ clan moving into Iberia circa 2800-2700 BC.

ADW_1981
06-18-2015, 02:29 PM
Could Maritime BB and AOO/AOC BB have been initially completely unrelated? Two styles of pottery who merged and borrowed somewhere in west-central Europe?

If so, we know at the very least R1b is associated to AOO/AOC, but perhaps the Maritime could have been I2/G2.

R.Rocca
06-18-2015, 02:33 PM
Could Maritime BB and AOO/AOC BB have been initially completely unrelated? Two styles of pottery who merged and borrowed somewhere in west-central Europe?

If so, we know at the very least R1b is associated to AOO/AOC, but perhaps the Maritime could have been I2/G2.

I think part of P312's success was that it was a closed patrilineal society. In the same way that Easternmost Yamnaya was just about 100% R-Z2103+, I think we will find that Westernmost Bell Beaker will be close to 100% L11+.

TigerMW
06-18-2015, 02:40 PM
Here is how I see the location and founder effect of branches under S116, based on DNA that does not contradict findings of ancient DNA to date in addition to the extensive archaeological
records accumulated so far where S116 branches flourish today.

S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.

DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.

U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.

L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.

M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly.

There is a possibility that L21 was born in France or the UK regions, again one of the main rules for a founder effect is a supporting agricultural and pastoral society and that, over the centuries has been and still now has a gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.
I don't have time to try to re-analyze the data sets we have from modern people, but what I see is the same as I've always seen, diversity in early branching in and around P312/S116 seems to be on a plane from France across the Alps back towards the Danube corridor. These folks came from Central Europe towards the Atlantic. Eastern Gaul would be the furthest west I could see for a P312 origination.

I would not at all be surprised if P312 did not pop up in the early Yamnaya movements out of the steppes and happened to be a lucky allele surfing the expansion wave westward.

Michał
06-18-2015, 03:29 PM
So how did they all manage to pass from the steppe into the Balkans and Anatolia without picking up L51.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any relevant ancient DNA results from the Balkan-Carpathian region, but based on the results for Baden, Remedello and Oetzi , it seems possible that those early (pre-Yamna) intrusions from the North Pontic steppe did not result in any fundamental reshaping of the SE European genetic pool, so when considering the scenario discussed by rms2, we don’t need to assume that L51 was sufficiently common in the Lower Danubian region to be picked up by the subsequent steppe-derived migrations towards Greece and Anatolia. In my opinion, the most important feature of this particular scenario is the hypothetical assumption (quite strongly suggested by the phylogenetic structure and modern distribution of clade L51) that clade L51 was initially represented by a very small band of people who have been quickly migrating westward before settling down somewhere in Central Europe (among the neighboring EEF-rich populations like Baden or Remedello) and before substantially growing in size (which included taking local wives) and then suddenly expanding as a part of the Bell Beaker phenomenon (which could have been triggered by the contacts with the arriving distant relatives from the Corded Ware culture).


This would mean that CW would be most likely to be the transporter of L11 westwards.
We still lack any CWC sample that would be unequivocally identified as belonging to haplogroup R1b, so although the hypothetical association of R1b-L51/L11 with CWC cannot be ruled out yet, I would consider it a slightly less likely option.

If not counting the somehow discredited theories suggesting that R1b-L51 is of the European Paleolithic or Near Eastern Neolithic origin of, there seem to be only three possible scenarios that explain the presence of R1b-L51 in Central-Western Europe:

1) Western Yamna origin and migration along the Danube.
2) Western Yamna or Pre-Yamna origin and contributing to the CWC expansion along the Northern Carpathian route.
3) Pre-Yamna origin and westward migration, followed by in situ expansion in Central Europe.

To determine which of the above scenarios is correct we definitely need ancient Y-DNA results for Western Yamna (including both Western Ukraine and the Middle Danubian sites), but it seems that aDNA for the early stages of Middle Dnieper(or Dnieper Donets III) and Sredny Stog could also be helpful.

Isidro
06-18-2015, 08:34 PM
Quite interesting to see different points of view on a tangled scenario as it stands now. I did have this view I hold for over 5 or 6 years, since then, nothing has convinced me that it is an impossibility including the latest DNA ancient results.


Kind of nice to have it all laid out, to illustrate what I'm up against. (Basically, all of this.)
I am not against anything, I just think my concept has more weight, but I could be wrong after all I have come through a lot of surprises over the years.

TigerMW
06-18-2015, 09:13 PM
...S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.
DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.
U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.
L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.
....

On the contrary...IMO, ancient DNA very clearly contradicts all of these scenarios. Also, there is nothing in ancient nor modern DNA that would lead anyone to believe that L21 is a Basque marker. The one thing I still haven't ruled out in my mind is an early Corded Ware movement into Iberia that then a re-expansion to the rest of Europe in the form of P312. This however is less likely (again IMO) than an already P312+ clan moving into Iberia circa 2800-2700 BC.

I have to agree with Richard R on this. Clearly L21 in Iberia has little diversity.

I don't see any evidence for greater diversity or early branching of P312/S116 in Iberia.

U152 and DF27 are closely related as evidenced by the super branch ZZ11 that is ancestral for the two. That provides a pull for DF27 away from Iberia right there as you've already conceded U152 is N.Italy. ZZ11 brothers L238, DF19 and DF99 haven't appeared in Iberia yet, to my knowledge. They seem to appear far to the north.

I think we still are in situation where L2 and U152 both have no equivalents. If so, L2's position may be critical as well as U152+ L2-. L2 could be older than DF27. As the data piles in, I think an Iberian origin for P312 looks worse and worse all of the time. P312 is too late and not found (yet) in the early Neolithic. P312 is just in time for the steppes stockherder push westward and seems to have burst out in all directions westward once it hits Central Europe.

I don't see any evidence for P312/S116 following a Neolithic farming expansion, if that's what you mean by agriculture.

Here is an idea. We might want to refine our discussion of the Bronze Age and be more time and technology specific. It was not all at once or all of one type. I say that because there were different technologies at different times and places and we might consider P312 of the "new" Bronze Age rather than the early western Bronze Age.

Isidro
06-18-2015, 09:42 PM
I have to agree with Richard R on this. Clearly L21 in Iberia has little diversity.

I think your position is quite clear but in closed clusters in modern populations even used for the purpose of obtaining diversity is far from exact science.


I don't see any evidence for P312/S116 following a Neolithic farming expansion, if that's what you mean by agriculture.

Agriculture facilitates population expansions, they don't have to necessarily belong to the same group or culture, S116 descendants did not travel alone, they were part of a more complex migration including various haplogroups.



I think we still are in situation where L2 and U152 both have no equivalents. If so, L2's position may be critical as well as U152+ L2-. L2 could be older than DF27. As the data piles in, I think an Iberian origin for P312 looks worse and worse all of the time. P312 is too late and not found (yet) in the early Neolithic. P312 is just in time for the steppes stockherder push westward and seems to have burst out in all directions westward once it hits Central Europe.

Again, ancient DNA is the only one that is going to settle this issue, too many possibilities all based on modern DNA data with optional constructs.


Here is an idea. We might want to refine our discussion of the Bronze Age and be more time and technology specific. It was not all at once of one type at one time type of thing. I say that because we might consider P312 in the "new" Bronze Age rather than the early western Bronze Age.

Sounds perfect.How about if we find a map of Europe and what it looked like archaeologically and demographically 1000 BC.


Regards

[[[ [EDIT: I edited to clarify what were quotes of me versus commentary added. No words were changed I just implemented the quote function more fully - M.W.]]]

GoldenHind
06-19-2015, 12:28 AM
ZZ11 brothers L238, DF19 and DF99 haven't appeared in Iberia yet, to my knowledge. They seem to appear far to the north.



You are correct about that. For a further information about DF99 in Iberia, or rather the current lack of it, see my post #31 on page 4 of this thread. Not only have no DF19, DF99 or L238 been found in Iberia, none has been found anywhere remotely near Iberia.

Too many people look at P312 as if it was only composed of L21, U152 and DF27, and ignore the three (so far) smaller P312 subclades. However any theory about the origin and spread of P312 has to take into consideration all of P312, not just part of it.

lgmayka
06-19-2015, 12:44 AM
Too many people look at P312 as if it was only composed of L21, U152 and DF27, and ignore the three (so far) smaller P312 subclades.
Note to mention singletons such as kit 109663 of Poland, who has tested
P312+, M269+, L21-, M153-, M65-, SRY2627-, U106-, U152-, Z196-, DF27-, DF19-, DF99-
and is judged to be almost certainly L238- as well.


13 25 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 14 15 29 17 9 10 11 11 24 16 19 30 15 15 16 17 11 11 19 22 16 15 21 18 36 37 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 21 23 16 10 12 12 16 8 13 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 11

TigerMW
06-19-2015, 01:04 AM
I think your position is quite clear but in closed clusters in modern populations even used for the purpose of obtaining diversity is far from exact science.
My original observations from several years ago were based on STR diversity but I am including SNP diversity in this case, too. It is providing validation. The key is diversity in early branching (as can be seen by SNPs). We just don't see it in Iberia now for P312/S116. Maybe we will some day but I make no claim that there is an exact anything. Rather, the point is that evidence is piling up that P312/S116 does not appear to have originated in Iberia.

The same goes for L21. We find DF63+ and true L21* in places like the Isles and France. I don't think we have found any (yet) in Iberia.


Agriculture facilitates population expansions, they don't have to necessarily belong to the same group or culture, S116 descendants did not travel alone, they were part of a more complex migration including various haplogroups....
I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think anyone is saying no other haplogroups traveled with P312/S116 wherever it went.

TigerMW
06-19-2015, 01:09 AM
... Too many people look at P312 as if it was only composed of L21, U152 and DF27, and ignore the three (so far) smaller P312 subclades. However any theory about the origin and spread of P312 has to take into consideration all of P312, not just part of it.
GoldenHind is quite on target. In fact, it is not the modern volumes that count. It is the early branching that counts so DF19, DF99, L238 are just as important as L21 or ZZ11>U152 or ZZ11>DF27. I would add ZZ11>U152>L2 to the list also. As Lawrence points out, true P312* is an important element of early branching too (and in Corded Ware land to boot!)

R.Rocca
06-19-2015, 01:33 AM
My original observations from several years ago were based on STR diversity but I am including SNP diversity in this case, too. It is providing validation. The key is diversity in early branching (as can be seen by SNPs). We just don't see it in Iberia now for P312/S116. Maybe we will some day but I make no claim that there is an exact anything. Rather, the point is that evidence is piling up that P312/S116 does not appear to have originated in Iberia.

The same goes for L21. We find DF63+ and true L21* in places like the Isles and France. I don't think we have found any (yet) in Iberia.


I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think anyone is saying no other haplogroups traveled with P312/S116 wherever it went.

As I've mention several times before, true L11 diversity is found in the Low Countries.

rms2
06-19-2015, 01:34 AM
Okay, here's my bet, and I will admit I could be wrong. Earliest Bell Beaker in Iberia, if indeed the earliest Bell Beaker really did occur in Iberia, was not R1b. R1b-P312 got into Beaker in the Carpathian Basin and moved back west as a fully kurganized, horse-riding, single grave, tumulus culture. That's why you see Vucedol and Mako pedestalled bowls predating the very same thing in Beaker by about 300 years.

It is also possible, as Alan has suggested, that some Corded Ware bands got to Iberia and introduced the essential Beaker elements and P312 to Beaker there.

But there is no reason to think of P312 as any kind of Neolithic farmer stuff or of Paleolithic provenance in Western Europe. That would fly in the face of the aDNA results thus far, with all its steppe and Beaker L23 and the glaring absence of L23 in the West.

TigerMW
06-19-2015, 02:11 AM
As I've mention several times before, true L11 diversity is found in the Low Countries.
By that you mean, the early branching right? For P312 there is some pretty fair balance in the diversity as DF19 is found there along with L21, U152 and DF27. I have to agree with you, but I'm still reticent to place an origin for P312 there.

Do we have true P312* there too?

Also, I don't think we can say that U106's presence in the Low Countries is ancient. It is easily explained by Germanic migrations from the east/northeast. The U106 guys think it came from the Danube basin. I like to argue with them a bit speculating more northerly like Poland. Perhaps we can't even say U152's presence is really ancient in the Low Countries.. or can we?

Early branching-SNP diversity should not be viewed stand-alone. I don't think anything should be viewed stand-alone and I didn't mean to imply that. If a balance of early branches converge, but the early branching within each branch and STR variances show a different origin indicator for the branches, then we may just have classic "convergence".

I don't mean to say that Lower Rhine should be off the list for a P312 origin. There is a strong argument to be made. On P310/P311 I think the case is weaker because of U106's probable timing and U106 intra-branch diversity.

It's not an easy problem, I agree.

Isidro
06-19-2015, 04:37 AM
My original observations from several years ago were based on STR diversity but I am including SNP diversity in this case, too. It is providing validation. The key is diversity in early branching (as can be seen by SNPs). We just don't see it in Iberia now for P312/S116. Maybe we will some day but I make no claim that there is an exact anything. Rather, the point is that evidence is piling up that P312/S116 does not appear to have originated in Iberia.

The same goes for L21. We find DF63+ and true L21* in places like the Isles and France. I don't think we have found any (yet) in Iberia.


I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think anyone is saying no other haplogroups traveled with P312/S116 wherever it went.



My comment on haplogroups traveling together was based on what you said :
"I don't see any evidence for P312/S116 following a Neolithic farming expansion, if that's what you mean by agriculture."
Why disconnect S116 from Neolithic farming expansions.

Megalophias
06-19-2015, 06:32 AM
Why disconnect S116 from Neolithic farming expansions.
Because it is estimated to have formed after the Neolithic, isn't found in Neolithic farmers, and is found in post-Neolithic farmers? (Well, unless you call the Chalcolithic the Late Neolithic, which I guess they do in parts of Europe).

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 06:58 AM
Because it is estimated to have formed after the Neolithic, isn't found in Neolithic farmers, and is found in post-Neolithic farmers? (Well, unless you call the Chalcolithic the Late Neolithic, which I guess they do in parts of Europe).

Have we got any remote consensus on dates?
L11 4000BC or earlier? Location Poland? (also L11* found in Alps and England???)
P312/U106 3200-3000BC? Location...possibly N Europe or Low Countries from above discussion.

The early farming 'waves' did not reach the Baltic or the Isles until shortly before 4000BC so L11 could have been in the general vicinity from its birth?
P312 was close to the Isles in the Mid or Late Neolithic (depending on who's date classification you use).
The Chalcolithic did not reach the Isles before around 2500BC.

If the above is correct then It seems likely that R1b (L11 or P312) was in the Isles in the Neolithic (of the Isles - pre Beaker)?

If Valverde et al are correct regarding Irish P312 it suggest that P312 was present in Ireland in the Neolithic (of the Isles).

Lets not forget that there were several 'waves of farming' that entered the Isles from 4300BC (the start of the Neolithic in the Isles) [ref. e.g. Sheridan 2010].

alan
06-19-2015, 07:54 AM
The rarity of L51xL11 suggests to me that there was no move west until L11 (perhaps dating to 4000BC) was the main lineage. There is no archaeological evidence of a new group heading into L11 dominated territory of north, west-central, western and south-western Europe from the 4000 to 3000BC. So while L11 may have existed from 4000BC it seems incredibly unlikely it headed west until after 3000BC. We do have evidence in the 250 years after 3000BC that Yamnaya moved into Hungary and CW spread as far west as Switzerland from eastern European starting points. Further evidence of a relatively late spread is that both modern and ancient properly resolved samples are dominated by P312 derivatives and a U106 guy too now.

So the ancient samples that are resolve echo the modern picture that L51xL11 is very rare and L11xP312xU106 relatively rare and that the movements and expansion didnt start in earnest until after the P312 and U106 snps existed and they seem to date to 3000BC. So, IMO it looks like L51 and L11 were not in an expansive farmer type society or a society with significant demographic growth and expansion until after 3000BC. Had there been an earlier expansion we would see a lot more L51xL11 and L11XP312XU106 today and in ancient samples. All the evidence points to the expansion being driven by very late L11 or early P312 and U106 in the centuries after 3000BC.

If there was any earlier pre-L11 L51 expansions in the pre-4000BC period it was very small in size indeed and not ancestral to very many modern Europeans. This of course all admirably fits the ancient DNA to date which shows the sudden appearance of L11 derived people with eastern derived autosomal DNA in the post-3000BC and zero examples of earlier L51 and L11. So the farmer scenario is mind bendingly counter-intuitive and simply based on the totally discredited method of looking at modern frequency.

All the evidence clearly suggests that in the long period between the L51 and the L11 SNPs in the pre-4000BC era nothing much was happening in terms of grown or spread. It just doesnt remotely fit a farmer hypothesis. That is emphatic in both modern and ancient DNA.


Also the relative rarity of L11xP312xU106 further implies there was likely no movement west until P312 and U106 had risen. , both of which apparently date to about 3000BC suggest to me that it was not until those two lineages had already become the dominant ones that they spread west. that is too early for them to have actually come into being in either CW or beaker. They clearly had a prior existence in an ancestor culture. However it seems as clear as can be that that ancestor culture was in eastern Europe and there is really no evidence of any spreads west through northern Europe until CW in the post-3000BC era.

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 08:09 AM
If L11 was based in far Eastern Europe or Steppe for 1000 years where is the modern and ancient dna data to support that?

The autosomal beaker data would show much higher Yamnaya if it had just travelled out with a Yamnaya migration. Beaker shows much lower Yamnaya than corded ware. An overview of the modern DNA, aDNA - including Y, mtDNA and autosomal data suggests to me a high probability that R1b was in Western Europe pre-Yamnaya and that a link to an 'earlier wave' is much more likely.

Megalophias
06-19-2015, 08:32 AM
Have we got any remote consensus on dates?
Well, Y Full has 3000-2300 BC for P312, and 3400-2400 BC for L11, which I guess most people would consider in the right ballpark at least. We have a P312 sample from c. 2300-2200 BC, so it is at least that old.

Valverde et al used the Zhivotovsky evolutionary rate STR dating method, which most people have thrown out because it gives inconsistent dates that are incompatible with dates obtained by other methods.

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 08:39 AM
So the farmer scenario is mind bendingly counter-intuitive and simply based on the totally discredited method of looking at modern frequency.

When is a farmer not a farmer? .... or exactly who are the farmers?

For example,
Sheridon (2010) The Neolithisation of Britain and Ireland: The Big Picture
has farming wave 2 entering Britain c4,200-4,000BC. These people were farmers but also built the passage graves (and we all think they are I DNA dominated?)

Sheridan links the passage grave arrival to the Cerny Culture and Passy grave and monuments - and then to LBK in the Danube (who we all see as G2a). So this 'origin' does not fit our aDNA knowledge.

But the LBK 'secondary expansion' is complex....
e.g. LBK expands into northen France via the RRBP and VSG cultures c 5000-4600BC. LBK has a Transdanubian element that seems to differ from the main LBK in aDNA terms (a greater variety of Y DNA types?).

In reality, it actually seems more likely (to me) that the 'passge grave farmer movement' came from the I2 hotspot in the Balkans.

Probably most on this forum would refer to the passage grave culture as farmers but some modern archaeology thinking (consensus?) has them as neolithic farmers. Probably most on this forum would not recognise the Neolithic Farming revolution reaching the Isles through an I DNA dominated passage grave culture.

Of the following waves of Neolithic farmers that reached the isles....would they all be completely G2a.....I find that highly unlikely.

So lets not write off 'farmers' as an irrelevant distraction when we do not understand who they were and what waves reached the Isles and when.

(....and none of this is based on looking at modern frequency in the Isles.)

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 08:48 AM
Well, Y Full has 3000-2300 BC for P312, and 3400-2400 BC for L11, which I guess most people would consider in the right ballpark at least. We have a P312 sample from c. 2300-2200 BC, so it is at least that old.

Valverde et al used the Zhivotovsky evolutionary rate STR dating method, which most people have thrown out because it gives inconsistent dates that are incompatible with dates obtained by other methods.

I based the dates above on the discussion on this thread and on the current u106 discussion thread - I.e. People on this forum reviewing the dates in light of the bloggers new aDNA analysis of Allentoft samples and counting back snps.

alan
06-19-2015, 08:57 AM
If L11 was based in far Eastern Europe or Steppe for 1000 years where is the modern and ancient dna data to support that?

The autosomal beaker data would show much higher Yamnaya if it had just travelled out with a Yamnaya migration. Beaker shows much lower Yamnaya than corded ware. An overview of the modern DNA, aDNA - including Y, mtDNA and autosomal data suggests to me a high probability that R1b was in Western Europe pre-Yamnaya and that a link to an 'earlier wave' is much more likely.

Its hard to infer anything safely from modern distributions but L51XL11 is incredibly rare in Europe so its safe to say that migrations west post-date L11 which probably dates to around 4000BC. If the migration post-dates 4000BC then it is important to note that the archaeological record shows no migrations from the east in the 4000-3000BC period. The only migrations in that period were short distance farming ones into northern Europe from adjacent areas just to the south in north central Europe which had been settled long before L11 even existed. As I said before, if there had been a spread across Europe of European forms of R1b in the period prior to L11 then it would by definition have been L51xL11 but that is very very rare.

Look at specific countries. Most of the more remote area of western Europe are completely dominated by a branch of P312 and those branches clearly are no earlier than the first few centuries after 3000BC YET all over much of Europe they share a commonancestors dating not much earlier than 3000BC. Its pretty clearcut that its a copper age spread across Europe and ancient DNA to date totally supports this. Its also in agreement with the archaeological evidence for new east to west thrusts of Yamnaya and Corded Ware in the centuries after 3000BC. It seems irrational and counterintuitive and counter-evidence to look to the pre-copper age era or the farmer waves.

Megalophias
06-19-2015, 08:57 AM
When is a farmer not a farmer? .... or exactly who are the farmers?
Farmers are people who grow crops and raise livestock for food. So all the groups involved were farmers. I am not sure what exactly you are arguing. A pre-Beaker farmer wave carried P312 to the Isles?

alan
06-19-2015, 09:09 AM
When is a farmer not a farmer? .... or exactly who are the farmers?

For example,
Sheridon (2010) The Neolithisation of Britain and Ireland: The Big Picture
has farming wave 2 entering Britain c4,200-4,000BC. These people were farmers but also built the passage graves (and we all think they are I DNA dominated?)

Sheridan links the passage grave arrival to the Cerny Culture and Passy grave and monuments - and then to LBK in the Danube (who we all see as G2a). So this 'origin' does not fit our aDNA knowledge.

But the LBK 'secondary expansion' is complex....
e.g. LBK expands into northen France via the RRBP and VSG cultures c 5000-4600BC. LBK has a Transdanubian element that seems to differ from the main LBK in aDNA terms (a greater variety of Y DNA types?).

In reality, it actually seems more likely (to me) that the 'passge grave farmer movement' came from the I2 hotspot in the Balkans.

Probably most on this forum would refer to the passage grave culture as farmers but some modern archaeology thinking (consensus?) has them as neolithic farmers. Probably most on this forum would not recognise the Neolithic Farming revolution reaching the Isles through an I DNA dominated passage grave culture.

Of the following waves of Neolithic farmers that reached the isles....would they all be completely G2a.....I find that highly unlikely.

So lets not write off 'farmers' as an irrelevant distraction when we do not understand who they were and what waves reached the Isles and when.

(....and none of this is based on looking at modern frequency in the Isles.)

yes but the point is the chain of cultures that reach the isles is descended back ultimately to LBK which was all through central Europe c. 5500BC - a date far far older than L11. So any L51 derived people in LBK would be L51xL11 which is incredibly rare. Indeed I am pretty sure not even L51 existed at the time when LBK did its first big spread through Europe so any R1b in the big LBK thrust would probably have been L23xL51.

Now the derivatives of LBK came to different late farmer settled parts of northern Europe from totally different areas so there was no chance of a nice chain of branches sheding off from a recent common ancestor. TRB came from LBK descended Lengyel which I think was in Poland while the isles Neolithic came from LBK descended intermediary cultures in France. Their last common ancestor was probably 5500BC - which predates L11 by 1500 years and pre-date L51. In other words Scandinavia and the isles were settled by farmers with no common ancestor until you go back long before L11 and even probably L51 existed. So its not explanation for the way L11 clades entered all across northern Europe because L11 didnt exist until long after the common ancestors of the northern European farmers who settled those areas had massively separated by the distance between France and Poland probably 1500 years before they settled the isles. Indeed L11 seems to have barely come into existence at the c. 4000BC date the north of Europe from the isles to Scandinavia was being settled by farmers anyway.

alan
06-19-2015, 09:30 AM
If L11 was based in far Eastern Europe or Steppe for 1000 years where is the modern and ancient dna data to support that?

The autosomal beaker data would show much higher Yamnaya if it had just travelled out with a Yamnaya migration. Beaker shows much lower Yamnaya than corded ware. An overview of the modern DNA, aDNA - including Y, mtDNA and autosomal data suggests to me a high probability that R1b was in Western Europe pre-Yamnaya and that a link to an 'earlier wave' is much more likely.

I personally think really close linking of y groups and autosomal DNA kind of only works if they are passing through very sparsely populated areas in the way the eastern thrust of IEs did or a major wave of people settling the land and displacing the locals. In contrast once you have new male lineages penetrating into long settled farming areas virtually anything could happen.

An R1b group of guys could take several local wives each. Then their expand with their original autosomal DNA halved or more. Or an R1b beaker guy and some copper supplier further down the chain could have a habit of sealing their alliance by trading daughters as wives and totally change his lineages autosomal DNA.

The yDNA -autosomal correlations may work a little better for corded ware as it looks like a wave of settlers settling down on the land but beaker for example is hyper-mobile and furiously networking all over Europe so I would say autosomal DNA is going to be incredibly varied in beaker depending on who he is networking with, where he is travelling, who he is marrying to seal alliances etc.

I suspect beaker will be incredibly varied and we will have to catch the first generation or two of migrants to expect them to have large amounts of the original ancestral autosomal DNA pattern of their lineages. It is virtually certain given the beaker networking and mobility that marriage into to locals or middlemen's families (who might sometimes be other beaker people who are doing the same thing) would have been the traditional way to seal alliances. Certainly remained so in Celtic societies into the Medieval era. They also practiced the swapping of children with important allies in temporary fosterage until adulthood.

alan
06-19-2015, 09:37 AM
I would also point out that Yamnaya - despite it all so far only being tested between the Volga and Don - has thrown up TWO L23 branches not just one. One of the Samara guys was L23xZ2103. So the chances are we will find other branches of L23 when they test the area between the Don and Dnieper.

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 09:53 AM
yes but the point is the chain of cultures that reach the isles is descended back ultimately to LBK which was all through central Europe c. 5500BC - a date far far older than L11. So any L51 derived people in LBK would be L51xL11 which is incredibly rare. Indeed I am pretty sure not even L51 existed at the time when LBK did its first big spread through Europe so any R1b in the big LBK thrust would probably have been L23xL51.

Now the derivatives of LBK came to different late farmer settled parts of northern Europe from totally different areas so there was no chance of a nice chain of branches sheding off from a recent common ancestor. TRB came from LBK descended Lengyel which I think was in Poland while the isles Neolithic came from LBK descended intermediary cultures in France. Their last common ancestor was probably 5500BC - which predates L11 by 1500 years and pre-date L51. In other words Scandinavia and the isles were settled by farmers with no common ancestor until you go back long before L11 and even probably L51 existed. So its not explanation for the way L11 clades entered all across northern Europe because L11 didnt exist until long after the common ancestors of the northern European farmers who settled those areas had massively separated by the distance between France and Poland probably 1500 years before they settled the isles. Indeed L11 seems to have barely come into existence at the c. 4000BC date the north of Europe from the isles to Scandinavia was being settled by farmers anyway.

I think you exemplify my point very well. My point is simple.

There were a number of waves of farmers who reached Isles - not just one. No-one knows exactly how many waves, where they came from, who (DNA wise) was in those waves. There were certainly waves after L51 and L11 existed.
Waves of farmers settling the Isles can not be ignored as the simple arrival of a single wave of LBK (derived cultures) dominated by G2a. It is very clearly not that simple.

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 09:58 AM
I would also point out that Yamnaya - despite it all so far only being tested between the Volga and Don - has thrown up TWO L23 branches not just one. One of the Samara guys was L23xZ2103. So the chances are we will find other branches of L23 when they test the area between the Don and Dnieper.

Yes, I guess we all can agree that we hope we find L51 aDNA very soon. That will take us another good leap forward.

alan
06-19-2015, 10:10 AM
I think you exemplify my point very well. My point is simple.

There were a number of waves of farmers who reached Isles - not just one. No-one knows exactly how many waves, where they came from, who (DNA wise) was in those waves. There were certainly waves after L51 and L11 existed.
Waves of farmers settling the Isles can not be ignored as the simple arrival of a single wave of LBK (derived cultures) dominated by G2a. It is very clearly not that simple.

Well I dont think its really sequential waves. More a case of a number of departure points along the French north coasts and adjacent around the same time. The incredibly similarity of the portable material cultures as well as many common threads in monuments generally suggests that after landing in southern England, the isles was basically settled by waves out from the initial landing groups.

It seems that they landed around 4000BC or just before in southern England and had reached the far north and Ireland by 3800BC. That is a close call for L11 even existing at the time anywhere. It seems to me the ancestral population that fed all of them was on the isles by 4000BC. I have never read any convincing evidence in modern books or papers of any follow up waves of Neolithic farmers after the initial groups settled in the century or two around 4000BC.

You often hear guff on the net about 'the megalithic people' etc but many megaliths are basically skeumorphs of earthen types and share many very specific features. There was no such thing as a megalithic people - that was demolished soon after radiocarbon started being used.

While I broadly agree with Sheridan, her concept of an early wave that went up the west of Ireland from Atlantic France is incredibly speculative and no RELIABLE early dates exist to back her theory. Burnholt who excavated the Sligo passage tombs seems to have not retrieved RC samples from reliable contexts or from short life materials. Sheridan's theory is also contradicted by the portable finds with no evidence for a wave that is different form typical isles Neolithic.

Finally a few years back a Causewayed enclosure with an exceptionally early date right at the very start of the Irish Neolithic and perhaps the oldest found in the isles was excavated in Sligo, the very area where the supposed early wave passage tombs are located. Causewayed enclosures are of course a type known in the isles and from north-west Europe but not continental Atlantic Europe.

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 11:00 AM
Well I dont think its really sequential waves. More a case of a number of departure points along the French north coasts and adjacent around the same time. The incredibly similarity of the portable material cultures as well as many common threads in monuments generally suggests that after landing in southern England, the isles was basically settled by waves out from the initial landing groups.

It seems that they landed around 4000BC or just before in southern England and had reached the far north and Ireland by 3800BC. That is a close call for L11 even existing at the time anywhere. It seems to me the ancestral population that fed all of them was on the isles by 4000BC. I have never read any convincing evidence in modern books or papers of any follow up waves of Neolithic farmers after the initial groups settled in the century or two around 4000BC.

You often hear guff on the net about 'the megalithic people' etc but many megaliths are basically skeumorphs of earthen types and share many very specific features. There was no such thing as a megalithic people - that was demolished soon after radiocarbon started being used.

While I broadly agree with Sheridan, her concept of an early wave that went up the west of Ireland from Atlantic France is incredibly speculative and no RELIABLE early dates exist to back her theory. Burnholt who excavated the Sligo passage tombs seems to have not retrieved RC samples from reliable contexts or from short life materials. Sheridan's theory is also contradicted by the portable finds with no evidence for a wave that is different form typical isles Neolithic.

Finally a few years back a Causewayed enclosure with an exceptionally early date right at the very start of the Irish Neolithic and perhaps the oldest found in the isles was excavated in Sligo, the very area where the supposed early wave passage tombs are located. Causewayed enclosures are of course a type known in the isles and from north-west Europe but not continental Atlantic Europe.

I believe Sheridan sees Megalithic as a distinct migration - superimposed pre-existing hunter gatherers. Other speakers seemed to support this.

From recent Prehistoric Soc Europa conference:
Megalithic - Arrival in France early 5th Millenium (Paulsson, Cassen), spread to Iberia late 5th Millenium (Valera), false start into Ireland 4300BC (Sheridan) and lots of new baysian dated passage grave data for W Ireland from c3700BC (Hensey). Later spread into Sarup c3400 (Anderson) and Sweden c3300-3000 (Sjorgen). [Ref. lots of new -many as as yet unpublished - baysian and other RC dates]
NB. No mention or consideration of later SOM period or port hole gallery graves at any point in the conference.

The Magheraboy causewayed enclosure is still an 'anomaly' in that it is far earlier (according to the RC dates) than other Isles causewayed enclosures. Sligo and north Mayo is also noted for its Ceide Field anomalies - earliest field systems, earliest round houses, and the early development of passage graves.

Potentially an interesting area to look at to understand interactions between different migrant groups across the pre-Beaker Neolithic. However, I guess it is virtually all a high acidic environment(?) - not encouraging for survival of bones and DNA.

Edit= addition.
I realise this is an R1b thread and that the Early Neolithic megalithic migration was probably I DNA dominated...and the Causewayed enclosure migration was probably G2a dominated (but not proven in any way yet). However, I believe it is important to recognise the Isles Neolithic is not just one simple migration. There is plenty of evidence for people movements across western Europe throughout the Neolithic. I believe there is a possibility R1b was involved in a western European population movement before Yamnaya and it is good scientific practice to test the possibility.
I can not imagine anyone really supports the idea of one single Neolithic migration followed by Yamnaya with little or nothing happening in between (whether or not there is any R1b involvement).

Net Down G5L
06-19-2015, 11:07 AM
I personally think really close linking of y groups and autosomal DNA kind of only works if they are passing through very sparsely populated areas in the way the eastern thrust of IEs did or a major wave of people settling the land and displacing the locals. In contrast once you have new male lineages penetrating into long settled farming areas virtually anything could happen.

Good point - will take that on board.

rms2
06-19-2015, 11:56 AM
Why does a Neolithic movement of L11 into the Isles seem likely? No L11 or L11-derived R1b has yet been found predating Beaker, and the Irish, who are about 90% R1b-L11, are not especially high in EEF but instead have elevated levels of ANE (and ANE levels are relatively high throughout the Isles).

Think broadly for a minute and don't get bogged down in minutia.

1. R1b-L23 has been found in Yamnaya; other than a single I2a, it's nearly the ONLY thing that has been found in Yamnaya (there was also one R1b-P297*, as I recall).

2. Yamnaya is linked to the initial spread of Indo-European languages.

3. Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking.

4. Western Europe is predominantly R1b-L23.

Do we really need to be hit in the head with a sledgehammer before the light dawns here?

R.Rocca
06-19-2015, 12:23 PM
By that you mean, the early branching right? For P312 there is some pretty fair balance in the diversity as DF19 is found there along with L21, U152 and DF27. I have to agree with you, but I'm still reticent to place an origin for P312 there.

Do we have true P312* there too?

Also, I don't think we can say that U106's presence in the Low Countries is ancient. It is easily explained by Germanic migrations from the east/northeast. The U106 guys think it came from the Danube basin. I like to argue with them a bit speculating more northerly like Poland. Perhaps we can't even say U152's presence is really ancient in the Low Countries.. or can we?

We have a perfect diversity of L11 branches and sub-branches and most of Western European R1b is well represented in the Low Countries. Also, if R1a and Corded Ware was there, I don't see any reason to not see U106 there, at least on the eastern banks of the Rhine.



It's not an easy problem, I agree.

Agreed, not really easy at all.

R.Rocca
06-19-2015, 12:26 PM
Why does a Neolithic movement of L11 into the Isles seem likely?

Simply put..it doesn't. Outside of modern day frequency, there is nothing that can be argued that isn't extremely unlikely given everything we've seen by way of ancient DNA, and not just Y-DNA, but also autosomal DNA.

TigerMW
06-19-2015, 12:35 PM
My comment on haplogroups traveling together was based on what you said :
"I don't see any evidence for P312/S116 following a Neolithic farming expansion, if that's what you mean by agriculture."
Why disconnect S116 from Neolithic farming expansions.

The question is not why disconnect P312 from Neolithic expansions? It is why connect P312 to early farming in the first place?
Have we found any P312 in ancient DNA from the Cardial Wares or LBK Neolithic expansions? We've had multiple digs and found other Y haplogroups but no P312, nor L51 even.

TMRCA estimation methods also support there is no reason to connect P312 to Cardial Wares or LBK. P312 is too young. It probably didn't even exist yet.

Isidro
06-19-2015, 01:07 PM
The question is not why disconnect P312 from Neolithic expansions? It is why connect P312 to early farming in the first place?
Have we found any P312 in ancient DNA from the Cardial Wares or LBK Neolithic expansions? We've had multiple digs and found other Y haplogroups but no P312, nor L51 even.

TMRCA estimation methods also support there is no reason to connect P312 to Cardial Wares or LBK. P312 is too young. It probably didn't even exist yet.

I don't recall saying anything about "early" Neolithic expansion wave for P312 although I "also" consider it a possibility that P312 was a passerby in Iberia coming through all the Med shores from the Levant.

About the digs not finding P312 in Cardial ware... I am surprised looking how thorough you are in your approach and yet you feel that there is enough evidence based on TMRCA with the ancient results and locations we have so far for Western Europe.
The issue of this blog is still very much not solved that is why I posted what I think it happened, by the reactions I got to it it does seem like you and a few others seem to have an issue. I did my bidding by posting what I think and if you do not have any other cross examination of my original post I consider this matter done with .

rms2
06-19-2015, 01:18 PM
Well, now that that matter is done with, does anyone here really believe that Yamnaya was so exclusively R1b-Z2103 that no R1b-L51 or R1a will ever be found in Yamnaya remains? I know I don't believe that.

But the fact that no R1b-L51 (or R1a) has been found in Yamnaya yet seems to be the chief animating force behind these various trips down memory lane, back to the Iberian Ice Age Refuge or to an alleged origin among Neolithic farmers.

That is why I would really like to see some y-dna testing done along Yamnaya's route west (and I know I keep repeating myself on that score).

alan
06-19-2015, 01:23 PM
I believe Sheridan sees Megalithic as a distinct migration - superimposed pre-existing hunter gatherers. Other speakers seemed to support this.

From recent Prehistoric Soc Europa conference:
Megalithic - Arrival in France early 5th Millenium (Paulsson, Cassen), spread to Iberia late 5th Millenium (Valera), false start into Ireland 4300BC (Sheridan) and lots of new baysian dated passage grave data for W Ireland from c3700BC (Hensey). Later spread into Sarup c3400 (Anderson) and Sweden c3300-3000 (Sjorgen). [Ref. lots of new -many as as yet unpublished - baysian and other RC dates]
NB. No mention or consideration of later SOM period or port hole gallery graves at any point in the conference.

The Magheraboy causewayed enclosure is still an 'anomaly' in that it is far earlier (according to the RC dates) than other Isles causewayed enclosures. Sligo and north Mayo is also noted for its Ceide Field anomalies - earliest field systems, earliest round houses, and the early development of passage graves.

Potentially an interesting area to look at to understand interactions between different migrant groups across the pre-Beaker Neolithic. However, I guess it is virtually all a high acidic environment(?) - not encouraging for survival of bones and DNA.

Edit= addition.
I realise this is an R1b thread and that the Early Neolithic megalithic migration was probably I DNA dominated...and the Causewayed enclosure migration was probably G2a dominated (but not proven in any way yet). However, I believe it is important to recognise the Isles Neolithic is not just one simple migration. There is plenty of evidence for people movements across western Europe throughout the Neolithic. I believe there is a possibility R1b was involved in a western European population movement before Yamnaya and it is good scientific practice to test the possibility.
I can not imagine anyone really supports the idea of one single Neolithic migration followed by Yamnaya with little or nothing happening in between (whether or not there is any R1b involvement).

Magheraboy suffers from the same thing as all 'earliest' examples - it almost certainly isnt. It was only a few years back that England had produced very few good quality rectangular Neolithic house remains compared to Ireland and Scotland but now there is a few and the lack appears to be an illusion caused by a number of factors. Until a few years ago there was the anomoly that Ireland seemed to have as early, perhaps earlier RC dates than southern England for the onset of the Neolithic but a major review of RC dates and new discoveries now has England at c. 4000BC and Ireland at about 3750BC if I recall correctly. So it now seems that the sunnier south and east was probably the settlement kernel where a lot of the isles Neolithic farmers expanded from in later generations. I am not saying there werent a number of crossing points over channel but just that it seems they came in quick succession over a century or two. As for the passage tomb stuff - the suggestion of really early dates for simple passage tombs is highly controversial and there is no good evidence in the isles for this. However I am open to the idea that a group using simple passage tombs might have crossed from Brittany around the same sort of time as the other crossings of Neolithic farmers. Sheridans theory that there was a very early first wave is just a theory with no data supporting it at present unless you count a stray cattle bone found in a purely Mesolithic site in SW Ireland (dead cows can float out to sea for days)

Isidro
06-19-2015, 01:54 PM
Well, now that that matter is done with, does anyone here really believe that Yamnaya was so exclusively R1b-Z2103 that no R1b-L51 or R1a will ever be found in Yamnaya remains? I know I don't believe that.

But the fact that no R1b-L51 (or R1a) has been found in Yamnaya yet seems to be the chief animating force behind these various trips down memory lane, back to the Iberian Ice Age Refuge or to an alleged origin among Neolithic farmers.

That is why I would really like to see some y-dna testing done along Yamnaya's route west (and I know I keep repeating myself on that score).

Well everything is alleged until proof.That includes the link of S116 with your Yamnaya's constant quotes in your posts, in "Dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia " does seem to be out of topic.

rms2
06-19-2015, 02:21 PM
I doubt we'll ever have enough evidence to satisfy some.

It's really exciting and interesting to see more ancient y-dna results turn up though. I hope the next batch comes along soon.

Papers like Valverde et al are just too anachronistic. It might be good for some of its test stats, but that's about it.

alan
06-19-2015, 02:21 PM
Well, now that that matter is done with, does anyone here really believe that Yamnaya was so exclusively R1b-Z2103 that no R1b-L51 or R1a will ever be found in Yamnaya remains? I know I don't believe that.

But the fact that no R1b-L51 (or R1a) has been found in Yamnaya yet seems to be the chief animating force behind these various trips down memory lane, back to the Iberian Ice Age Refuge or to an alleged origin among Neolithic farmers.

That is why I would really like to see some y-dna testing done along Yamnaya's route west (and I know I keep repeating myself on that score).

I think the key is the roots of Yamnaya. Repin is now thought to be its roots and even can be considered two phases of the same culture. I have also heard that in turn Repin has strong roots in Sredny Stog. If the dating of L11 to 4000BCish and U106 back to 3000BC and presumably P312 similar then there must be a long history of L11 in eastern Europe (its not been found anywhere else).

So I am not sure if it was in Yamnaya pre-se or a cousin culture with the same roots. L51 and L11 have not jumped out in Yamnaya as yet but its come from two areas with a big gap in between and all of it is from east of the Don. Just using genetic dating it seems to me that the L23 ancestors of L51 and Z2103 would have been in the Sredny Stog period if not earlier if we are looking for a common denominator. I cannot exactly recall the latest date for the MRCA of the two big L23 branches but its pretty old. So, in theory, if following a simple descent of y lines matches descent of cultures (which admittedly is not necessarily the case) then L51 could be in any Sredny Stog descended culture. The only other option I can see is if L23 is in Yamnaya and its Repin ancestor from a non-Sredny Stog element within the genesis of Repin. its interesting to not that Sredny Stog is thought by many archaeologists to itself be a migration across the steppes from I believe the Volga sort of area based on burial traditions. There is a dreadful lack of easy accessible stuff on Repin online. I think a good summary was in the Reich report or am I misremembering?

alan
06-19-2015, 02:27 PM
I doubt we'll ever have enough evidence to satisfy some.

It's really exciting and interesting to see more ancient y-dna results turn up though. I hope the next batch comes along soon.

Papers like Valverde et al are just too anachronistic. It might be good for some of its test stats, but that's about it.

One thing is clear if PIE is linked to some ancestral culture further back than Yamnaya then its not necessary for all PIEs to be Yamnaya. There could be other cultures. The fact CW evolved off the edge of Yamnaya zone and is associated with R1a in the main suggests it is a bit more complex than M269 tribes evolving towards PIE then spreading out in the Yamnaya phase. That is why I wonder if Yamnaya is not just part of the PIE steppe story and PIE evolved a little earlier in an ancestral culture shared by more than just Yamnaya. Sredny Stog stands out as it controlled the metal network across the steppes for many centuries.

rms2
06-19-2015, 02:33 PM
I don't recall a summary on Repin in Haak et al, but maybe there was one there.

The way I see it, first off, we have R1b-L23 in Yamnaya. Even though thus far most of that is Z2103, all of the Z2103 stuff comes from pretty far east; we don't have any y-dna from Yamnaya's western route, and the West is where most of the R1b-L51, the bigger part of L23, is found. Secondly, and I think far too little is made of this, Western Europe became IE speaking somehow. There isn't much Z2103 there, but there sure is a lot of L51. Coincidence? I don't think so.

And who thinks R1a won't be found in Yamnaya somewhere (like in its northern zone)?

I think there are three elephants in the Yamnaya room: R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, and R1a. The two biggest elephants haven't been spotted yet, but we still haven't looked at much of the room.

Joe B
06-19-2015, 04:09 PM
I don't recall a summary on Repin in Haak et al, but maybe there was one there.

The way I see it, first off, we have R1b-L23 in Yamnaya. Even though thus far most of that is Z2103, all of the Z2103 stuff comes from pretty far east; we don't have any y-dna from Yamnaya's western route, and the West is where most of the R1b-L51, the bigger part of L23, is found. Secondly, and I think far too little is made of this, Western Europe became IE speaking somehow. There isn't much Z2103 there, but there sure is a lot of L51. Coincidence? I don't think so.

And who thinks R1a won't be found in Yamnaya somewhere (like in its northern zone)?

I think there are three elephants in the Yamnaya room: R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, and R1a. The two biggest elephants haven't been spotted yet, but we still haven't looked at much of the room.R1b-Z2103 is just as big of an elephant in the Yamnaya room until proven otherwise. Perhaps we should look at climate change as a cause for the R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 and R1a1a migrations.
R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51 had a nearly complete geographic split. YFULL ages that bifurcation at about TMRCA 6100 ybp (formed CI 95% 7300<-> 5000 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 6800 <-> 5500 ybp) and that puts it in range of the 5.9 kiloyear event or it's aftermath. The 5.9 kiloyear event is known to have caused a world wide migration to valleys. Is there any reason to think R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, and R1a1a didn't migrate too. This might be pre Yamnaya.

rms2
06-19-2015, 04:34 PM
R1b-Z2103 is just as big of an elephant in the Yamnaya room until proven otherwise . . .

I wasn't trying to downplay the role of Z2103 within Yamnaya. I was talking about the relative numbers of men who comprise those three elephants and their relative impact on Europe, particularly Western Europe.

jeanL
06-19-2015, 04:48 PM
I think there are three elephants in the Yamnaya room: R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, and R1a. The two biggest elephants haven't been spotted yet, but we still haven't looked at much of the room.

Do you think we have looked into enough room when it comes to Western Europe?

rms2
06-19-2015, 04:56 PM
Do you think we have looked into enough room when it comes to Western Europe?

No, but I don't think the evidence indicates that we will find R1b-M269 dating to before the Late Neolithic there. In other words, we need as much ancient y-dna from Western Europe as we can get, but I really don't expect it to alter the overall picture. Of course, it could, but I don't think it is likely.

L23 has popped up over and over among members of the culture deemed responsible for the initial spread of Indo-European. Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking and R1b-L23 and got that way somehow. Thus far no R1b-L23 has appeared in ancient remains west of Germany or before Bell Beaker.

The picture could change - anything is possible - but it doesn't seem likely that it will. It really looks like Western Europe is Indo-European speaking and predominantly R1b-L23 because the two arrived there together.

jeanL
06-19-2015, 05:15 PM
No, but I don't think the evidence indicates that we will find R1b-M269 dating to before the Late Neolithic there. In other words, we need as much ancient y-dna from Western Europe as we can get, but I really don't expect it to alter the overall picture. Of course, it could, but I don't think it is likely.

But by the same token no R1b-L11 clade has been found east of Germany thus far, not even R1b-L51. Granted it is lack of samples, but the same thing is happening in Western Europe.


L23 has popped up over and over among members of the culture deemed responsible for the initial spread of Indo-European. Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking and R1b-L23 and got that way somehow. Thus far no R1b-L23 has appeared in ancient remains west of Germany or before Bell Beaker.

The picture could change - anything is possible - but it doesn't seem likely that it will. It really looks like Western Europe is Indo-European speaking and predominantly R1b-L23 because the two arrived there together.

What about the Sardinians, Etruscans, Aquitanians, Iberians, Vascones, Tartessians, many of these people did not become IE speaking until the Roman period. Why do North African Berbers show 0% Yamnaya, yet do some some nonzero frequencies of R1b?

rms2
06-19-2015, 06:12 PM
But by the same token no R1b-L11 clade has been found east of Germany thus far, not even R1b-L51. Granted it is lack of samples, but the same thing is happening in Western Europe.

Yamnaya's western route is absolutely untested, and that is the route IE traveled. I'm betting L51 traveled the same route, perhaps as already mostly P312. There are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans on the western route into Europe.

The big facts are that Western Europe is Indo-European speaking; it got that way somehow; there is very little R1b-Z2103 in Western Europe; but its brother clade under L23, R1b-L51, is the most frequent y haplogroup there.




What about the Sardinians, Etruscans, Aquitanians, Iberians, Vascones, Tartessians, many of these people did not become IE speaking until the Roman period. Why do North African Berbers show 0% Yamnaya, yet do some some nonzero frequencies of R1b?

What of them? Are you saying they were predominantly R1b-L51 before the arrival of Indo-European in Western Europe? I don't think they were.

I'm not sure what the frequency of L23 or L51 is among Berbers or when or how it got into their population. Isn't the R1b among them mostly V88? I doubt any R1b in the Berber population other than V88 is of very ancient provenance.

What of the Irish, to take one example, who are about 90% R1b-L11, have a relatively high percentage of ANE and Yamnaya but yet have very little R1a?

Agamemnon
06-19-2015, 06:32 PM
But the fact that no R1b-L51 (or R1a) has been found in Yamnaya yet seems to be the chief animating force behind these various trips down memory lane, back to the Iberian Ice Age Refuge or to an alleged origin among Neolithic farmers.

Actually that's not the case, this has more to do with an unhealthy amount of stubborness leading some to grasp at straws in order to make a point and deny the correlation between the spread of IE and the emergence of R1b-L51 in Western Europe. Ironically enough, many of those who parrot these claims were among the first to deny R1b-Z2103 had anything to do with IE dispersals and went as far as to imply that this branch's existence and current distribution was enough to deny R1b had anything to do with PIE in the first place.

jeanL
06-19-2015, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure what the frequency of L23 or L51 is among Berbers or when or how it got into their population. Isn't the R1b among them mostly V88? I doubt any R1b in the Berber population other than V88 is of very ancient provenance.

Here is Figure-1 from Bekada.et.al.2013 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056775)

4974


What of the Irish, to take one example, who are about 90% R1b-L11, have a relatively high percentage of ANE and Yamnaya but yet have very little R1a?

What about Basques who are also 90% R1b-L11 yet have nearly a third of the ANE that the Irish have.

lgmayka
06-19-2015, 08:45 PM
If L11 was based in far Eastern Europe or Steppe for 1000 years where is the modern and ancient dna data to support that?
The point is that some of these clades were in a holding pattern (little or no growth) somewhere for many centuries. Take a look at YFull's dates (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/):

4100 B.C. L23 splits into Z2103 and L51. Z2103 starts subdividing into clades and singletons that still survive today, indicating at least mild growth. L51 merely survives for the next 500 years.

3600 B.C. L51 splits into PF7589 and L11. L11 merely survives for the next 700 years. (PF7589 never does make much progress.)

4900 B.C. L11 splits into U106, P312, and DF100. U106 immediately starts subdividing and multiplying like crazy. P312 merely survives for 300 years. (DF100 never does do much.)

4600 B.C. P312 begins subdividing and multiplying like crazy.

Joe B
06-19-2015, 08:52 PM
Actually that's not the case, this has more to do with an unhealthy amount of stubborness leading some to grasp at straws in order to make a point and deny the correlation between the spread of IE and the emergence of R1b-L51 in Western Europe. Ironically enough, many of those who parrot these claims were among the first to deny R1b-Z2103 had anything to do with IE dispersals and went as far as to imply that this branch's existence and current distribution was enough to deny R1b had anything to do with PIE in the first place.
No doubt that R1b-L51 and it's subclades R1b-S1194, R1b-PF7589, R1b-P312, R1b-U106 had more than a causual relationship with the spread of IE in Western Europe. R1b-Z2103's role in IE despersals is new to me. If it did, what clades of R1b-Z2103 would be involved?

Krefter
06-19-2015, 08:59 PM
The point is that some of these clades were in a holding pattern (little or no growth) somewhere for many centuries. Take a look at YFull's dates (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/):

4100 B.C. L23 splits into Z2103 and L51. Z2103 starts subdividing into clades and singletons that still survive today, indicating at least mild growth. L51 merely survives for the next 500 years.

3600 B.C. L51 splits into PF7589 and L11. L11 merely survives for the next 700 years. (PF7589 never does make much progress.)

4900 B.C. L11 splits into U106, P312, and DF100. U106 immediately starts subdividing and multiplying like crazy. P312 merely survives for 300 years. (DF100 never does do much.)

4600 B.C. P312 begins subdividing and multiplying like crazy.

Where are L51* and DF7589 found?

jeanL
06-19-2015, 09:07 PM
Where are L51* and DF7589 found?

Look in Yfull: (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/)

4975

I don't know where YF01968 is from, but it seems we have under R-Y5141:

id:NA20785 TSI(Tuscan)
id:YF01827ENG (English)

We also have under R-S1141

id:YF03043

Under that the is R-A613:

id:HG01066 PUR(Puerto Rican)
id:YF02838

Agamemnon
06-19-2015, 09:33 PM
No doubt that R1b-L51 and it's subclades R1b-S1194, R1b-PF7589, R1b-P312, R1b-U106 had more than a causual relationship with the spread of IE in Western Europe. R1b-Z2103's role in IE despersals is new to me. If it did, what clades of R1b-Z2103 would be involved?

Admittedly, I am no expert as far as R1b-Z2103's phylogeography is of concern, nevertheless I strongly suspect that its presence in the Near East (Fertile Crescent in particular) is tied to the arrival Anatolian speakers in the area.

Humanist
06-19-2015, 10:01 PM
Admittedly, I am no expert as far as R1b-Z2103's phylogeography is of concern, nevertheless I strongly suspect that its presence in the Near East (Fertile Crescent in particular) is tied to the arrival Anatolian speakers in the area.

I still believe that Steppe >>> Caucasus >>> Middle East appears more likely, based on what we are seeing from the ancient DNA.



Yes. In my opinion, these R1b lines most likely originated in Yamnaya. I was hoping that they would have tested Z2103/Z2105 to provide even further evidence of the link between the two.

Yamnaya R1b samples marked by the blue triangles. Armenian R1b samples marked by the green circle (?). [Late Bronze Age is denoted by the orange triangles]

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101055/Untitled__610_.jpg

smal posted the following in the main thread:


RISE397_Kapan_LBA_Armenia L23+ > Y4371/Z8128+ > Z2106+ CTS9219-
RISE555_Stalingrad Quarry_EBA_Russia PF6399/S10+ > CTS7340/Z2107+ > Z2106+


I believe Stalingrad is marked by the blue cross.

Agamemnon
06-19-2015, 10:04 PM
I still believe that Steppe >>> Caucasus >>> Middle East appears more likely, based on what we are seeing from the ancient DNA.

Possible, but from a linguistic POV this wouldn't make much sense.

Humanist
06-19-2015, 10:07 PM
Possible, but from a linguistic POV this wouldn't make much sense.

Then, we are going to have a difficult time explaining the abundance of R-Z2103 among Iranians and related peoples.

Agamemnon
06-19-2015, 10:09 PM
Then, we are going to have a difficult time explaining the abundance of R-Z2103 among Iranians and related peoples.

Some have claimed that R1b-Z2103 could have been present in Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers, though I have my reasons to doubt this as well... So yeah, I reckon we're gonna have a hard time making sense of the current frequencies.

Dubhthach
06-19-2015, 10:32 PM
With regards to the P312* and high rate in Irish sample, this is rather interesting as it seems quite bit higher than that P312*(L21-, U152-) from Busby (which had about twice the sample size). I do wonder if some of this groups is made up of men who have SNP's that we currently regarded as equivaent to other SNP's.

For example when I look at Alex Williamson's tree on his ytree.net page he has it that there are at least 7 SNP's at L21 level (L21, L459, Z245, Z290, Z260, FGC3218, Z21145), it's quite possible that some of these SNP's occurred before L21 (And thus would be upstream from it).

jeanL
06-19-2015, 10:42 PM
For example when I look at Alex Williamson's tree on his ytree.net page he has it that there are at least 7 SNP's at L21 level (L21, L459, Z245, Z290, Z260, FGC3218, Z21145), it's quite possible that some of these SNP's occurred before L21 (And thus would be upstream from it).

That's an interesting theory, it could be possible I guess!

ADW_1981
06-19-2015, 10:48 PM
I still believe that Steppe >>> Caucasus >>> Middle East appears more likely, based on what we are seeing from the ancient DNA.

I believe there were two routes around the Black Sea of similar men. One west around the sea, and the other eastwards. Regional differentiation of L277, Z2106, and L584 may hold some clues. I know right now we don't have enough samples to arrive at any conclusion.

rms2
06-19-2015, 11:08 PM
Here is Figure-1 from Bekada.et.al.2013 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056775)

4974

Oh, geez. I would say that except for V88, the presence of R1b among the Berbers is trivial and hardly worth mentioning. It is easily explained by the history of North Africa. Little wonder that they show little or no Yamnaya input.



What about Basques who are also 90% R1b-L11 yet have nearly a third of the ANE that the Irish have.

I think that points to a limited paternal R1b input that has somehow become dominant. IMHO, I-M26 is the original Basque paternal signature, and the Basques have become predominantly R1b over time due to admixture from the IE-speaking neighbors.

Some scholars have claimed a connection between Nuragic (Paleo-Sardinian) and Basque. I-M26 has a frequency of about 40% in Sardinia.

Do you honestly believe R1b-L23 was so widespread across Eurasia that it accounts for both the Basques in the West and Yamnaya in the East? Do you think L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 progenitors pretty much simultaneously at opposite ends of the Continent?

You answered my question to you about the Irish by posing one about the Basques, which I answered. Perhaps now you would care to answer my question about the Irish?

rms2
06-20-2015, 12:17 AM
Actually that's not the case, this has more to do with an unhealthy amount of stubborness leading some to grasp at straws in order to make a point and deny the correlation between the spread of IE and the emergence of R1b-L51 in Western Europe. Ironically enough, many of those who parrot these claims were among the first to deny R1b-Z2103 had anything to do with IE dispersals and went as far as to imply that this branch's existence and current distribution was enough to deny R1b had anything to do with PIE in the first place.

Well, I agree with that. There is a strong tendency for some to want their own ancestral homeland to be the Urheimat of their y haplogroup, as well. It dies hard. We have seen that sort of nationalist partisanship reflected in arguments, against all odds, for an Italian Ice Age R1b Refuge, but especially for the dear old Iberian Ice Age Refuge and the eternally beloved Basques. I have seen some guys who were just really attached to the idea that their y-dna ancestors were the first white guys in Europe and who evidently really thought it was cool to be a Cro-Magnon.

I think my own y-dna ancestors came from Wales, and nobody is claiming Wales as the Urheimat of anything, except maybe ugly hats for women.

newtoboard
06-20-2015, 12:43 AM
Some have claimed that R1b-Z2103 could have been present in Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers, though I have my reasons to doubt this as well... So yeah, I reckon we're gonna have a hard time making sense of the current frequencies.

Proto Indo-Iranians, Proto Iranians , Proto Indo-Aryans probably not. But late Iranian speakers maybe. I wouldn't be surprised to find R1b-Z2103 along with R1a-M458, R1a-Z282-A, R1a-Z280, I2a1, I2a2, I2c, J2a and G2a among them.

jeanL
06-20-2015, 01:26 AM
You answered my question to you about the Irish by posing one about the Basques, which I answered. Perhaps now you would care to answer my question about the Irish?

It seems that Irish are very similar autosomally to the German Bell Beaker samples, these puts out some posibilities:

1- The Beaker people came directly from Central Europe, and after acquiring their Yamnaya component by mixing with the Corded Ware people nearly replace the Neolithic farmers in Ireland.

2- The Megalithic people from Northern Spain, Southern and Western France bring R1b-L21 to Britain and Ireland, afterwards a female mediated gene flow brings about the Yamnaya/ANE component.

3- The Yamnaya/ANE component was brough about during the Iron Age by Celtic tribes such as the Brigates, Ireland does still have a significant R1b-P312(xL21) component, perhaps this represent this migration, plus some mitochondrial DNA lineages.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-20-2015, 01:36 AM
It seems that Irish are very similar autosomally to the German Bell Beaker samples, these puts out some posibilities:

1- The Beaker people came directly from Central Europe, and after acquiring their Yamnaya component by mixing with the Corded Ware people nearly replace the Neolithic farmers in Ireland.

2- The Megalithic people from Northern Spain, Southern and Western France bring R1b-L21 to Britain and Ireland, afterwards a female mediated gene flow brings about the Yamnaya/ANE component.

3- The Yamnaya/ANE component was brough about during the Iron Age by Celtic tribes such as the Brigates, Ireland does still have a significant R1b-P312(xL21) component, perhaps this represent this migration, plus some mitochondrial DNA lineages.

4- Beaker is derived from Corded Ware/Western Yamnaya R1b, mixed with MN types.

jeanL
06-20-2015, 01:40 AM
4- Beaker is derived from Corded Ware/Western Yamnaya R1b, mixed with MN types.

But Corded Ware was massively R1a on the paternal side, so the input must have been female mediated. BTW in case of the Irish it looks like the MN types made not dent on Beaker, because they look extremely similar to Beakers, at least autosomally,


PS: Looks like you joined the DF27 family, congrats!!! Have you tested for R1b-Z196?

Chad Rohlfsen
06-20-2015, 02:33 AM
We've only seen part of Corded Ware. The southern and western groups could be R1b. BTW, that R1b Corded sample was from the heart of Corded country. European and Yamnaya R1b are connected. They likely only split within 1100 years of the earliest Central European Beakers, according to the recent MRCA paper that's coming. So, one cannot be Neolithic, while the other lacks Neolithic aDNA. Nor should one be IE without the other being IE as well.

I haven't tested under it yet. I'm going to do the full DF27 panel soon.

Net Down G5L
06-20-2015, 09:45 AM
The point is that some of these clades were in a holding pattern (little or no growth) somewhere for many centuries. Take a look at YFull's dates (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/):

4100 B.C. L23 splits into Z2103 and L51. Z2103 starts subdividing into clades and singletons that still survive today, indicating at least mild growth. L51 merely survives for the next 500 years.

3600 B.C. L51 splits into PF7589 and L11. L11 merely survives for the next 700 years. (PF7589 never does make much progress.)

4900 B.C. L11 splits into U106, P312, and DF100. U106 immediately starts subdividing and multiplying like crazy. P312 merely survives for 300 years. (DF100 never does do much.)

4600 B.C. P312 begins subdividing and multiplying like crazy.

Thanks, a useful line of thinking.
If we take Batini 2015 Fig 1 it strongly supports this point.

However, if we take Batini Fig 1 to be precise and accurate it suggests the P312 major expansion just predates the major R1a expansion (Corded ware expansion?). However, possibly the diagram is rather more figurative and not so precise on relative time of expansion?

A quick look at YFull dates and some recent aDNA frm Allentoft may suggestto me that the R1a expansion may be a little before the P312 expansion - but the reliability of the dating and limited aDNA may question that simplistic analysis. However, if correct, this latter scenario would strongly support the Yamnaya as P312 source into Western Europe.

Perhaps there is some mileage in trying to understand more fully the relative expansion sequence of R1a and P312?

J1 DYS388=13
06-20-2015, 10:08 AM
Do I understand correctly that the periods of SNP stasis are the result of low population growth, and the periods of SNP diversification are the result of rapid population growth?

GarethH
06-20-2015, 10:42 AM
Do I understand correctly that the periods of SNP stasis are the result of low population growth, and the periods of SNP diversification are the result of rapid population growth?

Yes, but with the caveat that an "Alpha Male" can skew the diversification in favour of his haplogroup/sub-group. In a period of expansion, the dominant male's line will diversify more quickly, and others maybe not at all. In a period of population stability or decline, the dominant male's line may still be diversifying whilst other lines are going exinct.

rms2
06-20-2015, 10:50 AM
It seems that Irish are very similar autosomally to the German Bell Beaker samples, these puts out some posibilities:

1- The Beaker people came directly from Central Europe, and after acquiring their Yamnaya component by mixing with the Corded Ware people nearly replace the Neolithic farmers in Ireland.

2- The Megalithic people from Northern Spain, Southern and Western France bring R1b-L21 to Britain and Ireland, afterwards a female mediated gene flow brings about the Yamnaya/ANE component.

3- The Yamnaya/ANE component was brough about during the Iron Age by Celtic tribes such as the Brigates, Ireland does still have a significant R1b-P312(xL21) component, perhaps this represent this migration, plus some mitochondrial DNA lineages.

Thanks for those answers.

#1 seems possible, particularly if Beaker acquired its R1b from Corded Ware in Central Europe.

#2 is highly implausible, IMHO. Before the advent of the Beaker people, it is doubtful any of the people who built the early megaliths were R1b-L21. Fortunately, we do have a couple of ancient y-dna results connected with a megalithic dolmen in northern France (La Pierre Fritte). Both of them were I2a and probably I-M26, based on STRs. I do realize we will need at least several hundred such results to persuade some.

#3 There wasn't any Iron Age invasion of Britain and Ireland by Celtic tribes that was large enough to account for the levels of ANE and Yamnaya in the British Isles today. Besides, the Irish language is a Q-Celtic language and belongs to the more archaic division of the Celtic languages. Its ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Iron Age. The Celtic tribes who did arrive in the Iron Age came from Gaul (mostly what is now France), and France has much lower levels of ANE and Yamnaya and more EEF than Britain and Ireland.

R.Rocca
06-20-2015, 11:08 AM
Thanks for those answers.

#1 seems possible, particularly if Beaker acquired its R1b from Corded Ware in Central Europe.

#2 is highly implausible, IMHO. Before the advent of the Beaker people, it is doubtful any of the people who built the early megaliths were R1b-L21. Fortunately, we do have a couple of ancient y-dna results connected with a megalithic dolmen in northern France (La Pierre Fritte). Both of them were I2a and probably I-M26, based on STRs. I do realize we will need at least several hundred such results to persuade some.

#3 There wasn't any Iron Age invasion of Britain and Ireland by Celtic tribes that was large enough to account for the levels of ANE and Yamnaya in the British Isles today. Besides, the Irish language is a Q-Celtic language and belongs to the more archaic division of the Celtic languages. Its ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Iron Age. The Celtic tribes who did arrive in the Iron Age came from Gaul (mostly what is now France), and France has much lower levels of ANE and Yamnaya and more EEF than Britain and Ireland.

Indirectly, we also have hints that other dolmen builders were likely I2a-M26. The dolmens of the first phases of Sion in Switzerland and Aosta in Italy were in all probability built by Remedello Culture people. The likeliest scenario is that they were I2a-M26 as well.

rms2
06-20-2015, 11:12 AM
Indirectly, we also have hints that other dolmen builders were likely I2a-M26. The dolmens of the first phases of Sion in Switzerland and Aosta in Italy were in all probability built by Remedello Culture people. The likeliest scenario is that they were I2a-M26 as well.

Thanks. There are megalithic structures in Sardinia, as well, and Sardinia has the highest frequency of I-M26 anywhere (~40%).

Dubhthach
06-20-2015, 11:58 AM
With regards to Basques and surronding IE speaking people's, there is some debate that what we now call the Basque country in Spain actually underwent "Late Basquisation" with expansion of Basque military/political power with the fall of Rome. Some people have pointed that historic place names in region are of IE (more speciically Celtic) origins.

MitchellSince1893
06-20-2015, 01:59 PM
But by the same token no R1b-L11 clade has been found east of Germany thus far...

Saw that RISE566 has been tentatively labeled L11/P310 by geneticker:

RISE566 Czech Republic Bell Beaker R1b1a2a1a-P310/PF6546/S129

If true, would RISE566 be the furthest east that L11/P310 has been found?

Link to map showing it's location http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#8/50.189/15.447 (bottom green dot in middle of map just West of Prague)

Maybe I missed prior discussion on the significance of finding L11/P310 in RISE566. If I did, could someone provide a link?

It's hard to keep up with everything going on with the volume of posts over the last few days.

razyn
06-20-2015, 03:34 PM
If you click the minus sign and make the scale of that map slightly smaller, at least a couple of the Bavarian green dots (for RISE560 and 563) are also L11. They aren't as far due east, but are in the same ballpark, either of phylogeny or geography. I was having a friendly argument with Jean M about them yesterday. She thinks I can't read a chart, I think she's trying to teach granny to suck eggs; but if your interest is specific to the L11 level it does not matter in the least whether RISE560's "terminal SNP" is S116, DF27, or the elusive M12124.

4994

MitchellSince1893
06-20-2015, 03:58 PM
Based on the current results it's tempting for me to see L11/P310 coming from the East into the Czech Republic (RISE566), and his descendant P312 (Quedlinburg Bell Beaker P312) in settling in Eastern Germany, with P312's descendants D27 (RISE560?...not sure if he's D27 or not based on the current debate) and U152 (RISE563) settling in Southeastern Germany.

The actual path of L11, P312, U152, and D27 is probably much more complicated (and maybe totally different) than this...but until more results come in, this is what I have to go on.

R.Rocca
06-20-2015, 04:26 PM
Based on the current results it's tempting for me to see L11/P310 coming from the East into the Czech Republic (RISE566), and his descendant P312 (Quedlinburg Bell Beaker P312) in settling in Eastern Germany, with P312's descendants D27 (RISE560?...not sure if he's D27 or not based on the current debate) and U152 (RISE563) settling in Southeastern Germany.

The actual path of L11, P312, U152, and D27 is probably much more complicated (and maybe totally different) than this...but until more results come in, this is what I have to go on.

Please keep in mind however that the Czech RISE566 is simply L11+, but has no calls for P312, U106 and DF100. So, we have no way of knowing if he is part of an ancestor clade of any of those three branches.

jeanL
06-20-2015, 04:35 PM
#1 seems possible, particularly if Beaker acquired its R1b from Corded Ware in Central Europe.

I highly doubt the gene flow between Central European Beaker and Corded Ware was solely male mediated, and I think I ought to see far more R1a clades in the Beakers if it was male mediated, because thus far Corded Ware has been massively R1a dominated.


#2 is highly implausible, IMHO. Before the advent of the Beaker people, it is doubtful any of the people who built the early megaliths were R1b-L21. Fortunately, we do have a couple of ancient y-dna results connected with a megalithic dolmen in northern France (La Pierre Fritte). Both of them were I2a and probably I-M26, based on STRs. I do realize we will need at least several hundred such results to persuade some.

Yes 2 results from a single dolmen are not where near enough to make any feasible conclusions.


#3 There wasn't any Iron Age invasion of Britain and Ireland by Celtic tribes that was large enough to account for the levels of ANE and Yamnaya in the British Isles today. Besides, the Irish language is a Q-Celtic language and belongs to the more archaic division of the Celtic languages. Its ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Iron Age. The Celtic tribes who did arrive in the Iron Age came from Gaul (mostly what is now France), and France has much lower levels of ANE and Yamnaya and more EEF than Britain and Ireland.

The key here is France nowadays has lower ANE/Yamnaya levels than Britain and Ireland. Last I checked people from England circa 2000 ybp had more ANE than they do these days, thus modern day populations are not good indicators of the historic levels of ANE/Yamnaya. Also I think the must definitely be a gradient in ANE/Yamanya in France, and I bet that gradient runs South to NorthWest, I think(not confirmed) that NorthWest France likely has more ANE/Yamanya than Northeast France, and bot have more than Southern France. In turn southeast France has more than southwest France.

jeanL
06-20-2015, 04:53 PM
With regards to Basques and surronding IE speaking people's, there is some debate that what we now call the Basque country in Spain actually underwent "Late Basquisation" with expansion of Basque military/political power with the fall of Rome. Some people have pointed that historic place names in region are of IE (more speciically Celtic) origins.

Actually the debate is highly political and there is no genetic/historic evidence for a "Late Basquisation", while it is true that Roman recorded Celtic/Proto-Celtic sounded places name in the current day Basque Country, most of these come from the Southern most parts of Alava, and the region of Ercantaciones in Vizcaya, which has never been Basque speaking, i.e. The bordering territories between the Caristii and Vardulii and the Celtic Berones, and the territories of the Autrigones. The fact that the dialect boundaries match tribal boundaries is not a coincidence a clearly points to the Caristii and Varduli being Proto-Basque/or Basque speaking. The people who tend to advocate the "Late Basquisation" movement more often than not are people against Basque independence, so it is a highly political issue.

Basque dialects

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Dialeutos_Basco.svg/2000px-Dialeutos_Basco.svg.png

Tribal boundaries

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/PrerromanosN.png

Tribal boundaries with city names(notice indoEuropean names are all in the Southernmost parts)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Vardulos_y_Caristios.jpg/320px-Vardulos_y_Caristios.jpg

Moreover the whole premise of the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091.abstract) study was that the uniparental markers(mt-DNA& Y-DNA Haplogroups) are structured according to pre-Roman tribal boundaries. If there was massive migration from either Aquitaine or Vascones at the expense of the displacement or admixture of the Varduli/Caristii, then we would not see a structure, now if the structure was artificially created by the admixing of Vascones/Aquitanians with Caristi/Varduli, then we would see these manisfest itself in the autosomal DNA, where we see Basques are quite different(relatively speaking) from their next door neighbours the Cantabri but not their French Basque brethren. One thing to take into consideration though, during the Middle Ages Navarra/Guipuzcoa/Vizcaya/French Basque Country were all part of the same kingdom, so there was probably population movement across them, though this was likely limited to the nobility and not the average commoner.

PS: Aragonenses(i.e people like Isidro) are far more similar to people from the Basque Country than Cantabrians, so if there was a late Basquization it whiped any Celtic autosomal signature in modern day Basques, yet they still show uniparental structure consistent with pre-Roman tribal boundaries.

Dubhthach
06-20-2015, 05:31 PM
The difference in dialects of Basque doesn't support a spilt from a shared Basque language in pre-Roman times. I mean Irish and Scottish Gáidhlig only separated in the last 700-1000 years ago (with shared elite literally language up to circa 1600). Generally the actual linguists looking at Basque contend that dialects only differenated from each other during the middle ages from a common stage of Basque language. Just like how "Middle Irish" gave birth to both Modern Irish, Manx Gaelg and Scottish Gaidhlig (or Norse gave us the "Scandinavian languages")

jeanL
06-20-2015, 06:02 PM
The difference in dialects of Basque doesn't support a spilt from a shared Basque language in pre-Roman times. I mean Irish and Scottish Gáidhlig only separated in the last 700-1000 years ago (with shared elite literally language up to circa 1600). Generally the actual linguists looking at Basque contend that dialects only differenated from each other during the middle ages from a common stage of Basque language. Just like how "Middle Irish" gave birth to both Modern Irish, Manx Gaelg and Scottish Gaidhlig (or Norse gave us the "Scandinavian languages")

Well it has more to do with the fact that the boundary between the Vizcayan dialect and Guipuzcoan dialect match tribal boundaries, and that in Northeast Guipuzcoa they speak the Navarran dialect, coincident with the fact that the Vascones had that part as their territory. Add to it the observed uniparental structure which happens to match the pre-roman tribal boundaries.

rms2
06-21-2015, 12:01 PM
I highly doubt the gene flow between Central European Beaker and Corded Ware was solely male mediated, and I think I ought to see far more R1a clades in the Beakers if it was male mediated, because thus far Corded Ware has been massively R1a dominated.

Well, I am not wedded to the idea that R1b got into Beaker via Corded Ware; although I do think it is a possibility. IMHO, more R1b, particularly R1b-U106, will turn up in Corded Ware, because I think U106 accompanied R1a around the east and north sides of the Carpathians and onto the North European Plain.

My own opinion is that R1b-P312 got into Beaker in the Carpathian Basin, which was the matrix of Yamnaya-hybrid kurgan or kurganized cultures. This is why we see the basic difference in the distributions of U106 and P312 and the apparent close connection of the former to Germanic and the latter to Italo-Celtic: P312 came up the Danube with Yamnaya and its successor hybrids; U106 went around the east and north sides of the Carpathians with Corded Ware. That is also why no U106 has turned up in Beaker (but P312 has), and the first and only ancient U106 has appeared in Sweden in a cultural context derived from Corded Ware.

This map was posted elsewhere by nuadha, but I think it illustrates what I am talking about pretty well.

5005




Yes 2 results from a single dolmen are not where near enough to make any feasible conclusions.

As Richard Rocca mentioned, I2a has also shown up in the megalith-building Remedello Culture. You are right that we need more samples, but one would think that, as big as R1b-M269 is in Europe now, at least one of those megalith builders would have been a member of it.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 04:07 PM
As Richard Rocca mentioned, I2a has also shown up in the megalith-building Remedello Culture. You are right that we need more samples, but one would think that, as big as R1b-M269 is in Europe now, at least one of those megalith builders would have been a member of it.

Yes R1b-M269 is big in Western Europe today, it is relatively big in both Northern France and Northern Italy, though not as big as it is in Ireland/Great Britain/Southern France or Basque Country but still big. Why should it be equally as big 5000 years ago? Do haplogroup frequencies not change with time?

R.Rocca
06-21-2015, 04:49 PM
Yes R1b-M269 is big in Western Europe today, it is relatively big in both Northern France and Northern Italy, though not as big as it is in Ireland/Great Britain/Southern France or Basque Country but still big. Why should it be equally as big 5000 years ago? Do haplogroup frequencies not change with time?

Then by your argument, it could have been even bigger.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-21-2015, 05:17 PM
No M269 in Spain_MN, Treilles, Baalberge, Bernburg, Remedello....it's not just by chance or sampling error. What is it, 0 for 40? It's time to move on from this conversation.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 05:20 PM
Then by your argument, it could have been even bigger.

Statistically speaking it is extremely rare that you will happen to sample a haplogroup in the one person who first carried the mutations defining the haplogroup, or even in their immediate family for generations, what that means is that if we are picking up R1b-P312 in Germany is because it was already in its expanding phase and there were tons of it before. Now German Beaker is a prime example of frequencies changing with time, 100% R1b-M269 in the samples thus far obtained yet nowadays nowhere near that. If they sample 100 remains from the Neolithic/Mesolithic Western Europe, and I mean from different graves, and no trace of R1b, then sure, you have a perfectly valid argument, in the meantime the line of evidence is very thin.


No M269 in Spain_MN, Treilles, Baalberge, Bernburg, Remedello....it's not just by chance or sampling error. What is it, 0 for 40? It's time to move on from this conversation.

Treilles makes up 22/40 of those samples! It's clear that 20 of those G2a samples are closely related.

BTW samples of 40 can created highly distorted haplogroup frequencies, i.e.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Lucotteetal2015-Table-1_zpse0178c0b.jpg (http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/Lucotteetal2015-Table-1_zpse0178c0b.jpg.html)

See the Spanish Basque sample(n=52), the frequency of R1b-M269 in that sample is 53.8%, nowhere near the usual frequency of 80-90% observed in most studies. So yes, 0/40 is perfectly possible and has a significant probability associated with it, considering 22 came out of a single burial where 20 people were related.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-21-2015, 05:33 PM
It's over.. time for some Iberians and Italians to let go.. The European and Yamnaya R1b-L23 MRCA is too closely dated to the Repin timeframe. No one magically teleports from Ukraine and Russia to the Atlantic.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 05:36 PM
It's over.. time for some Iberians and Italians to let go.. The European and Yamnaya R1b-L23 MRCA is too closely dated to the Repin timeframe. No one magically teleports from Ukraine and Russia to the Atlantic.

You mean the MRCA that is calculating using a mutation rate that keeps jumping around more than a frog on steroids!! Need I remind you yfull just changed the TMRCA of U152.

Yfull list the TMRCA of R1b-Z2103 as 6100 ybp and its formation date as 6100 ybp, it also list the TMRCA of R1b-L23 as 6100 ybp, I tell you something since R1b-Z2103 was already found in Yamnaya in 3300 BC, it is extremely likely that its formation date is earlier than 4100 BC.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-21-2015, 05:54 PM
There's a new paper coming out that places the MRCA for L23 at 3700BCE, with L51 and Z103 separating no earlier... of course. There is no steppe ancestry in Spain MN, Gok2, or German MN. So, L51 didn't in any kind of way, end up in Western Europe before the Bronze Age, without any Yamnaya like ancestry. You're really having to rely on many things happening for it to be true. It's a massive stretch. There's really no argument you can make to swing it your way.

sweuro
06-21-2015, 06:01 PM
Statistically speaking it is extremely rare that you will happen to sample a haplogroup in the one person who first carried the mutations defining the haplogroup, or even in their immediate family for generations, what that means is that if we are picking up R1b-P312 in Germany is because it was already in its expanding phase and there were tons of it before. Now German Beaker is a prime example of frequencies changing with time, 100% R1b-M269 in the samples thus far obtained yet nowadays nowhere near that. If they sample 100 remains from the Neolithic/Mesolithic Western Europe, and I mean from different graves, and no trace of R1b, then sure, you have a perfectly valid argument, in the meantime the line of evidence is very thin.

Treilles makes up 22/40 of those samples! It's clear that 20 of those G2a samples are closely related.

BTW samples of 40 can created highly distorted haplogroup frequencies, i.e.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Lucotteetal2015-Table-1_zpse0178c0b.jpg (http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/Lucotteetal2015-Table-1_zpse0178c0b.jpg.html)

See the Spanish Basque sample(n=52), the frequency of R1b-M269 in that sample is 53.8%, nowhere near the usual frequency of 80-90% observed in most studies. So yes, 0/40 is perfectly possible and has a significant probability associated with it, considering 22 came out of a single burial where 20 people were related.
Something is wrong in this study. Not only Basques have lowered levels, but seems like all the samples. For example Bretagne usually has up to 70%, here only 46%, same with Barcelona, and then Seville or Portugal only 30%

Chad Rohlfsen
06-21-2015, 06:03 PM
Look at it from a non-nationalistic eye. Imagine you're new and learn the R1b phylogeny, Yamnaya, Beaker, and MN cultures. How would one possibly come up with a conclusion that R1b in Europe is somehow separate from the R1b in Yamnaya if they weren't trying to slant it to something towards their own identity? All Beakers are about 35-70% Yamnaya, including Haak and Rise data. We have no L51 that is less or non-Yamnaya. You're making a huge assumption that has no basis in the data.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 06:39 PM
There's a new paper coming out that places the MRCA for L23 at 3700BCE, with L51 and Z103 separating no earlier... of course. There is no steppe ancestry in Spain MN, Gok2, or German MN. So, L51 didn't in any kind of way, end up in Western Europe before the Bronze Age, without any Yamnaya like ancestry. You're really having to rely on many things happening for it to be true. It's a massive stretch. There's really no argument you can make to swing it your way.

The new paper while it makes strives when it comes to the quantification of TMRCA using STRs and is written my a mathematician, it still has the problem of the mutation rate. BTW saying that the number of samples from Western Europe is no where near sufficient enough to make any reasonable conclusions isn't try to swing any argument one way versus another, is just plain facts. Also to close on the Yamnaya topic, since this thread is about P312 and not Yamanya, if Corded Ware is 70% Yamnaya-like and the Central European Beakers sample living right next to the Corded Ware horizon show Yamnaya-like admixture is figures they got it from intermingling with their next door neighbours, now, I'm willing to bet that most of the gene-flow was female mediated, otherwise you will see a whole lot more R1a in Beakers.

Here is something amazin, nowadays we see R1b-L11+ clades found mostly in Western Europe, then there is a sharp decay of its frequency in Eastern Europe and R1a picks up, then R1b-Z2103 makes a comeback in the Northern Caucasus, Armenian, etc. This exact same pattern was already in place 4600 years ago, R1b-L11 derive clades in Central European Beaker, then R1a dominated Corded Ware with minority R1b, then we see a massively dominated Eastern Yamnaya by R1b-Z2103.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 06:41 PM
Look at it from a non-nationalistic eye. Imagine you're new and learn the R1b phylogeny, Yamnaya, Beaker, and MN cultures. How would one possibly come up with a conclusion that R1b in Europe is somehow separate from the R1b in Yamnaya if they weren't trying to slant it to something towards their own identity? All Beakers are about 35-70% Yamnaya, including Haak and Rise data. We have no L51 that is less or non-Yamnaya. You're making a huge assumption that has no basis in the data.

I look it at from an Engineer's point of view, which is what I am, and I see nowhere enough data to drawn the long winded conclusions you guys are drawing, the top-3 Resnorm matches for Beakers do not include Yamnaya per the Haak.et.al paper, whereas Corded Ware has Yamnaya in the top-5 and representing ~80% of its heritage.

Here are the top-3 Beaker-LN Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

24.8% Karelia_HG+75.2% Spain_MN
49.5% Spain_MN+50.5% Yamnaya
74.5% Baalberge_MN+25.5% Karelia_HG

Corded_Ware Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

20.9% Spain_MN+79.1% Yamnaya
18.7% HungaryGamba_EN+81.3%Yamnaya
20.4% Baalberge_MN+79.6% Yamanaya

BTW where are the Beakers that are 70% Yamnaya???

Chad Rohlfsen
06-21-2015, 06:56 PM
I look it at from an Engineer's point of view, which is what I am, and I see nowhere enough data to drawn the long winded conclusions you guys are drawing, the top-3 Resnorm matches for Beakers do not include Yamnaya per the Haak.et.al paper, whereas Corded Ware has Yamnaya in the top-5 and representing ~80% of its heritage.

Here are the top-3 Beaker-LN Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

24.8% Karelia_HG+75.2% Spain_MN
49.5% Spain_MN+50.5% Yamnaya
74.5% Baalberge_MN+25.5% Karelia_HG

Corded_Ware Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

20.9% Spain_MN+79.1% Yamnaya
18.7% HungaryGamba_EN+81.3%Yamnaya
20.4% Baalberge_MN+79.6% Yamanaya

BTW where are the Beakers that are 70% Yamnaya???

A couple of the Rise samples are very close to Corded Ware. A couple of the Corded Ware samples are very Western European like. You're living in 2003. You'll see.

jeanL
06-21-2015, 07:06 PM
A couple of the Rise samples are very close to Corded Ware. A couple of the Corded Ware samples are very Western European like. You're living in 2003. You'll see.

Nope I'm living in 2015, if you make a claim back it up with data, otherwise you are just speculating, and I'm basing my judgement on the Scientific Method, which is why you haven't heard me said that R1b is Paleolithic in Europe, or that it came from Iberia, instead I'm saying that the current evidence doesn't support a Steppe origin for Western European R1b-L11 clades, it seems as the best fit right now given the data, but the data is extremely scant, which is why I make the warnings. BUt yeah good luck trying to stick me into one of the nationalistic camps!!! BTW that's down right against the rules of these forums, because we have gone from talking about the data to me being accused of being a Nationalist/or now presumably holding ideas from 2003, very productive!!! It adds a lot of substance to the discussion(sarcasm!!!). Now show me the Rise samples that are very close to Corded Ware and stop trying to guess if I can break relativity and travel back in time.

R.Rocca
06-21-2015, 10:02 PM
I look it at from an Engineer's point of view, which is what I am, and I see nowhere enough data to drawn the long winded conclusions you guys are drawing, the top-3 Resnorm matches for Beakers do not include Yamnaya per the Haak.et.al paper, whereas Corded Ware has Yamnaya in the top-5 and representing ~80% of its heritage.

Here are the top-3 Beaker-LN Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

24.8% Karelia_HG+75.2% Spain_MN
49.5% Spain_MN+50.5% Yamnaya
74.5% Baalberge_MN+25.5% Karelia_HG

Corded_Ware Resnorm N=2 from Haak.et.al.2015

20.9% Spain_MN+79.1% Yamnaya
18.7% HungaryGamba_EN+81.3%Yamnaya
20.4% Baalberge_MN+79.6% Yamanaya

BTW where are the Beakers that are 70% Yamnaya???

For that reason I have consistently said that we cannot rule out a large out-of-Iberia movement for Bell Beaker, in part or in its entirety, made up of P312. However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that that genetic composition is just as likely to have come from an extremely Yamnaya-like male who hooked up with an Iberian MN female(s).

jeanL
06-22-2015, 02:30 AM
Here are the STR values for the people from the Basque Country that tested as R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,M529,L238,DF19)

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS385 DYS438 DYS439 DYS437 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 YGATAH4

14 13 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 13 15 20 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 14 19 16 20 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.17 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 10 13 13 12.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 14 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 14.14 12 13 15 19 16 18 24 13
15 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 16 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 14 15 20 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 11.13 12 11 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 13
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 25 11 14 13 11.13 12 13 15 18 17 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 18 24 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 12.17 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 17 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 12 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12

Anybody wanna take a shot at what they might be.

rms2
06-22-2015, 02:33 AM
. . .

Here is something amazin, nowadays we see R1b-L11+ clades found mostly in Western Europe, then there is a sharp decay of its frequency in Eastern Europe and R1a picks up, then R1b-Z2103 makes a comeback in the Northern Caucasus, Armenian, etc. This exact same pattern was already in place 4600 years ago, R1b-L11 derive clades in Central European Beaker, then R1a dominated Corded Ware with minority R1b, then we see a massively dominated Eastern Yamnaya by R1b-Z2103.

So, does Valverde et al's explanation of that make any sense? A Paleolithic movement of M269 (or L23?) west, L11 arising in northeastern Europe, U106 arising near there, and S116/P312 arising in the Pyrenees and spreading east? Meanwhile, back on the ranch, Z2103 bides its time until the Late Neolithic and then accounts for nearly all of Yamnaya and the spread of Indo-European languages? How did the West become Indo-European speaking? There isn't much Z2103 there.

As I said before, Yamnaya's route west is untested, and L51, brother clade under L23 of Z2103, is dominant in the West. Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. It got that way somehow, and I think a pretty substantial population movement that was largely R1b-L51 derived is the answer. It is the only thing that really makes any sense. It certainly doesn't look like either R1a or R1b-Z2103 spread Indo-European to Western Europe.

The pattern we see now is the result of R1b-L51 derived Indo-Europeans moving west during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age followed by a lot of historical population movements behind them in eastern Europe. We certainly don't see a lot of G2a everywhere now, among other changes.

You do a lot of talking about "R1a-dominated Corded Ware" and "Z2103-dominated Yamnaya" only to turn around and disparage the stunning absence of M269 in the Neolithic and earlier, as if those results stem from a lack of sufficient samples and haven't been just as dominated by G2a and I2a.

If the people who produce these ancient dna research papers ever get around to testing Yamnaya's route west, and perhaps some western Corded Ware, as well, I think we will get a much fuller picture and will find the path of our R1b-L51 derived ancestors and of the Indo-European language family into the West.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 02:59 AM
You do a lot of talking about "R1a-dominated Corded Ware" and "Z2103-dominated Yamnaya" only to turn around and disparage the stunning absence of M269 in the Neolithic and earlier, as if those results stem from a lack of sufficient samples and haven't been just as dominated by G2a and I2a.

Perhaps we have different definitions but 40 samples out of which 22 come from a single burial is not sufficient samples in my scientific understanding.


If the people who produce these ancient dna research papers ever get around to testing Yamnaya's route west, and perhaps some western Corded Ware, as well, I think we will get a much fuller picture and will find the path of our R1b-L51 derived ancestors and of the Indo-European language family into the West.

I hope the get to test SouthWestern France, Portugal, the Basque Country, Southern Spain, Great Britain and Ireland too, then we will get a much fuller picture and might complete change the story.


So, does Valverde et al's explanation of that make any sense? A Paleolithic movement of M269 (or L23?) west, L11 arising in northeastern Europe, U106 arising near there, and S116/P312 arising in the Pyrenees and spreading east? Meanwhile, back on the ranch, Z2103 bides its time until the Late Neolithic and then accounts for nearly all of Yamnaya and the spread of Indo-European languages? How did the West become Indo-European speaking? There isn't much Z2103 there.

Is it completely impossible that R1b-P312 bearers pick up the IndoEuropean languages from living side-by-side with the Indo-European and clearly Yamnaya-derived Corded Ware people. I mean there was nothing stopping those Beakers from Central Europe from trading with their cousins down South and West of them. If the language of trade is Indo-European then you either learn it or you don't try. Why are all traffic controllers in Airports required to speak English? Because it is the Global language right now. Why isn't the Spanish Y-DNA Haplogroup profile similar to the Italian one, yet they speak a Latin derived language which imposed on Celtic and nonIndoEuropean languages.

The model proposed by Valverde.et.al doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think R1b-P312 arose in Iberia or near the Pyrennes, I place its origin a little bit more Northern than the Pyrennes but still within the known Franco-Cantabrian refuge area, they are commiting the same mistake as before to equate frequency with place of origin.

avalon
06-22-2015, 06:55 AM
At the moment M269 in the West European Neolithic is looking doubtful but jeanL is making a good point about the lack of data for Western Europe. Two recent papers from Haak and Allentoft, 170 ancient genomes, but not one of these is from France or the British Isles.

I don't understand why Western Europe is not being sampled for ancientDNA?

To my mind ancientDNA is a young science and the prehistoric populating of Europe is clearly complicated. Hence, we need a heck of a lot more data.

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 09:49 AM
Here are the STR values for the people from the Basque Country that tested as R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,M529,L238,DF19)

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS385 DYS438 DYS439 DYS437 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 YGATAH4

14 13 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 13 15 20 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 14 19 16 20 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.17 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 10 13 13 12.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 14 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 14.14 12 13 15 19 16 18 24 13
15 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 16 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 14 15 20 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 11.13 12 11 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 13
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 25 11 14 13 11.13 12 13 15 18 17 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 18 24 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 12.17 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 17 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 12 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12

Anybody wanna take a shot at what they might be.


Would really like to hear informed peoples views on 'a shot at what they might be'.

Also...can anyone/has anyone create(d) a fluxus tree for these samples and the R1b-S116 sub clades DF27,U152,M529,L238,DF19. It would be interesting to study the pattern of early branching and see if there is any pattern relative to modern distributions.

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 10:00 AM
At the moment M269 in the West European Neolithic is looking doubtful but jeanL is making a good point about the lack of data for Western Europe. Two recent papers from Haak and Allentoft, 170 ancient genomes, but not one of these is from France or the British Isles.

I don't understand why Western Europe is not being sampled for ancientDNA?

To my mind ancientDNA is a young science and the prehistoric populating of Europe is clearly complicated. Hence, we need a heck of a lot more data.

The archaeology community in Britain is mostly very sceptical about aDNA. The people I have spoken to have a very basic knowledge and seem to discuss between themselves spurious reasons why aDNA is 'wrong' (from the ethics of taking samples to techniques and to interpretations).

One eminent archaeologist who is a very key gatekeeper to samples told me "I have had 8 or 9 requests for samples for aDNA but turned them all down. Techniques will improve in the future and I may reconsider then."

I think that there is a need to bring leading archaeologists and archaeogeneticists together at a key conference - to improve understanding and to foster sharing/joint working. It takes time to change entrenched views.

Peccavi
06-22-2015, 01:01 PM
Would it be reasonable to conclude that the genetic make-up of rural Basque people is fairly similar to those of Brittany (Brest), and Ireland?

alan
06-22-2015, 01:22 PM
Would it be reasonable to conclude that the genetic make-up of rural Basque people is fairly similar to those of Brittany (Brest), and Ireland?

Am no expert but certainly Ireland clusters much more with NW Europe than the Basques due to much higher ANE, even higher WHG and lower Neolithic farmer. What north facing western Europe, in including the Basques seems to share that sets it apart from SE and central to east Mediterranean Europe is high WHG. However ANE seems to be an eastern and north-west European thing with far less in any part of southern Europe - even the Basque country.

alan
06-22-2015, 01:30 PM
The archaeology community in Britain is mostly very sceptical about aDNA. The people I have spoken to have a very basic knowledge and seem to discuss between themselves spurious reasons why aDNA is 'wrong' (from the ethics of taking samples to techniques and to interpretations).

One eminent archaeologist who is a very key gatekeeper to samples told me "I have had 8 or 9 requests for samples for aDNA but turned them all down. Techniques will improve in the future and I may reconsider then."

I think that there is a need to bring leading archaeologists and archaeogeneticists together at a key conference - to improve understanding and to foster sharing/joint working. It takes time to change entrenched views.

Yeah I get the feeling Britain is sort of France lite when it comes to attitude to ancient DNA. There is a strong fear about ancient population genetics that is mostly a lingering legacy of the Nazi's attitude to genetics and of course Britain was big into the anti-migration thing from the 60s and only tailing off towards the end of the last millennium so there are still the old guard - mainly of say 55 and older who very heavily bought into continuity ideas - some to a ridiculous degree. So this legacy may only be shaken off totally over the next decade.

R.Rocca
06-22-2015, 01:33 PM
As posted by smal in the ancient DNA thread, El Trocs R1b sample I0410, as suspected by the great majority of posters here, is PF6376+ which is a V88 equivalent. All 24 V88+ samples from the Francalacci data set are PF6376+. Posting it here as it is relevant to the discussion.

alan
06-22-2015, 01:40 PM
At the moment M269 in the West European Neolithic is looking doubtful but jeanL is making a good point about the lack of data for Western Europe. Two recent papers from Haak and Allentoft, 170 ancient genomes, but not one of these is from France or the British Isles.

I don't understand why Western Europe is not being sampled for ancientDNA?

To my mind ancientDNA is a young science and the prehistoric populating of Europe is clearly complicated. Hence, we need a heck of a lot more data.

You have to remember that ancient population genetics was pretty well non-respectable in western Europe after WWII. Eastern Europe seemed to have no problem continuing in using craniometery which was frowned upon in the west - perhaps rightly so in this case as its not safe evidence. However there was clearly different attitudes on either side of the old Iron Curtain. Its also part of the general western European idea that nationality and even recent origins are separate things and that civic nationality is far more important than ethnic origins. In France of course this goes back to the French Revolution. Its still kind of frowned upon to put ancestral ethnicity above your citizen-nationality or claim you are something else based on ancestry especially in France but to some degree in Britain where hyphenating your identity is still kind of disliked or lampooned somewhat when you otherwise appear local.

alan
06-22-2015, 01:48 PM
As posted by smal in the ancient DNA thread, El Trocs R1b sample I0410, as suspected by the great majority of posters here, is PF6376+ which is a V88 equivalent. All 24 V88+ samples from the Francalacci data set are PF6376+. Posting it here as it is relevant to the discussion.

Yeah I strongly suspect non-P297 arrived in northern fringes of SW Europe - Iran, south Caucasus, the norther Stans perhaps when pressure microblades spread there c. 9000BC at the end of the Younger Dryas - at much the same time as the very earliest appeared in Europe. This admirably fits the split time calculated for the P25 and P297 lines. In SW Asia they spread slowly west and reached the Levant in the 7th millennium sort of at a touch and go time to be carried with the waves of farmers into Europe. Obviously El Trocs shows a little did make it, probably into the Cardial Wave which was a slightly later wave into Europe than the earliest waves. However there was 2-3000 year gap between the first arrival of microblades in northern south-west Europe and its arrival at the Levant and into Europe so its not surprising if there wasnt a matching autosomal signal carried along. However I do suspect that in some areas further north and east in south-west Europe that some of the ancestral R1b autosomal signal may have remained less diluted and therefore there might have been ANE etc in pre-IE populations in those areas - the south Caucasus, northern Iran/Zagros etc.

alan
06-22-2015, 02:09 PM
The new paper while it makes strives when it comes to the quantification of TMRCA using STRs and is written my a mathematician, it still has the problem of the mutation rate. BTW saying that the number of samples from Western Europe is no where near sufficient enough to make any reasonable conclusions isn't try to swing any argument one way versus another, is just plain facts. Also to close on the Yamnaya topic, since this thread is about P312 and not Yamanya, if Corded Ware is 70% Yamnaya-like and the Central European Beakers sample living right next to the Corded Ware horizon show Yamnaya-like admixture is figures they got it from intermingling with their next door neighbours, now, I'm willing to bet that most of the gene-flow was female mediated, otherwise you will see a whole lot more R1a in Beakers.

Here is something amazin, nowadays we see R1b-L11+ clades found mostly in Western Europe, then there is a sharp decay of its frequency in Eastern Europe and R1a picks up, then R1b-Z2103 makes a comeback in the Northern Caucasus, Armenian, etc. This exact same pattern was already in place 4600 years ago, R1b-L11 derive clades in Central European Beaker, then R1a dominated Corded Ware with minority R1b, then we see a massively dominated Eastern Yamnaya by R1b-Z2103.

4600 years ago was a time after huge changes when Yamnaya has swept to Hungary and Corded Ware as far as Switzerland and various hybrid cultures too. Its too late by then to infer anything about what was there in the Neolithic. When we look before 3000BC in all areas sampled to date outside eastern Europe its a resounding zero R1 except for one V88 guy. In contrast there is little but R being picked up in eastern Europe in the period 5000-2500BC. The sample is of course too small and geographically patchy but the basic picture is as resounding as it can be at present.

If you are arguing R1b was in central Europe before 3000BC then the evidence is all to the contrary. There is a pretty clear chain of archaeological farming cultures such as that from LBK to Lengyel to TRB and similar in the north-west albeit each were different due to developments and adjustments to conditions that were less and less like the ancestral ones of the farmers. LBK does appear ancestral to most Neolithic culture through central, northern and north-western Europe so the sampling of LBK probably gives a good idea of the lineages, albeit that I hunters and female hunter lines were probably absorbed as the Neolithic went on in the areas where the ancestral farming template struggled and adjusted.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 02:19 PM
Am no expert but certainly Ireland clusters much more with NW Europe than the Basques due to much higher ANE, even higher WHG and lower Neolithic farmer. What north facing western Europe, in including the Basques seems to share that sets it apart from SE and central to east Mediterranean Europe is high WHG. However ANE seems to be an eastern and north-west European thing with far less in any part of southern Europe - even the Basque country.

Irish people don't have higher WHG than Basque do, their main difference is in 3x the ANE that Basque have at the expense of Early Neolithic Farmer.

See here:

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/blankmapeurope57nabwr3eh.png

In fact both Basques and Irish have about the same WHG at an average of 45% with some range from 44% to 47%.

rms2
06-22-2015, 02:34 PM
As posted by smal in the ancient DNA thread, El Trocs R1b sample I0410, as suspected by the great majority of posters here, is PF6376+ which is a V88 equivalent. All 24 V88+ samples from the Francalacci data set are PF6376+. Posting it here as it is relevant to the discussion.

Very relevant, and it shows very clearly why Els Trocs was really no great surprise, provided no real contradiction to the R1b steppe origin hypothesis, and was made far too much of by some.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 02:36 PM
4600 years ago was a time after huge changes when Yamnaya has swept to Hungary and Corded Ware as far as Switzerland and various hybrid cultures too. Its too late by then to infer anything about what was there in the Neolithic. When we look before 3000BC in all areas sampled to date outside eastern Europe its a resounding zero R1 except for one V88 guy. In contrast there is little but R being picked up in eastern Europe in the period 5000-2500BC. The sample is of course too small and geographically patchy but the basic picture is as resounding as it can be at present.

If you are arguing R1b was in central Europe before 3000BC then the evidence is all to the contrary. There is a pretty clear chain of archaeological farming cultures such as that from LBK to Lengyel to TRB and similar in the north-west albeit each were different due to developments and adjustments to conditions that were less and less like the ancestral ones of the farmers. LBK does appear ancestral to most Neolithic culture through central, northern and north-western Europe so the sampling of LBK probably gives a good idea of the lineages, albeit that I hunters and female hunter lines were probably absorbed as the Neolithic went on in the areas where the ancestral farming template struggled and adjusted.

There is very little evidence coming from Western Europe, the area where R1b is nowadays dominant. I should also say that El Trocs according to small:



Re-assignment: (M343eq: M343/PF6242+, M415/PF6251+) > (L754eq: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+) > (V88eq: PF6376+) > (V88 subclades: V35-, V69-) (P297eq: FGC57/L1067/M12189/PF6424/SK2079/Z8148-, PF6106-) (M269eq: PF6399/S10-, PF6426/YSC72-, L265/PF6431-, L150.1/PF6274.1/S351.1-, PF6448-, CTS1738/FGC55/PF6449-, L753/PF6486/YSC18-, M269/PF6517-) (M478eq: M478-, Y13199-, Y13871-, Y13872-, Y13886-)
There is also Y416/Z8156+ which can be positioned in the P297 level. However, Y416/Z8156 is highly recurrent marker. So, I think it cannot be a reliable marker for the P297 level.

Has PF6376+ which is equivalent to V88, but it also has Y416/Z8156 which is equivalent to P297, so it's not a clear cut assignment, though I'll say I'm more inclined to accept it being R1b-V88 than R1b-P297.

rms2
06-22-2015, 02:52 PM
Perhaps we have different definitions but 40 samples out of which 22 come from a single burial is not sufficient samples in my scientific understanding.

We actually have very few Corded Ware and Yamnaya results, and none from Yamnaya's route west, but you don't hesitate to apply the appellation "dominated" to them.

Funny that all 40, save one, and that one is likely R1b-V88, are NOT R1b.




I hope the get to test SouthWestern France, Portugal, the Basque Country, Southern Spain, Great Britain and Ireland too, then we will get a much fuller picture and might complete change the story.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.




Is it completely impossible that R1b-P312 bearers pick up the IndoEuropean languages from living side-by-side with the Indo-European and clearly Yamnaya-derived Corded Ware people. I mean there was nothing stopping those Beakers from Central Europe from trading with their cousins down South and West of them. If the language of trade is Indo-European then you either learn it or you don't try. Why are all traffic controllers in Airports required to speak English? Because it is the Global language right now. Why isn't the Spanish Y-DNA Haplogroup profile similar to the Italian one, yet they speak a Latin derived language which imposed on Celtic and nonIndoEuropean languages.

We are talking about the original spread of Indo-European. Corded Ware was fading about the time Beaker was coming to prominence. If Beaker was non-IE and of Iberian origin, why didn't it impose its language and spread it east? The Beaker People evidently were far more the Aramaeans of Europe than the Corded Ware folk were.

You don't find it just a little odd that Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking and R1b-L23, and the cultural horizon deemed most responsible for the spread of Indo-European was likewise R1b-L23?

So, Indo-European was spread as far as Hungary by people but then transmitted the rest of the way to the Atlantic by a form of cultural osmosis?



The model proposed by Valverde.et.al doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think R1b-P312 arose in Iberia or near the Pyrennes, I place its origin a little bit more Northern than the Pyrennes but still within the known Franco-Cantabrian refuge area, they are commiting the same mistake as before to equate frequency with place of origin.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I don't think P312 originated anywhere near the FC Refuge. Given its age, I think P312 will turn up in Yamnaya. Hopefully, we'll learn who is right sooner rather than later.

I suspect there is something fundamentally flawed with the attribution of Beaker to Iberia. I think Gimbutas was right about it and it began in the Carpathian Basin with Vucedol, Somogyvar, and Zok-Mako. So, I think early Iberian Beaker, if it really is the earliest genuine Beaker, will turn out to be something other than P312. Only the full-fledged, kurgan culture Beaker will have P312 in it. I could be wrong, but that is what I suspect.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 02:59 PM
We actually have very few Corded Ware and Yamnaya results, and none from Yamnaya's route west, but you don't hesitate to apply the appellation "dominated" to them.

Funny that all 40, save one, and that one is likely R1b-V88, are NOT R1b.

Because I there is no need to prove the presence of R1a or R1b-Z2103 in them, they have already been found, now, if you said that some given Haplogroup was absent from Yamnaya given the samples thus far, then I will indeed mention that there are very few samples to make sweeping generalizations. Again 22/44 samples come from a single Burial, the Samara/Yamnaya samples all come from different Burials and different time periods, same thing with R1a in Northeastern Europe, different time periods and keep showing up in there, thus it will be foolish to question its antiquity in the area, when we see the time evolution of it all the way until Corded Ware.


Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

We are talking about the original spread of Indo-European. Corded Ware was fading about the time Beaker was coming to prominence. If Beaker was non-IE and of Iberian origin, why didn't it impose its language and spread it east? The Beaker People evidently were far more the Aramaeans of Europe than the Corded Ware folk were.

I don't know, why don't know why don't the Southern Spanish speak Arabic, why do the Irish speak English and not Celtic, or the English not speak French. As I mention if Indo-European was the language of trade, then people will probably learn it, and not to say that there wasn't any genetic diffusion, who is to say that some of the R1b-P312 found in German Beaker didn't move West and mixed with their cousins.


You don't find it just a little odd that Western Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking and R1b-L23, and the cultural horizon deemed most responsible for the spread of Indo-European was likewise R1b-L23?

So, Indo-European was spread as far as Hungary by people but then transmitted the rest of the way to the Atlantic by a form of cultural osmosis?

As I said above, the picture need not to be so simple, you could have both demic/cultural diffusion.


I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I don't think P312 originated anywhere near the FC Refuge. Given its age, I think P312 will turn up in Yamnaya. Hopefully, we'll learn who is right sooner rather than later.

I suspect there is something fundamentally flawed with the attribution of Beaker to Iberia. I think Gimbutas was right about it and it began in the Carpathian Basin with Vucedol, Somogyvar, and Zok-Mako. So, I think early Iberian Beaker, if it really is the earliest genuine Beaker, will turn out to be something other than P312. Only the full-fledged, kurgan culture Beaker will have P312 in it. I could be wrong, but that is what I suspect.

We shall wait and see, so according to your model shall we see R1b-P312 in the Basque Country circa 3000 BC or not?

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:06 PM
Because I there is no need to prove the presence of R1a or R1b-Z2103 in them, they have already been found, now, if you said that some given Haplogroup was absent from Yamnaya given the samples thus far, then I will indeed mention that there are very few samples to make sweeping generalizations . . .


But you are implying the absence of other y haplogroups when you apply the word "dominated" to Yamnaya and Corded Ware with so few test results. If you are basing that appellation on the results thus far, then one can with even more justification say that Neolithic Europe was dominated by G2a and Mesolithic Europe by I2a.

Besides, as Richard Rocca has noted elsewhere, RISE1 (I believe that's the correct one), a Corded Ware from Poland, is R1b1. Unfortunately, it's a low coverage result, so we don't know if it was L11-derived or not.

sweuro
06-22-2015, 03:11 PM
We are talking about the original spread of Indo-European. Corded Ware was fading about the time Beaker was coming to prominence. If Beaker was non-IE and of Iberian origin, why didn't it impose its language and spread it east? The Beaker People evidently were far more the Aramaeans of Europe than the Corded Ware folk were.
About the spreading of the Beakers language of iberian origin, this theory uses the findings of Vasconic toponyms in Western Europe, specially for rivers, that goes as far as Central Europe.

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:16 PM
. . .

We shall wait and see, so according to your model shall we see R1b-P312 in the Basque Country circa 3000 BC or not?

No, probably not. I believe you are referring to SJAPL. Is there any reason to see it as an intrusive group from eastern or central Europe?

MJost
06-22-2015, 03:17 PM
Here are the STR values for the people from the Basque Country that tested as R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,M529,L238,DF19)

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS385 DYS438 DYS439 DYS437 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 YGATAH4

14 13 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 13 15 20 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 14 19 16 20 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.17 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 10 13 13 12.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 14 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 14.14 12 13 15 19 16 18 24 13
15 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 16 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 14 15 20 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 11.13 12 11 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 13
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 25 11 14 13 11.13 12 13 15 18 17 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 18 24 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 12.17 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 17 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 12 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12

Anybody wanna take a shot at what they might be.




YrsPerGen*
Count
Intraclade Founder's Modal Age
Modal Gen Age
StdDevInGen
YBP
+OR-YBP
Max-YBP
Modal FVAR
Modal FSD
SD CONFIDENCE
CI SD GenModal
CI +OR-YBP


30
N=35
Clade A: Basque
106.2
47.5
3,185.4
1,424.5
4,609.9
5.000
2.236
CladeA
164.84
4,945.3


30
N=371
Clade B: L21 xsubs
124.6
51.4
3,736.6
1,542.9
5,279.5
5.865
2.422
CladeB
64.33
1,929.8




Diff =
18.4

551.2

669.6


Difference
100.52
3015.5


YrsPerGen*
TRUE MRCA
InterClade GAB
Generations
StdDevInGen
YBP
+OR-YBP
Max-YBP
PooledVar
Pooled SD
CI SD InterClade
CI +OR-YBP Interclade
CI Options


30
Pooled SD Clades A & B
InterClade Coalescence (n-1) Age: Basque & L21 xsubs
104.0
47.0
3,120.2
1,409.9
4,530.1
4.898
2.213
47.04
1,411.1
99.9960


30
Interclade Derivation // PooledSD CladesA&B
Interclade Derivation / / Pooled SD: Basque & L21 xsubs
116.5 / / 124.6
NA / / 51.4
3493.7 / / 3736.6
NA / / 1542.9
NA / / 5036.6
NA / / Zero
NA / / Zero
NA
NA
30






MJost

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:19 PM
About the spreading of the Beakers language of iberian origin, this theory uses the findings of Vasconic toponyms in Western Europe, specially for rivers, that goes as far as Central Europe.

I believe that notion has been thoroughly discredited and is not the consensus view among linguists. Wasn't that the idea of Vennemann?

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:25 PM
. . .
Has PF6376+ which is equivalent to V88, but it also has Y416/Z8156 which is equivalent to P297, so it's not a clear cut assignment, though I'll say I'm more inclined to accept it being R1b-V88 than R1b-P297.

Thanks for including the following from smal in what you quoted:



. . . There is also Y416/Z8156+ which can be positioned in the P297 level. However, Y416/Z8156 is highly recurrent marker. So, I think it cannot be a reliable marker for the P297 level.

If PF6376 is a reliable equivalent of V88, and since Y416/Z8156 is highly recurrent and unreliable, then certainly PF6376+ is likely right and Els Trocs was probably V88+. Given the fact that he was M269-, the location where he was found, the date, and with whom he was buried, V88+ makes the most sense.

Dubhthach
06-22-2015, 03:31 PM
The archaeology community in Britain is mostly very sceptical about aDNA. The people I have spoken to have a very basic knowledge and seem to discuss between themselves spurious reasons why aDNA is 'wrong' (from the ethics of taking samples to techniques and to interpretations).
.

The ethics of taking samples? That's bit rich given they dig up remains in first place often to have them left in carboard boxes in some museum archive for years upon years.

Dubhthach
06-22-2015, 03:34 PM
Would it be reasonable to conclude that the genetic make-up of rural Basque people is fairly similar to those of Brittany (Brest), and Ireland?

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/3687/pca.png

Us Irish are unsurprising closest related to our geographic neighbours eg. British and French

Dubhthach
06-22-2015, 03:36 PM
I don't know, why don't know why don't the Southern Spanish speak Arabic, why do the Irish speak English and not Celtic, or the English not speak French. As I mention if Indo-European was the language of trade, then people will probably learn it, and not to say that there wasn't any genetic diffusion, who is to say that some of the R1b-P312 found in German Beaker didn't move West and mixed with their cousins.

English was a minority language in Ireland until about 1800, as late as 1760's close on 60-70% of population was Irish speakers. The Irish language underwent massive language collapsed/language-shift during the 19th century. At the same time Ireland was only country in Europe to end 19th century with lower population than it had in middle of century.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 03:39 PM
No, probably not. I believe you are referring to SJAPL. Is there any reason to see it as an intrusive group from eastern or central Europe?

Not just to SJAPL, but actual remains from the interior side of the Basque Country, specially from Dolmens. SJAPL appears to be a site of two cultures clashing, there is whole lactose tolerance issue, there is barely any heterozygous individuals, suggesting we are seeing two genetically different populations, add the signs of violence, and it makes it an interesting site.

R.Rocca
06-22-2015, 03:40 PM
Thanks for including the following from smal in what you quoted:



If PF6376 is a reliable equivalent of V88, and since Y416/Z8156 is highly recurrent and unreliable, then certainly PF6376+ is likely right and Els Trocs was probably V88+. Given the fact that he was M269-, the location where he was found, the date, and with whom he was buried, V88+ makes the most sense.

Just for clarity...there is no doubt about the reliability of PF6376 as a V88 equivalent.

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:44 PM
Just for clarity...there is no doubt about the reliability of PF6376 as a V88 equivalent.

Thanks. That is what I thought.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 03:44 PM
Here is yet another study that adds yet another nail in the coffin of the Late Basquisation theory. The Burial site from Aldaieta was one of the sites that appears to have Germanic and Frankish goods, and was used as evidence for a migration from the Northern part of the Basque Country to the presumed(likely wrong) Celtic territory of the Varduli/Caristii. This is the same site that yielded the earliest evidence of R1b-M153 in Basques, turns out most of them are locals according to isotope analysis.


Strontium isotope analysis of human remains from San Martín de Dulantzi (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava, Spain) graveyard has been used to establish mobility patterns during the Early Middle Ages. Some archaeological human remains had Germanic grave goods. Through radiogenic strontium isotope analysis, local origin individuals and immigrants were differentiated. Archaeological human bone samples exhibit 87Sr/86Sr = 0.70779–0.70802 values similar to domestic fauna isotope composition, indicating local origin of individuals or long residence time in the region. Comparing these data with tooth enamel values, two groups of immigrants from distinctive geological environment were established. The Dulantzi population constituted mainly a local society with influxes of immigrants. The foreign individuals are distributed through the studied period of time, suggesting that migration movements were limited in number. Isotopic signatures indicating mainly local individuals, linked to grave goods with archaeological attribution to Germanic origin, question the previous ethnic paradigm.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213000724

Piquerobi
06-22-2015, 03:47 PM
There is enough evidence R1b-P312+ is not Neolithic or Mesolithic European. The oldest so far have been found in Bell Beaker sites, which have been shown to carry a large steppe autosomal input, in relation to Neolithic Europeans. R1b-P312+ is most likely then a genetic marker of the steppe intrusion in Central and Western Europe. It was mediated. From a second homeland somewhere in Central Europe (Bell Beaker culture, most likely) it went to conquer Western Europe. This is clearly the most reasonable scenario. Neolithic Europeans from Sweden, Hungary, Germany, France, Spain and Italy did not carry R1b-M269+, much less R1b-L23+.

rms2
06-22-2015, 03:52 PM
Here is yet another study that adds yet another nail in the coffin of the Late Basquisation theory. The Burial site from Aldaieta was one of the sites that appears to have Germanic and Frankish goods, and was used as evidence for a migration from the Northern part of the Basque Country to the presumed(likely wrong) Celtic territory of the Varduli/Caristii. This is the same site that yielded the earliest evidence of R1b-M153 in Basques, turns out most of them are locals according to isotope analysis.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213000724

But don't the earliest remains from Aldaieta date from the early medieval period, 5th or 6th century AD (I'm going from memory)? Wouldn't that be too late to regard as fatal to the notion of Basquization?

jeanL
06-22-2015, 03:55 PM
There is enough evidence R1b-P312+ is not Neolithic or Mesolithic European. The oldest so far have been found in Bell Beaker sites, which have been shown to carry a large steppe autosomal input, in relation to Neolithic Europeans. R1b-P312+ is most likely then a genetic marker of the steppe intrusion in Central and Western Europe. It was mediated. From a second homeland somewhere in Central Europe (Bell Beaker culture, most likely) it went to conquer Western Europe. This is clearly the most reasonable scenario. Neolithic Europeans from Sweden, Hungary, Germany, France, Spain and Italy did not carry R1b-M269+, much less R1b-L23+.


How many Neolithic European samples do we have from Spain, how many from Ireland, how many from the Basque Country, Southwestern France, Great Britain? Also the fact that German Beaker's top resnorm N=2 match doesn't include Yamnaya instead features a 25/75 split between Karelia_HG/Spain_MN, and their second match that does include Yamnaya is 50/50 Yamnaya/Spain_MN unlike Corded Ware that gets 80% Yamnaya in all top-3 resnorm fits, suggest that the steppe ancestry in German Beakers is likely Corded Ware mediated, but where is the R1a1a+ input? I'm more inclined to see the input as being maternal and paternal, than it being solely paternal, let's not forget that mother's contribute 50% of our heritage.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 03:56 PM
But don't the earliest remains from Aldaieta date from the early medieval period, 5th or 6th century AD (I'm going from memory)? Wouldn't that be too late to regard as fatal to the notion of Basquization?

Well, it was one of the burials used a proof of migration because of the presence of Germanic and other foreign goods in the graves, turns out they were mostly locals.

Dubhthach
06-22-2015, 04:00 PM
I don't buy the importance of isotope analysis, it can change every generation. If you dug up the remains of Strongbow in Christchurch Cathedral's crypt it would show that he had origin in Wales, whereas his son (who was half Irish via Aoife daughter of Diarmait mac Murchadha -- king of Leinster) would have shown up via isotope analysis as purely Irish.

I've some person alexperience of this as my other half is Filipina, our son though was born in Ireland and has lived here all his life. On an Isotope analysis basis (without considering nuclear DNA) he wouldn't match his mother at all.

alan
06-22-2015, 04:01 PM
There is very little evidence coming from Western Europe, the area where R1b is nowadays dominant. I should also say that El Trocs according to small:



Has PF6376+ which is equivalent to V88, but it also has Y416/Z8156 which is equivalent to P297, so it's not a clear cut assignment, though I'll say I'm more inclined to accept it being R1b-V88 than R1b-P297.

There is not a great deal but because the Neolithic settlement was accomplished by two almost Europe wide cultures of fairly stand-offish settlers (at least in the period before those cultures started to break up) then we don't need to sample the entire stretch of LBK or Cardial to get a good idea of what the western ends were like too. Its also generally accepted that there is little evidence of new waves afterwards and its more of a case of sections of the previous two cultures localising, adapting and then sometimes moving on to new areas. Its also reasonably safe, in the absence of evidence for significant new waves into south-west, central or northern Europe before 3000BC to assume the populations didn't gain any major new elements, absorbing of local hunters aside.

One contrast I have long thought probable and seems now to be proving the case is that Cardial is more variable than LBK. Both moved fast but LBK was a classic land based population movement while Cardial probably was leapfrog on boats which IMO is much more likely to produce founder effects. Also the Cardial path and timing means it passed initially through parts of Europe (the Balkans, NW Greece) where other earlier waves of farmers were nearby.

rms2
06-22-2015, 04:02 PM
How many Neolithic European samples do we have from Spain, how many from Ireland, how many from the Basque Country, Southwestern France, Great Britain? Also the fact that German Beaker's top resnorm N=2 match doesn't include Yamnaya . . .

We need more samples from Western Europe, sure, but it doesn't seem at all likely that any of them before the arrival of the Beaker Folk will be R1b-L23.

Aren't you being a little cagey with that "top resnorm N=2 match" stuff? What of German Beaker itself? It certainly carries a substantial Yamnaya component.

Piquerobi
06-22-2015, 04:04 PM
How many Neolithic European samples do we have from Spain, how many from Ireland, how many from the Basque Country, Southwestern France, Great Britain? Also the fact that German Beaker's top resnorm N=2 match doesn't include Yamnaya instead features a 25/75 split between Karelia_HG/Spain_MN, and their second match that does include Yamnaya is 50/50 Yamnaya/Spain_MN unlike Corded Ware that gets 80% Yamnaya in all top-3 resnorm fits, suggest that the steppe ancestry in German Beakers is likely Corded Ware mediated, but where is the R1a1a+ input? I'm more inclined to see the input as being maternal and paternal, than it being solely paternal, let's not forget that mother's contribute 50% of our heritage.

Did you miss the long list of samples I gave? Neolithic Europeans were very similar genetically. So far we have had samples from Spain, France, Sweden, Germany, Hungary and Italy tested. None, I repeat, none, were R1b-M269+. R1b-M269+ appears for the first time in Bell Beaker, which shows autosomal steppe input. Furthermore, back at the steppe homeland, nearly all samples were R1b-M269-L23+. A downstream mutation different, in the bigger picture, does not change it at all. We have located the hotspot of ancient R1b-M269+. And it is not Western Europe. It is is Eastern Europe. We know, from archeology & linguistic studies, that people from Eastern Europe brought IE languages, not too long ago, in the same timeframe R1b-M269+ entered Western Europe. One does not need to be a Sherlock to guess the most reasonable scenario.

alan
06-22-2015, 04:09 PM
I don't buy the importance of isotope analysis, it can change every generation. If you dug up the remains of Strongbow in Christchurch Cathedral's crypt it would show that he had origin in Wales, whereas his son (who was half Irish via Aoife daughter of Diarmait mac Murchadha -- king of Leinster) would have shown up via isotope analysis as purely Irish.

I've some person alexperience of this as my other half is Filipina, our son though was born in Ireland and has lived here all his life. On an Isotope analysis basis (without considering nuclear DNA) he wouldn't match his mother at all.

true. Its uses are limited. Only useful for positive evidence when it hits some happy wanderer but totally useless as evidence of origin beyond their own lifetimes. Given the obvious massive growth and geographical spreading from single ancestors shown in P312's clade then the chances of hitting the right guys are remote - and only enhanced if you pick exceptionally early and unusual looking individuals.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 04:12 PM
Did you miss the long list of samples I gave? Neolithic Europeans were very similar genetically. So far we have had samples from Spain, France, Sweden, Germany, Hungary and Italy tested. None, I repeat, none, were R1b-M269+. R1b-M269+ appears for the first time in Bell Beaker, which shows autosomal steppe input. Furthermore, back at the steppe homeland, nearly all samples were R1b-M269-L23+. A downstream mutation different, in the bigger picture, does not change it at all. We have located the hotspot of ancient R1b-M269+. And it is not Western Europe. It is is Eastern Europe. We know, from archeology & linguistic studies, that people from Eastern Europe brought IE languages, not too long ago, in the same timeframe R1b-M269+ entered Western Europe. One does not need to be a Sherlock to guess the most reasonable scenario.

Yes nearly all samples are R1b-M269-L23+/Z2103+ just like today, remember a couple of years ago before the discovery of Z2103, all the Caucasus look R1b-L23(xL51) which was deemed as R1b-L23* and thought to be ancestral to Western European R1b-L51, yet now it appears that they are close cousins. So Samara is the hotspot for ancient R1b-Z2103, is not like that region doesn't have any of it nowadays. Thus far the only R1b-L51 remains have been found in Europe, right next to an area dominated by R1a1a haplogroups.

Let's be objective about he "long" list:

Spain

Mesolithic-La Braña

C-V20

Epicardial-Avellanar

5-G2a(3 Have exact same mitochondrial DNA haplogroup)
1-E-V13

Early-Neolithic-El trocs

1-F (xG, I1, I2a, J, L1b2, T, O2b, Q1a2a, Q1b1, R1a1a, R1b1c2)
1-R1b1(M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69-)
1-I2a1b1

Middle-Neolithic-La-Mina

1-I2a2a1*
1-I2a1a1/H2?

Total number of samples: 12.
5 Samples from a Cardial Burial. Different sites 4.

France

Middle Neolithic-Treilles

20-G2a-P15
2-I2a1

Megalithic-Dolmen of La Pierre

2-I2a-M26(Predicted using STRs not by SNPs)

Total number of samples: 24

22 from a single burial of Treilles.

Great Britain: 0
Ireland: 0
Basque Country: 0
Gascony: 0
Southern Spain: 0
Portugal: 0
Belgium:0
Netherlands:0


Now shall we compared with Eastern European samples:

Samara(Mesolithic)

1-R1b1a

Karelia (Mesolithic)

1-R1a1

Yamnaya(Haak+Allentoft 2015 papers)

1-R1b-P297
1-R1b-L23(xL51,Z2105)
8- R1b-Z2105
1-R1b(RISE546)

Stalingrad_Quarry_EBA

1-R1b-Z2105

+ Other R1a1a that were found near Belarus.

Just in R1b remains we have 13 remains, more than in all of Spain Mesolithic/Neolithic remains combined, out of those 13, 9 are R1b-Z2105 derived. Enough said!!!

PS: Gokhem-2 and the TRB people are not like other Neolithic Europeans in the fact that she clusters near Basque whereas Otzi/Early Neolithic Europeans and to a lesser extend some Middle Neolithic Europeans cluster around Sardinians.


http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

Above is Gok-4 not Gok-2 but one gets the picture.

http://s24.postimg.org/t0woqjqo5/haakfigure2.jpg

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2zp2mo1.jpg

rms2
06-22-2015, 04:16 PM
. . . Thus far the only R1b-L51 remains have been found in Europe, right next to an area dominated by R1a1a haplogroups.

Yes, in a culture (Bell Beaker) believed by many scholars over the years to have spread the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European west, and whose genesis was attributed by at least one of the foremost experts on Indo-European archaeology, Marija Gimbutas, to cultures that were hybrids and spin-offs of Yamnaya.

Yes, they have been found right where we would expect them to be if R1b-L51 was responsible for the spread of Indo-European to the West.


From 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).

alan
06-22-2015, 04:20 PM
Yes nearly all samples are R1b-M269-L23+/Z2103+ just like today, remember a couple of years ago before the discovery of Z2103, all the Caucasus look R1b-L23(xL51) which was deemed as R1b-L23* and thought to be ancestral to Western European R1b-L51, yet now it appears that they are close cousins. So Samara is the hotspot for ancient R1b-Z2103, is not like that region doesn't have any of it nowadays. Thus far the only R1b-L51 remains have been found in Europe, right next to an area dominated by R1a1a haplogroups.

From memory most people didn't think R1b-Z2103 was going to be much if at all a Yamnaya thing because its not very strong in the area today. Noone predicted that particular clade dominating Yamnaya from the Volga-Urals to the Don. There has been enormous displacement in that zone over the millennia and centuries. So much so that R1b was always being argued - including by most R1b people - to be situation on the steppe/IE/Yamnaya fringes at the west or south. Certainly not the dominant clade in its heartland zone. Many could see hints of a scattering in the past that involved IE groups who may have once been on the steppes but no one would confidently have thought Z2103 would come out dominant in east Yamnaya. Its modern peaks lie far from its position in 3000BC and seems to have been displaced largely into the Balkans, Anatolia, the Caucasus, Iran and SW Asia - where linguistic links are very eclectic today but most of which have at one time or other seen migration of IEs.

rms2
06-22-2015, 04:32 PM
From memory most people didn't think R1b-Z2103 was going to be much if at all a Yamnaya thing because its not very strong in the area today. Noone predicted that particular clade dominating Yamnaya from the Volga-Urals to the Don. There has been enormous displacement in that zone over the millennia and centuries. So much so that R1b was always being argued - including by most R1b people - to be situation on the steppe/IE/Yamnaya fringes at the west or south. Certainly not the dominant clade in its heartland zone. Many could see hints of a scattering in the past that involved IE groups who may have once been on the steppes but no one would confidently have thought Z2103 would come out dominant in east Yamnaya. Its modern peaks lie far from its position in 3000BC and seems to have been displaced largely into the Balkans, Anatolia, the Caucasus, Iran and SW Asia - where linguistic links are very eclectic today but most of which have at one time or other seen migration of IEs.

Yes, and to argue that R1b-Z2103 is all there is to see of Yamnaya is to argue that R1b-Z2103 accounts for much if not all of the original spread of Indo-European to the west. Who thinks that is tenable?

That is why jeanL, by the logic of his position, had to eventually argue, as he has done, against migration as the main means of the transmission of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic.

On the other hand, there is a load of R1b-L51 in Central and Western Europe along with the overwhelming presence of Indo-European languages, and - surprise! - L51 is a brother clade under L23 of Z2103.

alan
06-22-2015, 04:39 PM
JeanL - you are ignoring the fact that nearly all the early farmers in Europe go back to two rapid longitudinal waves that spanned from the east of Europe to the Atlantic albeit at contrasting latitudes. In such a situation the latitude of the samples tells you more than the longitude. I cant imagine how (during their initial stand-offish existence) that we should expect an LBK person in east-central Europe to be different from one in south Holland or a Cardial person in the Balkans to be much different from one in Italy or Iberia. They were fairly rapid waves with strong traditions. Even the succeeding middle Neolithic cultures root back to the early farmer's LBK origins (Lengyel for example) or even ones two steppes away (TRB traces back to Lengyel which traces back to LBK). You can still see the clear LBK or Cardial roots of successor cultures in Europe even after 4000BC when the last significant areas of non-farming western Europe were being moved into. I have never seen serous evidence of follow up waves spreading across Europe that were not routed in those two founder farming cultures and I have seen no evidence in the later Neolithic or in the early copper age samples pre-3000BC to suggest central, northern or western Europe saw any incursion. The only exception I can think of is the early Suvorovo type incursions into the south-east fringes of Europe c. 4200BC but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that somehow their descendants sneaked through Europe invisibly to arrive with the final farming frontiers being penetrated in the north-west coasts of Europe around 4000BC.

ADW_1981
06-22-2015, 04:44 PM
From memory most people didn't think R1b-Z2103 was going to be much if at all a Yamnaya thing because its not very strong in the area today.

Just to quickly point out, this isn't a true statement. The bulk of Russians who are tested come from the NW of the country. Samara area isn't well sampled today.

alan
06-22-2015, 04:51 PM
Yes, and to argue that R1b-Z2103 is all there is to see of Yamnaya is to argue that R1b-Z2103 accounts for much if not all of the original spread of Indo-European to the west. Who thinks that is tenable?

That is why jeanL, by the logic of his position, had to eventually argue, as he has done, against migration as the main means of the transmission of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic.

On the other hand, there is a load of R1b-L51 in Central and Western Europe along with the overwhelming presence of Indo-European languages, and - surprise! - L51 is a brother clade under L23 of Z2103.

Also to argue that something is not in Yamnaya or is not IE in origin based on ancient DNA to date is as good as saying R1a isn't IE. It hasn't appeared in Yamnaya to date and other than a hunter found unexpectedly to the north, it hasn't appeared anywhere in ancient DNA until after 2800BC.

I am however keeping my options open that L51 could have been located slightly upstream and close to or in the CW formation zone rather than Yamnaya itself. Its possible but it could be wrong. Or it could have done both. There is an inference that R1b - probably L11 - was so positioned that at least some of it could penetrate into and spread with CW using the north flowing rivers. The big question is did all of it take this more northern route or did L11 split with another stream heading west along the Danube. Regardless, if L11 is confirmed to be in CW and the various objections (relatively late CW, unusual burial) are unfounded, then the idea of P312 originating anywhere but eastern Europe is dead. The other probably R1b CW guy does seem unlikely to me to be anything other than L11 given L51xL11 is virtually unknown in north-central Europe and Z2103 seems rather unlikely.

alan
06-22-2015, 04:57 PM
Just to quickly point out, this isn't a true statement. The bulk of Russians who are tested come from the NW of the country. Samara area isn't well sampled today.

Still we are talking about perceptions and most people felt modern population studies were so bad for Z2103/R1b in general in terms of the IE steppe homeland that there was mostly a mixture of R1a triumphalism and what seemed like special pleading/west/south fringes of the steppe theories to some by people seeking an R1b spot in the IE homeland. I know I dabbled in this myself a bit with Maykop and other copper networks theories. Modern distribution is of little use.

greystones22
06-22-2015, 05:13 PM
I had a quick look and they are using HRM (high resolution melt) analysis to call these SNPs.
It would be interesting to see some raw data from this, and get a feel for how the ancestral and derived alleles behave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Resolution_Melt
The above link is very supportive of the technique, but I think it is quite variable, and I don't know how good it is for detecting polymorphic y SNPs

Michał
06-22-2015, 05:13 PM
The point is that some of these clades were in a holding pattern (little or no growth) somewhere for many centuries. Take a look at YFull's dates (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/):

4100 B.C. L23 splits into Z2103 and L51. Z2103 starts subdividing into clades and singletons that still survive today, indicating at least mild growth. L51 merely survives for the next 500 years.

3600 B.C. L51 splits into PF7589 and L11. L11 merely survives for the next 700 years. (PF7589 never does make much progress.)

4900 B.C. L11 splits into U106, P312, and DF100. U106 immediately starts subdividing and multiplying like crazy. P312 merely survives for 300 years. (DF100 never does do much.)

4600 B.C. P312 begins subdividing and multiplying like crazy.
What is the chance that most of the above splits took place on the NPC steppe rather than somewhere in Central Europe? I guess, we can almost be certain that the bifurcation of L23 (or the L51-Z2103 split) preceded the westward expansion of the R1b-L51 folk, but do we have any data that would strongly suggest that the same is true for the bifurcation of L51 (ie. for the L11-PF7589 split).

I don’t think the YFull’s TMRCA estimates are accurate enough to precisely date the departure of clade L51 from the Ukrainian steppe and then use this “point of reference” to make some educated guesses about the place of origin of particular subclades. Personally, I suspect that the YFull TMRCA dates are underestimated by about 10-20% (which seems supported by the recent sequencing results of the radiocarbon dated Sintashta samples), but even if we assume my suspicion is justified, this is still not enough to provide the exact TMRCA dates for particular nodes under L23. In other words, we still need to wait for some good quality NGS results for a series of ancient L51 samples before being able to produce estimates that will allow us to provide the “absolute” (and not only “relative”) TMRCA ages.

However, we may try to at least partially overcome the above problem by comparing the YFull’s TMRCAs for R1a-M417 and R1a-L51, and by analyzing these data in a context of the known geographical distributions of R1a-M417 and R1a-L51.

I guess most of us would agree that clade R1a-M417 originated somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably close to the Middle Dnieper region. Furthermore, we can also assume that the westward migration of R1a-M417 did not start before the sudden expansion of the Corded Ware culture, which is usually assumed to have started around 3000-2800 BC. If so, we can make another assumption that most subclades of M417 that show sufficiently diversified geographical distribution (ie. they encompass relatively old subclades showing strong association with either Eastern Europe or some non-Eastern European destination points), can be consider as likely born (or actually split) before the initial territorial expansion of R1a-M417 has started. On the other hand, all clades that are specifically associated either with Eastern Europe only or with selected destination points in Central-Western Europe or Asia, should be considered as descending from MRCAs who lived in a period postdating the original westward (or eastward) expansion of R1a-M417.

Let’s take a look at the below YFull’s TMRCA estimates for the major subclades under R1a-M417.

5500 BP - M417 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z645 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z283 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z282 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
4800 BP - Z280 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe and Western Europe)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4700 BP - Z93 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe, Asia and Western Europe)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4700 BP - Z94 (with subclades specific for Asia)
4700 BP - Z2124 (with subclades specific for Asia)
4700 BP - CTS4385 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)
4600 BP - PF6155 (with subclades specific for Central-Eastern Europe)
4500 BP - Y2395 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)
4000 BP - L664 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)


As we can see, there is an apparent correlation between the TMRCA ages of analyzed clades and the specificity of their regional distributions. Only clades with TMRCA of 4800 years or older are showing broad European or Eurasian distribution, while most of the younger subclades are specifically associated with either Western Europe or Eastern Europe/Asia. It is important to note that clade Z93 with TMRCA of 4700 years shows not only many Asian and Central-Eastern European subclades/sublineages, but also two known (very rare) sublineages found in Western Europe only, although it is suspected that they are of relatively recent Asian or Eastern European origin.

In other words, it seems reasonable to assume that the R1a clades with YFull’s TMRCAs of at least 4800 years are likely to have diverged/expanded before the Corded Ware culture expanded westward, while all younger clades diverged/expanded only after this process has already started (or after the initial phase of this territorial expansion was already completed). Let me remind once more that it is not the absolute age but rather the relative age what counts in this analysis, so I am not going to suggest that the TMRCA date should correspond exactly to the start of the territorial expansion process. Actually, I am quite convinced that such TMRCA date should precede the demographic/territorial expansion by about 500-1000 years, but this has nothing to do with the assumptions used in this particular analysis.

Once we know, what kind of TMRCA-based relationship should we expect from clades expanding westward from Eastern Europe, let us perform a similar analysis for R1b-M269 and R1b-L51.

6400 BP - M269 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - L23 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - Z2103 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - Z2106 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5600 BP - L51 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4900 BP - L11 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4900 BP - U106 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4800 BP - PF7589 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4600 BP - P312 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
3400 BP - DF100 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)

The above set of TMRCAs indicates that by contrast to R1a-M417 (and some of its major subclades like Z645, Z283, Z282 and Z280), neither L51 nor any of its major subclades were able to produce any descending subclades older than 4000 years that are recorded today as specific for Eastern Europe (or even for Central-Eastern Europe). This suggests that all those bifurcation events are likely to have taken place in Central or Central-Western Europe rather than in Eastern Europe. Of course, it is theoretically possible that R1b-L51 and all its above-listed subclades diverged on the NPC steppe but left no known descendants there, but we also need to admit that the chance for such unusual distribution/migration pattern is relatively small. This is because we would need to assume that all members of the five major sublineages of L51 departed from the steppe while leaving no (surviving) close relatives behind and taking no (surviving) Z2103 or PF7562 (M269xL23) relatives with themselves. This seems especially unlikely when compared with the above results for R1a-M417.

Another point worth mentioning is that when comparing the YFull’s TMRCA ages for particular subclades of R1a and R1b, the above results seem to suggest that clade R1b-L51 left Eastern Europe about 800-1300 years before the westward expansion of Corded Ware (or R1a-M417) started (hence about 3600-4300 BC). Thus, it seems unlikely that the westward migration of R1b-L51 was anyhow associated with Corded Ware. Also, as rightly noted above by lgmayka, most of those early bifurcation nodes under L51 did not correspond to any significant population expansion that would be reflected by the emergence of multiple lineages recordable in modern European populations. One notable exception is the “massive explosion” of R1b-P312. Based on a previous conclusion that the YFull’s TMRCA of about 4800 years corresponds to the territorial (westward) expansion of Corded Ware, we can roughly estimate that the territorial expansion of R1b-P312 started about 200 years later (ie. about 2800-2600 BC), which quite nicely corresponds with the archaeologically attested expansion of the Bell Beakers.

alan
06-22-2015, 05:22 PM
Actually note that L51 is behaving no differently from the main European R1a subclades in its absence in pre-beaker/pre-corded ware ancient DNA.

This is not hugely surprising IMO because we know that most European R1b and R1a today comes from a small amount of ancestors who probably didn't live much before 3000BC and that prior to that there was a bit of a 'not much going on' vibe about their upstream branches if you go by modern frequency.

So lets not forget that judging by modern percentages, Mr L11's ancestors were barely surviving for a huge period of time and not in any sort of position to populate Europe. The same can be said for R1a once you retreat back much more than 3000BC. Indeed if L51 was bordering on patheric in its pre-L11 phase then the Pre-P312/U106 phase of L11 can still be described as a modest phase with much to be modest about.

The ancient DNA seems to back the idea that Z2103 was undergoing a major eastern Yamnaya driven growth by 3300BC. L11 probably could be said to have no great evidence of a big expansion until one under P312/U106 in terms of ancient DNA evidence, branching phylogeny, SNP dating evidence or archaeological inference until after 3000BC. So, there may be a chronological difference in the expansions and the real reason L51 derivatives are not being detected c. 3300-2800BC is that that strand was tiny until the P312/U106 level.

Piquerobi
06-22-2015, 05:31 PM
You have missed Neolithic Germany, Neolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary samples too. These samples show us two basic features of Neolithic Europeans: their autosomal Sardinian like profile; and their y-DNA which was mostly I and G, with basically no R1b-M269-L23+.

What I'm showing to you is the most reasonable scenario. Chances are slim two R1b-M269-L23+ hotspots at widely different locations developed simultaneously with IE spreading from the East without any correlation of R1b-L23+ found at the steppes with Western European R1b-L23+. It just does not fit. Bell Beaker is the first to show up both steppe autosomal input and R1b-M269-L23+. Even if one R1b-M269+ were by chance found in Neolithic Western Europe still the material/cultural horizon which would explain its fast expansion and conquering of Western Europe would be that of the steppe invasion, which brought IE languages within the same timeframe, chariots, and the mélange of "proto-europoid" physical types to a Neolithic "mediterranean" population.


Let's be objective about he "long" list:

Spain

Mesolithic-La Braña

C-V20

Epicardial-Avellanar

5-G2a(3 Have exact same mitochondrial DNA haplogroup)
1-E-V13

Early-Neolithic-El trocs

1-F (xG, I1, I2a, J, L1b2, T, O2b, Q1a2a, Q1b1, R1a1a, R1b1c2)
1-R1b1(M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69-)
1-I2a1b1

Middle-Neolithic-La-Mina

1-I2a2a1*
1-I2a1a1/H2?

Total number of samples: 12.
5 Samples from a Cardial Burial. Different sites 4.

France

Middle Neolithic-Treilles

20-G2a-P15
2-I2a1

Megalithic-Dolmen of La Pierre

2-I2a-M26(Predicted using STRs not by SNPs)

Total number of samples: 24

22 from a single burial of Treilles.
[B]

jeanL
06-22-2015, 05:44 PM
Also to argue that something is not in Yamnaya or is not IE in origin based on ancient DNA to date is as good as saying R1a isn't IE. It hasn't appeared in Yamnaya to date and other than a hunter found unexpectedly to the north, it hasn't appeared anywhere in ancient DNA until after 2800BC.

Yes it has! Did you miss this?

Ancient R1a1 and N1c from western Russia (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/02/ancient-r1a1-and-n1c-from-western-russia.html)

5029

Michał
06-22-2015, 05:45 PM
The rarity of L51xL11 suggests to me that there was no move west until L11 (perhaps dating to 4000BC) was the main lineage. There is no archaeological evidence of a new group heading into L11 dominated territory of north, west-central, western and south-western Europe from the 4000 to 3000BC.
In the “Three Waves” variant of the Kurgan theory, as presented by Marija Gimbutas, the second wave corresponded exactly to the above period, so maybe we should take a closer look at her scenario, as previously suggested by rms2 and by many other members of this forum, even though many modern researchers find her work not very reliable (or simply outdated). That second wave was supposed to include two different migration pathways, including the Southern one (along the Danube, leading to the formation of the Ezero-Baden complex) and the Northern pathway that corresponded to the formation of the Globular Amphora Culture (GAC).

Most people, including myself, used to treat GAC as a culture derived from the local Middle Neolithic substratum with no significant genetic input from the Eastern European steppe. This was despite the well known fact that the GAC people were not only pastoralists, but they also frequently buried their dead in individual graves, sometimes under round tumuli (although the dominant form was a burial with stone construction). They were also known from producing animal burials, which was a feature quite unusual for this region of Europe. So far, we have no aDNA results for this culture, so there is still a small chance that they turn out to represent the steppe-derived group of people who despite interbreeding with the local Neolithic population (mostly with TRB ) were able to preserve their original Y-DNA lineage.

One of our forum members (Atim) has actually created a theory that made GAC a group of aboriginal PIE-speakers who were responsible for spreading IE to CWC, Yamna, Bell Beakers, and to other populations commonly considered to speak IE. He has also postulated that their Y-DNA haplogroup was R1a-M417. In the light of the most recent aDNA findings, this theory cannot be seen as a serious contender. However, I think it is worth considering the Globular Amphora Culture as a hypothetical transmitter of haplogroup R1b-L51, especially when realizing that both the dating and the geographical distribution of GAC do not preclude such hypothetical association with R1b-L51.

In this context, it is worth mentioning that GAC has quite strongly influenced the local Baden-derived populations in Moravia and Bohemia (and also some groupings located much further south) just before the arrival of the Corded Ware people. Importantly, Moravia is known as by far the largest center of Bell Beekers in Central Europe, so one can imagine that this was the very place where the mixture of the local Baden-derived Neolithic people and the R1b-P312-rich GAC newcomers was at some point strongly influenced by the arriving CWC people, which ultimately resulted in creation of a new quality known as the Bell Beaker culture that has subsequently spread to all neighbouring regions and then to all regions of Western Europe.

jeanL
06-22-2015, 05:45 PM
You have missed Neolithic Germany, Neolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary samples too. These samples shows us two basic features of Neolithic Europeans: their autosomal Sardinian like profile; and they y-DNA which was mostly I and G, with basically no R1b-M269-L23+.


You missed the part where I was complaining about the lack of samples in Western Europe namely France, Spain, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Belgium.

PS: What about the Basque-like Gok farmers?

GoldenHind
06-22-2015, 05:59 PM
Here are the STR values for the people from the Basque Country that tested as R1b-S116*(xDF27,U152,M529,L238,DF19)

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS385 DYS438 DYS439 DYS437 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 YGATAH4

14 13 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 13 15 20 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 14 19 16 20 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.17 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 10 13 13 12.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 14 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 14.14 12 13 15 19 16 18 24 13
15 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 16 16 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 14 15 20 16 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 13 11.13 12 11 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 13
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 15 17 24 12
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 25 11 14 13 11.13 12 13 15 18 17 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 10 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.15 12 11 15 19 15 18 24 11
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 11
14 15 31 24 11 13 13 12.17 12 11 15 19 15 19 23 12
14 14 30 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 18 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11.14 12 12 15 19 17 17 23 12
14 13 29 24 11 13 13 12.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12
14 14 31 24 11 13 12 11.14 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12

Anybody wanna take a shot at what they might be.

I cab't tell you what they are, but I can tell you that they are highly unlikely to be DF99, as was proposed earlier. Almost all DF99 have a 12 at 389i. This is otherwise very rare in R1b, There is not a single example of a 12 there on your list, and a fair number of them are on the other side of the P312 modal value (which is 13) at that location.

Megalophias
06-22-2015, 06:00 PM
Early-Neolithic-El trocs
1-F (xG, I1, I2a, J, L1b2, T, O2b, Q1a2a, Q1b1, R1a1a, R1b1c2)
1-R1b1(M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69-)
1-I2a1b1

The El Trocs guy with hg F was closely related to the one with R1b, so I guess he is probably R1b as well (the only other known Neolithic hg that isn't excluded is H2).

alan
06-22-2015, 06:30 PM
What is the chance that most of the above splits took place on the NPC steppe rather than somewhere in Central Europe? I guess, we can almost be certain that the bifurcation of L23 (or the L51-Z2103 split) preceded the westward expansion of the R1b-L51 folk, but do we have any data that would strongly suggest that the same is true for the bifurcation of L51 (ie. for the L11-PF7589 split).

I don’t think the YFull’s TMRCA estimates are accurate enough to precisely date the departure of clade L51 from the Ukrainian steppe and then use this “point of reference” to make some educated guesses about the place of origin of particular subclades. Personally, I suspect that the YFull TMRCA dates are underestimated by about 10-20% (which seems supported by the recent sequencing results of the radiocarbon dated Sintashta samples), but even if we assume my suspicion is justified, this is still not enough to provide the exact TMRCA dates for particular nodes under L23. In other words, we still need to wait for some good quality NGS results for a series of ancient L51 samples before being able to produce estimates that will allow us to provide the “absolute” (and not only “relative”) TMRCA ages.

However, we may try to at least partially overcome the above problem by comparing the YFull’s TMRCAs for R1a-M417 and R1a-L51, and by analyzing these data in a context of the known geographical distributions of R1a-M417 and R1a-L51.

I guess most of us would agree that clade R1a-M417 originated somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably close to the Middle Dnieper region. Furthermore, we can also assume that the westward migration of R1a-M417 did not start before the sudden expansion of the Corded Ware culture, which is usually assumed to have started around 3000-2800 BC. If so, we can make another assumption that most subclades of M417 that show sufficiently diversified geographical distribution (ie. they encompass relatively old subclades showing strong association with either Eastern Europe or some non-Eastern European destination points), can be consider as likely born (or actually split) before the initial territorial expansion of R1a-M417 has started. On the other hand, all clades that are specifically associated either with Eastern Europe only or with selected destination points in Central-Western Europe or Asia, should be considered as descending from MRCAs who lived in a period postdating the original westward (or eastward) expansion of R1a-M417.

Let’s take a look at the below YFull’s TMRCA estimates for the major subclades under R1a-M417.

5500 BP - M417 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z645 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z283 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
5000 BP - Z282 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe/Asia and Western Europe)
4800 BP - Z280 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe and Western Europe)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4700 BP - Z93 (with subclades specific for Eastern Europe, Asia and Western Europe)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4700 BP - Z94 (with subclades specific for Asia)
4700 BP - Z2124 (with subclades specific for Asia)
4700 BP - CTS4385 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)
4600 BP - PF6155 (with subclades specific for Central-Eastern Europe)
4500 BP - Y2395 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)
4000 BP - L664 (with subclades specific for North-Western Europe)


As we can see, there is an apparent correlation between the TMRCA ages of analyzed clades and the specificity of their regional distributions. Only clades with TMRCA of 4800 years or older are showing broad European or Eurasian distribution, while most of the younger subclades are specifically associated with either Western Europe or Eastern Europe/Asia. It is important to note that clade Z93 with TMRCA of 4700 years shows not only many Asian and Central-Eastern European subclades/sublineages, but also two known (very rare) sublineages found in Western Europe only, although it is suspected that they are of relatively recent Asian or Eastern European origin.

In other words, it seems reasonable to assume that the R1a clades with YFull’s TMRCAs of at least 4800 years are likely to have diverged/expanded before the Corded Ware culture expanded westward, while all younger clades diverged/expanded only after this process has already started (or after the initial phase of this territorial expansion was already completed). Let me remind once more that it is not the absolute age but rather the relative age what counts in this analysis, so I am not going to suggest that the TMRCA date should correspond exactly to the start of the territorial expansion process. Actually, I am quite convinced that such TMRCA date should precede the demographic/territorial expansion by about 500-1000 years, but this has nothing to do with the assumptions used in this particular analysis.

Once we know, what kind of TMRCA-based relationship should we expect from clades expanding westward from Eastern Europe, let us perform a similar analysis for R1b-M269 and R1b-L51.

6400 BP - M269 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - L23 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - Z2103 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
6100 BP - Z2106 (with subclades specific for different regions of Eurasia)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5600 BP - L51 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4900 BP - L11 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4900 BP - U106 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
4800 BP - PF7589 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4600 BP - P312 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)
3400 BP - DF100 (with subclades specific for Central-Western Europe)

The above set of TMRCAs indicates that by contrast to R1a-M417 (and some of its major subclades like Z645, Z283, Z282 and Z280), neither L51 nor any of its major subclades were able to produce any descending subclades older than 4000 years that are recorded today as specific for Eastern Europe (or even for Central-Eastern Europe). This suggests that all those bifurcation events are likely to have taken place in Central or Central-Western Europe rather than in Eastern Europe. Of course, it is theoretically possible that R1b-L51 and all its above-listed subclades diverged on the NPC steppe but left no known descendants there, but we also need to admit that the chance for such unusual distribution/migration pattern is relatively unlikely. This is because we would need to assume that all members of the five major sublineages of L51 departed from the steppe while leaving no (surviving) close relatives behind and taking no (surviving) Z2103 or PF7562 (M269xL23) relatives with themselves. This seems especially unlikely when compared with the above results for R1a-M417.

Another point worth mentioning is that when comparing the YFull’s TMRCA ages for particular subclades of R1a and R1b, the above results seem to suggest that clade R1b-L51 left Eastern Europe about 800-1300 years before the westward expansion of Corded Ware (or R1a-M417) started (hence about 3600-4300 BC). Thus, it seems unlikely that the westward migration of R1b-L51 was anyhow associated with Corded Ware. Also, as rightly noted above by lgmayka, most of those early bifurcation nodes under L51 did not correspond to any significant population expansion that would be reflected by the emergence of multiple lineages recordable in modern European populations. One notable exception is the “massive explosion” of R1b-P312. Based on a previous conclusion that the YFull’s TMRCA of about 4800 years corresponds to the territorial (westward) expansion of Corded Ware, we can roughly estimate that the territorial expansion of R1b-P312 started about 200 years later (ie. about 2800-2600 BC), which quite nicely corresponds with the archaeologically attested expansion of the Bell Beakers.

When I look at those lists the take home for me is R1a and b lines struggling to survive then suddenly expanding in the couple of centuries either side of 2700BC. A lot happened in those centuries - Yamnaya reached Hungary, CW went from the its homeland to Switzerland/Rhine and beaker spread across much of Europe. I am not hugely confident about extrapolating much detail beyond that from SNP dates but its certainly good to try.

I tend tend to think small subclades are totally unreliable to infer much from other than that they had no permanent success and lineage death must have been very likely or certainly truncation giving more recent common ancestors. So, I think the most I am prepared to conclude for certain is that L51 to L11 was a time of little very permanent success and bare survival for the L51 clade and probably fair to say something similar but not as extreme applied to L11 before its two big clades took off. Its a shame the CW/Battle Axe R1b has quibbles or is unresolved because if L11 derivatives are found in pre/non-beaker CW and accepted without any doubts then it basically would clinch an L11 presence close to the CW formation area in and around the Middle Dnieper and adjacent areas.

One other thing that, short of ancient DNA, is always going to be an issue is that a line could move a long distance between SNPs and if ancestors left behind die out then its going to be impossible to see this. Another thing is mobility. Beaker has many indicators of being an ultra mobile group who didn't travel in a large wave and may have travelled in small units over huge distances. It also strikes me that branch extinctions could very easily happen when things didn't work out. CW gives more of an impression of a wave of settlers moving in larger groups.

avalon
06-22-2015, 06:41 PM
The archaeology community in Britain is mostly very sceptical about aDNA. The people I have spoken to have a very basic knowledge and seem to discuss between themselves spurious reasons why aDNA is 'wrong' (from the ethics of taking samples to techniques and to interpretations).

One eminent archaeologist who is a very key gatekeeper to samples told me "I have had 8 or 9 requests for samples for aDNA but turned them all down. Techniques will improve in the future and I may reconsider then."

I think that there is a need to bring leading archaeologists and archaeogeneticists together at a key conference - to improve understanding and to foster sharing/joint working. It takes time to change entrenched views.

Thanks for the insider knowledge!

I am not sure whether it was you or Alan who mentioned it but in Britain and Ireland there is also the fact that some areas have acidic soil in in which remains do not preserve well so this will limit potential samples, particularly in the west and in upland areas.

alan
06-22-2015, 06:52 PM
I tend to think of L51 as a residual line brought either in a later wave as remnants. Another possibility is the parental line was just not big enough for the stay home element to survive. There are different parts of the steppe and forest steppe zone who have received greater degrees of horrible possible wipe out horizons. It has always struck me that the steppe-proper was right on the conveyor belt of huge nos of waves from east to west over the millennia and lineages on it were far less likely to survive than ones off at the fringes. I have also long thought that the descendants of those peoples displaced from the steppe-proper would likely not be found on the steppe but driven into the fringes and uplands all around. On that theme I have also wondered if some L51xL11 lineages come among those had settled in Hungary and were later driven into the mountains of Austria (where it peaks) by later waves of peoples.

I suppose most crucially for me of all is that if L51 dates to 3600BC it falls into a period where there were no steppe waves west - Gimbutas's old ideas aside. The modern view is that there was a very smallscale wave c. 4200BC or so and then nothing coming into Old Europe from the steppes until 3000BC.

Also finally I do recall a couple of times someone posting that L51xL11 has been found in modern people somewhere way to the east in north central Asia

razyn
06-22-2015, 07:57 PM
I cab't tell you what they are, but I can tell you that they are highly unlikely to be DF99, as was proposed earlier.\

They also aren't in one of the lines below Z209 (etc., several equivalent SNPS at that level) and formerly called the North/South Cluster. Including M153, by the way. But it's a really small number of STR positions on which to base anything profound.

TigerMW
06-22-2015, 08:16 PM
I don't recall saying anything about "early" Neolithic expansion wave for P312 although I "also" consider it a possibility that P312 was a passerby in Iberia coming through all the Med shores from the Levant.
You made some connections of P312 to agriculture. Agriculture is a very, very general term. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. The Yamnaya were livestock herders and agriculturists of various sorts too.



About the digs not finding P312 in Cardial ware... I am surprised looking how thorough you are in your approach and yet you feel that there is enough evidence based on TMRCA with the ancient results and locations we have so far for Western Europe.
The issue of this blog is still very much not solved that is why I posted what I think it happened, by the reactions I got to it it does seem like you and a few others seem to have an issue. I did my bidding by posting what I think and if you do not have any other cross examination of my original post I consider this matter done with .
I'm not trying to claim I'm the most thorough person out here. I just don't see any evidence of P312 being in Iberia before the Bronze Age, and perhaps P312 there is even later than the Early Bronze Age.
The only thing I can think of is to connect P312 to Basques and suppose that this is pre-Bronze Age somehow. That's quite tenuous. Is there some other evidence for P312 in Iberia prior to the Bronze Age?

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 08:26 PM
The ethics of taking samples? That's bit rich given they dig up remains in first place often to have them left in carboard boxes in some museum archive for years upon years.

Yes, staggering is it not. There is someone who has processed some of the skeletal remains I actually 'technically own' to send samples for RC dating. That person is currently refusing to return the rest of the skeletal material as it is 'unethical' to take further samples for aDNA. Oh, and samples should not be analysed for Britain because results would not be statistically valid....because there are not hundreds of British samples to compare with. Frightening logic heh!

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 08:49 PM
As pointed out earlier in this thread, L51 and L11 probably represent 1000-1200 years of no or little growth with L51/L11 hiding away somewhere - yet to be identified. Could be almost anywhere from the Steppe to the south or to the west. Current distribution and autosomal evidence is not conclusive..to say the very least.

alan
06-22-2015, 08:53 PM
You made some connections of P312 to agriculture. Agriculture is a very, very general term. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. The Yamnaya were livestock herders and agriculturists of various sorts too.


I'm not trying to claim I'm the most thorough person out here. I just don't see any evidence of P312 being in Iberia before the Bronze Age, and perhaps P312 there is even later than the Early Bronze Age.
The only thing I can think of is to connect P312 to Basques and suppose that this is pre-Bronze Age somehow. That's quite tenuous. Is there some other evidence for P312 in Iberia prior to the Bronze Age?

I would add that noone has a problem with Iberia per se here - its the whole of western Europe that people are saying they do not believe P312 arose in. If L51 only existed from 3600BC and L11 from 3000BC and P312 arose c. 2600BC then even if P312 did arise in Iberia with beaker (and I don't think that can be ruled out given the approximation of the dates) there is a whole trail across Europe from one end to the other to be explained in the period 3000-2600BC.

The best, without become very speculative, I think most people will feel confident at saying in terms of thrust west from eastern Europe in that period is that CW trailed west c. 2900-2700BC to Switzerland while Yamnaya was in Hungary c. 3000-2800BC. They seem to provide a way in which L11 would have been trailed a large distance to the west from source. I do, however, think there is a significant number of archaeologists who see the sudden appearance of single and individualised burials which appear with the rise of beaker in Iberia as somehow being similar to Corded Ware related central European traditions. So I am perfectly open to the idea that Iberia was penetrated from central Europe c. 2700BC or just before. Whether that was by a late L11xP312 line or P312x or DF27 is hard to say

alan
06-22-2015, 09:07 PM
As pointed out earlier in this thread, L51 and L11 probably represent 1000-1200 years of no or little growth with L51/L11 hiding away somewhere - yet to be identified. Could be almost anywhere from the Steppe to the south or to the west. Current distribution and autosomal evidence is not conclusive..to say the very least.

However if L51 dated to around 3600BC in itself still calls for a migration from east to west in a period where there isn't really evidence for one. The closest you can get to that is the Suvorovo wave c. 4200BC but AFAIK it didn't get west of Hungary and would present considerable issues with the branching scheme for IE as that would make it 1000 years older than Afansievo which is seen as the likely Tocharian first non-Anatolian branch of IE. Its far easier to think that the R1b moves west started after L11/after 3000BC and that way retain some sort of logic in the branching sequence for IE and retain some possible archaeological matches for moves west (either Yamnaya and Corded Ware).

Isidro
06-22-2015, 09:20 PM
You made some connections of P312 to agriculture. Agriculture is a very, very general term. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. The Yamnaya were livestock herders and agriculturists of various sorts too.


I'm not trying to claim I'm the most thorough person out here. I just don't see any evidence of P312 being in Iberia before the Bronze Age, and perhaps P312 there is even later than the Early Bronze Age.
The only thing I can think of is to connect P312 to Basques and suppose that this is pre-Bronze Age somehow. That's quite tenuous. Is there some other evidence for P312 in Iberia prior to the Bronze Age?

I understand that you don't see evidence of P132 being in Iberia before the Bronze Age, hence your quite respectable position. I do not believe there is any ancient P312 DNA from Iberia, perhaps some will surface from 200 individual tooth bones from the Roman and Gothic eras in Tarragona, Spain, soon, I think they are available for research to the public, mostly institutions I believe.

My evidence is based on many years following DNA mutations, new findings while testing my own line and trying to connect all this information into a historical scenario that makes sense from my point of view.

alan
06-22-2015, 09:23 PM
Surely anyway the bottom line in Michal's calculations is that L23 is dated to just before 4000BC and I think its fair to say that its incredibly unlikely that L23 came into being anywhere west of the Black Sea (I deliberately use this vague phrase to pretty well cover all normal options). So that is the starting point from where anyone wanting to pose theories for L51, L11 etc commencing further west need to work from.

Isidro
06-22-2015, 09:34 PM
Here is how I see the location and founder effect of branches under S116, based on DNA that does not contradict findings of ancient DNA to date in addition to the extensive archaeological
records accumulated so far where S116 branches flourish today.

S116 born in one of the early copper age territories in Southern Iberia.

DF27 agricultural expansion within Iberia and the rest of the continent along with less successful S116 branches, Bell Beakers are traces of such movement.

U152 Bronze Age born in N. Italy or southern France, and expanding to the north becoming ancestors of the bronze age central European pre-Celtisim.

L21 a Basque marker expanding in Iron Age Atlantean territories following DF27 path.

M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly.

There is a possibility that L21 was born in France or the UK regions, again one of the main rules for a founder effect is a supporting agricultural and pastoral society and that, over the centuries has been and still now has a gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.

When I wrote "M167 another founder effect in Basque region but this one expanded in the AD mostly." I meant to say M153, the Basque marker. I did not mean SRY2627, I think that particular mutation group, M167; could be associated with U152.

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 09:36 PM
JeanL - you are ignoring the fact that nearly all the early farmers in Europe go back to two rapid longitudinal waves that spanned from the east of Europe to the Atlantic albeit at contrasting latitudes. In such a situation the latitude of the samples tells you more than the longitude. I cant imagine how (during their initial stand-offish existence) that we should expect an LBK person in east-central Europe to be different from one in south Holland or a Cardial person in the Balkans to be much different from one in Italy or Iberia. They were fairly rapid waves with strong traditions. Even the succeeding middle Neolithic cultures root back to the early farmer's LBK origins (Lengyel for example) or even ones two steppes away (TRB traces back to Lengyel which traces back to LBK). You can still see the clear LBK or Cardial roots of successor cultures in Europe even after 4000BC when the last significant areas of non-farming western Europe were being moved into. I have never seen serous evidence of follow up waves spreading across Europe that were not routed in those two founder farming cultures and I have seen no evidence in the later Neolithic or in the early copper age samples pre-3000BC to suggest central, northern or western Europe saw any incursion. The only exception I can think of is the early Suvorovo type incursions into the south-east fringes of Europe c. 4200BC but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that somehow their descendants sneaked through Europe invisibly to arrive with the final farming frontiers being penetrated in the north-west coasts of Europe around 4000BC.

OK, I am opening myself up to abuse and ridicule with this post - but I will post it anyway.

I have spent the day chasing down early Neolithic migrations into the Isles as background context for R1b arrival (I have been researching this topic for 6 months now).

I have been looking at data from the recent Rivollat, Hervella, Szecsenyl-Nagy and Batini papers to see if they support my idea of three almost contemporaneous Neolithic migrations into the Isles
1. LBK derived - with 'houses'
2. Megalithic from the Danube (Rossen>Cerny) - with Dolmens etc
3. Cardinal derived via Chaseen - with causewayed enclosures

The 1 and 3 LBK / Cardinal are, I think, very well accepted.
Migration 2 is based on a recent presentation by Alision Sheridan (and her 2010 paper) and a follow up short discussion I had with her.

I think there is now very significant baysian dated evidence to support the migration as posted earlier in the thread. However, I can not support a G2a Danubian origin because all the aDNA and Citizen Scientist received wisdom supports I2a2 DNA as dominating megalithic contexts.

So, I started trying to chase down an 'alternative origin' for Dolmens - googling for info matching Dolmens and I2a2 DNA.

Now as many of you know, Dolmens occur across many time periods in many parts of the world e.g. North Caucuses, Russia, Israel, Syria, Jorden, Horn of Africa, India, Korea, the Americas.....

So I started with a far option - Korea. I had no joy....but what I did find was an FTDNA project documenting R1b DNA in the roughly same timeframe and place as the Korean Dolmens - a big surprise for me.

So I googled a number of other locations for Dolmens and I2a2 DNA.......and only found certain or possible R1b..and no I2a2. The Americas seem shakiest but there seems to be some evidence of R1b and autosomal links related to Dolmen locations.

So - here for you to ridicule (please don't bother as I can already predict what you will write)...or for maybe one or two of you to seriously respond to.....

Can we disprove the hypothesis that "R1b is related to the occurance of Dolmens in many parts of the world" (obviously we would be looking back towards the root of R1b for some of the older locations).

If we can not disprove it...it has interesting implications for the discussion on this thread.

TigerMW
06-22-2015, 09:40 PM
... My evidence is based on many years following DNA mutations, new findings while testing my own line and trying to connect all this information into a historical scenario that makes sense from my point of view.
That's very good. Would you mind sharing some of this evidence so we can understand? If P312 is really from Iberia, I really want to know that. I don't care either way. My wife is Hispanic. I've been to Spain several times and think it is great.

What evidence do you have that connects a P312 origin in Iberia or a P312 presence in pre-Bronze Age Iberia or whatever your position is?

TigerMW
06-22-2015, 09:44 PM
...
Can we disprove the hypothesis that "R1b is related to the occurance of Dolmens in many parts of the world" (obviously we would be looking back towards the root of R1b for some of the older locations). ...
Net Down, this is not ridicule but a sincere question and foray into logic.
We can't disprove a lot of things in this world beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just because we can't disprove some thing doesn't mean it is justifiable to spend much time on. Almost anything is possible.

R1b is very generic, so let us be specific and on topic. Similarly to what I ask of Isidro and Iberia - what is the evidence that P312 had anything to do with the Dolmens of Neolithic Europe?

razyn
06-22-2015, 10:02 PM
Its far easier to think that the R1b moves west started after L11/after 3000BC and that way retain some sort of logic in the branching sequence for IE and retain some possible archaeological matches for moves west (either Yamnaya and Corded Ware).

I feel your pain about that. The "Celtic from the West" notion has parsed the thin evidence in ways that appear to provide some tenuous support from the archaeology, but that may still be a house of cards. A little too much of it is speculative -- Oppenheimer's being seen to agree with Koch, etc. -- and then seeing what might have been dug up somewhere that could, from a certain point of view, support it.

I still think much more attention needs to be paid to hydrology, underwater archaeology, and other such evidence, that isn't wedded to ceramics from dry land digs near major rivers with outlets from the Rhine westward, or on Mediterranean coasts. Looking where you expect to find stuff is analogous to looking for Biblical proof texts, so one might preach against whatever happened last week in one's local congregation.

Whether the Volga, Vistula, Neva etc. are involved or not, they could at least be part of the conversation -- now that the map of R1b's archaeogenetically interesting places has shifted far enough eastward that those watersheds are at least visible on it. Migrants, trading parties, warriors or metal specialists from the Pontic-Caspian steppe did not have to limit their options to the Dniepr and Danube. If they were starting the journey from central or western Ukraine, that probably made sense. If it was from Armenia, or parts adjacent -- not so much. And especially if they were in a hurry, because of abrupt climate change or some other major disruption of the domestic economy around 2600 BC (or whenever -- that's just a date that is bandied about, by some who post here). A catastrophic event could also explain absence, or paucity, of the "thousands of kurgans" type evidence, archaeological horizons and so on, along such hypothetical water routes (north)westward.

And I've previously suggested that we need to pay some attention to the phylogeography of Caucasian grapes, and similar sources of alcohol -- beakers full of which might have facilitated things like trade negotiations (not to mention breeding success), as these guys rapidly made their way into western Europe. I actually think that would be more likely the story of Etruscan Z2103, but anyhow, something that should be examined.

Isidro
06-22-2015, 10:07 PM
That's very good. Would you mind sharing some of this evidence so we can understand? If P312 is really from Iberia, I really want to know that. I don't care either way. My wife is Hispanic. I've been to Spain several times and think it is great.

What evidence do you have that connects a P312 origin in Iberia or a P312 presence in pre-Bronze Age Iberia or whatever your position is?

I believe you did mention sometime ago about your wife being Hispanic, wonderful.
I did also married out of my culture, I consider myself at least by-cultural from an early age. I have learned to be opened to new ideas also since I adopted newer cultures as I was an adult.

I am not sure exactly what you are further asking of me about my evidence. Do you have a concrete question or you want me to go through what my mind process has done over the years and how I got to that position?.
My main post already has the main guidelines behind my reasoning.

Since it seems like you consider yourself an Hispanist I would be glad if you shared information from Iberia that point toward my enlightenment?.

Edit,
I will try to expand why I think is not just possible but quite probable. There is a lot to it but here is an attempt to give it consistency:


Iberia was a mini continent sort of speak in the times of smaller groups of people and societies during the 6000 BC Neolithic, 5000 and 4000 BC Megalithic, 3000 BC copper age, 2000 BC bronze age, 1000 iron age.

Jumping to where there is a mystery where S116 was in the bronze age, we have an environment like the south of Iberia where it has already gone through a Neolithic revolution, proven to have gone north at least to the Paris Basin.Later on , southern Iberia it also has gone through a copper era, associated with Bell Beakers like the ones found in ancient German DNA with S116.

As far as Western Europe north and south is concerned, the 4 revolutions Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Iberia has always been first.

This is just a surface inferences. We have to deal with demographics, archeological sites all over Europe at those crucial times... there is so much .

You do mention a couple of times about this second generation metallurgy. From what I infer from the study as it just says that the industry was successfully imported... the know how I suppose.
Perhaps you mean something else completely.

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 10:20 PM
Net Down, this is not ridicule but a sincere question and foray into logic.
We can't disprove a lot of things in this world beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just because we can't disprove some thing doesn't mean it is justifiable to spend much time on. Almost anything is possible.

R1b is very generic, so let us be specific and on topic. Similarly to what I ask of Isidro and Iberia - what is the evidence that P312 had anything to do with the Dolmens of Neolithic Europe?

I have not suggested P312 or Iberia. I have suggested primarily older snps as possible across the world. There is lots of evidence for R1b east and west throughout this thread - I do not propose to repeat it. The hypothesis is simple. Is there evidence for or against a Dolmen-R1b link across the rest of the world. If there is a persuasive link across the rest of the world....then why not Iberia/Atlantic coast. However, that is stage 2. Every other worldwide location I tested I found possible R1b evidence. I am interested in others testing the idea. Very happy to disprove it and move on. It may well help in pinning down 'migration 2' anyway.

Net Down G5L
06-22-2015, 10:48 PM
I have not suggested P312 or Iberia. I have suggested primarily older snps as possible across the world. There is lots of evidence for R1b east and west throughout this thread - I do not propose to repeat it. The hypothesis is simple. Is there evidence for or against a Dolmen-R1b link across the rest of the world. If there is a persuasive link across the rest of the world....then why not Iberia/Atlantic coast. However, that is stage 2. Every other worldwide location I tested I found possible R1b evidence. I am interested in others testing the idea. Very happy to disprove it and move on. It may well help in pinning down 'migration 2' anyway.

OK Mike,
I will give you a scenario for the Atlantic:

Migration 1 in France to Isles - LBK>RRBP>VSG >earliest 'house phase' Neolithic in the Isles. G2a dominated. Supp Diag 1 in Rivollat
Migration 2 Rossen>Cerny (Passy graves/monuments -to Morbihan dolmens etc) > early Dolmens and passage graves of Ireland, Scotland etc. Supp diag 2 in Rivollet 2015
http://http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0125521.s002 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0125521.s002)

Now Rossen is logged as Gimbutas' first Indo-European in Western Europe. What if the Rossen Indo-European element included R1b

Chad Rohlfsen
06-23-2015, 02:23 AM
OK Mike,
I will give you a scenario for the Atlantic:

Migration 1 in France to Isles - LBK>RRBP>VSG >earliest 'house phase' Neolithic in the Isles. G2a dominated. Supp Diag 1 in Rivollat
Migration 2 Rossen>Cerny (Passy graves/monuments -to Morbihan dolmens etc) > early Dolmens and passage graves of Ireland, Scotland etc. Supp diag 2 in Rivollet 2015
http://http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0125521.s002 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0125521.s002)

Now Rossen is logged as Gimbutas' first Indo-European in Western Europe. What if the Rossen Indo-European element included R1b

Rossen is going to be identical to other MN sites like Baalberge and Bernburg. It has no cultural or genetic affinity to Yamnaya.

razyn
06-23-2015, 02:24 AM
Had a little trouble figuring out what you are talking about (that url goes to an illustration, not a paper). But it seems to be mtDNA: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125521

TigerMW
06-23-2015, 02:52 AM
I have not suggested P312 or Iberia. I have suggested primarily older snps as possible across the world. There is lots of evidence for R1b east and west throughout this thread - I do not propose to repeat it. The hypothesis is simple. Is there evidence for or against a Dolmen-R1b link across the rest of the world. If there is a persuasive link across the rest of the world....then why not Iberia/Atlantic coast. However, that is stage 2. Every other worldwide location I tested I found possible R1b evidence. I am interested in others testing the idea. Very happy to disprove it and move on. It may well help in pinning down 'migration 2' anyway.
Rather than propose an hypothesis you ask a question and conclude the follow-on logic of "why not?". That is not logic. That is just wondering about what could be. That's okay, but not too useful. Perhaps that you would consider my statements as ridicule. I think it is just pragmatism.

In terms of P312, I see no evidence of a tie to Dolmens. That's it. I'm not sure what there is to explore about P312 and Dolmens without any evidence.

TigerMW
06-23-2015, 02:57 AM
... Now Rossen is logged as Gimbutas' first Indo-European in Western Europe. What if the Rossen Indo-European element included R1b


Rossen is going to be identical to other MN sites like Baalberge and Bernburg. It has no cultural or genetic affinity to Yamnaya.

I have to agree with Chad. I'm not familiar with any the link of Rossen to the Yamnaya. Rossen is a little early for the Yamnaya movements.

TigerMW
06-23-2015, 03:08 AM
I believe you did mention sometime ago about your wife being Hispanic, wonderful.
I did also married out of my culture, I consider myself at least by-cultural from an early age. I have learned to be opened to new ideas also since I adopted newer cultures as I was an adult.

I am not sure exactly what you are further asking of me about my evidence. Do you have a concrete question or you want me to go through what my mind process has done over the years and how I got to that position?.
My main post already has the main guidelines behind my reasoning.

Since it seems like you consider yourself an Hispanist I would be glad if you shared information from Iberia that point toward my enlightenment?.

Edit,
I will try to expand why I think is not just possible but quite probable. There is a lot to it but here is an attempt to give it consistency:


Iberia was a mini continent sort of speak in the times of smaller groups of people and societies during the 6000 BC Neolithic, 5000 and 4000 BC Megalithic, 3000 BC copper age, 2000 BC bronze age, 1000 iron age.

Jumping to where there is a mystery where S116 was in the bronze age, we have an environment like the south of Iberia where it has already gone through a Neolithic revolution, proven to have gone north at least to the Paris Basin.Later on , southern Iberia it also has gone through a copper era, associated with Bell Beakers like the ones found in ancient German DNA with S116.

As far as Western Europe north and south is concerned, the 4 revolutions Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Iberia has always been first.

This is just a surface inferences. We have to deal with demographics, archeological sites all over Europe at those crucial times... there is so much .

You do mention a couple of times about this second generation metallurgy. From what I infer from the study as it just says that the industry was successfully imported... the know how I suppose.
Perhaps you mean something else completely.
Just because I married an Hispanic doesn't mean I'm either Hispanic, an Hispanist or that I'm bi-cultural. It's quite difficult to describe American cultures with any singularity and too much discernment. My wife's culture is more "Air Force brat" than anything and mine is more "Plains farmer" than anything for whatever all of that is worth. I don't consider myself a bi-culturist. I am an individual, from America, if that is important culturally for those who care.

I'm just making the point I would be very happy of an L21 or P312 origin or launch point in Iberia. It's a wonderful place.

However, I just don't see any real evidence of P312 coming from Iberia and definitely not L21 coming from Iberia. It's hard to put U152, DF99 or DF19 as from Iberia either. DF27 is about about the only thing of real dispute but with DF27 spread all over Europe it's quite hard to make too much of the high population of DF27 in Iberia meaning that is the origin point.

Yes, as far as farming, metallurgy, etc. - I do NOT think Iberia was the originator of all of the innovations. Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers. There were multiple types of multiple eras. Metallurgy is not metallurgy is not metallurgy. There were different types of multiple eras.

Isidro
06-23-2015, 03:49 AM
Just because I married an Hispanic doesn't mean I'm either Hispanic, an Hispanist or that I'm bi-cultural. It's quite difficult to describe American cultures with any singularity and too much discernment. My wife's culture is more "Air Force brat" than anything and mine is more "Plains farmer" than anything for whatever all of that is worth. I don't consider myself a bi-culturist. I am an individual, from America, if that is important culturally for those who care.

I'm just making the point I would be very happy of an L21 or P312 origin or launch point in Iberia. It's a wonderful place.

However, I just don't see any real evidence of P312 coming from Iberia and definitely not L21 coming from Iberia. It's hard to put U152, DF99 or DF19 as from Iberia either. DF27 is about about the only thing of real dispute but with DF27 spread all over Europe it's quite hard to make too much of the high population of DF27 in Iberia meaning that is the origin point.

Yes, as far as farming, metallurgy, etc. - I do NOT think Iberia was the originator of all of the innovations. Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers. There were multiple types of multiple eras. Metallurgy is not metallurgy is not metallurgy. There were different types of multiple eras.

Fair enough, I was wrong considering you a Hispanist based on the definitions you pointed out and you saying so.

Based on my own cultural background I don't have a particular favorite scenario. To me, in our case R1b-S116 genetically speaking is just a tiny and very informative marker witness of all the events of the past.

Originator of innovations?.What do you mean?.It is a simple deduction that you can not invade someone that has more advanced technology and has a more organized and larger society,Iberian territories in this case.

TigerMW
06-23-2015, 04:21 AM
... Originator of innovations?.What do you mean?.It is a simple deduction that you can not invade someone that has more advanced technology and has a more organized and larger society,Iberian territories in this case.

That was just a response to your point.

... As far as Western Europe north and south is concerned, the 4 revolutions Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Iberia has always been first..

I don't at all agree that Iberia was first in these revolutions. I can understand your points on Cardial Wares, but on LBK farming, it clearly did not get to France from Iberia.

As far as livestock herding and dairying, I don't think Iberia was the leader. If you thing it was, please let us know.

As far as metallurgy, that was the point I was making about different types in different eras. The old Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP) spread throughout Europe but gave way to the the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) which would have come from Central Europe.
http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/149/150

I also disagree with the concept that a perceived "advanced culture" can not be over taken by a perceived "lesser culture." Literally the classic case is the Mycaneans (Indo-Europeans) over taking the Minoans in the Greek regions. There is a great deal of subjectivity in deciding who is most advanced.

This may be the theme for the Indo-Europeans all over. They were not necessarily the most advanced intellectually or from a civility point of view. However, they may have had the most advanced military concepts. I'm not saying it was pretty, milk drinking may have been important but it may not just have not been pretty.

Isidro
06-23-2015, 04:46 AM
That was just a response to your point.


I don't at all agree that Iberia was first in these revolutions. I can understand your points on Cardial Wares, but on LBK farming, it clearly did not get to France from Iberia.

As far as livestock herding and dairying, I don't think Iberia was the leader. If you thing it was, please let us know.

As far as metallurgy, that was the point I was making about different types in different eras. The old Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP) spread throughout Europe but gave way to the the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) which would have come from Central Europe.
http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/149/150

I also disagree with the concept that a perceived "advanced culture" can not be over taken by a perceived "lesser culture." Literally the classic case is the Mycaneans (Indo-Europeans) over taking the Minoans in the Greek regions. There is a great deal of subjectivity in deciding who is most advanced.

This may be the theme for the Indo-Europeans all over. They were not necessarily the most advanced intellectually or from a civility point of view. However, they may have had the most advanced military concepts. I'm not saying it was pretty, milk drinking may have been important but it may not just have not been pretty.

There is always the counterpoints.
I wish I had more time to cover and pursue leads to learn more about diverse subjects like pastoralism. I believe livestock mimicked the earlier spread to the West of the Neolithic through the Mediterranean.

Megalophias
06-23-2015, 05:44 AM
I have to agree with Chad. I'm not familiar with any the link of Rossen to the Yamnaya. Rossen is a little early for the Yamnaya movements.
In Gimbutas' model Yamnaya was the last of three waves coming from the east. Rossen would been influenced by the first wave in this theory (originating with Sredny Stog).