PDA

View Full Version : Am I DF27+?



BalkanKiwi
08-26-2015, 08:42 PM
Hi all,

Thanks to previous testing with Geno 2.0 and FTDNA, I already know I知 U106-, L21-, U152- and DF19-. On the advice from a few different people, I decided to order YSEQ tests for both DF27 and DF99 (this one being unlikely). After I ordered them the R1b Backbone SNP pack came which I ordered because the price was good, and in case I came back negative for DF27 as well.

I need some help interpreting YSEQs allele data which I知 not great at. I came back negative (I assume) for DF99 however I got my results for DF27 which is listed as A+. Does this mean I知 DF27+ or do I need more derived positive results?

This is my allele results table.

http://i.imgur.com/inLdH23l.png

REWM
08-26-2015, 08:53 PM
Yes you are DF27+

BalkanKiwi
08-26-2015, 09:07 PM
This is good news :beerchug:

Gray Fox
08-27-2015, 12:27 AM
This is good news :beerchug:

Indeed! Welcome to the club! :beerchug:

ADW_1981
08-27-2015, 12:36 AM
I think we're more numerous than the L21+ and U152+ groups, but I'm a little curious.

BalkanKiwi
08-27-2015, 02:48 AM
Indeed! Welcome to the club! :beerchug:

Thanks for having me :D. Is Iberia the general consensus of where DF27 originated from? According to the heat map on Eupedia, Basque Country and the peninsula of Spain are quite DF27 populated. If that's the case its amusing both my paternal and maternal haplogroups originated from Iberia, particularly from that region.

razyn
08-27-2015, 04:28 AM
Is Iberia the general consensus of where DF27 originated from?

That is an opinion shared by many, not including this administrator of the R1b-DF27 and Subclades haplogroup project. It came into fashion about fourteen years ago in the context of some imaginative speculation about Iberian refugees during the last Ice Age, several thousand years before there was a DF27 mutation, or any influx of R1b-P312 people (from no farther west than Hungary) into western Europe. Technically DF27 itself wasn't discovered until the fall of 2011; but the story had already been written, and the new haplogroup name was just inserted. Meanwhile, the Basque Marker M153 (a not very old subclade, about nine steps below DF27) was being tested by P312* people who didn't know better -- with these results (per YBrowse):

5691

I never know if these image things are going to work -- anyway, 32 positive out of 3840 tests for it. Not a great return on investment for the other 3,808 guys. There are, of course, arguments to be made for the other side. If they ever get any serious evidence, especially from Iberian ancient DNA, it will be welcomed in the DF27 project.

GoldenHind
08-27-2015, 05:20 AM
I think we're more numerous than the L21+ and U152+ groups, but I'm a little curious.

This is my suspicion as well. DF27 has many disadvantages in correctly determining its size. It was discovered much later than L21 and U152, wasn't included in the old R1b deep clade test, nor in Geno 2, the new R1b backbone test or even the Big Y (though most of what appear to be its most common subclades are). Also DF27 appears to be more common on the continent than in the British Isles, which forms by far the largest component of the FTDNA database.

This is a neutral opinion by one who is neither DF27, U152 nor L21, and hence has no dog in the hunt.

Lugus
08-27-2015, 07:06 AM
If indeed DF27 is 4600 years old, it couldn't have originated in the Iberian Peninsula, as there were no Indo-European populations there at the time. They only started arriving towards the end of bronze age, around the 13th century BC. The Celtic tribes that lived in the Iberian Peninsula just before the Romans arrived show signs of being culturally connected to the world above the Pyrenees and not with the Mediterranean coast. My guess is that DF27 originated somewhere in what is now France or perhaps Switzerland in some Proto-Celtic tribe or clan that eventually migrated south in several waves. Groups and individuals of that original tribe went west or dispersed in other directions after joining other tribes or forming their own clans.

It would be interesting to have statistics about the absolute numbers of members of each subclade. DF27 is relatively heavier in the Iberian Peninsula, but is it there where most of its absolute numbers are?

BalkanKiwi
08-27-2015, 07:44 AM
If indeed the DF27 is 4600 years old, it couldn't have originated in the Iberian Peninsula, as there were no Indo-European populations there at the time. They only started arriving towards the end of bronze age, around the 13th century BC. The Celtic tribes that lived in the Iberian Peninsula just before the Romans arrived show signs of being culturally connected to the world above the Pyrenees and not with the Mediterranean coast. My guess is that DF27 originated somewhere in what is now France or perhaps Switzerland in some Proto-Celtic tribe or clan that eventually migrated south in several waves. Groups and individuals of that original tribe went west or dispersed in other directions after joining other tribes or forming their own clans.

It would be interesting to have statistics about the absolute numbers of members of each subclade. DF27 is relatively heavier in the Iberian Peninsula, but is it there where most of its absolute numbers are?

Intriguing. So basically, the assumption so far that Iberia is the origin is because DF27 is present in a large number of the population? If that is the case, is it ever going to possible to nail down a realistic region of origin (even with ancient DNA)?

Gray Fox
08-27-2015, 09:07 AM
Intriguing. So basically, the assumption so far that Iberia is the origin is because DF27 is present in a large number of the population? If that is the case, is it ever going to possible to nail down a realistic region of origin (even with ancient DNA)?

I hope that razyn doesn't mind my quoting of a previous post of his, but I feel his expertise on the subject is warranted here. I figure the post itself would be better than me parroting his thoughts, which incidentally I share, but his execution is much more precise!

"My model has DF27 doing pretty much what the rest of P312 was doing, including going up and down the Danube and several other large rivers -- not to mention the Gulf of Finland, or whatever else floats my boat. After it got to Iberia, whenever that was (we patiently await a richer aDNA atlas), it certainly had some breeding success; but not necessarily from its ur-form until the present. Some of DF27's most prolific subclades in Iberia are quite young; and some of his oldest subclades are quite eastern (and/or northern). Deducing that DF27 is an Iberian haplogroup, based on its present high percentage in the population there, is a kind of post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic applied to the peopling of Europe, with hoc being the birth (and birthplace) of Mr. DF27. Sometimes, that sort of argument can happen to be right, but the logic is nonetheless flawed."

Also check out these threads for discussion on DF27 and its associations with ancient cultures..

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4801-The-Dogma-of-the-Iberian-Origin-of-Bell-Beaker-Attempting-its-Deconstruction

Lugus
08-27-2015, 10:27 AM
Intriguing. So basically, the assumption so far that Iberia is the origin is because DF27 is present in a large number of the population? If that is the case, is it ever going to possible to nail down a realistic region of origin (even with ancient DNA)?

We need more research about P312, more Next-Gen Sequencing and crucially much more high resolution aDNA from Iberia and elsewhere.

BalkanKiwi
08-27-2015, 10:28 AM
I'm in two minds about finding out my haplogroup. Its been a year and a bit since I started DNA testing and its taking me this long to identify it. In that time I've wondered about where my paternal line originated from, and to then find my group which doesn't have a clear origin yet is a bit disappointing. I have a keen interest in geography which is the principal reason for my eagerness to identify it.

Maybe in time the geography question will be answered.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 11:59 AM
If indeed DF27 is 4600 years old, it couldn't have originated in the Iberian Peninsula, as there were no Indo-European populations there at the time.

What makes you think that? There are place-names in Iberia that appear closer to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) than any daughter language. PIE cannot have been spoken after about 2500 BC, when it had broken up into daughter languages. So places with these early names are a clue to the earliest waves from the steppe - the vanguard, if you like. Later IE waves brought first stage daughter languages, and in many places, later ones yet brought specific languages within the major branches of IE. So place-name experts can see a kind of linguistic layer cake. That is certainly the case in Iberia.

You may be thinking of certain theories about the arrival of Celtic in Iberia. For the latest ideas see https://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/index.html

Jean M
08-27-2015, 12:25 PM
Not that I insist that DF27 was actually born in Iberia. We will never know the exact point on the map that any haplogroup arose for the first time in just one person. For all I know that person was born in the Carpathian Basin, but decided to trek to the Alps or the Po Valley and his male descendants decided to trek to Iberia, but keeping in touch with the Carpathian Basin homeland, where at least one settled, and his descendants moved north with Bell Beaker.

Fortunately, for the purposes of genetic genealogy, we do not need to know where DF27 was born, but where your particular subclade is found today. That will be more informative in tracing ancestry.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 01:16 PM
If indeed DF27 is 4600 years old, it couldn't have originated in the Iberian Peninsula, as there were no Indo-European populations there at the time. They only started arriving towards the end of bronze age, around the 13th century BC.

But what makes you think that DF27 was being spread by Indo-European speakers?

Languages of pre-Roman Iberia:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1655-R1b-in-North-Africans&p=103534&viewfull=1#post103534

1) Non-Indo-European:

Iberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_language
Tartessian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessian_language
Turdetanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani
Aquitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitanian_language
Basque - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Basque_language

2) Non-Celtic Indo-European:

Lusitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanian_language
Sorothaptic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorothaptic_language

3) Celtic Indo-European:

Celtiberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language
Gallaecian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaecian_language

Map of linguistic groups in pre-Roman Iberia (before the adoption of Latin language):
(eastern, north-eastern and southern parts of Iberia were inhabited by Non-Indo-Europeans in historical times):

http://www.arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi150dpi.jpg

http://s15.postimg.org/u5erkxiyj/Non_IE_Iberia.png

And if Eupedia's map is right, then DF27 seems to correlate with Ancient Non-IE areas:
(higher frequencies of DF27 in the east, in the north-east and in the south - thus in historically Non-IE areas):

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.gif

http://s8.postimg.org/3s0xn53ol/DF27.png

DF27 is the most common subclade among Basque-speakers (71,5% of rural Basques have DF27):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1655-R1b-in-North-Africans&p=104737&viewfull=1#post104737

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Valverde.et.al.2015_Table-S1-Modified_zpsh2bq4v3h.jpg

And the same data here:

http://oi57.tinypic.com/vy2qly.jpg

===========================

And here a thread about R1b-M269 (unknown subclades) among Berber-speaking Guanches of the Canary Islands:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31520-10-of-R1b-M269-among-aboriginals-of-Canary-Islands-%28Guanches%29?p=465017&viewfull=1#post465017

E1b1b1b* M81 ---- 8 ---- 26,67%
E1b1b1a* M78 ---- 7 ---- 23,33%
J1* M267 -------- 5 ---- 16,67%
R1b1b2 M269 --- 3 --- 10,00%
K* M9 ----------- 3 ---- 10,00%
I* M170 --------- 2 ---- 6,67%
E1a* M33 -------- 1 ---- 3,33%
P* M45 ---------- 1 ---- 3,33%

Source: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf

These samples are not so old (from period ca. 270 BC - ca. 1325 AD), but pre-conquest.

The Canary Islands were conquered by the Crown of Castille in years 1402 - 1496 AD.

Isidro
08-27-2015, 01:24 PM
That is an opinion shared by many, not including this administrator of the R1b-DF27 and Subclades haplogroup project. It came into fashion about fourteen years ago in the context of some imaginative speculation about Iberian refugees during the last Ice Age, several thousand years before there was a DF27 mutation, or any influx of R1b-P312 people (from no farther west than Hungary) into western Europe. Technically DF27 itself wasn't discovered until the fall of 2011; but the story had already been written, and the new haplogroup name was just inserted. Meanwhile, the Basque Marker M153 (a not very old subclade, about nine steps below DF27) was being tested by P312* people who didn't know better -- with these results (per YBrowse):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5691&stc=1

I never know if these image things are going to work -- anyway, 32 positive out of 3840 tests for it. Not a great return on investment for the other 3,808 guys. There are, of course, arguments to be made for the other side. If they ever get any serious evidence, especially from Iberian ancient DNA, it will be welcomed in the DF27 project.

Using the Basque Marker M153 for many P312* was certainly a dead end investment and for sure it didn't prove a Paleolithic origin in the "Iberian refugees" region, nor DF27, or P312 or M269 etc.

I don't know if using this information has any weight in it's origin. Serious evidence is what we need, and self defining evidence is even better compared to using how the other side's arguments nullity.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 01:36 PM
Paleolithic theory based on Basques was rubbish since the beginning.

Everyone knows that Proto-Basque language is not from hunter-gatherers.

Proto-Basque language could arrive with Neolithic farmers, but no earlier.

And it could arrive even later - but not later than IE, in my opinion.

razyn
08-27-2015, 02:32 PM
Fortunately, for the purposes of genetic genealogy, we do not need to know where DF27 was born, but where your particular subclade is found today. That will be more informative in tracing ancestry.

I certainly agree with that, to the extent that "genealogy" is an exercise in fine-tuning some sort of "us" versus "them," often at the level of surnames -- and in its more generalized forms at the level of things like Irish clans, religious denominations, residence in modern nation-states, recent subsets of fairly ancient language families, and other collective group identities that are substantially younger (sometimes, by orders of magnitude) than a big, old haplogroup such as DF27.

But the question to which I responded -- posed by the OP of this thread -- was
Is Iberia the general consensus of where DF27 originated from? His more specific interests (in geography, hints of Basque ancestry, and so on) are not imbedded in that question about consensus, which I attempted to answer. Looking at the little flags under his name I see Ukraine, Poland, Sweden, and other non-Iberian, non-Basque, Indo-European language speaking places that also have had DF27 in the population for a few thousand years, give or take.

Sometime within those several millennia -- not necessarily at their dawn -- descendants of some branches of DF27 have, in and near Iberia, apparently out-bred the descendants of most other YDNA haplogroups of similar age. We are in the early days of working out any consensus about where the DF27 level (and its brother U152, btw) became detached, or distinguishable, from other ancient sons of P312, grandsons of L11, etc.

If you would like a more general (broadly sampled) and current tree of DF27 overall, look here: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29

More to the point, in that tree look at the pink backgrounds -- it means "analysis incomplete" but most of those are from the 1000 Genomes project (not very recent NextGen sequencing such as BigY and FGC Elite); and most of the samples from that source also have the flags of Iberian countries, or their colonies farther west. There are subclades of DF27, some of them quite populous, that are strong in (or nearly exclusive to) Iberia. From present evidence, Iberian strength is obvious in Z225, DF81, DF79 and other clades that are fairly recently discovered. More generally, as one goes higher on the tree one is increasingly likely to find a branch that apparently proliferated in Iberia, and a parallel branch that apparently did not. Examples of this might include Z295 (in the "North/South Cluster"), the Z216 branch of which is clearly the Iberian one; Z198, Z2552 and others with a similar pattern in antiquity may be distinguished. Farther up the tree (closer to its trunk, and its roots) the pattern looks less, not more, Iberian.

The jury is still out, and consensus has not been reached. But ancient DNA is more likely to resolve questions of this nature than is non-random testing of its identifiable survivors, in some but not other modern populations.

ADW_1981
08-27-2015, 04:31 PM
Paleolithic theory based on Basques was rubbish since the beginning.

Everyone knows that Proto-Basque language is not from hunter-gatherers.

Proto-Basque language could arrive with Neolithic farmers, but no earlier.

And it could arrive even later - but not later than IE, in my opinion.

We know both Z2103 and L51 don't correlate at all with the Neolithic and this is based on 50+ Y samples. Unless there is a different type of Neolithic that has some different origin... If M269 is found in that sample, it would require an explanation as to why M269+ is about 50% in most of the densely populated regions of Europe, and the 50+ Y Neolithic samples are nearly non-existant today in the same regions where they were found.

Aquitanian and Basque are very close languages, so I would treat this as a single entity rather than 2 distinct ones. It's possible that in Roman times DF27+ was already heavy in this population, it wouldn't make M269 non-PIE originally. Gauls were Celtic speaking and most definitely rich in DF27.

Lugus
08-27-2015, 04:42 PM
What makes you think that? There are place-names in Iberia that appear closer to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) than any daughter language. PIE cannot have been spoken after about 2500 BC, when it had broken up into daughter languages. So places with these early names are a clue to the earliest waves from the steppe - the vanguard, if you like. Later IE waves brought first stage daughter languages, and in many places, later ones yet brought specific languages within the major branches of IE. So place-name experts can see a kind of linguistic layer cake. That is certainly the case in Iberia.

And those waves coming at different times were all DF27s? There's hardly anything else in Iberia and what there is is more recent. In other words there isn't much P312 variety let alone R1b, which fits more a cul-de-sac end of the wave scenario than a layered cake (in which all its layers would taste the same). The Iberian Celts (+Lusitanians) lived in less good, left over areas of the Peninsula, which suggests they were late comers. Also the archaeological evidence says the same (recent arrivals). I remember reading as a kid Strabo's description of the Lusitanians and thinking how different they were from us: living inland, far from the sea, eating acorn bread and butter and drinking beer - instead of wheat bread, olive oil and wine. Not very Mediterranean and apparently scared of water (but they did cross the strait to plunder in N. Africa).


You may be thinking of certain theories about the arrival of Celtic in Iberia. For the latest ideas see https://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/...ol6/index.html

The problem with those articles is that their authors ignore completely genetic genealogy, but from what I remember they also seem to believe that Indo-European Iberia was a relatively recent phenomenon. The older thesis was that the original neolithic Iberians had somehow been celtisied, but that would leave us without an explanation for all the R1bs.

ADW_1981
08-27-2015, 04:47 PM
And those waves coming at different times were all DF27s? There's hardly anything else in Iberia and what there is is more recent. In other words there isn't much P312 variety let alone R1b, which fits more a cul-de-sac end of the wave scenario than a layered cake (in which all its layers would taste the same). The Iberian Celts (+Lusitanians) lived in less good, left over areas of the Peninsula, which suggests they were late comers. Also the archaeological evidence says the same (recent arrivals). I remember reading as a kid Strabo's description of the Lusitanians and thinking how different they were from us: living inland, far from the sea, eating acorn bread and butter and drinking bear - instead of wheat bread, olive oil and wine. Not very Mediterranean and apparently scared of water (but they did cross the strait to plunder in N. Africa).



The problem with those articles is that their authors ignore completely genetic genealogy, but from what I remember they also seem to believe that Indo-European Iberia was a relatively recent phenomenon. The older thesis was that the original neolithic Iberians had somehow been celtisied, but that would leave us without an explanation for all the R1bs.

If no additional aDNA is forthcoming from Iberia then the best method is a process of elimination and identify the non-R1b groups. If I recall correctly, these mostly fall into E1b1b1, G2, and J2 buckets, find where they are maximum and see if you can identify a pattern with some of the settlements. The 2000+ Iberian surname is a good set to start with, but I think that was only certain provinces...

Jean M
08-27-2015, 04:48 PM
But the question to which I responded -- posed by the OP of this thread -- was
Is Iberia the general consensus of where DF27 originated from?

I know. And, as you say, it is impossible to answer.

We have seen the same problem with many other haplogroups. The innocent question of a new arrival to a forum will be "where does my haplogroup come from?" Then usually there will be some huge argument over the deep origins of the haplogroup, back in the Palaeolithic, Neolithic or whatever, which just confuses the issue for the newcomer, who often just wants to know "what part of [Europe/Asia/etc] did my ancestor with this haplogroup come from, when he arrived in [US/Canada/Australia/South America/etc]?" Now that we can get down to specific subclades closer to our own time than the Neolithic or the Bronze Age, DNA can help to firm up what may be known from surnames, if the enquirer has hit a brick wall on the paper trail.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 05:04 PM
And those waves coming at different times were all DF27s?

We don't know, but it seems unlikely. Frankly all we have at the moment is a lot of speculation. I may guess that P312 of some variety formed part of all the IE waves, but for all I know the few very early arrivals happened to carry a Neolithic-type haplogroup. I may guess that some U152 arrived in Iberia with Ligurian-speakers in the late Bronze Age, and other U152 with Gaulish-speakers (just prior to or during the Roman period). I may guess that some of the L21 in Iberia arrived in the Late Bronze Age with Atlantic trade, and some far later with British settlement. But until we have ancient DNA, we simply do not know.

Lugus
08-27-2015, 05:08 PM
But what makes you think that DF27 was being spread by Indo-European speakers?

Who else could have spread it? Who did then spread the Indo-European languages? I agree that the Basques "spoil" all the theories. I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for the only non-Indo-European language in W. Europe to have been preserved by a massively R1b population.


And if Eupedia's map is right, then DF27 seems to correlate with Ancient Non-IE areas:
(higher frequencies of DF27 in the east, in the north-east and in the south - thus in historically Non-IE areas):

Eupedia's map is probably as good as the other maps I've seen (and I've seen different ones), which means it's only a good guess. DF27 is a dark area in R1b research and we just need a lot more information. Besides, the Iberian Peninsula went through a lot in the last 3000 years - and I'm thinking especially about the Muslim invasion and the Reconquista - and therefore I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from present distributions of haplogroups.

Lugus
08-27-2015, 05:16 PM
We don't know, but it seems unlikely. Frankly all we have at the moment is a lot of speculation. I may guess that P312 of some variety formed part of all the IE waves, but for all I know the few very early arrivals happened to carry a Neolithic-type haplogroup. I may guess that some U152 arrived in Iberia with Ligurian-speakers in the late Bronze Age, and other U152 with Gaulish-speakers (just prior to or during the Roman period). I may guess that some of the L21 in Iberia arrived in the Late Bronze Age with Atlantic trade, and some far later with British settlement. But until we have ancient DNA, we simply do not know.

I also don't know and no one knows but it's still fun to hear different ideas ;)

Jean M
08-27-2015, 05:19 PM
...from what I remember they also seem to believe that Indo-European Iberia was a relatively recent phenomenon. The older thesis was that the original neolithic Iberians had somehow been celtisied, but that would leave us without an explanation for all the R1bs.

It has been the same story of confusion over the Celts in the British Isles. Archaeologists went from arguing that the Celtic languages spread in the Iron Age to the anti-migrationist view that nobody moved around in prehistory after the Mesolithic, so the Celtic languages must have spread in some mysterious way not involving anybody actually moving from A to B. Now that anti-migrationist dogma is dissolving, a number of archaeologists in both Iberia and the British Isles have begun to point to Bell Beaker as the most likely vector for Celtic. It covers the right territory. Not that it is quite that simple. See my forthcoming book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Celts-The-Ancestral-Story/dp/0500051836

Jean M
08-27-2015, 05:23 PM
I also don't know and no one knows but it's still fun to hear different ideas ;)

You are in the right place for that. ;)

rms2
08-27-2015, 05:23 PM
Who else could have spread it? Who did then spread the Indo-European languages? I agree that the Basques "spoil" all the theories. I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for the only non-Indo-European language in W. Europe to have been preserved by a massively R1b population . . .

Here's what I believe happened with the Basques. Originally their y-dna profile was predominantly I-M26, which still persists among them at a respectable frequency. Over time, their y-dna profile came to resemble that of their Indo-European-speaking neighbors by means of admixture. Something similar occurred with the Ossetians, who speak an Indo-European language, carry remnant percentages of R1b and R1a, yet whose y-dna profile resembles that of their Caucasian-speaking neighbors (i.e., predominantly G2a).

Some scholars claim to see a resemblance between Euskara, the language of the Basques, and Paleo-Sardinian, also called Nuragic. I-M26 reaches its maximum frequency in Sardinia, and, as I already mentioned, it is still found among the Basques at about 9% or 10%.

I read somewhere that the Basques have or at least once had a matrilocal marriage tradition. Grooms who go to live with the bride's family would be obligated to learn the bride's language, and the children would be raised speaking their mother's language. Such a system is tailor made for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the simultaneous preservation of the maternal language. Thus a switch in y-dna profile could take place without a concomitant alteration in language.

Jean M
08-27-2015, 05:24 PM
Eupedia's map is probably as good as the other maps I've seen (and I've seen different ones), which means it's only a good guess. DF27 is a dark area in R1b research and we just need a lot more information. Besides, the Iberian Peninsula went through a lot in the last 3000 years - and I'm thinking especially about the Muslim invasion and the Reconquista - and therefore I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from present distributions of haplogroups.

So sensible.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 05:35 PM
But what makes you think that DF27 was being spread by Indo-European speakers?

Who else could have spread it? Who did then spread the Indo-European languages? I agree that the Basques "spoil" all the theories. I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for the only non-Indo-European language in W. Europe to have been preserved by a massively R1b population.


And if Eupedia's map is right, then DF27 seems to correlate with Ancient Non-IE areas:
(higher frequencies of DF27 in the east, in the north-east and in the south - thus in historically Non-IE areas):

Eupedia's map is probably as good as the other maps I've seen (and I've seen different ones), which means it's only a good guess. DF27 is a dark area in R1b research and we just need a lot more information.

We might be too much fixated over an idea, that languages are always spread by paternal lineages. What if in many cases languages are spread by maternal lineages? Who was bringing up children?

Mothers and fathers are bringing up children together, not just fathers.

A good example is modern Paraguay:

What is Paraguayan Y-DNA? Mostly Spanish haplogroups. What has been the main language of Paraguay? Mostly Guarani. What is their mtDNA? Mostly Native American, Guarani-specific haplogroups.

Here is a rather good text about this:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~munia/475/Presentations/Argentinabrief_history.pdf


(...) Only one beleaguered indigenous group found it expeditious to help the Spaniards.
After losing a battle against another small Spanish party from Buenos
Aires, the agricultural Guaran of what is now Paraguay accepted the
Spaniards as great warriors and allies in their own struggles with the
surrounding bands. The Guaran assisted the Spaniards of the Mendoza
expedition in founding Asuncin in 1537. It was to be the first perma-
nent Spanish settlement in the Ro de la Plata, as within four years, the
remaining 350 inhabitants of Buenos Aires abandoned the settlement
and moved to Asuncin. Since there were only four Spanish women
in Asuncin, the Spanish men emulated the native leaders and took
Guaran women to serve them as concubines, servants, and food suppli-
ers. Guaran chieftains were made to offer their daughters to Spaniards
in exchange for a military alliance against native enemies.

Having found no gold, the Spaniards adopted the native custom and
acquired the work of the indigenous women as a sign of wealth. “It is
the women who sow and reap the crop,” one Spaniard observed (Service
1954, 35). Their children were mestizo (of mixed Native American and
European ancestry) and grew up speaking Guaran rather than Spanish;
however, these first-generation mestizos came to see themselves as
European and remained loyal to the king of Spain. Eventually, the
first- and second-generation mestizos became the gentry of Paraguay,
and in the decades following the abandonment of Buenos Aires, they
provided the leadership for the numerous military expeditions against
neighboring Indian groups, gaining greater wealth and status with the
number of Indian slaves captured in battle.

Settler Politics and Society
Pedro de Mendoza died on his return voyage to Spain, and in his place
the king dispatched チlvar Nez Cabeza de Vaca to govern the small landlocked
colony of Paraguay. Paraguay originally referred to the Spanish-held area around Asuncin.
In the following centuries the term was extended to encompass territories to the
north and at various times included regions beyond the boundaries of the modern-day
nation of the same name.) Cabeza de Vaca was famous for his earlier
adventures as one of only three survivors of Juan Ponce de Len’s
expedition to Florida and the Mississippi River; after being stranded in
a shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico, Cabeza de Vaca had walked across
Texas and Mexico all the way to Mexico City.

Cabeza de Vaca brought more European settlers, all male. Together
the Spaniards and Guaran warriors subdued rival tribes in the sur-
rounding territory, but in an attempt to cross the Chaco region, Cabeza
de Vaca nearly exhausted the resources of Asuncin. Meanwhile, the
settlers belatedly learned that Pizarro had already claimed the wealth
of the Inca. Subsequently, because it was a land with no gold, Paraguay
lost its attractiveness for Spanish immigration, and few additional
Europeans arrived to challenge the influence of the original settlers.
Dissension nonetheless broke out among members of the Spanish
and mestizo community, many of whom disliked Governor Cabeza de
Vaca. At issue was the division of the dwindling number of Guaran.

Soon after the Europeans arrived, diseases previously unknown to the
American natives ravaged the indigenous population. Mestizos gained
the immunities to European diseases from their fathers, and their
population in Paraguay expanded as the number of Guaran women
and servants declined precipitously. In the semitropical environment of
Paraguay, the native death rates from successive epidemics of smallpox,
influenza, and other diseases rose to 40 percent within just one decade.
For this very reason slaving expeditions were sent out to replenish the
numbers of indigenous servants and concubines of the Spaniards and
later of the mestizo gentry.

The economic crisis caused by the decline of the Guaran population
and the unpopularity of Governor Cabeza de Vaca spurred a faction of
Spanish settlers to mount the first coup d’騁at in the Ro de la Plata.
The victorious faction returned Cabeza de Vaca to Spain in chains. A
veteran of the original Mendoza expedition, Domingo de Irala became
governor. The Guaran too had grown desperate by their situation, rav-
aged by disease and the excessive Spanish demands for Indian servants,
female labor, and foodstuffs. A number of Guaran rebelled against the
Spaniards in 1545, but the settler community put down the uprising
with the aid of “loyal” Indians.

In the relative poverty of Paraguay, the settlers enjoyed political
autonomy from Spain and freely established a social system to their
own liking. Governor Irala divided the Guaran into
encomiendas (grants of Indian labor and tribute) among the individual Spanish set-
tlers. These encomiendas became a kind of permanent serfdom for the
indigenous peoples under Spanish rule. Spaniards in Asuncin passed
these grants on to their mestizo sons.

Succeeding generations of mestizos moved from Asuncin to establish other towns and other
encomiendas on the frontiers of Paraguay. Decline of the Guaran population,
however, reduced the original size of the encomiendas, and by 1600, a mere 3,000 Indians
remained in Asuncin. The encomiendas tended therefore to involve personal labor
more than tribute, giving the settlers in Paraguay a reputation for laziness.
“Having plenty of all things good to eat and drink,” one observer said with some exaggeration,
“they give themselves up to ease and idleness, and don’t much trouble themselves
with trading at all” (du Biscay 1968, 11).

The Paraguayan settlers nonetheless desired the European goods
symbolic of their rank and sought to reestablish the river link to the
estuary of the Ro de la Plata. The mestizo citizens of Asuncin took
it upon themselves to establish the river port of Santa Fe in 1573,
and in 1580, they went downriver again to the estuary of the Ro de
la Plata. Mestizos of relatively high social status in Paraguay figured
prominently among the 75 founders of the second permanent settle-
ment of Buenos Aires. They were led by Juan de Garay, a Paraguayan
descendant of one of the original members of Mendoza’s expedition
of 44 years before. (...)

Maybe DF27 was initially a small group of PIE males (without many females) in Iberia.

Maybe they allied themselves with one of local tribes in a similar way as Spaniards did with Guarani. Maybe descendants of those mixed couples spoke local Non-IE, just like Paraguayans spoke Guarani.

So it is possible that DF27 was being spread in Iberia by Non-Indo-European speakers.

rms2
08-27-2015, 05:48 PM
. . .

So it is possible that DF27 was being spread in Iberia by Non-Indo-European speakers.

That strikes me as incredibly unlikely.

Ultimately, Indo-European prevailed in Iberia in the form of various Celtiberian dialects, and R1b-DF27 likewise prevailed. Thus far, the ancient y-dna and linguistic evidence suggest that the arrival in Western Europe of R1b-M269 and Indo-European languages occurred at the same time, i.e., Late Neolithic - Early Bronze Age. It is reasonable to conclude that the two arrived together, that is, it was Indo-European speakers who brought R1b-M269, including R1b-DF27, to Western Europe.

Does it seem likely that R1b-DF27 spread both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages in Iberia? Since it was on the winning side of demographics there, isn't it also very likely DF27 was on the winning side when it came to linguistics, as well?

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 05:51 PM
That strikes me as incredibly unlikely.

Above I quoted a text citing "an incredibly unlikely" case of Paraguay.

Spanish men married Guarani women, and adopted their Non-Indo-European language.

What makes you think that a similar story was impossible in Iberia ???


Ultimately, Indo-European prevailed in Iberia in the form of various Celtiberian dialects

Indo-European prevailed in Iberia only after the Roman conquest - it was Latin. And that took place without much of a population replacement, because Iberian Y-DNA is not like Italian.

In 200 BC the population of Iberia was divided roughly 50/50 for IE and Non-IE speakers.

It is even possible, that Non-IE speakers were more numerous as they inhabited coastal regions.

And coastal regions usually tend to be more densely populated than inland regions.

razyn
08-27-2015, 06:01 PM
Does it seem likely that R1b-DF27 spread both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages in Iberia?

I don't think Tomenable exactly suggested that. More like, R1b-DF27 made babies with lot of local Euskara speakers, whose kids of both genders spoke the mother tongue. Like the Guarani speakers in Paraguay. So then, sure -- R1b-DF27 guys were (in their respective enclaves, depending on where they settled after coming west from the steppe) spreading dialects from both language families.

There's also an old theory that Euskara linguistic origins are Caucasian. Not my theory, btw. I am responsible for only a tiny fraction either of the craziness or the wisdom on the World Wide Web.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 06:03 PM
It is also probable that migrating PIEs brought with them diseases previously unknown in Western Europe. For instance, some diseases contracted from animals domesticated by PIEs, but unknown to Neolithic farmers. Similar case was in Paraguay and it helped Spanish Y-DNA in expanding, as mixed children acquired immunity from fathers. Diseases which raged in America after 1492 are also animal-derived. For example human smallpox first emerged ca. 10,000 BC and it was originally contracted from domesticated animals (cows?).

Native Americans didn't have cows so they didn't have smallpox and did not develop immunity.

One particular animal that PIEs did have but Non-IE farmers didn't, was - for example - horse.

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:11 PM
Above I quoted a text citing "an incredibly unlikely" case of Paraguay.

Spanish men married Guarani women, and adopted their Non-Indo-European language.

What makes you think that a similar story was impossible in Iberia ???

Something like that did happen - among the Basques.

I don't think that case can be extrapolated to all of Iberia, a place where we know both Indo-European and DF27 came to prevail.

The Iberians are thought to have arrived in Iberia during the Neolithic. There is no evidence that any kind of R1b-M269 was present in Western Europe until the Late Neolithic.

Why would we see R1b-P312 (of which R1b-DF27 is a subclade) as Indo-European elsewhere in Europe but non-Indo-European in Iberia? If Indo-European languages were never spoken in Iberia in ancient times, that might make sense; otherwise, well , it does not.




Indo-European prevailed in Iberia only after the Roman conquest - it was Latin. And that took place without much of a population replacement, because Iberian Y-DNA is not like Italian.

In 200 BC the population of Iberia was divided roughly 50/50 for IE and Non-IE speakers.

If the Iberians arrived in Iberia during the Neolithic, and there is no evidence DF27 did, then theirs was a retracting zone, while that of the Celtic-speaking "Celtiberians" was growing.

If the non-IE Iberians were predominantly DF27, who introduced Indo-European speech to Iberia?

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 06:15 PM
Why would we see R1b-P312 (of which R1b-DF27 is a subclade) as Indo-European

To be honest - we do not have L51 or P312 from Yamnaya. Most of Yamnaya R1b found so far is Z2103. And all of it is L51- (negative). Now taking into account that we consider Yamnaya as THE original PIE (not as one of branches of PIE) - what evidence do we have that L51 or P312 was originally PIE? So far Yamnaya Y-DNA does not look like it could be ancestral to L51. Rather, it looks like a related cousin branch.

Oh and we also have one sample of I2a2a1b1b2 from Yamnaya culture.

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:16 PM
I don't think Tomenable exactly suggested that. More like, R1b-DF27 made babies with lot of local Euskara speakers, whose kids of both genders spoke the mother tongue. Like the Guarani speakers in Paraguay. So then, sure -- R1b-DF27 guys were (in their respective enclaves, depending on where they settled after coming west from the steppe) spreading dialects from both language families.

There's also an old theory that Euskara linguistic origins are Caucasian. Not my theory, btw. I am responsible for only a tiny fraction either of the craziness or the wisdom on the World Wide Web.

I understood what he was saying. I just don't think it makes any sense when it comes to the Iberians in general. That did happen with the Basques, IMHO, because I think we see it, but the Basques are a small, relatively isolated population. As I mentioned earlier, we also have the example of the Ossetians, who have come to have a y-dna profile that is like those of their Caucasian-speaking neighbors, though they themselves speak an Indo-European language.

It doesn't seem likely to me that DF27 replaced the y-dna profile of the Iberians and then fought against the IE-speaking branches of itself for supremacy in Iberia.

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:19 PM
To be honest - we do not have L51 or P312 from Yamnaya. Most of Yamnaya R1b found so far is Z2103. And all of it is L51- (negative). Now taking into account that we consider Yamnaya as THE original PIE (not as one of branches of PIE) - what evidence do we have that L51 or P312 was originally Indo-European?

So, do you wish to argue that R1b-L23, of which both R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 are subclades, arose at opposite ends of the European continent simultaneously, and that at one end it was Indo-European and at the other it was not?

Besides, we do have R1b-P312 from German Bell Beaker, and many of the same scholars who attribute early Indo-European to Yamnaya attribute the spread of Italo-Celtic to Beaker.

According to your logic, we can argue that R1a is likewise not Indo-European because it has not yet been found in Yamnaya (even though it has been found in Corded Ware, to which the spread of Balto-Slavic and Germanic is often attributed).

Tolan
08-27-2015, 06:21 PM
Probably, all descendants of P312 did not speak an Indo-European language.
Steppe People have mixed with indigenous peoples in central Europe. And no doubt that in some cases, it is the native language which lasted!

And we do not know since when indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe.
Are they arrived with the first P312 migrants?, or with other migrations came later?

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 06:26 PM
So, do you wish to argue that R1b-L23, of which both R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 are subclades, arose at opposite ends of the European continent simultaneously, and that at one end it was Indo-European and at the other it was not?

In Yamnaya we find only Z2103 and L23*, IIRC. It is argued that Yamnaya were the PIEs.

So everything outside of Yamnaya did not speak PIE originally, but learned it later, right?

Just because Z2103 and L23* spoke PIE, doesn't mean that their ancestral L23 also did.

Let me illustrate (age estimates from YFull, so they may be 10% - 20% too young):

http://s23.postimg.org/sctmrpp7f/Yamnaya.png

http://s23.postimg.org/sctmrpp7f/Yamnaya.png

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:33 PM
In Yamnaya we find only Z2103 and L23*, IIRC. It is argued that Yamnaya were the PIEs.

So everything outside of Yamnaya did not speak PIE originally, but learned it later, right?

Just because Z2103 and L23* spoke PIE, doesn't mean that their ancestral L23 also did.

Well, first off, are you willing to say the same thing about R1a, since it has not yet been found in Yamnaya either?

Second, R1b-L51 has not been found in Yamnaya yet. In case you haven't noticed, apparently R1b-L51 went west, and thus far none of the remains from the literally thousands of kurgans on Yamnaya's route west has been tested for y-dna. All of the tested Yamnaya remains have come from pretty far east.

R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 are brother clades under L23. It isn't likely they arose far from one another or that one is Indo-European and the other is not.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 06:37 PM
Well, first off, are you willing to say the same thing about R1a, since it has not yet been found in Yamnaya either? Second, R1b-L51 has not been found in Yamnaya yet.

Yes R1a and L51 have not been found in Yamnaya yet (but discovery of I2a shows some prospects for other hgs too). However, it is also possible that R1a and L51 were Indo-Europeanised later. Or it is possible, that Yamnaya were not the "most original" PIEs, but only one of branches of PIE speakers. In such case we would need to look for the beginnings of PIE language in some older culture than Yamnaya.


It isn't likely they arose far from one another

Speakers of two different unrelated languages can live close to each other as well.


All of the tested Yamnaya remains have come from pretty far east.

Nope, also from the south - check this map (area with Yamnaya samples):

http://s3.postimg.org/fgpx6rx7n/Area_with_Yamnaya.png

http://s3.postimg.org/fgpx6rx7n/Area_with_Yamnaya.png

Indeed we don't have samples from the west and from the north.

But now we have samples from a relatively large area - south and east.

I didn't add I2a sample from Yamnaya to that map (Ulan IV - where is this site?).

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:41 PM
Regarding R1b-L23 and Proto-Indo-European, YFull's R1b Tree (http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/) currently estimates that L23 arose about 4400 BC, which is within the time linguist Don Ringe and others estimate for the beginnings of Proto-Indo-European (4500 BC).

Allowing for margins of error for estimating the ages of both L23 and PIE, it still seems reasonable to conclude that any subclades of L23 arose within a PIE-speaking milieu.

5692

rms2
08-27-2015, 06:46 PM
. . .



Nope, also from the south . . .

And pretty far east (when one is talking east and west, he is talking in terms not of latitude, but of longitude).

The point was, which I thought was pretty clear, no ancient y-dna from Yamnaya's route west has yet been tested, and R1b-L51 pretty obviously went west.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 07:02 PM
thus far none of the remains from the literally thousands of kurgans on Yamnaya's route west has been tested for y-dna.

And we also don't have Y-DNA from Cucuteni-Trypillian. According to Allentoft et al., some part of Cucuteni-Trypillians migrated into the steppe, contributing to the Proto-Indo-European community:


"During the 4th millennium BC, large mega settlements of up to 400 hectares with populations in the ten thousands, known as the Tripolje Culture 2, 9, emerged in the western forest-steppe, bordering the steppe. By the middle of the 4th millennium BC, it seems that such large populations could no longer be sustained and the mega-sites gradually collapsed and were left. The Tripolje populations expanded into the steppe 10 where they encountered Maikop groups and adopted individual burials under barrows and metallurgy. Horse domestication and the development of wheeled vehicles, in the style of later prairie wagons, took place to support a mobile pastoral lifestyle."

What if for example L51 emerged among Cucuteni-Trypillians, but didn't move east to the steppe? In such case L51 could remain "Cucuteni-speaking" (Non-IE), while Z2103 could become PIE-speaking.

rms2
08-27-2015, 07:12 PM
. . .



What if for example L51 emerged among Cucuteni-Trypillians, but didn't move east to the steppe?

Does that seem likely, given that CT was a Neolithic farming culture that apparently arose out of the Starčevo-Krs-Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia BC? The ancient y-dna evidence thus far indicates that G2a predominated among such peoples, with some Neolithicized I2a. A number of ancient y-dna results have been obtained from Starčevo, and not a one of them is R1b of any kind.

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 07:16 PM
^ At least this could explain the presence of that I2a sample in Yamnaya kurgan.

==============

Edit:


Regarding R1b-L23 and Proto-Indo-European, YFull's R1b Tree currently estimates that L23 arose about 4400 BC, which is within the time linguist Don Ringe and others estimate for the beginnings of Proto-Indo-European (4500 BC).

TMRCA is rather more important than formation time in this case.

After all, one person is not enough for a new language to emerge.

rms2
08-27-2015, 07:23 PM
^ At least this could explain the presence of that I2a sample in Yamnaya kurgan.

Yes, I think that is probably right.

If R1b or R1a is ever found in CT, I suspect they will come from steppe people who were living among the CT people. As I recall from Anthony's book, he said that happened, and there were differences in their respective skeletons. The native CT people were "Mediterranean" and had gracile skeletons. The steppe people had heavier bones and prominent cheekbones and brows.

rms2
08-27-2015, 07:34 PM
. . .


TMRCA is rather more important than formation time in this case.

After all, one person is not enough for a new language to emerge.

The point is that L23 subclades probably arose within an early PIE milieu, so it isn't likely that Z2103 was PIE and L51 was not.

Gray Fox
08-28-2015, 12:26 AM
For future reference.. Please keep in mind that the Eupedia/Maciamo DF27 map is based solely on SRY2627 and M153.

Lugus
08-28-2015, 06:12 AM
For future reference.. Please keep in mind that the Eupedia/Maciamo DF27 map is based soley on SRY2627 and M153.

I almost said that but I wasn't sure. Here is another more recent map:

5696

Laura Valverde, Mara Jos Illescas et al., New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia. European Journal of Human Genetics, 2015.

Notice the the waves spreading south from the Pyrenees.

Tolan
08-28-2015, 02:06 PM
I also made a DF27 map, from data of FTDNA DNA projects:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/DF27T.png

Others sub-haplogroups:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/R1bsousgroupes.htm

BalkanKiwi
08-28-2015, 09:50 PM
I almost said that but I wasn't sure. Here is another more recent map:

5696

Laura Valverde, Mara Jos Illescas et al., New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia. European Journal of Human Genetics, 2015.

Notice the the waves spreading south from the Pyrenees.


I also made a DF27 map, from data of FTDNA DNA projects:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/DF27T.png

Others sub-haplogroups:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/R1bsousgroupes.htm

Are both of these maps based on SRY2627 and M153? Both seem similar in distribution regardless.

Tolan
08-29-2015, 02:46 AM
Are both of these maps based on SRY2627 and M153? Both seem similar in distribution regardless.

Mine is made from the DF27 DNA project: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-df27/about/background

BalkanKiwi
08-29-2015, 04:05 AM
Mine is made from the DF27 DNA project: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-df27/about/background

From what I gather from all three maps, its presence is the most prevalent in Iberia, regardless if it originated from there or not.

rms2
08-29-2015, 12:55 PM
The following post has next to nothing to do with what anyone else has posted in this thread, but it does have to do with the ever present temptation to interpret high y haplogroup frequency as indicating place of origin.

I wonder what y haplogroup frequency maps of North America would look like, especially outside the urban mixing bowls. Would there be places where certain y haplogroups prevail the way DF27 does in NE Spain and SW France? If we didn't know the history of North American colonization and immigration, how might we interpret that? Perhaps someone would suggest that L21 originated in the Appalachians and spread east across the Atlantic or that I-M253 sprung up in the Mississippi River valley along the present day border of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Gray Fox
08-29-2015, 01:17 PM
From what I gather from all three maps, its presence is the most prevalent in Iberia, regardless if it originated from there or not.

Yes, we may tentatively interpret the results thus far in the manner you describe. But we must keep in mind the late start that DF27 has had, all of the issues involved in testing for it and getting it included in the current y-dna tests, the overwhelming bias of results from the Isles (from both a commercial and academic standpoint) and Iberia (from an academic standpoint), and the fact that there is a gaping hole that has barely been tapped into (the rest of Europe).

Gray Fox
08-29-2015, 01:23 PM
The following post has next to nothing to do with what anyone else has posted in this thread, but it does have to do with the ever present temptation to interpret high y haplogroup frequency as indicating place of origin.

I wonder what y haplogroup frequency maps of North America would look like, especially outside the urban mixing bowls. Would there be places where certain y haplogroups prevail the way DF27 does in NE Spain and SW France? If we didn't know the history of North American colonization and immigration, how might we interpret that? Perhaps someone would suggest that L21 originated in the Appalachians and spread east across the Atlantic or that I-M253 sprung up in the Mississippi River valley along the present day border of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

That would be extremely interesting to see! I want deeper testing in Europe before anything like that, but still, I'd love to have a study detailing P312/L21's success in a relatively isolated area. Founder effects abound! My own SRY2627 line is responsible for countless NPE's :biggrin1:

dp
08-29-2015, 03:12 PM
The following post has next to nothing to do with what anyone else has posted in this thread, but it does have to do with the ever present temptation to interpret high y haplogroup frequency as indicating place of origin.
I wonder what y haplogroup frequency maps of North America would look like, especially outside the urban mixing bowls. Would there be places where certain y haplogroups prevail the way DF27 does in NE Spain and SW France? If we didn't know the history of North American colonization and immigration, how might we interpret that? Perhaps someone would suggest that L21 originated in the Appalachians and spread east across the Atlantic or that I-M253 sprung up in the Mississippi River valley along the present day border of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
That's where haplotype diversity comes into play, and why we need to have good estimates of haplogroup coalescence age --to assess said diversity. Don't want to get chicken and the egg scenarios :-) [must be hungry :hungry:]
dp :-)

razyn
08-29-2015, 06:22 PM
I'd love to have a study detailing P312/L21's success in a relatively isolated area. Founder effects abound! My own SRY2627 line is responsible for countless NPE's

Your remark, along with the previous one about I-M253, reminded me of a verse in the song "Ay ban a Svede from Minnesota."

Landed down in Minneap'lis,
Dere ay vent on vun big spree --
Now all da Svedes in Minnesota
Look a little bit like me!

If that dialect sounds fake, don't blame me -- I learned it from Glenn Ohrlin, and he was one.

Anyway, in the abstract, it's about founder effects (and therefore on topic).

rms2
08-29-2015, 06:29 PM
That's where haplotype diversity comes into play, and why we need to have good estimates of haplogroup coalescence age --to assess said diversity. Don't want to get chicken and the egg scenarios :-) [must be hungry :hungry:]
dp :-)

I think you would probably get a lot of ready-made diversity in North America, since it had a lot of different source populations.

lgmayka
08-29-2015, 07:35 PM
If we didn't know the history of North American colonization and immigration, how might we interpret that?
You illustrate the pre-eminent value of SNP-estimated TMRCAs. If we run Big Y tests and YFull analysis on North Americans, we will quickly see a clear distinction between those who have a recent TMRCA in Europe, Asia, or Africa, vs. those whose MRCA with non-Americans is more than 10,000 years old.

rms2
08-29-2015, 07:37 PM
You illustrate the pre-eminent value of SNP-estimated TMRCAs. If we run Big Y tests and YFull analysis on North Americans, we will quickly see a clear distinction between those who have a recent TMRCA in Europe, Asia, or Africa, vs. those whose MRCA with non-Americans is more than 10,000 years old.

You know, I have been reading your posts for quite a few years now, beginning with the FTDNA forum back in 2006, and you are still one of the smartest, most impressive people I know. Sorry for the flattery, but it's the truth.

dp
08-31-2015, 03:11 PM
I think you would probably get a lot of ready-made diversity in North America, since it had a lot of different source populations.

touchee.
dp

Tomenable
09-02-2015, 12:57 PM
R1b in Bell Beaker culture were immigrants from the east, who introduced bronze working and horses to Western Europe.

Those people, due to their "magical know-how and magical animals", became chieftains and leaders of clan communities.

In polygynous and clan-based societies, chieftains of clans typically have the largest number of women and of children.

So the frequency of Y-DNA markers introduced by those people was gradually increasing over a dozen or so generations.

It is possible that DF27 spread in Iberia as they became chieftains of local people, and adopted their Non-IE language(s).

In Bell Beaker culture, knowledge of bronze smelting was limited to chieftains, and bronze smelting was a magical ritual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo#t=383

"(...) This process was so important, the smiths had the richest graves. They were probably clan chiefs. At the beginning of the Bronze Age, you can imagine that much of the metalworking was actually undertaken by the chiefs themselves. And we now see this as a rather sort of a banal task that should be undertaken by workmen or craftsmen, by a sort of lower status people. But if you think of it as the magical transformation of one thing into another, then it's another way of showing off and demonstrating your power and your status, of securing your role in society. And so it's therefore very characteristic, that you find the moulds in rich graves, in the graves of the chiefs. So the people who were in charge of society, were in charge of the transformation of metal ores into slashing daggers and weapons. (...)"

BalkanKiwi
09-03-2015, 02:50 AM
I received my R1b Backbone results. It just has me as P312 so I assume I don't fit into any of the DF27 SNPs that are in the pack.

lgmayka
09-03-2015, 03:05 AM
I received my R1b Backbone results. It just has me as P312 so I assume I don't fit into any of the DF27 SNPs that are in the pack.
Do you know (e.g. from a Yseq test) that you are DF27+ ? Or is it possible that you are a genuine P312* ?

BalkanKiwi
09-03-2015, 03:11 AM
Do you know (e.g. from a Yseq test) that you are DF27+ ? Or is it possible that you are a genuine P312* ?

From page 1:

http://i.imgur.com/inLdH23l.png