PDA

View Full Version : R1b - S21 Distribution map. (Cymru DNA)



JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 08:29 AM
Any thoughts please on this map which is said " to represent lineages a hundred years ago or more".
I was particularly curious about the relatively high percentage from the West of Scotland, where I would guess there was little Saxon influence. I don't know how this compares with other distribution maps.

7536

Cascio
01-30-2016, 08:42 AM
The high figure for north and west Scotland may be related to Norse settlements in the area during the Viking period.

alan
01-30-2016, 08:56 AM
Any thoughts please on this map which is said " to represent lineages a hundred years ago or more".
I was particularly curious about the relatively high percentage from the West of Scotland, where I would guess there was little Saxon influence. I don't know how this compares with other distribution maps.

7536

makes perfect sense - very close correlation with the relative strength of Norse settlement in the various islands and mainland of NW Scotland

alan
01-30-2016, 09:00 AM
Any thoughts please on this map which is said " to represent lineages a hundred years ago or more".
I was particularly curious about the relatively high percentage from the West of Scotland, where I would guess there was little Saxon influence. I don't know how this compares with other distribution maps.

7536

makes perfect sense - very close correlation with the relative strength of Norse settlement in the various islands and mainland of NW Scotland. In fact the map is incredibly close to the two pronged Germanic input into Scotland with Norse in the extreme north-west and Angles in the south-east. The moderate amount all the way up the north-east of Scotland also correlates with the areas of Norman, north English and Flemish settlement in the post-1100AD period when knights were granted lands by the Scottish king and small burghs and fisher villages were set up along that area. Its an uncannily good fit for history. Even the old anthropologists drew very similar conclusions that in the west of Scotland the Norse input slowly decreased from north to south through the islands and mainland. The higher than perhaps expected U106 for Norse=Norwegian Vikings is easily explained by the endless possibilities for founder effects in a group island hopping from north to south.

northkerry
01-30-2016, 10:02 AM
makes perfect sense - very close correlation with the relative strength of Norse settlement in the various islands and mainland of NW Scotland. In fact the map is incredibly close to the two pronged Germanic input into Scotland with Norse in the extreme north-west and Angles in the south-east. The moderate amount all the way up the north-east of Scotland also correlates with the areas of Norman, north English and Flemish settlement in the post-1100AD period when knights were granted lands by the Scottish king and small burghs and fisher villages were set up along that area. Its an uncannily good fit for history. Even the old anthropologists drew very similar conclusions that in the west of Scotland the Norse input slowly decreased from north to south through the islands and mainland. The higher than perhaps expected U106 for Norse=Norwegian Vikings is easily explained by the endless possibilities for founder effects in a group island hopping from north to south.

Why is it not 18% in Leinster? Leinster had a two pronged input from the Norse and the English. Wales is a surprise at 14%.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 10:23 AM
Thanks for the observations. That was my first thought too, Norse influence.
It does make you wonder whether there is also some Norse influence included in what we often regard as the A/S parts of England? I thought the figure for Wales was a bit high too. I don't know the extent to which this was affected by recent migration as even 100 years ago this could have had a significant affect. I would guess they have tried to avoid including samples which would have been affected by recent migration?

Dubhthach
01-30-2016, 11:22 AM
With regards to Hebrides, BritansDNA posted following map in twitter back in 2014 on "Viking DNA" when it came to Y-DNA, I sent them a tweet looking for clarification of what haplogroups did they regard as "Norse"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiX7XhTCIAAYDNp.jpg



BritainsDNA ‏@Britains_DNA 30 May 2014
@dubhthach Sorry for late reply, they're associated with norse ancestry: R1a-S200, R1a-S201, R1a-S223*, R1a-S443*, R1b-S182 and R1b-S375*


Of course in Irish the name for the Hebrides is "Inse Ghall" (The Islands of the Foreigners -- in context of Viking period Gall was only used for the Norse) ;)

Obviously the outer Hebrides are a stronghold of Scottish Gaidhlig, was alot of historians talk about is that there is strong sign of Norse linguistic evidence (placenames etc.) with later "re-Gaelicisation" (of course it raises the question was Hebrides an area speaking "Old Irish" before arrival of Norse or perhaps Pictish?)

The accent they have particulary in Harris shows clear signs of Scandinavian influence, as someone who can speak Irish I'm always scratching my head thinking their vowels sound like something out of a "Scandi-Noir" tv show -- most disconcerting ;)

jdean
01-30-2016, 11:49 AM
Why is it not 18% in Leinster? Leinster had a two pronged input from the Norse and the English. Wales is a surprise at 14%.

R1a-Z289 (equivalent to Z284) has a spike in NW Scotland as well, 13% in the Chromo2 map which is over three times high than the next highest area (Yorkshire @ 4%)

The English would have arrived in Ireland with a lot of different haplogroups, including L21

Dubhthach
01-30-2016, 12:26 PM
Why is it not 18% in Leinster? Leinster had a two pronged input from the Norse and the English. Wales is a surprise at 14%.

Norse settlement in Leinster was mostly confined to what we term modern County Dublin, plus part of Wexford. The rest was mostly untouched. As for during the Norman's, alot of major "Norman" input into Leinster was from Wales (thence Cambro-Norman's) even than Leinster was mostly Irish speaking right up to the start of Tudor conquest in 16th century (if anything Irish had infiltrated the "Pale" as a general lingua Franca).

That and our concept of Leinster is very different from historic one up to arrival of Norman's:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/laighin-vikings.jpg

rms2
01-30-2016, 01:11 PM
Why is it not 18% in Leinster? Leinster had a two pronged input from the Norse and the English. Wales is a surprise at 14%.

Considering the centuries of English encroachment and settlement in Wales, 14% U106 is not all that surprising. There was also a fair amount of Flemish input in SW Wales.

rms2
01-30-2016, 02:03 PM
Here's something that occurred to me. Aren't BritainsDNA distribution maps simply percentages of their customers in a particular region who have tested positive for a particular SNP? In other words, they are not the result of a scientific study and do not include any attempt to exclude relative newcomers. So, a U106+ English retiree living someplace in Wales or Scotland might show up on a BritainsDNA map as a U106+ stat for Wales or Scotland.

Or is BDNA looking at reported places of ancestral origin?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 02:09 PM
Considering the centuries of English encroachment and settlement in Wales, 14% U106 is not all that surprising. There was also a fair amount of Flemish input in SW Wales.

It would be interesting to know how it is distributed, most to be in the South and East seems likely. On the other hand it is only comparatively recently that there would have been large-scale population migration I would have thought?

rms2
01-30-2016, 02:13 PM
It would be interesting to know how it is distributed, most to be in the South and East seems likely. On the other hand it is only comparatively recently that there would have been large-scale population migration I would have thought?

It seems to me the English have been stationing soldiers and settlers in Wales since at least the Middle Ages.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLNTBUzUirYqD1TIcL9bV0nW8xFXsH3Qk6&v=6vZcnIt0b0k

MacUalraig
01-30-2016, 02:26 PM
Here's something that occurred to me. Aren't BritainsDNA distribution maps simply percentages of their customers in a particular region who have tested positive for a particular SNP? In other words, they are not the result of a scientific study and do not include any attempt to exclude relative newcomers. So, a U106+ English retiree living someplace in Wales or Scotland might show up on a BritainsDNA map as a U106+ stat for Wales or Scotland.

Or is BDNA looking at reported places of ancestral origin?

They ask you if you can supply the birthplaces of your grandparents. But yes it's still self selection rather than scientific sampling.

Dubhthach
01-30-2016, 07:32 PM
They ask you if you can supply the birthplaces of your grandparents. But yes it's still self selection rather than scientific sampling.

Given that they are a british company though ye imagine they have a good cohort of people who are actually from the area etc. I could be wrong but in the DNA Cymru program wasn't it implied that they had something like 1,000 Welsh (eg. born/living there) samples?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 07:40 PM
They ask you if you can supply the birthplaces of your grandparents. But yes it's still self selection rather than scientific sampling.

What they said was, as mentioned in my original post that the map represents lineages from 100 years ago or more, or words to that effect, which suggests some sort of filtering process. They also produced a World distribution map/tool which they said was based on their own AND other research. They didn't say that specifically for the British map. They also said they were the first company to produce such a map? I didn't think I could share this, but it seems I can.

7549

MacUalraig
01-30-2016, 08:02 PM
Not quite sure what you are saying there John. My grandparents were born between 1890 and 1901 - give or take, about a hundred years ago.

avalon
01-30-2016, 09:03 PM
What they said was, as mentioned in my original post that the map represents lineages from 100 years ago or more, or words to that effect, which suggests some sort of filtering process. They also produced a World distribution map/tool which they said was based on their own AND other research. They didn't say that specifically for the British map. They also said they were the first company to produce such a map? I didn't think I could share this, but it seems I can.


The problem is, BritainsDNA is asking that Welsh participants have a grandparent born in Wales so this takes us back to roughly 1900-1940 (depending on age of modern samples) which is all well and good but the major migration changes in Wales took place during the 19th century so CymruDNA samples could well include people who are descended from 19th English migrants, unless of course they are sampling on the basis of having a Welsh surname, which I doubt, but they should!

I think people often under appreciate the sheer scale of the Industrial migration to Wales. Colin Williams (Anglicisation of Wales) is a good source for this - in the latter part of the 19th century English in-migration was on a massive scale, tens of thousands of people moving into the Industrial SE, the coal valleys, Cardiff, Newport, etc but also other parts of Wales too including the North Wales coast. Changing language patterns show how significant these changes were. I have read estimates that the Welsh speaking population of 1800 was perhaps 80-90% but in the 1901 census it is 50%.

Also of note is a recent surname study which showed that only 35% of modern Welsh people have a Welsh surname, which just goes to show how much impact the English have had on Wales, just in the last few hundred years.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 09:15 PM
Not quite sure what you are saying there John. My grandparents were born between 1890 and 1901 - give or take, about a hundred years ago.

I'm just reporting what they said. :) I mentioned the same thing a bit earlier, it isn't clear what process they used.
" I don't know the extent to which this was affected by recent migration as even 100 years ago this could have had a significant affect. I would guess they have tried to avoid including samples which would have been affected by recent migration?"

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-30-2016, 09:30 PM
The problem is, BritainsDNA is asking that Welsh participants have a grandparent born in Wales so this takes us back to roughly 1900-1940 (depending on age of modern samples) which is all well and good but the major migration changes in Wales took place during the 19th century so CymruDNA samples could well include people who are descended from 19th English migrants, unless of course they are sampling on the basis of having a Welsh surname, which I doubt, but they should!

I think people often under appreciate the sheer scale of the Industrial migration to Wales. Colin Williams (Anglicisation of Wales) is a good source for this - in the latter part of the 19th century English in-migration was on a massive scale, tens of thousands of people moving into the Industrial SE, the coal valleys, Cardiff, Newport, etc but also other parts of Wales too including the North Wales coast. Changing language patterns show how significant these changes were. I have read estimates that the Welsh speaking population of 1800 was perhaps 80-90% but in the 1901 census it is 50%.

Also of note is a recent surname study which showed that only 35% of modern Welsh people have a Welsh surname, which just goes to show how much impact the English have had on Wales, just in the last few hundred years.

With Cymru DNA (same thing I think) they test anyone who comes forward. I looked into possible participation in the POBI project, but wasn't eligible because recent of population migration. Worth remembering I think that there are people with some Welsh origins the other side of the border. :) My own paternal line came from just over the Herefordshire border to the South Wales Valleys, I have a Welsh surname but am U106 just to confuse things and I wouldn't mind betting there are people with an "English" surname or names which have become anglicised, who have Welsh origins. :)

GoldenHind
01-31-2016, 12:16 AM
What they said was, as mentioned in my original post that the map represents lineages from 100 years ago or more, or words to that effect, which suggests some sort of filtering process. They also produced a World distribution map/tool which they said was based on their own AND other research. They didn't say that specifically for the British map. They also said they were the first company to produce such a map? I didn't think I could share this, but it seems I can.

7549

I assume this is a map for U106. Interesting that the percentage is about the same in Ireland as in Sweden.

avalon
01-31-2016, 05:19 AM
With Cymru DNA (same thing I think) they test anyone who comes forward. I looked into possible participation in the POBI project, but wasn't eligible because recent of population migration. Worth remembering I think that there are people with some Welsh origins the other side of the border. :) My own paternal line came from just over the Herefordshire border to the South Wales Valleys, I have a Welsh surname but am U106 just to confuse things and I wouldn't mind betting there are people with an "English" surname or names which have become anglicised, who have Welsh origins. :)

There are always going to be exceptions but generally speaking someone with a welsh surname is going to have deep paternal ancestry in Wales whereas an English surname would denote an origin in England. Remember that the English fixed surnames much earlier than the Welsh and there are very early examples of English surnames in southern Pembrokeshire.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-31-2016, 08:23 AM
There are always going to be exceptions but generally speaking someone with a welsh surname is going to have deep paternal ancestry in Wales whereas an English surname would denote an origin in England. Remember that the English fixed surnames much earlier than the Welsh and there are very early examples of English surnames in southern Pembrokeshire.

I was wondering whether because the Welsh fixed surnames later, that an "English" Christian name could have been more widely used before being adopted as a surname? I do agree they would be exceptions though. :)

rms2
01-31-2016, 02:00 PM
I assume this is a map for U106. Interesting that the percentage is about the same in Ireland as in Sweden.

Yes, but the oldest known U106+ (RISE98) thus far comes from the Lilla Beddinge Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden and is dated ~2300 BC.

Ireland, on the other hand, unlike Sweden, was subject to settlement in the historical period by peoples from homelands with much much higher frequencies of U106 than Ireland has and to control and domination by the English for centuries.

So, evidently the U106 story in Sweden is radically different from the U106 story in Ireland. Similar frequencies, different stories.

Nowadays the frequency of R1b-L23 on the Eurasian steppe is fairly low, yet most of us (I think) are pretty well convinced that is where our L23 ancestors came from before entering Europe west of the Dniester during the Copper/Bronze Age.

Dubhthach
01-31-2016, 04:21 PM
I assume this is a map for U106. Interesting that the percentage is about the same in Ireland as in Sweden.

With Danes showing up at 20% and Norwegians at 13% in that map I wonder if part of issue is to do with size of their swedish dataset. It's interesting that they have restricted it to purely "South Swedish".

GoldenHind
01-31-2016, 10:24 PM
With Danes showing up at 20% and Norwegians at 13% in that map I wonder if part of issue is to do with size of their swedish dataset. It's interesting that they have restricted it to purely "South Swedish".

I would assume that they only had data for South Sweden. It may be based on the Myres data for Malmø, where U106 was only 4.3% (6 out of 139) of the total. Incidentally P312 was nearly three times greater: 11.5% (16 out of 139). Malmø is just across the Øresund from Copenhagen and formerly part of Denmark, so one would expect U106 numbers to be more in line with those in Denmark, but they aren't.

Compare this to the Myres' data for North Denmark (presumably northern Jutland), where U106 was almost 24%, and Norway, where U106 was over 20% (28 of 138). Additionally the data from the Old Norway Project suggests U106, as a percentage of R1b, declines as one proceeds northward in Sweden. Sweden is thought to have been the source of many of the Germanic tribes that later swept down into Europe, especially of the East Germanic tribes (Goths, arguably Burgundians, Lombards and even Swabians). Perhaps this merely indicates U106 was more common in the West Germanic tribes than in the East Germanic ones.

All the data indicates the highest concentration in of U106 in Scandinavia occurs in northern Jutland. This is apparently the area of the greatest Beaker settlement in Scandinavia. It is also higher in Norway, which was also the site of Beaker settlements, yet lower in Sweden, which apparently the Beakers did not reach. Is this merely a coincidence? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

I prefer to await further data before trying to neatly force things into a box in which they might not fit.

Dubhthach
01-31-2016, 10:31 PM
I would assume that they only had data for South Sweden. It may be based on the Myres data for Malmø, where U106 was only 4.3% (6 out of 139) of the total. Incidentally P312 was nearly three times greater: 11.5% (16 out of 139). Malmø is just across the Øresund from Copenhagen and formerly part of Denmark, so one would expect U106 numbers to be more in line with those in Denmark, but they aren't.

Compare this to the Myres' data for North Denmark (presumably northern Jutland), where U106 was almost 24%, and Norway, where U106 was over 20% (28 of 138). Additionally the data from the Old Norway Project suggests U106, as a percentage of R1b, declines as one proceeds northward in Sweden. Sweden is thought to have been the source of many of the Germanic tribes that later swept down into Europe, especially of the East Germanic tribes (Goths, arguably Burgundians, Lombards and even Swabians). Perhaps this merely indicates U106 was more common in the West Germanic tribes than in the East Germanic ones.

All the data indicates the highest concentration in of U106 in Scandinavia occurs in northern Jutland. This is apparently the area of the greatest Beaker settlement in Scandinavia. It is also higher in Norway, which was also the site of Beaker settlements, yet lower in Sweden, which apparently the Beakers did not reach. Is this merely a coincidence? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

I prefer to await further data before trying to neatly force things into a box in which they might not fit.

Indeed I had a look at Busby there and figure that might be the case. At least on their (ScotlandsDNA) maps which are focussed on Ireland and Britain they state that maps are based on people who've tested with them etc.

It's pity Busby dataset isn't available in more comprehensive form (is Myers?) eg. including the non R1b percentages, I imagine I1 for example might have a good chunk in their Swedish sample (assumption though on my part!)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-31-2016, 10:42 PM
Indeed I had a look at Busby there and figure that might be the case. At least on their (ScotlandsDNA) maps which are focussed on Ireland and Britain they state that maps are based on people who've tested with them etc.

It's pity Busby dataset isn't available in more comprehensive form (is Myers?) eg. including the non R1b percentages, I imagine I1 for example might have a good chunk in their Swedish sample (assumption though on my part!)

On their World map they said it was based on their own and other research. I don't know what that means exactly.

Dubhthach
02-01-2016, 09:34 AM
On their World map they said it was based on their own and other research. I don't know what that means exactly.

Sounds like they probably used public available datasets, say Myers/Busby and than added in any members who were either from specific countries or whose self-reported MDKA came from there. I'm thinking in this case of those in Diaspora communities in the states who've tested etc.

rms2
02-01-2016, 04:38 PM
. . . Perhaps this merely indicates U106 was more common in the West Germanic tribes than in the East Germanic ones.

Or given that ancient U106+ result from Sweden, it could indicate that U106 was once far more plentiful in Sweden than it is now.

The Migration Period was, after all, the Migration Period.



All the data indicates the highest concentration in of U106 in Scandinavia occurs in northern Jutland. This is apparently the area of the greatest Beaker settlement in Scandinavia. It is also higher in Norway, which was also the site of Beaker settlements, yet lower in Sweden, which apparently the Beakers did not reach. Is this merely a coincidence? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

Perhaps, but thus far all the Bell Beaker results with sufficient coverage have been U106-, and that includes results from Germany, where U106 is far more frequent today than it is anywhere in Scandinavia.



I prefer to await further data before trying to neatly force things into a box in which they might not fit.

There is plenty of data on the modern distribution of U106, but we do need more ancient data on U106.

Right now the ancient evidence for U106 is mostly negative (i.e., it is noticeably absent from Bell Beaker), but there is that one ancient U106+ result from Sweden from a non-Beaker, Nordic Battle Axe context.

GoldenHind
02-01-2016, 11:57 PM
There is plenty of data on the modern distribution of U106, but we do need more ancient data on U106.



I would very much like to see ancient DNA from Beaker graves in Scandinavia, as well as those from the mouth of the Rhine. I think it's highly unlikely that all Beaker settlements had identical or even very similar genetic composition, so what is found in one area may be considerably different from other areas. After all you are constantly warning of the dangers of over reliance on modern distribution to determine ancient origins.

rms2
02-02-2016, 01:16 AM
I would very much like to see ancient DNA from Beaker graves in Scandinavia, as well as those from the mouth of the Rhine. I think it's highly unlikely that all Beaker settlements had identical or even very similar genetic composition, so what is found in one area may be considerably different from other areas. After all you are constantly warning of the dangers of over reliance on modern distribution to determine ancient origins.

Except in the case of Bell Beaker, we aren't relying on modern distribution. We have a growing number of Bell Beaker results, none of which is U106+, and the one Bronze Age U106+ result from Scandinavia (the only Bronze Age U106+ anywhere so far) is from a non-Bell Beaker, Nordic Battle Axe context.

The results do support what modern distribution seems to say, however, given the scholarly connection over the years of Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic.

I think when and if we do get Bell Beaker results from Scandinavia (and I don't think Bell Beaker has ever been found in Sweden) and the Lower Rhine, they will be P312+ and not U106+.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think U106 was present in the Lower Rhine area during the Bronze Age. In fact, I don't think it arrived there until the Germans began encroaching on that area around 700 BC, and it took them until 200 BC to really begin pushing the Celts across the Rhine. I know we disagree on this, but I see U106 as strongly connected to the origin and spread of Germanic languages, and I don't think Beaker had anything to do with that.

The only possible problem with that I see is the fact that there was some Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine area, and I think U106 may have been mixed up in Corded Ware. It would not surprise me at all to see some U106+ results in Corded Ware.

miiser
02-02-2016, 05:40 AM
Except in the case of Bell Beaker, we aren't relying on modern distribution. We have a growing number of Bell Beaker results, none of which is U106+, and the one Bronze Age U106+ result from Scandinavia (the only Bronze Age U106+ anywhere so far) is from a non-Bell Beaker, Nordic Battle Axe context.

Maybe you do me a favor, and instead of just mentioning the number of ancient Bell Beaker that have been confirmed U106+, you could also list the number that have been confirmed as P312+. And then we can have a little talk about statistical significance.

jdean
02-02-2016, 09:27 AM
Maybe you do me a favor, and instead of just mentioning the number of ancient Bell Beaker that have been confirmed U106+, you could also list the number that have been confirmed as P312+. And then we can have a little talk about statistical significance.

AFAIK Every one that had enough coverage.

miiser
02-02-2016, 09:50 AM
AFAIK Every one that had enough coverage.

A percentage doesn't establish statistical significance. Not willing to give an actual number?

jdean
02-02-2016, 09:53 AM
Maybe you do me a favor, and instead of just mentioning the number of ancient Bell Beaker that have been confirmed U106+, you could also list the number that have been confirmed as P312+. And then we can have a little talk about statistical significance.

OK, How many have been proved not to be P312 compared to the number proved not to be U106 : )

Dubhthach
02-02-2016, 11:15 AM
Don't we only have one Bell Beaker full genome anyways? Which if memory serves me right was P312+/U152+ ?

jdean
02-02-2016, 11:32 AM
Don't we only have one Bell Beaker full genome anyways? Which if memory serves me right was P312+/U152+ ?

I suppose it depends what you call 'full', a lot of aDNA has more holes than Emmental, however there have been a few and I think Richard Rocca found downstream U152 SNPs in another ?

jdean
02-02-2016, 11:48 AM
Talking about L21 distribution we had another Polish R-DF49 join the project last night, the other is predicted DF49 x DF23 something or other but this fellow did BigY and is ZP21** (at least until I get my mitts on the RAW data)

It's taken a while but DF49 x DF23 is slowly catching DF23 up for Continental results : )

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-df49?iframe=ymap


There would be a ZP23 in Northern Italy as well if I could convince him to join the project.

miiser
02-02-2016, 11:50 AM
I suppose it depends what you call 'full', a lot of aDNA has more holes than Emmental, however there have been a few and I think Richard Rocca found downstream U152 SNPs in another ?

I could find 3:

RISE560, RISE563, and I0806

Picking some arbitrary margin of error - this sample of 3 gives only 49% confidence that Bell Beaker was comprised of greater than 75% P312.

If we set the standard at 90% confidence, then we can only say that Bell Beaker was somewhere between 6% and 100% P312.

jdean
02-02-2016, 12:04 PM
I could find 3:

RISE560, RISE563, and I0806

Picking some arbitrary margin of error - this sample of 3 gives only 49% confidence that Bell Beaker was comprised of greater than 75% P312.

If we set the standard at 90% confidence, then we can only say that Bell Beaker was somewhere between 6% and 100% P312.

And the Rathin samples

miiser
02-02-2016, 12:17 PM
And the Rathin samples

Rathlin has not been identified specifically as Bell Beaker, but only as early bronze age in Ireland. It may be you are assuming they are Bell Beaker, or descend from Bell Beaker, simply on the basis of their being P312. But the whole point of this discussion is that we don't know that this is a reliable rule of thumb. So it's not reasonable to include Rathlin within Bell Beaker ancient DNA as a proof. If we were to accept this approach, then someone on the U106 side could just as well claim the York cemetery samples represent Bell Beaker descendants. We can only count the samples that have been archaeologically connected directly to Bell Beaker culture.

jdean
02-02-2016, 12:25 PM
Rathlin has not been identified specifically as Bell Beaker, but only as early bronze age in Ireland. It may be you are assuming they are Bell Beaker, or descend from Bell Beaker, simply on the basis of their being P312. But the whole point of this discussion is that we don't know that this is a reliable rule of thumb. So it's not reasonable to include Rathlin within Bell Beaker ancient DNA as a proof. If we were to accept this approach, then someone on the U106 side could just as well claim the York cemetery samples represent Bell Beaker descendants. We can only count the samples that have been archaeologically connected directly to Bell Beaker culture.

No I'm assuming they're Bell Beaker based on what is known of their culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Vessel

rms2
02-02-2016, 12:55 PM
Rathlin has not been identified specifically as Bell Beaker, but only as early bronze age in Ireland. It may be you are assuming they are Bell Beaker, or descend from Bell Beaker, simply on the basis of their being P312 . . .

No one is doing that. Technically, the Rathlin Island burials are Food Vessel burials, but Food Vessel is a version of Bell Beaker in the Isles. As the Bell Beaker blogger put it:



For all intents and purposes, a 'Bronze Age Food Vessel burial' on either side of the Irish Sea is essentially a Beaker burial*. So now with this new paper on the first ancient genomes of Ireland we have three more Beaker men to throw on the pile of diagnostic Beaker men, of whom are to this point uniformly R1b, in stark constrast [sic] to the previous ages (still not proven at this point).


http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/12/rathlin-burials-cassidy-et-al-2015.html

I have a table of Bell Beaker y dna testing results on my computer at home, but I am not currently at home, so I can't retrieve it. Anyway, from memory, as jdean said, all of the Bell Beaker results thus far with sufficient coverage have been P312+; I believe that number is at least five.

On top of that, there were the two Beaker skeletons from Kromsdorf, Germany. While they either did not yield reads on P312 or were not tested for P312, both of them were U106-.

So, that makes at least seven U106- Bell Beaker test results.

The rest of the Bell Beaker test results, and there were a number of them, as I recall, were all at least R1, a few of them M269 and beyond, but they lacked sufficient coverage to say anything about either P312 or U106 or their subclades. Based on the results with sufficient coverage, I would bet they were all some kind of P312, but obviously there is no proof of that.

miiser
02-04-2016, 10:43 AM
I thought we were talking about the genetic composition of Beaker populations, not later populations that were made up, in part, of Beaker input.

It is a gross oversimplification to say that Food Vessel is just the continuation of Beaker. The situation is more complex and nuanced than that, involving a fusion of Beaker with other cultures to arrive at Food Vessel. The Bell Beaker Blogger seems to contradict his own assertion with this more accurate statement in a different article:


"Food vessel" substitution is a distinct tradition in the late Insular Beaker Culture, although it was variously practiced both before and outside the Beaker Culture.

In this article, he links to a very thorough PhD thesis about Food Vessels and the relation to Beaker: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5192/

This thesis makes it clear that the situation is not simply Food Vessel = Beaker 2.0. There is definitely some overlap and continuity between Beaker and Food Vessel. But there are also sharp contrasts and discontinuities, not only in the pottery and geographic distribution, but also in burial practices, with probable inputs from other non-Beaker cultures.

If you are going to consider all Food Vessel populations to be genetically equivalent to Beaker, there's no rational reason to draw a line in the sand and stop there. Collared Urns followed Food Vessels in Britain, so every Collared Urn cremation should be considered Beaker 3.0. Next came cremation without pottery, so every late Bronze Age cremation without pottery should be considered Beaker 4.0. After that there's continuity with inhumation, sometimes with metalworks, and these should all just be considered Beaker 5.0. Then, into the Iron age, we get mound burials furnished with grave goods such as weapons and bronze bowls, which should be considered a continuation of Beaker culture as Beaker 6.0. In the Roman age, we see cremations in bronze, glass, and pottery vessels or wooden caskets, which are all more properly considered as Beaker 7.0. Next we start to see inhumations with grave goods and Christian style inhumations, which in Britain are really just Beaker 8.0. And so on, into modern culture, in which glass beer mugs, fancy china tea cups, and the plastic red Solo cup are really nothing more than the latest evolution of Beaker culture.

Irish remains found with Food Vessels MAY be descendants of Beaker ancestors from the Continent. There's a pretty good chance they're descended from Beaker people. But they may also be descendants of some other population that got thrown into the mix in the Isles and adopted Food Vessel usage. We just don't know.

Cassidy herself certainly did not label them as Beaker, because it is reckless to do so. If Cassidy had thought this was a reasonable and safe conclusion, she would have made the conclusion herself and noted the implications for Beaker migration.

If the goal is to make an accurate assessment of the genetic composition of the Beaker people, scientific rigor compels us to only count as Beaker those ancient remains that have been positively identified as Beaker. Otherwise, the conclusions are prone to bias through the assumptions made in the subjective inclusion or exclusion of data points.

rms2
02-04-2016, 12:33 PM
Bell Beaker in Britain extended from about 2400 BC to about 1700 BC. In Ireland, the range was about 2300 BC - 1700 BC. Food Vessel burials in Britain and Ireland were just a regional variant of Bell Beaker that occurred during the Bell Beaker period. All three of the Rathlin Island Bronze Age burials occurred during the Bell Beaker period and were Food Vessel Beaker type burials.

There were a number of different regional variants of Bell Beaker throughout its range. Are you suggesting that if all Bell Beaker burials were not always exactly the same everywhere, absolutely without variation, they were not Bell Beaker?

All that stuff about calling burials long after the Bell Beaker period "Beaker whatever-point-oh" is merely obfuscation. No one was suggesting anything of the kind.

What was the source population of those three Bronze Age Rathlin Islanders, if not Bell Beaker? How did they come by their steppe autosomal ancestry if they were not Bell Beaker men?

What is the point of your argument? That L21 or DF21 or both should not be connected to Bell Beaker? Or that Bell Beaker could really have a lot of U106 in it because, gee, these were kinda sorta not strictly speaking Bell Beaker burials, even though all the Beaker results thus far with sufficient coverage have been U106- and P312+, and the only Bronze Age U106+ result came from a non-Beaker culture in a place where no Beaker remains have ever been found?

miiser
02-04-2016, 12:47 PM
Food Vessel burials in Britain and Ireland were just a regional variant of Bell Beaker that occurred during the Bell Beaker period.

This statement is, simply, wrong. No archaeologist believes this. Food Vessels are not a subset of Beakers. The main reason this type of pottery was originally labelled as Food Vessel was that it was clearly and distinctly NOT Beaker.

rms2
02-04-2016, 12:50 PM
This statement is, simply, wrong. No archaeologist believes this. Food Vessels are not a subset of Beakers. The main reason this type of pottery was originally labelled as Food Vessel was that it was clearly and distinctly NOT Beaker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Food Vessel is a regional variant of Bell Beaker in Britain and Ireland that was practiced squarely during the Bell Beaker period.

Perhaps you could address the questions I asked?

Here they are again:

What was the source population of those three Bronze Age Rathlin Islanders, if not Bell Beaker? How did they come by their steppe autosomal ancestry if they were not Bell Beaker men?

What is the point of your argument? That L21 or DF21 or both should not be connected to Bell Beaker? Or that Bell Beaker could really have a lot of U106 in it because, gee, these were kinda sorta not strictly speaking Bell Beaker burials, even though all the Beaker results thus far with sufficient coverage have been U106- and P312+, and the only Bronze Age U106+ result came from a non-Beaker culture in a place where no Beaker remains have ever been found?

rms2
02-04-2016, 01:00 PM
This is from the first page of the Cassidy et al paper:



The second great wave of change starts with the appearance of copper mines, associated with Bell Beaker pottery, which are quickly followed by Bronze tool-making, weaponry, and gold-working, with distinct Food Vessel pottery succeeding from the earlier beakers (2).

From the same paper (p. 372):



At present, the Beaker culture is the most probable archaeological vector of this Steppe ancestry into Ireland
from the continent, although further sampling from Beaker burials across western Europe will be necessary to confirm this.

The Saite
09-11-2017, 10:54 PM
I think it chould be exclusivily Scot

Curleyprow
10-12-2017, 11:08 AM
I am intrigued by this repartee! Are you saying that since there are Bell Beaker examples in both P312 and in U106 in Scotland that these Germanic haplogroups are really both Celtic? I think that would be difficult to sustain given the extant evidence to the contrary. However I do feel that S21 in Scotland is more likely to be intra-UK migration from the South ( whose S21 may have been derived from Danish Vikings as well as Anglo-Saxons) that due to Norse Viking invasions