PDA

View Full Version : Make a Prediction about the Amesbury Archer



rms2
01-31-2016, 06:41 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument both that the Amesbury Archer's genome will become known sometime this year and that he will be some kind of R1b.

So, go out on a limb and make a prediction. To which branch of R1b will he belong?

I have also included the poll choice "Non-R1b or Other", for those who think the Amesbury Archer will belong to some y haplogroup other than R1b or to some branch of R1b not included in those poll options.

With the exception of the P312* option, all of them include any and all subclades of the listed y haplogroup; so if, for example, the Archer turns out to be L2+, those who chose U152 will have been right.

If you care to, please explain the reasoning behind your choice.

Thanks!

Here is a little background on the Archer for those who might not be that familiar with him: The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html)

Passa
01-31-2016, 06:55 PM
U152, because the guy came from a cold region in Central Europe and he was associated with Bell Beaker materials.

rms2
01-31-2016, 06:57 PM
U152, because the guy came from a cold region in Central Europe and he was associated with Bell Beaker materials.

U152 is a definite possibility, especially since we already have one U152+ Bell Beaker result.

VinceT
01-31-2016, 07:27 PM
U106, if only so rms2 can eat his hat. :)

We also have evidence from the Egtved Girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl) (although she lived about 1000 years later,) that people traveled frequently and far during the Bronze Age. We should not presume such a tight correlation between pottery cultures and haplogroups. Reality is far more complex than any simplified model can predict.

rms2
01-31-2016, 07:46 PM
I don't wear a hat unless it is really cold outside, but I hope I don't have to eat it.

I chose L21. We already have those three Bronze Age Rathlin Island L21+ results, and they belonged to the Food Vessel British Isles offshoot of Bell Beaker. That and the prevalence of L21 in the places in the Isles that remained Celtic speaking the longest, or are still at least partly Celtic speaking, influenced my thinking.

It is also true that, while Bell Beaker is a culture named for a type of pottery, it was much more than that.

Thus far all of the Bell Beaker y-dna results with sufficient coverage have been U106-, including those from Bell Beaker sites in Germany where U106 is quite frequent today.

About the same time the Amesbury Archer was being buried in Wessex near Stonehenge (~2300 BC), RISE98 was being buried in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden. He was U106+ , the oldest U106+ result we have thus far, and not a member of the Bell Beaker culture. His result really makes sense, though, given the pretty obvious connection between U106 and speakers of Germanic languages.

Bell Beaker, on the other hand, has never been connected with Germanic languages, as far as I know. Instead, a number of scholars over the years have associated it with the spread of Italo-Celtic languages. P312 likewise fits the distribution of Italo-Celtic speakers pretty well, and P312 has actually turned up in ancient Bell Beaker remains.

U106 in Britain is just too good a fit for the Anglo-Saxons and the advance of their language, English, to be much else there (yes, I know there may have been some U106+ Vikings here and there in Britain).

If I had to pick a second choice, it would be U152. I think that is a very real possibility for the Archer. Of course, anything is possible.

rms2
01-31-2016, 07:57 PM
BTW, I think it would probably be best if you all voted based on what you actually think the Archer may turn out to be rather than based on your personal grievances against me, but that is up to you.

Whatever happens, I am not eating any hats.

MitchellSince1893
01-31-2016, 08:13 PM
L21 because statistically it probably has the best chance based on what we currently know. Next choice U152 because he was from the alps.

MikeWhalen
01-31-2016, 08:34 PM
L21
cause us celts rule


(and all the boring scientific reasoning the others said)

Mike

jdean
01-31-2016, 08:51 PM
I'm think U152 might have the edge based on what we know about him and that branch, however I'm rooting for L21 : )

Agamemnon
01-31-2016, 09:14 PM
I'd expect him to be L21, that would just make sense given the dates, or perhaps DF27 though that's slightly less likely IMO... I think the bulk of U152 arrived in the Isles from the LBA and Early Iron Age onwards, prior to that I suspect U152 was mainly to be found in the easternmost parts of the BB horizon in Central and Eastern Europe (the fact that RISE563 was U152, that he was very CW-like autosomally-speaking and that he came from Lower Bavaria is consistent with this version of events).

Passa
01-31-2016, 09:22 PM
I'd expect him to be L21, that would just make sense given the dates, or perhaps DF27 though that's slightly less likely IMO... I think the bulk of U152 arrived in the Isles from the LBA and Early Iron Age onwards, prior to that I suspect U152 was mainly to be found in the easternmost parts of the BB horizon in Central and Eastern Europe (the fact that RISE563 was U152, that he was very CW-like autosomally-speaking and that he came from Lower Bavaria is consistent with this version of events).

"Research using oxygen isotope analysis in the Archer's tooth enamel has suggested that he may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer

Agamemnon
01-31-2016, 09:27 PM
"Research using oxygen isotope analysis in the Archer's tooth enamel has suggested that he may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer

It's possible much of L21 arrived in the Isles during that time, so I'd expect to find L21 in some of the Alpine parts of Central Europe back then as well... But I could be wrong, of course.

rms2
01-31-2016, 09:27 PM
"Research using oxygen isotope analysis in the Archer's tooth enamel has suggested that he may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer

I think it likely that probably all of the subclades of P312 lived in that area at one time or another. We see alpine and right away think U152, but that is a result of looking at modern distribution, not third millennium BC Bell Beaker distribution.

I will admit, however, that that does sound like it favors U152, and it is certainly possible that the Archer was U152+.

rms2
01-31-2016, 09:30 PM
It's possible much of L21 arrived in the Isles during that time, so I'd expect to find L21 in some of the Alpine parts of Central Europe back then as well... But I could be wrong, of course.

That's what I think. The Archer's burial is one of the earliest BB burials thus far found in Britain. Bell Beaker people were fairly new immigrants at that time.

Agamemnon
01-31-2016, 09:31 PM
I think it likely that probably all of the subclades of P312 lived in that area at one time or another. Right away we see alpine and think U152, but that is a result of looking at modern distribution not third millennium BC Bell Beaker distribution.

I will admit, however, that that does sound like it favors U152, and it is certainly possible that the Archer was U152+.

My point exactly, if there's a lesson to be learnt from all the ancient DNA we've seen, it's that contemporary frequencies are anything but reliable tools to peer into the past. In fact, I'd expect U152's center of gravity to be north and east of the alps back when the Amesbury archer was alive and kicking.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-31-2016, 09:44 PM
I voted P312-L21 .
Main reason: Central European isotope signature, early BB context.
In retrospect, it could be U152, but just went with probabilities


Keeping in mind that any R1b or even a 5% chance of I2.

razyn
01-31-2016, 09:49 PM
I'm going to go with DF27, nobody else has yet and I have an obvious stake. But if I wanted someone else to blame for such rash behavior, I might allude to the recent maps prepared by Mitchellsince1893. We are marginally hotter in that part of England than U152 is. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772

rms2
01-31-2016, 09:52 PM
Could be.

I hope we do get the Archer's whole genome results sometime this year. Some of us have been waiting a long time.

VinceT
01-31-2016, 10:11 PM
BTW, I think it would probably be best if you all voted based on what you actually think the Archer may turn out to be rather than based on your personal grievances against me, but that is up to you.

Whatever happens, I am not eating any hats.
Well, yeah, U152 seems most likely given point of origin, but I wouldn't dismiss R-P312* either. Or R-S1194. Or R-L11*. RISE98 appears to be an extinct U106*, negative for all sub-clades. What chances would the Archer have of having extant progeny?

No hat? How about a torc?

faulconer
01-31-2016, 10:14 PM
L21
U152 was a close second.

Heber
01-31-2016, 10:15 PM
I am going with L21.
The Rathlin study found continuity between ancient results and modern frequencies. There is no reason to believe that should be any different for the Amsbury Archer. However if not L21 I would go for U152 and DF27 in that order. Whatever the result the Amsbury Archer and Boscombe Bowman are key samples. I would like to get samples from the earliest Bell Beaker copper mining such as Ross Island.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
01-31-2016, 10:23 PM
Yes I would go with U152. It's not like he was a local.:heh:

razyn
01-31-2016, 10:31 PM
What chances would the Archer have of having extant progeny?
Maybe more than most of his contemporaries, he had a rich burial by the standards of the time and place. And the younger guy buried near him is thought to be his relative, because they share a congenital abnormality in their foot bones. He just spent his childhood near the Alps; he might have been procreating his way around the Isles for years, and was only in his 40s when he died.

Realistically, the chance that any aDNA we ever find might belong to someone with living descendants is vanishingly slight. And I don't think that matters; just wanted to make a statement about U152 and DF27 having been brother clades -- meaning that at some point in their shared past (and forever before that), they had traveled together. Wherever old Pappy walked.

MitchellSince1893
01-31-2016, 10:35 PM
I'm going to go with DF27, nobody else has yet and I have an obvious stake. But if I wanted someone else to blame for such rash behavior, I might allude to the recent maps prepared by Mitchellsince1893. We are marginally hotter in that part of England than U152 is. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772

I almost went with DF27 for that reason, but I think the archer is too early for that scenario...but who knows?

miiser
01-31-2016, 11:02 PM
I think P312* is most likely, and U106 as a second. I think it's unlikely to be L21, U152, or DF27. These subclades would all have been young at this time, without much time to expand, if they had even formed at all. L21 didn't immediately appear as the majority subclade of P312. It first appeared within a P312 population among other haplogroups. Its concentration at this time was, by definition, ~0%, and it took some time to become a major subclade. Same with DF27 and U152. During the time of the Amesbury Archer, I think the majority of the P312 population would have been comprised of subclades other than those that dominate the modern population.

This prediction needs some clarification for a possibility that the poll does not explicitly include. When I speak of L21, for example, I am speaking of the modern branch labelled "L21", which descends from today's L21 MRCA. But there are multiple SNPs at the L21 node that are currently phylogenetically equivalent. Although I think it is improbable that the Archer will descend from the L21 MRCA as currently defined, I think it is less improbable that the Archer will be a descendant of an extinct lineage from the SNP block above the L21 MRCA, creating a new branch above the L21 MRCA. In this case, he would have some of the SNPs in the L21 block, but not be considered a member of the branch labelled "L21". So it should be understood that when I speak of being P312*, I include the possibility of having some of the SNPs from the L21 node (including the L21 SNP itself) without being a descendant of the modern L21 MRCA (who would not have been the MRCA of the past prior to the extinction of many lineages). There is also a significant possibility that the Archer may belong to an extinct branch from one of the intermediate nodes, such as ZZ11*.

jdean
01-31-2016, 11:31 PM
Well, yeah, U152 seems most likely given point of origin, but I wouldn't dismiss R-P312* either. Or R-S1194. Or R-L11*. RISE98 appears to be an extinct U106*, negative for all sub-clades. What chances would the Archer have of having extant progeny?

No hat? How about a torc?

But do we have any aDNA results with reasonable coverage without private SNPs ?

Agamemnon
02-01-2016, 12:10 AM
I think P312* is most likely, and U106 as a second. I think it's unlikely to be L21, U152, or DF27. These subclades would all have been young at this time, without much time to expand, if they had even formed at all. L21 didn't immediately appear as the majority subclade of P312. It first appeared within a P312 population among other haplogroups. Its concentration at this time was, by definition, ~0%, and it took some time to become a major subclade. Same with DF27 and U152. During the time of the Amesbury Archer, I think the majority of the P312 population would have been comprised of subclades other than those that dominate the modern population.

The above just doesn't make sense to me, Rathlin1 and Rathlin2 weren't much younger than the Amesbury archer and yet both were L21... Similarly, L21's TMRCA is ~4500 old according to YFull and since we know YFull often underestimates the actual age (between 15% and 20% according to some) of the MRCA it's quite likely L21's TMRCA is closer to ~4800 yBP. Either way, L21 certainly existed back then, IMO the time span associated with the Amesbury archer is ideal if we are to date L21's initial arrival in the Isles, but again I could be wrong and this is just an educated guess.

miiser
02-01-2016, 01:01 AM
The above just doesn't make sense to me, Rathlin1 and Rathlin2 weren't much younger than the Amesbury archer and yet both were L21... Similarly, L21's TMRCA is ~4500 old according to YFull and since we know YFull often underestimates the actual age (between 15% and 20% according to some) of the MRCA it's quite likely L21's TMRCA is closer to ~4800 yBP. Either way, L21 certainly existed back then, IMO the time span associated with the Amesbury archer is ideal if we are to date L21's initial arrival in the Isles, but again I could be wrong and this is just an educated guess.

I think L21 probably was around by 2300 BC, but I don't think we can be certain of this. And we don't really know that the Amesbury Archer dates to exactly 2300 BC either.

Taking the Y-Full estimate at face value, we have ~2500 BC for the L21 MRCA. Rathlin1 dates to ~1950 BC. This gives 200 years of growth for the Amesbury Archer and 550 years of growth for Rathlin1, nearly three times as long for L21 to grow in time to appear in Rathlin1.

In assuming an earlier date for L21 MRCA, it seems to me that you are massaging the data to fit your assumed model, rather than adjusting your model to fit what the data says at face value. Y-Full's dates will significantly over estimate in some cases and significantly under estimate in others. This is the nature of the beast with SNP counting. Just because we've observed under estimation in one case does not mean that we should assume that every node is under estimated.

Some people have put excess weight on the number of SNPs in Rathlin1's lineage in order to arrive at an earlier L21 MRCA. But this approach deliberately ignores the hundreds of SNPs counted in all the modern L21 lineages, which give a date of ~2500 BC with a pretty tight confidence interval. It is not a self consistent approach. If we believe that the handful SNPs in Rathlin1 mean something for the dating, we must also believe that the hundreds of other SNPs downstream of L21 in other lineages also mean something for the dating.

I don't rule out the possibility that the L21 MRCA appeared much earlier than 2500 BC, or that he first appeared on the Continent, or that the Amesbury Archer might be L21. I just prefer not to skew the data in order to support these assumptions.

R.Rocca
02-01-2016, 01:09 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument both that the Amesbury Archer's genome will become known sometime this year and that he will be some kind of R1b.

So, go out on a limb and make a prediction. To which branch of R1b will he belong?

I have also included the poll choice "Non-R1b or Other", for those who think the Amesbury Archer will belong to some y haplogroup other than R1b or to some branch of R1b not included in those poll options.

With the exception of the P312* option, all of them include any and all subclades of the listed y haplogroup; so if, for example, the Archer turns out to be L2+, those who chose U152 will have been right.

If you care to, please explain the reasoning behind your choice.

Thanks!

Here is a little background on the Archer for those who might not be that familiar with him: The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html)

I wanted to vote U106 just to mess with you but couldn't pull the trigger :D

L21 seems most likely IMO followed equally by U152 or DF27.

Agamemnon
02-01-2016, 01:23 AM
The Amesbury Archer is usually dated to c. 2300 BCE, on the other hand Cassidy et al. give us ~2026–1885 yBP for Rathlin1 and ~2024–1741 yBP for Rathlin2. Also, I fail to see how I am "massaging the data" to fit my "assumed model", the fact that YFull's TMRCA estimates often happen to be underestimations has been noticed by Michal, lgmayka and myself by looking at very different lineages.

miiser
02-01-2016, 01:51 AM
The Amesbury Archer is usually dated to c. 2300 BCE, on the other hand Cassidy et al. give us ~2026–1885 yBP for Rathlin1 and ~2024–1741 yBP for Rathlin2. Also, I fail to see how I am "massaging the data" to fit my "assumed model", the fact that YFull's TMRCA estimates often happen to be underestimations has been noticed by Michal, lgmayka and myself by looking at very different lineages.

I believe you mean 2026-1885 BC, not 2026-1885 yBP. Radiocarbon age BP, according to Cassidy et al, is 3591 +/- 29. Calibrated date (95% probability) is 2026-1885 BC.

I used the date 1950 BC because it's about in the center of the 2026-1885 BC confidence interval (not the 2026 BC extremum that's been often utilized to make an argument by many in these forums).

Agamemnon
02-01-2016, 01:52 AM
I believe you mean 2026-1885 BC, not 2026-1885 yBP. Radiocarbon age BP, according to Cassidy et al, is 3591 +/- 29. Calibrated date (95% probability) is 2026-1885 BC.

I used the date 1950 BC because it's about in the center of the 2026-1885 BC confidence interval (not the 2026 BC extremum that's been oft utilized in these forums by many).

Whoops, yes that should be BC and not yBP.

Tolan
02-01-2016, 06:27 AM
I voted for DF27, although I think L21 is more likely!
I could also voted for non-R1b.
Everything is possible!

rms2
02-01-2016, 12:32 PM
I wanted to vote U106 just to mess with you but couldn't pull the trigger :D

I think that sentiment probably accounts for most if not all the U106 votes thus far.




L21 seems most likely IMO followed equally by U152 or DF27.

That's how I feel, too, but I would probably give U152 a slight edge over DF27 (but not much).

rms2
02-01-2016, 12:43 PM
The Amesbury Archer is usually dated to c. 2300 BCE, on the other hand Cassidy et al. give us ~20261885 yBP for Rathlin1 and ~20241741 yBP for Rathlin2. Also, I fail to see how I am "massaging the data" to fit my "assumed model", the fact that YFull's TMRCA estimates often happen to be underestimations has been noticed by Michal, lgmayka and myself by looking at very different lineages.

I agree (with the understanding that BC was meant instead of YBP). I think it likely that L21 is older than YFull's current estimate, not younger, and predates Bell Beaker's arrival in the Isles by several centuries.

Rathlin1's array of SNPs downstream of DF21 seem likely to push the age of DF21 back at least a few centuries, making it unlikely that even it arose after Bell Beaker reached the Isles.

Of course, the Archer could belong to just about any y haplogroup.

rms2
02-01-2016, 01:04 PM
Maybe more than most of his contemporaries, he had a rich burial by the standards of the time and place. And the younger guy buried near him is thought to be his relative, because they share a congenital abnormality in their foot bones. He just spent his childhood near the Alps; he might have been procreating his way around the Isles for years, and was only in his 40s when he died.

Realistically, the chance that any aDNA we ever find might belong to someone with living descendants is vanishingly slight. And I don't think that matters; just wanted to make a statement about U152 and DF27 having been brother clades -- meaning that at some point in their shared past (and forever before that), they had traveled together. Wherever old Pappy walked.

That's right.

What is important about RISE98 is not whether or not he has any living descendants but the fact that he was U106+ and was buried about 2300 BC in the Lilla Beddinge Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden. That tells us something about where U106 was at the time. Admittedly, it isn't much; it wasn't a rich burial. It tends to bolster U106's apparent Germanic bona fides, a thing that, for some reason, not everybody likes to hear.

It also puts the oldest thus far known ancient U106+ result at some removes from Bell Beaker, a culture which, when the y-dna coverage is sufficient, has thus far only yielded up P312+ and U106- results. That, by contrast, tends to bolster Bell Beaker's Italo-Celtic bona fides, another point manifestly unpopular in some quarters, for whatever obscure reason.

That does not mean that the Amesbury Archer, although a Bell Beaker man, could not be U106+. He could. It just does not seem likely.

MikeWhalen
02-01-2016, 02:39 PM
dumb question perhaps, but is the archer and the younger guy buried near him getting a thorough full dna test now?

Mike

Webb
02-01-2016, 03:18 PM
I voted DF27, not that I really think this will be the results. It is possible, but so far no ancient DNA for DF27. As far as probability I would say U152, followed by L21. DF27 seems to be a tough nut to crack.

rms2
02-01-2016, 04:26 PM
dumb question perhaps, but is the archer and the younger guy buried near him getting a thorough full dna test now?

Mike

A few years ago Dr. Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology said that genetic testing was in the works for those two, but there has been no news about it since. I honestly don't know for sure that it will ever happen or that we'll hear about the results.

MitchellSince1893
02-01-2016, 05:06 PM
It must be that the results were so controversial that they decided not to release them. :P

MikeWhalen
02-01-2016, 06:18 PM
Oh God, don't tell me he is French!








:)

Mike

Anglecynn
02-01-2016, 06:42 PM
L21 i personally think is most likely. We shall see...hopefully. :D

Romilius
02-01-2016, 08:10 PM
A few years ago Dr. Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology said that genetic testing was in the works for those two, but there has been no news about it since. I honestly don't know for sure that it will ever happen or that we'll hear about the results.

Perhaps they will be added to a paper on the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

As for the Archer... I would say R-L21, following Agamemnon's thought.

rms2
02-05-2016, 04:47 PM
It must be that the results were so controversial that they decided not to release them. :P

They used autosomal dna and his skull to reconstruct his appearance, and this was the result:

7629

Dubhthach
02-05-2016, 06:00 PM
I went with P312* myself, of course if he comes back U152 or L21 or DF19 or DF27 I can at least say I was half right on P312+ result ;)

rms2
02-06-2016, 12:59 AM
I went with P312* myself, of course if he comes back U152 or L21 or DF19 or DF27 I can at least say I was half right on P312+ result ;)

I could be wrong, but I think the other guys who went with P312* believe L21 originated in the Isles. That's why they did not want to say the Archer, who was apparently born on the Continent, could be L21+.

I think L21 predates the arrival of Bell Beaker in the Isles by a few centuries, so it could not have arisen there, unless one wants to argue that L21 was already in the Isles when the first Bell Beaker men arrived from the Continent.

miiser
02-06-2016, 04:41 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the other guys who went with P312* believe L21 originated in the Isles. That's why they did not want to say the Archer, who was apparently born on the Continent, could be L21+.

This is definitely a deliberate misrepresentation. I've made it clear in all my arguments that the data we have is consistent with L21 originating either in the Isles or on the Continent, but I think the data slightly favors the Isles. I've explicitly stated in earlier posts that regardless of whether L21 originated in the Isles or on the Continent, I don't expect the Beaker population to be majority L21 until later. In this direct reply to you, I previously argued:


L21 did not appear via panspermia in a hidden Garden of Eden. Whether it arose on the Continent or in the Isles, it arose in the midst of other haplogroups, which it immediately began intermingling with and competing against. L21 did not become Celtic. The Celts became L21ish.

When I argue that L21 might have originated in the Isles, it is usually only to point out the defects of reasoning in your adamant insistence that L21 definitely did not originate in the Isles.

I have no long history of a deeply entrenched position that I'm trying to defend. You very clearly do. A thorough review of my posts will reveal a consistent position that we don't have enough data to exclude either possibility. A thorough review of your posts will reveal a history of strongly opposing the possibility of an L21 origin in the Isles, aggressively attacking those who disagree with you, to the point of ignoring good arguments made by others to focus on nit picking of minor points, misrepresenting the arguments made by others, fabricating straw man arguments to distract from the actual arguments being made, finding creative ways to make the actual data fit your assumed model, and flip-flopping your philosophy as it suits your current argument (modern distribution is relevant, then it's not; sample size of 5 Beakers is sufficient to draw conclusions, but the modern sample size of thousands in France and Germany is not; SNP counting is a precise dating method, but Y-Full's estimates are not accurate). You argue like a politician defending their territory in order to "win" the argument, not like a scientist evaluating the data objectively in order to determine truth.

Dubhthach
02-06-2016, 09:14 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the other guys who went with P312* believe L21 originated in the Isles. That's why they did not want to say the Archer, who was apparently born on the Continent, could be L21+.

I think L21 predates the arrival of Bell Beaker in the Isles by a few centuries, so it could not have arisen there, unless one wants to argue that L21 was already in the Isles when the first Bell Beaker men arrived from the Continent.

Well other way I have looking at is that L21 would be a wee wipper snapper by time the Archer died, it's unlikely that one lineage would suddenly expanded to cover whole cultural group in such a short time. Unless we are looking at a bad case of "Medieval Irish marriage norms" ;) (eg. large scale lineage expansion as evident in Ireland from the 6th - 16th centuries). Thus if we assume P312 was dominant among early beaker groups in Ireland and Britain than it's just as probable that an early indvidual might even belong to a branch of P312 that is no longer found in modern populations (Eg. extinct "brother" of L21 ... etc.)

However I'm fairly neutral either way, heck if turn out he was DF27 I'd be escatic for our DF27 cousins that they had earliest known DF27 individual sequenced (before rest ye start complaining I'd be happy for any other branch of P312 as well -- even U106 "second cousins" would be interesting if a surprise!)

rms2
02-06-2016, 03:01 PM
This is definitely a deliberate misrepresentation . . .

No, it is not. I did not misrepresent anything. I am not a liar, which is what I would be if I deliberately misrepresented something.

If one thinks L21 originated in the Isles, then it makes sense that he would not think the Archer, who apparently came from the Continent, would have been L21+.

I don't find your arguments at all compelling, miiser, but they are even less compelling when you engage in name calling.




. . .

I have no long history of a deeply entrenched position that I'm trying to defend. You very clearly do . . .


First, no one mentioned you. I was referring to the several votes for P312*, and I explained what I thought was the reasoning behind them. If you don't like that, well fine.

If you don't like my posts, feel free to ignore them. I don't do the things you accuse me of doing. Perhaps you see things that way, but apparently you are confused. You dislike what I post because I disagree with you and my arguments are better than yours. That's it in a nutshell.

rms2
02-06-2016, 03:15 PM
Well other way I have looking at is that L21 would be a wee wipper snapper by time the Archer died, it's unlikely that one lineage would suddenly expanded to cover whole cultural group in such a short time. Unless we are looking at a bad case of "Medieval Irish marriage norms" ;) (eg. large scale lineage expansion as evident in Ireland from the 6th - 16th centuries). Thus if we assume P312 was dominant among early beaker groups in Ireland and Britain than it's just as probable that an early indvidual might even belong to a branch of P312 that is no longer found in modern populations (Eg. extinct "brother" of L21 ... etc.)

However I'm fairly neutral either way, heck if turn out he was DF27 I'd be escatic for our DF27 cousins that they had earliest known DF27 individual sequenced (before rest ye start complaining I'd be happy for any other branch of P312 as well -- even U106 "second cousins" would be interesting if a surprise!)

You could be right, but if YFull's current estimate for the TMRCA of L21 is right (~2500 BC), then L21 was about 200 years old by the time the Archer died. If L21 is actually a few centuries older than that, as some think, then it had even more time to become frequent among the Bell Beaker group that went to the Isles. It isn't necessary to believe that L21 was frequent throughout the entire European Bell Beaker population to believe that it was well represented, or at least represented, among those who went to the Isles.

I must admit that at first I really did not care that much about what y haplogroup the Archer belonged to, but some of these folks here (you aren't among them, Paul) are making it a big, personal deal and using it as a platform to express their apparent personal animosity toward me. So now I really hope the Archer is L21+, but if he isn't, he isn't. Whatever his y haplogroup, it would be nice to get his results.

Moderator
02-07-2016, 03:09 AM
All members are requested to keep to the topic and discuss views objectively and respectfully rather than attacking the poster, otherwise the thread will be closed and infractions issued.

miiser
02-07-2016, 03:58 AM
All members are requested to keep to the topic and discuss views objectively and respectfully rather than attacking the poster, otherwise the thread will be closed and infractions issued.

I have a frank and sincere question for you:


I could be wrong, but I think the other guys who went with P312* believe L21 originated in the Isles. That's why they did not want to say the Archer, who was apparently born on the Continent, could be L21+.

Sometimes posters make comments which violate forum rules by implying motives in the arguments of their opponents, by attributing straw man arguments to their opponents, or by making what might be considered personal attacks without naming the victim, even though everyone in the thread knows whom the comment is directed at and what the implication is. But the poster makes the attack in a politically careful manner, avoiding naming the intended victim and couching the accusation in phrases such as "I could be wrong" and "the other guys", designed to create a cloak of plausible deniability to cover their dishonesty and avoid getting in trouble for violating forum rules.

Even if comments such as these are a violation of forum rules in spirit, I have a feeling that a complaint to the moderators in cases such as this would not lead to any moderator response.

What's the appropriate response for the victim in cases such as these? How may one acceptably defend themselves against such attacks?

rms2
02-07-2016, 01:02 PM
It is not a rules violation to offer one's own opinion as to why other people might have answered a poll question a certain way. Nor is there anything wrong with voting P312* if one thinks L21 originated in the Isles (and I never said there was).

However, it surely is a rules violation to accuse another member of dishonesty as that post does. It is a blatant ad hominem attack, as was miiser's post prior to that.

Moderator
02-07-2016, 01:21 PM
What's the appropriate response for the victim in cases such as these? How may one acceptably defend themselves against such attacks?

The simple answer for anyone who feels they have been attacked is this: Do not retaliate but report the post via the triangle icon and let the moderation team deal with it.

rms2
02-07-2016, 01:52 PM
In my own personal opinion, there isn't a single choice offered in this poll that is somehow inherently stupid, or morally wrong, or tantamount to devil worship in a pitch dark cemetery in the dead of night.

Each of us has a right to his or her vote, and each of us has his or her own good reasons for voting that way.

What one can do here is, after voting, offer up those reasons for consideration, and others are free to respond and offer counter arguments.

It is also perfectly reasonable to guess at why a certain poll choice was made, like so - I think that choice was made because of consideration x - as long as that guess does not involve some sort of insult or ad hominem attack. Then those who voted that way can respond and say something like, Yes, that is why I voted that way, or No, I voted that way because of consideration y.

Certainly it is no insult or ad hominem attack to guess that those who voted that the Archer was P312* did so because they think L21 originated in the Isles. There is nothing wrong with thinking that L21 originated in the Isles.

Certainly I would not get insulted if someone said, "You voted the way you did because you think L21 originated on the Continent."

Because that is what I think, and there is nothing wrong with that.

rms2
02-07-2016, 08:46 PM
I thought of something I wanted to add about U106 to this thread. I don't think it likely the Archer was U106+, but if it turns out he was, I can think of one real silver lining to such a result, and that is the prospect that JohnHowellsTyrfro might be descended from him or at least that John's particular U106 line might predate the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. Hope I am not offending him by saying that, because I am actually saying it because I respect him and wish him the best.

George Chandler
02-07-2016, 08:52 PM
I thought I recall hearing a while beck that he was not L21..but I could be mistaken. The result "I heard it was" surprised me but I didn't see it for myself so it could be hearsay or incorrect.

George

rms2
02-07-2016, 08:57 PM
I thought I recall hearing a while beck that he was not L21..but I could be mistaken. The result "I heard it was" surprised me but I didn't see it for myself so it could be hearsay or incorrect.

George

I don't think any results have been announced or reported yet. I'm hoping they will appear with the spate of ancient dna results that are supposed to come out this year. We'll see.

George Chandler
02-07-2016, 10:09 PM
I don't think any results have been announced or reported yet. I'm hoping they will appear with the spate of ancient dna results that are supposed to come out this year. We'll see.

I had asked "someone" a while back if it was positive for L21 and the answer I got was "no" (not a secret regarding a single SNP question). I didn't ask this person what it was only if it was positive for L21 and remember thinking at the time that it was probably something unusual like Oetzi. It's possible it is L21 and it was a bad read..I know it's still being tested but this was from a "while ago". I can understand if it sounds unusual for me to say it and take it with a grain of salt because I have never seen the results or tested them myself. This was prior to whatever is being tested now.

My personal "guess" would be either below I2a or I2c..only my guess though as I don't know.

George

jdean
02-08-2016, 12:42 AM
This is slightly old but says they decided to leave the aDNA until funds were available

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HS11CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22amesbury+archer%22+dna&source=bl&ots=t2eJYVoJEU&sig=5zVOUH5yYxneh8msDhWamfuokxM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

George Chandler
02-08-2016, 02:23 AM
This is slightly old but says they decided to leave the aDNA until funds were available

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HS11CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22amesbury+archer%22+dna&source=bl&ots=t2eJYVoJEU&sig=5zVOUH5yYxneh8msDhWamfuokxM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

It wasn't until a few years ago when they started making progress (especially with ancient Egyptian remains) for them to actually test. For the record I have emailed back and forth with Parker Pearson but the someone discussed earlier was not Parker Pearson. The discussion was that any DNA extraction of ancient remains would be done "entirely" but the University in question. Just so there is no confusion or assumptions regarding where information may or may not have come from.

What I really want to see is the DNA from the ancient Egyptian Horemheb.

George

rms2
02-08-2016, 12:00 PM
I had asked "someone" a while back if it was positive for L21 and the answer I got was "no" (not a secret regarding a single SNP question). I didn't ask this person what it was only if it was positive for L21 and remember thinking at the time that it was probably something unusual like Oetzi. It's possible it is L21 and it was a bad read..I know it's still being tested but this was from a "while ago". I can understand if it sounds unusual for me to say it and take it with a grain of salt because I have never seen the results or tested them myself. This was prior to whatever is being tested now.

My personal "guess" would be either below I2a or I2c..only my guess though as I don't know.

George

Is this person you asked someone who would know?

rms2
02-08-2016, 12:26 PM
This is slightly old but says they decided to leave the aDNA until funds were available

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HS11CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22amesbury+archer%22+dna&source=bl&ots=t2eJYVoJEU&sig=5zVOUH5yYxneh8msDhWamfuokxM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Perhaps Bradley's team has a sample from the Archer, and we'll hear something soon.

I have never heard of them doing any early leaking of preliminary results.

TigerMW
02-08-2016, 01:43 PM
The Amesbury Archer is usually dated to c. 2300 BCE, on the other hand Cassidy et al. give us ~20261885 yBP for Rathlin1 and ~20241741 yBP for Rathlin2. Also, I fail to see how I am "massaging the data" to fit my "assumed model", the fact that YFull's TMRCA estimates often happen to be underestimations has been noticed by Michal, lgmayka and myself by looking at very different lineages.
It makes no difference to me personally whether the Amesbury Archer was L21 or something else but I'm hoping he gets tested and that he is L21+.

This is a selfish on my part but on behalf of the subclade. I think that if he comes L21+ that puts his face on L21. He's famous and also called the "King of Stonehenge." I think this would stir up more interest in testing Isles and Isles descendant testing. It would be very unlikely that any of us descend from him, but we could think of him as some kind of grand, old uncle. I don't care about that any more than I care about Nial or Genghis Kahn but I would like to see more testing in my homeland.

In addition, some academics might attempt a specific study or two related to L21. I've already written to a couple telling them there is a story here (but not about the Amesbury Archer specifically.)

Jean M
02-08-2016, 02:13 PM
I don't think any results have been announced or reported yet. I'm hoping they will appear with the spate of ancient dna results that are supposed to come out this year.

You emailed Dr Fitzpatrick on 7 January 2015 asking whether his DNA was to be tested: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3685-Amesbury-Archer-DNA-Test-Results-in-the-Near-Future&p=63863&viewfull=1#post63863

Did you get a reply?

George Chandler
02-08-2016, 02:15 PM
Perhaps Bradley's team has a sample from the Archer, and we'll hear something soon.

I have never heard of them doing any early leaking of preliminary results.

Like I said unless I see or have the actual sample results and sample in front of me and I can personally revalidate I take it with a grain of salt regardless of who they are. If the person would have leaked it to me they would have told me what the results (if sampled) were. My interest at the time was the age for L21 specifically and that's why I asked in order to try and prove that L21 was older than it was suspected at that time. When the answer was "no" I didn't ask the person any further as it didn't pertain to my investigation. After having Big Y results come back with no S1051 and then retesting the person through FTDNA or YSEQ only to find the person positive a bad read is always possible.

There are always people all over willing to help and I never give up my sources of I can't help in terms of who it came from only who it didn't come from. Just a side note to Mike Parker Pearson if you have get a chance to have a conversation with him he's one of the nicest guy's. Most in the business will either not return an email or give a very short cold response. You have to give the man credit that even if the answer isn't what you want he's pretty nice and takes the time to return emails with a busy schedule.

George

Jean M
02-08-2016, 02:22 PM
My interest at the time was the age for L21 specifically and that's why I asked in order to try and prove that L21 was older than it was suspected at that time. When the answer was "no" I didn't ask the person any further as it didn't pertain to my investigation.

But did you ask whether the DNA of the Amesbury Archer had been tested at all? If not, then obviously he would not be positive for L21 or anything else. Then again if some very limited testing had been done - mtDNA only for example - then he would not have any result for any Y-DNA SNP. Then again if the person you spoke to was not a geneticist, he might not even recognise that you were talking about an SNP, and might only know the haplogroup. If we could just establish some basic facts here, things might be clearer.

Jean M
02-08-2016, 02:47 PM
OK. I just rang Alistair Barclay of Wessex Archaeology. He tells me that Wessex has supplied samples for DNA analysis to one of the aDNA labs. They do not have an in-house aDNA lab. He knew no details about what type of analysis was being done (e.g. NGS, full-genome or uniparental.)

Apparently there was considerable interest in the Amesbury Archer from people pursuing various aDNA projects. A sample from his remains is currently under examination along with others including the Boscombe Bowmen. It is hoped to supply samples from other periods as well as the Bell Beaker/Bronze Age, such as Neolithic, Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon. However no results should be expected for a year or two (depending on the project, when samples were supplied, etc.) The first samples were only supplied last summer. No information has been or can be given out by Wessex on the aDNA results. These will appear eventually in papers from the team(s) doing the work. They are adamantly against leakage pre-publication.

jdean
02-08-2016, 02:55 PM
You have to have the patience of a saint in this hobby : )

rms2
02-08-2016, 04:24 PM
You emailed Dr Fitzpatrick on 7 January 2015 asking whether his DNA was to be tested: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3685-Amesbury-Archer-DNA-Test-Results-in-the-Near-Future&p=63863&viewfull=1#post63863

Did you get a reply?

No, not that time.

I had written Dr. Fitzpatrick some years before and got a full reply. At that time he thought they could not afford dna testing of the Archer.

rms2
02-08-2016, 04:32 PM
OK. I just rang Alistair Barclay of Wessex Archaeology. He tells me that Wessex has supplied samples for DNA analysis to one of the aDNA labs. They do not have an in-house aDNA lab. He knew no details about what type of analysis was being done (e.g. NGS, full-genome or uniparental.)

Apparently there was considerable interest in the Amesbury Archer from people pursuing various aDNA projects. A sample from his remains is currently under examination along with others including the Boscombe Bowmen. It is hoped to supply samples from other periods as well as the Bell Beaker/Bronze Age, such as Neolithic, Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon. However no results should be expected for a year or two (depending on the project, when samples were supplied, etc.) The first samples were only supplied last summer. No information has been or can be given out by Wessex on the aDNA results. These will appear eventually in papers from the team(s) doing the work. They are adamantly against leakage pre-publication.

Well, that's good news. At least we know that genetic testing is being done.

I'm still guessing the Archer is L21+.

Jean M
02-08-2016, 04:56 PM
I had written Dr. Fitzpatrick some years before and got a full reply. At that time he thought they could not afford dna testing of the Archer.

That is exactly what he and Jacquie McKinley of Wessex told me in 2010 when I met them at a conference. Things have moved on, evidently. For one thing, it looks as though the cost in this case is being born externally. I did not ask, but it sounded as though the sample is being tested as part of a project, in which case it may be supported by a research grant external to Wessex.

alan
02-08-2016, 05:10 PM
I would take a real gamblin' man to bet against P312 of some sort since that is all we have so far from beaker and the beaker derivatives in Rathlin. Obviously if your life depended on it you would have to go for L21. The problem is we are talking about a guy who crossed over 2400BC or later. So by that stage beaker had been networking like crazy for 4 or 5 generations in central Europe. We know L21 came to be very dominant in the most Celtic speaker derived modern populations of the isles but we dont know if this was from the inception c. 2400BC or was a result of subsequent changes like the gradual reorganisation of the networks eastward and away from Ross Island after tin -bronze was invented c. 2300-2200BC or some other factors. My feeling has long been and remains that if L21 had an advantage over all the other clades of P312 that made it totally dominant in the isles that must have been a location at and control of the shortest crossings into the isles. If L21 or poerhaps DF13 to be more precise was unusual in the P312 world in possessing maritime skills suited to northern seas than that would have made them unchallengeable at that time.

George Chandler
02-08-2016, 06:57 PM
OK. I just rang Alistair Barclay of Wessex Archaeology. He tells me that Wessex has supplied samples for DNA analysis to one of the aDNA labs. They do not have an in-house aDNA lab. He knew no details about what type of analysis was being done (e.g. NGS, full-genome or uniparental.)

Apparently there was considerable interest in the Amesbury Archer from people pursuing various aDNA projects. A sample from his remains is currently under examination along with others including the Boscombe Bowmen. It is hoped to supply samples from other periods as well as the Bell Beaker/Bronze Age, such as Neolithic, Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon. However no results should be expected for a year or two (depending on the project, when samples were supplied, etc.) The first samples were only supplied last summer. No information has been or can be given out by Wessex on the aDNA results. These will appear eventually in papers from the team(s) doing the work. They are adamantly against leakage pre-publication.

I won't get into anymore details about it because it may identify who relayed this to me and I'm big on protecting peoples privacy. Like I said I would take it with a grain of salt unless the results are in your hands to analyze yourself and verify. There is no breach of confidentiality...and how could there be if it has never been sampled before now right? Even if it had been sampled previously the fact of it being negative for L21 could mean anything from a bad read to being R1b and upstream of L21 or not even R1b at all? Being negative L21 if true isn't that interesting..the information I am keeping secret is really interesting. Everything is protected in terms of information by using encrypted emails and complex passwords exceeding 25 characters combined with other security measures and 3rd party contacts and offline thumb drives with computers that never connect to the internet. Even if a slime ball hacker was able to breach my encrypted emails I guarantee they wouldn't be smart enough to find out what is or is not being said..nothing illegal.

Like I said "if" it's true and it was tested previously there is no big deal and I was never sworn to confidentiality over the fact it's -L21. I will however protect that piece of information in terms of where it came from even if incorrect. We live in a world where information sells and if you can protect where you got it from it's pretty amazing what you can find out.

George

rms2
02-08-2016, 07:06 PM
So, you know who is testing the Archer, and someone who should know the results has leaked information to you?

Because any info about the results before they are released, including ancestral or negative results, is a leak.

Or was this just someone expressing an opinion?

bix
02-08-2016, 07:09 PM
It would be hilarious if it was I-M26.

rms2
02-08-2016, 07:23 PM
It would be hilarious if it was I-M26.

Anything is possible. For me that would be a disappointment, but I would like to know, one way or the other.

Thus far all the Bell Beaker test results have been R1 at the very least, and those with sufficient coverage have been R1b-P312 or at least U106-.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6253-Bell-Beaker-and-Early-Celtic-in-the-Isles&p=139230&viewfull=1#post139230

No doubt we'll run into a non-R1b Beaker man eventually, but much of Britain is R1b-P312 country, it looks likely it got there with the Bell Beaker people, and the Amesbury Archer was a Bell Beaker man; so, putting two and two together . . .

bix
02-08-2016, 07:39 PM
Only interjected that thought because it seemed like something that would be unexpected--but those guys have a habit of turning up.

I understand Amesbury might have an Alpine connection?

Still I realize it could be even more out of the ballpark than that, and that would drive a lot of folks crazy.

Yet I agree with you, most likely R1b, at least.

rms2
02-08-2016, 08:02 PM
Only interjected that thought because it seemed like something that would be unexpected--but those guys have a habit of turning up.

I understand Amesbury might have an Alpine connection?

Still I realize it could be even more out of the ballpark than that, and that would drive a lot of folks crazy.

Yet I agree with you, most likely R1b, at least.

You're right, it could be anything. A G2a result wouldn't shock me (well, it would, but not all that much).

Jean M
02-08-2016, 08:05 PM
I understand Amesbury might have an Alpine connection?

The Archer was tested for isotopes, which indicated that he probably came from somewhere near the Alps, not necessarily actually in the Alps. He belonged to the mobile Bell Beaker community which had settlements in these regions:

7696

Bear in mind that:


All the Bell Beaker males so far tested have been R1b.
The region north of the Alps was not full of Germanic speakers at the time.

Jean M
02-08-2016, 08:11 PM
"if" it's true and it was tested previously

But it does not seem that the Archer was DNA tested previously. We have solid information that he was not tested as part of the post-excavation work that led to the Wessex Archaeology monograph on him and the Boscombe Bowmen in 2011. The sample was sent off to be tested in summer 2015.


We live in a world where information sells

You mean that you bought this snippet? I suppose you could try asking for your money back.

bix
02-08-2016, 08:17 PM
Could be Remedello?

Jean M
02-08-2016, 08:22 PM
Could be Remedello?

No. The Amesbury Archer was in every way Bell Beaker. He was an archer. He was buried with bell beakers, archery equipment, etc. Nothing to do with Remedello. http://www.salisburymuseum.org.uk/collections/stonehenge-prehistory/amesbury-archer

bix
02-08-2016, 08:33 PM
An admittedly very weak connection, I suppose, with the "Vinelz pin" found with the Archer had a style similar to a kind found in Remedello.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HS11CQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=inauthor%3A%22A.%20P.%20%20Fitzpatrick%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jean M
02-08-2016, 08:37 PM
An admittedly very weak connection, I suppose, with the "Vinelz pin" found with the Archer had a style similar to a kind found in Remedello.


Thanks for that. In my view there was an important connection between Remedello and Bell Beaker - the anthropomorphic stelae.

However it does not look as though the Archer came from south of the Alps. He had three copper knives. Two could be from northern Spain and the third from western France. Vinelz is in north-western Switzerland. I have no idea of the range of distribution of the antler pins from there, but evidently they were not exclusive to Remedello.

Jean M
02-08-2016, 08:53 PM
I do expect to find at least some non-R1b as fellow travellers with R1b in Bell Beaker. Genetic genealogist Hans de Beule has pointed out that I2a2b and R1b-L21 both seem to flow along the Rhine and into the British Isles. So I'm not betting on every single BB male being R1b.

George Chandler
02-08-2016, 08:56 PM
But it does not seem that the Archer was DNA tested previously. We have solid information that he was not tested as part of the post-excavation work that led to the Wessex Archaeology monograph on him and the Boscombe Bowmen in 2011. The sample was sent off to be tested in summer 2015.



You mean that you bought this snippet? I suppose you could try asking for your money back.

No...now if I would have received a sample or the sequenced data prior to release..that may be a different story. That being said we wouldn't be having this conversation about it though. :) It will be interesting to see what is found.

George

Muircheartaigh
02-08-2016, 10:18 PM
I would take a real gamblin' man to bet against P312 of some sort since that is all we have so far from beaker and the beaker derivatives in Rathlin. Obviously if your life depended on it you would have to go for L21. The problem is we are talking about a guy who crossed over 2400BC or later. So by that stage beaker had been networking like crazy for 4 or 5 generations in central Europe. We know L21 came to be very dominant in the most Celtic speaker derived modern populations of the isles but we dont know if this was from the inception c. 2400BC or was a result of subsequent changes like the gradual reorganisation of the networks eastward and away from Ross Island after tin -bronze was invented c. 2300-2200BC or some other factors. My feeling has long been and remains that if L21 had an advantage over all the other clades of P312 that made it totally dominant in the isles that must have been a location at and control of the shortest crossings into the isles. If L21 or poerhaps DF13 to be more precise was unusual in the P312 world in possessing maritime skills suited to northern seas than that would have made them unchallengeable at that time.

Do we know how tall he was? The Rathlin L21 trio who were more or less contemporary with the Archer, were very tall, about 6ft. Maybe an indication of his Haplogroup.

Jean M
02-08-2016, 10:53 PM
Do we know how tall he was? The Rathlin L21 trio who were more or less contemporary with the Archer, were very tall, about 6ft. Maybe an indication of his Haplogroup.

Haplogroup has no effect on height, but I know what you mean. The Copper/Bronze Age arrivals were taller on average than the Neolithic farmers before them. But we know that the Amesbury Archer was Bell Beaker, so his height does not add to our information.

The Amesbury Archer was about 1.7m (5’8”) in height, which is roughly the same as the shortest of three males in the Boscombe Bowmen group, who were between 5'8 1/2" and 5' 10" with an average 1.77m. This is taller than the average 5' 6" (1.68m) recorded for Neolithic males. The average for 13 other male BB graves in England is 1.73m.

alan
02-11-2016, 12:08 AM
I dont have any formal data but over the years I couldnt help noticing very tall men pop up in reports on Food Vessel graves in Ireland. I dont think there is any comparable data for the actual beaker period in Ireland due to a mix of cremation and poor preservation of unburnt burials.

rms2
02-12-2016, 12:58 PM
Haplogroup has no effect on height, but I know what you mean. The Copper/Bronze Age arrivals were taller on average than the Neolithic farmers before them. But we know that the Amesbury Archer was Bell Beaker, so his height does not add to our information.

The Amesbury Archer was about 1.7m (58) in height, which is roughly the same as the shortest of three males in the Boscombe Bowmen group, who were between 5'8 1/2" and 5' 10" with an average 1.77m. This is taller than the average 5' 6" (1.68m) recorded for Neolithic males. The average for 13 other male BB graves in England is 1.73m.

The Brymbo Bell Beaker man from Wales was 5-8 (173 cm), as well.

I wonder if there are any plans for testing his dna. Of course, he was several centuries younger than the Archer.

Brymbo Man - Key Facts (http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/heritage/brymbo_man/bm_kids.htm)

A.D.
02-13-2016, 01:25 PM
I'll go for L21 because I think it was big in the Western maritime Bell-Beaker. He might have been situated at Stonehenge because it was still ab good place to make contacts from a large area. He wasn't an average guy. He was an elite hence had a better chance of leaving a surviving lineage. I think U106 was still to far East and busy getting ready to be German. I think U152 had more of a north/South axis The Alps and Italy. As for DF27? It seems to be wide spread. I don't know why but I think the high percentage in Iberia came later. Around this time it seems likely to crop up anywhere in some form.There seems to be a connection between Iberia and the Cspell island Bell-Beakers (in Hungary I think) so maybe it is a little more associated with horses and that's how it spread. P312 was being out grown by its 'sons' the further west you go.As for non-IE, I think the Neolithic farmers (Ga's) had finished there movement and were settled.The I's probably joined in with who ever was close I1a in the northerly and I2 southerly. I'm probably wrong about every thing but hopefully there's an idea worth discussing in there somewhere.

Arch
02-15-2016, 07:11 AM
BTW, I think it would probably be best if you all voted based on what you actually think the Archer may turn out to be rather than based on your personal grievances against me, but that is up to you.

Whatever happens, I am not eating any hats.

More Feuerzangenbowle for the rest of us then...

Arch
02-15-2016, 07:17 AM
The Brymbo Bell Beaker man from Wales was 5-8 (173 cm), as well.

I wonder if there are any plans for testing his dna. Of course, he was several centuries younger than the Archer.

Brymbo Man - Key Facts (http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/heritage/brymbo_man/bm_kids.htm)

http://wxmmuseum.tumblr.com/

ffoucart
02-15-2016, 07:18 AM
I vote U152 because he was probably from around the Alps. But who knows?

razyn
02-15-2016, 02:38 PM
http://wxmmuseum.tumblr.com/
I did a search on that "Ask Brymbo Man" page for "DNA" (with the little magnifying glass at top left) and found this:

Does Brymbo man have any family alive now?

I had a large family so it is very possible that my descendants are alive and in Brymbo now. I’m not certain we could ever tell for sure, but if you see someone walking around who looks like me they could be one of my great great great great great great grandchildren.
Recently they found out that Cheddar Gorge man had relatives still in Somerset, they would need my DNA. In fact I am currently in negotiations with academics and a television company about this very matter. I can’t say any more at the moment, but I am in demand.
#brymbo man #wrexham #wrexham museum #beaker people #bronze age

Reith
02-15-2016, 08:35 PM
L21.... And I enjoy archery, maybe it is genetic :)

rms2
02-16-2016, 03:55 PM
I did a search on that "Ask Brymbo Man" page for "DNA" (with the little magnifying glass at top left) and found this:

Does Brymbo man have any family alive now?

I had a large family so it is very possible that my descendants are alive and in Brymbo now. I’m not certain we could ever tell for sure, but if you see someone walking around who looks like me they could be one of my great great great great great great grandchildren.
Recently they found out that Cheddar Gorge man had relatives still in Somerset, they would need my DNA. In fact I am currently in negotiations with academics and a television company about this very matter. I can’t say any more at the moment, but I am in demand.
#brymbo man #wrexham #wrexham museum #beaker people #bronze age

That's great. I hope we get some dna results from Brymbo Man soon, especially y-dna.

Sinclar
02-18-2016, 10:03 AM
I'll go for U152 because I'm British and U152. :)
I contacted Wessex Archaeology about 18 months ago concerning a-DNA testing of the Amesbury Archer. I spoke with a senior archaeologist about the prospect of fundraising for the project. Adding that if traditional funding was an issue then funds could be raised within the wider DNA community through crowfunding or other methods. He was going to take the proposal to the appropriate people.

rms2
02-20-2017, 10:03 PM
Maybe as the advent of the much anticipated big Bell Beaker paper draws near, it is time to resurrect this thread and give those who have not yet voted a chance.

Silesian
02-20-2017, 11:36 PM
R1b-2103+

rms2
02-21-2017, 12:29 AM
Hopefully we'll find out, if the Archer is included in the big Bell Beaker paper.

rms2
08-14-2017, 08:27 PM
Awhile back, I emailed Dr. Iigo Olalde about the y-dna of the Amesbury Archer. He told me the initial testing of the Archer failed but that they would retest him, and Dr. Olalde was hoping for success on the second attempt. That is why I am resurrecting this thread, even though the tone of some its earlier posts is nasty and personal. I am hoping that soon we will know to what y-dna haplogroup the Archer belonged.

In the meantime, we know from the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962), that the Bell Beaker man known as "The Companion" belonged to y-dna haplogroup R1b-L21.

That is significant because the Companion, buried only a few meters from the Amesbury Archer, is believed to be a close relative of the Amesbury Archer, perhaps his son. The Archer and the Companion share unusual bone structure in their feet, which indicates they were related. Here are some remarks on that from Wessex Archaeology:



An analysis of the bones later showed that he [The Companion] and the Archer were related as they both had the same unusual bone structure in their feet – the heel bone had a joint with one of the upper tarsal bones in the foot. This proves they were related, and it is even possible that they were father and son, though this is not certain.

Wessex Archaeology: The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5)

If the Companion was indeed the Archer's son, which seems likely, then the Amesbury Archer was also R1b-L21.

I'm hoping the final version of the Olalde et al paper appears soon and that the Archer's y-dna and autosomal results are part of it.

I2565 R1b-L21 2470-2140 BC (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2305 BC ("The Companion"):

18164

rms2
08-18-2017, 01:51 AM
. . .

I2565 R1b-L21 2470-2140 BC (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2305 BC ("The Companion"):

18164

Currently, the Companion is our oldest known R1b-L21, given the midpoint of his rc dates, which is 2305 BC.

YFull's estimate of L21's tmrca right now is 2450 BC (4400 ybp - 1950).

jdean
08-18-2017, 10:23 AM
Currently, the Companion is our oldest known R1b-L21, given the midpoint of his rc dates, which is 2305 BC.

YFull's estimate of L21's tmrca right now is 2450 BC (4400 ybp - 1950).

Can't wait for the RAW data to come out !!!

It'll be interesting to see how many of the equivalents they had coverage for and if he was negative for any of them.

rms2
08-18-2017, 02:08 PM
Can't wait for the RAW data to come out !!!

It'll be interesting to see how many of the equivalents they had coverage for and if he was negative for any of them.

I'm wondering if any of those continental P312s could be positive for any of the L21 equivalents or downstream SNPs. Evidently L21 didn't turn up in their initial test results, but they weren't negative for it either. I'm especially curious about those four P312s from the Netherlands, since British Bell Beaker is closest to Dutch Bell Beaker.

The_Lyonnist
08-18-2017, 02:48 PM
I2 !.....

JMcB
08-18-2017, 02:59 PM
Awhile back, I emailed Dr. Iigo Olalde about the y-dna of the Amesbury Archer. He told me the initial testing of the Archer failed but that they would retest him, and Dr. Olalde was hoping for success on the second attempt. That is why I am resurrecting this thread, even though the tone of some its earlier posts is nasty and personal. I am hoping that soon we will know to what y-dna haplogroup the Archer belonged.

In the meantime, we know from the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962), that the Bell Beaker man known as "The Companion" belonged to y-dna haplogroup R1b-L21.

That is significant because the Companion, buried only a few meters from the Amesbury Archer, is believed to be a close relative of the Amesbury Archer, perhaps his son. The Archer and the Companion share unusual bone structure in their feet, which indicates they were related. Here are some remarks on that from Wessex Archaeology:



Wessex Archaeology: The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5)

If the Companion was indeed the Archer's son, which seems likely, then the Amesbury Archer was also R1b-L21.

I'm hoping the final version of the Olalde et al paper appears soon and that the Archer's y-dna and autosomal results are part of it.

I2565 R1b-L21 2470-2140 BC (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2305 BC ("The Companion"):

18164

Considering the evidence above, if he's not R1b-L21, I'll eat my hat.

corner
08-18-2017, 03:18 PM
I'm wondering if any of those continental P312s could be positive for any of the L21 equivalents or downstream SNPs. Evidently L21 didn't turn up in their initial test results, but they weren't negative for it either. I'm especially curious about those four P312s from the Netherlands, since British Bell Beaker is closest to Dutch Bell Beaker.Given the difficulty the technology has seeing DF27 (invisible without raw data analysis), some of the P312* in Europe could turn out to be DF27+. It seems like L21 and U152 stand out like sore thumbs in ancient yDNA by comparison.

rms2
08-19-2017, 01:36 PM
Given the difficulty the technology has seeing DF27 (invisible without raw data analysis), some of the P312* in Europe could turn out to be DF27+. It seems like L21 and U152 stand out like sore thumbs in ancient yDNA by comparison.

Evidently L2 pops up a lot more readily than U152, but you may be right. I was wondering mostly about those four Bell Beaker P312s from the Netherlands, since Olalde et al said that British Bell Beaker is closest to Dutch Bell Beaker. It would be odd if all four of them were DF27, given all the L21 in British Bell Beaker.

rms2
08-19-2017, 09:05 PM
Considering the evidence above, if he's not R1b-L21, I'll eat my hat.

I see you went back and read some of the early posts.

I am just waiting and hoping for the Archer's results. I don't have a hat, but I'm thinking I wouldn't have to eat one anyway.

DillonResearcher
08-19-2017, 09:12 PM
I see you went back and read some of the early posts.

I am just waiting and hoping for the Archer's results. I don't have a hat, but I'm thinking I wouldn't have to eat one anyway.

By the sound of things if the Archer is not L21 then we will have discovered a rather ancient NPE.

rms2
08-19-2017, 09:20 PM
By the sound of things if the Archer is not L21 then we will have discovered a rather ancient NPE.

That does not seem likely, given the bones in their feet. The Archer and the Companion are related, probably father and son.

rms2
10-07-2017, 02:10 AM
Still waiting for the final edition of Olalde et al.

Romilius
10-07-2017, 04:48 PM
Still waiting for the final edition of Olalde et al.

In the Bell Beaker thread, Gravetto-Danubian wrote about three weeks (or months?) wait for something new...

rms2
10-08-2017, 10:35 PM
In the Bell Beaker thread, Gravetto-Danubian wrote about three weeks (or months?) wait for something new...

I hope it's soon, and I hope they were able yo get some good results from the Archer this time around. Some of us have been waiting for that for years.

alan
10-10-2017, 12:26 AM
He really has to be L21. And if he is then that would seem to indicate that at least the western Alps features L21 at this period. However if he is not then that would raise some weird stuff - primarly why were an L21 and a non-L21 (U152 seems 2nd favourite) wandering around England together c. 2400-2300BC when there common male ancestor live maybe 600 years earlier? That seems unlikely and the simple solution is they are both L21.

rms2
10-10-2017, 12:45 AM
He really has to be L21. And if he is then that would seem to indicate that at least the western Alps features L21 at this period. However if he is not then that would raise some weird stuff - primarly why were an L21 and a non-L21 (U152 seems 2nd favourite) wandering around England together c. 2400-2300BC when there common male ancestor live maybe 600 years earlier? That seems unlikely and the simple solution is they are both L21.

Given that foot bone anomaly that both the Archer and the Companion shared, it seems likely they were father and son or at least very closely related. Since the Companion was L21, it seems almost certain the Archer was, too.

I would just like to know for sure.

rms2
10-16-2017, 11:27 PM
This (https://www.academia.edu/34831037/Excavations_of_Late_Neolithic_arable_burial_mounds _and_a_number_of_well-preserved_skeletons_at_Oostwoud-Tuithoorn_a_re-analysis_of_old_data) is a pretty good paper on the excavation of the Dutch Bell Beaker mounds at Oostwoud-Tuithoorn in the Netherlands. In a couple of places it erroneously reports that the males were buried on their right sides, when pretty obviously they were buried on their left sides. The photos show that, and the paper says that, too, except for a couple of mistaken mentions of right side burial.

Anyway, the Archer and the Companion were both buried on their left sides, as well.

Here are a couple of photos from the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn paper and of the Archer and the Companion.

19308 19309

19310 19311

Dewsloth
10-16-2017, 11:44 PM
This (https://www.academia.edu/34831037/Excavations_of_Late_Neolithic_arable_burial_mounds _and_a_number_of_well-preserved_skeletons_at_Oostwoud-Tuithoorn_a_re-analysis_of_old_data) is a pretty good paper on the excavation of the Dutch Bell Beaker mounds at Oostwoud-Tuithoorn in the Netherlands. In a couple of places it erroneously reports that the males were buried on their right sides, when pretty obviously they were buried on their left sides. The photos show that, and the paper says that, too, except for a couple of mistaken mentions of right side burial.

Anyway, the Archer and the Companion were both buried on their left sides, as well.

Here are a couple of photos from the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn paper and of the Archer and the Companion.

19308 19309

19310 19311

Maybe someone's negative or slide got flipped somewhere in all the publications? ;)

George Chandler
10-16-2017, 11:45 PM
Given that foot bone anomaly that both the Archer and the Companion shared, it seems likely they were father and son or at least very closely related. Since the Companion was L21, it seems almost certain the Archer was, too.

I would just like to know for sure.

Is there something about the mutation or foot bone issue that is usually inherited from the father? It could just as easily be from a maternal relative such as a cousin correct? Just wondering what abnormalities would get passed around smaller communities back then especially if it was isolated. Not saying it wasn't a father son relationship as I personally have no idea how they were connected.

George

rms2
10-16-2017, 11:48 PM
Maybe someone's negative or slide got flipped somewhere in all the publications? ;)

Every time?

Usually BB men were buried on their left sides, although there were exceptions. Right side burial was more of a Corded Ware thing, although some of them were buried on their left sides, as well.

The Barbing Bowman from Germany was buried on his left side, as was the Archer of France.

19313 19314

rms2
10-16-2017, 11:57 PM
Is there something about the mutation or foot bone issue that is usually inherited from the father? It could just as easily be from a maternal relative such as a cousin correct? Just wondering what abnormalities would get passed around smaller communities back then especially if it was isolated. Not saying it wasn't a father son relationship as I personally have no idea how they were connected.

George

I think it is rare enough that finding it in both men almost guarantees they were closely related somehow. It does not guarantee they were father and son, but the two were buried just three meters apart.

George Chandler
10-17-2017, 12:01 AM
I agree..just wasn't sure if you had some insight into the abnormality and how it was passed on.

rms2
10-17-2017, 12:08 AM
I agree..just wasn't sure if you had some insight into the abnormality and how it was passed on.

I haven't really delved into that aspect of it. I'm just hoping the final published paper features the Amesbury Archer's genome, especially his y-dna.

rms2
11-01-2017, 03:26 PM
I have very reliable information that Olalde et al have not been able to retest the Archer because of the difficulty in obtaining another sample. This has to do with the fame of the Archer and the fact that he is prominently displayed in a museum. Sigh . . .

The same source tells me, however, that the final paper will have twice the samples of the original pre-print and that they have more British R1b-L21 and non-L21 R1b, but no continental R1b-L21 yet. I don't know to what R1b haplogroups those British non-L21 R1bs belong. I don't want to risk tiring my source by being a pest, so I'm not going to ask. We'll just have to wait.

alan
11-01-2017, 03:49 PM
I have very reliable information that Olalde et al have not been able to retest the Archer because of the difficulty in obtaining another sample. This has to do with the fame of the Archer and the fact that he is prominently displayed in a museum. Sigh . . .

The same source tells me, however, that the final paper will have twice the samples of the original pre-print and that they have more British R1b-L21 and non-L21 R1b, but no continental R1b-L21 yet. I don't know to what R1b haplogroups those British non-L21 R1bs belong. I don't want to risk tiring my source by being a pest, so I'm not going to ask. We'll just have to wait.
May be hard to find the earliest L21. There is that period between L21 and DF13 when the bigtime had not apparently been reached - not sure when but maybe 2800-2500?

TigerMW
11-01-2017, 04:54 PM
I have very reliable information that Olalde et al have not been able to retest the Archer because of the difficulty in obtaining another sample. This has to do with the fame of the Archer and the fact that he is prominently displayed in a museum. Sigh . . .

The same source tells me, however, that the final paper will have twice the samples of the original pre-print and that they have more British R1b-L21 and non-L21 R1b, but no continental R1b-L21 yet. I don't know to what R1b haplogroups those British non-L21 R1bs belong. I don't want to risk tiring my source by being a pest, so I'm not going to ask. We'll just have to wait.
I hope they are testing for Z290 as well as P312, U152, DF19, L238, DF99, DF27 (or Z195 and ZZ12).

There could be P312* folks that are Z290 if they skip it. I think it would be important if Z290+ L21- can only be found in the British Isles or only/mostly on the continent (edit).

rms2
11-01-2017, 04:58 PM
I hope they are testing for Z290 as well as P312, U152, DF19, L238, DF99, DF27 (or Z195 and ZZ12).

There could be P312* folks that are Z290 if they skip it. I think it would be important if Z290+ L21- can only be found in the British Isles.

I guess we might find that out once the raw data are released. I suspect Z290xL21 is more likely to be found on the Continent and that eventually ancient L21 will be found on the Continent, as well, and older than what has been found in Britain.

It's already reasonably certain the Amesbury Archer was R1b-L21, and he was not native to Britain.

TigerMW
11-01-2017, 05:03 PM
It's already reasonably certain the Amesbury Archer was R1b-L21, and he was not native to Britain.
We know his shared foot problem with the Companion indicates they were related but we don't know if it was on the paternal side, do we?

razyn
11-01-2017, 05:05 PM
I hope they are testing for Z290 as well as P312, U152, DF19, L238, DF99, DF27 (or Z195 and ZZ12).

There could be P312* folks that are Z290 if they skip it. I think it would be important if Z290+ L21- can only be found in the British Isles.

I don't think they are "testing for" DF27. They are doing some degree of NextGen sequencing; and some of the Y chromosome loci that interest us can be teased out of the shaky BAM files yielded by ancient and degraded DNA. But the print version of the paper isn't where we are likely to find your list of preferred SNPs. We are waiting for it because the BAM files are embargoed until it's off the press.

rms2
11-01-2017, 05:07 PM
We know his shared foot problem with the Companion indicates they were related but we don't know if it was on the paternal side, do we?

No, we don't know that for sure, which is why we really need y-dna test results from the Archer, but he and the Companion were buried just 3 meters apart. That's why I said it's "reasonably certain" the Archer is R1b-L21. I think they were father and son.

If I were a betting man, I would put money on it.

Romilius
11-01-2017, 06:19 PM
Thanks for news... Do you know if they have also more Iberian beakers? I really hope the male samples come from well preserved burials with the complete warrior kit and metal weapons. I noticed that nearly all weapons tied to samples we have are made of flint... so disappointing.

Romilius
11-01-2017, 06:27 PM
Oh yes... and the notorious Michelsberg culture + Sion site samples... expecially male samples could be very useful for BB history... hope they have them in the final release...

rms2
11-01-2017, 11:23 PM
I don't know about any additional Iberian samples. My original questions were about when we can expect the final paper and if there was any progress on the Archer. I was told the final paper is awaiting approval from its publisher and that it will be worth the wait because it will have twice the samples of the original. I was also told they have not been able to retest the Archer because of the difficulty in getting a sample. Then I followed up by asking about continental L21, to which question I was told they have more British R1b-L21 and non-L21 R1b but no continental L21 yet.

Dewsloth
11-01-2017, 11:32 PM
Then I followed up by asking about continental L21, to which question I was told they have more British R1b-L21 and non-L21 R1b but no continental L21 yet.

Is that British non-L21 or more continental or was it unclear?

rms2
11-01-2017, 11:34 PM
Is that British non-L21 or more continental or was it unclear?

No, it was clear: it's British R1bxL21.

He did not say what the specific haplogroups are. I am curious, but I did not want to push my luck with too many emails.

alan
11-01-2017, 11:35 PM
I think given the patrilineal clan structure we can pretty well be 99.999% certain that 2 men who are buried together and are clearly closely related also share the same yDNA. They must be father and son or perhaps paternal uncle and nephew. Either way it seems very unlikely that they are of different clans and are only related by matraline. It seems very unlikely 2 closely related men with different male lines would reside or be buried together given the patrilocal and patrilineal nature of their society. I am satisfied that the Archer is L21. That in turn indicates L21 is there at the start of the British beaker period.

rms2
11-01-2017, 11:39 PM
I think given the patrilineal clan structure we can pretty well be 99.999% certain that 2 men who are buried together and are clearly closely related also share the same yDNA. They must be father and son or perhaps paternal uncle and nephew. Either way it seems very unlikely that they are of different clans and are only related by matraline the

That's what I think, too. And if one looks at the Amesbury site, all the male BB burials thus far have been L21 or likely to have been L21 if only greater resolution could have been obtained.

The Archer and the Companion were buried only 3 meters apart and shared an unusual foot bone anomaly. Like I said, were I betting man, I would bet a good-sized chunk of money on the Archer being L21 like the Companion because I think they were father and son.

MitchellSince1893
11-01-2017, 11:51 PM
No, it was clear: it's British R1bxL21.

He did not say what the specific haplogroups are. I am curious, but I did not want to push my luck with too many emails.

Ooh...what if it's U106? :biggrin1:

rms2
11-01-2017, 11:55 PM
Ooh...what if it's U106? :biggrin1:

Could be. I doubt it though.

I think it's probably like the other British "non-L21" R1b BB stuff in the pre-print: unspecified P312 or P310.

We'll eventually find out, but If U106 got to Britain with Bell Beaker, one wonders why its distribution is so Anglo-Saxon looking.

And look at the continental BB samples thus far: just two U106s from one site, and those two were rather late and weren't buried at all like BB people.

MitchellSince1893
11-02-2017, 12:29 AM
Could be. I doubt it though.

I think it's probably like the other British "non-L21" R1b BB stuff in the pre-print: unspecified P312 or P310.

We'll eventually find out, but If U106 got to Britain with Bell Beaker, one wonders why its distribution is so Anglo-Saxon looking.

And look at the continental BB samples thus far: just two U106s from one site, and those two were rather late and weren't buried at all like BB people.

IMO it would have to be an hg that is found relatively evenly spread throughout the Isles (like L21), which isn't the case for U152 and U106 which are much more common along the North Sea side of Britain. An hg that is as common in Wales as it is in eastern England. DF27 would be a better option

Having said that it could be U152, but based on modern distribution, U152 would be a minor player in Bell Beaker Britain. Wales is practically a black hole when it comes to U152 distribution maps. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=11jPlVx9x6om_eoFPR7kHpq9-WCQ&ll=51.97754158628281%2C2.2656355765277567&z=6

rms2
11-02-2017, 12:35 AM
IMO it would have to be an hg that is found relatively evenly spread throughout the Isles (like L21), which isn't the case for U152 and U106 which are much more common along the North Sea side of Britain. An hg that is as common in Wales as it is in eastern England. DF27 would be a better option

Having said that it could be U152, but based on modern distribution, U152 would be a minor player in Bell Beaker Britain. Wales is practically a black hole when it comes to U152 distribution maps. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=11jPlVx9x6om_eoFPR7kHpq9-WCQ&ll=51.97754158628281%2C2.2656355765277567&z=6

Yeah, I think both U152 and U106 were relatively late arrivals in Britain. I think even DF27 is most plentiful in SE Britain, but it does show up in some old Irish families.

Dewsloth
11-02-2017, 03:58 AM
It’s probably too much to hope that the final published report has the same beautiful subclade specificity of that Belgian report.

rms2
11-02-2017, 11:43 AM
It’s probably too much to hope that the final published report has the same beautiful subclade specificity of that Belgian report.

I think it's kind of hit or miss with really old bones. We're lucky to get as much as we do.

TigerMW
11-02-2017, 05:45 PM
... Having said that it could be U152, but based on modern distribution, U152 would be a minor player in Bell Beaker Britain. Wales is practically a black hole when it comes to U152 distribution maps. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=11jPlVx9x6om_eoFPR7kHpq9-WCQ&ll=51.97754158628281%2C2.2656355765277567&z=6
That black hole over Wales for U152 seems a bit odd. This might actually be a clue that U106 was more than just Anglo-Saxon since U106 has a better show in Wales. If U152 was there in England prior to the Anglo-Saxons you'd have thought they would have had a better show in Wales. Even the Normans must have had some impact in Wales.

I don't get it. Maybe we should look at the Eupedia frequency maps instead since they are based on studies.

Edit: I just checked the Eupedia maps which Maciamo allows me to repost here (scroll down):
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

Yes, U152 (S28) really is a blank in Wales and SE Ireland.

It is interesting that U152 (S28) and U106 (S21) seem to be opposites in Ireland with U152 to the west and U106 to the east. DF27 has a more even distribution in Ireland, although still light. I would have thought U152 would be more like DF27 if U152 was there in the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

Dewsloth
11-02-2017, 06:14 PM
That black hole over Wales for U152 seems a bit odd. This might actually be a clue that U106 was more than just Anglo-Saxon since U106 has a better show in Wales. If U152 was there in England prior to the Anglo-Saxons you'd have thought they would have had a better show in Wales. Even the Normans must have had some impact in Wales.

I don't get it. Maybe we should look at the Eupedia frequency maps instead since they are based on studies.

Edit: I just checked the Eupedia maps which Maciamo allows me to repost here (scroll down):
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

Yes, U152 (S28) really is a blank in Wales and SE Ireland.

It is interesting that U152 (S28) and U106 (S21) seem to be opposites in Ireland with U152 to the west and U106 to the east. DF27 has a more even distribution in Ireland, although still light. I would have thought U152 would be more like DF27 if U152 was there in the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

While the British Isles DF19 pattern isn't too far off from the S28 map above, the continental distribution looks quite different (nearly anywhere in France that isn't Normandy is pretty much a blank/black hole). Overall, DF19 looks a bit more like that Eupedia map of U106, just with a lighter concentration in Scandinavia.

19505

DF19 is old enough to have traipsed along with either uncle U106 or brother L21 in Beaker days, or done its own thing somewhere around the northern Rhine area.
One of its biggest/branchiest subclades formed during the Bronze Age Collapse era of 1200BC (and it's dispersed on both sides of the Channel), but it seems to be very good at hide & seek. :lol:

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-02-2017, 09:11 PM
Could be. I doubt it though.

I think it's probably like the other British "non-L21" R1b BB stuff in the pre-print: unspecified P312 or P310.

We'll eventually find out, but If U106 got to Britain with Bell Beaker, one wonders why its distribution is so Anglo-Saxon looking.

And look at the continental BB samples thus far: just two U106s from one site, and those two were rather late and weren't buried at all like BB people.

Question is what characterises the Anglo- Saxon migration and impact?
It appears to be more dense in the East of England (understandably given the migration route) and gradually fades the further West you go. I would have thought that any migration following the same route (North Sea/Eastern English channel) would broadly show the same pattern, regardless when it occurred. Then you hit Wales, which for various reasons including geography puts a brake on things or at least reduces the impact considerably. The impact is greater near the point of arrival and diminishes with distance. I suppose the longer ago it was the less obvious the pattern might be?
Of course if you have a migration route from the West, up or down the Irish Sea, Bristol Channel and Western English Channel you get a different pattern of distribution I would have thought.

Dewsloth
11-02-2017, 09:19 PM
It’s hard enough trying to figure out the route old Amesbury took. Up the Thames and then overland?

rms2
11-02-2017, 10:38 PM
That black hole over Wales for U152 seems a bit odd. This might actually be a clue that U106 was more than just Anglo-Saxon since U106 has a better show in Wales. If U152 was there in England prior to the Anglo-Saxons you'd have thought they would have had a better show in Wales. Even the Normans must have had some impact in Wales.

I don't get it. Maybe we should look at the Eupedia frequency maps instead since they are based on studies.

Edit: I just checked the Eupedia maps which Maciamo allows me to repost here (scroll down):
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

Yes, U152 (S28) really is a blank in Wales and SE Ireland.

It is interesting that U152 (S28) and U106 (S21) seem to be opposites in Ireland with U152 to the west and U106 to the east. DF27 has a more even distribution in Ireland, although still light. I would have thought U152 would be more like DF27 if U152 was there in the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

The English posted their troops at strategic points in Wales. Just the same, U106 is not nearly as frequent in Wales as it is in England, but it is probably better represented in Wales than U152 because U106 is much more frequent in England than U152 is. In other words, I don't think the lack of U152 in Wales in FTDNA projects reflects U106 being something "more than just Anglo-Saxon", if by that you mean U106 was already well established in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. It probably reflects the fact that U152 was far less common among the English troops stationed in Wales than U106 was. When you begin with far less U152 than U106 to send to Wales, you get far less U152 than U106 ending up in Wales.

Maybe the new Olalde et al results will show something different, but so far no U106 has turned up in British Bell Beaker, and it really has not turned up in continental Bell Beaker either.

19515

MitchellSince1893
11-03-2017, 12:56 AM
That black hole over Wales for U152 seems a bit odd. This might actually be a clue that U106 was more than just Anglo-Saxon since U106 has a better show in Wales. If U152 was there in England prior to the Anglo-Saxons you'd have thought they would have had a better show in Wales. Even the Normans must have had some impact in Wales.

I don't get it. Maybe we should look at the Eupedia frequency maps instead since they are based on studies.

Edit: I just checked the Eupedia maps which Maciamo allows me to repost here (scroll down):
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

Yes, U152 (S28) really is a blank in Wales and SE Ireland.

It is interesting that U152 (S28) and U106 (S21) seem to be opposites in Ireland with U152 to the west and U106 to the east. DF27 has a more even distribution in Ireland, although still light. I would have thought U152 would be more like DF27 if U152 was there in the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

I posted this a year ago but here is a comparison of DF27 (109 samples) vs U152 (114 samples) in England. U152 having more strength along the North Sea coast and DF27 along the English channel.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/2a/a5/ff2aa5c04d9c90b579a0b0255cc35134.png
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9132-R1b-and-the-Atlantic-Bronze-Age-a-regional-archaeogenetic-model&p=199092&viewfull=1#post199092

My thought is U152 primarily arrived via Low Countries and Eastern France (from the east), while DF27 primarily came from more of a southerly location (e.g. Western France) with the bulk of both arriving after L21 was firmly established throughout the Isles which limited how far U152 in particular could advance. As DF27 is more evenly spread when compared to U152, it might have arrived sooner.

I've always felt the bulk of U152 arrived during the post Bell-Beaker, pre Roman period

rms2
11-03-2017, 12:04 PM
I really wish Olalde et al would get another crack at the Amesbury Archer. In the world of ancient dna testing, I feel like Tantalus. It seems the things I most want to know are always the things just beyond my reach: y-dna from the Archer, y-dna from Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin, etc.

avalon
11-03-2017, 02:03 PM
I posted this a year ago but here is a comparison of DF27 (109 samples) vs U152 (114 samples) in England. U152 having more strength along the North Sea coast and DF27 along the English channel.

My thought is U152 primarily arrived via Low Countries and Eastern France (from the east), while DF27 primarily came from more of a southerly location (e.g. Western France) with the bulk of both arriving after L21 was firmly established throughout the Isles which limited how far U152 in particular could advance. As DF27 is more evenly spread when compared to U152, it might have arrived sooner.

I've always felt the bulk of U152 arrived during the post Bell-Beaker, pre Roman period

I don't suppose you have the U152 and DF27 frequencies from LivingDNA for England, Wales, etc? Would be interesting to compare to your ftdna maps.

LivingDNA used the very good POBI dataset and from memory the Wales frequencies were 5% for U106 and around 50% I think for L21, which I think are broadly in line with other published studies.

MitchellSince1893
11-03-2017, 03:09 PM
I don't suppose you have the U152 and DF27 frequencies from LivingDNA for England, Wales, etc? Would be interesting to compare to your ftdna maps.

LivingDNA used the very good POBI dataset and from memory the Wales frequencies were 5% for U106 and around 50% I think for L21, which I think are broadly in line with other published studies.

My father has tested with LivingDNA. It's rather unhelpful though. Just shows U152 in England is 10%. That's all I have access to.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b1/d6/e1/b1d6e12b84aa757293b89265a134fbcf.png

Complete list. As everything 5% and above is rounded to the nearest 5% I'm not sure it's all that useful. For example Wales might be closer to 3% while Scotland or Ireland may be closer to 7%

North Italy 40%
Switzerland 30%
France 15%
Germany 15%
Belgium 15%
England 10%
Portugal 10%
South Italy 10%
Greece 5%
Denmark 5%
Ireland 5%
Spain 5%
Scotland 5%
Poland 5%
Norway 5%
Netherlands 5%
Wales 5%
Balkan 2%
Turkey 2%

Maybe a DF27 tester can post their data for comparison

Dewsloth
11-03-2017, 03:36 PM
My father has tested with LivingDNA. It's rather unhelpful though.

I think Dad and I have you beat on the unhelpful LivingDNA Y-result front:

16800

:behindsofa::\

The Spain and France results make me doubt their will to provide a quality product to their paying customers.
I'm pretty sure that's just a generic P312+(xAllTheBigOnes), but they could have at least labeled it as such.

MitchellSince1893
11-03-2017, 03:45 PM
I think Dad and I have you beat on the unhelpful LivingDNA Y-result front:

16800

:behindsofa::\

The Spain and France results make me doubt their will to provide a quality product to their paying customers.
I'm pretty sure that's just a generic P312+(xAllTheBigOnes), but they could have at least labeled it as such.

Yeah those DF19 percentages are very high even in England. Here's what I got for DF19...4th map down http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772

Dewsloth
11-03-2017, 04:01 PM
Yeah those DF19 percentages are very high even in England. Here's what I got for DF19...4th map down http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772

Amesbury/Stonehenge is a DF19 hotspot! :lol: ;)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-03-2017, 05:50 PM
I don't suppose you have the U152 and DF27 frequencies from LivingDNA for England, Wales, etc? Would be interesting to compare to your ftdna maps.

LivingDNA used the very good POBI dataset and from memory the Wales frequencies were 5% for U106 and around 50% I think for L21, which I think are broadly in line with other published studies.

I've seen various figures quoted for U106 in Wales from around 5%-10%. It doesn't sound much but even 5% is still one in twenty, that's a lot of people.
Question is when did it "seep" in? Most people would suggest, I guess, it's from relatively recent migrations but we don't know that for sure, not for all of it. We know pretty much the Anglo Saxons didn't settle and make the impact they did in England, some Norse maybe? Some Roman?
I'm not convinced occupying armies or armies on campaign made a significant impact unless there was prolonged occupation or settlement, particularly settlement maybe?
We could do with more test results from Wales.

razyn
11-03-2017, 08:29 PM
Maybe a DF27 tester can post their data for comparison

I certainly am DF27+ and have tested at LivingDNA. But they identify my Haplogroup as P312, and my Subclade as Z220. Selecting England, I get the same blue area as you (that is, England), but different percentages, clearly not P312 percentage so I guess that's a Z220 percentage. Or leaving DF27 out of the caption is inexplicable. Also, I can squeeze the width of my whole Firefox display and compress the list of mappable areas such that the percentages are next to it -- but I don't know how you got that stuff to be on the left with the map on the right, in one frame.

If I select Scotland or Ireland, the mapped area (in blue) changes, but my listed percentages don't. I'm not given an option of selecting Wales.

So here, for what it's worth, is a DF27 person's "data for comparison."

19528

On reflection, the listed percentages may be for Z195. I'll paste in a second screen shot of the somewhat modern but organizationally weak "tree" displayed to the said DF27+ customer of LivingDNA. It displays nearly 20 other possible branches of DF27 that aren't described in "the literature," by which they probably mean Busby et al, or even older studies than that, that had sampled for then-known haplogroups, here and there around Europe (whereas LivingDNA, as such, has not yet done so).

19529

avalon
11-03-2017, 08:39 PM
My father has tested with LivingDNA. It's rather unhelpful though. Just shows U152 in England is 10%. That's all I have access to.

Complete list. As everything 5% and above is rounded to the nearest 5% I'm not sure it's all that useful. For example Wales might be closer to 3% while Scotland or Ireland may be closer to 7%

North Italy 40%
Switzerland 30%
France 15%
Germany 15%
Belgium 15%
England 10%
Portugal 10%
South Italy 10%
Greece 5%
Denmark 5%
Ireland 5%
Spain 5%
Scotland 5%
Poland 5%
Norway 5%
Netherlands 5%
Wales 5%
Balkan 2%
Turkey 2%

Maybe a DF27 tester can post their data for comparison

Yes, I don't know why they rounded off those percentages to the nearest 5. I've seen other Y-dna lists with more accurate %.

U152 does appear to have a fairly even spread across Britain, although slightly higher for England. LivingDNA could easily release a more detailed regional breakdown for England, as they have 2000 samples from POBI.

Dewsloth
11-03-2017, 08:46 PM
I certainly am DF27+ and have tested at LivingDNA. But they identify my Haplogroup as P312, and my Subclade as Z220. Selecting England, I get the same blue area as you (that is, England), but different percentages, clearly not P312 percentage so I guess that's a Z220 percentage. Or leaving DF27 out of the caption is inexplicable. Also, I can squeeze the width of my whole Firefox display and compress the list of mappable areas such that the percentages are next to it -- but I don't know how you got that stuff to be on the left with the map on the right, in one frame.

If I select Scotland or Ireland, the mapped area (in blue) changes, but my listed percentages don't. I'm not given an option of selecting Wales.

So here, for what it's worth, is a DF27 person's "data for comparison."

19528

Yup, that is identical to my "results" in post #155.

And my monitor is ~15" vertical x 24" across/horizontal, that might be giving me the space to fit things. :)

avalon
11-03-2017, 09:05 PM
I've seen various figures quoted for U106 in Wales from around 5%-10%. It doesn't sound much but even 5% is still one in twenty, that's a lot of people.
Question is when did it "seep" in? Most people would suggest, I guess, it's from relatively recent migrations but we don't know that for sure, not for all of it. We know pretty much the Anglo Saxons didn't settle and make the impact they did in England, some Norse maybe? Some Roman?
I'm not convinced occupying armies or armies on campaign made a significant impact unless there was prolonged occupation or settlement, particularly settlement maybe?
We could do with more test results from Wales.

I'm open minded about U106 in Wales. I agree with the various possibilities you have suggested, some of it may have arrived much earlier than others. Looking at the broad sweep of Welsh history since the Romans though, I think a key period is the Anglo-Norman era from roughly 1080s through to 1300 as this is really the first time that Wales is brought under "English" domination and influence, and there is the known settlement of Norman and English and Flemish in certain parts of Wales, eg, S Pembrokeshire and elsewhere. I have also read somewhere on anthrogenica that there is a possible association with high U106 % and modern day Flanders but that might only account for part of the story in Wales, like you said, more research needed.

avalon
11-03-2017, 09:24 PM
Just returning to the thread topic, L21 has to be an almost certain bet for the Archer, but you never know, the world is full of surprises!

R.Rocca
11-03-2017, 09:36 PM
That black hole over Wales for U152 seems a bit odd. This might actually be a clue that U106 was more than just Anglo-Saxon since U106 has a better show in Wales. If U152 was there in England prior to the Anglo-Saxons you'd have thought they would have had a better show in Wales. Even the Normans must have had some impact in Wales.

I don't get it. Maybe we should look at the Eupedia frequency maps instead since they are based on studies.

Edit: I just checked the Eupedia maps which Maciamo allows me to repost here (scroll down):
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

Yes, U152 (S28) really is a blank in Wales and SE Ireland.

It is interesting that U152 (S28) and U106 (S21) seem to be opposites in Ireland with U152 to the west and U106 to the east. DF27 has a more even distribution in Ireland, although still light. I would have thought U152 would be more like DF27 if U152 was there in the Isles prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

A couple of separate unpublished data points have U152 around 10% in northern Wales. Unfortunately no published data exists for that area to that level of resolution (that I know of).

razyn
11-03-2017, 09:57 PM
.
I'm pretty sure that's just a generic P312+(xAllTheBigOnes), but they could have at least labeled it as such.

Since you are DF19 and I'm DF27, I expect you are right. Except that DF27 is one of The Big Ones; those older papers (Busby et al, Myres et al) used by earlier Eupedia maps, etc. just didn't yet know that. And effectively, I guess LivingDNA doesn't, either.

rms2
11-04-2017, 02:00 PM
A couple of separate unpublished data points have U152 around 10% in northern Wales. Unfortunately no published data exists for that area to that level of resolution (that I know of).

I was going to pipe up and say that Busby's Northern Wales group had U152 at 7.5%, and not too far beyond Wales to the south, its England Southwest group had U152 at 8.3%.

That's not too far off 10%, which sounds about right, and is actually higher than the U106 level in most of Wales. I suspect both U106 and U152 will be higher in southern Wales, especially southeastern Wales, due to the influx of English to the industrial area of Wales in relatively recent history.

rms2
11-04-2017, 02:02 PM
Just returning to the thread topic, L21 has to be an almost certain bet for the Archer, but you never know, the world is full of surprises!

That would be a surprise, but I don't think his y-dna haplogroup will be a surprise. The big surprise will be if we ever see it.

Right now, that doesn't look likely.

MitchellSince1893
11-04-2017, 03:15 PM
My father's paternal grandmother is of Welsh origin. I have lots of autosomal matches on these segments, but I recently found some Welsh matches on one of his paternal grandfather's side Chromosome 10, 36-71 million (a rare occurrence as most of his paternal grandfather autosomal segments have very few matches).

My father's paternal grandfather's mother's ancestors have no known Welsh ancestors, so there is a possibility my father's mystery man paternal great grandfather's line might be Welsh U152.

I'm currently leaning towards neighboring Cheshire or Lancashire as his origin, as I do have a disproportionate number of unknown matches from these two counties, and a known paternal line match from neighboring Westmorland, England to the north; but a Welsh origin for my U152 ancestors isn't out of the question.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/95/1d/2e951d661aff50e1aeeda56e494687d8.png

R.Rocca
11-04-2017, 06:06 PM
I was going to pipe up and say that Busby's Northern Wales group had U152 at 7.5%, and not too far beyond Wales to the south, its England Southwest group had U152 at 8.3%.

That's not too far off 10%, which sounds about right, and is actually higher than the U106 level in most of Wales. I suspect both U106 and U152 will be higher in southern Wales, especially southeastern Wales, due to the influx of English to the industrial area of Wales in relatively recent history.

Again, this is going off of unpublished data, but U152 is very low in southern Wales. I get the impression that in Britain, U152 and U106 are usually more frequent in the same areas at the expense of L21 and DF27 and visa versa. This may or may not due to pre-versus post Iron Age movements, but that's just a feeling and nothing scientific.

jdean
11-04-2017, 06:24 PM
Again, this is going off of unpublished data, but U152 is very low in southern Wales. I get the impression that in Britain, U152 and U106 are usually more frequent in the same areas at the expense of L21 and DF27 and visa versa. This may or may not due to pre-versus post Iron Age movements, but that's just a feeling and nothing scientific.

BritainsDNA has 3% for U152 in Wales but that's for all of Wales, plus I don't know what the sample size was.

rms2
11-04-2017, 06:30 PM
BritainsDNA has 3% for U152 in Wales but that's for all of Wales, plus I don't know what the sample size was.

It would be nice to see the POBI figures. Apparently both U106 and U152 are pretty low in Wales. I wonder about DF27. L21 is about 50%. If U152 and U106 only make up another 10%, that leaves 40% to be made up by other y haplogroups. I also wonder how much of that is I-M223 and I-M253.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-04-2017, 06:32 PM
I was going to pipe up and say that Busby's Northern Wales group had U152 at 7.5%, and not too far beyond Wales to the south, its England Southwest group had U152 at 8.3%.

That's not too far off 10%, which sounds about right, and is actually higher than the U106 level in most of Wales. I suspect both U106 and U152 will be higher in southern Wales, especially southeastern Wales, due to the influx of English to the industrial area of Wales in relatively recent history.

Yes bound to be. Thing is it is very difficult to determine how long ago even when there is a paper trail. Even the POBI data doesn't go very far back time-wise.
Where my "line" seems to have come from (Herefordshire but right on the border) was substantially Welsh and Welsh speaking. The line has a number of Welsh surnames, not just mine but also English surnames deeper into England ( Gloucestershire) so a bit of a mystery. Unfortunately the estimated SNP dates are not accurate enough and not enough test results at the moment to draw any firm conclusions. I suppose the best we can say at the moment is that the paternal ancestors were in the general area prior to the adoption of fixed surnames. :)

avalon
11-04-2017, 08:25 PM
It would be nice to see the POBI figures. Apparently both U106 and U152 are pretty low in Wales. I wonder about DF27. L21 is about 50%. If U152 and U106 only make up another 10%, that leaves 40% to be made up by other y haplogroups. I also wonder how much of that is I-M223 and I-M253.

I was wondering the same thing about DF27. Unfortunately I don't think POBI published Y-dna results which is a shame because they had a good dataset. Balaresque et al 2009 had Wales at 92% R-M269 which was higher than Ireland at 85% so it makes you wonder what that is made up of, given that we have fairly accurate, corroborating data for L21, U152 and U106, say roughly 50%, 10% and 5% respectively.

rms2
11-04-2017, 09:58 PM
I was wondering the same thing about DF27. Unfortunately I don't think POBI published Y-dna results which is a shame because they had a good dataset. Balaresque et al 2009 had Wales at 92% R-M269 which was higher than Ireland at 85% so it makes you wonder what that is made up of, given that we have fairly accurate, corroborating data for L21, U152 and U106, say roughly 50%, 10% and 5% respectively.

Wales always seems to get the short end of the dna testing stick.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-05-2017, 06:34 AM
Wales always seems to get the short end of the dna testing stick.

I noticed on Living DNA's FB page an item about expansion of their testing in various Countries based on grandparents born within 50 miles. Scotland was the only UK Country mentioned.
I posted a comment about the need for more Welsh testing and received a polite reply about trying to test more Welsh people. I doubt a lone voice will make much difference though. Maybe if more people raised this with them there might be a better response? I mentioned the Cymru/Britain's DNA project and how those test results seem to have disappeared into a black hole somewhere. Proper analysis of that data could have been very useful.

GoldenHind
11-05-2017, 06:29 PM
I am aware of a well known name among geneticists in the UK who is currently conducting YDNA sampling in Wales. The last I heard he trying to work out the best location to sample in south Wales.

rms2
11-05-2017, 06:57 PM
I am aware of a well known name among geneticists in the UK who is currently conducting YDNA sampling in Wales. The last I heard he trying to work out the best location to sample in south Wales.

Cardiff would be good, but only because he could stop in for some Brains cask-conditioned ale and some meat pies at The Goat Major Pub (https://www.sabrain.com/pubs-and-hotels/south-wales/cardiff/goat-major-new/). It's right across the street from Cardiff Castle, too.

If I lived in Cardiff, I would camp out there. :beerchug:

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-05-2017, 06:57 PM
I am aware of a well known name among geneticists in the UK who is currently conducting YDNA sampling in Wales. The last I heard he trying to work out the best location to sample in south Wales.

Of course there was a lot of migration into South Wales during the industrial revolution period from within Wales and England and Ireland. Ideally I think he would benefit from testers with a known ancestry in the area back to 1800 or even earlier, but those may not be easy to come by. I suppose to some extent it depends how you define South Wales my comment was really about the Valleys southwards to the coast a bit further North it was mainly rural.
I live at the upper end of the former mining valleys. A few miles to the North and you are into rural farming territory South Breconshire and parts of Monmouthshire, (old County names) with I guess, much less recent population movement.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-05-2017, 06:59 PM
Cardiff would be good, but only because he could stop in for some Brains cask-conditioned ale and some meat pies at the Goat Major Pub (https://www.sabrain.com/pubs-and-hotels/south-wales/cardiff/goat-major-new/). It's right across the street from Cardiff Castle, too.

If I lived in Cardiff, I would camp out there. :beerchug:

Cardiff isn't a good choice from a genetic viewpoint though, half the World passed through there. :)

rms2
11-05-2017, 07:00 PM
Cardiff isn't a good choice from a genetic viewpoint though, half the World passed through there. :)

I know, but the beer and the meat pies at the Goat Major are a powerful draw.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-05-2017, 07:08 PM
I am aware of a well known name among geneticists in the UK who is currently conducting YDNA sampling in Wales. The last I heard he trying to work out the best location to sample in south Wales.

Thinking about it again if I was him I think I would be targeting farming families and related occupations. They tend to stay in the same place or area for a long time.

rms2
11-05-2017, 08:02 PM
Thinking about it again if I was him I think I would be targeting farming families and related occupations. They tend to stay in the same place or area for a long time.

When I was up in the area of Llanbister, Powys, Wales, at the Lion Hotel (http://www.lionhotel-llanbister.co.uk/) talking to the very knowledgeable landlord, who is a local historian, I mentioned my own surname and those of my closest y-dna matches. He told me all of them had been in that vicinity for a thousand years and directed me to a small churchyard where a number of people with my surname are buried. To say the least, it was amazing.

As an aside, the beer and cider at the Lion Hotel are excellent. That was true everywhere I went in Wales and SW England, however.

BTW, the lady in that video was originally a Beddoes, and I have a Beddoes 65/67 match.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-06-2017, 06:54 AM
When I was up in the area of Llanbister, Powys, Wales, at the Lion Hotel (http://www.lionhotel-llanbister.co.uk/) talking to the very knowledgeable landlord, who is a local historian, I mentioned my own surname and those of my closest y-dna matches. He told me all of them had been in that vicinity for a thousand years and directed me to a small churchyard where a number of people with my surname are buried. To say the least, it was amazing.

As an aside, the beer and cider at the Lion Hotel are excellent. That was true everywhere I went in Wales and SW England, however.

BTW, the lady in that video was originally a Beddoes, and I have a Beddoes 65/67 match.

I wouldn't be surprised. Picking a single area/location to test might not be a good idea as I would think you might find a lot of shared paternal descent when you are talking a thousand years or more. To my knowledge we had generations of 5 or 6 brothers in the Howells family so they must have had a lot of descendants and that's only a couple of hundred years ago at most.
However you can find the "right" people to test with a little research. I believe my lot were in West Herefordshire back to 1650 on paper and because of my shared ancestry with the Cecils and their probable (pretty certain) association with Henry VII and Bosworth -1485 at least and probably long before that but that's where the uncertainty come in - Norman or earlier? They were all pretty much farmers/stonemasons.
I have ancestry from up near Builth, Llanafon Fawr. If you ever make it back over here I would recommend The Bear at Crickhowell an old Coaching Inn great atmosphere, food and drink. Probably a little far South for your ancestry but worth a detour maybe. :)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit1vSjranXAhWlDMAKHVvQAvUQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bearhotel.co.uk%2F&usg=AOvVaw0ETkq8GPC7yNcxY1GmkN_m