PDA

View Full Version : What haplogroup is associated with the site of Gobekli Tepe?



The_Lyonnist
03-01-2016, 02:22 PM
Oldest building found so far.

http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/dictionnaire/userfiles/image/stonecircleTurkey.jpg

The_Lyonnist
03-22-2016, 12:13 PM
Never mind ?

gotten
03-22-2016, 01:45 PM
As far as I know no graves have been found yet at Gobekli Tepe. If they did sky burials I wouldn't expect any testable remains to be left. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable can make an educated guess as to what haplogroup they belonged?

Afshar
03-22-2016, 02:12 PM
You should make a poll

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 03:40 AM
Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if it was R1b, there are links to the Shigir idol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigir_Idol) and it isn't that far off from Iron Gates

jdean
01-09-2019, 10:33 AM
Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if it was R1b, there are links to the Shigir idol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigir_Idol) and it isn't that far off from Iron Gates

Far is a relative term but 2000 km is quite a long way in anybody's book.

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 06:50 PM
Far is a relative term but 2000 km is quite a long way in anybody's book.

I didn't mean in distance, should have clarified. I meant in its style, there are similarities with elements in Gobekli Tepe

rms2
01-09-2019, 06:58 PM
Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if it was R1b, there are links to the Shigir idol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigir_Idol) and it isn't that far off from Iron Gates

Why the heck would you think that?

Göbekli Tepe is located in SE Anatolia and dates to the 10th through 8th millennia BC. What evidence is there that R1b had anything to do with Anatolian Neolithic farmers?

You're making it look as though you have a serious must-stop-R1b-from-being-Indo-European-at-any-cost thing going on.

hartaisarlag
01-09-2019, 07:40 PM
Eastern Anatolia/Northern Mesopotamia is sort of a wildcard. G’s my best guess, but J, H, L, C, T, and E are all possibilities on some level. No idea whether people hypothesize that the people of Göbekli Tepe were ancestral to later local agriculturalists or a dead end. I was there a few years ago (took a pricey taxi from Urfa, but it was worth it) - very humbling place to be. It was September and the hills were yellow with what I think was wild wheat, interspersed with patches of olive trees.

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 08:26 PM
Why the heck would you think that?

Göbekli Tepe is located in SE Anatolia and dates to the 10th through 8th millennia BC. What evidence is there that R1b had anything to do with Anatolian Neolithic farmers?

You're making it look as though you have a serious must-stop-R1b-from-being-Indo-European-at-any-cost thing going on.

It’s not me who thinks that, check out the Wikipedia link to the Shigir idol. I haven’t looked into it, I’m just going on what the archaeologists are saying.

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 08:52 PM
Why the heck would you think that?

Göbekli Tepe is located in SE Anatolia and dates to the 10th through 8th millennia BC. What evidence is there that R1b had anything to do with Anatolian Neolithic farmers?

You're making it look as though you have a serious must-stop-R1b-from-being-Indo-European-at-any-cost thing going on.

Also, I do think R1b(Z2103) was IE!

rms2
01-09-2019, 11:11 PM
Also, I do think R1b(Z2103) was IE!

You could hardly avoid that, but you make a regular point of denying that R1b-L51 is, even going so far as to dredge up a thread that had lain dormant for nearly three years in order to claim that it wouldn't surprise you if R1b turned up at Göbekli Tepe.

jdean
01-09-2019, 11:23 PM
It’s not me who thinks that, check out the Wikipedia link to the Shigir idol. I haven’t looked into it, I’m just going on what the archaeologists are saying.

Could you save me the trouble and give a few references, maybe ?

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 11:38 PM
You could hardly avoid that, but you make a regular point of denying that R1b-L51 is, even going so far as to dredge up a thread that had lain dormant for nearly three years in order to claim that it wouldn't surprise you if R1b turned up at Göbekli Tepe.

I don't have any agendas or some kind of ethnic bias that is causing me to not want L51 to be IE, it's mainly based on three things: the MODERN phylogeny of L51 points to a Western Med. origin (and I make the assumption that it doesn't make sense for the more "archaic" branches of L51 to have only migrated to the West Med. and not throughout the rest of Western Europe too), Steppe cultures are completely devoid of L51 (instead containing almost entirely either R1a or the Z2103 branch of R1b), and also that Western IE seems to be only associated originally with U106 and U152 (as the Italo-Celtic split clearly took place amongst U152 speakers).


Could you save me the trouble and give a few references, maybe ?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/11000-year-old-statue-unearthed-siberia-may-reveal-ancient-views-taboos-and-demons

"This week, a paper published in the journal Antiquity argues that the statue was crafted from a single larchwood log 11,600 years ago, making it one of the world’s oldest examples of monumental art. In age and appearance although not material, the authors write, the so-called Shigir Idol resembles the stone sculptures of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, which are often cited as the first monumental ritual structures. Both monuments represent a leap beyond the naturalistic images of the ice age."

jdean
01-09-2019, 11:43 PM
I don't have any agendas or some kind of ethnic bias that is causing me to not want L51 to be IE, it's mainly based on three things: the MODERN phylogeny of L51 points to a Western Med. origin (and I make the assumption that it doesn't make sense for the more "archaic" branches of L51 to have migrated to the West Med. and not throughout the rest of Western Europe), Steppe cultures are completely devoid of L51 (instead containing almost entirely either R1a or the Z2103 branch of R1b), and also that Western IE seems to be only associated originally with U106 and U152 (as the Italo-Celtic split clearly took place amongst U152 speakers).



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/11000-year-old-statue-unearthed-siberia-may-reveal-ancient-views-taboos-and-demons

"This week, a paper published in the journal Antiquity argues that the statue was crafted from a single larchwood log 11,600 years ago, making it one of the world’s oldest examples of monumental art. In age and appearance although not material, the authors write, the so-called Shigir Idol resembles the stone sculptures of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, which are often cited as the first monumental ritual structures. Both monuments represent a leap beyond the naturalistic images of the ice age."

Possibly you could spend some time researching why using modern distribution of DNA is such a wast of time, and provide a link that includes some aDNA.

Ethereal
01-09-2019, 11:53 PM
Possibly you could spend some time researching why using modern distribution of DNA is such a wast of time, and provide a link that includes some aDNA.

I don't get why you have to speak down to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about - I'm aware that DNA and location are not fixed. But tell me then, if you really know your stuff, if R1b L51 originated somewhere in Eastern Europe, why did those carriers of the more "archaic" branches almost entirely migrate to the area around Southern France and not, say, across the rest of Western Europe? By archaic, I mean belonging to a branch that split off from the rest of L51 at an early date.

I'm referring to this map by Rocca by the way:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/05/57/ca05571d5b8d5e1d2bfc9cabdcb811fb.png

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:03 AM
I'm a big fan of using that "early split" logic by the way, as long as there is enough data. For the same reason, I locate Z2103 as being originally Western Asian (and likely South Caucasian). In fact, with Z2103 it is even more obvious, as there are branches that split early that dominate in Armenia in particular but barely have a presence in Southern Russia/Europe/South Asia (as compared to Z2103 branches the other side of that split - the split being presumably due to a migration from the Caucasus to the Steppe).

Below is from Eupedia (but you can see it on YFull), though I changed parts to reflect my interpretation rather than Maciamo's:

There are two notable subclades of Z2103: L277.1 and L584. The former is found in Russia to Central Asia then to India and the Middle East, just like the R1a-L657 subclade of Z93. It can be associated with the Andronovo culture and Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, as well as the Indo-Aryan migrations. R1b-L584 is limited to Western Asia and found especially in Iran, northern Iraq, the South Caucasus and Turkey, and can be associated with the Kura-Araxes migrations and hence the spread of Indo-European groups such as the Anatolians and Gutians.

rms2
01-10-2019, 12:15 AM
I don't have any agendas or some kind of ethnic bias that is causing me to not want L51 to be IE, it's mainly based on three things: the MODERN phylogeny of L51 points to a Western Med. origin (and I make the assumption that it doesn't make sense for the more "archaic" branches of L51 to have only migrated to the West Med. and not throughout the rest of Western Europe too),

I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I have noticed that when you show up, it's usually to post a denial that L51 is Indo-European in origin, so it does seem to be something that is on your mind a lot.

As jdean said, modern dna isn't much good at telling us what happened in the distant past, and, besides that, I doubt that even it points to some kind of western Mediterranean origin for L51.

For one thing, L51 and Z2103 are brother clades under L23 and about the same age. What makes you think that one L23 man was fathering the first L51 man in western Europe while at about the same time another L23 was fathering the first Z2103 man on the Eurasian steppe?

And by now western Europe has been pretty well sampled for ancient y-dna, yet nothing in the phylogeny of L51 has turned up before the middle of the third millennium BC, and none of what has turned up has lacked steppe dna.



Steppe cultures are completely devoid of L51 (instead containing almost entirely either R1a or the Z2103 branch of R1b),

Western Europe before ~2500 BC is completely devoid of L51, despite being fairly thoroughly sampled, and L51 is a brother clade of Z2103 under L23.

So, we find L51 popping up seemingly out of nowhere in central Europe beginning around 2500 BC. Naturally, we ask ourselves where it came from. Well, the clues are 1) it isn't found in central and western Europe before then; 2) it is always accompanied by steppe dna; 3) when it does finally first show up, it does so in the steppe derived cultures Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev; and 4) its nearest phylogenetic relatives are all found on the Pontic Caspian steppe rather than in western Europe.

There is nothing there pointing west but a lot that points east.



and also that Western IE seems to be only associated originally with U106 and U152 (as the Italo-Celtic split clearly took place amongst U152 speakers).

. . .


That's ridiculous. There is plenty of P312xU152 in Kurgan Bell Beaker, including L21 and DF27, accompanied by steppe dna and in places where Italo-Celtic came to be spoken early.

As far as I know, there is only one U106 sample that dates to the third millennium BC, and it's relatively late (around 2300 BC).

rms2
01-10-2019, 12:29 AM
I don't get why you have to speak down to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about - I'm aware that DNA and location are not fixed. But tell me then, if you really know your stuff, if R1b L51 originated somewhere in Eastern Europe, why did those carriers of the more "archaic" branches almost entirely migrate to the area around Southern France and not, say, across the rest of Western Europe? By archaic, I mean belonging to a branch that split off from the rest of L51 at an early date.

I'm referring to this map by Rocca by the way:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/05/57/ca05571d5b8d5e1d2bfc9cabdcb811fb.png

You do realize that that map does not portray the distribution of modern men who are seriously really R1b-L51*, right?

Instead it represents the distribution, in 2012, of modern men whose terminal SNP downstream of L51 had not yet been discovered and named, or men who had not been sufficiently tested yet.

You seem to be imagining that map represents archaic L51. No, it doesn't. Archaic L51 can only be found in old, archaic bodies.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:30 AM
I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I have noticed that when you show up, it's usually to post a denial that L51 is Indo-European in origin, so it does seem to be something that is on your mind a lot.

As jdean said, modern dna isn't much good at telling us what happened in the distant past, and, besides that, I doubt that even it points to some kind of western Mediterranean origin for L51.

For one thing, L51 and Z2103 are brother clades under L23 and about the same age. What makes you think that one L23 man was fathering the first L51 man in western Europe while at about the same time another L23 was fathering the first Z2103 man on the Eurasian steppe?

And by now western Europe has been pretty well sampled for ancient y-dna, yet nothing in the phylogeny of L51 has turned up before the middle of the third millennium BC, and none of what has turned up has lacked steppe dna.



Western Europe before ~2500 BC is completely devoid of L51, despite being fairly thoroughly sampled, and L51 is a brother clade of Z2103 under L23.

So, we find L51 popping up seemingly out of nowhere in central Europe beginning around 2500 BC. Naturally, we ask ourselves where it came from. Well, the clues are 1) it isn't found in central and western Europe before then; 2) it is always accompanied by steppe dna; 3) when it does finally first show up, it does so in the steppe derived cultures Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev; and 4) its nearest phylogenetic relatives are all found on the Pontic Caspian steppe rather than in western Europe.

There is nothing there pointing west but a lot that points east.



That's ridiculous. There is plenty of P312xU152 in Kurgan Bell Beaker, including L21 and DF27, accompanied by steppe dna and in places where Italo-Celtic came to be spoken early.

As far as I know, there is only one U106 sample that dates to the third millennium BC, and it's relatively late (around 2300 BC).

You haven't answered why those carriers of the more "archaic" branches of L51 migrated to the area around Southern France and not the rest of the West, as that would be a necessary belief if you are to presume an E. Euro origin of L51. I honestly have no bias going on here, I do not belong to R1b and I'm not even ethnically White per se - my personal ancestry has nothing to do with this. But still, you haven't answered that point, and it is probably my best (the other being that Yamnaya and Corded Ware don't appear to be L51, though we can always wait for more sampling).

And it isn't true that L23 would have to father L51 in Western Europe and Z2103 in the Caucasus in my hypothesis - there could be an origin of L23 in the Northern Middle East, with one man of a migration headed Westwards acquiring the L51 mutation and another man of a migration headed to the Caucasus acquiring the Z2103 migration.

As for your nearest relative in aDNA logic - fine, that's all well and true, but they are by no means near relatives- there's at least a millennium (potentially two millennia) of separation between Z2103 and L51 by the time L51 first shows up on the scene.

The best point is that R1b M269 hasn't conclusively shown up in Western Europe before the Beaker folk, though there MAY have been M269 of sorts (presumably L51) found early in Iberia, though the sample afaik is of limited quality. To that, I'd simply say that L51 was an elite lineage, which isn't really a great explanation, but as the Chalcolithic got going cultures like Los Millares showed a warlike nature and heavy social stratification (which sounds a lot like R1b to me!)

And do you really think that L21 and DF27 spoke come kind of Celtic? If so, that would firstly go against the well-established study of Celtic as being a young language associated with the expansion of Hallstatt and La Tene, but even forgetting that it would mean that L21, DF27 and U152 would have to all be associated with Celtic, but U152 only with Italic! How could that possibly be the case if Italic is clearly not descended from Celtic - it just isn't possible at all!

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:34 AM
You do realize that that map does not portray the distribution of modern men who are seriously really R1b-L51*, throwbacks to a more primitive time, right?

Instead it represents the distribution, in 2012, of modern men whose terminal SNP had not yet been discovered and named, or men who had not been sufficiently tested yet.

You seem to be imagining that map represents archaic L51. No, it doesn't. Archaic L51 can only be found in old, archaic bodies.

Please, stop with the arrogance - I believe we've actually had this conversation before (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15172-R1b-M412*-or-R1b-L51*-in-the-Griko-speaking-community-of-Grec%ECa-Salentina). I know it doesn't represent "old" L51, but according to Rocca it represents people with a particular subclade of L51 that branched off early. I never claimed otherwise.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:35 AM
Here's something I posted on a different forum:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36529-ICAANE-Conference-2018?p=563070#post563070

jdean
01-10-2019, 12:38 AM
I don't get why you have to speak down to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about

Apologies if I come across sardonic but this conversation is very old.

rms2
01-10-2019, 12:48 AM
Please, stop with the arrogance - I believe we've actually had this conversation before (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15172-R1b-M412*-or-R1b-L51*-in-the-Griko-speaking-community-of-Grec%ECa-Salentina). I know it doesn't represent "old" L51, but according to Rocca it represents people with a particular subclade of L51 that branched off early. I never claimed otherwise.

Please stop trying to police imagined offenses.

You presented that map as if it represented some sort of distribution of archaic, primitive L51. That in fact is what you claimed for it.

Even now you're claiming it represents subclades of L51 that "branched early".

What primitive subclades are those?

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:48 AM
Apologies if I come across sardonic but this conversation is very old.

Nobody has yet given a proper explanation as to why my interpretation is incorrect, other than saying "But you can't look at modern DNA, it doesn't truly reflect the past". The fact remains - an Eastern European origin of L51 would require those older branches to have preferentially, for some reason, migrated to the vicinity of the South of France, and not elsewhere, DESPITE having the present at the earliest stages in L51's Urheimat. It would be like travelling back in time to just before the migration of L51 Westwards from E. Europe, marking those who carried this haplogroup, and seeing that the vast majority of them ended up in Southern France and the areas nearby (and virtually none in Germany, the known main "launchpad" of the Beakers across Western Europe). There IS no reason for that, there can't be!

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:52 AM
Please stop trying to police imagined offenses.

You presented that map as if it represented some sort of distribution of archaic, primitive L51. That in fact is what you claimed for it.

Even now you're claiming it represents subclades of L51 that "branched early".

What primitive subclades are those?

Rocca, who made the map, said it was L51>Z2111. That's the sister clade of L151 (so the joint earliest known mutation from L51):

https://www.yfull.com/arch-4.02/tree/R-L51/

The data on YFull is lacking though, so I'm placing my trust in Rocca (he claimed he just took the data from a study)

rms2
01-10-2019, 12:55 AM
Nobody has yet given a proper explanation as to why my interpretation is incorrect, other than saying "But you can't look at modern DNA, it doesn't truly reflect the past". The fact remains - an Eastern European origin of L51 would require those older branches to have preferentially, for some reason, migrated to the vicinity of the South of France, and not elsewhere, DESPITE having the present at the earliest stages in L51's Urheimat. It would be like travelling back in time to just before the migration of L51 Westwards from E. Europe, marking those who carried this haplogroup, and seeing that the vast majority of them ended up in Southern France and the areas nearby (and virtually none in Germany, the known main "launchpad" of the Beakers across Western Europe). There IS no reason for that, there can't be!

First off, we would have to accept your erroneous premise that Rocca's old map actually represents branches of L51 that are more archaic than any others.

I do not accept that, because I don't believe it. That map represented modern men whose terminal SNP downstream of L51 had not yet been discovered and named and men who had not been tested sufficiently to discover their terminal SNP.

You're trying to make more of modern y-dna than can possibly be derived from it.

But it's all you've got, because the weight of the ancient dna evidence is against you.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:56 AM
I've made it clearer in the Eupedia post, I'll just c+p it:

Here's my map for the spread of Indo-European languages (missed a few out like Armenian, Greek and Albanian for simplicity, but I think they all originated from Yamnaya or later Steppe cultures via a Balkan route):

https://i.imgur.com/0Q0tpcd.png

Note that I have linked the pre-Greek and pre-Italic languages of the Eastern and Central Mediterranean (e.g. Minoan and Etruscan) to an expansion of the Anatolians. I do not fully associate this map with the spread of haplogroups, though. When considering R1 only for simplicity, that would be this map (note that a connection of two arrows from head to tail means the order is chronological):

https://i.imgur.com/scFbZpS.png

I didn't include the spread of Z2103 across the Middle East as the map was getting too cluttered, but I think it would have spread with the Gutians and Anatolians as with the map of language spread. I also think that the Anatolians (and maybe Gutians?) would be heavily Y DNA J.

I also didn't include the Tocharians as again, too cluttered, but it would have been from an early Z2103 expansion from Yamnaya just like in the language map.

Notable is that L51 adopted Indo-European from contact with Pannonian Yamnaya (in the case of U152) and Northern European Corded Ware (in the case of U106) as part of their social dominance of the communities they came across as a metallurgical elite (as exemplified by the Bell Beakers, who were prolific in assimilating into and dominating pre-existing cultures). There are many reasons for this, which I've gone over a million times, but this hypothesis is at least consistent, as firstly Indo-European speech in Western European ultimately originates from U152 and U106 only (unless you think L21 and DF27 both spoke some kind of Celtic, even though the Italic-Celtic split clearly took place amongst U152 folk), and also the phylogeny of L51 points to a Western European origin (and not an Eastern European/Steppe origin, and not by coincidence Yamnaya and Corded Ware are both devoid of L51). Other connections, such as looking at stelae, the spread of metallurgical technology, the spread of warlike elites etc. also provide potential evidence towards this theory.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 12:57 AM
First off, we would have to accept your erroneous premise that Rocca's old map actually represents branches of L51 that are more archaic than any others.

I do not accept that, because I don't believe it. That map represented modern men whose terminal SNP downstream of L51 had not yet been discovered and named and men who had not been tested sufficiently to discover their terminal SNP.

You're trying to make more of modern y-dna than can possibly be derived from it.

But it's all you've got, because the weight of the ancient dna evidence is against you.

Is it not a map of L51>Z2111? That's what Rocca said at least.

rms2
01-10-2019, 01:03 AM
Is it not a map of L51>Z2111? That's what Rocca said at least.

It makes no difference. If so, it just means it was a distribution map of modern men who at that time had only been tested that far. It does not mean none of them carried his own series of SNPs downstream of Z2111, terminating in a completely modern terminal SNP as relatively new as that of any other modern man.

You cannot use it to the make the kind of point you think you're making.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 01:06 AM
It makes no difference. If so, it just means it was a distribution map of modern men who at that time had only been tested that far. It does not mean none of them carried his own series of SNPs downstream of Z2111, terminating in a completely modern terminal SNP as relatively new as that of any other modern man.

You cannot use it to the make the kind of point you think you're making.

Okay maybe you don't get it, I'm not sure. I'm not trying to say these people have "older" Y DNA, all branches have had the same time to mutate. I'm saying their Y DNA harks back to a much older split in the original L51 Urheimat.

The fact remains - an Eastern European origin of L51 would require those with branches that split at an earlier date (i.e. Z2118) to have preferentially, for some reason, migrated to the vicinity of the South of France, and not elsewhere, DESPITE having been present at the earliest stages in L51's Urheimat. It would be like travelling back in time to just before the supposed great migration of L51 Westwards from E. Europe, marking those who carried this haplogroup, and seeing that the vast majority of them ended up in Southern France and the areas nearby and not so much elsewhere. There IS no reason for that, there can't be!

hartaisarlag
01-10-2019, 01:10 AM
I thought this thread was about Göbekli Tepe. Hey, at least we’re not talking about Sicily.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 01:13 AM
I thought this thread was about Göbekli Tepe. Hey, at least we’re not talking about Sicily.

True, but the original topic of this thread was trash anyway - the answer is nobody really has a clue. If I had to guess, I'd say M269 or V88.

rms2
01-10-2019, 01:16 AM
You have the right to your opinion, but in mine there is absolutely no way your spread of Indo-European maps are correct. To begin with, you have L23 giving rise to L51 in Anatolia, followed by L51 island hopping west across the Mediterranean to Iberia and spreading into Europe from there.

There's no justification for it whatsoever.

What was L51 to begin with then? Anatolian Neolithic farmer?

rms2
01-10-2019, 01:17 AM
True, but the original topic of this thread was trash anyway - the answer is nobody really has a clue. If I had to guess, I'd say M269 or V88.

Maybe that's why it had lain dormant for nearly three years before you dredged it up to troll about R1b.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 01:19 AM
I've made it clearer in the Eupedia post, I'll just c+p it:

Here's my map for the spread of Indo-European languages (missed a few out like Armenian, Greek and Albanian for simplicity, but I think they all originated from Yamnaya or later Steppe cultures via a Balkan route):

https://i.imgur.com/0Q0tpcd.png

Note that I have linked the pre-Greek and pre-Italic languages of the Eastern and Central Mediterranean (e.g. Minoan and Etruscan) to an expansion of the Anatolians. I do not fully associate this map with the spread of haplogroups, though. When considering R1 only for simplicity, that would be this map (note that a connection of two arrows from head to tail means the order is chronological):

https://i.imgur.com/scFbZpS.png

I didn't include the spread of Z2103 across the Middle East as the map was getting too cluttered, but I think it would have spread with the Gutians and Anatolians as with the map of language spread. I also think that the Anatolians (and maybe Gutians?) would be heavily Y DNA J.

I also didn't include the Tocharians as again, too cluttered, but it would have been from an early Z2103 expansion from Yamnaya just like in the language map.

Notable is that L51 adopted Indo-European from contact with Pannonian Yamnaya (in the case of U152) and Northern European Corded Ware (in the case of U106) as part of their social dominance of the communities they came across as a metallurgical elite (as exemplified by the Bell Beakers, who were prolific in assimilating into and dominating pre-existing cultures). There are many reasons for this, which I've gone over a million times, but this hypothesis is at least consistent, as firstly Indo-European speech in Western European ultimately originates from U152 and U106 only (unless you think L21 and DF27 both spoke some kind of Celtic, even though the Italic-Celtic split clearly took place amongst U152 folk), and also the phylogeny of L51 points to a Western European origin (and not an Eastern European/Steppe origin, and not by coincidence Yamnaya and Corded Ware are both devoid of L51). Other connections, such as looking at stelae, the spread of metallurgical technology, the spread of warlike elites etc. also provide potential evidence towards this theory.

One thing I forgot to mention regarding languages is the Satem vs Centum split - I think it's as simple as Satemisation being a late Steppe innovation (von Bradke's hypothesis):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Centum_Satem_map.png

So, for example, Germanic is centum but the Slavic languages are satem because Germanic represents an earlier migration of Corded Ware out of the Steppe, whereas Slavic would be associated with a later Steppe culture. The same applies with e.g. Greek and Armenian - Greek is centum and Armenian is satem despite (imo) both originating from the Steppe via the Balkans as Greek was an earlier departure from the Steppe. Basically, satemisation = late Steppe innovation.

rms2
01-10-2019, 01:21 AM
Okay maybe you don't get it, I'm not sure. I'm not trying to say these people have "older" Y DNA, all branches have had the same time to mutate. I'm saying their Y DNA harks back to a much older split in the original L51 Urheimat.

Oh, I get it. You're making a claim that you cannot support and trying to stick with it despite the fact that the map you posted cannot mean what you're claiming.



The fact remains - an Eastern European origin of L51 would require those with branches that split at an earlier date (i.e. Z2118) to have preferentially, for some reason, migrated to the vicinity of the South of France, and not elsewhere, DESPITE having been present at the earliest stages in L51's Urheimat. It would be like travelling back in time to just before the supposed great migration of L51 Westwards from E. Europe, marking those who carried this haplogroup, and seeing that the vast majority of them ended up in Southern France and the areas nearby and not so much elsewhere. There IS no reason for that, there can't be!

You still don't get it.

I don't accept your premise that Rich's old map represents archaic branches of L51 and therefore southern France was the birthplace of L51.

It's ludicrous, and I have already explained why more than once.

Megalophias
01-10-2019, 01:21 AM
I thought this thread was about Göbekli Tepe. Hey, at least we’re not talking about Sicily.
All Anthrogenica threads are about R1b, if you enter the secret login the banner will change to R1bForum. :biggrin1:

I'm gonna predict the obvious and boring G2a2.

rms2
01-10-2019, 01:35 AM
Obviously L51 was born in Anatolia, island hopped west across the Mediterranean to Iberia, and from there spread to the rest of Europe.

That's why Olalde and his colleagues found so much of it in Neolithic Iberia.

Oh, wait . . . ;)

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 01:42 AM
You have the right to your opinion, but in mine there is absolutely no way your spread of Indo-European maps are correct. To begin with, you have L23 giving rise to L51 in Anatolia, followed by L51 island hopping west across the Mediterranean to Iberia and spreading into Europe from there.

There's no justification for it whatsoever.

What was L51 to begin with then? Anatolian Neolithic farmer?

Well if you go way back to the origin of M269 imo somewhere around the Ukraine (near Mezine, where the oldest Swastika was found around 10,000 BCE), I'd guess they'd be EHG or some kind of EHG-WHG hybrid like V88. One other thing I haven't mentioned which I'll quickly throw in is that I think R1b developed mostly in the Epigravettian (pink in the map below), which is backed up by Villabruna in Italy "shockingly" being R1b:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Europe20000ya.png

Then, M269 would migrate to West Asia, perhaps explaining why the modern diversity of M269 is highest there:

https://i.imgur.com/qEJe5Ci.png

Inevitably, farmer admixture would be picked up, however I believe a Steppe signature would be retained (seen in the later Armenian ChL, who actually had pale skin, red hair and blue eyes). I think these M269 folk would be a metallurgical elite, associated with the spread of copper smelting from the Balkans (where the oldest known copper smelting took place, and not by coincidence where the second oldest Swastikas are known from) to the Middle East (where the second oldest known copper smelting took place, and not by coincidence where the third oldest Swastikas are known from, see the Samarra bowl of Iraq below dated to a staggering 4000 BC).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Samarra_bowl.jpg

Then L23 would have been born, and not long after a migration would take place West (where L51 would have been born) and to the Caucasus (where Z2103 would have been born). Consistent with this L51 migration hypothesis is a surprisingly early start to the Chalcolithic in Southern Iberia with cultures like Los Millares, which showed links to the Middle East, heavy social division among caste-lines, and had a warrior culture amongst at least some of the population, often declaring war on its neighbours. Consistent for the Z2103 hypothesis is Leyla-Tepe having links to the north Ubaid period monuments, particularly in Eastern Anatolia (especially Arslantepe).

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Copper_Age_Europe.png

Then the rest I've covered in detail in that big post earlier with the maps, but L51 would head to France and follow the Rhône and Z2103 to the Steppes; Z2103 would dominate the R1a tribes they encountered forming Yamnaya, and later on L51 would meet with the Corded Ware culture at the Rhineland, triggering a migration of L51 just like with the arrival of the Huns triggering the Völkerwanderung.

Roughly contemporary to Z2103 migrating to the Steppes from the Caucasus, it would migrate from the Caucasus in the other direction as part of the Kura-Araxes culture, picking up A LOT of Y DNA J along the way and also shifting from basic pastoralism to a more "advanced" typically Middle Eastern way of life (e.g. palace economies). That would lead to the Anatolian branch in the West and the Gutian branch in the East, with the Anatolian branch further expanding across the Aegean and later to Italy forming cultures such as that of the Minoans and Etruscans (whose languages have both been linked to the Anatolians by the way, with Minoan having a particular strong correspondence supposedly).






But that's just my opinion.

Bas
01-10-2019, 01:58 AM
1st bet: C
2nd bet: G
3rd bet: E/T/J

Wildcard: R1b (WHG/UHG)

I think that's called sitting on the fence! With all that hedging, it's definitely not a good idea to start gambling. :P

With the dearth of big Y-DNA papers, I kind of miss the surprises we got with La Brana Y-DNA C, Villabruna R1b and Karelia EHG J.

I'm fascinated by the Early Neolithic and EEF. R1a/b grabs most of the headlines (understandably so, the Indo-European European invasions not only massively reshaped Europe and large parts of Asia genetically, but the Steppe is a mysterious and evocative place). But Europeans also take a huge amount from these people, possibly up to a 50% contribution on average depending on which way it is measured.

Ethereal
01-10-2019, 02:05 AM
1st bet: C
2nd bet: G
3rd bet: E/T/J

Wildcard: R1b (WHG/UHG)

I think that's called sitting on the fence! With all that hedging, it's definitely not a good idea to start gambling. :P

With the dearth of big Y-DNA papers, I kind of miss the surprises we got with La Brana Y-DNA C, Villabruna R1b and Karelia EHG J.

I still don't understand Karelia pure EHG Y DNA J to be honest!

Bas
01-10-2019, 02:14 AM
I still don't understand Karelia pure EHG Y DNA J to be honest!

Someone on Eurogenes said that CHG-like stuff was present in MA1...can't remember if it was in the Dzudzuana paper or if it is even true in the first place as I've been looking around and can't find it. If so, those CHG really got around.

Principe
01-10-2019, 02:16 AM
Well the results from the Epipaleolithic Anatolian paper showed results of an individual who lived near or was somewhat related to Gobekli Tepe and his Y dna was G-F1193 which was a typical Neolithic Farmer lineage, chances are this line was going to be present there as well. That would at least be the safest assumption.

MitchellSince1893
01-10-2019, 05:38 AM
Per the conversation of Rocca's map of "Archaic L51 branches"

In the FTDNA haplotree there is 1 non P310 branch of L51, and that is R-PF7589 (P310=ancestor of P312 and U106, S1194, and A8053).
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-L51 Click the "+" sign to the left of "L51"

The percentage of total samples in each country for PF7589 and P310, shows that PF7589 has a higher percentage in the following countries:
Germany (15.8% of total PF7589 samples and 7.14% of total P310 samples are from Germany)
Switzerland (6.25% vs 1.67%)
Italy (6.25% vs 1.67%)
Belgium (2.68% vs 0.64%)
Poland (1.79% vs 0.87%)
Portugal (1.79% vs 1.02%)
Austria (0.89% vs 0.31%)
Hungary (0.89% vs 0.34%)
Turkey (0.89% vs 0.03%)
Croatia (0.89% vs 0.02%)

There are only 112 PF7589 samples with a country location identified so take the above with a grain of salt and once you get below Italy and Switzerland the percentages gets really iffy.

Note that France isn't listed above. France makes up 4.47% of P310, and 0.89% of PF7589 in the FTDNA database .

So if all one had to work with is the FTDNA database (and we don't), I wouldn't draw from the above a Mediterranean route for non P310 L51. I would be more inclined to say it is stronger in Central Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Italy and maybe Austria and Hungary)

Having said all that, I don't recommend putting any stock the above exercise. I was just curious what it would show.

xenus
01-10-2019, 08:20 AM
Probably mostly G but there is no way it was homogeneous and could have had C, E, J, T, and even H2 or some kind of L like L1b.

As for R1b I haven't seen any early R1b without steppe ancestry. The Gutians haven't been proven to be PIE's of any kind and to my knowledge we haven't even had a single securely identified Gutian burial where we could test their DNA. R1b's distribution is best explained by founder effects in Europe, founder effects which don't depend on when or where their lineage diverged.

jdean
01-10-2019, 10:45 AM
Probably mostly G but there is no way it was homogeneous and could have had C, E, J, T, and even H2 or some kind of L like L1b.

As for R1b I haven't seen any early R1b without steppe ancestry. The Gutians haven't been proven to be PIE's of any kind and to my knowledge we haven't even had a single securely identified Gutian burial where we could test their DNA. R1b's distribution is best explained by founder effects in Europe, founder effects which don't depend on when or where their lineage diverged.

Expect you're right, especially WRT G, but I wouldn't be surprised if R-V88 was there in small nos. This looks to have been an early R1b success and is turning up all over the shop, most recently eneolithic N. Caucasus, but appears to have been stomped out by latter arrivals.

However getting back to R1b and it's expansion point, if somebody really insist on use modern distribution to produces guesses why lump for L51, surely comparing branches of R-P297 would be a more logical choice ?

morganman3
01-10-2019, 01:32 PM
Probably G as the main haplogroup. H2 is a good bet as it was the only haplogroup found in both Neolithic Anatolia (Barcin) and the Neolithic Levant (Israel). It's hard to tell where H2 originated, I would suggest northern Mesopotamia is a good guess considering it's link to multiple farmer groups.

JoeyP37
01-10-2019, 01:44 PM
Why not J2? Also, if you have ever come across a post where I deny L51 was Indo-European, it is always to troll Carlos Quiles, the quack who believes Corded Ware was Uralic. I would also concur with the last poster that there is a good chance G2 was in there, too.

Lupriac
01-10-2019, 03:05 PM
My guess would be G2a and J1/J2.

rms2
01-10-2019, 04:08 PM
Per the conversation of Rocca's map of "Archaic L51 branches"

In the FTDNA haplotree this is 1 non P310 branch of L51, and that is R-PF7589 (P310=ancestor of P312 and U106, S1194, and A8053).
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-L51 Click the "+" sign to the left of "L51"

The percentage of total samples in each country for PF7589 and P310, shows that PF7589 has a higher percentage in the following countries:
Germany (15.8% of total PF7589 samples and 7.14% of total P310 samples are from Germany)
Switzerland (6.25% vs 1.67%)
Italy (6.25% vs 1.67%)
Belgium (2.68% vs 0.64%)
Poland (1.79% vs 0.87%)
Portugal (1.79% vs 1.02%)
Austria (0.89% vs 0.31%)
Hungary (0.89% vs 0.34%)
Turkey (0.89% vs 0.03%)
Croatia (0.89% vs 0.02%)

There are only 112 PF7589 samples with a country location identified so take the above with a grain of salt and once you get below Italy and Switzerland the percentages gets really iffy.

Note that France isn't listed above. France makes up 4.47% of P310, and 0.89% of PF7589 in the FTDNA database .

So if all one had to work with is the FTDNA database (and we don't), I wouldn't draw from the above a Mediterranean route for non P310 L51. I would be more inclined to say it is stronger in Central Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Italy and maybe Austria and Hungary)

Having said all that, I don't recommend putting any stock the above exercise. I was just curious what it would show.

In other words, Rich's 2012 map could not represent R-PF7589, since that map shows "R1b-L51 Frequency" as highest in central and southern France.

So, you must have meant "there is 1 non P310 branch of L51" in FTDNA's Haplotree rather than "this is 1 non P310 branch of L51", which implies that is what is represented by Rich's 2012 map.

I know you're not arguing that the distribution of R-PF7589 is much of an indicator of the origin of L51. It simply shows where one relatively unsuccessful branch of L51 is most frequent in FTDNA's database now, long, and much water under the bridge, after the third millennium BC.

rms2
01-10-2019, 04:16 PM
This is from page 41 of David Reich's book, Who We Are and How We Got Here:



If the ancient DNA studies of the last few years have shown anything clearly, it is that the geographic distribution of people living today is often misleading about the dwelling places of their ancestors.

ADW_1981
01-10-2019, 06:05 PM
Clearly not R1b as there is no aDNA that would support it, and ample to not. Yamnaya had both Z2103 and xZ2103 so it can be argued that L23 came from the western PC steppes, and L51 was derived someplace as a descendant from that source. The Neolithic farmers of Anatolia was not that source.

MitchellSince1893
01-10-2019, 11:42 PM
In other words, Rich's 2012 map could not represent R-PF7589, since that map shows "R1b-L51 Frequency" as highest in central and southern France.

So, you must have meant "there is 1 non P310 branch of L51" in FTDNA's Haplotree rather than "this is 1 non P310 branch of L51", which implies that is what is represented by Rich's 2012 map.

I know you're not arguing that the distribution of R-PF7589 is much of an indicator of the origin of L51. It simply shows where one relatively unsuccessful branch of L51 is most frequent in FTDNA's database now, long, and much water under the bridge, after the third millennium BC.

Yes I had a typo I just fixed...”this is”. Should have been “there is”

Yes my point is by itself, the present day distribution of this minor L51 subclade doesn’t support a Mediterranean route. But we know modern day distribution by themselves are of limited value.

However, when combined with known historical data, they have their place; as the present day U106, L21 and U152 in Britain seem to make sense as to why U106 and U152 are more prominent in Eastern England, and L21 is more prevalent in Celtic areas of Britain and Ireland

rms2
01-11-2019, 01:40 AM
. . .

However, when combined with known historical data, they have their place; as the present day U106, L21 and U152 in Britain seem to make sense as to why U106 and U152 are more prominent in Eastern England, and L21 is more prevalent in Celtic areas of Britain and Ireland

Right, and the difference between history and prehistory is that the former is what we have after the invention of writing, when some events could be and were recorded for posterity. The closer a demographic event is in time to the modern era, the better its chances of being reflected in modern genetic distribution.

That doesn't mean prehistoric events are not reflected in the genomes of modern people; they're just harder (or nearly impossible) to detect and sort out based on modern dna, and a lot of other events have occurred during the interval between then and now to alter the picture.

euasta
02-22-2019, 05:01 PM
Eastern Anatolia/Northern Mesopotamia is sort of a wildcard. G’s my best guess, but J, H, L, C, T, and E are all possibilities on some level. No idea whether people hypothesize that the people of Göbekli Tepe were ancestral to later local agriculturalists or a dead end. I was there a few years ago (took a pricey taxi from Urfa, but it was worth it) - very humbling place to be. It was September and the hills were yellow with what I think was wild wheat, interspersed with patches of olive trees.

I think the same. Mostly were G2a Y-dna. And mtDNA N1, X, k ..