PDA

View Full Version : Are we getting some consensus on the R1b story?



alan
04-19-2013, 01:57 PM
As my first thead on this site I thought I would start with seeing if we are nearing a consensus on the broad possibilities of the R1b story. I dont expect us to agree on details but I would value comment on this summary that I just posted on another site as what I think the range of possibilities are. I would value opinion from those who have a flexible approach which adjust with the new evidence rather than the sort of entrenched positions I see on other sites. Here goes:

The current hobbiest thinking is that the western Alps are a likely secondary takeoff point because of high variance and L51* and L11* distribution. From there it may have gone west to Iberia (reexpanding as DF27, some stayed put in the Alps and west central Europe as U152 and some headed north through France and the Rhine as L11*, L21: etc. The phylogeny and variance data is clear that L23* and M269* are older and more frequent in the east Balkans, SW Asia etc. There is clealry an older zone of R1b in SW Asia and around the west shore of the Black Sea/Lower Danube. The only problem we have is its terrible vague in detail.

As for timing. I think it is going against the data trying to push its journey across Eurpope to the west back to the first farmers spread. All the data in terms of ancient DNA, variance etc suggests R1b only really reached the area west of Italy in period after 3000BC. That is vastily younger than the Cardial spread or any wave of early farmers. In fact even eastern clades like L23* and M269* in SW Asia, the east Balkans etc are too young to relate to the first farmers, cardial etc. It is also wrongly positioned in the east to be associated with Caridal. Recent reports looking closely at Bulgaria, Romania, Moldovia, Serbai strongly suggest R1b's earliest location in Europe are on the western shore of the Black Sea and that the Danube towards the Alps was the most likely route further west. R1b is practically unknown on the Adriatic coast of the Balkans and L23* dramtically drops as you head inland from the Black Sea in Bulgaria. It also has most of its concentration in Poland in the south and east suggesting a route along the Dniester for L23* into Poland. It dramatically falls away in Poland when you move away from there.

So leaving aside the IE question (which is not going to be resolved by people in this hobby if all the academics who have spent a lifetime on this still disagree) an unbiased look at the (admittedly patchy) data for R1b suggests M269 and L23* appeared in Europe somewhere around the Black Sea or SW Asia only in the late Neolithic or copper age (terminology varies) and there was a considerable delay before it spread west of the Alps in the period 3000-2500BC. This cannot be due to in-situ expansion of anciently settled R1b folks in the west because the phylogeny shows that almost all European R1b derives from L11* (and L51*) above it. None of this dates before 3000BC according to most variance experts. I think a case can be made that it might have entered the Alps from the east in the tail end of the L23XL51 phase around 3500-3300BC and crossed the Alps in the L51*-L11* phase around 3500BC-2500BC period possibly with L11 and P312 occurring there then arriving at points west like Iberia etc in the 3000-2500BC period as DF27.

I think that is a fairly unbiased summary of what the evidence suggests at present. What that leaves us with is a late Neolithic/copper age presence in the east Balkans, Anatolia, Caucasus and Lower Danube commencing in the late Neolithic and copper age and a spread west through the Alps in the L23-L51-L11-P312 phase then a spread further west. A simple expansion from the extreme west in Iberia seems unlikely although a spread of DF27 subclade from Iberia in a west-east direction (mainly along the Med. as far as Italy but also to a lesser degree up the Atlantic) around 2800-2500BC is a strong possibility.

I think that is about as much as can be said. R1b would appear to have had a very obscure existance away from the main farming advances in the early Neolithic and only started to form any sort of reconstructable shape in the L23 phase. Its location before that is totally obscure and all we can do is look at where the L23, M73 and V88 late Neolithic copper age expansions have a centre of gravity and higher variance and that seems to point to the area around the Black Sea which of course includes the Balkans, Caucasus, Anatolia etc (original situation on north shore is obscure). The position of R1b in the Palaeolithic and early Neolithic is totally unknown but its pretty clear it wasnt on the major early farmers starting point on the route west (Levant, south and east Anatolia etc) if ancient DNA, variance, phylogeny etc are not completely misleading us. If it had been in those areas we would have seen R1b in its form c. 7000-6000BC in a wave west. R1b at that time would have consisted of P297XM269 or P25XP269 form WAY upstream. SO yes it is impossible for the vast majority of European R1b to have simply re-expanded in the west from Neolithic settlers or you would have to have the entire R1b family from P23* or P297* downstream expand from there across Eurasia. This clearly is not the case and it goes completley against the distribution and variance of R1b clades.

So what we need to look for in terms of archaeological correlation in a sudden presence (or growth from virtually zero) around much (maybe all) of the cirumpontic area c. 5000-4000BC followed by a spread through the Alps c. 3500-3000BC, an arrival on the west side of the Alps in the 3000-2500BC period etc. That is not a re-expansion from the west. Only once we reach the L51 level can we argue for a major expansion in the west (from Liguria or adhacent) and only from DF27 (three phylogenic steppes below L51) can we argue for a major expansion from Iberia.

Archaeologically the main potential for culprits for the initial arrival are

1. pastoralists from Marmara about 5000BC moving into Bulgaria

2. copper metallurgical groups of the Circumpontic traditions c. 4000-3000BC (tradition oldest in Maykop and adjacent areas to the south)

3. early steppe groups who spilled into SE Europe c. 4000BC onwards

4. farming groups (perhaps kurganised in some way) fleeing the massive climatic collapse which devasted old Europe c. 4200BC and forming new groups in the melting pot just west of the steppes.

Any of these seems to fit and I cannot see any other options. I also think that these are not mutually exclusive options. For example the Marmara pastoralist did probably have input into the Cuc-Tryp farmers. The latter may have had a steppe substrate (skull evidence). The Circumpontic metallurgical province was partly run by steppe groups. Maykop was very influential on the steppe group etc etc.

I also would not think anyone on earth can at present guess which one of these is correct. I dont really much care but I think we should stick to options such as these which fit the data.

TigerMW
04-19-2013, 09:16 PM
Thank you for expressing your thinking. I'll add my comments, but keep in mind I am just speculating and I like to be a little contrarian. (...just ask my family!):fencing:


...The current hobbiest thinking is that the western Alps are a likely secondary takeoff point because of high variance and L51* and L11* distribution.
It may be due my instincts in pheasant hunting back home, but it's very important to lead the bird as you shoot. Likewise, I do think there was a general east to west flow. I also think when we are looking for the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for L11 or founder of any clade, we have to recognize that is origin trail may be nil genetically. There was only one of him.

I lean towards L51* and L11* coming from the east side or just east of Alps, probably along the Danube.

However, there is a point that I'd like to re-iterate that some really don't accept. I'm not talking to you but there are some can't grapple with this. It doesn't matter how much L11/P312/U106 is out there today, they still had only a single man as MRCA, and he doesn't look to be that old. To me, the phylogenetic tree and a single founder is a powerful consideration to be be triangulated with geography and time... and cultures, etc.

AJL
04-19-2013, 10:46 PM
Alan -- this makes a fair amount of sense to me. Without opening the whole can of IE worms it seems likely to me that both R1b and R1a were near to/involved with early IE, wherever one places it.

Mike's explanation of the Danube makes sense to me for L11, but so do the Alps; after all, we seem to have some "strange" (for Europe) yDNA around there, such as C, L, some "odd" Q, and several G2a subclades. Mind you, I'm not sure those all had to be part of the same movement. In fact, from Oetzi it would seem not.

One thing I would like to be assured of, perhaps by STR comparison to the relevant populations, is that the southeast Polish L23 lines are neither Ashkenazi nor Armenian. David, Prince of Galicia (Galicia is the precise area we're looking at, southeast Poland and western Ukraine) invited Armenians to settle in his principality in the 1300s; similarly, Galicia was at one time about a third Ashkenazi. If there's a gentle gradient to this area it's probably not a concern, but a sudden L23 spike in Galicia might simply be down to either or both West Asian groups.

If this is not an issue, we might be looking at an analogue to the most basic R1a-M198 types we have, which are in Belarus, Moldova, Russia.

R.Rocca
04-19-2013, 11:12 PM
Archaeologically the main potential for culprits for the initial arrival are

1. pastoralists from Marmara about 5000BC moving into Bulgaria

2. copper metallurgical groups of the Circumpontic traditions c. 4000-3000BC (tradition oldest in Maykop and adjacent areas to the south)

3. early steppe groups who spilled into SE Europe c. 4000BC onwards

4. farming groups (perhaps kurganised in some way) fleeing the massive climatic collapse which devasted old Europe c. 4200BC and forming new groups in the melting pot just west of the steppes.

Any of these seems to fit and I cannot see any other options. I also think that these are not mutually exclusive options. For example the Marmara pastoralist did probably have input into the Cuc-Tryp farmers. The latter may have had a steppe substrate (skull evidence). The Circumpontic metallurgical province was partly run by steppe groups. Maykop was very influential on the steppe group etc etc.

I also would not think anyone on earth can at present guess which one of these is correct. I dont really much care but I think we should stick to options such as these which fit the data.

Or, for arguments sake, it could be more than one of the scenarios above. For example:

Step 1: The original L23(xZ51,Z2103) arises in the Crimean Kemi Oba Culture, Stelae and all.
Step 2: A movement east and south could have given rise to Z2103. We know that Kemi Oba had many similarities with the Maykop Culture and they were contemporaries (~3700 BC), so this works archaeologically and chronologically. By around 3400 BC, this migration extends further south into the Armenian Plateau in the form of the Kura–Araxes Culture. This would give rise to the early Anatolian branch of PIE.
Step 3: A secondary branch of L23(xZ51,Z2103) makes its way up the Danube (a short trip from Crimea), and lays the L23 groundwork that eventually pushes the full Copper Age and the Secondary Products Revolution towards the Alps.
Step 4: By 3500 BC, L51 is already in existence in the Alps and are exploiting the oldest Western European Copper Mine (Monte Loreto). These people would have brought their Stelae related beliefs with them.
Step 5: By 2900 BC, the Portuguese Bell Beakers start their Maritime expansion. This would make P312 about 28% older than Z2103, which would fit variance pretty well.
Step 6: The reflux phase of Bell Beaker begins and by 2450 BC, L21 has already appeared in the Isles.

The western part of the journey is pretty much similar to Jean's "Stelae People" (minus the Yamnaya of course).

GailT
04-20-2013, 03:07 AM
To me, the phylogenetic tree and a single founder is a powerful consideration to be be triangulated with geography and time... and cultures, etc.

Yeah, the time element is very important - when we have robust age estimates of each R1b subclade, we should be better able to triangulate on the geography.

TigerMW
04-20-2013, 03:44 AM
Yeah, the time element is very important - when we have robust age estimates of each R1b subclade, we should be better able to triangulate on the geography.

TMRCA estimates are subject to many vagaries. However, for R1b we now several studies' worth of data, a lot of long haplotypes and and interclade TMRCA methodologies. I think we have robust enough data broken up by the SNP defined phylogeny that we can have robust estimates. The issues are the methodologies themselves, or actually, more the STR mutation rates. The SNP methods need maturity in the coverage of the Y chromosome. Posted on the R1b Early Subclades subcategory phylogeny thread are several TMRCA estimates from different folks and methodologies that find essential agreement.

I would never say they are precise. Still the relative nature of the timing within the phylogeny along with the geographical distribution is robust.

GailT
04-20-2013, 05:10 AM
Hopefully with full genome sequencing for y-DNA we should get good SNP based age estimates soon.

Rathna
04-21-2013, 10:24 AM
Step 1: The original L23(xZ51,Z2103) arises in the Crimean Kemi Oba Culture, Stelae and all.


You always forget what my Italian homonymous (Gioiello ) says: that R-L23* doesn’t come (unfortunately) from Eastern R1b1* with YCAII= 21-23 and 23-23, but from Western one with 18-22 or 18-23. Thus your hypothesis doesn’t fit.

R.Rocca
04-21-2013, 12:33 PM
You always forget what my Italian homonymous (Gioiello ) says: that R-L23* doesn’t come (unfortunately) from Eastern R1b1* with YCAII= 21-23 and 23-23, but from Western one with 18-22 or 18-23. Thus your hypothesis doesn’t fit.

Sorry, but to rely on one marker that may or may not have mutated up or down one or two steps over a period of 10,000 years proves very little of anything. Ancient DNA has shown no support for an early R1b in Italy. So do we rely on a few modal values of modern values (which may also be affected by founder effects), or ancient DNA? That said, I wouldn't rule it out either and would not be shocked to find early R1b in ancient DNA from Italy.

And if you read my post, I wrote "for arguments sake". This is one of the million different scenarios that could have played out for R1b.

Jean M
04-22-2013, 09:57 AM
Step 2: We know that Kemi Oba had many similarities with the Maykop Culture and they were contemporaries (~3700 BC), so this works archaeologically and chronologically. By around 3400 BC, this migration extends further south into the Armenian Plateau in the form of the Kura–Araxes Culture. This would give rise to the early Anatolian branch of PIE.


I'm afraid not. Linguistically it seems that the founders of the Anatolian branch must have broken away from PIE before the invention of the wheel c. 3500 BC. One movement stands out as fitting the case.

Step 1: Azov > Danube Delta c. 4000 BC. The Suvorovo group in the Danube Delta 4,200-3,500 BC appear identical culturally to the contemporary Novodanilovka group north-west of the Sea of Azov.

Step 2: Suvorovo > Ezero culture, Bulgaria (3300—2700 BC)

Step 3: Ezero > Troy I (c. 3000 BC). Troy I has pottery similar to that of the Ezero Culture Troy I also has an anthropomorphic stele. At a higher level in Troy is a text in Luwian.

Bear in mind that all the languages of the Anatolian branch had a common ancestor. So if Luwian can be traced back to the Balkans, so can Hittite etc.

Kura–Araxes Culture seems to have been the bearer of the Urartian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian) language, and to have entered the Caucasus from the south.

R.Rocca
04-22-2013, 02:35 PM
I'm afraid not. Linguistically it seems that the founders of the Anatolian branch must have broken away from PIE before the invention of the wheel c. 3500 BC. One movement stands out as fitting the case.

Based just on Anthony's summary level opinion, it seems to me like the word for "wheel" in Anatolian is inconclusive, no?

Either way, it just goes to show that the 'details' are still over the place and that the answer to Alan's question is 'yes', but only in general.

TigerMW
04-22-2013, 03:07 PM
Based just on Anthony's summary level opinion, it seems to me like the word for "wheel" in Anatolian is inconclusive, no?

Either way, it just goes to show that the 'details' are still over the place and that the answer to Alan's question is 'yes', but only in general.

I've posted this elsewhere but Mallory's speech at Penn alerted me to the possibilities. Mallory commented that the Afanasevo culture was thought to be Indo-European but added that was even though they are a little too early. Perhaps, PIE leaked out a little earlier than they think ???


Linguistically it seems that the founders of the Anatolian branch must have broken away from PIE before the invention of the wheel c. 3500 BC. One movement stands out as fitting the case.

This doesn't mean the wheel wasn't invented earlier, right? This is just the earliest we know of (although I read of a find in Kurdistan that is earlier).

However, the PIE standard word for wheel was apparently not in use yet or at least standardized as far as the Anatolian speaking peoples, but meanwhile the PIE word for wheel ended up in Germanic and Italo-Celtic languages. I wonder if this is the clue to the timing of the branching of the L23xL51 subclade(s)? and these Anatolian speakers were not Armenian predecessors, at least not language-wise, right?

Jean M
04-22-2013, 05:01 PM
Mallory commented that the Afanasevo culture was thought to be Indo-European but added that was even though they are a little too early.

Actually the earliest radiocarbon dates for it have now been rejected, as Anthony revealed in his latest paper. You probably have a copy of my text with the earlier dates. That has now been changed to c. 3300-3000 BC (for the start of Afanasevo.)


... these Anatolian speakers were not Armenian predecessors, at least not language-wise, right?

That's right. Greek/Armenian/Thracian/Phrygian is a separate branch from Anatolian. Looks like the ancestors of the Greeks etc arrived in Thrace as the ancestors of the Anatolian branch were moving across to Anatolia.

Jean M
04-22-2013, 05:18 PM
I read of a find in Kurdistan that is earlier.


I did not know about this. Have now found it. World’s earliest toy car and title deed on show at Mardin Museum (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266943-worlds-earliest-toy-car-and-title-deed-on-show-at-mardin-museum.html). Looks just like wheeled toys of Altyn Depe and I somehow don't think that is a coincidence. It is impossible to radiocarbon date stone, so the dating was presumably from context. I think it's crazy.

R.Rocca
04-23-2013, 02:50 PM
I did not know about this. Have now found it. World’s earliest toy car and title deed on show at Mardin Museum (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266943-worlds-earliest-toy-car-and-title-deed-on-show-at-mardin-museum.html). Looks just like wheeled toys of Altyn Depe and I somehow don't think that is a coincidence. It is impossible to radiocarbon date stone, so the dating was presumably from context. I think it's crazy.

I'm a little bit skeptical on their dating. This would push the invention of the wheel back ~2000 years!

Jean M
04-23-2013, 04:23 PM
I'm more than a little sceptical. It has all the credibility of an ancient Egyptian thermometer. And don't anybody tell me about Hero of Alexandria. :)

Sometimes objects get displaced from the archaeological sequence, for example by getting dropped down a hole, buried beneath the surface, or conversely dragged up to the surface from a lower level by burrowing animals or the plough.

TigerMW
05-01-2013, 12:47 AM
It might be helpful to review major members of the L11 family and then L23*/Z2103 as much as possible at the same time to look for intersections and contemplate cultural/archaelogical correlations.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-DF27_Frequency_Map_using_proxy.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-U152_Frequency_Map.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Frequency_Map.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Frequency_Map.jpg


and of course, the one that blows one's mind... L23*, which I think is incomplete. We probably need a redo on this with the Bulgaria data included.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23a_Z2103_Frequency_Map.jpg

Rathna
05-01-2013, 03:29 PM
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23a_Z2103_Frequency_Map.jpg

"Step 1: The original L23(xZ51,Z2103) arises in the Crimean Kemi Oba Culture, Stelae and all." (Richard Rocca)

It seems that R-L23/Z2105+ has had three places of origin: the Alpine region, the Caucasus one and Central Asia.
Very likely the European subclades, from R-L51, arose from the Alpine ones.

Jean M
05-01-2013, 06:45 PM
It seems that R-L23/Z2105+ has had three places of origin: the Alpine region, the Caucasus one and Central Asia.
Very likely the European subclades, from R-L51, arose from the Alpine ones.

R1b-L51 is not a son of Z2105, but a brother. Most of what used to be labelled R1b-L23 is likely to belong to Z2015. The present-day densities of Z2015 are not telling us the origin point of R1b-L51.

Rathna
05-01-2013, 07:24 PM
The present-day densities of Z2015 are not telling us the origin point of R1b-L51.

Yes, of course, in fact whereas R-Z2105 has these three places of origin, R-L51 has only one: as Richard Rocca said also recently: between Italy and France (and this was already said and demonstrated many years ago by my Italian homonymous and Argiedude).

Of course R-Z2105 and R-L51 are brothers and probably their father R-L23* (not found yet) lived somewhere, but, as its ancestor R1b1*/YCAII=18-22 or 18-23 has been found so far only in Western Europe, we can hypothesize that it too lived there.
These R-Z2105-s are found above all in mountainous places and may presuppose a very ancient diffusion and a following isolation due to more recent invasions. You know certainly that also my Italian homonymous has always disagreed with all the current theories about the TMRCA and dated this diffusion many thousands of years ago.

If the Geno 2.0 which are coming out, above all of R-V88+, are reliable, probably the answer to these questions could be already arrived.

Jean M
05-01-2013, 09:00 PM
I am shocked Gioiello. I thought anything of any value sprang from the true soil of Italy, and that you would not dream of flirting with border zones where the Swiss or the French might lay claim to it. :)

TigerMW
05-01-2013, 11:50 PM
Yes, of course, in fact whereas R-Z2105 has these three places of origin, R-L51 has only one: as Richard Rocca said also recently: between Italy and France (and this was already said and demonstrated many years ago by my Italian homonymous and Argiedude)....

Have we found any kinds of L51xL11 without the 426=13 value and otherwise have diverse haplotypes. If not, I think there is a very good chance that the L51* 426=13 we have today is just a single brother for L11.
Has there been any L51* found to be Z2113? I think these guys may be all Z2113+, at least that was the early speculation.

I'm also skeptical in general about the very low numbers of L51* we have knowledge of.

L51*'s brother, L23*/Z2103, appears to be more diverse.There might be some location where L51* is more diverse, like L23*/Z2103. That would be telling, I think. I would think such a location might have some diverse L23* nearby too.

P.S. Z2103 and Z2105 appear to be phylogenetically equivalent, so far. I just use Z2103 as the "lead with" SNP for subclade naming just because ISOGG lists it first and I found more people who were tested Z2103+ than Z2105+, at least when I counted. Not everyone is taking both tests. Are they both in Geno 2?

Joe B
05-02-2013, 12:45 AM
P.S. Z2103 and Z2105 appear to be phylogenetically equivalent, so far. I just use Z2103 as the "lead with" SNP for subclade naming just because ISOGG lists it first and I found more people who were tested Z2103+ than Z2105+, at least when I counted. Not everyone is taking both tests. Are they both in Geno 2?
Best I can tell Z2103 and Z2105 are not on Geno2.0 after doing a quick glance through the R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) project. Two other snps are listed on the ISOGG tree page. CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105 is on the tree and CTS1078/Z2103, Z2105 is listed in the Corrections/Additions made since 1 January 2013: section at the bottom of the page. Any thoughts on CTS1083 and CTS1078?
The L23*/Z2103 name is good since that is the snp I chose to test.
International Society of Genetic Genealogy (2012). Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2013, Version: 8.46, Date:22 April 2013, http://www.isogg.org/tree/ 01/05/2013

TigerMW
05-02-2013, 01:25 AM
Best I can tell Z2103 and Z2105 are not on Geno2.0 after doing a quick glance through the R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) project. Two other snps are listed on the ISOGG tree page. CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105 is on the tree and CTS1078/Z2103, Z2105 is listed in the Corrections/Additions made since 1 January 2013: section at the bottom of the page. Any thoughts on CTS1083 and CTS1078?
I'm for the L23*/Z2103 name since that is the snp I chose to test. International Society of Genetic Genealogy (2012). Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2013, Version: 8.46, Date:22 April 2013, http://www.isogg.org/tree/ 01/05/2013

I've just been convinced to stick with the Z2103 as the "lead with" SNP. The "CTS1083/Z2103" indicates that CTS1083 is synonymous or identical physically. Geno 2.0 results will tell us who is Z2103+ but not Z2015.

In the R1b-Early clades spreadsheet I'll translate CTS1083 to Z2103. I still think everyone should test for both Z2103 and Z205, at least per STR variety/cluster or subclade.

Joe B
05-02-2013, 02:44 AM
In the R1b-Early clades spreadsheet I'll translate CTS1083 to Z2103. I still think everyone should test for both Z2103 and Z2105, at least per STR variety/cluster or subclade.
Thanks Mike,
I have been waiting to for an excuse to test Z2105. STR variety/cluster seems like a good reason.
My conjecture is L23*/Z2103 seems to have had multiple migrations over thousands of years from the Anatolia/Black Sea area. The small numbers of early L23*/Z2103 in europe along with other early haplogroups were likely decimated by by infectious diseases. As later R1b and R1a (other haplogroups too) brought farm animals and disease to europe, certainly the earlier haplogroups would lack immunity, get sick and suffer a population crash. This would make it easier for these later migrations, including multiple L23*/Z2103 groups, downstream clades and other haplogroups to repopulate the area. That is what happened in the Americas with smallpox after the europeans arrived.
Ireland should be a good example of this. Ireland's early inhabitants were the most geographically isolated and least exposed to disease compared to the rest of europe. Could this explain L21 prevalence in Ireland?
As with any conjecture, its just my best guess based on what we have.
Joe

Rathna
05-02-2013, 07:27 AM
I am shocked Gioiello. I thought anything of any value sprang from the true soil of Italy, and that you would not dream of flirting with border zones where the Swiss or the French might lay claim to it. :)

Of course I prefer your to-day English humour rather than your yesterday rage, even though everybody knows that also this humour is plenty of aggressiveness, and Freud’s Witz taught.
I have already answered your questions in my thousands of letters and, like Paganini, I don’t repeat.

lgmayka
05-02-2013, 09:57 AM
I've just been convinced to stick with the Z2103 as the "lead with" SNP. The "CTS1083/Z2103" indicates that CTS1083 is synonymous or identical physically. Geno 2.0 results will tell us who is Z2103+ but not Z2015.

In the R1b-Early clades spreadsheet I'll translate CTS1083 to Z2103. I still think everyone should test for both Z2103 and Z205, at least per STR variety/cluster or subclade.
Ymap says that CTS1078 is exactly the same location as Z2103 (http://ymap.ftdna.com/cgi-bin/gb2/gbrowse/hs_chrY/?name=ChrY%3A7246135..7246135). CTS1083 is an entirely different location (http://ymap.ftdna.com/cgi-bin/gb2/gbrowse/hs_chrY/?name=ChrY%3A7248420..7248420).

The ISOGG tree appears to be mixed up. Its SNP page (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html), however, correctly lists CTS1078 as equivalent to Z2103. (On that page it is the footnote that is wrong.)


EDIT by Moderator on 5/2/13: I didn't change anything above but I'm transferring to the R1b Early Subclades phylogeny thread which is where we should discuss this. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-%28SNP-based-family-tree%29&p=5668#post5668

AJL
05-02-2013, 08:51 PM
Of course I prefer your to-day English humour rather than your yesterday rage, even though everybody knows that also this humour is plenty of aggressiveness, and Freud’s Witz taught.
I have already answered your questions in my thousands of letters and, like Paganini, I don’t repeat.

Rathna:

I would ask you kindly to abide by the Anthrogenica forum rules posted here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7-Terms-of-Service-and-Forum-Rules

I draw your attention particularly to paragrahs 3.10 and 6.2-6.4.


EDIT by Moderator on 5/2/2013: I didn't change any of the above message but don't want add an additonal reply/post for these purposes. Please PM me on complaints and be explicit. Let's work on posting on topic. Folks, humor is okay but let's not waste everyone's time with "Invectives devoid of substance" aka "junk postings." Also, please don't make me do translations to English or research double entendres to see if something is getting obscene. I don't have time for that.

TigerMW
05-02-2013, 11:15 PM
"Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape" by Bekada, et. al., 2013.

For the R-M343 subdivision, the Iberian Peninsula reflects a genuine European profile except for the presence of one Sahel R-V88 type. In contrast, all R-M343 detected in W. Saharan-Mauritanian belong to sub-group R-V88, reaching a frequency of 7%, similar to those observed in other Sahel samples [40]. In the Maghreb countries, the frequency of R-V88 drops to around 1%. On the other hand, the presence in this area of representatives of the European sub-groups R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 points to North-South maritime contacts across the Mediterranean. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056775

This seems to be a strike against an hypothesis of the R1b that spread through out Europe, L11/S127, having ancestral route via North Africa on the way to Iberia.

As you go south into Africa you completely lose the the L11 or L23 or M269 forms of R1b altogether. It is R1b-V88. However, on the Mediterranean Coast you do not find V88, but do L11 types and it looks like a tiny bit of L51* (M412) too.

However, they don't find any L23xL51 or M269xL23 at all in NW Africa. We can find L23xL51 in Europe. If this was the ancestral trail for L11 we should see more of these types, like we find L23xL51 and M269xL23 in the Balkan Peninsula and in Italy as well as the Near East.

AJL
05-03-2013, 01:53 PM
However, they don't find any L23xL51 or M269xL23 at all in NW Africa. We can find L23xL51 in Europe. If this was the ancestral trail for L11 we should see more of these types, like we find L23xL51 and M269xL23 in the Balkan Peninsula and in Italy as well as the Near East.

To play devil's advocate, might it be possible that some L23 made their way along Africa's Mediterranean coast to Iberia, while the bulk came through Europe, and that the current North African absence of L23 is down to something like one or more constrictions in the Maghreb's population?

This also has me wondering about sampling bias:


For Y-Chromosome analysis, DNA from previous surveys were used...

Rathna
05-03-2013, 03:12 PM
"Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape" by Bekada, et. al., 2013.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056775

This seems to be a strike against an hypothesis of the R1b that spread through out Europe, L11/S127, having ancestral route via North Africa on the way to Iberia.

As you go south into Africa you completely lose the the L11 or L23 or M269 forms of R1b altogether. It is R1b-V88. However, on the Mediterranean Coast you do not find V88, but do L11 types and it looks like a tiny bit of L51* (M412) too.

However, they don't find any L23xL51 or M269xL23 at all in NW Africa. We can find L23xL51 in Europe. If this was the ancestral trail for L11 we should see more of these types, like we find L23xL51 and M269xL23 in the Balkan Peninsula and in Italy as well as the Near East.

Another crazy paper. R-V88 would be born in West Africa only because they found many samples (13 out of 17) of this haplogroup in West Sahara and Mauritania, not asking that they are probably due to the Fulanis, nomad pastoralists whose origin isn’t certainly there. And where would be in Africa the ancestor of R-V88, i.e. R1b-M343, and its sister clade R-L389? Europe has both R-L389 and R-V88, and African R-V88 may be due to a migration from Europe if not from Middle East as many others think.

TigerMW
05-03-2013, 03:52 PM
To play devil's advocate, might it be possible that some L23 made their way along Africa's Mediterranean coast to Iberia, while the bulk came through Europe, and that the current North African absence of L23 is down to something like one or more constrictions in the Maghreb's population?

This also has me wondering about sampling bias:

Sure, we are just speculating anyway, but I don't see any reason that people who might be from the Near East or Anatolia that moved through the Mediterranean towards Iberia didn't have lineages that cropped up anywhere along the Mediterranean.

Please check out the new thread on the R1b Ht35 study. Unfortunately, they didn't research North Africa though so the best data on that is probably this Algerian study which doesn't show L23xL51.

What is your concern about sampling bias? I think there always concerns about that but I don't know of anything specific related to that study.

alan
05-03-2013, 04:18 PM
The wheel was actually initially invented by cave dwellers in Britain but it never caught on due to a design flaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qopCQSWmpM

alan
05-03-2013, 04:28 PM
"Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape" by Bekada, et. al., 2013.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056775

This seems to be a strike against an hypothesis of the R1b that spread through out Europe, L11/S127, having ancestral route via North Africa on the way to Iberia.

As you go south into Africa you completely lose the the L11 or L23 or M269 forms of R1b altogether. It is R1b-V88. However, on the Mediterranean Coast you do not find V88, but do L11 types and it looks like a tiny bit of L51* (M412) too.

However, they don't find any L23xL51 or M269xL23 at all in NW Africa. We can find L23xL51 in Europe. If this was the ancestral trail for L11 we should see more of these types, like we find L23xL51 and M269xL23 in the Balkan Peninsula and in Italy as well as the Near East.

Its a shame Anatole dabbled in the idea of R1b using NW Africa as a stepping stone. It never made sense. He has slowly retreated from his more 'imaginative' ideas but this is another one that needs dropped. Its a shame because I otherwise really enjoy his work and think its a lot more important than he gets credit for. I hope he continues to refine his model. His model is slowly morphing into something more mainstream and easier to fit with the archaeology and he does provide great data.

AJL
05-03-2013, 06:29 PM
What is your concern about sampling bias? I think there always concerns about that but I don't know of anything specific related to that study.

It's a very technical statistical concern: they state that all samples were non-related, but if we don't know which studies the previous Y samples were taken from, we can't be sure they actually checked for this.

AJL
05-03-2013, 06:33 PM
The wheel was actually initially invented by cave dwellers in Britain but it never caught on due to a design flaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qopCQSWmpM

:) Wow, I haven't seen any of the Carry On films in ages.

In any case, I take your point that we can't extrapolate from absences.

R.Rocca
05-03-2013, 06:37 PM
To play devil's advocate, might it be possible that some L23 made their way along Africa's Mediterranean coast to Iberia, while the bulk came through Europe, and that the current North African absence of L23 is down to something like one or more constrictions in the Maghreb's population?

This also has me wondering about sampling bias:

Table S3 shows the references to the other population studies.

AJL
05-03-2013, 06:50 PM
Thanks, that must have escaped my attention. That fully addresses my concern.

alan
05-03-2013, 07:27 PM
:) Wow, I haven't seen any of the Carry On films in ages.

In any case, I take your point that we can't extrapolate from absences.

There was no deep point intended. Just an excuse to post that clip!

razyn
05-05-2013, 04:59 AM
It might be helpful to review major members of the L11 family and then L23*/Z2103 as much as possible at the same time to look for intersections and contemplate cultural/archaelogical correlations.

It probably would be helpful, if we could do that; but using these four maps side by side (or, you know, stacked) does not IMO lead in that direction. It's a little hard to say why. Maybe it's the sliding scale of percentages, in the respective legends for each map. As a group, they differ substantially, especially at both ends (lowest percentages mapped, and highest found). I know, one has to make do with the data one has. Rich in particular has tried to stick to data from academic studies, pathetic though their resolution may be (and, in a couple of cases, is). Again, strictly in my opinion: that first (top) map, purporting to be a "proxy for DF27," is worse than weak. It maps a WAG high-density modern distribution of an important, major division of P312 -- regrettably undiscovered at the time the data were collected by the academics cited. It omits densities of this poor proxy (P312*) lower than 4.9% -- leaving, under a white blanket of snow, any parts of the world from which DF27 might conceivably have arisen, and thence migrated to those parts of Europe that have become (in the near-present) blessed with the most hefty percentages of P312* people. [Note that the other maps tend to have less than 1% densities, to merit the snow blanket treatment.] As a finishing touch, an overlay of Palmela points, once upon a time deposited in those parts, has been added. The only inference I can draw is that the one is supposed to have some relationship to the other. Does it? One might draw a map of California showing the original Spanish missions, and overlay that base with present-day taco stands. Or movie lots, or computer manufacturers, or something else modern and unrelated -- apart from its being found in California. In what way is that helpful?

The day may not be too far in the future when we can draw a meaningful map of DF27, for instance with variances (not just frequency), and comparative distribution of its main subclades. I for one don't believe it will look a thing like this Proxy one. But, nice try, and all.

R.Rocca
05-05-2013, 06:58 PM
It is apparent from all of the academic data points that DF27 will be even more pronounced in Iberia and SW France than what the proxy map shows. The question is still, how did it get there and how did all the other P312 get to where it is today.

razyn
05-05-2013, 09:00 PM
It is apparent from all of the academic data points that DF27 will be even more pronounced in Iberia and SW France than what the proxy map shows. The question is still, how did it get there and how did all the other P312 get to where it is today.

I don't disagree with any of this. But it will also be pronouncedly heavy in subclades that we now know are fairly young; lighter (or empty) in some subclades that we now know are older -- and much of the missing P312* or DF27 stuff isn't even on your map. Maybe because it's below the 4.9% threshhold, now (after 5,000 years or so); maybe because it's still to be found, in relatively untested places; maybe its geography is even off the base map (farther east than the western third of the Black Sea). Certainly some of it lies outside the tabulation, devoid of anything east of Germany, that you posted here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=5255&viewfull=1#post5255

It was, after all, Mike and not you who posted your Df27 Proxy map in a series with those others for L21 and U152. And you've said that your speculations here are for the sake of argument; so I'm just arguing, to help keep you focused. The question, as you say, is still. A question, not a conclusion, yet. DF27 clearly has diffused, and widely though often sparsely -- but whether that was from Iberia/southern France, or toward it, remains to be demonstrated. Maritime beakers (the artifacts) seem to have spread from western Iberia to the Rhone and points east; but that's not a back migration if the immediate ancestral (migrant?) bearers of that overall cultural complex weren't from there. Hopping along shorelines of the seas and major rivers (presumably in boats), they could have been from most anywhere. And so could DF27 (whether or not it is aligned with Bell Beakers).

TigerMW
05-06-2013, 02:19 AM
...Again, strictly in my opinion: that first (top) map, purporting to be a "proxy for DF27," is worse than weak.
...
As a finishing touch, an overlay of Palmela points, once upon a time deposited in those parts, has been added.
...

I can't say anything about Palmela points. To me that is just ancillary information on the map for the purpose I was posting it.

As far as P312+ U152- L21- being a proxy for DF27, I think that is a fair way to approximate things. The P312 project tries to classify people who are P312 undiscerned and we are getting a very high rate of DF27+ among them, especially in those from Iberia. I think the general frequency distribution for DF27 won't be far off, but all of this is only speculative anyway.

I do think we need thorough testing of P312 undiscerned in Scandinavia and Central Europe. If we do find DF27 falls proportionally off and true P312* picks up somewhere that would be a very helpful thing to know. Perhaps this needs to be at the sub-regional level and maybe we'll find hotspots for P312* in a couple of departments of France or some locations in Switzerland or North Italy.... or maybe a particular area of Poland.


DF27 clearly has diffused, and widely though often sparsely -- but whether that was from Iberia/southern France, or toward it, remains to be demonstrated.

I don't think frequency tells us the direction. DF27 in Iberia could be just like L21 in Ireland, a place where waves of particular type seemed to succesfully accumulate. Diversity is not low for DF27 in Iberia either, but it'd be nice to get a good fix on how the DF27 early branching of DF27*, Z196*, L176.2*, Z209*, DF83, etc. end up being arranged vis a vis each other.

As always in speculative endeavors, it is what it is.... until and unless we find differently.

razyn
05-06-2013, 03:53 AM
As far as P312+ U152- L21- being a proxy for DF27, I think that is a fair way to approximate things.

It is, in a crude way; but the maps are at wildly different scales and don't actually show that. 5% and greater for DF27 (really, P312* of several years ago) is not on a level field with <1% for U152 and L21. Also, a 40% most-dense region of "DF27" (really, P312*) is not as dense as a 60% most-dense region of somebody else.


I don't think frequency tells us the direction.

Nor do I.


As always in speculative endeavors, it is what it is.... until and unless we find differently.

Also, it isn't what it isn't. It isn't a picture of some ancient Franco-Iberian clade, gathering its furs about itself in preparation for back-migration to the rest of Europe and SW Asia. That notion comes from elsewhere; certainly not from observation of the phylogeny -- which (to me) appears to branch from its ancient trunk, shared with L21 and U152, ever more robustly as it approaches Iberia.

With regard to the "until and unless" part -- Rich is proposing that (SNP testing of ancient Y-DNA from a maritime Bell Beaker site in Iberia), and I wish him every success.

R.Rocca
05-06-2013, 12:11 PM
It is, in a crude way; but the maps are at wildly different scales and don't actually show that. 5% and greater for DF27 (really, P312* of several years ago) is not on a level field with <1% for U152 and L21. Also, a 40% most-dense region of "DF27" (really, P312*) is not as dense as a 60% most-dense region of somebody else.



Nor do I.



Also, it isn't what it isn't. It isn't a picture of some ancient Franco-Iberian clade, gathering its furs about itself in preparation for back-migration to the rest of Europe and SW Asia. That notion comes from elsewhere; certainly not from observation of the phylogeny -- which (to me) appears to branch from its ancient trunk, shared with L21 and U152, ever more robustly as it approaches Iberia.

With regard to the "until and unless" part -- Rich is proposing that (SNP testing of ancient Y-DNA from a maritime Bell Beaker site in Iberia), and I wish him every success.

The real prize will be to test the Y-DNA of the pre-Bell Beaker people of the Iberian peninsula. If there is no R1b there, then that will say a lot.

TigerMW
05-06-2013, 01:56 PM
It is, in a crude way; but the maps are at wildly different scales and don't actually show that ...
Yes, I'm aware of that. If you'll notice on Rich's R1b web site I asked for greater granularity at the lower levels of frequency and would give up granularity at the high levels. The reason I picked the L21 map from Eupedia is because it does that just a tad and that is particularly important given L21's very high frequencies in Ireland causing loss of shade granularity everywhere else with the defaults set in graphing tools.

However, I think we all can "get" that the legends show the scaling and mentally adjust. Regardless, the distribution patterns are useful. Of course they are crude. About everything we have is.

I appreciate that Richard, and Eupedia for that matter, take the time to create some interesting stuff for us; just the same as Alan's archaelogical research readings, etc.

R.Rocca
05-06-2013, 02:00 PM
Let's not forget that these maps were created by different people, at different times, using different tools to discuss different topics.

razyn
05-06-2013, 02:12 PM
The real prize will be to test the Y-DNA of the pre-Bell Beaker people of the Iberian peninsula. If there is no R1b there, then that will say a lot.

In that vein, there was a thread on Eupedia a couple of years ago in which the question was raised: where could R1b-P312* have come from, entering northern coastal Iberia without bringing along any G2? (Actually I think we were talking about Z196, as DF27 hadn't been revealed yet.) The details are foggy, but that was when I more or less jokingly suggested "Gdańsk." A little subsequent reading on other topics (sea levels, history of sewn boats, some stuff in French about the DNA of horses and frogs) led me to think that theory is about as good a WAG as any of the Mediterranean WAGs. The ancient (pre-Bronze Age) mouths of some of those north-flowing rivers are out to sea, and haven't been studied by archaeologists. But one immediately gets into that argument about what absence of evidence isn't, and I'm not sufficiently obsessed to want to do that.

But the original notion wasn't mine, and wasn't naive: as R1b from elsewhere filled up western Europe with Y-DNA that wasn't previously there, was it accompanied by other haplogroups, from the unknown source area? And in what proportions? To the extent that they differ from the earlier pattern in Iberia, those proportions might help to tell us whence the earliest Iberian R1b arrived, and maybe hint at when; and then we could make better guesses as to why. The Great Flood used to be a popular one. Explosion of Santorini, melting glaciers, Black Sea shoreline flooding, the wrath of God, etc. I kind of like the microbial explanations -- cowpox giving R1b guys immunities against smallpox, which selectively exterminated their rivals, and that sort of thing. And I kind of like the metal-prospecting, shamanic types from the CMP, mating with the local potter gals, for Bell Beaker (whether or not they turn out to have been R1b, or DF27).

razyn
05-06-2013, 02:18 PM
Let's not forget that these maps were created by different people, at different times, using different tools to discuss different topics.

I've been trying my best to help us remember that. As opposed to looking at them serially from top to bottom (on this thread) and supposing they are similar.

AJL
05-06-2013, 03:25 PM
In that vein, there was a thread on Eupedia a couple of years ago in which the question was raised: where could R1b-P312* have come from, entering northern coastal Iberia without bringing along any G2?

R-P312 likely didn't have to bring G2 anywhere: rather, G2 was probably in all of Western Europe already (e.g. Oetzi, and most ancient French and German DNA), perhaps alongside I2 and possibly E-V13.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116412/

In any case, there is G2a in Iberia.

razyn
05-06-2013, 04:24 PM
R-P312 likely didn't have to bring G2 anywhere: rather, G2 was probably in all of Western Europe already...
In any case, there is G2a in Iberia.

If you want to examine that old Eupedia discussion, and/or argue with its several authors, it was really about Basques (not Iberia, as such) and I jumped into it late, here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26727-Lack-of-G2a-in-Basque?p=379114&viewfull=1#post379114

Not that I didn't rave enough in that first post, but my offhand reference to Gdańsk was in a later post. And I'd have been speaking of DF27, had it been discovered, at the time. Most of my limited presence on Eupedia had to do with getting Z196 onto the radar there, and much of the online documentation I provided at the time went up in smoke when DNA-Forums suddenly shut down. I don't believe I've posted there since last July. They continue to have a lot of guys with Basque interests, though.

AJL
05-06-2013, 05:13 PM
If you want to examine that old Eupedia discussion, and/or argue with its several authors, it was really about Basques (not Iberia, as such) and I jumped into it late, here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26727-Lack-of-G2a-in-Basque?p=379114&viewfull=1#post379114

Thanks. I don't want to distract from the main point of this thread, but will just note in passing that G2a seems highly variable in Basque populations surveyed, ranging between 0% and 7% in different studies.

TigerMW
05-07-2013, 04:44 PM
Let's not forget that these maps were created by different people, at different times, using different tools to discuss different topics.

I'm not requesting you drop everything and do this, but next time you look at the P312xU152xL21 and U152 frequency maps please consider the following scale.

<1% blank
1-5%
5-10%
10-15%
15-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
> 60% almost black

This would be consistent with what Eupedia does and he already does L21 and U106 so this would make the comparisons easier visually.

TigerMW
05-22-2013, 07:45 PM
Back on a 5/1/2013 post on this thread is a graphic of the U106 frequency map as prepared by Maciamo on Eupedia.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?824-Are-we-getting-some-consensus-on-the-R1b-story&p=5599&viewfull=1#post5599

Here is link to the graphic: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Frequency_Map.jpg

On the thread about the Y DNA Flanders study Alan noted.

.... The spectacular drop of Z381 (U106) with the French names compared to the Flemish is on a much greater scale. It kind of suggests the possibility that French didnt receive much intrusion while the Flemish did absorb a significant amount of non-Germanic lineages. That makes sense. I havent read the report yet so I cant comment further

I think it is fascinating that there is such a dramatic cut-over from U106 to P312 at Calais. We do find P312 east and northeast of Calais, albeit apparently diluted. However, west and southwest of Calais and apparently Calais itself is where U106 starts to disappear.

What happened on the Germanic-Celtic interaction zones? What stopped the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes at Calais? If they could make it across to England I don't know why they didn't go down the coast of France. Apparently I1 (maybe seafaring Scandinavians) made southerly/southwesterly incursions on Gaul, but not U106.

This leads back to origination question on U106 and its L11* predecessor line. They weren't in Gaul that I can see.

jdean
05-22-2013, 07:57 PM
Back on a 5/1/2013 post on this thread is a graphic of the U106 frequency map as prepared by Maciamo on Eupedia.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?824-Are-we-getting-some-consensus-on-the-R1b-story&p=5599&viewfull=1#post5599

Here is link to the graphic: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Frequency_Map.jpg

On the thread about the Y DNA Flanders study Alan noted.


I think it is fascinating that there is such a dramatic cut-over from U106 to P312 at Calais. We do find P312 east and northeast of Calais, albeit apparently diluted. However, west and southwest of Calais and apparently Calais itself is where U106 starts to disappear.

What happened on the Germanic-Celtic interaction zones? What stopped the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes at Calais? If they could make it across to England I don't know why they didn't go down the coast of France. Apparently I1 (maybe seafaring Scandinavians) made southerly/southwesterly incursions on Gaul, but not U106.

This leads back to origination question on U106 and its L11* predecessor line. They weren't in Gaul that I can see.

Looks like they're pretty thin on the ground along the Welsh Marches as well which considering the recent data showing a sharp drop off of R-L21 in that area as well begs the question 'what's filling the gap' ?

alan
05-22-2013, 08:26 PM
Back on a 5/1/2013 post on this thread is a graphic of the U106 frequency map as prepared by Maciamo on Eupedia.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?824-Are-we-getting-some-consensus-on-the-R1b-story&p=5599&viewfull=1#post5599

Here is link to the graphic: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Frequency_Map.jpg

On the thread about the Y DNA Flanders study Alan noted.


I think it is fascinating that there is such a dramatic cut-over from U106 to P312 at Calais. We do find P312 east and northeast of Calais, albeit apparently diluted. However, west and southwest of Calais and apparently Calais itself is where U106 starts to disappear.

What happened on the Germanic-Celtic interaction zones? What stopped the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes at Calais? If they could make it across to England I don't know why they didn't go down the coast of France. Apparently I1 (maybe seafaring Scandinavians) made southerly/southwesterly incursions on Gaul, but not U106.

This leads back to origination question on U106 and its L11* predecessor line. They weren't in Gaul that I can see.

Essentially the Franks were very Romanised by their position at the Roman empire boundary and when they took over France they to a large extent took over the existing elite machinery or power rather than undertaking a folk migration (except in the north-east). It is after all more attractive to incoming warriors to form a thin elite and live that sort of life rather than simply beat the sword into a plough. An even more extreme case of this is the Visigoths in Spain who simply formed a parisitic elite. In comparison the A-Saxons were yokels from well beyond the empire who wouldnt have had a clue how to take over the Roman administrative machinery. The power of the Franks with their Germano-Roman hybrid culture meant other tribes were no match for them and the less Romanised Germans didnt stand a chance in France. Culturally the Franks inherited a lot of the Roman world including the language of course. Their zenith of course was under Charlemagne when the Frankish empire ruled a large chunk of Europe before it broke up again.

TigerMW
05-22-2013, 09:05 PM
From the L21 thread:
The relationship of P312 and U106 on both the continent and the isles really does give a feel that the Celts were P312 dominated and were overlaid by U106 in England and what was Belgic Gaul where Germanic languages arrived, creating what looks like a zone where the subclades still preserved strongly to the west were diluted by clades including U106. This seems to have created a dilution of clades like L21 in the mixed zone while at the same time this mixed zone grinds to a very sudden halt as seen by the dramatic fall of U106. So in effect we are seeing a fairly unmixed 'pre-Germanic' group to the west of a mixed zone where Germanic has overlaid Celtic/Latin speakers who remained a substantial substrate. One thing is clear, this is further evidence that U106 is extremly strongly associated with Germanic speaking. This all fits rather well with the default identification of L21 (and others) as NW Celtic and U106 as Germanic.

Since U106 is rare to the west and apparently late to the Low Countries, this also implies that during the early spreads of P312 and U106, U106 was off to the side, missing from the activities in the west. This despite the fact that they appear to be not dramatically different in age with a MRCA not too long before. If we were talking about dairy herdsmen who must have expanded more slowly and methodically, I don't see how this could have happened. That leaves the Bell Beaker scenarios as last man standing that I can see. Its the only thing only old enough and fast-moving enough to have relatives pop up a long way from each, that apparently had strong logistics/support (like you'd expect from prolific and mobile people.)

mcg11
05-23-2013, 03:26 PM
[[[ Mikewww/Moderator: This post by mcg11 was about a general topic, TMRCA estimates, as well as Clan Gregor and L1065. This is a warning. Please stay on topic. I moved mcg11's posting to thread below. ]]]

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=6626#post6626

TigerMW
05-24-2013, 10:30 PM
I moved the comments by Alan and I on the paper about the Uruks, Maykops and Transcaucasia to
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?948-Links-between-Mesopotamia-Maykop-etc

Webb
05-25-2013, 01:49 AM
Essentially the Franks were very Romanised by their position at the Roman empire boundary and when they took over France they to a large extent took over the existing elite machinery or power rather than undertaking a folk migration (except in the north-east). It is after all more attractive to incoming warriors to form a thin elite and live that sort of life rather than simply beat the sword into a plough. An even more extreme case of this is the Visigoths in Spain who simply formed a parisitic elite. In comparison the A-Saxons were yokels from well beyond the empire who wouldnt have had a clue how to take over the Roman administrative machinery. The power of the Franks with their Germano-Roman hybrid culture meant other tribes were no match for them and the less Romanised Germans didnt stand a chance in France. Culturally the Franks inherited a lot of the Roman world including the language of course. Their zenith of course was under Charlemagne when the Frankish empire ruled a large chunk of Europe before it broke up again.

Alan hit the nail on the head. The franks were a huge powerhouse that the Romans chose in order to keep out displaced German tribes from entering the Roman Empire. They were a ragtag group of mixed ethnicity originally Celt and German, as were many of the tribes the Romans backed to control the border. I would read about Frisia on wiki if you get the chance. It will give some insight to the history of the Rhine delta. It was prone to flooding regularly and wasn't the easiest place to eek out a living, but it was emptied so often that it basically became a regular hold over for displaced German tribes. It became such a problem for Rome that the Romans eventually chased out any tribes attempting to settle it. I would argue, however, that because many of these tribes were of mixed cultures, you would have to assume they were of mixed genetics. So an invading army of franks into France would carry many of the haplotypes already in France, making it impossible to distinguish franks from Romano/Gauls. Such as it is fairly difficult to distinguish Normans genetically from the general population of England. It's a incoming wave of haplotypes that were already present. My hunch is it could be the same thing with the goths. If df27 settled the coasts of the North Sea during the Nordic Bronze Age from Iberia, only to carry the same haplotypes back to Iberia a thousand years later, it would make the goths genetic ghosts. Which most theories currently, as Alan suggests are based on a ruling elite not leaving much genetic impact. However, if the incomers were carrying haplotypes already common in an area, then again, you might not be able to distinguish one group from another. My very common sense, detective instinct, keeps me going back to this line of thought.

GoldenHind
05-25-2013, 04:59 PM
Alan hit the nail on the head. The franks were a huge powerhouse that the Romans chose in order to keep out displaced German tribes from entering the Roman Empire. They were a ragtag group of mixed ethnicity originally Celt and German, as were many of the tribes the Romans backed to control the border. I would read about Frisia on wiki if you get the chance. It will give some insight to the history of the Rhine delta. It was prone to flooding regularly and wasn't the easiest place to eek out a living, but it was emptied so often that it basically became a regular hold over for displaced German tribes. It became such a problem for Rome that the Romans eventually chased out any tribes attempting to settle it. I would argue, however, that because many of these tribes were of mixed cultures, you would have to assume they were of mixed genetics. So an invading army of franks into France would carry many of the haplotypes already in France, making it impossible to distinguish franks from Romano/Gauls. Such as it is fairly difficult to distinguish Normans genetically from the general population of England. It's a incoming wave of haplotypes that were already present. My hunch is it could be the same thing with the goths. If df27 settled the coasts of the North Sea during the Nordic Bronze Age from Iberia, only to carry the same haplotypes back to Iberia a thousand years later, it would make the goths genetic ghosts. Which most theories currently, as Alan suggests are based on a ruling elite not leaving much genetic impact. However, if the incomers were carrying haplotypes already common in an area, then again, you might not be able to distinguish one group from another. My very common sense, detective instinct, keeps me going back to this line of thought.

An excellent point. As for the Normans, I suspect you are correct that they didn't bring any Ydna to England that wasn't already present. I have previously suggested that distant and perhaps not so distant cousins probably fought on opposing sides at the Battle of Hastings. The Normans, whether of Scandinavian, Germanic or Romano-Gallic ancestry, represented population groups present in large numbers in England prior to 1066. Obviously that is true as well for the Breton and Flemish elements of Duke William's army. That is one reason I always cringe when I hear mention of "Norman DNA."

rms2
05-25-2013, 09:37 PM
Alan hit the nail on the head. The franks were a huge powerhouse that the Romans chose in order to keep out displaced German tribes from entering the Roman Empire. They were a ragtag group of mixed ethnicity originally Celt and German, as were many of the tribes the Romans backed to control the border. I would read about Frisia on wiki if you get the chance. It will give some insight to the history of the Rhine delta. It was prone to flooding regularly and wasn't the easiest place to eek out a living, but it was emptied so often that it basically became a regular hold over for displaced German tribes. It became such a problem for Rome that the Romans eventually chased out any tribes attempting to settle it. I would argue, however, that because many of these tribes were of mixed cultures, you would have to assume they were of mixed genetics. So an invading army of franks into France would carry many of the haplotypes already in France, making it impossible to distinguish franks from Romano/Gauls. Such as it is fairly difficult to distinguish Normans genetically from the general population of England. It's a incoming wave of haplotypes that were already present. My hunch is it could be the same thing with the goths. If df27 settled the coasts of the North Sea during the Nordic Bronze Age from Iberia, only to carry the same haplotypes back to Iberia a thousand years later, it would make the goths genetic ghosts. Which most theories currently, as Alan suggests are based on a ruling elite not leaving much genetic impact. However, if the incomers were carrying haplotypes already common in an area, then again, you might not be able to distinguish one group from another. My very common sense, detective instinct, keeps me going back to this line of thought.

No doubt you are right to a certain extent, but the Franks certainly had a Germanic-speaking core, and modern Dutch and Flemish are descendants of their language, Old Low Franconian. That they were probably largely U106+ is no doubt reflected in the cline in U106 from the Netherlands to Flanders, its inverse relationship to the P312+ clades, and its preponderance among those with Flemish surnames in Flanders, as reflected in that recent report on Flanders posted elsewhere in this forum by Rich Rocca.

alan
05-26-2013, 12:18 AM
The fascinating thing about the Franks is that U106 is common in their homelands in the Low Countries and Rhine in the centuries prior to their move into France but they essentially conquered France without a huge amount of U106 being left behind. Apart from in the extreme north-east, in France they seem to have operated through most of France as an elite or upper/ruling class (many of whole lost their heads in the revolution I suppose). This is also obviously reflected in the fact that Germanic Frankish had only a very modest impact. In fact one thing many people do not realise is most of the inroads that Germanic as the everyday local language was done before the fall of the Roman empire through permitted settlement. Very little changes of the Germanic-Latin divide happened as a result of the fall of Rome and Germanic invasions. I think the only substantial permanent post-Roman gains for the Germanic language happened in Britain and around south Germany.

rms2
05-26-2013, 12:36 AM
The fascinating thing about the Franks is that U106 is common in their homelands in the Low Countries and Rhine in the centuries prior to their move into France but they essentially conquered France without a huge amount of U106 being left behind. Apart from in the extreme north-east, in France they seem to have operated through most of France as an elite or upper/ruling class (many of whole lost their heads in the revolution I suppose). This is also obviously reflected in the fact that Germanic Frankish had only a very modest impact. In fact one thing many people do not realise is most of the inroads that Germanic as the everyday local language was done before the fall of the Roman empire through permitted settlement. Very little changes of the Germanic-Latin divide happened as a result of the fall of Rome and Germanic invasions. I think the only substantial permanent post-Roman gains for the Germanic language happened in Britain and around south Germany.

Right, and it was in those two places where the Germanic speech triumphed, in what are now England and South Germany, that the greatest influx of U106 occurred.

alan
05-28-2013, 05:08 PM
Right, and it was in those two places where the Germanic speech triumphed, in what are now England and South Germany, that the greatest influx of U106 occurred.

Yes I do think the case for the simple answer being the right one is looking correct for U106. It does seem to have been somewhere a little out of the way to the east until Germanic movements brought it west. If it had been in the west earlier its pretty inconcievable that it would be so rare in the Celtic fringe of the isles and much of France. I cant imagine U106 being in Holland or Belgium or on the Rhine for long in the pre-Germanic era or it would surely have been better represented among those who probably are the descendants of the Celts (including the bulk of the French) in both the isles and what was Gaul. The sharp differences along the Romance-Germanic linguistic line points that way too. Remarkable given the passing of 1500-2000 years. That is not to say all P312 was Celtic. P312 seems tto have spread wider and earlier than U106. Is there a study of the Swiss dividing the French and German speakers?

TigerMW
05-28-2013, 05:55 PM
Yes I do think the case for the simple answer being the right one is looking correct for U106. It does seem to have been somewhere a little out of the way to the east until Germanic movements brought it west. If it had been in the west earlier its pretty inconcievable that it would be so rare in the Celtic fringe of the isles and much of France. I cant imagine U106 being in Holland or Belgium or on the Rhine for long in the pre-Germanic era or it would surely have been better represented among those who probably are the descendants of the Celts (including the bulk of the French) in both the isles and what was Gaul. The sharp differences along the Romance-Germanic linguistic line points that way too. Remarkable given the passing of 1500-2000 years. That is not to say all P312 was Celtic. P312 seems tto have spread wider and earlier than U106. Is there a study of the Swiss dividing the French and German speakers?

I've been looking for walls that would isolate U106/Germanic and I don't find an easy answer other than go back to the Carpathians which fits with David Anthony's Germanic linguistic predecessor east/north of the Carpathians. If U106 went up the Danube I just don't see why he didn't get better mixed in with the P312 drive west.

The other alternative would be the "parachute in" from a Bell Beaker boat in the Baltic with L11* man who's descendants come in.

I guess I just don't see what would have walled up U106 in Northern Germany and the Jutland unless he was just late there.

rms2
05-28-2013, 07:05 PM
. . .

I guess I just don't see what would have walled up U106 in Northern Germany and the Jutland unless he was just late there.

The Celts were a formidable barrier to Germanic expansion for quite some time. It wasn't until about 200 BC that the Germans started to make much progress south and west. That progress was aided by Roman victories over the Celts.

In Caesar's time (1st century BC) the movement of the Celtic Belgae into Gaul from east of the Rhine was within living memory. It was at that time that Germanic pressure was beginning to be felt, as exemplified in Caesar's account of the foray of Ariovistus into Gaul.

rms2
05-28-2013, 07:09 PM
. . . Is there a study of the Swiss dividing the French and German speakers?

Here's an answer:



There is a very sharp drop in U106 between German speaking NE Switzerland (18.8%) and French speaking NW Switzerland (3.7%) as per Myres data.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?941-Z18-Z381-and-L48-in-Flanders-New-Paper&p=6608&viewfull=1#post6608

Webb
05-28-2013, 07:19 PM
The Celts were a formidable barrier to Germanic expansion for quite some time. It wasn't until about 200 BC that the Germans started to make much progress south and west. That progress was aided by Roman victories over the Celts.

In Caesar's time (1st century BC) the movement of the Celtic Belgae into Gaul from east of the Rhine was within living memory. It was at that time that Germanic pressure was beginning to be felt, as exemplified in Caesar's account of the foray of Ariovistus into Gaul.

It is probably the same situation as the Rhine delta. Eveytine a tribe crossed the Rhine or Danube south and west, there was, I'm sure, a group ready to take their place. If the leavers were P312, and the incomers were U106, then it would have been a waved replacement. P312 numbers diminishing while U106 increasing, until the majority switched. I think RM2 and Mike have valid points. P312 was the barrier keeping U106 at bay and forcing any movements by them north to the North Sea. Once P313 exited, much more recently in history, U106 started to follow the same receding movements of P312 into Western Europe.

TigerMW
05-28-2013, 07:31 PM
The Celts were a formidable barrier to Germanic expansion for quite some time. It wasn't until about 200 BC that the Germans started to make much progress south and west. That progress was aided by Roman victories over the Celts.

In Caesar's time (1st century BC) the movement of the Celtic Belgae into Gaul from east of the Rhine was within living memory. It was at that time that Germanic pressure was beginning to be felt, as exemplified in Caesar's account of the foray of Ariovistus into Gaul.

I understand there was eventually a Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic line through Europe of some sort.

However, both language sets appeared to have evolved in significant isolation after an early break. I am talking about the pre-Celtic / pre-Germanic break. I know there are examples of borrowing/contact etc. but by and large the linguistic studies show an early break. This would have been long before Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic lines formed in Europe.

We see some P312 appears to have leaked into the pre-Germanic zones but we just don't see any U106 leaking west into the pre-Celtic zones. At the time of break between P312 and U106, the lineages would have been speaking a similar Western Centum PIE like language.... of course, that's if they were speaking IE at the time which is a bit of an assumption. Either way, as L11 brothers, they were likely speaking a very similar language.

I don't dispute that Celtic/Germanic classical timeframe walls/divisions were present in Europe. I guess the Rhine was sort of a minor barrier in and of itself, beyond the cultural differences. However, what I'm talking about is how U106 completely missed the Western European boat early, back in the early and middle Bronze Ages.

Webb
05-28-2013, 08:15 PM
I understand there was eventually a Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic line through Europe of some sort.

However, both language sets appeared to have evolved in significant isolation after an early break. I am talking about the pre-Celtic / pre-Germanic break. I know there are examples of borrowing/contact etc. but by and large the linguistic studies show an early break. This would have been long before Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic lines formed in Europe.

We see some P312 appears to have leaked into the pre-Germanic zones but we just don't see any U106 leaking west into the pre-Celtic zones. At the time of break between P312 and U106, the lineages would have been speaking a similar Western Centum PIE like language.... of course, that's if they were speaking IE at the time which is a bit of an assumption. Either way, as L11 brothers, they were likely speaking a very similar language.

I don't dispute that Celtic/Germanic classical timeframe walls/divisions were present in Europe. I guess the Rhine was sort of a minor barrier in and of itself, beyond the cultural differences. However, what I'm talking about is how U106 completely missed the Western European boat early, back in the early and middle Bronze Ages.

According to the Penguin Atlas of World History, Germany was essentially empty of Germanic tribes at 750 BC. These tribes started a gradual south/ east/ west push from 750 on, expanding from Scandinavia. I have also found that U106 is at its densest in Sweden at Bulgaria, however, we know the density does not necessarily mean place of origin. I have discovered a lot of people are theorizing that U106 originated in Scandinavia.

R.Rocca
05-28-2013, 08:26 PM
I understand there was eventually a Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic line through Europe of some sort.

However, both language sets appeared to have evolved in significant isolation after an early break. I am talking about the pre-Celtic / pre-Germanic break. I know there are examples of borrowing/contact etc. but by and large the linguistic studies show an early break. This would have been long before Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic lines formed in Europe.

We see some P312 appears to have leaked into the pre-Germanic zones but we just don't see any U106 leaking west into the pre-Celtic zones. At the time of break between P312 and U106, the lineages would have been speaking a similar Western Centum PIE like language.... of course, that's if they were speaking IE at the time which is a bit of an assumption. Either way, as L11 brothers, they were likely speaking a very similar language.

I don't dispute that Celtic/Germanic classical timeframe walls/divisions were present in Europe. I guess the Rhine was sort of a minor barrier in and of itself, beyond the cultural differences. However, what I'm talking about is how U106 completely missed the Western European boat early, back in the early and middle Bronze Ages.

When I see spot frequencies of 7% in places like Portugal, or 8% in Corsica, I find it hard to believe that all of U106 missed the Western European boat completely. Just like there is a clear U152/L21/DF27 divide that separates P312 into distinct areas of Europe that would form different linguistic groups, I'm sure there are divisions of U106 that caught the boat early, just with a little less splash.

Andrew Lancaster
05-28-2013, 08:31 PM
I've been looking for walls that would isolate U106/Germanic and I don't find an easy answer other than go back to the Carpathians which fits with David Anthony's Germanic linguistic predecessor east/north of the Carpathians. If U106 went up the Danube I just don't see why he didn't get better mixed in with the P312 drive west.

The other alternative would be the "parachute in" from a Bell Beaker boat in the Baltic with L11* man who's descendants come in.

I guess I just don't see what would have walled up U106 in Northern Germany and the Jutland unless he was just late there.

I think really steep walls ("inclines") in continental Europe come from relatively recent movements of people. For example the one between German and Polish Y DNA was certainly helped by all the Germans in modern west Poland being forced out after WW2, and the communists moving in people pushed out of the Ukraine.

The one in Belgium can, I think, perhaps similarly be explained by the Franks, as some people are mentioning in this thread. The area they moved into at first was emptied of much of it Romano-Gallic population. So we need not fret over whether the Belgae were Germanic speakers, because the Franks came from further north and as far as I am aware there is not much doubt that they were Germanic. (Of course that does not mean the Belgae were wiped out, only that they were diluted sufficiently to create the steep genetic and linguistic clines that line up according to Frankish movements.)

TigerMW
05-28-2013, 11:43 PM
According to the Penguin Atlas of World History, Germany was essentially empty of Germanic tribes at 750 BC. These tribes started a gradual south/ east/ west push from 750 on, expanding from Scandinavia. I have also found that U106 is at its densest in Sweden at Bulgaria, however, we know the density does not necessarily mean place of origin. I have discovered a lot of people are theorizing that U106 originated in Scandinavia.

The people of the Scandinavian Peninsula that moved south into the Jastorf Culture may or may not have had U106. I suspect U106 was in immigrant into I1 lands on the Scandinavian Peninsula. I1 people probably didn't speak IE languages, though. That leaves R1a. Did R1a bring the pre-Germanic IE speaking or did U106 or did both? I don't know.

Still the question is how did U106 get into this Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic conglomeration? Did in "parachute in" which I really just mean did the L11* pre-U106 guy jump off the Beaker boat somewhere in the Baltic? Or did U106 get there with the Hallstat influence from the south of Germany? or from something else in the east (of Germany)?

I don't think it was from Bell Beaker guy on the Jutland Peninsula, essentially Denmark. If U106 originated on the Jutland Peninsula or its neck or in Norway or the straights around Denmark I would have thought it amazing if some more U106 did not leak over with his Beaker brothers into the Isles or along the coast of Gaul. That's why I think U106 must have been locked behind a wall to the east quite aways as it missed the early moves of L11 west and along the Atlantic up to the North Sea completely. I'm left with that U106 joined the Germanic formation party from the southeast or east along the Baltic.

Webb
05-29-2013, 12:20 AM
The people of the Scandinavian Peninsula that moved south into the Jastorf Culture may or may not have had U106. I suspect U106 was in immigrant into I1 lands on the Scandinavian Peninsula. I1 people probably didn't speak IE languages, though. That leaves R1a. Did R1a bring the pre-Germanic IE speaking or did U106 or did both? I don't know.

Still the question is how did U106 get into this Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic conglomeration? Did in "parachute in" which I really just mean did the L11* pre-U106 guy jump off the Beaker boat somewhere in the Baltic? Or did U106 get there with the Hallstat influence from the south of Germany? or from something else in the east (of Germany)?

I don't think it was from Bell Beaker guy on the Jutland Peninsula, essentially Denmark. If U106 originated on the Jutland Peninsula or its neck or in Norway or the straights around Denmark I would have thought it amazing if some more U106 did not leak over with his Beaker brothers into the Isles or along the coast of Gaul. That's why I think U106 must have been locked behind a wall to the east quite aways as it missed the early moves of L11 west and along the Atlantic up to the North Sea completely. I'm left with that U106 joined the Germanic formation party from the southeast or east along the Baltic.

If Germany prior to 750bc wasn't in Germanic hands, then RM2 could be correct, except instead of France, most of modern Germany may have been inhabited by P313. This could have caused U106 to have no other route but the eastern route to reach the North Sea, moving into Scandinavia, then back down into Germany.

rms2
05-29-2013, 12:20 AM
When I see spot frequencies of 7% in places like Portugal, or 8% in Corsica, I find it hard to believe that all of U106 missed the Western European boat completely. Just like there is a clear U152/L21/DF27 divide that separates P312 into distinct areas of Europe that would form different linguistic groups, I'm sure there are divisions of U106 that caught the boat early, just with a little less splash.

There were Visigoths who settled in Portugal. There were Vandals, Visigoths, and Lombards in Corsica.

We know those folks came from places that are currently U106-rich.

The Migration Period witnessed a mass movement of Germanic peoples into what had been the Roman Empire. There weren't enough of them to totally replace the native populations or to impose their languages everywhere they went, but we know there were a lot of them, and they settled in many far-flung places. We don't really have anything else to account for odd patches of U106 here and there or any real reason to believe there is a need to account for them in some other way.

Webb
05-29-2013, 12:29 AM
There were Visigoths who settled in Portugal. There were Vandals, Visigoths, and Lombards in Corsica.

We know those folks came from places that are currently U106-rich.

That's where I think I differ in views. These areas are rich in r1a, I, and U106, but were they always that way. For example, the basque are generally L21, M153. M153 is a downstream clade of Z220 which is found around the North Sea. What if M153 is actually remnants of Visigoths as they set up there kingdom in aquitane. We assume the Germanic tribes entering continental Europe had to be one of the other three groups because that is what is currently found around the North Sea, but what if that is because other groups such as some of the Z196 clades departed, opening the door for other haplogroups to replace them. Someone posted in another forum there is a project underway to try and recover usable dna from langobard remains in Italy. I would be very curious to see how that turns out.

GoldenHind
05-29-2013, 12:38 AM
According to the Penguin Atlas of World History, Germany was essentially empty of Germanic tribes at 750 BC. These tribes started a gradual south/ east/ west push from 750 on, expanding from Scandinavia. I have also found that U106 is at its densest in Sweden at Bulgaria, however, we know the density does not necessarily mean place of origin. I have discovered a lot of people are theorizing that U106 originated in Scandinavia.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. Everything I have seen suggests the greatest densities of U106 are found along the North Sea coast and in Austria. As for Sweden, the data from the Old Norway project shows more P312 than U106 in Skaraborg, and only slightly less P312 than U106 in Östergötland/Jönköping. U106 predominated R1b only in the Blekinge/Kristianstad area.

TigerMW
05-29-2013, 12:41 AM
If Germany prior to 750bc wasn't in Germanic hands, then RM2 could be correct, except instead of France, most of modern Germany may have been inhabited by P313. This could have caused U106 to have no other route but the eastern route to reach the North Sea, moving into Scandinavia, then back down into Germany.

As we go back to 2000 BC, the approximate timeframes for the Most Recent Common Ancestor for U106, and for P312 and for L11 (includes U106 & P312) there was no Germanic lands. There was no Celtic lands... perhaps the Bell Beakers pre- or proto-Celts but whatever they were, any P312 element was closely related to U106. P312 was apparently spreading all over Europe. Somehow U106, though just a West Centum IE (maybe) brother to P312, was walled off somewhere. The question is where? I don't think it was the Jutland or Frisia nor Norway nor even the Kattegat Straits. Strong seafarers in that area would have mixed westward better well before Germanics came about.

rms2
05-29-2013, 12:43 AM
That's where I think I differ in views. These areas are rich in r1a, I, and U106, but were they always that way. For example, the basque are generally L21, M153. M153 is a downstream clade of Z220 which is found around the North Sea. What if M153 is actually remnants of Visigoths as they set up there kingdom in aquitane. We assume the Germanic tribes entering continental Europe had to be one of the other three groups because that is what is currently found around the North Sea, but what if that is because other groups such as some of the Z196 clades departed, opening the door for other haplogroups to replace them. Someone posted in another forum there is a project underway to try and recover usable dna from langobard remains in Italy. I would be very curious to see how that turns out.

Well, we certainly differ, if you think it is possible that U106 moved into current Germanic-language areas long after the Migration Period and thus was not a major y-dna component among the Germanic tribes of that time. I think it highly likely the U106 in places like Portugal and Corsica got there with Germanic invaders during the Migration Period.

How much M153 is found around the North Sea? Is it as frequent there as it is in Iberia? Even close? You have to look at the big picture, not at traces of this or that clade in odd spots that are atypical for it. There is no real reason - not at the present, anyway - to make the same kind of Germanic connection for M153 that can safely be asserted for U106.

U106's distribution is so obviously connected to Germanic speakers that it takes a real effort to avoid seeing it.

Webb
05-29-2013, 12:56 AM
Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg 350×506 pixels
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

This is a link to a map which shows u106 numbers in the Belgian, Flanders, Netherlands region.

Webb
05-29-2013, 01:13 AM
Well, we certainly differ, if you think it is possible that U106 moved into current Germanic-language areas long after the Migration Period and thus was not a major y-dna component among the Germanic tribes of that time. I think it highly likely the U106 in places like Portugal and Corsica got there with Germanic invaders during the Migration Period.

How much M153 is found around the North Sea? Is it as frequent there as it is in Iberia? Even close? You have to look at the big picture, not at traces of this or that clade in odd spots that are atypical for it. There is no real reason - not at the present, anyway - to make the same kind of Germanic connection for M153 that can safely be asserted for U106.

U106's distribution is so obviously connected to Germanic speakers that it takes a real effort to avoid seeing it.

M153 only has an age of around 400A.D. As compared to Z220's age of around 800B.C. I am not saying any of this is post migration. What I'm saying is somehow Z220 went to the Rhine delta area at some unknown time. So either a group stayed behind to become M153 later, or came in and became M153 just prior or just after reaching the basque region. There was a lot of Germanic tribes moving from 100bc onwards. The Ambrones/ Tuetones left Jutland somewhere due to flooding, so you might surmise it was the Rhine delta, where there is a bit of Z220, went southeast, into Europe and then doubled back ending up in Iberia fighting the Romans at around 100B.C. Another tribe with them, the cimbri, was led by their king, Boiorix. Who had a Celtic name. So if Iberians went to Scandanavia during the Nordic Bronze Age, became absorbed by the peoples living around the North Sea, then came back to Western Europe during the migrations, you could end up with P312 groups in the places they settled. We might never know the genetic impact the maritime bell beakers and later waves of z196 people had in Scandanavia because of the many waves of new people and all the shuffling around.

Webb
05-29-2013, 01:31 AM
I'm not sure where you're getting this. Everything I have seen suggests the greatest densities of U106 are found along the North Sea coast and in Austria. As for Sweden, the data from the Old Norway project shows more P312 than U106 in Skaraborg, and only slightly less P312 than U106 in Östergötland/Jönköping. U106 predominated R1b only in the Blekinge/Kristianstad area.

I posted a concentrations map of Benelux for U106. Keep in mind that pushing 40% is a pretty high concentration for U106. The Netherlands look to be 35%, Sweden and England around 40%. I'm looking for the documentation for Eastern Europe.

alan
05-29-2013, 01:32 AM
I've been looking for walls that would isolate U106/Germanic and I don't find an easy answer other than go back to the Carpathians which fits with David Anthony's Germanic linguistic predecessor east/north of the Carpathians. If U106 went up the Danube I just don't see why he didn't get better mixed in with the P312 drive west.

The other alternative would be the "parachute in" from a Bell Beaker boat in the Baltic with L11* man who's descendants come in.

I guess I just don't see what would have walled up U106 in Northern Germany and the Jutland unless he was just late there.

Probably the only way to work out where it was (in the absence of ancient DNA) is to work back from those who we know had a lot of U106. I am not an expert on this but I do understand that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were from at least a little beyond the Elbe originally. The ethnogenesis of some groups like the Franks is pretty confusing and unclear. It is also interesting to note that the Frisii of the Romans are not the Frisians of later post-Roman history. The original Frisii were settled by the Romans in Flanders and Kent and their lands inundated and presumably absorbed by the later Frankish and Jutish populations there. The post-Roman Frisians were actually Angles and Saxons who settled their largely abandoned lands when conditions improved. So this must be borne in mind when looking at the DNA of Frisian speakers today - there ancestors appear to have been Saxons and presumably this is the origin of their language too. Saxons of course ultimatley came from east of the Elbe. So in other words Angles, Saxon and what we today think of Frisians had roots east of the Elbe. However the Origin Frisii were also reckoned Ingaevoni along with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes so they were probably of similar origin and language too. Its hard not to suspect that deeper in time they also had been located further east.

The Jastorf culture seems to me to be the likely source of U106 in Iron Age terms. Wiki summarised it as follows:

Its area was first restricted to northern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. It then developed a "very expansive" character (Wolfam 1999), expanding towards the Harz and reaching by about 500 BC Thuringia, lower Silesia, and the lower Rhine,[2] thus covering the southern and western parts of Lower Saxony. In its mature phase, the Jastorf area proper in northern Lower Saxony (Lüneburger Heide, lower Elbe) can be contrasted with the so-called Nienburg (also Harpstedt-Nienburg) group to the west, situated along the Aller and the middle Weser, bordering the Nordwestblock separating it from the La Tčne culture proper farther south. The Nienburg group has characteristics of material culture closer to Celtic cultures, and shows evidence of significant contact with the Hallstadt and Latčne cultures. Isolated finds are scattered as far as Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Finds are mostly from tumuli, flat graves and Brandgruben graves. There are few and modest grave goods, with the weapon deposits characteristic of migration period graves completely absent.

The southernmost extent of Germanic cultures beyond Jastorf has recently been accounted for at the final stages of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, with the paucity of Late-Laténe bracelet-types in Thuringia and northeastern Hessen proposed to suggest population movements between the central-Elbe/Saale region, Main-Franconia and the edge of the Alps and to have been triggered by the spread of the Przeworsk culture.[3]

That doesnt mean U106 originated in Jastorf area and period (its clearly older) but it looks like the smoking gun of an iron age secondary expansion to the west of the Elbe.

In terms of U106's even deeper origins its very hard to say. It could have been located in the same area as early Jastorf. There doesnt seem to be much talk of the deeper origins of Jastorf being non-local but the area has a complex earlier prehistory. U106 is much older than Jastorf and could have been spread over a wider area that included the Jastorf area and perhaps only some clades were within the latter. I think anyway that a location for U106 around the Elbe and eastwards/northwards as suggested by early Jastorf is probably far enough east to explain the apparent lack of U106 among the former Celtic populations in western Europe. There was between the Rhine and the Elbe the Elp and then Harpstedt cultures who could have been a buffer zone between the early Celtic area and others to the east before the spread of Jastorf. Perhaps this was also originally a genetic buffer zone too.

alan
05-29-2013, 01:48 AM
Regarding Swiss Myres date - Again that is a very sharp fall indeed given the 1500-2000 years of time to blur this. I like to be devils advocate and try and prod the obvious answer but I think its an extremely strong correlation between U106 and Germanic. There really seems to have been very very little if any U106 in Celtic speaking populations and their Romance or Celtic speaking successors. Again, its hard to believe this would have been the case if U106 had been placed just over the Rhine in deeper prehistory and this indicates to me that there was a buffer zone between U106 and the Celts, perhaps the area between the Rhine and Elbe. Here lay the Elp and the Harpsedt cultures in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

alan
05-29-2013, 02:11 AM
I understand there was eventually a Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic line through Europe of some sort.

However, both language sets appeared to have evolved in significant isolation after an early break. I am talking about the pre-Celtic / pre-Germanic break. I know there are examples of borrowing/contact etc. but by and large the linguistic studies show an early break. This would have been long before Celtic/Germanic political/linguistic lines formed in Europe.

We see some P312 appears to have leaked into the pre-Germanic zones but we just don't see any U106 leaking west into the pre-Celtic zones. At the time of break between P312 and U106, the lineages would have been speaking a similar Western Centum PIE like language.... of course, that's if they were speaking IE at the time which is a bit of an assumption. Either way, as L11 brothers, they were likely speaking a very similar language.

I don't dispute that Celtic/Germanic classical timeframe walls/divisions were present in Europe. I guess the Rhine was sort of a minor barrier in and of itself, beyond the cultural differences. However, what I'm talking about is how U106 completely missed the Western European boat early, back in the early and middle Bronze Ages.

Certainly I think in NW Europe we see several L11 zones from west to east:

1. A very P312 dominated zone where Germanic did not historically penetrate to any degree as a spoken language of ordinary people in pre-modern times (much of France, the celtic fringee of the isles, Iberia)

2. A mixed zone where P312 and U106 both appear. This obviously includes areas like Belgium, Switzerland and England. These areas saw a slow language shift. Clearly within this area where a language division still exists we can see that U106 is the Germanic overlay.

3. From the Rhine eastwards across Germanic speaking northern Europe there is still a mix of U106 and P312 suggestive that a significant amount of P312 may have existed well beyond the areas where Celtic is known to have had a hold. This is suggestive to me that P312 was a player of some sort all the way to the Baltic perhaps at a time before the emergence of fully developed Celtic or pre-Germanic dialects. It is very tempting to link this with the beaker elements who extended into this area.

The most noticeable thing is that there is zone where U106 is absent or can be shown to be associated overwhelmingly with Germanic speakers at the eastern fringes of this zone. It doesnt seem to me that U106 has an equivelent zone where U106 looks both dominant and old.

U106 actually seems to pile up in the areas at its fringes where it meets the main P312 block (Low Countries, England, Rhine, Austria? etc). That is very different from P312 which piles up highest far from the boundary with the U106 block and fades at the meeting point. I think all the evidence is that U106 is a late overlay that 'nibbled' into the eastern edges of the P312 block and was brought into that area by Germanic speakers.

What remains to be understood IMO is the zone of northern Europe east of the Rhine where U106 and P312 clades overlap. I am not sure its totally clear what the sequence was in that area. Maybe very close studying of this area would through up patterns but the single language group that dominates this zone today mean it wont be easy to tease out. Kromsdorf through was not U106 and most likely was P312 given the strong distributional association with this clade and beakers on a Europe-wide scale. If that is correct then it does demonstrate that P312 was in east-central Germany in 2600BC and should not be seen as a latecomer overlaying U106 (which may not even have existed at that time).

R.Rocca
05-29-2013, 02:39 AM
There were Visigoths who settled in Portugal. There were Vandals, Visigoths, and Lombards in Corsica.

We know those folks came from places that are currently U106-rich.

The Migration Period witnessed a mass movement of Germanic peoples into what had been the Roman Empire. There weren't enough of them to totally replace the native populations or to impose their languages everywhere they went, but we know there were a lot of them, and they settled in many far-flung places. We don't really have anything else to account for odd patches of U106 here and there or any real reason to believe there is a need to account for them in some other way.

These same areas are devoid of I1 and R1a. The U106 in those areas obviously expanded before U106 mixed in with I1 and R1a. These 7-8% areas might get downplayed, but when the aggregated U106 frequency in Germany is 22.5%, it heightens once appreciation for its distribution even outside of Germanic areas. Not saying that most U106 wasn't a heavy mover during the late Germanic expansions, but I don't doubt it had an important role long before then, especially along the Rhine.

alan
05-29-2013, 02:41 AM
The people of the Scandinavian Peninsula that moved south into the Jastorf Culture may or may not have had U106. I suspect U106 was in immigrant into I1 lands on the Scandinavian Peninsula. I1 people probably didn't speak IE languages, though. That leaves R1a. Did R1a bring the pre-Germanic IE speaking or did U106 or did both? I don't know.

Still the question is how did U106 get into this Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic conglomeration? Did in "parachute in" which I really just mean did the L11* pre-U106 guy jump off the Beaker boat somewhere in the Baltic? Or did U106 get there with the Hallstat influence from the south of Germany? or from something else in the east (of Germany)?

I don't think it was from Bell Beaker guy on the Jutland Peninsula, essentially Denmark. If U106 originated on the Jutland Peninsula or its neck or in Norway or the straights around Denmark I would have thought it amazing if some more U106 did not leak over with his Beaker brothers into the Isles or along the coast of Gaul. That's why I think U106 must have been locked behind a wall to the east quite aways as it missed the early moves of L11 west and along the Atlantic up to the North Sea completely. I'm left with that U106 joined the Germanic formation party from the southeast or east along the Baltic.

The idea that Jastorf came from Scandinavia is no longer believed. I believe the oldest dates are from the German-Danish border area.

alan
05-29-2013, 02:51 AM
The people of the Scandinavian Peninsula that moved south into the Jastorf Culture may or may not have had U106. I suspect U106 was in immigrant into I1 lands on the Scandinavian Peninsula. I1 people probably didn't speak IE languages, though. That leaves R1a. Did R1a bring the pre-Germanic IE speaking or did U106 or did both? I don't know.

Still the question is how did U106 get into this Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic conglomeration? Did in "parachute in" which I really just mean did the L11* pre-U106 guy jump off the Beaker boat somewhere in the Baltic? Or did U106 get there with the Hallstat influence from the south of Germany? or from something else in the east (of Germany)?

I don't think it was from Bell Beaker guy on the Jutland Peninsula, essentially Denmark. If U106 originated on the Jutland Peninsula or its neck or in Norway or the straights around Denmark I would have thought it amazing if some more U106 did not leak over with his Beaker brothers into the Isles or along the coast of Gaul. That's why I think U106 must have been locked behind a wall to the east quite aways as it missed the early moves of L11 west and along the Atlantic up to the North Sea completely. I'm left with that U106 joined the Germanic formation party from the southeast or east along the Baltic.

Simple solution may be that U106 originally did not have access to the North Sea. That would explain a relatively late arrival in Scandinavia, Holland and an even later arrival in Britain. No access to the coast would make it very hard for a group in northern Europe to head west, given that most rivers flow roughly south to north and only the Danube was a major east-west river (actually west to east flowing of course). Hypothetically even if they were situated on the coast but on the wrong side of Denmark (say SE Denmark), that would have create a major barrier to moving west from the coast and focus them on the Baltic.

alan
05-29-2013, 03:02 AM
The people of the Scandinavian Peninsula that moved south into the Jastorf Culture may or may not have had U106. I suspect U106 was in immigrant into I1 lands on the Scandinavian Peninsula. I1 people probably didn't speak IE languages, though. That leaves R1a. Did R1a bring the pre-Germanic IE speaking or did U106 or did both? I don't know.

Still the question is how did U106 get into this Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic conglomeration? Did in "parachute in" which I really just mean did the L11* pre-U106 guy jump off the Beaker boat somewhere in the Baltic? Or did U106 get there with the Hallstat influence from the south of Germany? or from something else in the east (of Germany)?

I don't think it was from Bell Beaker guy on the Jutland Peninsula, essentially Denmark. If U106 originated on the Jutland Peninsula or its neck or in Norway or the straights around Denmark I would have thought it amazing if some more U106 did not leak over with his Beaker brothers into the Isles or along the coast of Gaul. That's why I think U106 must have been locked behind a wall to the east quite aways as it missed the early moves of L11 west and along the Atlantic up to the North Sea completely. I'm left with that U106 joined the Germanic formation party from the southeast or east along the Baltic.

I am not sure it really fits but the eastern and southern area of Jastorf overlaps with the former area of house urn culture (Poland and parts of Germany) which in turn is thought to have derived from Lusatian culture of Poland and inland central Germany. Lusatian culture lacked a north sea coast - it only had coast on the Baltic in Poland and only held inland areas of Germany. For me a Lusatian and/or house urn culture element could have ended up in the Germanic ethnogenesis given the partial overlap with the south and eastern part of Jastorf.

rms2
05-29-2013, 08:01 AM
M153 only has an age of around 400A.D. As compared to Z220's age of around 800B.C. I am not saying any of this is post migration. What I'm saying is somehow Z220 went to the Rhine delta area at some unknown time. So either a group stayed behind to become M153 later, or came in and became M153 just prior or just after reaching the basque region. There was a lot of Germanic tribes moving from 100bc onwards. The Ambrones/ Tuetones left Jutland somewhere due to flooding, so you might surmise it was the Rhine delta, where there is a bit of Z220, went southeast, into Europe and then doubled back ending up in Iberia fighting the Romans at around 100B.C. Another tribe with them, the cimbri, was led by their king, Boiorix. Who had a Celtic name. So if Iberians went to Scandanavia during the Nordic Bronze Age, became absorbed by the peoples living around the North Sea, then came back to Western Europe during the migrations, you could end up with P312 groups in the places they settled. We might never know the genetic impact the maritime bell beakers and later waves of z196 people had in Scandanavia because of the many waves of new people and all the shuffling around.

What is the frequency of M153 in Germanic-speaking regions? Is it even 1%? Honestly, I have never heard of M153 as much of a factor outside of Iberia. I remember when I ran the R-P312 and Subclades Project all of the M153+ guys were of Iberian ancestry. There might have been one with an mdka on the French side of the Basque Country, but that was it.

Webb
05-29-2013, 11:00 AM
What is the frequency of M153 in Germanic-speaking regions? Is it even 1%? Honestly, I have never heard of M153 as much of a factor outside of Iberia. I remember when I ran the R-P312 and Subclades Project all of the M153+ guys were of Iberian ancestry. There might have been one with an mdka on the French side of the Basque Country, but that was it.

Let me try this differently. You are right about M153. It's M153's parent that dictates where M153 was born however. M153 was born around 400AD, in the basque region presumably. However it's parent, Z220, is found all over Europe. Outside of Spain, Britain has the next highest concentration of Z220, then Germany and possibly the Netherlands. So, I match a Dutch family, sharing a common ancestor at around 1060AD, give or take 500 years. There is no paper trail tying us together. At some point the two families split and a relation goes to England, bringing Z220 with them. Z220 already exists in England, however, so who is who? I'm calling this ghost genetics. If my ancestry in Britain is as early as 500AD, then its possible that a number of Anglo-Saxon/ Frisian/ Jutes were carrying Z220 to a place that it already exists. Hence, they are ghosts. Their genetics will never be distinguishable from prior migrations, unless downstream snp's are found to clearly let me say, ahh these two groups have different downstream snp's. if Z220 and other P312* populations were present in the Rhine delta, then they could have just as easily spread back into Europe multiple times. U106 is at only 35% in the Netherlands, leaving 65% other groups. That is as high as a concentration as your going to find, except England which is maybe 40% U106. So there had to have been at one point a decent amount of P312 in modern Germany, and the Rhine delta.

R.Rocca
05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Let me try this differently. You are right about M153. It's M153's parent that dictates where M153 was born however. M153 was born around 400AD, in the basque region presumably. However it's parent, Z220, is found all over Europe. Outside of Spain, Britain has the next highest concentration of Z220, then Germany and possibly the Netherlands. So, I match a Dutch family, sharing a common ancestor at around 1060AD, give or take 500 years. There is no paper trail tying us together. At some point the two families split and a relation goes to England, bringing Z220 with them. Z220 already exists in England, however, so who is who? I'm calling this ghost genetics. If my ancestry in Britain is as early as 500AD, then its possible that a number of Anglo-Saxon/ Frisian/ Jutes were carrying Z220 to a place that it already exists. Hence, they are ghosts. Their genetics will never be distinguishable from prior migrations, unless downstream snp's are found to clearly let me say, ahh these two groups have different downstream snp's. if Z220 and other P312* populations were present in the Rhine delta, then they could have just as easily spread back into Europe multiple times. U106 is at only 35% in the Netherlands, leaving 65% other groups. That is as high as a concentration as your going to find, except England which is maybe 40% U106. So there had to have been at one point a decent amount of P312 in modern Germany, and the Rhine delta.

M153 had a successful but late founder in historical times, and the single Z220 father of the first M153 son was nowhere near the Rhine delta when his son was born. No other conclusion can brawn from what we know of M153.

As for the highest concentrations of Z220, when taking out American testing bias, I find it hard to think that those areas are higher than France.

rms2
05-29-2013, 11:35 AM
These same areas are devoid of I1 and R1a. The U106 in those areas obviously expanded before U106 mixed in with I1 and R1a. These 7-8% areas might get downplayed, but when the aggregated U106 frequency in Germany is 22.5%, it heightens once appreciation for its distribution even outside of Germanic areas. Not saying that most U106 wasn't a heavy mover during the late Germanic expansions, but I don't doubt it had an important role long before then, especially along the Rhine.

I apologize if I seem argumentative. I don't intend that. I don't doubt U106 had an important role along the Rhine, but I think that role was a product of its part in the movement of the Germanic tribes that began about 200BC (well before the Migration Period). I doubt that it was present along the Rhine, or anywhere that far west, much before that.

I don't think R1a was that big a factor in the Germanic part of the Migration Period. This is reflected in the relatively low levels of R1a everywhere in the West, particularly in those areas of what is now England heavily settled by Anglo-Saxons. Most of the R1a in the Isles probably came later, with the Vikings, and especially the Norse Vikings. Although we know there was R1a in Germany from at least the Bronze Age, I don't think there was that much of it until the movements of the Slavic tribes in the 7th and succeeding centuries: too late for the Migration Period.

Portugal is not entirely devoid of I1. I haven't had time to look up the old Rootsi figures, but Maciamo Hay's Eupedia map of I1 has Portugal at 1%+. That is negligible when viewed against the entire male population, but not when taken as part of a group that includes that 7 or 8% U106. It is 11-13% of that group.

Besides, ancient tribes were largely kinship groups. We should not be surprised to see areas of Germanic settlement in which one or another group predominates to the exclusion or near exclusion of the others.

I just can't see a good reason to believe that breakaway groups of U106 settled in Portugal and Corsica in the far distant prehistoric past and survived to form 7 or 8% of the modern male population, not when we can be reasonably sure large numbers of U106 males were part of the movements of the Germanic tribes during the Migration Period and that some of those tribes wound up in both of those places.

The big bulk of U106 exists in Germanic-language areas. Where it is significant enough to be spotted elsewhere, we know Germanic tribes settled during the Migration Period or, in the case of some spots in the Isles, Vikings or Normans or Englishmen or Flemings or Lowland Scots settled.

Given those facts, what reason is there to view the U106 in Portugal and Corsica as prehistoric exceptions?

rms2
05-29-2013, 11:48 AM
@Webb -

I agree with Richard Rocca regarding M153. As for the rest of Z220, or DF27 for that matter, that's a different story.

And U106 runs about 25% in England. I don't recall a figure as high as 40% at any of Busby's English sample locations. I don't think U106 gets to 40% anywhere it is found, except maybe at certain spots in the Netherlands.

R.Rocca
05-29-2013, 12:25 PM
I apologize if I seem argumentative. I don't intend that. I don't doubt U106 had an important role along the Rhine, but I think that role was a product of its part in the movement of the Germanic tribes that began about 200BC (well before the Migration Period). I doubt that it was present along the Rhine, or anywhere that far west, much before that.

I don't think R1a was that big a factor in the Germanic part of the Migration Period. This is reflected in the relatively low levels of R1a everywhere in the West, particularly in those areas of what is now England heavily settled by Anglo-Saxons. Most of the R1a in the Isles probably came later, with the Vikings, and especially the Norse Vikings. Although we know there was R1a in Germany from at least the Bronze Age, I don't think there was that much of it until the movements of the Slavic tribes in the 7th and succeeding centuries: too late for the Migration Period.

Portugal is not entirely devoid of I1. I haven't had time to look up the old Rootsi figures, but Maciamo Hay's Eupedia map of I1 has Portugal at 1%+. That is negligible when viewed against the entire male population, but not when taken as part of a group that includes that 7 or 8% U106. It is 11-13% of that group.

Besides, ancient tribes were largely kinship groups. We should not be surprised to see areas of Germanic settlement in which one or another group predominates to the exclusion or near exclusion of the others.

I just can't see a good reason to believe that breakaway groups of U106 settled in Portugal and Corsica in the far distant prehistoric past and survived to form 7 or 8% of the modern male population, not when we can be reasonably sure large numbers of U106 males were part of the movements of the Germanic tribes during the Migration Period and that some of those tribes wound up in both of those places.

The big bulk of U106 exists in Germanic-language areas. Where it is significant enough to be spotted elsewhere, we know Germanic tribes settled during the Migration Period or, in the case of some spots in the Isles, Vikings or Normans or Englishmen or Flemings or Lowland Scots settled.

Given those facts, what reason is there to view the U106 in Portugal and Corsica as prehistoric exceptions?

I thought the sole reason why everyone claims the high frequency of English U106 is entirely Germanic is due to the area's language shift? There was no language shift in southern Europe, and certainly a male dominated elite with 7-8% would have, at minimum, influenced the local languages. This lack of a late Germanic geneflow is also evident in admixture studies:

Patterson et al. (2012)

It is important to point out that we are not detecting gene flow from Germanic peoples (Suevi, Vandals, Visigoths) into Spain even though it is known that they migrated into Iberia around 500 A.D. Such migration must have occurred based on the historical record (and perhaps is biasing our admixture date to be too recent), but any accompanying gene flow must have occurred at a lower level than the much earlier flow we have been discussing.

TigerMW
05-29-2013, 12:57 PM
The idea that Jastorf came from Scandinavia is no longer believed. I believe the oldest dates are from the German-Danish border area.


earlier notions holding proto-Germanic peoples to have emigrated from Denmark during the Northern Bronze Age have been abandoned by archaeologists.
...
The Jastorf culture was an Iron Age material culture in what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC, forming the southern part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The culture evolved out of the Nordic Bronze Age, through influence from the Halstatt culture farther south. The cultures of the Pre-Roman Iron Age are sometimes hypothesized to be the origin of the Germanic languages. Herwig Wolfram locates the initial stages of Grimm's Law here

That makes sense to me and that only lends more credibility to U106 being the lineage that brought Western Centum IE to Germanic formation party. U106 is stronger relative to I1 and R1a on the continent along Frisia, the neck of the Jutland and Northern Germany as a whole. I1 spoke who knows what, but pre-IE. R1a could be a candidate but makes great sense as being the Balto-Slavic influence on Germanic. I guess R1a could have brought both that influence and the pre-Germanic dialects as the base. However, R1a gets pretty thin in some Germanic areas, at least relative to U106 and I1. U106 seems strongest from Frisia across the neck of the Jutland Peninsula, most correlated with the old Jastorf.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I1.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

So where did the U106 come from in to the Jastorf? ... from due south as the Hallstatt influence which would be up from Austria or from east and Pomerania? Richard and many think from the Danube and Austria and that is definitely a good alternative although I still think if U106 was in Hallstatt then we should see more further west in Europe (non-Germanic) which doesn't seem to have happened.

Perhaps Hallstatt is a red herring to me as far as getting U106 into the Proto-Germanic group. I could see it actually being P312 elements who entered the Proto-Germanic by being part of the Nordic Bronze Age and then also Hallstatt. In that case, U106 came in from the south/southeast but not necessarily all the way to the North or even Baltic Seas. What do we think of the Baden Culture or the Globular Amphora Culture as being a launch point for U106? Baden has a better alignment with Austria.

According to David Anthony, pre-Germanic would have been brought in with Globular Amphora. Of course, if you go with the concept that R1b-L11 elements learned their IE languages separately from R1a then the Globular Amphora makes sense for that and then U106 somewhere integrated into it or learned it in Baden on the way to the Jastorf area. ... just speculating.

Jean M
05-29-2013, 01:05 PM
The idea that Jastorf came from Scandinavia is no longer believed. I believe the oldest dates are from the German-Danish border area.

Did anyone ever believe that the Jastorf Culture per se came from Scandinavia? The idea is that this Iron Age culture was the result of a mixture of Nordic Bronze Age moving south and encountering influences from the Halstatt culture.

Rathna
05-29-2013, 01:07 PM
I thought the sole reason why everyone claims the high frequency of English U106 is entirely Germanic is due to the area's language shift? There was no language shift in southern Europe, and certainly a male dominated elite with 7-8% would have, at minimum, influenced a local language. This lack of a late Germanic geneflow is also evident in admixture studies:

Patterson et al. (2012)

(From a letter to Marco Grassi)

Riguardo a questi legami con gli scozzesi li vorrei studiare. Ora, che in certe zone d'Italia ci sia una sopravvivenza di Longobardi o altri č possibile, magari per zone isolate e non nel grosso della popolazione. Gli ultimi studi dimostrano l'isolamento genetico in questi ultimi 2500 anni degli italiani (ho scritto su questo da qualche parte), e soprattutto la quasi totale mancanza di R-L21 mi fa ritenere che tutta questa immigrazione dal nord non c'č stata.
Prendi il caso di Cesaroni: R-U106 molto isolato, tipico dell'Italia, ora Z18 ma con un marker molto differente per cui gli ho raccomandato di fare un upgrade a 111. E' possibile che venga dal Mare del Nord, ma č anche possibile che sia talmente antico che quelli del Mare del Nord vengano dall'Italia.
Se mi mandi qualche dato sarň lieto di esaminarlo.

E4520 Francino da Fazzano,1400 ca. Fivizzano, Massa Italy I1d1 13 23 14 10 13-14 11 14 11 12 11 28

N8115 John Joy, b.1834 Doon, Limerick, Ireland Ireland I1d1 13 23 14 10 13-14 11 14 11 12 11 28

N24109 Anders Andersson Nyby,1806-1882, Överkalix,Sweden Sweden I1d1 13 23 14 10 13-14 11 14 11 12 11 29

Questi tre hanno DYS641=9. Tutti gli altri hanno 10.
Nessuno ha DYS556=11 oltre Francini. Tutti hanno 12.
Nessuno ha DYS714=23 e DYS716=28. Il modale sembra 24-27.

Quindi direi che Francini č unico e ben caratterizzato. Penso che sarebbe bene facesse Geno.2.0, o, se puň spendere, la mappatura dell’Y per 1350 euro (o dollari) mi sembra.


As to these links with Scots I’d want studying them. Now, that in some Italian zones there is a surviving of Lombards and other people it is possible, even if in isolate zones and not in the huge population. The last studies demonstrate the genetic isolation of Italians in these last 2500 years (I have written about this in some site), and above all the pretty all lack of R-L21 makes me think that all this migration from North hasn’t been.
Take the Cesaroni’s case: a very isolated R-U106, typical of Italy, now Z18 but with a marker very different from the others and for this I recommended him to do a 111 upgrade. It is possible that he came from North Sea, but it is also possible that it is so old that those North Sea people come from Italy.

If you send me some datum I’ll be glad to study it.

(The case of Grassi’s friend Francini: I1d1)
These three have DYS641=9. All the others have 10.
Nobody has DYS556=11 beyond Francini. All have 12.
Nobody has DYS714=23 and DYS716=28. The modal seems to be 24-27.
Thus I’d say that Francini is unique and well characterized. I think that it would be good he did Geno 2.0, or, if he may spend, the mapping of Y for 1350 euro (or dollars) if I remember well.

TigerMW
05-29-2013, 03:18 PM
There were Visigoths who settled in Portugal. There were Vandals, Visigoths, and Lombards in Corsica.
We know those folks came from places that are currently U106-rich.

These same areas are devoid of I1 and R1a. The U106 in those areas obviously expanded before U106 mixed in with I1 and R1a. These 7-8% areas might get downplayed, but when the aggregated U106 frequency in Germany is 22.5%, it heightens once appreciation for its distribution even outside of Germanic areas. Not saying that most U106 wasn't a heavy mover during the late Germanic expansions, but I don't doubt it had an important role long before then, especially along the Rhine.

I want to clarify the nuance I'm after with the mix of U106, I1 and R1a.

Their distribution and diversity are not evenly matched. My interpretation is that different Germanic tribes were different and received different inputs of these three common Scandinavian haplogroups. We should also include P312, probably non-L21, non-U152 folks as a fourth major player common across Germanic language areas.

Of course, none of that is new news other than we should not look for an even mix of U106, I1, R1a as diagnostic markers for Germanic tribal migrations.

My further interpretation is that U106 could be seen as the southern partner in the Germanic mix... the leading continental partner. I1 was already on the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312xL21xU152 may have also been there since the Bronze Age as Bell Beaker remnants. I don't really understand R1a but my guess is that some elements of it made it to Scandinavia fairly early.

U106 is the latecomer to the Scandinavian Peninsula and northern Denmark in my interpretation. It's diversity in Scandinavia is not high and we see I1 more frequently on the Northern/Northwestern coasts of France. I can't find the R1a and U106 as easily as I1 along the Atlantic. I think those Vikings lacked the U106 but the implication is that U106, from the Anglo, Saxon, Jute predecessors was still busting out of the neck of the Jutland and Northern Germany and really hit the Scandinavian Peninsula late, maybe at the same time or not much earlier as hitting England. There is quite a bit of U106 in Norway today and they did make it to Iceland in good numbers, but why did they (U106) skip Northern Scotland? I surmise the earliest seafaring Scandinavians were light on U106 because U106 folks were latecomers to Scandinavia. U106 looks like the land/continental based partner in the Germanic mix.

The Goths who came down into the Roman Empire and to places like Iberia were not the Western Scandinavians, but came overland through the continent, thereby they should have more U106 with them.

GoldenHind
05-29-2013, 05:52 PM
I posted a concentrations map of Benelux for U106. Keep in mind that pushing 40% is a pretty high concentration for U106. The Netherlands look to be 35%, Sweden and England around 40%. I'm looking for the documentation for Eastern Europe.

Are these percentages of the total male population, or just of R1b? R1b is 70% of the male population in the Netherlands, but accounts for only 21% in Sweden (according to Eupedia).

Webb
05-29-2013, 06:08 PM
Are these percentages of the total male population, or just of R1b? R1b is 70% of the male population in the Netherlands, but accounts for only 21% in Sweden (according to Eupedia).

Current numbers are down from close to 40%, which is originally what was on wiki, to 25% in England. It should be say in England, 25% of M269. When you look at wiki under R1b they would say M269 in England was 70%. Of that 70%, 40% was U106. It now just says 25% for U106. I don't know what that 25% is in relation too. Same with the Benelux map.

TigerMW
05-29-2013, 07:40 PM
...
My further interpretation is that U106 could be seen as the southern partner in the Germanic mix... the leading continental partner. I1 was already on the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312xL21xU152 may have also been there since the Bronze Age as Bell Beaker remnants. I don't really understand R1a but my guess is that some elements of it made it to Scandinavia fairly early.

U106 is the latecomer to the Scandinavian Peninsula and northern Denmark in my interpretation. It's diversity in Scandinavia is not high and we see I1 more frequently on the Northern/Northwestern coasts of France. I can't find the R1a and U106 as easily as I1 along the Atlantic. I think those Vikings lacked the U106 but the implication is that U106, from the Anglo, Saxon, Jute predecessors was still busting out of the neck of the Jutland and Northern Germany and really hit the Scandinavian Peninsula late,
... U106 looks like the land/continental based partner in the Germanic mix.


Perhaps Hallstatt is a red herring to me as far as getting U106 into the Proto-Germanic group. I could see it actually being P312 elements who entered the Proto-Germanic by being part of the Nordic Bronze Age and then also Hallstatt. In that case, U106 came in from the south/southeast but not necessarily all the way to the North or even Baltic Seas. What do we think of the Baden Culture or the Globular Amphora Culture as being a launch point for U106?

I probably picked up the Hallstatt/U106 idea from Maciamo Hay to go with the known influence of Hallstatt on Jastorf.

R1b-S21 (a.k.a. U106) is found at high concentrations in the Netherlands and northern Germany. Its presence in other parts of Europe can be attributed to the 5th- and 6th-century Germanic migrations. The Frisians and Saxons spread this haplogroup to the British Isles, the Franks to Belgium and France, and the Lombards to Austria and northern Italy. The high concentration of S21/U106 around Austria hints that it could have originated there in the Hallstatt period, or originated around the Black Sea and moved there during the Hallstatt period. In fact, southern Germany and Austria taken together have the highest diversity of R1b in Europe. Besides S21, the three major first level subclades of R1b1b2a1b (L21, S28, M167) are found in this area at reasonable frequencies to envisage a spread from the Unetice to Hallstatt homeland to the rest of western Europe.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

However, I've never really seen the data on U106 in Austria. What study are we talk about?

Myres attempted aging/variance calculations for U106.

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

The high Estonia/Poland numbers have always caught my eye but these are limited samples.

Look at Denmark! ... at the bottom.

I'd love to see 100 long haplotypes of Austrian U106.... well, and the ancient DNA of course.

R.Rocca
05-29-2013, 08:00 PM
I probably picked up the Hallstatt/U106 idea from Maciamo Hay to go with the known influence of Hallstatt on Jastorf.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

However, I've never really seen the data on U106 in Austria. What study are we talk about?

Myres attempted aging/variance calculations for U106.


The high Estonia/Poland numbers have always caught my eye but these are limited samples.

Look at Denmark! ... at the bottom.

I'd love to see 100 long haplotypes of Austrian U106.... well, and the ancient DNA of course.

Mike, I don't know which paper he used, but this is a brilliantly put together study on East Tyrol, Austria...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041885

17-locus Y-STR haplotypes are included in Table S8.

alan
05-29-2013, 08:15 PM
Did anyone ever believe that the Jastorf Culture per se came from Scandinavia? The idea is that this Iron Age culture was the result of a mixture of Nordic Bronze Age moving south and encountering influences from the Halstatt culture.

That is true and is what I really meant. I must admit archaeologically there was just too much going on in the German/ pre-Germanic ethnogenisis zone in pre-Jastorf Bronze Age times to feel confidence in terms of yDNA. Expanded Jastorf does overlap with the former Lusatian zone in its south and east. Also Lusatian cultures suggested descendant House Urn cultures are found both in Pomerania/Poland and in central Germany at this time. There definately seems to be possibility of absorbtion of different cultures and lineages but its as clear as mud to me.

If it wasnt for variance the simple answer would seem to be to place U106's pre -Jarstof position in the Nordic Bronze Age area but from what I understand variance suggests otherwise. However, there are a whole load of factors which may be distorting this including lack of looking at the geography of variance of U106 subclades. It also strikes me that the climatic downturn at the end of the Bronze Age would have effected the variance of the more northern and marginal zones worse. Then there is the lateness of Germanic as a dialect with traditionally it only emerging at the Iron Age-Bronze Age transition which again of course points to Jarstoft or some element in the formation of that culture. The main issue of not having Germanic in existence in the Nordic Bronze Age at some stage pre-Jastorf would be explaining Germanic and U106 in non-Danish Scandinavia. It would make most sense to me if Germanic had emerged by the late Nordic Bronze Age across its zone and that that was the element in the formation of Jastorf where the language came from. Jastorf of course succeeded the Nordic Bronze Age around the Denmark and adjacent areas.

alan
05-29-2013, 08:43 PM
I want to clarify the nuance I'm after with the mix of U106, I1 and R1a.

Their distribution and diversity are not evenly matched. My interpretation is that different Germanic tribes were different and received different inputs of these three common Scandinavian haplogroups. We should also include P312, probably non-L21, non-U152 folks as a fourth major player common across Germanic language areas.

Of course, none of that is new news other than we should not look for an even mix of U106, I1, R1a as diagnostic markers for Germanic tribal migrations.

My further interpretation is that U106 could be seen as the southern partner in the Germanic mix... the leading continental partner. I1 was already on the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312xL21xU152 may have also been there since the Bronze Age as Bell Beaker remnants. I don't really understand R1a but my guess is that some elements of it made it to Scandinavia fairly early.

U106 is the latecomer to the Scandinavian Peninsula and northern Denmark in my interpretation. It's diversity in Scandinavia is not high and we see I1 more frequently on the Northern/Northwestern coasts of France. I can't find the R1a and U106 as easily as I1 along the Atlantic. I think those Vikings lacked the U106 but the implication is that U106, from the Anglo, Saxon, Jute predecessors was still busting out of the neck of the Jutland and Northern Germany and really hit the Scandinavian Peninsula late, maybe at the same time or not much earlier as hitting England. There is quite a bit of U106 in Norway today and they did make it to Iceland in good numbers, but why did they (U106) skip Northern Scotland? I surmise the earliest seafaring Scandinavians were light on U106 because U106 folks were latecomers to Scandinavia. U106 looks like the land/continental based partner in the Germanic mix.

The Goths who came down into the Roman Empire and to places like Iberia were not the Western Scandinavians, but came overland through the continent, thereby they should have more U106 with them.

I think this is very interesting and the whole U106, R1a, I1 thing is clearly telling us something. I agree that U106 gives the impression of having been a slighly more southerly group in the Germanic expansions, running along the coast around southern Denmark and adjacent and expanding west from there. However, Scandinavian archaeologists dont tend to see major intrusions from the south into non-Danish Scandinavia so its hard to explain U106 in Scandinavia unless it was already there to some degree in the Nordic Bronze Age. The simplest explanation I can come up with is U106 was spread to some degree through non-Danish Scandinavia (as well as Denmark and north Germany and perhaps elsewhere) prior to Jastorf although the great Iron Age expansion was from U106 in the Jastorf area. The two are completely compatible. I think Jastorf clearly represents the major Iron Age expansion phase of both U106 and Germanic but the issue of both of these in non-Danish Scandinavia suggests to me that both had a pre-Jastorf life in the latter area in at least the late phases of the Nordic Bronze Age period. Perhaps this would become clearer when better subclade details are known.

Regarding I1 and R1a and non-appearance in some area where U106 appears in modest but noticeable frequencies in the west, I have a couple of ideas on this. Perhaps in areas where there was folk movements of whole populations such as into England and accompanying language shift then the whole mix appears. In other areas where Germanic's established rule but not by folk movement and without language shift (such as Visigoths in Spain, Franks in France etc) then we are talking about an warrior elite only and they were predominantly U106. That seems to fit rather well IMO. The I (and perhaps R1a) folks may have been mainly within the ordinary farmer classes. This could also explain to some extent the fact that the Norse were not U106 overloaded when they moved to Scotland etc. They are often described as essentially farmer-fisher-pirate settlers in places like the Orkneys and maybe the Germanic elite U106 element was lesser. Its a new idea I would value opinions on. I have some thoughts on R1a too but I am pig ignorant on the subclade details of this in western Europe and need to check a few facts first.

alan
05-29-2013, 09:22 PM
I probably picked up the Hallstatt/U106 idea from Maciamo Hay to go with the known influence of Hallstatt on Jastorf.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

However, I've never really seen the data on U106 in Austria. What study are we talk about?

Myres attempted aging/variance calculations for U106.


The high Estonia/Poland numbers have always caught my eye but these are limited samples.

Look at Denmark! ... at the bottom.

I'd love to see 100 long haplotypes of Austrian U106.... well, and the ancient DNA of course.

Did someone not pool these into larger regions to overcome the tiny sample for many areas?

alan
05-29-2013, 09:31 PM
Mike, I don't know which paper he used, but this is a brilliantly put together study on East Tyrol, Austria...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041885

17-locus Y-STR haplotypes are included in Table S8.

It is amazing that this reflects persistence of a now-lost Romance-Slavic division. It also shows that R1a was not a player in the pre-Germanic and pre-slavic population.

Jean M
05-29-2013, 09:53 PM
Lusatian cultures suggested descendant House Urn cultures are found both in Pomerania/Poland and in central Germany at this time.
Yes I ended up including Pomeranian with Jastorf as the proposed Proto-Germanic homeland. Seems there were influences from what is now Sweden into that.


If it wasn't for variance the simple answer would seem to be to place U106's pre -Jarstof position in the Nordic Bronze Age area but from what I understand variance suggests otherwise.... It also strikes me that the climatic downturn at the end of the Bronze Age would have effected the variance of the more northern and marginal zones worse.

A point I made to Mike a while ago. If you have a mass of farmers leaving Scandinavia in the climate downturn, then they will take their variance with them.


It would make most sense to me if Germanic had emerged by the late Nordic Bronze Age across its zone and that that was the element in the formation of Jastorf where the language came from.

Not Germanic as such, according to the linguists, but Pre-Proto-Germanic. You know how they insist on precision in terminology. Proto-Germanic was the language immediately prior to its break-up into daughter branches. By then it had picked up a few terms from Celtic suited to an Iron Age culture.

alan
05-29-2013, 10:33 PM
Yes I ended up including Pomeranian with Jastorf as the proposed Proto-Germanic homeland. Seems there were influences from what is now Sweden into that.



A point I made to Mike a while ago. If you have a mass of farmers leaving Scandinavia in the climate downturn, then they will take their variance with them.



Not Germanic as such, according to the linguists, but Pre-Proto-Germanic. You know how they insist on precision in terminology. Proto-Germanic was the language immediately prior to its break-up into daughter branches. By then it had picked up a few terms from Celtic suited to an Iron Age culture.

If Proto-Germanic only arose in the Jastorf culture then how did it get to Norway and Sweden? I have the same basic question about U106 in Norway and Sweden.

TigerMW
05-29-2013, 10:56 PM
...
A point I made to Mike a while ago. If you have a mass of farmers leaving Scandinavia in the climate downturn, then they will take their variance with them.
...
I get the point and you may be right, but I'm not at all convinced that Scandinavia was so vastly devastated to have removed diversity. Even if the population was lowered, since the Y DNA is not advantageous in and of itself versus cold weather or poor diets, the diversity should remain. You'd have to have 3/4 of Scandinavia or something totally wiped out and a repopulation from the refugium kind of thing. That refugium would have to have been less diverse to start out with. To maintain diversity, all that is needed is a scattering of extant branches.

This is subject to concerns about DNA project biases but if I compare Scandinavia to Continental Europe for the other U106 types, mainly Z18, Z156 and U198, Scandinavia has a decent balance of Z18 to go with the L48 but that's about it. What's noticeable is that Z156 is not very Scandinavian.

alan
05-29-2013, 11:33 PM
[QUOTE=Mikewww;6927]I get the point and you may be right, but I'm not at all convinced that Scandinavia was so vastly devastated to have removed diversity. Even if the population was lowered, since the Y DNA is not advantageous in and of itself versus cold weather or poor diets, the diversity should remain. You'd have to have 3/4 of Scandinavia or something totally wiped out and a repopulation from the refugium kind of thing. That refugium would have to have been less diverse to start out with. To maintain diversity, all that is needed is a scattering of extant branches.

This is subject to concerns about DNA project biases but if I compare Scandinavia to Continental Europe for the other U106 types, mainly Z18, Z156 and U198, Scandinavia has a decent balance of Z18 to go with the L48 but that's about it. What's noticeable is that Z156 is not very Scandinavian.[/QUOTE

It could be that U106 had a modest offshoot presence in Norway and Sweden in the Nordic Bronze Age. Otherwise we have to explain how it got there which is tricky given a lack of major into Norway/Sweden flow in the Iron Age compared to some possible flow out of it.

Its the same issue with the German language. If it only came to the proto-germanic phase (ancestral to all Germanic languages) in the Jastorf culture then how do we explain Germanic in Norway/Sweden which did not recieve the Jastorf culture? Archaeologists see movement out of not into Norway and Sweden at this time.

Its just much easier to see both proto Germanic and U106 as being around before (perhaps just before in the case of proto-Germanic) the Nordic Bronze Age network broke up. its easier to see proto-Germanic as a dialect spread across all of Scandinavia and north Germany when the shared Nordic network still was operating. Its harder to see this at a time when the Germanic block of earliest history was divided into Jastorf Germany and southern Scandinavia and a non-Jastorf northern Scandinavia especially when a model for the spread of proto-Germanic is being proposed as going south to north at a time when the population is more likeley to have been heading the other way.

R.Rocca
05-29-2013, 11:56 PM
[QUOTE=Mikewww;6927]I get the point and you may be right, but I'm not at all convinced that Scandinavia was so vastly devastated to have removed diversity. Even if the population was lowered, since the Y DNA is not advantageous in and of itself versus cold weather or poor diets, the diversity should remain. You'd have to have 3/4 of Scandinavia or something totally wiped out and a repopulation from the refugium kind of thing. That refugium would have to have been less diverse to start out with. To maintain diversity, all that is needed is a scattering of extant branches.

This is subject to concerns about DNA project biases but if I compare Scandinavia to Continental Europe for the other U106 types, mainly Z18, Z156 and U198, Scandinavia has a decent balance of Z18 to go with the L48 but that's about it. What's noticeable is that Z156 is not very Scandinavian.[/QUOTE

It could be that U106 had a modest offshoot presence in Norway and Sweden in the Nordic Bronze Age. Otherwise we have to explain how it got there which is tricky given a lack of major into Norway/Sweden flow in the Iron Age compared to some possible flow out of it.

Its the same issue with the German language. If it only came to the proto-germanic phase (ancestral to all Germanic languages) in the Jastorf culture then how do we explain Germanic in Norway/Sweden which did not recieve the Jastorf culture? Archaeologists see movement out of not into Norway and Sweden at this time.

Its just much easier to see both proto Germanic and U106 as being around before (perhaps just before in the case of proto-Germanic) the Nordic Bronze Age network broke up. its easier to see proto-Germanic as a dialect spread across all of Scandinavia and north Germany when the shared Nordic network still was operating. Its harder to see this at a time when the Germanic block of earliest history was divided into Jastorf Germany and southern Scandinavia and a non-Jastorf northern Scandinavia especially when a model for the spread of proto-Germanic is being proposed as going south to north at a time when the population is more likeley to have been heading the other way.

If U106 was in one of the Bell Beaker provinces (which is extremely likely given the closeness I've seen in TMRCA calculations), then it would explain how it got into Norway and Sweden.

rms2
05-30-2013, 12:03 AM
Regarding the U106 in Portugal, i.e., the 7% in Busby et al from North Portugal and Lisbon, I had almost forgotten the Kingdom of the Suebi (Schwaben in German), which at one time encompassed all of Portugal but which began in the North.

The Kingdom of the Suebi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Suebi)

Busby's samples from Portugal were decent sized, but the sample from Corsica was just n=24, which means that 8% figure came from just two U106+ results.

rms2
05-30-2013, 12:13 AM
This is just my opinion, but I don't think U106 was a factor in Beaker. I don't think it was far enough west and south until well after the Beaker Period.

If it was part of Beaker, then it would probably have played a bigger role in the Italo-Celtic story. I don't see that at all. That's a P312 tale.

GoldenHind
05-30-2013, 12:46 AM
This is subject to concerns about DNA project biases but if I compare Scandinavia to Continental Europe for the other U106 types, mainly Z18, Z156 and U198, Scandinavia has a decent balance of Z18 to go with the L48 but that's about it. What's noticeable is that Z156 is not very Scandinavian.

The last I checked, U198 was virtually absent from Scandinavia.

R.Rocca
05-30-2013, 01:12 AM
It is amazing that this reflects persistence of a now-lost Romance-Slavic division. It also shows that R1a was not a player in the pre-Germanic and pre-slavic population.

While that is the basis of the paper, there is a hidden gem in there. In the group who's grandfathers were born in region 'A', tied for second highest frequency with U152 (after U106 of course) is L51(xL11) at an impressive 16.67%. This is almost 3 times the highest frequencies found in any other study I've seen.

I need not tell you that area 'A' is only around 35 miles from Brixlegg which is where the Copper Age starts to move west. :)

alan
05-30-2013, 01:52 AM
Regarding the U106 in Portugal, i.e., the 7% in Busby et al from North Portugal and Lisbon, I had almost forgotten the Kingdom of the Suebi (Schwaben in German), which at one time encompassed all of Portugal but which began in the North.

The Kingdom of the Suebi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Suebi)

Busby's samples from Portugal were decent sized, but the sample from Corsica was just n=24, which means that 8% figure came from just two U106+ results.

I am not sure of the details of the Suebi in Portugal but I do recall hearing the Visigoths formed a parasitic elite I think of 5% of the Spanish population. So those kind of 5-10% counts for U106 dont sound outlandish to me.

Webb
05-30-2013, 01:59 AM
I am not sure of the details of the Suebi in Portugal but I do recall hearing the Visigoths formed a parasitic elite I think of 5% of the Spanish population. So those kind of 5-10% counts for U106 dont sound outlandish to me.

Essentially tge same type of scenario might be possible in England, as U106 is only at 25% there.

TigerMW
05-30-2013, 02:57 AM
While that is the basis of the paper, there is a hidden gem in there. In the group who's grandfathers were born in region 'A', tied for second highest frequency with U152 (after U106 of course) is L51(xL11) at an impressive 16.67%. )
Yes, there was some L23xL51 too, but hardly any L11*. I agree the important thing here is the L51xL11. It wasn't just on the Rhine side of the Alps. I wish they had DYS426 to see if this was truly a different (M412)L51xL11, 426=12, rather than than 426=13. I see the L51x11 is 393=13 and not 12.

Innsbruck and East Tyrol looks like the cross-hairs of Lichenstein and Salzburg, and Munich and Trento.

As far as U106(S21) goes there was a higher percentage of 390=24 rather than the L48 modal 390=23. My guess is there is a lot of non L48 guys in East Tyrol. However, I wouldn't say this was the unusual continental Europe. It's more like Poland than England. L48 is more coastal, but just didn't go with I1 west/southwest of Calais.

rms2
05-30-2013, 08:04 AM
Essentially tge same type of scenario might be possible in England, as U106 is only at 25% there.

25% is huge. That's nearly as good as it gets with U106, especially outside its hotspot in the Netherlands and especially Friesland. Apparently it was enough to work a language change across southern Britain.

alan
05-30-2013, 06:09 PM
While that is the basis of the paper, there is a hidden gem in there. In the group who's grandfathers were born in region 'A', tied for second highest frequency with U152 (after U106 of course) is L51(xL11) at an impressive 16.67%. This is almost 3 times the highest frequencies found in any other study I've seen.

I need not tell you that area 'A' is only around 35 miles from Brixlegg which is where the Copper Age starts to move west. :)

Its a very interesting paper. As one would expect, the most clearly German superstrate lineages U106 and I1 are evenly distributed across both the former Slavic and former Romance areas. In contrast R1a is all in the former Slavic bit while U152 is twice as common in the former Romance area. L51* is far more common in the former Romance area. Conclusions I would make

1 The German adstrate was U106 and I1 dominated.
2. The Romance populations had the lions share of U152 and L51*
3. R1a is only located in the former Slavic area and this suggest it was not a player in the German adstrate.

It actually pretty well conforms to our expectations.

TigerMW
05-30-2013, 08:03 PM
I think this is very interesting and the whole U106, R1a, I1 thing is clearly telling us something. I agree that U106 gives the impression of having been a slighly more southerly group in the Germanic expansions, running along the coast around southern Denmark and adjacent and expanding west from there. However, Scandinavian archaeologists dont tend to see major intrusions from the south into non-Danish Scandinavia so its hard to explain U106 in Scandinavia unless it was already there to some degree in the Nordic Bronze Age. The simplest explanation I can come up with is U106 was spread to some degree through non-Danish Scandinavia (as well as Denmark and north Germany and perhaps elsewhere) prior to Jastorf although the great Iron Age expansion was from U106 in the Jastorf area. The two are completely compatible. I think Jastorf clearly represents the major Iron Age expansion phase of both U106 and Germanic but the issue of both of these in non-Danish Scandinavia suggests to me that both had a pre-Jastorf life in the latter area in at least the late phases of the Nordic Bronze Age period. Perhaps this would become clearer when better subclade details are known.

Regarding I1 and R1a and non-appearance in some area where U106 appears in modest but noticeable frequencies in the west, I have a couple of ideas on this. Perhaps in areas where there was folk movements of whole populations such as into England and accompanying language shift then the whole mix appears. In other areas where Germanic's established rule but not by folk movement and without language shift (such as Visigoths in Spain, Franks in France etc) then we are talking about an warrior elite only and they were predominantly U106. That seems to fit rather well IMO. The I (and perhaps R1a) folks may have been mainly within the ordinary farmer classes. This could also explain to some extent the fact that the Norse were not U106 overloaded when they moved to Scotland etc. They are often described as essentially farmer-fisher-pirate settlers in places like the Orkneys and maybe the Germanic elite U106 element was lesser. Its a new idea I would value opinions on. I have some thoughts on R1a too but I am pig ignorant on the subclade details of this in western Europe and need to check a few facts first.

I don't know who was elite or not elite, but I don't see U106 as being as sea-faring oriented as I1. The two primary cases are 1) the Northern Scottish Isles where U106 is very low but Vikings were supposed have hit hard and 2) Bretagne. The table below shows the ratio of I1 to U106 as much higher in Bretagne where Vikings should have landed.

"Phylogeography of French male lineages" by Ramos-Luis, et. al., 2009. (BTW, I think Richard R got the data table for us (so thanks.)

IxI2_ R1a__ U106_
6.6%_ 7.7%_ 7.7%_ Île-de-France
6.7%_ 0.0%_ 0.0%_ Provence-Alpes-Cote
7.4%_ 2.9%_ 8.8%_ Nord-Pas-de-Calais
12.2% 0.9%_ 3.5%_ Bretagne
9.0%_ 3.0%_ 4.5%_ Midi-Pyrenees
7.5%_ 3.8%_ 15.0% Alsace
3.4%_ 5.6%_ 3.8%_ Auvergne

R1a is also low in Bretagne when compared to the I1 to R1a ratio in Scandinavia. Meanwhile U106 picks up the high end of the proportions relative to I1 and R1a in Alsace.

Another thing to note is the Old Norway Project map which is probably the best data we have on Scandinavia.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map.jpg

The area that is different as far as I1 to U106 to R1a is Denmark. I1 holds its own there but R1a dwindles to the benefit of U106. U106's strongest Scandinavian suit is in Denmark where it diminishes both R1a and P312 types.

Higher frequency is found for U106 in Denmark, but not higher diversity, at least not that we can find so far.

I think the Vikings that hit the northern parts of the British Isles were more likely to carry P312 than U106. All I can figure is U106 hadn't really expanded well yet to those groups launching from Norway and were in mainly Danish launching groups.

... so to be a bit of contrarian, if I had to bet on what elements of R1b hit the Scandinavian Peninsula early with the Bell Beakers and the like I'd bet on P312. We see various kinds of P312 all over the Atlantic Seaboard and the North Sea... and the Baltic Sea. U106 didn't leave much of a trace in the British Isles if he was with them. I guess that means I'm arguing U106 wasn't in the early Nordic Bronze Age zone, or was just getting started into the region, but probably from the south/southeast.

I don't think anyone is saying the Bell Beakers arrived in Scandinavia from the rivers dumping into the Baltic. They must have come through the channel and from the Isles to the Jutland and North Sea area.

alan
05-30-2013, 10:15 PM
I don't know who was elite or not elite, but I don't see U106 as being as sea-faring oriented as I1. The two primary cases are 1) the Northern Scottish Isles where U106 is very low but Vikings were supposed have hit hard and 2) Bretagne. The table below shows the ration of I1 to U106 as much higher in Bretagne where Vikings should have landed.

"Phylogeography of French male lineages" by Ramos-Luis, et. al., 2009. (BTW, I think Richard R got the data table for us (so thanks.)

IxI2_ R1a__ U106_
6.6%_ 7.7%_ 7.7%_ Île-de-France
6.7%_ 0.0%_ 0.0%_ Provence-Alpes-Cote
7.4%_ 2.9%_ 8.8%_ Nord-Pas-de-Calais
12.2% 0.9%_ 3.5%_ Bretagne
9.0%_ 3.0%_ 4.5%_ Midi-Pyrenees
7.5%_ 3.8%_ 15.0% Alsace
3.4%_ 5.6%_ 3.8%_ Auvergne

R1a is also low in Bretagne when compared to the I1 to R1a ratio in Scandinavia. Meanwhile U106 picks up the high end of the proportions relative to I1 and R1a in Alsace.

Another thing to note is the Old Norway Project map which is probably the best data we have on Scandinavia.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map.jpg

The area that is different as far as I1 to U106 to R1a is Denmark. I1 holds its own there but R1a dwindles to the benefit of U106. U106's strongest Scandinavian suit is in Denmark where it diminishes both R1a and P312 types.

Higher frequency is found for U106 in Denmark, but not higher diversity, at least not that we can find so far.

I think the Vikings that hit the northern parts of the British Isles were more likely to carry P312 than U106. All I can figure is U106 hadn't really expanded well yet to those groups launching from Norway and were in mainly Danish launching groups.

... so to be a bit of contrarian, if I had to bet on what elements of R1b hit the Scandinavian Peninsula early with the Bell Beakers and the like I'd bet on P312. We see various kinds of P312 all over the Atlantic Seaboard and the North Sea... and the Baltic Sea. U106 didn't leave much of a trace in the British Isles if he was with them. I guess that means I'm arguing U106 wasn't in the early Nordic Bronze Age zone, or was just getting started into the region, but probably from the south/southeast.

I don't think anyone is saying the Bell Beakers arrived in Scandinavia from the rivers dumping into the Baltic. They must have come through the channel and from the Isles to the Jutland and North Sea area.


U106 seems to me to be important in the general spread of Germanic within the continent but also appears to a lesser degree where Germanic elites ruled but remained a minority and failed to cause language shift such as most of Frankish France, Visigothic/Suebic Iberia and other areas. The rate of U106 seems to correlate with those scenarios with a lower rate where there was once a Germanic elite (much of Romance Europe) that didnt lead to language shift and higher where a language shift was achieved by something more like a folk movement. In the French lists above the two areas where at least shaky/partial language shift was achieved: NE France (partly occupied by the Picards/Flemish language) and Alsace (significant shift to Germanic) have by far the highest levels of U106. Perhaps there is a kind of rule of thumb as follows:

1. Where U106 doesnt exceed much more than 5% it likely representss the traces of a thin Germanic elite that caused no general language shift

2. Around 10-15% a modest folk movement into the edges of the non-Germanic world was involved and a partial patchy language shift to Germanic occurred but with Romance speakers also persisting nearby

3. Over 15% some sort of significant folk movement and total language shift was possible.

NB-I suspect that category 2 would disappear if the Germanic and French speaking populations on the interface areas like NE France and Alsace were carefully separated in some way such as has been done in some studies.

The figure of around 5% for elites does ring true to me from what I have read of late prehistoric and Medieval western Europe. So, I think the first 5% of U106 could be achieved by a thin Germanic elite of the sort that much of Romance Europe experienced. I think though there is a big contrast between this and folk movement zones where language shift occurred and U106 gets a lot higher.

Having looked at the IXI2 figures in France in your list I really cannot make sense of it at all using only a Germanic origin for it. As for French R1a it also is hard to explain its pattern through a purely Germanic model. I suspect the Ile de France peak has something to do with the Paris area. A large number of Poles settled in France and its common to see French people with Polish surnames for instance. I suspect R1a in France is a complicated mixture of prehistoric central European input, Germanic and modern Slavic.

Certainly the more studies on yDNA on the German-Romance/Celtic boundary I read the more certain I feel that U106 was practically unknown among the Celts.

rms2
05-31-2013, 02:11 PM
I think you have to keep in mind that Scandinavia was not an ethnic monolith but had a tribal system, and it is likely that the Scandinavian tribes, as kinship groups, had different y-dna profiles. I used to be really current on ancient Scandinavia but have forgotten a lot of it. Anyway, working from memory, there were Angles, Danes, Geats, Goths, Heruli, Jutes, Rugii, Svear, Vandals, etc., jostling about for elbow room in Scandinavia. I probably left some out because I have forgotten them. I believe even the Lombards ("Langobards" or longbeards) featured in the tumble of southern Swedish conflict before moving south and west.

rms2
05-31-2013, 02:19 PM
. . .

Certainly the more studies on yDNA on the German-Romance/Celtic boundary I read the more certain I feel that U106 was practically unknown among the Celts.

That is my opinion, too.

R.Rocca
05-31-2013, 04:04 PM
That is my opinion, too.

It is my opinion that U106 was very low in areas held by Celts at the dawn of written history :)

razyn
05-31-2013, 05:58 PM
(quoting Rocca from another thread here) So, the question is...could R1b have been bottled up for a long time on the Tyrrhenian coast, only to emerge during the Copper Age on a westward movement to Iberia?

And the answer is, No.

Btw that's also the answer to Alan's question beginning this whole thread, "Are we getting some consensus?" Apparently, no; no we aren't.

Mike says that post was misplaced, and it has disappeared from this thread... so, the italicized part, above, is also misplaced... and if I decide to pursue it ("the logic") I'll go over there and pursue it.

TigerMW
05-31-2013, 06:18 PM
And the answer is, No.

Btw that's also the answer to Alan's question beginning this whole thread, "Are we getting some consensus?" Apparently, no; no we aren't.

I misplaced a post here, but cleaned it up.

... but agreed, the answer is there is no consensus.

TigerMW
05-31-2013, 06:25 PM
I think you have to keep in mind that Scandinavia was not an ethnic monolith but had a tribal system, and it is likely that the Scandinavian tribes, as kinship groups, had different y-dna profiles....
Agreed, this is part of why I don't think Scandinavia was emptied out so completely as to wipe away diversity. They have maintained different Y DNA by location, at least U106 in comparison to R1a and to P312 elements seem to vary by region. On the other hand, I1 is the most stable element across the regions.

Which all comes back that I think I1 was there and fairly well spread, but P312 and U106 came in later from different directions. I guess that is not a very earth shaking thought, but I'm pushing it to the edge a bit by essentially saying I don't think U106 had made it to Northern Denmark by the Nordic Bronze Age, at least not significantly, or in such a way that P312 elements were already blocking him off. U106 would make his big push west into England later, and not much before then to the Scandinavian Peninsula. BTW, of course I don't really know but I think it is an interesting position to take as it is contrarian to most.

R.Rocca
05-31-2013, 06:42 PM
And the answer is, No.

So where is the logic?

alan
05-31-2013, 08:41 PM
I didnt mean concensus in terms of everyone agreeing or a specific cultural-linguistic identity. However, from my observation of sites like this there does now seem to be a general feeling that R1b spread east/SE to west/NW from eastern Europe or western/central Asia and that this happened probably at some point in the mid-late Neolithic or copper age. I think people outside that (admittedly broad) outline would be considered a small minority in this hobby, certainly among those who discuss this in detail frequently. I know that is a horribly broad outline but it does seem like major progress to me compared to say 3-5 years ago.

GoldenHind
05-31-2013, 08:54 PM
It is my opinion that U106 was very low in areas held by Celts at the dawn of written history :)

My opinion, FWIW, is that one should keep an open mind on this question. As I have often stated, I see no reason to assume that all U106 subclades share an identical history. While it is clear that there is a connection between the Germanic peoples and most of U106, I can see no reason dismiss out of hand the possibility of some exceptions to the general rule. As Mike suggested above, the distribution of every U106 subclade does not appear to be identical. While U106 may not have expanded as early and to the extent P312 did, we know that P312 subclades spread across Europe, from Iberia to Scandinavia, at an apparently early date.

I think it would be very instructive to look at the subclade composition of some of the outlier U106s, such as those Rich R. mentioned in Corsica and Portugal. I wonder how much of it is, for instance, L48, which looks to me to be mostly if not all Germanic. If I recall correctly, there was even some U106 (possibly U198?) found in a sample of the Basques.

I do find the idea that all of U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only reached its hotspots in the Netherlands and Austria after a migration out of those areas, to be rather unlikely.

razyn
05-31-2013, 08:57 PM
So where is the logic?

Well the logic to which I was referring (before Mike re-moved that comment to http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?803-Correlation-of-R1b-with-mt-DNA-H-autosomal-DNA&p=7078&viewfull=1#post7078) is here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?975-Is-R1b-Neolithic-in-Italy-Expanding-east-west-north-starting-with-Chalcolithic

But so is a good bit of the illogic, to which I was reacting. I decline to spend an afternoon (or any significant block of the day or night) trying to talk sense into one monomaniacal poster. On the other hand, sensible persons such as yourself deserve respect. At least, when they are being sensible.

Is it logical to associate, theoretically or otherwise, a mitochondrial lineage found anciently in an area, with a Y-DNA haplogroup found now in that area? And if so, why? One could posit some way in which that association might conceivably have happened, anciently; but that's just storytelling, not really logic. We know some R1b got to Europe by 2,600 BC. This paper was talking about mtDNA that was in Italy in 6,000 BC. Draw your family tree diagram to a hundred generations -- look at the guy on the far left, and the woman on the far right (they may be several hundred feet apart, this takes a large chart), and explain to me logically what the one must have to do with the other.

Also, an Italian Z2105 is more closely related [in that single, direct male lineage] to a Georgian Z2105 than he is to any present-day descendant of L11, regardless of where the intervening millennia have been spent by either Z2105 person, and his male-line ancestors. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor side issue, but I just mention it.

TigerMW
05-31-2013, 09:31 PM
My opinion, FWIW, is that one should keep an open mind on this question. As I have often stated, I see no reason to assume that all U106 subclades share an identical history. While it is clear that there is a connection between the Germanic peoples and most of U106, I can see no reason dismiss out of hand the possibility of some exceptions to the general rule. As Mike suggested above, the distribution of every U106 subclade does not appear to be identical. While U106 may not have expanded as early and to the extent P312 did, we know that P312 subclades spread across Europe, from Iberia to Scandinavia, at an apparently early date.
Some P312 subclades may have spread across Europe from Iberia, but I wouldn't say they all did, and probably not even most of them did. I don't really know but just want to be clear on my position on that and you brought up the point.


I think it would be very instructive to look at the subclade composition of some of the outlier U106s, such as those Rich R. mentioned in Corsica and Portugal. I wonder how much of it is, for instance, L48, which looks to me to be mostly if not all Germanic. If I recall correctly, there was even some U106 (possibly U198?) found in a sample of the Basques.

I don't think we can do too much reasoning with the exceptions to the rule. In the case of U106, it is so scant in places where Germanic languages didn't hit that I just don't think we can say much about it... just like an R1b guy showing near Laos. Could be Marco Polo? Could be some kind of recent historical event? There is always an exception or something inexplicable but I'm generally in line with Richard S that the correlation of U106 and Germanic language areas is very strong.


I do find the idea that all of U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only reached its hotspots in the Netherlands and Austria after a migration out of those areas, to be rather unlikely.

I agree with you that would be unlikely, but I also think it unlikely that if U106 was in Scandinava in the Nordic Bronze Age then more would've been scattered across the coastal regions of the Isles, beyond England itself.

Hence, my interpretation is that U106 hadn't made it or barely made it to Scandinavia for the Nordic Bronze Age.

:beerchug: This is great to have many diverse points of view with thinking to go along with it!

GoldenHind
05-31-2013, 10:52 PM
Some P312 subclades may have spread across Europe from Iberia, but I wouldn't say they all did, and probably not even most of them did. I don't really know but just want to be clear on my position on that and you brought up the point.



I don't think we can do too much reasoning with the exceptions to the rule. In the case of U106, it is so scant in places where Germanic languages didn't hit that I just don't think we can say much about it... just like an R1b guy showing near Laos. Could be Marco Polo? Could be some kind of recent historical event? There is always an exception or something inexplicable but I'm generally in line with Richard S that the correlation of U106 and Germanic language areas is very strong.



I agree with you that would be unlikely, but I also think it unlikely that if U106 was in Scandinava in the Nordic Bronze Age then more would've been scattered across the coastal regions of the Isles, beyond England itself.

Hence, my interpretation is that U106 hadn't made it or barely made it to Scandinavia for the Nordic Bronze Age.

:beerchug: This is great to have many diverse points of view with thinking to go along with it!

Forgive me if I was imprecise. What I meant was that one variety or another of P312 is found spread across Europe, from Scandinavia in the northeast to Iberia in the southwest. I did not mean to suggest anything about the direction or composition of how the spread. I think it is pretty clear the direction of the spread depends on which subclade we are looking at. Yet we assume that all U106 subclades only moved together in mass.

The point I was trying to make is that looking at the distribution of P312 in general tells us nothing about the distribution or even the existence of L238. So it may be with U106. The answer awaits further data about the distribution of U106 subclades. There are enough U106outliers that it is hardly comparable with an R1b in Laos. The question is whether they got there only with the migration of the Germanic tribes, or whether they may have got there in the Bronze Age.

To make my position clear, I am not suggesting that U106 was absent from Scandinavia during the Nordic Bronze Age. I just think it is unlikely that ALL of it was there.

GoldenHind
05-31-2013, 11:19 PM
there does now seem to be a general feeling that R1b spread east/SE to west/NW from eastern Europe or western/central Asia and that this happened probably at some point in the mid-late Neolithic or copper age.

That has been my position, and I know also that of many others, for some years now.

R.Rocca
05-31-2013, 11:29 PM
Well the logic to which I was referring (before Mike re-moved that comment to http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?803-Correlation-of-R1b-with-mt-DNA-H-autosomal-DNA&p=7078&viewfull=1#post7078) is here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?975-Is-R1b-Neolithic-in-Italy-Expanding-east-west-north-starting-with-Chalcolithic

But so is a good bit of the illogic, to which I was reacting. I decline to spend an afternoon (or any significant block of the day or night) trying to talk sense into one monomaniacal poster. On the other hand, sensible persons such as yourself deserve respect. At least, when they are being sensible.

Is it logical to associate, theoretically or otherwise, a mitochondrial lineage found anciently in an area, with a Y-DNA haplogroup found now in that area? And if so, why? One could posit some way in which that association might conceivably have happened, anciently; but that's just storytelling, not really logic. We know some R1b got to Europe by 2,600 BC. This paper was talking about mtDNA that was in Italy in 6,000 BC. Draw your family tree diagram to a hundred generations -- look at the guy on the far left, and the woman on the far right (they may be several hundred feet apart, this takes a large chart), and explain to me logically what the one must have to do with the other.

Also, an Italian Z2105 is more closely related [in that single, direct male lineage] to a Georgian Z2105 than he is to any present-day descendant of L11, regardless of where the intervening millennia have been spent by either Z2105 person, and his male-line ancestors. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor side issue, but I just mention it.

OK, we are in agreement and the paper does as well with the following:


In fact, in contrast to mtDNA age estimates, almost all Y-chromosome estimates fall between late Neolithic and the Bronze Age.

rms2
06-01-2013, 12:10 AM
My opinion, FWIW, is that one should keep an open mind on this question. As I have often stated, I see no reason to assume that all U106 subclades share an identical history. While it is clear that there is a connection between the Germanic peoples and most of U106, I can see no reason dismiss out of hand the possibility of some exceptions to the general rule. As Mike suggested above, the distribution of every U106 subclade does not appear to be identical. While U106 may not have expanded as early and to the extent P312 did, we know that P312 subclades spread across Europe, from Iberia to Scandinavia, at an apparently early date.

I think it would be very instructive to look at the subclade composition of some of the outlier U106s, such as those Rich R. mentioned in Corsica and Portugal. I wonder how much of it is, for instance, L48, which looks to me to be mostly if not all Germanic. If I recall correctly, there was even some U106 (possibly U198?) found in a sample of the Basques.

I do find the idea that all of U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only reached its hotspots in the Netherlands and Austria after a migration out of those areas, to be rather unlikely.

A lot of the evidence is already in. Does it seem likely that there will be a radical change that alters what we currently know about U106 and its clades? If we did find some small, isolated clade of U106 centered on, say, the island of Lesbos in the Aegean, how would that alter the big picture for U106?

In Busby et al, the samples from North Portugal and Lisbon were 7% U106. Elsewhere in Portugal, the level of U106 was negligible. We know there was considerable Germanic settlement in Portugal during the Migration Period. The Germanic Kingdom of the Suebi began in North Portugal and at one time extended over the entire country and into western Spain. Not hard to imagine that it could account for that 7% U106 figure, especially if it was helped along by Flemings and other immigrants to Portugal since then.

The Corsica data from Busby came from a sample of 24. The figure was 8% U106, which means a whopping two men tested U106+. That's not much to hang one's hat on, and there were Vandals, Lombards, and Visigoths in Corsica enough, as well.

Who has maintained that U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia and North Germany? And, even though no one has claimed that, as far as I know, why would that be less likely than the idea of errant groups of distant prehistoric U106ers striking out in the dim past, separating themselves from the main body of their brethren and showing up in far flung places so that - for whatever reason - one could make the argument that not all U106 is Germanic?

Personally, I think U106 was somewhere farther east than North Germany and Scandinavia for much of its early existence, so that it was no part of Beaker and thus no part of the Italo-Celtic story. At some point it moved far enough west to become Germanized or to Germanize and to take part in the spread of the Germanic-speaking peoples.

R.Rocca
06-01-2013, 12:55 AM
Who has maintained that U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia and North Germany? And, even though no one has claimed that, as far as I know, why would that be less likely than the idea of errant groups of distant prehistoric U106ers striking out in the dim past, separating themselves from the main body of their brethren and showing up in far flung places so that - for whatever reason - one could make the argument that not all U106 is Germanic?

Personally, I think U106 was somewhere farther east than North Germany and Scandinavia for much of its early existence, so that it was no part of Beaker and thus no part of the Italo-Celtic story. At some point it moved far enough west to become Germanized or to Germanize and to take part in the spread of the Germanic-speaking peoples.

What language do you think the more-than-likely U106+ Urnfelder from central Germany spoke circa 1,000 BC? It seems like he is a far flung loner in a world dominated by I2 and to a lesser extent R1a. the reason why I ask is because Busby found U106 extremely low in that area (5.3%), although I suspect it may be due to a low sample size (n=19).

Webb
06-01-2013, 01:53 AM
What language do you think the more-than-likely U106+ Urnfelder from central Germany spoke circa 1,000 BC? It seems like he is a far flung loner in a world dominated by I2 and to a lesser extent R1a. the reason why I ask is because Busby found U106 extremely low in that area (5.3%), although I suspect it may be due to a low sample size (n=19).

I may not be the best at getting my point across, but I'm going to try again. According to wiki, citing Myres and Sims, in every country sampled, P312 outnumbers U106. The exception is Austria, where 27% sampled were M269, 23% were U106. In Germany, 43% sampled were M269 and only 19% were U106. So, what language did they speak. U106 is a minority in most places in Europe. Did they provide the Germanic language and culture to the people they came in contact with, or was it the other way around. Genetically they are more closely related to P312, yet linguistically and culturally, they are more closely related to I and R1a. Does the differences between italic/ Celtic mirror the differences between U106 and P312 genetically. Again, genetically U106 is more similiar to P312 than I and R1a.

alan
06-01-2013, 01:56 AM
What language do you think the more-than-likely U106+ Urnfelder from central Germany spoke circa 1,000 BC? It seems like he is a far flung loner in a world dominated by I2 and to a lesser extent R1a. the reason why I ask is because Busby found U106 extremely low in that area (5.3%), although I suspect it may be due to a low sample size (n=19).

That is a good question. Ever since the idea of Celtic emerging in the Atlantic zone has increased in popularity and the idea of Jastorf =Germanic has been retained, its actually become hard to work out what was going on in west central Europe. It sort of falls into the area between the two zones.

rms2
06-01-2013, 02:04 AM
What language do you think the more-than-likely U106+ Urnfelder from central Germany spoke circa 1,000 BC? It seems like he is a far flung loner in a world dominated by I2 and to a lesser extent R1a. the reason why I ask is because Busby found U106 extremely low in that area (5.3%), although I suspect it may be due to a low sample size (n=19).

We don't know if that single R1b in the Lichtenstein Cave was U106. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. He wasn't tested for it. He had 390=23, but so do I.

Those folks possessed some Urnfield artifacts, but I still am not sure why they are considered Urnfielders. Depositing the dead in a cave is not exactly Urnfield practice. Placing cremated and partially cremated remains in urns is how the culture got its name, after all.

I don't know what language that one, single R1b individual who might have been U106 (again, we don't know) spoke. He was one person amongst a group of mostly I2s and a couple of R1a. Perhaps he was a slave. I don't know.

But he was found in Germany in the Harz Mountains, and amongst an odd, sort of backward group not exactly in sync with the actual Urnfielders around them. I hear banjo music. ;)

That individual also lacked the allele for lactase persistence, as I recall.

alan
06-01-2013, 02:06 AM
I may not be the best at getting my point across, but I'm going to try again. According to wiki, citing Myres and Sims, in every country sampled, P312 outnumbers U106. The exception is Austria, where 27% sampled were M269, 23% were U106. In Germany, 43% sampled were M269 and only 19% were U106. So, what language did they speak. U106 is a minority in most places in Europe. Did they provide the Germanic language and culture to the people they came in contact with, or was it the other way around. Genetically they are more closely related to P312, yet linguistically and culturally, they are more closely related to I and R1a. Does the differences between italic/ Celtic mirror the differences between U106 and P312 genetically. Again, genetically U106 is more similiar to P312 than I and R1a.

As I posted above, I think U106 could vary from an elite of less than c. 5% to a signicant minority folk movement of say around 20% or more. I think the former was not likely to cause a language shift even if they held power but the latter could cause a language shift as it probably included a significant element of non-elite settlers. I think R1a had only a very very minor role is the spread of Germanic except Norwegian Vikings.

TigerMW
06-01-2013, 02:36 AM
I may not be the best at getting my point across, but I'm going to try again. According to wiki, citing Myres and Sims, in every country sampled, P312 outnumbers U106. The exception is Austria, where 27% sampled were M269, 23% were U106. In Germany, 43% sampled were M269 and only 19% were U106. So, what language did they speak. U106 is a minority in most places in Europe. Did they provide the Germanic language and culture to the people they came in contact with, or was it the other way around. Genetically they are more closely related to P312, yet linguistically and culturally, they are more closely related to I and R1a. Does the differences between italic/ Celtic mirror the differences between U106 and P312 genetically. Again, genetically U106 is more similiar to P312 than I and R1a.
Yes, of course, genetically P312 and U106 are closely related and R1a is not so much and I1 is only very distantly related. However, does not mean that I1 was a native western Centum IE speaker. He was likely integrated or adopted into such a speaking environment.

I'm not sure where you are going with this but I think there is a nice but not exclusive alignment of haplogroups with languages. According to germ-line TMCRA estimates, 4-5k years ago P312 and U106 split and roughly the same time pre-Italo-Celtic and pre-Germanic dialects of western Centum IE dialects split. This happened after PIE itself formed and before or separately from the development of the Satem innovations to IE languages.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Descendency_Tree.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

P312 seems to have ended up on both sides of the Western Centum IE split. Yes, P312 is quite heavy in old Celtic lands in particular, and also in Italic lands.... but it was no slouch in Germanic lands.

I1, which comes from no where near a PIE homeland (at least the commonly hypothesized ones), was not speaking IE. I1 learned it in some merger of cultures which may have occurred in the Nordic Bronze Age or maybe in Jastorf.

I don't know how R1a fits into this other than at least some R1a probably came into Germanic cultures or pre-Germanic cultures through contact and exchange with Balto-Slavic cultures. Some R1a, like P312, may well (probably was) in the original Proto-Germanic mix as well but that is hard to discern.

Who brought the pre-Germanic dialects of Centum IE to the Proto-Germanic party? We don't know, but I'd guess U106 is the best candidate. P312 and R1a are in the running but probably not I1 or N.

Did some U106 enter Italic and Celtic cultures in the Pre-Germanic timeframe? I would guess some, but I think it appears to be very limited, or else we'd see more U106 in old Celtic and Italic lands. We just don't see that much in the first place and that can easily be accounted for by areas where Germanic incursions are known in historical timeframes and were vast (in influence at the least). That just doesn't leave much old, old U106 to be out in Celtic-Italic lands prior to the Germanic incursions. That's not saying there was zero, just apparently very scant.

Let's look at this another way. Where we find Italic and Celtic languages in the pre-Classical timeframe what Y haplogroup seems to always show up? P312. Others may have been there too but P312 always shows up. Where Germanic languages prevail as of the Germanic Wandering period what haplogroup shows up? U106. P312 may show up to as well as I1 and R1a, but U106 is the strong diagnostic marker.

TigerMW
11-11-2013, 03:23 PM
This was over on a R1a thread but related to R1b so I'll quote it here if people want to discuss it further.

....
R1b is a lot more difficult to decipher. That's because it looks older than R1a and shows some very strange patterns in distribution, like its presence in Sub-Saharan Africa. My guess is that the Sub-Saharan, Western European, and Southeast European/West Asian R1b clusters can't be linked to one recent expansion. The Western European R1b might well be a Mesolithic lineage which survived on the Atlantic fringe and then re-expanded during the late Neolithic, to fill the vacuum left by the collapsing LBK-derived middle Neolithic societies of Central Europe. Indeed, it's probably not a coincidence that there were expansions into Central Europe from both the west and east at about the same time, probably involving populations heavy in R1b and R1a respectively.

I expect this R1b mystery will be solved once and for all when we see many more ancient DNA results from Mesolithic and Neolithic Western Europe. That should come next year.

Rathna
11-11-2013, 03:54 PM
This is what we are saying (and I think demonstrating) from so long, in spite of what Mr Hammer is saying:

"Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights included:
Recent work on sibling Y haplogroup K suggests that R ancestors migrated out of Africa and into SouthEast Asia then moved back west into Anatolia. This implies changes are needed in the migration maps presented by FTDNA & Genographic project.
Recap that no R1b found at ancient DNA sites from Europe.
R1b subgroups and cultural markers evidence several expansion centers in Europe,
Overall, P311 marker which is distinctly European part of R1b probably arose AFTER agriculture started in Europe but expanded rapidly and replaced G2a in the population. By contrast MtDNA pattern seems more conserved, especially in Northern Europe.
With expansion of SNPs we are starting to get SNPs in the historic era. By implication, these are starting to correspond to population groups recorded in history.
SNP CTS1122 seems like a distinctly Scottish Marker. Just as M222 is concentrated in Ireland and DF21 in England.
There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test. Plans to update the results page for these changes on the FTDNA result pages are well underway.
Copies of Dr Hammer’s slides are supposed to be posted in the near future".

Many places of Europe have been tested for aDNA, but not Italy for what I know.

R.Rocca
11-11-2013, 04:22 PM
Many places of Europe have been tested for aDNA, but not Italy for what I know.

Did you take Otzi's Italian passport away? :)

Rathna
11-11-2013, 04:42 PM
Did you take Otzi's Italian passport away? :)

I consider of course Oetzi an ancient Italian, in fact his descendants are above all in Corsica and in Sardinia. He was G-L91, an haplogroup found only in Western Europe if I am right and that he came from Caucasus or elsewhere is all to be demonstrated.
On the other way around I think having carried many proofs that probably there were in Italy also, amongst the R hg., R1b1-L389+ (the most varied samples found so far), R-M269*, R-Z2103/Z2105*, R-L11 (the most varied haplotype belongs to a Pistoiese of the Boattini's paper), R-L51, R-P312** etc., and of course your R-U152 (I think having demonstrated also recently in a post of mine that probably the most ancient of this haplogroup are the subclades found in Italy).

ADW_1981
11-11-2013, 04:51 PM
I consider of course Oetzi an ancient Italian, in fact his descendants are above all in Corsica and in Sardinia. He was G-L91, an haplogroup found only in Western Europe if I am right and that he came from Caucasus or elsewhere is all to be demonstrated.
On the other way around I think having carried many proofs that probably there were in Italy also, amongst the R hg., R1b1-L389+ (the most varied samples found so far), R-M269*, R-Z2103/Z2105*, R-L11 (the most varied haplotype belongs to a Pistoiese of the Boattini's paper), R-L51, R-P312** etc., and of course your R-U152 (I think having demonstrated also recently in a post of mine that probably the most ancient of this haplogroup are the subclades found in Italy).

Oetzi has autosomal inputs which are extra-European. The only way to substantiate your claim would be to find forager or mesolithic YDNA G in Europe which might be part of an ancestral branch to Oetzi. Otherwise, I believe the data we have thus far supports/suggests that YDNA G2a came into Europe no earlier than the spread of farming.

Silesian
11-11-2013, 04:57 PM
This is what we are saying (and I think demonstrating) from so long, in spite of what Mr Hammer is saying:

"Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights included:
Recent work on sibling Y haplogroup K suggests that R ancestors migrated out of Africa and into SouthEast Asia then moved back west into Anatolia....Copies of Dr Hammer’s slides are supposed to be posted in the near future".


Slides are nice but no substitute for the real thing.I would trade all the information and conjecturing M. Hammer has to offer in exchange, for King Tut's official results, and a complete breakdown of the R1b Kromsdorf samples; not that it matters because we will probably never see these.

Rathna
11-11-2013, 05:08 PM
Oetzi has autosomal inputs which are extra-European. The only way to substantiate your claim would be to find forager or mesolithic YDNA G in Europe which might be part of an ancestral branch to Oetzi. Otherwise, I believe the data we have thus far supports/suggests that YDNA G2a came into Europe no earlier than the spread of farming.

We may discuss about the last Francalacci's paper (and a lot has been discussed about his Mutation Rate), but in his data it seems that not only hg. I but also G is very ancient in Europe. I have carried many proofs in the past about very ancient haplotypes of G found in Italy (also the Jewish G2c, massive in the Pashtuns, has many samples in Italy which seems the most ancient by their variation).
I am waiting that Geno 2.0, Chromo2, Full Y demonstrate that R1b1-L389+ is Italian and European and the samples found not only in Asia (Raza and Joshi) but also in the Caucasus aren't the ancestor of the European subclades.
FTDNA is using the escamotage to pass for L389+ who is tested for P25+. I am saying from many years that the R1b1 ancestor of the European subclades is that with YCAII=18-23 or 18-22 (Italy has both, if someone will decide to test Mangino) and not that with 21-23 or 23-23.

Anglecynn
11-12-2013, 02:47 AM
(Information from another forum)
Apparently there was a genetic genaeology conference yesterday:
http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

Apparently they think:
U152 originated in central Germany
U106 in eastern Germany
Z195 in Central France
P312 in Hungary
L21 in Kent, England
M222 in Ireland
L11 in Bulgaria
P311 in Romania
M269 in Western Anatolia

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 03:18 AM
(Information from another forum)
Apparently there was a genetic genaeology conference yesterday:
http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

Apparently they think:
U152 originated in central Germany
U106 in eastern Germany
Z195 in Central France
P312 in Hungary
L21 in Kent, England
M222 in Ireland
L11 in Bulgaria
P311 in Romania
M269 in Western Anatolia

Does anyone know if they did came up with this completely in a genetic DNA vacuum? In other words, did they try to align the DNA with archaelogical evidence?

What goes from Western Anatolia to Bulgaria and Romania? Dairy farmers?

I didn't know a separation had been found between P3111 and L11. Does any know where an P311+ L11- guy (or vice versa) is found in any project or study?

Brad Larkin posted this on Hammer's presentation. (http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950)

"Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights included:

Recent work on sibling Y haplogroup K suggests that R ancestors migrated out of Africa and into SouthEast Asia then moved back west into Anatolia. This implies changes are needed in the migration maps presented by FTDNA & Genographic project.

Recap that no R1b found at ancient DNA sites from Europe.

R1b subgroups and cultural markers evidence several expansion centers in Europe,

Overall, P311 marker which is distinctly European part of R1b probably arose AFTER agriculture started in Europe but expanded rapidly and replaced G2a in the population. By contrast MtDNA pattern seems more conserved, especially in Northern Europe.

With expansion of SNPs we are starting to get SNPs in the historic era. By implication, these are starting to correspond to population groups recorded in history.

SNP CTS1122 seems like a distinctly Scottish Marker. Just as M222 is concentrated in Ireland and DF21 in England.

There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test. Plans to update the results page for these changes on the FTDNA result pages are well underway.

Copies of Dr Hammer’s slides are supposed to be posted in the near future."

MitchellSince1893
11-12-2013, 03:31 AM
(Information from another forum)
Apparently there was a genetic genaeology conference yesterday:
http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

Apparently they think:
U152 originated in central Germany
U106 in eastern Germany
Z195 in Central France
P312 in Hungary
L21 in Kent, England
M222 in Ireland
L11 in Bulgaria
P311 in Romania
M269 in Western Anatolia

Looking at the picture, I think the U152 label is associated with the circle where Italy, Switzerland, and Austria meet. The one in central Germany is not labeled but appears to be P312.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/8037.jpg

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 04:03 AM
Looking at the picture, I think the U152 label is associated with the circle where Italy, Switzerland, and Austria meet. The one is central Germany is not labeled.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/8037.jpg

Thanks for the picture... wow, he has Z195 (early subclade of DF27) coming out of Central Europe southwest across Gaul and into Iberia. I'll post this over in the DF27 section.

Please note that my bias is looking at long haplotypes and early branching of subclades, but this map looks like a nice fit for the genetic information I've seen on R1b-L11, including the "post-Neolithic" timing.

I wouldn't necessarily have M269 crossing into SE Europe over the Bosporous, but I don't have any genetic data reasoning for that, its just that everything I've always heard was post dairy-farming, the moves were the other direction, from SE Europe in to Anatolia. I'll defer to the historians and archaeologists on that but somewhere these guys had to meet up with full IE and become full IE which pretty much means Yamnaya-ization.

Is this the dairy farmers meeting up with Yamnaya folks folks on the west side of the Black Sea and ending up after some traumatic conflicts, getting in a prime position male lineage-wise before heading west?

Or should it be the longer route, a Circumpontic movement through the northern Caucasus up and over to SE Europe?

Jean M
11-12-2013, 09:52 AM
Roberta Estes also covers Mike Hammer's talk on the 2nd day of the 2013 Family Tree DNA Conference

http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

She gives more detail of the dramatic shift of ground on the age of R1b in Europe (at long last!)


Previous studies indicate that haplogroup R has a Paleolithic origin, but 2 recent studies agree that this haplogroup has a more recent origin in Europe – the Neolithic but disagree about the timing of the expansion. The first study, Joblin’s study in 2010, argued that geographic diversity is explained by single Near East source via Anatolia. It conclude that the Y of Mesolithic hunger-gatherers were nearly replaced by those of incoming farmers. In the most recent study by Busby in 2012 is the largest study and concludes that there is no diversity in the mapping of R SNP markers so they could not date lineage and expansion. They did find that most basic structure of R tree did come from the near east. They looked at P311 as marker for expansion into Europe, wherever it was. Hammer says that in his opinion, he thought that if P311 is so frequent and widespread in Europe it must have been there a long time. However, it appears that he and most everyone else, was wrong.

The hypothesis to be tested is if P311 originated prior to the Neolithic wave, it would predict higher diversity it the near east, closer to the origins of agriculture. If P311 originated after the expansion, would be able to see it migrate across Europe and it would have had to replace an existing population.

Because we now have sequences the DNA of about 40 ancient DNA specimens, Michael turned to the ancient DNA literature....This evidence supports a recent spread of haplogroup R lineages in western Europe about 5K years ago. This also supports evidence that P311 moved into Europe after the Neolithic agricultural transition and nearly displaced the previously existing western European Neolithic Y, which appears to be G2a.

I have started a separate thread for this: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1575-Mike-Hammers-goes-for-post-Neolithic-entry-of-R-into-Europe&p=19034

razyn
11-12-2013, 01:35 PM
Or should it be the longer route, a Circumpontic movement through the northern Caucasus up and over to SE Europe?

And does "up and over" refer to the Black Sea, down and under? Or, maybe, over the intervening mountains? Another way might be around, e.g. via the Volga. I'm not saying that happened, just suggesting that it could have, and we aren't looking very hard. Some sort of relationship exists between pottery forms of the lower Volga basin and Corded Ware, with echoes of the latter in Beaker (maybe not Maritime Beaker, and I'm no authority on any of it, just looked at the pictures). Some sort of relationship exists between early metallurgy of the Caucasus and that of western Europe. Whether the metallurgical and ceramic relationships went by the same route as the cowboys and the plowmen (if they even went together) -- and whether any of these are well mapped by the subsequent genetic success of their male bearers (boyfriends of the potters?) -- remain to be demonstrated. We probably need much more aDNA; see Manco 2013, 30-33 et passim.

The new slides by Hammer are distinguished, if that's the word, by including Z195. (And btw Jennifer Zinck's blog from the FTDNA conference has sharper, though fewer, photos than do the others I've seen.) One might have wished to see DF27, at that level, but so be it. Anyhow it looks to me to be a closer approach to the pattern in the developing phylogeny than similar maps that were drawn before the discovery of these grandsons of Mr. L11... or attempts to map them based on DF27 "proxies," sort of the remainders after subtracting the guys we actually knew something about.

vettor
11-12-2013, 05:54 PM
Looking at the picture, I think the U152 label is associated with the circle where Italy, Switzerland, and Austria meet. The one in central Germany is not labeled but appears to be P312.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/8037.jpg

?

The only conclusion from the picture is that U152 started in central germany , moved south into the alps, settled and moved on. it clearly shows the U152 represents both circles

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 05:55 PM
Dick, do you have a link to Jennifer's better slides?


And does "up and over" refer to the Black Sea, down and under?
Yes, I was referring to the Black Sea when I used the term Circumpontic as the Pontic Sea is the Black Sea. I don't know how M269 and L23 traveled but Alan has the "up and over" theory which makes it easier to accept M269 integrating with PIE speakers before they really took off west. So my question was really did R1b folks move the southerly route from Anatolia into southeastern Europe, collide with the PIE speakers and probably after years of some kind of dramatic changes, R1b emerged and moved west primarily as L11 and IE speakers? or alternatively, did R1b integrate earlier with the PIE speakers on the north side of the Caucasus and move around the Black Sea to the west and south? In that case, L11 would have just been part of the IE wave west.


... The new slides by Hammer are distinguished, if that's the word, by including Z195. (And btw Jennifer Zinck's blog from the FTDNA conference has sharper, though fewer, photos than do the others I've seen.) One might have wished to see DF27, at that level, but so be it. Anyhow it looks to me to be a closer approach to the pattern in the developing phylogeny than similar maps that were drawn before the discovery of these grandsons of Mr. L11... or attempts to map them based on DF27 "proxies," sort of the remainders after subtracting the guys we actually knew something about.

Dick, do you have a link to Jennifer's better slides?

The fact that he didn't have DF27 on his chart but did have Z195 tells me he was looking at National Geno 2.0 results or some other testing National Genographic has done since Geno 2.0 doesn't have DF27.

Keep in mind, Hammer is drawing directional expansion/migration maps and not depicting frequency. I think DF27 frequencies will be much higher in southern France and northern Spain and perhaps all across Iberia. Frequency, in this case, may indicate a "pooling" at the end of waves of migration or just better success/amplification in a green pasture.

I don't know if L11 ties into metallurgy, but remember that some metallurgy specialists (Merkyl I think) indicated that early and mid Bronze Age metallurgy may not have been a big advantage for someone in eastern Europe where it is was present longer while in more virgin areas to the west (Britain was the example given) there might have been big advantages for the incoming metalworking people.

Agamemnon
04-04-2014, 04:00 AM
Truthfully, R1b is a fascinating haplogroup.
So many theories have gravitated around it that it is sometimes hard to be completely objective...
I'm pretty confident that most L11 subclades spread around fairly recently, so all the funny theories about R1b being a Cro-Magnon (or "Basque" as Oppenheimer claimed) marker or that it spread with the Neolithic seem to be off the hook for now (and there's much to bet that it will remain that way once we get our hands on more aDNA samples from Anatolia and the Near East).

Now, whether R1b actually took part in the spread of IE at an early stage, I am undecided as of yet. R1b's late appearance at Kromsdorf seems highly suggestive of its association with the Indo-Europeanisation of Western Europe, but prior to that? Who knows, we're still in the dark for now.

Genome-wide studies of Eneolithic European samples are seriously needed right now, before we get access to such data everything we say is an educated guess at best... Pure conjection at worst.

Does this mean that we are getting some consensus on the R1b story?
Absolutely not, truth be told I expect even more outlandish theories to pop out when we'll be getting more R1b-positive samples...

Diverclic
04-13-2014, 10:07 AM
One big improvement in R1b understanding of recent months is the Z2105 / L51 split, L23 being the parental group. Hence, a lot of L23* of previous studies are now understood as a middle eastern branch of R1b parallel to the R1b-L51 european branch.
I read it this way. The "main" branch was in middle eastern world and R1b was there as a minor (in total population numbers) and widespread (taking the geaographical areas concerned) group. My interpretation (from some times - confirmed I think, by these recent data) is that R1b evolution follows copper work and, a little like bantoo spread in Africa linked to iron work, they were included in other main cultures (cities) of the middle east to provide copper jewelry (first) and copper knives (later). I believe that the "second copper age" with melting was also R1b-linked. Hence, population like Jews, Egyptian and probably Sumer had a R1b component, even among highest cast in their society when copper work became a sign of superiority (against stone age). Remember that pyramids could NOT be built whithout copper tools.
In this view the L51 branch was side event, probably justified by the existence of large copper mines in the Balkan area. Most probably (and the data are indicating such facts) the geographical split between the L51 and the Z2105 branches wasn't 100% and some Z2105 were present in the Balkans.
What happened next in Europe is hard to follow but I think that the bell beaker expansion fits nicely with what would be expected for L11 and subsequent P312/U106 groups. Meanwhile R1b in middle east met a decrease in influence at bronze age, it seems. Hence a group initially linked to middle east cultures became the "father" of the main west european cultures.