PDA

View Full Version : Where did DF27 originate? and when and how did it expand?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

TigerMW
04-20-2013, 11:40 PM
A couple of years ago DF27 was unknown and it just appeared in the paragroup P312*, it's ancestor.

DF27 is a large clade and is spread out into a number of subclades including the M153+ Basques, who happen to be a subclade of the Z209+ North-South cluster. Z209 is scattered from north to south (or south to north.) We also have L176.2 which can be broken further into the large SRY2627 group as well as L165, which EthnoAncestry tags as Norse. SRY2627 has been considered Iberian by many, but not every SRY2627 is Iberian, for sure.

This graphic shows you the branching of R1b-DF27 as I understand it.
http://tinyurl.com/R1b-DF27-Tree

R.Rocca
04-21-2013, 11:58 AM
Where the first carrier of DF27 originated is impossible to say at this moment. Regarding expansion, I should point out the following data:

DF27 Haplogroup Variance by Region @25 STRs



Iberia:
n=97
var=1.15


Britain & Ireland:
n=285
var=1.11


Germany:
n=34
var=1.09


Italy:
n=7
var=1.07


France:
n=56
var=1.02


Switzerland:
n=4
var=0.88


Low Countries:
n=12
var=0.77



If we take radio carbon data into account which tells us the earliest Bell Beakers occurred in Iberia, an out-of-Iberia DF27 expansion becomes even more intriguing. Finally, if we take the definition of the North South cluster as one with a Northern and Southern coastal distribution, it aligns with the expansion of Maritime Bell Beakers along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Maritime Bell Beaker cluster seems more appropriate at this time than North-South cluster. There has finally been an Iberian L165 sample found, which would mean the 10x Isles sample bias may be in play.

If we look at the variance of DF27's siblings, we see that they are younger than DF27 and may have been involved in the later Bell Beaker reflux expansions. The ordering of variance (1. DF27 2. U152 3. L21) is also a good match for radio carbon dating that shows Bell Beaker age as oldest in Iberia/S. France/N. Italy and then progressively younger as one goes north and east.

Overall Haplogroup Variance @25 STRs



DF27 All:
n=710
var=1.17


U152 All:
n=991
var=1.09


L21 All:
n=5960
var=0.93



Please note that I used Mike's variance spreadsheet at 25 STRs to get enough samples. I find that the regional data jumps less when using more samples than very few samples at 67 markers.

Webb
04-22-2013, 10:01 PM
There are now at least four confirmed DF83 individuals. One that has scottish ancestry, one English, one French, and of course, one......wait for it.......Spanish. Asturias to be exact. So, assuming that Richards assessment is correct. The low numbers in the isles in comparison to L21 could be that these DF27 groups acted much like the Vikings. Staying close to ports, and being more interested in trade and networking than large scale settlement. There seems to be more significant numbers and clade variation in Britain than Ireland as well.

Arch
04-23-2013, 04:06 AM
Definitely, not all SRY2627 is Iberian but where it clusters the most is technically or least in a geophysical sense is around or near the headwaters of the Garonne and Segre Rivers. Technically both rivers do not have their sources in Iberia. Also, Val d'Aran should be considered as being in Northern Europe.

Arch

R.Rocca
04-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Definitely, not all SRY2627 is Iberian but where it clusters the most is technically or least in a geophysical sense is around or near the headwaters of the Garonne and Segre Rivers. Technically both rivers do not have their sources in Iberia. Also, Val d'Aran should be considered as being in Northern Europe.

Arch

Welcome to the forums Alan.

The three closest cities to the Val d'Aran (Toulouse, Barcelona and Bilbao) are all much closer culturally to the Mediterranean than Northern Europe.

Arch
04-23-2013, 11:25 PM
Welcome to the forums Alan.

The three closest cities to the Val d'Aran (Toulouse, Barcelona and Bilbao) are all much closer culturally to the Mediterranean than Northern Europe.

Yes, however. Toulouse/Tolosa has a more ancient influence on Val d'Aran than both cities in Spain. Toulouse has an influence that is intermediate between the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Narbonne being the Mediterranean connection with the Celts and Bordeaux or Bordigula with the Aquitani and later Biturges Cubi. I'm not seeing much of an Iberian influence in Val d'Aran. Obviously in modernity we have the Spanish and Catalan influence, but long before Val d'Aran was a part of Catalonia since the 1100s it has been under the influence of Comminges and regions north. Barcelona is over 4 hours away by car, Toulouse is nearly 3 hours by car. So I can't say Barcelona had much of an influence on Val d'Aran until the rise of the Hispania Marcia around 700-800 AD and even then it was fairly loose or had very little impact due to the great distance and the valley's isolation. Even the Comminges seems to have little influence in the region. What we do see is a remnant of Bell Beaker artifacts from a much earlier time during the Late Bronze Age and it tapers off towards the Neolithic dolmens on the other side (Iberian) side of the Pyrenees around St. Maurici region. For the most part, the passes of the Pyrenees into Iberia have cut off the Aran Valley from the south well into Spring due to snow, etc. Even today, there is really only one pass (excluding the Vielha tunnel) called the Bonaigua Pass that allows access to the south and it's not necessarily an easy way to get into the other comarcas of Catalonia. The Pla de Beret is really a long and round about way. However it is possible but very isolated. The Central Pyrenees for the most part seem isolated from Barcelona and Toulouse with their own long and ancient traditions that are strongly held in place today.

Arch

Arch
04-24-2013, 06:50 AM
In addition we must not forget. Catalonia's early history is derived from the Visigoths through the House of Barcelona. Even though the Franks defeated them at the Battle of Vouille in around 507/508 AD, the Visigoths held Barcelona in greater antiquity than we are led to believe. It was an important city well before the kingdom of the Visigoths took full effect. Catalonia's history starts in Septimania or what is now consider Old Catalonia or North Catalonia (Rousillon). This region does have a strong Mediterranean influence that could very well be Iberian since we know that influence did stretch north towards Marseilles. Of course, we can't forget many years of Celtic tribes in the region such as the Arecomi, Tectosages, etc. I think this may be a stretch, but Celtic influence in the region was probably no earlier than 800 BCE. The age of SRY2627 being an estimated 3,500 years old pushes that possibility of being risen among the culture of the Celts is pretty remote, at least for this region. So we end up back with an Iberian expansion into Northern Europe and I don't believe it only happened on the coast of the Mediterranean but also along the coast of the Atlantic perhaps reaching as far as modern day Britain and perhaps as far as Scandinavia. We are not given Iberians the credit they are due for their ability to travel and trade. Hopefully we can shed more light on the Iberians, because for the many years of ignorance about them and the lack of education about who they really were is pretty dreadful.

Arch

TigerMW
04-30-2013, 02:28 AM
Dick H has some interesting thoughts about the breakpoint where GataH4 may have moved from the P312 modal and probably DF27 ancestral value of H4=11 to H4=10.

H4 is a key element of the 437=14 448=18 H4=10 STR signature that is known as the North-South Cluster.

You might look at this descendency tree for DF27 as you read the below.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-DF27_Descendency_Tree.jpg

Dick's speculation is that Z209 and Z220 still had H4=11 but by the time Z210 or Z216 occurred the H4=10 mutation occurred.

How is this relevant to the origin of DF27? Well, we might see that the non-North-South cluster Z209+ brothers are found to the north. We know the most youthful branch of the North-South cluster is the M153, the Basque marker.

I'm not sure that makes anything certain, but it is another data point.

The reason I'm not sure that means too much is we also have DF27* (Z209- Z196-) guys in the south, Iberia.

I think another shoe will drop in DF27 and I think that shoe is DF83. Not sure which way it will fall though. We've also got L881 and L617 up there as peers to Z196 right under DF27.

Webb
04-30-2013, 02:51 AM
Mike, I posted in a different forum that I match two separate families at 37 markers. I match Wilders at 37 markers steps 1 through 3. They are from Shiplake, England. At 37 markers step 4, I match five Vanderhoof's. I loose the Vanderhoof's at 67 markers and at that point only match the Wilders. I sort of ignored the Vanderhoof's until very recently one tested positive for Z220. They are from the Netherlands and the tip sheet has us having a common ancestor at 87% at 24 generations. That could be refined more I'm sure. So to get back to my point, Z196 might have had a very early exodus out of Iberia heading north and spreading out through the North Sea coasts. If that's the case, then the Z196 clades could have back migrated at any number of periods with any number of groups.

TigerMW
05-01-2013, 12:53 AM
Mike, I posted in a different forum that I match two separate families at 37 markers. I match Wilders at 37 markers steps 1 through 3. They are from Shiplake, England. At 37 markers step 4, I match five Vanderhoof's. I loose the Vanderhoof's at 67 markers and at that point only match the Wilders. I sort of ignored the Vanderhoof's until very recently one tested positive for Z220. They are from the Netherlands and the tip sheet has us having a common ancestor at 87% at 24 generations. That could be refined more I'm sure. So to get back to my point, Z196 might have had a very early exodus out of Iberia heading north and spreading out through the North Sea coasts. If that's the case, then the Z196 clades could have back migrated at any number of periods with any number of groups.

What do you think brought Z196 on that path? I guess the default answer is Bell Beaker folks.

Webb
05-01-2013, 01:43 AM
What do you think brought Z196 on that path? I guess the default answer is Bell Beaker folks.

I would assume so. What's interesting is that the variety of DF27 found in Ireland seems to be Z196-, which is why I theorized that there must have been an early exodus of a group that had already become Z196 or would soon become Z196. Which makes me wonder if Z220 in the isles and maybe even France and Spain, is a result of more recent Germanic migrations. If groups of maritime bell beakers exited Iberia to the isles, you would think that Z196 would be found equally in all the isles. I hear that its possible that L484 might have split from Z220 prior to the Z210 marker?

TigerMW
05-01-2013, 08:06 PM
... I hear that its possible that L484 might have split from Z220 prior to the Z210 marker?
Dick H is testing for Z210 so we should know if L484.NS+ (Z220+ Z216-) is downstream of Z210 or not. We do have Z210* people with the P312 modal H4=10 so they fit the true North-South cluster criteria.

Jean M
05-01-2013, 09:19 PM
If groups of maritime bell beakers exited Iberia to the isles, you would think that Z196 would be found equally in all the isles.

Not really. The Atlantic route seems to have led to Ireland more than Britain. So DF27* in SW Ireland today (from the earliest BB arrivals), but Z196 in Britain from Bronze Age movements would fit my prediction nicely. We have evidence of incomers from Iberia and Norway (deduced from isotopes) on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, in the Bronze Age.

Webb
05-02-2013, 01:47 AM
Dick H is testing for Z210 so we should know if L484.NS+ (Z220+ Z216-) is downstream of Z210 or not. We do have Z210* people with the P312 modal H4=10 so they fit the true North-South cluster criteria.

Since FTDNA doesn't offer Z210 yet, and I would know because I check everyday, is he testing with geno?

Webb
05-02-2013, 01:57 AM
Not really. The Atlantic route seems to have led to Ireland more than Britain. So DF27* in SW Ireland today (from the earliest BB arrivals), but Z196 in Britain from Bronze Age movements would fit my prediction nicely. We have evidence of incomers from Iberia and Norway (deduced from isotopes) on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, in the Bronze Age.

Well, I'm putting it out there that I lay claim to the term "Norwiberian".

razyn
05-04-2013, 08:34 PM
Dick H is testing for Z210 so we should know if L484.NS+ (Z220+ Z216-) is downstream of Z210 or not.

It's true that we should know, soon... but technically it is a distant cousin of mine (in the same Y-DNA lineage) who is testing on Geno 2.0 and will have a Z210 result, shortly.

I've had a hard time registering fully enough to reply to anything here. With any luck, I'm now aboard, thanks to the Administrator. For any who may not know it, I'm razyn here and on various other boards, but am Dick H (Richard H. Hulan) in the old fashioned or "real" world. This forum has an unusually strict rule against multiple identities, so I just mention it.

Jean M
05-04-2013, 09:02 PM
Glad you are on board. :)

R.Rocca
05-05-2013, 01:51 AM
It's true that we should know, soon... but technically it is a distant cousin of mine (in the same Y-DNA lineage) who is testing on Geno 2.0 and will have a Z210 result, shortly.

I've had a hard time registering fully enough to reply to anything here. With any luck, I'm now aboard, thanks to the Administrator. For any who may not know it, I'm razyn here and on various other boards, but am Dick H (Richard H. Hulan) in the old fashioned or "real" world. This forum has an unusually strict rule against multiple identities, so I just mention it.

Like trying to paddle up the Shenandoah River? ;) Welcome aboard.

AJL
05-05-2013, 01:58 AM
I've had a hard time registering fully enough to reply to anything here.

Sorry to hear that and glad you are aboard now.

Webb
05-05-2013, 02:19 AM
I have recieved a reply from the admin. of the Vanderhoof project, confirming that that all 23 members are not just closely related, but those who have done snp testing are Z220. So as a recap, I match those Vanderhoof's who have tested with FTDNA at 37 markers at 4 steps. They are from Buren, Gelderland, Netherlands. My close matches are Wilders, whom I match at 67 markers.

Mythtown
05-05-2013, 07:23 PM
The Vanderhoofs caught my eye years ago as one of my family's closest matches, with a GD of 26 on 75 markers. This is, of course, ridiculously distant. But as we also are R-Z220, we're semi-near cousins after a fashion. Indicates both the considerable age of Z220 and the inevitability of quite a few additional downstream SNPs as testing progresses.

Increasingly, based on unusual marker matches, my Y-ancestry appears linked to the Salisbury Plain.

razyn
05-06-2013, 12:42 AM
Like trying to paddle up the Shenandoah River? ;) Welcome aboard.

Thanks -- and note that my avatar boat (most current reenactors are calling it a batteau) is being poled, not paddled. That river is way shallow at Harper's Ferry, except after a heavy rain upstream. I tried to paddle an aluminum pirogue up it one time -- had to keep getting out and walking it through shoals, and my pirogue only has a 9" beam. At my present advanced age I believe I'd rather sit and steer -- let somebody else have the fun of planting the poles and walking a big batteau up the Shenandoah.

This is mostly off-topic, of course. But it probably is pretty much how DF27 expanded. The boats themselves haven't changed all that much since the Bronze Age...

R.Rocca
05-06-2013, 02:03 PM
Thanks -- and note that my avatar boat (most current reenactors are calling it a batteau) is being poled, not paddled. That river is way shallow at Harper's Ferry, except after a heavy rain upstream. I tried to paddle an aluminum pirogue up it one time -- had to keep getting out and walking it through shoals, and my pirogue only has a 9" beam. At my present advanced age I believe I'd rather sit and steer -- let somebody else have the fun of planting the poles and walking a big batteau up the Shenandoah.

This is mostly off-topic, of course. But it probably is pretty much how DF27 expanded. The boats themselves haven't changed all that much since the Bronze Age...

As a fly fisherman, I've been poled around the skinny waters of the Caribbean and I have a great deal of respect for the craft. I do not doubt that our ancestors employed similar small boating skills, especially in the areas coming in and out of the Alpine lakes and the Danube.

R.Rocca
05-08-2013, 03:44 PM
I thought the following would interest the water bound folks on this thread:

Background to Beakers: Inquiries into the Regional Cultural Background to the Bell Beaker Complex

Chapter 3 - Exploring Agency Behind the Beaker Phenomenon: The Navigator's Tale

http://books.google.com/books?id=57OVD144tUIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

MJost
05-08-2013, 03:57 PM
Someone may post this study but I though the main posters would be interested in this aDNA paper where
Abstract

The recent genealogical history of human populations is a complex mosaic formed by individual migration, large-scale population movements, and other demographic events. Population genomics datasets can provide a window into this recent history, as rare traces of recent shared genetic ancestry are detectable due to long segments of shared genomic material.


Ralph P, Coop G (2013) The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe. PLoS Biol 11(5): e1001555. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#abstra ct1Abstract

From the paper:
"Italy, Iberia, and France.

On the other hand, we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic migrations."


MJost

razyn
05-09-2013, 03:06 PM
I thought the following would interest the water bound folks on this thread:

Background to Beakers: Inquiries into the Regional Cultural Background to the Bell Beaker Complex

Chapter 3 - Exploring Agency Behind the Beaker Phenomenon: The Navigator's Tale


So, I paddled my own canoe over to Exeter (via email), and the author of that chapter (Robert Van de Noord) sent me this link to a Facebook page with photos and video of his Bronze Age boat-building project: https://www.facebook.com/2012BCBronzeAgeBoat?fref=ts

He also shared an interesting chapter from the 2013 volume Celtic From the West 2 in which the Cliff Farm archaeological site (late Bronze Age burials, Isle of Thanet, Kent) is discussed. There is a lot of detail about the origins of some persons buried there around 3,000 years ago. In an associated group of 17 sets of remains buried over a century or so in one mortuary site, some were from Scandinavia, some from Iberia, etc. Most had moved long distances in their youth (enamel of their latest teeth showed them drinking very different water from that of their childhood) -- and not necessarily to Britain; that's just where they got buried. The mouth of the Thames seems to have been a rather cosmopolitan setting, at least for the deceased.

R.Rocca
05-10-2013, 11:04 AM
So, I paddled my own canoe over to Exeter (via email), and the author of that chapter (Robert Van de Noord) sent me this link to a Facebook page with photos and video of his Bronze Age boat-building project: https://www.facebook.com/2012BCBronzeAgeBoat?fref=ts

He also shared an interesting chapter from the 2013 volume Celtic From the West 2 in which the Cliff Farm archaeological site (late Bronze Age burials, Isle of Thanet, Kent) is discussed. There is a lot of detail about the origins of some persons buried there around 3,000 years ago. In an associated group of 17 sets of remains buried over a century or so in one mortuary site, some were from Scandinavia, some from Iberia, etc. Most had moved long distances in their youth (enamel of their latest teeth showed them drinking very different water from that of their childhood) -- and not necessarily to Britain; that's just where they got buried. The mouth of the Thames seems to have been a rather cosmopolitan setting, at least for the deceased.

I enjoyed the video and love that they used copies of the original tools. I didn't quite find what culture it was attributed though.

Jean M
05-10-2013, 01:34 PM
It is a replica of the Dover Boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Bronze_Age_Boat) (click for link to Wikipedia article on same.) In brief, older boats using the same technique, though smaller and intended for inland waterways, not the sea, have been found in Britain. So it seems that the Dover Boat is most probably a British-made boat. But presumably it is of the same type that the Bell Beaker people arrived in. We cannot know for sure because no sea-going boats have survived from Bell Beaker sites.

Jean M
05-10-2013, 01:53 PM
He also shared an interesting chapter from the 2013 volume Celtic From the West 2 in which the Cliff Farm archaeological site (late Bronze Age burials, Isle of Thanet, Kent) is discussed.

I was at the conference where that paper was read. It caused a sensation! I wrote about it on my blog 11 July 2010. The setting is important - the Isle of Thanet was an island at the time. (The channel between it and the mainland has silted up since.) Offshore islands are often used as trading posts. The position of this one - on the route to the Thames Estuary - made it a handy entry and exit point for Britain.

corner
05-10-2013, 02:13 PM
There are also the older (2000-1800 BC) Ferriby boats up here in Yorkshire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/o3jMHkrlTPiQCNd3TYy8EA

"The Ferriby Boats would have been ideally suited to working the Humber, whether east/west or across to the south bank. However, recent sea trials of the 'Oakleaf', a half-scale reconstruction, suggest craft of this type were capable of crossing the North Sea."

Possibly a boatyard on the Humber.

razyn
05-10-2013, 06:43 PM
I enjoyed the video and love that they used copies of the original tools.

One thing I didn't much like was the use of day-tripper volunteers to hack away at the timbers. If they hadn't, the boat probably would still be half finished -- they used the labor available -- but one may visit Mika Naimark's Russian site and see something technologically similar that's a little more sophisticated. I suspect the boatwrights of the Bronze Age knew how to use their tools, hold their oars, row instead of paddle, drop an adze into the wood with the grain, etc. But I applaud both the Cornish and the more northeastern museum-based efforts to interpret some of these lost or obsolete techniques and artifacts by attempting to replicate them. Here's Mika -- his site used to be up in both English and Russian, but I believe most of the English part is currently inoperable. Click on anything, it's all illustrated with interesting photos: http://www.sewboat.narod.ru/boat/koi8.htm

My personal favorite is the one called a Murmansk shnyaka (Мурманскaя шнякa) -- one of the many options in the menu on the left, on his website. Any of these small sewn boats could have been made a few thousand years ago. I'm not suggesting that they were -- only that it's an ancient technology, never entirely abandoned. Lapstrake construction, as such, is probably a lot later. Also, the Dover boat and some of the Ferriby boats are much larger than the ones Mika has reproduced (so far). But then there's also a Khufu boat in Egypt, with many similarities of technique. It's about three times the size of the Dover boat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu_ship

These factoids may seem irrelevant to one another; but looking at that Cliff Farm report and its evidence of how far some people were traveling in the Bronze Age, it seems to me that one has to consider such possibilities. This is not all about Sir Barry Cunliffe's being a sailboat afficianado.

R.Rocca
05-11-2013, 12:17 PM
One thing I didn't much like was the use of day-tripper volunteers to hack away at the timbers. If they hadn't, the boat probably would still be half finished -- they used the labor available -- but one may visit Mika Naimark's Russian site and see something technologically similar that's a little more sophisticated. I suspect the boatwrights of the Bronze Age knew how to use their tools, hold their oars, row instead of paddle, drop an adze into the wood with the grain, etc. But I applaud both the Cornish and the more northeastern museum-based efforts to interpret some of these lost or obsolete techniques and artifacts by attempting to replicate them. Here's Mika -- his site used to be up in both English and Russian, but I believe most of the English part is currently inoperable. Click on anything, it's all illustrated with interesting photos: http://www.sewboat.narod.ru/boat/koi8.htm

My personal favorite is the one called a Murmansk shnyaka (Мурманскaя шнякa) -- one of the many options in the menu on the left, on his website. Any of these small sewn boats could have been made a few thousand years ago. I'm not suggesting that they were -- only that it's an ancient technology, never entirely abandoned. Lapstrake construction, as such, is probably a lot later. Also, the Dover boat and some of the Ferriby boats are much larger than the ones Mika has reproduced (so far). But then there's also a Khufu boat in Egypt, with many similarities of technique. It's about three times the size of the Dover boat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu_ship

These factoids may seem irrelevant to one another; but looking at that Cliff Farm report and its evidence of how far some people were traveling in the Bronze Age, it seems to me that one has to consider such possibilities. This is not all about Sir Barry Cunliffe's being a sailboat afficianado.

When how rough the waters of the North Sea can get, I would find it very daunting to row across it. I'd imagine that Early Bronze Age boats had sails, no?

corner
05-11-2013, 12:47 PM
Having sailed on the North Sea, I can say if they did cross in one of those boats it would need to be one of the more tightly sewn ones.. Having said that, the North Sea can be surprisingly benign if you're lucky - for half an hour in the summer - after that anything can happen. Apparently, though, the climate here was much better in the Bronze Age. I imagine any Bronze Age sea travel would involve hugging the coast for as long as possible and then girding oneself for the big crossings.

razyn
05-11-2013, 01:26 PM
I don't think it's much more useful to speculate about the details of Bronze Age seaworthy craft, unless we find some, than it is to speculate about the geography of specific SNPs unless we have aDNA from that geography to prove it. We do know that people crossed the North Sea during the later Bronze Age, and didn't walk across Doggerland to do it. A good many two-dimensional images survive, showing oars and no sails. (They also show much higher sides than the Dover Boat replica has.) But if any putative sail was temporary (stepped mast, etc.) it wouldn't have to show. There isn't room for it on a sword, for example. The gold boat on the cover of some editions of Celtic from the West has a mast, of sorts, attached to one side. But that may have been more of a choice by the goldsmith than by a contemporary sailor.

alan
05-14-2013, 12:12 AM
Despite the class of sewn plank boats that seem known by c. 2000BC in England and adjacent, there is also quite a lot of classical references to sea going skin boats with wicker frames (currachs) covering the whole Atlantic zone from Galicia to Brittany to Britain (including among the Picts and Scots) and Ireland in the period 550BC-400AD. They seem to have been very seaworthy and in some cases fairly large (there seems to have been a type with around 7 or 8 benches). So there was likely multiple traditions that go way back.

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 03:17 AM
The early results for DF83+ may be interesting to DF27.

DF83 is a parallel branch to the big Z196 subclade of DF27. We can think of Z196 to DF27 as what DF13 is to L21 or L2 is to U152... so DF83 is a little brother although not necessarily younger.

DF83+ has been found in people from Scotland, England, Peru, Iberian descent, and Tuscany, Italy. I think this indicates that DF83 spread very early on.

I know this is anecdotal, but many elements of DF27 seem more spread than U152.. for sure more than L21. That might make sense if it DF27 is really the older brother.

TigerMW
06-06-2013, 02:30 AM
...While the majority of these frequencies are likely DF27, keep in mind that some will be L238, DF19 and new SNPs that still haven't been published..
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/P312_BB_Palmeta_Points_v001.png

I am adding this from from another thread because it really belongs here.

Side note on predicting DF27: DF19 does not look to be very southern European. It could impact the percentage of P312+ U152- L21- in northern Europe that ends up being DF27+. In other words, DF19 could be big enough to reduce the expected percentage of DF27+ out of those who haven't tested for it yet, at least in England and NW Europe. The jury is out, but it is possible that additional DF19 STR signatures will be found in NW Europe.


So I think our "guestimate" we discussed for the split between DF19+, DF27* and P312** is probably off by a percentage point or so, but nothing earth shattering.

I agree. I doubt if DF19 will have diminish DF27 much in Northern Europe but DF19 has grown and we really don't know its limits yet.

Gray Fox
06-07-2013, 08:58 PM
@Mike

I was reading through some of the older conversations on eng.molgen and I found a post of yours that I found interesting..

"I'm not done yet, but I just don't see that there will be any surprising news. DF27 looks to be as old as U152 or very close anyway. So far I get variance for England as higher than Iberia. Germany would be about the same as England unless you add Germany and Poland together. That gets the higher diversity marks. However, we are talking only who is more diverse by a couple to up to ten percentage points. I just don't see that is significant enough to say much about (give our limited representation geographically) other that "it's all about the same age." The one that always surprises me is SRY2627. It just seems strange that an Iberian subclade pops up in eastern Europe."

With that I will also mention what Rich Rocca posted, not verbatim, something about Protruding foot Bell Beakers as possibly being related to DF27. DF27* is around 14 percent (Assuming the remaining untested P312* is positive for it) in Flanders.. So I can see where he is going with that quick observation. If I'm not mistaken this is the highest percentage for DF27 of any kind outside of its usual haunts. I'm thinking the observation that Alan made is correct, we need to look at a more central European location for the launch of P312's major sub clades.. Something I advocated for SRY2627 back in the golden days of dna-forums. I'm also reading that there is a possibility of the Bell Beakers we're all so familiar with as being descended from these protruding foot types. It certainly seems that DF27*/maybe DF83? is the best fit for these groups, the Z196 branch isn't old enough to be attributed to these two groups.

So, what I'm getting at is this.. Does DF27 represent an early expansion of the PF Beakers and subsequent Bell Beakers? If we look at the DF27 in Iberia it seems to mostly be Z196 of some type. Which I think can be attributed to Urnfielders and later Celtic tribes bringing it in from areas further north. Unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been any R1b found in the ancient dna so far tested in Iberia.. I believe the dna that was tested predates the arrival of Urnfields and other Indo-European speaking peoples doesn't it? So, DF27 in its earliest forms spreads all over Europe, albeit lightly, via Pf Beakers and Bell Beakers. Then Z196 and subsequent sub clades are introduced to Iberia with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and sort of pool and saturate there for the next 1000 or so years.

Just a quick observation.

TigerMW
06-07-2013, 09:34 PM
@Mike
...
So, what I'm getting at is this.. Does DF27 represent an early expansion of the PF Beakers and subsequent Bell Beakers? If we look at the DF27 in Iberia it seems to mostly be Z196 of some type. Which I think can be attributed to Urnfielders and later Celtic tribes bringing it in from areas further north. Unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been any R1b found in the ancient dna so far tested in Iberia.. I believe the dna that was tested predates the arrival of Urnfields and other Indo-European speaking peoples doesn't it? So, DF27 in its earliest forms spreads all over Europe, albeit lightly, via Pf Beakers and Bell Beakers. Then Z196 and subsequent sub clades are introduced to Iberia with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and sort of pool and saturate there for the next 1000 or so years....

We do know we have ancient DNA of R1b folks in both the Bell Beaker folks and Urnfielders. That doesn't necessarily mean we know how R1b got into either of those groups although since the Bell Beakers were before the Urnfielders and the Bell Beakers spread across Western Europe we have to consider heavily that the Beakers passed down some genetic materials to Urnfielders.

I think DF27 has been in Iberia for a long time since there are many different types there, including Z196- types. My guess is some DF27 folks came with the Beaker folks, but some also came with Urnfielders, Celtics or some kinds of Gauls from France, as well as Basques. I don't really have a great feel for a percentage breakdown.

Gray Fox
06-08-2013, 04:25 AM
We do know we have ancient DNA of R1b folks in both the Bell Beaker folks and Urnfielders. That doesn't necessarily mean we know how R1b got into either of those groups although since the Bell Beakers were before the Urnfielders and the Bell Beakers spread across Western Europe we have to consider heavily that the Beakers passed down some genetic materials to Urnfielders.

I think DF27 has been in Iberia for a long time since there are many different types there, including Z196- types. My guess is some DF27 folks came with the Beaker folks, but some also came with Urnfielders, Celtics or some kinds of Gauls from France, as well as Basques. I don't really have a great feel for a percentage breakdown.

Yes, but the R1b beaker samples were discovered in Germany. Which says to me that the beakers that did arrive to Iberia, no doubt carried DF27, came from further north. If we believe that the Bell Beakers evolved from the Protruding foot type, then this would favor what I said and what has so far turned up.. That it started in a more northerly region and then spread.

I agree that the Bell Beaker type brought early examples of DF27* to Iberia, but I don't think it migrated there in mass, more like a light scattering. Z196 however, seems to have come in larger and slightly more recent waves. From everything I've seen its the Z196 variety of DF27 that appears to be the most common in Iberia, not DF27*. I certainly don't believe that DF27 migrated to Iberia and then gave birth to its main sub clades.. Its just too widely spread to limit ourselves to such a simple interpretation. I think DF27 broke off into different migration patterns and certain sects formed in the sub clades we see today.

So really its DF27=Early bell beakers, Z196 and subclades= Later Urnfield/Celtic spreads into the region.

TigerMW
06-08-2013, 04:55 AM
Yes, but the R1b beaker samples were discovered in Germany. Which says to me that the beakers that did arrive to Iberia, no doubt carried DF27, came from further north.
...
So really its DF27=Early bell beakers, Z196 and subclades= Later Urnfield/Celtic spreads into the region.
Just because R1b Beaker samples were found in Germany doesn't mean they weren't simultaneously in Iberia or weren't in Iberia first. We don't know. I personally think DF27 did not originate in Iberia, but I don't have any strong evidence of that. It could very easily be from Iberia. We have a tone of DF27 there now, a lot of different DF27 types there now, and the earliest Bell Beaker site that can be attested to is in Portugal.

Z196 is old so I don't think we can relegate it to Urnfield. It may have happened before Urnfield.

Now, it would not surprise me if Z196 was not from Iberia, but I certainly don't know. Iberia has to still be a strong candidate as an origin point.

Gray Fox
06-08-2013, 09:43 AM
Yes, I realize that. It could very well have been in both places at the same time, probably was if we're of the assumption that DF27 spread far and early.. That is certainly possible. I, like you, don't know either.. We can get that out of the way. Most of this is speculation, I realize that. I know you aren't exactly one for theorizing on these things. I was only exploring the unproven link to the Protruding foot beakers that Rich had mentioned earlier and that's how it appeared to me.

With regards to Z196 being Urnfield, I don't mean that it arose with them, rather that its main spread was through them.

R.Rocca
06-08-2013, 12:02 PM
Yes, I realize that. It could very well have been in both places at the same time, probably was if we're of the assumption that DF27 spread far and early.. That is certainly possible. I, like you, don't know either.. We can get that out of the way. Most of this is speculation, I realize that. I know you aren't exactly one for theorizing on these things. I was only exploring the unproven link to the Protruding foot beakers that Rich had mentioned earlier and that's how it appeared to me.

With regards to Z196 being Urnfield, I don't mean that it arose with them, rather that its main spread was through them.

Sam, great Saturday coffee drinking conversation. Since those old posts on Molgen, Mike has collected enough samples in his spreadsheet that they now show DF27 having higher variance not only in Iberia, but also a good deal higher variance than U152 and L21:

DF27 Haplogroup Variance by Region @25 STRs



Iberia:
n=97
var=1.15


Britain & Ireland:
n=285
var=1.11


Germany:
n=34
var=1.09


Italy:
n=7
var=1.07


France:
n=56
var=1.02


Switzerland:
n=4
var=0.88


Low Countries:
n=12
var=0.77



Overall Haplogroup Variance @25 STRs



DF27 All:
n=710
var=1.17


U152 All:
n=991
var=1.09


L21 All:
n=5960
var=0.93



As for Protruding Foot Beakers, they are mired in radiocarbon dating controversy. Radiocarbon dating has them being as old as the oldest AOO Bell Beakers in the Netherlands, but neither being as old as Bell Beakers in Iberia, or even S. France/N. Italy for that matter. Since the more reliable short-lived material required for radiocarbon dating is almost non-existent in the Netherlands, and the charcoal dates that are available are unreliable, proponents of the "Dutch Model" refer to typology alone to show derivation. Let's not forget however that Bell Beaker may be the beginning of the end for the first period of mass migrations of P312 lineages, and so DF27 could have appeared outside of Iberia during the Late Copper Age.

Regarding Urnfield, it is almost non-existent in Iberia (sans the extreme north-east) and its distribution is the complete opposite of DF27 in France, so there is very little reason to associate any DF27 with Urnfield, let alone its main spread.

As for Celts (or Gauls), lets not forget that aside from U152 in Alsace and Nord-Pas de Calais, and L21 in Brittany, DF27 is probably the largest haplogroup in all other areas of France and probably has been so for thousands of years. So, the Celtic Gauls and Celto-Iberians were probably heavy in DF27.

Webb
06-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Richard, what is the date consensus for the protruding foot BB? Sam and I had a discussion about dates elsewhere. Right now dates for Z209 is 1000B.C. Z220 is 850ish B.C. Those of us who are Z220 are all also Z209. It also seems all of us who are Z220 will end up being Z210. If Z220 is 850B.C. and Z216 is 600 B.C., then, will Z210 end up being around 700B.C.? If so, we did not spread around Europe until after Z210, but before Z216, which would coincide somewhere between the Halstatt and the la tene, if you base this on the dates of the snp's and where they are found.

R.Rocca
06-08-2013, 12:36 PM
Richard, what is the date consensus for the protruding foot BB? Sam and I had a discussion about dates elsewhere. Right now dates for Z209 is 1000B.C. Z220 is 850ish B.C. Those of us who are Z220 are all also Z209. It also seems all of us who are Z220 will end up being Z210. If Z220 is 850B.C. and Z216 is 600 B.C., then, will Z210 end up being around 700B.C.? If so, we did not spread around Europe until after Z210, but before Z216, which would coincide somewhere between the Halstatt and the la tene, if you base this on the dates of the snp's and where they are found.

It depends on who you read, but this is the best summary of all of the different Dutch Models: http://www.academia.edu/2304446/Dutch_beaker_chronology_re-examined

As for TMRCA dates, even the best of them miss the Bell Beaker period, so I would be very cautious about making almost any archaeological links based on them.

Gray Fox
06-14-2013, 10:43 AM
Sam, great Saturday coffee drinking conversation. Since those old posts on Molgen, Mike has collected enough samples in his spreadsheet that they now show DF27 having higher variance not only in Iberia, but also a good deal higher variance than U152 and L21:

DF27 Haplogroup Variance by Region @25 STRs



Iberia:
n=97
var=1.15


Britain & Ireland:
n=285
var=1.11


Germany:
n=34
var=1.09


Italy:
n=7
var=1.07


France:
n=56
var=1.02


Switzerland:
n=4
var=0.88


Low Countries:
n=12
var=0.77



Overall Haplogroup Variance @25 STRs



DF27 All:
n=710
var=1.17


U152 All:
n=991
var=1.09


L21 All:
n=5960
var=0.93



As for Protruding Foot Beakers, they are mired in radiocarbon dating controversy. Radiocarbon dating has them being as old as the oldest AOO Bell Beakers in the Netherlands, but neither being as old as Bell Beakers in Iberia, or even S. France/N. Italy for that matter. Since the more reliable short-lived material required for radiocarbon dating is almost non-existent in the Netherlands, and the charcoal dates that are available are unreliable, proponents of the "Dutch Model" refer to typology alone to show derivation. Let's not forget however that Bell Beaker may be the beginning of the end for the first period of mass migrations of P312 lineages, and so DF27 could have appeared outside of Iberia during the Late Copper Age.

Regarding Urnfield, it is almost non-existent in Iberia (sans the extreme north-east) and its distribution is the complete opposite of DF27 in France, so there is very little reason to associate any DF27 with Urnfield, let alone its main spread.

As for Celts (or Gauls), lets not forget that aside from U152 in Alsace and Nord-Pas de Calais, and L21 in Brittany, DF27 is probably the largest haplogroup in all other areas of France and probably has been so for thousands of years. So, the Celtic Gauls and Celto-Iberians were probably heavy in DF27.

You're welcome! I aim to stir the pot from time to time even if I don't know what I'm talking about half of the time!

With regards to the first set of variance runs you displayed, are these for DF27* people or the catch-all DF27 mega-family? If what you're displaying is for the DF27* variety, then that is very interesting.

R.Rocca
06-14-2013, 02:52 PM
You're welcome! I aim to stir the pot from time to time even if I don't know what I'm talking about half of the time!

With regards to the first set of variance runs you displayed, are these for DF27* people or the catch-all DF27 mega-family? If what you're displaying is for the DF27* variety, then that is very interesting.

Unfortunately there are only enough samples right now for a higher level "DF27-All" view of variance. It will be interesting to see if the trend holds with more sampling at the subclades level.

TigerMW
06-14-2013, 04:49 PM
Unfortunately there are only enough samples right now for a higher level "DF27-All" view of variance. It will be interesting to see if the trend holds with more sampling at the subclades level.

I'm traveling, but when I get back I'll update that spreadsheet again. The P312's project focus has been to get P312xU152xL21 folks tested for DF27 but we could probably use some kind of jolt.

GoldenHind
06-14-2013, 05:53 PM
I'm traveling, but when I get back I'll update that spreadsheet again. The P312's project focus has been to get P312xU152xL21 folks tested for DF27 but we could probably use some kind of jolt.

The previous jolt came when P312 program administrator made an offer to P312* (XU152,L21) members for a free DF19 test for those who ordered DF27 and got negative results. He paid for these DF19 tests out of his own pocket. Most of those who accepted the offer were DF27+, so the DF19 test was unnecessary. However his pocketbook still took a substantial hit from those who got DF27- results.

Perhaps those who are anxious to see more DF27 testing would like to consider making donations to the project so the offer could be made once again. There is an enormous number of P312 project members who haven't tested for DF27.

alan
06-14-2013, 07:35 PM
What do you think brought Z196 on that path? I guess the default answer is Bell Beaker folks.

The may bell beaker people penetrated other societies so easily make them seem kind of unique and always tempting to link to any early P312 clades. Even in the copper age in western Europe shortly before bell beaker there is no really similar phenomenon. They were far more local in their expressions of identity through metalwork with local characteristics. Some people think the difference is that in pre-beaker times copper was often used to express local identity and emphasise difference whereas beakers seemed to establish a common identity that emphasised being part of the 'club'.

It kind of reminds me of upper classes in Britain. They have local seats/estates but they tend to seem a culturally uniform caste through going to schools like Eton, university at Oxbridge, having any local accent knocked out of them, being imbued with certain cultural and political values and attitudes, sports preferences, being trained regarding etiquette and subtle material indicators/taste that indicates their class etc. This makes a toff from Lothian will seem and sound exactly the same as a toff from Devon. They even tend to have a certain look about them presubly due to centuries of marrying only within their (small) class. I think beaker looks rather like a standard was set for European elites.

Webb
06-14-2013, 08:26 PM
The may bell beaker people penetrated other societies so easily make them seem kind of unique and always tempting to link to any early P312 clades. Even in the copper age in western Europe shortly before bell beaker there is no really similar phenomenon. They were far more local in their expressions of identity through metalwork with local characteristics. Some people think the difference is that in pre-beaker times copper was often used to express local identity and emphasise difference whereas beakers seemed to establish a common identity that emphasised being part of the 'club'.

It kind of reminds me of upper classes in Britain. They have local seats/estates but they tend to seem a culturally uniform caste through going to schools like Eton, university at Oxbridge, having any local accent knocked out of them, being imbued with certain cultural and political values and attitudes, sports preferences, being trained regarding etiquette and subtle material indicators/taste that indicates their class etc. This makes a toff from Lothian will seem and sound exactly the same as a toff from Devon. They even tend to have a certain look about them presubly due to centuries of marrying only within their (small) class. I think beaker looks rather like a standard was set for European elites.

I question the dates as far as linking Z196 and anything downstream with beakers. The last dates I have seen puts Z196 being born around 1100 B.C. Z209 around 850 B.C. These are not exact of course. But these dates indicate that Z196 didn't start spreading until sometime after 1100 B.C.

Gray Fox
06-15-2013, 08:15 PM
I know I'm certainly getting desperate for some sort of test that is specific to SRY2627. I doubt many people will remain SRY2627 once that takes off, especially if we're getting DYS490=10 people with new snp's. I even had my blood typed, simply out of boredom! B positive. Which like my SRY2627 designation, isn't too common.

razyn
06-15-2013, 09:45 PM
The gold boat on the cover of some editions of Celtic from the West has a mast, of sorts, attached to one side. But that may have been more of a choice by the goldsmith than by a contemporary sailor.

A sharper Jpeg of that gold boat has been posted by Dubhthach on a different thread. It isn't from the Bronze Age, does have a slender mast, and I was mistaken in thinking that mast attached to a side (thwart, gunwale, rib, or whatever more salty expression one may find pleasing). Anyway, a currach or the like, adapted for sailing, from a first century BC hoard in an Irish lake is clearly off-topic -- though it does make a nifty illustration. http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hoard-Boat.jpg

Once again I'm replying to myself because I can't edit an older post. I'm not sure what the time limit is, for editing these things. A month seems to be too long.

Dubhthach
06-18-2013, 08:39 AM
The Broighter hoard is one of the main La Tene style hoards from Ireland. Some of the items are from the mediterraen world. Other then the boat the most important item is the Torc:

http://irisharchaeology.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Broighter-torc.jpg

http://irisharchaeology.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Broighter-hoard.jpeg

I should point out that Lough Foyle (Loch Feabhail) is a "sea loch", saltwater sea inlet so the find is basically on the coast.

Anyways aside from that my main reason for posting today is we have two new DF27+ results in Ireland project. Both bearing native Irish surnames, namely Kennedy and Shea. Likwise while going through the SNP report I found another DF27+ (Z196-) who had tested in late May but whom I had missed (Seery). Moved him from our P312+ group to DF27+ group. That puts us at a total of 18 confirmed DF27+ in the Ireland project.

I'm not familiar with Seery as a surname here, but according to Woulfe it can be an angliscation of a native name.

-Paul
(DF41+)

razyn
06-18-2013, 12:42 PM
aside from that my main reason for posting today is we have two new DF27+ results in Ireland project. Both bearing native Irish surnames, namely Kennedy and Shea. Likewise while going through the SNP report I found another DF27+ (Z196-) who had tested in late May but whom I had missed (Seery). Moved him from our P312+ group to DF27+ group. That puts us at a total of 18 confirmed DF27+ in the Ireland project.


I can't navigate that project today, the FTDNA server doesn't want me to look past the first page of results. But in the SNP results I spotted four more guys who are Z220+ (Roche, Lopez, Daniel, Hamill). That's a DF27 subclade, so... Roche is also Z278+ and other relevant things tested on the Geno2 chip. There are 2 guys with L176.2+, 11 with SRY2627+, and 1 with L165+ (as sorted in the SNP results). So, more like 36 DF27+ guys, if you include the ones that are tested for subclades but not that specific higher level SNP.

Incidentally, #194002 Gilliland is shown as SRY2627+ but L176.2-, which seems to me to indicate one of those results might be wrong. Or something is going on that we've been wrong about.

If I could edit my last post about the little gold boat I could change Irish Lake to Irish Loch. But the thing that makes it irrelevant to the first post in which I mentioned it is not its Irishness nor its distance from the coast (apparently, none) -- it's the 1st century BC date of that hoard. DF27 got moving (arguably across the North Sea, among other seas) many, many centuries before that; and a mast on this much later model boat doesn't tell us anything about how that was accomplished.

Dubhthach
06-19-2013, 08:41 PM
Well we have over 5,100 members in the project as a result we seem to have ran into bugs in FTDNA code, i've reported it before but no luck.



Y-DNA12 5140
Y-DNA25 4367
Y-DNA37 4113
Y-DNA67 2667
Y-DNA111 689



So 5140 members with at least 12STRS, of those just over half (2667) have tested to 67 markers.

One workaround to see the STR's for DF27+ members is to, set the filter to Y-DNA25 and the Pagesize to 3,000.
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/str-filter.png

Thanks for pointing out the Z220+ as well as it's subclade Z278. There's a total of 5 Z220+, of these 3 are Z278+, 1 is Z278- and the 5th is untested. As result I've created two groups, one consisting of the two who are negative/untested for Z278 (Group14a1. R1b-Z220) and one for the 3 who are Z278+ (Group14a1a. R1b-Z278)

What I meant by 17 DF27+ members was those who are DF27+ but negative for Z196 (Group14. R1b-DF27) or unconfirmed. Of the 17 at least one third are confirmed Z196-, as a specific subgroup among the DF27 subgroups it's the one with most "native" irish surnames in it.

As for the boat, well Currachs are still rowed to this day 2,000 years later, though not on size that the Broighter boat would have been, it wouldn't surprise me if the basic design was very old and dates back into the Bronze age.

As for Loch versus Lough. The word in Irish language is Loch, however the "ch" sound in Irish used to be written as a "gh" in english. Thus it's used in angliscations of lake names in Ireland. This sound became extinct in english in 17th century. In "Scots" though the sound persisted but they spelt it like in Irish (and scots gaidhlig) as "ch". It's the same sound as in german Bach.

-Paul
(DF27+)

Webb
06-20-2013, 01:20 AM
Well we have over 5,100 members in the project as a result we seem to have ran into bugs in FTDNA code, i've reported it before but no luck.



So 5140 members with at least 12STRS, of those just over half (2667) have tested to 67 markers.

One workaround to see the STR's for DF27+ members is to, set the filter to Y-DNA25 and the Pagesize to 3,000.
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/str-filter.png

Thanks for pointing out the Z220+ as well as it's subclade Z278. There's a total of 5 Z220+, of these 3 are Z278+, 1 is Z278- and the 5th is untested. As result I've created two groups, one consisting of the two who are negative/untested for Z278 (Group14a1. R1b-Z220) and one for the 3 who are Z278+ (Group14a1a. R1b-Z278)

What I meant by 17 DF27+ members was those who are DF27+ but negative for Z196 (Group14. R1b-DF27) or unconfirmed. Of the 17 at least one third are confirmed Z196-, as a specific subgroup among the DF27 subgroups it's the one with most "native" irish surnames in it.

As for the boat, well Currachs are still rowed to this day 2,000 years later, though not on size that the Broighter boat would have been, it wouldn't surprise me if the basic design was very old and dates back into the Bronze age.

As for Loch versus Lough. The word in Irish language is Loch, however the "ch" sound in Irish used to be written as a "gh" in english. Thus it's used in angliscations of lake names in Ireland. This sound became extinct in english in 17th century. In "Scots" though the sound persisted but they spelt it like in Irish (and scots gaidhlig) as "ch". It's the same sound as in german Bach.

-Paul
(DF27+)

Paul, in regards to the Z220 and Z278 guys. Do you know their ancestral origin? Are they Gaelic or English, and if English, what are the surnames? Thanks.

Dubhthach
06-20-2013, 08:28 AM
Paul, in regards to the Z220 and Z278 guys. Do you know their ancestral origin? Are they Gaelic or English, and if English, what are the surnames? Thanks.

Hamill (z220+, Z278-) -- I wouldn't have though a native name, though it can be angliscation it would seem of one.
Daniel (Z220+, Z278 untested) -- Daniel can be sometimes used as an angliscation of Domhnall (Dónal) for example McDaniel for MacDomhnaill

Lopes (Z220+,Z278+) not an Irish surname
Roche (Z220+,Z278+) -- name found in Ireland but regarded as Cambro-Norman
Leyton (Z220+,Z278+) -- not a native irish surname

Daniel and Hamill would be "corner cases", I would imagine they aren't "native" going on the matches they have in FTDNA.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Webb
06-20-2013, 11:23 AM
Thanks Paul. I thought Roche was familiar. It was mentioned in a different forum under the heading "Cambro-Norman Genes", and was thought to be of Flemish origin. I find it interesting.

Dubhthach
06-20-2013, 12:02 PM
Thanks Paul. I thought Roche was familiar. It was mentioned in a different forum under the heading "Cambro-Norman Genes", and was thought to be of Flemish origin. I find it interesting.

Here's what Woulfe had to say in his 1923 book:

de RÓISTE—XI—Roche, Roache; Norman 'de la Roche,' Latin 'de Rupe,' i.e., of the rock, from residence beside some prominent rock; an old Norman surname. Families of this name settled in different parts of Ireland, but the best known were those of Cork, Limerick and Wexford. In the first-named county, the Roches obtained by marriage the district about Fermoy known as Críoch Róisteach, or Roche's Country; the head of this family was Viscount Fermoy. The Roches of Limerick were a wealthy and respectable merchant family. Among the twenty exempted from pardon by Ireton when he obtained possession of the city in 1651, were Alderman Jordan Roche and Edmund Roche. Roche of Rochesland was one of the principal gentlemen of Wexford in 1598.

Gray Fox
06-20-2013, 07:55 PM
"I'm not familiar with Seery as a surname here, but according to Woulfe it can be an angliscation of a native name."

Seery (Jacob Sierer, 1713-1785; from Alsace, France) :)

alan
06-20-2013, 08:08 PM
I would not be surprised if there was some native Irish DF27 that goes way back. There was a lot of it about and its widespread so it would be odd if none made it to Ireland. Its not like U152 and U106 which were apparently concentrated away from the routeways to Ireland.

Gray Fox
06-20-2013, 08:19 PM
"Incidentally, #194002 Gilliland is shown as SRY2627+ but L176.2-, which seems to me to indicate one of those results might be wrong. Or something is going on that we've been wrong about."

Same thing happened to me when I tested for L176.2. Likely that it was missed by the lab tech, especially if he was tested around the same time that I was.

"customer 151463 has just received a L176.2- result. He is our first SRY2627+ with L176.2-. All previous results have been positive, consistent with the hypothesis that L176.2 is a quasi-SNP upstream of SRY2627+. Before we start debating the significance of this, could someone please just double-check the result, to rule out the possibility of a lab error being the explanation."

"Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have verified the sequencing trace and it turned out that our technician didn't pay attention. Kit 151463 has in fact the AAAAC insertion and is therefore L176.2+. Sorry very much for this confusion. Note that ins/del markers still need to be scored manually and even though I have added a pop up window to remind the scoring person, human errors will rarely happen on such markers."

Gray Fox
06-20-2013, 08:54 PM
Here are a few more Irish SRY2627 that aren't in the Ireland project..

XUSQM Boyle, 5ZWBR Lockhart, 5RQZK Clancey, Q996Y Linton, 7HP7F Greaves, WTHSF McQuillan, GGV7R Gray, BW2YB Duke.

I'm pretty sure that Lockhart is Scottish/English. Greaves definitely appears to be English too. Linton seems to be Scottish as well. Gray seems to be divided amongst Ireland, Scotland and England. With the name holders of the Irish and Scottish variety apparently taking their name from the Gaelic word "riabhach", which means brindled or gray.

Duke is a bit more complex.. "This interesting name has two possible origins, the first of which is derived from the Middle English 'duk(e)', duke, also found as 'douk, duc, doke', and developed from the Old French 'duc', in the sense of the leader of an army, captain, derived from the Latin 'dux, ducis', leader. This surname would have been acquired as a nickname for a 'leader', or for someone who acted as if he were one, or it may have been an occupational surname for someone employed in a ducal household."

"The second possible origin of the modern surname is from the personal name 'Duke', a short form of 'Marmaduke', which is a given name of Irish origin thought to derive from the Gaelic 'mael Maedoc', devotee of Maedoc, a personal name borne by various early Irish saints."

TigerMW
07-09-2013, 03:07 PM
Here are a few more Irish SRY2627 that aren't in the Ireland project..

XUSQM Boyle, 5ZWBR Lockhart, 5RQZK Clancey, Q996Y Linton, 7HP7F Greaves, WTHSF McQuillan, GGV7R Gray, BW2YB Duke.

Are these guys in the SRY2627 and DF27 projects? Can we get them to join?

Gray Fox
07-19-2013, 07:53 PM
Are these guys in the SRY2627 and DF27 projects? Can we get them to join?

Sorry for the delay in my response. Of the Irish SRY2627 listed, I believe only Linton is in one of the projects you mentioned. Though he along with Lockhart and Greaves are most likely Scottish or English. I found these guys on ysearch, so that is the only way I would now to contact them as I haven't seen them in Ftdna projects.

There are also around 25 or 26 French SRY2627 floating around only two of which were found on ysearch the rest are in the French Heritage project.. I think around six or seven of these guys are in projects outside of the French heritage project (those being the familiar names of Vernande, Brousse and Bourgeois). So there is actually quite a bit of French SRY2627 out there that needs to join up to give us a better idea of distribution. From what I could piece together of their distribution, there was no clear preference for any part of the country.. though there was a general pull to the western part.

I can only imagine what will turn up when the country is tested more extensively.

Gray Fox
07-19-2013, 08:56 PM
@Dubthach

-Paul
(DF27+)

Looks like we're starting to rub off on ya :biggrin1:

Jean M
08-10-2013, 09:29 AM
If groups of maritime bell beakers exited Iberia to the isles, you would think that Z196 would be found equally in all the isles.


Not really. The Atlantic route seems to have led to Ireland more than Britain. So DF27* in SW Ireland today (from the earliest BB arrivals), but Z196 in Britain from Bronze Age movements would fit my prediction nicely. We have evidence of incomers from Iberia and Norway (deduced from isotopes) on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, in the Bronze Age.


Well, I'm putting it out there that I lay claim to the term "Norwiberian".

More for you along those lines comes from a study of copper imports to Sweden. Johan Ling et al., Moving metals II: provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.018), Journal of Archaeological Science, available online 2 August 2013.


New lead isotope & chemical data of 71 Swedish metals dated to the Nordic Bronze Age. The main sources of copper are ores from the Iberian Peninsula, Sardinia and Austria. A new picture of flows between Sweden and BA Europe emerges are presented here.

This is the result of a project "Extraction of copper in Sweden during the Bronze Age? Possibility, myth or reality?" at the University of Gothenburg: http://www.historiskastudier.gu.se/english/research/extraction_of_copper_in_sweden_during_the_bronze_a ge+

alan
08-10-2013, 12:03 PM
@Jean

I agree with that observation about the modest rise in DF27 in SW Ireland being interesting. Its not a big input of people but it could be a remnant of a minority within the whole Ross Island copper working phenomenon. On the other hand the monograph on that site seems to link the pottery more with the British-Rhenish sort of categories. Dates at the mine are not that early in beaker terms as far as I recall - around 2400BC, slighly later than some British ones.

The wedge tomb phenomenon which seems to have a building phase that amost perfectly overlaps the use of beaker in Ireland is fascinating and IMO needs a lot more excavation research. A lot of them are very small box-like structures that look like above ground heavy duty cists. some were actually built using a deep pit to set the side stone in with only half of the latter on the surface. Some today in the areas where there is still a reasonable amount of soil have a semi-subteranian look. The design couldnt be poorer for collective burial with a very low open end. They were built half a millenium after megalith building and even use had stopped in Ireland according to recent RC dating and have almost no real resemblance to the previous types.

They seem like something entirely novel. Also, although often presenting a disasterously tempting stone-box like shaped magnet for later reuse in prehistory, modern disturbance, plundering etc there is almost no evidence of them being used for collective burial beyond one or two. They tend to be so disturbed that its hard to reconstruct burial traditions but there are one or two rare cases of little disturbance that show that there was likely a move from the native tradition of pits with token bits of pot to whole burial or cremations with intact artefacts, the primary remains, where there are any surviving, usually being beaker related. I was lucky enough to be involved in the excavation of a very well preserved one in peat that showed a fairly intact situation inside which consisted of whole beakers including the largest beaker ever found in Europe. The burial rite was cremation though, something that seems to just be a powerful tradition peculiar to Ireland from the early Mesolithic onwards and which never totally went away at any time until nearly the Christian era.

I personally think they represent a sort of surface cist for something approaching single or double burials or cremations with intact arefacts. They therefore to me represent a peculiarly Irish take on the single burial under barrows phenomenon. As to why they developed the tradition of making them from heavy stone and above ground, at a guess that could originate in practicality in areas of thin soils with bedrock below and the nature of the type of rocks available. The detail depends on where the first generation was. There is no certainty that the very first beaker people just happened to find the Ross Island mine on landing. They could have explored for some time before finding it. The earliest dates for wedge tombs c. 2500BC would allow for the earliest being slighly older than Ross Island mine although there are too wide confidence intervals to be sure. Interestingly wedge tombs do tend to be located in rocky areas in the west with a super-concentration on the burren where there is very little soils above the bedrock. Below ground cist excavation would have been a heck of an undertaking through solid bedrock. There are many areas in the wedge tomb distribtion where making a surface cist would have been practical. Perhaps it was developed in the first generation of beaker settlers who found themselves on that sort of land and became a template as they spread, even in areas where it was not strictly neccessarry. So, I would seek the origin of wedge tombs in the first or second generation of beaker settlers in a rocky area with bedrock close to the surface that led to the creation of the first wedge tombs. There are a lot of areas of Ireland that answer that description and we cannot automatically assume it was near Ross Island or in the areas that have the largest concentration like the burren in County Clare. They probably deliberately targetted the areas of exposed bedrock looking for ore which also happend to be an area which by their arrival had become less attractive to the natives who primarily looked to agricultural potential. That could have reduced conflict IMO. The origin probably is somewhere in the west, north or other upland areas IMO but its tricky to see where. I think there would need to be a lot more excavated samples to see a pattern, perhaps in the type of beaker involved.

Contrary to maps one often sees of beaker in Ireland, I suspect from Wedge Tomb distribution that the beaker people in Ireland moved along the western half and into the north primarily exploring the rocky areas, possibly looking for metal sources. In fact if Wedge Tombs were added as dots on the beaker period distrubution map then the distribution of beaker in Ireland would look entirely different. I find those old style maps of beaker in Ireland that show patches in the east, north and Shannon annoying because they ignore the likey beaker origins of the 100s of wedge tombs in the western half of Ireland. Problem is that only a few have been well excavated in modern times.

I tend to think the other beaker period tradition in Ireland, that native one of token cremations in pits, is actually the natives on the better but copper-free lands in the east in the period when beaker wedge tomb elements were interacting with the natives. I see the final appearance of food vessel cist burials in the east with a beaker-derived set of traditions as the final breakdown of this division and acceptance of single burial tradition among the entire population towards the end of the beaker period. Unfortunately the guy who is researching Irish beaker is very much a nativist. I think he tends to be considering mainly sites that are essentially those of the natives in the east in the early beaker period. That is also the area where most development driven archaeology is so it is skewing things. Unfortunately the Wedge tomb areas tend to be in remote areas, often covered in bog today or on soil-free areas like the burren. So, its a whole lot harder to find settlements to go with the wedge tombs and less likely that large scale development will intrude into those locations.

I personally think a trick is being missed here. The fact that in the western half of Ireland, well mainly, the beaker period burials are upstanding monuments rather than subsurface is an absolute gift. Yes it means disturbance of the interior is a massive issue but it does mean that we have a very good idea of the beaker period burials without going looking or waiting for chance to turn up burials. They are the most common prehistoric monument in Ireland yet very few have been satisfactorily excavated. IMO research excavation of carefully chosen wedge tombs where disturbance many be less or where bone preservation is possible should be a priority. It is of course difficult to find the perfect conditions for the best possible survival of the remains within wedge tombs. Those buried in peat in marginal land for the last 2 or 3000 years would have less chance of disturbance but the acid conditions will not preserve unburnt bone. On the other hand, the areas where bone would be best preserved such as the limestone pavementt of the burren are obvious targets for plundering in the past as they stand proud in a soilless landscape. However, I wouldnt give up hope of finding one as there was a portal tomb excavated on the burren which had a very good collection of surviving unburnt bone.

Webb
08-10-2013, 03:35 PM
Since I have a five year old, my posts have to short and sweet. New developments in the Geno 2.0 results have opened up some new thoughts for me. DF17 is the most non-Iberian clade under DF27. Until recently it only had Z196 in common with the north/south cluster. Because of the Geno tests it now looks like both groups also share Z274 which is somewhere between Z196 and Z209. I'm not sure of DF17's born on date, but Z209 is around 850 B.C. I would guess Z274 could be around 1000 B.C. This has the possibility of placing Z209's origin other than Spain.

Jean M
08-10-2013, 04:43 PM
@ Webb - Short and sweet suits me. I haven't time to read long posts at the moment.

Interesting thought. I'm not up-to-date on Z274.

Webb
08-11-2013, 12:40 PM
Initially, it was assumed the Geno 2.0 test wouldn't have much to offer the DF27 folks, which for the DF27* people it hasn't offered much. However, for the north/south cluster it had shed some light. A number of the snps that Richard Rocca and group studied in the 1000 genomes project were included in the Geno 2.0 test. Z210 will probably replace Z220 as a terminal for most of us Z220* folks, which is one more snp downstream of Z220. Also, Z295 was placed between Z210 and Z216. Z295 is the beginning branch for the L484 folks. There seems to be a divide forming with the Z210 people being British, Dutch, and German, while the further downstream snps like Z295, Z216/Z278, and Z214 being French and Spanish. I wish we had more French samples to see how common Z210 is there. So it is appearing that the upper end of the north/south cluster is concentrated in the north east, including Britain, while the downstream snps are south west. This coupled with the north east distribution of DF17, should at least raise the question of an origin other than Spain, at least for this branch of DF27.

razyn
08-11-2013, 09:25 PM
Z295 is the beginning branch for the L484 folks. There seems to be a divide forming with the Z210 people being British, Dutch, and German, while the further downstream snps like Z295, Z216/Z278, and Z214 being French and Spanish.

I agree with the main thrust of this comment, and the previous one, but would just note that there is another SNP downstream of Z295, CTS4065, that's on the Geno2 chip and is derived for our "L484.NS" group, and also derived for several other tested Z210/Z295 guys (van Vliet, Wade, Sarabia) who are L484-. [Corrected this in edit, it was not correct as I first posted it.]

Also below Z295 (I think), CTS12074 may point toward the Iberian branch of that particular lineage. This is not to say that other DF27 lineages aren't older than CTS12074, though. DF81 is pretty interesting, probably as high on the tree as Z196 -- and we don't have many tested for it yet, one way or another. One of the DF81+ guys is in the Basque project (Zuñiga).

Webb
08-11-2013, 10:18 PM
I am also very interested in the growing Z225 group. It initially appeared to be strictly Spanish but has now evened out between Spanish and British testers. The German and French Z225 are fairly new.

TigerMW
10-02-2013, 06:51 PM
In the "deeper-think on Beakers" thread I post about what I consider the DF27 problem. By problem, I just mean the quandry about where it originated. Some might say Iberia/Southern Europe and some might say Central Europe.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15048&viewfull=1#post15048
It down under the section subtitled: "Speculating about R1b-L11 Migrations and the DF27/Beakers problem"

I don't know, but its probably time to start looking at the early branching within DF27 and Z196 a bit more deeply, as Richard R has recommended.

Let us take the first alternative: if DF27 originated in Iberia or along the Mediterranean what would we expect to see?

lgmayka
10-02-2013, 08:02 PM
Let us take the first alternative: if DF27 originated in Iberia or along the Mediterranean what would we expect to see?
DF27 exists in Poland and Ukraine, whether we expect to see it or not. :)

TigerMW
10-02-2013, 08:43 PM
DF27 exists in Poland and Ukraine, whether we expect to see it or not. :)

Good point. Are there migrations from Iberia from the Chalcolithic or more recently that would account for this? We do have the Bell Beaker theories of west to east movement in towards central Europe. I would think that Corded Ware would have blocked that off so then the next question is how far east the Bell Beaker incursions and the perhaps later Celtic incursions and finally Germanic incursions go? and are these DF27 types in Poland and Ukraine clustering with the types to the west?

R.Rocca
10-02-2013, 10:04 PM
Good point. Are there migrations from Iberia from the Chalcolithic or more recently that would account for this? We do have the Bell Beaker theories of west to east movement in towards central Europe. I would think that Corded Ware would have blocked that off so then the next question is how far east the Bell Beaker incursions and the perhaps later Celtic incursions and finally Germanic incursions go? and are these DF27 types in Poland and Ukraine clustering with the types to the west?

Just a reminder that P312(xU152,L21) in Poland is less than 1% as per Busby. While that is sure to include DF27, it is also likely to have some smaller groups like DF19 and DF99.

razyn
10-02-2013, 10:19 PM
I think the eastern DF27 I know about tends to be N/S cluster, say from Z274 down through Z220 to CTS4065 or other unknown lines; and we've already determined to my satisfaction that that particular lineage went to Iberia, rather than came from it. However, it seems not to have gone NE to SW in very ancient times, unless a lot of other TMRCA calculations have been way off. And I don't mean by the Zhiv fudge factors, etc.

There are also in all probability still a good many branches that I don't know about. And nor does anybody else; they are mostly data-guys with asterisks, in "old" surveys (you know, five or six years ago) that didn't look at enough markers to discriminate very finely.

IMO it's still possible that unknown L11, P312, or DF27 people came into western Europe from the east, including the Ukraine and Poland. I'm not holding my breath about all that; I just don't think we know all that much from absence of evidence in the Y-DNA of modern populations that are still lightly sampled and at low resolution.

alan
10-02-2013, 11:34 PM
I wouldnt be surprised if the entire L51-L11-P312-U152/DF27 all happened across the span of the Alpine area. The only stumbling block on this is the perception that Portugal and its pre-beaker culture was some sort of womb of R1b above L23. The obsession with making maritime beaker a human trail I think is overcomplicating the more intuitive conclusion from the DNA that a position around the Alps makes the best sense for distribution of all of these clades. I am more and more thinking that Iberia's role in the beaker period was originally a non-R1b area in the pre-beaker copper age which was a location with an existing copper supply that P312 people from perhaps the Alps and Liguria went to and settled as middlemen and traders to bring back copper because when their own older mines in Liguria dried up c. 2600BC. Maritime beaker may simply be part of the trail that brought back copper and wives making the pottery.

As I posted before, it is far more rational for copper to be procured and brought back from Iberia by people from further east around Liguria etc than for Iberians to set off randomly looking to trade. I see the beaker pot as possibly just part of what passed along that early trade network, perhaps invented in Iberia but perhaps not. Even if it was invented in Iberia, the prototype beaker type vessel it seems to have been based on most likely came in the other direction just before that.

That scenario of people from the Liguria sort of area seeking new copper sources and arriving in Iberia to act as middlemen and exporters makes a great deal of sense to me. It is noticeable that early beaker goes straight to the France-Italy border area and skips over a chunk of Iberia and France in doing that. That suggests to me the connection with Portugal was established and sought out and controlled by people from the France-Italy border area and was not a random outpouring along the coast of Iberian settlers. That sort of scenario would explain how P312 or even early DF27 was planted in Iberia at or immediately before the first beakers were made, provides a link with areas to the east with far better prototypes for the beaker form and also explains the apparently very non-random way that early beaker leaps to the France-Italy border overlooking a significant amount of areas in between this and Portugal. This model provides some sort of motive and logic to the distribution of early beaker and provides a way how a yline the likely originated in the Alpine sort of area got there. It also places the date of such an arrival perhaps c. 2700BC much closer to the date of both beaker and the dates for P312 calculated from variance.

This model of R1b having a long life in and around north Italy and the Alps through L51 to L11 to P312 and maybe even beyond c. 3500-2700BC then only spreading to Iberia c. 2700BC fits better IMO than a pre-beaker model that requires us to push P312 back to 3500BC. Evidence that the furthest west pre-beaker metalworking groups were not R1b comes from the Languedoc cemetery of c. 3000BC that was the burial of people who lived in the generations after copper mines and working had been established there. I also do not think the way copper was used in pre-beaker Iberia or Languedoc resembled the beaker modus-operandi but I do think that we can see beaker behavior prefigured in the Italian and Alpine dagger groups of pre-beaker times. I also think those dagger groups probably originated in area that could have been effected by the very early steppe groups c. 4300BC onwards.

Another question one needs to ask ones self is is there any comparable logical motive for an out of Iberia movement compared to the into Iberia movement in the beaker period I just outlined. Why would Iberians from a copper eldorado where there was plenty for all head on a very long journey by sea and simply skip straight to the SE of France and north Italy, an area that at that time had up to then had its own copper mines? Why would they suddenly do this after 500 years of pre-beaker copper production when they didnt bother before and appear to have confined themselves to distributing it around Iberia? They hadnt run out of copper. Iberian copper continued to be important for a very long time after. The pre-beaker copper cultures in Iberia had some significant fortifications by the sea but yet copper wasnt used in a showy or martial way and the settlements and burials do not indicate a very hierarchical type society.

Another obvious bit of evidence that a connection between the Alps/Italy etc with Portugal should be sought in the start of the beaker period is this- in the beaker period we see clear connections and similarities between the areas. You could call it cultural convergence through a busy trade network with traders, wives etc is supported in the archaeological record in this period. That is a clearly good background for genes, pots etc to move about in different directions. This is not the case in terms of pre-beaker copper age cultures between Italy and Portugal. They are very different. They do not appear to be in contact. They appear to be split into groups that are very different - the Iberian group, the Languedoc group and the Remedello-Rinaldone-Alps groups. They do not even use the same copper sources and do not produce similar metalwork. If you are to step back and look objectively at what period is most likely to have seen the flow of genes from the Alps etc to Iberia - the pre-beaker copper age or the early beaker period - then there is simply no competition.

In genetic terms they look like they were probably originally a DF27 colony while the Alps and north Italy area looks like it had an R1b presence from L51 times at least and it looks like L51 may have originated in the Alps so the first R1b men there must have been L23*. If P312 is pushed back to before 3500BC to accommodate pre-beaker groups in the Alps, Italy etc and the Iberian pre-beaker copper cultures a few centuries later then that in turn means P312, L11, L51 and late L23* that must have been present around the Alps also needs pushed back proportionately - perhaps about 4300BC. I am not sure things work if you do that. Its too early considering that they must have been in the Alps etc.


So, I think I am about done thinking about this aspect and have pretty firmly come to the conclusion that R1b in Iberia probably didnt arrive until beaker times and likely arrived in DF27 form and came from somewhere around the France-Italy Med. area c. 2700BC give or take a generation or three. So, as far as I am concerned I am satisfied that Iberia was a destination for R1b that arrived with the beaker prototype from the France-Italy-Alps sort of area, brought by people looking for a new place to ship copper back to where they came from.

Other plus points of this model are that other than Iberia, which was surely reached by sea, the spread of R1b into the Rhine, central Europe etc is a modest journey from the Alps sort of area. Its a natural non-epic kind of flow through passes which were already well known by Remedello linked groups from 3500BC. There is also motive here. If the main human spread was out of the Alpine/Liguria type area then some of the groups away from the coast may well have looked north and into the northern Alps for new untapped ore and mountains visible beyond like the Carpathians where metal was extracted and was a potential new source for export relations.




In the "deeper-think on Beakers" thread I post about what I consider the DF27 problem. By problem, I just mean the quandry about where it originated. Some might say Iberia/Southern Europe and some might say Central Europe.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15048&viewfull=1#post15048
It down under the section subtitled: "Speculating about R1b-L11 Migrations and the DF27/Beakers problem"

I don't know, but its probably time to start looking at the early branching within DF27 and Z196 a bit more deeply, as Richard R has recommended.

Let us take the first alternative: if DF27 originated in Iberia or along the Mediterranean what would we expect to see?

Webb
10-02-2013, 11:42 PM
The sticking point with me that I can't get past is that DF17 is pretty clearly not Iberian. It shares Z274 with the north south cluster, so it seems unlikely that Z209 was born in Iberia when DF17 was not when, as of now, they both have Z274 immediately upstream of them. I thought a while ago that maybe a group of Z220 went north east, leaving a group behind who became Z216/Z278, Z214, and M153, but with the discovery that DF17 and Z209 share Z274 in common, that seems impossible now. I guess it's possible that Z196 left Iberians and went north east giving rise to all known subclades below, but all of the Z196 subclades have ties with the nort sea area of Europe including Germany and the Low Countries. I really think France is the missing link. If France was thoroughly tested and we found DF27 as high or higher then what is found in Spain, I think we would possibly have some questions answered.

razyn
10-03-2013, 03:01 AM
If France was thoroughly tested and we found DF27 as high or higher then what is found in Spain, I think we would possibly have some questions answered.

There is no requirement that a haplogroup's present area(s) of dense distribution indicate its place of origin; and in fact that is not very often the case. It's more likely to be the case for a young mutation than for an old one. DF27 is pretty old.

Webb
10-03-2013, 03:30 AM
There is no requirement that a haplogroup's present area(s) of dense distribution indicate its place of origin; and in fact that is not very often the case. It's more likely to be the case for a young mutation than for an old one. DF27 is pretty old.

You are correct, however, with the current distribution being heavy in the Pyrenees and gradually tapering off as you go west into Spain and equally tapering off as you head east into France, the picture currently places the heaviest distribution in the Pyrenees. As Z196 was most likely born around 1200 to 1000 B.C., you could argue that while DF27 in general is old, Z196 is young and would most likely not be Bell Beaker, and in particular maritime Bell Beaker, as it is smack in the middle of the mountains.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 03:01 AM
You are correct, however, with the current distribution being heavy in the Pyrenees and gradually tapering off as you go west into Spain and equally tapering off as you head east into France, the picture currently places the heaviest distribution in the Pyrenees. As Z196 was most likely born around 1200 to 1000 B.C., you could argue that while DF27 in general is old, Z196 is young and would most likely not be Bell Beaker, and in particular maritime Bell Beaker, as it is smack in the middle of the mountains.

I get that Z196 has a lot of diversity and would be nearly as old as DF27. Why do you think Z196 is much younger than DF27?

Webb
10-07-2013, 04:39 PM
I get that Z196 has a lot of diversity and would be nearly as old as DF27. Why do you think Z196 is much younger than DF27?

I got the estimate from the DF27 Phylogenic thread at world families.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 04:40 PM
If groups of maritime bell beakers exited Iberia to the isles, you would think that Z196 would be found equally in all the isles.
Not really. The Atlantic route seems to have led to Ireland more than Britain. So DF27* in SW Ireland today (from the earliest BB arrivals), but Z196 in Britain from Bronze Age movements would fit my prediction nicely. We have evidence of incomers from Iberia and Norway (deduced from isotopes) on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, in the Bronze Age.

I've just updated our haplotype files on P312, including DF27. In the Isles, the DF27 people seem to be more of the English surname types. I'm just not seeing a plethora of Irish and Scottish names. We do have a decent set of Welsh types, but I don't see the pattern in Ireland I was expecting for Maritime associated people. We should ask Paul D (Dub..) look at the surnames. He seems to have very good knowledge on Irish surname origins and history.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 04:50 PM
I got the estimate from the DF27 Phylogenic thread at world families.
I couldn't find estimates in the WFN thread itself but I found a link in that thread to the following. Nordvedt's method yielded a TMRCA for DF27 at 3.7k ybp and for Z196 at 3.5k ybp. The 2nd method is in the same balllpark. I think Z196 is nearly as old as DF27.


I compared mean pairwise mismatches from DF27xL176,2 and its sub-clades with some MRCA calculations. The third column are mean pairwise mismatches calculated with the Arlequin program; the MRCA based on Nordtvedt’s calculator are in the 4th column.

1 df27 20.7 3.7k
2 z196 18.8 3,5k
3 z209 18 2.7k
4 z220 17.6 4.0k
5 z278 17 2.1k
6 m153 15 2.4k
Plotting the numeric SNP order against the mean pwmm produces a polynomial of the third degree; the time interval of the SNP’s as well as the rise in the effective population will cause a deviation of linearity.
Producing a similar plotting with the MRCA’s gives a polynomial function of the 5th degree. Indicating that inherent assumptions in the MRCA calculations are inconsistent.
The pattern changes If one calculates with Nordtvedt method a SNP together with its downstream SNP’s; but still the polynomial is of the 6th degree!
DF27xL176.2 and sub clades 3.9k
Z196 and sub clades 3.5k
Z209 and sub clades 3.2k
Z220 and sub clades 3.2k
Z278 and sub clades 2.4k
Further I like to present the differences of FST values of the subpopulations of the DF27 metapopulation; FST values represent distances in subpopulations and are well used in population genetics:
FST differences from Df27 with:
Z196 0.091
Z209 0.097
L176.2 0.014
SRY2627 0.048
L165 0.141

It looks as if the mean pairwise mismatches and the FST calculations are more reliable to date subpopulations associated with a defining SNP. The Nordtvedt based MRCA calculates the age of an clade including its sub clades acceptable.
When I plot the mean pairwise mismatch of DF27xL176.2 and sub clades (each time including its sub clades) against the associated MRCA I get a straight line with a linear relationship.

The formula is MRCA=1000(0.23xmean pairwise mismatch – 0.65) ybp (R2=0.9718).

The Z220 subpopulation becomes then: 3.4K and not 4.0K. And DF27 subpopulation 4.1K. The L484 subpopulation is aged 1.3K . A small cluster inside a phylogenetic tree including Bob Bjorkman, Nik Okkels and myself have a MRCA of 0.9K.
....
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10575.msg138524#msg138524

razyn
10-07-2013, 07:35 PM
I'm glad to see someone besides myself picking up on Spanjool's separate method of TMRCA calculation... but that was a bit over a year ago, and he's actually working on this with new data (and several new DF27 SNPs) more or less as we speak. By coincidence, he just made his first post here yesterday. Not about TMRCA, though -- the topic begins with Geno 2. Anyway I think we can expect some new estimates in the reasonably near future. Whether they differ from the Jost/Nordtvedt estimates remains to be seen; but they are not calculated the same way, and they'll include CTS4065 (and maybe some other SNPs whose ages have not yet been calculated by those methods, such as Z295). I'm looking forward to it.

One significant problem is that any of these techniques need some STR marker values, preferably a lot of them; and stand-alone Geno 2 results (that give us the new SNPs) don't reveal those. Happily, a bunch of the people in our groups with Geno 2 tests had previously done a lot of other testing, including lots of STR markers. Those who only had Geno 2 tests are visible in the SNP results, but invisible in the Classic or Colorized ones.

Webb
10-07-2013, 07:43 PM
I couldn't find estimates in the WFN thread itself but I found a link in that thread to the following. Nordvedt's method yielded a TMRCA for DF27 at 3.7k ybp and for Z196 at 3.5k ybp. The 2nd method is in the same balllpark. I think Z196 is nearly as old as DF27.
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10575.msg138524#msg138524

Mike, your 3500 ybp isn't that far off from 1200 B.C. that I pulled from World Families.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 09:38 PM
Mike, your 3500 ybp isn't that far off from 1200 B.C. that I pulled from World Families.
The 3.5k ybp isn't my estimate. That comes from one of Spanjool's runs. It looks like the standard Nordtvedt method has 3.7k for DF27 and 3.5k for Z196. Those are intraclade so I wouldn't be surprised if they were slightly older in reality.

I'm looking at the same thread... at least the one I think you mentioned. I don't see the 1200 BC and I've tried to figure out who calculated it and how. I just looked through "Topic: R1b-DF27 - keeping the phylogenetic tree updated" I can't find it. I guess it doesn't matter, but we are seeing estimates that show Z196 as being close to as old as DF27 and since you mentioned Z196 was "young" I'm trying to see who would give that estimate and how they rate DF27 on the same scale.

This is the relative STR variance all of the 67 STR ht's with DF27+ and then Z196+ confirmed.

DF27 confirmed 1.07 n=656 (includes Z196)
Z196 confirmed 1.06 n=465

Its fair to say that Z196 has swamped or biased the overall results, but the non-Z196 isn't of higher variance.

DF27 confirmed non-Z196 1.06 n=191

This is not conclusive, but I just don't see how the Z196 TMRCA is not close to as old as the DF27 TMRCA. There is a cap on DF27's age. That cap is the age of P312 and DF27 and P312 appear about the same age.

The whole point was I don't think there is much separation between DF27 and Z196. You said "you could argue that while DF27 in general is old, Z196 is young" (post #83) and I'm just saying I don't see that so I was wondering who was estimating that. It doesn't matter, but if someone is finding that Z196 is relatively young I'd like be sure to understand.

Webb
10-08-2013, 01:33 AM
Mike, I was thinking about a post that Richard Rocca posted somewhere else a while ago about DF27 being possibly the oldest of the three big ones. Since you can't read minds you wouldn't have known that. My bad for not explaining it better. However, if the ages you posted are correct, then it does appear Z196 happened shortly after DF27 happened. Despite this, the age of Z196 is still too young to be maritime bell beaker. Please see my response to Razyn's post in the myth busting thread. Here are my thoughts in a nutshell. While I can't prove that DF27 happened outside Iberia, I do believe it did. I think, however, Z196 is a different story. It's young enough to have happened after bell beaker. Z274 is, to me, enough evidence to call the Iberian origin into question as it most likely places Z209 being born in close proximity to DF17, which is not Iberian. I personally believe L21 and DF27 needs to be swapped. L21 happened in Iberia and the isles before DF27. I personally believe DF27 distribution best represents the continental celts. There is no point in me pushing this, however, until we have a clear picture of distribution of all three in France.

R.Rocca
10-08-2013, 02:40 AM
Mike, I was thinking about a post that Richard Rocca posted somewhere else a while ago about DF27 being possibly the oldest of the three big ones. Since you can't read minds you wouldn't have known that. My bad for not explaining it better. However, if the ages you posted are correct, then it does appear Z196 happened shortly after DF27 happened. Despite this, the age of Z196 is still too young to be maritime bell beaker. Please see my response to Razyn's post in the myth busting thread. Here are my thoughts in a nutshell. While I can't prove that DF27 happened outside Iberia, I do believe it did. I think, however, Z196 is a different story. It's young enough to have happened after bell beaker. Z274 is, to me, enough evidence to call the Iberian origin into question as it most likely places Z209 being born in close proximity to DF17, which is not Iberian. I personally believe L21 and DF27 needs to be swapped. L21 happened in Iberia and the isles before DF27. I personally believe DF27 distribution best represents the continental celts. There is no point in me pushing this, however, until we have a clear picture of distribution of all three in France.

- What about Z274 makes you call the Iberian origin of DF27 into question?
- What about DF17 makes you believe it is not Iberian?
- What about DF27 makes you believe it is younger than L21 in the Isles and Iberia?

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 03:25 AM
.. - What about DF27 makes you believe it is younger than L21 in the Isles and Iberia?

I'm not sure what Webb is thinking, but related to that, I don't know where DF27 originated. I do think that DF27 is probably at least as old as L21 and maybe even older than U152. If I had to bet I'd say DF27 was oldest of the big three.

In terms of Iberia, the L21 elements there appear relatively young compared to L21 as a whole, which is why I think the "tin road' possibility of the Isles into the Mediterranean across southwestern France through Catalonia and Languedoc to the the Med is interesting.

DF27 is old in Iberia, no doubt. It's also has early branches spreads all over the place. I've always said it is widely scattered. That wasn't necessarily a frequency statement, but a statement of early branches being widely dispersed.

I would not at all say Z196 is too young to be Maritime Beaker. Z196 is nearly as old as DF27 which is nearly as old as P312. This could be 4000-5000 ybp easily... just right for the whole Beaker period.

However, I think that if DF27 was Maritime Beaker it would show up a little more in Ireland. On the other hand, despite mapping, Alan has just indicated Maritime Beakers barely hit Ireland..... so I don't know. That's why I wish I understood how significantly the Early (western) Beakers hit where they did and how that compares with the mid and latter period Beakers from the various regional groups. That's probably better discussed in the "Deeper think Bell Beaker" thread.

Webb
10-08-2013, 04:41 AM
- What about Z274 makes you call the Iberian origin of DF27 into question?
- What about DF17 makes you believe it is not Iberian?
- What about DF27 makes you believe it is younger than L21 in the Isles and Iberia?

I believe that Z274 is enough to call the Iberian origin of Z196 into question. I didn't say DF27. As of now Z209 and DF17 both have Z274 between themselves and Z196. There is one DF17, Luiz, from the Azores, Portugal, out of all the DF17 I can find. So I don't see how DF17, which doesn't appear to be Iberian could share Z274 with Z209. In other words, how could Z274 father one group in Iberia and another probably in France/ Low Countries/ Germany. As for DF27, I'm proposing the same origin as the other two, U152 and L21. Richard, you have provided all the evidence that shows a strong pattern, strong enough, anyway for me to see it. There is one area in Europe that has the widest variety of M269, so far, until we get further testing in France. It has U106, U152, L21, DF27, DF19, DF88, DF99. The Low Countries. Belgium and the Netherlands. I think you would be hard pressed to find this variety anywhere else, besides Britain, maybe, but many of these clades in Britain can be ruled out for most as the place of origin. The Danube, to the Rhine, gives you access to the North Sea and pretty much anywhere from there. That is the pattern I'm seeing anyway.

R.Rocca
10-08-2013, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure what Webb is thinking, but related to that, I don't know where DF27 originated. I do think that DF27 is probably at least as old as L21 and maybe even older than U152. If I had to bet I'd say DF27 was oldest of the big three.

I don't know either. It is frustrating however that variance fell out of favor the day DF27 variance started showing up highest in Iberia and higher compared to U152 and L21. Somehow, it still turns up pretty regularly when discussing high Polish U106 variance and moving U106 as far north and east as possible.


In terms of Iberia, the L21 elements there appear relatively young compared to L21 as a whole, which is why I think the "tin road' possibility of the Isles into the Mediterranean across southwestern France through Catalonia and Languedoc to the the Med is interesting.

I agree, there is no data that I am aware of that shows L21 is even remotely older in Iberia than DF27.


I would not at all say Z196 is too young to be Maritime Beaker. Z196 is nearly as old as DF27 which is nearly as old as P312. This could be 4000-5000 ybp easily... just right for the whole Beaker period.

Agree, all data points suggest a heavy DF27 and Z196 involvement in Iberian Bell Beaker.


However, I think that if DF27 was Maritime Beaker it would show up a little more in Ireland. On the other hand, despite mapping, Alan has just indicated Maritime Beakers barely hit Ireland..... so I don't know. That's why I wish I understood how significantly the Early (western) Beakers hit where they did and how that compares with the mid and latter period Beakers from the various regional groups. That's probably better discussed in the "Deeper think Bell Beaker" thread.

There is a tendency on the forums to downplay the Atlantic BB tradition in Ireland and argue inaccuracies in academic BB maps. From Case (1995) Irish Beakers in their European Context:


Irish early Beaker pottery, spanning the second half of the 3rd millennium fairly closely, is among those variants which show much inter-regional reaction. Together with its associations, it can be related partly to the primeval Atlantic tradition and partly to developments in north-west Europe, including Britain. It also has strong regional character.

From everything I've read, Irish Bell Beakers are a mixed bag of Atlantic, British (and by association Rhenish) and local styles and should be treated as such.

R.Rocca
10-08-2013, 08:16 PM
I believe that Z274 is enough to call the Iberian origin of Z196 into question. I didn't say DF27. As of now Z209 and DF17 both have Z274 between themselves and Z196. There is one DF17, Luiz, from the Azores, Portugal, out of all the DF17 I can find. So I don't see how DF17, which doesn't appear to be Iberian could share Z274 with Z209. In other words, how could Z274 father one group in Iberia and another probably in France/ Low Countries/ Germany. As for DF27, I'm proposing the same origin as the other two, U152 and L21. Richard, you have provided all the evidence that shows a strong pattern, strong enough, anyway for me to see it. There is one area in Europe that has the widest variety of M269, so far, until we get further testing in France. It has U106, U152, L21, DF27, DF19, DF88, DF99. The Low Countries. Belgium and the Netherlands. I think you would be hard pressed to find this variety anywhere else, besides Britain, maybe, but many of these clades in Britain can be ruled out for most as the place of origin. The Danube, to the Rhine, gives you access to the North Sea and pretty much anywhere from there. That is the pattern I'm seeing anyway.

Sorry, but I think I'm still missing the point. Can you explain what about Z274 calls an Iberian origin of Z196 into question?

I get that you found only one Portuguese guy who is DF17, but remember that the Isles versus Iberia bias is something like 18 fold, so to get a rough estimate, I would multiply that one Iberian by 18 to imagine how many hidden DF17s there might be in Iberia. Not very scientific, but you see my point how that can be skewing things substantially.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 08:53 PM
Earlier, I said that "I do think that DF27 is probably at least as old as L21 and maybe even older than U152. If I had to bet I'd say DF27 was oldest of the big three." Anyway, I that's agreed upon. Probably DF27 is oldest, next probably U152 and last L21.


I don't know either. It is frustrating however that variance fell out of favor the day DF27 variance started showing up highest in Iberia and higher compared to U152 and L21. Somehow, it still turns up pretty regularly when discussing high Polish U106 variance and moving U106 as far north and east as possible.

Since the Busby paper and long drawn out discussions with Jean L, I think I've been clear to include the caveats on the vagaries of STR variance which is why I don't like to even show any number but those out of 67 haplotypes. Please note that I said back in the Celtic/Germanic thread when I compared by country, "Please don't shoot the messenger. Below is an attempted comparison with long haplotypes only from the U106* thread. The counts are counts of U106 67 STR people. The caveat must be said that STRs are subject to vagaries and STR variance by geography is not necessarily indicative of an origin.....[and later].. STR variance by geography is subject to many vagaries, but it is still more data to look at along with hg diversity, outliers, aDNA, etc., all to be considered with the prehistoric and historic information available and genealogies." (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit&p=15001&viewfull=1#post15001)

I also think the big problem areas are with geographical comparisons. When comparing subclades in toto versus each other, we eliminate the crucial problem (that Dienekes pointed out) with pooling different subclades with different origins together in geographic comparisons. My statements related to DF27, U152 and L21 relative ages are also not just based on intraclade, but also interclade comparisions which help fence things in.

Here are the intraclade relative variances from the project data for DF27 confirmed 67 STR people.

49 mixed speed (non-multi-copy, non-null) markers
Iberia ___ 0.93 n=84
France ___ 1.02 n=44
Germanic _ 0.94 n=58 (including Scandinavia down to Switzerland)

subset 36 linear marker according to Heinilla
Iberia ___ 0.91 n=84
France ___ 0.98 n=44
Germanic _ 0.85 n=58 (including Scandinavia down to Switzerland)

I think all of the above is a wash, so I'll go back to the Busby-like statements where he said L11 across Europe showed no significant clines. If something was consistently popping up 25-30% or more higher, maybe we'd have something to make a decision with as far as DF27 geographic comparisons. The same does hold true for U106. We shouldn't declare one way or another based on differentials that probably fall within standard error ranges.

So, my Busby-like statement is to expand on his position and say not that just L11 across Europe is about the same age, but the first tier of major subclades is too, which includes, P312, DF27, U152, L21, U106 along with their older subclades like Z196, L2, DF13, Z381 and maybe a couple of others. So a key point is the strong early growth of L11 has left many of the early lineages in tact. It's a thick bush rather than the straggily tree we often see, but that is astounding piece of information in my opinion.

alan
10-08-2013, 09:44 PM
As far as I understand there are only five maritime beaker finds from the whole island and even they tend to be single sherds. Hence I said you could put them in a trouser pocker. There is a map of maritime beaker in Cunliffe's Europe between the Oceans that shows this. Also, according to the Monograph on the site by O'Brien, the Ross island beaker finds are not maritime and seem to be British-Rhine types where they can be identified. I understand what you are saying about mixed messages in the literature about Irish pottery. Case in his most recent offering suggested tentatively that overall Irish beaker is most similar to Atlantic France. On the other hand when categorised into classic types they do tend to be classified as British types with links to NW Europe. Possibly what Case is saying is that the overall pattern of Irish beaker, which tends to include a lot of domestic pottery, plain stuff etc looks more like Atlantic France. I dont really know the answer to this. There is a rising archaeologist in Ireland who is very into beaker and I suspect some more analysis will come out of his work. Unfortunately he is not apparently big into the migration models for beaker.

Another thing about Ireland is that it is a very late spot for the arrival of beaker - only around c. 2500/2400BC. Its sometimes put on these combined early beaker maps as part of some early sweep up the west but its nearly half a millenium later than those at the other end of the Atlantic so these maps are kind of useless. Ireland seems to have received beaker a little later than Britain. Nevertheless although there is little maritime beaker in Ireland the few sherd must tell of some sort of contact with people using them at the time. One of the sites was a Wedge Tomb which is interesting in that northern France is often, tentatively, pointed to as a possible origin. The parallels are not great but on the other hand NW France does have a thing about the NE-SW alignment in its stone alignments and Wedge Tombs, Clava Cairns in Scotland, recumbant stone circles and stone rows in Scotland and Ireland also suddenly show the appearance of this dominant alignment towards the SW. The earliest monuments in the isles to consistently show an interest in the SW alignment appear at the beaker period. I am not sure the rows in Armorica have ever been successfully dated although they post-date the early Neolithic. It is very tempting to see some sort of Armorican stream of influence in all of this because other areas do not have this alignment tradition and it is not a native isles ones judging by pre-beaker monuments.

I think possibly the peculiarity of Ireland and perhaps part of western Britain and Scotland's beaker may derive from a source in NW France, an area where the maximum stretches of both the Maritime and Rhenish beakers met and probably where local pre-beaker tradition remained strong judging by the mix of single graves and re-use of pre-beaker megaliths. A second or third generation movement from that sort of area would involve a confusing blend of influences. The plus points of such a location in say Normandy or Brittany is it might explain the re-introduction of the then-dead megalithicism into Ireland with a novel new SW or W orientation totally in contrast to the Neolthic, a background used to Atlantic metallurgy in Armorica, Rhenish type beaker influences being strong in pottery terms with some maritime, maritime skill and several other things that meet in that area. Western Britain in general is, like Ireland, rather beaker poor in terms of classic single graves so it is possible that the same beaker elements explored parts of western Britain too. Ross Island does show the beaker people in Ireland actually mined and processed metal. That may have been the case in Armorica too. This contrasts with the south British and Lower Rhine groups who seem to have operated more as middlemen in their ore-less areas.

So, there is a case for an Armorican origin of Irish and perhaps some aspects of western British beaker culture. The problem then comes when the fact that Atlantic and Rhenish influences converged, both stretched by this point, in Armorica. So, how are we to interpret which one of those strands gave rise to L21? There are mixed signals which make it really hard to know. Today L21 is strongest from NW France down into the Basque area. However, the cline is similar to Britain's and that is usually explained by the south and east seeing far more later invaders. There seems to me to also be more that more closer relations to L21 away from Iberia in forms that are P312xL21xDF27 might exist in the Rhine area and perhaps France if it was tested. Ultimately it came from wherever P312 came from and probably by a not too insane route.

Sometimes it is claimed that beaker metallurgical practices were unique or they had a special arsenical metal etc but it is pretty clear that this is not true and that any group from the wesy Carpathians to the Alps to Liguria to Spain had the allegedly beaker type metallurgy, albeit not making objecdts in the same styles. in pre-beaker times. So, this tradition of arsenical copper metallurgy, mining etc could have spread from almost anywhere in a band from Hungary through the Alps, southern France, Italy or Spain. Many things that show how old this tradition of mining, arsenicl copper etc is has only emerged in recent years so may books written before that will still look on these metallurgical traditions as being beaker originated when in fact the tradition is older.

So to me the metallurgy, mining etc in itself is not enough to point us towards Portugal for origin. It could have come from anywhere that had this tradition. I have suggested that groups relying on the ligurians sources had a good motive to start looking for new links before the mines closed c. 2600BC. I feel a good model is that the outpouring of new exploration is linked to this - be it towards Iberia, trading posts at Csepl, further into the Alps etc. I think it would be relatively understandable if they also probed up the Rhone and Loire to NW France. I am sure it was understood by prospectors that rocky areas where often flint sources had come from before would be likely places to look for ore. NW France in pre-beaker times had a trade links that reached both east through northern France to the Lower Rhine and south along the French Atlantic coast and up the Garronne to the Med. and Rhone. Again Cunliffe discusses this.

This gives several potential sources whereby groups seeking metal could have followed the old pre-metal trade routes back to NW France. My suspicion based on timing and motive is that we should be looking for people with knowledge of that existing lithic trade route to Brittany and who also had experience in mining and copper but who needed a new supply. Again, I think that fits best a route coming from the Rhone sort of area and passing both up the Rhine and west up the Loire. Martime pot could also have passed from SE France through the well known short cut from the Med. to the Garrone to reach the French Atlantic without the very round about way of passing round Iberia. This may have also been the route taken in Cardial times. That route was well established in pre-beaker times for trade of axes and flint. A Rhone-Loire route also seems possible to me and a Rhone-Rhine link is also possible. This is something we need to take account of when looking at maritime pottery. The route all the way from Portugal was no longer necessary by perhaps 2700BC as maritime pottery was also present in places in France early enough that it could have taken these short cuts to Atlantic France.

Certainly from what we know about R1b, a fanning out from the western Alps seeking copper in all directions using existing pre-beaker routes fits best IMO with the Alpine area having a diversity of L51*, L11* and various P312 clades.


I don't know either. It is frustrating however that variance fell out of favor the day DF27 variance started showing up highest in Iberia and higher compared to U152 and L21. Somehow, it still turns up pretty regularly when discussing high Polish U106 variance and moving U106 as far north and east as possible.



I agree, there is no data that I am aware of that shows L21 is even remotely older in Iberia than DF27.



Agree, all data points suggest a heavy DF27 and Z196 involvement in Iberian Bell Beaker.



There is a tendency on the forums to downplay the Atlantic BB tradition in Ireland and argue inaccuracies in academic BB maps. From Case (1995) Irish Beakers in their European Context:



From everything I've read, Irish Bell Beakers are a mixed bag of Atlantic, British (and by association Rhenish) and local styles and should be treated as such.

alan
10-08-2013, 10:20 PM
As well as the dates often suggested, it is this very fast looking spread with variance only varying a little across wide areas that makes it an astonishingly close match for the beaker phenomenon. In both cases the speed of spread and width of spread is the main reason its almost impossible to untangle satisfactorily by either variance or by radiocarbon. The archaeology seems to show a very broad general pattern that the south is older than the north but I wouldnt bet the house on much beyond that given the very low amount of radiocarbon dates of good quality that are available in many areas. That it is broadly a south to north movement seems logical given that the strongest pre-beaker copper groups in western Europe were spread along the Alps, Italy, southern France and Iberia. So, I dont have any reason to doubt that the most likely driving force of migration associated with this also came from that zone. That also seems to fit the more varied and more ancestral aspects of R1b in the Alps and adjacent.

One of the real changes, probably THE most important change, in the beaker era was a change to outward looking ethos and mobility. This contrasts with the more parochial pre-beaker copper age groups of this region. I think to understand this change we need to look into the reasons why a sudden hyper-mobility occurred. Something drove that. Something in the centuries around 2700BC and for a few centuries after must have driven this change. Why the sudden internationalism of material identity? Even if it is only tangentially corded ware identities spread across a huge span at the same sort of time, albeit a little earlier in central Europe. I say a little earlier because a lot of the more reliable dates in west-central Europe actually commence around 2750BC, only maybe 150 years before beaker influences arrived in the same areas. It is often seen as migratory on a larger scale than beaker but its not clear how justified that conclusion is. Regardless, very widespread identities seem to have suddenly sprung up in the period 3000-2500BC in Europe. H&H link this to Yamnaya and this might be partly true. However, they did not see this as a steppe migration thing beyond eastern Europe and I would tend to agree with that. You could say that steppe influences in corded ware actually pre-date by a couple of centuries the Yamnaya invasions into the Balkans and therefore it is not easy to see a huge Yamnaya genetic element even in corded ware. Anthony certainly tends to see corded ware as a culture influenced by the Usatovo group rather than a steppe invasion. Whatever the answer, I find it very hard to see a direct role for Yamnaya in beaker. As H&H pointed out, some of the possible distant echos of Yamnaya in beaker culture like tanged knives are not present in early beaker and its very very hard to see anything but distant echos of Yamnaya influences reaching the far west of Europe through the early beaker network perhaps via Csepel. That is why I have taken an interest in the pre-Yamnaya steppes impact in the Balkans and adjacent which may go back to as early as 4500BC. Its important to note that influences stemming from the Balkans after that date are coming from a zone that had absorbed a steppe element.


Earlier, I said that "I do think that DF27 is probably at least as old as L21 and maybe even older than U152. If I had to bet I'd say DF27 was oldest of the big three." Anyway, I that's agreed upon. Probably DF27 is oldest, next probably U152 and last L21.



Since the Busby paper and long drawn out discussions with Jean L, I think I've been clear to include the caveats on the vagaries of STR variance which is why I don't like to even show any number but those out of 67 haplotypes. Please note that I said back in the Celtic/Germanic thread when I compared by country, "Please don't shoot the messenger. Below is an attempted comparison with long haplotypes only from the U106* thread. The counts are counts of U106 67 STR people. The caveat must be said that STRs are subject to vagaries and STR variance by geography is not necessarily indicative of an origin.....[and later].. STR variance by geography is subject to many vagaries, but it is still more data to look at along with hg diversity, outliers, aDNA, etc., all to be considered with the prehistoric and historic information available and genealogies." (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit&p=15001&viewfull=1#post15001)

I also think the big problem areas are with geographical comparisons. When comparing subclades in toto versus each other, we eliminate the crucial problem (that Dienekes pointed out) with pooling different subclades with different origins together in geographic comparisons. My statements related to DF27, U152 and L21 relative ages are also not just based on intraclade, but also interclade comparisions which help fence things in.

Here are the intraclade relative variances from the project data for DF27 confirmed 67 STR people.

49 mixed speed (non-multi-copy, non-null) markers
Iberia ___ 0.93 n=84
France ___ 1.02 n=44
Germanic _ 0.94 n=58 (including Scandinavia down to Switzerland)

subset 36 linear marker according to Heinilla
Iberia ___ 0.91 n=84
France ___ 0.98 n=44
Germanic _ 0.85 n=58 (including Scandinavia down to Switzerland)

I think all of the above is a wash, so I'll go back to the Busby-like statements where he said L11 across Europe showed no significant clines. If something was consistently popping up 25-30% or more higher, maybe we'd have something to make a decision with as far as DF27 geographic comparisons. The same does hold true for U106. We shouldn't declare one way or another based on differentials that probably fall within standard error ranges.

So, my Busby-like statement is to expand on his position and say not that just L11 across Europe is about the same age, but the first tier of major subclades is too, which includes, P312, DF27, U152, L21, U106 along with their older subclades like Z196, L2, DF13, Z381 and maybe a couple of others. So a key point is the strong early growth of L11 has left many of the early lineages in tact. It's a thick bush rather than the straggily tree we often see, but that is astounding piece of information in my opinion.

lgmayka
10-08-2013, 11:25 PM
It is frustrating however that variance fell out of favor the day DF27 variance started showing up highest in Iberia and higher compared to U152 and L21.
How can you calculate DF27 variance, when it is so sparsely tested, particularly in Central-Eastern Europe? Are you using P312x(L21,U152) as a proxy? And if so, did you actually find P312x(L21,U152) variance higher in Iberia than in Central-Eastern Europe?

R.Rocca
10-09-2013, 01:06 AM
How can you calculate DF27 variance, when it is so sparsely tested, particularly in Central-Eastern Europe? Are you using P312x(L21,U152) as a proxy? And if so, did you actually find P312x(L21,U152) variance higher in Iberia than in Central-Eastern Europe?

From Mike's variance spreadsheets where he has hundreds of DF27 samples. They are confirmed DF27+.

TigerMW
10-09-2013, 03:33 AM
How can you calculate DF27 variance, when it is so sparsely tested, particularly in Central-Eastern Europe? Are you using P312x(L21,U152) as a proxy? And if so, did you actually find P312x(L21,U152) variance higher in Iberia than in Central-Eastern Europe?

Richard's right. There are no proxies included. Those were all confirmed DF27+ people. DF27 is no slouch. We have 839 DF27+ confirmed people identified. Remember, that would include all of the SRY2627+ by default.

I calculated the number before you asked for but didn't show it because I thought the # 67 STR haplotypes was too low, 21, and I don't know if it is fair to aggregate such a vast area.

Czech Rep, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Russia, Ukraine
mixed STRs
East/Central __ 1.08 (n=21)
36 "linear"
East/Central __ 0.93 (n=21)

I think the fact the two numbers above are as much different as they are is an indicator we don't have enough haplotypes to smooth out anomalies.

Webb
10-16-2013, 08:37 PM
I don't know either. It is frustrating however that variance fell out of favor the day DF27 variance started showing up highest in Iberia and higher compared to U152 and L21. Somehow, it still turns up pretty regularly when discussing high Polish U106 variance and moving U106 as far north and east as possible.

Sorry I have been indisposed for a while. I am not discounting variance at all. You keep refering to variance as being higher in Spain. How so? I have seen a variance calculation you posted using 25 markers indicating variance was higher in Spain. However, Mike posted a variance calculation using multiple scenarios and when he uses 67 markers the variance shows as higher in France. This is not the first variance calculation I have seen that places France as having higher variance, I believe Mark Jost has come up with the same calculations. So please, which method is more accurate? How is using 25 markers more accurate than using 67? What was your sample size and origin when calculating this variance? As more people test positive from places other than Britain and Spain, will this affect the variance calculations?

R.Rocca
10-16-2013, 08:54 PM
Sorry I have been indisposed for a while. I am not discounting variance at all. You keep refering to variance as being higher in Spain. How so? I have seen a variance calculation you posted using 25 markers indicating variance was higher in Spain. However, Mike posted a variance calculation using multiple scenarios and when he uses 67 markers the variance shows as higher in France. This is not the first variance calculation I have seen that places France as having higher variance, I believe Mark Jost has come up with the same calculations. So please, which method is more accurate? How is using 25 markers more accurate than using 67? What was your sample size and origin when calculating this variance? As more people test positive from places other than Britain and Spain, will this affect the variance calculations?

Pretty simple actually, I used the same data that Mike pulled together but with more samples. At some point you have to make a judgement call - more markers with less samples or more samples with less markers. For geographical variance, I use the latter as we simply have too few samples to do otherwise.

EastAnglian
10-22-2013, 09:37 AM
I know ours is a tiny Sublcade but what do you lot think about L617?, any theories on origins?, could still be Brythonic I spose.

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 04:09 AM
This graphic is a photo from the FTDNA conference this last weekend. Reportedly, Dr. Mike Hammer gave an update on R1b and broke the subclades down a little bit has he moved from the east to the west.

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

Notice that they have DF27, by way of large early branch Z195, coming down from Germany into Iberia.

EastAnglian
11-14-2013, 10:55 AM
I know ours is a tiny Sublcade but what do you lot think about L617?, any theories on origins?, could still be Brythonic I spose.

Thank you for your replies to my post, I guess our tiny clade is just too small for people to bother with :P

razyn
11-14-2013, 02:04 PM
Thank you for your replies to my post, I guess our tiny clade is just too small for people to bother with :P

I don't know if this is ironic, or perhaps someone did actually reply off-list. In any case, the problem with theorizing about L617 is that there are very few tested results for it yet (so with little or no data, there's little or nothing to say, yet); and of those few tests, one guy (N113736) has tested both L617+ (on the Geno 2 chip) and L617- elsewhere, I guess as an individual SNP test. These Geno 2 SNPs are well covered by Chris Morley's experimental tree; but the algorithm placing these SNPs relative to each other is also experimental, and any given placement of a SNP may be argued with, by an actual researcher interested in that specific SNP. If you haven't studied it, and care to, an update has just been posted. Pick the latest version, at this url: http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny

TigerMW
11-15-2013, 05:02 AM
I don't know if this is ironic, or perhaps someone did actually reply off-list. In any case, the problem with theorizing about L617 is that there are very few tested results for it yet (so with little or no data, there's little or nothing to say, yet); and of those few tests, one guy (N113736) has tested both L617+ (on the Geno 2 chip) and L617- elsewhere, I guess as an individual SNP test. These Geno 2 SNPs are well covered by Chris Morley's experimental tree; but the algorithm placing these SNPs relative to each other is also experimental, and any given placement of a SNP may be argued with, by an actual researcher interested in that specific SNP. If you haven't studied it, and care to, an update has just been posted. Pick the latest version, at this url: http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny
Agreed. As you all know, I can be very opinionated, but I just don't have enough information on L617 to say much.

DavidCar
11-15-2013, 05:53 AM
... one guy (N113736) has tested both L617+ (on the Geno 2 chip) and L617- elsewhere, I guess as an individual SNP test. ...

Note also that the Hall kit, N115093, has 91 no-calls and 5 potential false positives, including L617. (also CTS11067, PAGES00022, PF3236, PF3303)

EastAnglian
11-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Agreed. As you all know, I can be very opinionated, but I just don't have enough information on L617 to say much.

Well things do look to be moving forward a bit with L617(this info is from John Marsh, also L617), Kit/participation number: HG01606 in the 1000 genomes project has been found to be L617+, this result is noted as Iberian populations in Spain. Looks like L617 might have a strong Iberian Celt connection, see link below.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2a2/

So looks like L617 folk were still hanging around in Iberia 3-4k ago, doesn't really answer when they came to Eastern England though.

razyn
07-01-2014, 03:37 AM
I was looking through this thread to see if A.J. Marsh's very recent post with his SNP-counting estimate of the age of DF27 had been mentioned -- and as I thought, it hasn't. But it's more or less, ballpark, give or take, in line with several others mentioned here in the past year. With the caveat that (as I have argued elsewhere) SNP-counting is a borderline crazy way to estimate age -- this current RootsWeb thread includes a DF27 age estimate of 4,000 years (by Marsh, and based in large part on counting SNPs back from Big Y tested L617 guys):

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2014-06/1404020173

There are a good many posts on the same thread, above and below the cited one, by other smart people. Most don't pertain to DF27 per se, but they include a lot of good tips about how to compare Big Y (and other next-gen) SNP test results.

The fact that this post follows one from last November that mentioned Marsh and L617 is coincidental; I just saw that age estimate tonight, and thought it should be cross-referenced in this thread. And btw I wouldn't be surprised if DF27 is closer to 5,000+ years old. I'm not trying to make it older than its parent P312, though; I'm just trying to reconcile some theories, most of them not my own, about who was moving which Copper Age technologies, from what archaeological horizon, to what part of Europe. If it was P312 -- and if DF27 is eldest among his several sons -- 4,000 YBP doesn't look old enough. In which case Marsh isn't counting enough SNPs (but they are there); or if he has enough SNPs, the estimated average time between mutations he's using is about 25% too low.

Or the Bell Beaker influx happened before the P312 mutation.

alan
07-01-2014, 04:00 PM
Yes I agree its very hard to see P312 as any younger than 4600-5000 years old and see any way it could have spread across Europe in a number of geographically patterned similarly old clades. The only way it could be as young as 4000 years old is if it was post-beaker. Kromsdorf beaker burial was not tested finely enough to be sure but I think the odds are that that M269XU106 is likely to be P312 rather than M269* or L23XL51 given how rare they are in Germany today. Its a shame that cannot be proven because that in itself would create a minimum age of 4500-4600 years. I wouldnt bet the house on anything though given the twists and turns of things until we have some more ancient DNA. Testing single grave beakers should be relatively easy though as they dont have the issue of a jumble of bones possible of several periods that presents itself in collective megalithic burials - a situation where often the association between the bones and remains like pots in the same grave may not be at all clear.


I was looking through this thread to see if A.J. Marsh's very recent post with his SNP-counting estimate of the age of DF27 had been mentioned -- and as I thought, it hasn't. But it's more or less, ballpark, give or take, in line with several others mentioned here in the past year. With the caveat that (as I have argued elsewhere) SNP-counting is a borderline crazy way to estimate age -- this current RootsWeb thread includes a DF27 age estimate of 4,000 years (by Marsh, and based in large part on counting SNPs back from Big Y tested L617 guys):

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2014-06/1404020173

There are a good many posts on the same thread, above and below the cited one, by other smart people. Most don't pertain to DF27 per se, but they include a lot of good tips about how to compare Big Y (and other next-gen) SNP test results.

The fact that this post follows one from last November that mentioned Marsh and L617 is coincidental; I just saw that age estimate tonight, and thought it should be cross-referenced in this thread. And btw I wouldn't be surprised if DF27 is closer to 5,000+ years old. I'm not trying to make it older than its parent P312, though; I'm just trying to reconcile some theories, most of them not my own, about who was moving which Copper Age technologies, from what archaeological horizon, to what part of Europe. If it was P312 -- and if DF27 is eldest among his several sons -- 4,000 YBP doesn't look old enough. In which case Marsh isn't counting enough SNPs (but they are there); or if he has enough SNPs, the estimated average time between mutations he's using is about 25% too low.

Or the Bell Beaker influx happened before the P312 mutation.

Dubhthach
07-25-2014, 11:47 AM
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I see another DF27+ result in the Ireland project.

Beirne (264624), he's tested to 67 markers when I run a Genetic Distance report in the project the next confirmed DF27+ has a Genetic Distance of 20 from him at 67 markers (Lee), both names could be classed as "Gaelic Irish".

Webb
07-25-2014, 04:15 PM
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I see another DF27+ result in the Ireland project.

Beirne (264624), he's tested to 67 markers when I run a Genetic Distance report in the project the next confirmed DF27+ has a Genetic Distance of 20 from him at 67 markers (Lee), both names could be classed as "Gaelic Irish".

That is pretty interesting. What is the date for a genetic distance of 20? There is a DF27 project member who is has a welsh surname. He has a common ancestor with two other separate welsh groups at around 0 B.C. This could possibly place DF27 in Wales around that time period as they share three recently discovered snps below DF27.

Stephen Parrish
07-25-2014, 04:45 PM
That is pretty interesting. What is the date for a genetic distance of 20? There is a DF27 project member who is has a welsh surname. He has a common ancestor with two other separate welsh groups at around 0 B.C. This could possibly place DF27 in Wales around that time period as they share three recently discovered snps below DF27.

Billy -

My very approximate guess is at least 1500 years, perhaps 1500 to 2000 years.

Please tell me more about the Welsh groups that you mentioned. Do they have any known SNPs below DF27+? SRY2627+ has been in Wales for a while. :)

Stephen

Webb
07-25-2014, 07:42 PM
Billy -

My very approximate guess is at least 1500 years, perhaps 1500 to 2000 years.

Please tell me more about the Welsh groups that you mentioned. Do they have any known SNPs below DF27+? SRY2627+ has been in Wales for a while. :)

Stephen

Stephen, I will message you.

Gray Fox
07-26-2014, 05:56 AM
Why?? We're fighting for scraps as it is. Anything is worth discussion at this point.

Webb
07-26-2014, 12:34 PM
Why?? We're fighting for scraps as it is. Anything is worth discussion at this point.

Sam, since you follow the Facebook group you probably know about the Davis situation. I didn't know whether it is acceptable to talk about it using real names and all. Sort of to protect the innocent and all that. So Davis shares a common ancestor with Rice and Wynn back at around 0 B.C. Davis and one of the two also share a couple segment mutations in common that have recently been named snps below DF27. Currently all three are DF27**. So while Stephen is most likely correct that SRY2627 has been in Wales for a good long while, I don't know of any good solid proof. Whereas the Davis situation seems to me to be good did evidence of a DF27 presence in Wales or very close by prior to Germanic invasions. And if DF27 was present in Wales that early then unless it was brought in by Romans, there is a good chance that it was in Ireland that early as well. Particularly because Paul had given evidence of a possible native Irish surname being DF27.

Webb
07-26-2014, 12:53 PM
I suppose that since I have a police officer's approach to sorting through evidence a lot of what we discuss is speculation because of lacking evidence. However, if we assume that some groups of DF27 were in the isles very early, the next question is in what order did they arrive. Were they there prior to L21, and did not fair well against that juggernaught? Were they mixed in with L21? Did they arrive after L21, and because of the L21 density, only set up small settlements here and there, similar to the same impact we see with the Vikings? From most things that I have read, there seems to be three "Celtic Waves" in Britain. The very early beaker wave, a later Bronze Age age wave that seems to be timed with the appearance of hill forts, then an Iron Age wave, indicative of the Belgae.

Gray Fox
07-26-2014, 05:56 PM
Ah yes, I understand now. Though I believe said individual is on the site, using their full-name.

Earl Davis
07-26-2014, 08:00 PM
Hello. Earl Davis here. I did not realise my posts elsewhere had been of much interest. Longer post to follow that I suspect unfortunately will make things much less interesting.

Earl Davis
07-26-2014, 08:24 PM
Hi.

I first tested in 2007 but did not get interested in SNP testing until 2011. I descend from Samuel Davis who in the 1700's lived in Staffordshire, England. I descend from his son John and match 3/111 with John's brother Thomas' descendants. Samuel was church Sexton at St. Peter's, Stoke. I am in a group of 4 descendants in the Davis project.

I matched at 7/67 with some members of the Wynn family who claimed descent from the Wynn of Gwydir line Baronets who are supposed to be descended from the ancient welsh princes in the direct male line. It's important to know that the pedigree has been both disputed and supported by some since Victorian times as being the senior line of the Welsh princes (or not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynn_baronets

http://www.geni.com/people/Sir-John-Wynn-MP-1st-Baronet-Wynn-of-Gwydir/6000000002183054316

I know little about the Wynn family but I am NOT convinced even the more recent pedigrees are correct and I suspect the Wynn's I match may be from the Wynn line of Robert Wynn mayor of Canterbury, England. There is a group of these in the Wynn FTDNA project

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/winn/default.aspx?section=yresults

Also see

http://www.geni.com/people/Robert-Wynne-Mayor-of-Canterbury/306307398680006496

I am in no position really to comment.

If this is the case then rather than having a link back over 1,000 years in Wales they to go back to Canterbury England 1500's so it all starts to get a lot less interesting. Sorry.

I have other closer matches to several members of the Morris family.

Following BigY I matched 20 novel SNPs with a RICE participant. RICE and I have made our data available at the DF27 yahoo group. We both match on two of those novels with a third individual who has not gone public. My current conclusion is that these two SNPS for a new sub clade of DF27 and I have asked FTDNA to name one of them and make it available as a stand alone test.

I made some mis steps in my research as I thought we might be connected to the L881 group. I now doubt this is the case.

So sorry this all turned out to be rather duller than I originally hoped for although I have tried to say all along that the Welsh princes link was more of a conversation piece.

Earl.

JLRevilla
07-31-2014, 03:58 AM
So after reading through 13 pages of posts, trying to find out what being classified as a R1b-DF27** means about my ancestry (since I'm adopted), it seems that everything's possible =)
Iberia, France, Scandinavia or The Isles... it can be any of those, right?
=O

Gray Fox
07-31-2014, 05:29 AM
So after reading through 13 pages of posts, trying to find out what being classified as a R1b-DF27** means about my ancestry (since I'm adopted), it seems that everything's possible =)
Iberia, France, Scandinavia or The Isles... it can be any of those, right?
=O

Yes, but since you hail from Peru it is most likely your DF27 is Iberian in origin.

razyn
07-31-2014, 05:30 AM
Mostly it means we haven't broken down that group of DF27 lines yet -- if you aren't Z196+ there are about 17 parallel choices that we know of (and some more that we haven't found, yet); and most only have a small handful of known examples, say one to six. We'll get them sorted, and some of them will show patterns, and maybe then you'll know where those ancestors were when they had that mutation. Or, not. We don't yet know where Mr. DF27 had his... or Mr. P312, or Mr. L11. We have some ideas.

Just in the abstract, the SNP results in haplogroup projects are a road less traveled, by folks trying to solve adoption riddles, than the STR results.

JLRevilla
08-01-2014, 05:15 AM
@Sam_Isaack forgive my newbieness in an obviously expert forum but, do you know which part of Iberia would DF27 most probably came from?
I'm thinking of course about modern references like Basque Country, Cantabria or Gascony...
Thx!

Gray Fox
08-01-2014, 06:01 AM
@Sam_Isaack forgive my newbieness in an obviously expert forum but, do you know which part of Iberia would DF27 most probably came from?
I'm thinking of course about modern references like Basque Country, Cantabria or Gascony...
Thx!

No worries! I'm by no means an expert. I just share my unwanted opinion from time to time ;)

It'd be next to impossible to say with any degree of confidence where your particular y-line hailed from without knowing your close str matches. Which company did you test with and how many markers (str's) did you have tested?

Xabier
08-01-2014, 11:19 AM
Hi.

I have read your posts carefully. I don’t know very much about genetics, but a little of proto-history. There is something that does not fit in this matter, at least, for the western half of Iberia. How can be explained the lack of cultural discontinuity in this zone?

The historical process begins with the arrival of the stela people ( How? I don’t know, by sea, I think > warrior and funerary stelas, statue-menhirs, battle-axes, new burial types, ...: initial expansion from SW to NW Iberian). These new funeral rites connect a few years later (+/-100 years) with pre-Bell Beaker and Bell Beaker material. In this way the Bronze Age is born later and with it, the Atlantic Culture, during practically two milleniums, up to the commercial collapse between V-III BC in the British Isles and NW Iberia.

There are no Lausitz's influences in Western Iberia (the urnenfelderkultur is non-existent and in the NE and E Iberia is not indo-european), neither Hallstatt nor La Tène, but there are celtic words in tartesian inscriptions and the ‘celtici’ (keltikoi, not keltoi) tribes seem to be very old. The process finishes with the presence of Roma.

I think that the key in this history are the stela people, a population related with the Yamnaia Culture.

Thank you.

MitchellSince1893
08-01-2014, 12:24 PM
...do you know which part of Iberia would DF27 most probably came from?...

Maciamo on Eupedia made this map from a year ago using what little data was available. It may give you a rough idea.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28933-New-map-of-R1b-DF27-(SRY2627-M153)

2179

There may be more recent maps I'm unaware of.

Gray Fox
08-01-2014, 12:51 PM
Here's a broader view of the data we have. It isn't restricted by academic limits and derives a good deal from commercial data. So some of it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it is in my opinion a better representative of what is actually out there. Though I still feel that DF27 will be the most frequent P312 clade in France, with the exception of the Brittany region and the more eastern regions. Which are respectively L21 saturated in the Northwest and U152 in the Northeast and East.

Thanks to Tolan for creating these maps.

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

razyn
08-01-2014, 01:21 PM
Interesting piece by Tolan, I hadn't seen the version in French. Had seen the maps, on here somewhere. Anyway speaking of interesting pieces, I'd recommend this videotaped presentation (from April 2014) about the Armenian DNA project, particularly the contrast between academic "top-down" approaches and more or less hobbyist "bottom up" testing, and the importance of aDNA (ancient Y-DNA, of which we still have rather little that's pertinent to this discussion of DF27).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etBNo0638Pw&feature=youtu.be

The meat of the presentation is in my opinion about 2/3 of the way through Peter Hrechdakian's talk. The "slides" (I guess it's PowerPoint or something of the sort) can be frozen, and studied. Unlike the maps provided by Maciamo and Tolan, there are some that show early R1b (down to and including P312, btw) more or less between the eastern Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. And that's waaaay to the east of these dense areas of present-day concentration of some (often rather young) subclades of R1b -- including, but not limited to, DF27's concentration somewhere around the Pyrenees.

ADW_1981
08-01-2014, 04:41 PM
Interesting piece by Tolan, I hadn't seen the version in French. Had seen the maps, on here somewhere. Anyway speaking of interesting pieces, I'd recommend this videotaped presentation (from April 2014) about the Armenian DNA project, particularly the contrast between academic "top-down" approaches and more or less hobbyist "bottom up" testing, and the importance of aDNA (ancient Y-DNA, of which we still have rather little that's pertinent to this discussion of DF27).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etBNo0638Pw&feature=youtu.be

The meat of the presentation is in my opinion about 2/3 of the way through Peter Hrechdakian's talk. The "slides" (I guess it's PowerPoint or something of the sort) can be frozen, and studied. Unlike the maps provided by Maciamo and Tolan, there are some that show early R1b (down to and including P312, btw) more or less between the eastern Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. And that's waaaay to the east of these dense areas of present-day concentration of some (often rather young) subclades of R1b -- including, but not limited to, DF27's concentration somewhere around the Pyrenees.

It looks like the presentation was before the finding of the sizeable and growing P312 cluster in the Armenian highlands. Hopefully this cluster will be larger in 2 years time.

JLRevilla
08-01-2014, 05:48 PM
No worries! I'm by no means an expert. I just share my unwanted opinion from time to time ;)

It'd be next to impossible to say with any degree of confidence where your particular y-line hailed from without knowing your close str matches. Which company did you test with and how many markers (str's) did you have tested?

I tested on 23andme originally but since the results were too generic I tested with BritainsDNA and got the DF27** result.

Gray Fox
08-02-2014, 07:12 AM
I tested on 23andme originally but since the results were too generic I tested with BritainsDNA and got the DF27** result.

I'm not familiar with 23andme. Do they list your str results?

Stephen Parrish
08-02-2014, 10:48 AM
I'm not familiar with 23andme. Do they list your str results?

Sam -

23andMe does not list short tandem repeats in its test results.

Stephen

JLRevilla
08-04-2014, 04:36 PM
So, has anyone tried to map DF-27**?
It seems to me that the high concentration of DF-27 near the Spanish/French border is due to M153 (of course, I'm still trying to figure these things out so I might be wrong).
For those of us with the ** designation, should be looking more to the south or north of that border?

razyn
08-04-2014, 06:22 PM
The high concentration is affected by that, but it's real, as far as the data go. They come primarily from studies published before DF27 was discovered, based on then-known subclades, tested at very low STR resolution (like 10 to 15 markers) -- and certain more or less reliable assumptions by more or less credible people, several of whom regularly post here.

I don't trust these data, but I'm in a minority about that.

I also don't trust the 1000 Genomes project as a cross-section of any reality-based genetic profile. It's a fairly hefty, but selective, sample of people with a recent background in the western hemisphere, and more distant ancestry in parts of Europe that sent colonists or later emigrants to this area. The other 80% or so of the world population is underrepresented, if at all.

Also, the maps one finds of present haplogroup distributions typically omit small percentages (which may include the birthplace of major clades); and they typically have an eastern edge somewhere to the west of Moscow. That also may not be reality-based, although I think that has more to do with myopia than politics. People test whom they wish to see tested, and map what they wish to see mapped. Not much of it is random, or comprehensive.

Mher
09-19-2014, 04:43 PM
My DF27>A431 from galatian?

palamede
09-19-2014, 06:47 PM
My DF27>A431 from galatian?

several possibilities:

- There were a lot of galatian soldiers in Seleutian armies and in the Orient army of Roman Empire.

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

Also Romans gave kingdom of Lesser Armenia to Galatian princes before annexing it in Roman Empire

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deiotarus
" rewarded him for his assistance... with the title of King and an increase of territory (part of eastern Pontus, to which the Senate granted him Lesser Armenia and most of Galatia)."

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

razyn
11-03-2014, 10:06 PM
I'm bumping forward a post from 13 months ago, because I have some highly relevant data to post (courtesy of Mark Jost) and this is background:


Mike, your 3500 ybp isn't that far off from 1200 B.C. that I pulled from World Families.


The 3.5k ybp isn't my estimate. That comes from one of Spanjool's runs. It looks like the standard Nordtvedt method has 3.7k for DF27 and 3.5k for Z196. Those are intraclade so I wouldn't be surprised if they were slightly older in reality.

I'm looking at the same thread... at least the one I think you mentioned. I don't see the 1200 BC and I've tried to figure out who calculated it and how. I just looked through "Topic: R1b-DF27 - keeping the phylogenetic tree updated" I can't find it. I guess it doesn't matter, but we are seeing estimates that show Z196 as being close to as old as DF27 and since you mentioned Z196 was "young" I'm trying to see who would give that estimate and how they rate DF27 on the same scale.

This is the relative STR variance all of the 67 STR ht's with DF27+ and then Z196+ confirmed.

DF27 confirmed 1.07 n=656 (includes Z196)
Z196 confirmed 1.06 n=465

Its fair to say that Z196 has swamped or biased the overall results, but the non-Z196 isn't of higher variance.

DF27 confirmed non-Z196 1.06 n=191

This is not conclusive, but I just don't see how the Z196 TMRCA is not close to as old as the DF27 TMRCA. There is a cap on DF27's age. That cap is the age of P312 and DF27 and P312 appear about the same age.

The whole point was I don't think there is much separation between DF27 and Z196. You said "you could argue that while DF27 in general is old, Z196 is young" (post #83) and I'm just saying I don't see that so I was wondering who was estimating that. It doesn't matter, but if someone is finding that Z196 is relatively young I'd like be sure to understand.

OK, that's the context for my next post. Since Webb and Mikewww had that exchange, our then-new DF27 haplogroup project has run for another year -- during which a lot of NextGen testing has opened up a number of subclades with "terminal" (for the time being) SNPs we didn't have, a year ago. For reasons of his own, having to do with a perception of similarities of the age and movements of his (DF13) side of L21 and that of DF27 (particularly the North-South Cluster) -- Mark Jost has gotten interested in our haplogroup project. We have been discussing TMRCA and related matters via PM here, and then email, for a couple of days. And I'm now authorized to post a link to his brand new TMRCA chart for DF27, and most of its subclades that we have thus far organized into subgroups of our project.

So, my next post will be the link to that... I just didn't want the rest of you to have a problem finding this earlier discussion.

razyn
11-03-2014, 10:08 PM
Here is the DF27 TMRCA chart Mark Jost has prepared in the past couple of days:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNU01FclFTeFBBX0U/view?usp=sharing

Enjoy.

vettor
11-03-2014, 11:32 PM
There are far too many articles on the net that favour the DF27 marker as being basque more than anything else.

Basque = ancient Vasconic people
Vasconic lands = aquitania/Gascony

IMO a basque genetic marker is more the French-basque than the others

Are they Iberians ,........IMO, I doubt it

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/9/2211
above link replaced the previous version of the same name

Webb
11-03-2014, 11:34 PM
Here is the DF27 TMRCA chart Mark Jost has prepared in the past couple of days:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNU01FclFTeFBBX0U/view?usp=sharing

Enjoy.

I quickly scanned the document and Mark has Z196 older than any other DF27 grouping. I will eat my words. Mikewww: 1, Webb: 0.

razyn
11-04-2014, 12:00 AM
To me, the most interesting (and in some ways surprising) suggestion is that CTS4065 is very much older than its brother clade (both under Z295), Z216. The younger branch is the more southwestern/Iberian one, with M153 a couple of steps farther out from the tree trunk on that branch.

Mythtown
11-04-2014, 04:17 AM
Am I missing it, or was not one done for Z295*?

Webb
11-04-2014, 04:21 AM
Am I missing it, or was not one done for Z295*?

I believe it is on page 2.

razyn
11-04-2014, 06:11 AM
The first version posted had accidentally omitted A431, it's now present (in three versions) on a new, sixth page.

Gray Fox
12-05-2014, 02:04 AM
Just wanted to share that another Irish DF27 has joined our P312 Facebook group. Surname Kelly with two close matches bearing the surnames Dooley and O'Leary.

razyn
12-31-2014, 04:44 AM
This seems to be a fairly harmless thread in which to mention that DF27 is now on the FTDNA displayed haplotree -- for the first time since its discovery was announced on DNA-Forums, whence the "DF" in its name. That happened in Nov. 2011. DNA-Forums has ceased to be, but the event was at least mentioned elsewhere, such as this note: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10231.msg125997#msg125997

Mark D
01-06-2015, 11:12 PM
Any idea why FTDNA now has L176, not under P312, but as follows?

Z284
R-Z284
L448
R-L448
CTS4179
R-CTS4179
L176
R-L176
L175

ArmandoR1b
01-07-2015, 12:09 PM
Any idea why FTDNA now has L176, not under P312, but as follows?

Z284
R-Z284
L448
R-L448
CTS4179
R-CTS4179
L176
R-L176
L175

That's L176.1 which is part of the R1a tree. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

The L176 that pertains to P312 is L176.2 in the ISOGG tree. FTDNA removed the .1 and .2. You can see the L176 that pertains to P312 under DF27.

3333

Mark D
01-08-2015, 02:30 PM
Thanks. Then my issue is with FTDNA who moved my placement up to the wrong L176 and now suggests I test L175.

Isidro
01-08-2015, 02:39 PM
Mark D,
My tree is as you describe, L176 shows on both trees but is only an option to test L175 under the R1a. It does show tested positive under DF27 but no further testing available, before I had a couple including CTS1488 but now is not in blue.. By the way I am expecting a result for CTS4188 from Tribecode in a few weeks.

ArmandoR1b
01-08-2015, 05:09 PM
Mark D,
My tree is as you describe, L176 shows on both trees but is only an option to test L175 under the R1a. It does show tested positive under DF27 but no further testing available, before I had a couple including CTS1488 but now is not in blue.. By the way I am expecting a result for CTS4188 from Tribecode in a few weeks.

If you turn out to be positive for CTS4188 you can order S11121 from YSEQ. According to YFull it is on the same level as S8825. http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4188/

Isidro
01-09-2015, 05:07 AM
Thanks for the advice ArmandoR1b. I was lucky that it is included in the test I ordered from Tribecode.It is interesting how it is branching out with Iberians and Americans; I think the majority of Iberian descent are CTS4188+ but there is a chance I could be -
I am not sure what the near future will bring for DNA testing but by the looks of it, I am getting ready to pick. I do realize that analysis of reading the data
is a key part of the cost.Do you know of any upcoming possibilities?.

ArmandoR1b
01-09-2015, 01:46 PM
Thanks for the advice ArmandoR1b. I was lucky that it is included in the test I ordered from Tribecode.It is interesting how it is branching out with Iberians and Americans; I think the majority of Iberian descent are CTS4188+ but there is a chance I could be -
I am not sure what the near future will bring for DNA testing but by the looks of it, I am getting ready to pick. I do realize that analysis of reading the data
is a key part of the cost.Do you know of any upcoming possibilities?.

In knew that CTS4188 was included in the Tribecode test but are you saying that S11121 was included also?

The only companies and their tests that I know of that are better for Y-DNA SNP testing are FullGenomes Y Prime and FTDNA BigY. I believe FullGenomes includes analysis but I have read that YFull has been able to find other highly reliable SNPs in the same file that FullGenomes provides.

Isidro
01-09-2015, 02:06 PM
In knew that CTS4188 was included in the Tribecode test but are you saying that S11121 was included also?

The only companies and their tests that I know of that are better for Y-DNA SNP testing are FullGenomes Y Prime and FTDNA BigY. I believe FullGenomes includes analysis but I have read that YFull has been able to find other highly reliable SNPs in the same file that FullGenomes provides.
Thanks for the advice, I seem to gear toward the FullGenomes; price is a factor for me that is why I am aiming to explore what is around the corner.
Tribecode shows,as part of their Y Haplotree, branch CTS4188, and nothing beyond that .

Isidro
04-04-2015, 01:47 PM
I am trying to understand what is the convergence and divergence of L21, U152 and DF27 in relation to P312 in modern results.

Perhaps instead of testing "older" ancient DNA in relation to the estimated age of P312, hoping to strike gold somewhere in Eurasia, a less ambitious and more logical approach IMO would be to test in regions where DF27 is concentrated now. Usable for testing bones from 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago and further back. It might give a smarter clue in what areas to look next.

I still have a problem equating DF27 with L21 and U152.
With all the respect for P312 that are negative for those 3 branches; I mean isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?.

TigerMW
04-04-2015, 02:22 PM
I am trying to understand what is the convergence and divergence of L21, U152 and DF27 in relation to P312 in modern results.

Perhaps instead of testing "older" ancient DNA in relation to the estimated age of P312, hoping to strike gold somewhere in Eurasia, a less ambitious and more logical approach IMO would be to test in regions where DF27 is concentrated now. Usable for testing bones from 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago and further back. It might give a smarter clue in what areas to look next.

I still have a problem equating DF27 with L21 and U152.
With all the respect for P312 that are negative for those 3 branches; I mean isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?.
I'd love to have 100 R1b people in the Iberian project test do NGS testing. It's hard to tell what would shake out.

I think there is a good chance that DF27 has a large population than either L21 and U152. These three do have little brothers that we are aware under P312. DF19 is actually not that small. The other that we know of is DF99.

There are probably very few true P312* people that we know of.

There is STR convergence, but not that much. It is important to identify STR signatures... as well as testing SNPs.

What I see that although there are many, many cases that an L21 person might have closer GDs with some U152 or DF27 people than they do with some other L21 people. However, this is "looking for convergence" and generally you do not see this with close in (reasonable GDs). The convergence is mostly a problem at wide GDs where GDs are not that useful anyway.

STR convergence is not much of a problem at close in GDs. I rarely see a person with a GD of 7 or less at 67 STRs not be in the same Bronze Age haplogroup. In fact, I can't think of any right now, but there are some. I have never seen a GD of 10-11 at 111 STRs that was not of the same Bronze Age haplogroup. I'm not saying it couldn't happen.

Think of like this. L21, U152 and DF27 have many crossing branches, but they are bigger, older branches. When it comes out towards the edges of the tree, to the smaller, younger branches; there is a lot of "air" that allows for distinctiveness between STR signatures.

All of this highlights the importance of looking for patterns. We can and will see single SNPs that are redundant or recurrent in different branches of the tree. This problem will grow and NGS testing discovers more SNPs and increases coverage. It's important to look for patterns or upstream matching SNPs and/or corroborative STR evidence.

Webb
04-04-2015, 02:46 PM
I'd love to have 100 R1b people in the Iberian project test do NGS testing. It's hard to tell what would shake out.

I think there is a good chance that DF27 has a large population than either L21 and U152. These three do have little brothers that we are aware under P312. DF19 is actually not that small. The other that we know of is DF99.

There are probably very few true P312* people that we know of.

There is STR convergence, but not that much. It is important to identify STR signatures... as well as testing SNPs.

What I see that although there are many, many cases that an L21 person might have closer GDs with some U152 or DF27 people than they do with some other L21 people. However, this is "looking for convergence" and generally you do not see this with close in (reasonable GDs). The convergence is mostly a problem at wide GDs where GDs are not that useful anyway.

STR convergence is not much of a problem at close in GDs. I rarely see a person with a GD of 7 or less at 67 STRs not be in the same Bronze Age haplogroup. In fact, I can't think of any right now, but there are some. I have never seen a GD of 10-11 at 111 STRs that was not of the same Bronze Age haplogroup. I'm not saying it couldn't happen.

Think of like this. L21, U152 and DF27 have many crossing branches, but they are bigger, older branches. When it comes out towards the edges of the tree, to the smaller, younger branches; there is a lot of "air" that allows for distinctiveness between STR signatures.

All of this highlights the importance of looking for patterns. We can and will see single SNPs that are redundant or recurrent in different branches of the tree. This problem will grow and NGS testing discovers more SNPs and increases coverage. It's important to look for patterns or upstream matching SNPs and/or corroborative STR evidence.

Vanderhoof is a 37 marker match to me. At 67 markers we have a GD of 9. Last year Mjost ran a comparison of our strings and came up with 1060 AD, give or take 500 years. I am CTS4065 and they are Z270. So our STR signature comparison does not match the dates of our respective sub clades.

MJost
04-04-2015, 03:31 PM
One needs to be careful with STR haplotypes. 37 or even 67 markers are not a good resolution in some cases. In situations like you have described, there maybe less mutations in the first 67 block then in those 68-111 markers, even though they are technically much slower but can accumulate more, increasing the genetic distances significantly thus older than when using just 67 markers or less for TMRCAs.

SNPs are now King and STRs are Queen as SNPs are much more stable. STRs can only point you in the right direction.

MJost

Webb
04-04-2015, 04:10 PM
One needs to be careful with STR haplotypes. 37 or even 67 markers are not a good resolution in some cases. In situations like you have described, there maybe less mutations in the first 67 block then in those 68-111 markers, even though they are technically much slower but can accumulate more, increasing the genetic distances significantly thus older than when using just 67 markers or less for TMRCAs.

SNPs are now King and STRs are Queen as SNPs are much more stable. STRs can only point you in the right direction.

MJost

I would like to have you run the two STR string comparisons again if myself and Vanderhoof ever upgrade to 111. I am interested to see how that compares to the snp predictions.

lgmayka
04-04-2015, 07:36 PM
I rarely see a person with a GD of 7 or less at 67 STRs not be in the same Bronze Age haplogroup. In fact, I can't think of any right now, but there are some.
Perhaps the best-proven example is that of

Ysearch N2997 of Poland (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=N2997&viewuid=N2997&p=1)
(#N28490 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish/default.aspx?section=ysnp)) CTS6364+, S4795+, S4767-, YSC0001396-, CTS10028-, L258-, L287-, L22-

Ysearch 982W3 of Finland (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=N2997&viewuid=982W3&p=1)
(#122603 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/finland/default.aspx?section=ysnp)) M253+, P30+, L22+, L258+, L287+, L296-, L300-, P47-, M21-, M227-, P109-, P259-, P29-

At 67 markers, a genetic distance of only 6 separates them; but they belong to two different branches of I-CTS6364 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Z2336/) that separated about 4200 years ago.

Besides SNP tests, two individual Y-STR tests were run on #N28490 to make sure there was no sample mixup:
DYS388 = 14
DYS462 = 12

I know of similar examples like this in haplogroups R1a and R1b, but they are less thoroughly tested.

ArmandoR1b
04-05-2015, 01:08 AM
I know of a person that is DF27 that at 67 markers has a GD of 6 with a person that is Z372 under U106 and a GD of 6 with another person that is Z36 under U152 and a GD of 7 with a person that is DF13 under L21.

ArmandoR1b
04-05-2015, 01:11 AM
I am trying to understand what is the convergence and divergence of L21, U152 and DF27 in relation to P312 in modern results.

Perhaps instead of testing "older" ancient DNA in relation to the estimated age of P312, hoping to strike gold somewhere in Eurasia, a less ambitious and more logical approach IMO would be to test in regions where DF27 is concentrated now. Usable for testing bones from 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago and further back. It might give a smarter clue in what areas to look next.

I still have a problem equating DF27 with L21 and U152.
With all the respect for P312 that are negative for those 3 branches; I mean isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?.

What do you mean by having a problem equating DF27 with L21 and U152?

TigerMW
04-06-2015, 10:39 PM
... STR convergence is not much of a problem at close in GDs. I rarely see a person with a GD of 7 or less at 67 STRs not be in the same Bronze Age haplogroup. In fact, I can't think of any right now, but there are some.
These are rare cases, so it is not much of a problem - is what I am saying. For the most part, the false matches are still getting us into the correct Bronze Age (eldest) SNP.

I agree that STR convergence is an issue though, clearly. SNP testing is critical.


I have never seen a GD of 10-11 at 111 STRs that was not of the same Bronze Age haplogroup. I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
This is probably the real test. What's our worst known 111 STR false match?

Admittedly, I'm off on a tangent. Armando has the right question - what does convergence and divergence and comparing with U152 and L21 have to do with the origin of DF27?

joeflood
09-30-2015, 08:43 AM
This is quite right, thanks for the extra data. I think it is pretty clear that Spain was the first port of call for R1b on their passage around into the Atlantic, probably looking for tin, and the expansion of DF27 with the Bell Beakers shows it is clearly the oldest part of P312. It has an extraordinary number of branches prior to 2500 BC on yfull, a real population tsunami, and that is why the larger variance.

The number of DF27 has turned out to be grossly underestimated, partly due to the language barrier, partly due to lack of attention. I am certain it is the largest subclade of P312; the siblings L21 and U152 are a baby brother and sister.

joeflood
09-30-2015, 08:55 AM
Kit N66608 is R-L21 and has 33/37 with kits that are R-DF27 and R-U152, common ancestor estimated at 4600 years ago (think Stonehenge and the Pyramids). Don't think I have a higher level one of these; though plenty of Bronze age sub-branches fail at 67

Kwheaton
09-30-2015, 01:09 PM
This is quite right, thanks for the extra data. I think it is pretty clear that Spain was the first port of call for R1b on their passage around into the Atlantic, probably looking for tin, and the expansion of DF27 with the Bell Beakers shows it is clearly the oldest part of P312. It has an extraordinary number of branches prior to 2500 BC on yfull, a real population tsunami, and that is why the larger variance.

The number of DF27 has turned out to be grossly underestimated, partly due to the language barrier, partly due to lack of attention. I am certain it is the largest subclade of P312; the siblings L21 and U152 are a baby brother and sister.

Just a note of caution in making assumptions about the size of various haplogroups based on the numbers at YFULL and elsewhere. First off many of the the sub branches of the L2 branch of U152 are not represented (at all) at YFULL. Second places like FRANCE are under represented in samples overall and places like IRELAND may be over represented so making conclusions based on unequal testing "may" be misleading. Not that your conclusions are untrue.....just taht in the case of many L2 downstream SNPS they do not appear at all since resukts have not been shared there.

Ric
10-28-2015, 09:02 PM
Hi all, I just joined the club.
I am French but my paternal line is probably not older than 400 years in France. Before that, perhaps the Netherlands according to the family oral tradition. My paper trail stops in 1736 in Vittel, Lorraine (you may know the name from the water of the same name) , before that the church burnt and before that it was the war of 30 years which raged in the area with some villages of Lorraine entirely erased by Swedish mercenaries serving the French king.
I have tested Y67 at ftdna, have more than a thousand 12/12 match. In the UK mostly, but with a few in Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Italy... ). Ihave zero matches above 12 though, weird.
Also tested at 23&me and a few 12/12 names at ftdna also pop up in my 23&me relatives around 13 Centimorgan, again these names are mostly from the UK, while I have no known British/English ancestors for the last 250-300 years.
I am assumed Df27 and tested Z295+ with the M243 snp pack. I am in the ftdna df27 group already.

GoldenHind
10-28-2015, 11:46 PM
With all the respect for P312 that are negative for those 3 branches; I mean isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?.

While I am hardly a disinterested party, I don't think any of the other three P312 subclades is comparable to looking for a needle in a haystack, though they are clearly less numerous than the three larger P312 subclades.

DF99 was only discovered two years ago, so it has several years of catching up to do. Secondly it wasn't included in Geno 2, so none were found in that popular test. Finally DF99 appears to be much more common on the continent than in the British Isles and especially Ireland, which constitute the major portion of the FTDNA database. DF99 appears to be virtually absent from Ireland, Scotland and Iberia, which seem to get most of the attention in P312 circles.

If one concentrates on Scandinavia instead, L238 appears to be the dominant subclade, and the three larger subclades look more like needles in a haystack.

rms2
10-29-2015, 12:01 AM
. . .

If one concentrates on Scandinavia instead, L238 appears to be the dominant subclade, and the three larger subclades look more like needles in a haystack.

Actually, L21 is fairly common in Scandinavia, as P312 subclades go, at least according to Busby, and there wasn't a lot of room left in the P312xL21,U152 category for L238 or any other non-L21, non-U152 P312 clade to dominate.

Isidro
10-29-2015, 01:27 AM
It's all a matter of perspective like you just pointed out, and also the general purpose of my particular comment on where to test and completely taken out of context by you.

This is my original post:

"I am trying to understand what is the convergence and divergence of L21, U152 and DF27 in relation to P312 in modern results.

Perhaps instead of testing "older" ancient DNA in relation to the estimated age of P312, hoping to strike gold somewhere in Eurasia, a less ambitious and more logical approach IMO would be to test in regions where DF27 is concentrated now. Usable for testing bones from 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago and further back. It might give a smarter clue in what areas to look next.

I still have a problem equating DF27 with L21 and U152.
With all the respect for P312 that are negative for those 3 branches; I mean isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?. "


While I am hardly a disinterested party, I don't think any of the other three P312 subclades is comparable to looking for a needle in a haystack, though they are clearly less numerous than the three larger P312 subclades.

DF99 was only discovered two years ago, so it has several years of catching up to do. Secondly it wasn't included in Geno 2, so none were found in that popular test. Finally DF99 appears to be much more common on the continent than in the British Isles and especially Ireland, which constitute the major portion of the FTDNA database. DF99 appears to be virtually absent from Ireland, Scotland and Iberia, which seem to get most of the attention in P312 circles.

If one concentrates on Scandinavia instead, L238 appears to be the dominant subclade, and the three larger subclades look more like needles in a haystack.

GoldenHind
10-29-2015, 06:29 PM
Actually, L21 is fairly common in Scandinavia, as P312 subclades go, at least according to Busby, and there wasn't a lot of room left in the P312xL21,U152 category for L238 or any other non-L21, non-U152 P312 clade to dominate.

OK, that was hyperbole on my part. I do note that in Busby's sample of Norway P312XL21,U152 (15 of 138) was larger that L21 (11 of 138). In the Old Norway Project data, P312* (which includes L238) clearly dominates R1b in the Norway coastal sample.

My point was merely that the dominance of the larger P312 subclades diminishes as one moves east from the Atlantic.

Gray Fox
10-29-2015, 07:14 PM
6472

Here is a picture of the Old Norway Project haplogroup map.

According to these results L21 is most frequent in Norway, but it begins to drop once you move east/southeast. Though it, L21, does have a respectable frequency in Skaraborg, Sweden. Everywhere else, L21 meets or just falls short of meeting, but doesn't exceed the P312*(Likely L238 and to a lesser extent DF27, DF99 etc.) numbers. And in one area in particular, my own subclade makes an unexpected appearance B)

GoldenHind
10-29-2015, 11:29 PM
6472

Here is a picture of the Old Norway Project haplogroup map.

According to these results L21 is most frequent in Norway, but it begins to drop once you move east/southeast. Though it, L21, does have a respectable frequency in Skaraborg, Sweden. Everywhere else, L21 meets or just falls short of meeting, but doesn't exceed the P312*(Likely L238 and to a lesser extent DF27, DF99 etc.) numbers. And in one area in particular, my own subclade makes an unexpected appearance B)

Thanks. Note the smaller pie chart for the Norway coastal figures, which illustrates the division within R1b. P312* (in dark red) is 3 or 4 times larger than L21 (in orange), and larger than all of U106 combined (in light green).

rln
10-30-2015, 06:33 PM
My Y-DNA Ancestors as reported by FTDNA and YSEQ.
R-DF27 (derived)
R-DF83 (derived)
R-Z2567 (derived)
R-Y15926 (ancestral)
R-Z2564 (derived)
Big Y Tree shows Z2564 in the same column as Z2567. Both YFull and YSEQ show Z2564 below Z2567. The real terminal snp has yet to be discovered.
According to YFull Experimental Tree v3.16, DF83 formed 4400 ybp, and Z2564 formed about 3600 ybp with a TMRCA of 3600 ybp. This period of time spans the Bronze Age in Northern Europe. In modern times there isn’t a lot of DF27 in Sweden. Perhaps it left with the Goths & Geats. The men in the YFull report show their ancestor's home countries as: Sweden, Puerto Rico, Lima Peru, England, and Tuscany. The FTDNA DF27 project reports many men in the DF83 block who are without knowledge of their ancestors except for two: Astrurias, Spain and Upper Rhineland Germany (me).

corner
10-30-2015, 06:53 PM
If the currently invisible DF27>ZZ12 half of DF27 (probably very well represented in the 'P312xL21, U152' sections of the Old Norway and Busby data) were added to the existing DF27>Z195 subclades, levels of all DF27 are potentially pretty good. Knowledge of this previously missing section of DF27 is increasing through NGS testing, previous chip-based testing used in such studies couldn't see it. Unfortunately, it means we do not know how much of the P312* in the Old Norway project is DF27>ZZ12 and how much is L238 etc. Through more up to date hobbyist SNP and STR testing we know our particular DF27>ZZ12 (Z195-) subclade is well represented in Sweden. Central and Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Scandinavia are not well tested for any subclades, never mind the large missing section of DF27 hidden within P312*.

Ric
11-02-2015, 06:04 PM
Hi all,
I introduced myself post 171.
I have read this very interesting thread to page 9, so far. I observed how difficult to put any (pre)historical data on top of DNA data, that means lots of disagreement of course.
But I'd like to give some info about my lineage to my brother and father without bothering them with technical details, yet I would hate to give them an inaccurate storyline.
So I am df27, z209+, z295 + so far. I read here that there is no agreement to consider Iberia/Basque country as the birth cradle of df27. This means that there is no guaranties that my paternal ancestor was present in the Basque county or Spain 2000 years ago, as opposed to what I believed until recently.
At least, I hope that I can say safely that df27 was a branch of Indo Europeans, born about 4500 years ago, that migrated to central Europe and South West Germany and then spread west, some by maritime routes to end up in the British Isles, some inland to end up in Spain.

Webb
11-02-2015, 06:31 PM
Hi all,
I introduced myself post 171.
I have read this very interesting thread to page 9, so far. I observed how difficult to put any (pre)historical data on top of DNA data, that means lots of disagreement of course.
But I'd like to give some info about my lineage to my brother and father without bothering them with technical details, yet I would hate to give them an inaccurate storyline.
So I am df27, z209+, z295 + so far. I read here that there is no agreement to consider Iberia/Basque country as the birth cradle of df27. This means that there is no guaranties that my paternal ancestor was present in the Basque county or Spain 2000 years ago, as opposed to what I believed until recently.
At least, I hope that I can say safely that df27 was a branch of Indo Europeans, born about 4500 years ago, that migrated to central Europe and South West Germany and then spread west, some by maritime routes to end up in the British Isles, some inland to end up in Spain.

That would be the safest synopsis, at this point. Spain, in particularly the Pyrenees seems to be the pooling point of DF27. My guess is there are a number of clades that arose there, but the question is when. L21 is most common in the British Isles. It had to have come from somewhere. Most probably from the continent, so it is realistic to expect some L21 clades were born on the isles, but L21 as a whole probably not. The same can most likely be said of DF27, or U152, or any other number of haplogroups when discussing where they are currently found in large volume versus where they might have arose.

Ric
11-03-2015, 09:15 PM
Yes thanks Webb. These mutations must have happened in a relatively short time span and perhaps only forensic dna analysis will give a definitive answer.
Regarding df27, I told my brother we were ancestral Celtic, 'in between' Atlantic Celts L21 and Iberian Celts Df27, probably closer to df27 and definitively not U106 Germanic or U152 Italo-celtic. I don't know if that wording has any merit, but it's a way to prevent any 'I told you this and that, but it turned out to be wrong'. So 'Celtic'-like, perhaps Iberian perhaps not, was the best I could say.

Gray Fox
11-03-2015, 09:37 PM
I'd definitely give a Celtic/Bell Beaker/Indo-European speaking label to DF27. Not for the entire group (though even Iberian clades surely derive from the aforementioned group), but it strikes me as a bit silly to consider the other two of the big three (L21 and U152) to be the quintessential Celtic/Italic subclades, while not extending the same to their brother clade whose age and distribution is more similar than different.

Ric
11-04-2015, 01:32 AM
Well, that's the way they are labeled in old trees such as this one http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml
Basically it's still Asterix the Gaul and Obelix' culture, a bit more refined but not much. Beside, French kids these days probably learn more from these old Asterix books (and Tintin) than from their official Pravda-like 'History' textbooks.

Ric
11-05-2015, 07:27 PM
1) Are there lots of people looking alike Colin Farrell and Sean Connery in Ireland, Wales and Scotland? my dad looks like Farrell. I visited South England, Brighton, Southampton and some locals look like that a bit, but most are Anglo Saxon types.

2) Do we know the haplogroup (by forensic ancient dna) of the Picts, Caledonian and other early celtic tribes in Wales ?

Ric
11-11-2015, 06:48 PM
Free paper from Nature about the people the British isles, with this cool 'historical map' in particular
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/figure/F3/

It is not restricted to the df27 group in any case, but I thought it would be interesting to mention the paper, free at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

and perhaps mention this quote:

We saw no evidence of a general “Celtic” population in non-Saxon parts of the UK. Instead there were many distinct genetic clusters in these regions, some amongst the most different in our analyses. Further, the ancestry profile of Cornwall (perhaps expected to resemble other “Celtic” clusters) is quite different from that of the Welsh clusters, and much closer to that of Devon, and Cent./ S England. Nevertheless, the data suggest that the Welsh clusters represent populations that are more similar to the early post-ice-age settlers of Britain than those from elsewhere in the UK

Are the first post Ice-Age DF27-colonists that we are talking about in this thread, exclusively those represented in FigureF3 (the first link) as those coming from the coast line? and in figure F11 as the "Maritime style beakers from Spain" from 4000 bc to 2500 Bc:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/figure/F11/
Perhaps other df27 waves came from other beakers. In this figure F11, notice the 'Fusion of Beaker styles' coming from the bulk of France (or Gaul) and the 'Corded style beaker from Central Europe, 2500bc' crossing by sea (unless the Doggerland was still occasionally walkable) from Northern France and the Netherland.
Assuming each of these beaker waves contributed the df27 pool in the UK, they must have been different subclades of df27.

Krefter
11-11-2015, 07:32 PM
DF27 was born in 2800 BC at the earliest. It's not an Ice age lineage. It's a patriarch lineage that became popular because it's early members had power. DF27 could have many origins in Isles. It could have gone a long with L21 to the Isles in the Bronze age, it could be from random admixture with mainland Europe or more likely Iberia. Some could have come in the 1500s from Spain some could have come in 2000 BC.

tchekitchek
11-11-2015, 09:00 PM
Being an undisclosed R1b from Belgium, I highly suspect I'm DF27 B)

Are they plenty in Belgium?

gotten
11-11-2015, 09:19 PM
Being an undisclosed R1b from Belgium, I highly suspect I'm DF27 B)
Are they plenty in Belgium?

Here is a few year old discussion on Belgian DNA: Link (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26032-Breakdown-of-Y-DNA-distribution-in-Belgium-by-province) and a link to more recent numbers: here (http://www.brabant-dna.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1377&t=3757).
Seems that DF27 is about 40% of R1b in Belgium although the more recent statistics seem to be even lower. Do you have any other hints that it might be DF27?

tchekitchek
11-11-2015, 09:56 PM
Here is a few year old discussion on Belgian DNA: Link (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26032-Breakdown-of-Y-DNA-distribution-in-Belgium-by-province) and a link to more recent numbers: here (http://www.brabant-dna.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1377&t=3757).
Seems that DF27 is about 40% of R1b in Belgium although the more recent statistics seem to be even lower. Do you have any other hints that it might be DF27?

I seem to be negative in U106, L21 and U152, I guess it leaves me DF27 unless I'm one of those rarer subclades...

razyn
11-11-2015, 11:08 PM
DF27 was born in 2800 BC at the earliest. It's not an Ice age lineage. It's a patriarch lineage that became popular because it's early members had power. DF27 could have many origins in Isles.

I sort of agree with most of this, but don't believe we really know the absolute dates yet, much less the precise geography, for the "birth" or initial mutation event(s) of DF27, or its brother U152; their shared but not widely discussed common ancestor ZZ11 -- that isn't shared by L21; or old pappy P312. Or L11. We have some pretty carefully constructed theories, and a little aDNA that appears to support some of them better than others. All of this is rapidly improving.

If one accepts YFull's dating, 2800 BC could be in the right ballpark for DF27 (they are currently saying 2500, but P312 is still 2900 and it's the next level up, on their tree). I think they are doing careful work with what they have; but it's kind of like buying a nice handmade balalaika -- superb luthiery but weak glue, and some of the metal components aren't so great either. The SNP-counting method (call that the "glue") still has a way to go before it's very persuasive, even as massaged by YFull. Also, everybody's database still has gaps, and theirs is no exception (call that the tuning machines, with here and there a missing tooth in one of the gears).

Ric
11-18-2015, 04:10 PM
In this video about the earliest arrivals in Wales and Cornwall, 10 000 bp or 8000bc, they call these early people 'Celts'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLV63ip7pdI

I thought that Celts were Indo-Europeans, that had to be from the R1b haplogroup, arriving in Western Europe maybe 4 or 3000bc, but not that far back as 8000bc . That's what you guys say above. So in the video, the people that come to Wales and Cornwall 10,000 years ago had to be Neolithic Europeans from the Spanish Refugium. That they became Celticized afterwards is possible though. I am messing up with the time scale?

rms2
11-18-2015, 04:37 PM
In this video about the earliest arrivals in Wales and Cornwall, 10 000 bp or 8000bc, they call these early people 'Celts'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLV63ip7pdI

I thought that Celts were Indo-Europeans, that had to be from the R1b haplogroup, arriving in Western Europe maybe 4 or 3000bc, but not that far back as 8000bc . That's what you guys say above. So in the video, the people that come to Wales and Cornwall 10,000 years ago had to be Neolithic Europeans from the Spanish Refugium. That they became Celticized afterwards is possible though. I am messing up with the time scale?

Yes, the Celts were people who spoke a Celtic language and thus could not have been anywhere as long ago as 8,000 BC, since no Indo-European languages existed that long ago.

There is some disagreement over when and where the earliest form of Celtic was spoken, but it isn't likely that it occurred anytime before the 3rd millennium BC.

The video series at the link you posted is dated. Back when it was produced, the idea that western European R1b-M269 spent the LGM in Iberia and expanded from there afterwards was still popular. Since R1b-M269 is very frequent in the old homelands of the Celts, it was inferred that the Celts were primarily descendants of the people from the Iberian Ice Age Refuge who had someone learned to speak a Celtic language.

Ric
11-18-2015, 05:08 PM
Yes so these people they are referring to, that came to South West Britain 10000 bp, must have been Neolithic Europeans, not Celts. What could have been their haplogroup ?

Ric
11-30-2015, 03:21 PM
I've read a piece of Dienekes's blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/

and watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLV63ip7pdI
which is not so dated (2014)
and this one from Pr. Oppenheimer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78

and after all that, I am not sure that DF27 can be called 'Celtic' or even proto-Celtic. Even R1b being the mark of the Western Indo-Europeans is not absolutely certain. Dienekes has a thread that mentions m269 bottlenecked to 1 to 3 men that expended thousand fold super fast. Which then, as one commentator noticed, cannot even exclude a back migration from North America. R1b not being present in North America in the present time doesn't mean it has never been in the past, same thing as when we say Df27 present core in the Basque country doesn't mean it is the birth place of the df27 haplogroup. This means that we cannot even consider Df27 as Indo Europeans originally or can we?
A cultural Celticization is likely in the British Isles, of course, and perhaps in France, as long as these Df27 were still present in France when the Gauls arrived, which is not sure.
When we talk about such small groups, we can perfectly imagine a few dozen DF27 men traveling from their birthplace (Basque? South Germany? Caucasus ? some even say North America via Basque) to the Northern coast of France, without settling anywhere in between and directly embarking to the British isles.
It is perfectly doable in a few years with scout pathfinders. For example, the Indian chief Geronimo was reported to be able to travel as much as 100 km a day by foot, no problem.

In fine, only forensic dna analysis on skeletons seems convincing.
The first R1b is ~5100bc
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml
is
Spain Els Trocs [I0410/Troc 3] M 5178-5066 BC R1b1c M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+], M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69
LBK in Germany were haplogroup G at this time. Do we know what language did they speak, Indo-European ?

The first R1b candidate that fits the timeline of 4800before present given by Razyn is:
Bell Beaker Germany Kromsdorf [grave 8] M 2600-2500 BC R1b M343 (M269 unclear)
(look In the Ancient Western Eurasian DNA of the Copper and Bronze Ages section of http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml )
Perhaps they were some df27 present among these Bell beakers. So that's it, that's the only indication we can put R1b and perhaps Df27 in Southern Germany.

ADW_1981
11-30-2015, 03:47 PM
I've read a piece of Dienekes's blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/

and watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLV63ip7pdI
which is not so dated (2014)
and this one from Pr. Oppenheimer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78

and after all that, I am not sure that DF27 can be called 'Celtic' or even proto-Celtic. Even R1b being the mark of the Western Indo-Europeans is not absolutely certain. Dienekes has a thread that mentions m269 bottlenecked to 1 to 3 men that expended thousand fold super fast. Which then, as one commentator noticed, cannot even exclude a back migration from North America. R1b not being present in North America in the present time doesn't mean it has never been in the past, same thing as when we say Df27 present core in the Basque country doesn't mean it is the birth place of the df27 haplogroup. This means that we cannot even consider Df27 as Indo Europeans originally or can we?
A cultural Celticization is likely in the British Isles, of course, and perhaps in France, as long as these Df27 were still present in France when the Gauls arrived, which is not sure.
When we talk about such small groups, we can perfectly imagine a few dozen DF27 men traveling from their birthplace (Basque? South Germany? Caucasus ? some even say North America via Basque) to the Northern coast of France, without settling anywhere in between and directly embarking to the British isles.
It is perfectly doable in a few years with scout pathfinders. For example, the Indian chief Geronimo was reported to be able to travel as much as 100 km a day by foot, no problem.

In fine, only forensic dna analysis on skeletons seems convincing.
The first R1b is ~5100bc
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml
is
Spain Els Trocs [I0410/Troc 3] M 5178-5066 BC R1b1c M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+], M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69
LBK in Germany were haplogroup G at this time. Do we know what language did they speak, Indo-European ?

The first R1b candidate that fits the timeline of 4800before present given by Razyn is:
Bell Beaker Germany Kromsdorf [grave 8] M 2600-2500 BC R1b M343 (M269 unclear)
(look In the Ancient Western Eurasian DNA of the Copper and Bronze Ages section of http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml )
Perhaps they were some df27 present among these Bell beakers. So that's it, that's the only indication we can put R1b and perhaps Df27 in Southern Germany.

Most European R1b men are closer to the Bell Beaker branch than the Trocs or plausible Portalon R1b which you didn't mention. Most male branches die out, but we can infer that the Beaker males - or cultures close to them, were reproductively successful.

rms2
11-30-2015, 04:50 PM
Wish I had more time right now, but one has to look at the totality of the evidence.

R1b-L23 (mostly Z2103) has been found in the Yamnaya cultural horizon, which is thought to be the chief conveyor of Indo-European languages and dna westward.

Western Europe is predominantly Indo-European speaking, predominantly R1b-L23 (mostly L51, a brother clade to Z2103), and has significant steppe ancestry.

R1b-L51 has been found in Bell Beaker, which is and was believed by a number of scholars to have spread Indo-European languages westward. Bell Beaker had significant steppe ancestry, and archaeologist Marija Gimbutas believed Beaker was the result of the fusion of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin.

R1b and R1a have been found in Corded Ware, another culture thought to have spread Indo-European languages and steppe dna westward.

All of these facts, and the absence of ancient R1b-L23 in Neolithic farmer or earlier European contexts, adds up to a preponderance of the evidence in favor of a steppe pastoralist origin for R1b-L23 in Europe.

Ric
12-17-2015, 03:28 PM
I don't feel that Language and technical spreading are enough proof. Those things can be learned and moved to different geographical areas in one single generation.

I post this:
http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-review-of-all-theories-on-why-r1b-is.html
I spotted it in Eupedia

Clearly the guy doesn't believe for one second that R1b originates from the steppe/Caucasus/Eastern Europe in general. He has one good point, namely that R1b concentrates in the Western European coastlines and nowhere else (beside the weird R1b-V88 in Central Africa?). So it would makes sense that it started where it is found, i.e. Western Europe and migrated Eastward to produce Bell Beakers etc. This is the exact opposite of the actual theory

If we look at the genetic, and in particular to the ancestor of R1b, which should also be the ancestor of R1a, I am going to quote Eupedia: "The oldest forms of R1b (M343, P25, L389) are found dispersed at very low frequencies from Western Europe to India, a vast region where could have roamed the nomadic R1b hunter-gatherers during the Ice Age. The three main branches of R1b1 (R1b1a, R1b1b, R1b1c) all seem to have stemmed from the Middle East. The southern branch, R1b1c (V88), is found mostly in the Levant and Africa. The northern branch, R1b1a (P297), seems to have originated around the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia, then to have crossed over the Caucasus, from where they would have invaded Europe and Central Asia. R1b1b (M335) has only been found in Anatolia"
So, if the R ancestor was a hunter gatherer present everywhere in Europe at very low density, he could indeed have produce R1b in Western Europe with no traces left, I should say 'found'.

By the way, do we know about the haplogroup of these 7500 BC hunters gatherers found near Paris ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080707-paris-humans.html

The problem with these skeletons, is the politicians in place. They are scared to death to found any ancestral native French who could genetically be linked to any modern living French people, a sort of 'French First Nation' that could ask for rights similar to the American First nations (first of which is the right to exist). That would be opposing the official governmental doxa that no frenchness, past, present or future, has ever existed. I suspect the French government to pressure the scientists : "quick, destroy the proofs, throw the dna ! we don't want to find out that these skeletons have any descendants in today's population, we gonna loose or grants!"
You got the picture, and no, I am not exaggerating.
So I wouldn't be surprised if these 7500 bc skeletons yielded 'no useful dna for genotyping'.

TigerMW
12-17-2015, 03:52 PM
...
Clearly the guy doesn't believe for one second that R1b originates from the steppe/Caucasus/Eastern Europe in general. He has one good point, namely that R1b concentrates in the Western European coastlines and nowhere else (beside the weird R1b-V88 in Central Africa?). So it would makes sense that it started where it is found, i.e. Western Europe and migrated Eastward to produce Bell Beakers etc. This is the exact opposite of the actual theory....
I highlighted a statement of yours that is not a given or clearly logical.
Please do a few google searches on the Wave of Advance theory and research. For fast growing populations in particular, high frequency does not indicate an origin.

That whole blog didn't cite any actual data and new facts. It was just a talk about the how the blogger feels on the subject.

Ric
12-17-2015, 05:27 PM
I highlighted a statement of yours that is not a given or clearly logical.
Please do a few google searches on the Wave of Advance theory and research. For fast growing populations in particular, high frequency does not indicate an origin.

That whole blog didn't cite any actual data and new facts. It was just a talk about the how the blogger feels on the subject.

rms2 above made a good resume of the findings that support the Indo-European hypothesis. But I notice that there is no consensus even about that, which troubles me. I know that a modern high frequency is not a 'proof of origin', but it is not a disproof either. In fact, the most economical explanation is indeed that an haplogroup appeared where it is found today. Because appearing in one place, and moving to another requires the additional logical step of 'moving'. That's for the 'logic' of it.
Let's not play with words.
So, there is no more doubt that R1b is a marker of early Indo-European marching westward, Indo-European horsemen turned seafarers ?

lgmayka
12-17-2015, 06:24 PM
In fact, the most economical explanation is indeed that an haplogroup appeared where it is found today.
A place where it is found, yes. The place here it is found at highest frequency, no (at least with respect to haplogroups that have appeared since the spread of agriculture). A young but fabulously successful haplogroup such as R-DF27 most likely started out in a population where it had much competition; it migrated to a place where it had almost no competition and was consequently able to rise to dominance.

Thus, we would expect to find some trace of R-DF27 at its origin, but not necessarily a high percentage.

rms2
12-17-2015, 06:27 PM
I don't feel that Language and technical spreading are enough proof. Those things can be learned and moved to different geographical areas in one single generation.

I post this:
http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-review-of-all-theories-on-why-r1b-is.html
. . .

I can't see any real reason to take its commentary seriously.



Clearly the guy doesn't believe for one second that R1b originates from the steppe/Caucasus/Eastern Europe in general. He has one good point, namely that R1b concentrates in the Western European coastlines and nowhere else (beside the weird R1b-V88 in Central Africa?). So it would makes sense that it started where it is found, i.e. Western Europe and migrated Eastward to produce Bell Beakers etc. This is the exact opposite of the actual theory

Aside from the fact that R1b diversity increases from west to east (it gets more diverse as one moves east, not west), ancient R1b is missing in action from European sites from before the Late Neolithic/Copper Age, with the exception of one R1b-V88. If R1b originated in western Europe, how has it managed to remain hidden from the Neolithic and older record, despite the rising number of ancient y-dna test results?

R1b is found in close proximity to its closest y chromosomal cousins within Super Group K - N, O, Q, and R1a - only in eastern Eurasia, not in the west, and the oldest known example of someone belonging to y haplogroup R*, Mal'ta Boy, was recovered from near Lake Baikal in Siberia.

The two major divisions of R1b-L389, M269 and M73/M478, are found in close proximity to one another in far eastern Europe and western Asia, not in western Europe.



If we look at the genetic, and in particular to the ancestor of R1b, which should also be the ancestor of R1a, I am going to quote Eupedia . . .


I don't know who you were quoting from Eupedia, but member posts from there are often erroneous.



By the way, do we know about the haplogroup of these 7500 BC hunters gatherers found near Paris ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080707-paris-humans.html

The problem with these skeletons, is the politicians in place. They are scared to death to found any ancestral native French who could genetically be linked to any modern living French people, a sort of 'French First Nation' that could ask for rights similar to the American First nations (first of which is the right to exist). That would be opposing the official governmental doxa that no frenchness, past, present or future, has ever existed. I suspect the French government to pressure the scientists : "quick, destroy the proofs, throw the dna ! we don't want to find out that these skeletons have any descendants in today's population, we gonna loose or grants!"
You got the picture, and no, I am not exaggerating.
So I wouldn't be surprised if these 7500 bc skeletons yielded 'no useful dna for genotyping'.

Now you have embarked into a kind preemptive conspiracy theory.

In terms of actual reality, however, the earliest European results, dating to the Mesolithic Period, have all been non-R1b, with the exception of a Russian R1b-L278 from Samara, dated to ~5650-5555 BC.

Megalophias
12-17-2015, 06:45 PM
snip French aDNA conspiracy

We have Mesolithic DNA from northern Switzerland, northern Spain, Luxembourg, and southern Sweden. You seriously think aDNA from France is going to be radically different from everything around it?

There are no French subpopulations that are especially genetically distinct from any of the others, and no European population is anything close to pure WHG. The chance of finding a "French First Nation" via Mesolithic aDNA is approximately zero.

rms2
12-17-2015, 07:00 PM
A couple of additional things to consider are the steppe autosomal ancestry in Bell Beaker and in modern western Europeans and the fact that Indo-European languages are spoken in western Europe.

It seems to me the simplest explanation is that the men who brought R1b-L23 to western Europe were also carriers of those other things, since thus far most of the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker remains have been R1b-L23.

Otherwise, how does one explain it?

Ric
12-17-2015, 10:05 PM
I am not attacking anybody on his knowledge or whatever, I just read a couple of posts on Eupedia, probably from the same guy, that plus Dieneke's blog. They question the IE hypothesis and I just wonder why. I have no deep expertise in the matter but I believed that this issue was settled a long time ago.

rms2 answer:
Aside from the fact that R1b diversity increases from west to east (it gets more diverse as one moves east, not west), ancient R1b is missing in action from European sites from before the Late Neolithic/Copper Age, with the exception of one R1b-V88. If R1b originated in western Europe, how has it managed to remain hidden from the Neolithic and older record, despite the rising number of ancient y-dna test results?
Pretty convincing, not a killer proof, but good circumstantial evidence.



We have Mesolithic DNA from northern Switzerland, northern Spain, Luxembourg, and southern Sweden. You seriously think aDNA from France is going to be radically different from everything around it? probably not, but is it a good reason not to test it?
9500 years old skeletons are found near Paris and we don't know anything about their genetic makeup ? look at the UK where the cheddar's man story has been popularized in book, the 'Celt, Vikings and Saxons, the Blood of the British Isle' and many other stories and TV shows on genetic ancestry and compare that to the recent ridiculous opposition to an attempt to characterize the Viking descendants of Normandy, add the fact that DNA kits are not available in France....don't tell me that it is an equal treatment. Politic is the reason for it. It's typical of the French elite mentality of filtering the Information that they, alone, think the French people 'wouldn't' or couldn't understand' and they have openly stated it, saying this information is divisive for the French populace. So at this point it is not a conspiracy theory unfortunately, it is a fact. OK I stop ranting, especially because it is not going to change anything.

Ric
12-18-2015, 12:32 AM
A place where it is found, yes. The place here it is found at highest frequency, no (at least with respect to haplogroups that have appeared since the spread of agriculture). A young but fabulously successful haplogroup such as R-DF27 most likely started out in a population where it had much competition; it migrated to a place where it had almost no competition and was consequently able to rise to dominance.

Thus, we would expect to find some trace of R-DF27 at its origin, but not necessarily a high percentage.

" young but fabulously successful " I read that a lot but is it true? Perhaps df27 was not so successful. Perhaps was a time it was always at a higher frequency than it is now in all the Western coastlines of Europe, before it succumbed pretty much everywhere at current level ~5%, except in the Basque country where it was somehow spared.
Even during 'historical' times, what do we know of the df27 frequencies in 500 AD, 1000 AD, or even 1700 AD, only 3 centuries from now ?

Chad Rohlfsen
12-18-2015, 01:03 AM
Ric,
There is no chance of that being the case. You understand we have no L23 in Western Europe prior to the Bronze Age, right?

lgmayka
12-18-2015, 02:09 AM
Perhaps df27 was not so successful.
DF27 arose in one man roughly 5000 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/). Today, his patrilineal descendants number in the millions. That is fabulously successful--reproductively speaking.

Ric
12-18-2015, 02:14 AM
Ric,
There is no chance of that being the case. You understand we have no L23 in Western Europe prior to the Bronze Age, right?
Yes that would be a definitive argument. But how can you prove that you didn't find it because it was not there versus because you were not lucky to find it ?
The argument of rms2 regarding the diversity of R1b, increasing Eastward, seems stronger because it doesn't require to find any 'missing' skeleton. In any case it adds to the other arguments (cultural, tradition, myths etc) in favor of the IE origins.

On the other hand, let's talk about the point of view of the people arguing for an Atlantic origin of R1b, as far as I understand and correct me if I am wrong:
1) They don't like the idea of a horseman culture that suddenly turns seafarer.
2) the modern frequencies don't match very well: why is R1b so rare in the Caucasus if it started from there?
3) Dieneke's is arguing that R1b bottlenecks to very few individuals, perhaps two or three, they could have come and move everywhere within their lifetime. In this case, the place of origin doesn't make much sense.

Ric
12-18-2015, 02:19 AM
DF27 arose in one man roughly 5000 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/). Today, his patrilineal descendants number in the millions. That is fabulously successful--reproductively speaking.
I must be a counter-example (one daughter)

Ric
12-18-2015, 02:37 AM
All right, I give up on this sub-thread. After all it is not my job to spread the point of view of a minority, especially if the opposite view is accepted by most experts in front of good amount of reasonable evidences. And I don't want to waste your time.
So R1b = Indo-European unless somebody finds a few 5000 years bc R1b skeletons in France or Spain.

Let's focus on the tougher question : the origins of DF27 haplogroup.

Webb
12-18-2015, 04:12 PM
A place where it is found, yes. The place here it is found at highest frequency, no (at least with respect to haplogroups that have appeared since the spread of agriculture). A young but fabulously successful haplogroup such as R-DF27 most likely started out in a population where it had much competition; it migrated to a place where it had almost no competition and was consequently able to rise to dominance.

Thus, we would expect to find some trace of R-DF27 at its origin, but not necessarily a high percentage.

Very well said!!! Thank you.

northkerry
12-18-2015, 04:20 PM
All right, I give up on this sub-thread. After all it is not my job to spread the point of view of a minority, especially if the opposite view is accepted by most experts in front of good amount of reasonable evidences. And I don't want to waste your time.
So R1b = Indo-European unless somebody finds a few 5000 years bc R1b skeletons in France or Spain.

Let's focus on the tougher question : the origins of DF27 haplogroup.

DF27 is as common in eastern Europe as Piranhas in an Irish lake. DF27 originated in western Europe.

rms2
12-18-2015, 04:34 PM
DF27 is as common in eastern Europe as Piranhas in an Irish lake. DF27 originated in western Europe.

It's also extremely common in North America. Ergo, DF27 originated in North America.

razyn
12-18-2015, 06:54 PM
It's also extremely common in North America. Ergo, DF27 originated in North America.

All the males in my immediate family are DF27+, so it must have started with us. In Middle Tennessee.

rms2
12-18-2015, 07:55 PM
I think P312 probably arose among western Yamnaya, perhaps in the Carpathian basin or perhaps even before the move up the Danube and into the Carpathian basin. Yamnaya mixed with Vucedol became the most important element of the Bell Beaker people, and it was among the Bell Beaker people that DF27 first appeared, probably in east-central Europe. About the same time, the other subclades of P312 appeared in rapid succession, also among the Bell Beaker people, also in east-central Europe. There were differences in original distribution and ultimate destination, and those in part explain the different distributions of the P312 subclades today.

The movement of P312 subclades into western Europe with the Bell Beaker people explains both the prevalence of Indo-European languages and steppe autosomal ancestry there.

Ric
12-18-2015, 09:53 PM
Any idea what made dfd27 so successful in Basque country and nowhere else ?
Unless they were equally successful everywhere in the coastlines of Europe before they receded everywhere, except the Basque again. In any case same question: what's so special about the Basque country ?
There must certainly be some sort of selection there as well, it is not a paradise with food that falls off the tree and rivers of milk. Mountains maybe ?

lgmayka
12-18-2015, 09:56 PM
DF27 is as common in eastern Europe as Piranhas in an Irish lake.
I thought that St. Patrick drove the piranhas out of Ireland? :lol: Actually, DF27 does occur in Central-Eastern Europe; but more importantly, its occurrences typically belong to very ancient offshoots rather than more recently expanded clades.

rms2
12-19-2015, 12:31 AM
Any idea what made dfd27 so successful in Basque country and nowhere else ?
Unless they were equally successful everywhere in the coastlines of Europe before they receded everywhere, except the Basque again. In any case same question: what's so special about the Basque country ?
There must certainly be some sort of selection there as well, it is not a paradise with food that falls off the tree and rivers of milk. Mountains maybe ?

Admixture with Indo-European speaking neighbors, and over time DF27 became the predominant y haplogroup. Some scholars believe that Euskara (the language of the Basques) is related to Paleo-Sardinian, also known as Nuragic. I-M26 is most frequent in Sardinia and is also found among the Basques at about 9% frequency. IMHO, I-M26 was the original Basque y haplogroup. Apparently the Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, in which the groom went to live with the bride's family. Such a tradition is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna while simultaneously preserving the bride's language.

BTW, DF27 is pretty successful throughout western Europe and not just in the Basque country.

RCO
12-19-2015, 07:27 AM
We do have lots of Piranhas and DF27 and I think just like the Western European R1b expansion developed a new kind of society producing more people and a new kind of demography in previously thinly-peopled regions everywhere. The connection to enter Iberia looks like to be the access point of DF27 origin just like several other R1b clades with more or less the same time. After that DF27 branches became very fragmented in the last 3000 years.

Ric
12-19-2015, 01:51 PM
Admixture with Indo-European speaking neighbors, and over time DF27 became the predominant y haplogroup. Some scholars believe that Euskara (the language of the Basques) is related to Paleo-Sardinian, also known as Nuragic. I-M26 is most frequent in Sardinia and is also found among the Basques at about 9% frequency. IMHO, I-M26 was the original Basque y haplogroup. Apparently the Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, in which the groom went to live with the bride's family. Such a tradition is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna while simultaneously preserving the bride's language.
No magic then, but still dependent of the idea of a male outsider/conqueror. Do we know the mitochondrial haplogroup associated with R1b in Central/South Germany, is it present in the Basque ?


BTW, DF27 is pretty successful throughout western Europe and not just in the Basque country.
40% and more in the Basque and less than 5% elsewhere, do I misunderstand the map ?

RCO
12-19-2015, 02:27 PM
DF27 = 71,5% in rural Basques. 40% in Portugal and Galicia
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4723-Dissection-of-the-Y-SNP-S116-in-Atlantic-Europe-and-Iberia-Valverde-et-al-2015&highlight=valverde

Ric
12-19-2015, 02:40 PM
MAybe the df27 migrants were very inbred and had a poor reproduction rate (is it what we found in the South German Bell beaker?). Maybe the combo local Basque women/DF27 men was particularly fertile.

rms2
12-19-2015, 03:06 PM
MAybe the df27 migrants were very inbred and had a poor reproduction rate (is it what we found in the South German Bell beaker?). Maybe the combo local Basque women/DF27 men was particularly fertile.

What?

The Basques are a small minority population and receive far too much attention, IMHO. The reason for that is the goofy 19th-century idea that they represent the survival of a Paleolithic relic population. That notion has been rendered obsolete both by genetic studies and by the fact that the Basque language has its own words (i.e., words not borrowed from other languages) for agricultural items and practices and for metals.

The Basques are often lamely trotted out to refute the idea that R1b arrived in Europe with the early Indo-Europeans. Which seems more likely to you: 1) that all of western Europe was once as the Basques are now but became Indo-European through some sort of mysterious process of osmosis, or 2) that the Basques acquired the chief y-dna haplogroup of their neighbors over time via admixture?

Something similar occurred among the Ossetians in the Caucasus. Most Ossetian men are G2a like their Kartvelian-speaking neighbors, yet they speak an Indo-European language. There is still some R1b and R1a among them, however, as a reminder of their Indo-European past, just as there is I-M26 among the Basques to remind us of their origin.

Ric
12-19-2015, 03:25 PM
What?

The Basques are a small minority population and receive far too much attention, IMHO. The reason for that is the goofy 19th-century idea that they represent the survival of a Paleolithic relic population. That notion has been rendered obsolete both by genetic studies and by the fact that the Basque language has its own words (i.e., words not borrowed from other languages) for agricultural items and practices and for metals.

The Basques are often lamely trotted out to refute the idea that R1b arrived in Europe with the early Indo-Europeans. Which seems more likely to you: 1) that all of western Europe was once as the Basques are now but became Indo-European through some sort of mysterious process of osmosis, or 2) that the Basques acquired the chief y-dna haplogroup of their neighbors over time via admixture?

Something similar occurred among the Ossetians in the Caucasus. Most Ossetian men are G2a like their Kartvelian-speaking neighbors, yet they speak an Indo-European language. There is still some R1b and R1a among them, however, as a reminder of their Indo-European past, just as there is I-M26 among the Basques to remind us of their origin.

I don't question that, I just wonder what could explain the BIG DIFFERENCE of population frequency between Basque and neighbor France for example. You mentioned a possible matrilocal tradition in Basque, is there anything else ?

rms2
12-19-2015, 04:01 PM
I don't question that, I just wonder what could explain the BIG DIFFERENCE of population frequency between Basque and neighbor France for example. You mentioned a possible matrilocal tradition in Basque, is there anything else ?

Well, the French population is a lot bigger than the Basque population and occupies a much larger area. It is much more difficult for a single y-dna lineage to predominate in a population of 66 million (about 33 million males) than it is for that same lineage to predominate in a population of about 2.5 million people (about 1.25 million males). And not all of those 2.5 million are actually Basques; they just live in Basque provinces. The actual numbers of true Basques is smaller.

Ric
12-19-2015, 04:35 PM
There may have been as much as 6-10 million Gauls at times of Julius Cesar, but how do we know if the percentages for df27 didn't change drastically even in recent historical time? So the real question is when did these percentages were set (reaching 71% in Basque as mentioned by RCO)and how did they evolve over time.

rms2
12-19-2015, 04:42 PM
There may have been as much as 6-10 million Gauls at times of Julius Cesar, but how do we know if the percentages for df27 didn't change drastically even in recent historical time? So the real question is when did these percentages were set (reaching 71% in Basque as mentioned by RCO)and how did they evolve over time.

It will take some ancient y-dna to answer questions like that.

We already know there was P312 among central European Bell Beaker people. P312 is downstream of L11, L51 and L23, and L23 has been found among Yamnaya remains from the Russian steppe. Gimbutas said Beaker was the result of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, and we have a Vucedol period skeleton from Hungary that has tested R1b-M343 and is currently being further analyzed by Reich's lab.

MitchellSince1893
12-20-2015, 01:55 AM
Preliminary Data from my FTDNA project study. I've been googling through FTDNA projects over the last month, and I should have final numbers in a week or two...shouldn't change too much. Overall DF27 is ~6% of England in the FTDNA projects: 108 out of 1838 but there is also many generic R1b and P312 samples that would increase DF27 to around 7-8%.


DISCLAIMER: This is just a quick map I put together based on the self reporting of FTDNA customers of where they think their paternal ancestors originated. As such it will undoubtedly have some errors. Also, some of these counties have very few samples. Rutland only has 3, Westmoreland and Isle of Wight 11 each , Worcester and Hampshire 18 each. Others counties such as York, Middlesex, Suffolk, and Devon have over 100 samples each. So caution should be used when looking at this map...it's not a scientific study, but simply the compilation of publicly available data. So treat it as such.

6979
FTDNA hotspots in England are Leicestershire, 5 of 23 samples are DF27 and Staffordshire 9 out of 50 are DF27.

I did quick analysis comparing U152 and DF21. There is definitely a difference between the two. More DF27 in southern and western England compared to U152.
6980

razyn
12-20-2015, 05:58 AM
You are doing some very interesting work, against the tide and a headwind -- thanks for making the effort. I assume this all has some correlation with what you have lately been discussing on a Wales thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3925-Cymru-DNA-Wales&p=123380&viewfull=1#post123380

Or, not. Anyway, this looks like fairly similar work and better maps -- perhaps because more FTDNA customers know about their English than their Welsh ancestry, even if they have both. On the upper map, shouldn't that DF caption say DF27? Thought you might be able to edit that before your 24 hours runs out. The picture for DF27 in the Isles will probably get more interesting fairly rapidly. The new SNP packs seem to be working well, and they are letting a lot of guys know for the first time that their P312 or M269 ancestry is actually in some known (even if recently discovered) subclade of DF27.

MitchellSince1893
12-20-2015, 06:32 AM
Thanks. I will fix the typos on the map. Should be "Too close to call". I was in a hurry as it was just a preliminary map.

Yes this is related to my previous posts. When appropriate I've been posting FTDNA sourced data to threads as it pertains to a discussion.

I should have a lot more to post soon. Just got to get through 4 more counties and review the data for errors and duplications.

Arch
01-04-2016, 07:47 AM
Oh Dear! We're on that issue of frequency vs diversity. Of all people, I agree, diversity is more truer to origin than frequency. I wonder if fast moving populations such as R1b with the horse and all could move so rapidly back and forth between Siberia and Europe as well elsewhere. I am wondering how a Venus figurine and figurines commonly found in Europe end up in the Lake Baikal region with Mal'ta Boy. Aliens?

northkerry
01-04-2016, 08:26 AM
UPS. :)



Oh Dear! We're on that issue of frequency vs diversity. Of all people, I agree, diversity is more truer to origin than frequency. I wonder if fast moving populations such as R1b with the horse and all could move so rapidly back and forth between Siberia and Europe as well elsewhere. I am wondering how a Venus figurine and figurines commonly found in Europe end up in the Lake Baikal region with Mal'ta Boy. Aliens?

Ric
01-04-2016, 03:56 PM
Oh Dear! We're on that issue of frequency vs diversity. Of all people, I agree, diversity is more truer to origin than frequency. I wonder if fast moving populations such as R1b with the horse and all could move so rapidly back and forth between Siberia and Europe as well elsewhere. I am wondering how a Venus figurine and figurines commonly found in Europe end up in the Lake Baikal region with Mal'ta Boy. Aliens?
so where do you put df27 (and R1b) starting point, somewhere in the western coastline?

rms2
01-05-2016, 12:55 PM
Oh Dear! We're on that issue of frequency vs diversity. Of all people, I agree, diversity is more truer to origin than frequency. I wonder if fast moving populations such as R1b with the horse and all could move so rapidly back and forth between Siberia and Europe as well elsewhere. I am wondering how a Venus figurine and figurines commonly found in Europe end up in the Lake Baikal region with Mal'ta Boy. Aliens?

There are significant differences between the so-called Venus figurines of the Mal'ta Buret culture and those of western Europe. Whittling the female form out of mammoth ivory is not so utterly unique that it couldn't pop up independently in more than one place, especially where the resultant figurines are stylistically different.

It doesn't seem likely that R originated in western Europe only to wander out to Siberia in time to leave little Mal'ta Boy behind near Lake Baikal for modern people to find and become confused. Remember that R and R's closest relatives from Super Group K - N, O, and Q - are all found in relatively close vicinity to one another only in far eastern Europe and in Asia. Look for the old homestead where all or most of the kinfolk are.

razyn
01-06-2016, 06:14 PM
I should have a lot more to post soon.
He has been posting it, but elsewhere. Anyway I think it's time to drag his mapping project back into this DF27 thread, there are things to compare that you won't see anywhere else. Notably, a comparison of the settlement density of U152 and DF27 across England. These two major haplogroups below P312 are brothers, having in common ZZ11 as the ancestor of both (but not of L21, and not of several smaller clades under P312 including L238, DF99 and DF19). The fact that they are at least half-brother clades does not mean that they did everything together for the next four thousand years; but they did share a starting place (where their male ancestor was before either was born), and it was some time before their respective descendants got to England. Go here for the DF27 map, but also look at the whole thread (it just started yesterday, so that's not yet a big job).

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772

TigerMW
01-06-2016, 06:46 PM
He has been posting it, but elsewhere. Anyway I think it's time to drag his mapping project back into this DF27 thread, there are things to compare that you won't see anywhere else. Notably, a comparison of the settlement density of U152 and DF27 across England. These two major haplogroups below P312 are brothers, having in common ZZ11 as the ancestor of both (but not of L21, and not of several smaller clades under P312 including L238, DF99 and DF19). The fact that they are at least half-brother clades does not mean that they did everything together for the next four thousand years; but they did share a starting place (where their male ancestor was before either was born), and it was some time before their respective descendants got to England. Go here for the DF27 map, but also look at the whole thread (it just started yesterday, so that's not yet a big job).

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131772&viewfull=1#post131772
Thanks for re-iterating these maps. It only makes me wish we had the same maps at the sub-regional levels for Bretagne, Normandy and Benelux.

Arch
02-15-2016, 07:29 AM
so where do you put df27 (and R1b) starting point, somewhere in the western coastline?

No, R1b must have been extremely mobile overland travelers before the advent of horse riding. I'm betting on North America and riding on wooly mammoths.

Arch
02-15-2016, 07:42 AM
There are significant differences between the so-called Venus figurines of the Mal'ta Buret culture and those of western Europe. Whittling the female form out of mammoth ivory is not so utterly unique that it couldn't pop up independently in more than one place, especially where the resultant figurines are stylistically different.

It doesn't seem likely that R originated in western Europe only to wander out to Siberia in time to leave little Mal'ta Boy behind near Lake Baikal for modern people to find and become confused. Remember that R and R's closest relatives from Super Group K - N, O, and Q - are all found in relatively close vicinity to one another only in far eastern Europe and in Asia. Look for the old homestead where all or most of the kinfolk are.

They are not that stylistically different from the venus figurines found in Malta where there are facial features which seem to be rare. I'm particularly intrigued with the snake motifs or what appear to be rivers or an indication of the Milky Way? These very same stylized motifs are found in Malta. Not sure how to approach the significance of the spirals either; something is unique about the Mal'ta artefacts and it seems far fetched to believe it is just a localized thing. How common are venus figurines across the Gravettian time frame? From what I see it doesn't look all that common unless we've just haven't found all of them yet. I think R1b was highly mobile. This does not mean it originated in Western Europe but that mobility means R1b could have very well been in far flung places quite far from the Lake Baikal region over the circa 18k years of its existence. Yes, saying R1b originated in Europe is quite a stretch, but should it be boxed in to one region as if it static?

A.D.
02-17-2016, 01:28 PM
I've been looking at the DF27 'hots pots' in Spain/Iberia. I started with the southern 'hot spot', around Albacete and came across A tribe referred to as the 'Germani' and next to the Oretani. There are also references to mixtures of Belgic and Germanic arriving in the 4thC B.C. They had some sort of relationship with the Oretani but still are credited as being separate. They were present in Hannibal's army. Hannibal had some very good heavy cavalry. The Albacete region is not far from areas where the stronger stockier breeds of horses come from. The most notable being the sorraia from West Portugal (now). Does anyone know if this DF27 is any closer to the more northern sub-clades? I'm toying with the idea that L21 is more linked to maritime expansion and DF27 to horses.

Webb
02-17-2016, 01:44 PM
I've been looking at the DF27 'hots pots' in Spain/Iberia. I started with the southern 'hot spot', around Albacete and came across A tribe referred to as the 'Germani' and next to the Oretani. There are also references to mixtures of Belgic and Germanic arriving in the 4thC B.C. They had some sort of relationship with the Oretani but still are credited as being separate. They were present in Hannibal's army. Hannibal had some very good heavy cavalry. The Albacete region is not far from areas where the stronger stockier breeds of horses come from. The most notable being the sorraia from West Portugal (now). Does anyone know if this DF27 is any closer to the more northern sub-clades? I'm toying with the idea that L21 is more linked to maritime expansion and DF27 to horses.

I had read the same thing. It seems their culture was not too dissimilar to the existing cultures in Iberia and they may have been invited by the Oretani. It is also interesting that they may be responsible for the Iron Age hill forts in that area.

Webb
02-17-2016, 01:49 PM
I've been looking at the DF27 'hots pots' in Spain/Iberia. I started with the southern 'hot spot', around Albacete and came across A tribe referred to as the 'Germani' and next to the Oretani. There are also references to mixtures of Belgic and Germanic arriving in the 4thC B.C. They had some sort of relationship with the Oretani but still are credited as being separate. They were present in Hannibal's army. Hannibal had some very good heavy cavalry. The Albacete region is not far from areas where the stronger stockier breeds of horses come from. The most notable being the sorraia from West Portugal (now). Does anyone know if this DF27 is any closer to the more northern sub-clades? I'm toying with the idea that L21 is more linked to maritime expansion and DF27 to horses.

I see you are Z270. Is your surname Gaelic? I ask because at first it seemed DF27 in Ireland was very sporadic and not clear if native or introduced by English. However, there is a DF17 cluster emerging in Ireland, all with Gaelic surnames and none are recently related.

A.D.
02-17-2016, 05:15 PM
Webb
Hi, I'm an N.P.E (adopted) but bio-mother is from a small town in East Tyrone not to far from Dungannon. I don't think there have been any English around the town itself but Dungannon was the seat of the Ui'Neill's vigorous attempts were made to Anglicize it. The surrounding area, didn't take to well. My bio-mother wouldn't say who my dad was but a lot of locals have mentioned the name Quinn. I've been in contact with the Quinn project and they have the same problem as a lot of Irish projects people only testing as far as M269. I did Geno2+ so I got the SNP Z270.One of the admins of the Ireland project mentioned the 'O'Neill variant' as something to watch.

razyn
02-17-2016, 10:02 PM
A.D., we exchanged emails a couple of weeks ago and I've also responded to your post in the FTDNA DF27 project. Your kit is one of a very few examples we have of Z270+ but Z216-, and as such there isn't much of a population to compare you with, so far. Anywhere -- much less in some specific Irish county. It's an old branch under Z295, but we don't yet know that it's old in County Tyrone.

A.D.
02-17-2016, 10:50 PM
I have some aDNA finding showing north England and Scotland so I think Gallowglas is a possibility or maybe Viking or Norman. That said it it seems old. JeanM thinks some early DF27 (DF27*) in Ireland may come from late Neolithic/Bronze age Spain.I'm not sure ifZ270 is old enough for that or even from that area. We need more testing further than M269 and of course ancient DNA.

thetick
02-17-2016, 11:23 PM
I have some aDNA finding showing north England and Scotland so I think Gallowglas is a possibility or maybe Viking or Norman. That said it it seems old. JeanM thinks some early DF27 (DF27*) in Ireland may come from late Neolithic/Bronze age Spain.I'm not sure ifZ270 is old enough for that or even from that area. We need more testing further than M269 and of course ancient DNA.

YFull estimates Z216/Z270 -- 4300 ybp so long before Viking or Norman. Bronze age seems likely.
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z216

Also note on the same url above CTS9053 is listed as 800 ybp and lists Sallaberry from France -- much more likely candidate for Viking or Norman.

See http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=834 for the group at ytree which shows the name provided.. Sallaberry.

A.D.
02-17-2016, 11:41 PM
My Geno2+ results show all Y-DNA as north of the Alps and the Black Sea and as far north east as the east Baltic. A lot of what read puts R1b associated with Yamnaya came via south of the Black Sea and Alps. I'm a bit confused.

thetick
02-17-2016, 11:59 PM
My Geno2+ results show all Y-DNA as north of the Alps and the Black Sea and as far north east as the east Baltic. A lot of what read puts R1b associated with Yamnaya came via south of the Black Sea and Alps. I'm a bit confused.

There are a lot of theories. Until there is ample DNA evidence from the time period and place to prove or disprove various theories, there will will always be all kind of theories.

A.D.
02-18-2016, 01:45 AM
Does anyone think there is a connection in the 'Alba' in Albacete and the 'Alba' as in Albion the old Roman name for mainland Britain? I've been wondering what took people there. It's got quit a low population now probably always has. There's not much in the way of minerals. It seems a bit out of the way in ancient times. That's why I was thinking horse breeding. I'm thinking DF27 seems to have spread in a more 'rural' manner and L21 hit the more populated areas and had more to do with the spread of metal working and trade. I'm reaching a bit here. Another interesting thing is oats, very important in Ireland and Scotland for both people and livestock are thought by some to have first been cultivated (as human food) in Switzerland around the Bronze age.

jtlefebvre
06-11-2016, 09:19 PM
Great topic, especially since Alex W. just evaluated my Big-Y, and preliminarily found that I am DF27 > ZZ12 > CTS3919. He found one anonymous 1000 Genomes match in Spain, and our common ancestor was perhaps 3,500 to 4,000 years ago.

My most distant known ancestor had the last name of Lefebure and was living in Lauwe, West-Flanders in the 1680s. Lauwe is next to Menen, a fortified Flemish city on what is now the French-Belgian border between Lille and Kortrijk. The name Lefebure shows up in church records in Menen in the 1650s, but the name was more common in northern France, particularly in Artois, Picardie, and Normandie. Families there began taking surnames in the Middle Ages. Lefebure is one of the MANY versions of Faber or blacksmith, and is by far the most common surname in northern France. In Spain, the name would be spelled Ferrerro or Herrero.

With all of the wars in the Lowlands and Northern France in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the Spanish incursions there, it is possible that a Spanish male ancestor of mine ended up in the north, and then changed his name to a more French spelling. It also is just as possible that my male ancestors migrated north two or three thousand years ago.

Are there any other examples of Spanish surname French connection or French surname Spanish connection with DF27?

Joel
FTDNA Kit 481082