World Families Forums - TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 10:58:06 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades  (Read 13310 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2011, 07:59:31 PM »

I split all the posts about the Stewart royal y-dna line off to form another thread. It was somewhat off-topic and was taking over this thread.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2011, 08:01:23 PM »

The early Celts didn't write much, although they did leave some inscriptions behind in Ogham and in Greek and Latin characters. But Gildas was writing his version of British history a couple of hundred years before Bede, and Nennius wrote not long after that.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #77 on: December 12, 2011, 02:23:47 PM »

Please ignore.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 04:56:18 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2011, 03:42:20 PM »

EDIT: Have to recheck my numbers. Ken has a new version - Gen7. I don't know if it corrected something or what. I may have used too large of error ranges.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 04:55:56 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #79 on: December 12, 2011, 04:34:57 PM »

The following are all interclade TMRCAs using Ken Nordtvedt's "nested variance" method.
I've done the U106 & P312 interclade node man before, but I've added P312 and U106 interclade nodals for their subclades.  These are not coalescence ages. They are estimates for those singe MRCA that was at the node of the respective subclades.

I don't think it is valid to compare L11* since it is a paragroup and the nested variance calculations are working on the assumption the two clades considered are truly clades, but I show L11* just to see what it shows.  It doesn't have much impact.

I think it is fair to say that the node men specified within P312 put a floor on L11's TMRCA. At the same time the U106&P312 node man puts a ceiling on the ages for P312's and for U106's MRCA. That's the neat thing about doing multiple clade/subclade levels and looking at them together.


Within L11....

U106 & P312 TMRCA Age______________4.6 __  (5.9-3.2)
L11* & P312 TMRCA Age______________4.2 __  (5.4-2.9)
L11* & U106 TMRCA Age______________4.3 __  (5.6-3.0)

Within P312....

U152 & L21 TMRCA Age_______________4.4 __  (5.7-3.1)
Z196 & L21 TMRCA Age_______________4.5 __  (5.9-3.2)
Z196 & U152 TMRCA Age______________4.5 __  (5.8-3.2)

Within U106....

Z18 & Z381(L48,U198,L1) TMRCA Age__4.0 __  (5.2-2.8)


As you can see, things were moving very fast as far as the branching of these large subclades within L11.

Since these are interclade estimates and they are based on true subclades, I don't think there is much too argue with about these.  The only issue to debate is mutation rates... germ-line as used or "evolutionary."

Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC.  The question still remains about the mutation rates though.  If the dates are correct then they either suggest geographical proximity which is no longer obvious from the distribution or they indicate that it was moving fast geographically.  On balance the present highly patterned distribution of L11 clades might suggest they were moving very fast and that although it doesnt sound a lot the 200 year period might have seen great movement.  This seems to be borne out by the apparent fact that the highest variance for U152, U106 and L21 (not sure about the other clades) seem to be in widely separated areas.  So I think fast movement rather than geographical proximity may be at play.  Clearly that also fits well with a beaker model. However, I feel that the sheer speed may mean that we really do not have any idea of where L11 and even P312 SNPs happened.  The * paragroups dont tell us much. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 12, 2011, 04:58:58 PM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #81 on: December 12, 2011, 08:28:42 PM »

EDIT: Have to recheck my numbers. Ken has a new version - Gen7. I don't know if it corrected something or what. I may have used too large of error ranges.


The major change is ken's workaround for 389i-ii

the rest of it from a cursory glance looks to be some changes in his labels, the maths remains the same

He’s changed some of the mutation rates as well (subtly) but I haven’t looked closely to see which ones.


Edit : Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 08:46:13 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #82 on: December 12, 2011, 11:44:31 PM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 11:53:43 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #83 on: December 13, 2011, 12:01:17 PM »

I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."

He also tended to be against the idea of Celtic emerging in the Bronze Age at that time and was still into the whole urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model which is becoming increasingly unpopular.  Its hard to not see that there is a possibility that Germanic had roots in the Nordic Bronze Age.  The area in between the Nordic and Atlantic Bronze Ages  like the Low Counties has been suggested to be an intermediate group, perhaps Germanicised later.  In general Mallory followed the linguists dating of Celtic, Germanic etc which at that time was generally not placed much before the late Bronze Age.  There are now a lot of studies which push back separate languages into a much earlier period.  Personally I think Celtic and Germanic may have started to emerge around 2000BC. 

Could you provide a source for Celtic and Germanic dating back to 2000BC?
Logged

LDJ
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #84 on: December 13, 2011, 05:42:34 PM »

... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:42:54 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #85 on: December 13, 2011, 06:14:33 PM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2011, 06:56:32 PM »

... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.

I think...it's the number of generations to the node man of subclades A and B which I suppose would be an interclade estimate. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #87 on: December 13, 2011, 09:31:02 PM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.  

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one.  

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place.  

I think you have made some very good points. Some have claimed that Poland has the oldest variance for U106, but others have suggested it is more broadly eastern Europe. Nordtvedt has claimed that P312 and U106 arose near to each other both in time and place, I suggest the best possiblity is somewhere along the Danube, possibly in Hungary or Romania. There is pretty good evidence that the flow of R1b into Europe came from the general vicinity of the Black Sea, and the Danube is the most obvious path from there into Europe.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 09:45:47 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #88 on: December 13, 2011, 10:22:17 PM »

I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #89 on: December 14, 2011, 12:56:15 AM »

I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7
He also has GABw.  I know GABw is the Generations to the interclade node (MRCA)  man for both clade A and clade B.  I don't quite get what the "w" stands for.

I don't think GABn is quite the same thing as just a variant of Generations to Clade A and Clade B's MRCA.  He uses nested variance to reduce the Sigma (error range) so I get that is what SigGABn is.  I'm not sure if GABn is anything more than just an intermediate step to calculating SigGABn.

Try a few different examples. I get GABn bouncing around a bit. Ken said that the whole SigGABn calculation was valuable when both clades are of about the same age. When they are quite different I'm not sure if there is any more precision.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 01:05:20 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 14, 2011, 01:35:12 AM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 
I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #91 on: December 14, 2011, 09:35:43 AM »

... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but Ken's maths is W-A-Y over my head : )

I've tried working out exactly what GABxxx, or GABn as Ken calls it now, is but have failed. My best guess is it's just part of Ken's calculation for SIGxxx and not of specific interest to us by itself.

From reading Ken's post on Rootweb, SIGxxx (now called SigGABn) was Ken's improvement in Generation6 and was to replace the old SigmaG which Ken removed.

My assumption is the relevant data now is the interclade age GABw and SigGABn

The improvement in Generation7 was Ken's workaround for 389 i/ii, but this was because Ken didn't fancy removing 389i from 389ii in his vast I happlogroup database. However it's easy enough to add both 389i & ii into the spreadsheet if you like and should presumably give slightly better resolution than just using 389ii.

It's also not that hard to add the other loci in FTDNA's 111 test as long as the mutation rates are reliable enough.


BTW I was wrong about the mutation rates having been changed in Generation7 and the Sigmas for the individual groups. It was late my end when I was fiddling with the new version.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #92 on: December 14, 2011, 10:20:54 AM »


I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.

Corded Ware people probably spoke IE.  The R1a1 component in CW may have been introduced first with the Baalberge group in the TRB period and also with the Bodrogkeretszur culture in Hungary.  This coincides with the 4200 BC movement of steppe people into the Danube valley who had their roots with the Sredny stog/Suvorovo people.

U106 was likely present in at least Unetice, but was already there before steppe incursions.  Unetice seems to be a fusion of Bell Beaker, western Corded ware, and other local people.  As the Corded Ware culture went on, the focus of movements shifted towards the east (think R1a1 and Satem).  Unetice filled part of that vacuum left around Czech Rep. and southeast Germany, which also would be a good candidate for western R1b expansion.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #93 on: December 14, 2011, 01:31:07 PM »

I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7
He also has GABw.  I know GABw is the Generations to the interclade node (MRCA)  man for both clade A and clade B.  I don't quite get what the "w" stands for.

I don't think GABn is quite the same thing as just a variant of Generations to Clade A and Clade B's MRCA.  He uses nested variance to reduce the Sigma (error range) so I get that is what SigGABn is.  I'm not sure if GABn is anything more than just an intermediate step to calculating SigGABn.

Try a few different examples. I get GABn bouncing around a bit. Ken said that the whole SigGABn calculation was valuable when both clades are of about the same age. When they are quite different I'm not sure if there is any more precision.

I believe the w in GABw is for weighted in his computation for interclade Gs, using an iterative convergence method. He uses a trial and error single manual input at B522 to come up with the final Interclade GABw generations. But using Excel 2007 or newer with the file saved in the 2007 format, one can enable the number of times Excel iterates a formula  the Excel Formula category. Changing the cell B522 to look at contents of BV529 should run enough times to find the correct converged generations.

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #94 on: December 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM »


One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 

I don't know whether or not U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker or both, but aren't you shaving a bit close with what can only be regarded as rough estimates based on collections of modern haplotypes? The interclade range for P312 and U106 is about 5k - 4k years ago. The upper end puts it easily within reach of Corded Ware, and that's assuming the estimates have it right, and the actual event didn't happen 500 or 1,000 years earlier.

Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #95 on: December 14, 2011, 01:56:02 PM »

...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 
I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.

 We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area? 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #96 on: December 14, 2011, 02:14:56 PM »


One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 

I don't know whether or not U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker or both, but aren't you shaving a bit close with what can only be regarded as rough estimates based on collections of modern haplotypes? The interclade range for P312 and U106 is about 5k - 4k years ago. The upper end puts it easily within reach of Corded Ware, and that's assuming the estimates have it right, and the actual event didn't happen 500 or 1,000 years earlier.



Its just very counterintuitive to link two branches of L11 that split soon after that SNP to two cultures that originated not only at opposite ends of Europe and spread in different directions.  Its certainly not an easy fit with the current mainstream ideas on beakers and corded ware which do not see a common root for corded ware and beaker.  The old idea that beaker was a derivative of westernmost corded ware would actually have fitted far better.  The one massive caveat is that while a reasonable amount of sense has been made of the origins of corded ware, beaker still seems to almost come from nowhere even if it is oldest in SW Europe.    Given beakers apparent mastery of the waves and trade routes it wouldnt be all that surprising if some beaker jumped to Poland.  Once there it could have spread in any direction, including back west. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #97 on: December 14, 2011, 03:28:00 PM »

... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.
I've tried working out exactly what GABxxx, or GABn as Ken calls it now, is but have failed. My best guess is it's just part of Ken's calculation for SIGxxx and not of specific interest to us by itself.....
My assumption is the relevant data now is the interclade age GABw and SigGABn ...
That's what I understand too. GABxxx (now GABn) is not the Generations to the Interclade MRCA man for the pair of clades (A & B.) It is an abstract concept, of which I can't why describe in layman's terms but essentially it is the way to "shake" out the higher Sigmas caused by the fact that interclade TMRCA calculations Sigma's for the two clades are additive in the first place.  

It's really a pretty simple concept, but there is no way I could put that into a formula. I think Ken is just looking at this like we'd look at out the primary colors blue and yellow blend to make green and we'd just figured out how to get the right shade of green. LOL. God bless him.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:30:04 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #98 on: December 14, 2011, 04:00:46 PM »

We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  

In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 04:01:12 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 14, 2011, 04:38:51 PM »

We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  
In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.
The one area Anatole Klyosov should know is R1a1 TMRCAs. I wouldn't get too hung up on his language theories. Here is what he says about movements and expansions.
Quote
The haplogroup R1a1 was practically saved by the fact that 4,800 years ago, in the beginning of the third millennium BC, its bearers moved from Europe to the Eastern European Plains, and settled the territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea, 4,500 BP they were already in the Caucasus, 3,600 BP they were in Anatolia (according to the haplotypes of the R1a1 haplogroup in modern Anatolia). Meanwhile, across the Eastern European Plain they migrated to the southern Ural, and around 4,000 BP on to the southern Siberia, at that time they founded the Andronovo archaeological culture, colonized Central Asia (4,000 - 3,500 BP), and approximately 3,500 BP a part of them went to India and Iran as Aryans, bringing along the Aryan dialects, which effectively closed the linguistic link with the Aryan languages (R1a1) and led to the emergence of the Indo-European family of languages.

4,500-4,000 years ago the R1a1 disappeared from the Western and Central Europe, Europe became Türkic-speaking with the arrival of the people carrying R1b haplogroup (the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC), and that lasted until the middle of the 1st millennium BC (3,000-2,500 years BP), when the haplogroup R1a1 re-populated the Western and Central Europe...
http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm

I wonder that if there was an early wave of R1a1 to Scandinavia, if it spoke IE or stayed IE speaking. If R1a1 brought IE in N. Europe early, you'd think there would some other early branching from Germanic.  How do the Balto-Slavic IE languages relate to Germanic?  Any clues as to their sequence?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.158 seconds with 19 queries.