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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2014, 09:11:29 PM
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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades  (Read 19427 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #100 on: December 14, 2011, 05:14:18 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.

I do agree that the idea that European R1a spread from the steppes to central and northern Europe seems to be dogma with no evidence.  The core of corded ware is Polish TRB and in a sense corded ware could be seen as an extension of an altered form of TRB in various directions, including a push east as far as Ukraine.  The direction of spread of corded ware between Poland and Ukraine is west to east.  That seems to fit what you are saying about R1a in Europe.  Like R1b there seems to be a gap in our understanding and a missing link between the early Asian R1a and the later European phase. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #101 on: December 14, 2011, 05:20:08 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?

By far the best fit I can imagine is that R1a somehow was part of TRB (itself derived from Lengyel in Poland) and in the guise of Corded Ware (a largely TRB derived culture) spread towards the east.  Corded Ware is oldest in Poland and (if I remember correctly) appreciably younger in the Ukraine, which is to be expected given that the latter was not in the TRB zone.  I definitely feel Kurganist dogma is involved in the idea that R1a moved from the steppes to northern Europe because the variance and the dates of Corded Ware both suggest the opposite. 

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #102 on: December 14, 2011, 05:23:42 PM »

BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

http://leicester.academia.edu/MarcVanderLinden/Papers/868975/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_BC_Europe

Its not exactly conclusive but it does highlight something that a few recent papers have noted- the beaker network actually often involved ideas moving and being made locally rather than trading of objects and that in itself emphasises the fact that people were moving rather than just trade.  He doesnt talk about place of origin though and actually seems to play down Iberia. 
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #103 on: December 14, 2011, 05:55:31 PM »

BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

http://leicester.academia.edu/MarcVanderLinden/Papers/868975/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_BC_Europe

Its not exactly conclusive but it does highlight something that a few recent papers have noted- the beaker network actually often involved ideas moving and being made locally rather than trading of objects and that in itself emphasises the fact that people were moving rather than just trade.  He doesnt talk about place of origin though and actually seems to play down Iberia.  

I have a hardcopy of Chronology of Bell Beaker Common Ware (2009) by
Piquet and Besse.  Basically, it looked at 983 Beaker sites and the most common ceramic types.  Iberia was not sampled.  Then, they looked at where these styles were common in pre-Beaker cultures.  Here is a summary of the results:

1-Handled pitchers, earliest in Mako (Hungary) and Zlota (SE Poland), 2700 BC.
2- Polypod cups, Kostolac (Hungary) 3000 BC and Vucedol and Corded Ware 2700 BC.
3-Line of Perforations Above a Row, Horgen 3200 BC.
4-Fingernail imprints, TRB 3200 BC.

It looks like the earliest pottery influences for Beaker were from central Europe around 3200, before it gets to Iberia in 2900.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 06:10:09 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #104 on: December 14, 2011, 06:28:42 PM »

BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

http://leicester.academia.edu/MarcVanderLinden/Papers/868975/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_BC_Europe

Its not exactly conclusive but it does highlight something that a few recent papers have noted- the beaker network actually often involved ideas moving and being made locally rather than trading of objects and that in itself emphasises the fact that people were moving rather than just trade.  He doesnt talk about place of origin though and actually seems to play down Iberia. 

I have a hardcopy of Chronology of Bell Beaker Common Ware (2009) by
Piquet and Besse.  Basically, it looked at 983 Beaker sites and the most common ceramic types.  Iberia was not sampled.  Then, they looked at where these styles were common in pre-Beaker cultures.  Here is a summary of the results:

1-Handled pitchers, earliest in Mako (Hungary) and Zlota (SE Poland), 2700 BC.
2- Polypod cups, Kostolac (Hungary) 3000 BC and Vucedol and Corded Ware 2700 BC.
3-Line of Perforations Above a Row, Horgen 3200 BC.
4-Fingernail imprints, TRB 3200 BC.



Deep down I have never really been able to make sense of a simple out of Iberia origin of bell beaker culture.  Intuitively I have always felt it has something in common with the TRB-Corded ware tradition and have kind of been waiting for this to be revived in some way.  Certainly if there is a tie in in some way with those traditions and other eastern ones noted in your list then it would seem to fit the R1b phylogeny much better. Beaker culture is really proving the toughest nut to crack.  Its kind of typical that one of the best candidates for the spread of R1b is a mystery culture even today.  Whatever their origin my impression is the beaker culture was spread by small groups who settled in often widely separated pockets and then expanded from these pockets rather than as a wave.     
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #105 on: December 14, 2011, 06:58:21 PM »

Here is another recent paper which indicates that in central and eastern Europe the idea that beaker people spread due to special skill in metallurgy is not supported

http://www.iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2010-01-02-merkl.pdf

That is not to say they didnt have a special interest in it and trading. 

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #106 on: December 14, 2011, 07:27:38 PM »

BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

http://leicester.academia.edu/MarcVanderLinden/Papers/868975/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_BC_Europe

Its not exactly conclusive but it does highlight something that a few recent papers have noted- the beaker network actually often involved ideas moving and being made locally rather than trading of objects and that in itself emphasises the fact that people were moving rather than just trade.  He doesnt talk about place of origin though and actually seems to play down Iberia.  

I have a hardcopy of Chronology of Bell Beaker Common Ware (2009) by
Piquet and Besse.  Basically, it looked at 983 Beaker sites and the most common ceramic types.  Iberia was not sampled.  Then, they looked at where these styles were common in pre-Beaker cultures.  Here is a summary of the results:

1-Handled pitchers, earliest in Mako (Hungary) and Zlota (SE Poland), 2700 BC.
2- Polypod cups, Kostolac (Hungary) 3000 BC and Vucedol and Corded Ware 2700 BC.
3-Line of Perforations Above a Row, Horgen 3200 BC.
4-Fingernail imprints, TRB 3200 BC.

It looks like the earliest pottery influences for Beaker were from central Europe around 3200, before it gets to Iberia in 2900.

Found it on the web

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/bkue20pg4250h0md3ri8qjlh06/out.pdf
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #107 on: December 14, 2011, 08:58:54 PM »

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.  

It seems counter-intuitive to me to view both P312 and U106 as of Beaker origin, since the two have different distributions.

Are you picturing the L11 group as a small band, all in the same place, with the first P312 and U106 men fairly close relatives living near one another?

I don't see it that way, although I suppose that is not impossible. I see these age estimates as rough guesses that give us a kind of rule of thumb but nothing very exact. The major SNPs could have arisen in comparatively rapid succession, but what do we mean by rapid? Within 300-500 years of one another? That's still a lot of time, and a lot of landscape could pass under foot and wagon wheel in that time. L11 could have been spread all over Europe. P312 could have arisen in one place and U106 someplace else not necessarily close by. They overlap in places, but the center of gravity of P312 is farther west than that of U106.

If Beaker began in Iberia, did U106 arise there, or was it "Beakerized" someplace farther east?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 08:59:26 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #108 on: December 14, 2011, 11:34:19 PM »

It seems counter-intuitive to me to view both P312 and U106 as of Beaker origin, since the two have different distributions.
.... The major SNPs could have arisen in comparatively rapid succession, but what do we mean by rapid? Within 300-500 years of one another? That's still a lot of time, and a lot of landscape could pass under foot and wagon wheel in that time. L11 could have been spread all over Europe. P312 could have arisen in one place and U106 someplace else not necessarily close by.....
I think we have to add a caveat when assessing that U106's distribution is most concentrated in N. Europe. The caveat is modern frequencies do not necessarily indicate the origin was close by.

It has has been noted there are some concentrations in some non-northern areas. I went to the Myres frequencies and filtered U106xU198 to greater than 10% and found these places among the others...

Austria ________________________ 0.222
Switzerland Northeast __________ 0.188
Switzerland South ______________ 0.188
Switzerland ____________________ 0.125
Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) 0.118
Alpes de Haute Provence ________ 0.129


This is definitely close enough to P312's high diversity point for SE France. Like it or not, SE France is close enough to Iberia that we can't throw Anatole Klyosov's Morocco to Iberia R-L11 out of the west scenario.

I don't know if U106 originated in the Alpine region. As is being suggested, we should consider that this society was very mobile and it could have spread in a light, scattered "trade-network" type fashion. Enough that major separate clades were arose within a few generations in the different colonies.

We really aren't just talking about U106 and P312. The large subclades of Z381, L21, U152, L2 and Z196 all happened quickly too.  It wasn't just one U106 sent to the other side of the mountain.

I think "closeness" has another meaning also. I think it is just another side of the same coin. The other meaning is closeness or similarity in culture.  Perhaps in a very mobile society, the culture could be far-flung but still be very much the same culture.  I think this is important. There must have been a cultural advantage/practice that helped the far flung colonies be successful in different locales.  To have maintained that advantage when integrating into varying geographies and prior inhabitants, they must not have separated in time NOT too long before.... and probably knew where home was.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 12:33:18 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 15, 2011, 01:52:29 AM »

... If Beaker began in Iberia, did U106 arise there, or was it "Beakerized" someplace farther east?
Klyosov's answer to this is that P312 and U106 arose near the end of the journey. Remember the L11 (I guess L51 - L23 - M269) lineage coming from SW Asia down the Mediterranean Coast so by the time we get to Iberia we are basically to the destination - Western Europe.

On Rootsweb he described the end of the journey (or the start for P312 and U106) as being near the Pyrenees. Apparently he thinks there is really high diversity around there. Not sure where he is getting that from.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:52:53 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #110 on: December 15, 2011, 04:06:04 PM »

One thing I will say is that I dont think the beaker problem will be solved by archaeologists using normal archaeological techniques.  Ancient DNA is the only way it will be solved.  The coincidence of the beaker problem and the L11 problem is uncanny.  I can only assume if yDNA is being extracted from Neolithic and Corded Ware groups that it can be done for beakers.  Beakers have the advantage that in many areas burial involves individual discreet burials in closed contexts.  Its baffling to me that no beaker yDNA has  been published yet.  There seems very little on the net about upcoming yDNA testing of beaker bones.  However, it surely must be a major target for people testing ancient DNA.  I would be amazed if we dont hear something about ancient beaker DNA in the next year or two. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 15, 2011, 07:00:20 PM »


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)
Here is a bit of a twist.

U152 is has higher variance than P312 overall and higher than U106. L2 is the old a large old part of U152. L2 is both frequent and of high diversity in the Alpine region including N. Italy.

I was hoping that I could find a peer clade with L2 and do an interclade TMRCA to put a floor on U152's age. I didn't quite find what I wanted but found something else of interest. There are two small peer subclades, Z36 and Z56, with 15 and 16 67 STR hts.  I think that is too few to compare with L2, but I ran the comparison anyway.

L2&Z36 Interclade U152* MRCA Age __ 4.1 (4.3-3.8)  N=261

L2 Clade Coalescence Age __________ 3.5 (3.8-3.2)  N=245
Z36 Clade Coalescence Age _________ 3.4 (3.7-3.0)  N=16

Looks reasonable but I threw Z56 into the mix.

L2&Z56 Interclade U152* MRCA Age __ 6.1 (6.7-5.5)  N=260
Z36&Z56 Interclade U152* MRCA Age _ 6.4 (7.0-5.7)  N=31

Z56 Clade Coalescence Age _________ 3.5 (3.9-3.1)  N=15

What happened? The 15 Z56 guys have messed all of the nicely aligned interclades so far.  I think we really do need need more like 30+ folks to make this more meaningful so I kind of just write this off.

However, I looked a bit more at Z56 just to see what was haywire about it. Those 15 guys have a lot of wierd such a small group. An extraordinary amount at some very slow markers... 454= 12 and 10,  492= 13 and 14. Also they have some off-modal folks at 385a= 14,  511= 11, H4= 12, 449= 28 and 30, 458= 15 to 19.  You are supposed to "clean up" the data for obvious multi-step results, but I just don't touch any adjustments like that. You never know for sure if it is warranted or not to adjust.

To look further it's an interesting bunch of folks.

f145813   Frangenberg U152/Z56*   Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne, Oberbergischer Kreis, Lindlar   XD9Q6
f37107   Kober U152/Z56* Germany 4CE7U
f132269   Schrepfer U152/Z56* Germany, Bavaria, Upper Franconia, Hof, Marlesreuth RQ7AG
f157027   Ballard   U152/Z56** England   
f128633   Spencer   U152/Z56** England, North West, Merseyside, Liverpool   SMGE4

f338   Blankenfeld U152/Z56/L4   Latvia (Ashkenazi) A8KCC
f306   Broniatowski U152/Z56/L4 Poland, Silesian, Czestochowa (Jewish project) KVZ6Q
f4095   Tesler U152/Z56/L4 Ukraine 2MFNT
f177208   UnkName U152/Z56/L4 UnkOrigin 2VKU2

f53139   Newton U152/Z56/S47 England Q6V6Y
fE9334   Pavia U152/Z56/S47 Italy, Sicily, Trapani, Pantelleria 9VJT2
f174691   Solberger U152/Z56/S47 Switzerland, Bern, Breitenegg NGJ9B
f127395   Stüdlin U152/Z56/S47 Germany, Bavaria, Kempten B9KVA
f26288   Stüdlin   U152/Z56/S47 Germany, Bavaria, Swabia, Kempten Q4KFQ
fN20436   UnkName U152/Z56/S47   UnkOrigin B5BV7


What do you think? Finding a subclade like Z56 does make one think that U152 (and P312) probably really occurred east of France or east and south of France.

I see the Sicilian too, so that will Machiavelli happy. Speaking of that, did you notice the new Italian guy in the L21 project?
f196716 DeFato - Italy, Bari, Spinazzola
He's got one of the strange DYS385's I've seen: 385a=10 385b=11



« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 07:20:32 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #112 on: December 15, 2011, 08:30:16 PM »


I think we have to add a caveat when assessing that U106's distribution is most concentrated in N. Europe. The caveat is modern frequencies do not necessarily indicate the origin was close by.

It has has been noted there are some concentrations in some non-northern areas. I went to the Myres frequencies and filtered U106xU198 to greater than 10% and found these places among the others...

Austria ________________________ 0.222
Switzerland Northeast __________ 0.188
Switzerland South ______________ 0.188
Switzerland ____________________ 0.125
Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) 0.118
Alpes de Haute Provence ________ 0.129


This is definitely close enough to P312's high diversity point for SE France. Like it or not, SE France is close enough to Iberia that we can't throw Anatole Klyosov's Morocco to Iberia R-L11 out of the west scenario.

I don't know if U106 originated in the Alpine region. As is being suggested, we should consider that this society was very mobile and it could have spread in a light, scattered "trade-network" type fashion. Enough that major separate clades were arose within a few generations in the different colonies.

We really aren't just talking about U106 and P312. The large subclades of Z381, L21, U152, L2 and Z196 all happened quickly too.  It wasn't just one U106 sent to the other side of the mountain.

I think "closeness" has another meaning also. I think it is just another side of the same coin. The other meaning is closeness or similarity in culture.  Perhaps in a very mobile society, the culture could be far-flung but still be very much the same culture.  I think this is important. There must have been a cultural advantage/practice that helped the far flung colonies be successful in different locales.  To have maintained that advantage when integrating into varying geographies and prior inhabitants, they must not have separated in time NOT too long before.... and probably knew where home was.


What happened to Poland and the Baltic? Last I heard, that was where U106 haplotype variance was greatest. Is that not the case?

I know it is possible that Klyosov is right with his North African Trek theory for R1b, but what real evidence is there for it? He referred everyone on Rootsweb to some Russian articles, but when I asked him if English translations were available, he never answered me. I realize I am a mere lowly peasant layman, but geez!

Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #113 on: December 15, 2011, 09:02:46 PM »

It has has been noted there are some concentrations in some non-northern areas. I went to the Myres frequencies and filtered U106xU198 to greater than 10% and found these places among the others...

Austria ________________________ 0.222
Switzerland Northeast __________ 0.188
Switzerland South ______________ 0.188
Switzerland ____________________ 0.125
Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) 0.118
Alpes de Haute Provence ________ 0.129



Intestesting. The high variance in Austria is certainly compatible with my suspicion that at least some U106 (and P312) entered Europe along the Danube, though I don't necessarily suggest that was the only route into Europe for either subclade).
How does the U106 variance in Austria compare with that in Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe? It seems to me you have calculated these recently, though I can't find it.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #114 on: December 15, 2011, 09:09:31 PM »


I think we have to add a caveat when assessing that U106's distribution is most concentrated in N. Europe. The caveat is modern frequencies do not necessarily indicate the origin was close by . . .

I wanted to add that I never thought that. I don't think that about any y haplogroup or subclade. If you recall, I am the one who argued that I don't think U106 was as far west during the Bronze Age as it is now. For example, it appears to be thickest in the Netherlands now, but I doubt it was there in force, if at all, that long ago.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #115 on: December 15, 2011, 09:17:51 PM »

Mike,

Back in August, here, in the thread, "R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1", you wrote:

Quote
Variance is higher over in Hungary, Czech Republic, but it is definitely highest in Poland.

Has that changed?

(The bold font is mine for emphasis.)

A little further on in the same post, you also wrote:

Quote
This is pure just speculating without trying to align with other kinds of evidence, but I'd guess moved into NW Europe from the SE Baltic coast along into Denmark/Saxony and then from there spreading across into the Scandinavian Peninsula, the Isles and down into Germany.

Have you changed your mind on that?

« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 09:22:41 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 15, 2011, 10:26:54 PM »

Mike,
Back in August, here, in the thread, "R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1", you wrote:
Quote
Variance is higher over in Hungary, Czech Republic, but it is definitely highest in Poland.
Has that changed? (The bold font is mine for emphasis.)

A little further on in the same post, you also wrote:
Quote
This is pure just speculating without trying to align with other kinds of evidence, but I'd guess moved into NW Europe from the SE Baltic coast along into Denmark/Saxony and then from there spreading across into the Scandinavian Peninsula, the Isles and down into Germany.
Have you changed your mind on that?
No. I haven't really changed positions. I'm just investigating alternatives. I think that if Bell Beakers came out of the west and if they are timed about right with P312, then L11* and U106 must also be considered as they are all close in age. That's all. I don't know where U106 originated, nor P312. Nothing new about that.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that U106 came from Poland into Germany and the Jutland before going to Scandinavia Peninsula. Where U106 came from before that I don't know.  I think the Alpine area up through Austria and the Czech Rep is an option as well as two others. A second would be from Hungarian plains and Slovakia up the west side of the Carpathians. A third would be from the Ukraine, Moldolva and Romania along the east side of the Carpathians. I'm intrigued most with the path through the Ukraine as that aligns with Anthony's pre-Germanic IE and involved integration of cultures (and possibly Hg I and R1a1.) Probably my last choice of these three would be up directly from the Alpine area.

I'll check out U106 STR variance again by geography. I'm a little more leery of that though, just because of the points that Busby made about insignificant differences across Europe for all of R-11 - the "Busby blob." I actually think the "Busby blob" is an important point, but my emphasis is that there were no large gene differences (Y DNA wise) between R-L11*, U106*, Z381, Z18, P312*, Z196, L21, U152*, L2 back in the time of their spread. They happened in rapid-fire succession. If you look at their distribution as a whole you see a coastal and riverine bias with a cline to the north and then more extensively to the west.

We have much greater subclade resolution than we did a few of months ago. That may help sort out the geographical variance a little more reliability.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 10:37:36 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #117 on: December 15, 2011, 11:07:24 PM »

...  I'll check out U106 STR variance again by geography. I'm a little more leery of that though, just because of the points that Busby made about insignificant differences across Europe for all of R-11 ....
Wow! The differentiation in variance is even stronger. Eastern Europe looks like a winner.

I wasn't doing this in round 1 and 2 I don't think, but now I'm selecting only the 36 STRs (out of 67) that match the >7K yrs linear qualities according to Marko Heinila's work.

U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine


Quote from: Mikewww
... We have much greater subclade resolution than we did a few of months ago. That may help sort out the geographical variance a little more reliability.
I need to look at Z381, Z18 and U106* east of Germany/Austria/Italy a little better. It could be that there is just a better balanced mix of these subclades driving the higher variance.  However, the other side of that coin is that higher high level subclade diversity is in an indicator in and of itself.

EDIT: I just looked at the subclades of U106 east of Germany. There is not enough there to do an analysis. Most of the haplotypes are U106 undifferentiated. I think we have go with the probability U106 there is older.  There will be some argument about back migration of religious groups, etc. but how can a target area be older than the source?  These variance numbers are a strike against U106 coming from SE France/Alpine area but the caveat is that we only have 21 67 STR haplotypes.   What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Oh, one more thing... just to throw another cat with the pigeons. Look at the variance between Nordic Countries (includes Denmark) and the rest. I don't think U106 got there early.  Any chance they U106 didn't actually move into Sweden and Norway until about the times as the Anglo-Saxons coming into England? It was just all apart of spillage from the Low Countries and the neck of the Jutland.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 11:27:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 16, 2011, 12:04:24 AM »


U106 All____________:  Var=0.82 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East Europe_________:  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***  (EDIT: correction)
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Slovakia


... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)


East of Germany does still look like the higher variance. (correction, they are all pretty close.) Ironically, I trust our DNA project long haplotypes and higher count of haplotypes rather than the academics'.

I'd love to see a bunch more U106 haplotypes from Switzerland and Austria. I just don't think we have enough to say that wasn't the path for U106.

If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

What about the East Midlands of England?  The frequency maps seem to show U106 slightly lower there than most of England.  Does this align with Dane vs Anglo vs Saxon vs Jute or some other kind of movement?

Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

I'm still not switching any positions... just investigating. LOL.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 04:29:24 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #119 on: December 16, 2011, 09:56:49 AM »

Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

The southwestern extent of Corded Ware had a presence in Switzerland which might be a possibility.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #120 on: December 16, 2011, 04:36:59 PM »


U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine


... What does Myres or Balaresque show about coalescence times for U106 by geography?

Here are Myres' 2010 R1b study numbers for "TD".
Quote
Table S2: Coalescent times

U106 all - Estonia ___ 12.862 (N=10)
U106 all - Poland ____ 10.467 (N=9)
U106 all - Slovakia __ 9.552 (N=11)
U106 all - Switzerland 8.963 (N=19)
U106 all - Ireland ___ 8.756 (N=6)
U106 all - Germany ___ 8.480 (N=66)
U106 all - Italy _____ 8.333 (N=10)
U106 all - England ___ 7.037 (N=26)
U106 all - Netherlands 7.005 (N=20)
U106 all - Denmark ___ 6.789 (N=20)
U106 all - France ____ 6.703 (N=6)


East of Germany does still look like the higher variance.  Ironically, I trust our DNA project long haplotypes and higher count of haplotypes rather than the academics'.

I'd love to see a bunch more U106 haplotypes from Switzerland and Austria. I just don't think we have enough to say that wasn't the path for U106.

If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

What about the East Midlands of England?  The frequency maps seem to show U106 slightly lower there than most of England.  Does this align with Dane vs Anglo vs Saxon vs Jute or some other kind of movement?

Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

I'm still not switching any positions... just investigating. LOL.


The east midlands of England were heavily settled by Angles during the Anglo-Saxon period. It developed into the Anglian kingdom of Mercia. If the U106 variance there is in fact lower, it could suggest a presence of U106 in England prior to the Angles. This area was also settled to an unknown extent by Danes during the Viking age. It has generally been agreed that it isn't currently possible to distinguish Angles from Danes genetically.

I also find it interesting that U106 variance is higher in England than in Denmark.

When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 04:44:55 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 16, 2011, 05:24:38 PM »

..... If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

What about the East Midlands of England?  The frequency maps seem to show U106 slightly lower there than most of England.  Does this align with Dane vs Angle vs Saxon vs Jute or some other kind of movement?

The east midlands of England were heavily settled by Angles during the Anglo-Saxon period. It developed into the Anglian kingdom of Mercia. If the U106 variance there is in fact lower, it could suggest a presence of U106 in England prior to the Angles. This area was also settled to an unknown extent by Danes during the Viking age. It has generally been agreed that it isn't currently possible to distinguish Angles from Danes genetically.

I also find it interesting that U106 variance is higher in England than in Denmark.
My question about East Midlands was not prompted by U106 variance, but rather by U106 frequency. In the latest maps there appears to be a drop off in U106 in the East Midlands.

Maybe we are finding some differences between "old" Danes and "old" Angles.

If this was an area hit hard by the Danes, this might support my earlier speculation.  

That speculation is that U106 came late to the neck of the Jutland. My reasoning:

If U106 was in the Jutland area for a long time then I find it very hard to believe more didn't leak across the North Sea into the British Isles.  It doesn't look like it did get to England earlier than the Anglo-Saxon era because U106 is nicely relegated to England and did not disperse across the Isles well. Examining U198 brought this issue to light for me.

At the same time, variance in England is about the same as in the Low countries while variance as you move up into Scandinavia actually appears lower (there.)
 
The speculation then follows that U106 was east or southeast of the Jutland (and its neck) and the Low Countries until something triggered U106 to push from the east along the Baltic to the Jutland and straight west into England. Part of that push caused U106 overflow up the Jutland and into the Scandinavia Peninsula. U106 was hitting Scandinavia in earnest at about or only slighly before hitting England.

Maybe the original Norse are a bit different.  Come to think of it.  If U106 was with the Vikings to a great degree shouldn't there be more U106 than R1a1 along the Viking contact areas of Scotland and Ireland?   We don't see that do we? How come we see a nice  of I1 in French Brittany where Vikings hit, but not much U106?  Perhaps U106 had not yet made it's biggest mark in Scandinavia as the Viking times got going.

I never did understand how Balto-Slavic Scandinavians tied in with Germanic speaking folks. As far as a cat for the English pigeons, does this mess up the lore of the English language and Beowulf and all of that?  In other words, the "old" Angles really don't have anything to do with Beowulf, it was just recorded in their language.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 05:32:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #122 on: December 16, 2011, 05:48:46 PM »

...When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.
Prussia is one of my problem areas. People often list MDKA's from old Prussia or old Austria that are a bit hard to figure out.  However, all people that I classify in the Haplotype Data spreadsheets, I try to track to the province/county/dept, etc. As I do that, I use modern political boundaries (other than Ulster Ireland.) If a MDKA is in Alsace-Lorraine or Western Poland they may actually have a German lineage. I don't track that. I just track their actual location so Poland is Poland as we know it.

Yes, there is the question about higher variance in Poland, the Baltic Countries, Ukraine, etc.  Are these just people from west to east migrations?   Of course, they could be but I think that leads to two other inquiries.  How can diversity be higher in a target location than in a source? Wouldn't that take years of migrations from multiple sources for that to happen?  I'm not sure if historic period German settlement expansion or religious disaporas are enough to drive up high diversity.  I don't think they are.

Was the Rhineland completely vacated at some point? If so, then perhaps that is the answer.

The next inquiry is a little thornier or at least more sensitive. What are the origins of particular endogamous religious groups? You've got at least three choices right off the top - the Near East, the Rhine and the Khazars. Two of those choices put you back in Central Asia or the Near East.

U106 in the east and also U152 are critical to understand. The one group of U153, Z56, that is causing interclade calculation problems, has some relations to religious diasporas. Probably need to understand the Bashkirs better too.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 05:52:06 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 16, 2011, 05:58:06 PM »

This is intended for archaeologists, historians or anyone trying to line up R-L11 subclades with ancient migrations. I extended the Generations7 (Ken Nordtvedt) output to display one and two sigma ranges graphically (in a rough way.) I then ran calculations for most of the major subclades of R-L11 and drilled down a bit more on R-L21.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #124 on: December 16, 2011, 07:05:14 PM »

This is intended for archaeologists, historians or anyone trying to line up R-L11 subclades with ancient migrations. I extended the Generations7 (Ken Nordtvedt) output to display one and two sigma ranges graphically (in a rough way.) I then ran calculations for most of the major subclades of R-L11 and drilled down a bit more on R-L21.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif


I am joining that group so I can view it.  By the way I have to say you, the unbelievable energy you have shown with your constant providing of analysis and Rich chasing people to test etc have shown in the pursuit of the DNA truth terms of P312 etc is a case of never has so much been owed by so many to so few.  Its good to see a bit more traffic on this site again because its been important. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.127 seconds with 19 queries.