R1b-L51 from the West

[Mark Jost]

That is interesting.  RR's L51* distribution map is interesting.  Problem is of course it doesnt tell anything about direction of spread and origin point.  I tended to think that it spread out from the west-Alpine area but maybe the eastern extremity (which I think was somewhere like SE Germany/Poland was actually nearer the origin and that there was a period when there was only L51* and it lay in the east.  I would however have thought that L51*'s ratio to L11 and derived can only have been high either somewhere in the east where L11 is low or in an early period when L11 hadnt come about. I can only think that the steppe Iranians were in some way the link between Iran and Mongolia.

I had created a new map based on the recent Niederstätter, et al. (2012) study:

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_v003.png

We have to keep in mind that L51(xP312,U106) may hold a hidden mutation and be a little brother to P312 and U106. Either way, I don't think there is any doubt that the distribution is primarily Franco-Italian.

Very nice work. I noticed that the heavier concentrations are sure following some of the major landforms of Europe.

MJost

[Heber]

That is interesting.  RR's L51* distribution map is interesting.  Problem is of course it doesnt tell anything about direction of spread and origin point.  I tended to think that it spread out from the west-Alpine area but maybe the eastern extremity (which I think was somewhere like SE Germany/Poland was actually nearer the origin and that there was a period when there was only L51* and it lay in the east.  I would however have thought that L51*'s ratio to L11 and derived can only have been high either somewhere in the east where L11 is low or in an early period when L11 hadnt come about. I can only think that the steppe Iranians were in some way the link between Iran and Mongolia.

I had created a new map based on the recent Niederstätter, et al. (2012) study:

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_v003.png

We have to keep in mind that L51(xP312,U106) may hold a hidden mutation and be a little brother to P312 and U106. Either way, I don't think there is any doubt that the distribution is primarily Franco-Italian.

There are also hotspots in Iberia (Tagus River Valley) and Ireland (Airghilla or Erne River Valley). Could this be a trace of a Proto Celtic migration to Ireland via Iberia.
We know that later clades such as P312 and L21 were found on the Atlantic Facade.
An alternative route is down the Rhone and Loire River Valleys to a cluster in Morbihan.

[Maliclavelli]

There are also hotspots in Iberia (Tagus River Valley) and Ireland (Airghilla or Erne River Valley). Could this be a trace of a Proto Celtic migration to Ireland via Iberia.
We know that later clades such as P312 and L21 were found on the Atlantic Facade.
An alternative route is down the Rhone and Loire River Valleys to a cluster in Morbihan.

It is just what I have been saying so far, but to link this R-L51 to the agriculturalists from Italy of 7500 years ago (the first Rocca’s map had also a presence in the Valencian region) seems too early, for the language rather than for the Y-DNA, but I have also said that the migrations were more than one. Anyway we see clearly that one diffusion happened through Iberia, but another from South France or Westward the Alps, where we have found also G2a and E at Treilles etc., which could be the haplogroups of the first migration from Sardinia. Anyway it seems to me interesting also what Mark Jost says above, i.e. the presence of R-L51 in the highlands of Europe, what I noticed also for hg. J. Then this presence could be very ancient and linked to the coming out from the Younger Dryas Refugium. There are many problems to be resolved yet, but only the aDNA will be able to say the last word.

[alan trowel hands.]

That is interesting.  RR's L51* distribution map is interesting.  Problem is of course it doesnt tell anything about direction of spread and origin point.  I tended to think that it spread out from the west-Alpine area but maybe the eastern extremity (which I think was somewhere like SE Germany/Poland was actually nearer the origin and that there was a period when there was only L51* and it lay in the east.  I would however have thought that L51*'s ratio to L11 and derived can only have been high either somewhere in the east where L11 is low or in an early period when L11 hadnt come about. I can only think that the steppe Iranians were in some way the link between Iran and Mongolia.

I had created a new map based on the recent Niederstätter, et al. (2012) study:

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_v003.png

We have to keep in mind that L51(xP312,U106) may hold a hidden mutation and be a little brother to P312 and U106. Either way, I don't think there is any doubt that the distribution is primarily Franco-Italian.

That map makes it even clearer that Other than the Irish oddity and tiny outlier patches in Portugal and way to the east sin Poland is indeed very Franco-Italian.    My feeling now is that we probably can ignore these extreme outlying patches and put them down to relict lineages that probably travelled later as a tiny element in some upstream movement.  So, yeah on reflection you are right that we should focus on the main concentration.  its not like there is a cline leading from an origin point to a pooling point except perhaps within the Franco-italian area.

It could be pre-beaker or it could be early beaker.  Its far more restricted than the whole bell  beaker complex. Interpreting it really depends on when and where one believes R1b joined the beaker network (or pre-beaker).  I am of course aware of the concept of a pre-beaker spread of R1b although I am on the fence about that.  I also think an alternative possibility is R1b only joined the beaker network once the network had reached west-central Europe (maybe somewhere like the Rhone/west Alpine area). You could argue that the L51* map could agree with that and accompanied other more upstream clades in the early movements of R1b through the beaker network.  It looks like, as you say, a strongly Franco-Italian hotspot.  The SE of France was a very early part of the beaker network while a little to the west and inland it was relatively later.    L51 does look a little like it was using the routes that the early beaker network used pre-2600BC (before the north facing part of Europe joined).  My feeling is that what we think of as classic beaker is the result of a group in the Rhone area who combined both western beaker ideas and eastern genes and then spread out from there.  

Regardless, L51* looks like it occurred perhaps in SE France or adjacent and there is little trace much to the east.  That kind of suggests to me that R1b first arrived in the west in an L23XL51 form and we therefore are never going to find a downstream east to west trail below that because it simply didnt exist.   It is interesting to me that there are an incredible number of beaker sites in SE France.  That strikes me a likely demographic expansion zone and a likely area where the whole L23*L51*L11*P312*U152/DF27 sequence maybe first happened and spread out from.    

[Mikewww]

That is interesting.  RR's L51* distribution map is interesting.  Problem is of course it doesnt tell anything about direction of spread and origin point.  I tended to think that it spread out from the west-Alpine area but maybe the eastern extremity (which I think was somewhere like SE Germany/Poland was actually nearer the origin and that there was a period when there was only L51* and it lay in the east.  I would however have thought that L51*'s ratio to L11 and derived can only have been high either somewhere in the east where L11 is low or in an early period when L11 hadnt come about. I can only think that the steppe Iranians were in some way the link between Iran and Mongolia.

I had created a new map based on the recent Niederstätter, et al. (2012) study:

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_v003.png

We have to keep in mind that L51(xP312,U106) may hold a hidden mutation and be a little brother to P312 and U106. Either way, I don't think there is any doubt that the distribution is primarily Franco-Italian.

That map makes it even clearer that Other than the Irish oddity and tiny outlier patches in Portugal and way to the east sin Poland is indeed very Franco-Italian.    My feeling now is that we probably can ignore these extreme outlying patches and put them down to relict lineages that probably travelled later as a tiny element in some upstream movement.  So, yeah on reflection you are right that we should focus on the main concentration.  its not like there is a cline leading from an origin point to a pooling point except perhaps within the Franco-italian area.

It could be pre-beaker or it could be early beaker.  Its far more restricted than the whole bell  beaker complex. Interpreting it really depends on when and where one believes R1b joined the beaker network (or pre-beaker).  I am of course aware of the concept of a pre-beaker spread of R1b although I am on the fence about that.  I also think an alternative possibility is R1b only joined the beaker network once the network had reached west-central Europe (maybe somewhere like the Rhone/west Alpine area). You could argue that the L51* map could agree with that and accompanied other more upstream clades in the early movements of R1b through the beaker network.  It looks like, as you say, a strongly Franco-Italian hotspot.  The SE of France was a very early part of the beaker network while a little to the west and inland it was relatively later.    L51 does look a little like it was using the routes that the early beaker network used pre-2600BC (before the north facing part of Europe joined).  My feeling is that what we think of as classic beaker is the result of a group in the Rhone area who combined both western beaker ideas and eastern genes and then spread out from there.  

Regardless, L51* looks like it occurred perhaps in SE France or adjacent and there is little trace much to the east.  That kind of suggests to me that R1b first arrived in the west in an L23XL51 form and we therefore are never going to find a downstream east to west trail below that because it simply didnt exist.   It is interesting to me that there are an incredible number of beaker sites in SE France.  That strikes me a likely demographic expansion zone and a likely area where the whole L23*L51*L11*P312*U152/DF27 sequence maybe first happened and spread out from.

Please consider, that although I wouldn't say frequency should not be considered, high frequency is not a strong indicator of origin.

As Richard R pointed out, Most of the L51*  we see today may NOT be a diverse grouping of the remnants of the L51 MRCA, but may be just a little brother to U106 and P312 and L11*. In either case the intersection of the these is definitely something to look at.  How high is U106 in SE France. It's not is it? Perhaps we should be looking at the Italian-Austrian border area a bit harder.

I agree we have to keep looking at the whole lineage. What are the common areas between L51xL11 and L23xL51?

[Richard Rocca]

Please consider, that although I wouldn't say frequency should not be considered, high frequency is not a strong indicator of origin.

As Richard R pointed out, Most of the L51*  we see today may NOT be a diverse grouping of the remnants of the L51 MRCA, but may be just a little brother to U106 and P312 and L11*. In either case the intersection of the these is definitely something to look at.  How high is U106 in SE France. It's not is it? Perhaps we should be looking at the Italian-Austrian border area a bit harder.

I agree we have to keep looking at the whole lineage. What are the common areas between L51xL11 and L23xL51?

The high-point for Western European L23xL51 is 27.3% in the upper Rhone Valley of Switzerland, which runs close to the Italian border. The sample size was small  (n=33), but it would be interesting to see a detailed test of that area.

The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north.

[Maliclavelli]

Of course if you put together your observations:

1) Perhaps we should be looking at the Italian-Austrian border area a bit harder (Mikewww)
2) What are the common areas between L51xL11 and L23xL51? (Mikewww)
3) The high-point for Western European L23xL51 is 27.3% in the upper Rhone Valley of Switzerland, which runs close to the Italian border (Rocca)
4) The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north (Rocca)

you are speaking of my Italian Refugium.

[Mikewww]

Of course if you put together your observations:

1) Perhaps we should be looking at the Italian-Austrian border area a bit harder (Mikewww)
2) What are the common areas between L51xL11 and L23xL51? (Mikewww)
3) The high-point for Western European L23xL51 is 27.3% in the upper Rhone Valley of Switzerland, which runs close to the Italian border (Rocca)
4) The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north (Rocca)

you are speaking of my Italian Refugium.

I agree with you that Italy is a key.

I tend to segment Cisalpine Gaul or what we might consider North Italy from the Italian Peninsula. Italy is a long country north to south with parts in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea and parts running into the Alps.

Do you consider North Italy to be point of expansion or do you consider South Peninsular Italy as well?

By refugium, are you talking about the timeframe of the Last Glacial Maxim or something else?

[Jarman]

The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north.

I believe the DYS390=24 is also modal east of the Elbe. It sort of looks like DYS390=23 is tied to L48.

[Jarman]

That map makes it even clearer that Other than the Irish oddity and tiny outlier patches in Portugal and way to the east sin Poland is indeed very Franco-Italian.    My feeling now is that we probably can ignore these extreme outlying patches and put them down to relict lineages that probably travelled later as a tiny element in some upstream movement.  

What about the big gap in the center of Italy? I'm reminded L23 is also found only in the south of Italy. Also interesting is that L51 found in Sicily is more in the west than east. Instead of outliers, is this and the Portuguese area evidence of sea migration?

[Mark Jost]

Very nice work. I noticed that the heavier concentrations are sure following some of the major landforms of Europe.

MJost

Looking at the French Hotspot the larges level of L53xL11 appears to be Orleans area  southwards covering most of the major headwaters in central and southestern France.

Interesting the cline to the Rhone river around Lyons. Lyon was founded on the Fourvière hill on the site of a Gaulish hill-fort settlement called Lugdunon as a Roman colony in 43 BC and must have been a strong economic area prior to Roman building this city and roads from there into Gaul.

MJost
MJost

[Mikewww]

The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north.

I believe the DYS390=24 is also modal east of the Elbe. It sort of looks like DYS390=23 is tied to L48.

It might be beneficial to separate U106 out by subclade so we see what is driving the 390 values.

Z156, which includes L1/null439 is a clear 390=24 modal.

Z18 is also a clear 390=24.

The two brothers under Z301, L48 and U198, are what is driving the 390=23 modal within U106.

I don't know the thoughts on Z156 and Z18... if folks think they come from South-Central Europe versus East or North-Central.

[Mikewww]

The interesting thing I've noticed about U106 is that it has a modal value of DYS390=24 in Italy, Spain, and SW France instead of the traditional DYS390=23 you see further north.

I believe the DYS390=24 is also modal east of the Elbe. It sort of looks like DYS390=23 is tied to L48.

It might be beneficial to separate U106 out by subclade so we see what is driving the 390 values.

Z156, which includes L1/null439 is a clear 390=24 modal.

Z18 is also a clear 390=24.

The two brothers under Z301, L48 and U198, are what is driving the 390=23 modal within U106.

I don't know the thoughts on Z156 and Z18... if folks think they come from South-Central Europe versus East or North-Central.

Diversity across all the markers is probably a better measure. I looked at U106 67 STR ht's and divided the non-NW ht's into two camps: East of Germany (all the way to Russia) and South of Germany (Alpine area, Italian and Balkan Peninsulas).

Just using the markers that Heinila thinks have high confidence linear durations of 7000 ybp or more, here are the relative variances.

U106 East of Ger____:  Var=0.92 [Linear 36]  (N=65)
   
U106 South of Ger___:  Var=0.80 [Linear 36]  (N=36)   

It's hard to get U106 to intersect well with P312, at least in their most diverse regions.

EDIT: Since I'm in the U106 spreadsheet I might as well do the the rest.

U106 Isles__________:  Var=0.81 [Linear 36]  (N=770)

U106 Fra/Ger/Benelux:  Var=0.80 [Linear 36]  (N=193)   

U106 Nordic_________:  Var=0.73 [Linear 36]  (N=59)

U106 Iberia_________:  Var=0.65 [Linear 36]  (N=11)   


I hesitate to include Iberia because the sample size is so small but there it is.

I keep looking for something different, but I never get high diversity for U106 in Scandinavia. That's why I don't think they met up with I1 until Jastorf. By that time there may have been some P312 types and/or R1a1 accompanying the I1 people.... that is just wondering out loud.    Was there any movement of people from the east of Poland pushing people into the Jastorf at its inception?

[Maliclavelli]

I agree with you that Italy is a key.
I tend to segment Cisalpine Gaul or what we might consider North Italy from the Italian Peninsula. Italy is a long country north to south with parts in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea and parts running into the Alps.
Do you consider North Italy to be point of expansion or do you consider South Peninsular Italy as well?
By refugium, are you talking about the timeframe of the Last Glacial Maxim or something else?

Of course the matter is complex and to answer your questions I should publish all my letters and all the discussions they involved.
At the beginning, for me during 2007, the problem was that Italy wasn’t considered amongst the European Refugia. You know that the Refugia were 3: the Franco-Cantabrian, the Balkan and the Ukrainian ones. Then I posed the Italian Refugium amongst the others and this stuff mixed with the problem of the origin of Ashkenazi Jews, I considered above all European (Italy, Rhine Valley, but I didn’t exclude Khazars) and this caused me many problems. At the end of 2007 I was banned from Rootsweb where I wrote above all during that year. During 2008 I wrote above all on Dna-Forums. My theory of the Italian Refugium presupposed that also the inhabitants of the Isles came from Italy. We had then many signs, not only many haplogroups and haplotypes but also the data of the Amsbury Archer, who drank Alpine water etc. At the end of that year an autosomal test of my deCODEme (and after of my 23addMe) found a percentage of about 20% of Ashkenazi SNPs in me. I said that this demonstrated that Ashkenazi Jews came from Italy and not the other way around. Then I spoke of “Rhaetian-Etruskan fatherland”, then to answer your question I did mean that the Refugium was in Central-North Italy (first of all that of the Youger Dryas and not of the LGM) and it started from the Alpine Region.
During these last months of that year I was invited by a moderator of that Forums (who writes here and may confirm what I am saying) to moderate a thread about hg. R, above all R-L23 (mine), but another moderator, by using a pretext, banned me at the end of that year.
My theory was clear at that point, and about the situation of Italy I have always said that I considered Italy as part of the Refugium, because we found all the haplogroups overall in the country, only in different percentages and this was due to the immigration from the Balkans with the first agriculturalists which concerned more South Italy than Central-North one. Then no problem with R-L51 in Central-Western Sicily, because also this zone had probably a less introgression and is the land of the Italian peoples (Siculi, Sicani, Elymians). You have thought to a colonization by sea from South, I think to a colonization of Italian peoples from Central-North Italy.
During 2009 I wrote above all on “Dienekes’ Anthropolgy blog” and other minor ones and after here and I am continuing so far. What I have written here may easily be read.

[Mark Jost]

Movements of L51 and its subclades are interesting. Comparing the colonization of eastern United states westwards, I want to overlay Europe over the United states to compare size and look at how many generations and years did it take to populate the eastern half of the united states.

Using this webpage, move the red dot to position Texas mostly covering Spain/Portugal for reference.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

Early Colonization of North America and its natural growth in United States is explained in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

"Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States were settled by migration from another colony or state, as foreign immigration usually only played a minor role after the first initial settlements were started. Many new immigrants did end up on the frontiers as that was where the land was usually the cheapest"
 
"All the colonies, after they were started, grew mostly by natural growth, with foreign born populations rarely exceeding 10% in isolated instances. The last significant colonies to be settled mainly by immigrants were Pennsylvania in the early 18th century and Georgia and the Borderlands in the late 18th century, as migration (not immigration) continued to provide nearly all the settlers for each new colony or state. This pattern would continue throughout U.S. history. "

The chart below this paragraph show the growth over all most 200 years of various states. Comparing the US, it seems that Europe would have been populated by the L11 Immigrants moved across Europe. Here is the populations from the beginning of 1620's.

Year   1780   1760   1740   1720   1700   1680   1660   1640   1620
                        
Tot Pop.   2,780,400    1,593,600  905,600  466,200  250,900  151,500  75,100   26,600   500


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Discusses the estimated population of East and western Europe estimated that more than 50–60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire (AD 300–400).

But this chart shows that more than double the above estimate for the growth from 5000 BC to 0 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

I will assume that the L11 guys and their families had the same migration colonization methods as the early US colonists did expanding into new areas of Western Europe.

MJost

[Mikewww]

Movements of L51 and its subclades are interesting. Comparing the colonization of eastern United states westwards, I want to overlay Europe over the United states to compare size and look at how many generations and years did it take to populate the eastern half of the united states.

Using this webpage, move the red dot to position Texas mostly covering Spain/Portugal for reference.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

Early Colonization of North America and its natural growth in United States is explained in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

"Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States were settled by migration from another colony or state, as foreign immigration usually only played a minor role after the first initial settlements were started. Many new immigrants did end up on the frontiers as that was where the land was usually the cheapest"
 
"All the colonies, after they were started, grew mostly by natural growth, with foreign born populations rarely exceeding 10% in isolated instances. The last significant colonies to be settled mainly by immigrants were Pennsylvania in the early 18th century and Georgia and the Borderlands in the late 18th century, as migration (not immigration) continued to provide nearly all the settlers for each new colony or state. This pattern would continue throughout U.S. history. "

The chart below this paragraph show the growth over all most 200 years of various states. Comparing the US, it seems that Europe would have been populated by the L11 Immigrants moved across Europe. Here is the populations from the beginning of 1620's.

Year   1780   1760   1740   1720   1700   1680   1660   1640   1620
                        
Tot Pop.   2,780,400    1,593,600  905,600  466,200  250,900  151,500  75,100   26,600   500


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Discusses the estimated population of East and western Europe estimated that more than 50–60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire (AD 300–400).

But this chart shows that more than double the above estimate for the growth from 5000 BC to 0 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

I will assume that the L11 guys and their families had the same migration colonization methods as the early US colonists did expanding into new areas of Western Europe.

Mark, I'm open to this idea, but I'm not convinced as to the extent of the genetic input in opening frontiers from US migration versus immigration.

My own US genealogy has my two immediate surname lineages coming to Nebraska in the mid 19th century primarily related to opening of lands from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which was instigated as part of the build up to the American Civil War. One lineage was Irish that left Ireland due to the potatoe famine and the other was Czech that left Austria/Bohemia due to political strife and the Prague Rebellion of 1850.

In both cases, the lineages tarried in places like Boston and Chicago/Wisconsin before ending up a generation or two later in Nebraska. As far as the settling of Nebraska many were probably not born in foreign countries, but their grandfathers were.

On the other hand I have lineages that I have been in US territories since the Revolutionary War. One were Scots-Irish people who moved into Carolinas territory into what would become Tennessee. Many of them were born in places like Maryland but similarly to my other examples, the grandparents were from Northern Ireland and had suffered through distress in the Ulster Plantation period.

[rms2]

Have you read Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer? Jdean recommended it to me. I bought it for my Kindle and am reading it now. It's a fascinating book about the early British settlements in North America, focusing on the differences in their various source populations.

It doesn't deal with genetics, but it's not hard to make inferences in that direction. For example, the author says that the main source of the early Puritan population of New England was eastern England, which he refers to collectively using the historical sense of the term East Anglia. In my own family, one of my 2nd great grandmothers was of New England Puritan stock, with the surname Washburn, and related to many of the other early Puritan families of Massachusetts. I know from communication with some of my confirmed Washburn relatives that her father belonged to y haplogroup I-M253, which is fairly common in eastern England.

Virginia, on the other hand, was settled for the most part by Cavaliers and servants from southern and western England.

Anyway, thus far it's a really engaging book, but maybe you've already read it. It's been around since 1989.

[Mark Jost]

Movements of L51 and its subclades are interesting. Comparing the colonization of eastern United states westwards, I want to overlay Europe over the United states to compare size and look at how many generations and years did it take to populate the eastern half of the united states.

Using this webpage, move the red dot to position Texas mostly covering Spain/Portugal for reference.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

Early Colonization of North America and its natural growth in United States is explained in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

"Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States were settled by migration from another colony or state, as foreign immigration usually only played a minor role after the first initial settlements were started. Many new immigrants did end up on the frontiers as that was where the land was usually the cheapest"
 
"All the colonies, after they were started, grew mostly by natural growth, with foreign born populations rarely exceeding 10% in isolated instances. The last significant colonies to be settled mainly by immigrants were Pennsylvania in the early 18th century and Georgia and the Borderlands in the late 18th century, as migration (not immigration) continued to provide nearly all the settlers for each new colony or state. This pattern would continue throughout U.S. history. "

The chart below this paragraph show the growth over all most 200 years of various states. Comparing the US, it seems that Europe would have been populated by the L11 Immigrants moved across Europe. Here is the populations from the beginning of 1620's.

Year   1780   1760   1740   1720   1700   1680   1660   1640   1620
                        
Tot Pop.   2,780,400    1,593,600  905,600  466,200  250,900  151,500  75,100   26,600   500


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Discusses the estimated population of East and western Europe estimated that more than 50–60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire (AD 300–400).

But this chart shows that more than double the above estimate for the growth from 5000 BC to 0 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

I will assume that the L11 guys and their families had the same migration colonization methods as the early US colonists did expanding into new areas of Western Europe.

Mark, I'm open to this idea, but I'm not convinced as to the extent of the genetic input in opening frontiers from US migration versus immigration.

My own US genealogy has my two immediate surname lineages coming to Nebraska in the mid 19th century primarily related to opening of lands from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which was instigated as part of the build up to the American Civil War. One lineage was Irish that left Ireland due to the potatoe famine and the other was Czech that left Austria/Bohemia due to political strife and the Prague Rebellion of 1850.

In both cases, the lineages tarried in places like Boston and Chicago/Wisconsin before ending up a generation or two later in Nebraska. As far as the settling of Nebraska many were probably not born in foreign countries, but their grandfather's were.

On the other hand I have lineages that I have been in US territories since the Revolutionary War. One were Scots-Irish people who moved into Carolinas territory into what would become Tennessee. Many of them were born in places like Maryland but similarly to my other examples, the grandparents were from Northern Ireland and had suffered through distress in the Ulster Plantation period.

All good statements to consider. Migration seems to be key as an outsider would be likely kicked to the frontiers if they were looking for lands to farm.

Here in the last three paragraphs discusses Migration as a modal.
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/3902/1/3902.pdf?DDD5+dan0rb+dan0rab+dan0rb+dul4ks

MJost

[Maliclavelli]

Reading again the paper of Irene Pichler et al. about the Hutterites, EJHG, 2010, 18, 463-470, I am seeing that amongst the 227 South Tyrolean samples tested (“Altoatesini” we’d say in Italian of ancient Rhaetian origin), there are 23 hg. P (xR1a), i.e. R1b1a2a1a with DYS426=11 (i.e.13, because Pichler is under of 2), i.e. 23 R-L51 out of 227: 10,13%. Probably Richard Rocca should update his map.

[Jarman]

Reading again the paper of Irene Pichler et al. about the Hutterites, EJHG, 2010, 18, 463-470, I am seeing that amongst the 227 South Tyrolean samples tested (“Altoatesini” we’d say in Italian of ancient Rhaetian origin), there are 23 hg. P (xR1a), i.e. R1b1a2a1a with DYS426=11 (i.e.13, because Pichler is under of 2), i.e. 23 R-L51 out of 227: 10,13%. Probably Richard Rocca should update his map.

The Rocca map already shows an L51 presence in that area; how do you think these additional L51s will alter the map and/or its interpretation?

[Maliclavelli]

The Rocca map already shows an L51 presence in that area; how do you think these additional L51s will alter the map and/or its interpretation?

RRocca's map gives for that zone a percentage not higher than 3%. We are higher for a factor of 3.5 and almost the double of the highest percentage found in France. Seen that numbers are worth, it doesn't seem to me a few.

[alan trowel hands.]

Reading again the paper of Irene Pichler et al. about the Hutterites, EJHG, 2010, 18, 463-470, I am seeing that amongst the 227 South Tyrolean samples tested (“Altoatesini” we’d say in Italian of ancient Rhaetian origin), there are 23 hg. P (xR1a), i.e. R1b1a2a1a with DYS426=11 (i.e.13, because Pichler is under of 2), i.e. 23 R-L51 out of 227: 10,13%. Probably Richard Rocca should update his map.

How certain is the identification of L51* on the basis of that one STR?

[Jdean]

Reading again the paper of Irene Pichler et al. about the Hutterites, EJHG, 2010, 18, 463-470, I am seeing that amongst the 227 South Tyrolean samples tested (“Altoatesini” we’d say in Italian of ancient Rhaetian origin), there are 23 hg. P (xR1a), i.e. R1b1a2a1a with DYS426=11 (i.e.13, because Pichler is under of 2), i.e. 23 R-L51 out of 227: 10,13%. Probably Richard Rocca should update his map.

How certain is the identification of L51* on the basis of that one STR?

Bearing in mind that there are 14 people in the R-L21 project with this value I'd say not very :)

[Maliclavelli]

Bearing in mind that there are 14 people in the R-L21 project with this value I'd say not very :)

How is the percentage of DYS426=13 in the R-L21? Probably 0,0something. Here they are 10,13% of the people tested. When I suggested to an Italian with DYS426=13 to test L51, he did, and now he is amongst the R-L51 of the "ht 35 FTDNA Project". Many (Italian) people from SMGF I put on ySearch...

[alan trowel hands.]

Bearing in mind that there are 14 people in the R-L21 project with this value I'd say not very :)

How is the percentage of DYS426=13 in the R-L21? Probably 0,0something. Here they are 10,13% of the people tested. When I suggested to an Italian with DYS426=13 to test L51, he did, and now he is amongst the R-L51 of the "ht 35 FTDNA Project". Many (Italian) people from SMGF I put on ySearch...

Well what about U152?  Does that STR value occur among U152 also (which a very common clade in Italy).