World Families Forums - Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 01:43:34 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)
| | |-+  Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia  (Read 8532 times)
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #75 on: June 20, 2012, 12:58:59 PM »

I seem to remember reading that all or nearly all of the P312* from the Isles, Central Europe and Iberia which was used in the 1000 genomes study was DF27 positive. Could we not assume that DF27 is going to fill up nearly anywhere that P312* exists? This includes all of Europe, not just Iberia.. which would reinforce what Mike and Razyn are saying. Another thing to consider is Mikes variance runs for SRY2627 which shows that the Iberian component isn't any older than the British or the German components. Since its already written in stone that SRY2627 is Iberian, this is largely overlooked.

I think Mike nailed it when he called DF27 "Pan-European". The younger subclades which were discovered or known of well before DF27, may be skewing things to look Iberian centered. When DF27* is found to be the most diverse and not just the most frequent by way of its younger descendants in Iberia.. then I and others of similar persuasion will agree the DF27 is the undisputed Iberian clade of P312.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 01:03:02 PM by samIsaack » Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #76 on: June 20, 2012, 01:27:15 PM »

Really?? I would think that R1b-L21+ has about the same range of distribution of DF27+, the only difference would be that DF27+ has a high prevalence in Iberia, while it drops sharply outside of it, whereas R1b-L21+ has a significant distribution outside of the British Islands, especially in NW France. Mind you that in here I’m assuming that most of the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Iberia is DF27+, because in reality we don’t know much about the distribution of DF27+.

You might be assuming that most P312* in Iberia will be DF27+ and P312* outside of Iberia (which is quite scattered) will not.  I am not assuming that but either way we don't really know.

Uhmm, yeah, that is exactly what I said I was assuming, here look at the bolded part of the statement you quoted.  So yes, I agree that either way we don’t really know.

Using M65 is a poor argument if it is essentially just a private SNP which it may well be. It just appears on the ISOGG tree because it was an early SNP discovery.

Well, M65 has shown up in two different studies, namely the Adams.et.al.2008 yielded 2 R1b-M65 Basques on a sample of 116, and the Semino.et.al.2000 yielded 2 R1b-M65 Basques on a sample of 45.  I wouldn’t call it a private SNP,  it might very well be a very minority lineage that pops up every now and then, just as L23*, which also appears in Basques at a frequency of 1 to 2%. Also, the latest study did not test for R1b-M65, so some of that R1b-P312(xL21,U152) found in Basques could be R1b-M65. Right now it seems that M65 is a sibling clade to DF27, although I don’t know if they have tested an M65 person for DF27, I do know that all DF27 people that have been tested for M65 have come back negative, but then again if is a minor lineage that says nothing about it.

Just because you can't look at STR diversity now, doesn't mean frequency is any better of an indicator of origin than it ever was.  Higher frequencies to the absolute population or higher frequencies in relation to its peers, either way, can be misleading.

Well yes I agree, however I was postulating something based on the distribution of the clades.

In fact, we can look at haplogroup diversity and that is just as useful as STR diversity, perhaps more because we know haplogroups designate groups of people with an MRCA, more related to each other within their groups.  STR diversity is a mixed bag because we could have mixed haplogroups within the geography.

Haplogroup diversity for R1b-L11 is not highest in Iberia. You already have conceded this by stating U152 and L21 are rare there.

Well, do you have any proofs for that? I never  said that L21 is rare in Iberia, I said that R1b-P312(xL21,U152) is far greater than L21, but remember L21 reaches frequencies of 20% around the Western Pyrenees, that is not rare on my book. As for U152 it is scarce in most of Iberia, however it reaches frequencies of 6.2% in Valencia(n=113) per Myres.et.al.2010. 

We don't really know about haplogroup diversity for R1b-DF27 but we know Z209, L176.2 and SRY2627 are not relegated to Iberia.  On the other hand, M153 is relegated to Pyrenees region and at the same time L165 is relegated to Scandinavia and the Isles.   If we compare the two, M153 is just an element of Z209 and appears to be younger than its distant cousin to the north, L165.

I thought L165 was underneath L176.5, whereas M153 is underneath Z294, moreover why shouldn’t M153 be younger, it is 7 SNPs removed from Z196, whereas L165 is only 3 SNPs. Also I thought you said that Z225 a sibling clade of Z196 appears to be Iberian. Also, like I said before most of the Basques R1b-P312 is actually P312(xL21,U152,SRY2627,M153) that means that if they are DF27+ they are ancestral to SRY2627, and M153. This means that a long list of SNPs(i.e. They could be anything from Z196(xM153,SRY2627), to Z225, to M65, to even P312*) would fit the bill, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions thus far.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 01:28:43 PM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #77 on: June 20, 2012, 01:51:21 PM »

I seem to remember reading that all or nearly all of the P312* from the Isles, Central Europe and Iberia which was used in the 1000 genomes study was DF27 positive. Could we not assume that DF27 is going to fill up nearly anywhere that P312* exists? This includes all of Europe, not just Iberia.. which would reinforce what Mike and Razyn are saying. Another thing to consider is Mikes variance runs for SRY2627 which shows that the Iberian component isn't any older than the British or the German components. Since its already written in stone that SRY2627 is Iberian, this is largely overlooked.

I think Mike nailed it when he called DF27 "Pan-European". The younger subclades which were discovered or known of well before DF27, may be skewing things to look Iberian centered. When DF27* is found to be the most diverse and not just the most frequent by way of its younger descendants in Iberia.. then I and others of similar persuasion will agree the DF27 is the undisputed Iberian clade of P312.

If by Pan-European you mean we will find it in small quantities distributed across Europe, then you are right. But we can say the same thing about U152 and U106, right? That doesn't change the fact that all three of them have a very strong distribution pattern, which in the case of DF27 is without a doubt centered in N. Iberia and S. France:

1. Something like 92% of what would previously be classified as P312* in the Iberian 1KG project samples turned out to be DF27+. In GBR and Italy is was only around 66%. Don't forget that GBR has SNPs like DF19 and L238 that Iberian samples lacked.
2. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and compare Busby's German P312* that is less than 9% with Iberian P312* which is greater than 70% in some places in northern Iberia.

By the way, I'm not arguing for or against an Iberian DF27 origin.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #78 on: June 20, 2012, 02:21:09 PM »

I seem to remember reading that all or nearly all of the P312* from the Isles, Central Europe and Iberia which was used in the 1000 genomes study was DF27 positive. Could we not assume that DF27 is going to fill up nearly anywhere that P312* exists? This includes all of Europe, not just Iberia.. which would reinforce what Mike and Razyn are saying. Another thing to consider is Mikes variance runs for SRY2627 which shows that the Iberian component isn't any older than the British or the German components. Since its already written in stone that SRY2627 is Iberian, this is largely overlooked.

I think Mike nailed it when he called DF27 "Pan-European". The younger subclades which were discovered or known of well before DF27, may be skewing things to look Iberian centered. When DF27* is found to be the most diverse and not just the most frequent by way of its younger descendants in Iberia.. then I and others of similar persuasion will agree the DF27 is the undisputed Iberian clade of P312.

If by Pan-European you mean we will find it in small quantities distributed across Europe, then you are right. But we can say the same thing about U152 and U106, right? That doesn't change the fact that all three of them have a very strong distribution pattern, which in the case of DF27 is without a doubt centered in N. Iberia and S. France:

1. Something like 92% of what would previously be classified as P312* in the Iberian 1KG project samples turned out to be DF27+. In GBR and Italy is was only around 66%. Don't forget that GBR has SNPs like DF19 and L238 that Iberian samples lacked.
2. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and compare Busby's German P312* that is less than 9% with Iberian P312* which is greater than 70% in some places in northern Iberia.

By the way, I'm not arguing for or against an Iberian DF27 origin.

I agree that DF27 has a strong distribution in Iberia, though I don't believe that it has origins there. I also agree that is very spread albeit in relatively small amounts. I'm not taking anything away from Iberia, I just simply don't see why DF27 must have origins in Iberia (Not saying you believe that!) but other clades such as L21 and U152 do not. As Mike has pointed out, the relative age of DF27 would make it amongst the earliest of the P312 clades and would in my mind, have a similar launch area as U152 and maybe L21. Did DF27 find a niche in Iberia? Obviously yes, but I think this whole debate is oh so similar to the SRY2627 debates of old, where a subclade has a high frequency in one place, but with low diversity/variance. Not that we have variance or diversity for DF27 yet, but I do predict a similar outcome to the ones we've seen for SRY2627.

Also by Pan-Eurpean, I take it to mean a group that spread very early on and spread into many locales but not clustering anywhere until a later date, which I believe DF27 has done with Iberia. Again, I believe the younger descendants of DF27 are giving the impression that it originated there from their high frequency in the region. Wide spread scattering would reflect an early exploratory phase in my opinion and DF27 fits the bill for this.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 20, 2012, 05:34:43 PM »

I seem to remember reading that all or nearly all of the P312* from the Isles, Central Europe and Iberia which was used in the 1000 genomes study was DF27 positive. Could we not assume that DF27 is going to fill up nearly anywhere that P312* exists? This includes all of Europe, not just Iberia.. which would reinforce what Mike and Razyn are saying. Another thing to consider is Mikes variance runs for SRY2627 which shows that the Iberian component isn't any older than the British or the German components. Since its already written in stone that SRY2627 is Iberian, this is largely overlooked.

I think Mike nailed it when he called DF27 "Pan-European". The younger subclades which were discovered or known of well before DF27, may be skewing things to look Iberian centered. When DF27* is found to be the most diverse and not just the most frequent by way of its younger descendants in Iberia.. then I and others of similar persuasion will agree the DF27 is the undisputed Iberian clade of P312.

If by Pan-European you mean we will find it in small quantities distributed across Europe, then you are right. But we can say the same thing about U152 and U106, right? That doesn't change the fact that all three of them have a very strong distribution pattern, which in the case of DF27 is without a doubt centered in N. Iberia and S. France:

1. Something like 92% of what would previously be classified as P312* in the Iberian 1KG project samples turned out to be DF27+. In GBR and Italy is was only around 66%. Don't forget that GBR has SNPs like DF19 and L238 that Iberian samples lacked.
2. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and compare Busby's German P312* that is less than 9% with Iberian P312* which is greater than 70% in some places in northern Iberia.

By the way, I'm not arguing for or against an Iberian DF27 origin.

I guess since I came up with the term I should respond too.  I didn't think the term "Pan-European" would be as controversial.  I did not intend it to describe that DF27 was evenly spread throughout Europe in the sense that the frequency percentage would be equal (or only have insignificant differences) all across Europe. I was actually looking it at it more in the sense that JeanL was, relative to its peers (L21 and U152) and how the ratios change through out Europe.

It is more evenly spread than L21. That is for sure. L21 drops off quite a bit as you go east. I think DF27 will be more evenly spread than U152 as well, but that's a little closer contest, at least as you go east.  I think at the end of the day I'll still be able say that DF27 (as long as it holds as gobbling up P312*) is more closely to what could be described as more Pan-European-like than its two peers and cousin U106.

This is not science so I may be seeing things. That is my caveat on this conversation. I look at P312 data from studies whenever I can and have DNA public project P312 (all subclades) pretty well in hand.  Here is an example of something that I think I'm seeing. Maybe you won't see the same thing...


Just like at the expanded smaller pies for R1b in the Old Norway Project and look at the differences. The bright green is U106. This is obviously U106 territory, like it should be. The orange is L21 and it shows up well in Norway and loses steam as it crosses through Sweden.  The red is P312*, which could be a lot of DF27. We see SRY2627(M167) in gray so I would expect its DF27 family could have made it up here too. Especially if you add the red P312* (potential DF27) and light gray SRY2627(which is DF27) you'll see that DF27 might very well hold its own all the way across Scandinavia... more evenly than L21 and definitely more evenly than U152 (pink) which only appears in Denmark and Skaraborg.

Another example is I look at the Busby data for countries due east of Germany and the Alps. The ratio of P312* (potential DF27) to U152 holds about 1 to 1.  However, L21 is only one fifth of either P312* or U152.

Nothing compares to the density of L21 in the Isles and probably NW/N France. U152 is densest in N.Italy and then swoops across France and Germany and further to the east than many might think.  P312* (potential DF27) is no doubt densest in Iberia, but it seems to hang in there all over.

I may be seeing things but at least I'm not smoking anything. :)
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 05:40:13 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #80 on: June 20, 2012, 05:36:29 PM »

…Obviously yes, but I think this whole debate is oh so similar to the SRY2627 debates of old, where a subclade has a high frequency in one place, but with low diversity/variance. Not that we have variance or diversity for DF27 yet, but I do predict a similar outcome to the ones we've seen for SRY2627.
 

Not exactly the variance of DF27, but here is the data for the variance of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) extracted from Table-S2 of the Busby.et.al.2011 study, this was done using 10 STRs. There were other European countries/ethnic groups which I was not able to include due to poor sample size, namely Basques(n=1), Bulgaria(n=1), Croatia (n=1), Greece(n=2), Poland(n=2), Sardinia(n=2), Turkey(n=2) and Ukraine(n=1).



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Busbyetal2011R1b-P312xL21U152Variance.jpg

Other countries/regions such as the Netherlands(n=4), Alps(n=5), Belarus(n=4) had their variance calculated but I decided not to include them because of their small sample size. Nonetheless for the interest of those who want to know, I’ll give the variance here with a warning to take the results with caution due to the small sample size:

Netherlands (n=4, var=0.325)

Alps (n=5, var=0.16)

Belarus(n=4, var=0.20)


PS: I might be able to break-up France, England and Ireland into subregions, however not all subregions have more than 5 haplotypes, so if I were to do it, I would do it for subregions that have at least 8 or more haplotypes. Also the sample from France includes France SW, and the sample from Iberia is Portugal and Spain pooled together.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 06:06:53 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #81 on: June 20, 2012, 06:21:03 PM »

Thanks, JeanL.

About a year ago I downloaded all of the SRY2627 (a subclade of DF27) data from Adams 2008 and Lopez-Parra 2008 supplementary data and then tried to compare with the same set of short of STRs from the DNA projects which had SRY2627 from places like Germany and England. I only had 8 common STRs and here is what I came up with for actual variance across those 8 markers:

Iberian Peninsula _______ 1.9536 _ (N=57) .. excludes Pyrenees, Basque Ctry, Catalonia

Aquitaine & Pyrenees ____ 1.7404 - (N=72) .. includes SW France

Continental Europe ______ 1.6604 _ (N=46) ... excludes SW France & Iberia


I was actually a little surprised as at the time I thought SRY2627 would be of highest diversity where it had highest frequency, Catalonia. Instead, as you can see SRY2627 appears older down in the peninsula itself.

I was also getting different relationships when using more STRs which is part of the whole reason I started becoming perplexed about using limited numbers of STRs.

The file of data is still saved at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplotype_Data_R-SRY2627.zip
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 06:22:03 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 20, 2012, 06:31:16 PM »

If we expect P312* (S116*) to be heavy DF27 here are the results from Myres 2010 Table S2.  These are not my calculations but Myres'.

P312* (S116*) average variance from Table S2.
Quote from: Myres

Vaucluse____ 0.382___ N=12
France______ 0.302___ N=19
Switzerland_ 0.285___ N=16
Netherlands_ 0.273___ N=6
Germany_____ 0.259___ N=22
Slovakia____ 0.214___ N=12
Italy_______ 0.191___ N=14
England_____ 0.186___ N=8
Ireland_____ 0.169___ N=14
Denmark_____ 0.160___ N=6

As you can see, they really had their eye on SE France.  This is one of the holes in Myres' study. They didn't really compare Iberia.  It's like they forgot it or it was "outside of their scope!"

However, they have a note on their table - " A single S116* haplotype from Vaucluse displayed DYS38II=20 whereas all other samples in this group displayed DYS389B=16".  Removing this haplotype changes things dramatically and rops Vaucluse to the bottom of the list.  

There are two ways to look at this.  One way is to say there obviously isn't enough of a sample and/or the "right" STRs.    The other is to say "Wow, look at this Vaucluse guy with 389II=20.  He is one of a kind and must be ancient!"  Of course, I think along the lines of the first way.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 06:31:42 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #83 on: June 20, 2012, 06:32:01 PM »

I was also getting different relationships when using more STRs which is part of the whole reason I started becoming perplexed about using limited numbers of STRs.

The file of data is still saved at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplotype_Data_R-SRY2627.zip


Right now, I’m trying to work on Table-S3 of Busby which includes some of the data on a 15 STR marker set, however they only distinguish between M269(xU106,P312), P312 and U106. So P312 is actually P312+ and has everything downstream of it. I'mm post something as soon as I get something done.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 20, 2012, 06:37:56 PM »

As you know, I like to use a lot of STRs and haplotypes to wash out weird stuff.

Given our actualy DF27 testing to-date, including all of its subclades, here is a comparison of 67 STR haplotypes from our DNA projects.

DF27 Iberia&Aquitaine:  Var=0.78 [Mixed 49]  (N=42)
DF27 Iberia&Aquitaine:  Var=0.73 [Linear 36]  (N=42)

DF27 Continental Euro:  Var=0.97 [Mixed 49]  (N=82)
DF27 Continental Euro:  Var=0.89 [Linear 36]  (N=82)

There is no P312* or P312 unknown in the above... just DF27 confirmed, most of which is SRY2627 or some kind of Z196.

The differences in STR diversity are not that great and this data doesn't prove anything anyway, but it doesn't show higher diversity in Iberia & SW France.

No Isles or Scandinavian DF27 was included in the above. If we threw that in that'd really mess us up. We have more Isles 67 STR hts than we do all of the rest combined. If you would compare it, it edges out Continental Europe as older. I only have 8 67 STR Nordic hts but their diversity is even higher than the Isles. I suppose it is the balanced mix (diversity) of Z209, L165, L176.2*, Z196* that is driving up Scandinavia.

Z209, alias North-South cluster, may tell us a lot about DF27. That's just a thought....  if we could figure out how to understand it and its downstream Basque marker, M153.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 06:46:53 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #85 on: June 20, 2012, 07:07:26 PM »



However, they have a note on their table - " A single S116* haplotype from Vaucluse displayed DYS389I=20 whereas all other samples in this group displayed DYS389B=16".  Removing this haplotype changes things dramatically and rops Vaucluse to the bottom of the list. 

There are two ways to look at this.  One way is to say there obviously isn't enough of a sample and/or the "right" STRs.    The other is to say "Wow, look at this Vaucluse guy with 389II=20.  He is one of a kind and must be ancient!"  Of course, I think along the lines of the first way.

Yes, I was going to tell you that, nonetheless if you are interested in the problems that multi-step mutations posit, I actually ran a simulation where I took the two extreme scenarios:

1)-Where a multi-step mutation of say 5 is actually 5 single step mutations, and calculating the mean mut/marker assuming that.

2)-Where a multi-step mutation of say 5 is just counted as a single multi-step mutation, and calculating the mean mut/marker assuming that.

3)-The sigma is calculated by subtracting the mean mut/marker variance obtained in 2) from the mean mut/marker variance obtained in 1).

So I used those values to see how the variance would change, here are the results I got for R1b-L23+ from Myres.et.al.2010 Table-S3:



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Myresetal2010R1b-L23Variancewithsigmas-1.jpg

For the samples highlighted in red, it turns out the variance was the same under both scenarios, that is, they only had single step mutations, but for consistency I gave them a sigma of 5% of the mean variance. In the other cases for the most part the sigmas were under 10% of the mean observed mut/marker assuming that all multi-step are just multi-single steps, the exceptions to this are Pakistan, which gets a variance of 0.32 assuming all mutations are single-step, or 0.28 assuming all multi-step mutations are single multi-step mutations. In the case of Pakistan it could be attributed to its small sample size(i.e. 5). Which is why I try to work with at least 8 or more haplotypes, and I caution people about small samples sizes such as 5 or less. As for Turkey(n=66) it seems they do in fact seem to have multiple multi-step mutations, which is something to take into account when calculating variance in Turkey.

Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #86 on: June 20, 2012, 07:12:38 PM »

As you know, I like to use a lot of STRs and haplotypes to wash out weird stuff.

Given our actualy DF27 testing to-date, including all of its subclades, here is a comparison of 67 STR haplotypes from our DNA projects.

DF27 Iberia&Aquitaine:  Var=0.78 [Mixed 49]  (N=42)
DF27 Iberia&Aquitaine:  Var=0.73 [Linear 36]  (N=42)

DF27 Continental Euro:  Var=0.97 [Mixed 49]  (N=82)
DF27 Continental Euro:  Var=0.89 [Linear 36]  (N=82)
 

Well, I’m not sure if that is a fair comparison, given that you are comparing Iberia&Aquitania, with a pooled sample of Continental Europe, it would me more interesting to see a sample of country by country like the one I showed. However, I know that the one I showed is for P312(xL21,U152) so there is no guarantee most of it will be DF27+. Would you mind running Iberia(minus Aquitaine) alone, and seeing how it compares to the rest of Europe.

PS: In the data I showed Spain(excluding Portugal, n=171) has a mean mut/marker value of 0.2661 whereas France SW (n=26) has a mean mut/marker value of 0.2308. So as you can see the pooling of France SW, or Portugal with Spain would decrease the variance observed in Spain, at least in the data from Busby.et.al.2011
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 07:16:25 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #87 on: June 20, 2012, 08:06:22 PM »

. . .  Therefore the only way you can try to characterize the nonIE connection of P312 is if you completely ignore the massive presence of P312 in nonIE speakers . . .

What "massive presence of P312 in nonIE speakers"?

You are assuming a lot. You are assuming a lot of long-dead Aquitanians and Iberians were P312. That is unproven.

There is no "duality" of non-IE versus IE in P312. The non-IE portion is a tiny fraction of the whole.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 08:07:40 PM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #88 on: June 20, 2012, 08:22:34 PM »

What "massive presence of P312 in nonIE speakers"?

You are assuming a lot. You are assuming a lot of long-dead Aquitanians and Iberians were P312. That is unproven.

There is no "duality" of non-IE versus IE in P312. The non-IE portion is a tiny fraction of the whole.

Ok, and you are assuming that the long-dead IE speaking Celts of Ireland, Picts of Scotland, Gauls of France, Britons of England were P312. That is unproven.!!!

Moral of the story is, modern population frequencies are not good indicators. So yes, good luck trying to ignore all of Aquitania, and the Eastern side of Iberia.

PS: 5-7th Century Alevenses Basques were R1b-M269, and 9-10th Century Aragonenses from the Pyrenees(both in the archaic Euskera zone) were also R1b-M269. I have yet to see any results from the British Celts. Also add to it the Guanches of the Canary Islands who spoke Berber, and as far as I know have no known IE link, yet they show 3/30 R1b-M269 in the remains.

In case you are wondering why I'm linking 8-10th Here is a link to a study(In Spanish) by Lacasta-Estaun.et.al.1994 which talks about the presence of Euskera(Basque Language) in "Alto Aragon" that is the Aragonense Pyrenees.

http://www.euskomedia.org/PDFAnlt/literatura/12/12141278.pdf

Quote from: Lacasta-Estaun.et.al.1994

Abstract

The object of this work is to point out a number of affinities existing between the neighbouring cultural areas
of High Aragon and the Basque Country. The core of the study is the posible reflex that one particular group
of Basque etyma, taken at random, might have produced onto the toponymia of the higlands of Aragon. This is
by no means a thorough test; one could always bring forward a further number of toponyms whose Basque lending
character seems quite evident. Another series of fenomena of different kinds let us undersee that the toponomastic
concurrencies are not at all an isolated case. We begin by gathering the oppinions of well known philologists
on the importance of the toponymia of the higlands of Aragon as to leading to the knowledge of a Protobasque
language, or to fhat of those languages previous to romanization that must have been spoken in the Pyrinean
valleys.[/b]

Actually the english translation given in the article(The one above) is very bad, I can actually post the spanish abstract and translate if you want.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 08:37:00 PM by JeanL » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #89 on: June 20, 2012, 08:50:32 PM »

I am finding the idea of treating the immediate downsteam clades of P312 (and L11 for that matter) as having very different cultural/linguistic/archaeological associations despite there extreme similarity of age one that is very hard to take on board.  I also am baffled by the emphasis on the Pyrennees.  Frequency does not equal origin.  If it did then U152 would be italian, L21 probably some small island in the west of Ireland and U106 would be Dutch.  I find it mighty hard to believe that this makes any sense or that anything would support the source=highest frequency models.  It seems to me that highest frequency occurs where a wave meets some sort of obstacle and pools up.  That IMO would fits the frequency much better. Variance seems to contradict the frequency=source model pretty consistantly.  

I really dont get this Basque thing at all.  A much more credible alternative that involves Iberia can be constructed more closely linked to beakers.  I am not sure I believe it but you could link P312** (i.e P312 that is negative for DF23) and DF23 with an initial growth in Atlantic Iberia or perhaps southern France and a thin but wide spread associated with the Maritime beakers.  You could then seen the P312** element in the Rhone-Rhine area where it interacted with other elements including Corded Ware and eastern European elements and formed the complete beaker package and soon giving birth of U152 and slighly later L21 (the latter on a NW trajectory) with those two clades forming crucial elements in spreading the full bell beaker package.  I tend to see the Pyrenness as likely a refuge zone for elements pushed into it from the Ebro, Aquitania etc and I suspect they arrived later.  Anyway, while the Basque issue remains interesting I cant see an origin model in that area.  

I wouldnt rule out a SW beaker origin for L11 or at least P312 but I find SE France far more likely despite the current edging of dates by Portugal.  I am even prepared to believe that beaker may have in its very earliest phase been non-IE and only IE in its developed phase.  However, I have my doubts because I just cannot see P312 as some bottled up western hunter gatherer group given the similarity to L11. U106 and L51.  You would almost have to argue that all of them are from Iberia too.  A hunter gatherer group isolated in Iberia would be incredibly old as I assume we are talking about descendants of Magdalenians.  How could P312 be seperated from L23 or even M269 in the east by 18000 years and be so similar? As far as I understand the last thrust of hunters from the east in the Palaeolithic was the Badeguallian just before Magdallenian.  If the variance difference of M269 is 18000 years (give or take a millenium or two) then how old does that make haplogroup I which I understand has about four times the variance of P312?  Way older than the history of modern humans in Europe.  

If you add to the improbability of P312 being some sort of Upper Palaelithic remnant based in Iberia to the lack of any evidence for R1b of any sort among the Neolithic farmers then its very hard not to feel that R1b is connected to the copper age and that its origins are from the east.  I think a case can be made that the pre-full package beaker may not even have been R1b.  Its very hard to see R1b in Portugal c. 3000BC given the improbability of it being either western hunter gatherer or early farming based.  It could have somehow got there a few generations before beaker itself in very hazy period where very hard to interpret early echose of eastern influences spread through much of Europe in the pre-beaker phase but its hardly self-evident.  Otzi was apparently a member of one of those immediate pre-beaker groups with early hints of eastern influences (Remedello culture - whose bits and bobs are represented on the pre-beaker stelae on both sides of the Alps) and he was Haplogroup G.  I know a sample of one is useless but there you go.  

I think its easier to see the earliest beaker an non-R1b and south-western and L51*, L11* and P312 as being incorporated into the beaker culture in its full package mature stage c. 26000-2500BC in somewhere like Switzerland or SE France (or maybe NW Italy) and then following the beaker networks.  Its clear to me that L51* as shown on RER's map (even if much of it is a parallel line to L11*) follows the beaker network, is particularly strong in southern France/NW Italy, with Iberia, Holland, more northerly bits of France and west-central Europe looking like weaker termini.  However, that is based on distribution alone so is speculative.  

The most likely scenario for me is that R1b joined the beaker network in its developed stage c. 2600-2500BC commencing as L51xL11 and L11* in or around the western Alps c. 2600BC and spread in all directions into this secondary beaker network.  How it got into the western Alps is more uncertain but its a lot less hard to imagine that P312 simply arising in or jumping straight to Iberia from eastern Europe.  I cant make my mind up as to whether R1b got to the western Alps area by sea around Italy or through central Europe.  Both of these things combine at the head of the Adriatic of course although that is more hedging of bets than a necesssary conclusion.  

I suppose in a model where L51*/L11* is seen as entering the developed bell beaker culture in the western Alps area does lead to the question of who were the neighbours c. 2600BC in that area.  Well there was corded ware although that would be going back to the beaker-battle axe model which sees beaker-battle axe culture as a hybrid of beakers from SE Europe and corded ware developing where beaker met corded ware c. 2600BC.  I am not going to argue that although it does bear a resemblance to the model I am peddling for the entry of R1b into the beaker network.   We know that some full package beaker elements seem to have eastern influences.  It is also clear that the beaker people despite being almost interspersed between corded ware people in central Europe from 2600BC had a very seperate identity and traditions.  I dont have any real answers to it.  From what I have read it would just appear to me that the full beaker package was a unique spin on SW and eastern elements that must have found its full form somewhere around the Rhone-Rhine area and that R1b is surely part of the eastern element.  The evidence at more southern beaker sites suggests that beaker arrived there in the pre-beaker package form and that the arrival of the full package was intrusive.  So I would guess that the Rhine-Rhone zone or perhaps even further east (beaker was as far east as eastern Germany (deep in Corded Ware territory) by 2600BC as the first ancient R1b DNA shows.  That area is not at all far from the easternmost extent of L51* as it followed the beaker network. As I said before, I understand it is mainly a sister clade but it clearly follows the beaker route at its maximum about 2600BC and not the wider route of 100-200 years later.  So, I think that is a strong hint that L51* and almost certainly L11 had entered the network by 2600BC.  I am not aware of any similar L23xL51 pattern so L51 seems to be the most upstream in R1b that links R1b and the beaker network.  Indeed the variance date for L51 is uncannily similar to that date.  HAD R1b been in the beaker network in its immature stage 2800-2600BC before it encorporated eastern elements that gave the developed beaker culture then we would have an L23 peak in Portugal and a trail following the early beaker network (basically Portugal and southern France.  

As I said earlier the striking correpondence of L51* sister clade of L11* and the earlier beaker network doesnt show us the directions it took and relative age within the network.  It is noticeable that L51* is only represented east of the Rhine on RR's map in that blob which is not far from the ancient M269XU106 found in eastern Germany.  IF the R1b element in beaker really was a new entry into the network from the east then I would say that area around SE Germany and a little to the south near the Carpathians could be the point where it entered the network.  if that was the case then the pattern of L51* following the beaker network of c. 2600BC could actually mark a trail from origin in the east.  Understand though I am aware that L51* is not all or even hardly at all ancestral lines to L11.  However, given the problems analysing the crowded remants of L11 which travelled with it, L51* may provide a surrogate marker for the L11 it travelled with.  OK that is all very speculative but L51* looks like its only west of Rhine presence was in that single blob near SE Germany or south Poland.  So is it origin point of terminus?  One doubt about it being origin point is it looks a real outlier.    The devloped beaker package is apparently a blend of SW and eastern influences so by definition it cannot have arise anywhere that the SW partial-package beaker culture reached. That would draw us back to the alternative that L51 was encorporated into the beaker network around the Rhine-Rhone area where early beaker was exposed to Corded Ware and eastern ideas from other cultures.  I have always thought there is a bizzare similarity and disimilarity about developed beaker and corded ware almost as if the beaker group went out of their way to distinguish themselves from the corded ware group despite the broad similarity of ideas.  I actually think there is something in that.    Again, if R1b entered the beaker package c. 2600BC as the more developed beaker package evolved perhaps in the Rhone-Rhine area or adjacent then you have to ask who were the neighbours in that area at that time. Well the Corded Ware people stand out and impossible to ignore.  Could a group of people on the interface of late Corded Ware and early beaker have deliberately evolved a distinctive idenitry and maintained it jealously.  If the original SW beaker element wasnt R1b then I wonder the Corded Ware group who formed the weird hybrid of east and west that is the developed beaker culture are responsible for the R1b element.  Corded Ware is just impossible to ignore.  Its a massive block next door to the likely area where developed beaker developed.   Or alternatively there could have beena low visibility mobile eastern element that formed a common denomenator in transforming TRB into Corded Ware culture and later tranforming pre-full package beaker into developed beaker culture rather than a direct influence of Corded Ware on developed beaker.  What is clear is the developed beaker people not only took the old western early beaker elements but they put a different spin on the eastern aspects like single graves etc.  They clearly wanted to remain very distinct from the corded ware groups and had a very powerful identity.

Anyway        

 
Anyway, here are a few questions
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #90 on: June 20, 2012, 09:05:07 PM »

I seem to remember reading that all or nearly all of the P312* from the Isles, Central Europe and Iberia which was used in the 1000 genomes study was DF27 positive. Could we not assume that DF27 is going to fill up nearly anywhere that P312* exists? This includes all of Europe, not just Iberia.. which would reinforce what Mike and Razyn are saying. Another thing to consider is Mikes variance runs for SRY2627 which shows that the Iberian component isn't any older than the British or the German components. Since its already written in stone that SRY2627 is Iberian, this is largely overlooked.

I think Mike nailed it when he called DF27 "Pan-European". The younger subclades which were discovered or known of well before DF27, may be skewing things to look Iberian centered. When DF27* is found to be the most diverse and not just the most frequent by way of its younger descendants in Iberia.. then I and others of similar persuasion will agree the DF27 is the undisputed Iberian clade of P312.

If by Pan-European you mean we will find it in small quantities distributed across Europe, then you are right. But we can say the same thing about U152 and U106, right? That doesn't change the fact that all three of them have a very strong distribution pattern, which in the case of DF27 is without a doubt centered in N. Iberia and S. France:

1. Something like 92% of what would previously be classified as P312* in the Iberian 1KG project samples turned out to be DF27+. In GBR and Italy is was only around 66%. Don't forget that GBR has SNPs like DF19 and L238 that Iberian samples lacked.
2. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and compare Busby's German P312* that is less than 9% with Iberian P312* which is greater than 70% in some places in northern Iberia.

By the way, I'm not arguing for or against an Iberian DF27 origin.

I guess since I came up with the term I should respond too.  I didn't think the term "Pan-European" would be as controversial.  I did not intend it to describe that DF27 was evenly spread throughout Europe in the sense that the frequency percentage would be equal (or only have insignificant differences) all across Europe. I was actually looking it at it more in the sense that JeanL was, relative to its peers (L21 and U152) and how the ratios change through out Europe.

It is more evenly spread than L21. That is for sure. L21 drops off quite a bit as you go east. I think DF27 will be more evenly spread than U152 as well, but that's a little closer contest, at least as you go east.  I think at the end of the day I'll still be able say that DF27 (as long as it holds as gobbling up P312*) is more closely to what could be described as more Pan-European-like than its two peers and cousin U106.

This is not science so I may be seeing things. That is my caveat on this conversation. I look at P312 data from studies whenever I can and have DNA public project P312 (all subclades) pretty well in hand.  Here is an example of something that I think I'm seeing. Maybe you won't see the same thing...


Just like at the expanded smaller pies for R1b in the Old Norway Project and look at the differences. The bright green is U106. This is obviously U106 territory, like it should be. The orange is L21 and it shows up well in Norway and loses steam as it crosses through Sweden.  The red is P312*, which could be a lot of DF27. We see SRY2627(M167) in gray so I would expect its DF27 family could have made it up here too. Especially if you add the red P312* (potential DF27) and light gray SRY2627(which is DF27) you'll see that DF27 might very well hold its own all the way across Scandinavia... more evenly than L21 and definitely more evenly than U152 (pink) which only appears in Denmark and Skaraborg.

Another example is I look at the Busby data for countries due east of Germany and the Alps. The ratio of P312* (potential DF27) to U152 holds about 1 to 1.  However, L21 is only one fifth of either P312* or U152.

Nothing compares to the density of L21 in the Isles and probably NW/N France. U152 is densest in N.Italy and then swoops across France and Germany and further to the east than many might think.  P312* (potential DF27) is no doubt densest in Iberia, but it seems to hang in there all over.

I may be seeing things but at least I'm not smoking anything. :)

In the best of those R1b pies, it looks like P312* is about 12-13%, with most in the 4-5% range. That fits with Busby's data:

Norway...................................10.9%
Denmark North........................7.1%
Denmark West.........................5.3%
Denmark Southeast.................4.1%
Sweden South (Malmö)............2.2%
Saami (Sweden).......................0.0%

However, when you consider "boutique" SNPs like L238, DF19 as well as undiscovered SNPs, you probably need to cut those numbers in half (2-4%?). As I said on DNA-Forums - DF27 may turn out to be the most widespread SNP in Europe, but it is without a doubt heavily Iberia-centric.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #91 on: June 20, 2012, 09:20:45 PM »

mmmm ... R1b pie ;0p delicious. 
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #92 on: June 20, 2012, 09:27:59 PM »

I am finding the idea of treating the immediate downsteam clades of P312 (and L11 for that matter) as having very different cultural/linguistic/archaeological associations despite there extreme similarity of age one that is very hard to take on board.  I also am baffled by the emphasis on the Pyrennees.  Frequency does not equal origin.  If it did then U152 would be italian, L21 probably some small island in the west of Ireland and U106 would be Dutch.  I find it mighty hard to believe that this makes any sense or that anything would support the source=highest frequency models.  It seems to me that highest frequency occurs where a wave meets some sort of obstacle and pools up.  That IMO would fits the frequency much better. Variance seems to contradict the frequency=source model pretty consistantly. 

Well and thus far from the data of Busby.et.al.2011 it seems that the variance of P312(xL21,U152) peaks in Iberia, so there you go, variance doesn’t contradict it this time.

I really dont get this Basque thing at all.  A much more credible alternative that involves Iberia can be constructed more closely linked to beakers.  I am not sure I believe it but you could link P312** (i.e P312 that is negative for DF23) and DF23 with an initial growth in Atlantic Iberia or perhaps southern France and a thin but wide spread associated with the Maritime beakers.  You could then seen the P312** element in the Rhone-Rhine area where it interacted with other elements including Corded Ware and eastern European elements and formed the complete beaker package and soon giving birth of U152 and slighly later L21 (the latter on a NW trajectory) with those two clades forming crucial elements in spreading the full bell beaker package.  I tend to see the Pyrenness as likely a refuge zone for elements pushed into it from the Ebro, Aquitania etc and I suspect they arrived later.  Anyway, while the Basque issue remains interesting I cant see an origin model in that area. 

It’s not a Basque model, the spread of P312 is likely linked with Bell Beakers, however as per the study that I posted about dental morphology, they put the launchpad of Bell Beakers in Northern Spain, so there you go.

I wouldnt rule out a SW beaker origin for L11 or at least P312 but I find SE France far more likely despite the current edging of dates by Portugal.  I am even prepared to believe that beaker may have in its very earliest phase been non-IE and only IE in its developed phase.  However, I have my doubts because I just cannot see P312 as some bottled up western hunter gatherer group given the similarity to L11. U106 and L51.  You would almost have to argue that all of them are from Iberia too.  A hunter gatherer group isolated in Iberia would be incredibly old as I assume we are talking about descendants of Magdalenians.  How could P312 be seperated from L23 or even M269 in the east by 18000 years and be so similar? As far as I understand the last thrust of hunters from the east in the Palaeolithic was the Badeguallian just before Magdallenian.

Uhmmm, well no wonder you find that improbable!!! No, P312 doesn’t need to be separated from L23 or even M269 by 18000 years. First of all, we are talking about modals, so if the L23 SNP occurred say 8000 ybp for example, and it is separated from the P312 modal by 2000 years, all it means is that the P312 SNP occurred somewhere between 8000 ybp and 6000 ybp. Remember the modals are the ancestral folks, they don’t need to be separated by 18000 years or something like that. Second of all, if M269 was widespread in Europe, and got separated at the onset of the Neolithic as I claim in my hypothesis, the separation time between the European and West Asian clades should be in the 6000-8000 ybp, coinciding with the arrival of Neolithic in the upper region of the Balkans, certainly not 18000 ybp. So I hope that clears things up.

If the variance difference of M269 is 18000 years (give or take a millenium or two) then how old does that make haplogroup I which I understand has about four times the variance of P312?  Way older than the history of modern humans in Europe. 

Really!!!  So you are comparing haplogroup I-M170 with P312, please when have I said that P312 is 18000 ybp, you started talking about M269, and the jumped to P312. Marko.H places the interclade age of haplogroup I as 25 ybp with haplogroup J, the interclade age of R1b-M269 is placed at 11 ybp with haplogroup R1b-M73, although the sample used for R1b-M73 was of 11 people, so not very reliable.


If you add to the improbability of P312 being some sort of Upper Palaelithic remnant based in Iberia to the lack of any evidence for R1b of any sort among the Neolithic farmers then its very hard not to feel that R1b is connected to the copper age and that its origins are from the east. I think a case can be made that the pre-full package beaker may not even have been R1b. 

I love it how R1b being a putative Hunter-gatherers Mesolithic lineage being absent from Neolithic site is definite proof that it is improbable to be a Mesolithic lineage. So if R1b would have turned up in the two Neolithic sites, then it would have for sure been deemed a Neolithic lineage, but if it doesn’t show up, it is because is a Copper age lineage. Could it be, because it was holed up somewhere in the mountains of Western Europe, or is that so hard to envision.

Its very hard to see R1b in Portugal c. 3000BC given the improbability of it being either western hunter gatherer or early farming based.  It could have somehow got there a few generations before beaker itself in very hazy period where very hard to interpret early echose of eastern influences spread through much of Europe in the pre-beaker phase but its hardly self-evident.  Otzi was apparently a member of one of those immediate pre-beaker groups with early hints of eastern influences (Remedello culture - whose bits and bobs are represented on the pre-beaker stelae on both sides of the Alps) and he was Haplogroup G.  I know a sample of one is useless but there you go. 

Again, per the paper I posted, the launchpad of Beaker is presumed to be from Northern Spain not Portugal, it seem Beaker was a local adoption in many places in Northern Spain, and the dental continuity lends support to it.

 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 09:49:38 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #93 on: June 20, 2012, 09:47:08 PM »

From what I have read it would just appear to me that the full beaker package was a unique spin on SW and eastern elements that must have found its full form somewhere around the Rhone-Rhine area and that R1b is surely part of the eastern element.  The evidence at more southern beaker sites suggests that beaker arrived there in the pre-beaker package form and that the arrival of the full package was intrusive. So I would guess that the Rhine-Rhone zone or perhaps even further east (beaker was as far east as eastern Germany (deep in Corded Ware territory) by 2600BC as the first ancient R1b DNA shows.  That area is not at all far from the easternmost extent of L51* as it followed the beaker network. As I said before, I understand it is mainly a sister clade but it clearly follows the beaker route at its maximum about 2600BC and not the wider route of 100-200 years later.  So, I think that is a strong hint that L51* and almost certainly L11 had entered the network by 2600BC.  I am not aware of any similar L23xL51 pattern so L51 seems to be the most upstream in R1b that links R1b and the beaker network.  Indeed the variance date for L51 is uncannily similar to that date.  HAD R1b been in the beaker network in its immature stage 2800-2600BC before it encorporated eastern elements that gave the developed beaker culture then we would have an L23 peak in Portugal and a trail following the early beaker network (basically Portugal and southern France. 



That is contradicted by this:

Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?

Quote from: Desideri.et.al.2010
Abstract

The Bell Beaker complex is defined, above all, by a ceramic style widespread across Europe during the 3rd millennium BC. Its particularly large geographic distribution has provoked different interpretations: a unique population invading Europe, the long-distance exchange of prestige goods, and the absence of a real Bell Beaker population with only the diffusion of its cultural components. For Switzerland, the Bell Beaker period would have developed following influences varying in significance from both the Mediterranean region and Central Europe.

Bioanthropology makes it possible to test the first of these hypotheses, which proposes the diffusion of a culture by population displacement. Here, the choice was made to analyze dental nonmetrics. Our previous research on dental nonmetrics supports the idea, for Switzerland, of a certain harmony in Middle Neolithic populations, and the mobility or a moderate population contribution beginning in the Final Neolithic and continuing more intensely during the Bell Beaker period. The aim here is to identify the provenance of the population contribution at the end of the western Swiss Neolithic, and more specifically during the Bell Beaker period. To do so, we have compared the dental morphology of Swiss pre-Bell Beaker, Bell Beaker, and post-Bell Beaker populations with that of contemporaneous populations found not only in the eastern sphere (Czech Republic and Hungary), but also in the southern sphere (southern France and northern Spain). We are now able to demonstrate that the axis for external population influences at the end of the western Swiss Neolithic is clearly southern.

The evidence at more southern beaker sites suggests that beaker arrived there in the pre-beaker package form and that the arrival of the full package was intrusive.

Again:

Europe during the third millennium BC and Bell Beaker Culture phenomenon: Peopling history through dental non-metric traits study

Desideri.et.al.2008

Regional Analysis:

The involvement of local populations in the emergence of the Bell Beaker varies according to region (Fig.3). It is only in northern Spain and Bohemia that strict links between the Bell Beaker occupation and local occupations exist (Fig.4 and 5).

For the other three regions, external population influences played a role in the origin of the Bell Beaker occupation, but their contribution also varies. Complete population renewal—or at least a highly significant exogenous impact – is unambiguous for southern France and Hungary. In effect, Bell Beaker populations are clearly distinguished from local populations in these two regions (Fig.6 and 7)

As for Switzerland, however, shows a local regional population disturbed by partial population renewal or the integration of exogenous individuals(Fig.8). Such a situation in the Swiss region seems to have already been present, although less intensively, during the Neolithic.

[…]

Bell Beaker through Europe: Dental morphology has demonstrated two population spheres present in the territory studies (Fig.10). The entities are clearly distinct: we thus have the western Bell Beakers and the eastern Bell Beakers, which we respectively term Bell Beakers and Beakers. The western Bell Beakers are quite similar and the Swiss populations can be strongly linked to their morphology. They form a highly uniform group. The eastern Bell Beakers show a certain cohesion that seems however to have been less isolated.

A discussion on population dynamics

Based on these results, it is possible to propose a diffusion model for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resulted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe. The biological impact was recorded to at least Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary.  Thus, the Bell Beakers small groups of individuals equipped with their material culture know—how—formed the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of the phenomenon. The situation in the eastern sphere is more complex. Dental data suggest evolution within a single society. Nevertheless, women—Corded Ware and Bell Beaker—were differentiated from the local populations, probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy. Thus, to understand the modalities for the establishment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon we must dissociate the diffusion of western elements from the exogamic diffusion of women in the eastern domain into two points in time (Fig.11 and 12). On the basis of currently available radiocarbon dates suggesting a southwest—northeast gradient for the expansion of the Bell Beaker, we propose the following:

Phase 1: Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware culture.

Phase 2: Part of the Corded Ware on the edge of the phenomenon was individualized and adopted, by borrowing, some of the western Bell Beaker traditions. Diffusion of this new society—the Beakers—continued toward the east. At the same time, certain eastern elements were diffused toward the west.

Figure-3:



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Desiderietal2008Figure-3.jpg

Figure 11&12:



http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5666/bbeaker.png
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 09:47:49 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2012, 10:35:55 PM »

Quote from: Richard Rocca link=topic=10715.msg133260#msg133260
...

In the best of those R1b pies, it looks like P312* is about 12-13%, with most in the 4-5% range. That fits with Busby's data:

Norway...................................10.9%
Denmark North........................7.1%
Denmark West.........................5.3%
Denmark Southeast.................4.1%
Sweden South (Malmö)............2.2%
Saami (Sweden).......................0.0%

However, when you consider "boutique" SNPs like L238, DF19 as well as undiscovered SNPs, you probably need to cut those numbers in half (2-4%?). As I said on DNA-Forums - DF27 may turn out to be the most widespread SNP in Europe, but it is without a doubt heavily Iberia-centric.

We don't know how much L238 and DF19 cut into P312*.  I don't think L238 is that old, but we don't know.

I agree that DF27 has a high frequency in Iberia.  It may have originated there, or it may have found it a rich destination.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 03:45:30 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 347


« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2012, 12:19:02 AM »

@JeanL

The 2010 Desideri study is probably the better one for what is discussed in this thread.  If you look at the dendogram A in Fig. 3 and start with the final neolithic sites only, the oldest branches lead to a node that includes the site of Roaix near the Rhone in France.  The next
oldest node would include populations from Roaix again, but also Los Zumacales in Spain.  An axis between these two areas seem to be the oldest spots for the source populations for southwestern beaker.  This explains a Beaker 'proto-package' in Heyd's 2007 model.  However, Roaix seems to be somewhat older.  Here's why, again with the same dendogram.

The cluster for Bell Beaker at Villedubert branches back through the the final neolithic populations also at Villedubert first, then back to Roaix and Los Zumacales.  Villedubert is near the Pyrenees which suggest at least some east to west movement from Roaix.

It is clear Switzerland received their Bell Beaker input from the west, at least in this study.  Heyd mentioned a signficant change at Sion Petit Chasseur about 2425 BC which had a fairly long occupation.  It looks like populations from Spain and likely France contributed to an initial settlement which was later disrupted by eastern invaders, both during the BB period.  I think this included R1b, but we need more aDNA.  There is on Fig.2A a clustering that includes final neolithic Petit Chasseur with Bronze Age west Bohemia and Bell Beaker Petit Chasseur.  It hints at an eastern connection, but I wouldn't call it conclusive.  German and Italian samples from the same periods would have been helpful.  The point is Bell Beaker, although it has early dating in Spain at one location has roots in connection to the late neolithic in France.

Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #96 on: June 21, 2012, 07:02:32 AM »

Ok, and you are assuming that the long-dead IE speaking Celts of Ireland, Picts of Scotland, Gauls of France, Britons of England were P312. That is unproven.!!!

True; so, since we are both going by modern frequencies, the non-IE element in P312 is a tiny fraction of the whole.

You've made my point.

Moral of the story is, modern population frequencies are not good indicators. So yes, good luck trying to ignore all of Aquitania, and the Eastern side of Iberia.

PS: 5-7th Century Alevenses Basques were R1b-M269, and 9-10th Century Aragonenses from the Pyrenees(both in the archaic Euskera zone) were also R1b-M269. I have yet to see any results from the British Celts. Also add to it the Guanches of the Canary Islands who spoke Berber, and as far as I know have no known IE link, yet they show 3/30 R1b-M269 in the remains.


Not even all of Iberia was non-IE.

By the Middle Ages the Basques were probably mostly P312? Granted.

Assume that by that time Aquitania was mostly P312, too.

Enough to split all of P312 in two so that the result is a non-IE/IE "duality"? Hardly.

I don't accept that the Guanches were originally mostly P312. I think they were originally predominantly E1b1b.

But, even if one added the massive population of the Canaries (that was sarcasm) to the massive Basque population (more sarcasm), the non-IE element in P312 would still be a tiny fraction of the whole, not the non-IE "half" of a "duality".

Why can't you just admit that your use of the word "duality" was a gross exaggeration?


In case you are wondering why I'm linking 8-10th Here is a link to a study(In Spanish) by Lacasta-Estaun.et.al.1994 which talks about the presence of Euskera(Basque Language) in "Alto Aragon" that is the Aragonense Pyrenees.

http://www.euskomedia.org/PDFAnlt/literatura/12/12141278.pdf

Quote from: Lacasta-Estaun.et.al.1994

Abstract

The object of this work is to point out a number of affinities existing between the neighbouring cultural areas
of High Aragon and the Basque Country. The core of the study is the posible reflex that one particular group
of Basque etyma, taken at random, might have produced onto the toponymia of the higlands of Aragon. This is
by no means a thorough test; one could always bring forward a further number of toponyms whose Basque lending
character seems quite evident. Another series of fenomena of different kinds let us undersee that the toponomastic
concurrencies are not at all an isolated case. We begin by gathering the oppinions of well known philologists
on the importance of the toponymia of the higlands of Aragon as to leading to the knowledge of a Protobasque
language, or to fhat of those languages previous to romanization that must have been spoken in the Pyrinean
valleys.[/b]

Actually the english translation given in the article(The one above) is very bad, I can actually post the spanish abstract and translate if you want.

Don't bother.

Avellaner is in P312-rich Catalonia. One would expect that at least one R1b would have shown up among the remains there (circa 5000 BC).

Treilles is in P312-rich Midi-Pyrenees, France. Not an R1b found there either (circa 3000 BC).

Likewise, the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte is in P312-rich northern France, yet the two ancient y-dna results there (circa 2800 BC) were I2a, not R1b.

Of course, R1b was hiding out in the Pyrenees at that time, greatly reduced in numbers by the depredations of the invading farmers, whose y-dna is represented by the aDNA finds at the sites mentioned above. Somehow this hidden, Mesolithic hunter-gatherer R1b would grow beyond all reasonable expectations in its Pyrenean fastnesses, emerging one day to overwhelm the I2a, G2a, and E1b1b farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in all of western Europe.

You can believe that, but not that R1b arrived in western Europe in the Copper Age?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 07:17:19 AM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #97 on: June 21, 2012, 09:27:31 AM »

True; so, since we are both going by modern frequencies, the non-IE element in P312 is a tiny fraction of the whole.

You've made my point.

Yes, but you seem to forget that as of the 6-7th Century AD a large portion of the Pyrenees still spoke nonIE, and there is proof for a P312 majority in the region. The only reason why you are arguing by modern frequencies is because it is convenient for you, the Basque Language has suffered a great loss just in the last 100 years, in fact many regions such as Northern Aragon spoke Basque in the Early Middle Ages, but then switched to Spanish, or rather Aragonense later on. It seems this switch was cultural not demic. The Gascons who speak a Romance language are closer to the Basques in terms of their y-DNA, mt-DNA and Autosomal DNA than any other population of Spain, which points to the fact that they were Aquitanian speaking in antiquity and have received very little external influences in the last 2000 years. So I say that the non-IE element in DF27 appears to be very big, whereas the IE elements in L21 and U152 appear to be equally as big. This is solved if we envision L21 and U152 arising in areas where IE was spoken, whereas DF27 arose in an area where non-IE was spoken. Yes, I know there is L165 in the North, and Z209, well they are far less in those areas than R1b-U106, R1b-L21 and R1b-U152 combined, so for all we know they were non-IE speakers who traveled North and had to acquire the language of the majority. Likewise the L21 presence in the Basque Country points to IE speakers arriving there an acquiring the language of the majority(P312(xL21,U152)).

Not even all of Iberia was non-IE.

Yes, and the areas that were IE have far less R1b-P312 than the areas that were non-IE speaking. I don’t think you can blame the Moors, or population replacement for the lack(relative to Basques, Catalonians) of R1b-P312 in Galicians.


By the Middle Ages the Basques were probably mostly P312? Granted.

Assume that by that time Aquitania was mostly P312, too.

Well by the Early Middle Ages the southernmost Basques were already mostly R1b-P312 with some R1b-M153 appearing in them. I have yet to see anything coming from the British Islands from that time.

Enough to split all of P312 in two so that the result is a non-IE/IE "duality"? Hardly.

Uhmmm, you have no idea because you don’t know what the distribution of R1b-P312 was at the time, we know that people from Aldaieta, Alava were mostly R1b-P312, we don’t know anything about people from the Isles.

I don't accept that the Guanches were originally mostly P312. I think they were originally predominantly E1b1b.

Well, the aDNA study revealed that they were mostly E1b1b with some significant portion of J1 and R1b-M269. Point is, that Guanches spoke Berber, yet R1b-M269 was found there in 10% of the aDNA sample. If you add to it the putative expansion from Iberia of the Ibero-Maurasian culture, and the Guanches are considered one of the last Mechtoid people, it could make sense that R1b-M269 was the y-DNA counterpart to mt-DNA H.

But, even if one added the massive population of the Canaries (that was sarcasm) to the massive Basque population (more sarcasm), the non-IE element in P312 would still be a tiny fraction of the whole, not the non-IE "half" of a "duality".

But if you add to it the current evidence in aDNA, it seems that only the Basque population has an establish R1b-P312 majority in the Early Middle Ages, whereas the British Islands??
Why can't you just admit that your use of the word "duality" was a gross exaggeration?

Because I don’t think it is an exaggeration!!

Don't bother.

Avellaner is in P312-rich Catalonia. One would expect that at least one R1b would have shown up among the remains there (circa 5000 BC).

Oh you mean one R1b-P312 that took refuge in the mountains in Western Europe had to appear in the clearly Neolithic Cardial site of Avellaner, sorry, they just didn’t want to be labeled as Neolithic, maybe that’s why they didn’t appear there.

Treilles is in P312-rich Midi-Pyrenees, France. Not an R1b found there either (circa 3000 BC).

Treilles is in the Northernmost part of the Midi-Pyrenees region, it is definitely outside of the Pyrenees. But you know what else wasn’t found in Treilles? A single T/C or T/T individual, yet in SJAPL circa 3000 BC they found 4/19 T/T and 2/19 C/T. You know what else happened in Treilles? A massive population replacement with the arrival of the Bell Beakers.

Likewise, the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte is in P312-rich northern France, yet the two ancient y-dna results there (circa 2800 BC) were I2a, not R1b.

Yes they found two siblings that are presumed to belong to I2a based on STR matches, yet on a Bell Beaker site just east of it, R1b makes it first appearance, perhaps if you wait a little bit until Beakers arrive in the region you might be able to get the first R1b folk there.

Of course, R1b was hiding out in the Pyrenees at that time, greatly reduced in numbers by the depredations of the invading farmers, whose y-dna is represented by the aDNA finds at the sites mentioned above. Somehow this hidden, Mesolithic hunter-gatherer R1b would grow beyond all reasonable expectations in its Pyrenean fastnesses, emerging one day to overwhelm the I2a, G2a, and E1b1b farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in all of western Europe.

Yes just as I1 was hiding in Nothern Europe just to expand circa 5000 ybp, and R1b-P312 wasn’t just hiding in the Pyrenees, they likely inhabited the caves of the Western Pyrenees, Basque Country, Cantabria, Asturias, and perhaps even as south as Burgos.

You can believe that, but not that R1b arrived in western Europe in the Copper Age?

Sorry, no record of changes in the fossil record, or lithic industry found in the Copper Age in the Basque Country that would indicate the arrival of a totally different population that would introduce such a massive change in y-DNA. You know, there is the dental morphology issue, which suggests pre- and post-Beaker continuity; there are then those darn Basque historians who argue that the Beaker sites in the Western Pyrenees appear to be of local extraction. Moreover, there is the whole issue with R1b-P312 being the oldest/most diverse haplogroup in the region.

Here some Bell Beaker literature in the Pyrenees:

El Vaso campaniforme de la Cultura Pirenaica

Quote from: Bosch-Gimpera.et.al

[…]
No nos  convencen los argumentos aducidos para un origen extrapeninsular del vaso campaniforme y seguimos creyendo esta cerámica aparecida en la evolución de la cultura de las cuevas durante el eneolítico y considerando que tal aparición debe buscarse sobre todo en el valle del Guadalquivir desde donde se propagó a otros territories y a las demás culturas peninsulares con las relacions intesas que se desarrollaron en el eneolítico (11) y también que la cultura pirenaica, extendida alrededor del Pirineo y avanzando por el Sudeste de Francia hasta los Alpes y la Borgoña, fue unos de los principales puntos de partida para la expansion hacia otras regions de Europe. Los pastores pirenaicos con las relaciones del eneolítico que dieron lugar a un intercambio de tipos y de formas de cultura, sin que sea preciso para explicarlos pensar en grandes movimientos de pueblos después de adopter los tipos de las puntas de flecha de los almerienses al entrar en contacto con ellos extendidos hasta los territorios de intersección con las estribaciones pirenaicas se convirtieron en comerciantes y hasta cierto punto en guerreros, al infiltrarse entro los pueblos de la cultura de las cuevas del SE. de Francia, propaganda allí el uso del cobre y buscando sus filones natives, así como el vaso campaniforme que había sido adoptado como una “moda” o una ceramica “de lujo” en contraste con la sin decoración que parece típica de ellos. A través del territorio pirenaico del SE. de France llegaron al de Cataluña, en movimiento inverso, tipos procedentes del N. de Italia, así como la propia ceramic del vaso campaniforme adopto la decoración de impresiones de cuerdas centroeuropeas o como, a lo largo de la costa atlántica francesa llegaron otras cosas, entre ellas el hacha de combate de Balenkaleku.

Translation:(I’m trying to give it my best)

Quote from: Bosch-Gimpera.et.al
We are not convinced by the argument which attributes an extra peninsular origin to the Bell Beaker culture, and we still continue to believe that this type of ceramics appeared in the evolution of the cave cultures during the eNeolithic and we considering that its apparition must be looked for in the Valley of Guadalquivir from where it likely propagated to other territories and peninsular cultures with the intense relations that developed during the eNeolithic , also that the Pyrenean culture, which extended around the Pyrenees and advanced to Southeastern France until it reached the Alps and Burgundy, was likely one of the amongst the launch pads for the expansion of this culture to other European regions. The Pyrenean herders during the eNeolithic gave rise to the interchange of types and forms of culture, without needing to explain it based on assuming  great population movements, after adopting the V-tip arrows from the Almerienses, once the latter came in contact with them after they expanded until the Pyrenees, the Pyrenean herders became traders and up to a point warriors, they infiltrated the people of the Cave cultures in Southeastern France, and propagated there the usage of copper, as well as the Bell Beakers. The Bell Beaker was adopted as a “trend” or a “luxurious” ceramic with the local ceramic type which wasn’t decorated. It was through the Pyrenean territory of Southeastern France that the Bell Beaker influences arrived in Catalonia, this time coming in the opposite way from Northern Italy, there is also a presence of Corded Ware impressions in the Bell Beaker package that arrived in Catalonia, throughout the Atlantic coast of France several things diffused as well, such as the Balenkaleku combat axe.



« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 09:37:04 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 21, 2012, 03:47:11 PM »

mmmm ... R1b pie ;0p delicious. 

If you really think so, I've got some slicing and dicing of frequency numbers coming that should be tasty.  Not sure what they will show, but they'll be food for thought.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #99 on: June 21, 2012, 07:33:46 PM »

From what I have read it would just appear to me that the full beaker package was a unique spin on SW and eastern elements that must have found its full form somewhere around the Rhone-Rhine area and that R1b is surely part of the eastern element.  The evidence at more southern beaker sites suggests that beaker arrived there in the pre-beaker package form and that the arrival of the full package was intrusive. So I would guess that the Rhine-Rhone zone or perhaps even further east (beaker was as far east as eastern Germany (deep in Corded Ware territory) by 2600BC as the first ancient R1b DNA shows.  That area is not at all far from the easternmost extent of L51* as it followed the beaker network. As I said before, I understand it is mainly a sister clade but it clearly follows the beaker route at its maximum about 2600BC and not the wider route of 100-200 years later.  So, I think that is a strong hint that L51* and almost certainly L11 had entered the network by 2600BC.  I am not aware of any similar L23xL51 pattern so L51 seems to be the most upstream in R1b that links R1b and the beaker network.  Indeed the variance date for L51 is uncannily similar to that date.  HAD R1b been in the beaker network in its immature stage 2800-2600BC before it encorporated eastern elements that gave the developed beaker culture then we would have an L23 peak in Portugal and a trail following the early beaker network (basically Portugal and southern France.  



That is contradicted by this:

Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?

Quote from: Desideri.et.al.2010
Abstract

The Bell Beaker complex is defined, above all, by a ceramic style widespread across Europe during the 3rd millennium BC. Its particularly large geographic distribution has provoked different interpretations: a unique population invading Europe, the long-distance exchange of prestige goods, and the absence of a real Bell Beaker population with only the diffusion of its cultural components. For Switzerland, the Bell Beaker period would have developed following influences varying in significance from both the Mediterranean region and Central Europe.

Bioanthropology makes it possible to test the first of these hypotheses, which proposes the diffusion of a culture by population displacement. Here, the choice was made to analyze dental nonmetrics. Our previous research on dental nonmetrics supports the idea, for Switzerland, of a certain harmony in Middle Neolithic populations, and the mobility or a moderate population contribution beginning in the Final Neolithic and continuing more intensely during the Bell Beaker period. The aim here is to identify the provenance of the population contribution at the end of the western Swiss Neolithic, and more specifically during the Bell Beaker period. To do so, we have compared the dental morphology of Swiss pre-Bell Beaker, Bell Beaker, and post-Bell Beaker populations with that of contemporaneous populations found not only in the eastern sphere (Czech Republic and Hungary), but also in the southern sphere (southern France and northern Spain). We are now able to demonstrate that the axis for external population influences at the end of the western Swiss Neolithic is clearly southern.

The evidence at more southern beaker sites suggests that beaker arrived there in the pre-beaker package form and that the arrival of the full package was intrusive.

Again:

Europe during the third millennium BC and Bell Beaker Culture phenomenon: Peopling history through dental non-metric traits study

Desideri.et.al.2008

Regional Analysis:

The involvement of local populations in the emergence of the Bell Beaker varies according to region (Fig.3). It is only in northern Spain and Bohemia that strict links between the Bell Beaker occupation and local occupations exist (Fig.4 and 5).

For the other three regions, external population influences played a role in the origin of the Bell Beaker occupation, but their contribution also varies. Complete population renewal—or at least a highly significant exogenous impact – is unambiguous for southern France and Hungary. In effect, Bell Beaker populations are clearly distinguished from local populations in these two regions (Fig.6 and 7)

As for Switzerland, however, shows a local regional population disturbed by partial population renewal or the integration of exogenous individuals(Fig.8). Such a situation in the Swiss region seems to have already been present, although less intensively, during the Neolithic.

[…]

Bell Beaker through Europe: Dental morphology has demonstrated two population spheres present in the territory studies (Fig.10). The entities are clearly distinct: we thus have the western Bell Beakers and the eastern Bell Beakers, which we respectively term Bell Beakers and Beakers. The western Bell Beakers are quite similar and the Swiss populations can be strongly linked to their morphology. They form a highly uniform group. The eastern Bell Beakers show a certain cohesion that seems however to have been less isolated.

A discussion on population dynamics

Based on these results, it is possible to propose a diffusion model for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resulted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe. The biological impact was recorded to at least Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary.  Thus, the Bell Beakers small groups of individuals equipped with their material culture know—how—formed the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of the phenomenon. The situation in the eastern sphere is more complex. Dental data suggest evolution within a single society. Nevertheless, women—Corded Ware and Bell Beaker—were differentiated from the local populations, probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy. Thus, to understand the modalities for the establishment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon we must dissociate the diffusion of western elements from the exogamic diffusion of women in the eastern domain into two points in time (Fig.11 and 12). On the basis of currently available radiocarbon dates suggesting a southwest—northeast gradient for the expansion of the Bell Beaker, we propose the following:

Phase 1: Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware culture.

Phase 2: Part of the Corded Ware on the edge of the phenomenon was individualized and adopted, by borrowing, some of the western Bell Beaker traditions. Diffusion of this new society—the Beakers—continued toward the east. At the same time, certain eastern elements were diffused toward the west.

Figure-3:



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Desiderietal2008Figure-3.jpg

Figure 11&12:



http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5666/bbeaker.png


I would agree that it is possible that the original early beaker evolution and thrust could have been from Iberia (which some call a partial package beaker culture) before beakerising Corded Ware or other eastern elements or beaker people taking on Corded Ware or other eastern elements who then formed a new 2nd phase that developed the final elements of the full beaker package such as classic beaker single burial and other elements.  That would not be so distant from what Harrison and Heyd say in their paper on Sion.  Some form of 2 stage model involving beakers from Iberia and then a hybrid culture forming with corded ware or other eastern elements (used to be called the beaker-battle axe culture 'back in the day') with maybe some reflux back to the west is an old model with a myriad of older and new variations spun from it and still popular.  I think it probably is a pretty good fit on balance for the evidence although the evidence is still on a knife edge IMO.  

I suppose the big question in the whole model is whether R1b was in the beaker at the start in Iberia in stage 1 or whether it was picked up somewhere to the east in stage 2 when a new full package evolved from a mix of beaker and elements to the east.  Were the stage 2 full package beaker people beaker folk from the west who had taken on some corded or other eastern ideas and put a new spin on them or were they corded ware folk (or other easterners) who had taken on elements of beaker culture?  The early partial package (basically south/western) beaker culture had quite a few of the elements such as the archery, the basic pot prototype etc but other elements we think of as beaker (the classic single burial, weist guards and other elements)were picked up in the 2nd or developed phase of the full beaker package and that probably happened somewhere near the beaker-late corded ware interface area.  Neither can be said to be ruled our on improbability as both models ultimately involve incredible population replacement by R1b. 

There obviously is not a lot of hard evidence for whether it was the west or east element or early or developed beaker people when R1b first entered into the beaker cuture.  However, the one hard bit of DNA evidence is that M268XU106 was located in SE Germany (close to  and contemporary with the R1a Corded Ware burials and deep into corded ware territory) c. 2600BC.  That is early.   I dont think any conclusion is clear but I think this should be a focus for discussions.  Is there any detailed info on the burials that produced the M269 from an archaeological point of view?  It would be interesting to see how their finds fit into the beaker development phases.  

« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 08:05:36 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
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 0.157 seconds with 18 queries.