The IE model of Dienekes

[alan trowel hands.]

He has expanded his comments

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/complex-y-chromosome-structure-in-east.html

Although the details of his interpretation seem very J2-friendly :0) it is nevertheless interesting in places.

[alan trowel hands.]

Interesting that L51* is 9 times higher in the Romance substrate area than the Slavic one when grandfathers origin is taken on board while R1a is exclusive to the Slavic substrate areas.  Also interesting because if I recall correctly RR's L51 map based on hobbiest testing didnt stetch L51* that far east (I may be mistaken).  

Seems also that U152 and U106 are higher in the Romance area.  The only oddity seems to be S116* being in the Slavic substrate but not the Romance one but when nos are very low it may be a fluke.   It does indicate though that S116* is very rare in this area of Austria which ties in with FTDNA project maps which showed the relative rarity of S116/P312* in central Europe.  Probably just reflects the western distribution of DF27 in Europe.

While I dont agree with all of Dienekes interpretation it is interesting and confirms that R1a was absent or incredibly rare in the oldest (Romance) substrate in Austria.  It also shows that the former romance area was Germanised without the presence of R1a and I would guess that only mainly leaves U106 as the smoking gun for a genetic echo of Germanisation.  I would assume that U152 is largely the Celtic/Italic substrate.  L51* seems pretty common in the Romance substrate area given its normally low presence  anywhere.  It continues the impression that L51* correlates well with the Cellto-Italic world (and beaker distribution) as indicated on RR's map.  It also seems to confirm L51*'s relative absence in the modern Slavic and much of the north Germanic area.  L51* did have a little patch on RR's map around the Upper Elbe but not anywhere else in northern Europe east of the Rhine.  It does seem to confirm that the overall presence of L51* does correlate with the beaker network prior to its later extension into northern Europe.  The question of direction remains open but L51* is a son of L23* and that is much higher in the southern and south-central part of Europe.  It doesnt make anything conclusive but it has incrementally move us forward in our understanding. 

It is interesting too that he notes that the older pre-R1 haplogroups are more uniform in both the Romance and Slavic areas suggesting an old substrate pre-dating the more patterned overlay of R1a and R1b.  I cant really comment on his J2 comments as I dont know enough about that clade. 

[Maliclavelli]

L51* seems pretty common in the Romance substrate area given its normally low presence  anywhere.  It continues the impression that L51* correlates well with the Celto-Italic world (and beaker distribution) as indicated on RR's map.  It also seems to confirm L51*'s relative absence in the modern Slavic and much of the north Germanic area.  L51* did have a little patch on RR's map around the Upper Elbe but not anywhere else in northern Europe east of the Rhine.  It does seem to confirm that the overall presence of L51* does correlate with the beaker network prior to its later extension into northern Europe.  The question of direction remains open but L51* is a son of L23* and that is much higher in the southern and south-central part of Europe.  It doesnt make anything conclusive but it has incrementally move us forward in our understanding.  

Of course before the last map of Richard Rocca there has been another by Argiedude and me, and these data from the Rhaetian Region confirm all my theories.
R-L51 in the Romance Region of East Tyrol is at 14,28% and in the total Region at
4,81%. It's origin from R-L23/L150+ (which is also my haplogroup) confirms the origin in Italy and its first expansion to Iberia (presence of R-L51 in Valencia Region and Central Portugal where agriculturalists from Italy landed), then Beall Beakers (speaking a Celtic language derived from Ligurian) to Central Europe and the Isles. All clear for me. And for you?