World Families Forums - Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 12:59:07 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)
| | |-+  Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?  (Read 4863 times)
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #75 on: September 16, 2012, 07:18:21 AM »

The idea that early Celtic was first spread by the Beaker Folk during the Bronze Age is not a new idea to be regarded as oddball or out of the scholarly mainstream. It was suggested by a number of Celticists as long ago as at least the early 20th century.
I'm no expert but...

Under the Kurgan theory of Indo-European origins, how does IE get to south-west Europe by the time of the Bell beakers (over 4000 years ago) when it was just starting to expand from the step?

Ofcourse this isn't a problem under the Anatolian hypothesis.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #76 on: September 16, 2012, 08:21:58 AM »

Under the Kurgan theory of Indo-European origins, how does IE get to south-west Europe by the time of the Bell beakers (over 4000 years ago) when it was just starting to expand from the step?

I think you may confusing BC and BP (before present) dates. PIE is dated c. 4000 BC (= 6000 years ago.) The major movement up the Danube which seems to have given rise to the Celtic, Italic and Illyrian language families can be dated from archaeological evidence to between 3,100 BC and 2,800 BC (= 5,100 to 4,800 years ago). The Stelae People moved from the Danube across North Italy to Iberia bringing copper-working c. 3000 BC (= 5000 years ago). They started making Bell Beaker c. 2700 BC (= 4700 years ago.)  
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 08:22:47 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #77 on: September 16, 2012, 08:29:49 AM »

The idea that early Celtic was first spread by the Beaker Folk during the Bronze Age is not a new idea to be regarded as oddball or out of the scholarly mainstream. It was suggested by a number of Celticists as long ago as at least the early 20th century.

There has been a lot of confusion about how Iberia fits into the Celtic world. The evolution of thinking on this is explained by Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview, E-Keltoi, vol. 6.  

The thinking that IALEM is voicing was common in the 1980s. "It was not until M. Almagro-Gorbea began to develop his research from the mid 1980s onward that the issue was given a new dimension (Almagro-Gorbea 1986-87, 1987, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1993; Almagro-Gorbea and Lorrio 1987). In the first place, it is difficult to maintain that the origin of the Peninsular Celts can be linked to the Urnfield culture ... In a recent study, Almagro-Gorbea (2001: 95) proposed that the origins of the Celts could be traced back to the third millennium BC, and sought to find the initial roots of the formative process that would eventually give rise to the Celtic people in the Bell Beaker culture. This remote origin would certain explain the wide dispersion of the Celts throughout western Europe, as well as the variability of the different Celtic peoples, and the existence of ancestral traditions."

Martín Almagro-Gorbea is an influential Spanish prehistorian, whose mother was Basque.  His 2001 paper does not seem to be online (it was a book chapter), but for Spanish speakers, his 1992 paper is available, which shows him on his way to developing the case made in 2001.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 01:51:10 PM by Jean M » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #78 on: September 16, 2012, 10:18:47 AM »

There has been a lot of confusion about how Iberia fits into the Celtic world. The evolution of thinking on this is explained by Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview, E-Keltoi, vol. 6.

Very interesting paper, with a huge bibliography relating to its subject matter.  Looks as if the citations are 2004 and earlier, and genetic genealogy wasn't yet part of the mix.  Which is probably just as well.
Logged

R1b Z196*
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #79 on: September 16, 2012, 11:11:37 AM »

I certainly think the idea that Celticity of western Europe commenced in the Hallstatt or La Tene periods is dead.  I dont personally think the beakers=celtic but they may well have brought a centum branch of IE or maybe even something like Italo-Celtic and I believe Celtic probably split from Italic soon after.
Logged
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #80 on: September 16, 2012, 01:06:59 PM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #81 on: September 16, 2012, 01:21:27 PM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .
Certainly it's possible. We used to think Iberia was full of P312*, but it turned out it belonged to a little brother clade of U152 and L21. The apparent L11* in Pomerania, though, could very well be real L11*, one of which became the first U106 man, as U106 apparently originated somehow around that area.

Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #82 on: September 16, 2012, 01:29:37 PM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .

That is a good point. We have hotspots of L11 in the Isles and Denmark and hotspots of L51 in Tagus Valley, Erne Valley, Poland as well as Rhone Valley.  I believe this was an example of rapid communication networks by sea and river. I think as Alan pointed out the L11 is the key to this puzzle. I hope Geno 2.0 gives us more granularity on L11* and L51*.  It appears to me to be linked to Bell Beaker or Pre Bell Beaker.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #83 on: September 16, 2012, 01:56:38 PM »

We used to think Iberia was full of P312*, but it turned out it belonged to a little brother clade of U152 and L21.  

To be exact, Richard Rocca reported that Iberian samples from the 1000 Genomes Project show:

DF27+   44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*   14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+   25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+   3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+   7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+   7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*   3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*   3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+   3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b   70.4% (19 of 27)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 01:58:29 PM by Jean M » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #84 on: September 16, 2012, 03:33:48 PM »

We used to think Iberia was full of P312*, but it turned out it belonged to a little brother clade of U152 and L21.  

To be exact, Richard Rocca reported that Iberian samples from the 1000 Genomes Project show:

DF27+   44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*   14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+   25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+   3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+   7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+   7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*   3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*   3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+   3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b   70.4% (19 of 27)

Jean, I think Mkk means previously classified P312(xU152,L21).
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 03:34:22 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #85 on: September 16, 2012, 03:41:33 PM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .

That is a good point. We have hotspots of L11 in the Isles and Denmark and hotspots of L51 in Tagus Valley, Erne Valley, Poland as well as Rhone Valley.  I believe this was an example of rapid communication networks by sea and river. I think as Alan pointed out the L11 is the key to this puzzle. I hope Geno 2.0 gives us more granularity on L11* and L51*.  It appears to me to be linked to Bell Beaker or Pre Bell Beaker.

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 03:45:57 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #86 on: September 16, 2012, 04:13:58 PM »

Jean, I think Mkk means previously classified P312(xU152,L21).

On your figures we are still left with a teeny bit of P312*. I realise that DF27 has accounted for the overwhelming majority of the P312(xU152,L21) in Iberia. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #87 on: September 16, 2012, 04:30:16 PM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .

That is a good point. We have hotspots of L11 in the Isles and Denmark and hotspots of L51 in Tagus Valley, Erne Valley, Poland as well as Rhone Valley.  I believe this was an example of rapid communication networks by sea and river. I think as Alan pointed out the L11 is the key to this puzzle. I hope Geno 2.0 gives us more granularity on L11* and L51*.  It appears to me to be linked to Bell Beaker or Pre Bell Beaker.

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.


Is there any pattern in terms of the geography of true P312** emerging since DF27 was eliminated?  Nothing came up on the map on the FTDNA P312 and subclades project.    
Logged
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #88 on: September 16, 2012, 06:52:39 PM »

We used to think Iberia was full of P312*, but it turned out it belonged to a little brother clade of U152 and L21.  

To be exact, Richard Rocca reported that Iberian samples from the 1000 Genomes Project show:

DF27+   44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*   14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+   25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+   3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+   7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+   7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*   3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*   3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+   3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b   70.4% (19 of 27)

I can't find the other data from this project.. anyone have a link? Helps to give a wider view instead of just the one with the highest modern frequency.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #89 on: September 16, 2012, 08:39:57 PM »

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.

That makes more sense. So does it then mean we are looking at a wide and very rapid spread of L11 prior to the birth's of P312 and U106?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2012, 12:26:16 AM »

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.

That makes more sense. So does it then mean we are looking at a wide and very rapid spread of L11 prior to the birth's of P312 and U106?

I acknowledge that it is possible that ancient L11* expanded widely first, and then P312 and U106 were born and expanded out of different birth places far apart. The corollary is that the P312 TMRCA and the U106 TMRCA were just plain lucky in that their descendants far outpaced/outsurvived the rest of L11*.

However, I think it is far more likely that P312 and U106 were born before the widespread and successful dispersion of L11 types. The implication is they didn't originate that far from each other. I'll explain later.
Logged

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

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2012, 12:51:34 AM »



Mike - You are tight that Mr L11 was the extraordinary person who somehow created a dynasty that was to have an incredible impact on yDNA in western Europe.  However, even though I am a believer that beakers spread in small numbers and by local consent, I would still feel that Mr L11* must have moved about with L51* for company at first so a L51* trail of cousins of Mr L11* does seem important to me as it may be a remanant of those days.  The location of L11* is a fascinating topic. I would tend to think it has to come from the areas where the L51* cousins are found.  I would say the Alps somewhere if I had to guess.

L11 and L11* would appear to to have its highest frequency and diversity in the Isles.
https://m.box.com/view_shared/hxp8ie25yv
http://www.4shared.com/photo/jqJQfXYk/R-L23_and_R-L11_Frequency_Maps.html
http://www.4shared.com/photo/TAm6ukWE/r-l11_brothers_and_cousins_map.html

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

The highet frequency was in central England, 0.12 out of a sample of 25. That means they found 3 or so people.  

Heber, where are you getting the high diversity numbers you are citing? The charts you are showing are for frequency of population and frequency within R1b.

Alan, I agree with you that L51* is important as a cousin (of sorts) to P312, U106 and L11*. However there are couple of concerns I have about placing too much emphasis on the L51* and L11* data we have from modern populations.

First, L51* and L11* are both lightly scattered, very lightly compared to P312 and U106. I'm just don't think we have enough data to tell an awful a lot about them.

Secondly, L51* does appear to be a singular cousin since all the ones I've seen are 426=13. Both downstream L11 and upstream relative subclades in L23 are pretty solid 426=12 and 426 is very, very slow.

Thirdly, L51* and L11* do not have high STR variances. From the data I can see on long haplotypes, L51* and L11* are no older than, say U152. I don't see much of a reason to think that L51* and L11* dispersed much earlier (if at all) than P312, L21, U152, L2, U106, Z381, DF27, etc.   The same can not be said for L23*. It has significantly higher variance and therefore may truly represent a wide diversity of subclades, that happen to be found in the east.

L11* and L51* modern results are still important, I think they are just  additional puzzle pieces. Now, I am saying the ancient L11* MRCA (single man) for P312, U106 is quite important. He was not necessarily a Mr. Big in his own country but he certainly sent off some successful migrations in the way of his descendants. Maybe he was a kind of a king that stayed home and fought a losing battle while spinning off missions (or escapees) through Europe. Obviously, this man's families were good travelers. they spread widely and quickly. As Busby noted, the diversity of L11 (S127) is without significant clines across Europe. I disagree to some degree but there clearly were not very significant clines in diversity by geography. I would have to put L51* 426=13 in the same boat.

Again, L23* is different.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 01:02:24 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 267


« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2012, 01:56:49 AM »

It is an alternative hypothesis (not really a theory) that has been built around the core idea that Celtic is early in Britain, so the rest of the arguments are forced to fit into this frame of thinking. What I say is that the evidence in Iberia for a very early Celtic language is not there.

But Celtiberian is a very early Celtic language. (It has even been argued that it is not quite Celtic.) Even if you abandon the idea of Lusitanian as a Proto-Italo-Celtic language and substitute a variety of Celtiberian in that region, these are archaic forms of Celtic.
Jean, we may have some misunderstanding here. The "Lusitanian theory" is that Lusitanian is not Celtic at all, but a new family language, derived from PIE before ItaloCeltic, so that the intial p sound was retained, as in porcom.
As for Celtiberian, it is very archaic Celtic or either heavily influenced by Italic, making  datation by linguistic features very difficult.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2012, 04:57:31 AM »

Jean, we may have some misunderstanding here. The "Lusitanian theory" is that Lusitanian is not Celtic at all, but a new family language, derived from PIE before ItaloCeltic, so that the intial p sound was retained, as in porcom.

No - the initial p sound was retained in the (deduced) Proto-Italo-Celtic. It remains in Italic, remember. PIE *porḱ- (meaning “young pig”) becomes porcus in Latin, orcos in Gaulish, and appears as porcom in Lusitanian.

Only if linguists want to dispense with Proto-Italo-Celtic do they need to argue that Lusitanian was derived direct from PIE and that Ligurian is some sort of mixture of Celtic and Italic, and (of course) that Celtiberian was heavily influenced by Italic. Fashions have come and gone in the acceptance of Proto-Italo-Celtic. It went through a phase of being dismissed, but has now been revived. It appears in the IE tree devised by Don Ringe and colleagues, which I follow.

They show the split between Italic and Celtic a teeny bit before 2500 BC. I suggest that Celtiberian represents something close to Proto-Celtic, which arrived with the second Bell Beaker wave i.e. those from north of the Alps where Proto-Celtic was developing.  

In any case, dismissing the Lusitanian inscriptions as Low Latin does not get rid of Lusitanian. Some of the Lusitanian gods had names with the initial p. Wodtko uses due caution and mentions the possibility of interference by Latin. That is a complication, certainly, but really it does not convince as the explanation for everything.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 06:37:19 AM by Jean M » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2012, 07:30:03 AM »

Jean, we may have some misunderstanding here. The "Lusitanian theory" is that Lusitanian is not Celtic at all, but a new family language, derived from PIE before ItaloCeltic, so that the intial p sound was retained, as in porcom.

No - the initial p sound was retained in the (deduced) Proto-Italo-Celtic. It remains in Italic, remember. PIE *porḱ- (meaning “young pig”) becomes porcus in Latin, orcos in Gaulish, and appears as porcom in Lusitanian.

Only if linguists want to dispense with Proto-Italo-Celtic do they need to argue that Lusitanian was derived direct from PIE and that Ligurian is some sort of mixture of Celtic and Italic, and (of course) that Celtiberian was heavily influenced by Italic. Fashions have come and gone in the acceptance of Proto-Italo-Celtic. It went through a phase of being dismissed, but has now been revived. It appears in the IE tree devised by Don Ringe and colleagues, which I follow.

They show the split between Italic and Celtic a teeny bit before 2500 BC. I suggest that Celtiberian represents something close to Proto-Celtic, which arrived with the second Bell Beaker wave i.e. those from north of the Alps where Proto-Celtic was developing.  

In any case, dismissing the Lusitanian inscriptions as Low Latin does not get rid of Lusitanian. Some of the Lusitanian gods had names with the initial p. Wodtko uses due caution and mentions the possibility of interference by Latin. That is a complication, certainly, but really it does not convince as the explanation for everything.
Ok, proto or pre celtic, the fact is that it is not celtic, however most if not all Lusitanian known theonims, athroponims and toponims can be explained as celtics. Except, of course, for some words in the supposed Lusitanian inscriptions, like Porcom. Now, for any epigraphist, it is clearly easy to explain Porcom as a low latin for Porcum than as word from pre/proto celtic language already 2000 years old and that slip into a Roman Imperial inscription.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2012, 07:44:32 AM »

@ IALEM I have already said that even if you dispense with the Lusitanian inscriptions, you are still left with initial p in some theonyms. "Almost all" fitting Celtic is not the same as all fitting Celtic. Why on earth Latin influence would lead to an initial p being somehow placed on the name of a god unfamiliar to the Romans I can't imagine.

We are dealing here with complex issues - the discrimination between two stages in the development of a language. It is nothing like as easy as discriminating between Polish and Latin. Of course most of the names would fit Celtic as easily as Proto-Italo-Celtic. Many words in Latin are not that far from their Welsh cognates today.

I assume that you have some feud with Francisco Villar & Blanca María Prósper of the University of Salamanca, who not only support the steppe origin of PIE and several IE migrations into Iberia leaving different forms of Celtic/preCeltic, but who in 2009 published their commentary on the Lusitanian inscription most recently published (2008) , which they say adds to the evidence that Lusitanian is closely related to the Italic languages.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 02:05:43 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #96 on: September 17, 2012, 09:23:44 AM »

First of, are we sure we're not looking at a little brother SNP to p312 and U106?

I tired to bring up a similar question 2 days ago but its been ignored:
"What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?"
Maybe it needs its own thread . . .

That is a good point. We have hotspots of L11 in the Isles and Denmark and hotspots of L51 in Tagus Valley, Erne Valley, Poland as well as Rhone Valley.  I believe this was an example of rapid communication networks by sea and river. I think as Alan pointed out the L11 is the key to this puzzle. I hope Geno 2.0 gives us more granularity on L11* and L51*.  It appears to me to be linked to Bell Beaker or Pre Bell Beaker.

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.

I revisited Busby and did a hotspot analysis of the Busby Data.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.DC1/rspb20111044supp2.xls

The results are quiet revealing.
Place of highest Frequency analysis.

SNP                            Place.          Frequency
M269                          Ireland W.   1.0
L51.                           Ireland W.    1.0
M269 (xL11)               Basque.        0.333
L11*                          Ireland W.    1.0
L11 (xU106,xP312)      England.       0.120
U106*                        Friesland.     0.426
U106xU198                 Friesland.      0.426
P312*.                       Ireland W.     1.0
P312(xL21xU152).      Andulasia.     0.520
L21*.                         Ireland W.     0.93
L21*(xM222).             Ireland S.      0.63
M222.                        Ireland N.      0.444
U152.                         Italy N.        0.431

IMO, this further supports the model of a migration to the Isles via Iberia and the "Celtic from the West" model and supports the Patterson et Al study which found a Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia circa 3,6KBP.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763811258/

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-migrations-dna/



Edit: Corrected U198
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 01:22:28 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #97 on: September 17, 2012, 12:48:50 PM »

Place of highest Frequency analysis.

SNP                            Place.          Frequency

U106*                        Friesland.     0.426
U106xU192                 Friesland.      0.426


What is "U192"?  I don't see it on Isogg's list.
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #98 on: September 17, 2012, 01:19:08 PM »

Place of highest Frequency analysis.

SNP                            Place.          Frequency

U106*                        Friesland.     0.426
U106xU192                 Friesland.      0.426


What is "U192"?  I don't see it on Isogg's list.


Sorry typo. It is S29 (U198), the only one I am not familiar with and dont track I have corrected it.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #99 on: September 17, 2012, 02:15:41 PM »

@ IALEM I have already said that even if you dispense with the Lusitanian inscriptions, you are still left with initial p in some theonyms. "Almost all" fitting Celtic is not the same as all fitting Celtic. Why on earth Latin influence would lead to an initial p being somehow placed on the name of a god unfamiliar to the Romans I can't imagine.

We are dealing here with complex issues - the discrimination between two stages in the development of a language. It is nothing like as easy as discriminating between Polish and Latin. Of course most of the names would fit Celtic as easily as Proto-Italo-Celtic. Many words in Latin are not that far from their Welsh cognates today.

I assume that you have some feud with Francisco Villar & Blanca María Prósper of the University of Salamanca, who not only support the steppe origin of PIE and several IE migrations into Iberia leaving different forms of Celtic/preCeltic, but who in 2009 published their commentary on the Lusitanian inscription most recently published (2008) , which they say adds to the evidence that Lusitanian is closely related to the Italic languages.
Jean, I don know why you assume I have any feud with them. Not at all, I have no personal or professional issue in this discussion, other than pointing some problems I, having worked for years with Roman Imperial inscriptions, see in those interpretations. BTW I see you take as granted that opinions are many times based not on research, but on personal issues, and backed a posteriori with arguments. Maybe it is your personal experience, but I can assure you that in all this I have just opinions and no personal issues at all, and I will have no problems changing of opinion when new evidence (but not simple especulation) is available.

>Regarding Lusitanian names, I said almost all because of elementary caution, but in fact I don remember any Lusitanian god with an initial p unless you include as Lusitanian the misterious Panditi (I think they are a form of >Dea Panda, but it is curious to note the closeness to Sanscrit Pandit)
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 02:24:42 PM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 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 0.206 seconds with 18 queries.