World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Mike Walsh on November 18, 2011, 12:30:49 PM



Title: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 18, 2011, 12:30:49 PM
This thread is for showing interclade and intraclade output from Ken Nordtvedt's Generations6 methodology as "industrialized" to work with large numbers of haplotypes easily from the Haplotype_Data spreadsheets I maintain. They are posted at the L21, P312 and U106 Yahoo Groups files sections.

We'll start out in the middle with P312 and U106.

U106 & P312 TMRCA Age____4.6 __  (5.9-3.2)
U106 & P312 Nested Age___4.5 __  (5.2-3.8) (Edit)

U106 TMRCA Age___________3.7 __  (4.0-3.4)
U106 Coalescence Age_____3.4 __  (3.7-3.1)

P312 TMRCA Age___________4.1 __  (4.4-3.8)
P312 Coalescence Age_____3.7 __  (4.0-3.5)


Notice the very small error range (4.9 to 4.2 ybp) for the U106 and P312's MRCA using Ken's Nested method. Essentially this is a refinement of the non-nested age estimate directly above if. So the best estimate for the most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 is 4.5 ypb (2500 BC.)  This MRCA would be an R-L11* person but this is NOT the TMRCA for R-L11, essentially it does put a "bottom" on L11's TRMCA or at least the 5.2 to 3.8 ybp range does.

I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway.

The normal intraclade TMRCA's for U106 and P312 are 3.7 and 4.1.  I'm still getting P312 as slightly older although most other people don't get that.  I'm not sure why. In any case, we have a very nice "cap" on the ages of U106 and P312 now.

The coalescence ages for U106 and P312 are not estimates of the MRCA's themselves but average estimates of their early expansion times.  That's not perfectly correct but that as about as close as I can get to trying to apply those numbers to something real. When I mean expansion times I should qualify that as the expansion times for the extant (surviving) lineages. P312 and U106's families may have been expanding quickly from their inception but many of those early lineages went extinct and it wasn't until the coalescence age timeframes the the extant lineages began their eventual domination, if that make sense....  I'm looking for better ways to interpret these results so please comment. Ken's graphic helps but to try to relate to real world applications properly is not clear to me yet.
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Nested%20Variances.pdf

Please double check my numbers and get your hands on the tools and data!


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on November 18, 2011, 03:55:57 PM
This thread is for showing interclade and intraclade output from Ken Nordtvedt's Generations6 methodology as "industrialized" to work with large numbers of haplotypes easily from the Haplotype_Data spreadsheets I maintain. They are posted at the L21, P312 and U106 Yahoo Groups files sections.

We'll start out in the middle with P312 and U106.

U106 & P312 TMRCA Age____4.6 __  (5.9-3.2)
U106 & P312 Nested Age___4.5 __  (5.2-3.8) (Edit)

U106 TMRCA Age___________3.7 __  (4.0-3.4)
U106 Coalescence Age_____3.4 __  (3.7-3.1)

P312 TMRCA Age___________4.1 __  (4.4-3.8)
P312 Coalescence Age_____3.7 __  (4.0-3.5)


Notice the very small error range (4.9 to 4.2 ybp) for the U106 and P312's MRCA using Ken's Nested method. Essentially this is a refinement of the non-nested age estimate directly above if. So the best estimate for the most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 is 4.5 ypb (2500 BC.)  This MRCA would be an R-L11* person but this is NOT the TMRCA for R-L11, essentially it does put a "bottom" on L11's TRMCA or at least the 5.2 to 3.8 ybp range does.

I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway.

The normal intraclade TMRCA's for U106 and P312 are 3.7 and 4.1.  I'm still getting P312 as slightly older although most other people don't get that.  I'm not sure why. In any case, we have a very nice "cap" on the ages of U106 and P312 now.

The coalescence ages for U106 and P312 are not estimates of the MRCA's themselves but average estimates of their early expansion times.  That's not perfectly correct but that as about as close as I can get to trying to apply those numbers to something real. When I mean expansion times I should qualify that as the expansion times for the extant (surviving) lineages. P312 and U106's families may have been expanding quickly from their inception but many of those early lineages went extinct and it wasn't until the coalescence age timeframes the the extant lineages began their eventual domination, if that make sense....  I'm looking for better ways to interpret these results so please comment. Ken's graphic helps but to try to relate to real world applications properly is not clear to me yet.
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Nested%20Variances.pdf

Please double check my numbers and get your hands on the tools and data!

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically.  Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method.  Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade?  If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one.  I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe.  It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 18, 2011, 04:03:38 PM
....
I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway....

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically.  Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method.  Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade?  If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one.  I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe.  It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.

Yes, I have to agree. Ken said the value of the new method is going to be most valuable when two clades are roughly the same age anyway.

The only problem with geographic based calculations is there is a big "if" on whether each respective geography represents a clade. The more back and forth migration, etc. from one geography to the next you'll find diversity growing, but is not necessarily indicating age for the geography.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 18, 2011, 04:36:54 PM
well I have to admit that the centre of the L11 dates keep coming in  on the beaker phase.  If that is true U106 was likely part of the same movement.  I really cant see any reasoning for U106 to belong to a completely separate culture like Corded Ware (which has been shown to include R1a). The old theory of a Corded Ware origin for beaker seems to be well out of favour among archaeologists.  L11* seems to just be a lineage without an SNP rather than ancestral.  Perhaps one L11* lineage headed north and the U106 SNP occurred there.  So the beaker theory has a lot going for it at the moment.  The correlation with beakers in distribution was noted several years ago.  

The real problem is that archaeologists are far from getting a real understanding of beaker origins and movement.  Its much more likely that DNA will solve it than archaeology because the movement was so rapid that its very hard to track movements using normal dating techniques.  If DNA does resolve the beaker origin issue then it will be an incredible achievement.  So, L11 is descended from L51 in turn descended from L23 which seems to have come to SE Europe from Anatolia or thereabouts.   Perhaps it entered Europe with the whole dairy pastoralist thing that has been detected crossing c. 5000BC.  There are cultures around Bulgaria and east Romania that seem to be from Anatolia about that time.  It seems likely if that was the case that these L23 folk would have been responsible for brining the whole pastoralist thing into contact with the steppes folk.  Which way the language went is a matter of opinion.  Somewhere in that mix (add in the metal skills in that general area too) a blend may have produced IE as we know it.  I wouldnt like to speculate the details about what happened next but L11 does descend from L51 which is not much known in Asia Minor as far as I know.  So L11 arose in Europe from some L51* group.   As I understand it L51 negative for L11 is much more weighted to eastern Europe than L11 so it would make sense if an L51 group there made the leap west. Is there any sort of distribution map for L51xL11?  

I read somewhere that some Iberian S116 could be upstream of Z196 (I think I read that) so perhaps the possibility of an origin there is not as dead as it looked at one time.  I am not sure if that is correct and would welcome some comments on that.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 18, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
I have thought for some time that the Beakers probably included some U106 in addition to some P312, though not necessarily in equal amounts. I think this is especially true in the case of the Rhenish Beakers. Nor have I ever found the model that proposes a strict distinction between P312 as Beakers and U06 as Corded Ware very convincing.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on November 18, 2011, 05:41:07 PM
....
I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway....

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically.  Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method.  Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade?  If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one.  I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe.  It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.

Yes, I have to agree. Ken said the value of the new method is going to be most valuable when two clades are roughly the same age anywa
The only problem with geographic based calculations is there is a big "if" on whether each respective geography represents a clade. The more back and forth migration, etc. from one geography to the next you'll find diversity growing, but is not necessarily indicating age for the geography.

Unfortunately, we don't have anything parallel to L51 or L11.  Maybe this is a result of a bottleneck from the pre-copper and bronze ages.  I agree though, geography is not an adequate substitute for an snp. However, there maybe something we can infer from comparing broad regions like east and west.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 18, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
This is the best I could find for L51*

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ymap

Its not great but given the normal strong biases towards the British Isles and western Europe in general, it is pretty striking how it is distributed east of France from Italy and the alps to SE Europe.  The eastern part is usually very underrepresented so it suggests there is a concentration there. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 18, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 18, 2011, 08:31:30 PM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312.  That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche.  It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106.  If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche.  it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late.  If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up.  Again, this could be down to U106 being later.  If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.  


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 18, 2011, 08:46:34 PM
Very good concise summary of corded ware

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aneu_01/aneu_01_00102.html

Similar article on the latest beaker dating and origin ideas

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aneu_01/aneu_01_00103.html


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 18, 2011, 09:35:43 PM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312.  That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche.  It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106.  If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche.  it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late.  If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up.  Again, this could be down to U106 being later.  If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.  

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: NealtheRed on November 19, 2011, 10:04:38 AM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312.  That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche.  It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106.  If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche.  it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late.  If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up.  Again, this could be down to U106 being later.  If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.  

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 19, 2011, 04:46:58 PM
One bit of evidence which suggests the presence of U106 in the Beakers is the Myres' data from Denmark. U106 (along with all other R1b subclades) reaches its highest concentration in northern Denmark, presumably north Jutland. This was an area where the Beakers settled. If U106 only arrived there with Corded Ware, it seems to me its highest density would be found elsewhere in Denmark.

I should make it clear that I am not equating the Beakers with U106, nor saying there was no U106 in Corded Ware. I believe both remain open questions. I just don't see any evidence which proves U106 was completely absent in the Beakers, and present solely in Corded Ware, and some evidence to the contrary.

Also we know the various P312 subclades did not follow the same migration patterns, but everyone assumes the U106 subclades migrated only as a single unit. Since virtually no study has been made of U106 by subclade, I believe this is an assumption which is completely lacking in support.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: NealtheRed on November 19, 2011, 06:12:00 PM
I just don't see any evidence which proves U106 was completely absent in the Beakers, and present solely in Corded Ware, and some evidence to the contrary.

I should have included this caveat in my post.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 19, 2011, 07:31:51 PM
U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).







Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 19, 2011, 09:58:36 PM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.
I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.
One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312.  That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche.  It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106.  If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche.  it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late.  If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up.  Again, this could be down to U106 being later.  If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.  
As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.
So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.
I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.
Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.

I've collected the largest collection of U106 deep clade tested people from FTDNA projects. Using both linear only and non-multi-copy mixed speed, I've got the variances listed below.
East Cont. Europe___:  Var=1.24 [Linear 36]  (N=58);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67   
East Cont. Europe___:  Var=1.15 [Mixed 49]  (N=58);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67   

West Cont. Europe___:  Var=0.78 [Linear 36]  (N=180);    AvgGD=14, MaxGD=24 @67   
West Cont. Europe___:  Var=0.90 [Mixed 49]  (N=180);    AvgGD=14, MaxGD=24 @67   

British Isles_______:  Var=0.80 [Linear 36]  (N=624);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67
British Isles_______:  Var=0.92 [Mixed 49]  (N=624);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67   

Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=21 @67   
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.88 [Mixed 49]  (N=46);    AvgGD=15, MaxGD=21 @67


East Continental Europe is everything east of Germany, Austria and Italy. The Nordic Countries include Finland and Denmark.

I do show variance for U106 all is younger than P312 all, but this may be an example of why it is so important to peel the onion back.   Notice that East Europe has 1.24 for relative variance. That is on a base of P312 all so P312 all is 1.0.  U152 is about 1.15.  That may seem a little strange but what happens is that these variance calculations really represent "coalescence" ages. The best way I can describe that is an average time of early expansion.  P312 all's coalescence is younger than U152's.  Apparently the same thing happens in U106 and probably we are seeing the variance affected by the Anglo-Saxon population growth in England (and probably also in the Low Countries,) averaging the variance down a bit.

Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106.   I think that is fairly analogous.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 20, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312.  That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche.  It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106.  If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche.  it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late.  If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up.  Again, this could be down to U106 being later.  If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.  

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.

Mikes central date for U106 are too late for corded ware.  The culture was over by that date.  Both U106 and Corded Ware are indeed thought to be oldest in Poland. However the date for U106 Mike arrived at is about 1000 years later than the beginning of corded ware in Poland.  In fact Mikes's central date for U106 is younger than even the very end of Corded Ware.  

By the way its actually a curious fact that U106 and the TRB and Corded Ware cultures of the northern European Plane are all thought to have originated in Poland and spread west.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 20, 2011, 05:30:03 PM
Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106.   I think that is fairly analogous.

For some time I have argued that the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic may have given an inaccurate picture of U106. Althoug it is difficult to impossible to analyze U106 by subclade (and the administrators of the U106 project appear to want to keep it that way), it looks to me like L48 has a pretty strong argument for being a Germanic subclade. I wonder what U106 would look like with L48 removed. I also wonder how much of U106 in Scandinavia is L48. My suspicion is that most of it is.

I also think an origin for U106 in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe in no way establishes that they were restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age. They might well have expanded westerly along the Baltic, with some branching north into Scandinavia and others continuing west to the North Sea coast.

I also think P312 probably originated in eastern Europe as well, though not so far north as Poland.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: OConnor on November 21, 2011, 06:28:41 AM
I had the thought of some M269 subclades coming out of perhaps Ukraine, taking a northern route through Finland to Norway. From there by ship to the Isles, northern Islands, and southward to France. (Bronze Age and later)



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PM


Mikes central date for U106 are too late for corded ware.  The culture was over by that date.  Both U106 and Corded Ware are indeed thought to be oldest in Poland. However the date for U106 Mike arrived at is about 1000 years later than the beginning of corded ware in Poland.  In fact Mikes's central date for U106 is younger than even the very end of Corded Ware.  

By the way its actually a curious fact that U106 and the TRB and Corded Ware cultures of the northern European Plane are all thought to have originated in Poland and spread west.

I must have missed that, but I'm not sure I would be willing to say U106 couldn't be a part of Corded Ware based on a margin of a mere 1,000 years worth of STR variance one way or the other.

There is a margin of error for the start and end of Corded Ware (as with any culture) and, of course, a margin of error for haplogroup ages, as well.

I don't think the difference between the age estimates for P312 and U106 are all that significant.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 21, 2011, 08:20:24 PM
Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106.   I think that is fairly analogous.

For some time I have argued that the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic may have given an inaccurate picture of U106. Althoug it is difficult to impossible to analyze U106 by subclade (and the administrators of the U106 project appear to want to keep it that way), it looks to me like L48 has a pretty strong argument for being a Germanic subclade. I wonder what U106 would look like with L48 removed. I also wonder how much of U106 in Scandinavia is L48. My suspicion is that most of it is.

I also think an origin for U106 in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe in no way establishes that they were restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age. They might well have expanded westerly along the Baltic, with some branching north into Scandinavia and others continuing west to the North Sea coast.

I also think P312 probably originated in eastern Europe as well, though not so far north as Poland.

While an origin in Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe does not establish that U106 was restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, its current frequency cline would seem to indicate that was probably the case. It doesn't look like it has been nearly as far west as it is now since the Bronze Age, at least not to me.

I know we'll disagree on this, but I really don't think U106 was as far west then as it is now. It also seems to me pretty obvious that it has a connection to Germanic-speaking peoples, and we know from history and archaeology that they didn't start moving south and west until about the the 3rd century BC.

Ancient y-dna results could prove me wrong, but I think U106 was very small potatoes indeed (perhaps practically non-existent) among Celtic speakers.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 21, 2011, 08:35:47 PM
... I don't think the difference between the age estimates for P312 and U106 are all that significant.
I'm not sure of alignment or non-alignment with Corded Ware, but I agree that P312 and U106 are roughly the same age.  I'll concede to the "Busby blob" on this and say that the major, early subclades of R-L11 across Europe are roughly of the same timeframe.  I can not see a "staged" approach among P312, U152, L21, Z196, U106, U198, L48 and R-L11 itself. They may have had different prongs, flanking and driving through Europe, but it was all about the same time.

In fact, if you go with Busby's analysis that these STR diversity differences are insignificant, then I think we should throw European R-L23* in with the R-L11 subclades.

R-L23* in SW Asia is a different story.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 21, 2011, 08:44:59 PM
... I know we'll disagree on this, but I really don't think U106 was as far west then as it is now. It also seems to me pretty obvious that it has a connection to Germanic-speaking peoples, and we know from history and archaeology that they didn't start moving south and west until about the the 3rd century BC...
I actually don't disagree, at least generally.  I don't think there is much doubt that U106 did not have any significant impact on the Atlantic fringe early on, and even today has little on the true fringe.

The only thing that I may disagree on is that some U106 could have leaked as far as into Britain before the Anglo-Saxon era.  It's definitely old enough and they were definitely right next door across the North Sea from a fairly early date. It just seems odds that some U106 wouldn't have leaked across to Britain and integrated in with the inhabitants. It still comes to a discussion of how many percentage points we are talking about and I don't have real reason to cite any particular numbers.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some of the passionate Celtic U106 folks really were Celtic for a long, long time.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 21, 2011, 10:31:00 PM
U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).







We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.

P312 is also ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where there is no Beaker settlement. Does this prove that P312 couldn't have arrived there with the Beakers?

Finally I see no reason to assume that the Beakers on the Atlantic coastline necessarily had the exact same genetic composition as those from Holland and the Rhine.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 21, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).
We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.....
If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. Certainly, U106's STR diversity is not greatest in Scandinavia. It may have occurred quite far south of there, i.e. Austria/Switzerland; or even as far east as Belarus or the Ukraine.
I make no claim that U106 was part of the Bell Beaker movements.  I don't know. They are hard to understand. From what Jean M says, there were more than one type of Beaker folks and the "folks" may not even all have carried beaker pottery around with them.

I'm not sure it matters, but where do we think the Germanic dialects of PIE developed?   David Anthony thinks they started east and north of the Carpathians. It is a reasonable possibility that pre-Germanic dialects of IE were spoken in the northern plains of Europe during the time U106 arose and expanded.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 21, 2011, 10:53:26 PM




If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. It may have occurred quite far south of there, i.e. Austria/Switzerland; or even as far east as Belarus or the Ukraine.
I make no claim that U106 was part of the Bell Beaker movements.  I don't know. They are hard to understand. From what Jean M says, there were more than one type of Beaker folks and the "folks" may not even all have carried beaker pottery around with them.



I generally agree with your first point. I also think they may have continued past Scandinavia to the coast of the North Sea, the area where their current hotspot is.

I am not claiming the case for a U106 presence among the more easterly Beakers has been proved, merely that there is some evidence suggesting it might have been. I just don't think the possibility should be dismissed out of hand.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 22, 2011, 10:15:25 AM
... I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).
If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. ....
I should clarify. I think it is fairly obvious that a large part, if not almost all, of the U106 is England got there from the Anglo-Saxon period on from the Jutland Peninsula and points south and west of the Jutland down to Calais, France.  Some probably came from the Scandinavian Peninsula directly as well as indirectly from the Scandinavian Peninsula and on south down the Jutland and then over to England.

I just think that U106 arose and originally expanded on the continent and not in the Jutland and/or Scandinavia. STR diversity reflects that.  Given that U106 is about 4000 years old and started out on the continent, it would be surprising to me that some U106 didn't leak over across the North Sea into England. At the time their version of IE may not have been much different from what a lot of P312 folks were speaking.

The opinions are based on
1) high U198 diversity in England with very light U198 elsewhere
2) higher U106 diversity overall from Eastern Europe while diversity in Scandinavia and England are about the same
3) U106 being about 4000 years old, well before the formation of the Germanic lanugages


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 22, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
Corded Ware and Beaker basically commenced c. 3000BC at opposite ends of Europe.  As L11 and all its major subclades are of similar age and seems to have crossed from somewhere around the Black Sea (probably south side) then its very hard to see how L11 could have been both at the origin of Corded Ware in Poland and beakers to the south-west.  It would require an unlikely rush by L11 to opposite ends of Europe within cultures of different origins.  Corded Ware is basically TRB with eastern elements added) and probably a mix of Neolithic 'natives' and Ukrainian elements coming in.  Beaker of course is of very unclear origins at present before it suddenly arises in Iberia.  Its just very tricky without special pleading arguments to understand how it could have been early associated with both corded ware and beaker.  If the proposed dates are right it seems more likely L11 originated in one group and transferred from one to the other. There was a period c. 2500 when both cultures expanded and overlapped each other and were contemporary around the area from Holland to Swizerland centred on the Rhine.

Problem with beakers is its seems to have been a very complex network of contacts in many directions and its a bit of a cure all snake oil that can be made to fit any opinion.  There needs to be more detailed chronological studies based on very carefully chosen samples to further unravel the beaker network.  It wont be  to do because it will involved large amounts of radiocarbon dates


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 22, 2011, 10:52:02 AM
I personally dont think that a lack of U106 in the far west necessarily tells us much about the eastern and south-eastern Britons.  The lines of contact with the continent were different and it is possible that there was really major differences in clades between SE England and elsewhere and I also do not believe that this is merely the result of the Belgic movements of the later Iron Age.  The Hilversum culture of the late Bronze Age linked what were later the Belgic areas of the continent and SE England. 

Very little is clear except this - if U106 had the same distribution as it does today back in the copper age, with a strong showing as far west as Flanders, then it would certainly have ended up in southern and eastern Britain due to the beaker, Hilversum and Belgic connections.   If it was not common in SE England in prehistory then I would conversely conclude it must have been further east on the continent.  The two things must go hand in hand.  It really needs to be broken into many subclades and a good deep clade sample tested before we will have a better idea IMO.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 22, 2011, 07:57:19 PM
U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).







We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.

P312 is also ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where there is no Beaker settlement. Does this prove that P312 couldn't have arrived there with the Beakers?

Finally I see no reason to assume that the Beakers on the Atlantic coastline necessarily had the exact same genetic composition as those from Holland and the Rhine.

Look at the distribution maps for both P312 and U106. P312's center is farther west than U106's center. U106 has a distribution that is a much better fit for the Germanic peoples than for the Celts and is overall a bit too far east for much of a connection to the Beaker Folk. We've been through this before.

I am thinking here of both P312 and U106 as monoliths in this case because, honestly, I am not all that familiar with the U106 subclade situation. It strikes me that U198 is not really a major subclade, although I could be wrong about that. I am not sure why it has to be found at high frequencies everywhere every other kind of U106 is found in order for there to be a clear connection between U106 and Germanic-speaking peoples.

Maybe ancient y-dna will eventually prove me wrong, but I just don't see U106 as far enough west and south early enough to be Beaker.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 22, 2011, 08:11:37 PM
... I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).
If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date.....  I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. ....
I should clarify. I think it is fairly obvious that a large part, if not almost all, of the U106 is England got there from the Anglo-Saxon period on from the Jutland Peninsula and points south and west of the Jutland down to Calais, France.  Some probably came from the Scandinavian Peninsula directly as well as indirectly from the Scandinavian Peninsula and on south down the Jutland and then over to England.

I just think that U106 arose and originally expanded on the continent and not in the Jutland and/or Scandinavia. STR diversity reflects that.  Given that U106 is about 4000 years old and started out on the continent, it would be surprising to me that some U106 didn't leak over across the North Sea into England. At the time their version of IE may not have been much different from what a lot of P312 folks were speaking.

The opinions are based on
1) high U198 diversity in England with very light U198 elsewhere
2) higher U106 diversity overall from Eastern Europe while diversity in Scandinavia and England are about the same
3) U106 being about 4000 years old, well before the formation of the Germanic lanugages

I agree with most of what you say above, except that I do not think there was much U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons. Some, maybe, but not a lot. I suspect U198 got there with the Anglo-Saxons, just as L48 probably did.

I also do not think U106 originated in Scandinavia. In fact, I don't think any major y haplogroup originated in Scandinavia. Perhaps some subclade of I1 or some subclade of N originated there, and maybe L238 originated there, but nothing major.

I do think U106 has a pretty clear connection to Germanic-speakers, even though, yes, it is older than the Germanic branch of Indo-European. That seems to me to be pretty painfully obvious. That is one reason why I don't think it had much to do with the Beaker Folk and why I don't think it got anywhere near as far west and south as it is found in strength now prior to the 3rd century BC.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 22, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
I also don't think U152 had much of a connection to the Beaker Folk, although it seems to me far more likely that U152 did than that U106 did.

I think U152 arrived in Britain well before U106 did, but U152 made less of a dent in the population of Britain than U106, although U106 got there later.

Here's what I think. There was some kind of I2 already in Britain from at least the Mesolithic Period. More I2a arrived, along with G2a probably, during the Neolithic. R-L21 came with the Beaker Folk, perhaps with some smaller numbers of other kinds of P312. U152 came mainly with the Belgae during the historical period. U106, probably mostly L48, began arriving with the Anglo-Saxons and was reinforced with infusions of mainly Danish Vikings.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 23, 2011, 03:50:44 PM
I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 23, 2011, 05:16:44 PM
3rd century BC. I did not say U106 was "bottled up in Scandinavia". I didn't even think it.

I said I don't think U106 was much of a factor among the Beaker Folk because I don't think it was far enough south and west at that time (3rd-2nd millennium BC).

500 BC is too late for Beaker Folk, and the Jastorf-Harpstedt cultures were not as far west as the Netherlands, being located around the mouth of the Elbe and extending to the east and north up the neck of the Jutland peninsula. Even if they made it as far west and south as the Netherlands, again, 500 BC is too late for Beaker Folk.

Remember, the oldest U106 (older than the Germanic languages) is found in Poland and the Baltic. I think that's probably about where most of it was during the Beaker part of the Bronze Age. It moved south and west later.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 23, 2011, 06:21:30 PM
I find the highest variance being in Poland interesting as both TRB and Corded Ware (only about 1000 years after each other) are earliest dated in Poland.

U106 could (if it is old enough) be linked to Corded Ware neatly but the highest variance for P312 is not neatly linked to what is currently thought to be the origin area of beaker.  The strange thing is that the theory that held until not so long ago was that beaker came out of western peripheral corded ware along the Rhine or thereabouts and that would actually rather well fit the high variance for P312 around the eastern France/Swiss/German border area.  I must admit that intuitively when I look at overall generalised picture of the cultures I did tend to feel that the TRB-Corded Ware-beaker evolution 'felt' right.  Something along the line of the theory that European beaker culture was created by SW Influences (metalurgy etc) meeting Corded Ware influences on the western boundary of the latter always felt believable.  It still is not clear exactly what element that created the beaker culture brought L11.  

An indirect way of working our how L11 got into the beaker culture is to ask how it got into the Corded Ware culture.  What is the common denominator in beaker and Corded Ware?  Normally the Corded Ware culture is seen as TRB peoples with some sort of additional eastern input.  The Corded Ware area now is a complex mixture of R1b, R1a and I etc.  Beaker areas are today very predominantly R1b.  So either L11 was already within TRB or it is due to that extra eastern element.  There must have been a melting pot in the east that included L11 at the time of these movements, perhaps slightly south and west of R1a but in an overlapping.  

The Indo-European culture may have evolved from a blend of the pastoralism and metal working of R1b peoples on the western shores of the Black Sea and the hunter-gatherers of the steppes who one would assume were R1a.  Without both elements then the Indo-European cultures as we know it would not exists.  As has been pointed out by some the Indo-European vocab implies a much more settled farming culture than step nomads.  I think the origin of IE culture  is in the blend.  Step nomad traits fizzled out pretty far east after all.  It would seem most likely that the area on the (moving) boundary between the steppes peoples and the peoples was very important. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 23, 2011, 06:40:12 PM
I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."

He also tended to be against the idea of Celtic emerging in the Bronze Age at that time and was still into the whole urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model which is becoming increasingly unpopular.  Its hard to not see that there is a possibility that Germanic had roots in the Nordic Bronze Age.  The area in between the Nordic and Atlantic Bronze Ages  like the Low Counties has been suggested to be an intermediate group, perhaps Germanicised later.  In general Mallory followed the linguists dating of Celtic, Germanic etc which at that time was generally not placed much before the late Bronze Age.  There are now a lot of studies which push back separate languages into a much earlier period.  Personally I think Celtic and Germanic may have started to emerge around 2000BC. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 23, 2011, 07:01:37 PM
I also don't think U152 had much of a connection to the Beaker Folk, although it seems to me far more likely that U152 did than that U106 did.

I think U152 arrived in Britain well before U106 did, but U152 made less of a dent in the population of Britain than U106, although U106 got there later.

Here's what I think. There was some kind of I2 already in Britain from at least the Mesolithic Period. More I2a arrived, along with G2a probably, during the Neolithic. R-L21 came with the Beaker Folk, perhaps with some smaller numbers of other kinds of P312. U152 came mainly with the Belgae during the historical period. U106, probably mostly L48, began arriving with the Anglo-Saxons and was reinforced with infusions of mainly Danish Vikings.



It seems to me that different clades predominated among different beaker hotspots.  Z196 type clades in Iberia, L21 in NW France and the western half of the isles and U152 was probably big in the Belgium/south Holland Beaker hotspot and down the Rhine .  Beaker tended to be in hotspots rather than continuous coverage so it is possible that the clades emerged in each hotspot or sector of the beaker culture and there was then at least a modest flow between areas given beaker peoples strong correlation with trading and metals.  Each of these areas is also a metal hotspot with the exception of the Low Countries and eastern Britain.  I suspect that L21 had a big role in the primary obtaining of metal while the groups to the east in the eastern half of Britain and the Low Countries were wealthy middle men.   Metal only brings wealth if you can reach a market and these middle men may have done better out of it than the metal rich but geographically peripheral groups in Atlantic Britain.  It is noticeable in the British Isles that there was a bit of a split between

1. Metal source areas with poor land and few beaker burials
2.  areas with beaker burials but of no metal sources but good land

The general impression I get is that the L21 areas were involved heavily in the primary production while the U152 areas may have been the middle men. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 23, 2011, 07:39:01 PM
I was thinking of the Beaker Folk who went to Britain and Ireland. I think they were mostly R-L21.

Of course, I don't know; I'm just having fun guessing.

I don't think P312 and U106 populations were thoroughly mixed as long ago as the Bronze Age; otherwise, we wouldn't see the kinds of frequency clines we are still able to detect.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 23, 2011, 11:52:50 PM
...I don't think P312 and U106 populations were thoroughly mixed as long ago as the Bronze Age; otherwise, we wouldn't see the kinds of frequency clines we are still able to detect.
Ironically, P312 and U106 are closely related and must have originated near the same place. Their L11 family must have been very mobile and either very lucky or carrying the same advantage. They may have had split dramatically before the bulk of their populations met up again, but this all happened fairly quickly.

Many of us make an assumption of balance as we think of two brothers. From a DNA projects standpoint, this is not true. There are many more P312 than U106 folks, but this may just be the bias of our projects.

I often hear the quote about 10 million R1b men in Europe and it is easy to think half P312 and half U106 but, what is the real balance?  If they are roughly 50/50, that may b part of the reason I have hard time perceiving U106 not reaching further west earlier than the Anglo-Saxon period.

I guess that is a question that should be easily answered from the Myres information. As a percentage of total population of Western and Central Europe, how many U106xL48, L48, U198, P312xL21xU152xZ196, L21, U152 and Z196 folks are there?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 24, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
I've made the comment in the past that P312 seems to be much more populous than U106.

As for being closely related, we know that's true, but it's a close relationship at some removes, both in terms of the Y Tree and geography, not to mention five thousand years or so of time. In other words, close can only be a relative term when applied to P312 and U106.

We're close relative to non-R1b stuff, but far enough apart for clines in distribution to still be clearly discernible, even today, five thousand or so years after the births of both haplogroups.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 24, 2011, 09:46:26 AM
Robert (Goldenhind) makes an excellent point about U106 being treated as a virtual monolith. Even Busby only goes so far as to separate out U198 from the general U106 herd. And U198 seems to hardly be worth the effort (if the U198 guys will pardon me for saying it).

Meanwhile, P312 (S116) always seems to come in for much more precise slicing and dicing.

I think that is chiefly because P312 was only discovered a number of years after some of its more famous subclades, so it has never been thought of as a single thing. It was split before we even knew it existed.

U106 (S21), on the other hand, was a star at its discovery in 2005 and, along with U152 (S28), had center stage for several years, especially since it offered hope to R1b guys who desperately wanted to be Vikings or at least some kind of Germanic and to escape the sort of generalized European "aborigine" status to which most of us had been consigned.

Why split up a good thing? seems to still be a popular sentiment among U106 enthusiasts.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 24, 2011, 10:26:23 AM
.... Why split up a good thing? seems to still be a popular sentiment among U106 enthusiasts.
I agree, which is why I think P312 and U106 should also be considered in context of each other and together as well divided by it elements.  From a cultural standpoint, the divide may not be so great, at least for some elements and at certain phases in time.

What if L11 (S127) had been discovered first? and then P312 and U106 not for a couple of years later?  and let's add M269 and L23 to the couple of years later.

Genetic genealogists would have several years of endoctrination of some large scale activities in Western Europe by these L11 people.  They might be commonly thought of as directly related to Centum IE.

From a general standpoint, P312 and U106 started out together. One went right and one went left and they met up together in prehistory.. before Caesar. Where exactly the line was I don't know but I'll bet it moved (as we saw when Anglo-Saxons entered Britain) back and forth throughout prehistory.  

... and the line between P312 and U106 was probably not a clear line.. I think we can be pretty sure. Besides tribal alliances, mergers, intermarriage among leaders, etc. - back from the original split up some P312 and may have went with their U106 cousins rather than with the bulk of their P312 brothers. You can say it wasn't significant, but we really don't know, particularly when we see a pretty good number of P312* and Z196 in Germanic areas. As far degrees of significance, I think any traceable element should be considered which means I think L226 is important. U198 is at least as important as L226.

I guess I'm just saying it's not all one way or another but varying degrees. We can call one degree substantial and another inconsequential but we don't know. Most Y DNA lines went extinct anyway so the modern mix may be quite a bit different than the original bands that went right and left.

It's still all one family tree... at the L11 level for sure... and the branches probably all don't grow straight out in their respective directions but some branches and twigs probably cross back over culturally in seemingly wrong directions.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 24, 2011, 01:06:24 PM
I tend to think that for a long period the difference between P312 and U106 must have been minor.  If L11 is c. 5000 years old or less, it would have taken a long time for there to be any real distinctiveness between them for many many centuries.  I think cultural distinctiveness (if the suggested dating is correct) only developed slowly as the L11 peoples slowly split into separate tighter networks in the post-beaker/Corded Ware era. In fact I would say most likely the period c. 1600BC saw the beginning of the development of distinctive 'blocks' that led towards separate languages.  Although Germanic may have only developed its distinctive features in the very end of the Bronze Age I have no doubt that its cultural identity was slowly emerging in the Nordic Bronze Age which commenced c. 1700BC.  However that is many centuries after the beaker dispersal started.   


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: A.D. on November 24, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
It's been suggested that localization was a key feature of the iron age  and the bronze age was quite the opposite. This has to be a prime candidate for the Celtic Germanic split to be emphasized if not causing it.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 25, 2011, 10:18:23 AM
I have been going back over Busby's spreadsheet this morning, but not with a fine-toothed comb, so I may have missed some things and locations. Anyway, my impression is that in the Germanic-speaking lands on the Continent, U106 is more frequent than P312 in the North, especially in the Netherlands, where it simply overwhelms P312 (particularly in Friesland). That changes as one moves south into central and southern Germany, where the two draw even and then P312 begins to overtake U106. U106 still makes a good showing there, however.

The exceptions in all this are the samples from Ängelholm in SW Sweden (formerly part of Denmark) and Norway. In Ängelholm, P312 outnumbers U106 nearly three to one in a fair-sized sample of 139. In Norway, the two run about even in a sample of 138.

I'm looking at both U106 and P312 as monoliths, since, apart from U198, Busby didn't break the U106 population down into subclades as they did with at least part of P312.

It's interesting that L21xM222, while rather infrequent (but not altogether absent) in Germany, begins to grow in frequency as one moves west into the Netherlands, where it is just over 5% of the Friesland sample and roughly 6% of the Utrecht sample. In my humble opinion, that is an echo of the pre-Germanic, Celtic past of the Channel coast and just beyond. At one time the whole region opposite Britain, from Brittany to West Friesland, was predominantly L21. That changed as much of the L21 went to Britain, and as U106 moved in from the northeast and U152 moved up from the southeast. If you will recall, the L21 frequency climbs to 10% as one moves into NE France and continues to climb as one moves west across northern France.

It is also interesting that L21 made a fair showing in Switzerland, with a high of over 7% at Oberdorf, although the sample sizes were relatively small.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 26, 2011, 05:16:53 PM
The exceptions in all this are the samples from Ängelholm in SW Sweden (formerly part of Denmark) and Norway. In Ängelholm, P312 outnumbers U106 nearly three to one in a fair-sized sample of 139. In Norway, the two run about even in a sample of 138.

I'm looking at both U106 and P312 as monoliths, since, apart from U198, Busby didn't break the U106 population down into subclades as they did with at least part of P312.


Jean M. made some pie charts from the newly released Old Norway data and posted them on another forum, so I suspect you haven't seen them. This was discussed on another topic on this forum.

The data from Norway itself is quite interesting. In the Norway coastal sample (n=82) nearly half are R1b, and P312* is nearly half of the R1b. It  outnumbers all of U106 combined. L21 looks to be roughly half the size of all U106. In the Norway inland sample (n=221), P312* and L21 are approximately the same size (about a quarter of R1b), and combined they are about the same size as all of U106, which is nearly half of R1b there.

In spite of this, and undoubtedly ignorant of it, the usual suspect on the other forum has been arguing that L21 in Scandinavia is due to the Viking slavery, claiming Wilson and Moffat as his source. Others have argued this is due to migration in historic times. The difficulty with these arguments is that the areas were the Norwegian Vikings did most of their slave taking was Ireland and northern Scotland. Most of the modern migration has also come from Scotland.However P312* is pretty thin in Scotland and Ireland, and neither Viking slavery or historic migration can possibly explain the enormous amount of P312* in the Norway coastal sample. So the origin of P312* in Norway (which of course includes L238 and doubtless other subclades) must be sought from an earlier data. If P312* arrived there early, perhaps in the Bronze Age, it seems reasonable to me that L21 could have as well, at least in part.

The data for Sweden and northern Denmark from the Old Norway Project is also interesting. I won't go into it again, but it demonstarate that while U106 overwhelms P312 in some areas, in others P312 has a slight edge or is about equal to U106. It is clear that the distribution of R1b subclades in Scandinavia is far from uniform.

I wish we had some idea of the breakdown of U106 subclades in these studies.




Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: A.D. on November 26, 2011, 10:49:44 PM
Could the Hugano's have spread u-106 after there move out of France they did leave in numbers and seemed to be quite a closed community. There dates are very late though. Their names show up quite a lot in N.Ireland.   


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 27, 2011, 09:18:32 AM
Could the Hugano's have spread u-106 after there move out of France they did leave in numbers and seemed to be quite a closed community. There dates are very late though. Their names show up quite a lot in N.Ireland.   

The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot.

One of my own ancestors was a Huguenot, but he was from northwestern France, where L21 predominates.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mark Jost on November 27, 2011, 11:32:31 AM
Would this older paper expose larger scale alignments to the movements of R-M269 and its subclades?

I found this link on the Yahoo U106 files section.

Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routers in Europe Taberlet etal

molecular ecology (1998) 7, 453-464

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YELSTp4yCiaSGtBDUNpLHW6u2VEkaojipPaS1Sxn9CPz7s2iEcg7RWIGdEg0EtrolBOnT2JkKFykAJOaOXrOZ0_K-XZGHw/Phylogeography2.pdf


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 27, 2011, 12:50:20 PM
... In spite of this, and undoubtedly ignorant of it, the usual suspect on the other forum has been arguing that L21 in Scandinavia is due to the Viking slavery, claiming Wilson and Moffat as his source. Others have argued this is due to migration in historic times. The difficulty with these arguments is that the areas were the Norwegian Vikings did most of their slave taking was Ireland and northern Scotland. Most of the modern migration has also come from Scotland.However P312* is pretty thin in Scotland and Ireland, and neither Viking slavery or historic migration can possibly explain the enormous amount of P312* in the Norway coastal sample. So the origin of P312* in Norway (which of course includes L238 and doubtless other subclades) must be sought from an earlier data. If P312* arrived there early, perhaps in the Bronze Age, it seems reasonable to me that L21 could have as well, at least in part....
I agree, and would add that the ratio of L21 subclades is different in Scandinavia than it is in Scotland and Ireland, implying a different source. M222 is usually shown in these studies and it has lower ratios to L21* in Scandinavia.

I want to be careful to not imply that there is zero L21 or P312 (or U106 or I for that matter) in Scandinavia that was brought there as thralls. There probably was some, but how much of an impact they made is hard to ascertain.

Based on the Old Norway Project, L21's presence in Norway in-land as well as coastal, and parts of southern Sweden are over 5%.  To me, that is a significant presence for a 4000 year-old (or less) subclade.

My perspective is there is an hypothesis that has been put forth that most of the L21 in Scandinavia is the result of Viking captured labor. I'll call it alternative #1.  The Viking Age was about 790AD to 1066AD so the alternatives are that L21 may have also come prior to (alt. #2) 790AD and (alt. #3) post 1066 AD.  

What alternative(s) had the most significant impact of L21 in Scandinavia?

As far as #1, thralls in the Viking Age, if we had enough information about the details of Viking excursions and slave trading practices we could try to estimate this and make a comparison. However those details don't see to be available. Those putting forward the Viking forced labor hypothesis don't present data to backup their hypothesis. They just have historic anectdotal information. I have my doubts the thrall immigration was tremendously significant as far as Y DNA goes. I don't think thralls necessarily would thrive in the foreign environment and economy which wasn't exactly based on a rich agricultural environment, at least compared to the Isles. I would think the thralls would have been more valuable elsewhere.  The Viking Age was also a fairly short period of time, about 250 years.

Alternative #2, Gaelic and post-Gaelic Isles merchant contact and migration to Scandinavia, there is definitely historical information available. We could try to estimate the significance of the impact. My thinking is although this may have had an impact, it should show in terms of very unbalanced frequency of high L21 on the Norwegian coast, and that's about it. I'd also expect to see a high ratio of M222, like in Ulster, Ireland and Scotland.  We don't see that.

Alternative #3 seems most promising. I say that just because there is a large time-frame, probably from 2000BC to 700AD, for opportunity of migration of L21 into Scandinavia, although not necessarily all from the Isles. During this timeframe, existing populations in Scandinavia were probably much lower so a little immigration could have made a large difference. At the same time, we know Bell Beaker folks (through archaeological finds) have been an element of bring the Bronze Age to Scandinavia. This would have been a richer opportunity for a Y DNA impact, through elites, on Scandinavia than through thralls.

We don't really know, but to present the hypothesis that L21 is by default descendant of a thrall in Scandinavia is without justification and is provocative - which might sell more books.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 27, 2011, 01:11:25 PM
.... The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot...
I caution about using frequency hotspots. I think variance is more important, but unfortunately it isn't typically available in a representative fashion to the degree that we want it.

I apologize if this was already posted but I see that Moffat and Wilson have an opinion on U106 (S21) and a possible early entry into Britain.
"The Scots: A Genetic Journey" by Moffat and Wilson...
Quote from: Moffat and Wilson
But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in the areas where there was little or no settlement of Anglo-Saxon. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before.

Unfortunately, as is typical of their style. they didn't provide the data for their assertion, just the general statements.  We have to keep in mind they wrote a book, not a scientific paper.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 27, 2011, 08:53:46 PM
What is the "Old Norway Project"?

What is weird about some of the Scandinavian results, at least relative to Busby et al, is that they seem anomalous given the pattern to the immediate south, starting with the North Sea coast of Germany and the Netherlands and continuing through the North German Plain.

I think that may be part of the reason some folks look at the sudden increase in L21 in Norway and think, "Aha! Must be thralls from the Isles!"

Given the relative predominance of U106 in North Germany and the Netherlands, one would expect the pattern to continue smoothly into Scandinavia. Instead, there is a kind of P312 gap in lowland Germany and the Netherlands, especially when it comes to L21, before P312 and some of its subclades pick up again in Scandinavia, or at least in some parts of Scandinavia.

That gap is just odd. It seems to me to be best explained by the seaborne arrival of the P312 clades found in Scandinavia, whether that seaborne arrival was early (i.e., prehistoric, like the Beaker Folk) or relatively late (i.e., Viking Age thralls, Scottish merchants, Hanseatic sailors, etc.).

No such gap exists for U106 from the North German Plain on through Scandinavia, which is one reason why its association with Germanic-speakers seems more straightforward than that of P312 and its clades.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 27, 2011, 10:41:31 PM
What is the "Old Norway Project"?

That gap is just odd. It seems to me to be best explained by the seaborne arrival of the P312 clades found in Scandinavia, whether that seaborne arrival was early (i.e., prehistoric, like the Beaker Folk) or relatively late (i.e., Viking Age thralls, Scottish merchants, Hanseatic sailors, etc.).


For the Old Norway Project, see the topic about it started by Authun on this forum awhile back (it's listed on page 2 of this forum). He provides a link to it there. Apparently the Ydna pie charts, which were posted by Jean M. on another forum, are on page 38. They are well worth looking at. If I could work out how to post them here, I would do it.

I don't believe the large amount of P312* in Norway coastal can be due to events from the Viking Age or later, because the areas in Britain where P312* is most common are not strongly connected with these later migrations. Also L238 is a subset of P312 which is virtually limited to Scandinavia, and it cannot be reasonably be argued that iut originated in Britain.

Certainly some P312 appear to have arrived by sea, but the areas in the Swedish samples where P312 subclades are most populous are inland. Of course they may have originally arrived by sea at an early date (ie Beakers) and later drifted inland.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 27, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
.... The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot...
I caution about using frequency hotspots. I think variance is more important, but unfortunately it isn't typically available in a representative fashion to the degree that we want it.

I apologize if this was already posted but I see that Moffat and Wilson have an opinion on U106 (S21) and a possible early entry into Britain.
"The Scots: A Genetic Journey" by Moffat and Wilson...
Quote from: Moffat and Wilson
But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in the areas where there was little or no settlement of Anglo-Saxon. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before.

Unfortunately, as is typical of their style. they didn't provide the data for their assertion, just the general statements.  We have to keep in mind they wrote a book, not a scientific paper.

I've mentioned this statement by Wilson and Moffat before in support of my argument that some U106 arrived in eastern Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. A number of people rushed forward to explain the unaccounted for presence of U106 in those areas as due to Flemish immigrants or Norman barons.

I don't know why people people assume, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that the Normans were nearly all U106. Of course it is reasonable that U106 was present amongst the Normans, but I would be astounded if it was above 20% or so. It would take a lot of Norman barons to outnumber the local L21.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 27, 2011, 11:05:14 PM
What is the "Old Norway Project"?
This link to the preliminary presentation is in Athun's thread.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/-sczsteve/Gothenburg_13Oct2011.pdf


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 28, 2011, 01:12:57 AM
I think that may be part of the reason some folks look at the sudden increase in L21 in Norway and think, "Aha! Must be thralls from the Isles!"
I think it is important to note the low amount of M222. To me this indicates the amount of late immigration of L21 from the Scotland/Ireland was not as significant as some earlier immigrations.

....Instead, there is a kind of P312 gap in lowland Germany and the Netherlands, especially when it comes to L21, before P312 and some of its subclades pick up again in Scandinavia, or at least in some parts of Scandinavia.
That gap is just odd. It seems to me to be best explained by the seaborne arrival of the P312 clades found in Scandinavia,...
.
Yes. You probably noticed L21 was high Skaraborg county too.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 28, 2011, 05:32:42 AM
"Skaraborg county"

It is linked to the marvelous Scarborough of "Scarborough fair"?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 28, 2011, 04:26:04 PM

Given the relative predominance of U106 in North Germany and the Netherlands, one would expect the pattern to continue smoothly into Scandinavia. No such gap exists for U106 from the North German Plain on through Scandinavia, which is one reason why its association with Germanic-speakers seems more straightforward than that of P312 and its clades.

I have just had a look at R1b subclades in the Benelux Project. They were posted on another forum. Here are the results, based only on those members who have had deep clade testing. The results are in percentages (of the total male population), which in some cases I have rounded off.

Belgium/Luxembourg
L11     0
U106  11.7
U198  0
L48   7.8
P312  7.8
SRY2627  7.8
U152  23.4
L21   0

Netherlands
L11   3
U106  21.2
U198  3
L48   6
P312  15
SRY2627  0
U152  3
L21   6

Some explanatory notes: U106 includes those who have tested L48- as well as those who haven't tested for L48. It is a small sample, so I wouldn't take this to the bank. Nevertherless, I don't see how one can reconclie this data with a clean break between U106 and P312. While U106 and subclades are stronger than P312 in the Netherlands, the difference (30% v. 24%) is hardly overwhelming.

While U152 and SRY2627 are much more common in Belgium and Luxembourg than in Netherlands, P312 (presumably XL21,U152, SRY2627) and L21 are much more common in the Netherlands.

Nor can I see any reason why the Netherlands pattern should continue into Scandinavia. I think the contrasts that appear to exist reflect some complex settlement patterns most likely dating from the Bronze Age.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 28, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

Given the relative predominance of U106 in North Germany and the Netherlands, one would expect the pattern to continue smoothly into Scandinavia. No such gap exists for U106 from the North German Plain on through Scandinavia, which is one reason why its association with Germanic-speakers seems more straightforward than that of P312 and its clades.

I have just had a look at R1b subclades in the Benelux Project. They were posted on another forum. Here are the results, based only on those members who have had deep clade testing. The results are in percentages, which in some cases I have rounded off.

Belgium/Luxembourg
L11     0
U106  11.7
U198  0
L48   7.8
P312  7.8
SRY2627  7.8
U152  23.4
L21   0

Netherlands
L11   3
U106  21.2
U198  3
L48   6
P312  15
SRY2627  0
U152  3
L21   6

Some explanatory notes: U106 includes those who have tested L48- as well as those who haven't tested for L48. It is a small sample, so I wouldn't take this to the bank. Nevertherless, I don't see how one can reconclie this data with a clean break between U106 and P312. While U106 and subclades are stronger than P312 in the Netherlands, the difference (30% v. 24%) is hardly overwhelming.

While U152 and SRY2627 are much more common in Belgium and Luxembourg than in Netherlands, P312 (presumably XL21,U152, SRY2627) and L21 are much more common in the Netherlands.

Nor can I see any reason why the Netherlands pattern should continue into Scandinavia. I think the contrass that appear to exist reflect some complex settlement patterns most likely dating from the Bronze Age.


That is interesting as the L21 project map also seemed to show a gap in L21 in Belgium but some in Holland (mainly away from northern Holland). 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 28, 2011, 07:29:44 PM
I have a larger number of haplotypes than the specific geographic or haplogroup DNA projects have, because I've look through over 30 projects for deep clade tested R-M269 people.  I also pull Ysearch for the corresponding FTDNA kit # to find a better MDKA origin information if available.

Here are the counts for Benelux. 57 from U106 and 49 from P312.


U152     21
P312*    14 (inc. DF19)
L21      8 (inc. DF21, L513)
Z196     6 (inc. SRY2627)

U106*    30
L48      19
U198     4
Z18      4

L23xL51  2
L51*     1


This is still biased by testing company consumer patterns, although I don't think that would change the ratio of one haplogroup to the other from the same geography.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 28, 2011, 08:37:55 PM
I have a larger number of haplotypes than the specific geographic or haplogroup DNA projects have, because I've look through over 30 projects for deep clade tested R-M269 people.  I also pull Ysearch for the corresponding FTDNA kit # to find a better MDKA origin information if available.

Here are the counts for Benelux. 57 from U106 and 49 from P312.


U152     21
P312*    14 (inc. DF19)
L21      8 (inc. DF21, L513)
Z196     6 (inc. SRY2627)

U106*    30
L48      19
U198     4
Z18      4

L23xL51  2
L51*     1


This is still biased by testing company consumer patterns, although I don't think that would change the ratio of one haplogroup to the other from the same geography.

Can you break this down between Belgium/Luxembourg and Holland?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 28, 2011, 10:44:55 PM
I have a larger number of haplotypes than the specific geographic or haplogroup DNA projects have, because I've look through over 30 projects for deep clade tested R-M269 people.  I also pull Ysearch for the corresponding FTDNA kit # to find a better MDKA origin information if available.

Here are the counts for Benelux. 57 from U106 and 49 from P312.


U152     21
P312*    14 (inc. DF19)
L21      8 (inc. DF21, L513)
Z196     6 (inc. SRY2627)

U106*    30
L48      19
U198     4
Z18      4

L23xL51  2
L51*     1


This is still biased by testing company consumer patterns, although I don't think that would change the ratio of one haplogroup to the other from the same geography.
Can you break this down between Belgium/Luxembourg and Holland?
Countries are broken out in the spreadsheets at the L21, P312 and U106 Yahoo groups.  I'm not sure that it is worth it.  I think instead of having about 110 R-M269 people, we need 4-5 hundred.  What does the North Brabant study show?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 29, 2011, 12:20:16 AM
I have a larger number of haplotypes than the specific geographic or haplogroup DNA projects have, because I've look through over 30 projects for deep clade tested R-M269 people.  I also pull Ysearch for the corresponding FTDNA kit # to find a better MDKA origin information if available.

Here are the counts for Benelux. 57 from U106 and 49 from P312.


U152     21
P312*    14 (inc. DF19)
L21      8 (inc. DF21, L513)
Z196     6 (inc. SRY2627)

U106*    30
L48      19
U198     4
Z18      4

L23xL51  2
L51*     1


This is still biased by testing company consumer patterns, although I don't think that would change the ratio of one haplogroup to the other from the same geography.
Can you break this down between Belgium/Luxembourg and Holland?
....  What does the North Brabant study show?
Quote from: Maciamo
Antwerp region (West) (n=80)
R1b : 63.75%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 27.5%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 28.25%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 16.25%

Kempen region (East) (n=84)
R1b : 54.8%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 14.3%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 20.2%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 7.1%


Mechelen region (South) (n=66)
R1b : 56%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 31.8%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 15.2%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 4.5%Province of Flemish Brabant (n=134)

Province of Flemish Brabant (n=134)
R1b : 55.2%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 19.4%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 21.6%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 9.7%

Province of Limburg (n=70)
R1b : 61.4%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 22.8%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 27.1%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 10%

Province of East Flanders (n=120)
R1b : 61.6%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 24.2%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 21.7%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 13.3%

Province of West Flanders (n=141)
R1b : 66%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 27%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 24.8%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 10%

Wallonia (n=74)
R1b : 59.5%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 21.6%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 17.6%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 17.6%

Province of North Brabant (Netherlands) (n=138)
R1b : 65.9%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 34%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 19.5%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 5.8%
- R1b-SRY2627 : 2.9%

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26032.html


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on November 29, 2011, 03:46:21 PM

Thanks. Very interesting. The Netherlands sample shows roughly the same divide (U106 34%/ P312 28%) as the Benelux results I referred to earlier (U106 30%/ P312 24%).

It is unfortunate that L21 was broken down from P312, but it looks pretty clear to me that U152 doesn't follow the same pattern as the rest of P312. For instance, where U152 is at its highest percentage (17.6%) in Wallonia, the rest of P312 has its second lowest percentage (17.6%).


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 29, 2011, 09:26:32 PM
.... The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot...
I caution about using frequency hotspots. I think variance is more important, but unfortunately it isn't typically available in a representative fashion to the degree that we want it.

I apologize if this was already posted but I see that Moffat and Wilson have an opinion on U106 (S21) and a possible early entry into Britain.
"The Scots: A Genetic Journey" by Moffat and Wilson...
Quote from: Moffat and Wilson
But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in the areas where there was little or no settlement of Anglo-Saxon. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before.

Unfortunately, as is typical of their style. they didn't provide the data for their assertion, just the general statements.  We have to keep in mind they wrote a book, not a scientific paper.

I've mentioned this statement by Wilson and Moffat before in support of my argument that some U106 arrived in eastern Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. A number of people rushed forward to explain the unaccounted for presence of U106 in those areas as due to Flemish immigrants or Norman barons.

I don't know why people people assume, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that the Normans were nearly all U106. Of course it is reasonable that U106 was present amongst the Normans, but I would be astounded if it was above 20% or so. It would take a lot of Norman barons to outnumber the local L21.

We discussed that at length before on another thread. It seems likely that the U106 in Moray and Aberdeenshire is due to the settlement of Northumbrians there by King David I in the 12th century.

We know he settled Englishmen there. We don't know of any prehistoric settlement of likely U106ers in eastern Scotland. The same area is where the U152 jumps a little bit, too, beyond its usual very low frequency in Scotland. The U152 there can probably also be attributed to David's 12th century settlement of Englishmen, since U152, like U106, is much more common in England than it is in Scotland.

I saw a post on Rootsweb a day or two ago that chalked all Norman y-dna up to I1. I think people go with whatever they think the Vikings were, and the L21 that seems to really prevail in Normandy is the population base of plain old Gallo-Roman locals. Actually, I think that is probably basically true, but I don't think there ever were all that many Vikings in Normandy to leave behind much of a genetic signature.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 29, 2011, 09:58:25 PM
I have a larger number of haplotypes than the specific geographic or haplogroup DNA projects have, because I've look through over 30 projects for deep clade tested R-M269 people.  I also pull Ysearch for the corresponding FTDNA kit # to find a better MDKA origin information if available.

Here are the counts for Benelux. 57 from U106 and 49 from P312.


U152     21
P312*    14 (inc. DF19)
L21      8 (inc. DF21, L513)
Z196     6 (inc. SRY2627)

U106*    30
L48      19
U198     4
Z18      4

L23xL51  2
L51*     1


This is still biased by testing company consumer patterns, although I don't think that would change the ratio of one haplogroup to the other from the same geography.
Can you break this down between Belgium/Luxembourg and Holland?
....  What does the North Brabant study show?
Quote from: Maciamo
Antwerp region (West) (n=80)
R1b : 63.75%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 27.5%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 28.25%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 16.25%

Kempen region (East) (n=84)
R1b : 54.8%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 14.3%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 20.2%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 7.1%


Mechelen region (South) (n=66)
R1b : 56%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 31.8%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 15.2%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 4.5%Province of Flemish Brabant (n=134)

Province of Flemish Brabant (n=134)
R1b : 55.2%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 19.4%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 21.6%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 9.7%

Province of Limburg (n=70)
R1b : 61.4%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 22.8%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 27.1%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 10%

Province of East Flanders (n=120)
R1b : 61.6%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 24.2%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 21.7%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 13.3%

Province of West Flanders (n=141)
R1b : 66%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 27%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 24.8%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 10%

Wallonia (n=74)
R1b : 59.5%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 21.6%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 17.6%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 17.6%

Province of North Brabant (Netherlands) (n=138)
R1b : 65.9%
- R1b-U106/S21 : 34%
- R1b-P312/S116 (including L21) : 19.5%
- R1b-U152/S28 : 5.8%
- R1b-SRY2627 : 2.9%

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26032.html[/size]

Interesting. Those figures, of course, are for Belgium and the very south of the Netherlands (North Brabant Province).

The Busby figures for farther north (Amersfoort and Friesland) show a much higher frequency of U106, especially in Friesland, where the frequency of U106xU198 was about 43%. In Amersfoort it was about 35%, with 2% U198 (i.e., about 37% total U106). The P312 in the Friesland sample was about 10%. In Amersfoort it was 16%.

That would seem to indicate inverse clines for U106 and P312 as one moves from U106 highs in the traditionally Germanic areas of the Netherlands toward the more traditionally Celtic areas in Belgium, where the rate of P312 increases. Busby figures for Germany paint a similar picture.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on November 29, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
.... The problem with that is U106 is not all that common in France, so I wouldn't look at France as a source for it elsewhere. I am not saying it is rare in France either, but France is not a U106 hotspot...
I caution about using frequency hotspots. I think variance is more important, but unfortunately it isn't typically available in a representative fashion to the degree that we want it.

I apologize if this was already posted but I see that Moffat and Wilson have an opinion on U106 (S21) and a possible early entry into Britain.
"The Scots: A Genetic Journey" by Moffat and Wilson...
Quote from: Moffat and Wilson
But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in the areas where there was little or no settlement of Anglo-Saxon. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before.

Unfortunately, as is typical of their style. they didn't provide the data for their assertion, just the general statements.  We have to keep in mind they wrote a book, not a scientific paper.

Moffat and Wilson's remark that "S21 is very high" and "S145 rather low" in Moray and Aberdeenshire can only be interpreted as meaning "relative to their frequencies elsewhere in Scotland", because here are the frequencies for Busby's Moray sample:

Moray  N=67

U106xU198 = 19.4%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,M222 = 6%

L21xM222 = 41.8%

M222 = 10.4%

U152 = 4.5%

That seems a boatload of L21 to dismiss as "rather low". :-)


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: OConnor on November 30, 2011, 05:06:35 PM
Maybe the L21's were taken to Scotland for slaves ;)


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 30, 2011, 05:19:52 PM
Maybe the L21's were taken to Scotland for slaves ;)
LOL. Do you mean S21's(U106's) in this case?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 30, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
I apologize if this was already posted but I see that Moffat and Wilson have an opinion on U106 (S21) and a possible early entry into Britain.
"The Scots: A Genetic Journey" by Moffat and Wilson...
Quote from: Moffat and Wilson
But in Scotland at least the notion of a more ancient east/west divide is much more robust because it is observed clearly in the areas where there was little or no settlement of Anglo-Saxon. In Moray and Aberdeenshire, the incidence of S21 is very high in the male population and that of S145 rather low. No doubt the Anglo-Saxons brought S21 and other markers across the North Sea once more, strengthening the gradient of genetic types across England, but they were present in England long before.
Unfortunately, as is typical of their style. they didn't provide the data for their assertion, just the general statements.  We have to keep in mind they wrote a book, not a scientific paper.
The rumour on another forum is that EthnoAncestry has folded, or folded into something else. I just checked their web site. It says.
Quote from: EthnoAncestry
EthnoAncestry has recently been taken over by our new company, BritainsDNA. Our scientific team remains unchanged. Existing EthnoAncestry orders will be processed as normal. To view our exciting new suite of genetic ancestry tests, please visit www.scotlandsDNA.com.  While this site will specialise in Scottish ancestry, we will continue to offer tests exploring British, Irish and European lineages.

Looks like they will really specialize in the Scots stuff.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: OConnor on December 01, 2011, 02:04:11 AM
quote author=Mikewww link=topic=10221.msg126147#msg126147 date=1322687992]
Maybe the L21's were taken to Scotland for slaves ;)
LOL. Do you mean S21's(U106's) in this case?
[/quote]

Sorry..I'm not up on U106.

Perhaps the R1b related clades were nothing more than slaves brought from parts unknown to Ireland, Scotland England and Scandinavia.

(That for the slave-driving theorists ;)



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 01, 2011, 10:02:24 PM
Sorry..I'm not up on U106.

Perhaps the R1b related clades were nothing more than slaves brought from parts unknown to Ireland, Scotland England and Scandinavia.

(That for the slave-driving theorists ;)
No, I thought the  joke was that in areas of Scotland which should be hugely L21 Celtic, if U106 showed up in any number they must be slaves brought in by the Scots or Picts.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: NealtheRed on December 02, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Sorry..I'm not up on U106.

Perhaps the R1b related clades were nothing more than slaves brought from parts unknown to Ireland, Scotland England and Scandinavia.

(That for the slave-driving theorists ;)
No, I thought the  joke was that in areas of Scotland which should be hugely L21 Celtic, if U106 showed up in any number they must be slaves brought in by the Scots or Picts.

Scots king Malcolm Canmore would take Anglian slaves during raids into Northumbria.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 02, 2011, 09:21:40 PM
Sorry..I'm not up on U106.

Perhaps the R1b related clades were nothing more than slaves brought from parts unknown to Ireland, Scotland England and Scandinavia.

(That for the slave-driving theorists ;)
No, I thought the  joke was that in areas of Scotland which should be hugely L21 Celtic, if U106 showed up in any number they must be slaves brought in by the Scots or Picts.
Scots king Malcolm Canmore would take Anglian slaves during raids into Northumbria.
There you go!

Unfortunately our conventional wisdom, or should I say perception, is colored by who won AND by who wrote it down and for what purposes.   I don't know what was wrong with my Celtic ancestors? They just didn't write anything down. I guess my desire for that comes from some other sides of me.

The "venerable Bede", give me a break!


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: NealtheRed on December 02, 2011, 11:38:14 PM
Sorry..I'm not up on U106.

Perhaps the R1b related clades were nothing more than slaves brought from parts unknown to Ireland, Scotland England and Scandinavia.

(That for the slave-driving theorists ;)
No, I thought the  joke was that in areas of Scotland which should be hugely L21 Celtic, if U106 showed up in any number they must be slaves brought in by the Scots or Picts.
Scots king Malcolm Canmore would take Anglian slaves during raids into Northumbria.
There you go!

Unfortunately our conventional wisdom, or should I say perception, is colored by who won AND by who wrote it down and for what purposes.   I don't know what was wrong with my Celtic ancestors? They just didn't write anything down. I guess my desire for that comes from some other sides of me.

The "venerable Bede", give me a break!

In all reality, the Normans won in the end. Look at the Stewart family, a Breton contingent with William the Conqueror that would one day inherit the UK monarchy.

The Celts were just an extension of their Indo-European ancestors: they didn't write, but memorized everything!


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 04, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
I split all the posts about the Stewart royal y-dna line off to form another thread. It was somewhat off-topic and was taking over this thread.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 04, 2011, 08:01:23 PM
The early Celts didn't write much, although they did leave some inscriptions behind in Ogham and in Greek and Latin characters. But Gildas was writing his version of British history a couple of hundred years before Bede, and Nennius wrote not long after that.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 12, 2011, 02:23:47 PM
Please ignore.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 12, 2011, 03:42:20 PM
EDIT: Have to recheck my numbers. Ken has a new version - Gen7. I don't know if it corrected something or what. I may have used too large of error ranges.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 12, 2011, 04:34:57 PM
The following are all interclade TMRCAs using Ken Nordtvedt's "nested variance" method.
I've done the U106 & P312 interclade node man before, but I've added P312 and U106 interclade nodals for their subclades.  These are not coalescence ages. They are estimates for those singe MRCA that was at the node of the respective subclades.

I don't think it is valid to compare L11* since it is a paragroup and the nested variance calculations are working on the assumption the two clades considered are truly clades, but I show L11* just to see what it shows.  It doesn't have much impact.

I think it is fair to say that the node men specified within P312 put a floor on L11's TMRCA. At the same time the U106&P312 node man puts a ceiling on the ages for P312's and for U106's MRCA. That's the neat thing about doing multiple clade/subclade levels and looking at them together.


Within L11....

U106 & P312 TMRCA Age______________4.6 __  (5.9-3.2)
L11* & P312 TMRCA Age______________4.2 __  (5.4-2.9)
L11* & U106 TMRCA Age______________4.3 __  (5.6-3.0)

Within P312....

U152 & L21 TMRCA Age_______________4.4 __  (5.7-3.1)
Z196 & L21 TMRCA Age_______________4.5 __  (5.9-3.2)
Z196 & U152 TMRCA Age______________4.5 __  (5.8-3.2)

Within U106....

Z18 & Z381(L48,U198,L1) TMRCA Age__4.0 __  (5.2-2.8)


As you can see, things were moving very fast as far as the branching of these large subclades within L11.

Since these are interclade estimates and they are based on true subclades, I don't think there is much too argue with about these.  The only issue to debate is mutation rates... germ-line as used or "evolutionary."

Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC.  The question still remains about the mutation rates though.  If the dates are correct then they either suggest geographical proximity which is no longer obvious from the distribution or they indicate that it was moving fast geographically.  On balance the present highly patterned distribution of L11 clades might suggest they were moving very fast and that although it doesnt sound a lot the 200 year period might have seen great movement.  This seems to be borne out by the apparent fact that the highest variance for U152, U106 and L21 (not sure about the other clades) seem to be in widely separated areas.  So I think fast movement rather than geographical proximity may be at play.  Clearly that also fits well with a beaker model. However, I feel that the sheer speed may mean that we really do not have any idea of where L11 and even P312 SNPs happened.  The * paragroups dont tell us much. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 12, 2011, 04:58:58 PM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Jdean on December 12, 2011, 08:28:42 PM
EDIT: Have to recheck my numbers. Ken has a new version - Gen7. I don't know if it corrected something or what. I may have used too large of error ranges.


The major change is ken's workaround for 389i-ii

the rest of it from a cursory glance looks to be some changes in his labels, the maths remains the same

He’s changed some of the mutation rates as well (subtly) but I haven’t looked closely to see which ones.


Edit : Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 12, 2011, 11:44:31 PM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Bren123 on December 13, 2011, 12:01:17 PM
I have had a look at Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) on the question of when Proto-Germanic developed. He says that it is commonly agreed that the "sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic probably occurred about 500 BC" in the Jastorf and probably also the neighboring Harpstedt cultures.

I note the Haprstedt Culture was present in the area of modern day Holland. If U106 was bottled up in Scandinavia until the 3rd century AD, one wonders who these people were? If they were U106, might not some have crossed to Britain prior to the development of Proto-Germanic?

He goes on to say that while it is tempting to push Proto-Germanic backward into the late Bronze Age cultures in the same area, "We cannot really penetrate beyond this (the Jastorf Culture) and still hope to retain the name Proto-Germanic in a linguistically meaningful sense. What preceeded it may also have been Proto-Germanic or perhaps late western Indo-European, or some other state of the evolution of the Indo-European languages for which we have no precise name."

He also tended to be against the idea of Celtic emerging in the Bronze Age at that time and was still into the whole urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model which is becoming increasingly unpopular.  Its hard to not see that there is a possibility that Germanic had roots in the Nordic Bronze Age.  The area in between the Nordic and Atlantic Bronze Ages  like the Low Counties has been suggested to be an intermediate group, perhaps Germanicised later.  In general Mallory followed the linguists dating of Celtic, Germanic etc which at that time was generally not placed much before the late Bronze Age.  There are now a lot of studies which push back separate languages into a much earlier period.  Personally I think Celtic and Germanic may have started to emerge around 2000BC. 

Could you provide a source for Celtic and Germanic dating back to 2000BC?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 13, 2011, 05:42:34 PM
... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 13, 2011, 06:14:33 PM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on December 13, 2011, 06:56:32 PM
... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.

I think...it's the number of generations to the node man of subclades A and B which I suppose would be an interclade estimate. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 13, 2011, 09:31:02 PM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...
I have a caveat. I think all of the centerpoint dates are good but my sigmas (error ranges are wrong.. .maybe too high)  I'm reworking.
Okay, here is the rework with Gen7 and a better understanding of his Nested Variance Sigma/error range calculation. Everything is in thousands of years before present.  The confidence ranges are for one sigma, which means the probability is 68% (a standard deviation each way) that reality falls in the range. To reach 95% confidence you go to two sigma.  I believe that is just doubling the range. With these kinds of narrow ranges, that is not such a big deal.


Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __  (4.4-3.5)

Within L21
DF23 & L513 Interclade TMRCA_______5.0 __  (6.1-4.0)
DF23 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______4.8 __  (5.8-3.8)
DF23 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______4.0 __  (5.0-2.9)
L513 & DF21 Interclade TMRCA_______3.8 __  (4.2-3.3)
DF23 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.9 __  (4.9-2.8)
L513 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.3 __  (3.9-2.6)
L513 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______3.1 __  (3.6-2.5)
DF21 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______3.0 __  (3.5-2.5)
DF21 & Z253 Interclade TMRCA_______2.9 __  (3.4-2.4)
Z253 & Z255 Interclade TMRCA_______2.5 __  (3.2-1.8)


It amazing how close in age the larger subclades of L11 are. They really must have rolled out  across in Europoe in a fast swoop and grew quickly.

The nice thing is we can go to town at "cornering" in the possibilities given the layering of SNPs we now have.  DF21 would be a great one to go deeper with it given DF25, DF5, P314.2, L362, S190, etc.

For example, L21 can't be older than its interclade ages with its peer subclades. The oldest L21 could be would be the upper end of its range with its closest peer, U152, which would be 4.6k ybp. At the same time, L21 has to be older than its oldest known subclade pair interclade age. This is L513 and DF23 and their minimun age is 4.0k ybp.  Therefore, with pretty good reliability we know L21 is 4.6k to 4.0k ybp.

Below is a little more description on L21's large subclades...

DF23 is dominated by M222/NW Irish and Lowland Scots, but includes Wales/SW Eng cluster.
L513 is the 11-13 Combo group.
DF21 is varied and includes P314.2, DF25, Clan Colla and the Little Scots.
Z253 is dominated by L226/Irish Type III
Z255 is dominated by L159.2 464x=2c2g/Irish Sea

As far as U106 goes, the majority of it including L1, L48 and U198 sit in Z381. Z18 is a different branch but we have 57 67 STR hts for it.

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.  

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one.  

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place.  

I think you have made some very good points. Some have claimed that Poland has the oldest variance for U106, but others have suggested it is more broadly eastern Europe. Nordtvedt has claimed that P312 and U106 arose near to each other both in time and place, I suggest the best possiblity is somewhere along the Danube, possibly in Hungary or Romania. There is pretty good evidence that the flow of R1b into Europe came from the general vicinity of the Black Sea, and the Danube is the most obvious path from there into Europe.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mark Jost on December 13, 2011, 10:22:17 PM
I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 14, 2011, 12:56:15 AM
I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7
He also has GABw.  I know GABw is the Generations to the interclade node (MRCA)  man for both clade A and clade B.  I don't quite get what the "w" stands for.

I don't think GABn is quite the same thing as just a variant of Generations to Clade A and Clade B's MRCA.  He uses nested variance to reduce the Sigma (error range) so I get that is what SigGABn is.  I'm not sure if GABn is anything more than just an intermediate step to calculating SigGABn.

Try a few different examples. I get GABn bouncing around a bit. Ken said that the whole SigGABn calculation was valuable when both clades are of about the same age. When they are quite different I'm not sure if there is any more precision.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 14, 2011, 01:35:12 AM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 
I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Jdean on December 14, 2011, 09:35:43 AM
... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but Ken's maths is W-A-Y over my head : )

I've tried working out exactly what GABxxx, or GABn as Ken calls it now, is but have failed. My best guess is it's just part of Ken's calculation for SIGxxx and not of specific interest to us by itself.

From reading Ken's post on Rootweb, SIGxxx (now called SigGABn) was Ken's improvement in Generation6 and was to replace the old SigmaG which Ken removed.

My assumption is the relevant data now is the interclade age GABw and SigGABn

The improvement in Generation7 was Ken's workaround for 389 i/ii, but this was because Ken didn't fancy removing 389i from 389ii in his vast I happlogroup database. However it's easy enough to add both 389i & ii into the spreadsheet if you like and should presumably give slightly better resolution than just using 389ii.

It's also not that hard to add the other loci in FTDNA's 111 test as long as the mutation rates are reliable enough.


BTW I was wrong about the mutation rates having been changed in Generation7 and the Sigmas for the individual groups. It was late my end when I was fiddling with the new version.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on December 14, 2011, 10:20:54 AM

I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.

Corded Ware people probably spoke IE.  The R1a1 component in CW may have been introduced first with the Baalberge group in the TRB period and also with the Bodrogkeretszur culture in Hungary.  This coincides with the 4200 BC movement of steppe people into the Danube valley who had their roots with the Sredny stog/Suvorovo people.

U106 was likely present in at least Unetice, but was already there before steppe incursions.  Unetice seems to be a fusion of Bell Beaker, western Corded ware, and other local people.  As the Corded Ware culture went on, the focus of movements shifted towards the east (think R1a1 and Satem).  Unetice filled part of that vacuum left around Czech Rep. and southeast Germany, which also would be a good candidate for western R1b expansion.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mark Jost on December 14, 2011, 01:31:07 PM
I would agree. Ga or Gb is the number of generations to the modal MRCA, and Nested Variance = GABn would be the mrca for Ga and Gb.

Modals

tmrca      1130-A-1Extend          25GYrs   30GYrs
Ga =   67.71314251                 1692.8   2031.4

tmrca   U106*      
Gb =   63.71191136                  1592.8   1911.4

nested                           Signested       
GABn =   274.6630221   SigGABn      46.62431605   

           25GYrs   30GYrs
           6866.6   8239.9
       +- 1165.6   +-1398.7
He also has GABw.  I know GABw is the Generations to the interclade node (MRCA)  man for both clade A and clade B.  I don't quite get what the "w" stands for.

I don't think GABn is quite the same thing as just a variant of Generations to Clade A and Clade B's MRCA.  He uses nested variance to reduce the Sigma (error range) so I get that is what SigGABn is.  I'm not sure if GABn is anything more than just an intermediate step to calculating SigGABn.

Try a few different examples. I get GABn bouncing around a bit. Ken said that the whole SigGABn calculation was valuable when both clades are of about the same age. When they are quite different I'm not sure if there is any more precision.

I believe the w in GABw is for weighted in his computation for interclade Gs, using an iterative convergence method. He uses a trial and error single manual input at B522 to come up with the final Interclade GABw generations. But using Excel 2007 or newer with the file saved in the 2007 format, one can enable the number of times Excel iterates a formula  the Excel Formula category. Changing the cell B522 to look at contents of BV529 should run enough times to find the correct converged generations.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 

I don't know whether or not U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker or both, but aren't you shaving a bit close with what can only be regarded as rough estimates based on collections of modern haplotypes? The interclade range for P312 and U106 is about 5k - 4k years ago. The upper end puts it easily within reach of Corded Ware, and that's assuming the estimates have it right, and the actual event didn't happen 500 or 1,000 years earlier.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 01:56:02 PM
...
Well there is no denying that the dates seem like an awfully good match for the beaker period. Its uncanny the way the main split dates are coming in 2600-2400BC. ...

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 
I tend to agree. Given the ages I see for Corded Ware I don't see how U106 could have been in Northern Europe for it. If it had, I think the odds would have to have been very high that more U106 would have leaked over into Britain and then whole British Isles.  The only way I can reconcile that U106 didn't get to the Isles somewhat significantly prior to the Anglo-Saxons is that they hadn't made it to the Jutland until late.

I don't think we really know where U106 originated, but it doesn't look like Scandinavia. There is U106 in Austria so perhaps it is as Goldenhind has suggested.

One thing I'm confused about is how Corded Ware transformed eventually into the Nordic Bronze Age.
Quote
Unetice; is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2...
These were not necessarily static cultures where the same people stayed in place as the culture transformed.
Perhaps U106 was born late, compared to P312, as L11* was moving all over Western Europe.

Do we really know the Corded Ware was IE?  Could it have been R1a1 (coming from the Steppes) that was primarily involved with the prior inhabitants in Corded Ware... then U106 came later more straight south to north to the Jutland and the Baltic?  More P312 laden Beakers were already heavily engaged closer to the Rhine and points west.

 We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area? 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 02:14:56 PM

One thing I have been doubting for some time is the idea that if P312=beaker then U106 is corded ware.  From what I understand the nodeman is not much older than P312 and there seem to be hints that the actual U106 SNP is a few centuries younger.  A divide date around 2500BC and an SNP date somewhat later would make it impossible to link to corded ware.  Corded ware was at the tail end of its period in western, northern and central Europe by then.  More importantly, the current understanding of beaker and corded ware would not give these cultures common ancestry.  Beaker is a bit of a mystery but seems oldest in SW Europe while corded ware is understood to have arisen in Poland out of a a mix of the TRB farmers who arrived there 6000 years ago and later ill-defined eastern elements.   

Unless the current archaeological mainstream are badly wrong (which admittedly is possible) then it seems absurd to link U106 to corded ware if P312 is to be linked to beaker.  However, while there is no corded ware in most beaker areas (apart from an interface area near the Rhine) there is beaker in much of the former corded ware areas.  So, it would seem that the common L11 denominator is much more likely to be a beaker one than a corded ware one. 

It is not impossible that an L11 beaker group made it to Poland and then the SNP occurred there before a later expansion back to the west took place. 

I don't know whether or not U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker or both, but aren't you shaving a bit close with what can only be regarded as rough estimates based on collections of modern haplotypes? The interclade range for P312 and U106 is about 5k - 4k years ago. The upper end puts it easily within reach of Corded Ware, and that's assuming the estimates have it right, and the actual event didn't happen 500 or 1,000 years earlier.



Its just very counterintuitive to link two branches of L11 that split soon after that SNP to two cultures that originated not only at opposite ends of Europe and spread in different directions.  Its certainly not an easy fit with the current mainstream ideas on beakers and corded ware which do not see a common root for corded ware and beaker.  The old idea that beaker was a derivative of westernmost corded ware would actually have fitted far better.  The one massive caveat is that while a reasonable amount of sense has been made of the origins of corded ware, beaker still seems to almost come from nowhere even if it is oldest in SW Europe.    Given beakers apparent mastery of the waves and trade routes it wouldnt be all that surprising if some beaker jumped to Poland.  Once there it could have spread in any direction, including back west. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 14, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
... Ken's also added some coalescence and sigma calculations for each group at the top but I don't think these feature in the final output.
Jdean or MHammers or whoever is mathematically inclined.  Can you describe in layman's terms what "GABn" represents?  If I ask Ken he essentially answers with the formula. That's okay, I'm just trying to get a layman's description.
I've tried working out exactly what GABxxx, or GABn as Ken calls it now, is but have failed. My best guess is it's just part of Ken's calculation for SIGxxx and not of specific interest to us by itself.....
My assumption is the relevant data now is the interclade age GABw and SigGABn ...
That's what I understand too. GABxxx (now GABn) is not the Generations to the Interclade MRCA man for the pair of clades (A & B.) It is an abstract concept, of which I can't why describe in layman's terms but essentially it is the way to "shake" out the higher Sigmas caused by the fact that interclade TMRCA calculations Sigma's for the two clades are additive in the first place.  

It's really a pretty simple concept, but there is no way I could put that into a formula. I think Ken is just looking at this like we'd look at out the primary colors blue and yellow blend to make green and we'd just figured out how to get the right shade of green. LOL. God bless him.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on December 14, 2011, 04:00:46 PM
We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  

In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 14, 2011, 04:38:51 PM
We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  
In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.
The one area Anatole Klyosov should know is R1a1 TMRCAs. I wouldn't get too hung up on his language theories. Here is what he says about movements and expansions.
Quote
The haplogroup R1a1 was practically saved by the fact that 4,800 years ago, in the beginning of the third millennium BC, its bearers moved from Europe to the Eastern European Plains, and settled the territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea, 4,500 BP they were already in the Caucasus, 3,600 BP they were in Anatolia (according to the haplotypes of the R1a1 haplogroup in modern Anatolia). Meanwhile, across the Eastern European Plain they migrated to the southern Ural, and around 4,000 BP on to the southern Siberia, at that time they founded the Andronovo archaeological culture, colonized Central Asia (4,000 - 3,500 BP), and approximately 3,500 BP a part of them went to India and Iran as Aryans, bringing along the Aryan dialects, which effectively closed the linguistic link with the Aryan languages (R1a1) and led to the emergence of the Indo-European family of languages.

4,500-4,000 years ago the R1a1 disappeared from the Western and Central Europe, Europe became Türkic-speaking with the arrival of the people carrying R1b haplogroup (the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC), and that lasted until the middle of the 1st millennium BC (3,000-2,500 years BP), when the haplogroup R1a1 re-populated the Western and Central Europe...
http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm

I wonder that if there was an early wave of R1a1 to Scandinavia, if it spoke IE or stayed IE speaking. If R1a1 brought IE in N. Europe early, you'd think there would some other early branching from Germanic.  How do the Balto-Slavic IE languages relate to Germanic?  Any clues as to their sequence?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 05:14:18 PM
We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  

In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 05:20:08 PM
We normally rely on variance to determine the origin point but does R1a variance peak in the steppes area?  
In the R1a1a project, the oldest R1a branches by snp are among Scandinavian and other NW Europeans.  The Ukraine and Russian members are under downstream mutations as are the south/central Asian ones.  There is older upstream R1a in SW Asia.  So, in a broad sense it looks like 1) R1a starts in the east, SW Asia in this case, 2) goes to Europe, 3)then turns around and expands back toward the east.  2 fits well with Corded-Ware and 3 fits with later IE and Slavic movements.  As for when and where R1a entered Europe is even more uncertain.
The one area Anatole Klyosov should know is R1a1 TMRCAs. I wouldn't get too hung up on his language theories. Here is what he says about movements and expansions.
Quote
The haplogroup R1a1 was practically saved by the fact that 4,800 years ago, in the beginning of the third millennium BC, its bearers moved from Europe to the Eastern European Plains, and settled the territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea, 4,500 BP they were already in the Caucasus, 3,600 BP they were in Anatolia (according to the haplotypes of the R1a1 haplogroup in modern Anatolia). Meanwhile, across the Eastern European Plain they migrated to the southern Ural, and around 4,000 BP on to the southern Siberia, at that time they founded the Andronovo archaeological culture, colonized Central Asia (4,000 - 3,500 BP), and approximately 3,500 BP a part of them went to India and Iran as Aryans, bringing along the Aryan dialects, which effectively closed the linguistic link with the Aryan languages (R1a1) and led to the emergence of the Indo-European family of languages.

4,500-4,000 years ago the R1a1 disappeared from the Western and Central Europe, Europe became Türkic-speaking with the arrival of the people carrying R1b haplogroup (the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC), and that lasted until the middle of the 1st millennium BC (3,000-2,500 years BP), when the haplogroup R1a1 re-populated the Western and Central Europe...
http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm

I wonder that if there was an early wave of R1a1 to Scandinavia, if it spoke IE or stayed IE speaking. If R1a1 brought IE in N. Europe early, you'd think there would some other early branching from Germanic.  How do the Balto-Slavic IE languages relate to Germanic?  Any clues as to their sequence?

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



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 05:23:42 PM
BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on December 14, 2011, 05:55:31 PM
BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 06:28:42 PM
BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

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

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

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

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



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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 06:58:21 PM
Here is another recent paper which indicates that in central and eastern Europe the idea that beaker people spread due to special skill in metallurgy is not supported

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

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



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 14, 2011, 07:27:38 PM
BTW, it is very hard to find an overview of current thoughts on beaker since the redating of the earlier beakers to SW Europe. So I was delighted to find this on the net

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

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

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

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

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

Found it on the web

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/bkue20pg4250h0md3ri8qjlh06/out.pdf


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 14, 2011, 08:58:54 PM
Its just very counterintuitive to link two branches of L11 that split soon after that SNP to two cultures that originated not only at opposite ends of Europe and spread in different directions.  Its certainly not an easy fit with the current mainstream ideas on beakers and corded ware which do not see a common root for corded ware and beaker.  The old idea that beaker was a derivative of westernmost corded ware would actually have fitted far better.  The one massive caveat is that while a reasonable amount of sense has been made of the origins of corded ware, beaker still seems to almost come from nowhere even if it is oldest in SW Europe.    Given beakers apparent mastery of the waves and trade routes it wouldnt be all that surprising if some beaker jumped to Poland.  Once there it could have spread in any direction, including back west.  

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

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

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

If Beaker began in Iberia, did U106 arise there, or was it "Beakerized" someplace farther east?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 14, 2011, 11:34:19 PM
It seems counter-intuitive to me to view both P312 and U106 as of Beaker origin, since the two have different distributions.
.... The major SNPs could have arisen in comparatively rapid succession, but what do we mean by rapid? Within 300-500 years of one another? That's still a lot of time, and a lot of landscape could pass under foot and wagon wheel in that time. L11 could have been spread all over Europe. P312 could have arisen in one place and U106 someplace else not necessarily close by.....
I think we have to add a caveat when assessing that U106's distribution is most concentrated in N. Europe. The caveat is modern frequencies do not necessarily indicate the origin was close by.

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

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


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

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

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 15, 2011, 01:52:29 AM
... If Beaker began in Iberia, did U106 arise there, or was it "Beakerized" someplace farther east?
Klyosov's answer to this is that P312 and U106 arose near the end of the journey. Remember the L11 (I guess L51 - L23 - M269) lineage coming from SW Asia down the Mediterranean Coast so by the time we get to Iberia we are basically to the destination - Western Europe.

On Rootsweb he described the end of the journey (or the start for P312 and U106) as being near the Pyrenees. Apparently he thinks there is really high diversity around there. Not sure where he is getting that from.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 15, 2011, 04:06:04 PM
One thing I will say is that I dont think the beaker problem will be solved by archaeologists using normal archaeological techniques.  Ancient DNA is the only way it will be solved.  The coincidence of the beaker problem and the L11 problem is uncanny.  I can only assume if yDNA is being extracted from Neolithic and Corded Ware groups that it can be done for beakers.  Beakers have the advantage that in many areas burial involves individual discreet burials in closed contexts.  Its baffling to me that no beaker yDNA has  been published yet.  There seems very little on the net about upcoming yDNA testing of beaker bones.  However, it surely must be a major target for people testing ancient DNA.  I would be amazed if we dont hear something about ancient beaker DNA in the next year or two. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 15, 2011, 07:00:20 PM

Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __  (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __  (4.7-4.1)
Here is a bit of a twist.

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

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

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

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

Looks reasonable but I threw Z56 into the mix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 15, 2011, 08:30:16 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 15, 2011, 09:02:46 PM
It has has been noted there are some concentrations in some non-northern areas. I went to the Myres frequencies and filtered U106xU198 to greater than 10% and found these places among the others...

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



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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 15, 2011, 09:09:31 PM

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 15, 2011, 09:17:51 PM
Mike,

Back in August, here (https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10012.0), in the thread, "R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1", you wrote:

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

Has that changed?

(The bold font is mine for emphasis.)

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

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

Have you changed your mind on that?



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 15, 2011, 10:26:54 PM
Mike,
Back in August, here (https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10012.0), in the thread, "R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1", you wrote:
Quote
Variance is higher over in Hungary, Czech Republic, but it is definitely highest in Poland.
Has that changed? (The bold font is mine for emphasis.)

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

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

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

We have much greater subclade resolution than we did a few of months ago. That may help sort out the geographical variance a little more reliability.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 15, 2011, 11:07:24 PM
...  I'll check out U106 STR variance again by geography. I'm a little more leery of that though, just because of the points that Busby made about insignificant differences across Europe for all of R-11 ....
Wow!
The differentiation in variance is even stronger. Eastern Europe looks like a winner.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 16, 2011, 12:04:24 AM

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

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

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Slovakia


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: MHammers on December 16, 2011, 09:56:49 AM
Still, U106 in Austria/Switz unexplained though. Any cultural movements from Poland south?

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 16, 2011, 04:36:59 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 16, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
..... If you look at U106 purely from a variance point of view, it kind of looks like it got up to the SE Baltic Coast, gathered up there and then and rolled straight west along the coast through the neck of Jutland, the Low Countries and on to England.  It seems like going north into Scandinavia and south into Germany were just tangential off-shots of the movement.  Alan, or anybody, does this map with any cultural movements?  The Anglo-Saxons would just be the last step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never did understand how Balto-Slavic Scandinavians tied in with Germanic speaking folks. As far as a cat for the English pigeons, does this mess up the lore of the English language and Beowulf and all of that?  In other words, the "old" Angles really don't have anything to do with Beowulf, it was just recorded in their language.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 16, 2011, 05:48:46 PM
...When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.
Prussia is one of my problem areas. People often list MDKA's from old Prussia or old Austria that are a bit hard to figure out.  However, all people that I classify in the Haplotype Data spreadsheets, I try to track to the province/county/dept, etc. As I do that, I use modern political boundaries (other than Ulster Ireland.) If a MDKA is in Alsace-Lorraine or Western Poland they may actually have a German lineage. I don't track that. I just track their actual location so Poland is Poland as we know it.

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 16, 2011, 05:58:06 PM
This is intended for archaeologists, historians or anyone trying to line up R-L11 subclades with ancient migrations. I extended the Generations7 (Ken Nordtvedt) output to display one and two sigma ranges graphically (in a rough way.) I then ran calculations for most of the major subclades of R-L11 and drilled down a bit more on R-L21.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 16, 2011, 07:05:14 PM
This is intended for archaeologists, historians or anyone trying to line up R-L11 subclades with ancient migrations. I extended the Generations7 (Ken Nordtvedt) output to display one and two sigma ranges graphically (in a rough way.) I then ran calculations for most of the major subclades of R-L11 and drilled down a bit more on R-L21.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif


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


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: alan trowel hands. on December 16, 2011, 07:08:10 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Totally agree.  Saved me a lot of typing!  I have a big soft spot for Poland for no real reason (no Polish roots). 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 16, 2011, 07:49:06 PM
...When discussing Poland, one has to very careful. It was not a country with set borders for many centuries, and existed only as a geographical description. The present day borders of Poland do not correspond with its pre-war borders. After WWII, the Soviets annexed the eastern half of Poland, and the easternmost provinces of Germany east of the Oder and Neise rivers were awarded to Poland.  Current day Poland includes the former German provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia and most of Pomerania. These areas, inhabited by various Baltic and Slavic tribes, were heavily settled by Germans in the middle ages. If you have someone with ancestry in East Prussia with a German surname, it would probably show up as Poland, even though their ultimate ancestry might very well be from Rhineland. There has also been significant German migration into Poland proper in historic times. To get an accurate picture of Poland, one would have to filter out all the German surnames, especially those from the areas which were essentially German from the 13th century to 1945.
Prussia is one of my problem areas. People often list MDKA's from old Prussia or old Austria that are a bit hard to figure out.  However, all people that I classify in the Haplotype Data spreadsheets, I try to track to the province/county/dept, etc. As I do that, I use modern political boundaries (other than Ulster Ireland.) If a MDKA is in Alsace-Lorraine or Western Poland they may actually have a German lineage. I don't track that. I just track their actual location so Poland is Poland as we know it.

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

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

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

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



With respect to Poland, if you get a name such as Schmidt with an EKA in East Prussia, it is almost certain that their origins are in Germany, not Poland. There were no Germans in the Prussian provinces I mentioned before the middle ages. Settlement from Germany continued for several centuries, until such point as the original Slavic or Baltic people became a minority. So if you include these Germans in your variance calculations for Poland, you are not going to get an accurate result. This applies to all of northernmost Poland and a significant portion of southwest Poland (former Silesia). So yes, a high density of an SNP in Poland could be due to German migration in the historic period. You would have to look for U106 in Polish/Baltic/Slavic surnames to get an accurate result. I see your U106 sample from Poland is only nine. I would be willing to bet that most if not all of these 9 have origins in Germany. If I had a way of looking at the surnames and EKA locations, I could give you a fairly accurate estimate.

As far as I know, the Rhineland was never deserted. I suspect it has been a location of comparatively high population density since the Bronze Age, if not before.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 16, 2011, 07:51:28 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Totally agree.  Saved me a lot of typing!  I have a big soft spot for Poland for no real reason (no Polish roots).  

I have had a very strong interest in East Prussia (Ostpreussen) for many years, and have more than a passing familiarity with its history. No known East prussian roots though...


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 16, 2011, 08:08:02 PM
I don't think it would be wise to exclude German surnames from the Polish analysis, since many "Germans" in the East (including eastern Germany) were Germanized Slavs, and that has to be considered, as well as the notion that German surnames in Poland have their ultimate source in the Rhineland (a notion I think is mostly unsupported).

I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but its article on the Ostsiedlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung) (Eastern Settlement), says, "According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities . . .".

Besides that, the variance in Germany is considerably lower than that in Poland and Eastern Europe. If western Germans formed a substantial part of the Polish U106 population, shouldn't they have dragged the variance down a bit with their closer haplotype resemblance to one another?

I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 16, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
My question about East Midlands was not prompted by U106 variance, but rather by U106 frequency. In the latest maps there appears to be a drop off in U106 in the East Midlands . . .

I think the simple answer is the cline in U106 frequency in England (and in Britain generally) from southeast to northwest. As one moves into the Midlands, he is moving west and north in the general direction of decreasing U106 frequency and increasing L21 frequency.

It seems to me that also represents a move away from the continental sources of U106 along the North Sea littoral.

Naturally, and this seems like mere common sense to me, as one moves north and west across England he is moving in the direction of decreasing Anglo-Saxon penetration and greater British survival.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: A.D. on December 16, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
I don't know if it has any bearing on the DNA  types but at school (in England) I was taught that Anglo-Saxon was a term of convenience for various tribes from across the channel. The one thing I do remember is the Jutes came from Jutland and settled in Kent. Hengist and Horsa were supposed to have taken over Kent and they were Saxons. There were umbrians  who settled in the N East i can't remember where the came from. What I want to know is if these peoples DNA matches where they are supposed to come from  e.g is there any similarity between Jutland and Kent. If a certain tribe came from a U106 heavy  area would  that correspond to the area they settled in. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 17, 2011, 02:39:10 AM
My question about East Midlands was not prompted by U106 variance, but rather by U106 frequency. In the latest maps there appears to be a drop off in U106 in the East Midlands . . .

I think the simple answer is the cline in U106 frequency in England (and in Britain generally) from southeast to northwest. As one moves into the Midlands, he is moving west and north in the general direction of decreasing U106 frequency and increasing L21 frequency.

It seems to me that also represents a move away from the continental sources of U106 along the North Sea littoral.

Naturally, and this seems like mere common sense to me, as one moves north and west across England he is moving in the direction of decreasing Anglo-Saxon penetration and greater British survival.
No, that's not what I mean. Maybe Maciamo Hay's map is just messed up but he has supposedly collected data from Myres, Busby and whatever was out there on U106 to do his frequencies. The cline isn't as you described. It's more solid than that but with a bite out of it.

He has West Midlands, North East, most of South West all with higher frequency than East Midlands. Yorkshire and of course South East and East are higher as well but only far the South West and far North West fringes of England have lower frequencies of U106 than East Midlands. It's like a bite was taken out of the right side (east). I was wondering if the Danes took that bite.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM
Oh, I see the map you're referring to here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml). Yeah, that is weird. He's got the eastern part of the East Midlands in his 15-20% range as opposed to the 20-30% range he has for much of the rest of England.

From what I recall of Busby's results for England, Maciamo wouldn't need any of that range beyond 25%. The U106 frequency in Busby never got past that in any of the sample locations. The sample in Southwell in Nottinghamshire was about 16%, but the one in Lutterworth in Leicestershire was 24%.

I suspect he may have based that "bite" on the map on the slightly lower U106 frequency in the Southwell sample. It may be more apparent than real.

If it is real, however, I wonder what makes up the deficit. I1?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 09:32:35 AM
By the way, I think the cline I described does exist. Busby's English sampling was skewed to the east, with the exception of Exeter in Devon, and, from what I can see from Myres' Table S4, the sample locations are not specified but are only given as "England Central", "England North", "England Southeast", and "England Southwest". Perhaps Myres et al listed the specific sample locations someplace else in their report?

Anyway, if one compares the U106 frequencies with those of L21, he can see that L21 increases steadily as one moves north and west across England. We don't have samples from the actual north and west of England to confirm that, but it does seem the case, especially if one looks at the sample frequencies from Wales and Scotland.

The Busby sample from Exeter in Devon in SW England has L21 at about 38%. U106 never achieves a frequency that high anywhere in England in either Busby or Myres. Busby has U106 at 25% in the Exeter sample, and Myres has U106xU198 at 29% in its "England Southwest" sample (33% U106 if one includes U198 - and I would). That seems odd for the west, but the sample was still taken from southern England nonetheless, and we don't know what Myres et al meant by "England Southwest". I don't have the actual Myres paper anymore, just the spreadsheets.

It looks like the Lutterworth sample from Busby is the same as Myres' "England Central", since the frequencies of the respective haplogroups are exactly the same. I haven't compared the other places in both reports.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 17, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
....I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source....  
I have two slightly different perspectives related to this.

1) The closeness in age to P312 and U106 can only result in one of two implications or some combination. The first implication is that they are of a close geographical source. That, we'll probably never really know yes or no on as either lineage could have struggled several generations at "home" or just after leaving "home" while he was traveling. The second implication is that this was just a very mobile culture, a network, that was capable of dispersing widely in scattered colonies while still being "close" culturally speaking.  The factors are time (closeness of age), geography and speed of colony travel/startup.  They all come into play. To which is more important?  I don't know.

2) I'm asking for folks to think a little more about the European L11 family.  This is actually an extension of a point Ken Nordtvedt has made in the past. SNP's are not really the essence of a clade. The MRCA for a group of people is. SNP's are just great markers. The "big" founder at the base of a new branch may not have the SNP that 99% of the people on the branch have. This is important to keep in mind. SNP's are just happenstance markers some where along the true lineage branch lines. Also keep in mind that interclade MRCA's can be estimated better than clade MRCA's. The following is from the "time-line" graphic I just posted at the P312 Yahoo Group.
2500 BC - L11* P312&U106 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* U152&L21 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* U152&Z196 interclade MRCA
2400 BC - P312* L21&Z196 interclade MRCA
2000 BC - U106* Z381&Z18 interclade MRCA
Yes, the interclade modal for Z381 and Z18 is younger than the P312's interclade pairs. That doesn't mean U106's MRCA is that much younger than P312 but he could have been.  The above are what Ken calls father-son transmission events.  Each date is an estimate of a single event, causing gates in time that we have to account for and these are within a few hundred years of each other. Granted, the dates estimated are just the midpoints of the error ranges. (My graphic shows this.)
Anyway, L11 is a family that back in 2000 BC could have been considered a "genealogical" time-frame cluster.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?
I agree exactly with this point. How can target geographies have more diversity than the source population unless there are multiple separate old sources?  I don't think we are seeing that for U106. Relatively speaking, it arose and expanded quickly.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 05:08:46 PM
I think the L11s were very mobile and that U106 could have arisen in an L11 kindred group that had already put considerable distance between itself and the kindred group in which P312 arose.

Proximity is a relative term, of course. One can walk from Moscow to Paris in a single summer.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 17, 2011, 05:53:48 PM
I don't think it would be wise to exclude German surnames from the Polish analysis, since many "Germans" in the East (including eastern Germany) were Germanized Slavs, and that has to be considered, as well as the notion that German surnames in Poland have their ultimate source in the Rhineland (a notion I think is mostly unsupported).

I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but its article on the Ostsiedlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung) (Eastern Settlement), says, "According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities . . .".

Besides that, the variance in Germany is considerably lower than that in Poland and Eastern Europe. If western Germans formed a substantial part of the Polish U106 population, shouldn't they have dragged the variance down a bit with their closer haplotype resemblance to one another?

I personally don't think both P312 and U106 necessarily had the same or a very close geographical source.

The higher Polish variance is of a piece with the generally higher U106 variance in the east (i.e., Estonia, Poland, Slovakia). How can that be explained away by reference to a source population with lower variance?

The claim is often made that U106 has its highest variance in Poland. My point is that if that determination is made from a sample of nine, and some of that nine consists of Germans from that portion of Germany which was awarded to Poland after WWII, it is unreliable.

Since you are quoting Wikipedia, I will quote from their article entitled History of German Settlement in Eastern Europe.

"Population growth during the High Middle Ages stimulated the movement of peoples from the Rhenish, Flemish and Saxon territories of the Holy Roman Empire eastwards into the less populated Baltic region and Poland."

The simpe fact is that there no Germans in the area which currently comprisies Poland before the 13th century. It was inhabited by various Slavic and Baltic tribes. Rich, you are always maintaining that the Slavs are R1a and the that U106 is Germanic. If this is correct, by your own definition any U106 whose ancestry comes from what is today Poland should be of Germanic and not Slavic origin, and their ancestry most likely come from Germanic settlers who arrived there in the Middle Ages or later. Whatever variance they have is most likely transplanted from other areas.

However I was speaking primarily aboput East Prussia, a subject I know more than a littlle about. This area was inhabited by heathen Baltic tribes in the 13th century, when it was conquered by a German military order called the Teutonic Knights (Deutsche Ritterorden). They began a practice of encouraging immigration from other parts of Germany (not just the Rhineland, which I merely used as an example), as well as from Holland and Flanders. This included nobles, merchants, craftsmen and peasants.  Migration into East Prussia continued for centuries from Germany and other parts of Europe. No doubt many of the indigenous population became germanicized, but can one assume that the sample of nine only includes descendants of such people?

For souces, see Carsten, F. L., The Origins of Prussia, (he was one of my old professors); and Gause, Fritz, Ostpreussen, Leistung und Schicksal. The latter includes an article tracing the origin of settlers in East Prussia by analyzing dialectical patterns.

I would not be surprised at all if U106 had its highest variance in eastern Europe.  I would be very surprised if it's in the Baltic area, unless someone can demonstrate that the U106 in the Baltic area isn't a result of migation from Germany in the medieval and later periods.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 06:16:48 PM
I have said that U106 in general is Germanic, but I happen to know from my own reading of German history that many persons with German surnames, especially in eastern Germany and modern Poland (large areas of which once belonged to Germany) are descended from Germanized Slavs. And, since "Slavic" and "Germanic" are largely linguistic and cultural categories, a U106 whose ancestors had been in Poland a long time and had never come from western Germany could be as much a Slav as any R1a. If he converted to Christianity as a result of the missionary efforts of the Germans, began speaking German, and ultimately adopted a German surname, he would switch from Slav to German, all the while never having lived in western Germany or having y-dna ancestors who came from there.

I don't recall Mike saying the Polish U106 sample size was nine, but, if one cannot assume that any of them descend from Germanized Slavs, likewise one cannot assume that any of them descend from Rhinelanders either.

You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.

If the sample size is just nine, and it is already showing higher variance than larger sample sizes, it seems to me likely that the addition of more Polish haplotypes won't alter that relative position much. Of course, I am not a statistician, so I could be wrong about that.




Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
By the way, I counted ten U106 in the R1b-U106 Research Project with origins listed in Poland and Slavic, not German, surnames. That does not include the two or three (or however many) with German surnames.

I counted 18 U106 in the Polish Project with Slavic and not German or obviously Jewish surnames. Here they are:

1. Kryzanowo   183916
2. Gasiorkiewicz   42906
3. Sadowski   N8449
4. Majka   205335 and 181492
5. Danko   113462
6. Lapinski   102524
7. Szczublewski   102069
8. Dorszewski   N52352
9. Zablotny   213188
10. Janow   176004
11. Mellerowicz   155290
12. Pacek   202816
13. Jaskulski   N38649
14. Skrobisz   204720
15. Orlowski   N82242
16. Mos(s)akowski   196406
17. Glebocki   N11968
18. Majka   116432 (not a match for the other Majka above and with a different ancestor listed)


I left out the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Latvians listed in that project, and those with German or obviously Jewish surnames, as well.

I also counted eight Polish U106 whose surnames are not listed.

Of course, Mike would have to tell us how many Polish haplotypes he used for his calculations.

Note: Okay, I see above that he used nine. Perhaps he would like to use as many of the 18 above as have sufficient markers (I think that is all but one) and see how that comes out.
 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 17, 2011, 07:52:52 PM
I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames.

I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples?

Here's another thing. Poland and Lithuania were one under the Jagiellonian Dynasty and included much of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. If some modern Poles descend from Germans, certainly many modern Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Russians descend from Poles. My own mother-in-law, who considers herself Ukrainian, has a Polish mother and was born in Lvov, which has changed hands a number of times. She can speak Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and German.

So perhaps it might be wiser, when looking at U106 haplotype variance, to simply lump all those with Slavic surnames and eastern European origins together, given the fluidity of ancient borders.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 17, 2011, 09:47:58 PM
.... So perhaps it might be wiser, when looking at U106 haplotype variance, to simply lump all those with Slavic surnames and eastern European origins together, given the fluidity of ancient borders.
As far as academic studies data collection goes, they really should only test in rural areas where the surveyee's lineage has been from the area as long as is known.  The National Genographic Project does this. Unfortunately, some of these R1b studies are just rehashing accumulative data. That's not really great science.
If anyone want to take a crack at classifying all of the L21 folks, let me know. I save a column in the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet for surname type. Right now its hidden because I haven't done much with it. In some cases, like in Britain, its a little hard to tell sometimes.

EDIT: You'll also get your complaint or two about subjective judgements. For instance, it can be argued that the Irish made an impact in Mexico so even if you classify a surname as Spanish, I've seen some argue that they may just be Irish immigrants there...  and that is true, could be.  This is why I haven't jumped into surname classifications.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on December 17, 2011, 10:03:56 PM
You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.




Comparing me to Faux is a low blow, which I think is unworthy of you. I have never tried to argue that any speciific subclade should be exclusively identified with any particular ethnic group. I have invariably argued against these ideas.

Nor do I have any particular agenda. I am just trying to seek out the truth, while urging people to keep an open mind. This science is in its infancy, and I think far more remains unknown than known. If I have had any particular theme, it is to challenge currently perceived ideas (such as P312= Bell Beaker and U106= Corded Ware, or that no U106 could have reached Britain before the Anglo-Saxons). If I have any general theory, it is merely that the settlement of Europe is likely to be very complex, and that simplistic scenarios should be viewed with great caution.

However once again it is apparent to me that I am  wasting my time, as people will believe what they want to believe. 


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 17, 2011, 11:57:03 PM
.. I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples...
In defense of Myres, they don't really ever claim to be classifying by surname ethnicity. That is a subjective matter so I think they are wise to avoid it. The MDKA geographic classification method is objective, at least.

From a parsimonious perspective, why shouldn't we just suppose a U106 in Poland, or a U152 or Z196 or L21 for that matter, is just that? This doesn't mean their lineage did or didn't ever speak German. If the respective MDKA doesn't have any other folklore (i.e. Lurz and the German community in Transylvania or the Askenazi,)  I don't think we should read any more into it. If they do have some folklore like that, let's note it, but that's about all I can see we can do with it.

I'll use myself as an example of the complexities of classifying by surname ethnicity. My MDKA is from Co. Kilkenny, Ireland. That's it.  That's objective.

My surname gets into a lot of subjectivity. It is one of the most common surnames in Ireland so you could classify it as Irish.  However, it is also pretty common in parts of England so should it be classified as English? I don't think so. We have historical documents that say our surname is Anglo-Norman. Should it be classified as Norman? I don't really think so as it's not a typical French Norman name. Irish history puts in the Anglo-Norman class, though. The meaning of the surname is literally "Welsh man" so maybe it should be classified as Welsh, although it is a rare (very rare I think) surname in Wales.

This is why I stay out of the surname classification business, but again, if some one wants to give it crack, I'll add it to the spreadsheet I maintain so we can slice and dice by surname ethnicity. Just download the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet add your ethnicity classification to a column at the end and I'll set up some sorts and filters for the surname ethnicity column.



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 18, 2011, 01:01:11 AM
I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames. .....

The U106 Haplotype_Data file is out at the S21/U106 Yahoo Group file section, not the L21 Yahoo group (for anyone who wants to add surname ethnicity.)

The variance calculations I did used the following from our DNA projects where MDKA's are listed as from Poland or from a Prussian type village/city that is in modern day Poland. There are 40 hts below. For the "Linear 36" calculation I just used the first 25 since they are 67 in length.

f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Rogoźno
f176004   Janow   R-U106   Poland
f183916   Krzyzanowo   R-U106*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Wielkopolska
fN89895   Schulz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland,  Lubusz Voivodeship, Żagań
f204720   Skrobisz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326*   Poland
f160294   Barkman   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f71114   Driedger   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f136466   Targ   R-U106   Poland
f181492   Majka   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
f155290   Mellerowicz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Kalisz
f83695   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f193192   Briese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland, Greater Poland, Voivodeship, Gniezno Co., Potrzymowo
fN38649   Jaskulski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland
f196406   Mosakowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Masovian Voivodeship, Ciechanów, Mossaki
f213188   Zablotny   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland
fE8124   Giese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gryfino Co., Mętno Mała, Kleinmantel
f155181   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1   Poland
f70832   Meyer   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f205335   Majka   R-U106   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
fN52352   Dorszewski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198   Poland



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 18, 2011, 10:41:18 AM
You still have the problem of attempting to explain away higher Polish U106 variance, and higher eastern European U106 variance in general, by references to a source population with considerably lower variance. That is reminiscent of Faux's fevered attempts to make all French L21s into Irishmen or Britons, but there, at least, in his defense, the differences were not as great as in this case.




Comparing me to Faux is a low blow, which I think is unworthy of you. I have never tried to argue that any speciific subclade should be exclusively identified with any particular ethnic group. I have invariably argued against these ideas.

I apologize for creating that impression, but I wasn't comparing you to Faux. I was talking about his disregard for haplotype variance in attempting to make French L21 British and Irish. It seems to me trying to make Polish U106 German does the same sort of thing. That's all.

Nor do I have any particular agenda. I am just trying to seek out the truth, while urging people to keep an open mind. This science is in its infancy, and I think far more remains unknown than known. If I have had any particular theme, it is to challenge currently perceived ideas (such as P312= Bell Beaker and U106= Corded Ware, or that no U106 could have reached Britain before the Anglo-Saxons). If I have any general theory, it is merely that the settlement of Europe is likely to be very complex, and that simplistic scenarios should be viewed with great caution.

My mind is open; we just disagree on the current state of the evidence. I don't think U106 and P312 were so inextricably intermixed in prehistoric and ancient times as to be unclassifiable in general. I get the impression from your arguments that you think they were.

Klyosov has been arguing on Rootsweb that U106 and P312 both originated in Iberia among the first Beaker Folk and spread from there. I guess that is possible, but I don't think that's true; at least for now I don't. I would have to see some convincing evidence.

I personally think we all have agendas; sometimes we just don't recognize them. But if you don't have one, I don't either. I don't really give a flip about U106, honestly. Once I got a U106 negative result from Ethnoancestry and an amen on that from FTDNA, my interest in U106 took a nose drive. Now it matches my interest in most other y haplogroups.

But it doesn't bother me at all when U106 guys claim they're descendants of Anglo-Saxons, or some other type of Germanic barbarian, or Vikings or Normans. Fine. From what I can see of the evidence, they're probably right.

I just can't see how U106 and P312 could have been thoroughly mixed in prehistoric and ancient times and yet come up with the very different distributions we see today. I don't think U106 has been in Britain (not in force, anyway) since the Bronze Age. It couldn't have had much of a Celtic component at all, or it would be more prevalent in places where the Celts used to live.

However once again it is apparent to me that I am  wasting my time, as people will believe what they want to believe.  

Well, I apologize for upsetting you, which I obviously have. I should not have made the remark about Faux, although, honestly, I did not intend to compare you to him but merely to point out the folly of explaining away the high variance of one population by deriving it from another of lower variance.

I don't see why high Polish U106 variance would bother anyone or why it is suddenly a matter of "belief", as if we were arguing theology.

I don't "believe" anything with regard to the haplotype variance of U106 but what Mike tells me or what I hear from other reliable sources who can do the sort of math I cannot. I asked Mike about Polish variance because I remembered him saying that Polish U106 variance was the highest U106 variance. I also recall Tim Janzen saying the same thing sometime ago. Frankly, that is where I got the idea that U106 might be connected to Corded Ware. If its variance had been highest in France or Spain, I might have thought U106 had some connection to Beaker Folk or some other culture.

My idea, which could be totally wrong, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or belief, is that at least part of P312 was Beaker and spoke an early form of Celtic. That's it. As a consequence, I think U106 was probably something Not-Beaker. It seems to me U106 was farther north and east than P312 in its origins.

No big deal. I could be wrong. I understand that. I once thought I was probably U106+, but I was wrong about that. Got that mistake confirmed twice and paid money for it both times.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 18, 2011, 10:52:35 AM
.. I wonder if Myres et al would have been so stupid as to call a Polish sample Polish if it in fact included persons with obvious German surnames. Wouldn't that be a little like including Sullivans and Murphys in a supposed sample of Englishmen just because they happen to reside in Liverpool or Leeds? Aren't geneticists supposed to know better than that? Would they include Turkish Gastarbeiter in their German samples...
In defense of Myres, they don't really ever claim to be classifying by surname ethnicity. That is a subjective matter so I think they are wise to avoid it. The MDKA geographic classification method is objective, at least.

From a parsimonious perspective, why shouldn't we just suppose a U106 in Poland, or a U152 or Z196 or L21 for that matter, is just that? This doesn't mean their lineage did or didn't ever speak German. If the respective MDKA doesn't have any other folklore (i.e. Lurz and the German community in Transylvania or the Askenazi,)  I don't think we should read any more into it. If they do have some folklore like that, let's note it, but that's about all I can see we can do with it.

I'll use myself as an example of the complexities of classifying by surname ethnicity. My MDKA is from Co. Kilkenny, Ireland. That's it.  That's objective.

My surname gets into a lot of subjectivity. It is one of the most common surnames in Ireland so you could classify it as Irish.  However, it is also pretty common in parts of England so should it be classified as English? I don't think so. We have historical documents that say our surname is Anglo-Norman. Should it be classified as Norman? I don't really think so as it's not a typical French Norman name. Irish history puts in the Anglo-Norman class, though. The meaning of the surname is literally "Welsh man" so maybe it should be classified as Welsh, although it is a rare (very rare I think) surname in Wales.

This is why I stay out of the surname classification business, but again, if some one wants to give it crack, I'll add it to the spreadsheet I maintain so we can slice and dice by surname ethnicity. Just download the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet add your ethnicity classification to a column at the end and I'll set up some sorts and filters for the surname ethnicity column.



I agree with you. I don't see how it could be otherwise without first doing extensive genealogical screening on all potential test subjects.

Man, would that reduce the pool of test subjects and drive costs up!

If the waters of Poland's U106 haplotype pool have been so muddied by historical period Flemish, Scottish, German, etc., immigration as to be of no value, then what is to be said for the collections of haplotypes of every other European country, regardless of which haplogroup is being examined? Where can we find one that has experienced little or no population movement since the Stone Ages?



Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 18, 2011, 11:10:06 AM
I also see now (I saw it the first time but apparently forgot it) that Mike was referring to nine Polish U106 haplotypes from Myres. Like I said in my last post, perhaps he could use the U106 haplotypes with Slavic surnames attached to them from the Polish Project and see what kind of variance they have.

Regarding the argument about how many Poles are really Poles and not German transplants, from what I can see in the R1b-U106 and Polish Projects by far most of the U106 who list Poland as place of origin have Slavic and not German surnames. .....

The U106 Haplotype_Data file is out at the S21/U106 Yahoo Group file section, not the L21 Yahoo group (for anyone who wants to add surname ethnicity.)

The variance calculations I did used the following from our DNA projects where MDKA's are listed as from Poland or from a Prussian type village/city that is in modern day Poland. There are 40 hts below. For the "Linear 36" calculation I just used the first 25 since they are 67 in length.

f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   f71323   Brenner   R-U106   Poland (Jewish project)
f118001   Bronder   R-U106   Poland
f8767   Calman   R-U106   Poland, Bialystok (Jewish project)
f42906   Gasiorkiewicz   R-U106   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Chelmno
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f129194   Plenert   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodship, Montauerweide
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106*   Poland
fN8449   Sadowski   R-U106*   Poland, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Rypin
fE2541   Schirm   R-U106*   Poland, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Voideship, Ludwigsthal
f102069   Szczublewski   R-U106*   Poland
f113462   Wojciech   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przemyśl Co., Gmina Dubiecko, Niendowa
f122771   Breyza   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Kokoszkowy
f37631   Quiring   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk, Pietzkendorf
fE5021   Reitzig   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Schlesien, Pontwitz
f183286   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
fN11968   Glebocki   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Srem Co., Psarskie
f116432   Majka   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Limanowa Co., Gmina Jodłownik, Krasne-Lasocice
fN82242   Orlowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Poland, Silesian Voivodeship, Milowice
f202816   Pacek   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L163   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Przeworsk Co., Nowosielce
fN70032   Poland   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland
fE7334   Draheim   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Rogoźno
f176004   Janow   R-U106   Poland
f183916   Krzyzanowo   R-U106*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Wielkopolska
fN89895   Schulz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland,  Lubusz Voivodeship, Żagań
f204720   Skrobisz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326*   Poland
f160294   Barkman   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f71114   Driedger   R-U106   Poland, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdańsk
f136466   Targ   R-U106   Poland
f181492   Majka   R-U106*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
f155290   Mellerowicz   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Kalisz
f83695   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f193192   Briese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland, Greater Poland, Voivodeship, Gniezno Co., Potrzymowo
fN38649   Jaskulski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48*   Poland
f196406   Mosakowski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland, Masovian Voivodeship, Ciechanów, Mossaki
f213188   Zablotny   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47   Poland
fE8124   Giese   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8   Poland, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gryfino Co., Mętno Mała, Kleinmantel
f155181   zzzUnkName   R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1   Poland
f70832   Meyer   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48   Poland
f205335   Majka   R-U106   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Rzeszów
fN52352   Dorszewski   R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198   Poland



Are you still getting higher U106 variance in Poland than anywhere else?

I understand the variance we were talking about earlier came from Myres' sample of nine.

Would it be difficult or too much trouble for you to separate out the German surnames and just use the Slavic ones for a calculation? I am curious if that would make much of a difference.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 19, 2011, 02:20:24 PM
Are you still getting higher U106 variance in Poland than anywhere else?
EDIT3: I'm redoing the numbers. The wierd Joos haplotype was causing a problem. I've fixed the data for him assuming his 446 value was not reflective a large GD # steps difference.

Quote from: rms2
I understand the variance we were talking about earlier came from Myres' sample of nine.
Yes. I don't remember how many STRs they used but their coalescence times included 9 from Poland. The only higher U106 coalescence time from Myres was Estonia on a sample of 10.

We can do just Slavic names but I'd prefer to do all Slavic names including Czech Rep, Slovakia, etc. so we can keep the numbers up.

EDIT1: I do need to double check calculations with the folks from Hungary. There are couple of null  425's in this mix which should be ignored in the calculations, but for some reason there is a wide swing.   EDIT2: ahh! An Hungarian has a 446=0.  Must be a misread.  


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 19, 2011, 04:13:45 PM
I changed the Hungarian Joos' DYS446 to the modal so he won't affect the calculations. This does show Ken N's point on the more STRs the better.  My "mixed STR" calculation was not drawn off as much Joos' abberration versus the "linear 36" STR calculation.

I hate to go into the multiple variance method comparisons, but given we aren't talking about hundreds and hundreds of haploytypes in places like Poland this more comprehensive look is needed.

The net is still that Poland looks older than Germany. It doesn't matter which of the four methods below is used, Poland always comes out higher.  However, the difference is much closer than what I posted originally. I wouldn't say these results are conclusive.

The Nordic Countries usually come out lower (younger) and Germany just a hair older than the Nordic Countries.


All East Europe_____:  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=58)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.85 [Linear 36]  (N=19)
Poland______________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=25)
Isles_______________:  Var=0.81 [Linear 36]  (N=637)
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.79 [Linear 36]  (N=89)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=104)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)    

Poland______________:  Var=0.97 [Mixed 49]  (N=25)
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.95 [Mixed 49]  (N=89)   
All East Europe_____:  Var=0.93 [Mixed 49]  (N=58)
Isles_______________:  Var=0.92 [Mixed 49]  (N=637)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.88 [Mixed 49]  (N=46)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.85 [Mixed 49]  (N=19)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.86 [Mixed 49]  (N=104)

Poland______________:  Var=1.12 [Linear 16]  (N=37)
All East Europe_____:  Var=1.02 [Linear 16]  (N=87)
Isles_______________:  Var=1.00 [Linear 16]  (N=795)   
Low Ctrys___________:  Var=0.98 [Linear 16]  (N=102)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.94 [Linear 16]  (N=143)
Nordic Ctrys________:  Var=0.81 [Linear 16]  (N=53)
Alpine Ctrys________:  Var=0.79 [Linear 16]  (N=27)   

Poland______________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=25 @67 (to subgroup modal)
Low Ctrys___________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=25 @67   
All East Europe_____:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67
Isles_______________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=24 @67
Nordic Ctrys________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=21 @67
Alpine Ctrys________:  AvgGD=15, MaxGD=20 @67   
Germany_____________:  AvgGD=14, MaxGD=24 @67



Still, it's kind of a "Busby blob" thing.  It's not really clear cut and need more data, especially in the Alpine area.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 19, 2011, 06:20:31 PM
Would it be difficult or too much trouble for you to separate out the German surnames and just use the Slavic ones for a calculation? I am curious if that would make much of a difference.

Here's my attempt at this.  I just looked at the Eastern European countries for what I think are Slavic. Essentially this means taking out some names that appeared German or Jewish.

It appears that generally speaking, focusing on Slavic surnames increase STR variance slightly. The "Slavic Names" calculations take the high variance under all four methods.

Slavic Names________:  Var=0.87 [Linear 36]  (N=29)
Slavic Names________:  Var=1.00 [Mixed 49]  (N=29)
Slavic Names________:  Var=1.16 [Linear 16]  (N=36)   
Slavic Names________:  AvgGD=16, MaxGD=23 @67   


I don't think adding or subtracting one or two will make much difference. I apologize if I have someone wrong.

Lewak   Belarus
Rogov   Belarus
Svoboda   Czech Republic
Zima   Czech Republic
Paroubek   Czech Republic
Jurasits   Hungary
Debesys   Lithuania
Katsev   Lithuania
Zajenkauskas   Lithuania
Janow   Poland
Jaskulski   Poland
Jastak   Poland
Lapinski   Poland
Poland   Poland
Skrobisz   Poland
Szczublewski   Poland
Zablotny   Poland
Mellerowicz   Poland
Glebocki   Poland
Krzyzanowo   Poland
Gasiorkiewicz   Poland
Sadowski   Poland
Majka   Poland
Mosakowski   Poland
Breyza   Poland
Orlowski   Poland
Wojciech   Poland
Pacek    Poland
Majka   Poland
Komarov   Russia
Muska   Slovakia
Evasiuk   Ukraine
Fedorowicz   Ukraine
Ferleyko   Ukraine
Sklyarov   Ukraine
Sudravskiy   Ukraine


The caveat is still there that these differences in variance are not huge and I don't think conclusive.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 19, 2011, 07:52:20 PM
Interesting. Not as startling as Myres' nine, but still a bit higher variance for the U106 with Slavic surnames.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 19, 2011, 08:01:37 PM
Interesting. Not as startling as Myres' nine, but still a bit higher variance for the U106 with Slavic surnames.
I still think Ashkenazi people will be critical. Both in U106 and in U152, there are people with unusual haplotypes that are in Jewish R1b type projects.

Are they from Rhine? Khazaria? or the Levant? or who knows?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Peter M on December 28, 2011, 07:24:20 PM
Is this topic still alive ? Anybody in for a slightly different approach ??

Talking about early U106 and Eastern Europe, I've always wondered about the relatively high level of L47, a somewhat younger SNP, in Eastern Europe (and apparently in e.g. Scandinavia).

Anybody any idea/opinion on that ?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 28, 2011, 08:42:21 PM
I still think Ashkenazi people will be critical. Both in U106 and in U152, there are people with unusual haplotypes that are in Jewish R1b type projects.

Are they from Rhine? Khazaria? or the Levant? or who knows?
You know I have always supported that many Jewish haplotypes are of European extraction, and I have paid for this, but I have always said too that we cannot exclude an ancient origin of these haplotypes from Middle East, specially R-L4, which has many characteristic mutations. Of course we should reconstruct the true ancientness of these haplotypes (and you know I’d multiply for 2.5 the usual dates). If it were true, we could think to an ancient migration (probably from Europe) to Middle East, or, if R1b were from Caucasus or Central Asia, a migration from there. But the problem is always the same: those places lack the path of the haplogroup that Europe, and specially Italy, has. The same R1b (if it will be so) of Tutankhamon may have the same origin, even though it seems that at the autosomal level he is above all African, but his Y, if ancient, would have had a little impact. I had done an explication of the Jewish R-L4 from an European origin, but I didn’t post it for not having polemics. Really those haplotypes get some mutations in the first 12 markers, but the rest is in the modal, and could be explained like the followers of European clusters otherwise extinct in Europe but multiplied in the Ashkenazic great expansion. Anyway the truth, whichever it will be, will have to be pursued in freedom and honesty of judgment.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 29, 2011, 10:17:10 AM
Is this topic still alive ? Anybody in for a slightly different approach ??

Talking about early U106 and Eastern Europe, I've always wondered about the relatively high level of L47, a somewhat younger SNP, in Eastern Europe (and apparently in e.g. Scandinavia).

Anybody any idea/opinion on that ?

You know, I am not that familiar with L47. Since the R1b-U106 Research Project is not organized by terminal SNP, it makes easy investigation impossible. One has to go through and laboriously find and sort.

Of course, the presence of a downstream SNP in Eastern Europe doesn't alter the overall variance of U106 as a whole versus its variance as a whole elsewhere.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Peter M on December 29, 2011, 12:40:43 PM
You know, I am not that familiar with L47. Since the R1b-U106 Research Project is not organized by terminal SNP, it makes easy investigation impossible. One has to go through and laboriously find and sort.

As far as I'm concerned, the R1b-U106 Project is not organised AT ALL, at least not so as to support research. $:-)

Of course, the presence of a downstream SNP in Eastern Europe doesn't alter the overall variance of U106 as a whole versus its variance as a whole elsewhere.

Therefore I started by asking if anybody would be open for a different approach. I would like to have a look at the distribution of the SNPs. Primarily of Z18, as that's my main interest, but, I guess, younger SNPs like L47 or Nul425 might be useful as well. Btw, some guess L47 to be between 2,200 and 3,000 years old.

Would the presence of L47 in Eastern Europe indicate 1) U106 to have been relatively static for the first 1,000 - 2,000 years or 2) L47 in Eastern Europe to be the result of more recent eastern migration ? btw, e.g. in Hungary there is a significant population who migrated from Germany after 500AD; I know, Hungary is Central Europe, but still it indicates eastward migrations DID happen.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 29, 2011, 01:21:31 PM
I think we're open to anything, but how do we find out about the distribution of these SNPs without putting in a lot of work?

Are there even enough men with positive results to give a real indication?


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 29, 2011, 05:04:20 PM
... Since the R1b-U106 Research Project is not organized by terminal SNP, it makes easy investigation impossible. One has to go through and laboriously find and sort.
As far as I'm concerned, the R1b-U106 Project is not organised AT ALL, at least not so as to support research. $:-)
I've got all the U106 confirmed haplotypes I could find from the U106, U198, null439, Z18 and several large geographic projects. They are stored in the Haplotype_Data-R-U106All spreadsheet.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/files/

Terminal SNPs are listed, including the recent Z SNPs. You can filter or sort by them.  Variance is calculated at the bottom of the Allhts tab/worksheet.

I don't think L47 is that old, but as Maliclavelli has pointed out, U152's L4 and it's brothers are an interesting East European group.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: Peter M on December 29, 2011, 08:44:47 PM
I think we're open to anything, but how do we find out about the distribution of these SNPs without putting in a lot of work?

Would Mike's spreadsheet provide a reasonable starting point ?

Are there even enough men with positive results to give a real indication?

That's a difficult issue when we are discussing just about any area of Continental Europe, I guess. My first observation was about the ratio between U106 and L47 and not so much about the absolute numbers.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: rms2 on December 30, 2011, 09:41:52 AM

Would Mike's spreadsheet provide a reasonable starting point ? . . .

No doubt, but I would have to join Yahoo's R1b-U106 group to even look at it, and I am not willing to do that.

I started Yahoo groups for both P312 and L21 but quit them because I found the Yahoo format aggravating. I don't want to join another one, sorry.


Title: Re: TMRCA and Coalescence Age estimates for R-M269 and its subclades
Post by: GoldenHind on January 04, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
While I think an examination of U106 subclades is long overdue, I am not willing to join the Yahoo U106 group either. I am still a member of the Yahoo P312 group, but I almost never look at it, except when I see Mike has a new file up. Unfortunately these long Excel files have a tendency to freeze my computer.

I agree with Rich that the way the U106 project at FTDNA makes it extremely difficult to examine its members by subclade. Sometimes I wonder if that is entirely coincidental.

Peter, I congratulate you on your effort to investigate U106 subclades. I just don't know where the best place is to initiate a discussion on the subject. I don't think there are enough people here who have sufficient interest in the subject to make the discussion productive.