World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: alan trowel hands. on September 16, 2012, 12:41:33 PM



Title: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 16, 2012, 12:41:33 PM
quote author=alan trowel hands. link=topic=11042.msg139018#msg139018 date=1347722968]
Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20 [/font]

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England.  It seems an open shut case.  If we assume U106 in the NE is around 4-5000 years old then that would fit a pattern of it being holed up there and only arriving extending into the west in the Iron Age.  

However, ther above table record the journey west of U106.  It doesnt record the journey that took it to Estonia and Poland in the first place.  The only conclusion I can see is there is no such trail because the U106 SNP didnt exist when the lineage moved there.  It was still an L11* line when it arrived there and the U106 SNP occurred in-situ in the NE of Europe.  If I recall correctly there is a small L11* concentration along the Baltic is roughly the same sort of area where U106 SNP most likely occurred.
[/quote]


Moving on from the apparent holing up of U106 in the east until late, I find it almost too much of a coincidence that U106 expanded west around the time the Germanic shifts happened.  I have wondered for a long time about the tribes like Cimbri and Teutones with their possibly Celtic names and the Celtic names of their chiefs etc.  Old style analysis based on the idea of Hallstatt/La Tene=Celtic tended to play down the possibility of the Celtic nature of those tribes.  However if the Celtic language spread long pre-dates this then I dont think this arguement is so sound.  If you think about it if U106 was stranded far to the east rather late on as variance suggests then the remaining R1b in what is north Germanic Europe may have been largely of the P312 type and perhaps of relates to a period when the R1b connection was largely with the west. Although this may be hard to square with current archaeological interpretations, it seems a heck of a coincidence to me that the expansion of U106 west coincides with the evolution of Germanic and its period of expansion.  I am very tempted to think that back in the beaker period and into the early and mid Bronze Age that what is now north Germanic Europe could have featured a dialect of the Celto-Italic branch (most likely Celtic or something similar).

If the variance was taken literrally then the most likely cultural home of U106 would be the Lusation culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

This had all sorts of complex links and included a related possibly offshoot culture in east-central Germany, the House Urn culture.  As you can see from the link (although it is Wiki so handle with care!) the culture did include Poland, Slovakia and extended into parts of east-central Germany too (Probably originating in Poland).   The culture has never been identified convincingly with any ethno-linguistic group.  Of course it is only towards its end that its period overlaps with the Germanic language as the latter simply didnt exist prior to the language shifts.  I notice the idea of pre-German is being used a lot these days but exactly what and where that was is an open question.  Clearly the expansion phase of Germanic appears to best coincide with the expansion of both Jastorf culture and U106 further west.  However, all the components involved in the genesis of Jastorf are a little vague and probably multiple. What I think may have given a hypothetical Lusatian/House Urn U106 element importance is they belonged to a far wealthier and trade orientated culture compared to those of most of Germany, Scandinavia etc.  Certainly a home in the Lusatian culture for U106 followed by incorporation within the Jastorf best fits the variance element.  


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mkk on September 16, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
Here is the variance Mike calculated last year:


Quote
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)

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Looking at the wiki article, it says the culture you mentioned had links with both the Nordic Bronze and the Halstatt cultures. I've heard it said U106 has a hotspot around Austria ; maybe links with these regions brought U106 to both?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 16, 2012, 06:24:12 PM
Here is the variance Mike calculated last year:


Quote
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)

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.
 

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense.  Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.   

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC.  I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either.  It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there. 

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106.  U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.     


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jarman on September 16, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
Here is the variance Mike calculated last year:
Quote
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)
The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.
Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.
Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense.  Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion
I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.   
This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC.  I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either.  It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there. 
It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106.  U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.     
Quoting from the Wiki article on Pre-Roman Iron Age:
"The cultural change that ended the Bronze Age was affected by the expansion of Hallstatt culture from the south and accompanied by a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe."
I wonder what impact this depopulation (and later repopulation) of Scandinavia might have on the variance measures of current U106 - any thoughts?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 16, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
Here is the variance Mike calculated last year:

Quote
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)

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.
 

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense.  Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.   

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC.  I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either.  It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there. 

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106.  U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.     

You've heard me bring up the Jastorf Culture in relation to U106 before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture

To me, it looks like a nice alignment of proto-Germanic and U106. I'm not saying I1 or R1a1 did not play an important role as well though.

The Jastorf had influence from the south, whatever "influence" means, but that is Hallstat Celt they are talking about.  P312* (maybe DF27) was in this mix.  So would Hallstat's influence have accounted for P312* (maybe DF27) in Jastorf or would that be U106 coming up from the south.   ... or was U106 coming from the east and old Globular Amphora territories.  I don't think U106 was coming from the north. It's diversity is too low there. That must be I1 and maybe R1a1 and maybe even some R-P312* (maybe DF27) from the north.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: samIsaack on September 16, 2012, 11:40:49 PM
Here is the variance Mike calculated last year:

Quote
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)

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.
 

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense.  Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.   

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC.  I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either.  It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there. 

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106.  U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.     

You've heard me bring up the Jastorf Culture in relation to U106 before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture

To me, it looks like a nice alignment of proto-Germanic and U106. I'm not saying I1 or R1a1 did not play an important role as well though.

The Jastorf had influence from the south, whatever "influence" means, but that is Hallstat Celt they are talking about.  P312* (maybe DF27) was in this mix.  So would Hallstat's influence have accounted for P312* (maybe DF27) in Jastorf or would that be U106 coming up from the south.   ... or was U106 coming from the east and old Globular Amphora territories.  I don't think U106 was coming from the north. It's diversity is too low there. That must be I1 and maybe R1a1 and maybe even some R-P312* (maybe DF27) from the north.


Its a shame that DF27/Z196 were not yet available when the Old Norway study took place. Surely if they found SRY2627 and M153 up there, they can find some DF27 hiding in that P312. Of course theres still the more Norse-esque L238 and the Germanic-esque DF19 to consider. Though I'd still say DF27 would make an impact, however small. If I'm not mistaken didn't SRY2627 outnumber both U152 and L21 in one region.. seems like it was Blekinge? Leaving the remaining P312* open to interpretation.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mkk on September 17, 2012, 02:27:30 PM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: SEJJ on September 17, 2012, 03:14:39 PM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?
In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 17, 2012, 03:24:40 PM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

The pan-European variance cline is pretty clear to me the SNP appeared first in the east, stayed there a long time and then expanded (mainly to the west).  I think the main question it poses is the genesis of the Jastorf culture and the Germanic expansion.  U106's expansion into the west seems to coincide (and therefore contribute to) the Jastorf culture even though it seems to have been most likely in the Lusatian culture zone to the east of the Nordic Bronze Age.  U106 doesnt seem to just be a minor addition.  You could argue U106's expansion was one of the main drivers of Jastorf and the Germanic ethnogenesis and expansion.  As far as I understand Lustian culture was far more advanced and well connected than that to their west.  U106 is potentially the main common yDNA denomenator of the Germanic peoples.  I think U106 could potentially mean archaeologists may have to have a rethink about the origins of Jastorf and the Germanic expansion. The expansion of U106 seems to have been very important.  

Of course Germanic has often been seen as a peculiar branch of IE with a lot of words with a lack of cognates and the need for torturous derivations to yield IE parallels.  There has been talk of a mix of centum and saetem charachteristics, hybriding, substrates and all sorts of strange aspects of Germanic (which linguists bicker a lot over).  Perhaps the U106 extension into the old core Nordic Bronze Age areas to the west around the time of the genesis of the Jastorf culture is a factor.  Soem of the crucial shifts in the creation of Germanic are dated to the end of the Bronze Age around the same sort of time.  One things seems clear is that U106 from a late start seems to have throrougly penetrated the later Germanic speaking areas of Europe in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age but was apparently not present before this.  Its success that seems to run in tandem with the expansion of Germanic languages does seem to imply it was at the top end of the Germanic social strata in some way.  So, I wonder if the importance of influences and people coming from the south Baltic in the later Bronze and Iron Ages has been very much underestimated in terms of the Germanic linguistic ethnogenesis.  Interestingly, the Lusatians, must have been relatively close to Baltic and even Finnic speakers were not too far away beyond and of course Celts to the south.  I am not sure what linguists would read into an important intrusion from the south Baltic in late Prehistory.  It might actually explain quite a lot but I am not in a position to say how that fits in with the general feeling on the early origins of Germanic and its early contacts.        


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 17, 2012, 03:34:30 PM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?
In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?

Although I do think that there must be some evidence of a major bottleneck in the right area and time for that to be a major issue.  I once had a discussion with Ken N on this and he seemed to feel that while it needs to be factored into area where the population was extremely low that the terms gets misused and over-applied.  Its less likely to have a true population bottleneck in the sort of period U106 etc was around in Europe which was well settled by then.  it works better in situations like hunter-gatherers and very lightly settled areas than it does in later times.  I dont think bottlenecks would be a major factor in the normal period associated with U106 and P312.  What you can get is founder effects though when a tiny subset of a larger group moves for the first time into a new area and the subset is an atypical selection of the origin population.  However, that is exactly what variance should be picking up. 


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 17, 2012, 03:36:11 PM
quote author=alan trowel hands. link=topic=11042.msg139018#msg139018 date=1347722968]
Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20 [/font]

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England.  It seems an open shut case.

...


In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Do we know if Polish U106 is a hodge-podge of different subclades?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 17, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
quote author=alan trowel hands. link=topic=11042.msg139018#msg139018 date=1347722968]
Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20 [/font]

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England.  It seems an open shut case.

...


In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Do we know if Polish U106 is a hodge-podge of different subclades?

I think France and Ireland can be completely ignored because of the tiny samples.  In general though I think there is an old eastern block and a much younger western block (England, Holland and Denmark).  In between is less tidy (and that will happen when modern national boundaries are used) but I suppose its central European.  The important big contrast is between the Baltic at one end and the north Germanic zone at the other which is pretty massive.  i take your point though that it does seems to imply that the clade may have entered central Europe before the late Holland/Denmark/England NW Germanic area.  I dont find that too baffling as the Lusatian culture and allied cultures in the late Bronze Age did extend at some point into Slovakia, Czech and east and central Germany.   So it did thrust into central Europe prior to any possible entry of elements from it into Jastorf culture.  So, very broadly (and it is never going to be a perfect match after 1000s of years) the sequence of NE Europe-central Europe-NW Europe for U106 variance does fit fairly well with an origin in the Lusatian culture and the related House Urn culture.   


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 17, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
quote author=alan trowel hands. link=topic=11042.msg139018#msg139018 date=1347722968]
Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20 [/font]

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England.  It seems an open shut case.

...


In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Do we know if Polish U106 is a hodge-podge of different subclades?

I think France and Ireland can be completely ignored because of the tiny samples.  In general though I think there is an old eastern block and a much younger western block (England, Holland and Denmark).  In between is less tidy (and that will happen when modern national boundaries are used) but I suppose its central European.  The important big contrast is between the Baltic at one end and the north Germanic zone at the other which is pretty massive.  i take your point though that it does seems to imply that the clade may have entered central Europe before the late Holland/Denmark/England NW Germanic area.  I dont find that too baffling as the Lusatian culture and allied cultures in the late Bronze Age did extend at some point into Slovakia, Czech and east and central Germany.   So it did thrust into central Europe prior to any possible entry of elements from it into Jastorf culture.  So, very broadly (and it is never going to be a perfect match after 1000s of years) the sequence of NE Europe-central Europe-NW Europe for U106 variance does fit fairly well with an origin in the Lusatian culture and the related House Urn culture.   

While the Lusatian Culture fits nicely with the above variances, I don't think the above variances will stick in the long run. Copper Age Poland was probably as R1a+I2 heavy as it is today if we consider Corded Ware distribution. It would take a leap of 'variance' faith to then think that U106 would break away all on it's own a thousand years later only to come out stronger in an area coincidentally full of other L11 subclades. In my mind, central or northern Germany is probably the easternmost limit for U106's birth.

(Again, all based on gut feel)


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 17, 2012, 05:42:56 PM
While the Lusatian Culture fits nicely with the above variances, I don't think the above variances will stick in the long run. Copper Age Poland was probably as R1a+I2 heavy as it is today if we consider Corded Ware distribution. It would take a leap of 'variance' faith to then think that U106 would break away all on it's own a thousand years later only to come out stronger in an area coincidentally full of other L11 subclades. In my mind, central or northern Germany is probably the easternmost limit for U106's birth.
(Again, all based on gut feel)

Don't get me wrong, you may well be right. We are just speculating but why do you think it was a leap of faith for U106 to be part of a longer movement west, as we know it moved west and south into old Roman Empire and Gallic lands? There is pretty strong historic evidence of the Anglo-Saxon movements through Frisia and into England.  There are some pretty strong alignments of Germanic languages and U106. There are legitimate hypotheses that pre-Germanic languages started far to the east of Germany and U106 is older than proto-Germanic speaking.

We might also consider it a leap of faith that U106 was held out of England and stopped firmly at Calais for a millennia. Instead, an easier explanation is that the historic period movements into England were just a latter phase of longer pre-Germanic and Germanic movements westward and southward.

As far as genetic STR diversity evidence goes, both academic (with their hopefully more representative data) as well as the long haplotype DNA project data indicate higher STR diversity to the east of German/Polish border.  On the other hand, what genetic evidence is there that U106 was born in present day Germany?

Again, you may be right, but this is a crucial matter as has been pointed out for L11 as a whole. If U106 came from further east, the center of probability gravity for L11's launch point gets pulled further east (out of the Rhone/Rhine Valleys) with it.

The L11* MRCA for P312 and U106 was a single man. It is true he could have travelled wide and far in his lifetime, but I think it is more likely he was successful because he had the full logistical support of a colonization/settlement group with him.  The early explorers, traders and trappers don't leave the mark the settlers do. Who would those colonizers/settlers be?  Probably a lot of relatives, hence the real L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 was back home and several generations dead at the time of the colonizations. Maybe the actual progenitor was not even from Western Europe at all.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 18, 2012, 07:47:24 AM
All good points Mike, but I can't really put my faith in variance that isn't at least three levels down from such a large group like U106 and especially not from academic studies with less than 20 or 30 samples. In fact, most papers don't even use those sample when they map the frequency. I know from using your P312 spreadsheet that the geographies dance all over the place the more you "peel back the onion".


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 18, 2012, 08:07:06 AM
All good points Mike, but I can't really put my faith in variance that isn't at least three levels down from such a large group like U106 and especially not from academic studies with less than 20 or 30 samples. In fact, most papers don't even use those sample when they map the frequency. I know from using your P312 spreadsheet that the geographies dance all over the place the more you "peel back the onion".

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mkk on September 18, 2012, 10:22:06 AM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?
In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?
Yes, this is one of the main problems of variance calculations. I think one should look at a combination of the variance data, history, frequency to make predictions about where and when a haplogroup originated.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 18, 2012, 11:32:35 AM

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

No real data or methodologies, just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 18, 2012, 01:06:13 PM
U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.
Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?
In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?
Yes, this is one of the main problems of variance calculations. I think one should look at a combination of the variance data, history, frequency to make predictions about where and when a haplogroup originated.

I agree and disagree with the points here.

First, I definitely agree that we should look at all the information possible, subclade frequency (and at various levels), haplogroup and STR diversity (and at various levels including interclade relationships), archaeology, ancient DNA, mt DNA, autosomal DNA, linquistic information, known historical movements, even legends and folklore, etc., etc.

However, the different types of information provide different insights. Increasing frequency does not necessarily correlate with increasing time in a location, as we get back into early and prehistoric times. If we can correlate a subclade frequency, like U106, to Germanic languages (at least in a general way) and to Anglo-Saxon lands, then we can start the trail backward from there. In other words, frequency is helpful in determining the end of a trail and various correlations, not the beginning. In the case of U106, since there is some correlation with Germanic languages and since U106 is much older than proto-Germanic, then we can look backward in time at where pre-Germanic IE dialects are thought to come from. For this reason, I think we have to consider the Globular Amphora cultures with U106. Is modern frequency highest for U106 in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States?  No, but that means little for an ancient trail that was probably washed out by everything from the Huns (EDIT: I meant to indicate the Huns stirred up migrations, not that they directly intervened anywhere near the Baltic coasts) to the Slavic expansions. The higher diversity is therefore important in ancient expansions. That's the whole idea of the genetic molecular clock.

I don't see how bottlenecks are a big problem. The L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 might have survived a castrophic bottleneck for just be an early descendant of an L51 man, but the correlation of diversity and time back to this person doesn't change. The beauty of looking at diversity by subclade and then estimating interclade ages is that helps overcome some problems with missing branches in the Y DNA tree.

...  just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.

I agree, this needs to be understood. I don't think it is hard to see how R1a and I2 could be dominant out in this area in modern time given the number of migrations that have occurred across the fairly easy to traverse northern plains of Europe. However, we do have Corded Ware R1a1 ancient DNA but no U106 so that may or may not mean a lot. I would suggest that Corded Ware is a very broad territory and should be considered an horizon rather than a culture. Just like Rhenish Bell Beaker folks may be different than Iberian Bell Beaker folks, there may be diversity within Corded Ware. It's big.

I'm not ruling out U106 coming from the L11* based from the Rhine/Rhone but I just think it is more likely to have come from a little further east, possibly the upper Danube, Hungarian plains, or even possibly just north or east of the Carpathians if that is where pre-Germanic came from.

This is off-topic, but I acknowledge that the easterly leaning in my thinking is influenced by the higher diversity of L23* in places like Anatolia to go with the high ratios of L23* to L11 types there. Perhaps L23*'s diversity is actually highest in Romania or the Balkans, but either way, we are not in Western Europe any more. I guess some would argue for Italy but I just don't think Impressed Wares and IE languages link up at all.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 18, 2012, 01:14:33 PM

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

No real data or methodologies, just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.

I suppose that begs the question about the variance of R1a and I2 in the Baltic.  Is it old or is a lot of this down to Slavic expansions into this area.  Is R1a in Poland older than U106.  Does the variance indicate that U106 in the Baltic really was an island in a sea of R1a?  I have no idea but I would appreciate any comment on this.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 18, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
... that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware

The Slavs were not involved in Corded Ware. The Slavs entered what is now Poland in the post-Roman period. So we are liable to see Slavic R1a and I2 from that period. The R1a in Corded Ware was presumably of earlier type. Though of course not tested for the SNPs available now, the scientists who found it matched it to Germanic haplotypes.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: polako on September 18, 2012, 09:42:02 PM
Posting Deleted. 

Terry


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: polako on September 18, 2012, 10:53:55 PM
Posting Deleted

Terry


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 19, 2012, 01:04:21 AM
Posting Deleted

Terry


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 19, 2012, 05:27:42 AM
@ Polako

I knew my post would call you up! :) The problem with Underhill 2010 was that they used the "evolutionary effective" (!!) rate, which gives dates considerably too old. So although they actually discovered the Slavic marker R1a1a1g1 (M458), they failed to connect it with the Slavs. Woźniak 2010 set out to find a Slavic marker via haplotypes and realised just prior to publication that it matched M458. As Woźniak 2010 point out, the germline mutation rate better fits the archaeology. Looks like Woźniak has backtracked in the paper for which we only have the abstract, as it mentions "evolutionary age". Thrilling for you of course, but pretty silly from my point of view. Especially now when we are getting R1a1a split so neatly by the new SNPs. Not to mention the IBD results of Ralph and Coop 2012. Southeastern Europeans share large numbers of common ancestors which date to the Slavic expansions around 1,500 years ago.

But the new Woźniak paper certainly should be interesting for its analysis of mtDNA H5a, which appears to have spread with the Indo-Europeans. (The "evolutionary" estimate of its age is of course older that the estimate in Behar. We need not bother with that.)  


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 19, 2012, 06:02:40 AM
Therefore, the Corded Ware remains from Eastern Germany match modern Eastern Germans..

The only man I know with an exact haplotype match to Eulau has English ancestry. The idea that modern East Germans descend directly from Corded Ware on the very spot they now live is naive. A whole lot of movement has gone on in between.



Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: A_Wode on September 19, 2012, 11:08:25 AM
I2-M423 might have a younger spread than R1a1 though, perhaps at a time when the tribes of Central Europe were populous enough to not be intimidated by newcomers who might consider waging a war. Alternatively, I2-M423 spread could be even younger than the Roman empire. It stops suddenly at Czechs/Slovaks where as haplogroups usually seen as 'neolithic' such as G2a3b1 and E-V13 are evenly distributed across Central Europe at low levels.

All the modern evidence points to Germany and France being major staging grounds for R1b expansion. I suspect that P312*/U152 were key in Gaulish and Central European Celtic expansions, and U106+ being a major player in Germanic expansion. Who wer the original PIE speakers is immaterial as far as I am concerned. The evidence points to these haplogroups being involved in the spread of and likely origin of the languages - even if they inherited the proto-language from someone else.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 19, 2012, 11:34:12 AM
... Who wer the original PIE speakers is immaterial as far as I am concerned. The evidence points to these haplogroups being involved in the spread of and likely origin of the languages - even if they inherited the proto-language from someone else.
It is true that the languages don't equal the genes, but I don't think we want to ignore linguistic analysis and hypothesis. They are just additional puzzle pieces that do fit, we just don't know how. A very good book related to this is "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.

I don't necessarily contend that U106 or a pre-U106 R1b lineage was one of the original PIE speakers, but U106 appears to be a part of the original Germanic speaking groups. If so, that is a clue.

U106 is a good candidate for carrying pre-Germanic IE dialects. The only other choices that I can see are I1 and R1a1. I1 doesn't appear to have come from any hypothesized PIE homeland so it leaves R1a1, U106 or both as pre-Germanic IE dialect carriers. We know R1a1 is heavily associated with Satem IE languages like the Balto-Slavic languages. Germanic is Centum based so that doesn't help us decide that R1a1 was the pre-Germanic dialect carrier so U106 is still a very viable alternative.  If U106 wasn't speaking pre-Germanic dialects of IE early on, what was U106 speaking? The only other alternative that seems likely to me is a pre-Italo-Celtic dialect, which means U106 converted to Germanic speaking at some later stage, like the Jastorf Culture. From my perspective, it is simpler to accept U106 as the leading candidate for Centum based pre-Germanic dialects of IE.

Either way, the primary PIE homeland theories place it in Anatolia or the Pontic Steppes... both well east of the Germanic speaking heartland. Also, of course, the Globular Amphora culture must be considered as a leading candidate for pre-Germanic speaking people, at least according to folks like David Anthony.

... All the modern evidence points to Germany and France being major staging grounds for R1b expansion....

What is the evidence that U106 originated in Germany, if that is what you are saying? I agree Germany was a staging ground for expansion into Benelux and England, and possibly even a staging ground for expansion into the Scandinavian Peninsula. I don't see what would make us think U106 originated in Germany or France though.  Do you think U106 originated in Austria/Switzerland?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 19, 2012, 11:50:11 AM
Well, if we are in controversial territory, we might as well call upon Anatole Klyosov. I don't necessarily agree with his interpretations or conclusions but he has a good grasp for the data and everything I see is that his time calculations are close to methodologies like those of Nordtvedt's.

Quote from: Anatole K
The ancestral R1a1 haplotypes for the Norwegian and Swedish groups are almost the same, and both are similar to the German 25-marker ancestral haplotype.
...
the first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia) between 10 and 13 thousand ybp.
...
The ancestral haplotypes for the Polish, Czech, and Slovak groups are very similar to each other

I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Here are some of his conclusions.
Quote from: Anatole K
R1a1 haplotypes in the Eastern European Plain and across Europe and Eurasia in general has shown that R1a1 haplogroup appeared in Europe between 12 and 10 thousand years before present ... and after about 6,000 ybp had populated Europe, though, probably, with low density. After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally, along with I1.
...
Those who left behind, on the Eastern European Plain, re-populated Europe between 3200 and 2500 years bp[/quote]
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov/Klyosov2009R1aDNAEn.htm

Does the latest SNP testing bear out that the Norwegian/Swedish and German haplotypes are closely related and the Slavic are different?  That might help us if we can trace those two groups separately in how they might have related to U106.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 19, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

The dates from the R1a1a and subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/) are right there online in a very handy tree.

Ralph and Coop, The geography of recent genetic ancestry across Europe (http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3815) (2012) is also online.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 19, 2012, 12:08:23 PM
I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

The dates from the R1a1a and subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/) are right there online in a very handy tree.

Cool. I like the way they created that tree. Do you think the R1a project web site timeline on the tree looks correct? or is as good as any?

It looks like they have R1a-L664, R1a-Z282* and R1a-Z284 as the ones to possibly associated with pre-Germanic speakers and possibly U106. It is clear that R1a-L664, R1a-Z282* and R1a-Z284 had to get to NW Europe from far to the east. Do you think they were in western Corded Ware or late Neolithic movements of some type to get them deep up into NW Europe?


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 19, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
Therefore, the Corded Ware remains from Eastern Germany match modern Eastern Germans..

The only man I know with an exact haplotype match to Eulau has English ancestry. The idea that modern East Germans descend directly from Corded Ware on the very spot they now live is naive. A whole lot of movement has gone on in between.



In absolute terms, you are right, it is naive. But it is also naive to think that no modern East Germans descend from CW. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something in the neighborhood of 25%.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 19, 2012, 12:31:55 PM
I don't see any Germans here fighting over this. They invented the term Völkerwanderung. :)


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: A_Wode on September 19, 2012, 12:32:33 PM


What is the evidence that U106 originated in Germany, if that is what you are saying? I agree Germany was a staging ground for expansion into Benelux and England, and possibly even a staging ground for expansion into the Scandinavian Peninsula. I don't see what would make us think U106 originated in Germany or France though.  Do you think U106 originated in Austria/Switzerland?

I did indicate in a previous post France/W.Germany, but I didn't mention it here. I think suggesting somewhere like Greece or Ireland would be less intuitive no? I know the original founder could have lived anywhere on Earth, but I think there is a degree of reason which should be considered, especially when we should be considering the regions where European populations would have begun budding with the introduction of agriculture.

Some oddities about R1a*

- AFAIK the only members are NW Europeans (except a German surname and 1 Italian). Oddly enough, one lowland Scot clan seems to have members in R1a* and R-V88 - figure that one out.

-There is one misc member of this R1a* western branch in the Greek project. However no other information has been provided if they are in fact Greek.

-There is a R1 (a or b not sure) member currently pending in the R-Arab project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-arabia/default.aspx?section=yresults whose origin would be western coast of Iran if the tribal data is correct.

See if someone can predict his haplotype
13   25   14   10   12-12   12   12   11   13   14   31   17   
9-9   11   11   25   15   19   30   12-12-12-12-15-16   11   11   
19-21   15   16   16   16   34-36   12   11   11   8   
15-16   8   11   10   8   12   11   12   22-22   15   11   
12   13   14   9   13   23   21   14   12   11   13   10   11   
12   12

Note: Edited by moderator so that all posts could be viewed without
having to scroll back and forth. No changes to the actual content of the
post were made, just to the layout.





Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 19, 2012, 12:52:15 PM
Do you think the R1a project web site timeline on the tree looks correct?

I know nothing about the methodology L. L-L. is using. (It is explained top left of the tree). The main split that he gives between Asia and Europe at c. 3500 BC fits the date for the break-up of PIE deduced from linguistics and lexico-cultural dating. (Though there wasn't just one break-up. There were a series.) M458 at 2500 BC would fit OK with it arising in the Middle Dnieper after the departure c. 3200 BC of the group who went on to speak Baltic. The latter fit into Z280 on the tree. The date for  M458 might seem early, but we need to allow a lot of time for it to build up among the group who went on to develop Proto-Slavic, because it spread far and wide with them. 


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jarman on September 20, 2012, 09:18:52 AM
I am suspicious of the higher variance suggesting an eastern Baltic origin for U106.

Quoating from "Germanic peoples", a Wiki article:  "A deteriorating climate in Scandinavia around 850 BCE to 760 BCE and a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula." Such an outside addition to the population already there would increase the variance. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples]

Another Wiki article "Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe" compliments the above: ". . . a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe." The statement is accompanied by a map depicting The southward expansion of the Germanic tribes 750 BC – AD 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age]

I don't think we can rule out a Scandinavian origin for U106. That of course doesn't explain the movements of papa L11.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mkk on September 20, 2012, 10:15:34 AM
I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

The dates from the R1a1a and subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/) are right there online in a very handy tree.

Ralph and Coop, The geography of recent genetic ancestry across Europe (http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3815) (2012) is also online.
Klyosov's new paper on R1a makes no mention of Paleolithic R1a in the Balkans, so it seems he too has noticed the mistake in his methodology there.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: A_Wode on September 20, 2012, 10:23:50 AM

Ralph and Coop, The geography of recent genetic ancestry across Europe (http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3815) (2012) is also online.

Don't have access to the paper but I wonder if the various European plagues are partly responsible for these shared segments. Of course this is much less than 1500 years but it might still correlate.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 20, 2012, 10:53:59 AM
To get the paper click on PDF top right and wait patiently. It may be a slow download on your computer. I have broadband and it took a couple of seconds.

How would plague make people related who were not related before? The paper uses Identity by Descent i.e. the length of shared DNA segments. It is the same method that is used by 23andMe to calculate cousins among its customers.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 20, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
I am suspicious of the higher variance suggesting an eastern Baltic origin for U106...
...
Quoating from "Germanic peoples", a Wiki article:
Quote
 "A deteriorating climate in Scandinavia around 850 BCE to 760 BCE and a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula." Such an outside addition to the population already there would increase the variance. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples]
....
I don't think we can rule out a Scandinavian origin for U106. That of course doesn't explain the movements of papa L11.

I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet.  That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: A_Wode on September 20, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
To get the paper click on PDF top right and wait patiently. It may be a slow download on your computer. I have broadband and it took a couple of seconds.

How would plague make people related who were not related before? The paper uses Identity by Descent i.e. the length of shared DNA segments. It is the same method that is used by 23andMe to calculate cousins among its customers.

I would expect a drastic drop in population would homogenize the adjacent village populations to some degree.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 20, 2012, 12:20:32 PM
....
I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet.  That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.

Okay, looks like we have ball two. Jost's analysis of the Busby data set shows Norway with the highest variance.

....
S21(U106) has about the same generation age as S116 but checking out the population Variance (throw out BAS), has Norway in the lead as the most variance.
...

Important for all to note that Norway has the highest U106 variance in the Busby study and that the data is new to that study and was not part of the Myres 2011 dataset.

Mark J or Richard R, can you comment on why the Busby data and Myres data have different results?
 
Are different markers used, etc.?  How large are the samples?

For Norway, do you mean modern Norway? If so, that would be a twist as it has always looked like L21 was more common in Norway while U106 did better on the southern tip of Sweden... but if diversity is greatest there, it just is.

Did the Old Norway Project ever give us haplotypes?

We've talked about this on the STR Wars/diversity thread ad nauseum so I don't want to go too deep on general STR variance here, but I've never had consistent observations of relative haplogroup STR variance for R1b at low numbers of STRs. It has always seemed to start to even out at 25 markers and above. An actuarian on the M222 forum ran some simulations and said you really should have 50 markers at a minimum. Still, diversity is more important than frequency for determining an ancient trail.  The only question, is what data sets/measurements are most reliable and when is the best data we have more helpful than distracting. I am in the camp that thinks more data is always good, but all evidence should be ranked with precision and accuracy characteristics.

Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:
1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination
2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 20, 2012, 12:45:31 PM
There is a R1 (a or b not sure) member currently pending in the R-Arab project http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-arabia/default.aspx?section=yresults whose origin would be western coast of Iran if the tribal data is correct.

See if someone can predict his haplotype
13   25   14   10   12-12   12   12   11   13   14   31   17   
9-9   11   11   25   15   19   30   12-12-12-12-15-16   11   11   
19-21   15   16   16   16   34-36   12   11   11   8   
15-16   8   11   10   8   12   11   12   22-22   15   11   
12   13   14   9   13   23   21   14   12   11   13   10   11   
12   12

This is probably a real R1*, and doesn't mean anything about the expansion of R1a* or R1b*, being so ancient and diffused all over Eurasia and also Africa.

I have written a lot about R1a* in Western Europe, and probably the Klyosov's theory that put it in the Balkans owes something to it. Also if the Paper of Pichler was wrong in finding R1a* in the Rhaetian Region, they were at least R1a1*, not found in that percentage elsewhere, and also this is in favour of the origin of R1a* and R1b* in the Alps.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: A_Wode on September 20, 2012, 01:20:10 PM

This is probably a real R1*, and doesn't mean anything about the expansion of R1a* or R1b*, being so ancient and diffused all over Eurasia and also Africa.

I have written a lot about R1a* in Western Europe, and probably the Klyosov's theory that put it in the Balkans owes something to it. Also if the Paper of Pichler was wrong in finding R1a* in the Rhaetian Region, they were at least R1a1*, not found in that percentage elsewhere, and also this is in favour of the origin of R1a* and R1b* in the Alps.

Well no R1* has been found to date, at least none of the samples publicly available.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 20, 2012, 01:22:21 PM
Well no R1* has been found to date, at least none of the samples publicly available.

M8009 Almadani United Arab Emirates R1
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 31 17 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 30 12-12-12-12-15-16 11 11 19-21 15 16 16 16 34-36 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 11 12 13 14 9 13 23 21 14 12 11 13 10 11 12 12

These are the 22 slowest markers out of 67 markers of Klyosov:
12 12 14 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 11 12 13 9 12 11 11 12

And these are the same values I had for R1*:
12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12

It could be also R* (or R1* is more ancient than it is thought). A separation of more than 20,000 years.

There is also the possibility that the R* which generated R1* wasn’t the same which generated R2* and that some new SNPs should be found.

(Of course I have to control my data).


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 20, 2012, 01:28:22 PM
It seems that many R* were found by Rocca et alii in 1KGP: NA20895, NA20887, NA20903, NA21105 (Gujarathis, India). We should ask Rocca.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jarman on September 20, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:
1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination
2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland

FWIW (of no Beaker impact): There was so much depopulation of north Germany and southern Scandinavia in the 1st millenium AD. The most famous being the migration of Angles, Jutes and Saxons to Britain. And smaller events such as Charlemagne deporting 10,000 Saxons to Neustria, and killing over 4000 more for not converting from their pagan ways. I'm not positive how these would affect the statistics in north Germany, and admit they were likely not only U106, but nevertheless I'm thinking cutting off the tails of the bell curve is going to reduce diversity in the remaining population.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mark Jost on September 20, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
....
I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet.  That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.

Okay, looks like we have ball two. Jost's analysis of the Busby data set shows Norway with the highest variance.

....
S21(U106) has about the same generation age as S116 but checking out the population Variance (throw out BAS), has Norway in the lead as the most variance.
...

Important for all to note that Norway has the highest U106 variance in the Busby study and that the data is new to that study and was not part of the Myres 2011 dataset.

Mark J or Richard R, can you comment on why the Busby data and Myres data have different results?
 
Are different markers used, etc.?  How large are the samples?

For Norway, do you mean modern Norway? If so, that would be a twist as it has always looked like L21 was more common in Norway while U106 did better on the southern tip of Sweden... but if diversity is greatest there, it just is.

Did the Old Norway Project ever give us haplotypes?

We've talked about this on the STR Wars/diversity thread ad nauseum so I don't want to go too deep on general STR variance here, but I've never had consistent observations of relative haplogroup STR variance for R1b at low numbers of STRs. It has always seemed to start to even out at 25 markers and above. An actuarian on the M222 forum ran some simulations and said you really should have 50 markers at a minimum. Still, diversity is more important than frequency for determining an ancient trail.  The only question, is what data sets/measurements are most reliable and when is the best data we have more helpful than distracting. I am in the camp that thinks more data is always good, but all evidence should be ranked with precision and accuracy characteristics.

Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:
1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination
2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland

Two things as I understand. Busby selected a set of STRs that had a better linearity (D) that extended the coalescence time (T)and variance for deeper ancestry information. Higher the D has a direct affect on T, which is affected by the STRs properties. The chosen mutation rate affects the overall variance calculations. Busby used μ taken from Ballantyne et al 2010 where as Myres' used evolutionary mutation rates. They stated that "We used the observed m calculated recently [33- Ballantyne, K. N. et al. 2010] to rank the 15 STRs on a scale of speed, and separately calculated ASD based on the seven fastest and seven slowest rates (electronic supplementary material, table S4)."

All major differences but as Busby states the final word in all of this:

"Age estimates based on sets of Y-STRs carefully
selected to possess the attributes necessary for uncovering
deep ancestry (for example, from the almost 200 recently
characterized here [33]), and from whole Y chromosome
sequence comparisons, will provide robust dates for this
haplogroup in the future. For now, we can offer no date
as to the age of R-M269 or R-S127, but believe that
our STR analyses suggest the recent age estimates of
R-M269 [20] and R-S116 [21] are likely to be younger
than the true values, and the homogeneity of STR variance
and distribution of sub-types across the continent
are inconsistent with the hypothesis of the Neolithic
diffusion of the R-M269 Y chromosome lineage."

(Think I got all of this right)

I just wanted to see what MarkH's newest muation rates (Thank you Marko) would do to the results when I applied the sum of the 14 markers of the 15 (x389i) using my modification of MikeW's Age Estimator version 7.1 with KenN's newest Gen111T engine changing to more precise internal Excel functions, which I feel increases the accuracies.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11074.msg139574#msg139574

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mark Jost on September 20, 2012, 02:09:43 PM
I forgot to add the specific STRs that were used in Busby's study but 389i was not used in my estimates.

DYS19   DYS389I   DYS389b   DYS390   DYS391   DYS392   DYS393   DYS437 DYS438   DYS439   DYS448   DYS456   DYS458   DYS635   Y-GATA-H4


I added this and the Modal and Mean STR values for each Clade along with the mutation rates used to the previous PDF

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNVXNCR2J0VGw0cUk/edit

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 20, 2012, 02:30:51 PM
I would expect a drastic drop in population would homogenize the adjacent village populations to some degree.

It might happen to accelerate genetic drift by chance, but it would have the same effect all over Europe. That does not explain the difference between the Slavs and the Italians.



Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 20, 2012, 02:53:13 PM
One reason why I like the U106-Lusatian link is it  was a wealthy trading culture in an otherwise fairly impoverished late Bronze Age in the northern European plain.  Its relationships are complex though and its hard to pin down.  I remember reading about it years ago when it was usually called Lausitz culure and it seemed an impressive culture of the hierarchical trading elites type with fingers in many pies.  It seems to be thought of as IE but exactly what seems mysterious.  It seems to have been linked into both central Europe (and even the Med. via that) but also the Nordic Bronze Age too.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 20, 2012, 05:59:02 PM
Two things as I understand. Busby selected a set of STRs that had a better linearity (D)

I forgot to add the specific STRs that were used in Busby's study but 389i was not used in my estimates.

DYS19   DYS389I   DYS389b   DYS390   DYS391   DYS392   DYS393   DYS437 DYS438   DYS439   DYS448   DYS456   DYS458   DYS635   Y-GATA-H4

Ouch. We've been through this so I don't want to re-bore people to death. I wouldn't assume Busby's STR set is a good for comparing variance between populations. According to their own methodology the majority of these aren't even linear for the timeframe. According to Marko Heinilla's linear duration analysis, his work supports these STRs aren't very good as well.  To be fair to Busby, I don't trust the Myres or Balaresque usage of STR diversity (much of the data is common) either which also means when I cited the Myres results in this thread they too are really shaky.

These STR marker sets are just way too limiting.  I don't find consistency until I get up to using a very high number of markers, like 49 of FTDNA's 67, or Marko's longest linear 36 out of FTDNA's 67.... but that's a whole another topic. I can show long haplotype STR variance that I think is good but that will bring on complaints about FTDNA's lack of representativeness across geographies.  Still, it's the best we've got as far as I'm concerned where we do have decent numbers. There are lots of holes. geographically, in the data from FTDNA, although there are holes in the geographical distribution of the academic data as well.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jean M on September 21, 2012, 05:11:00 AM
One reason why I like the U106-Lusatian link is it  was a wealthy trading culture in an otherwise fairly impoverished late Bronze Age in the northern European plain. ... It seems to be thought of as IE but exactly what seems mysterious.  

Lusatian or Lausitz is just a type of Urnfield found in Poland and East Germany. We cannot be certain of the dialect of IE spoken there, since of course the region has seen subsequent waves of migration bringing Germanic and then Slavic, both very late types of IE. It might have been a bit different from the Celtic that was developing in the adjoining North Alpine region and the Baltic developing to the east. Both were pretty close to PIE in their early stages. So if we just imagine something fairly close to PIE, we won't go far wrong I imagine.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on September 23, 2012, 03:22:06 AM
U106 is at least 6000 ybp. Variance is unreliable. The subclade Z156 is a Bronze age SNP originating in the Isles.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mkk on September 23, 2012, 05:26:27 AM
U106 is at least 6000 ybp. Variance is unreliable. The subclade Z156 is a Bronze age SNP originating in the Isles.
What are you relying on for that 6000 ybp? Variance? Most of the amateur calculations come out as about 4000 years.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Jarman on September 23, 2012, 07:55:59 AM
Lusatian or Lausitz is just a type of Urnfield found in Poland and East Germany.

A more general question.  When did cremation replace inhumation in the now Polish regions? . . . Scandinavia? . . . northern Genrmany?  Is cremation connected to arrival of IE?  Thanks.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 23, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
MikeW,

I just ran U106 variance at 50 markers and got some surprises using your latest Spreadsheet.

Edit: Added column for counts.

N=   U106   Variance
n=   U106   Variance      Gen   Age @30
6     15.90   IS Eng North East      143.1   4,292.3
17    15.46   IS Sco East      139.1   4,172.5
6     15.23   EW Fra North & Central      137.1   4,112.4
4     14.58   IS Ire Connacht      131.2   3,936.9
14    14.10   IS Sco North      126.9   3,807.6
32    13.84   Poland      124.6   3,737.0
6     13.67   Ukraine      123.0   3,689.4
5     13.30   EW Fra Northeast      119.7   3,590.5
29    13.17   IS Eng South East      118.5   3,555.3
147    13.08   Ireland      117.7   3,529.8
49    13.01   IS Ire Ulster      117.1   3,513.2
11    12.95   EE East Mediterranean      116.6   3,497.2
50    12.89   EW Low Countries      116.0   3,479.0
147    12.81   Scotland      115.3   3,458.6
24    12.80   France      115.1   3,454.2
74    12.60   EE East Cont Euope      113.4   3,401.5
13    12.51   IS Sco West & Central      112.6   3,377.9
36    12.51   EW Ger Middle      112.6   3,376.6
5     12.50   Hungary      112.5   3,374.5
7     12.24   Spain EW Iberian Peninsula      110.1   3,303.8
11    12.18   Norway      109.6   3,287.0
14    12.11   IS Eng West Midlands      109.0   3,269.7
122    12.02   Germany      108.1   3,243.7
10    12.01   Finland      108.1   3,242.5
37    12.01   NO Baltic Sea      108.0   3,241.5
3     12.00   EW Fra North Atlantic      108.0   3,239.5
14    11.92   Denmark      107.3   3,218.7
21    11.83   EW Ger South      106.5   3,194.5
56    11.78   IS Eng South West      106.0   3,181.2
13    11.75   IS Wales      105.7   3,170.9
4     11.33   Czech Rep      102.0   3,059.5
17    11.31   IS Ire Leinster      101.8   3,054.6
216   11.30   Is Eng All      101.7   3,051.8
10    11.20   IS Ire Munster      100.8   3,023.5
22    11.14   EW Alpine & Cisalpine      100.3   3,008.6
22    10.94   IS Sco South      98.4   2,953.2
9     10.75   EW Iberian Peninsula      96.7   2,902.1
17    10.54   IS Eng East Midlands      94.9   2,845.6
31    10.45   IS Eng East      94.1   2,821.7
21    10.38   IS Eng Yorkshire      93.4   2,803.1
17    10.22   EW Ger North      91.9   2,757.9
27    10.21   Sweden      91.8   2,755.0
17    10.02   IS Eng London      90.2   2,704.6
14    9.65   Switzerland      86.8   2,605.5
6     8.42   Belarus      75.7   2,272.2
2     7.50   EW Aquitaine & Pyrenees      67.5   2,024.7
4     7.33   Slovakia      66.0   1,979.7
10    7.22   Lithuania      65.0   1,949.7
5    6.30   Russia      56.7   1,700.7

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Jarman on October 23, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
MikeW,

I just ran U106 variance at 50 markers and got some surprises using your latest Spreadsheet.

Variance   U106
20.1   IS Wales
15.9   IS Eng North East
15.5   IS Sco East
15.2   EW Fra North & Central
14.6   IS Ire Connacht
14.1   IS Sco North
13.8   Poland
13.7   Ukraine
13.3   EW Fra Northeast
MJost

Does it matter if DYS390 modal is considered 23 or 24?

[Please forgive if you answered this previously.]


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 06:21:48 PM
MikeW,

I just ran U106 variance at 50 markers and got some surprises using your latest Spreadsheet.

Variance   U106
20.1   IS Wales
15.9   IS Eng North East
15.5   IS Sco East
15.2   EW Fra North & Central
14.6   IS Ire Connacht
14.1   IS Sco North
13.8   Poland
13.7   Ukraine
13.3   EW Fra Northeast
MJost

Thanks, Mark. This will probably make Jaska happy because he doesn't like STR diversity by region. This is fairly granular. How big are the sample sizes?


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 23, 2012, 07:42:18 PM

Does it matter if DYS390 modal is considered 23 or 24?

[Please forgive if you answered this previously.

Only as it relates to any U106, not any subclades which I didnt not consider using. Only Regions.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 23, 2012, 07:45:53 PM
MikeW,

I just ran U106 variance at 50 markers and got some surprises using your latest Spreadsheet.

Variance   U106
20.1   IS Wales
15.9   IS Eng North East
15.5   IS Sco East
15.2   EW Fra North & Central
14.6   IS Ire Connacht
14.1   IS Sco North
13.8   Poland
13.7   Ukraine
13.3   EW Fra Northeast
MJost

Thanks, Mark. This will probably make Jaska happy because he doesn't like STR diversity by region. This is fairly granular. How big are the sample sizes?

You know I thought of that more than half way through, so no I didnt but these are Tested U106's from your latest spread sheet. I will get the info.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 23, 2012, 09:04:19 PM


Thanks, Mark. This will probably make Jaska happy because he doesn't like STR diversity by region. This is fairly granular. How big are the sample sizes?
ok posted the counts in the detail post
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11059.msg142049#msg142049

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 24, 2012, 01:13:44 PM
MikeW,

I just ran U106 variance at 50 markers and got some surprises using your latest Spreadsheet.

Edit: Added column for counts.

N=   U106   Variance
13   20.07   IS Wales
6    15.90   IS Eng North East
17   15.46   IS Sco East
6    15.23   EW Fra North & Central
4    14.58   IS Ire Connacht
14   14.10   IS Sco North
32   13.84   Poland
6    13.67   Ukraine
5    13.30   EW Fra Northeast
29   13.17   IS Eng South East
49   13.01   IS Ire Ulster
11   12.95   EE East Mediterranean
50   12.89   EW Low Countries
24   12.80   France
74   12.60   EE East Cont Euope
13   12.51   IS Sco West & Central
36   12.51   EW Ger Middle
5    12.50   Hungary

MJost

Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

BTW, let's assume for the sake of argument, that throwing all branches of a SNP like U106 on a single heap will produce anything but utter nonsense and let's see what this data as such will lead us to.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 24, 2012, 02:10:43 PM
Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

Peter, I think the sample sizes for many of the regions are quite small so it may be a little too granular of a geographic analysis to be very helpful (for making conclusions) yet.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 24, 2012, 05:44:23 PM
ok, Wales was incorrect, one of the haplotypes (f147174 Edwards) had a zero in 391. I remove 0** and 0's as a standard but must have missed this one. Thus dropping the variance to 11.4. But I rechecked every count and every variance amount and reposted them.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 24, 2012, 06:19:04 PM
Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

BTW, let's assume for the sake of argument, that throwing all branches of a SNP like U106 on a single heap will produce anything but utter nonsense and let's see what this data as such will lead us to.

I need to understand if it is incorrect to use combined variances (throwing all branches of a SNP like U106 on a single heap will produce anything but utter nonsense)

Nordtvedt states:
"Self-variances of entire clade C, or of separate subclades A and B, will give average age estimates (AAE) younger  than node n1, or n2 and n3, respectively.  " (Note: clade C (say U106), subclades A (Z38) and B(Z18), ect.)

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Different%20Variances.ppt

We are using 67 markers haplotypes improving the confidence. Ken method uses variance (both Whole and Sample population) to calculate generation ages and an increased variance is an increased age to a common ancestor.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Arwunbee on October 24, 2012, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: Peter M link=topic=11059.msg142110#msg142110
Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

To me, this information is more confirmation that U106 played a considerable role in the Volkswagen Wanderings out of the SW Baltic.  Perhaps behind that it is also indicating that there have been a series of minor VW roadtrips from the Schleswig-Holstein region pre Roman period.  I'd be surprised if variance ever gives us the origin of U106 to within a 500 mile radius accuracy.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 24, 2012, 07:04:07 PM
Quote from: Peter M link=topic=11059.msg142110#msg142110
Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

To me, this information is more confirmation that U106 played a considerable role in the Volkswagen Wanderings out of the SW Baltic.  Perhaps behind that it is also indicating that there have been a series of minor VW roadtrips from the Schleswig-Holstein region pre Roman period.  I'd be surprised if variance ever gives us the origin of U106 to within a 500 mile radius accuracy.


I dated the variances and posted them in the previous post.


They were wonders at that.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 24, 2012, 08:12:48 PM
Mark (or anybody for that matter), what conclusions would you draw from this data ?? This IS a serious question.

BTW, let's assume for the sake of argument, that throwing all branches of a SNP like U106 on a single heap will produce anything but utter nonsense and let's see what this data as such will lead us to.

I need to understand if it is incorrect to use combined variances (throwing all branches of a SNP like U106 on a single heap will produce anything but utter nonsense)

Nordtvedt states:
"Self-variances of entire clade C, or of separate subclades A and B, will give average age estimates (AAE) younger  than node n1, or n2 and n3, respectively.  " (Note: clade C (say U106), subclades A (Z38) and B(Z18), ect.)

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Different%20Variances.ppt

MJost

I guess it depends on what you are using them FOR. Ken is using Variance to estimate the AGE of a whole clade and/or of sub-clades. It appears to me, you are using variance as a tool to estimate ORIGIN, or possibly migration paths, which, I guess, is something completely different.

I have a pet theory about migration paths of SNPs (I call it "red cap watching") and I hope to be able to explain it on the L257.org web site (if the hackers give me a chance, that is). The key thing is, one can only talk about the migration path of, say, U106 as long as it behaves as a single entity. Exactly this is what the various branches of U106 put together have NOT done and therefore one cannot treat them as one big group. If you don't believe me, look at the geographical spread of Z156 wrt L48. What is the meaning of any quantity derived from those two taken together ??

But still, I find it interesting to hear what conclusions you draw from the data you've posted.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 24, 2012, 09:53:44 PM
N=8   R1b-Z372
N=55   R1b-L257
PeterM

SNP                              YBP         +OR-YBP
R1b-Z372  GAFounder = 2,256.1   780.4
R1b-L257  GBFounder = 1,754.3   688.2

Interclade
YBP    +OR-YBP
1,782.0   693.6

Looks very close to your 500AD as you have sugggest on your website.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 25, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
The key thing is, one can only talk about the migration path of, say, U106 as long as it behaves as a single entity. Exactly this is what the various branches of U106 put together have NOT done and therefore one cannot treat them as one big group.

I get what you are saying and I agree it is a problem. The essence of the problem is that all of the U106 people in a single geography are not related to a single MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) when compared to another geography. There was may have been and probably were exchanges between the geographies as well as interventions of U106 people from other geographies not in the comparison.

However, still, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. If the STR diversity of a clade is very high in geography A (say .9) and very low in geography B (say .1) and the populations of the clade are significant in both A and B, then I think there is meaning which would increase the probabilities of which population was older. Now if you say the diversity of U106 in A is .89 while in B is .84 that is insignificant for something so imprecise as STR diversity.

So the data should be analyzed in terms of relevance to other known data and to significance in variation. I don't think this is all so hard to grasp. No data is perfect but that does not mean one should not arbitrarily disregard data.

To the point of comparing clades only at an aggregate level, this is an infinite problem. I absolutely agree we need to break the data down to the most granular subclades as possible, so yes, Z156 should be looked, Z381 should be looked at, L48, etc., etc. but the counter balance is the loss of sample size to a point of no statistical validity.  I just think you have to look at the onion as a whole, and you have to peel it back and look at the pieces, then look at it all along with the other facts.

Sometimes I think we are searching for the silver bullet. There is no such thing. There are many bullets, some misleading, some right on, and then there are shotgun shells and everything other kind of thing. We must look at them all individually and together.

I'd be surprised if variance ever gives us the origin of U106 to within a 500 mile radius accuracy.

Me too, at least for a while to come.  However, I'd be ecstatic if we could get within 500 miles. It looks like over 500 miles from London to Bern, over 500 miles from Bern to Rome, over 500 from Bern to Berlin, over 1000 from Berlin to Odesa, over 700 from Bern to Sarajevo and over 700 miles from Sarajevo to Istanbul.  If we could figure out which city U106 originated closed to as well as P312 and L11, wow!

STR diversity AND SNP diversity could be a great hope. In fact, we don't have much better hope than in these measurements for Y lineages. Frequency has more of a relationship to the end of the trail than to the beginning.

Something else to keep in mind is that STR diversity reflects SNP diversity. Typically, areas with great STR diversity have great SNP diversity. The subclade diversity drives the STR diversity.  You could say that still it is just an admixture, but the presence of brothers, 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, etc. is meaningful, at least in comparison to their lack of presence.

Does that mean that a high diversity area is a launch point or a pooling point/destination?  Stand-alone, we don't know. That's why it is important to look at the archeology, history, etc. .... but areas of signficantly lower diversity can probably be (almost) ruled out as origin points.



Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 25, 2012, 04:50:31 AM
Posting Removed

Terry


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 06:49:12 AM
The key thing is, one can only talk about the migration path of, say, U106 as long as it behaves as a single entity. Exactly this is what the various branches of U106 put together have NOT done and therefore one cannot treat them as one big group.

I get what you are saying and I agree it is a problem. The essence of the problem is that all of the U106 people in a single geography are not related to a single MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) when compared to another geography. There was may have been and probably were exchanges between the geographies as well as interventions of U106 people from other geographies not in the comparison.

Exactly. And that's precisely what happened with the U106 subtree. Consider how U106 entered the British Isles. It did so on multiple occasions (more than one or two). There were different groups on different moments in time with a different mix of sub-clades that entered the Isles. All taking along a certain unknown variance. It therefore appears to me, talking about variance of a whole sub-tree that entered the Isles, or the remnants of it that survived to date, is relatively meaningless. "The variance of U106 in Ireland/Scotland/Wales" is a meaningless figure, as far as I'm concerned !!

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=11059.msg142137#msg142137

Sometimes I think we are searching for the silver bullet. There is no such thing. There are many bullets, some misleading, some right on, and then there are shotgun shells and everything other kind of thing. We must look at them all individually and together.

I'm sure these questions are solvable, but not in this way. The Genographic Project once showed diagrams on their web site describing M343 entering Europe. I haven't heard anybody describing things in those terms ever since. Now people are describing migrations in terms of U106. That's not going to work either. The granularity is wrong.

If there's something I learned from R-Z18, then it's that these type of investigation should be done on the LOWEST level possible; not the highest. If you look at the lowest level, you'll start to see meaningful clusters and the geographical spread of these clusters will start to tell stories. Afterwards, one could compose, say, a U106 story by taking together the stories of the sub-clades. But this story will only be relevant for a relatively short period in time after U106 emerged. After that, it rapidly got far too diverse to be discussed as a single entity.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: gtc on October 25, 2012, 08:33:17 AM
If there's something I learned from R-Z18, then it's that these type of investigation should be done on the LOWEST level possible; not the highest. If you look at the lowest level, you'll start to see meaningful clusters and the geographical spread of these clusters will start to tell stories. Afterwards, one could compose, say, a U106 story by taking together the stories of the sub-clades. But this story will only be relevant for a relatively short period in time after U106 emerged. After that, it rapidly got far too diverse to be discussed as a single entity.

An excellent point.

(edit) ... but the branch needs to be pretty long/deep (i.e. recent) in order for the clusters to truly "cluster" in a meaningful way.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 25, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Peter, to your point and as I've mentioned before, some variance numbers are skewed because of a greater or lesser number of migrations into and out of a region that may or may not have occurred! To that point, Italy seems to not have been impacted by a major L48+ migration because unlike in most areas of Europe, L48 is much less common. We tested the following L48- kits a few months ago and all are now U106+ L48- Z156-   

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 25, 2012, 11:12:46 AM
"The variance of U106 in Ireland/Scotland/Wales" is a meaningless figure, as far as I'm concerned !!
Any statistic that is calculated with a low or not representative sample is probably meaningless. The problem in this recent set of numbers may not be related to the multiple expansions/exchanges but rather to the sampling. I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water, at least yet.

Quote from: Peter M
I'm sure these questions are solvable, but not in this way. The Genographic Project once showed diagrams on their web site describing M343 entering Europe. I haven't heard anybody describing things in those terms ever since. Now people are describing migrations in terms of U106. That's not going to work either. The granularity is wrong.

I don't think your example is applicable. We talk about the expansion of R1b into Europe all of the time and R1b is marked by M343. We are just refining the early levels of branching in our discussions looking at L23+ or L23-. There are clearly multiple subclades (some to be discovered) on both sides of the L23+ and L23-. That doesn't mean that branching isn't important. It may be critical, or it may be at L51+ and L51-, but still this is backup the phylogenetic tree not at the lowest level.

This is what I meant by no silver bullet. I doubt if there is any "right level" of granularity. All of this stuff has to be analyzed.  I'm in agreement that analysis has to be done at the lowest level possible, but other levels shouldn't be ignored, particularly the comparisons in the early (older) branching. I'm not saying our current statistics handle this. They don't, but progress is being made.  I suppose the next step would be a multi-interclade calculation with three or more clades. Well, that's way beyond me, but stuff like carbon-14 dating took awhile to gain precision. This is just science. It cranks away slowly to improve on concepts and methods and hopefully invent a few new ones.

I re-iterate that I am not saying to rely on any one thing, stand-alone. Look at everything in context.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 11:40:10 AM
Peter, to your point and as I've mentioned before, some variance numbers are skewed because of a greater or lesser number of migrations into and out of a region that may or may not have occurred!

Well, in the case of the British Isles and U106, my guess is , they are skewed to the extent of being completely unuseable. $:-) At least that's my opinion.

To that point, Italy seems to not have been impacted by a major L48+ migration because unlike in most areas of Europe, L48 is much less common. We tested the following L48- kits a few months ago and all are now U106+ L48- Z156-   

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy

One point in time, I thought one of the Cesaroni's might actually be Z18+ and on my suggestion he ordered a test. After all, there are strong links between southern Germany and northern Italy (more than both just liking fast cars). Unfortunately he turned out Z18-.

Italy is an interesting case that illustrates my point rather nicely. L48 is another U106 sub-clade but has a distribution that's different from the others. It's a good candidate for further serious research, I guess.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 11:53:52 AM
Any statistic that is calculated with a low or not representative sample is probably meaningless. The problem in this recent set of numbers may not be related to the multiple expansions/exchanges but rather to the sampling. I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water, at least yet.

Well, about the use of variance in the study of the migration (of U106) to the British Isles we apparently see things differently. You say it's a matter of having more data and I think it's not possible in principle with any amount of data to say anything on the level of U106.

Quote from: Peter M
I'm sure these questions are solvable, but not in this way. The Genographic Project once showed diagrams on their web site describing M343 entering Europe. I haven't heard anybody describing things in those terms ever since. Now people are describing migrations in terms of U106. That's not going to work either. The granularity is wrong.

I don't think your example is applicable. We talk about the expansion of R1b into Europe all of the time and R1b is marked by M343.

My impression is, just as with U106 to some extent, there have been multiple cases of migration of (groups of people containing) R1b into Europe. Just as with U106, I therefore don't think it possible to study the "migration of R1b into Europe". But I must say, I have spent more time looking at U106 than at R1b. It's just an impression (!!) based on U106- (minus) finds.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 25, 2012, 12:01:19 PM
My impression is, just as with U106 to some extent, there have been multiple cases of migration of (groups of people containing) R1b into Europe. Just as with U106, I therefore don't think it possible to study the "migration of R1b into Europe". But I must say, I have spent more time looking at U106 than at R1b. It's just an impression (!!) based on U106- (minus) finds.

Peter,

It would be interesting if maybe you or someone else can take all of the tested HTs in U106 and using the TMRCA estimator, that can slice and dice, and compile a list of Founders and the next higher Subclade Founder ages and then calculate the Interclade for the two and see what the results are and, where the majority of those are located. If the subclade has several regions, one can split those groups out. Even by Allele value if there is a nice split.

This is alot of work but would benefit everyone.

I, when I have some time, will do this from my DF13xSubclade Guys.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 25, 2012, 12:43:31 PM
The first U106 people arrived in Ireland 6000 ybp.



If an SNP was an infection where would most of the people be infected? Mikewww would probably think 8000 miles from the source. Do you think that one man with the defective gene known as M222  moved to the North West of Ireland and spead it to most of the population? I dont believe it.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
The first U106 people arrived in Ireland 6000 ybp.
If an SNP was an infection where would most of the people be infected? Mikewww would probably think 8000 miles from the source. Do you think that one man with the defective gene known as M222  moved to the North West of Ireland and spead it to most of the population? I dont believe it.

Possible, but as long as most Irish who are (or seem to be) U106, are not interested in any further investigation of their background, this statement will be hard to prove.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 01:39:47 PM
My impression is, just as with U106 to some extent, there have been multiple cases of migration of (groups of people containing) R1b into Europe. Just as with U106, I therefore don't think it possible to study the "migration of R1b into Europe". But I must say, I have spent more time looking at U106 than at R1b. It's just an impression (!!) based on U106- (minus) finds.

Peter,

It would be interesting if maybe you or someone else can take all of the tested HTs in U106 and using the TMRCA estimator, that can slice and dice, and compile a list of Founders and the next higher Subclade Founder ages and then calculate the Interclade for the two and see what the results are and, where the majority of those are located. If the subclade has several regions, one can split those groups out. Even by Allele value if there is a nice split.

This is alot of work but would benefit everyone.

I, when I have some time, will do this from my DF13xSubclade Guys.

MJost

Mark, forgive my ignorance, but what is "the TMRCA estimator, that can slice and dice" ? Is this a certain program or algorithm or whatever ?? (don't get me wrong, this IS a serious question.)

Please keep in mind, I'm pretty sure of what I'm saying. I do NOT believe any results will be achieved by looking at U106 AS A WHOLE. I've tried to make a tree of a huge number of U106+ profiles using my own software in the past and that didn't work. The thing is too diverse to be handled as a whole. What needs to be done is to get far more people testing, preferably a few, levels of SNPs below U106, so that groups can be formed of much smaller subtrees for further investigation. Unfortunately, the SNPs below U106 tend to be a bit hard to predict; actual testing is needed. (Last week I made a Result Sheet of U106 after not having looked at tests there for a little under a year and was absolutely SHOCKED by the total lack of progress in that area; the undertested people that were there a year ago, still are there.)


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 02:57:12 PM
Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

This is a nice issue. How many reasonable L11 profiles do we have and do these profiles have a geographic origin specified with FT-DNA ??


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 25, 2012, 03:29:07 PM

Mark, forgive my ignorance, but what is "the TMRCA estimator, that can slice and dice" ? Is this a certain program or algorithm or whatever ?? (don't get me wrong, this IS a serious question.)

Here is the spreadsheet that I was alluding to.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNX2FjVV85bmVtWWs/edit

Just enter your haplotypes in CladeA and use the copy A to B button. This allows you to set up Interclade calculations.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 03:58:59 PM
Mark, forgive my ignorance, but what is "the TMRCA estimator, that can slice and dice" ? Is this a certain program or algorithm or whatever ?? (don't get me wrong, this IS a serious question.)
Here is the spreadsheet that I was alluding to.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNX2FjVV85bmVtWWs/edit

Just enter your haplotypes in CladeA and use the copy A to B button. This allows you to set up Interclade calculations.

MJost

Thanks Mark. Essentially, this appears to be (based on) Ken's spreadsheet for doing interclade calculations. What does it do to, or how would you propose to, form U106 subgroups (using this spreadsheet) ??

BTW, apparently there are more versions of Ken's sheet. I have, together with Vince T., made an implementation in PHP (sort of "C") of generation5 that connects to a profile database of sorts, so as to overcome the problem of copying/pasting sets of profiles. I personally don't consider "just enter your haplotypes" as a simple operation, especially because of the problem of keeping things in sync with new test data coming in. This implementation is currently being used for the calculation of the TMRCA's in the results sheets on L257.org (a work in progress, there are a few issues !!!). I'll have a more close look at your version.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 25, 2012, 05:02:16 PM
Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

This is a nice issue. How many reasonable L11 profiles do we have and do these profiles have a geographic origin specified with FT-DNA ??

I keep track of all I can find in public projects. I just wish everyone would join their major haplogroup projects.  Here is the count I currently have L11 family SNP confirmed folks.

4080 - L21
990 - U152
601 - DF27
958 - P312xL21xU152xDF27 (many of these could be DF27 with a few L21)
2148 - U106
61 - L11xP312xU106


About 80% of the above are 67 STRs in length.  Most have the Ysearch IDs, where I (or Vince T) could find them. On Old World MDKAs I cross-checked Ysearch and FTDNA and classified everyone as best I could to the County/Shire/Department level. We have almost 2000 111 STR haplotypes.

Mark J has a system of automatically copying these haplotypes out of the spreadsheets into a Ken Nordtvedt based TMRCA estimator so he can do estimates fairly quickly. Other than cleaning up/extracting surnames and geographical classifications I don't enter the data manually either.  I've got a copy/paste/transform system that helps detect STR upgrades and new SNP results. The haplogroups are generated (based on the Clade tables in other threads here) from the SNP results so I don't care that FTDNA's haplotree is way behind. I just need to see the Y DNA SNP reports turned on.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 25, 2012, 05:31:10 PM

Thanks Mark. Essentially, this appears to be (based on) Ken's spreadsheet for doing interclade calculations. What does it do to, or how would you propose to, form U106 subgroups (using this spreadsheet) ??

BTW, apparently there are more versions of Ken's sheet. I have, together with Vince T., made an implementation in PHP (sort of "C") of generation5 that connects to a profile database of sorts, so as to overcome the problem of copying/pasting sets of profiles. I personally don't consider "just enter your haplotypes" as a simple operation, especially because of the problem of keeping things in sync with new test data coming in. This implementation is currently being used for the calculation of the TMRCA's in the results sheets on L257.org (a work in progress, there are a few issues !!!). I'll have a more close look at your version.

PeterM,

Ok, I just loaded all the 67marker Hts from MikeW's latest U106, cleaned the Nuls and zero to empty cells, and loaded CladeA and B with the same set. Available to anyone.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0By9Y3jb2fORNNF9ma2JfZEtKUlk

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
I keep track of all I can find in public projects. I just wish everyone would join their major haplogroup projects.  Here is the count I currently have L11 family SNP confirmed folks.

4080 - L21
990 - U152
601 - DF27
958 - P312xL21xU152xDF27 (many of these could be DF27 with a few L21)
2148 - U106
61 - L11xP312xU106


About 80% of the above are 67 STRs in length.  Most have the Ysearch IDs, where I (or Vince T) could find them. On Old World MDKAs I cross-checked Ysearch and FTDNA and classified everyone as best I could to the County/Shire/Department level. We have almost 2000 111 STR haplotypes.

I guess, it would be nice to put all L11xP312xU106 on a geographical map to see what that would show. Let's start by restricting ourselves to (a) known and (b) non-British origins. How many tested L11* profile with a known origin do we have then ? That's those with coordinates specified PLUS those for which you would be able to specify/estimate a map location on the basis of "other" information.

BTW, I'm talking about Google Map location here; not just countries.

Mark J has a system of automatically copying these haplotypes out of the spreadsheets into a Ken Nordtvedt based TMRCA estimator so he can do estimates fairly quickly. Other than cleaning up/extracting surnames and geographical classifications I don't enter the data manually either.  I've got a copy/paste/transform system that helps detect STR upgrades and new SNP results. The haplogroups are generated (based on the Clade tables in other threads here) from the SNP results so I don't care that FTDNA's haplotree is way behind. I just need to see the Y DNA SNP reports turned on.

I always find it amazing to hear what things people have made for themselves. Think of the things we could have done if we could get some sort of co-operation going. ..... $:-)


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 25, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
PeterM,

Ok, I just loaded all the 67marker Hts from MikeW's latest U106, cleaned the Nuls and zero to empty cells, and loaded CladeA and B with the same set. Available to anyone.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0By9Y3jb2fORNNF9ma2JfZEtKUlk

MJost

Thanks, Mark, I will have a look.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: wing_genealogist on October 25, 2012, 06:36:52 PM
...


Ok, I just loaded all the 67marker Hts from MikeW's latest U106, cleaned the Nuls and zero to empty cells, and loaded CladeA and B with the same set. Available to anyone.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0By9Y3jb2fORNNF9ma2JfZEtKUlk

MJost

Thanks so VERY much for all of your continued work on this project. It is VERY much appreciated.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 25, 2012, 06:44:17 PM
The first U106 people arrived in Ireland 6000 ybp.



If an SNP was an infection where would most of the people be infected? Mikewww would probably think 8000 miles from the source. Do you think that one man with the defective gene known as M222  moved to the North West of Ireland and spead it to most of the population? I dont believe it.

Based on what? 


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 26, 2012, 02:17:23 AM

I guess, it would be nice to put all L11xP312xU106 on a geographical map to see what that would show. Let's start by restricting ourselves to (a) known and (b) non-British origins. How many tested L11* profile with a known origin do we have then ? That's those with coordinates specified PLUS those for which you would be able to specify/estimate a map location on the basis of "other" information.

BTW, I'm talking about Google Map location here; not just countries.

The best I can define things to is there in the spreadsheets. I don't have time to put them on Google maps, but if you know the geography its not hard to look at it.  We don't have that many L11* guys. I always say they are lightly scattered, but I guess that is just my characterization.

Remember, this is not a scientific sample and is probably biased towards American immigration sources.

fN9165   Manuchariants   R-L11*   Armenia, Yerevan (Armenian project)
f142633   Kiss   R-L11*   Hungary
fN39211   Klassen   R-L11*   Poland
f123914   Powers   R-L11*   Poland
fE4034   Nowak   R-L11*   Poland, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poznań
f119582   Gronkiewicz   R-L11*   Poland, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Jaslo Co., Jaslo
fN49180   D'Ambrosia   R-L11*   Italy, Campania, Salerno
f173307   Mülli   R-L11*   Switzerland, Zurich, Dielsdorf, Schöfflisdorf
fE8946   Escobar   R-L11*   France, Aquitaine, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Biarritz
f67632   Demarcus   R-L11*   France
f71997   Marcotte   R-L11*   zzzUnkOrigin
f69898   Dick   R-L11*   Germany, Thuringia, Lerchenhügel
f110095   Ohlhaeuser   R-L11*   Germany, Baden-Württemberg
f151345   Merkel   R-L11*   Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Schlierbach
f23858   Mayer   R-L11*   Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia, Dinkelsbühl
fN2197   Coontz   R-L11*   Germany
f103102   Jacob   R-L11*   Germany
f180962   Hulegaard   R-L11*   Denmark
fN70876   Madsen   R-L11*   Denmark, Viborg Amt, Mønsted
f159936   Edison   R-L11*   Netherlands
f128054   Van Der Meij   R-L11*   Netherlands
fN89073   Van De Putte   R-L11*   Netherlands, Zeeland, Retranchement
f142454   Jobse   R-L11*   Netherlands, Zuid-Holland, Ouddorp
f38215   Fox   R-L11*   England, East, Essex Co.
f120398   Swindell   R-L11*   England, East Midlands, Derbyshire, Derby
yUHFMG   Leigh   R-L11*   England, Nort West, Cheshire, Stockport, Cheadle
f154889   Fish   R-L11*   England, South East, Berkshire?, Windsor
f136502   Vawden   R-L11*   England, South West, Devonshire, Roborough
f169774   Adams   R-L11*   England, South West, Somersetshire, Barton St. David
f64311   Mason   R-L11*   England, West Midlands, Worcestershire, Pershore
fN14767   Baker   R-L11*   England
f41275   Bates   R-L11*   England
f135186   Blades   R-L11*   England
f206123   Diggs   R-L11*   England
f16296   Foster   R-L11*   England
f170071   Hilton   R-L11*   England
f187354   Medley   R-L11*   England
fN8721   zzzUnkName   R-L11*   England
f156511   Brown   R-L11*   Ireland, Ulster
f66955   Lyle   R-L11*   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Antrim, Larne
fN9273   Strathern   R-L11*   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Londonderry, Bellaghy
fN63307   Jackson   R-L11*   Ireland, Ulster, Co. Londonderry, Coleraine
f227066   Mitchell   R-L11*   Ireland
f197182   Shannon   R-L11*   Ireland
f117368   Smith   R-L11*   Ireland
fB1201   Forrester   R-L11*   Scotland
f91188   Meeks   R-L11*   Scotland
f6150   Turner   R-L11*   Scotland


For a possibly more representative set of data we might like at the Myres/Busby study data. If I get a chance I'll pull that up but Richard Rocca probably has it too.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 26, 2012, 03:51:39 AM
The farmers that built the Court Tombs in Ireland 6000 years ago came from North Eastern Europe.


The first U106 people arrived in Ireland 6000 ybp.



If an SNP was an infection where would most of the people be infected? Mikewww would probably think 8000 miles from the source. Do you think that one man with the defective gene known as M222  moved to the North West of Ireland and spead it to most of the population? I dont believe it.

Based on what? 


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 26, 2012, 10:20:45 AM
If an SNP was an infection where would most of the people be infected? Mikewww would probably think 8000 miles from the source. Do you think that one man with the defective gene known as M222  moved to the North West of Ireland and spead it to most of the population? I dont believe it.

If you have a point that's fine, but why make an off-handed 8000 mile remark about me? There is no need to be personal.

Perhaps you are talking about the concepts of this paper "Surfing during population expansions promotes genetic revolutions and structuration" by Laurent Excoffier and Nicolas Ray
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2808%2900167-5

"The Fate of Mutations Surfing on the Wave of a Range Expansion" by Klopfstein et al
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/482.abstract

I don't come up with this stuff. There are scientists who think this can happen. No one, including me, says it always happen. Wave surfing is just something to consider.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 26, 2012, 02:40:03 PM
I dont know why you write so much about U106 when you are not in this group.Maybe I thought that you were having a go at me.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mark Jost on October 26, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
...


Ok, I just loaded all the 67marker Hts from MikeW's latest U106, cleaned the Nuls and zero to empty cells, and loaded CladeA and B with the same set. Available to anyone.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0By9Y3jb2fORNNF9ma2JfZEtKUlk

MJost

Thanks so VERY much for all of your continued work on this project. It is VERY much appreciated.

Your welcome. I was so interested in getting a mostly simple method to calculate alot of things but it was MikeW's Dashboard system in his Gen7.1 age Estimator and my desire to upgrade to the new 111 marker system of Nordtvedt's Engine that I decieded to upgrade things.

I hope you U106 guys produce a deep intraclade table between all your subclades and Geo-locations that Mike has worked so hard on identifying.

MJost


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 26, 2012, 11:25:16 PM
Message deleted



Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 27, 2012, 04:05:05 AM
Message deleted


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Jarman on October 27, 2012, 07:19:11 AM
I am R-U106 but Jarman is not the only line I research. I sponsored DNA testing for a male in another lineage I am also researching - the STR matches were very informative and this line is R-L23 - I can converse and share info about that haplogroup too when I choose and am not limited to discussing U106.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Peter M on October 27, 2012, 08:49:28 AM
The best I can define things to is there in the spreadsheets. I don't have time to put them on Google maps, but if you know the geography its not hard to look at it.  We don't have that many L11* guys. I always say they are lightly scattered, but I guess that is just my characterization.

Remember, this is not a scientific sample and is probably biased towards American immigration sources.

fN39211   Klassen        R-L11*   Poland
f159936   Edison         R-L11*   Netherlands
yUHFMG    Leigh          R-L11*   England, Nort West, Cheshire, Stockport, Cheadle
f6150     Turner         R-L11*   Scotland

For a possibly more representative set of data we might like at the Myres/Busby study data. If I get a chance I'll pull that up but Richard Rocca probably has it too.


No, this is definitely not a scientific sample. It is heavily biased torwards British Isles and a few origins are remarkable: e.g. I've never come across the surname Edison as referring to a citizen from the Netherlands. $:-)

I've found a few more L11* in my database and added them to the list. Klassen is U106+, I have no SNP data for Leigh, but he's British Isles, so I don't see him as particularly critical and Turner appears to be L11 (has NOT tested U106 and P312; I must have a look if he's tested one of the sub-clades).

All in all some 25 L11* on the European Continent, but a few have not specified a geographic position; most have specified a country though.

I've created a Google Map using the V2 API and will publish that, if possible together with the rest of the data. The main problem here is that I'm rebuilding the L257.org web site at the moment (hackers apparently from Poland), and therefore a little improvisation is needed for a few days.

The biggest question: are there people who would be willing to sort out the geographic coordinates (latitude + longitude) for the people who haven't done so ? Please step forward.

EDIT: the map is here:http://www.groenebeverbv.nl/L11.jpg (http://www.groenebeverbv.nl/L11.jpg), but is a temporary thing on a temporary location to give everybody an idea what are we talking about; it's GM V2 (looks a little "old fashion") and static (you cannot click on pins). Future directions might be: (1) adding "old" P312 and/or U106; (2) adding M269+/L11- profiles; and (3) making the whole thing dynamic, so all Google Maps facilities are available. This will require volunteers to get the data together !!!


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Peter M on October 27, 2012, 09:35:17 AM
BTW, anybody in for a little speculation: who are the, say, 10 "oldest" P312+ with a known geographical origin ? I will add pins for those as well.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: gtc on October 27, 2012, 11:02:48 AM
I have only one y-line and I dont know how you ended up with more than one.

One's maternal grandfather may not share the same hg, etc.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 27, 2012, 11:37:52 AM

Remember, this is not a scientific sample and is probably biased towards American immigration sources....

No, this is definitely not a scientific sampl
e. It is heavily biased torwards British Isles and a few origins are remarkable

What do you men "no" ?   That is just what I said, "this is not a scientific sample." What are you disagreeing on?

Please don't shoot the messenger for the message. I don't change surnames or try to reconcile them with the origins. In some cases, the surnames are known adopted surnames. In some cases the surnames are mistakenly for the contact, not the lineage.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Peter M on October 27, 2012, 11:40:28 AM

Remember, this is not a scientific sample and is probably biased towards American immigration sources....

No, this is definitely not a scientific sampl
e. It is heavily biased torwards British Isles and a few origins are remarkable

What do you men "no" ?   That is just what I said, "this is not a scientific sample." What are you disagreeing on?

I agree completely to what you said, the word "no" was ambiguous, I guess. $:-)

It would be nice to have some more Continental data

BTW, I added a link to the last message on the previous page; don't miss it and tell me what you (all) think.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 27, 2012, 11:51:02 AM
I have only one y-line and I dont know how you ended up with more than one.

I have two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers, eight great-grandfathers, etc. I love my mother's father no less than my father's father and I've inherited just as much of my looks, heritage, etc. from my mother's father as from my father's father.  My mother's paternal lineage, etc. are important to me and a part of me. The Y chromosome is just one small element that is just a good tracker, just like mtDNA can be a tracker.

Quote from: stoneman

You have the right to write about any haplogroup but you have to be careful not to step on other peoples toes.

I will not be bullied into not arguing a point because of concerns of a person who may feel victimized. Do we have to walk on eggshells? Disagreement is fine, personal attacks distract from the discussion. I try not to make arguments that attack the person, i.e. ad hominem, rather than an opposing point of view. Notice, I never criticize a person's stated pedigree and I think I stay from personal questions or characterizing another poster negatively. I may characterize another poster's arguments negatively. There is a difference.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 27, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
It would be nice to have some more Continental data

BTW, I added a link to the last message on the previous page; don't miss it and tell me what you (all) think.

I agree, but we just need a lot more data period. I think the whole area around the Black Sea from SE Europe to Caucasia and the Levant would be lovely place to survey.

I like to look at the Google maps, but I think they can be misleading until we build enough data to calculate frequencies, at the least, rather than just absolute numbers.


Title: Re: U106 'the early years'
Post by: Peter M on October 27, 2012, 12:12:16 PM
It would be nice to have some more Continental data

BTW, I added a link to the last message on the previous page; don't miss it and tell me what you (all) think.

I agree, but we just need a lot more data period. I think the whole area around the Black Sea from SE Europe to Caucasia and the Levant would be lovely place to survey.

I like to look at the Google maps, but I think they can be misleading until we build enough data to calculate frequencies, at the least, rather than just absolute numbers.

As you probably know by now, for various reason I don't like the per-country approach of variance or frequency much. I don't like variance or frequency at all and countries are too recent an invention to be of much use studying the situation of, say, 4,500 years bp. So, I guess, I prefer Google Maps but with a little more data than we currently have.

Were are we going to get that data ? We can try get the maximum out of the data we have, if a volunteer steps forward to do some coordinate work, but what would then be the next step ??


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: glentane on October 27, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
The farmers that built the Court Tombs in Ireland 6000 years ago came from North Eastern Europe.
Really? Who told you that?


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: stoneman on October 27, 2012, 02:20:32 PM
I have only one y-line and I dont know how you ended up with more than one.

I have two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers, eight great-grandfathers, etc. I love my mother's father no less than my father's father and I've inherited just as much of my looks, heritage, etc. from my mother's father as from my father's father.  My mother's paternal lineage, etc. are important to me and a part of me. The Y chromosome is just one small element that is just a good tracker, just like mtDNA can be a tracker.

Quote from: stoneman

You have the right to write about any haplogroup but you have to be careful not to step on other peoples toes.

I will not be bullied into not arguing a point because of concerns of a person who may feel victimized. Do we have to walk on eggshells? Disagreement is fine, personal attacks distract from the discussion. I try not to make arguments that attack the person, i.e. ad hominem, rather than an opposing point of view. Notice, I never criticize a person's stated pedigree and I think I stay from personal questions or characterizing another poster negatively. I may characterize another poster's arguments negatively. There is a difference.


I am not a victim. I will not be bullied.



Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 29, 2012, 12:41:43 AM
I have only one y-line and I dont know how you ended up with more than one.

I have two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers, eight great-grandfathers, etc. I love my mother's father no less than my father's father and I've inherited just as much of my looks, heritage, etc. from my mother's father as from my father's father.  My mother's paternal lineage, etc. are important to me and a part of me. The Y chromosome is just one small element that is just a good tracker, just like mtDNA can be a tracker.

Quote from: stoneman

You have the right to write about any haplogroup but you have to be careful not to step on other peoples toes.

I will not be bullied into not arguing a point because of concerns of a person who may feel victimized. Do we have to walk on eggshells? Disagreement is fine, personal attacks distract from the discussion. I try not to make arguments that attack the person, i.e. ad hominem, rather than an opposing point of view. Notice, I never criticize a person's stated pedigree and I think I stay from personal questions or characterizing another poster negatively. I may characterize another poster's arguments negatively. There is a difference.

I am not a victim. I will not be bullied.

Excellent! Then I will not have to worry about stepping on your toes if I disagree with an argument you are making. I promise to keep away from personal back and forth, like this. Let's go back to the topic, please.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 29, 2012, 12:45:29 AM

To that point, Italy seems to not have been impacted by a major L48+ migration because unlike in most areas of Europe, L48 is much less common. We tested the following L48- kits a few months ago and all are now U106+ L48- Z156-   

179540   Giacomo Zeni, b. 1630 Verona, Italy
141915   Berardo Cesaroni, b.c. 1575, Cartoceto, Pesaro and Urbina, Italy
N12646   Veturio Cesaroni, b.1880, Terni, Umbria, Italy

One point in time, I thought one of the Cesaroni's might actually be Z18+ and on my suggestion he ordered a test. After all, there are strong links between southern Germany and northern Italy (more than both just liking fast cars). Unfortunately he turned out Z18-.

Italy is an interesting case that illustrates my point rather nicely. L48 is another U106 sub-clade but has a distribution that's different from the others. It's a good candidate for further serious research, I guess.


U106 in Italy is an interesting case. As has been noted, it does not have a run of the mill mix of U106 types.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 29, 2012, 01:00:00 AM
U106 in Italy is an interesting case. As has been noted, it does not have a run of the mill mix of U106 types.

I suggested to Cesaroni (Francesco) to test himself for Z381. Anyway, if so, he would always be one of the most ancient R-U106 subclades.
I am following his case, and that of the Brazilian Zeni, from many years, from when the most part of you thought that U106 was in Italy certainly a recent German introgression and I was theorizing the “Italian Refugium”.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: gtc on October 30, 2012, 06:40:55 AM
U106 in Italy is an interesting case. As has been noted, it does not have a run of the mill mix of U106 types.

On that point, there's a mystery man Mr P107 hanging around all by himself at the top of U106. I gather that Mr P107 is from Lombardy, and that's all we know about him.

It would be great if Dr Hammer could tell us more about him and it would be fantastic if we could get him tested further.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: F.E.C. on February 01, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Hi all.

I was contacted by he administrator of the Z18 project and invited to join their group. After joining it I have ordered a Z18 test and now I'm waiting results.

They seem to be confident that I will come up positive and in the site dedicated to Z18 (http://l257.groenebeverbv.nl/) I was put in an "experimental Berkshire cluster" whatever it means.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: F.E.C. on March 01, 2013, 06:47:31 AM
Hello,

eventually I turned out Z-18+. Here's a summary of my SNP results up to now: Z18+ U106+ M269+ Z156- U198- U152- P107- L48- L257-

Can you please provide any information sources about my subclade?

Also, should I take any more SNP tests or is it the end of the road for me?


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 01, 2013, 04:04:05 PM
Hello,

eventually I turned out Z-18+. Here's a summary of my SNP results up to now: Z18+ U106+ M269+ Z156- U198- U152- P107- L48- L257-

Can you please provide any information sources about my subclade?

Also, should I take any more SNP tests or is it the end of the road for me?

I asked you to test yourself for Z381, which was the most ancient of your line, but Z18 is at the same level like ancientness: At this point you should test yourself for Z14 and Z372, being negative for L257. If you will result negative, you’ll be the most ancient also of this line, and that Z18 is come from North Sea shore could be discussed.

•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a   M405/S21/U106
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a1   L217.1
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2   S493/Z18, Z19
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a   Z14
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1   S375/Z372
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1a   L257/S186
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3   S263/Z381
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a   S264/Z156
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1   S376/Z305, Z306, Z307
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1a   L1/S26
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1b   P89.2
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1c   L128
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b   Z301
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b1   M467/S29/U198
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b2   L48/S162
•   •



Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: F.E.C. on March 02, 2013, 12:17:54 PM
I asked you to test yourself for Z381, which was the most ancient of your line, but Z18 is at the same level like ancientness: At this point you should test yourself for Z14 and Z372, being negative for L257. If you will result negative, you’ll be the most ancient also of this line, and that Z18 is come from North Sea shore could be discussed.

•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a   M405/S21/U106
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a1   L217.1
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2   S493/Z18, Z19
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a   Z14
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1   S375/Z372
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a2a1a   L257/S186
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3   S263/Z381
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a   S264/Z156
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1   S376/Z305, Z306, Z307
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1a   L1/S26
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1b   P89.2
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3a1c   L128
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b   Z301
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b*   -
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b1   M467/S29/U198
•   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •   •    •    R1b1a2a1a1a3b2   L48/S162
•   •

Molte grazie, Maliclavelli. As suggested, I have just ordered Z14 and Z372.

According to FTDNA's R-Z18 project, most of the Z18+ Z14- are continetal Europeans from Central Europe (Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium...), while Z372+ men seem to come from further up north.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 02, 2013, 12:33:15 PM
According to FTDNA's R-Z18 project, most of the Z18+ Z14- are continetal Europeans from Central Europe (Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium...), while Z372+ men seem to come from further up north.

Many thanks, Francesco. Then the line of R-Z18 is from South to North along the Rhine. I haven’t studied these haplotypes, and now that ySearch is prohibited, it is more difficult, but that the origin is Southwards (i.e. Italy and the Italian Refugium) shouldn’t be discarded.


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: F.E.C. on March 25, 2013, 05:25:03 AM
As predicted by Peter M. Op den Velde Boots of the FT-DNA R-Z18 and Subgroups Project I have come up Z18+ and Z372+.

According to Douglas Fisher I belong to the so-called called Berkshire Cluster.

Could anyone please tell me what are the latest estimates of the age of Z372?


Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 25, 2013, 09:41:06 AM
As predicted by Peter M. Op den Velde Boots of the FT-DNA R-Z18 and Subgroups Project I have come up Z18+ and Z372+.

According to Douglas Fisher I belong to the so-called called Berkshire Cluster.

Could anyone please tell me what are the latest estimates of the age of Z372?

Francesco, I don’t know if your origin could be from North, but amongst these people you have

DYS487=15 (all the others=13: MR 0.00079)
DYS458=16, the others =17/18
DYS449=28 (the others 29/30) etc.

It is possible that there is somewhere in Europe a link amongst you you derive closely from, but the link with these people, also taking in consideration the mutations around the modal etc., could be of thousands of years.

P.S. At this point an upgrade to 111 markers could be very useful.



Title: Re: U106 'the wander years'
Post by: F.E.C. on March 26, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
I guess that we shall see. Grazie Maliclavelli.