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 August 27, 2010, 07:02:58 PM



Title: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2010, 07:02:58 PM
L21 as a percentage of total male population in new study:

54.2% Ireland South
50.0% Ireland West
40.9% Ireland Southwest
33.3% Ireland North
31.3% Ireland East
25.0% England North
24.0% England Southeast
20.8% England Southwest
Northern France-missing but I think would fit in around here at 20odd%
19.4% France Alpes de Haute Provence
14.3% France West
09.5% Denmark North
09.1% Denmark Southeast
08.2% France Vaucluse (upstream Rhone)
08.0% France East
08.0% England Central
07.9% France South
07.4% Switzerland Northwest
06.3% France Bouches du Rhone (at mouth)
05.8% Sweden South (Malmö)
05.7% Netherlands
05.6% Austria
05.3% Spain Cantabria, Santander
05.3% Denmark West
03.1% Germany North
03.1% Switzerland Northeast
03.0% Portugal, Lisbon
02.9% France, Var (coastal, East of Rhone)
02.4% Spain, Castille and Leon, Leon
02.4% Poland
02.2% Germany South
02.1% Germany East
02.0% Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley)
01.9% Croatia mainland
01.1% Czech Republic
01.1% Poland Southwest(Wroclaw)
01.0% Germany West
00.9% Spain, Valencia
00.9% Hungary
00.8% Andalusia, Sevilla
00.8% Russia Central
00.8% Italy North
00.6% Romania
00.4% Russia South
00.4% Slovakia



My first observation is that although disappointing in some ways it does not hugely contradict project findings.  it confirms that L21 is essentially an isles and French clade in terms of a substantial input.  However, it is interesting that although clearly its peak, L21 is nowhere near as massive in the isles, including Ireland (where I think people tend to think its anout 90% of the population) as has become commonplace to assume.

The only major contradiction with the project map is the low count in SW Germany.  There is without doubt a hotspot in the Rhineland that the study sampling has missed.  The projects indicate a lot of L21, U152 and U106 as well as some others in that area where if I recall correctly R1b1b2 runs about 50%.  So I am would be really baffled if at least in the Rhineland province and adjacent L21 is not over 10% of the population and more in line with parts of France.

Otherwise, the results confirm the project findings of very low numbers in Italy, Iberia (prior to recent chasing by matching), central and eastern Europe. The results confirm that the relatively small amount of L21 on the project map east of the Rhineland is real and not down to migration patterns. 

If we just look at France

20-25%?? Northern France
19.4% France Alpes de Haute Provence
14.3% France West
08.2% France Vaucluse (upstream Rhone)
08.0% France East
07.9% France South
06.3% France Bouches du Rhone (at mouth)
02.9% France, Var (coastal, East of Rhone)

Firstly despite somewhat dissapointing results I would still think looking at the main west, east, south and my guess at the missing north that over 10% of the entire male population of France is L21.  Although substantially less than some guesses (at one stage I thought it might be nearer 20%) it is still very significant and surely only the mad would try to explain it as a movement out of the isles (which variance does not support).

What I think this probably shows is something I think was emerging on the project map this year- that in France as well as an increase to the north, there was also a major east-west component with L21 stronger in the west.  There is a very significant drop off in the south and east in general.  I suspect 'France north and west' combined might come in about 18% while 'France south and east' combined might come in about 8%, nearly half.  The actual variation of L21 as a percentage of R1b1b2 may however be less as R1b1b2 also drops off from west to east I think but I think the trend is still there.   

There are any number of reasons why that might be. Dilution is one possibility.  The north to the west of Paris and the west in general did not get the same sort of substantial post-Roman Germanic influx as the east (Burgundy, Alsace, Lorraine, the extreme NE etc which actually brought about partial or temporary linguistic shifts/the renaming of the areas after Germanic peoples.  In the British Isles L21 is also stronger in the areas which missed out on the Germanic influx.  I wonder if the higher L21 in the north and west of France is echoing the same phenomenon as in the British Isles. 

One other thing about L21 is that the high Alpes de Haute Provence result from a very mountanous part of the extreme SE of France bucks this trend for L21 to be low in the south and east.  This study raises the possibility that French L21 tends to survive in retreat areas in pockets in the west and on difficult land elsewhere.  The presence of a pocket in a very mountainous area in the SE with levels of L21 as high as in the north and west of France does also hint that perhaps L21 was once higher in the east than it is now. There are other possibilities.   

With the surprisingly low rate in central Europe also comes a better than expected showing in northern Europe from Denmark.  This had not been uncovered by the project although the project had started to show a good showing in Norway for L21 (not covered in this study).  I suspect now that a prevalence map of L21 on the continent would have an area of raised strength running from western France, around NW France and (with a break in the U106-rich low countries) along the North Sea coasts of Denmark and Norway.  There would then be a band of lesser but not negligible presence in the rest of France, NE Spain, parts of Switzerland and as far as Austria (surely in SW Germany too as the stat seems to be a fluke).  Now that picture is broadly compatible and comparable with the project maps even if the overall scale of L21 is lower than expected. 

All in all I think there is no doubt that in continental terms L21 is significant in much of France and adjacent areas and also along the North Sea coast. However it does look rare in cenral Europe (south Germany eastwards).  I think it is clear from the relative strengths that L21 in Europe in France as in the isles in pre-Germanic.  Its hard to say what its relationship is to U152.  In later times L21 must have been reasonably common (though not as much as I thought) among the Gauls of France although perhaps the lack of it in Italy is evidence that even in the last centuries BC it was (as now) not common in the east and SE of Gaul (the more central European areas).  There is no reason to believe S116 clades were similar throughout Gaul and indeed the proportion of clades of the Celts as a whole is very different in Iberia, France, Britain, Ireland etc so any talk of a single Gaulish clade is probably as silly as the idea of a single wider Celtic clade.  The only constant seems to be a high level of S116 clades. Even the question of the origin of the Celts is no longer safely tied to central Europe and some now favour the Atlantic fringes.  Other than belonging to S116 in general there is no single common denomenator clade among the Celts.   


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 27, 2010, 07:45:34 PM
I would like to know where they got their samples.

Do we know the sample sizes from each region from Table S4?

I have a hard time believing the low frequencies for Germany West. How did FTDNA just stumble on so many L21+ western Germans, if L21 is only 1% in western Germany?

Incredible.

For me this new study is tremendously disappointing. The only consolations are that L21 variance is higher on the Continent than in the Isles and that Myres et al did not get a representative sample, so higher L21 figures might still be lurking in untested places (and there were plenty of them).

Unfortunately, a shot at a better assessment might not come for years - if ever - and that makes this study even more heartbreaking.

I just wish the University of Santiago de Compostella would test its French samples for P312 and L21 and publish the results. As I recall, their sampling was much more representative and evenly distributed.

This Myres et al report has really cut into my enthusiasm, to be quite honest.



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 27, 2010, 08:11:04 PM
A subtitle for the Myres et al report could be, "Yes, U152 and U106 are even bigger deals than we thought they were - hip, hip, hooray!".

They didn't even bother with SRY2627 and M153.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on August 27, 2010, 11:21:47 PM
I did not have this study under the eyes, I read with interest all your comments.

This is a confirmation (for me), that in France, it is in the south-eastern than R1b1b2 is the most important.
Maybe, Many think it is in the northwest, in fact, a high proportion of I (I1 and I2) of about 25%, resulting probably R1b1b2 is only about 50%.

I think the proportion of L21 compared to the rest of R1b1b2 must be very important in the north-west and much lower in the south-east
The Alps of Haute-Provence, are a little away of path of communication, as rhodannien corridor and the Mediterranean Sea.
This may reinforce the idea that L21, was one of the first groups R1b1b2 has arrived (unless it is original) in Western Europe (Essentially France and British Islands).

The following successive migrations from the east, would be, dilute L21 or L21 has been pushing to the Atlantic coast to the west-central France to the islands and some pockets of L21 in the east, isolated of lines of communication, have survived until today.

I find, on the contrary, the fact that L21 is not as great as expected in Europe can help us better understand who they are.
Unfortunately, this study does not seem enough to study the geographical areas of Europe where L21 is probably the most present.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 28, 2010, 06:33:13 AM
I think too what we have to remember is if R1b1b2 is only around half of the French population and France has a lot of different R1b1b2 clades including high amounts of U152, L21, S116*, the Iberian clades, some U106  etc then that 50% is very divided.  So 10% of the country and areas between with 10 and 20% L21 is actually highly significant chunk of the R1b1b2 population. 

I also have to agree with Rich about SW Germany, especially the Rhineland.  The sampling is maybe too broadbrush to pick up localised concentrations.  It is noticeable that the much more intensive testing of SE France showed a lot of variation including an L21 hotspot.  However, this was the exception and there is no doubt that their testing somehow missed other hotspots like the Rhineland.  I have always thought of the Rhineland as the best self-tested (i.e. hobby tested) area on the continent and perhaps the one area where there hobby testing was so strong that we should have had a very good idea of the y-DNA there.  There is absolutely no reason why the hobby testing would favour L21.  Migration patterns to America favour certain areas (the Rhineland being one) but they should not favour certain clades. 

One other thing, although the numbers are low, even in Iberia I think the projects identification of small hotspots in the NE and Portugal is backed up by the Iberian results. 

I know Rich is feeling a bit down about it but I think if we just get over the fact that the scale is smaller I think by and large the patterns identified by the project maps have been vindicated.  We had wondered if there was distortion down to migration patterns to America but the patterns have turned out to be real.  The project showed most L21 in north and to some degree west France, a modest amount in the SE of France and NW Switzerland, minor amounts in the Low Countries, almost none in Italy and central Europe beyond the Rhine/Main, very little non-Jewish in eastern Europe.  I also think the project for a long time showed very little in Iberia.  However, there was from an early stage a hint of a small group in the NE and the west which Rich recently expanded through matching and identifying clusters.  Although the Iberian L21 is small, the results of this paper are  in line with the projects identification that most L21 in Iberia is in the extreme NE and around Portugal (the paper has the highest levels where it tested in Cantabria and Portugal).  Other projects too indicated things that have since been confirmed by this study such as the superconcentration of U152 in Switzerland, Italy, south Germany etc, the concentration of U106 in Holland etc.  So, I think the projects have been a success and the worries about distortion have not been vindicated.   

I think it is remarkable that not only has the project identified the European pattern well but it has even been able to accurately pick up the modest peas in a low L21 area like Iberia.  I think this all vindicates that project work/hobbiest testing is very useful at reconstructing.  So I think there is a lot to be proud of in the hobbiest and project efforts.

So, the patterns identified by the project are surprisingly accurate even down to small hotspots.   What we have to get used to is

1. The scale is smaller everywhere, probably half of what we thought (and that includes much of Ireland).  I think we just need to get used to the fact it has turned out we are a more minor clade than we thought and that our distribution really is pretty well that indicated on the project map.   

2. The blank or poorly represented areas on the project maps are real - there really is little L21 in those areas.

One caveat to the last statement is the possibility that L21 is patchy with elevated pockets some of which may be missed .  Some small pockets of modest L21 rise (such as the two in Iberia) were picked up by both the project and the study while the very strong probably very localised pocket in the SE Alps of France was detected in this new study but not the project.  Most weird was  the Rhineland concentration that the project emphatically found but this study has somehow missed.  That is probably the single most worrying thing about this studies sampling.  There is simply no doubt that that is a fluke of sampling.   I think the fact that Austria has a modest but significantlly higher result than SW Germany suggests this is wrong and that there is at least a modest trail of L21 along the Upper Danube into the central European part of the old Celtic world. 



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 28, 2010, 08:04:07 AM
A few other thoughts regarding the origins of L21 or any clade.  Variance indicates the origin of L21 is in France and I believe from what I hear that the odd individuality of many French L21 rather than belonging to late clusters means that more variance could yet be discovered.  However, variance essentially is rooted in the point of initial expansion.  Where an SNP first occurs as a unique individual and soon after  small minority among a group who settle down in an area, it will not have the same opportunities for rampant expansion as its descendants who head on into virgin land.  So, there is every chance that an SNP that had just occurred could easily daughter out (or die out) in its first location of occurance.  Even in areas where a small 2nd  generation tree of immediate male descendant lines  have been produced many of the lines could die out, meaning the MRCA is later than the real founder date of L21 in the locality (and therefore leave less variance).  Basically, even in an LBK style scenario of huge expansion opportunities and rapid geographical expansion, it is likely that the origin point/the 1st generation will be missing or at least not be obvious from variance. 

The model that the new paper uses is one I totally agree with in a Neolithic farmer scenario - each generation surfing the head of the wave of migration.  That model is based on a family moving forward into an area, settling down and then some of their offsping moving on back on trail trail west while others stay put.  That clearly will tend to mean SNPs expand and have their variance dictated by the generations after the SNP occurred who have the advantage of moving into virgin territory and unchecked expansion that the first generation (and perhaps the 2nd) would not.  In a period like LBK of fairly rapid expansion west.  There is every chance in the location where the first guy with the SNP was a singleton among a load of S116* and other guys that his line may have died out or at least many of his descendant lines would have.  Basically you need constant expansion for a while in the early stages for variance to work.  I believe that in an LBK scenario of huge expansion opportunities on the trail west that variance works but I do think it will tend to lose its earliest end of its trail or at least the earliest part of the SNPs trail where opportunities were limited may have less variance than expected. 

For that reason although L21 has its highest variance in France I would still not rule out the possibility that L21 first occurred somewhere else somewhat (although perhaps not spectacularly) to the east of its highest variance area today.   L21 obviously must have occurred among S116* people of slightly (but not much more) variance.  Clearly L21 has to have happened close to and soon after S116 itself occurred judging from most calculations.  The study suggests SE France but I personally think in an LBK scenario it would more likely have been a little further east in the Upper Danube area. 

The study also suggests the alternative possibility that during the LBK period perhaps it arrived at and crossed the Rhine as P310* and that S116 and downstream only occurred during secondary middle Neolithic expansions in western Europe in subsequent generations, possibly after a hiatus in expansion and the end of the unified LBK culture.  There could be an element of both IMO.  I quite like the idea that a lot of the expansion of the downstream S116 groups like U152 and L21 could have occurred in post-LBK times when after a hiatus these groups expanded in the form of successor cultures beyond the core LBK area.  In fact this is a necessary part of this model because LBK is not found in many areas where R1b1b2 or S116 is found today in high numbers.   This suggested middle Neolithic expansion of former LBK lineages was apparently mainly into areas where there pre-farming populations had held onto the land (nearly all of north facing coastal Europe) or where there were late local hunters with weak farming traits from Cardial influences (substantial parts of central and upland France, the Alpine areas, parts of north Italy, most of interior and north of Iberia).  These groups may have had the advantage of a far more developed farming culture than the partly Neolithiiced hunting groups they supplanted.   

In terms of L21 it may have especially done well in the post-LBK expansion to the French Atlantic coasts in the 5th millenium BC which in turn meant they were almost certain to have a big impact on the isles.   Southern England now has similar L21 similar to northern France and it is likely that it was a founder effect in the crossing from Britain (and perhaps direct from NW France) that meant that L21 became raised in Ireland and Scotland (which were closely linked).     

Note that this is just working through the LBK and post-LBK middle Neolithic scenario that the paper presents.  I am not saying that they are correct to chose this scenario although I do see advantages in it.  I am not ruling out a copper age/beaker model but the evidence for it is much much more subtle. 


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 28, 2010, 09:17:51 AM
So, basically, it looks like L21 has been in the British Isles since the Neolithic Period. It's unlikely, then, that it is responsible for bringing Celtic languages to the Isles. (More great news courtesy of Myres et al.) Who are we to thank for that? U152?

Perhaps the greatest benefit of being L21+ for me, as an American with a British surname but no y-dna line paper trail out of North America, is confirmation that I am probably descended from a British, Irish or Scots-Irish immigrant.

So, in the end, the "Deep Ancestry" trail has proven very disappointing, involving a lot of apparently wasted time and effort and emotional investment. Probably the best thing to do now is to return to the old paper trail, making use of the genetic information simply to narrow the search.



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2010, 10:18:02 AM
.... I also have to agree with Rich about SW Germany, especially the Rhineland.  The sampling is maybe too broadbrush to pick up localised concentrations.  It is noticeable that the much more intensive testing of SE France showed a lot of variation including an L21 hotspot.  However, this was the exception and there is no doubt that their testing somehow missed other hotspots like the Rhineland.  I have always thought of the Rhineland as the best self-tested (i.e. hobby tested) area on the continent and perhaps the one area where there hobby testing was so strong that we should have had a very good idea of the y-DNA there.  There is absolutely no reason why the hobby testing would favour L21.  Migration patterns to America favour certain areas (the Rhineland being one) but they should not favour certain clades.  
...
In Table S4 here are R-L21*'s frequency percentages.
2.1% in Gemany East
3.1% in Germany North
2.2% in Germany South
1.0% in Germany West

In Table S2 there are is Count (N) = 6 of R-L21*'s in Germany.   I didn't see the total sample size for Germany so I was going to reverse calculate the total sample size but Table S2 and S4 don't totally agree. For example, M222 does not have any Germany listed in S2 but has 5.3% listed for it in S4.

I think there is a possibility of an error in S4 or at least an anomaly for M222 to be greater than L21* in Germany.  Am I missing something?



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2010, 11:09:56 AM
We've got 924 R-L21* haplotypes of 25 or greater STRs that have Old World MDKA's.  

Below are the diversity numbers at a granular regional level.  I was more granular where we have high numbers of MDKA's.

R-L21* Relative Diversity & Count for 25 marker Hts:

106.8  19  France - North & Central
105.4  16  France - North Atlantic
103.2  04  France - Northeast
095.2  16  Germany - Middle
094.2  06  Germany - South
093.5  06  Alpine & Cisalpine (inc. N. Italy)
087.3  07  Aquitaine & Pyrenees
084.7  25  Iberian Peninsula (exc. Pyrenees)
067.0  06  Low Countries

082.1  16  Scandinavia - North Sea side & Straits
074.0  10  Scandinavia - Baltic Sea side

109.8  13  England - West Midlands
108.1  09  England - Yorkshire and Humbria
097.0  09  England - East
097.0  14  England - South East
096.6  24  England - South West
095.7  09  England - North West
093.8  12  England - East Midlands
092.6  19  England - London
085.9  52  Wales
064.3  04  England - North East

096.2  26  Scotland - East
084.4  38  Scotland - North
084.4  43  Scotland - Strathclyde
071.2  18  Scotland - South

099.0  72  Ireland - Munster
092.9  91  Ireland - Ulster
092.3  33  Ireland - Connacht
091.7  52  Ireland - Leinster

Surprised me a bit that Scotland has lower diversity than England.  Also that Wales was so low. West Midlands is very diverse.  Is it a mixing place or an origin place?  I think this is an important consideration.  Perhaps Wales and Scotland represent Old Britons whereas much of England represents a "melting pot" of a immigrant Gaulish, Belgae and some Scandinavian R-L21* folks.

Given our comparatively low and limited sampling of France, that still clearly looks like more of expansion point.  There is almost a "Paris-London" axis.

I don't think these numbers should be considered stand-alone.  I think, similar to what Vince V. does with the Ht35 project, the placement of brother and ancestor clades is important, probably more important.   In our hobbyist DNA projects files I get that the Alpine area has very high diversity for P312 overall as well as points east, but points east are so scattered it's hard to figure out.

Note: We have more R-L21* people in our various "hobbyist" DNA projects and we also have many more STR's cataloged in contrast to what the Myres study evaluated. On the other side, our DNA projects are American immigrant biased and dependent on individuals' MDKA info.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 28, 2010, 12:24:43 PM
I really do not want to see L21 in terms of a head count, especially an L21 v U152 head count.  However, it also worth saying that while U152 is the bigger of the two in France it is not by an enormous amount:

.................. L21..........U152..........................S116*
W France......14%.........21.4%........................21.4%
S France.......7.9%........10.5%........................28.9%
E France........8%..........16%..........................24%
N France-not covered but I think L21 would eclipse U152 there

Now, while U152 is larger than L21, its hardly a landslide.  Its around the 3:2, 5:4 and 2:1 mark in U152's favour but L21's peak in the north has gone unlisted.  In fact that group of results is compatible with the Santiago de Compostella study which indicated a really major advantage for U152 in Alsace but not elsewhere.  I think U152 people are probably also feeling surprised at their unspectacular performance in France.  It actually looks like in France L21 might be about 12%ish of the population and U152 maybe 15%ish.  Not a huge difference.   So I do not think the results really give the people who want to claim U152 as THE Gaulish clade really have a very strong case.  In fact the real shock is that S116* (which include the 'Iberian' clades is dominant, probably about 25% of the French and similar to L21 and U152 combined.  To some degree single testing for L21, U152 etc when it was negative and not taken to resolution has hidden a lot of them because they cannot be defined as S116* and therefore do not end up on the S116* map.  Another reason may be that there are no  ways to an S116* definition by a stand alone test for an SNP.

There were apparently Celts who were predominantly L21 (Irish), Celts who were predominantly S116* (using the paper's terminology) (Iberia) and there were probably Celts who were predominantly U152 (Switzerland and adjacent) but the Celts of France seems to have been a varying mix of all the S116 clades.  I know DF tends to claim glory for U152 but please note that despite the fact the name La Tene comes from a place in Switzerland this is not where La Tene culture originated.  La Tene originated in and adjacent to NE France in the Mosselle area.  Switzerland is peripheral to La Tene development.  That may be an irony but its a fact (similarly the site that gave the name Hallstatt to the culture is located in Austria which is peripheral to the formation of that culture).  So, the U152=Switzerland=La Tene stuff is flawed.  The reality seems to be from the variances that the structure of R1b1b2 in Europe was set out long before La Tene or Hallstatt etc.


I really do not think numbers mean much in terms of deep ancestry research.  We have found that again and again.  That idea made people think R1b originated in Iberia and variance studies show that numbers are not the thing that matters.  Its variance, phyogeny etc.  However, to work that out a sample was needed and without the sample the project built the hobbiest would have had nothing to work with.  Its interesting that the paper came to very similar conclusions about L21 variance as the most recent hobbiest ones.  Not only is L21's variance slightly higher in France but S116* is much higher in France than anywhere, about 50% higher than England and over twice as high as in Ireland.  So, the obvious way to interpret that is that there is no way L21 could have arisen among S116* in Ireland or England. It looks from that data that the first major expansion of both S116 and then L21 must has their first serious expansions within France. The difference, judging from the  relative similarity of variance in L21 seems to be that L21 happened not too long before its first major expansion.  Hobbiests have worked out a lot of this stuff from project data already but it always lacked the backup of an academic paper.

Regarding low numbers of L21 in some areas, if as I have long thought, L21 or its S116* ancestors basically appeared as migrants passed into northern France from the east in what was essentially a south-east to north-west population movement then large numbers are not to be expected to the east or south of the area where L21 expanded.  If the LBK idea is correct (and who knows) the largest onwards expansion from northern France was into the isles.  I am not aware of any major movements out of northern France in prehistory that headed back into central Europe so I do not see how it could be expected to have a really substantial L21 presence in central or southern Europe.  There is little trace of the U152 Galations in Turkey we often heard suggested.    

I still think there are some weird anomolies that could indicate the sampling has distorted things.  One is the weird fact that Austria's R1b1b2 is about 25% L21 in the paper.  However at the same time it misses out the apparently strong showing of L21 in SW Germany.  That really is odd.  Some of Denmark is 20-25% of R1b1b2 is L21 in other parts of the same country its zero.  Then there is the strong pocket in the SE French Alps.  Are the proportions of R1b1b2 clades in Europe subject to all sorts of micro-patterns that we cannot see in most studies?  That leaves the possibility that a 'dotty' survey could provide some weird results if L21 is also 'dotty'.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2010, 12:56:44 PM
.... La Tene originated in and adjacent to NE France in the Mosselle area.  ......

I still think Hans is on to something.  I-L38 may be a cultural brother to R-L21.
http://tiny.cc/fb3zx
Quote from: Hans De Beule
Since the trendlines only are very rough indicators, the comparison of the trendlines of several clades only leads to hypotheses: - Three trendlines, I-L38 (orange), R-U152 (dark blue) and R-L21 (light blue), cross near contemporary Frankfurt, suggesting a common origin that could be linked to the La Tène culture that started to spread from the middle Rhine region.
Doesn't the Lichtenstein Cave have I-L38, R-U106 and R1a guys?  Could the I-L38 guy have joined an IE speaking culture?  The cave is just east of the major Celtic expansion origin points.  In the Bell Beaker discussion, didn't some eastern/northern Corded Ware (or some Central Europe people) and southern/western Beaker types exchange cultural practices/products?

I'm not a necessarily big proponent that L21 was spread by La Tene verus Halstatt or something else. However, L21 seems to have such a strong correlation with Celtic or potential pre-Celtic (possibly Beaker) speaking areas that it can hardly be explained any other way than a Celtic connection.

I  guess I'm saying I don't think R-L21 in Ireland learned to speak Celtic there.  I think they brought it with them from the continent.

That leaves the possibility that a 'dotty' survey could provide some weird results if L21 is also 'dotty'.
I could not find in my reading of the Myres study that they did a proper cross-sectional sampling by country, so that they could report a valid projected  overall frequency by country.  Maybe they did, but I just don't see it.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 28, 2010, 03:31:46 PM
. . .
I could not find in my reading of the Myres study that they did a proper cross-sectional sampling by country, so that they could report a valid projected  overall frequency by country.  Maybe they did, but I just don't see it.

Yet they formulated maps showing the supposed distribution and frequency of the clades included in that report.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on August 28, 2010, 03:35:39 PM
West Germany was just 100 samples. It happens. The Cruciani study looked at 250 North Africans and found only 1 R1b1b2, a huge disappointment. But judging from a database of 1800 North African samples, North Africa's R1b1b2 is about 4%, so Cruciani's frequency is off by an order of magnitude from reality (0,4% versus 4%). It happens. It's statistics. Most of the results will reflect reality very well, some will be off significantly, and a few will be complete baloney. West Germany must have drawn the short straw in this particular study. The fact alone that south Germany had 2% L21 should tell you that the gradient between France and south Germany will result in west Germany having 5% or 10% L21.

By the way, we know of several haplotype clusters in L21 by now. How likely is it for an L21 to belong to one of these clusters?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 28, 2010, 03:45:45 PM
I really do not want to see L21 in terms of a head count, especially an L21 v U152 head count.  However, it also worth saying that while U152 is the bigger of the two in France it is not by an enormous amount:

.................. L21..........U152..........................S116*
W France......14%.........21.4%........................21.4%
S France.......7.9%........10.5%........................28.9%
E France........8%..........16%..........................24%
N France-not covered but I think L21 would eclipse U152 there

. . .  In fact the real shock is that S116* (which include the 'Iberian' clades is dominant, probably about 25% of the French and similar to L21 and U152 combined.  To some degree single testing for L21, U152 etc when it was negative and not taken to resolution has hidden a lot of them because they cannot be defined as S116* and therefore do not end up on the S116* map.  Another reason may be that there are no  ways to an S116* definition by a stand alone test for an SNP.

. . .


I know you mentioned the "Iberian clades", but I think it is important to state that Myres et al did not test for SRY2627, and SRY2627 is pretty common in France. In Myres' testing regime, SRY2627 would be hidden in that S116* figure. So, the actual S116* frequencies are probably much lower.

Now the interesting thing is that University of Santiago de Compostella study of France did test for SRY2627 and found that in every region tested, except Alsace, R1b1b2* was the most frequent group. Since they didn't test for P312 or L21, that R1b1b2* would include both L21 and P312* (S116*).

It really is a shame those Spanish scientists didn't test for L21 and P312. That would have provided some balance to the Myres et al results, at least for France.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 28, 2010, 04:52:19 PM
West Germany was just 100 samples. It happens. The Cruciani study looked at 250 North Africans and found only 1 R1b1b2, a huge disappointment. But judging from a database of 1800 North African samples, North Africa's R1b1b2 is about 4%, so Cruciani's frequency is off by an order of magnitude from reality (0,4% versus 4%). It happens. It's statistics. Most of the results will reflect reality very well, some will be off significantly, and a few will be complete baloney. West Germany must have drawn the short straw in this particular study. The fact alone that south Germany had 2% L21 should tell you that the gradient between France and south Germany will result in west Germany having 5% or 10% L21.

By the way, we know of several haplotype clusters in L21 by now. How likely is it for an L21 to belong to one of these clusters?

Yes one the project maps you could see L21 had a lot of competition from U152 and U106 with other clades probably underrepresented.  When I did a tot up there was something of a three way split and the possibility of undertested clades too.  However, L21 was holding its own and I think when I counted L21 and U106 were neck in neck and U152 was actually less.  From that I thought L21 would be about a quarter of R1b1b2.  R1b1b2 stands at about 50% in south and west Germany so i would have thought at least 10% of y-DNA was L21.  However,  that wasa very rough guesstimate with loads of unknowns.  Now we know NW Switzerland and E France are around the 8% mark for L21 in the male population, maybe that guess was a little high but Austria has 5.6% (which is actually about about 20% of R1b1b2 there).  I must say I would have found a figure more around the 7% much more believable than the 1 or 2 % noted for L21 among males in south and west Germany.  I would be simply astonished if that is not some sort of quirk of choice of sampling spots. 

Its a shame because a realistic SW German result would have given it a sort of a smooth distribution gradient for continental L21 over the old Gaulsih area varying from a peak of 14% in western France (with a likely higher peak in northern France) with a smooth decline in all directions to about 5-6% in Austria and north-east Spain at the extremities of this 'block' and therefore a very good match for the project map. 

It is interesting too that the likely real frequency peak of L21 in northern France is not likely to be too far from the continental variance peak.  As we are aware the frequency and variance peaks do not always coincide.  So that is interesting.  I think someone posted that in detail the variance peak (if you  the out of Birmingham school of though :0)) was in northern (not NW) France whatever that implies (presumably the NE).  I suppose we do not really know where the frequency peak is although its normally assumed its in the NW.  So, it may not be a close correlation between the two peaks.  If you look at the geography of northern France it would make sense (following the paper's LBK model) if L21 happened in the north-east or north-centre and a westward movement from there ended up in a pile up due to the sea on all sides in NW France leaving no expansion options that did not involve getting into a boat (the area south of the Loire was already settled by Cardial elements)


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2010, 09:39:27 PM
. . .I could not find in my reading of the Myres study that they did a proper cross-sectional sampling by country, so that they could report a valid projected  overall frequency by country.  Maybe they did, but I just don't see it.
Yet they formulated maps showing the supposed distribution and frequency of the clades included in that report.
My wife use to work for Gallup Polls and I've seen also had some Marketing Research experience.  I just don't see how what they did is representative, but maybe I'm stupid.  Once I criticized a formal academic study and and just about had my head bit off because I needed to make such criticisms in the form of another paper or in the right kind of form.  So I won't say Myes was wrong, but I will say I sure don't understand the validity of the country level frequency numbers.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Jdean on August 29, 2010, 05:25:15 AM
I can't help wonder about the M222 distribution in this study.

It's most common in Ireland, obviously, helping to bring the frequency of L21 up to 94% in West Ireland, but it forms 18% of Northern England’s M269 trumping the South of Ireland. It also forms 7% of M269 in Malmö, though how useful a DNA study in a city could be for deep ancestry I'm not entirely sure.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 30, 2010, 09:43:30 AM
Hmm.. according to the Santiago University study U152 is meant to outnumber S116* (negative for SRY 2627) and L21* combined in eastern France.  However in this new paper U152 is 16% in eastern France while L21 (8%) and S116* (16%) (including SYR 2627) comes to 24%.  In fact the maximum that true S116* can be if the Santiago study is correct is 8%, otherwise U152 would not outnumber L21 and S116.  That if taken literally could mean AT LEAST half of the 16% S116* in eastern France in the new paper is SYR 2627.  Otherwise U152 wouldnt be the biggest clade there as the Santiago study suggests.  I know this is not on any sort of firm ground (and I realise its very unlikely SYR 2627 is that evenly spread) but if the estimate that at least half of S116* is SRY 2627 is projected onto this new paper's stats this would split French S116 roughly as follows

.................. L21..........U152..........................S116*...........SYR 2627
W France......14%.........21.4%........................10.7%..............10.7%
S France.......7.9%........10.5%........................14.45%...........14.45%
E France........8%..........16%..........................12%...............12%
N France.......????????????????????????????????????????????????????



Something like that would be compatible with the Santiago paper's statements that U152 is bigger than the S116*/L21* clade in eastern France but the latter is bigger elsewhere.

Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 30, 2010, 04:37:41 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpine area as well.  I do think U106 is slightly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 30, 2010, 05:03:02 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.

Is it still fair to say that S116, U152, L21 and U106 have variances is a similar enough ballpark to suggest they first appeared in the same period broadly speaking?  By that I mean that it doesnt look like that one of those clades is radically different in age. I got the impression that the variance total for each of these clades in the supplimentary data is fairly similar.    


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 30, 2010, 05:24:49 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.

Is it still fair to say that S116, U152, L21 and U106 have variances is a similar enough ballpark to suggest they first appeared in the same period broadly speaking?  By that I mean that it doesnt look like that one of those clades is radically different in age. I got the impression that the variance total for each of these clades was in the supplimentary data is fairly similar.    

Yes, U106, S116(P312), U152 and L21 all happened in fairly rapid order.  I think U106 is considered older than S116(P312).  Perhaps Vince V. will chime in his perspective.

I think L176 and L176/SRY2627 are younger than any of the above but in the ballgame with the above.

I'm pretty sure that M222 and the other L21 subclades, like L193, P314, L226 are all quite a bit younger.

U152's big subclade, L2, seems to be pretty close to the age of U152.

M153, the so-called Basque marker, seems to be younger like L193, etc., but there is limited data on it.

P312* isn't really a group but we could probably look at the North/South Cluster. It seem to be a about LK176/SRY2627's age. Given their spreads,  I almost wonder if L176 and North-South weren't along for the same ride.



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 30, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.
Perhaps this is the big new learning for L21+, the fact M222+ may exist enough in Germany beyond Wild Geese type stories.

If that is the case, then L21*  must have been there too and probably either further directly east or further south.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 30, 2010, 06:17:40 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.
Perhaps this is the big new learning for L21+, the fact M222+ may exist enough in Germany beyond Wild Geese type stories.

If that is the case, then L21*  must have been there too and probably either further directly east or further south.

Mike-sorry I do not follow you.  What is that about M222 in Germany etc.  I hadnt really paid much attention to M222 so I may have missed something. 


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 30, 2010, 07:06:50 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.
Perhaps this is the big new learning for L21+, the fact M222+ may exist enough in Germany beyond Wild Geese type stories.

If that is the case, then L21*  must have been there too and probably either further directly east or further south.

I see now what you are saying.  The France and Germany totals have some M222.  One thing I do not understand is the totals.  How can 'France' or 'Germany' have M222 but the totals that break it down into regions list none?

Personally as M222 appears to be only about a third of the age of L21 etc, I do not really see how the M222 in Germany or France can be native to those areas.  Certainly germline dates for L21 of say 4000 years ago for L21 would only make M222 around the the usual 400AD date , far too late to have come to north Britain and Ireland from France or Germany by any means I can think of.  

I do also wonder again about the figures.  Hobbiest testing has found a lot lot less continental M222 and  think the Santiago de Compostella University paper on French y-DNA only found instances in Paris (hardly surprising) and Tolouse.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on August 30, 2010, 08:22:48 PM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 30, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
... Certainly I think the picture emerging is that France is likely  split into all the major S116 clades with none dominant and that is the main cause for the fairly low Percentages.  In fact France seems to be the only place where a fairly even split among all the main S116 clades with none dominant is the case.  Again along with variance consideration France keeps standing out as the likely source of the earliest expansion of all the main S116  clades.  Surrounding France in all directions it seems that founder effects skewed this even mix towards the dominance of one clade (Iberia, North Italy, Ireland etc).  
As Alan noted, I don't think we can infer too much about the origins from frequency %'s.  I just went through diversity and variance calculations with Ken N, I think it is wise not to infer too much from them either.  I'm not saying the stats are useless, particularly where they seem to all align, but they are just additional data points.

I think the most important thing is just the finding of any significant (more than a Wild Goose find) presence of a subclade, and then lining the subclades to see who is where.  In that regards, France is certainly a point of origin or a crossroads.  It appears SE France and possibly the Alpine region are critical for P312 subclades.  I think it should be notes that U106 has a presence in the Alpin area as well.  I do think U106 is slighltly older than P312 so even if they came from the same place, U106's trail might be thicker back towards the origin.  Same goes for U152 and L21.  U152 might be older.
Perhaps this is the big new learning for L21+, the fact M222+ may exist enough in Germany beyond Wild Geese type stories.

If that is the case, then L21*  must have been there too and probably either further directly east or further south.

I see now what you are saying.  The France and Germany totals have some M222.  One thing I do not understand is the totals.  How can 'France' or 'Germany' have M222 but the totals that break it down into regions list none?

Personally as M222 appears to be only about a third of the age of L21 etc, I do not really see how the M222 in Germany or France can be native to those areas.  Certainly germline dates for L21 of say 4000 years ago for L21 would only make M222 around the the usual 400AD date , far too late to have come to north Britain and Ireland from France or Germany by any means I can think of.  

I do also wonder again about the figures.  Hobbiest testing has found a lot lot less continental M222 and  think the Santiago de Compostella University paper on French y-DNA only found instances in Paris (hardly surprising) and Tolouse.
I don't understand the Myres study numbers either.  On various forums a lot of people have indicated they also do not understand them.  If Myres' data is consistent, I just haven't figured it out.

Myres does show on Table S4 that M222 is 5.3% of Germany.  That number seems incredible*, but even if it is 1% I think that is a ton to be attributed to randy monks or wild geese.

As far as ages go... it does seem so much depends on them.... it would be great to have TMRCA's that we could reliably count on.  I don't trust TMRCA's in general.

I did go to the DNA project data with its 1900 or so R-L21& folks and 400 or so R-M222's and tried to compare variance and diversity over 25 and 67 markers in various ways.  I keep getting that M222 is 55% to 45% of the age of L21.
If (a big if) R-L21's TMRCA is about 4000 ybp then M222 could easily be around Christ's time incarnate, 0 AD.  Right about in time for Gaulish chieftain to flee Caesar.

Of course R-L21 and R-M222's respective TMRCA's could be 30% either direction without much issue statistically speaking.  30% earlier and we have a La Tene chieften traveling to the Isles.

I need to go back and re-read Jean M's thoughts on M222.

* EDIT: I wonder if this is really R-L21*.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 31, 2010, 08:01:02 AM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: pconroy on August 31, 2010, 01:59:38 PM

Myres does show on Table S4 that M222 is 5.3% of Germany.  That number seems incredible*, but even if it is 1% I think that is a ton to be attributed to randy monks or wild geese.

As far as ages go... it does seem so much depends on them.... it would be great to have TMRCA's that we could reliably count on.  I don't trust TMRCA's in general.

I did go to the DNA project data with its 1900 or so R-L21& folks and 400 or so R-M222's and tried to compare variance and diversity over 25 and 67 markers in various ways.  I keep getting that M222 is 55% to 45% of the age of L21.
If (a big if) R-L21's TMRCA is about 4000 ybp then M222 could easily be around Christ's time incarnate, 0 AD.  Right about in time for Gaulish chieftain to flee Caesar.

Of course R-L21 and R-M222's respective TMRCA's could be 30% either direction without much issue statistically speaking.  30% earlier and we have a La Tene chieften traveling to the Isles.

I need to go back and re-read Jean M's thoughts on M222.

* EDIT: I wonder if this is really R-L21*.


I would be interested in everybody's comments on this book, especially Alan's - as the author thesis is that the disruptions caused by the expanding Roman empire into Gaul, and the expanding Germanic tribes on the other hand, pushed the Belgae out of their homelands. He makes a strong case for some of them sailing up the Shannon and settling near Rathcrogan and establishing an oppidum at Turoe - which he provides evidence that it is the real location of Teamhair, rather than Tara in Meath.

http://www.handofhistory.com/
http://www.handofhistory.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=1
http://www.handofhistory.com/excerpts.html

I would add to this that I believe that this account is largely correct, and may have resulted in the Connachta line of kings, which spawned the Breifne and Ui Neill kings. I see R-M222 as being from Northern Eastern France/Belgium originally. I see the the Belgae as being West Germanic speaking and being the start of English speaking Britons.

I myself have the most divergent R-M222 in the whole FTDNA Project, and my closest matches are Daltons, then O'Reilly, O'Rourke and other Breifne clans. Dalton is a Norman name in Ireland. So I think that R-M222 may have multiple sources in Ireland, with the largest body being the Ui Neill descendants - which creates an artificial younger age TMRCA.

This would tie up most loose ends, right?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: pconroy on August 31, 2010, 02:03:31 PM
BTW, I am Y-Search:
DFG6F


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 31, 2010, 03:02:45 PM
We've got 924 R-L21* haplotypes of 25 or greater STRs that have Old World MDKA's.  

Below are the diversity numbers at a granular regional level.  I was more granular where we have high numbers of MDKA's.
....
I've tried a view different ways to do variance and diversity calculations and have found some relative results that seem to hold up for R-L21. I am including R-M222 in R-L21 and I'm ignoring regions where there aren't many samples (and I think am on really thin ice.)

I'll just group this by high, medium, low.  Everything is listed in order by general geographic category:

Category I. The Continent & Scandinavia

HIGH
France North & Central

MEDIUM
France North Atlantic
Germany
Iberian Peninsula
Scandinavia North Sea side
Alpine & Cisalpine

LOW
Scandinavia Baltic Sea side
Aquitaine & Pyrenees
Low Countries

Category II. England & Wales

HIGH
England West Midlands
England East Midlands
England Yorkshire and Humbria
England South East

MEDIUM
England North West
England South West
Wales
England London

LOW
England East
England North East

Category III. Scotland

MEDIUM
Scotland East
Scotland Strathclyde

LOW
Scotland South
Scotland North

Category III. Ireland

HIGH
Ireland Munster

MEDIUM
Ireland Leinster
Ireland Connacht
Ireland Ulster

Category IV. R-M222 only

HIGH
England (all)

MEDIUM
Scotland East

VERY LOW
Ireland (All - it doesn't matter what province)
Scotland (All - it doesn't matter what region other than the East)


The shocker for me is that M222's variance in England is actually quite high.  It doesn't seem that young there.

As I noted in a prior post, the English Midlands and Yorkshire have very high variance for R-L21.  I don't think there is any doubt that L21 was in England before it made it to Ireland and Scotland...  either that or repeated immigrations (i.e. Vikings, Normans, Flemish) all made England more of a mix.  Wales seems to have missed some of the thrashing.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on August 31, 2010, 04:30:41 PM
I have tried to make sense of the Myres data.
If we do a hotspot analysis of Table S4 we get

http://www.box.net/shared/hxp8ie25yv

If we do the same for Table S2 we get

http://www.box.net/shared/3vxrpcxib9

Summarising both tables we get:

Subclade      Frequency      Origin   Age BCE
M269      Ireland      Turkey   11173±2386
L23      Caucasus      Caucasus   10093±1783
M412      Ireland      Danube   8870±1708
L11      England      Germany   9481±3926
P312 (S116)   Iberia      Turkey   8742±1551
L21 (M529)   Ireland      England   8691±1649
M222      Ireland      Ireland   3800±1217

http://www.box.net/shared/f74c09ti18

Possible migration scenarios for M222 gives

http://www.box.net/shared/oqtrep2dng


Of course we than have to interpret it all in the context of archealogy, language and historical record.







Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 31, 2010, 04:53:31 PM

Myres does show on Table S4 that M222 is 5.3% of Germany.  That number seems incredible*, but even if it is 1% I think that is a ton to be attributed to randy monks or wild geese.

As far as ages go... it does seem so much depends on them.... it would be great to have TMRCA's that we could reliably count on.  I don't trust TMRCA's in general.

I did go to the DNA project data with its 1900 or so R-L21& folks and 400 or so R-M222's and tried to compare variance and diversity over 25 and 67 markers in various ways.  I keep getting that M222 is 55% to 45% of the age of L21.
If (a big if) R-L21's TMRCA is about 4000 ybp then M222 could easily be around Christ's time incarnate, 0 AD.  Right about in time for Gaulish chieftain to flee Caesar.

Of course R-L21 and R-M222's respective TMRCA's could be 30% either direction without much issue statistically speaking.  30% earlier and we have a La Tene chieften traveling to the Isles.

I need to go back and re-read Jean M's thoughts on M222.

* EDIT: I wonder if this is really R-L21*.


I would be interested in everybody's comments on this book, especially Alan's - as the author thesis is that the disruptions caused by the expanding Roman empire into Gaul, and the expanding Germanic tribes on the other hand, pushed the Belgae out of their homelands. He makes a strong case for some of them sailing up the Shannon and settling near Rathcrogan and establishing an oppidum at Turoe - which he provides evidence that it is the real location of Teamhair, rather than Tara in Meath.

http://www.handofhistory.com/
http://www.handofhistory.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=1
http://www.handofhistory.com/excerpts.html

I would add to this that I believe that this account is largely correct, and may have resulted in the Connachta line of kings, which spawned the Breifne and Ui Neill kings. I see R-M222 as being from Northern Eastern France/Belgium originally. I see the the Belgae as being West Germanic speaking and being the start of English speaking Britons.

I myself have the most divergent R-M222 in the whole FTDNA Project, and my closest matches are Daltons, then O'Reilly, O'Rourke and other Breifne clans. Dalton is a Norman name in Ireland. So I think that R-M222 may have multiple sources in Ireland, with the largest body being the Ui Neill descendants - which creates an artificial younger age TMRCA.

This would tie up most loose ends, right?


I have not read it but I can tell from the summary and the style that we are dealing with a keen amateur historian and linguist with some training but not an archaeologist or a mainstream historian.  I can see his arguement for the Turoe area being very important and a likely royal site akin to several other major ones in Iron Age Ireland which is exciting.  However, I do not see at all where he gets the link with the Belgae which is the crucial bit.  The Belgae had a distinct material culture and it is unknown in Ireland.  

I cant say a lot as I have not read it but it does look like it is in the tradition of building a narrative pre-history based on place-names and hints from linguistics in the style of TF O'Rahilly.  Irish literature, laws and annals are a unique and wonderful source for a northern European society of the period 500AD onwards for several centuries but I think their value for the preceding period (the Iron Age) is much more limited than seems at first.  Even the period just a few centuries earlier than 500AD represented on Ptolemy's map of the 2nd century AD does not tally much with the tribes and peoples Irish legends represent as occupying Ireland in the Iron Age.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 31, 2010, 05:13:24 PM
We've got 924 R-L21* haplotypes of 25 or greater STRs that have Old World MDKA's.  

Below are the diversity numbers at a granular regional level.  I was more granular where we have high numbers of MDKA's.
....
I've tried a view different ways to do variance and diversity calculations and have found some relative results that seem to hold up for R-L21. I am including R-M222 in R-L21 and I'm ignoring regions where there aren't many samples (and I think am on really thin ice.)

I'll just group this by high, medium, low.  Everything is listed in order by general geographic category:

Category I. The Continent & Scandinavia

HIGH
France North & Central

MEDIUM
France North Atlantic
Germany
Iberian Peninsula
Scandinavia North Sea side
Alpine & Cisalpine

LOW
Scandinavia Baltic Sea side
Aquitaine & Pyrenees
Low Countries

Category II. England & Wales

HIGH
England West Midlands
England East Midlands
England Yorkshire and Humbria
England South East

MEDIUM
England North West
England South West
Wales
England London

LOW
England East
England North East

Category III. Scotland

MEDIUM
Scotland East
Scotland Strathclyde

LOW
Scotland South
Scotland North

Category III. Ireland

HIGH
Ireland Munster

MEDIUM
Ireland Leinster
Ireland Connacht
Ireland Ulster

Category IV. R-M222 only

HIGH
England (all)

MEDIUM
Scotland East

VERY LOW
Ireland (All - it doesn't matter what province)
Scotland (All - it doesn't matter what region other than the East)


The shocker for me is that M222's variance in England is actually quite high.  It doesn't seem that young there.

As I noted in a prior post, the English Midlands and Yorkshire have very high variance for R-L21.  I don't think there is any doubt that L21 was in England before it made it to Ireland and Scotland...  either that or repeated immigrations (i.e. Vikings, Normans, Flemish) all made England more of a mix.  Wales seems to have missed some of the thrashing.


To be honest I cant even begin to make any sense of those patterns, particularly when neighbouring parts of the same country have very different variances.  

Mike-when you say that English M222 has high variance and Ireland very low can you elaborate.  That is an astonishing thing.  People usually say Irish M222 dates to around 400AD.  If English M222 is much older then that could provide a very different history.  Proportionally how much more variance of M222 has England got compared to Ireland.  That might allow us to work out a possible date relatively if we assume the normal date given for the Irish M222 is correct.  



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 31, 2010, 05:31:50 PM
.....
Category IV. R-M222 only

HIGH
England (all)

MEDIUM
Scotland East

VERY LOW
Ireland (All - it doesn't matter what province)
Scotland (All - it doesn't matter what region other than the East)

The shocker for me is that M222's variance in England is actually quite high. ....
....
Mike-when you say that English M222 has high variance and Ireland very low can you elaborate.  That is an astonishing thing.  So people usually say Irish M222 dates to around 400AD.  If English M222 is much older then that could provide a very different history.  Proportionally how much more variance of M222 has England got compared to Ireland.  That might allow us to work out a possible date relatively if we assume the normal date given for the Irish M222 is correct. 
The haplotypes for M222 in Ireland, and also in Scotland, appear fairly similar to each other in comparison to the haplotypes in England.  The implication is that the M222 in England are not nearly as close related to each other as the M222 in Ireland and Scotland. 

It could just be the M222 in England are all recent migrations of somewhat  unrelated and scattered M222 people from Scotland and Ireland..  I guess that's possible.  I should go look at the M222 people in England see if they have close GD's with some Irish clusters.  If not, then the English M222 just must have been there a long time.... at least in comparison to the Irish M222.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on August 31, 2010, 05:42:33 PM

I would be interested in everybody's comments on this book, especially Alan's - as the author thesis is that the disruptions caused by the expanding Roman empire into Gaul, and the expanding Germanic tribes on the other hand, pushed the Belgae out of their homelands. He makes a strong case for some of them sailing up the Shannon and settling near Rathcrogan and establishing an oppidum at Turoe - which he provides evidence that it is the real location of Teamhair, rather than Tara in Meath.

http://www.handofhistory.com/
http://www.handofhistory.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=1
http://www.handofhistory.com/excerpts.html


Thanks for the recommendation. It sounds like an interesting book.  The beautiful Turoe stone is near the site of my ancestors in Co. Galway.






Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on August 31, 2010, 05:48:21 PM

It could just be the M222 in England are all recent migrations of somewhat  unrelated and scattered M222 people from Scotland and Ireland..  I guess that's possible.  I should go look at the M222 people in England see if they have close GD's with some Irish clusters.  If not, then the English M222 just must have been there a long time.... at least in comparison to the Irish M222.

Mike, I read somewhere that according to a recent census, up to 25% of people in Britain claimed Irish ancestry.

"10% of the British population has one Irish grandparent[4] and approximately a quarter claimed some Irish ancestry in one survey (although the report's authors noted that many people were probably "exaggerating".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora#Britain



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 31, 2010, 05:57:35 PM
.....
Category IV. R-M222 only

HIGH
England (all)

MEDIUM
Scotland East

VERY LOW
Ireland (All - it doesn't matter what province)
Scotland (All - it doesn't matter what region other than the East)

The shocker for me is that M222's variance in England is actually quite high. ....
....
Mike-when you say that English M222 has high variance and Ireland very low can you elaborate.  That is an astonishing thing.  So people usually say Irish M222 dates to around 400AD.  If English M222 is much older then that could provide a very different history.  Proportionally how much more variance of M222 has England got compared to Ireland.  That might allow us to work out a possible date relatively if we assume the normal date given for the Irish M222 is correct. 
The haplotypes for M222 in Ireland, and also in Scotland, appear fairly similar to each other in comparison to the haplotypes in England.  The implication is that the M222 in England are not nearly as close related to each other as the M222 in Ireland and Scotland. 

It could just be the M222 in England are all recent migrations of somewhat  unrelated and scattered M222 people from Scotland and Ireland..  I guess that's possible.  I should go look at the M222 people in England see if they have close GD's with some Irish clusters.  If not, then the English M222 just must have been there a long time.... at least in comparison to the Irish M222.

Mike

Do you have a calculation or is that an impression only.  If there are figures how much more variance does England have than Ireland - 50% more? twice? three times?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on August 31, 2010, 06:37:57 PM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)

I meant if someone can share the study.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on August 31, 2010, 06:44:21 PM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)

I meant if someone can share the study.

I think I just read it online. I don't have it on my computer.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2010, 06:07:09 AM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)

I meant if someone can share the study.

I think I just read it online. I don't have it on my computer.

Argiedude I found it in the French L21 thread.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1875-1768/PIIS1875176809002340.pdf

A couple of us emailed the authors to see if they could give us more data or even just % breakdowns of the clades but we never got a reply.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
.....
Category IV. R-M222 only

HIGH
England (all)

MEDIUM
Scotland East

VERY LOW
Ireland (All - it doesn't matter what province)
Scotland (All - it doesn't matter what region other than the East)

The shocker for me is that M222's variance in England is actually quite high. ....
....
Mike-when you say that English M222 has high variance and Ireland very low can you elaborate.  That is an astonishing thing.  So people usually say Irish M222 dates to around 400AD.  If English M222 is much older then that could provide a very different history.  Proportionally how much more variance of M222 has England got compared to Ireland.  That might allow us to work out a possible date relatively if we assume the normal date given for the Irish M222 is correct. 
The haplotypes for M222 in Ireland, and also in Scotland, appear fairly similar to each other in comparison to the haplotypes in England.  The implication is that the M222 in England are not nearly as close related to each other as the M222 in Ireland and Scotland. 

It could just be the M222 in England are all recent migrations of somewhat  unrelated and scattered M222 people from Scotland and Ireland..  I guess that's possible.  I should go look at the M222 people in England see if they have close GD's with some Irish clusters.  If not, then the English M222 just must have been there a long time.... at least in comparison to the Irish M222.
Do you have a calculation or is that an impression only.  If there are figures how much more variance does England have than Ireland - 50% more? twice? three times?
Yes, I have multiple calculations. However, I feel a bit like a Tim Janzen displaying a rash of numbers that don't always line up.  In other words, the results change depending on 25 markers versus 67 markers, sample size, variance versus diversity, etc.  That's why I just put the above into general categories - high, medium, low - where there was an alignment of diversity and variance results.

I probably should put English R-M222 in the Medium (or Med to High) versus the High variance bucket.  However, Irish R-M222 or Scottish R-M222 are both clearly Low to Very Low variance.   All of the adjectives (High, Med, etc.) are in terms relative to R-L21 overall.

The actual calculations indicate English R-M222 ranging from 25% to 70% higher variance than Irish R-M222.  The 70% seems a bit outlandish, but maybe that is just our predisposition on what we thought we new about R-M222.  I did check GD's on some of the English R-M222s versus Irish.  They don't seem to be related in the last 200 years, but beyond that I can't say too much. 

Here are some of the surnames from England: Owsley, Savage, Smith, Kelly, Bell, Ryall, Knowles, Clarkson, Dalton, Howle, John.  Kelly sounds Irish but I don't know about the rest.   I think it is possible that these are all Irish back-migration people but they really could be at least partially just forms of R-M222 that have been in place for a while.  That would make sense given the Myres data of M222 in Germany.   We do have one individual in the FTDNA project data that is from Germany - N14949 Lominac.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on September 01, 2010, 11:31:36 AM


The actual calculations indicate English R-M222 ranging from 25% to 70% higher variance than Irish R-M222.  The 70% seems a bit outlandish, but maybe that is just our predisposition on what we thought we new about R-M222.  I did check GD's on some of the English R-M222s versus Irish.  They don't seem to be related in the last 200 years, but beyond that I can't say too much. 


Mike,

Below is the data from the Myres paper for M222.
It clearly shows that age and diversity of M222 is higher in Ireland than England.
In addition the frequency for M222 and three of its ancestor clades is highest in Ireland.
(See my analysis of the Myres paper above).
All of the academic papers have clearly indicated that M222 is a Ireland based clade in frequency and diversity and the historical record for a founder effect (Niall) is compelling.

M222   England   6   3.321   1.455   0.090
   Ireland   16   3.865   1.584   0.095



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 11:36:07 AM
Alan, I respect your opinion tremendously so I'm not trying to pick on you, particularly as you are just speculating as I am.  However,  I do want to try articulate part of why I think R-L21 is more of a Bronze Age phenomenon than a Neolithic one.
....  People usually say Irish M222 dates to around 400AD....

Our DNA project MDKA info is at the mercy of individuals' genealogical research and are biased by American immigration source patterns.  However, the SNP and STR haplotype information is what it is and so I feel pretty good about it.  We have almost 2000 R-L21 haplotypes and almost 400 R-M222 haploytypes.  I ran those through several variance calculations and a diversity calculation.  R-M222's age relative to R-L21 should be somewhere in the ranges of these these results: 42%, 46%, 53%, 47% and 57%.  Roughly, R-M222 is about half of R-L21's age.

Most people do assume R-M222 expansion started around 400 AD.  If that is true then R-L21 must have expanded starting around 1200 BC.  Let's give a 30% either direction either way and you get R-L21's expansion starting anywhere from 2200 BC to 200 BC.  

I cite Anatole K. as an example, but only because he is very public in his statements.  Anatole and others who are good with their statistics come out with TMRCA's for R-L21 in the 2000 BC range.   Even FTDNA's (Dr. Hammers) has said R-M269 is 4-8K ybp (midpoint of 4000 BC.) I think Vince V's ht35 discussion showed about 1000 years from R-M269* to R-U106 so we just keep creeping closer to the Bronze Age as the prime time for Western European R-M269 L11+ clades.  The middle to late Neolith seems to be earliest possible carrier for L11+'s expansions.  Of course one has to ask how IE languages got all over the place as well.

Perhaps, the R-L21 is really 8000 ybp, but then R-M222 must be 4000 ybp and then what a lot of people think about Irish population genetics is bunk.. which may be.

...  Perhaps L21 happened in northern France among the descendants of LBK people but after the LBK period.  I think there is evidence in the variance for this.  If L21 happened as it was spreading into France then it would be somewhere between 7000-8000 years old (if I recall correctly).  Now we know that the Neolithic spread to England around 4400BC (new early dated sites) and Ireland by just after 4000BC.  If L21 was up to 8000 years old in France but under 6000 years old in Ireland we would expect French L21 to be a third greater in France than in Ireland. It seems a lot closer than that so  I think the idea floated in this report that the spread of R1b1b2 (including L21) into the isles was due to post-LBK (but LBK-descended) middle Neolithic groups is interesting. ...


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 12:04:30 PM
The actual calculations indicate English R-M222 ranging from 25% to 70% higher variance than Irish R-M222.  The 70% seems a bit outlandish, but maybe that is just our predisposition on what we thought we new about R-M222.  ....
....  Below is the data from the Myres paper for M222.
It clearly shows that age and diversity of M222 is higher in Ireland than England.
In addition the frequency for M222 and three of its ancestor clades is highest in Ireland.
(See my analysis of the Myres paper above).
All of the academic papers have clearly indicated that M222 is a Ireland based clade in frequency and diversity and the historical record for a founder effect (Niall) is compelling.

M222   England   6   3.321   1.455   0.090
      Ireland   16   3.865   1.584   0.095

I have no doubt that M222 is by far most frequent in Ireland and in Scotland so I agree with you on that point.  However, frequency is not necessarily a great indicator of origin or migration path.  I do not know where M222 originated but I disagree that there is a conclusive answer and that it is Ireland.

Here is why I don't think Myres study is at all conclusive on this matter.  Let's compare the data sets that you cite with hobbyist project data.

______________ Myres study ______ DNA Project Analysis
Ireland
Number of Hts _ 16 _______________ 202
England
Number of Hts _ 6 ________________ 10
Num. of STRs __ 10 _______________ 67 and 25


To say that the Myres table you cite contains limited or spotty data is an understatement. On the other hand, the ten English Hts from our DNA projects are not near enough either.  The 202 Irish Hts is a decent number though.

If we suppose that Myres' data is definitive we should consider Table S4.  They have M222 at the following frequencies:
5.3% - Germany
6.3% - France
14.3% - England North

How do you propose that the 5.3% of the German population that is M222 got there?   BTW, the population of Ireland is around 5M while the population in Germany is up in the mid 80M range.  That's a lot of M222.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on September 01, 2010, 01:23:14 PM
Mike,
The Diaspora of Ireland is about 80M. There are probably more M222 in New York City or Boston than Ireland but that does deter from the fact that that it came from Ireland. I will look at your data closer to investigate any obvious explanations. I do not agree with the Myres age estimates but they are all we have to work with at the moment.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2010, 01:26:37 PM
Mike

Can you elaborate a little more on what you said recently about M222 having much more variance in England than Ireland and give an indication of relatively how much more.  

I take it that the data for M222 in the continent is far too small to make variance observations.  I have certainly noticed in the past that variance is always low in a tiny sample and get bigger as the sample improves.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2010, 01:41:50 PM
Mike,
The Diaspora of Ireland is about 80M. There are probably more M222 in New York City or Boston than Ireland but that does deter from the fact that that it came from Ireland. I will look at your data closer to investigate any obvious explanations. I do not agree with the Myres age estimates but they are all we have to work with at the moment.

I do not doubt that a huge majority of M222 in America came with Irish migration.  I also do not doubt a huge majority (although nothing like as big as M222) of L21* comes from the British Isles. That is partly down to percentage in the 'old countries' and also must be reinforced by the sheer amount of immigration from Britain and Ireland to America.  It has never been in doubt that being M222 means in a large majority of cases an Irish ancestor.  It has also never been in doubt that L21 heavily leans towards a British Isles ancestor (although not nearly as much as M222 does). However, most of the discussions in these threads are about the deep time origin of the clades and that is not always (even often?) indicated by frequency.  Phylogeny and variance are the only tools until ancient y-DNA extraction comes through.  These often show that the likely oldest place an SNP happened or first expanded can be a long way from its origin.  This is true for R1b1b2 as a whole and it seems to be true for most of the clades if the various calculations are looked at.  I think possibly the problem with M222 is its hard to get reliable variance figures for outside Ireland.  Mike posted that M222 variance is much higher in England than Ireland and there is also the new issue of a far too high M222 count on the continent to explain away by a few late migrants.

However, that is deep time stuff and it does not take away the fact that a positive M222 result as a genealogical tool seems to very very heavily weight probability towards an Irish origin. 


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: y24 on September 01, 2010, 02:55:30 PM
There was large scale migration from the Celtic areas of the Isles into England during the Industrial Revolution:

"After 1840, emigration had become a massive, relentless, and efficiently managed national enterprise. Counting those who went to Britain, between 9 and 10 million Irish men, women, and children emigrated after 1700. The total flow was more than the population at its historical peak in the 1830s of 8.5 million. From 1830 to 1914, almost 5 million went to the United States alone. In 1890 two of every five Irish-born people were living abroad."

"The 2001 UK Census states 869,093 people born in Ireland as living in Great Britain, with over 10% of the population (over 6 million) being of Irish descent."

"10% of the British population has one Irish grandparent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora#Britain


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 04:07:26 PM
Mike,
The Diaspora of Ireland is about 80M. There are probably more M222 in New York City or Boston than Ireland but that does deter from the fact that that it came from Ireland. I will look at your data closer to investigate any obvious explanations. I do not agree with the Myres age estimates but they are all we have to work with at the moment.
Heber,

I don't know about estimating M222 in the U.S. but since that is a full ocean away and the was US populated at a much later point in time - much less densely populated area; I'm not sure if the parallel is fully valid.

However, that is not the point.  There is no doubt a ton of M222 in Ireland.  We know of large Irish migrations to the Americas.  

What I'm asking you, is how do you propose that over 4M M222's (5.3%) have shown up in Germany, which was already a densely populated area and not exactly friendly all of the time to westerners?    I may have the answer for you, but I'm not sure it is right.   I believe the Irish Disapora of the 19th century did include migrations into the European Continent as well as the US.  

However, there is a fly in the ointment.  If there was a significant impact, countries like Italy should also have M222 showing up on the radar screen, not just Germany. Besides the British Isles, Myres only shows M222 present at all in France, Germany and also South Sweden (Table S4).  Out of the 394 R-M222 confirmed folks in our DNA projects, outside of the Isles, only Germany and Norway show up.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: IALEM on September 01, 2010, 04:11:37 PM
Regarding L-21 in Spain, the result in Santander could be a bit misleading for the area, since it is under 50% of M-269 of total population. If L-21 is just at the same percentage in the Basque Country as it is in Santander it would be close to 10%, and my guess is that the L-21 in Santander got there through the Basque Country, so it must be higher. Too bad the Myres study didn´t test the large Basque sample from Alonso et alii.
In any case, I think it is becoming clear that L-21 is not a rarity in the Basque Country, as I guessed at the time, given that my paternal line has very old roots there. When I got my positive result for L-21 inmediately some people in the DNA forums tried to adjudicate me an Irish/British origin...


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 04:23:15 PM
There was large scale migration from the Celtic areas of the Isles into England during the Industrial Revolution:

"After 1840, emigration had become a massive, relentless, and efficiently managed national enterprise. Counting those who went to Britain, between 9 and 10 million Irish men, women, and children emigrated after 1700. The total flow was more than the population at its historical peak in the 1830s of 8.5 million. From 1830 to 1914, almost 5 million went to the United States alone. In 1890 two of every five Irish-born people were living abroad."

"The 2001 UK Census states 869,093 people born in Ireland as living in Great Britain, with over 10% of the population (over 6 million) being of Irish descent."

"10% of the British population has one Irish grandparent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora#Britain
I don't know if you noticed, but the DNA project information I am using is based on MDKA's, mostly of a generation or two or three back.  Some of the very recent numbers (i.e. 2001) you are using are impacted by the current mobility of society as well as changes in the nature of the United Kingdom.

Please also note (as I've already posted) that I checked the GD's of the English M222s.  Several did not have matches in Ireland in the last 1000 years or so, almost all did not seem to have matches in the last 200 years (which includes the Irish Diaspora).  That doesn't mean these guys aren't Irish transplants.  They very well could be.  I'm just saying the origin of M222 is an open question from a genetic data point of view.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 04:28:40 PM
.... When I got my positive result for L-21 inmediately some people in the DNA forums tried to adjudicate me an Irish/British origin...
Yes, it seems some people need L21 to be Britano-Irish.  No doubt, much of it is, but that doesn't mean it's origin is there.  I stepped on a few toes over there pretty hard on the issue this summer.  The thread got locked and some of those going over the deep end seemed to go into hiding.... but I had some inconsistencies well pointed out and was disappointed in the logic of some of the counter-arguments.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 01, 2010, 05:01:09 PM
... Can you elaborate a little more on what you said recently about M222 having much more variance in England than Ireland and give an indication of relatively how much more.
Alan,
I tried to answer in this post.  What I did is calculate variance for English and Irish M222 at 25 and at 67 (actually just the 50 non multi-copy) markers.  I also calculated diversity for the same.  The numbers for England came up higher in the ranges I list.
....  The actual calculations indicate English R-M222 ranging from 25% to 70% higher variance than Irish R-M222. ...

I take it that the data for M222 in the continent is far too small to make variance observations.
I don't see the detail of the haplotypes in Germany or France from the Myres study.  If anyone sees it somewhere, let me know.  As far as our DNA projects, we only have the one M222 from Germany and the one from Norway.

I have certainly noticed in the past that variance is always low in a tiny sample and get bigger as the sample improves.  
That may be, but I don't know if there is any logic to that other than luck. The count of the English MDKA M222's from the projects is ten. To me that is a small sample so I wouldn't bet too much on it.  Still, the Myres study confirms some significant presence of M222 in France and in Germany so it is worth investigating.



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on September 01, 2010, 06:28:28 PM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)

I meant if someone can share the study.

I think I just read it online. I don't have it on my computer.

Argiedude I found it in the French L21 thread.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1875-1768/PIIS1875176809002340.pdf

A couple of us emailed the authors to see if they could give us more data or even just % breakdowns of the clades but we never got a reply.


I originally asked because Alan had stated the following:

"I do also wonder again about the figures.  Hobbiest testing has found a lot lot less continental M222 and  think the Santiago de Compostella University paper on French y-DNA only found instances in Paris (hardly surprising) and Tolouse."

I got the impression someone had obtained the haplogroup results by region (or just the results, period!).


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 01, 2010, 08:32:55 PM
. . .
Myres does show on Table S4 that M222 is 5.3% of Germany.  

. . .

* EDIT: I wonder if this is really R-L21*.


That has got to be an error. I think you are right in your "EDIT" note. It seems to me there are quite a few problems with Myres' figures.

I find it impossible to believe that the L21 frequencies they list for Germany are correct. If German L21 were really as low as Myres et al say it is, we wouldn't have had so many men of German ancestry test L21+ with FTDNA.

5.3% L21 (instead of M222) would make a lot more sense, especially given the 5.6% L21 figure in neighboring Austria.

And those are percentages of the total male population, not merely of the R1b1b2.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2010, 10:35:12 PM
. . .
Myres does show on Table S4 that M222 is 5.3% of Germany.  

. . .

* EDIT: I wonder if this is really R-L21*.


That has got to be an error. I think you are right in your "EDIT" note. It seems to me there are quite a few problems with Myres' figures.

I find it impossible to believe that the L21 frequencies they list for Germany are correct. If German L21 were really as low as Myres et al say it is, we wouldn't have had so many men of German ancestry test L21+ with FTDNA.

5.3% L21 (instead of M222) would make a lot more sense, especially given the 5.6% L21 figure in neighboring Austria.

And those are percentages of the total male population, not merely of the R1b1b2.

Another issue I think is M222 is not that common in the parts of Ireland facing the continent.  NW Ireland is very remote from the continent.  

Regarding Austria if I recall correctly R1b1b2 is only about 20 or so so that 5.6% of total population is a big chunk of it.  Its actually a real bonus to get a stat for Austria because it must be the most testing-shy country in western Europe.   


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2010, 10:51:54 PM
Does anyone have that y-dna study of France (Santiago de Compostela)?

Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va (http://tinyurl.com/2btr8va)

I meant if someone can share the study.

I think I just read it online. I don't have it on my computer.

Argiedude I found it in the French L21 thread.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1875-1768/PIIS1875176809002340.pdf

A couple of us emailed the authors to see if they could give us more data or even just % breakdowns of the clades but we never got a reply.


I originally asked because Alan had stated the following:

"I do also wonder again about the figures.  Hobbiest testing has found a lot lot less continental M222 and  think the Santiago de Compostella University paper on French y-DNA only found instances in Paris (hardly surprising) and Tolouse."

I got the impression someone had obtained the haplogroup results by region (or just the results, period!).

We tried hard and emailed the authors but no dice.  I cannot understand why they did not even give percentages.  All we had was the statement that U152 is the biggest clade in the east (Alsace) but elsewhere S116* (which in this case would include untested L21*) outnumbered U152.  When you compare this with the new paper it actually is compatible.  We also had the statement that M222 had been found in Paris and Tolouse but not in the other areas (NW, NW, E, S, SE).  Paris of course is a huge city so that tells us nothing.  The M222 presence in Tolouse is interesting but no numbers are quoted.  However, if you  Paris and note that it was absent in the other testing areas other than Tolouse it makes it mighty hard to see how there could be as significant an M222 presence in France as implied by Myers paper.   


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: y24 on September 02, 2010, 05:27:01 AM
There was large scale migration from the Celtic areas of the Isles into England during the Industrial Revolution:

"After 1840, emigration had become a massive, relentless, and efficiently managed national enterprise. Counting those who went to Britain, between 9 and 10 million Irish men, women, and children emigrated after 1700. The total flow was more than the population at its historical peak in the 1830s of 8.5 million. From 1830 to 1914, almost 5 million went to the United States alone. In 1890 two of every five Irish-born people were living abroad."

"The 2001 UK Census states 869,093 people born in Ireland as living in Great Britain, with over 10% of the population (over 6 million) being of Irish descent."

"10% of the British population has one Irish grandparent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora#Britain
I don't know if you noticed, but the DNA project information I am using is based on MDKA's, mostly of a generation or two or three back.  Some of the very recent numbers (i.e. 2001) you are using are impacted by the current mobility of society as well as changes in the nature of the United Kingdom.
If you noticed, the main Irish migration was more than two or three generations back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora#Britain
That doesn't mean these guys aren't Irish transplants.  They very well could be.  I'm just saying the origin of M222 is an open question from a genetic data point of view.
I'm also just saying, being familiar with the history of the Industrial Revolution and some of our family trees here in England, they could well be 'Irish transplants'. Many of us have a bit of Irish in us, especially in the bigger cities and old industrial towns. It's not unusual, as Tom Jones says.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 02, 2010, 09:20:14 AM
That doesn't mean these guys aren't Irish transplants.  They very well could be. I'm just saying the origin of M222 is an open question from a genetic data point of view.
I'm also just saying, being familiar with the history of the Industrial Revolution and some of our family trees here in England, they could well be 'Irish transplants'. Many of us have a bit of Irish in us, especially in the bigger cities and old industrial towns. It's not unusual, as Tom Jones says.
I think it is quite likely there are many Irish transplants throughout England and probably some on the continent.  I'm fine with that. I have no bone to pick and in fact my ggg-grandfather was a Kilkenny Irishman.  However, I don't think the book is closed on M222's origin.  I think some of the Myres data is hard to understand, if not questionable....  but I don't want to assume it away.  M222 is not as young as people think, in my opinion.  The older it is (and/or if the older the TMRCA calculation methods prove correct) then the more likely it originated further east, possibly across the Channel or even the Rhine.

P.S. Tom Jones would be Welsh, right?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Jdean on September 02, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
P.S. Tom Jones would be Welsh, right?

A proper Valleys boyo


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: pconroy on September 02, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
Thanks for the recommendation. It sounds like an interesting book.  The beautiful Turoe stone is near the site of my ancestors in Co. Galway.

Also check out this R-M222 discussion thread:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DNA-R1B1C7/2009-01/1231241661


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 02, 2010, 03:08:53 PM
.... We do have one individual in the FTDNA project data that is from Germany - N14949 Lominac.
A second German MDKA has now shown up and joined the M222 project although the name looks French to me.  I wonder how many continental M222's are in FTDNA but wouldn't to join the "Northwest Irish" project (or maybe not any project) because it must have nothing to do with them?  Maybe it's okay now since Myres says there may be some M222 on the continent.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 02, 2010, 03:30:28 PM
"I was told by my great aunt that three brothers came over from Alsace Lorraine to South Carolina in about 1840. This is currently France today but has been swapped back and forth with Germany over the centuries.

I had a German professor who had fled Nazi germany, but who had earned a doctorate before the war in Slavic languages. He told me that Lominac(k) is a Czech name, and I notice there is a Lominacki (sp.?) river in the western (German-speaking) portion of the Czech Republic".

This from WEB. Also to me it would seem a slavic surname, but I am not expert of these surnames like  the Italian ones.
But the ancient origin by a genetic point of view is worth more than a word.




Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 02, 2010, 03:48:06 PM
”Common misspellings and typos for this name: Lomincak, Lmoinack, Loimnack, oLminack, Lominac, Lominaca, Lominsck, Lominack, Lomonack, Lominacka, Lominacke, Lominacki, Lominacko, Lominnack”.

Interesting the metathesis “Loimnack” for “Lominack” like that “Leimone” for “Lemoine” we have discussed on another thread.
 



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Heber on September 02, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
.... We do have one individual in the FTDNA project data that is from Germany - N14949 Lominac.
A second German MDKA has now shown up and joined the M222 project although the name looks French to me.  I wonder how many continental M222's are in FTDNA but wouldn't to join the "Northwest Irish" project (or maybe not any project) because it must have nothing to do with them?  Maybe it's okay now since Myres says there may be some M222 on the continent.

Mike,
Myres has placed M222 firmly by frequency, diversity and age in Ireland as have all serious studies prior to this one.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jrw on September 02, 2010, 07:58:07 PM
I am not a statistician, but it appears from some of the earlier posts in this thread that there is too much significance being attributed to some of the figures in Table S4.  Regarding the sample population "Germany," the 5.3% of M222 means that just ONE male out of a sample of 19 tested M222 positive.  If the entire sample population for all of the German cohorts is considered, there is just ONE M222 positive male out of a population sample of 321, or 0.3% -- a much different, and more statistically valid result.  

However, unless there was bias in drawing the population samples,  the result of only 7 males being L21 out of a population sample of 321 for all of the German cohorts, or 2.2%, should be indicative that L21 is rare in present-day Germany.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: y24 on September 02, 2010, 09:16:04 PM
P.S. Tom Jones would be Welsh, right?
Correct.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 02, 2010, 09:22:26 PM
I am not a statistician, but it appears from some of the earlier posts in this thread that there is too much significance being attributed to some of the figures in Table S4.  Regarding the sample population "Germany," the 5.3% of M222 means that just ONE male out of a sample of 19 tested M222 positive.  If the entire sample population for all of the German cohorts is considered, there is just ONE M222 positive male out of a population sample of 321, or 0.3% -- a much different, and more statistically valid result.  

However, unless there was bias in drawing the population samples,  the result of only 7 males being L21 out of a population sample of 321 for all of the German cohorts, or 2.2%, should be indicative that L21 is rare in present-day Germany.

That is one of the reasons I think something is very wrong with Myres et al. We have quite a few men of German descent in the R-L21 Plus Project who tested on their own and were not recruited or "cherry picked" by me based on matches with known L21+ men. Several of them are German citizens, currently living in Germany.

If L21 were so rare in modern Germany, I don't think we would have seen the results we have seen.

I'm not buying it, say what you will. Something is wrong with Myres et al.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 02, 2010, 09:39:03 PM
.... We do have one individual in the FTDNA project data that is from Germany - N14949 Lominac.
A second German MDKA has now shown up and joined the M222 project although the name looks French to me.  I wonder how many continental M222's are in FTDNA but wouldn't to join the "Northwest Irish" project (or maybe not any project) because it must have nothing to do with them?  Maybe it's okay now since Myres says there may be some M222 on the continent.

Mike,
Myres has placed M222 firmly by frequency, diversity and age in Ireland as have all serious studies prior to this one.
Heber,

How many serious studies have even tested for M222 in Germany?  How many studies have done a good cross-sectional, random sampling of German Y DNA, period?  Once upon a time, all the serious scholars thought the earth was flat.

I don't think the Myres study data is definitive and probably does have serious errors, but the truth is there is no "deeper" pan-European set of data available for R1b1b2 so I think it is useful, just not conclusive.

I guess, you are saying you are 100% sure that M222 originated in Ireland.  Is that true?  If so, show me the study and the specific information that proves this.  I think you are talking about some of the Trinity College stuff, but show where you think M222 is proven to be of Irish origin.

Don't get me wrong, I think the chances are good that M222 originated in Ireland or the western side of Britain, but I think there is an excellent chance it could be on the continent as well.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on September 02, 2010, 11:04:42 PM
I looked at yhrd, and there are 6300 German samples. Most M222+ have all 3 of the following off modal values: 390=25, 385=11/13, 392=14. The 2 M222+ from the continent in Myres study are like this (though 385 wasn't tested). Only 1 of the yhrd German samples had all 3 values.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 06, 2010, 05:30:13 AM
It does not appear that the Myres paper or indeed what we already knew really supports a major Iberian component in the spread of R1b1b2.  It still looks to me north and western France  are probably the main point of connection with the Atlantic seaways of the British Isles.  Myers gives a pretty high L21 count for western France and although Myres didnt cover it we know beyond a shadow of doubt from the project testing that the north of France is considerably higher still.  However other than the north-easternmost Iberian sample from Santander (which basically confirms the project's identification of a minor Iberian peak in the extreme NE corner of Spain) there is very very little L21 in most of Iberia.  I also note that S116 * is very low in variance in Ireland, far lower than S116* there,  so it certainly does not suggest and Atlantic isles origin for L21 is even remotely possible either.   


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 06, 2010, 06:38:56 AM
Looking at the Myres paper one thing stands out about L21 and S116* which although a paragroup must contain the ancestral forms to L21.  In Ireland S116* is very low in variance.  Indeed it is much lower than the Irish variance for L21*!!  The same is also true although to a less extreme degree for England.   L21 cannot have arisen in a place where it is older than the ancestral form S116*.  This youth of Irish S116* has been noted before in terms of the surnames of S116* people often being not native Irish. 

The expected picture for the area where L21 was born from an S116* ancestor is that S116* will be (at least a little) older.  That fits far better the French and German picture than anywhere else.  L21* there is fairly old but not as old as S116.* 

So, I think it is still very much supported that L21 happened on the continent, probably in France among the older S116* groups there.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 06, 2010, 09:38:51 AM
I went to Ysearch and looked for additional R-M222 (R1b1b2a1b5b with FTDNA as test co.) from England.  I found an additional five beyond the ten I had. I re-ran several variance calculations.  England keeps coming up as having more variance than Ireland, even though England's sample is quite limited.  Whether England is a cross-roads or not, if Ireland is THE true origin point it should have more variance.

M222 still comes up half the the age of R-L21. This is given in large sample sizes in the 100's and 1000's so I think this is pretty accurate.

So which is it?  Is L21 6000 BC and M222 2000 BC?  or is it that L21 is 2000 BC and M222 is 0 AD?     of course there is in between but M222 seems to be no younger than 0 AD at the latest.

.... We do have one individual in the FTDNA project data that is from Germany - N14949 Lominac.
A second German MDKA has now shown up and joined the M222 project although the name looks French to me.  I wonder how many continental M222's are in FTDNA but wouldn't to join the "Northwest Irish" project (or maybe not any project) because it must have nothing to do with them?  Maybe it's okay now since Myres says there may be some M222 on the continent.

Mike,
Myres has placed M222 firmly by frequency, diversity and age in Ireland as have all serious studies prior to this one.
Heber,

How many serious studies have even tested for M222 in Germany?  How many studies have done a good cross-sectional, random sampling of German Y DNA, period?  Once upon a time, all the serious scholars thought the earth was flat.

I don't think the Myres study data is definitive and probably does have serious errors, but the truth is there is no "deeper" pan-European set of data available for R1b1b2 so I think it is useful, just not conclusive.

I guess, you are saying you are 100% sure that M222 originated in Ireland.  Is that true?  If so, show me the study and the specific information that proves this.  I think you are talking about some of the Trinity College stuff, but show where you think M222 is proven to be of Irish origin.

Don't get me wrong, I think the chances are good that M222 originated in Ireland or the western side of Britain, but I think there is an excellent chance it could be on the continent as well.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 06, 2010, 10:27:29 AM
...  L21 cannot have arisen in a place where it is older than the ancestral form S116*. ....
Alan makes a very good point there.  As a platform from which to evaluate, below are the R-P312*(S116*) 25 STR relative variance scores by region of France and other parts of Europe.  The sample sizes are also shown and you can see they are sometimes limited.

France North & Central _ 1.58 __ 008
France Southeast _______ 1.21 __ 004
Aquitaine & Pyrenees ___ 1.18 __ 007
Iberia exc. Pyrenees ___ 1.10 __ 038
East Europe Continental_ 1.09 __ 023 (see note below)
Alpine & Cisalpine _____ 1.07 __ 006
Germany Middle & South _ 1.03 __ 015
France North Atlantic __ 0.97 __ 006
Scandinavia ____________ 0.86 __ 015
Low Countries __________ 0.85 __ 011
Italy, Greece, Malta ___ 0.76 __ 007
France Northeast __________ only 002


The East Europe sample includes Bulgaria, Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine. The above numbers are based on straight Sum of the Variance so higher variance markers have moe impact.  If I normalize STR's so that all are weighted equally, East Europe comes up as a much higher variance, higher than France North & Central.  This is the equivalent of saying that East Europe has THE highest variance on the slow moving markers.

Notice that Mediterranean Europe's R-P312* looks relatively youthful. I don't think P312 came from south of the Pyrenees or the Alps.

As far as the topic of the origin of P312, I think U152's data needs to be considered with P312 hand in hand as U152 seems to be close to as old as P312 itself.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 06, 2010, 02:57:26 PM
Apparently Myres et al made little effort at obtaining a truly representative sample in France. Just look at Table S4 and the results for L21 versus U152. Small differences in terms of absolute numbers look more impressive when they are chalked up as the percentages of small sample sizes.

L21 (xM222):

France East  N=25  8% (2 individuals out of 25)

France [?]     N=16  0% (0 individuals out of 16)

France West  N=14  14.3% (2 individuals out of 14)

France South N=38   7.9% (3 individuals out of 38)


U152 (subclade unspecified):

France East  16% (4 individuals out of 25)

France [?]      18.8% (3 individuals out of 16)

France West  21.4% (3 individuals out of 14)

France South 10.5% (4 individuals out of 38)


Notice a number of things. First, Northern France was not represented at all, which is clear from the maps that show the locations from which the samples were taken. Second, nearly 68% (63 of 93) of the French samples were drawn from the South and East, precisely where U152 is believed to be most frequent. Third, the sample sizes are small.

Thus, in a relatively small sample heavily skewed to the South and East of France, L21 (xM222) came out with 7.5% of the total, and U152 came out with 15% of the total.

Had Northern France been sampled, and if Western France had been sampled more extensively, what might the results have been?

Note that in Western France the difference between L21 and U152 was a single individual: there were two L21s out of 14 and three U152s out of the same 14.

The biggest differences between L21 and U152 in Myres et al came in France East (believed to be U152's stronghold anyway), where L21 got 2 individuals and U152 got 4 (out of 25), and in (just plain) "France" (whatever that means), where L21 got zero and U152 got 3 (out of 16).

Again, notice that the sample sizes were small, and the differences in absolute results are likewise small (2 versus 4, for example).




Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Norwich on September 06, 2010, 03:49:54 PM
Apparently Myres et al made little effort at obtaining a truly representative sample in France. Just look at Table S4 and the results for L21 versus U152. Small differences in terms of absolute numbers look more impressive when they are chalked up as the percentages of small sample sizes.

L21 (xM222):

France East  N=25  8% (2 individuals out of 25)

France [?]     N=16  0% (0 individuals out of 16)

France West  N=14  14.3% (2 individuals out of 14)

France South N=38   7.9% (3 individuals out of 38)


U152 (subclade unspecified):

France East  16% (4 individuals out of 25)

France [?]      18.8% (3 individuals out of 16)

France West  21.4% (3 individuals out of 14)

France South 10.5% (4 individuals out of 38)


Notice a number of things. First, Northern France was not represented at all, which is clear from the maps that show the locations from which the samples were taken. Second, nearly 68% (63 of 93) of the French samples were drawn from the South and East, precisely where U152 is believed to be most frequent. Third, the sample sizes are small.

Thus, in a relatively small sample heavily skewed to the South and East of France, L21 (xM222) came out with 7.5% of the total, and U152 came out with 15% of the total.

Had Northern France been sampled, and if Western France had been sampled more extensively, what might the results have been?

Note that in Western France the difference between L21 and U152 was a single individual: there were two L21s out of 14 and three U152s out of the same 14.

The biggest differences between L21 and U152 in Myres et al came in France East (believed to be U152's stronghold anyway), where L21 got 2 individuals and U152 got 4 (out of 25), and in (just plain) "France" (whatever that means), where L21 got zero and U152 got 3 (out of 16).

Again, notice that the sample sizes were small, and the differences in absolute results are likewise small (2 versus 4, for example).



What is needed is for Ramos-Luis and crew to publish the actual detailed results of their landmark R1b study of France in 2009.  The ONLY statement of worth is the following:  

"R1b1b2*(xR1b1b2d,e,g,h) was the most frequent haplogroup in
all the regions except for Alsace, where the most common one was
R1b1b2h."

Seven regions in France, 27 SNP markers as well as STR data but no tables, no figures, no supplemental data and the only things specific is the above.

One might assume that most of the rest of R1b is S116* and L21 and if such data were to be made available, your assertions would likely be supported.

This is what they have in the can - "We have collected a
total of 555 samples of male unrelated individuals from 7 different
regions of French geography, specifically: Nord-Pas-de-Calais
(Lille), Bretagne (Rennes), Alsace (Strasbourg), Iˆle-de-France
(Paris), Auvergne (Clermont-Ferrand), Provence-Alpes-Coˆte d’Azur
(Marseille) and Midi-Pyre´ne´ es (Toulouse)."

"Tear down that wall Dr. Ramos-Luis ...................." (and test the data for M259/L21).


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 06, 2010, 05:43:55 PM
Apparently Myres et al made little effort at obtaining a truly representative sample in France. Just look at Table S4 and the results for L21 versus U152. Small differences in terms of absolute numbers look more impressive when they are chalked up as the percentages of small sample sizes.

L21 (xM222):

France East  N=25  8% (2 individuals out of 25)

France [?]     N=16  0% (0 individuals out of 16)

France West  N=14  14.3% (2 individuals out of 14)

France South N=38   7.9% (3 individuals out of 38)


U152 (subclade unspecified):

France East  16% (4 individuals out of 25)

France [?]      18.8% (3 individuals out of 16)

France West  21.4% (3 individuals out of 14)

France South 10.5% (4 individuals out of 38)


Notice a number of things. First, Northern France was not represented at all, which is clear from the maps that show the locations from which the samples were taken. Second, nearly 68% (63 of 93) of the French samples were drawn from the South and East, precisely where U152 is believed to be most frequent. Third, the sample sizes are small.

Thus, in a relatively small sample heavily skewed to the South and East of France, L21 (xM222) came out with 7.5% of the total, and U152 came out with 15% of the total.

Had Northern France been sampled, and if Western France had been sampled more extensively, what might the results have been?

Note that in Western France the difference between L21 and U152 was a single individual: there were two L21s out of 14 and three U152s out of the same 14.

The biggest differences between L21 and U152 in Myres et al came in France East (believed to be U152's stronghold anyway), where L21 got 2 individuals and U152 got 4 (out of 25), and in (just plain) "France" (whatever that means), where L21 got zero and U152 got 3 (out of 16).

Again, notice that the sample sizes were small, and the differences in absolute results are likewise small (2 versus 4, for example).




that is incredible when you lay it down like that.  Sample both skewed and rather too small. 


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 06, 2010, 06:08:28 PM
Apparently Myres et al made little effort at obtaining a truly representative sample in France. Just look at Table S4 and the results for L21 versus U152. Small differences in terms of absolute numbers look more impressive when they are chalked up as the percentages of small sample sizes.

L21 (xM222):

France East  N=25  8% (2 individuals out of 25)

France [?]     N=16  0% (0 individuals out of 16)

France West  N=14  14.3% (2 individuals out of 14)

France South N=38   7.9% (3 individuals out of 38)


U152 (subclade unspecified):

France East  16% (4 individuals out of 25)

France [?]      18.8% (3 individuals out of 16)

France West  21.4% (3 individuals out of 14)

France South 10.5% (4 individuals out of 38)


Notice a number of things. First, Northern France was not represented at all, which is clear from the maps that show the locations from which the samples were taken. Second, nearly 68% (63 of 93) of the French samples were drawn from the South and East, precisely where U152 is believed to be most frequent. Third, the sample sizes are small.

Thus, in a relatively small sample heavily skewed to the South and East of France, L21 (xM222) came out with 7.5% of the total, and U152 came out with 15% of the total.

Had Northern France been sampled, and if Western France had been sampled more extensively, what might the results have been?

Note that in Western France the difference between L21 and U152 was a single individual: there were two L21s out of 14 and three U152s out of the same 14.

The biggest differences between L21 and U152 in Myres et al came in France East (believed to be U152's stronghold anyway), where L21 got 2 individuals and U152 got 4 (out of 25), and in (just plain) "France" (whatever that means), where L21 got zero and U152 got 3 (out of 16).

Again, notice that the sample sizes were small, and the differences in absolute results are likewise small (2 versus 4, for example).



What is needed is for Ramos-Luis and crew to publish the actual detailed results of their landmark R1b study of France in 2009.  The ONLY statement of worth is the following:  

"R1b1b2*(xR1b1b2d,e,g,h) was the most frequent haplogroup in
all the regions except for Alsace, where the most common one was
R1b1b2h."

Seven regions in France, 27 SNP markers as well as STR data but no tables, no figures, no supplemental data and the only things specific is the above.

One might assume that most of the rest of R1b is S116* and L21 and if such data were to be made available, your assertions would likely be supported.

This is what they have in the can - "We have collected a
total of 555 samples of male unrelated individuals from 7 different
regions of French geography, specifically: Nord-Pas-de-Calais
(Lille), Bretagne (Rennes), Alsace (Strasbourg), Iˆle-de-France
(Paris), Auvergne (Clermont-Ferrand), Provence-Alpes-Coˆte d’Azur
(Marseille) and Midi-Pyre´ne´ es (Toulouse)."

"Tear down that wall Dr. Ramos-Luis ...................." (and test the data for M259/L21).

I have already tried to reason through that statement and compare it to Myres.  Its difficult to be sure but the Ramos-Luis study did include it so its not part of their R1b1b2* group (which must therefore be mainly S116* and L21*) but Myres includes it in his S116* group. If you compare the eastern France results in Myres with the statement of Ramos-Luis that U152 has a majority (including over the S116*/L21* R1b1b2* group) in that area (but not elsewhere) then it is either incorrect or there is a lot of STY 2627 in eastern France.  Either there is rather more L21 or there is an awful lot of SRY 2627 kicking around in the remainder of France.  Its probably a bit of both depending on area.  I suspect if the areas of highest L21 strength (the NW quadrant) and the north and centre (area of highest L21 variance) were included then L21 would have given U152 a run for their money in France, pretty neck in neck and I would say probably  with some kind of NW-SE gradient involved.  I suspect from the project's work that L21 as a percentage of all males rises to a level of dominance by one clade not known in other areas.  The Ramos study actually hints at a founder effect meaning extreme dominance of one haplotype in its Breton sample.  If this statement is at clade level rather than just haplogroup then that has to be L21 that is being discussed.  However, the project data seems to show that the L21 dominance extends over a much larger area of NW France but unfortunately the Ramos study doesnt sample from elsewhere in the NW quarter of France and its next stop in the north is Paris.  I suspect overall L21 would do some dramatic catching up in France if the sampling had cover the right areas. 


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Norwich on September 06, 2010, 07:57:21 PM
In going over the Myres data (for the 45th time) but this time focusing on L21 alone, it occurs that there is a strange lack of this haplogroup in a place where L21 numbers should have been robust.

The L21 maps constructed by the genetic genealogy community show a very large number of individuals in the old La Tene areas of France (Marne; Mosel).  It is historically and archaeologically attested that large numbers of tribes from the north and central areas of Gaul uprooted themselves and headed for Italy.  There were two primary migrations, one circa 600 BC and the other about 425 BC.  The Biituriges Cubi, the Senones, the Lingones, the Cenomani, the Insubres.  Assuming If what we see today in terms of haplogroup distribution to some extent refected what was true in the Iron Age, then why are there almost zero L21 anywhere in what is today Italy?  Who then migrated enmasse to the Lake Country, Milan, Verona, Bologna, Senia Gallia - northern and central Italy. 

Could it be that at one time U152 was more numerous in the old La Tene areas and when they abandoned their lands, the L21 arrived from the north to take over these territories.  What is also interesting is that circa 279 the Belgae returned to their former holdings from Illyria and indulged in a campaign of apparent wanton destruction of the locals (setting up ritual killing sites in two known locations - the reconstructions are hideous and frightening).  Undoubtedly the locals for many miles around thought long and hard about leaving or staying - or just headed west or east to escape the apparent carnage.

The Brabant Project shows that U152 makes up 10 to 20% of the Belgian Y chromosomes yet just to the north, there is zero to 3% in the Netherlands.

The botom line is that there are important questions wheich beg answers.  Were there no L21 among for example the Senones?  That seems hard to believe but there is less than one percent of L21 in Italy, and that confined to the north.  I don't think that biased sampling by Myres is going to expalin this unexpected  (at least to me) finding.  What other haplogroups may have participated in the Celtic migration from Gaul?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on September 06, 2010, 09:21:23 PM
Didier Vernade said at rootsweb, about the Luis-Ramos study of France:

"I think I can say that I wrote to P. Sanchez and she kindly answered. The only thing I can say on this list is that they decided to analyse for more SNPs and it's taking time."

This is very good news, and it also might explain why they've been stonewalling subsequent emails from us, though I don't really get why they would need to be secretive about it.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 06, 2010, 09:29:55 PM
Didier Vernade said at rootsweb, about the Luis-Ramos study of France:

"I think I can say that I wrote to P. Sanchez and she kindly answered. The only thing I can say on this list is that they decided to analyse for more SNPs and it's taking time."

This is very good news, and it also might explain why they've been stonewalling subsequent emails from us, though I don't really get why they would need to be secretive about it.

That is really good news. Maybe they listened to all of us, but she answered Didier perhaps because he is actually French.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2010, 02:19:59 PM
In going over the Myres data (for the 45th time) but this time focusing on L21 alone, it occurs that there is a strange lack of this haplogroup in a place where L21 numbers should have been robust.

The L21 maps constructed by the genetic genealogy community show a very large number of individuals in the old La Tene areas of France (Marne; Mosel).  It is historically and archaeologically attested that large numbers of tribes from the north and central areas of Gaul uprooted themselves and headed for Italy.  There were two primary migrations, one circa 600 BC and the other about 425 BC.  The Biituriges Cubi, the Senones, the Lingones, the Cenomani, the Insubres.  Assuming If what we see today in terms of haplogroup distribution to some extent refected what was true in the Iron Age, then why are there almost zero L21 anywhere in what is today Italy?  Who then migrated enmasse to the Lake Country, Milan, Verona, Bologna, Senia Gallia - northern and central Italy.  

Could it be that at one time U152 was more numerous in the old La Tene areas and when they abandoned their lands, the L21 arrived from the north to take over these territories.  What is also interesting is that circa 279 the Belgae returned to their former holdings from Illyria and indulged in a campaign of apparent wanton destruction of the locals (setting up ritual killing sites in two known locations - the reconstructions are hideous and frightening).  Undoubtedly the locals for many miles around thought long and hard about leaving or staying - or just headed west or east to escape the apparent carnage.

The Brabant Project shows that U152 makes up 10 to 20% of the Belgian Y chromosomes yet just to the north, there is zero to 3% in the Netherlands.

The botom line is that there are important questions wheich beg answers.  Were there no L21 among for example the Senones?  That seems hard to believe but there is less than one percent of L21 in Italy, and that confined to the north.  I don't think that biased sampling by Myres is going to expalin this unexpected  (at least to me) finding.  What other haplogroups may have participated in the Celtic migration from Gaul?

Many of the tribes were not from the area west of the Paris-Bordeaux line in France where the concentration of French L21 seems to be or in the Mossele-Rhineland area where there seems to be a reasonable amount.  I thin there is a general feeling that the mass of Gauls probably were more from the east and south of Gaul.   The problem is its not at all clear where the Gaulish tribes who settled Italy were  in the 7th century BC (pre-La Tene) or possibly earlier when archaeologists think the main Iron Age thrust from the north into Italy was.   The positions in Gaul of tribes with similar names recorded by in the 1st century BC are basically totally unreliable as a guide to the tribes original positions in Gaul just before they set off to italy. All we know is their later positions  several centuries later after their great upheavals.   So many tribes had widely scattered fragments in Gaul that it is sometimes hard to be sure where there home was at the time of the invasion of Italy. I suspect the vast majority at the time were located relatively close to the Alps and that the later positions in Gaul might also be a result of their upheavals rather than their original homelands.    

There is the bigger question that most S116 in Italy may have nothing to do with the Iron Age movements and perhaps related to much earlier movements specifically from the north Alpine area and possibly at a time when L21 may have barely come into existence or was mainly located to the north.  A number of people think the spread and scale of U152 in Italy must predate the recorded Iron Age Gaulish movements.  Perhaps the Gaus were like the great Germanic hordes of the folk wandering period who arrived in areas of the Roman empire with a  but left no great genetic mark.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Norwich on September 07, 2010, 03:17:02 PM
In going over the Myres data (for the 45th time) but this time focusing on L21 alone, it occurs that there is a strange lack of this haplogroup in a place where L21 numbers should have been robust.

The L21 maps constructed by the genetic genealogy community show a very large number of individuals in the old La Tene areas of France (Marne; Mosel).  It is historically and archaeologically attested that large numbers of tribes from the north and central areas of Gaul uprooted themselves and headed for Italy.  There were two primary migrations, one circa 600 BC and the other about 425 BC.  The Biituriges Cubi, the Senones, the Lingones, the Cenomani, the Insubres.  Assuming If what we see today in terms of haplogroup distribution to some extent refected what was true in the Iron Age, then why are there almost zero L21 anywhere in what is today Italy?  Who then migrated enmasse to the Lake Country, Milan, Verona, Bologna, Senia Gallia - northern and central Italy.  

Could it be that at one time U152 was more numerous in the old La Tene areas and when they abandoned their lands, the L21 arrived from the north to take over these territories.  What is also interesting is that circa 279 the Belgae returned to their former holdings from Illyria and indulged in a campaign of apparent wanton destruction of the locals (setting up ritual killing sites in two known locations - the reconstructions are hideous and frightening).  Undoubtedly the locals for many miles around thought long and hard about leaving or staying - or just headed west or east to escape the apparent carnage.

The Brabant Project shows that U152 makes up 10 to 20% of the Belgian Y chromosomes yet just to the north, there is zero to 3% in the Netherlands.

The botom line is that there are important questions wheich beg answers.  Were there no L21 among for example the Senones?  That seems hard to believe but there is less than one percent of L21 in Italy, and that confined to the north.  I don't think that biased sampling by Myres is going to expalin this unexpected  (at least to me) finding.  What other haplogroups may have participated in the Celtic migration from Gaul?

Many of the tribes were not from the area west of the Paris-Bordeaux line in France where the concentration of French L21 seems to be or in the Mossele-Rhineland area where there seems to be a reasonable amount.  I thin there is a general feeling that the mass of Gauls probably were more from the east and south of Gaul.   The problem is its not at all clear where the Gaulish tribes who settled Italy were  in the 7th century BC (pre-La Tene) or possibly earlier when archaeologists think the main Iron Age thrust from the north into Italy was.   The positions in Gaul of tribes with similar names recorded by in the 1st century BC are basically totally unreliable as a guide to the tribes original positions in Gaul just before they set off to italy. All we know is their later positions  several centuries later after their great upheavals.   So many tribes had widely scattered fragments in Gaul that it is sometimes hard to be sure where there home was at the time of the invasion of Italy. I suspect the vast majority at the time were located relatively close to the Alps and that the later positions in Gaul might also be a result of their upheavals rather than their original homelands.    

There is the bigger question that most S116 in Italy may have nothing to do with the Iron Age movements and perhaps related to much earlier movements specifically from the north Alpine area and possibly at a time when L21 may have barely come into existence or was mainly located to the north.  A number of people think the spread and scale of U152 in Italy must predate the recorded Iron Age Gaulish movements.  Perhaps the Gaus were like the great Germanic hordes of the folk wandering period who arrived in areas of the Roman empire with a  but left no great genetic mark.  
Yes, I suppose that this is a sensible explanation.  However then turning to the name of this thread, what we have learned is that L21 is either unlikely to have participated in the Hallstatt or La Tene Celtic expansions into Italy, or if they did, they have left zero genetic trace of their presence.  It becomes more difficult re U152 since what we are likely seeing is a combination of oldcomers and newcomers to the areas that have been linked with the Celts in Italy.  Perhaps just a lot of shuffling around of this haplogroup - but surely there are clues in U152*, L2* and L20 which are all found in France, Switzerland, and Italy in "healthy" numbers.  Would love to know when the Corsican U152 arrived on scene.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2010, 04:10:03 PM
I think the answer of S116 in Italy largely lies in the  apparent initial expansions of the clades below S116* in certain areas.  It looks to me that U152 expanded much nearer the Alps (eastern France, Switserland etc) while L21 likely expanded well to the north of that in the northern third of France.  I have posted a few times that L21 essentially occupies the Loire, Seine drainage areas in France and the middle Rhine in SW Germany.  The Mosselle is the link between the north-centre and north-west of France and Germany.  That Mosselle route reaches north-central France and the NW beyond by bypassing the old Belgic Gaul area between the Seine and the Lower Rhine.   Certainly the project map very much backs this.  This is the core L21 area IMO and there is a lot of geographical sense to it when the river systems are considered. 

I think of course a little L21 could have gone elsewhere such as following the Rhine to the sea, from the Rhine into the Maine and from there up the Upper Danube. Others could have followed the cpast or seaways down the coast of the centre-west (Vendee) towards the Basque country. 

However, there is watershed in the Massif Central area and a large chunk of the east and south-east of France formed a network that was separate and perhaps L21 only trickled into these south and east flowing systems.  Interestingly the Myres study would suggest that L21 in the Rhone gets higher as you head towards its headwaters and away from the sea suggesting it did enter the Rhone from the north near its source/the watershed rather than by sea. None of the other areas of France are sampled to that level so similar observations cannot be made elsewhere.
   


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2010, 04:25:53 PM
Here are a few more thoughts.  If you look at Italy you would assume (probably correctly) that the area immediately to the north of the Alps was also predominantly U152 at the time of the settlement (assuming it was north to south).  

I think the settlement of the isles (or at least the Celtic fringe) is an exact parallel.  f you look at the R1b1b2 in the Atlantic areas of the Isles, the predominance of L21 seems to point to the donor population being predominantly L21.  This can only really be the case if L21 predominated on the facing continental shores at the critical point in time.  So, the superconcentration of L21 in the north of France would seem to be ancient.  

In fact the overall implication is that at a remote period the clades really did locally superconcentrate in certain areas from their S116* parent and perhaps only later mixed up. This actually fits the Myres model of a late LBK spread into France in the form of S116* followed by a middle Neolithic explosions of local clades like U152 and L21 in widely separated parts of France.  There is a lot that suggests that the U152 settlement of italy and the L21 settlement of the isles was early before the clades had mixed up in the donor areas.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 07, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Here are a few more thoughts.  If you look at Italy you would assume (probably correctly) that the area immediately to the north of the Alps was also predominantly U152 at the time of the settlement (assuming it was north to south).  

I think the settlement of the isles (or at least the Celtic fringe) is an exact parallel.  f you look at the R1b1b2 in the Atlantic areas of the Isles, the predominance of L21 seems to point to the donor population being predominantly L21.  This can only really be the case if L21 predominated on the facing continental shores at the critical point in time.  So, the superconcentration of L21 in the north of France would seem to be ancient.  

In fact the overall implication is that at a remote period the clades really did locally superconcentrate in certain areas from their S116* parent and perhaps only later mixed up. This actually fits the Myres model of a late LBK spread into France in the form of S116* followed by a middle Neolithic explosions of local clades like U152 and L21 in widely separated parts of France.  There is a lot that suggests that the U152 settlement of italy and the L21 settlement of the isles was early before the clades had mixed up in the donor areas.
What do you think happened far as R-P312 going north into Scandinavia and southwest into Iberia?

We know there is R-P312* in Scandinava and Ethnoancestry seems to be calling R-L176+L165+ a "Norse" clade and Nordtvedt thinks R-P312/L238+ a Scandinavian clade as well.   About 35% of Norway seems to be R1b1b2 and that apparently is heavily R-P312 including L21+.

On the other hand, R-L176/SRY2627+ seems to be heavy in Catalonian Spain and while R-P312* seems spread around a bit with a little L21+ present.

Do you think these extensions into areas like Iberia and Scandinavia were part of these middle/late Neolithic expansions of the old LBK, or do you think these became Bronze Age movements?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2010, 06:42:22 PM
Mike
Is there any L176* and where is it?  A common root for Catalonia and Scandinavia must surely be in some geographically intermediate point.  Is there any evidence of dating for these clades?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 09, 2010, 10:31:49 PM
Is there any L176* and where is it?  A common root for Catalonia and Scandinavia must surely be in some geographically intermediate point.  Is there any evidence of dating for these clades?
Here are the only three L176.2* guys I am aware of:
f41647   Miller - England, North East, Co. Durham, Sunderland
f171839   Noble - Ireland, Ulster, Co. Antrim, Belfast
f86995   Pleis - Germany, Lower Saxony, Hanover

Here are the L176+ L165+ (aka S68) guys (Ethnoancestry: "Norse Viking")
f163136   Ayton - England, Yorkshire and Humber, North Yorkshire, Scarborough, West Ayton
f40551   Greenwade - Unknown
f47096   MacLeod   - Scotland, Outer Hebrides, Isle of Harris
f46281   McDonald Scotland, Highland, Caithness, Latheron
f54067   McGirt - Unknown
f137480   McLeod - Scotland, Strathclyde, Ayrshire
 (plus 3 other McLeod's)
f99990   Olofsson - Sweden, Västra Götaland län, Orust Island

L176+ SRY2627+ (aka M167) does have large Iberian contingent but shows in our DNA projects is actually more populous in England, France and Ireland..  The German contingent is as large as the Spanish.  It also shows up in Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Ukraine, Czech Rep., Italy and Sweden.

SRY2627+ is reportedly very heavy in Catalonia, which it turns, out is the old Spanish March, a buffer area set up by the Frankish kings.
Quote from: Wikipedia
The area broadly corresponds to the region between the Pyrenees and the Ebro River. The local population of the March was diverse, including Iberians, Basques, Jews and Goths who had been conquered or subjugated by the Muslim emirate to the south or the Frankish Empire to the north.

Gosh, almost sound like the VisiGoths and later, related Vikings.

As far aging or rather variance as a proxy, SRY2627 is almost as old as L176.  L176 is about 8-10% younger than L21 and about 15% younger than U152.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: IALEM on September 10, 2010, 05:28:39 AM
Adams et Alii (2008) reported 21% of M167 over the whole population (80 samples)in Catalonia, 15% in neighbouring Aragón, 17% in Gascony and 9% in the Basque Country.
The March was not the region "between the Pyrenees and the Ebro River" but rather both sides of Eastern Pyrenees.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 10, 2010, 09:20:45 AM
Adams et Alii (2008) reported 21% of M167 over the whole population (80 samples)in Catalonia, 15% in neighbouring Aragón, 17% in Gascony and 9% in the Basque Country.
The March was not the region "between the Pyrenees and the Ebro River" but rather both sides of Eastern Pyrenees.
Thanks, Ialem.  Did Adams et al survey other parts of Europe for M167/SRY2627? Specifically, Germany, Belgium and the rest of France? We do have three SRY2627 guys from Belgium.

I'm not saying it is the Visigoths, but during Moorish rule may very well have retreated to mountainous areas and we know they were in the Spanish March.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: IALEM on September 10, 2010, 10:20:12 AM

No, Only Iberia and Gascony.
Argiedude plotted the results in a map that showed a marked cline in frequency, decreasing from NE to SW.

Santos et Alii (2005) found only 6 M167 in a sample of 692 Iberians, however no regional location was given.

Regarding Visigoths, there is a population reputed to be direct descendants of Visigoth refugees in Northern Spain and Southern France, the Agotes/Cagots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 10, 2010, 10:49:30 AM
Quote from: Mikewww'
Thanks, Ialem.  Did Adams et al survey other parts of Europe for M167/SRY2627? Specifically, Germany, Belgium and the rest of France?
No, Only Iberia and Gascony. Argiedude plotted the results in a map that showed a marked cline in frequency, decreasing from NE to SW. ....
Sounds like a typical case of a subclade being labeled, Iberian in this case, based on frequency or first area of discovery.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 17, 2010, 11:05:05 AM
If we took only the results of the project L21 ...
Taking into consideration the number of total people originating from countries that I found on my FTDNA page (for example: England: 21 371, Germany: 10 864, France 2982 ect ..).
And If I consider that in Ireland there are 50% of L21 (Myres), then I get a map slightly different than the project:
Ireland: 50%
France: 47%
(But this high percentage is due to one of the projects to test some french free)
Pays de Galles: 38%
Norvège: 37%
Ecosse: 29%

Espagne: 20%
Portugal: 19%
Angleterre: 18,5%

Danemark: 13,5%
Pays-Bas: 13,5%
Suède: 11,5%
Allemagne: 10%

Suisse: 6,5%
Italie: 5,5%

Russie: 1%
Pologne: 1%


(http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif)
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif
This map is extremely schematic, but I think it is likely that L21 is more prevalent in Northwestern Europe (this is not a surprise, but including Norway).
L21 seems also present in Spain and Portugal, but I do not believe there is a hot spot in Germany, although I think the results of Myres et al underestimated the percentage of L21.
Italy and Switzerland have the lowest rates in Western Europe and L21 would be around 1% in the countries of eastern

I do not speak English very well, so I can not speak strictly.
All this is purely statistical. Do you believe in statistics?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 17, 2010, 11:58:58 AM
If we took only the results of the project L21 ...
All this is purely statistical. Do you believe in statistics?
Great work, Jerome.  Thank you.  I have additional L21 data.  Besides our L21Plus FTDNA project, I looked in the R1b and major geographic projects for more L21 people.  I also looked up the Ysearch ID's for each kit # and added the MDKA origin info where it wasn't in the FTDNA project and then classified everyone down to provincial/regional level.

The file is an Excel file that must be unzipped - R-L21ALL_Haplotypes.zip
It is at this web site:   http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RL21Project/files/

As far as statistics go, I agree they are very, very useful, but they are only part of data that can be gathered to understand a people.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 17, 2010, 01:25:01 PM
. . .
France: 47%
(But this high percentage is due to one of the projects to test some french free)
. . .

The testing of the French for free was random. It was not a case of hunting for and cherry-picking only those who looked likely to be L21+ (an almost impossible task anyway). We just recruited those who were willing to give permission to be tested and who weren't already obviously L21-.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, our free and random testing would not have scored all that well. For example, if we had recruited 20 or 30 Russians and paid to test them for L21, we probably would have come up with nothing to show for it. So, it isn't the mere act of paying for testing that produces results. The L21 has to actually be there first in order for positive results to show up.

The real statistical difficulty with the project is the over abundance of persons of British Isles descent, which is due to the history of North American settlement and immigration.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 17, 2010, 02:00:31 PM
(http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif)
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif

Italy and Switzerland have the lowest rates in Western Europe and L21 would be around 1% in the countries of eastern

Je pense que votre carte est simplement foule, mais, aussi comme ça, démontre que l’Italie est a l’origine aussi de R-L21 (étant une vague de avancement), où est beaucoup rare mais possède l'haplotype avec la plus haute variance, quel d’Argiedude.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 17, 2010, 05:44:53 PM
Italy and Switzerland have the lowest rates in Western Europe and L21 would be around 1% in the countries of eastern
Je pense que votre carte est simplement foule, mais, aussi comme ça, démontre que l’Italie est a l’origine aussi de R-L21 (étant une vague de avancement), où est beaucoup rare mais possède le haplotype avec la plus haut variance, quel d’Argiedude.  
Maliclavelli,
Please clarify if I'm not understanding correctly.  Why are you saying or where are you saying R-L21 has the highest variance?  Why do you say Italy is the primary cause of R-L21's advance?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 17, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
I have written much on R-L21 in Italy. You can see other threads. The most part of Italian R-L21 I have demonstrated not to be Italians (Bonnet and Leimone are of French origin, Basile I suspect is a NPE happpened in USA: he is very close to Irishmen). The only Italian R-L21 is Argiedude, but we don't know his surname (I was said typical Lombard). But also Argiedude finds some close to him in three Callaways. I asked him to test some relatives in Italy to be sure he is from there and not from elsewhere. My hope is he is really of Italian descent and his haplotype the remnant of those rare L21 who from the Ialian Refugium peopled Europe, like all subclades from R1b1* to R-L51, R-L11 and now also R-U152, that finds its center in Italy. Argiedude has the very rare DYS19=10 and other values that make his haplotype one with the highest variance I know.

The percentages of L21 in Italy given by Jerome are foolish, for what I said before.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 17, 2010, 09:29:02 PM
I have written much on R-L21 in Italy. You can see other threads. The most part of Italian R-L21 I have demonstrated not to be Italians (Bonnet and Leimone are of French origin, Basile I suspect is a NPE happpened in USA: he is very close to Irishmen). The only Italian R-L21 is Argiedude, but we don't know his surname (I was said typical Lombard). But also Argiedude finds some close to him in three Callaways. I asked him to test some relatives in Italy to be sure he is from there and not from elsewhere. My hope is he is really of Italian descent and his haplotype the remnant of those rare L21 who from the Ialian Refugium peopled Europe, like all subclades from R1b1* to R-L51, R-L11 and now also R-U152, that finds its center in Italy. Argiedude has the very rare DYS19=10 and other values that make his haplotype one with the highest variance I know.

The percentages of L21 in Italy given by Jerome are foolish, for what I said before,

I know argiedude's surname, but I cannot reveal it. It is very Italian. I can say that much.

He has no close matches that I know of. How close are these Callaways?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 17, 2010, 09:49:41 PM
Callaways are very close: their relatedness is within a few centuries. I spoke about this in other threads here.
Of course if Argiedude wasn't Italian by his Y (Argentine, desaparecidos, etc.) I would be very sorry.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 18, 2010, 12:01:28 AM
Callaways are very close: their relatedness is within a few centuries. I spoke about this in other threads here.
Of course if Argiedude wasn't Italian by his Y (Argentine, desaparecidos, etc.) I would be very sorry.

How close on how many markers? Argiedude has a strange haplotype.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 18, 2010, 12:17:11 AM
The testing of the French for free was random. It was not a case of hunting for and cherry-picking only those who looked likely to be L21+ (an almost impossible task anyway). We just recruited those who were willing to give permission to be tested and who weren't already obviously L21-.

Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?

The real statistical difficulty with the project is the over abundance of persons of British Isles descent, which is due to the history of North American settlement and immigration.
My calculations take into account this problem.
It is for that reason for example that England has no very high rate, and that Norway has one of it.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 18, 2010, 12:26:14 AM
(http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif)
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/l21.gif

Italy and Switzerland have the lowest rates in Western Europe and L21 would be around 1% in the countries of eastern

Je pense que votre carte est simplement foule, mais, aussi comme ça, démontre que l’Italie est a l’origine aussi de R-L21 (étant une vague de avancement), où est beaucoup rare mais possède le haplotype avec la plus haut variance, quel d’Argiedude.  


For Italy, I counted the number of Italians that are in the L21 project: 5.
My calculations are of course entirely dependent on what is there in this project.
My goal was not to say that Italy is at 1% or 5% or 10%, but make comparisons between some European countries.
Knowing where you find most L21, L21 least ect..

How, from a single haplotype, can you be convinced that Italy is the home region of L21?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 18, 2010, 06:37:54 AM
How, from a single haplotype, can you be convinced that Italy is the home region of L21?

The fact that Italy could be the origin of the wave of advance of R-L21* is suggested by your map: the wave of advance has a low percentage in the point of origin and progressively more on the crest. Of course everything depends on the fact that in Italy R-L21* there is, but it could not be at all.
All depends on the Argiedude’s haplotype. I have said many times how we should ascertain it.
Certainly the three Callaways related to it must be explained. They are different from the other Callaways of the Callaways project at FTDNA and we don’t know their origin. They could be also of French origin (Normans or other) and we have two possibilities: if Argiedude is of Italian extraction, either his haplotype is from France like other Italians of the Alpine zone (see Bonnet and Leimone) or these Callaways of possible French extraction testify the same wave of advance from Italy.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 18, 2010, 06:40:58 AM
How close on how many markers? Argiedude has a strange haplotype.
What would you think if you shall compare Argiedude's haplotype to this (Ysearch: GPYZW)?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 18, 2010, 10:14:58 AM

What would you think if you shall compare Argiedude's haplotype to this (Ysearch: GPYZW)?


They're 7 apart at 25 markers, Gioiello. The only striking similarity is the oddball 19=10. 11-11 at 385 is probably a RecLoH (I have it, for example).

It would be more interesting if they both had 67 markers to compare, but if there is some sort of connection between argiedude and Kellaway, it must be pretty ancient.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 18, 2010, 10:24:23 AM


Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?


I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 18, 2010, 11:11:16 AM
How close on how many markers? Argiedude has a strange haplotype.
What would you think if you shall compare Argiedude's haplotype to this (Ysearch: GPYZW)?
I think we need all 67 markers to make much of an evaluation.  GPYZW might have some of the off-modals in the slower markers that match a cluster, but either way we'd see his Genetic Distance from WAMH better as well as if more of the slower moving markers are unique.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 18, 2010, 01:06:43 PM


Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?


I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.

My objective is probably pretentious...

Your map on the distribution of L21 in Europe is very interresting,
http://tinyurl.com/qo2e4m
but as you say, it is biased by the different number of people per country who are testing.
And I think there is a way around this problem if we consider that French, having already made a test DNA, has so much chance to be tested the snp L21, that an Irish would make it..

My calculations would be wrong if I take into account the L21 French who have not make this test without your help.
My calculations are simple:
In the FTDNA database, there are 10,864 German and 2982 French.
10864 / 2982 = 3.6
If in the reality, there are as many L21 in Germany than in France (in percentage) So, in the DNA project L21 +, there should be 3.6 times more than L21 German than L21 French

PS: I do not absolutely criticize the fact that you tested French or the other persons, on the contrary, it can turn out very useful.
And this dna project stay, in my opinion, a reference for all those who are interested in L21.
Continuez comme ça!


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Jdean on September 18, 2010, 01:19:16 PM
My calculations would be wrong if I take into account the L21 French who have not make this test without your help.
My calculations are simple:
In the FTDNA database, there are 10,864 German and 2982 French.
10864 / 2982 = 3.6
If in the reality, there are as many L21 in Germany than in France (in percentage) So, in the DNA project L21 +, there should be 3.6 times more than L21 German than L21 French

I think there could be a complication in this because of the no. of Y descended Europeans living in America, Australia etc. which would have to be factored in somehow. I think Ireland in particular is very well represented in America.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 18, 2010, 01:57:50 PM
They're 7 apart at 25 markers, Gioiello. The only striking similarity is the oddball 19=10. 11-11 at 385 is probably a RecLoH (I have it, for example).
It would be more interesting if they both had 67 markers to compare, but if there is some sort of connection between argiedude and Kellaway, it must be pretty ancient.
Rich and Mike, the MRCA between Callaway and Argiedude is about 1500/1800 YBP. These are the unique close haplotypes we can find thus far among persons tested all over the world, then they are certainly related.
Mutations are all around the modal: DYS390=24/25, DYS391=10/11, DYS426=12/13, DYS389II=30/31, DYS458=16/17, DYS448=20/21.
For what I know of this stuff (and I think it isn't a few) they are certainly related. For my theory of the mutations around the modal the MRCA could be also more ancient (we'd need some intermediate haplotype), but the important thing is that they are certainly related and all my hypotheses are alive more than ever.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 18, 2010, 04:06:53 PM
Gioiello,

I don't think they are that close, at least based on the 25-marker Kellaway haplotype in Ysearch that I could compare with argiedude's haplotype.

If they are already 7 apart at a mere 25 markers, how far apart would they be at 67?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 18, 2010, 05:43:24 PM
Gioiello,
I don't think they are that close, at least based on the 25-marker Kellaway haplotype in Ysearch that I could compare with argiedude's haplotype.
If they are already 7 apart at a mere 25 markers, how far apart would they be at 67?
We neither know if Callaways are R-L21, but I suppose so. What is important to me is that they are related and we can suppose that there are some intermediate haplotypes between Callaway and Argiedude somewhere, probably very rare and difficult to find, but this is the unique trace to establish a link. As I have said before, this is the unique link found over the world. We should find where are these intermediate haplotypes and we’ll be able to understand which is the origin. I wouldn’t mind about how many mismatches there will be at an upgrade to 67 markers. As I have said, calculating the MRCA at 25 markers, we are at 1500/1800 YBP. It is clear to me that the inquire is all to do, but this is an indication, the unique we have thus far.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 18, 2010, 05:50:11 PM


Can you give us the number of French who have been tested through the project and that without this project, they would not have made it?


I was keeping track of the numbers, but for me to give you the numbers now, I would have to go back and make a count. The point is that we tested randomly, so, as far as we were concerned, the men we were testing were as likely to be L21- as they were to be L21+. In fact, at the time, I was afraid we were wasting our money and would come up with very few positive results. I was pleasantly surprised, however.

That makes it hard to say the L21+ figures for France are inflated because we paid for some testing, because we also paid for the testing of those who came out L21-. Conversely, if we hadn't paid for some testing, the French L21 figures would be deflated and misleading.

If L21 were not pretty common in France, we would not have gotten as many positive results as we did.

Another factor is that the pool of potential French subjects is very limited, especially when compared with the pool of British isles subjects.

I agree with Rich.  Migration patterns may bias what ancestral areas tend to be tested by new world people.  So I think certain parts of France ((NW and Atlantic), Germany (Rhineland) etc will be tested more.  However in these areas there is no reason that a random testing of R1b1b2 would bias in favour of L21. Possibly the very high rate of L21 being positive among the French R1b1b2 is simply due to the parts of France where most of the migrants left from is also by coincidence the high L21 area and relatively few were from the lower L21 south and east.  

I think however that the project and Myres data are not in contradiction as such in terms of France.  In fact the pattern of L21 frequency within France is not a bad fit.  The signficant west of France L21 result in Myres study maybe suggests is that the east-west cline is as important as the north-south one.  That sounds like there may be a  division in L21 frequency that maybe runs in a line from Paris to Pyrenees.  


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 18, 2010, 06:17:59 PM
Of course the dating of 1500/1800 YBP is the minimum date. I would contradict myself if I don’t say that the maximum could be many thousands of years. It depends on which we think to be the cluster: if DYS19=10 and DYS385=11-11, certainly a recLOH, and not the very rare DYS426 mutated by Argiedude from 12 to 13. Of course also an upgrade of Callaway would be important: to see for instance if his DYS460/H4 are 10-12 and DYS442 if is 11.
These Callaway are in the Callaway project at FTDNA: write to them and ask for an upgrade and we’ll know more.
My experience says that Callaway and Argiedude are related and belong to the same cluster.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 18, 2010, 11:24:00 PM
I don't know. If it's a cluster, it must be a pretty old and far-separated cluster, and I'm not really convinced it is one.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 19, 2010, 08:01:01 AM
Let’s make one hypothesis: that X56RP (Name withheld, nickname Argiedude: DYS19=10), GPYZW (Kellaway: DYS19=10), 5769R (Richter: DYS19=10) and FT979 (Smith: DYS19=11) are related. Counting the mutations upon the first 25 markers we have about 21 mutations respect a presupposed modal of origin. Then:

[(454.21) : 100] . 25 = 2375YBP

Times are very recent and we don’t need correction for supplemental mutations around the modal, then mutations rate of 0,0022.

Then about 2400 years ago or a few centuries before someone had the multistep mutation of DYS19 from 14 to 10 (Smith 11 is a mutation from 10). Where did he live that individual? Probably among Celts of Central Europe and his descendants demonstrate the pathway of that people: someone remained in Germany or France, the most part migrated to the British Islands and a few in North Italy with the Celt invasion, then not R-U152, born in Italy and diffused some thousands of years before, but R-L21 would be the Celt marker.

Of course science is made by hypotheses and verifications: first of all we should ascertain if these four individuals are R-L21 (easy to know: it suffices a SNP test).


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 19, 2010, 08:43:10 AM
Of course this hypothesis doesn’t exclude my previous one, that Celts from Italic-Celts have come from Italy and before Central Europe they lived here and Argiedude is the remnant of that haplotype born there where it is (the Lakes region of the Italian Alps).


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: argiedude on September 19, 2010, 06:20:25 PM
Maliclavelli, don't forget that L21 was first discovered in an Italian (the P66+ sample). Italy is piling on a little too many L21+ samples to think they're all congused about their ancestry. In my own case, being Argentine, I also have the added issue that even if I'm not of Italian ancestry, the only other significant European people here are Spanish, and they also have very little L21.

The Callaway sample is indeed interesting, but it could a coincidence, albeit somewhat of a longshot. And he's missing 426=13, the other weird STR value that I have. I think he should get tested to see to what subhaplogroup he belongs. Right now, he's just R1b1b2. The Myres study found 1 R1b1b2 sample with DYS19=10, and it was U106.

Also notice that so far the 3 north Italian L21 are from the west of north Italy, and that Myres study showed 7% L21 in southeast France, 2% in Switzerland, and 0% in Slovenia.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 19, 2010, 10:09:28 PM
Maliclavelli, don't forget that L21 was first discovered in an Italian (the P66+ sample). Italy is piling on a little too many L21+ samples to think they're all congused about their ancestry. In my own case, being Argentine, I also have the added issue that even if I'm not of Italian ancestry, the only other significant European people here are Spanish, and they also have very little L21.

The Callaway sample is indeed interesting, but it could a coincidence, albeit somewhat of a longshot. And he's missing 426=13, the other weird STR value that I have. I think he should get tested to see to what subhaplogroup he belongs. Right now, he's just R1b1b2. The Myres study found 1 R1b1b2 sample with DYS19=10, and it was U106.

Also notice that so far the 3 north Italian L21 are from the west of north Italy, and that Myres study showed 7% L21 in southeast France, 2% in Switzerland, and 0% in Slovenia.
Argiedude, unfortunately for understanding somewhat by our analysis we must go deep in our family history and everything personal. I have just published my FGS on GenBank (HQ176413) and everyone can see my mutations, even though they can have some medical implications. If we don’t know the surname of Bonnet and Leimone we would think to an Italian extraction being they living in Italy, but their surname made me know they are of French extraction. You (and is said to me your surname is typical Lombard) remain the only Italian R-L21 I know. There are two Sicilians, but their cases probably have a different meaning from yours and it isn’t thus far demonstrated that they are of ancient Italian descent. I am forced to go deep in the personal because otherwise my analysis would be unreliable. I have made some hypotheses, but I have said that they will be able to be demonstrated. First to test for L21 these three individuals I have compared with you. You, by yours, could try to test some relative of yours in your Italian paternal line. My friend Giuseppe Belgeri is testing some relatives of his who are living around the world and is paying for them. If you find a relative of yours in Italy, who will be able to remain anonymous, I think that Rich will be glad to find a subscription at the R-L21 project for testing him, because at this point to ascertain your true origin has some importance also for the R-L21 project. I have said many times that my hope is that your Italian origin is demonstrated and that you are the remnant of the first R-L21 who left Italy for the westward migration, while I think that R-U106, the future German speaking, left before Italy Eastwards for central Europe, and their migration is clearly testified by Myres’ map: High Danube – Rhine to Netherlands.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 20, 2010, 01:07:15 AM
About this route, William Hurst writes to me about my mtDNA K1a1b1:

“Your 9932A defines a medium-sized branch which will probably be a new, deeper subclade on a revised K tree in the future. Members of your branch trace back to the British Isles, the Netherlands and Italy”.

I’d write it backwards: Italy, Netherlands, British Isles.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 25, 2010, 10:06:45 AM
About these two French departments:
(http://fr.europa-bed-breakfast.com/images/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur.gif)
http://fr.europa-bed-breakfast.com/images/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur.gif
Alpes de htes Provence : L21: 19.4%
Var: L21: 2.9%

These two départements are contiguous.
If these results are correct and reflects reality, this is pretty amazing.

The Gallic people most important in the current departement of Alpes de Htes Provences, were Ésubiens (Latin Esuvii or Esubii).

They have the same name as another Gallic tribe "the Ésuviens" (Latin: Esuvii or Esubii) who lived in Normandy in the department of Orne

The etymology of their names seems to be "Esus", one of the most important gods of Celtic mythology.
And, it is the equivalent of the Irish god Dagda.

Same names, same gods.. same tribe?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 25, 2010, 11:45:57 AM
This seems to me very interesting. We frequently forget that modern peoples are the sum of many little tribes of the most ancient times and, even though peoples have mixed, probably they retain much of their ancient ancestors and may be of very different origin. If what you are saying is right, probably also ancient “Gallia” was composed from many tribes which, if were speaking a similar language, were composed by more ancient tribes which could have a different genetic origin. To test someone in a territory, without knowing the probably ancient settlements, can make us misunderstand the real genetic meaning of that test. Even though people has mixed, and nobody of us knows which were his ancestors 2 thousand or more years ago, only who knows the history of that territory can interpret those data. If you are right, R-L21 has a high rate in France only where there are peoples who have an ancient origin from those places where R-L21 has a high rate to-day.

But it could be right also the contrary: that Esubii of South-East France, near Italy, are the original people, that R-L21 was born here, and that Esubii of North West France derive from these and not the contrary. How can we answer this question?


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 25, 2010, 12:09:42 PM
But it could be right also the contrary: that Esubii of South-East France, near Italy, are the original people, that R-L21 was born here, and that Esubii of North West France derive from these and not the contrary. How can we answer this question?


We can only see that they had the same god (Esus).

Usually, we consider the ancient peoples of the French Alps as part of the Ligures.
They also apparently common points with the peoples of northern Gaul.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: rms2 on September 25, 2010, 08:11:03 PM
About these two French departments:
(http://fr.europa-bed-breakfast.com/images/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur.gif)
http://fr.europa-bed-breakfast.com/images/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur.gif
Alpes de htes Provence : L21: 19.4%
Var: L21: 2.9%

These two départements are contiguous.
If these results are correct and reflects reality, this is pretty amazing.

The Gallic people most important in the current departement of Alpes de Htes Provences, were Ésubiens (Latin Esuvii or Esubii).

They have the same name as another Gallic tribe "the Ésuviens" (Latin: Esuvii or Esubii) who lived in Normandy in the department of Orne

The etymology of their names seems to be "Esus", one of the most important gods of Celtic mythology.
And, it is the equivalent of the Irish god Dagda.

Same names, same gods.. same tribe?

Super observation, Jerome! Thanks!

Maybe there is a connection.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 26, 2010, 05:59:40 AM
The Gallic people most important in the current departement of Alpes de Htes Provences, were Ésubiens (Latin Esuvii or Esubii).

The etymology of their names seems to be "Esus", one of the most important gods of Celtic mythology. And, it is the equivalent of the Irish god Dagda.

Something to say about the etymology of Jerome of the Esubii/Esuvii linked with Gallic god Esus.
Esus (see also the word “esono” of the Osco-Umbrians) is perhaps linked with the Etruscan name for god AIS (plural AISAR) and probably is a name linked more with Rhaetians- Etruscans-Camuns than with Indo-Europeans. But Caesar (De bello gallico, II 34.1, III 7.4, V 24.2) speaks always of this people as “Essuvii” (nominative plural) and not “Esuvii”. I think that double “s” shall make us think to IE and  Gallic *ecs > es(s) “out” (see Latin “ex”) more than to the name of the god Esus.
The name of the Essubii/Essuvii could be from the word that gives Latin “exuo”, from *exduo (Ancient Greek ͗'εκδύω), then, for the fall of -d-, this name should have  an “Italic” origin more than a Northern Celtic one. Then probably their ancient origin should be thought more in the region around Italy than further of it. The other people near the Northern Essuvii of North France are the Veneti and Venelli (and I don’t speak of the others) whose names of course are linked with the Italian Veneti.
Who has pointed out to a Celt people from Central Europe, to R-U152  as a Celt haplogroup, to a Celt nationalism and reproves me to be an Italian nationalist, forgives that all these peoples have a common origin, that they migrated frequently all over Central/Western/South Europe (they have come originally from Central Europe or from Italy).
It remains fixed, I think,  that all R1b1 haplogroups came out from the Italian refugium, that Rhaetians-Etruscans-Camuns and (Western) Indo-Europeans (centum languages) were probably related from very ancient times (I think from the Younger Dryas). Satem languages are derived from the Centum ones and not the contrary. Not by chance where arrived the centum-Tocharians we find the most recent haplogroups of R like the “Italian” R-U152 of the Bashkirs.

If my etymology of “Essuvii” is right, the name would mean “the undressed”, those who don’t wear like the others. The other name by which Essuvii are known is “Saii”. This name could be linked  with Latin “sagum” (the same in English), which is thought to be a Celt word.
Celt “Esus” is interpreted like “master”, but on the Paris Cathedral is portrayed with a short dress.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 26, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
But where did Jerome find that Essuvii lived in South-East France? Did he perhaps mean Oxybii? We don’t know if they were the same people. Anyway a Ligurian (or Italian) origin of this tribe and of the others named above could be likely.

“The Oxybii (Ὀξύβιοι) were a Ligurian tribe living on the Mediterranean coast of France near Massallia. The border with the Ligurian Deciates (Δεκιῆται) being to the west of Antipolis and east of Forum Julii (Smith, entry on Oxybii). The Oxybii attacked Massallia in 155 BCE (Polybius, Histories, 33.7) and in consequence their allies the Romans sent a commission, consisting of Flaminius, Popilius Laenas, and Lucius Pupius. When these were attacked at the Oxybian coastal city of Aegitna (Polybius, Histories, 33.10), the Romans dispatched an army under the consul Quintus Opimius, who defeated the Oxybii and the Deciates at the battle of Aegitna, three kilometres north of Antipolis (Cosson, p.21; Polybius, Histories, 33.11)” (from Wikipedia).



Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 26, 2010, 09:30:18 AM
But where did Jerome find that Essuvii lived in South-East France? Did he perhaps mean Oxybii? We don’t know if they were the same people. Anyway a Ligurian (or Italian) origin of this tribe and of the others named above could be likely.


Regarding the Esubiens of Alps, I found this information on the French wikipedia (I have not found in the English version)
First here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_des_Alpes-de-Haute-Provence
and here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esubiens

Some think they are cited on "the trophée des Alpes":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troph%C3%A9e_des_Alpes
or in english: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Alpium
with the name VESVBIANI

In this case, I do not know why it is called in French, Esubiens (even if U and V are the same letters).
Their location is not well known.
Or they are the valley of Ubaye http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vall%C3%A9e_de_l%27Ubaye
or valley in the valley of Vésubie (if Esubiens are Vesubiens)


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 26, 2010, 09:39:41 AM
"Ils ne doivent pas être confondus avec les Ésuviens, cités par Jules César, et situés en Bretagne ou en Normandie".

Then if there isn't a link between them, the high percentage of R-L21 around the Alps can't be explained by an Armorican influence, but must be explained otherwise and keep in mind my hypotheses.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: jerome72 on September 26, 2010, 10:25:26 AM

I think I found why we speak in French "Esubiani" and not "Vesubiani" on the listing of "Trophy of the Alps"
Pline l'ancien did not transcribe correctly what was written.
140 fragments of the inscription were found and Jules Formigé corrected Vesubiani by Esubiani.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/25607871

"Ils ne doivent pas être confondus avec les Ésuviens, cités par Jules César, et situés en Bretagne ou en Normandie".

Then if there isn't a link between them, the high percentage of R-L21 around the Alps can't be explained by an Armorican influence, but must be explained otherwise and keep in mind my hypotheses.


Je suis tout à fait d'accord... Je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse du même peuple.
Mais si deux peuples ont le même nom, on peut supposé qu'ils ont des racines communes...


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 26, 2010, 03:12:32 PM
Je suis tout à fait d'accord... Je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse du même peuple.
Mais si deux peuples ont le même nom, on peut supposé qu'ils ont des racines communes...
I think this too, in fact I linked Veneti from Armorica with Veneti from Italy. Re. Essuvii I gave also an etymology that presupposed an origin near Italy, among Ligurians. The fact that Saii can derive from *Sagii it is a linguistic change known in Gallic, then probably we have a mix of peoples and languages, all around Rhaetian-Etruscan-Camun/Western Indo-European/Italic-Celtic-Germanic/Ligurian etc., a history that must still be written.
Probably it would be interesting to try if there is a link between Oxybii (probably from Greek of Massilia: Oxyboi) and Essubii/Essuvii.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: A.D. on September 29, 2010, 02:40:41 PM
I noticed  Esus Asir etc have been linked to Dagda (Irish) who in turn is linked to Thor etc (Germanic) one of the Aseir thought to mean from Asia.
The origin could be very old both were `the peoples God' as opposed to Odin and Lugh `the Warriors God' The former carry a club/hammer
the later a spear that `flies' for ever some times thrown with a sling or stick. If this sling/stick refers to an Atlatl very very old.
There is also an incdent between the Tuatha De Dannan and the former inhabitants of Ireland the Fir Bolg in which the battle was delayed until the Tuatha had big heavy stabbing spears like the Fir Bolg. If this refers to the introduction of throwing spears very very very old. The origins maybe pre-messolithic.


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 30, 2010, 02:27:20 PM
I've updated the spreadsheet is at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RL21Project/files/

There 1939 Confirmed L21+ haploytypes, including 1377 that are 67 in length. There are also 162 ht's on a separate tab that have STR markers beyond 67 tested and in Ysearch. All known subclades, including M222+, are included.

Here are the counts of confirmed people by downstream SNP:

M222+ ____ 446
L226+ ____ 62
L159.2+ __ 48
L193+ ____ 24
P314.2+ __ 11
L144+ ____ 7

R-L21** __ 103
- This is a paragroup, not a subclade, that is ancestral(negative) for M222 and the L21 downstream package SNP's.

Keep in mind that M222 has been tested for several years so the other SNP's are probably understated relative to it.

There is an R-L21 modal Ysearch ID - K9VGV.  It's pretty much the same the Western Atlantic Modal.  We do have markers beyond 67 in the Ysearch record now. 

Regards, Mike


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: pconroy on October 11, 2010, 03:26:49 PM
The Gallic people most important in the current departement of Alpes de Htes Provences, were Ésubiens (Latin Esuvii or Esubii).

The etymology of their names seems to be "Esus", one of the most important gods of Celtic mythology. And, it is the equivalent of the Irish god Dagda.

Something to say about the etymology of Jerome of the Esubii/Esuvii linked with Gallic god Esus.
Esus (see also the word “esono” of the Osco-Umbrians) is perhaps linked with the Etruscan name for god AIS (plural AISAR) and probably is a name linked more with Rhaetians- Etruscans-Camuns than with Indo-Europeans. But Caesar (De bello gallico, II 34.1, III 7.4, V 24.2) speaks always of this people as “Essuvii” (nominative plural) and not “Esuvii”. I think that double “s” shall make us think to IE and  Gallic *ecs > es(s) “out” (see Latin “ex”) more than to the name of the god Esus.
The name of the Essubii/Essuvii could be from the word that gives Latin “exuo”, from *exduo (Ancient Greek ͗'εκδύω), then, for the fall of -d-, this name should have  an “Italic” origin more than a Northern Celtic one. Then probably their ancient origin should be thought more in the region around Italy than further of it. The other people near the Northern Essuvii of North France are the Veneti and Venelli (and I don’t speak of the others) whose names of course are linked with the Italian Veneti.
Who has pointed out to a Celt people from Central Europe, to R-U152  as a Celt haplogroup, to a Celt nationalism and reproves me to be an Italian nationalist, forgives that all these peoples have a common origin, that they migrated frequently all over Central/Western/South Europe (they have come originally from Central Europe or from Italy).


I studied Latin for 5 years and read Caesar's De Bello Gallico (The Gallic Wars), and the people he talks about are the Suebi (Suevi), who gave their name to Swabia in South West Germany and Northern Switzerland, and were a Germanic tribe threatening to invade Gallia Transalpina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi

The Veneti are of course synonymous with the Wends, an early name for Western Slavs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends


Title: Re: so what does the new study mean for L21?
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 12, 2010, 09:09:42 AM
Are you sure that Suebi and Essuvii are the same people? It seems to me a little bit believable.  Perhaps you studied Latin for five years, but certainly not glottology for forty like me.

“De Bello Gallico (The Gallic Wars)”, actually The Gallic War.