World Families Forums - Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA

ARCHIVAL COPY
Home Help Search Login Register

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.
+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: Maliclavelli)
| | |-+  Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 116407 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #125 on: May 09, 2012, 05:38:55 PM »

During the time of the R1b+ tested Bell Beaker samples (2,600–2,500 cal BC), Bell Beaker samples were already spread from central Europe to Portugal.

Given that, it wouldn't make sense that the three main sub-clades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27) weren't well established close to their current high frequency areas.

Given that line of thinking, and the fact that the two samples are U106-, my guess is that these two samples are either DF27+ or U152+.

P.S. - do not fret my distant L21 relatives, I fully expect that the Amesbury Archer is L21+

Anyone else care to speculate?

I reckon they were L11*.  L11* lines seem to have headed in that direction with U106 probably appearing among those who reached the Baltic.  Its also so early that its touch and go whether P312, L21, U156 etc had even come into existence if the variance calculations central dates are to be believed.  I think that far east they are even more likely to not be in the area where P312 may have been occurring or just about to occur so I think L11* is most likely.  Even L51* is not impossible given the little patch of it noted on RR map but I would tend to go for L11*. 
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #126 on: May 09, 2012, 06:30:05 PM »

Since I still like DF27 as maritime (but maybe not Mediterranean), I'll go with his brother U152 for that area in 4500 BC.

If the DF27 boat guys turn out to have been mainly Danube river boat guys, I'll bid a fond farewell to the lower Vistula, and that whole prospect.  But not w/o a murmur.

And btw there are major differences in meaning, if not so much in pronunciation, between the Caucasus and caucuses.  Even in a US election year.  Hence, e.g., the second "a" in "Caucasian."
Logged

R1b Z196*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #127 on: May 09, 2012, 07:39:00 PM »

During the time of the R1b+ tested Bell Beaker samples (2,600–2,500 cal BC), Bell Beaker samples were already spread from central Europe to Portugal.

Given that, it wouldn't make sense that the three main sub-clades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27) weren't well established close to their current high frequency areas.

Given that line of thinking, and the fact that the two samples are U106-, my guess is that these two samples are either DF27+ or U152+.

P.S. - do not fret my distant L21 relatives, I fully expect that the Amesbury Archer is L21+

Anyone else care to speculate?

I reckon they were L11*.  L11* lines seem to have headed in that direction with U106 probably appearing among those who reached the Baltic.  Its also so early that its touch and go whether P312, L21, U156 etc had even come into existence if the variance calculations central dates are to be believed.  I think that far east they are even more likely to not be in the area where P312 may have been occurring or just about to occur so I think L11* is most likely.  Even L51* is not impossible given the little patch of it noted on RR map but I would tend to go for L11*. 

That is what I think: either R-L11 or very early R-P312.
Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #128 on: May 09, 2012, 07:59:09 PM »

During the time of the R1b+ tested Bell Beaker samples (2,600–2,500 cal BC), Bell Beaker samples were already spread from central Europe to Portugal.

Given that, it wouldn't make sense that the three main sub-clades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27) weren't well established close to their current high frequency areas.

Given that line of thinking, and the fact that the two samples are U106-, my guess is that these two samples are either DF27+ or U152+.

P.S. - do not fret my distant L21 relatives, I fully expect that the Amesbury Archer is L21+

Anyone else care to speculate?

I would have to agree with being most probable U152.
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #129 on: May 10, 2012, 07:10:18 AM »

During the time of the R1b+ tested Bell Beaker samples (2,600–2,500 cal BC), Bell Beaker samples were already spread from central Europe to Portugal.

Given that, it wouldn't make sense that the three main sub-clades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27) weren't well established close to their current high frequency areas.

Given that line of thinking, and the fact that the two samples are U106-, my guess is that these two samples are either DF27+ or U152+.

P.S. - do not fret my distant L21 relatives, I fully expect that the Amesbury Archer is L21+

Anyone else care to speculate?

I would have to agree with being most probable U152.

Why?

Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #130 on: May 10, 2012, 09:11:13 PM »



I would have to agree with being most probable U152.

Why?

I realize your have hashed this out many times here and other portals.

I am just considering some overall facts that the Amesbury Archer was estimated 4300 years old just around the spawn ages of U152, L21, and P312+. Radiocarbon dates show that the Archer lived between 2,400 and 2,200 years BC.

Checking MikeWs L11 Time line, the sigma's are pretty wide and extend before his estimated age.

We know he was born else where in central Europe, possibly very close to the Alps which is a strong U152 strong hold now. I guess if it was not R1b is could be G2's, I2's or E's all ended up in the isles?

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 10, 2012, 10:28:24 PM »

During the time of the R1b+ tested Bell Beaker samples (2,600–2,500 cal BC), Bell Beaker samples were already spread from central Europe to Portugal.
Given that, it wouldn't make sense that the three main sub-clades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27) weren't well established close to their current high frequency areas.
Given that line of thinking, and the fact that the two samples are U106-, my guess is that these two samples are either DF27+ or U152+.
P.S. - do not fret my distant L21 relatives, I fully expect that the Amesbury Archer is L21+

Anyone else care to speculate?
I don't know.  Even though I like to speculate, I like to have some reasoning behind it and in this case I really just have no idea.

I'm just chiming in with an opinion, primarily to let everyone know I find the Bell Beaker Y DNA results fascinating.  I don't find them surprising in the least. I would have been surprised if there weren't a good sized percentage of Bell Beaker paternal lineages that weren't R1b.

That being said, I have no idea what subclade of R1b these guys were.  I'm not sure it is that important what subclade of R1b these guys were.  Here's why - Let's say they were L21+.... that's no reason to think they were the ancestors of all L21 that took over the British Isles or that made incursions into the Aquitanians. They may have been L21** folks that died out.

Well, anyway, that's about all I know on the topic so I'll go on to the more important.

I was on the excavation that found the biggest beaker ever found in Europe.  It held abut 10 litres!

That's very, very cool. My father grew up on a farm, wrestling with animals (particularly hogs) to make sure they got whatever dosage we thought they needed. I like growing stuff and working with the dirt so your calling is a very neat thing, indeed.

... Deal. I'll be fly fishing the Shenandoah in a few months, so if I see the keelboat, I'll know it's you!

My mother's grandather's lineage included a traveling Scots-Irish preacher who rode up and down the Shenandoah Valley from from Hagerstown to almost Gettysburg down to Holstein Country in Tennessee.  He even has a county named after him in Tennessee. It must be beautiful, but also sad that I know many died in the Civil War along these lines, including my own kinds, on both sides.

So, back to the Beakers... I imagine their greatest enemies were their own cousins. Those who proliferated left the fighting back home and took over from indigenous men who weren't ready for them, perhaps technologically, culturally and immunity-wise.  I'm not sure the Spanish explorers in Latin American are not a good "picture" looking backward in time for Western Europe.

I'm not saying that was good thing, just the way it was. Since I'm going off on tangents, I'll mention that Paleolithic (hunter-gatherer) type diets are working very well for me. It's only what you might expect out of the only member of the ape family who was carnivorous.  

What a scary bunch we must have been for everyone else!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 10:42:29 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #132 on: May 11, 2012, 07:40:16 AM »



I would have to agree with being most probable U152.

Why?

I realize your have hashed this out many times here and other portals.

I am just considering some overall facts that the Amesbury Archer was estimated 4300 years old just around the spawn ages of U152, L21, and P312+. Radiocarbon dates show that the Archer lived between 2,400 and 2,200 years BC.

Checking MikeWs L11 Time line, the sigma's are pretty wide and extend before his estimated age.

We know he was born else where in central Europe, possibly very close to the Alps which is a strong U152 strong hold now. I guess if it was not R1b is could be G2's, I2's or E's all ended up in the isles?

MJost

I think Rich meant the two R1bs from Kromsdorf rather than the Amesbury Archer. Their bodies date from 2500-2600 BC, which would put them pretty early for U152, L21, etc., although not impossible.

But, on the subject of the Archer, if you make him U152, then you have U152 arriving in Britain with the Beaker Folk during the early Bronze Age. That's early. How and when did L21 get there, then?

I don't think it matters all that much which y haplogroups prevail in the Alpine region now. We're talking about over four thousand years ago.

Time and more aDNA results will tell, but I don't think we will see much G2, etc., among the Beaker Folk. I could be wrong, but I think the Beaker Folk are going to turn out to be the primary vector for the spread of R1b into western Europe. Those other groups will be found mostly among the Neolithic inhabitants, as they have been already.

The odd thing about Beaker Folk and the P312 subclades is that the distribution of the former doesn't match the distribution of any single one of the latter. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of U152, and there are Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any U152 at all. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of L21, and Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any L21 at all, and so on.

I think the initial spread of the Beaker Folk may predate even the split of L11 into P312 and U106. It's possible both major branches and their early subclades are Beaker Folk phenomena.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 07:47:21 AM by rms2 » Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #133 on: May 11, 2012, 02:34:29 PM »


I think Rich meant the two R1bs from Kromsdorf rather than the Amesbury Archer. Their bodies date from 2500-2600 BC, which would put them pretty early for U152, L21, etc., although not impossible.

But, on the subject of the Archer, if you make him U152, then you have U152 arriving in Britain with the Beaker Folk during the early Bronze Age. That's early. How and when did L21 get there, then?

I don't think it matters all that much which y haplogroups prevail in the Alpine region now. We're talking about over four thousand years ago.

Time and more aDNA results will tell, but I don't think we will see much G2, etc., among the Beaker Folk. I could be wrong, but I think the Beaker Folk are going to turn out to be the primary vector for the spread of R1b into western Europe. Those other groups will be found mostly among the Neolithic inhabitants, as they have been already.

The odd thing about Beaker Folk and the P312 subclades is that the distribution of the former doesn't match the distribution of any single one of the latter. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of U152, and there are Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any U152 at all. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of L21, and Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any L21 at all, and so on.

I think the initial spread of the Beaker Folk may predate even the split of L11 into P312 and U106. It's possible both major branches and their early subclades are Beaker Folk phenomena.


P312 matches extremely well with BB. Based on the affinities of certain regional BB groups, you can even start to make out the SNPs associated with them. Unfortunately the BB maps available on the internet are pretty much useless and one has to rely more on regional BB papers to get a good sense of true BB distribution.

The Brittany Region has the highest concentration of BB material finds in all of France. Given its linguistic affinities and the overwhelming amount of L21 in Britain and Ireland, I have no doubt that the BB from Brittany were already early branches of L21+.

As for the age of P312 subclades, I know they are very controversial, but using Ken N.'s interclade method, Mikeww got dates older than 3000 BC for L21 and I got the same thing for U152. I haven't seen any dating for DF27 or its subclade Z196, but I'm sure it's up there as well. We have to remember that BB pottery seems to have arisen from an existing population that started its big expansion during the Late Neolithic/Copper Age.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 11, 2012, 03:19:27 PM »


I think Rich meant the two R1bs from Kromsdorf rather than the Amesbury Archer. Their bodies date from 2500-2600 BC, which would put them pretty early for U152, L21, etc., although not impossible.

But, on the subject of the Archer, if you make him U152, then you have U152 arriving in Britain with the Beaker Folk during the early Bronze Age. That's early. How and when did L21 get there, then?

I don't think it matters all that much which y haplogroups prevail in the Alpine region now. We're talking about over four thousand years ago.

Time and more aDNA results will tell, but I don't think we will see much G2, etc., among the Beaker Folk. I could be wrong, but I think the Beaker Folk are going to turn out to be the primary vector for the spread of R1b into western Europe. Those other groups will be found mostly among the Neolithic inhabitants, as they have been already.

The odd thing about Beaker Folk and the P312 subclades is that the distribution of the former doesn't match the distribution of any single one of the latter. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of U152, and there are Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any U152 at all. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of L21, and Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any L21 at all, and so on.

I think the initial spread of the Beaker Folk may predate even the split of L11 into P312 and U106. It's possible both major branches and their early subclades are Beaker Folk phenomena.


P312 matches extremely well with BB. Based on the affinities of certain regional BB groups, you can even start to make out the SNPs associated with them. Unfortunately the BB maps available on the internet are pretty much useless and one has to rely more on regional BB papers to get a good sense of true BB distribution.

The Brittany Region has the highest concentration of BB material finds in all of France. Given its linguistic affinities and the overwhelming amount of L21 in Britain and Ireland, I have no doubt that the BB from Brittany were already early branches of L21+.

As for the age of P312 subclades, I know they are very controversial, but using Ken N.'s interclade method, Mikeww got dates older than 3000 BC for L21 and I got the same thing for U152. I haven't seen any dating for DF27 or its subclade Z196, but I'm sure it's up there as well. We have to remember that BB pottery seems to have arisen from an existing population that started its big expansion during the Late Neolithic/Copper Age.

I did? I've tried to focus on the interclade ages and provide the error ranges. I don't remember what I might have had in very early iterations but my best shot at the interclade TMRCAs is in this summary chart that I did a couple of months ago based on thousands of 67 STR haplotypes.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R-L11_Subclades_Timeline.gif

I've got the most likely age of the interclade P312 man who was MRCA for both U152 and L21 as being 2400 BC. In fact, I've got the interclade for U152 and Z196 as 2400 BC as well as the interclade for Z196 and L21 as being 2400 BC.  

I've got the P312 and U106 MRCA interclade man (who would have been L11*) as being only 2500 BC.

The 95% probability ranges (two sigma) in these cases goes up to 3000 BC.

I don't think any of these numbers necessarily hit the actual dates right on the nose.  They are all based on germ-line mutation rates that bring with them their own set of disagreements.  

I will say I think these L11 major subclades are all about the same age. Whether that is 3000 BC or 2000 BC, I don't know.  I realize it seems incredible that U152, P312, U106, L21, Z196's initial expansions were almost simultaneous, particularly given that DF27 isn't even factored in yet (between P312 and Z196)... but I'm not making this stuff up.

I guess alternative explanations are that STR saturation causes all of these to "get stuck" at about the same time.  However, other groups, like R-L23xL11, or other haplogroups in the E, J space, etc. don't "get stuck" on the same timeline so I don't think that is what's happening.

Another way to look at this is the modals for each of the subclades. There GD's are not far off each other so even though it may seem ridiculous to some, I think that about 2000BC we could've considered these guys of one clan or tribe that had spread like wildfire.
 
Trying to place the TMRCAs for L51, L23 and M269 into this is difficult to do.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 03:31:18 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #135 on: May 11, 2012, 03:27:41 PM »


I think Rich meant the two R1bs from Kromsdorf rather than the Amesbury Archer. Their bodies date from 2500-2600 BC, which would put them pretty early for U152, L21, etc., although not impossible.

But, on the subject of the Archer, if you make him U152, then you have U152 arriving in Britain with the Beaker Folk during the early Bronze Age. That's early. How and when did L21 get there, then?

I don't think it matters all that much which y haplogroups prevail in the Alpine region now. We're talking about over four thousand years ago.

Time and more aDNA results will tell, but I don't think we will see much G2, etc., among the Beaker Folk. I could be wrong, but I think the Beaker Folk are going to turn out to be the primary vector for the spread of R1b into western Europe. Those other groups will be found mostly among the Neolithic inhabitants, as they have been already.

The odd thing about Beaker Folk and the P312 subclades is that the distribution of the former doesn't match the distribution of any single one of the latter. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of U152, and there are Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any U152 at all. There are Beaker Folk sites in places with a lot of L21, and Beaker Folk sites in places without much if any L21 at all, and so on.

I think the initial spread of the Beaker Folk may predate even the split of L11 into P312 and U106. It's possible both major branches and their early subclades are Beaker Folk phenomena.


P312 matches extremely well with BB. Based on the affinities of certain regional BB groups, you can even start to make out the SNPs associated with them. Unfortunately the BB maps available on the internet are pretty much useless and one has to rely more on regional BB papers to get a good sense of true BB distribution.

The Brittany Region has the highest concentration of BB material finds in all of France. Given its linguistic affinities and the overwhelming amount of L21 in Britain and Ireland, I have no doubt that the BB from Brittany were already early branches of L21+.

As for the age of P312 subclades, I know they are very controversial, but using Ken N.'s interclade method, Mikeww got dates older than 3000 BC for L21 and I got the same thing for U152. I haven't seen any dating for DF27 or its subclade Z196, but I'm sure it's up there as well. We have to remember that BB pottery seems to have arisen from an existing population that started its big expansion during the Late Neolithic/Copper Age.

I did? I've tried to focus on the interclade ages and provide the error ranges. I don't remember what I might have had in very early iterations but my best shot at the interclade TMRCAs is in this summary chart that I did a couple of months ago based on thousands of 67 STR haplotypes.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif

I've got the most likely age of the interclade P312 man who was MRCA for both U152 and L21 as being 2400 BC. In fact, I've got the interclade for U152 and Z196 as 2400 BC as well as the interclade for Z196 and L21 as being 2400 BC.  

I've got the P312 and U106 MRCA interclade man (who would have been L11*) as being only 2500 BC.

The 95% probability ranges (two sigma) in these cases goes up to 3000 BC.

I don't think any of these numbers necessarily hit the actual dates right on the nose.  They are all based on germ-line mutation rates that bring with them their own set of disagreements.  

I will say I think these L11 major subclades are all about the same age. Whether that is 3000 BC or 2000 BC, I don't know.  I realize it seems incredible that U152, P312, U106, L21, Z196's initial expansions were almost simultaneous, particularly given that DF27 isn't even factored in yet (between P312 and Z196)... but I'm not making this stuff up.

I guess alternative explanations are that STR saturation causes all of these to "get stuck" at about the same time.  However, other groups, like R-L23xL11, or other haplogroups in the E, J space, etc. don't "get stuck" on the same timeline so I don't think that is what's happening.

Another way to look at this is the modals for each of the subclades. There GD's are not far off each other so even though it may seem ridiculous to some, I think that about 2000BC we could've considered these guys of one clan or tribe that had spread like wildfire.
 

The oldest dates you posted here were 3,100 BC: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10326.msg127011#msg127011
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #136 on: May 11, 2012, 03:30:23 PM »

MikeW has Z196 in his L11 sheet posted in the Yahoo R1b-YDNA section files shows best as 1300BC.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oFOtT6gIT63se7PkGllpaxfGq2UQ1s0bpGasLUQdAsm81CJvbRghAJYMtXN2uTdlGmDh-s0jWzRP39ttvD1b3-f4wXL4ig/Haplogroup_Timeline_R-L11_Subclades.gif
Ok mike posted this info.

Now the discussion has been on the origin of L21 in Southeastern France, correct?

I am a firm believer in cline type population movements. So what was present in SE France that would have produced the high variance of L21? And what was the path into these areas that L11 or P312 could have used into the area 3500-4000 ybp? We aleady know what Roman's saw and reported 2000 yrs ago.

We already know that the Rhône-Alpes is located in the east of France. To the north are the French regions of Bourgogne (Burgundy) and Franche-Comté, to the west it borders the region Auvergne, to the south it borders Languedoc-Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur. The east of the region contains the westernmost part of the Alps and borders Switzerland and Italy.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 03:31:32 PM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 11, 2012, 03:37:40 PM »


Sorry, for the confusion. I wasn't clear in that thread which was focused on L21.

Razyn answered this over there but those numbers were K years before present, not calendar date years.

Are these numbers,"before present"?
I think the Excel files, from which Mike has cut and pasted these data, have a header over that column that says "Kybp," meaning [4.4 (5.4 - 3.4), or whatever other values are there] thousand years before present.  Probably, the header just doesn't copy.

It is true that DF23 (where M222 sits) is quite distinctive and interclades between it and other L21 subclades seem to push L21's TMRCA back. My opinion is that is caused by a multi-step jump in 481 (or abberrant back-to-back mutations), but I don't know. This stuff isn't real precise.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 03:43:15 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #138 on: May 11, 2012, 09:16:20 PM »


Sorry, for the confusion. I wasn't clear in that thread which was focused on L21.

Razyn answered this over there but those numbers were K years before present, not calendar date years.

Are these numbers,"before present"?
I think the Excel files, from which Mike has cut and pasted these data, have a header over that column that says "Kybp," meaning [4.4 (5.4 - 3.4), or whatever other values are there] thousand years before present.  Probably, the header just doesn't copy.

It is true that DF23 (where M222 sits) is quite distinctive and interclades between it and other L21 subclades seem to push L21's TMRCA back. My opinion is that is caused by a multi-step jump in 481 (or abberrant back-to-back mutations), but I don't know. This stuff isn't real precise.

Sorry, I missed the KYBP part.

Either way, your graph does show interclades between U152, L21 and Z196 all being within the 3000-2800 BC time period, and we can expect the Z196 one to go higher with the inclusion of some DF27* folks in the future. We also know that the individual U152, L21 and Z196 coalescence dates are younger than the SNPs themselves because they only represent the successful lineages and do not take into account dead branches. The interclades may be for a common ancestor, but with the additional knowledge that the modals of U152, L21 and DF27 are identical, we can further deduce that their individual appearances was not far apart from each other. The point really is that 2500 BC is definitely not too old to be talking about U152, L21 and DF27 for these BB samples.

To follow my previous scenario - if the extremely dense BB finds in Brittany were L51* or L11* or P312* - not only would these lineages have had to have died out in order to have L21 come in and completely replace them, but the same would have to have happened simultaneously in Iberia, the British Isles, the Rhine, the Rhone, N. Italy, etc. To me, the likelihood of that scenario is highly unlikely.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #139 on: May 12, 2012, 06:38:23 AM »

We still don't really know why certain P312 subclades were successful in certain areas and not in others. Yet somehow those subclades supplanted the clades of their ancestors all over Europe, since it is doubtful that true R-L11* or true R-P312* exists anywhere today.

So, I am not sure one can rightly argue that because Brittany is overwhelmingly L21+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk arriving there must have already been L21+ rather than P312*, or that because Italy is overwhelmingly U152+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk there must have already been U152+ rather than P312*.

I guess it all depends on where those subclades actually first arose and when. Unfortunately, we really don't know.
Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #140 on: May 12, 2012, 09:28:56 AM »

We still don't really know why certain P312 subclades were successful in certain areas and not in others. Yet somehow those subclades supplanted the clades of their ancestors all over Europe, since it is doubtful that true R-L11* or true R-P312* exists anywhere today.

So, I am not sure one can rightly argue that because Brittany is overwhelmingly L21+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk arriving there must have already been L21+ rather than P312*, or that because Italy is overwhelmingly U152+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk there must have already been U152+ rather than P312*.

I guess it all depends on where those subclades actually first arose and when. Unfortunately, we really don't know.

I'm not arguing that the first BB in Brittany was L21+ just because L21 has high frequency there today. I am arguing that the BB finds there are so numerous, that it seems unlikely that P312* people created/used the BB material and then L21+ came on the scene later. The link is just too much to be a coincidence. Now, if we are saying that the first guy was P312* and his son was L21 and then all the rest of the generations were L21, that seems fine with me.

Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #141 on: May 12, 2012, 10:29:13 AM »

We still don't really know why certain P312 subclades were successful in certain areas and not in others. Yet somehow those subclades supplanted the clades of their ancestors all over Europe, since it is doubtful that true R-L11* or true R-P312* exists anywhere today.

So, I am not sure one can rightly argue that because Brittany is overwhelmingly L21+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk arriving there must have already been L21+ rather than P312*, or that because Italy is overwhelmingly U152+ today that the earliest Beaker Folk there must have already been U152+ rather than P312*.

I guess it all depends on where those subclades actually first arose and when. Unfortunately, we really don't know.

I'm not arguing that the first BB in Brittany was L21+ just because L21 has high frequency there today. I am arguing that the BB finds there are so numerous, that it seems unlikely that P312* people created/used the BB material and then L21+ came on the scene later. The link is just too much to be a coincidence. Now, if we are saying that the first guy was P312* and his son was L21 and then all the rest of the generations were L21, that seems fine with me.

Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?

That was the first hotspot to emerge when L21 started testing continental folks.  I have noticed myself that if you compare the project maps L21 does exceed other clades in that hotspot.  I understand the area is oversampled due to migration from that area of Germany but that doesnt explain why L21 is overrepresented.  Whatever the cause, these results made L21 look very strong in the Rhineland which kind of fooled me into thinking it was higher in west-central Europe than other studies seem to indicate.  the other possibility is it is a small hotspot of L21 that is slightly isolated, perhaps a survivor from later waves of an off-shoot from the more Atlantic areas of the continent.  I understand that the variance is quite a bit lower in SW Germany than France but still fairly old/prehistoric. 
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #142 on: May 12, 2012, 10:40:45 AM »



Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?
Looking at the Roman Empire Map has defined the area borders since then.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png

Patton used the ancient strategic gateway through Germania Superior to cross the Rhine south of Mainz, drive down the Danube towards Czechoslovakia and end the possibility of a Bavarian redoubt crossing the Alps in Austria when the war ended. Since them French and following the withdrawal of French forces from Mainz, the United States Army Europe occupied the military bases in Mainz. Resulting in subplanting of YDNA in the area?
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #143 on: May 12, 2012, 06:22:18 PM »



Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?
Looking at the Roman Empire Map has defined the area borders since then.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png

Patton used the ancient strategic gateway through Germania Superior to cross the Rhine south of Mainz, drive down the Danube towards Czechoslovakia and end the possibility of a Bavarian redoubt crossing the Alps in Austria when the war ended. Since them French and following the withdrawal of French forces from Mainz, the United States Army Europe occupied the military bases in Mainz. Resulting in subplanting of YDNA in the area?

If that was the case then you would have all sort of matches which I have never heard of in terms of German L21.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #144 on: May 12, 2012, 06:51:32 PM »



Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?
Looking at the Roman Empire Map has defined the area borders since then.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png

Patton used the ancient strategic gateway through Germania Superior to cross the Rhine south of Mainz, drive down the Danube towards Czechoslovakia and end the possibility of a Bavarian redoubt crossing the Alps in Austria when the war ended. Since them French and following the withdrawal of French forces from Mainz, the United States Army Europe occupied the military bases in Mainz. Resulting in subplanting of YDNA in the area?

If that was the case then you would have all sort of matches which I have never heard of in terms of German L21.

Not only that, but some of our L21s with German ancestry are Americans whose families have been in this country quite some time, certainly since long before WWII.

"Patton's route", etc., is just another variation of the old "Traveling Salesman" scenario.

Why is it that L21 seems to get that scenario applied to it more than other y haplogroups?

It amazes me.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 06:52:06 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #145 on: May 12, 2012, 07:35:32 PM »

Steve, It Happens.

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1572678,00.html

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #146 on: May 12, 2012, 07:43:25 PM »

Also here. I dont know what percent father were L21 but I have to think a majority?

Post-war children section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_children
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #147 on: May 12, 2012, 08:58:46 PM »



Speaking of L21 origin. In the FTDNA projects, we all know that the Palatine areas are heavily sampled. There is a small area to the south of Mainz on the west bank of the Rhine where L21 samples are heavily clustered, maybe even more so than U106 and U152. Has anyone looked at those samples for variance, downsteam SNPs, etc.?
Looking at the Roman Empire Map has defined the area borders since then.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png

Patton used the ancient strategic gateway through Germania Superior to cross the Rhine south of Mainz, drive down the Danube towards Czechoslovakia and end the possibility of a Bavarian redoubt crossing the Alps in Austria when the war ended. Since them French and following the withdrawal of French forces from Mainz, the United States Army Europe occupied the military bases in Mainz. Resulting in subplanting of YDNA in the area?

If that was the case then you would have all sort of matches which I have never heard of in terms of German L21.

Not only that, but some of our L21s with German ancestry are Americans whose families have been in this country quite some time, certainly since long before WWII.

"Patton's route", etc., is just another variation of the old "Traveling Salesman" scenario.

Why is it that L21 seems to get that scenario applied to it more than other y haplogroups?

It amazes me.

I think it's a product of L21's testing success. More people test L21+ than probably all other R1b SNPs combined, so you get more diverse theories/opinions. On the bright side, it's better than being a part of some group that rarely gets a mention or a reply on any forum.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #148 on: May 12, 2012, 09:35:09 PM »


It didn't happen without a time machine in the case of people with old Pennsylvania Dutch or other German ancestry whose ancestors were in this country long long before WWII.

At least this is a new variation. Before it was always "Irish monks" or "Scottish merchants".

Well, none of our Germany category members lists an ancestor born in Germany in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #149 on: May 13, 2012, 03:58:43 PM »

I was just reading back through the history of the beaker model for R1b and it seems to go back to spring 2008 on rootsweb when S116 was new and people like Ken were getting late variance dates for S116 and we were all getting our heads around the quick demise of the ice age western refugia.  This was around the time when beakers seemed like a good fit but I remember the initial variance dates were more like 1500BC so it still seemed problematic

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-06/1212580343

Reading through old rootsweb actually made me a bit nostalgic and reminded me of just how good a site is was but its not very active any more.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 04:02:42 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.149 seconds with 18 queries.