Page 385 of 485 FirstFirst ... 285335375383384385386387395435 ... LastLast
Results 3,841 to 3,850 of 4848

Thread: Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

  1. #3841
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    8,083
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-FGC36982
    mtDNA
    U5a2c3a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    It seems to me the main point of disagreement here is that some of you think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker.

    But if U106 was an important part of Bell Beaker, why is it skewed so heavily to the eastern side and especially the southeastern corner of Britain, so that it fools us into thinking it is primarily of Anglo-Saxon provenance there? Why is it extremely small potatoes in Ireland, and where it does occur is found mainly in the places where the non-Irish settled?

    Why does U106 appear so closely associated with Germanic peoples and fades as one moves away from their homelands? Why does it have such an obvious inverse relationship to historically Italo-Celtic regions?

    I will admit that I have not read every single book and academic treatise on the planet, but I am fairly well read. I have never read a single scholar who attributed to Bell Beaker the genesis and spread of Germanic languages. On the other hand, a number of highly respected scholars have, over the years, attributed to Bell Beaker the origin and spread of Italo-Celtic. A number of scholars have attributed the very early origins of Germanic languages to Corded Ware, however.

    Now, finally, while readily admitting we need a lot more ancient y-dna results, don't you find it odd, if U106 was big in Bell Beaker, that not a single ancient Bell Beaker test result has come up U106+, even in places in Germany where U106 is common today? Isn't it funny how these initial results seem to support those scholars who link Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic rather than Germanic? Add to that the fact that when an ancient U106 finally popped up, it did so in the context of a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe cemetery and not in Bell Beaker. Isn't that odd, if U106 is really BB material?

    Add to that the Hinxton Celts, who were likewise not U106, even though their skeletons were recovered in a part of what is now England that is rife with U106 today. And those three Bell Beaker men from Rathlin Island, what were they? Not U106.

    If U106 or its ancestor came up with Yamnaya via the same route taken by P312 or its ancestor, something funky happened somewhere in central Europe.
    Last edited by rms2; 04-21-2017 at 12:36 AM.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-FGC36982 (L21> DF13> Z39589> CTS2501> Z43690> Y8426> BY160> FGC36974>FGC36982)

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     castle3 (04-21-2017), Celt_?? (04-21-2017), Jessie (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017), Radboud (04-21-2017)

  3. #3842
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,546
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    It seems to me the main point of disagreement here is that some of you think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker.
    Just to be clear, I do not think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker. However, U106 could have been in some Bell Beaker folks, particularly any in Denmark, northern Germany or northern Poland.

    To me a bigger question is did U106 originate from the Yamnaya proper, Corded Ware or Bell Beaker? I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Now, finally, while readily admitting we need a lot more ancient y-dna results, don't you find it odd, if U106 was big in Bell Beaker, that not a single ancient Bell Beaker test result has come up U106+
    No, I don't think it is odd at all. We just don't have that many Bell Beaker ancient DNA results. I don't think the current survey status is any kind of decent cross-section of Bell Beaker aDNA. Hopefully, that will change this year.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Add to that the fact that when an ancient U106 finally popped up, it did so in the context of a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe cemetery and not in Bell Beaker. Isn't that odd, if U106 is really BB material?
    That's a sample of one and that is not in Corded Ware proper, but a derivative culture. At the same timeframe as the RISE98 U106+ man we are seeing the aftermath of the fusion/fission events that involved Beaker interaction with Corded Ware and then Unetice. Bell Beakers are in England, Denmark and even along the Baltic coasts of Germany and Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Add to that the Hinxton Celts, who were likewise not U106, even though their skeletons were recovered in a part of what is now England that is rife with U106 today..
    The Hinxton Celts were centuries later than the Bell Beakers and the origination of U106. As far as that goes, we don't have a good survey of Celtic ancient DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    And those three Bell Beaker men from Rathlin Island, what were they? Not U106.
    Again, this is not much of a survey, but I wouldn't expect to find U106 to any great degree in Ireland about 2000 BC. We have pretty good reason to think a lot of U106 came in with Anglo-Saxons, but U106 was around well before there any such thing as Proto-Germanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    If U106 or its ancestor came up with Yamnaya via the same route taken by P312 or its ancestor, something funky happened somewhere in central Europe.
    Yes, something definitely happened of major significance in central Europe in the centuries surrounding 2500 BC. Perhaps fusion/fission is not a well received label so perhaps we should call it World War Zero or the first Pan-European War.

    What Y DNA was going in what directions at that time I don't know. Hopefully the new studies will tell us. I just hope they investigate down below P311 a few layers.

    I just think we have to consider that P312 and U106 are very closely related as well, so their source is pretty much the same. It would be great if we had precise TMRCAs as that would lead to a couple of suspect culutures. If the TMRCAs ended up on the older side, say 3400 BC, the best suspects could be one of the Yamnaya proper cultures. If we find the TMRCAs were really about 2500 BC it's hard to argue against a Bell Beaker group.
    Last edited by Mikewww; 04-21-2017 at 05:26 AM.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mikewww For This Useful Post:

     CannabisErectusHibernius (04-21-2017), castle3 (04-21-2017), Jessie (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  5. #3843
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    8,083
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-FGC36982
    mtDNA
    U5a2c3a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Just to be clear, I do not think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker. However, U106 could have been in some Bell Beaker folks, particularly any in Denmark, northern Germany or northern Poland.
    Well, we don't disagree as much as I thought then. It wouldn't surprise me to see U106 here and there in Bell Beaker, particularly in the easternmost reaches of Bell Beaker, but I don't think it will turn out to be common throughout Bell Beaker.

    I'm betting Polish Bell Beaker turns out to be R1b-U152, if we ever get any y-dna from it. Just my guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    To me a bigger question is did U106 originate from the Yamnaya proper, Corded Ware or Bell Beaker? I don't know.
    Or maybe Globular Amphora? I don't know either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    No, I don't think it is odd at all. We just don't have that many Bell Beaker ancient DNA results. I don't think the current survey status is any kind of decent cross-section of Bell Beaker aDNA. Hopefully, that will change this year.
    We have, if I recall correctly, ancient y-dna results from at least 12 Bell Beaker skeletons, 15, if one counts the three from El Sotillo in Spain. Given that you think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, aren't you even a little surprised that it hasn't shown up there yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    That's a sample of one and that is not in Corded Ware proper, but a derivative culture.
    You said that before in a different way: "a trend of one". It sounds devastating, but that one result does not stand by itself, it comes accompanied by other evidence: U106's pretty obvious association with Germanic peoples, its inverse relationship to Italo-Celtic peoples, and the fact that it has not yet appeared in ancient Bell Beaker results.

    Those things, which could be broken down into separate detailed elements, are what make that "trend of one" a lot more significant than a single result might otherwise be. What it is really is this: All that and an ancient U106 Nordic Battle Axe skeleton too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    At the same timeframe as the RISE98 U106+ man we are seeing the aftermath of the fusion/fission events that involved Beaker interaction with Corded Ware and then Unetice. Bell Beakers are in England, Denmark and even along the Baltic coasts of Germany and Poland.
    What is now England was in the Italo-Celtic orbit until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th century A.D. It isn't likely there was much if any U106 there until then, aside from the odd Roman auxiliary or slave imported from the Continent.

    I'm not denying BB sites have been found along the Baltic coast, but I am not sure how important or populous the BB people were in those regions. I think it likely they were eventually swamped by the locals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    The Hinxton Celts were centuries later than the Bell Beakers and the origination of U106. As far as that goes, we don't have a good survey of Celtic ancient DNA.
    Of course they were, but they were part of the history of the place, a place now rife with U106. They are successors in time to the Bell Beaker people, likely their descendants, and likely heirs to both their dna and their language. And, if one regards Bell Beaker as probably Italo-Celtic or somewhere on that ethnolinguistic continuum, they continued the unbroken run of xU106 among such peoples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Again, this is not much of a survey, but I wouldn't expect to find U106 to any great degree in Ireland about 2000 BC. We have pretty good reason to think a lot of U106 came in with Anglo-Saxons, but U106 was around well before there any such thing as Proto-Germanic.
    I don't think the age of a y haplogroup matters much when we are talking about ancient ethnolinguistic groups. If enough members of a y haplogroup became speakers of a language early enough that it is plain that y haplogroup is strongly associated with it, that is enough. And it's plain U106 became associated with Germanic speech pretty early in its evolution, if not actually right from the very beginning. I personally think U106 was involved in the very genesis of Germanic, from pre-Proto onward.

    I seriously doubt there was much if any U106 in Ireland before the Normans and, later, the English.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Yes, something definitely happened of major significance in central Europe in the centuries surrounding 2500 BC. Perhaps fusion/fission is not a well received label so perhaps we should call it World War Zero or the first Pan-European War.
    I think it is possible all or most of L151 was in Yamnaya and went up the Danube Valley route, and that U106 or its ancestor stayed farther to the east and north than did P312 or its ancestor. I also think it is possible that the L151 ancestor of U106, or the first U106 man himself, if he was around, could have gone around the north side of the Carpathians and onto the North European Plain, becoming a part of Corded Ware or Globular Amphora.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    What Y DNA was going in what directions at that time I don't know. Hopefully the new studies will tell us. I just hope they investigate down below P311 a few layers.

    I just think we have to consider that P312 and U106 are very closely related as well, so their source is pretty much the same. It would be great if we had precise TMRCAs as that would lead to a couple of suspect culutures. If the TMRCAs ended up on the older side, say 3400 BC, the best suspects could be one of the Yamnaya proper cultures. If we find the TMRCAs were really about 2500 BC it's hard to argue against a Bell Beaker group.
    Yes, U106 and P312 are closely related, but at some point they separated enough to develop distinctly different distributions and distinctly different ethnolinguistic associations. Something similar must have happened with the L23 brothers L51 and Z2103, because L51 and his descendants pretty obviously headed off to the west and north.
    Last edited by rms2; 04-21-2017 at 12:58 PM. Reason: To fix odd wording
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-FGC36982 (L21> DF13> Z39589> CTS2501> Z43690> Y8426> BY160> FGC36974>FGC36982)

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (04-22-2017), Celt_?? (04-22-2017), Jessie (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  7. #3844
    Registered Users
    Posts
    445
    Sex
    Location
    Serravalle
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Y-DNA
    G2a3
    mtDNA
    H1

    San Marino
    In the middle of the debate I feel really lonely when I'm wondering if they had already loaded samples as Gravetto-Danubian suggested some weeks ago.

  8. #3845
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    3,999
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by Romilius View Post
    In the middle of the debate I feel really lonely when I'm wondering if they had already loaded samples as Gravetto-Danubian suggested some weeks ago.
    I had just heard it was due for submission imminently. I have no idea how long the publication will take, or where. I think Megalophias suggested 2 months, Davidski similarly.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (04-21-2017), castle3 (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017), rms2 (04-21-2017)

  10. #3846
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,546
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Well, we don't disagree as much as I thought then. It wouldn't surprise me to see U106 here and there in Bell Beaker, particularly in the easternmost reaches of Bell Beaker, but I don't think it will turn out to be common throughout Bell Beaker.
    Right, we are have very strong agreement in general on this. In fact, even on U106 in Corded Ware, I agree it probably was as evidenced by being found in a Corded Ware derivative, Swedish Boat Axe. It's just that I could flip a coin on that as the closeness of relationship and probably youthfulness (Bronze Age I mean) of P311, P312 and U106 calls for a competing alternative. It could be that P311 and P312 were Corded Ware or that Yamnaya moves from eastern Romania and Moldova were lightning fast. The blitzkrieg could definitely be true as we have folks like the Amesbury Archer who seemed to be born half way across Europe from where they were raised.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I'm betting Polish Bell Beaker turns out to be R1b-U152, if we ever get any y-dna from it. Just my guess.
    Could be. I wonder what Lawrence thinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    We have, if I recall correctly, ancient y-dna results from at least 12 Bell Beaker skeletons, 15, if one counts the three from El Sotillo in Spain. Given that you think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, aren't you even a little surprised that it hasn't shown up there yet?
    I never said I think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, although I'm not sure what that even is. I think you mean Bell Beaker finds in Germany. We don't have many of those, do we? How many L21 Beaker finds do we have in Germany? That doesn't mean L21's MRCA did not live there. This is what I mean be a shortage of evidence.

    I think U106 could have originated in Bell Beakers or the genesis Yamnaya-ized Beaker. This could put the origin of U106 in Hungary, Czech Rep, Slovakia or Austria or the general area. U106 could have originated in Corded Wares or Yamnaya proper too. By the way, P312 could have originated in Corded Wares or Yamnaya proper as well. It doesn't seem likely given David Anthony's "true folk" Yamnaya movement up the Danube, though.

    Let us not conflate modern boundaries of Germany with the origins of Proto-Germanic. The Bell Beakers of northern Poland, northern Germany, southern Norway and Denmark (incl. the islands of Zealand and Bornholm) were in the heart of proposed Proto-Germanic speaking lands. The Bell Beakers were there long before Germanic languages were spoken. By the way, the island of Bornholm is on the other side of Malmo, Sweden. Malmo is between Zealand and Bornholm. There are people who can swim from Denmark to Sweden. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...0020246AAZ3OYk

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    You said that before in a different way: "a trend of one". It sounds devastating, but that one result does not stand by itself, it comes accompanied by other evidence: U106's pretty obvious association with Germanic peoples, its inverse relationship to Italo-Celtic peoples, and the fact that it has not yet appeared in ancient Bell Beaker results. [/I]
    I don't see any of this as devastating one way or another, just a fun discussion.
    The association of Y haplogroups with languages must have timeframe associations to be useful in a discussion. I don't know a stitch of Celtic, and speak a Germanic language as many of us do but that doesn't mean L21 was in the Proto-Germanic speaking group.
    There is a long period of time between the appearance of Bell Beakers in Proto-Germanic homeland vicinity and the actual appearance of a Proto-Germanic language. We also see that IE language experts are uncertain on the timing of the influences or even cross-branch grafting of Celtic and Germanic. I refer back to the Ringe-Taylor-Warnow tree.

    By the way, it is not lost on me at all that the cross-branch between Celtic and Germanic could be the impact of some forms of P312, with L238 being amongst them.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I'm not denying BB sites have been found along the Baltic coast, but I am not sure how important or populous the BB people were in those regions. I think it likely they were eventually swamped by the locals.
    .. but we know the big Y haplogroups of Europe were very youthful around 2200 BC. Somehow they swamped most everybody else, although Proto-Germanic speakers appear to have been much more evenly mixed Y haplogroup-wise. This could be a could be a clue that this culture was a more balanced mix or amalgamation with multiple inputs.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Of course they were, but they were part of the history of the place, a place now rife with U106. They are successors in time to the Bell Beaker people, likely their descendants, and likely heirs to both their dna and their language. And, if one regards Bell Beaker as probably Italo-Celtic or somewhere on that ethnolinguistic continuum, they continued the unbroken run of xU106 among such peoples.
    I'm not willing to agree that all or even most Bell Beakers were Italo-Celtic speakers and that there was an unbroken continuum to Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic. The Beakers may well have just spoken various dialects of IE and eventually one or two won out (i.e. Celtic and Italic) and overtook the others. We can see the case of Italic speaking expansion. It was not a one time shot back in the days of Proto-Italic. The Roman Empire was post Bronze Age big wave that changed speakers across much of Europe to Italic. What's to say to say the Urnfielders did not do something similar in earlier days. There are a lot of centuries of language dialects to diverge, converge, fade and expand.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I don't think the age of a y haplogroup matters much when we are talking about ancient ethnolinguistic groups. If enough members of a y haplogroup became speakers of a language early enough that it is plain that y haplogroup is strongly associated with it, that is enough. And it's plain U106 became associated with Germanic speech pretty early in its evolution, if not actually right from the very beginning. I personally think U106 was involved in the very genesis of Germanic, from pre-Proto onward.
    I don't see how you can say the age of the haplogroup doesn't matter much in these regards. U106's MRCA is much older than Proto-Germanic as I noted before. Then the question is who was Pre-Germanic? but that may be the wrong way of looking at it. Many folks could have been Pre-Germanic, including Bell Beakers. Pre-Germanic may not even have ever existed as a distinct language if it is uncertain as Ringe-Taylor-Warnow say, that is if it is an amalgamation.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I seriously doubt there was much if any U106 in Ireland before the Normans and, later, the English.
    I think for the majority of modern U106 this is true and that is heavily L48 biased. However, there may be some subclades like Z156 that broke away from pre-L48 people and got mixed in with people going northwest. You might say "but Z156 is a small subclade" but today's subclade population size has little relevance to the origin of U106, Z381, Z156, etc. It's the early branching that is more relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Yes, U106 and P312 are closely related, but at some point they separated enough to develop distinctly different distributions and distinctly different ethnolinguistic associations. Something similar must have happened with the L23 brothers L51 and Z2103, because L51 and his descendants pretty obviously headed off to the west and north.
    Agreed, but the separation into different ethnolinguistic groups either
    1) took time to develop independently and isolated from each other or
    2) involved some interjection of a subclade into another culture (like perhaps U106 and L238 into Corded Wares derivatives or P312 in general into Bell Beakers)
    Last edited by Mikewww; 04-21-2017 at 06:43 PM.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikewww For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  12. #3847
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,546
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
    Based on personal experience I would argue there is more variability in how often SNPs mutate in the combBed region than you are allowing for above (1.1 to 3.3 generations).

    I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but let me use my own branch as an illustration.
    There are several additional risks to the "observed" mutation rate in cases like your own.
    1) Maybe most important, the variance in coverage of individual NGS runs can and does cause "missing" SNPs.
    2) Absolute MRCA dates based on genealogy can (not do but can) have errors. That's generally a sore subject so I try to avoid it.
    3) The use of novel/private SNPs in counting. NGS tests do generate false positives. The rate is low per millions of locations scanned but even a few false positives fall to the bottom as possible novel/private SNPs. I personally think only shared SNPs (consistently) should be used in SNP counting.

    In the case of the P311 family we have many tests, including those with great coverage (i.e. FGC Y Elite 2.1 - they'll like me yet). It's really just these SNPs (no equivalents) for some very large and geographically diverse subclades.
    P311
    P311>U106
    P311>P312
    P311>P312>DF27
    P311>P312>U152

    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
    Hence why I don't think it's unreasonable to think there could have been a multi generational difference between when U106 was born and P312.

    But as you said you are looking at what is most likely.
    Agreed. Given the coverage tested for the P311 early branching I think we can go with the average mutation rate of 1 every 2.2 generations. ... and agreed, averages are just that and a man can drown crossing the river of average depth of 3 feet.

    However, I have some good news. Dr. Iain McDonald has looked at the variance from the average. He's an astrophysicist and quite capable mathematically.
    Using Big Y coverage (minus DYZ19) he is coming up with an average of "129 years/SNP (125–139 years/SNP)". The range is a 95% confidence interval. I'm actually skeptical of that assuming some kind of sample size but I think the variance is not on the crazy side anyway.

    McDonald uses 32 years/gen so the above amounts this amounts to a range of an SNP every 3.9 to 4.3 generations.

    Using the FGC coverage for these early P311 branches and eliminating the novel/private SNP and sporadic coverage issues, we have 1 every 2.2 generations. so that 2.2 times 32 or about 1 SNP every 70 years. Since we are talking about the Bronze Age when average life spans were around 26 years I think we could use a lower years/gen than 32.

    In any case, if you use anything close to Dr. McDonald's intervals, it is quite likely that the MRCAs for P311, U106, U106>Z381, P312, P312>D27, P312>U152, P312>DF99 are right on top of each other, making it difficult to source them in isolated cultures from each other. We should throw P311>S1194 in this family too as S1194 has no equivalents also.

    The situation above P311's MRCA is quite different than its descendants.

    The P311 (L151) block is about a dozen SNPs. Above that we have the L51 block of about six or seven SNPs. We can see there is quite a genetic distance and therefore probable time period between L23*, L23>Z2103 and what we end up with as L23>L51>P311. We hardly know anything about L51 except its prominent survivor is the P311 MRCA.

    There is L51>PF7589. Does anyone know anything about PF7589? Dispersed from Turkey to Ireland to Norway to Portugal ???
    http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/643/
    Last edited by Mikewww; 04-21-2017 at 06:21 PM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikewww For This Useful Post:

     Joe B (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  14. #3848
    Registered Users
    Posts
    839
    Sex
    Location
    California
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z2103>Y14416

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    There is L51>PF7589. Does anyone know anything about PF7589? Dispersed from Turkey to Ireland to Norway to Portugal ???
    http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/643/
    That semargl map looks a little out of date. My guess is that the one marked in Turkey is actually from Greece. He's Big Y tested, listed Turkey for country, but has specific village and geographic coordinates in northern Greece. There is an Armenian that is predicted R1b-PF7589 and a R1b-L51 Yemeni that is also predictd R1b-PF7589. Both have DYS426=13. Otherwise, their STRs show a great deal of genetic distance from the Europeans. I suspect it will be very similar to the R1b-CTS4528* Armenian with an estimated 4900 ybp TMRCA to the Europeans. There probably are more R1b-L51 and R1b-P310 examples like that.
    Last edited by Joe B; 04-21-2017 at 07:20 PM.
    YFull R1b-M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>Y14512>Y20971>Y22199, ISOGG R1b1a1a2a2c1b Y14416, FTDNA R-M64

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joe B For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (04-21-2017), Mikewww (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  16. #3849
    Registered Users
    Posts
    482
    Sex
    Location
    Waterville, ME
    Ethnicity
    Great Migration Colonists
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U106 (S10415)
    mtDNA
    J1c2g (FMS)

    United States Gadsden England Scotland Ireland Wales
    Mike,

    It appears U106 may have an equivalent SNP: Z2265. My understanding is this SNP is not found outside of U106. It is called inconsistently (throughout all of the various subclades) in NGS tests including both the Big Y as well as the various FGC tests. FGC scores this SNP as ** and *** (the lowest levels of reliability).
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Mikewww (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

  18. #3850
    Registered Users
    Posts
    482
    Sex
    Location
    Waterville, ME
    Ethnicity
    Great Migration Colonists
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U106 (S10415)
    mtDNA
    J1c2g (FMS)

    United States Gadsden England Scotland Ireland Wales
    Another item with regards to U106: With the exception of it's largest subclade (Z381), U106 apparently experienced little to no growth for a couple hundred years or so. The other subclades immediately below U106 (Z18, FGC3861/Z8056, S12025, S18632, FGC396, S19589, and others) all have a handful of equivalent SNPs.

    Z381 alone appears to have had an immediate growth spurt with it's main branch defined by a series of clades with only one SNP (Z381, Z301, L48). Z381's other major subclade (Z156) only has one equivalent SNP. and L48's two main subclades (Z9 & L47) also have only a small number of equivalent SNPs.

    Given this large difference, I personally believe folks should separate Z381 from U106 when looking at their history and movements.
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     GoldenHind (04-21-2017), Jean M (04-21-2017), lgmayka (04-23-2017), Mikewww (04-21-2017), Power77 (04-21-2017)

Page 385 of 485 FirstFirst ... 285335375383384385386387395435 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. R-L21+ = Bell Beaker?
    By evon in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-08-2015, 09:47 AM
  2. A deeper think about beakers and genes
    By alan in forum R1b General
    Replies: 581
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 11:39 AM
  3. Conference of Jan Turek about Bell Beakers
    By Bernard in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2013, 02:14 PM
  4. Bell Beaker Isotopes
    By dartraighe in forum General
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 12:43 AM
  5. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 05:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •