PDA

View Full Version : New paper: R1b1b2 Arrived in Europe During the Neolithic



rms2
20-01-10, 03:32
This new scientific paper makes more sense than most.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285


The relative contributions to modern European populations of
> Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers from the Near
> East have been intensely debated. Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the
> commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency
> from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men. Previous
> studies suggested a Paleolithic origin, but here we show that the
> geographical distribution of its microsatellite diversity is best
> explained by spread from a single source in the Near East via
> Anatolia during the Neolithic. Taken with evidence on the origins of
> other haplogroups, this indicates that most European Y chromosomes
> originate in the Neolithic expansion. This reinterpretation makes
> Europe a prime example of how technological and cultural change is
> linked with the expansion of a Y-chromosomal lineage, and the
> contrast of this pattern with that shown by maternally inherited
> mitochondrial DNA suggests a unique role for males in the transition.

Maciamo
20-01-10, 12:38
I disagree with the article. If R1b had come from Anatolia during the Neolithic, there would be an R1b trail from Greece to the Balkans, and another one via southern Italy, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria and southern Spain. But the only haplogroups linking these regions are E1b1b, G2a, J2 and T. The R1b found in southern Italy, although close to the Greek one (R1b1b2 and R1b1b1), is different from the one in Sardinia (R1b1a) and north Africa (R1b1), which in turn is different from the Spanish one (R1b1b2a1b). It's just not possible. The distribution of R1b is better explained by the Classical Greek colonisation of southern Italy, the Phoenician settlements of Sardinia and North Africa, and the Celtic invasion of Western Europe from the Danube.

Furthermore, R1b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east (around the Caucasus) and weakest in the south-west (supposed entry point to Greece). Agriculture spread through the southern coast of Anatolia, not the northern one. In fact there is no known Neolithic culture in northern Anatolian before the Starcevo-Körös-Karanovo culture in the Balkans. Based on archaeological evidence alone, agriculture couldn't have spread from northern Anatolia to Europe.

I do not disagree that R1b is older in Anatolia than in Europe and that it ultimately came from there. But I think it much more likely that R1b penetrated through the steppes across the Caucasus (probably during or just before the Maykop period). The linguistic evidence for Indo-European languages to have spread from the steppes during the Bronze age is overwhelming. The connection between R1a and R1b in all IE-speaking parts of the world leaves no doubt that both haplogroups were involved in the spread of IE languages. The combined R1a and R1b's presence in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia and South Asia, in addition to Europe and the northern Middle East all argue in favour of R1b mixing with R1a and expanding from the steppes, following the various archaeological cultures that spread between the Dniester and Ural during the Copper Age.

If R1b originated in Anatolia then cross over to the Caucasus and "converted" R1a population to their language, it would also explain why the Anatolian branch of Indo-European looks so archaic and split so much earlier from the others. It would also explain why R1a is so weak in Ukraine (R1b would have expanded from the Caucasus towards the Volga-Ural region). There isn't a single thing that doesn't make sense. The one thing I am still hesitant about is whether R1b IE-speakers split into two groups from Anatolia, one going north to the steppes, and the other west to the Danube valley; or did they all go north, then a branch pushed back westward through Ukraine and to the Danube. The former explains better why Western Europe ended up being almost only R1b (no mix with steppe people). The latter is better supported by archaeology.

It is also possible that R1b was originally found north of the Caucasus, in the southern steppes, then migrated early to Anatolia. But that would suppose a mass exodus leaving little R1b in the steppes nowadays. It's possible though.

Maciamo
21-01-10, 20:09
This article claiming that R1b spread alongside agriculture prompted me to write a short essay to demonstrate that the only plausible scenario is an Indo-European origin of R1b :
Did the Indo-Europeans really invade Western Europe ? (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#IE-invasion)

Barry Cunliffe is a famous supporter of the Neolithic spread of Indo-European languages from Anatolia. In his book Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 BC to AD 1000 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0300119232?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0300119232), he constantly reminds the reader that he does not think that a mass migration from the Pontic steppe to Europe happened (because that would contradict his belief in IE language arriving with Near-Eastern farmers). He goes as far as to argue that the Corded Ware culture was a a spread of ideas but not of people (acculturation). Unfortunately for him genetics proves him wrong.

In fact, I can easily cite passages from this book that totally confirm what I explain in my essay in link above. Just keep in mind while reading this that he doesn't believe in IE migrations to Western Europe, so he is forced to phrase it in a sweetly delusional way to convince himself that he is not seeing what's in front of his eyes.


What characterizes the development of Europe in the third and second millennia BC is the speed of change evident in virtually every region. There is a feeling of energy, of vigour and of real enthusiasm for innovation and change. It is almost as if the old - that which is traditional and ancestral - is deliberately put aside as communities embrace a pan-European spirit, not because of any political desire for unity, but rather for the excitement of the new.

This was not an excitement for the new or a real enthusiasm for innovation. It was just change brought by the Indo-Europeans from the steppes. He knows the archaeological data, but for some reason doesn't want to admit that change could have come from outside. In my views, the Proto-Italo-Celts carrying R1b lineages started to flourish in Central Europe under the Unetice culture. Here is what Cunliffe writes about it.


The Unetice culture reflected a brilliant development in bronzeworking in the period 2300-1800 BC that was to influence much of north-western Europe.

This only confirms that the Bronze Age was introduced via the Danube basin and expanded from the Unetice culture to Western Europe. In fact, he doesn't deny that the Yamna culture did have some offshoots in the Danube basin just before that.


Relations between the two regions were active and probably involved the movement of groups of people migrating from the steppe, along the Lower Danube valley and into the Hungarian Plain.

Cunliffe describes the appearance of elite burials in early Bronze-age Brittany like this :


In Armorica the elite burials of the second millennium are concentrated in the west of the peninsula, west of the rivers Blavet and Trieux, with a particularly dense cluster on the southern flank of the Mont d'Arrée - a distribution contrasting with that of the earlier megalithic tombs which focused on the southern Morbihan. The burials were usually individual and were placed in stone-built cists beneath a barrow. Bronze daggers and short swords, flat axes, and flint-barbed-and-tanged arrows are frequently included. [...] The distribution of the Armorican barrow burials, away from the traditional megalithic focus in the Morbihan, suggests that a new political geography was emerging, with the elite now choosing to distance themselves from the past. This view is further supported by the fact that the Armorican barrow burials owed little to the beaker package: here was a community able to benefit from local resources of copper, tin and some gold, and from their favoured location at the end of the peninsula, thrusting into the middle of a vibrant maritime network. Maybe they saw themselves as new men carrying little from their past.

They were only new men in the sense that they were outsiders who had come from the East (the Danube valley, presumably). The Bronze Age elite of Armorica/Brittany had nothing to do with the previous Megalithic/Bell Beaker culture. They came to exploit the region's natural resources (tin, copper, gold) and probably established a metal trading network with Cornwall and Ireland (see my other post Metal-mining and stockbreeding explain R1b dominance in Atlantic fringe (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25614)). Again, Cunliffe refuses the acknowledge the evidence for what it is, and insists that the changes were just in the minds, without movement of people involved.

rms2
22-01-10, 04:04
You may be right, Maciamo. After all, Ivanov and Gamkrelidze believe Armenia was the vicinity of the PIE Urheimat.

I think the important contribution of this new paper, however, is to finally drive a stake through the heart of the old "Paleolithic European R1b" zombie that keeps trying to get up out of its grave (somewhere in Iberia).

Now that the undead thing is finally put to rest, we can concentrate on refining the actual history of R1b1b2 in Europe.

Maciamo
24-01-10, 15:18
You may be right, Maciamo. After all, Ivanov and Gamkrelidze believe Armenia was the vicinity of the PIE Urheimat.


The PIE Urheimat is not necessary the same as the R1b1b2 homeland. I think that R1b1b2 first appeared in northern Anatolia, but PIE may not have developed until R1b1b2 migrated north of the Caucasus and mixed with R1a1a steppe people. There is enough evidence that both R1b1b and R1a1a spread IE languages. The debate should rather concentrate on whether Anatolian IE languages should be considered pre-Proto-Indo-European, archaic Proto-Indo-European or as Indo-European as the rest. But that just a matter of definition.

rms2
24-01-10, 21:48
The PIE Urheimat is not necessary the same as the R1b1b2 homeland. I think that R1b1b2 first appeared in northern Anatolia, but PIE may not have developed until R1b1b2 migrated north of the Caucasus and mixed with R1a1a steppe people. There is enough evidence that both R1b1b and R1a1a spread IE languages. The debate should rather concentrate on whether Anatolian IE languages should be considered pre-Proto-Indo-European, archaic Proto-Indo-European or as Indo-European as the rest. But that just a matter of definition.

You won't get any arguments from me on that score. I was proposing that R1b1b2 was responsible for the spread of Centum IE back in 2006 or early 2007 (as "Stevo" on dna-forums).

I usually don't argue the PIE thing these days. It brings too many bugs out of the woodwork. :petrified:

KingCE
07-02-10, 21:05
Please help me understand something about the contemporary theory. Regardless of whether R1b1b2 came with farmers, there is a direct link between this group and Indo European languages. Both the languages and haplotype arrived in Europe well into the neolithic. So how does this hypothesis explain the Basque people, the archtypal R1b1b2 group in Western Europe, speaking a non-Indo European language? Did they adopt the language of the people they settled among? Were there several migrations of R1b1b2, not all of whom spoke Indo European languages? I recogize the genetic evidence is very strong for a migration out of Anatolia into central then western Europe. But something about the connection with language is not matching up. Also, the very late dates are a little hard to accept.

This may be outside the narrow scope of the article, but it has been bugging me. I would appreciate any insight.

Maciamo
07-02-10, 22:16
Please help me understand something about the contemporary theory. Regardless of whether R1b1b2 came with farmers, there is a direct link between this group and Indo European languages. Both the languages and haplotype arrived in Europe well into the neolithic. So how does this hypothesis explain the Basque people, the archtypal R1b1b2 group in Western Europe, speaking a non-Indo European language? Did they adopt the language of the people they settled among? Were there several migrations of R1b1b2, not all of whom spoke Indo European languages? I recogize the genetic evidence is very strong for a migration out of Anatolia into central then western Europe. But something about the connection with language is not matching up. Also, the very late dates are a little hard to accept.

This may be outside the narrow scope of the article, but it has been bugging me. I would appreciate any insight.

I have explained this here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25614). The Basque have close to no Indo-European maternal lineages, contrarily to all other Europeans. Their high incidence of R1b is likely due to a founder effect among the early Bronze-Age ruling class (this also explains the little diversity of R1b among the Basques).

willy
23-02-10, 23:02
Selon moi le problème de l'arrivée du R1b1b2 dans l'Europe est encore ouverte, parce'que l'âge de son STR-variation actuelle n'indique pas le moment de son arrivée en Europe. Je pense qu'il est possible qu'il s'agisse du néolithique, mais son émergence à l'époque paléolithique n'est pas impossible. Aussi, l' article (Balaresque et al.) n'a pas étudié l'Europe orientale, et il ne peut pas vraiment conclure que l'origine était en Asie plutôt qu'en Europe.

Maciamo
24-02-10, 01:46
Selon moi le problème de l'arrivée du R1b1b2 dans l'Europe est encore ouverte, parce'que l'âge de son STR-variation actuelle n'indique pas le moment de son arrivée en Europe. Je pense qu'il est possible qu'il s'agisse du néolithique, mais son émergence à l'époque paléolithique n'est pas impossible. Aussi, l' article (Balaresque et al.) n'a pas étudié l'Europe orientale, et il ne peut pas vraiment conclure que l'origine était en Asie plutôt qu'en Europe.

L'étude de Balaresque n'est qu'une parmis tant d'autres. J'ai personellement analysé toutes les données disponibles sur R1b à travers le monde. Je suis formel que R1b1b2 est bel est bien présent en Asie central, en Sibérie, au Xinjiang, au Pakistan et en Inde, ce qui ne peut s'expliquer que par les migrations indo-européennes.

willy
24-02-10, 06:31
source wikipédia .

Distribution
R1b reaches its highest frequency in Atlantic Europe.

Eurasia
In Western Europe, R1b is present in Irish 90-98%,Basques: 90-95%,Bretons: 80-89%, Scottish: 77%, Catalans: 75%, English: 75%, Belgians: 70%, Portuguese: 70%, France (Strasbourg): 67.6%, France (Lyon), 66.7%,, Spanish (as a whole): 65%,Italians (continental Italy): 40%, Germans: 39%, Norwegians: 25.9%, Sicilians: 24.5%, Maltese: 21.9%, Swedes: 20%, Sardinians: 19%.
In Eastern Europe, R1b is present in Czechs and Slovaks: 35.6%,Poles: 20%-16.4%, Latvians: 15%, Hungarians: 13.3%, Russians: 10%, Estonians: 9%, Lithuanians: 5%, Belarusians: 4.2%, Ukrainians: 2.0%-18.9%, Sami: 3.9%.
In the Balkans, R1b is present in Greeks: 13.5%-22.8%, Slovenes: 21%, Albanians: 17.6%, Romanians: 13%,Bulgarians: 17.0%, Croats: 15.7%,Serbs: 10.6%, Herzegovinians: 3.6%, Bosnians: 1.4%.

In Western Asia, R1b is present in Turks: 14.5% - 16.3%, Iraqis: 11.3%, Kurds: 11.2%,Syrians: 9.9%,Cypriots: 9.0%, Palestinians: 8.4%, Jordanians: 7.9%, Lebanese: 5.7%, and in the UAE: 4.3%.

In Central Asia, Bashkirs 84% R1b1b2 in a sample of 43 individuals, Turkmens 36.7% R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17) in a sample of 30 individuals, Uzbeks: 9.8% R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17), Tatars: 8.7%, Kazakhs: 5.6% R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17), Uyghurs 8.2% P-M45(xR1a1a-M17% -19.4% P-92R7(xR1a-SRY10831.2)

Je ne crois pas que les Bashkirs sont des indo européens 80% R1b1b2 !
idem les Turkmens 36,7 % !

In South Asia, R1b is present at 8% in Iranians, 7.4% in Pakistanis (including 4.5% R1b1b1-M73 and 2.8% R1b1b2-M269), while it is almost not found in India (0.55% R1b1b2-M269) Haplogroup R1b1b2-M269 has been found in approximately 11% of a sample of Newars in Nepal.

Sur l' Iran seulement 8% ? et en Inde seulement 0,55% ? pour moi : non significatif !

In the Caucasus, haplogroup R1b may be found in 43% of Ossetian males and in as many as 32.4% (238/734 P-92R7(xR1a1-SRY10831b)) to 36% (17/47 R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17)) of Armenians. It also has been found with lower frequency among Georgians (6/66 = 9.1% R1b1b2-M269[79] to 9/63 = 14.3% R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17) and Balkarians (2/38 = 5.3% R1b1-P25(xR1b1b2-M269) and 3/38 = 7.9% R1b1b2-M269 for a total of 5/38 = 13.2% R1b1



Africa
In Northeast Africa, the frequency of R1b reaches 40% in the Hausa Sudanese, 10% in all of Sudan, 20-35% in Chad, and 4.1% in Egyptians.
In Northwest Africa, the frequency of R1b is 15.78% in Algerian Kabyles, 10.8% in Algerian Arabs from Oran, 7% in Tunisian Arabs, and about 2.5% in Morocco.


Conclusion R1b1 est partout et aussi chez les non indo européens.

Wilhelm
24-02-10, 16:15
The african R1b is indo-european ?

^ lynx ^
24-02-10, 20:28
source wikipédia .

Distribution
R1b reaches its highest frequency in Atlantic Europe.

Eurasia
In Western Europe, R1b is present in Irish 90-98%,Basques: 90-95%,Bretons: 80-89%, Scottish: 77%, Catalans: 75%, English: 75%, Belgians: 70%, Portuguese: 70%, France (Strasbourg): 67.6%, France (Lyon), 66.7%,, Spanish (as a whole): 65%,Italians (continental Italy): 40%, Germans: 39%, Norwegians: 25.9%, Sicilians: 24.5%, Maltese: 21.9%, Swedes: 20%, Sardinians: 19%.
In Eastern Europe, R1b is present in Czechs and Slovaks: 35.6%,Poles: 20%-16.4%, Latvians: 15%, Hungarians: 13.3%, Russians: 10%, Estonians: 9%, Lithuanians: 5%, Belarusians: 4.2%, Ukrainians: 2.0%-18.9%, Sami: 3.9%.
In the Balkans, R1b is present in Greeks: 13.5%-22.8%, Slovenes: 21%, Albanians: 17.6%, Romanians: 13%,Bulgarians: 17.0%, Croats: 15.7%,Serbs: 10.6%, Herzegovinians: 3.6%, Bosnians: 1.4%.

You took these percentages from the english wiki, right? Forget it I've read the R1b article in the english wikipedia a few days ago and many things doesn't make sense. You have a better source at eupedia:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

willy
24-02-10, 22:37
Yes I took this from english wiki and I agree with you because India (0.55% R1b1b2-M269) doesn't make sense . At eupedia there is no india about R1b1b2 and this is correct because there is no R1b1b2 in India . Yes Eupedia is a better source .

davbrwn
01-06-11, 16:06
in these terms eupedia is much better than wiki

archaiocapilos
11-06-11, 20:39
You took these percentages from the english wiki, right? Forget it I've read the R1b article in the english wikipedia a few days ago and many things doesn't make sense. You have a better source at eupedia:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
But wikipedia's numbers are closer to the truth about Greeks (it actually is 10-25%) while Eupedia is wrong about Greeks (12%). I have allready asked from Maciamo to change his data but he didn't.

mihaitzateo
03-03-12, 23:15
I do not want to offend anyone,but I think things are much more complex and dificult to explain.

But I will also make some suppositions (simple suppositions also).
How can you explain that in Finland R1b1b2 is least present from whole Europe with 3.5%?
But in Sweden is about 22%.Is known that vikings tryed to go in Finland but all were killed so they could not went there.
So I think vikings contributed also to the spread of R1b1b2 in Europe.
Other strange thing,take Bosnia-Herzegovina,there you have again only 4% of R1b1b2 and bosnians were living in mountains,there were dense forests and so on there.I highly doubt too many Roman empire colonists from west Europe were willing to go in Bosnia,because of the rough land.
Other weird things are hapening,take for example Romania,if you go over Carpathians in Transylvania,there is a sudden raise in R1b1b2 compared to rest of Romania.Is pretty clear that Roman Empire did not colonised modern days Moldavia,but is certain they brought colonists into Transylvania,is clear that they did not colonised Ukraine either.Also gepids settled in Transylvania.
There are serious arheological findings linked to gepids in Transylvania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids#Archeological_sites
All those arheological findings listed there are in Transylvania.All in northwest Romania,which suggests pretty clear that the gepids did not passed Carpathians,to the east or to the south.
There are even some people in Romania,in Transylvania,who have their tradition that they are from soldiers brought there by Roman Empire ,who settled there.
So I think R1b1b2 originated somewhere in west Europe spread a lot there with various branches over thousands of years,and after it was spread a lot by colonists brought by Roman Empire,by movement of germanic tribes and by vikings.1000 years ago and earlyer there were dense forests in all Europe,2000 years ago,even more forest was in Europe.

Anyway I think is pretty common sense that R1b1b2 originated somewhere in west Europe.

Taranis
03-03-12, 23:26
Anyway I think is pretty common sense that R1b1b2 originated somewhere in west Europe.

Common sense? I'm afraid that ancient DNA disagrees with you.

Granted, the article is dated: it is two years old by now, and quite a few more informations about ancient DNA have been found in the meantime. However, that doesn't mean that R1b-M269 originated in Western Europe.

None of the Neolithic sites for which we have ancient Y-DNA from multiple sites (Germany, France, Iberia, Alps) from the Neolithic, and R1b is absent from all of them.

The oldest find of R1b in Europe, as of present day, is from the Urnfield Culture, dated to ca. 1000 BC (one of the skeletons from the Lichtenstein cave carried a sample of R1b).

We (still) do not know when R1b entered Europe, but since it simply wasn't there in the Neolithic, one must assume that it arrived only in the Copper Age or Bronze Age, and that the dominance of R1b across such a large area in Western Europe today must be the result of a founder effect.

Another aspect that should be mentioned is that most of Western European R1b is indeed member of R1b-L51, which is the main subclade of R1b-M269. In turn R1b-L51 is dominated by R1b-L11 (aka R1b-P310), which is rarely found outside of western Europe. This is consistent with the above mentioned scenario of a founder effect. You can see this clearly from this map of R1b-M269 without R1b-L11 (xL11):

http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b(xL11).jpg

EDIT:

Some of the above is discussed on this forum in the following threads below:

Neolithic Y-DNA from Iberia (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26980-G2a-and-E-V13-in-Neolithic-Spain-(5000-BCE))
Neolithic Y-DNA from southern France (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26514-Majority-of-haplogroup-G-found-in-a-French-Neolithic-site)
Neolithic Y-DNA from the Linear Pottery Culture in Germany (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26083-new-ancient-DNA-study-in-LBK)
and of course, Ötzi (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27331-Ötzi-s-genome-released)

Amongst all four sites, including Ötzi, haplogroup G has been found, which appears to have been the dominant Y-Haplogroup in Neolithic Europe.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif

Eochaidh
05-03-12, 00:43
Amongst all four sites, including Ötzi, haplogroup G has been found, which appears to have been the dominant Y-Haplogroup in Neolithic Europe.So, is the current thinking that G is associated with the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East; perhaps part of "Old Europe"? That maps looks like Old Europe was a hotspot and then right up the Danube, but maps can be deceiving. Then would the older I's be the Paleolithic remnant, some of whom are associated with the Atlantic Façade Megaliths? Has it been credibly suggested that the old I's were actually Cro-Magnon, or is that just too much of a leap?

Taranis
05-03-12, 01:04
So, is the current thinking that G is associated with the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East; perhaps part of "Old Europe"? That maps looks like Old Europe was a hotspot and then right up the Danube, but maps can be deceiving. Then would the older I's be the Paleolithic remnant, some of whom are associated with the Atlantic Façade Megaliths? Has it been credibly suggested that the old I's were actually Cro-Magnon, or is that just too much of a leap?

Well, there's the question if they really came from the Middle East (as in Fertile Crescent). As far as I understand it, it's more likely that Haplogroup G originated in the Caucasus or Anatolia. But yes, it is thought to have arrived with the Neolithic farmers. There is the possibility that a few other subclades of G arrived later (I do not remember the details, but Maciamo suggested this a while back), but it's clear from the current situation that Haplogroup G was the main Y-Haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers in Europe.

I would say that it's pretty save to say that Haplogroup I is at least Mesolithic (I'm not sure to what degree it is justified to say "Cro-Magnon"). Sparkey had this very fine analysis (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26944-The-Paleolithic-Remnants-a-map) of the likely origin point for the various subclades of Haplogroup I. What seems to be a possibility is that Haplogroup I wasn't the only Mesolithic Haplogroup, and that southern Europe was already in Mesolithic times dominated by certain subclades of Haplogroup E (Haplogroup E-V13 has been found in that Neolithic site in Iberia) instead. In any case, I'm reasonably sure that at least some subclades of Haplogroup I (especially I2-M26) are associated with the Megalithic Builders. One thing, as far as I understand it, is that all subclades of Haplogroup I are just individual lineages that more or less just happened to survive the Neolithic and later events. The most extreme example of that is Haplogroup I1.

Regarding the distribution of Haplogroup G, the real question is to what degree the modern percentages, especially the relative concentrations of Haplogroup G in Europe have been modified by later events?

how yes no 3
05-03-12, 02:37
Another aspect that should be mentioned is that most of Western European R1b is indeed member of R1b-L51, which is the main subclade of R1b-M269. In turn R1b-L51 is dominated by R1b-L11 (aka R1b-P310), which is rarely found outside of western Europe. This is consistent with the above mentioned scenario of a founder effect. You can see this clearly from this map of R1b-M269 without R1b-L11 (xL11):

http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b(xL11).jpg




I find this picture very interesting

it suggests me that R1b - L11 could have been dominant haplogroup of Goths (also of some other Germanic and non-Germanic people)

why?
light areas (more L11) in east Europe match roughly maximal spread of Goths

and in Asia minor it may be related to Gutians who destroyed Akkadian empire thus staying roughly in light area...

also there are historic claims that Ostrogoths were never big in numbers in south Italy only in north one... and Visigoths would explain dominance of L11 in Spain...darker spot is in most south area where Vandals and Alans were holding positions for a while... so area not initially settled by Goths..

rule of thumb is that latest arrival makes biggest genetic impact... so Goths cannot be explained with low in frequency I1 in genetic map of Spain...

sparkey
05-03-12, 18:55
it suggests me that R1b - L11 could have been dominant haplogroup of Goths (also of some other Germanic and non-Germanic people)

To say that most Gothic R1b was L11+ is a really non-controversial suggestion. Why would we expect Goths to have a lot of R1b L11-? Older forms of R1b along the cline toward Western Europe, like L11- L51+, really don't extend that far North or West. And the only particularly common one anywhere in Europe is R1b-ht35, which is very much Southeastern European (and may have expanded out of a different population than R1b-L11 to begin with).

The only thing I'd point out is that the Goths may have had comparable levels of I1 and R1a.


Visigoths would explain dominance of L11 in Spain...

This is a much more controversial suggestion. You're saying that Goths brought the R1b-Z196 to Spain? The diversity and distribution really doesn't allow for that. I'd limit Gothic R1b in Spain to mostly just R1b-U106.

how yes no 3
05-03-12, 20:50
The only thing I'd point out is that the Goths may have had comparable levels of I1 and R1a.

i don't think it was comparable level. Otherwise, we would see much more of R1a and I1 in lands that were eventually settled by Goths (north Italy, south France and especially Spain).



This is a much more controversial suggestion. You're saying that Goths brought the R1b-Z196 to Spain? The diversity and distribution really doesn't allow for that. I'd limit Gothic R1b in Spain to mostly just R1b-U106.
I say that Goths brought some, not all, of R1b-L11 in Spain. But enough to make a difference between role of L11 in areas settled by Goths and south most areas where Vandals and Alans were resisting when Goths settled most of Spain. Vandals probably had more R1a and R1b x L11 as they came from lands that were likely more influenced by R1a and R1b xL11. So the darker spot on the south of Spain (core of Andalusia named by Vandals) in the map above should also have more R1a than the rest of the Spain. Visigoths did eventually took over that part as well, but the strongest genetic impact is made in the places that are initially (and thus most heavily) settled, and not in the places that were later annexed. That is comparable to Herzegovina that was the place where Serbs (and Croats?) initially settled in Balkans giving rise to a peak in I2a2-Din.

I think that some other germanic tribes such as Suebi and Franks probably also had significant R1b-L11. And some of it is probably due to previous Celtic settlements. We can also see darker spot roughly in area of France where Burgundians have initially settled indicating that they perhaps had less of R1b-L11.

sparkey
05-03-12, 21:09
i don't think it was comparable level. Otherwise, we would see much more of R1a and I1 in lands that were eventually settled by Goths (north Italy, south France and especially Spain).

How much more? Wilhelm earlier posted estimates of the different typically Germanic haplogroup subclades in Spain as follows:


Well, the subclade I1b2 is also considered Germanic, and parts of Spain, like Castille has 19% or Cadiz(Andalusia) 10.7%, and Cantabria has 8% of R1a. But besides this, for germanic influence (since Visigoths were not the only the Germanics here, there were also Vandals, Suevi, Franks, etc) I would make :

Q + I1 + I2b + R1a + R1b-U106 = 0.28 + 3.35 + 2.24 + 2 + 7.7 = 15.25

Those look reasonable to me, and considering that the Suebi and Franks (higher R1b-U106 and I2, but maybe lower I1 and more certainly lower R1a and Q) also settled in Spain significantly, it looks to me like the Goths contributed I1 and R1a at comparable levels as R1b-U106. I mean, if we take R1a+Q as basically Gothic in this context and "I2b" as basically West Germanic in this context, we have 2.24 + 0.28 = ~2.5% unique Gothic contribution and ~2.5% unique West Germanic contribution, so R1b-U106 from the Goths is about ~3.75%, only a little higher than apparently Gothic I1 and R1a in Spain. And these all have big error bars.


I say that Goths brought some, not all, of R1b-L11 in Spain. But enough to make a difference between role of L11 in areas settled by Goths and south most areas where Vandals and Alans were resisting when Goths settled most of Spain.

OK, so you agree that the low single digit percentage of R1b-U106 in Spain brought there by Goths isn't really on the same scale as the R1b-Z196 that dominates northeastern Spain?


I think that some other germanic tribes such as Suebi and Franks probably also had significant R1b-L11. And some of it is probably due to previous Celtic settlements.

They probably had a ton of R1b-U106, yes, and maybe a non-trivial amount of R1b-U152, accounting for a lot of the R1b-U106 in particular in Spain. But is there any evidence that R1b-Z196 dates to anything after the Bronze Age in Spain?

Taranis
05-03-12, 21:35
How much more? Wilhelm earlier posted estimates of the different typically Germanic haplogroup subclades in Spain as follows:



Those look reasonable to me, and considering that the Suebi and Franks (higher R1b-U106 and I2, but maybe lower I1 and more certainly lower R1a and Q) also settled in Spain significantly, it looks to me like the Goths contributed I1 and R1a at comparable levels as R1b-U106. I mean, if we take R1a+Q as basically Gothic in this context and "I2b" as basically West Germanic in this context, we have 2.24 + 0.28 = ~2.5% unique Gothic contribution and ~2.5% unique West Germanic contribution, so R1b-U106 from the Goths is about ~3.75%, only a little higher than apparently Gothic I1 and R1a in Spain. And these all have big error bars.



OK, so you agree that the low single digit percentage of R1b-U106 in Spain brought there by Goths isn't really on the same scale as the R1b-Z196 that dominates northeastern Spain?



They probably had a ton of R1b-U106, yes, and maybe a non-trivial amount of R1b-U152, accounting for a lot of the R1b-U106 in particular in Spain. But is there any evidence that R1b-Z196 dates to anything after the Bronze Age in Spain?

There's an interesting question: how much of I2a2 (old I2b) was actually spread by the Germanic migrations. I mean, I find the case rather convincing that most or all of I1 was exclusively spread by the Germanic migrations, but does this really hold true for I2a2 as well? For one, it would appear that I2a2 as a whole is older.

Regarding R1b-11, I'd like to remind that the map I re-posted displays R1b-M269 without L11, not L11 without it's major subclades U106 and P312.

sparkey
05-03-12, 22:00
There's an interesting question: how much of I2a2 (old I2b) was actually spread by the Germanic migrations. I mean, I find the case rather convincing that most or all of I1 was exclusively spread by the Germanic migrations, but does this really hold true for I2a2 as well? For one, it would appear that I2a2 as a whole is older.

The thing about I2a2 (old I2b) is that it is apparently very ancient in Central Europe, with a couple of ancient branches in Britain and an ancient branch that extends into Eastern Europe. Of these, the most common ("Roots" and "Cont" in Nordtvedt's haplotype terminology) appear to have been absorbed into West Germanic populations more than anything, but also extend beyond that. In the context of Spain, I think most of the I2a2 is West Germanic, but there could also be some that is of Celtic (especially any I2a2b there, I don't think it's common though) and East Germanic origin.

Either way, I'm just using it as a rough approximation for relative concentrations in my analysis above, you can try another route for determining the West vs. East Germanic input in Spain.


Regarding R1b-11, I'd like to remind that the map I re-posted displays R1b-M269 without L11, not L11 without it's major subclades U106 and P312.

I think we took it that way, or at least I did. It basically ends up being a map of the most common M269+ L11- subclade in Europe (R1b-ht35).

I really like the power of combining the geographic results at the R1b-ht35 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx) (which also contains all the other M269+ L11- subclades) with Maciamo's R1b tree (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-subclades). When starting at L150, it shows a cline from the Near East to Europe that you don't see by analyzing L11 alone, and also indicates that ht35, which is L150-, split a bit earlier from that cline (hence my speculation that it didn't necessarily come into Europe via the same population/migration).

how yes no 3
05-03-12, 22:03
How much more?

that is hard to estimate from this data.




OK, so you agree that the low single digit percentage of R1b-U106 in Spain brought there by Goths isn't really on the same scale as the R1b-Z196 that dominates northeastern Spain?

whether contribution of Goths to R1b-u106 in Spain is a single digit or around 30% or 50% or most of it is hard to tell. Take into account that Goths were last settlement wave in Spain, that they have massively settled the area, and that their impact therefore cannot be minimal.

and it is not just R1b-u 106 that was probably contributed by Goths
e.g. i would also not exclude that Goths carried substantial R1b-P312... maps from family tree dna can be misleading in that respect, as west europe is in their database heavily sampled but east europe is hardly sampled giving illusion that R1b-p312 is almost absent in east europe
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=ymap

of course it would be ridiculous to claim that all R1b-p312 in Spain come from Goths as there are branches of R1b-P312 that only exist in Spain, but some of it (no clue how much) might be..

my point was that the difference in the genetic makeup of Goths and Vandals+ Alans is probably to be accounted for the difference between light colored and dark colored areas in map of R1bxL11 in Spain and that impact of Goth settlements is cause for light colored areas in some other areas of the map.

also note that northeast Spain was settled by Suebi and only sparsely by Goths..


Regarding R1b-11, I'd like to remind that the map I re-posted displays R1b-M269 without L11, not L11 without it's major subclades U106 and P312.
yes, but it is compared to other R1b not compared to frequency of total R1b xL11 in the areas, which means that the light colored areas are where R1b-L11 is more dominant R1b clade.