PDA

View Full Version : R1b L21 and U152 highest diversity



spongetaro
30-12-11, 19:29
The highest diversity for R1b L21 and R1b U152 are found respectively in Northern France and South east France. One might see that those two areas are not consistent with a spread of Proto Italo-Celtic Speakers from Central Europe (czech republic, Bavaria, Austria).

South east France is little related with Celtic people. However the Bell Beakers are clearly recorded there by Archeology. The south eastern France Bell Beakers had their roots in Spain. My guess is that P312* people moved from Spain To South East France and evolved there into U152. There the Bell Beakers moved north alongside the Rhône (which is attested by Archeology) that's why U152 is so prevalent in eastern France and neighbouring regions nowadays. The Ligurians (attested on both sides of the Alpes) might have spread U152 to northern Italy and Corsica.

The highest diversity of R1b L21 in Northern France could implies that it was born along the North west Coast of France during the Bell beaker era too.

Note that unlike the Italo Celtic speakers, the Bell Beakers went to southern Scandinavia. Today you can find more R1b P312 than R1b U106 in Norway.

sparkey
30-12-11, 19:43
The highest diversity for R1b L21 and R1b U152 are found respectively in Northern France and South east France. One might see that those two areas are not consistent with a spread of Proto Italo-Celtic Speakers from Central Europe (czech republic, Bavaria, Austria).

Why do we suppose that to be the spreading pattern of proto-Italo-Celtic speakers? I always figured proto-Italo-Celtic to have diversified around France, since its earliest known branches (Italic, Lusitanian) formed around its periphery. I think there was a later, R1b-U152 dominant spread of Celts, but that happened after the formation of R1b-U152, so we don't expect them to have had the highest diversity of it.

spongetaro
30-12-11, 19:56
Why do we suppose that to be the spreading pattern of proto-Italo-Celtic speakers? I always figured proto-Italo-Celtic to have diversified around France, since its earliest known branches (Italic, Lusitanian) formed around its periphery.

I've always read that Italic and Villanovian tribes were related to Unetice and Urnfield cultures in Central Europe. There are even similarities between Lusatian and Villanovian weapons. It would be more coherent to expect the highest diveristy of P312 subclades around Unetice area. South east France was at the time a culturally dominated area. Nothing spread from there since the Bell Beaker times.

EDIT:

I think there was a later, R1b-U152 dominant spread of Celts, but that happened after the formation of R1b-U152

That is exactly my point. U152 first arose during a Bell Beaker migrations, then later Celtic migrations brought it elsewhere.

All the migrations that took place during the bronze and Iron age were from North to South and from East to west, not the other way round.

So when could have U152 moved from south to North if not during the Bell Beaker era?

http://www.truebrits.org/hallstatt-buriels.jpg

rms2
31-12-11, 02:53
Why do we suppose that to be the spreading pattern of proto-Italo-Celtic speakers? I always figured proto-Italo-Celtic to have diversified around France, since its earliest known branches (Italic, Lusitanian) formed around its periphery. I think there was a later, R1b-U152 dominant spread of Celts, but that happened after the formation of R1b-U152, so we don't expect them to have had the highest diversity of it.

Are you attributing the spread of the entirety of Celtic language and culture to predominantly U152 groups? Or just the spread of it into northern Italy?

U152 is rare in Ireland and Iberia, where the older Q-Celtic was spoken and which remained unchanged by the P-Celtic innovation. U152 is also relatively rare in the other parts of the "Celtic Fringe" of the British Isles. It reaches its highest frequency in Britain in SE England, where it can probably be attributed to the relatively late-arriving Belgae and to the Romans.

sparkey
31-12-11, 03:06
Are you attributing the spread of the entirety of Celtic language and culture to predominantly U152 groups? Or just the spread of it into northern Italy?

I'm not really attributing anything, it's a subject that I still find inconclusive, so I was asking questions. And I was just intending to suggest that Iron Age Celts (Halstatt/La Tene) probably had a lot of R1b-U152, which already existed by that point (that is, not all R1b-U152 is Iron Age Celtic). I definitely think that Celtic peoples traditionally had several different subclades of R1b-P312, and I think it's likely that they also had some R1b-U106 spillover, and some other non-R1b haplogroups like G2a and I2a2b.

MOESAN
31-12-11, 13:02
I've always read that Italic and Villanovian tribes were related to Unetice and Urnfield cultures in Central Europe. There are even similarities between Lusatian and Villanovian weapons. It would be more coherent to expect the highest diveristy of P312 subclades around Unetice area. South east France was at the time a culturally dominated area. Nothing spread from there since the Bell Beaker times.

EDIT:


That is exactly my point. U152 first arose during a Bell Beaker migrations, then later Celtic migrations brought it elsewhere.

All the migrations that took place during the bronze and Iron age were from North to South and from East to west, not the other way round.

So when could have U152 moved from south to North if not during the Bell Beaker era?

http://www.truebrits.org/hallstatt-buriels.jpg



I've always read that Italic and Villanovian tribes were related to Unetice and Urnfield cultures in Central Europe. There are even similarities between Lusatian and Villanovian weapons. It would be more coherent to expect the highest diveristy of P312 subclades around Unetice area. South east France was at the time a culturally dominated area. Nothing spread from there since the Bell Beaker times.

EDIT:


That is exactly my point. U152 first arose during a Bell Beaker migrations, then later Celtic migrations brought it elsewhere.

All the migrations that took place during the bronze and Iron age were from North to South and from East to west, not the other way round.

So when could have U152 moved from south to North if not during the Bell Beaker era?

http://www.truebrits.org/hallstatt-buriels.jpg


I've always read that Italic and Villanovian tribes were related to Unetice and Urnfield cultures in Central Europe. There are even similarities between Lusatian and Villanovian weapons. It would be more coherent to expect the highest diveristy of P312 subclades around Unetice area. South east France was at the time a culturally dominated area. Nothing spread from there since the Bell Beaker times.

EDIT:


That is exactly my point. U152 first arose during a Bell Beaker migrations, then later Celtic migrations brought it elsewhere.

All the migrations that took place during the bronze and Iron age were from North to South and from East to west, not the other way round.

So when could have U152 moved from south to North if not during the Bell Beaker era?

http://www.truebrits.org/hallstatt-buriels.jpg

I agree for somethings not fo the whole - and B-B was not a massive emigration but a firstable scattered colonization, for I think
I know I'm going to push people to shriek but i believe things didn't occur like that
my hypothesis (I'm blockheaded sometimes)
1- Bell Beakers people was intrusive people in Occident - Its sources for genetics and culture was for me in East-Central Europe - It could have been I-E speaker (almost sure, an west-central undifferenciated forme?) and maybe the firts ones to put a foot in Western Europe, they did it by sea, in Eastern Spain in Calcholithic time -
2- they was an elite (technically upon all) and acculturate progressively a lot o peoples in Europe - their contacts with Corded culture and people could explain the Rhine variety of Beakers and its spread in Brittain and Scandinavia -
3- the further developments based on Beaker culture were the fact of acculturate populations whose genetic heritages was different from the first basic Bell Beaker one - so we arn't obliged to search a global original Bell Beaker logic to explain the peculiarities of Y-DNA evolutions in Western Europe - I maintain that the population making of Western Europe took place AND before AND after the Bell Beaker impact - when? I've no cristal globe, but the demic impact of ORIGINAL Bell Beakers (dinaric phenotypes) would have been lighter and lighter even if we find today (light) remnants of them in very far an different places (Gadiz S-Andalusia, N-W Spain, Western Basques, South Auvergne North-East Languedoc, N-W Ireland, E-N-E Scotland, W. Norway, Frisland etc...) without speake about places were they are more present (Central Europe, places of Switzerland, Bavaria, E- France …) that confirm they was an elite - I record this type was absent from W-Europe before the 3000' B-C -
So we've yet to find an origin place for Y-R1b in W-Europe before the Calcholithic for the Beakers people found already populated countries there ... I had always thought Y-R1b should have developped in France more than in Iberia, and not after the Western Neolithic (I hear some shoutings ?) - the very clear differenciation between R-U106, and the downstreams of R-P312 (R-L21, R-Z176, R-U152) and the STR variance (it has some worth sometimes) show different places of spreading and not a centralized place of birth or arrival - then I hold Y-R1b in Western Europe is older than a migration during the Bronze Age - it would be very strange that different human groups with different places of demographic 'boom' could have all of them gone along the Danube River and take only after that different ways in spite of a common life in East-Central Europe - So it's clear enough: the diverse downstreams of W Europe evolved on an SNP that was Y-R-L11 born there by R-L51 (a scarce population beforehand) -
4- are we sure of the birthdate for I-E language?
5- even taking in account the received dates we can imagine progressive I-Europeanization of Western Europe by the Beakers people (commercial net, very active and on long distances) - all the most occidental (celtic and latin) present I-E languages show more distant syntaxic tendencies than the eastern ones (grec, slavic, baltic ...) from the I-E model, -

6- going back to Urnfields and Unetice: for human stocks, the Old Unetice had heavier impact of Corded people (and their phenotypes) than the Tumuli's of Baviera and E-France - Urnfields grew up on a net of different cultures that shared some far ancestral relations but was not all the same (Corded / Unetice / Tumuli and other backgrounds) - Even if an East-Central starting is plausible, the first center of gravity of U-Fs on the skirts of the Y-R1b(U152) core could have attracted these R1b without being their center of birth – and it was after that some of the new mixed U-Fs went to S-W Poland and Lusace bringing there among others their R1b-U152 – I think also it could have been in Lusace an Italic faction more than a Celtic one because I believe R-U152 was already present among Ligurians, previous genuine Italic people and S-E Celts... I see no contradiction between that and the fact the maximum of variance (and birthplace) pf U152 could be in France because in my thought R1b origin has few links with Unetice and Cie – for R-L21 it's the same : older in place too than B-B (its upstream SNP always) !

spongetaro
31-12-11, 13:22
6- going back to Urnfields and Unetice: for human stocks, the Old Unetice had heavier impact of Corded people (and their phenotypes) than the Tumuli's of Baviera and E-France - Urnfields grew up on a net of different cultures that shared some far ancestral relations but was not all the same (Corded / Unetice / Tumuli and other backgrounds) -

I'm not sure I understand what you said. Is this statement based upon anthropologic data ?

MOESAN
31-12-11, 13:43
I'm not sure I understand what you said. Is this statement based upon anthropologic data ?

for the Corded, first Bell Beakers and Unetice, it's based on anthropologic data (old ones: COON and others, and new ones: DESIDERI and others (for the others I have just abstracts) : traditionnal and new technics : teeth non metric studies) -
for U-Fs I saw no metrics study - we have only cultural traits and the fact that the few Y-R1b-U152 in Poland are in the West-S-W, near the Lusace region and in what is the 'cremation denser region' of the previous 'proto-Lusace culture' of Poland (the eastern part = it's to say: central Poland should have keeped more inhumation under tumuli) all these people are considered (archelogy point of view) as come from Czecoslovakia (Moravia) and not from West (not from Thuringen) - it's why it's interesting to quote the Villanovian (italic, almost sure) culture links with Lusacian culture and the U152 links (present in S-E Celts and Ligurians of France and genuine Italic peoples) - and even if put in the same bag i'm not sure the proto-Lusacian tumuli are completely the same people as the cremators final Lusacian people: but it's not impossible - hard to say without old DNA or skeletons studies..

spongetaro
31-12-11, 13:55
the fact that the few Y-R1b-U152 in Poland are in the West-S-W, near the Lusace region and in what is the 'cremation denser region' of the previous 'proto-Lusace culture' of Poland .

You have a point there but don't forget that Celt was also spoken in Silesia before the migration period.
Also, don't you find the lack of U152 in Austria problematic?

MOESAN
31-12-11, 15:39
You have a point there but don't forget that Celt was also spoken in Silesia before the migration period.
Also, don't you find the lack of U152 in Austria problematic?

thanks - it's surprising for you, maybe, but I was not aware celtic languages has been spoken in Silesia! I believed that was only a theorical possibility, not an asserted fact -
I 'haven't a 'kit answer' ready for that - Austria has now a high percentage of Y-RU106 that could of northern germanic "origin" but also in some part of older "local origin" (from where?) - but Austria is a very mixed people (I want say: in ancient and middle and modern times: I know that a big number of Austrians spite their germanic (funny) language have Czechoslovak and Hungarian surnames (more than 25% in East?) - before the Austro-Hungarian Empire they had undergone a lot of tribes movements since the High Middle Ages, the most from East - before that, the Neolithic people and other people from Near Eastern left remnants in the population so ? the phenotypes of previous Hallstatt people was different from the ones of the near Bavarian region so: did this Tumuli of Poland come through S-W Bohemia before cross Moravia? - the archeology I know (but I know just a little bit) don't mention Austria as a principal passing way for proto-lusacian culture: diverse influences at that period seam coming from S-W or S-E, not just South - I'll try to find something on that to can speake with better arguments -

rms2
31-12-11, 17:18
I'm not really attributing anything, it's a subject that I still find inconclusive, so I was asking questions. And I was just intending to suggest that Iron Age Celts (Halstatt/La Tene) probably had a lot of R1b-U152, which already existed by that point (that is, not all R1b-U152 is Iron Age Celtic). I definitely think that Celtic peoples traditionally had several different subclades of R1b-P312, and I think it's likely that they also had some R1b-U106 spillover, and some other non-R1b haplogroups like G2a and I2a2b.

Oh, okay. I just wanted to understand what you meant. I think you and I basically agree.

rms2
31-12-11, 17:24
. . .
1- Bell Beakers people was intrusive people in Occident - Its sources for genetics and culture was for me in East-Central Europe
. . .


You could be right, but thus far the oldest Carbon-14 dated Beaker remains (~2900 BC) are from Zambujal in Portugal. The stuff farther east is younger.

Mikewww
03-01-12, 00:23
... the very clear differenciation between R-U106, and the downstreams of R-P312 (R-L21, R-Z176, R-U152) and the STR variance (it has some worth sometimes) show different places of spreading and not a centralized place of birth or arrival - then I hold Y-R1b in Western Europe is older than a migration during the Bronze Age
Why do you say there is very clear differentiation between U106 and its L11 brothers and cousins of the P312 family? I don't see that at all. It's easy to mistake a P312 haplotype for a U106 one and vice versa.

The following are interclade Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) ages (k ybp) for the oldest subclades of the R1b-L11(S127) family. These are from thousands of 67 STR haplotypes from our DNA projects using Ken Nordtvedt's Generations 7 methods which provide more accurate sigma ranges. We have 68% confidence that Interclade MRCA for all U106 and P312 was between 2900 BC and 2100 BC. We have 95% confidence between 3300 BC and 1700 BC.

Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __ (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __ (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __ (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __ (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __ (4.4-3.5)


This very much looks like a Bronze Age expansion to me. Even at 95%, the earliest we can get is to the late Neolithic.


... it would be very strange that different human groups with different places of demographic 'boom' could have all of them gone along the Danube River and take only after that different ways in spite of a common life in East-Central Europe - So it's clear enough: the diverse downstreams of W Europe evolved on an SNP that was Y-R-L11 born there by R-L51 (a scarce population beforehand)
Your scenario is possible, but not conclusive by any means. I don't think the downstream subclades of R1b-L11 are all that diverse STR-wise. That's why we get the young TMRCA estimates we do. R1b-L11 lineages also predominate in places where Centum IE languages predominate. At the time of their diverging expansions their language dialects may have differed little.

Please explain why you think it so strange for a growing group of people moving up the Danube would not have different branches spreading in different directions.

We find U106 and P312 people as far back as into the areas around the Black and Caspian Seas, in places where R1b is likely to be R-L23+ L11- ... distant cousins.

MOESAN
05-01-12, 00:53
Why do you say there is very clear differentiation between U106 and its L11 brothers and cousins of the P312 family? I don't see that at all. It's easy to mistake a P312 haplotype for a U106 one and vice versa.

The following are interclade Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) ages (k ybp) for the oldest subclades of the R1b-L11(S127) family. These are from thousands of 67 STR haplotypes from our DNA projects using Ken Nordtvedt's Generations 7 methods which provide more accurate sigma ranges. We have 68% confidence that Interclade MRCA for all U106 and P312 was between 2900 BC and 2100 BC. We have 95% confidence between 3300 BC and 1700 BC.

Within L11
P312 & U106 Interclade TMRCA_______4.5 __ (4.9-4.1)

Within P312
L21 & U152 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __ (4.6-4.1)
L21 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA________4.4 __ (4.7-4.1)
U152 & Z196 Interclade TMRCA_______4.4 __ (4.7-4.1)

Within U106
Z381 & Z18 Interclade TMRCA________4.0 __ (4.4-3.5)


This very much looks like a Bronze Age expansion to me. Even at 95%, the earliest we can get is to the late Neolithic.


Your scenario is possible, but not conclusive by any means. I don't think the downstream subclades of R1b-L11 are all that diverse STR-wise. That's why we get the young TMRCA estimates we do. R1b-L11 lineages also predominate in places where Centum IE languages predominate. At the time of their diverging expansions their language dialects may have differed little.

Please explain why you think it so strange for a growing group of people moving up the Danube would not have different branches spreading in different directions.

We find U106 and P312 people as far back as into the areas around the Black and Caspian Seas, in places where R1b is likely to be R-L23+ L11- ... distant cousins.


when I mentionned differences, I was speaking about geographical distribution as a whole, not about phylogenetical distances -
what percentages of Y-RU106 are to be found around the Black Sea and Caspian?
these few percentages couldn't be the resulst of some Goths or Varengians partial colonizations? it's my bet in waiting more data -
a completely different areal distribution at the 'terminal' between "brothers" that have travelled side by side in big tribes (because I believe the population of these peoples was already numerous enough at the Bronze Age, and you do it too according to the place you give to these genes 'carriers' in History) can't take place after common life - I suppose they didn't separate their 'common' lignages by SNPs nor by Hts... Before knowing more I hold on for an almost exclusively proto-germanic origin of Y-R-U106 - I don't exclude some cousins mixed with others but...
and sorry, I don't have too confidence in HTs, I was mistaken by them previously concerning repartitions when inferring HGs based on HTs.

Eldritch
19-11-12, 20:57
Seems pretty clear to me that U-152 was carried most likely from Italics and Gauls.