PDA

View Full Version : The enigma of G-PF3345 (U1, CTS342 and L497)



Pip
13-09-18, 22:27
During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, lots of subclades of haplogroup G proliferated across Europe. Now, only one of these subclades really thrives (G2a2b2a1a1 PF3345), representing the majority of all G in modern day Europe. What were the keys to its reproductive success?

Pip
15-09-18, 16:47
DNA data suggests dates and places for early PF3345 that correspond with the Neolithic Cucuteni Tripolye culture of Romania and Moldova, with two successful branches developing during the 4th millennium BC -
1. An Eastward expansion (branches of U1) towards the Caucasus,
2. A more general Westward migration towards Southern Germany.

As these developments seem to mirror those of R1b-L23 (R1b-Z2103 in the East and R1b-U152 in the West), both in terms of dates and locations, perhaps PF3345 thrived by forming a minor component of some Yamnayan and Bell Beaker populations?

Bell Beaker mitochondrial DNA also has its strongest match with Cucuteni Tripolye samples, suggesting some degree of mixture between these R1b-L23 and G-PF3345 peoples.

dominique_nuit
18-09-18, 08:52
suggesting some degree of mixture between these R1b-L23 and G-PF3345 peoples.

I am replying not because I have any particular insight, but because your question pertains to my Y haplogroup. Hopefully a more knowledgeable person will reply if I "bump" this thread back up to the top.

However, my general impression is that the L497 branch moved up the Danube to Central Europe, while the CTS342 branch moved along the Mediterranean, from Anatolia to the Greek Islands & the Peloponnese to Southern Italy & Sicily to Iberia. It is in these same Mediterranean regions that R1b-L23 is best represented today. (With the caveat that many of the subclades beneath L23 on the phylogenetic tree proliferated across the rest of Europe.)

So perhaps CTS342 & R1b-L23 intermingled and migrated together -----> but contrary to your view, not in the direction of Central Europe, but westward across the Mediterranean. And this would have been during the Neolithic, well before the dispersion of Indo-European tongues.

dominique_nuit
18-09-18, 19:22
DNA data suggests dates and places for early PF3345 that correspond with the Neolithic Cucuteni Tripolye culture of Romania and Moldova, with two successful branches developing during the 4th millennium BC -
1. An Eastward expansion (branches of U1) towards the Caucasus,
2. A more general Westward migration towards Southern Germany.

As these developments seem to mirror those of R1b-L23 (R1b-Z2103 in the East and R1b-U152 in the West), both in terms of dates and locations, perhaps PF3345 thrived by forming a minor component of some Yamnayan and Bell Beaker populations?

Bell Beaker mitochondrial DNA also has its strongest match with Cucuteni Tripolye samples, suggesting some degree of mixture between these R1b-L23 and G-PF3345 peoples.

I am hardly a knowledgeable poster, so I will reply simply to give this thread a "bump"

However, my impression from reviewing various charts and maps is that R1b-U152 (and other subclades beneath L23) may have intermingled with and migrated up the Danube alongside G-L497, but that R1b-L23 and G-CTS342 island-hopped across the Mediterranean, from Anatolia to the Greek Isles to Calabria to Sicily to Iberia.

In fact, R1b-L23 is best represented today in Calabria, eastern Sicily, the Peloponnese, Albania and the Black Sea Coast.

Therefore, I would say that R1b-L23 is associated with G-CTS342, whereas subclades beneath L23 such as R1b-U152 are associated with G-L497

Further, whereas R1b-U152 & G-L497 are associated with Indo-European languages and tribes, R1b-L23 & G-CTS342 must be considered "Pelasgian" or Minoan or Tyhrrenian

Pip
20-09-18, 00:13
It is difficult to be confident, as there is not a large amount of precise data, but I would estimate that CTS342 moved into Italy from the North (Southern Germany or Austria), and met there with non-L51 R1b moving in by sea from the Southern Balkans. I have not yet date estimated it, so am not confident whether CTS342's move into Italy pre-dated or was contemporaneous with the similar move of R1b-U152.

dominique_nuit
20-09-18, 05:16
I will defer to you :) ----> as a G2a individual I look forward to hearing your further thoughts on the matter

Pip
21-09-18, 20:05
I will defer to you :) ----> as a G2a individual I look forward to hearing your further thoughts on the matter
I wouldn't advise deferring to anyone, Dominique. My calculations are only best estimates, based on limited data.

I have identified four strands of G-CTS342 that moved into Italy; my estimates are that each of these strands originated to the North, mostly likely Bavaria. My date estimates for the moves of these four strands each fall between 1500 and 2500 BC, which ties up closely with similar estimates for the expansion of R1b-U152 from Southern Germany into Italy.

As R1b-U152 Bell Beaker also has its closest mtDNA match with G-PF3345 Cucuteni Tripolye, and as both U152 and CTS342 appear to have flourished at roughly the same time, I would predict that R1b-U152 and G-CTS342 most likely spread from North of the Alps into Italy together, probably in connection with the Bell Beaker expansion.

Please ignore me if this is private, but if you have been tested positive for any subclades of PF6863 or if you have STR readings, this might help predict a more recent paternal line ancestry for you.

Pip
22-09-18, 16:04
My preliminary estimates are that surviving G-L497 expanded from a similar area to G-CTS342, most likely Southern Germany, and also looks to have emerged as a minor component of R1b-U152 dominated Bell Beaker.

G-U1 also looks R1b-related. Estimates from DNA data are that the main surviving G-U1 and R1b-Z2103 expansions both commenced in the same region (Eastern Pontic/Western Caucasus) and at a similar time (early 4th millennium BC), so it would look like these haplogroups were associated in some way. However, the mixing looks patchy, with just a few Ukrainian samples with a very strong autosomal G-PF3345 similarity, and most Yamnayan Z2103 samples appearing to have minimal traces of G-PF3345's autosomal DNA. Perhaps there was only substantial admixture between these and other haplogroups within something like the booming Maykop culture that arose in that period?

dominique_nuit
23-09-18, 08:03
"Defer" was a poor choice of words. However, I am trained neither in Science or Mathematics. I am a mere armchair intellectual, and even in this, only when I arrive home late at night.

But I happen to be interested (most likely due to narcissism) in my personal genetic history, as well as the broader genetic history of Europe in general. Therefore, what I read on the Eupedia site I more or less take on "Faith," albeit I must somehow weigh, and struggle to make sense of, the often technical arguments on threads here

As for testing beyond PF6863, I tested NEGATIVE for Z6032 and another SNP with YSEQ. I was then advised to take the "Big Y" test with FTDNA, but I balked at the price. I decided it would be wise to wait several years until the science advances further.

But I must say that your research appears to reach far beyond the limits of current studies, attempting to "calculate" how long it took certain haplogroup sublcades to advance across Europe, as well as the haplogroups with which these movements likely occurred in conjunction. Example, G-CTS342 in tandem with R1b-U152

Any such finding would come as a revelation to me. Although we are all ultimately the product of our autosomal DNA, we somehow "identify," at least if we are men, with the Y line. As a G2a person, I have conceived of myself in recent years as an Oenotrian, a Pelasgian, a broadly Minoan heir. Perhaps I must now hypothesize that I am Oscan or perhaps even Roman.

My family roots are in the farming villages in the hills above Tropea, in Calabria ----> not a particularly remote area of Calabria ---> Perhaps the terrain was sufficiently mountainous to ward-off outside peoples, although I believe that Vibo & Tropea were Greek (J2?) colonies in Magna Graecia times, and, moreover, I believe there were Roman colonies (Hipponium) established in the area circa 200 BCE, plus in more recent times Greek Byzantine & Latin Benedictine monasteries (circa 1000 AD)

Pip
23-09-18, 20:30
"Defer" was a poor choice of words. However, I am trained neither in Science or Mathematics. I am a mere armchair intellectual, and even in this, only when I arrive home late at night.

But I happen to be interested (most likely due to narcissism) in my personal genetic history, as well as the broader genetic history of Europe in general. Therefore, what I read on the Eupedia site I more or less take on "Faith," albeit I must somehow weigh, and struggle to make sense of, the often technical arguments on threads here

As for testing beyond PF6863, I tested NEGATIVE for Z6032 and another SNP with YSEQ. I was then advised to take the "Big Y" test with FTDNA, but I balked at the price. I decided it would be wise to wait several years until the science advances further.

But I must say that your research appears to reach far beyond the limits of current studies, attempting to "calculate" how long it took certain haplogroup sublcades to advance across Europe, as well as the haplogroups with which these movements likely occurred in conjunction. Example, G-CTS342 in tandem with R1b-U152

Any such finding would come as a revelation to me. Although we are all ultimately the product of our autosomal DNA, we somehow "identify," at least if we are men, with the Y line. As a G2a person, I have conceived of myself in recent years as an Oenotrian, a Pelasgian, a broadly Minoan heir. Perhaps I must now hypothesize that I am Oscan or perhaps even Roman.

My family roots are in the farming villages in the hills above Tropea, in Calabria ----> not a particularly remote area of Calabria ---> Perhaps the terrain was sufficiently mountainous to ward-off outside peoples, although I believe that Vibo & Tropea were Greek (J2?) colonies in Magna Graecia times, and, moreover, I believe there were Roman colonies (Hipponium) established in the area circa 200 BCE, plus in more recent times Greek Byzantine & Latin Benedictine monasteries (circa 1000 AD)

I know of only three early branches that fit your SNP readings - South Italian, Jewish and Scandinavian. As your family roots are in Calabria, I would predict it is highly likely that your paternal ancestry falls within the South Italian branch, which as you hypothesise probably arrived as a component of an early wave of Indo-European migration that spawned the Oscans and Romans.

There are pointers in STRs that might suggest a Norman origin (DYS385 of 15-15, DYS392 of 10 and DYS464 of 13) and pointers that would suggest an origin within the Jewish diaspora (DYS385 of 12-16 and DYS439 of 11), but I am unaware of any links between these branches and Southern Italy, so I would say your paternal ancestry is probably longstanding Southern Italian.

dominique_nuit
24-09-18, 10:42
Do you think it might be worthwhile to test for select SNPs with YSEQ? If not, which test or series of tests would you recommend?

The Norman hypothesis may not be so far-fetched, as my surname could be a cognate of Rufus. The first Count of Catanzaro, Pietro Ruffo (died 1257), was born in Tropea or its environs, and he is thought to have been of Norman origin.

See http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/pietro-ruffo_(Dizionario-Biografico)/

However, rather than indicating Norman ancestry, my surname might simply be a "toponymic," in connection with the Fiumara della Ruffa which cuts through the region ----> https://digilander.libero.it/legambientericadi/fiumararuffa.html

Or in the simplest of scenarios, my forefathers had skin turned red from toiling beneath the Mediterranean sun. To quote The Leopard, "Your nephew, my dear Russo, will sincerely believe himself a baron. Maybe you, because of your name, will become descendant of a grand duke of Muscovy instead of some red-skinned peasant, which is what that name of yours means."

////////////////////

It would be no small irony if my Y-haplogroup turned out to be Norman, because I am "Anglo Norman" on my mother's side, at least insofar as her maiden name is Davenport.

The Davenport surname is thought to trace back to Orme de Dauneporte, circa 1086, and the main Davenport lines are associated with R1b-U152 and R1b-S1480.

See http://www.davenportdna.com/17-haplogroup-r1b

Obviously I would need to find a male Davenport cousin to undergo testing to determine which of these branches I "belong" to, if any.

Phenotypically & autosomally my mother and father are very different. Yorkshirian and broadly British versus Southern Italian. And yet perhaps they are both “Norman” via the Y-lines of their fathers.

////////////////////////////////

And since it seems germane to the conversation, I will share with you Peter Nichols' comic rendering of the great counter-revolutionary warrior-priest Cardinal Fabrizio Ruffo's mania for genealogy

"I suppose you know that I am descended from Aeneas."

This extravagant statement was followed by the pause it deserved.

"The first Rufo [it had only one "f" in those days] was the second son of Ascanius, King of the Latins, who was son of Aeneas. I will not bother you with the whole history of our line, or perhaps I should say lines, because there are several branches of Ruffos; but do not forget that I have government, soldiering, loyalty and religion in every vein. The mother of Aeneas was Venus and if does not surprise me that there is a direct connection between Olympus and Naples--through us--we have had a fair share in changing the religious background from paganism to catholicism.

"My forebear Marco Antonio Rufo was one of the Emperor Justinian II's captains: Giovanni Folco Ruffo, who added the second "f," fought under Basil II who made over to him the government of Calabria. He fought Greeks and Turks as did his sons: Folco, Constantino, Leone, Fabrizio, Alessio, Teodoro, Ariberto, all of whom served under the Emperor Isacco Comneno. Folco's daughter, Jolanda, a beautiful woman, married the emperor's son. Pietro Ruffo fought a crusade on behalf of Pope Alexander IV against Manfredi in 1255 and, in the middle of the last century--I am as you see, being as selectively brief as possible--my namesake, Don Fabrizio Ruffo, was Prior of Bagnara, Grand Prior of Capua and Bali, Grand Cross of the Order of Malta and a great sea-captain.

"Don Fabrizio fought against the Turks with remarkable skill alongside the Venetians and won high praise from them and from his Order for his prowess. He was a leading warrior at Candia in 1661 and when he put in at Malta with three captured Turkish galleys, he was given a three-day triumph. He died crippled with gout in Naples in February 1692 and was buried in the chapel of San Ruffo. Oh! and do not forget, please, that he also deserves remembrance for having been the first to introduce cows' milk to the Neapolitans."

https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Ruffo-Calabria-True-Novel-Nichols-Peter/337270786/bd

Pip
24-09-18, 19:07
Dominique, you have done an impressive amount of background research.

I hesitate to recommend anyone to spend money, as the answers are rarely absolutely definitive and often pose new questions. I would say your SNPs look mainly Southern Italian going back to the Bronze Age, so I think other possibilities are unlikely. The SNP FGC46585 would be strongly indicative of a Norman origin, but I am not aware of any such samples in Southern Italy, so I think a positive result would be a remote possibility. The STR DYS385 would also be a good indicator in general, although would not be definitive on its own.

On the subject of the thread, I would propose either way that your paternal ancestry was most likely a branch of Central European Neolithic farmer that thrived by admixing or collaborating with incoming R1b-L51.

dominique_nuit
25-09-18, 02:09
Pip -- Thank you for the many insights

Let's go with the Oscan-Latin thesis. Are there any specific SNPs I could test for to get a more definitive read via YSEQ? I don't mind doling out a few bucks here and there to satisfy my curiosity. It's just the "Big Y" test that I find a bit pricey.

Also, I trust you realize that the long passage from the Peter Nichols book was parody, not "research"

And if you don't mind my asking, it appears that you are a professional scientist focused on the origins of Italo-Gaulish peoples? That is, I have been trying to follow the R1b-L51 thread, where the conversation is at a rather high level

dominique_nuit
25-09-18, 11:46
Going back to the main point of this thread, before I derailed it with my narrow concerns . . . .

If I understand you correctly, you are hypothesizing that "early branches" of G2a-PF3345 mixed with "early branches" of R1b-L23 during the Cuceteni-Trypole culture (modern-day Romania & Moldova) circa 4000 BCE to 3000 BCE -----> Or at least individuals from all these groups share mtDNA associated with this culture, which can be interpreted as evidence of admixture -----> This was then succeeded by a bifurcation of the populations, with some migrating to the west and others to the east

G-U1 moved east across modern-day Ukraine to the Caucasus region, a movement mirrored by that of R1-Z3103, but with minimal mixing between the two groups evidenced in Yamnaya culture (the Ukrainian steppe circa 3000 to 2500 BCE). Only in the more southerly Maykop culture (the Caucasus circa 3700 to 3000 BCE) are there signs of substantial mixing between G-U1 and R1b-Z2103, as well as with other haplogroups (perhaps J2?).

However, this is where I fear I misunderstand you, as Yamnaya culture is later than Maykop culture. If G-U1 & R1b-Z2103 mixed during Maykop, why would they not be mixed later, during Yamnaya?

Further, and I again fear that I am confused, I believe you are suggesting that G-U1 & R1b-Z2013 moved east from Cuceteni-Trypole to the Caucasus before turning around & expanding westward again???

As for G-CTS342 and G-L497, these migrated west from Cuceteni-Trypole to modern-day Austria and Bavaria alongside R1b-U152, where they participated in the Bell Beaker culture (circa 2900 to 2000 BCE). -----> however, didn't CTS-342 emerge much earlier than this era? Were not a couple CTS-342 individuals found at Barcin in NW Anatolia circa 6500 BCE? Has not CTS-342 also been found in Cyprus?

Finally, in the grand of scheme of things, G-CTS342, G-L497 and R1b-U152 were in Central Europe before the close of the Neolithic, whereas the main Yamnaya influx did not occur until later -----> This raises the question of whether CTS342, L497 and U152 were "originally" Indo-European, or if they somehow adopted the gods & language of the Yamnaya newcomers. ----> Surely they were not already Indo-European during the Cucuteni Tripolye culture?

OK. This is my attempt to restore the initial concerns of this thread.

Pip
26-09-18, 00:20
Dominique, while you could narrow down your Y-DNA further with YSEQ, I don't think the available data is sufficient to determine conclusively whether any one particular SNP is of Oscan or Latin origin.

On a more general note, I would propose that the spread of haplogroups is usually complex, and difficult to pigeonhole without oversimplification. For instance, it is likely over thousands of years that G-U1 became dotted over a very wide area. The data suggests that some of it would have moved to the Caucasus and thrived there; and that many other lines of U1 elsewhere would have died out. There are signs that some communities containing U1 would have mixed with other communities containing R1b-Z2103 in roughly the Maykop sphere of influence and approximately during the Maykop era, but there would have been other areas with U1 and Z2103 in which little mixing would have taken place. The interesting thing to me is that the development of the two haplogroups shifted to a focus in the same region at what looks like a similar time. The bearers of the two did not necessarily mix or collaborate, but what we can predict is that they were probably driven to the Caucasus by common factors.

I also would not describe this as people moving eastwards, then turning back and moving westwards again. Different groups of people would probably have been moving all over the place, wherever conditions best-suited them at the time, and over many generations. Some of these moves would have been more successful than others, and in this way the main focus of particular haplogroups can shift geographically in various directions.

With CTS342 and L497, the fact that each now appears western in focus suggests some kind of decimation in Eastern Cucuteni Tripolye, whether due to inhospitable climate, hostile forces or some other combination of reasons. I would also propose that the main admixture with R1b-L51 preceded the development of R1b-U152, as the mtDNA in common is core to R1b Bell Beaker generally. The shift of the hybrid L51/PF3345 community westwards might have been in response to early Yamnayan or Corded Ware incursion.

It is quite possible that all three main branches of PF3345 originated in North West Anatolia. I would estimate that the general development of this section of G2a was over the broad area of South West Anatolia to Bulgaria and northwards to Romania and North West Ukraine. It is just that its surviving basal branches look to have emerged from somewhere probably within the Cucuteni Tripolye sphere of influence.

I haven't really got anything to add about which languages were spoken, although the lingua franca of the surviving western branches of Cucuteni might have changed during the course of the culture's development. Sometimes, languages spoken within communities can totally change within as little as one or two generations.

dominique_nuit
27-09-18, 10:37
I am intrigued by a couple of your remarks on the "G2a thriving at high altitude" thread ----->

First, you make a distinction between early "continental" G2a populations and later "maritime" G2a populations. Why do you characterize the populations in this way?

Further, what does the scientific community currently know about G2a by way of overall context? That is, the main concern of this thread is, Why did G2a-PF3345 and its subclades thrive while most other branches of G2a diminished to relatively small numbers? To really understand this question, must we not know the following ----->

(a) How wide-ranging was G2a at the time of the Cuceteni-Trypole culture (4000 to 3000 BCE)? My sense from reading this site is that G2a was dominant throughout Europe, though along a South-to-North cline, with haplogroup I enjoying greater representation in more northern regions. Further, where was the eastern "border" of this G2a domain? Probably somewhere around modern-day Moldavia, which is to say, right in the midst of Cuceteni-Trypole?

(b) G2a-PF3345 was one of how many G2a branches then current? 1 of 5 main branches? 1 of 10 main branches? And do we know, roughly, what percentage of the overall G2a population belonged to PF3345 and its subclades at this time?

And I was greatly surprised by your very next comment, to the effect that "only one branch of European R1b" thrived. I have along assumed that almost every European branch of R1b enjoyed tremendous reproductive success. Please elaborate.

In short, I get the impression from your comments that there must have been some kind of unique synergy between R1b-S28 and G2a-PF3345 . . . .

And I also imagine that S28 must have been at the western edge of R1b, just as PF3345 was at the eastern edge of G2a (that is, I envision the northern shore of the Black Sea as relatively free of G2a, that is, the area between modern-day Moldavia and modern-day Georgia). That is, can we draw of map of the territory covered by R1b during this era, and do we know what percentage of the R1b population belonged to S28?

Pip
27-09-18, 22:54
There's lots to think about here. I will respond to some of it, and contemplate the rest when I have more time.

My comment about continental and maritime G2a populations was just that I noticed that autosomal and mitochondrial data seems to show Mediterranean (Cardial?) DNA gradually replacing existing early farmer DNA and expanding northwards into the European interior during the course of the Neolithic.

My read is that G2a was indeed dominant throughout Europe, apart from perhaps in its fringes; and yes, Cucuteni Tripolye looks like its eastern edge (perhaps Moldavia, apart from occasional pockets in Ukraine).

I imagine there were very many G2a branches at its height, probably relatively few of which survive today. Given that PF3345 is G2a2b2a1a1, I think it would have been one of at least 100-200 branches that existed at various points.

The only truly thriving and surviving branch of European R1b is L151, whose significant development only seems to have arisen after the Neolithic. Apart from L23, other European branches of R1b look tiny.

I estimate that S28 was the first of the really thriving sub-subclades of L151. I don't know until I look into it, but I suspect that it represents a significant proportion of early Bell Beaker populations.

I would like to look more into the synergy between R1b and PF3345 when I get more time.

dominique_nuit
01-10-18, 21:59
Pip -- Your theory is broadly consistent with Maciamo's phylogenetic tree of Indo-European languages. Have you seen the tree and the accompanying thread? If not, here it is =

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36117-My-proposed-tree-of-Indo-European-languages

And this is the relevant passage =

"I believe that the Italo-Celtic branch intermingled more extensively with Neolithic European farmers than the Goidelic branch. This is obvious from the relatively high percentages of G2a-L497 and E-V13 among Hallstatt-derived Celts and Italics. I believe that this EEF mixture came originally from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, although indirectly. The R1b-L51 branch expanded along the Danube to Central Europe while the R1a/R1b-Z2103 branch of the Corded Ware spread along the North European Plain. The latter would probably have been the ones who mixed with the scattered and by now nomadic tribes who abandoned the Trypillian cities in Western Ukraine. Corded Ware tribes met R1b-L51 tribes in Germany, Czechia and western Poland. But by that time some R1b-L21 and R1b-DF27 adventurers had already permeated the Bell Beaker trade network all the way to the Atlantic coast, before they got the chance to mix with Corded Ware people - hence the absence of E-V13 and G2a-L497 from these Atlantic Celts (Q-Celtic speakers). The Neolithic influence on language eventually led to the Q to P shift in Hallstatt and La Tène Celtic tongues, soon after the split with the Italic tribes."

A few questions, perhaps better addressed to Maciamo, but since I have managed to engage you, here goes ---->

(1) Why does Maciamo always mention G2a-L497 as an Italo-Celtic subclade but never G2a-CTS342? (I am referring also to the Eupedia page on the genetic history of Italy.) Is this because L497 has enjoyed much more reproductive success than CTS342? Or is it because it enjoys a wider geographic range, perhaps extending from Northern Italy up to the British Isles, whereas CTS342 is perhaps confined to Southern Italy?

(2) How to account for the very high percentage of G2a in the Apennines and, especially, Calabria? Is this simply a case of Latin-Oscan G2a mixing with earlier "Old European" G2a, as Maciamo elsewhere hypothesizes (see, again, the genetic history of Italy page)

(3) I suppose that further research will be directed to determining which subclades of R1b-U152 were associated with which subclades of L497 and CTS342, and the precise areas of Europe in which these groups settled, perhaps with comparisons of pre-Roman Empire and post-Roman patterns of settlement

Pip
01-10-18, 23:49
I had not looked at this. Much of it corresponds with the data I have analysed, although not all of it.
Cucuteni Tripolye mtDNA looks core to Bell Beaker, so I think the mixing between CT and R1b-L51 occurred before L51 emerged from the East and split into its branches. Early U152 communities merely appear more substantially CT, because they include more CT paternal lines and look to have moved back into areas in which the remnants or offshoots of CT appear to have settled.

(1) I would say L497 is more easily identifiable as an Italo-Celtic subclade, as it looks to have developed more recently. CTS342 also has a pretty wide range, including Polish/Ukrainian, Arabian, Scandinavian and Jewish branches.

(2) Perhaps much G2a accumulated in Southern Italy, as it had nowhere else to go when later waves of Northern peoples like the Celts pushed it to the fringes, just as G2a pushed indigenous Europeans to the fringes when it colonised Europe during the Neolithic?

(3) I estimate that CTS342's major developments were mostly early, close to the Bell Beaker era, and wouldn't predict that the Romans had a substantial impact on its distribution.

I have been looking more closely into G-U1, and am wondering whether it had a different early development to the one I hypothesised. I will include this in a later post.

dominique_nuit
03-10-18, 06:19
I will include this in a later post.

Looking forward to it -- Hopefully others will read this thread and chime-in with their thoughts, questions, concerns. Surely I am not the only G2a-PF3345+ person here

Pip
03-10-18, 13:01
The autosomal mixing of Cucuteni Tripolye-like DNA within Ukrainian Neolithic populations looks patchy and minor. It only seems to have flourished temporarily during the early 4th millennium BC, when it was also accompanied by Caucasian DNA.

Is this a sign that early PF3345 was a cross-Pontic haplogroup, or that it initially evacuated the South Western Pontic (perhaps due to flooding?) and its bearers established colonies in the North Western Pontic (Cucuteni Tripolye) and the South Eastern Pontic (mainly Caucasian U1)?

Pip
06-10-18, 11:38
To examine G2a-L497:
According to yfull's estimates, there were only three surviving branches of L497 at 3,200 BC. However, during the first half of the third millennium BC, yfull estimates that L497 underwent a massive expansion and development, with 12 new branches forming in 2,600 BC alone (CTS4803, G727567, Z16770, Y14684, Z16775, Z726, L43, Z1823, Y8903, FGC807, Z1816 and Z6911). All of these branches look West European and are estimated to have arisen during the Bell Beaker expansion period, long before the Urnfield culture and the Celts came into existence. My own estimates, calculated using different methodology, look similar.
Also according to yfull's estimates, there were only two surviving branches of R1b-L51 at 3,200 BC. However, during the first half of the third millennium BC, yfull estimates that L51 also underwent a massive expansion and development, with scores of new branches forming in Western Europe at the same time that L497 was rapidly expanding and developing in Western Europe. My own estimates also look similar to yfull's in this respect.
The early developments of G2a-L497 and R1b-L51 are both believed to have occurred in South East Central Europe. The best fit for core R1b Bell Beaker mtDNA (across its range) includes a 50% contribution from South East Central European Cucuteni Triploye, which is believed to have been substantially an Early European Farmer G2a population. The Cucuteni Tripolye culture ended in South East Central Europe shortly after 3,500 BC; G2a-L497 and R1b-L51 in South East Central Europe ended with it. Both L497 and L51 relocated to Western Europe and underwent massive expansions contemporaneously several hundred years later, sharing female DNA in common.
It looks like Bell Beaker was a hybrid, with components mixed from these two cultures and populations. This mixing was likely to have occurred substantially where the two populations originally co-existed (i.e. in South East Central Europe), and either before or at the time that both relocated contemporaneously from South East Central Europe to Western Europe (i.e. on or before 3,500 BC).
We can see that G2a-U1's development did not follow this same pattern, but can we tell whether G2a-CTS342 followed a similar early development to G2a-L497?

Pip
06-10-18, 15:43
To examine G2a-CTS342:

According to yfull's estimates, there were six surviving branches of CTS342 at 3,200 BC.
However, between 2,700 BC and 2,400 BC, yfull estimates that CTS342 underwent a massive expansion and development not dissimilar to L497, with 10 new branches forming during this period (PF4202, Z1903, FGC46572, CTS7045, Z3408, L640, Z3428, YP4752, Z6025 and Z5856). As with L497, all of these new branches look West European and are estimated to have arisen during the Bell Beaker period. My own estimates for CTS342, calculated using different methodology, also look similar.

CTS342 as a whole looks more of a mixed bag. Three of its six early branches look Eastern; the dataset is too small to be conclusive, but one of these branches might be of Cucuteni Tripolye ancestry and linked to predominantly R1a migrations into Asia, and the other two could be early CT branch-offs or pre-CT lineages. The other three early branches of CTS342 each look Western, and I would tentatively link all of them to Cucuteni Tripolye, L497, R1b and Bell Beaker. My calculated estimate for the Western branch-off from Cucuteni Tripolye is 3,547 BC; this is based on fairly limited data, but ties up with a branching estimate for L51 and the estimated decline of the CT culture.

Pip
07-10-18, 21:12
G2a-U1 looks different to the other two.

It is difficult to make to a firm assessment, due to gaps in the data, but I would predict the most likely scenario is that:
1. U1 branched apart earlier in Anatolia between an Eastern section (that was focussed on the Western Caucasus) and a Western section that colonised South East Central Europe with L497 and CTS342 in Cucuteni Tripolye.
2. The Western section (Z2022) also looks to have evacuated South East Central Europe with R1b-L51, but did not co-exist with R1b-U152 in early Central European Bell Beaker, and instead perhaps remained a largely hidden lineage within another R1b population that ventured further and developed later (perhaps U106 or L21).

dominique_nuit
22-10-18, 17:25
Pip -- First, I have a very basic question, which will reveal how little I understand of genetics. Do such markers as "CTS," "L" and "Z" refer to mutations that are shared across major haplogroups? That is, does R1b-Z have anything in common with G2a-Z, with Z signifying a shared property? Or is the nomenclature purely arbitrary?

Second, if I understand your correctly, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342 and R1b-L51 migrated together from Cucuteni Tripolye to Western Europe sometime between 3500 and 3200 BCE. All three populations then experienced massive expansions during the Bell Beaker culture, roughly 2800 to 2300 BCE.

Which peoples arose from Bell Beaker? Is it fair to say that this is the proximate source of the Italo-Celtic peoples, or at least Italics & P-Celtic speakers?

And was this population negatively impacted by later Yamnaya incursions?

Megalophias
22-10-18, 18:05
The letters in the mutation name indicate the lab that found the mutation, so for instance CTS342 would be the the 342nd mutation identified by Chris Tyler-Smith. (There are a few exceptions, like NWT01 was found in the Northwest Territories, and YAP stands for Y-chromosome Alu Polymorphism.) Lots of them were found by multiple labs and have multiple names. So no, it has nothing to do with which haplogroup it is in or anything like that.

https://haplogroup.org/y-snps-name-prefixes/

dominique_nuit
22-10-18, 18:30
Thank you! But to a scientific illiterate like me, this seems like a very bizarre system for naming & mapping the various branches of the Y-tree. Then again, I guess the entire western hemisphere was named after Amerigo Vespucci :)

Pip
03-11-18, 19:09
Second, if I understand your correctly, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342 and R1b-L51 migrated together from Cucuteni Tripolye to Western Europe sometime between 3500 and 3200 BCE. All three populations then experienced massive expansions during the Bell Beaker culture, roughly 2800 to 2300 BCE.

Which peoples arose from Bell Beaker? Is it fair to say that this is the proximate source of the Italo-Celtic peoples, or at least Italics & P-Celtic speakers?

And was this population negatively impacted by later Yamnaya incursions?
I don't know much about linguistics, but from what I know, I would say it is likely that Bell Beaker people were the principal source of the Italo-Celtics.

I haven't seen enough data about the Yamnayan incursions, but my calculated guess is that this branch of the Yamnayans was pretty closely related to the Bell Beaker people, and that it was more likely ultimately that the Yamnayan populations were negatively impacted by their Bell Beaker relatives (and their remnants either absorbed or pushed back to the Southern and South Eastern fringes).

gidai
04-11-18, 00:01
I found an interesting map with ancient data here: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-ancient-revised.pdf

(http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-ancient-revised.pdf)

dominique_nuit
04-11-18, 06:02
my calculated guess is that this branch of the Yamnayans was pretty closely related to the Bell Beaker people, and that it was more likely ultimately that the Yamnayan populations were negatively impacted by their Bell Beaker relatives (and their remnants either absorbed or pushed back to the Southern and South Eastern fringes).

How does this square with accounts of the Yamnaya wiping out the indigenous (male) populations of Spain, as discussed in this thread = https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37146-All-Iberian-men-were-wiped-out-by-Yamna-men-4-500-years-ago?highlight=yamnaya+spain

Could it be that Bell Beaker populations pushed the Yamnaya "south" into Spain, while maintaining control over modern-day France, Italy, Southern Germany?

Further, your view strikes me as a "revision" of the prevailing account that Yamnaya tribes were everywhere victorious on chariot, spreading their Indo-European tongue . . . .

Pip
04-11-18, 17:26
The title is perhaps misleadingly sensationalist, and it depends partly on how Yamnaya is identified. If it means a horde of people from across the entire Pontic Steppe migrating en masse in 2,500 BC across Europe and into Spain killing every man there, then this looks unlikely to be accurate. However, if it means a number of groups related to such Yamnayan people (and other people associated with these groups) gradually and substantially altering the ethnic composition of Spain over a millennium or more around 2,500 BC, then this looks more possible.

The autosomal data that I have seen is not suggestive of a complete wipeout of (the male) half of the Spanish population in 2,500 BC. Instead, it shows:
1. A minor move of Yamnayan-related DNA into Spain much sooner than 2,500 BC (around 3,400 BC).
2. The subsequent decline of this DNA component until around 2,000 BC.
3. The resurgence of Yamnayan-related DNA around 1,800 BC (long after the Yamnayan culture had ended).

Regarding Yamnayan-related y-DNA lineages, even if we include the whole of R1b within this category, this still only makes up 55% or so of the Spanish male population. Spain still has plenty of E1b1, G2a, I2a and J2a, which look pre-Yamnayan West European, so a wipeout of these hapolgroups looks to be an exaggeration.

I'm not sure when or where Bell Beaker people split away from other Yamnayan-related R1b groups in Europe. I'm guessing it occurred at some point between 4,000 BC and the collapse of the Cucuteni culture and its replacement by the Yamnayan culture (3,300 BC); R1b-L51 Bell Beaker shows clear affinity with G2a-PF3345 Cucuteni remnants, and only minor admixture with other European Neolithic groups. I have yet to see sufficient data on Western Z2103 Yamnaya for comparison purposes.

Wherever Indo-European originated, it looks like it was spread quite widely by different R1b and R1a populations, and not just Yamnayans.

gidai
04-11-18, 23:10
I think culture and language have nothing to do with haplogroups. Culture and language are just human inventions, but haplogroups can appear and disappear very easily only for biological reasons within the same population even in a few hundred years.

dominique_nuit
05-11-18, 21:39
It looks like Maciamo has advanced a similar theory to Pip's, but with reference primarily to E-V13

"The oldest clades of E-V13 are most common around Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. I believe that E-V13 could have been a lineage of the Cucuteni-Trypillian people, which was assimilated by Yamna people just before their expansion westward. This would also have been the case of some G2a lineages (Z1816, L13 and L1264 subclades)."

See this thread = https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35942-Was-E-V13-a-major-lineage-of-Hallstatt-Celts-and-Italics

My understanding of Bell Beaker is that it was primarily a trading network, extending from modern-day Hungary/Austria/Bavaria westward into France and throughout the Atlantic coastal zones, NW Iberia, Britain, Ireland

Therefore, when we say that G2a-L497 and G2a-CTS342 developed among Bell Beaker peoples, does this mean the entire expanse of the network or concentrated in particular areas?

Pip
06-11-18, 00:37
I would estimate over the entire expanse of the network, but especially concentrated in particular areas that were closer to their ancestral zones. Groups bearing mainly only R1b were perhaps more adventurous, and the mixed R1b-G2a communities perhaps a little more constructive and sedentary?

dominique_nuit
06-11-18, 03:27
So which haplogroups do you envision as part of this emerging Bell Beaker, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Latin complex? Is it simply R1b-U152, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342? Or did E-V13 also play a leading role?

I also get the sense that archaeological findings may distort our understanding of the movements & formations of peoples. That is, we seem to move from Cucuteni Tripolye to Bell Beaker to Urnfeld to Hallstat because this is where the archaeological sites are . . . .

gidai
06-11-18, 17:32
I understand only a few of the basic notions of genetics and I do not understand very well the elaborate discussions you carry, but I am happy to meet other people with the relatively rare Y-haplogrup G and with whom I have a recent common ancestor, perhaps only from a few... :rolleyes2: thousand years?! I have mutations P303, CTS7698 and also L13 (I am not sure about the intermediate mutations: PF3346, PF3345 and U1 because I understand that were not tested... But I think its should be there. The coincidence is to have also mtDNA X2 that I read, was associated with G2a on the spread of first farmers in Neolithic Europe.

Pip
07-11-18, 00:05
So which haplogroups do you envision as part of this emerging Bell Beaker, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Latin complex? Is it simply R1b-U152, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342? Or did E-V13 also play a leading role?

I also get the sense that archaeological findings may distort our understanding of the movements & formations of peoples. That is, we seem to move from Cucuteni Tripolye to Bell Beaker to Urnfeld to Hallstat because this is where the archaeological sites are . . . .
Yes, I think E-V13 likely did form part of it. and also probably some subclades of I2a.
And yes, the archaeological sites are often misleading, causing people to generalise wildly on the basis of a few published samples. Added to which, many archaeological samples probably represent dead end lines, and so are only of subtle value in telling us anything about the ancestors of today's populations.

Pip
07-11-18, 00:26
I understand only a few of the basic notions of genetics and I do not understand very well the elaborate discussions you carry, but I am happy to meet other people with the relatively rare Y-haplogrup G and with whom I have a recent common ancestor, perhaps only from a few... :rolleyes2: thousand years?! I have mutations P303, CTS7698 and also L13 (I am not sure about the intermediate mutations: PF3346, PF3345 and U1 because I understand that were not tested... But I think its should be there. The coincidence is to have also mtDNA X2 that I read, was associated with G2a on the spread of first farmers in Neolithic Europe.
Yes, you are almost certainly PF3345 and U1, and I would guess of Cucuteni-type Neolithic ancestry. Perhaps a very minor element within Bell Beaker, as L13 looks a late bloomer?

Pip
07-11-18, 22:00
I understand only a few of the basic notions of genetics and I do not understand very well the elaborate discussions you carry, but I am happy to meet other people with the relatively rare Y-haplogrup G and with whom I have a recent common ancestor, perhaps only from a few... :rolleyes2: thousand years?! I have mutations P303, CTS7698 and also L13 (I am not sure about the intermediate mutations: PF3346, PF3345 and U1 because I understand that were not tested... But I think its should be there. The coincidence is to have also mtDNA X2 that I read, was associated with G2a on the spread of first farmers in Neolithic Europe.
I have just noticed you are from the main area in which I suspect L13 was formational, and am wondering whether you are descended from a basal line. Do you have readings for subclades, such as Z2022, CTS9909 or Z6759, or any STR readings?

gidai
07-11-18, 22:27
I have just noticed you are from the main area in which I suspect L13 was formational, and am wondering whether you are descended from a basal line. Do you have readings for subclades, such as Z2022, CTS9909 or Z6759, or any STR readings?I have not found these in the data. The last was L13. Neither STR.
p.s. But I found almost 15% different markers of other haplogroupes (like R, I, O, H, E, D, C ....) unrelated to G! Verry strange for me... Otherwise, all the markers of G up to G2a2b2a1 and after that, only L13.

dominique_nuit
12-11-18, 21:55
I'm not sure when or where Bell Beaker people split away from other Yamnayan-related R1b groups in Europe. I'm guessing it occurred at some point between 4,000 BC and the collapse of the Cucuteni culture and its replacement by the Yamnayan culture (3,300 BC); R1b-L51 Bell Beaker shows clear affinity with G2a-PF3345 Cucuteni remnants, and only minor admixture with other European Neolithic groups.

Would it be fair to ask you what the other R1b groupings are?

First, we have the Bell Beaker grouping, which appears to be R1b-L51, with R1b-U152 as the leading branch, both among Italics and Celts (please correct me if I am wrong). Affiliated with this Bell Beaker group are the other Cucuteni remnant groups, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342, E-V13, and certain subclades of I2a (do we know which subclades?).

Aside from this group, what are the other R1b groupings? Which R1b groupings are considered "core" Yamnaya?



Wherever Indo-European originated, it looks like it was spread quite widely by different R1b and R1a populations, and not just Yamnayans.

And therefore we can hypothesize that Italic & Celtic languages are not descendent from Yamnayan language, but from an ancestral tongue more broadly spoken by all R1b & R1a peoples. Further, proto-Italic and proto-Celtic probably began to develop within the Cuceteni cultural matrix. This must surely also have some implications for the Romanian language, which is perhaps not as indebted to Latin as imagined. Of course I am speculating very freely here

Pip
15-11-18, 00:21
Would it be fair to ask you what the other R1b groupings are?
In early Europe, I think mainly Z2103.


First, we have the Bell Beaker grouping, which appears to be R1b-L51, with R1b-U152 as the leading branch, both among Italics and Celts (please correct me if I am wrong). Affiliated with this Bell Beaker group are the other Cucuteni remnant groups, G2a-L497, G2a-CTS342, E-V13, and certain subclades of I2a (do we know which subclades?).
I-M26 and I-M223, at least. These were probably picked up in Central Europe when Cucuteni and L51 people moved West around the mid 4th millennium BC.


Aside from this group, what are the other R1b groupings? Which R1b groupings are considered "core" Yamnaya?
Core Yamnaya is considered R1b-Z2103.
I would speculate it probably also included R1b-V88, I2a-CTS10057, R1b-M73 and R1a-Z93.


And therefore we can hypothesize that Italic & Celtic languages are not descendent from Yamnayan language, but from an ancestral tongue more broadly spoken by all R1b & R1a peoples. Further, proto-Italic and proto-Celtic probably began to develop within the Cuceteni cultural matrix. This must surely also have some implications for the Romanian language, which is perhaps not as indebted to Latin as imagined. Of course I am speculating very freely here
I don't know much about ancient languages. Perhaps there was an element of bilingualism in the population? Italic and Celtic are Indo-European (probably R1b-influenced), yet one branch of L51 still speaks Basque, which some have related to Georgian (the main development cradle for G-U1)(i.e. both of these languages could have ancient roots in G-PF3345).

gidai
30-01-19, 15:42
I think here https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36890-One-probable-cause-of-the-increase-and-decay-of-haplogroups-frequencies?p=551805&viewfull=1#post551805 could be an explanation of how some Y haplogroups like G or its subclades can quickly increase or decay.

JajarBingan
30-01-19, 16:43
There isn't any enigma. Just like other pre-Indo-European haplos, they slowly faded because Indo-Euros had priority access to women. This also explains why there is a surge of E in Southeast Europe compared to the rest, given that it is a Neolithic lineage too. Probably, like seen in the local "Scythian" from Moldova, E-V13 lineages were introduced together with the spread of Indo-Euros, likely acculturated at that point. We know from Myceneans that J2a1 came with them and they represent another Indo-Euro folk in the Balkans. J2b is probably associated with a migration from the steppes too, but that still remains to be proven.

Pip
12-05-19, 00:51
There isn't any enigma. Just like other pre-Indo-European haplos, they slowly faded because Indo-Euros had priority access to women.
There is an enigma. Unlike other G lineages, this one didn't slowly fade, but flourished, and still flourishes.

jasonb
27-05-19, 13:15
Hi I'm new to eupedia and genetics in general. I found all of your comments very interesting to read.

Si I'm French of Burgundian descent on my father's side, unfortunately I used myheritagedna and the lack of information was pretty annoying.
So I uploaded my raw data to several websites (I used admixture studio and gedmatch too, amongst others...) so I guess I am pretty much aware about the caucasian-celtic migrations from bronze age. Even if I'm quite lost as being told I had a few gedrosian/east european/slavic matches or else.

But I truly have no clue about the results I got from morleydna, is this website accurate ?
I got G2a3b1a G-L140 (G-PF3331, G-PF3337) on the experimental tree.

Thanks for any future answers from you guys, help me step out of the mist.

Pip
31-05-19, 22:25
Hi I'm new to eupedia and genetics in general. I found all of your comments very interesting to read.

Si I'm French of Burgundian descent on my father's side, unfortunately I used myheritagedna and the lack of information was pretty annoying.
So I uploaded my raw data to several websites (I used admixture studio and gedmatch too, amongst others...) so I guess I am pretty much aware about the caucasian-celtic migrations from bronze age. Even if I'm quite lost as being told I had a few gedrosian/east european/slavic matches or else.

But I truly have no clue about the results I got from morleydna, is this website accurate ?
I got G2a3b1a G-L140 (G-PF3331, G-PF3337) on the experimental tree.

Thanks for any future answers from you guys, help me step out of the mist.
If you're G-L140, you are quite likely to be PF3345. Do you have STR readings?

jasonb
01-06-19, 20:25
Hi, I got these if you want (both myheritagedna and converted to 23&me raw data)
www109.zippyshare. com/v/jlAdVxqz/file.html (take off spaces)
No idea how to get those STR readings I'm kind of a newbie.
Thank you very much for your time, have a nice weekend.

S04ancap
25-06-19, 19:06
A scenario where IE Bronze Age R1b invaders massacred the G2a's may only apply who were part of the earlier migrations from Anatolian where the L497 subclade who had a "late start" up the Balkans and the Danubian route were the exception. A clue in favor of the assimilation in my opinion is that the most ancient L497 sample we have is from the Baden culture dated 3300-2850 BCE and found in Budakalász-Luppa csárda Hungary. The map comparing R1b with L497 distribution patterns discussed in another thread, makes sense in light of how highest the variance would be where L497 subclades spent the most time and really started exploding while the higher frequencies are due to micro areas of up to 80% in certain Alpine valleys. If L497 was relatively uncommon say just east of the Alps, but then during the Bronze age assimilated with R1b it would make sense that the past almost 5,000 years has led to a greater variance north into mainland Europe.

Pip
26-06-19, 22:36
A scenario where IE Bronze Age R1b invaders massacred the G2a's may only apply who were part of the earlier migrations from Anatolian where the L497 subclade who had a "late start" up the Balkans and the Danubian route were the exception. A clue in favor of the assimilation in my opinion is that the most ancient L497 sample we have is from the Baden culture dated 3300-2850 BCE and found in Budakalász-Luppa csárda Hungary. The map comparing R1b with L497 distribution patterns discussed in another thread, makes sense in light of how highest the variance would be where L497 subclades spent the most time and really started exploding while the higher frequencies are due to micro areas of up to 80% in certain Alpine valleys. If L497 was relatively uncommon say just east of the Alps, but then during the Bronze age assimilated with R1b it would make sense that the past almost 5,000 years has led to a greater variance north into mainland Europe.
Could be. Although I wonder whether much of the assimilation occurred before the R1b invaders moved into West/Central Europe - there are also R1b-M269 parallels in other locations with PF3345 subclades that branched apart from each other before the Neolithic began (CTS342 in Italy, U1 in the Western Caucasus). Like R1b-M269, each of these subclades was pretty successful, unlike most other branches of haplogroup G. Looks too much of a coincidence to me.

dominique_nuit
22-08-19, 05:18
Pip was banned ???!!!

I will be the first to admit that 75% of the comments on Eupedia are over my head, but still, I found him to be a brilliant (if rather contrarian) contributor. And as can be gleaned from this thread, I was happy to hear his insights, even if not the gospel truth