Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51

Thread: The enigma of G-PF3345 (U1, CTS342 and L497)

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-09-16
    Posts
    175


    Country: Canada



    2 members found this post helpful.
    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/

  2. #27
    Dominique_NUit
    Join Date
    02-05-17
    Posts
    107

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a2b--PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Country: USA - New York



    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 :)

  3. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    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).

  4. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-07-18
    Posts
    376


    Country: Romania



    I found an interesting map with ancient data here: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-ancient-revised.pdf


  5. #30
    Dominique_NUit
    Join Date
    02-05-17
    Posts
    107

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a2b--PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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/thread...=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 . . . .

  6. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    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.

  7. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-07-18
    Posts
    376


    Country: Romania



    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.

  8. #33
    Dominique_NUit
    Join Date
    02-05-17
    Posts
    107

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a2b--PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Country: USA - New York



    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?

  9. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    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?

  10. #35
    Dominique_NUit
    Join Date
    02-05-17
    Posts
    107

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a2b--PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Country: USA - New York



    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 . . . .

  11. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-07-18
    Posts
    376


    Country: Romania



    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... 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.
    Last edited by gidai; 06-11-18 at 21:05.

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    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.

  13. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by gidai View Post
    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... 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?

  14. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by gidai View Post
    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... 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?

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-07-18
    Posts
    376


    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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.

  16. #41
    Dominique_NUit
    Join Date
    02-05-17
    Posts
    107

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a2b--PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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

  17. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    Would it be fair to ask you what the other R1b groupings are?
    In early Europe, I think mainly Z2103.

    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dominique_nuit View Post
    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).

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-07-18
    Posts
    376


    Country: Romania



    I think here https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post551805 could be an explanation of how some Y haplogroups like G or its subclades can quickly increase or decay.

  19. #44
    Regular Member JajarBingan's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-05-16
    Posts
    157

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-PH908*, DYS561=15
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2a1b1a

    Ethnic group
    Romanian
    Country: Romania



    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.

  20. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by JajarBingan View Post
    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.

  21. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    27-05-19
    Posts
    2


    Country: France



    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.

  22. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb View Post
    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?

  23. #48
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    27-05-19
    Posts
    2


    Country: France



    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.

  24. #49
    Junior Member S04ancap's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-06-19
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L42
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U3a1

    Ethnic group
    Italian, German, Czech
    Country: United States



    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.

  25. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by S04ancap View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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