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

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)?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
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/
 
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 :)
 
dominique_nuit said:
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?
Click to expand...
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).
 
Pip said:
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).
Click to expand...

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/threa...a-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 . . . .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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 . . . .
 
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.
 
Last edited:
dominique_nuit said:
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 . . . .
Click to expand...
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.
 
gidai said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
gidai said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Pip said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top