I made some slight adjustments

Here's the R1b-FGC36974 descendant tree for my Stephens/Stevens Y-DNA line. It'll take you maybe five minutes to look it over and understand it, but what it depicts represents a lot of years of work: genealogical research, recruiting possible Y-DNA line relatives, etc. It also represents a lot of money spent on Y-DNA and autosomal DNA testing.

My maternal grandfather passed away before I ever had the chance to get to know him. The only maternal uncle I ever knew passed away in 2008 before I had the chance to get him Y-DNA tested with FTDNA. Older maternal uncles died long before 2008. I tried to get some male first cousins in that line to test, but none was willing.

I finally found a distant cousin in that Y-DNA line who had already done a Y-37, but he passed away in 2011. Happily for me, his daughter was willing to upgrade him to the Big Y-700. His sample was pretty old, but FTDNA was able to get the job done. He turned out to be R1b-FT418639. This cousin is kit 25861 in the Gist DNA Project in Group 1c at the link below:

Gist Project Y-DNA Results

Here is the R1b-FT418639 pedigree:

R-M207>R1-M173>R1b-M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>PF6538>L151>P312> Z290>L21>S552>DF13>ZZ10_1>Z253> FGC3268>ZZ6_1>BY43439> BY4303>FGC59516> BY93500>BY132893>FT418639

FTDNA estimates the TMRCA of BY132893 to about 800 AD, but they estimate the TMRCA of FT418639 to be about 1750 AD.

My maternal grandfather's deceased distant cousin shares FT418639 with one man whose new Big Y-700 results enabled FTDNA to name that SNP. He is a brand new 108/111 match for my maternal grandfather's distant cousin and a 750/758 STR match for him overall.

Continuation from the Anthrogenica and GenArchivist 1.0 forum thread on the topic of E-V13, theories of its origin and new data, papers on the haplogroup.

I went through the ancient DNA evidence available on FTDNA and sorted the branches by marcro-regions. There is some interesting observation, which points to the main branches of E-Z5017 + E-Z5018 living further to the North, at least not too far South of the Danube. The ratio of these two main branches increases drastically in Central Europe compared to the ancient DNA from the Balkans.

Samples from Hungary (ca.):
E-Z5018: 19
E-Z5017: 9
Branches common in current Balkan/Thracian samples as shown in the screenshot: 3




That's a staggering 28 : 3 or simplified about 9 : 1 ratio for Hungary.

For the South Thracians and Medieval Greeks ("East Balkans") combined its 0 : 4
For Viminacium+Naissus (a more mixed bag) it is 1 : 2, with the E-Z5018 sample looking like its coming from a Scytho-Sarmatian branch.
Croatia/West Balkan (Sipar, Sveti Križ, Scitarjevo, Hypo Banka it is 1 : 3

If we combine Hungary vs. Balkan (Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece), we get for the combined Z5018+Z5017 vs. rest:

Hungary 9 : 1
Balkan 2 : 9

The exact opposite! And the two samples from Croatia and Serbia are likely arrivals from a Northern region themselves. The same might apply, to some degree, to the Central European samples, like e.g. Alt Inden (Germany) which don't fall into that category.
We can therefore assume that there was a massive E-V13 block, dominated by Z5018+Z5017, to the North of the Central Balkans, either at or North of the Danube, presumably with a centre in Romania and associated with the Dacians.

Therefore we have a clear pattern for Central Europe (Hungary, Poland, Czechia) vs. Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria) up to the Roman period.

The only other sample group with a dominance of E-Z5017+5018 are the Himerans with 1:0, and again, their autosomal profile puts them into a more Northern spot and relatively closer to Mezocsat-Gáva. They won't have been from a population all too South of the Danube, in the Central-East Balkans, which fits into the whole pattern.

For the critics: Indeed, there is a lack of Balkan samples so far, but why this odd ratio, especially in comparison to the Central European samples? Just compare: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree

I like beer. It makes me a jolly good fellow.

It's a gift from God, and a good one.

My personal favorite is Butty Bach (Welsh for Little Friend) from Wye Valley Brewery in Herefordshire, England.



I also like Doombar a whole lot, and the whole range of Brains beers. The photo below is a pint of Doombar that I drank at the Lamb and Flag pub in Rhayader, Powys, Wales.

It's great to have a place to discuss L51 and its very significant role in the Indo-Europeanization of peninsular Europe (by which I mean Europe west of the steppe).

Have you all noticed this? FTDNA's team has confirmed the R-P310 results of two ancient samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture and placed them in FTDNA Discover's "Ancient Connections". If you take your own Y-DNA line back to R-P310 in FTDNA Discover (or just enter R-P310 in FTDNA Discover) and click Ancient Connections on the left, you can see them for yourself.

They are listed in Ancient Connections as Shatar Chuluu 1, 3320-2918 BCE, Sample SHT001 from C.-C. Wang et al (2021) and Jeong et al (2020), from Erdenetsogt, Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia; and Nileke 5-3, 2865-2576 BCE, Sample C3341 from Kumar et al (2022), from Nileke County, Xinjiang, China.

Autosomally, Afanasievo is almost identical to Yamnaya. As Anthony says in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, Afanasievo probably represents an eastward migration of people from the Repin culture before Yamnaya formed, but from the same basic steppe Eneolithic source population.

I confirmed this in a few messages I exchanged with Göran Runström of FTDNA, and of course I have seen the entries in Ancient Connections myself.

To me, these two results, taken together with all the R1b-L51 in the earliest Corded Ware samples (see Papac et al, 2021, "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe"), seals the deal for the Indo-European steppe pastoralist origin of R1b-L51.

After just joining our latest home, I'd like to have the honour of starting the third incarnation of this thread, which I began back in the day on Anthrogenica. So many people have contributed valuable thoughts and insights to our discussion over the years and I've really enjoyed the conversation. Please feel free to post anything that's related to ancient I1 or concerns it in any way; I'm sure our ancestors will forgive a few interesting forays off the direct topic every now and then. As always, fingers crossed for more insights into the origins and spread of I-M253 as we start the next stage of our journey.

I had this thread in the other forum, but it was more of personal experiences. Altough the topic is controversial, it is also one of great interest to many, and more and more data and findings are coming forth, so I hope we can discuss, and even debate, the origins of M458 and some of the more important branches under M458 - like L1029, L260 and YP515.

Okay, I'm starting this thread up again here at the new place, because this is an interesting topic for me. 

So here's my basic reasoning, based on all that we know so far.

1. L21 is probably too old to have originated in the British Isles, since it was born ~2600 BC and did not arrive in Britain until ~2400 BC. (I am aware of the 95% confidence interval for L21. We can discuss that, if you’d like.)

2. L21 arrived in Britain with Beaker people from the Continent ~2400 BC (the Olalde et al Beaker paper makes that pretty obvious).

3. The Beaker people who went to Britain came (for the most part) from the Lower Rhine region (according to Heyd, van der Waals, Glasbergen, and the apparent autosomal connection between Dutch and British Beaker).

4. Beaker (at least Dutch Beaker) was derived from the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.

Conclusion -

5. L21 originated in very early Dutch/NW German Beaker or in the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.

It seems to me this is pretty solid, unless L21 turns out to be a lot younger than we currently think it is, or we find out Beaker arrived in Britain a lot earlier, neither of which seems likely.

Okay, so here's my reasoning, based on all that has been said so far.
1. L21 is probably too old to have originated in the British Isles, since it was born ~2600 BC and did not arrive in Britain until ~2400 BC.
2. L21 arrived in Britain with Beaker people from the Continent ~2400 BC (the Olalde et al Beaker paper makes that pretty obvious).
3. The Beaker people who went to Britain came (for the most part) from the Lower Rhine region (according to Heyd, van der Waals, Glasbergen, and
    the apparent autosomal connection between Dutch and British Beaker).
4. Beaker (at least Dutch Beaker) was derived from the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
5. L21 originated in very early Dutch/NW German Beaker or in the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
It seems to me this is pretty solid, unless L21 turns out to be a lot younger than we currently think it is, or we find out Beaker arrived in Britain a lot earlier, neither of which seems likely. Okay, so here's my reasoning, based on all that has been said so far.
1. L21 is probably too old to have originated in the British Isles, since it was born ~2600 BC and did not arrive in Britain until ~2400 BC.
2. L21 arrived in Britain with Beaker people from the Continent ~2400 BC (the Olalde et al Beaker paper makes that pretty obvious).
3. The Beaker people who went to Britain came (for the most part) from the Lower Rhine region (according to Heyd, van der Waals, Glasbergen, and
    the apparent autosomal connection between Dutch and British Beaker).
4. Beaker (at least Dutch Beaker) was derived from the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
5. L21 originated in very early Dutch/NW German Beaker or in the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
It seems to me this is pretty solid, unless L21 turns out to be a lot younger than we currently think it is, or we find out Beaker arrived in Britain a lot earlier, neither of which seems likely.
Okay, so here's my reasoning, based on all that has been said so far.
1. L21 is probably too old to have originated in the British Isles, since it was born ~2600 BC and did not arrive in Britain until ~2400 BC.
2. L21 arrived in Britain with Beaker people from the Continent ~2400 BC (the Olalde et al Beaker paper makes that pretty obvious).
3. The Beaker people who went to Britain came (for the most part) from the Lower Rhine region (according to Heyd, van der Waals, Glasbergen, and
    the apparent autosomal connection between Dutch and British Beaker).
4. Beaker (at least Dutch Beaker) was derived from the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
5. L21 originated in very early Dutch/NW German Beaker or in the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
It seems to me this is pretty solid, unless L21 turns out to be a lot younger than we currently think it is, or we find out Beaker arrived in Britain a lot earlier, neither of which seems likely. Okay, so here's my reasoning, based on all that has been said so far.
1. L21 is probably too old to have originated in the British Isles, since it was born ~2600 BC and did not arrive in Britain until ~2400 BC.
2. L21 arrived in Britain with Beaker people from the Continent ~2400 BC (the Olalde et al Beaker paper makes that pretty obvious).
3. The Beaker people who went to Britain came (for the most part) from the Lower Rhine region (according to Heyd, van der Waals, Glasbergen, and
    the apparent autosomal connection between Dutch and British Beaker).
4. Beaker (at least Dutch Beaker) was derived from the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
5. L21 originated in very early Dutch/NW German Beaker or in the Protruding Foot Beaker variant of Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine/NW Germany.
It seems to me this is pretty solid, unless L21 turns out to be a lot younger than we currently think it is, or we find out Beaker arrived in Britain a lot earlier, neither of which seems likely.

Continuing the thread begun by pmokeefe on Anthrogenica:


Journal of Archaeological Science
Volume 157, September 2023


Destruction by fire: Reconstructing the evidence of the 586 BCE Babylonian destruction in a monumental building in Jerusalem

N. Shalom ,  Y. Vaknin,  R. Shaar, E. Ben-Yosef, et al.



Abstract

Evidence of fire is one of the most important features for identifying and characterizing destruction events. Analysis of microscopic remains of fire has developed exceedingly in recent years, enabling archaeologists to examine new questions relating to the intensity of destruction events and to the circumstances of the creation of destruction layers. One of the most crucial events in the history of the Southern Levant is the Babylonian destruction of Judah and its capital Jerusalem in 586 BCE, which shaped the biblical narrative and theology for generations to come. Building 100 was an extraordinarily large and rich elite building, thoroughly destroyed during the Babylonian campaign. This paper presents a study of the destruction layer excavated within the rooms of the building. FTIR spectrometry and archaeomagnetic analysis were combined in the micro-archaeological study of the remains in order to create a detailed reconstruction of the destruction event. This reconstruction sheds new light on how the Babylonian destruction was manifested in reality in the elite buildings of Jerusalem.


Link:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440323001036