Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Abstract
In this thread I will documents my notes and findings on R-PF7589, also known at R-Z2118. I will provide general background on PF7589, present a map of modern European PF7589 concentration by region, list and discuss ancient DNA sources, perform a phylogenic analysis, present a histogram on the diversification events over time, and combine everything together to present a general theory of PF7589 progress through Europe over the from 3200 BCE through 500 BCE. After thorough analysis, I believe that PF7589 was born about 5200 ybp on the Pontic Caspian Steppe and moved into southeastern Europe with the broader Yamnaya Culture. By comparison, it’s brother P310 moved west into Europe with the Corded Ware Culture. PF7589+ largely stayed in the Balkans/Hungary as part of those cultures. BY 1600 BCE most PF7589 likely lived in the western Balkans or Transdanubia Hungary. The arrival of the Tumulus culture in circa 1600 BCE the Tumulus culture entered the areas PF7589 settled. PF7589 saw a population drop during this period, and some lines were displaced. An initial displacement went into Italy. The remaining middle-Danube PF7589 culture recovered circa 1400-1300 BCE and some-but-not-all began a sustained push into Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and France. Sustained growth in those countries would help PF7589 spread to the rest of Western and Northern Europe throughout the iron age. Today, the major concentrations of PF7589 are found in Western Europe, with limited concentrations reflecting its Middle Danubian origins.
Introduction
PF7589 is one of two surviving subclades of L51. It is also called Z2118, and some older sources call it L51*. PF7589 is the “brother” to P310 (also known as L52) form which over half of western European men descend. P310+ men outnumber PF7589 by around 66:1. Ther has been little active research into PF7589 because of its relatively small numbers, and minimal impact on the peopling of Europe. Today it is mostly found in Western Europe in varying concentrations. The distribution does not yield any obvious conclusions on its origins or path. This thread will attempt to chart the broader history of PF7589.
I researched and performed several types of analysis on PF7589. These include a map of the modern European distribution, ancient DNA sources, histogram of branching events, and a final combined analysis. This final draft of this study is over 9,000 words long, so I will break this thread into several posts to improve readability and discussion. My intention is not to spam so I will break this into seven parts and separate the posts by several hours. After the initial drop of posts, I will focus on the analysis and paths of certain subclades, and a continued look at PF7589 from circa 700 BCE through the migration period. Those posts will be made a later date.
This analysis considered four sources on PF7589. The Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) Time Tree, The FTDNA Block Tree, the YFULL YTree, and various FTDNA Projects. The FTDNA Time Tree provides branching and timelines for FTDNA customers who NGS tested (BigY, Y500, and Y700 levels) and some select scientific studies. It is the largest database of PF7589 and has the only comprehensive timelines for nearly all of the known PF7589 branches and subclades. The FTDNA block tree includes the data found in the Time Tree and FTDNA kits that were SNP tested. The addition of SNP-only kits does not allow for new branches, adjusted timelines, and it may give the impression that there are more basal kits than actually exist. The SNP-only kits are of limited value, insofar as they provide hints for geography, but do not contribute to branch size or timelines. The YFULL YTree has a limited amount of PF7589 samples. Their PF7589 database is 4-5 times smaller than the FTDNA PF7589 database. The YFull database includes many FTDNA NGS kits and some Nebula Genomic Test Kits. As a result, YFULL has far less PF7589 branches and the time estimates that are not particularly instructive. YFull data, mostly Nebula kits, was mostly used to supplement the FTDNA data for the purposes of finding kits from certain parts of Europe. The final source was publicly available FTDNA Projects which posted STRs of many PF589 or PF7589-suspected kits. These were used when STR analysis was required or to gain insight on kit origins. Genealogy research sites were used as necessary to research some branches. I will not post non-public protected information in this thread, so any information learned through those sources will be heavily generalized.
Ancient DNA data was found mostly using the FTDNA database. Some additional information and context were added from additional sources. I only have access to publicly available data. My observations and conclusions are based only on publicly available information. I am not privy to embargoed information. I will happily reiterate this analysis as new information arrives.
I will use the terms Upper Danube and Middle Danube frequently during these posts. I am using these terms in the modern hydrological sense (drainage basins) to refer to broad regions. It should not be taken specifically. The Middle Danube includes the Croatian Adriatic Coast for the purposes of this thread.
The data used in these initial posts was collected from FTDNA in late November 2023. And some of this information will have minor changes by the time this thread is first posted in mid-December. Some new branches circa-early December were added and some newer branching dates are used in the paragraph-text of this thread, but the underlying observations and conclusions remain unaffected. Collecting and collating the dates from FTNDA is a labor-intensive process, as is making the branching events graphs, so I was unable to update everything prior to posting. My intention is to periodically update this thread as new information is found. New posts will be added instead of editing older posts.
I am focusing my analysis and conclusions exclusively on PF7589. Nothing I write here is intended to apply to P310+ or any other undiscovered L51 branch. And to be clear: vis-à-vis PIE migrations, I think P310+ is Corded Ware, whereas M269xP310 is Yamnaya.
Posts: 1,280
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: British
Y-DNA (P): R-FGC36981
Y-DNA (M): R-FT418639
mtDNA (M): U5a2c3a
mtDNA (P): K1a1
12-13-2023, 11:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2023, 11:04 PM by rmstevens2.)
Hey, awesome! Thanks for starting such an interesting thread!
Hope you don't mind me posting my wimpy R1b-L51 Descendant Tree. Feel free, of course, to post a better one. You won't hurt my feelings. Obviously I didn't carry the lines very far downstream from L51. You can see I focused more on L151 and its descendants than on any other downstream lines.
![[Image: R1b-L51-Descendant-Tree.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/SNSf8rwS/R1b-L51-Descendant-Tree.jpg)
Manofthehour and RBHeadge like this post
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
- Wisdom of Sirach 44:1
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Modern Distribution
I created a map of PF7589 concentrations in European countries based on scientific studies with random samples. This map first appeared on Anthrogenica and has been updated twice. The latest version is posted here.
There are several noticeable PF7589 concentrations found on the map. Italy, France, Iberia, Low Countries, Central Europe (Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia), Alps (Switzerland, Austria), Poland, Anatolia. These regions will be explored in more detail in the phylogenic analysis section.
For completeness I will outline the sources and steps I used to produce the map. The map is derived from the following studies:
Busby et al. "The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269" 2012 including all the compiled studies its supplementary data set spreadsheet
· Altena et al. "The Dutch Y-Chromosomal Landscape"
· Maarten et al. "Defining Y-SNP variation among the Flemish population (Western Europe) by full genome"
· Grungi et al. ""Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective""
· Niederstätter et al. "Pasture Names with Romance and Slavic Roots Facilitate Dissection of Y Chromosome Variation in an Exclusively German-Speaking Alpine Region" 2012
· Grugni et al. "Y-chromosome and Surname Analyses for Reconstructing Past Population Structures: The Sardinian Population as a Test Case" 2019.
Some of the source papers didn't explicitly test for PF7589/Z2118. Instead, what is being shown is L51xL151. The means that the map may include some L52xL151 populations. However, if the samples from FTDNA and YFULL are any guide, PF7589 outnumbers L52xL151 by a factor of about 100, so the map is safe surrogate for PF7589. Other studies were considered but they didn't report down to a level where the PF7589 (aka L51*, M412*, etc) could be derived. There were several studies which reported M269xL151 orM269xP312,U106, but it was generally not possible to distinguish between PF7589 and Z2103 and other minor branches. Those studies were excluded to reduce the risk of accidentally overreporting PF7589 on the map.
The map does not include the results from Bekada et al. 2013. The results in that paper group L51 and L151(xU106,U152) in the same category, and Grugni el al erroneously call it allM412* (L51XL151). I also found an error where the M412* in Figure 1 of the Grugni paper doesn't match the data in the supplementary materials. They left the one of the M412* sample from Central East Sardinia in the table. That man is found in the supplementary data and is included in the ytrees on YFULL and FTDNA.
The Martinez-Cruz et al 2012 data is geographically vague and broad as compared with Myres et al. I did my best to color the map in Iberia and France.
It was difficult to color Corsica based on the descriptions in Di Cristofaro et al. 2019. PF7589 is higher in the central regions. I just drew an arbitrary oval in the middle of the island.
The partial shading in Apulia, Italy represents the Magna Grecia community.
When painting the map, I choose to be as conservative as possible. The sampling wasn't always described well in the studies so for regional level data I choose to keep things as close to the state, province level as possible as given in the coordinates or description. I tended to err on painting the "not detected" province larger than the regions where PF7589 was detected. However, the large painted area of PF7589 found in SW and S France may be slightly larger than necessary because of the vague description of the area in the source (and my ignorance of local French geography).
I tried to avoid painting entire countries. But I could only find country level data for Czechia, Slovakia* Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Greece*, Romania, Kosovo, Turkey, Estonia, and Belarus.
There were some instances where the datasets completely or partially overlapped. For small geographic political areas, the datasets were combined and the proportions recalculated. In cases where a country level data was reported in one study and regional level data in another, only the regional level data was used. *The lone exception being a small part of Slovakia and Crete. For small non-political areas the provinces were painted individually with their corresponding color. The border between these distributions may not be perfect.
I limited to painting areas as "not detected" to those areas where the dataset had n>=50. I painted regions wherever PF7589 was found despite the sample size. Generally, this wasn't an issue since the number of PF7589 detected was usually above 1 when n<100. The only non-conservative area found on this map is the red spot in Poland. There was one PF7589 sample found in a set of 21 samples. I doubt that the concentration is really that high.
As to be expected with such a small group, the distribution is not really homogenous in these regions or countries. This is best shown by the sampling in Italy and France where the distribution can vary from none-detected to several percent at a sub-regional and regional level. The wide varying distribution is also shown in East Tyrol. I did my best to color the maps appropriately.
I used discreet contrasting colors across the spectrum to clearly highlight the differences in regions. It is a minor haplogroup, so the overall concentration is quite small 0-15%, with most under 2%. I was most interested in showing differences in concentrations between regions.
Finally, I choose to use "not detected" instead of 0%. In most cases the sample sizes were too small to capture such a minor haplogroup. It felt more appropriate to label it that way. Additionally, there were some regions, particularly SW Germany, where the studies found no PF7589, but I know from FTDNA and YFULL that there are PF7589 populations found there.
Lastly, "no data" indicates that I couldn't find a study from that area, or the studies had too small a sample size to be useful for inclusion in the map. There are some regions where I'm confident that PF7589 can be found that to my knowledge, haven't been studied in enough detail for inclusion yet. These include, Northern Switzerland, Midlands and South England, South Scotland, Austria, Czechia, and probably Wallonia. We could probably use better data for France, SW and W Germany, Poland, Ireland, Greece, and Turkey.
@Mitchell-Atkins produced maps of several major L51 haplogroups based on FTDNA country level data. The PF7589 map can be found here https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...03#pid3703
The FTDNA samples have their own selection bias: some family lines and surnames are over sampled; and some countries are under sampled; and country data is self-reported and may have errors. For small sample size haplogroups and countries this bias may skew the actual results. This certainly applies to PF7589. With that said, the maps he produced provide a useful high-level first-look for PF7589.
I found an old 23andMe map of its L51* samples from circa 2017. The map is consistent with the maps above, except there are two Lebanese samples.
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Ancient DNA
There are 25 known publicly available PF7589 ancient DNA samples. For ease of reference, I am using he FTDNA sample numbers in this thread. These numbers are often different from the sample IDs found in the source material. They can be found in the table below:
Ancient DNA samples suffer from poor coverage and degradation over time. The haplogroup found in the table above should not be treated as the terminal subclade, but instead as a deepest clade found. Some of these samples are notable for analysis of PF7589’s origins and path through Europe and will be highlighted below.
Cetina Valley 18752 (I18752) is the only R1b sample found among known Cetina archeological samples. All other male samples were J2b, and were generally J-L283. I18752 is the oldest PF7589 sample found to date circa 1800 BCE. He was only confirmed to PF7589.
Zwaagdijk 26829 (Wevershoof61_V637) is the second oldest PF7589 sample known to date, circa 1450 BCE. The source paper did not provide the culture for this sample, but it was implied to be Hoogskarpel. Autosomnally he looked like a contemporary local. He was buried in a local cemetery without any grave goods, or at least any grave goods that survived 3500 years underground. He was 36-49 years old. He sustained major injuries to both ulna and his ribs. The left ulna did not heal properly. The injuries were probably due to being kicked by a cow or horse. He is confirmed to PF7589 and nothing deeper. The Y chromosome had poor coverage. I did a manual search of his BAM file for BY38964 SNPs but found null values or inconclusive results.
Nogara 9309 is the oldest PF7589 found in Italy circa 1300 BCE. He was part of the Terramare culture, and is one of only two sequenced Terramare samples. The other was a woman. He died in his 30’s, had grave goods, and showed evidence of skeletal deformity- possibly from horseback riding. Autosomnally he appeared to be a contemporary local, but with about 5% Mycenaean DNA. He was confirmed to CTS6889.
WEZ53 and WEZ57 were bodies found at the Battle of Tollense circa 1250 BCE. There are slightly differing interpretations of the genetic profile of WEZ53. Depending on the inputs used, he appears somewhere between Southern Germany and Hungary, closer to Hungary; or he appears Balkan. He clusters closest, but not exactly to Hungarian samples of that period. I’ll think it’s a safe interpretation to place him in the Middle Danube region. His strontium isotopes are consistent with central Europe. He was confirmed to Z2120.
WEZ57 was a genetic outlier for Tollense. His genetic profile is distinctly French. His strontium isotopes imply he grew up in Alsace, Brittany, or the Massif Central. Alsace makes the most sense archeologically, but I won’t draw that conclusion here. He was only confirmed to the L51 level. He tested positive for one SNP in the PF7589 block, but it was a T>C transition so it may not be reliable. He was tested negative for various other L151+ clades so there is good reason to suspect that he was PF7589, hence why I included him here.
Collegno 49, 53, and 57 are Lombard samples found in Lombard cometary in Italy. They are Longobards and not local Italians. They were part of the same family unit. They were confirmed at various levels of PF7589, but since they were related, I believe that the deepest level, BY48364, is most accurate. They date to 600 CE.
Something important to note with these ancient PF7589 samples is not just where they are located, but also where they are not located. There has been substantial testing of early bronze age samples in Western Europe (except France) including Italy and Germany. These samples usually yield L151+ results. In Italy, they are often U152+, and there are a lot of them. But neither PF7589 or Z2103 are found with those L151 samples.
Within Italy, the first PF7589 is found in the Terramare Culture circa 1300 BCE. Thereafter PF7589 is typically found in ancient samples. Similarly, Z2103 isn’t found in Italy until after 1300 BCE, and the it is persistently found. It may be a sampling coincidence, but there is a clear southward movement of PF7589 and Z2103 samples over time through Italy.
PF7589 is found alongside Z2103 and L151+ samples in central Europe (Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia) during the Iron Age.
On a personal note: It can be easy to forget that ancient samples were real individual people when studying ancient geonomics, haplogroups, and population movements. We can sometimes treat these samples and data points and forget that they were people who lived their lives, loved, fought, thrived, struggled, and died just like we do today. A couple years ago I was up late one night doing a manual check of V637s BAM file to determine if he has signs of BY38964. It was 3AM and I had the realization, that it nearly 3500 years after this man died, someone cared enough to learn more about his life. I’m not sure that he could envision that he’d be a topic of discussion millennia later, by people on the other of the world, a world far larger than he could imagine, and they’d be using tools and technology so far outside his comprehension that it would be considered magic. He wasn’t the most important man in the village. He had no grave goods, but he was respected enough for a decent burial. The big man in charge? He’s been long forgotten by time. Meanwhile 3500 years later people still want to learn about the regular guy who got kicked by a cow.
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Phylogenic Analysis
In this series of posts, I will review the modern NGS kits and ancient DNA for several countries and areas in Europe. I will use phylogenic analysis of the various lines and attempt to: determine a no-earlier-than (NET) and no-later-than (NLT) arrival date for PF7589 in those regions; and how those lines progressed through Europe. There will be overlap between the analysis of the various countries/regions.
All haplogroups feature survivor lines, especially PF7589. These survivors may feature and unbroken line that could be over 4,000 years old. Without any added context it may be nearly impossible to interpret the path of those lines. Additional testing may cause branches in those lines that add context and force a reevaluation of those lines. Additionally, the branching may show back-migrations which could change NET, and NTL in other regions. BY38964 will come up in several regions below and is an example of a line that progressed quickly and directly from the Balkans to the Low Countries, and then hundreds or a couple thousand years later spread around Europe. Similar migrations may be hidden in the survivor lines, or even within smaller branches now. I can only work with the data I have, and I will reiterate as new data is acquired.
I am aware of the limitations are wide confidence intervals for genetic mutation age estimates. Realistically, the 95% CI is so large that reliably dating branches is near impossible. For the analysis in this and the following section, I am relying on general trends across differing branches and how they line up with known historic events. I recognize that even by this standard that timing may still be off by a few centuries. With that typed, the following analyses will use the date presented by FTDNA. New dating methods may change the conclusions in future analysis.
Italy
Italy has diversity across nearly all branches of PF7589. The only high-level branches lacking Italian kits are PF7589* and early-PF7589 survivor branches with a couple kits.
Code: PF7589>BY11990>BY73204>Z29840>Z29843
PF7589>BY39441>Y37595/Y37612
PF7589>CTS10379>Y5149*
PF7589>CTS10379>Y5149>CTS5940*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>PH1272>FTC43740
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>FTD16061>Y21243>BY11306
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>BY48364
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FT61217>FT209063*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FT61217>FT209063>FT209870>FT210396
All of these modern branches represent a different part of Italy. One may be tempted to place the PF7589 Western European “homeland” as Italy, but ancient DNA and the timing of the branching events suggests otherwise. The table below shows all of the branches and the context-derived relevant branching date underlined.
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
Z29843 -2769 -2450? YES ***
Y37595/Y37612 -1321 1705 NO
Y5149* -3260 -3025 YES
CTS5940* -3025 -602 NO
FTC43740 -2252 678 NO
BY11306 -1495 -900? NO ***
FT40327* -1861 -1602 NO Splits with OE, POL
BY48364 -1285 -1042 NO
CTS6718*/Z2120* -2927 na YES
FT209063 -2285 -709 NO
FT210396 66 157 NO ECA of 709 BCE is approx
***Includes scientific study kit(s) from Sardinia, FTDNA age estimate unreliable here due to differences in tested regions from FTDNA kits.
If the survivor lines are eliminated, this shows the relevant Italian branches ranging from 1600 BCE to 600 BCE. This is consistent with ancient DNA where no PF7589 is found before c1300 BCE.
The ancient DNA branches are listed below.
Code: PF7589: Villamar 11, Marsulana 3
PF7589>BY11990>BY73204>Z29840 Boville Ernica 1021
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889 Villa Magna, Collegno 49, Nogara 9309
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY61900>FTC358 Tarquinia 17 and 24 -1850***
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS116 Necropoli Salaria 111 -2000
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CFT48482>FGC24138 Collegno 53 -2284 Lombard
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CFT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>BY48364 Collegno -1042 Lombard
[color=#000000]PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659 -2267 Late Roman
Note that due the limitation of ancient DNA, the true terminal clade of these samples is unknown. Similarly, trying to derive branching events for Italy from these samples in unreliable.
The Italian kits found under Y5149 are difficult to interpret at first. There is a survivor Y5149* kit, and a CTS5940* kit with sibling branches that lead to Sweden, and Britan/Ireland (with a likely Norman origin). This branching event dates to 600 BCE and is likely related to French La Tene expansion. PF7589 during the La Tene era will be covered in a future post.
The CTS5940* incursion into Italy represents a different later migration into Italy as compared with those found in other Branches in the Late Bronze age (Y3795/Y37612, BY11306, FT40327).
BY48364, despite the 1050 BCE branching event is likely a Lombard migrant, as shown by ancient DNA samples Collegno 49, 53, and 57.
France
France presents another interesting area for further exploration of PF7589. Random sampling studies continuously show some of the highest concentrations of PF7589 in Europe. Unfortunately, genealogical testing bias does not provide a complete picture for this country. The table below shows the French kits:
Code: PF7589>BY39441>BY47547*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS116>CTS11542>FT256224
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>FTB35174>BY14210>BY14216>BY14216>BY71290
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16631>FTB51423
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>BY71728
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FGC48821>BY38964>BY38967>BY195676>FT67331*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>FT40375>FT40768
I attempted to trace these lines back genealogically to specific regions in France with limited success. BY71290 traces back to Normandy, France. FT67331 traces back to Ardeche, Rhone-Alpes, France.
The context derived branching events table follows:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY47547 -1322 -282 NO ECA FRA/IRE/UK split
FT256224 -1377 -1209 NO
BY71290 -423 1680 NO FRA/IRE split
FTB51423 -1851 -528 NO FRA/SWE split
BY71728 -2284 847 YES
FT67331 -1464 88 NO From Low Countries
FT40768 -1347 585 NO
These branching timelines may appear chaotic at first, but essentially break down into three categories. The first is the initial arrival into France with happens towards the end of the Late Bronze age, circa 1300-1200 BCE as found in BY47547, FT256224, and FT40768.
The second pattern is the branching due to La Tene expansion circa 500-300 BCE. BY47547, BY71290, FTB51423 all show branching events between France and Britain/Ireland or Sweden. CTS5940 discussed below implies a similar pattern. PF7589 during the La Tene era will be covered in a future post.
The last category is later arrival into France. Including, FT67331 which derives from BY38964 and was located in the Low Countries prior to coming to France (See Low Countries section below). The timing of its split if consistent with the Belgae being conquered by the Romans and forcibly moved elsewhere in the Empire, in this case southeastern Gaul.
There are British and Irish subclades which appear to have a Norman origin. These lines include:
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY56888
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY1199>BY12000>BY12006 PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY1199>BY12000>FT33767
PF7589>CTS10379>Y5149>CTS5940>FT47492
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16631>Y16634>Y16639>BY12055
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>A605
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY56888 -2975 1110 NO
BY12006 764 1199 NO
FT33767 764 1039 NO
FT47492 -602 976 NO
BY12055 764 987 NO Norman?
A605 -1719 1251 NO Norman?
The common parent ECA (764 CE) for BY1200>BY12006, BY12000>FT33767; and BY12055 despite the temporal distance between those branches is curious. It may be a coincidence or it may imply that they experienced the same underlying growth event and therefore underlying geography. Anecdotally, I see similar dates for suspected Norman Z2103 branches. This likely represents a broader population movement that I will need to research more and discuss in a future post. Does anyone know of a reason for this?
BY12000* is represented by a Dutch Mennonite kit. It is possible that BY12006 represents a Flemish mercenary or minor noble affiliated with the Normans who settled in Britain and Ireland. However, there is no onomatological evidence for Flemish origins in BY12006. The BY12000* kit may represent a Dutch origin, or German, or Northern France circa 8th century. My best guess is that the kit is ultimately Frisian and that BY12006 migrated through or away from Friesland.
The parental branching event for all of these lines do not offer any further hints.
There is currently no ancient PF7589 DNA from France.
Low Countries
There is a small but noticeable concentration of PF7589 found in the Low Countries. A quick scan of the FTDNA PF7589 Time Tree will show kits from the Netherlands and Belgium under two main subclades:
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120> FGC48821>BY38964>various branches
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120> FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>FGC43553
However, a deeper look reveals far more insights. The FGC43553 subclade is well sampled and the Dutch kit can be genealogically traced back one generation to a man from Kriegsheim, Germany. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider that kit German.
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY38964 -2883 -1786 NO
FT190719 850 1000
BY38964 is my own subclade and I first noticed the monopoly on Low Countries PF7589 over three years ago. In examining BY38964 I found three signature STRs. I scanned several FTDNA project for Dutch and Belgian PF7589 kits that did not test at BigY. In total I found nine PF7589 kits from distinct familial lines potentially from the Low Countries. Five are confirmed BY38964+ or have STRs that imply BY38964+. One has unknown STRs; Three kits do not have BY38964 STRs, and two of those are "Russian Mennonite" so they could be either Dutch or German (see France and Normans above). Low Countries kits can be found under every major branch of BY38964, except for FTB39225 which is several branches down. One could assume that half of the modern Low Countries (specifically Flanders and Netherlands) PF7589 are BY38964+. The earliest common ancestor of BY38964 is circa 1786 BCE. This subclade will be discussed in more detail in a future post.
For regional completeness a Luxembourgish kit is found under:
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY61900>FTD99734>FT167164>FT190719
But I think that Luxembourg is less reflective of the Low Countries PF7589 concentration found in Flanders and Southern Netherlands.
There are two ancient PF7589 samples. The first is Zwaagdijk 26829, circa 1450 and likely Hoogskarpel Culture. It has low Y chromosome coverage and was only confirmed to PF7589. And yes, I did a manual review looking at BY38964 block SNPs. The second sample is Groningen 17 from Medieval Netherlands. Its path follows:
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158
which dates to circa 2216 BCE.
Iberia
Spain and Portugal are two other countries with relatively higher concentrations of PF7589. Unfortunately, there are relatively few modern NGS testers who trace back to Iberia. There are five subclades:
Code: PF7589>BY11990>BY73204>BY97999
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY161326>PH1072
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>BY38964>BY38967>BY38958>FTB39225>FTA36827
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>FT40375>FT342198
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>BY11300>FTC12117
The listing above omits a Spanish F1356, who is an obvious early-modern era NPE via Scotland.
The branching events follows:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY97999 -3007 -2262 YES
PH1072 -2763 -2250 YES
FTA36827 -1118 -944 NO Low Countries
FT342198 -1347 -1307 NO
FTC12117 603 658 NO
If we ignore the survivor lines, then this shows an earliest arrival in Iberia circa 1347 BCE.
The BY11300 line is the most notable of this group. It has a clean split circa 600 CE between German lines and Iberian lines. This is reminiscent of the “Crossing of the Rhine” in 406 where Vandals, Alans, Suebi, Quadi, etc. crossed the Rhine in migrated deeper into western Europe. The timing of the BY11300 split is 200 years too late, but well within the confidence interval. Assuming this is the case, the BY11300 line represents Suebi or some other group that travelled with the Suebi post crossing of the Rhine. One branch would have stayed in Germany while the rest migrated to Iberia. BY11300 is a 2700-year-old survivor line. So, it’s unclear if it had a long presence in Germany prior to the split or if it came from the middle Danube with the other groups. The modern concentrations of PF7589 show remarkable consistency with migration period paths and final destinations in Iberia. Most notably is the high concentration in the former Kingdom of the Suebi.
The FTA36827 descends from FTB39225, which left the Low Countries at the end of the bronze age. FTA36827 is something of a survivor line after leaving the Low Countries, so it’s unclear if it settled in Spain soon after leaving the Low Countries or if it happened later; perhaps during the migration period since the FTA36827 kit descends from Galicia.
Further NGS testing of Iberian descendants will be required to start to draw any conclusions on PF7589s presence there.
There are no known ancient PF7589 samples in Iberia.
Balkans
Only one Balkans PF7589 kit has been tested. This was an older SNP tested kit from Croatia. The kit genealogically traces back to Preko, Zadar, Croatia. It is confirmed for CTS6889. Nevgen predicts with 69% fitness that it is FGC48821. It But to read between the lines, this means that it isn’t the more dominant FGC48821>S1141 line, and may fit better under FGC48821>BY38964 because it has 2 of 3 signature BY3864 STRs. Additionally, the overall STR profile is within 2sigma of the confirmed BY38964 kits. It is possible that if tested at Y700 that the Croatian kit will form a new branch under BY38964, or it may split the BY8964 block.
There is one Balkans PF7589 ancient DNA sample: Cetina Valley 18752. And that happens to be the oldest PF7589 sample too, circa 1800 BCE. It is the only non-J-L283 found among the Cetina samples.
Poland
There is a noticeable high concentration of PF7589 in Poland. There are four Polish kits found in FTDNA and YFULL. They make up the lines:
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY11999>BY12000
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>BY48364>FT111429
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>FGC24115
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY12000 -1842 764 NO Dutch Mennonite
BY42298 -2006 -1861U YES German Surname
FT111429 -1017 917 NO
FGC24115 -2123 -93 NO Bavarian kits adjacent
Neither the kits nor timelines are particularly informative here. BY12000 is a Dutch Mennonite kit, and is there either Dutch or German in origin. It is a modern era immigrant to Poland.
BY42298 is a survivor line and it has a German surname. It is likely an early modern era German transplant to Poland.
FT111429 is surrounded by German or Germanic kits. It is under BY48364, the same as terminal Lombard Collegno 57. I suspect that FT111429 is a Lombard branch that stayed in Poland whereas another branch migrated to Italy.
FGC24115 is made up of two Bavarian kits and one Polish kit. It’s unclear if this represents a westward or eastward shift of the clade.
It is a very small sample size, but this analysis points to a Roman-era or later sustained entry of PF7589 into Poland. Realistically more NGS Polish kits are needed to determine if this is legit or not.
There are no known ancient PF7589 samples.
Germanic Areas (Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Austria)
It can be somewhat difficult to analyze 5000 years of haplogroup history in the context of modern-day German borders. It is quite literally in the middle of Europe and all sorts of groups have passed through, existed within, and fought over territory within those borders. There are regional issues, north vs. south, east vs west, topography, etc. to consider. My original plan was to break it up into three modern regions: Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland, and analyze each separately. The results were consistent across all three regions and Austria. There are some interdependencies among the groups so I will present it all in this section.
The relevant subclades are:
Code: Germany:
PF7589>BY11990>BY73204>BY97999>BY69350
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>B417
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>BY38964>FT52936>FT54189
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>BY38964>BY38967>BY38958>BY38968
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>BY38964>BY38967>BY195676
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>BY11300>BY12048
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>FGC43553
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY39196
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>FGC24115
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY69456
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>BY48364>FT111429
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>FTC36657>BY56273>BY98004
Switzerland:
PF7589>BY11990>BY73204>Z29840
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS116>Y283567
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>FGC43553
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>BY64364>BY62505
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY2293>BY48364>BY60590
Scandinavia:
(DEN) PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY61900>BY192493
(SWE) PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632Y16631>FTB51423
(NWY) PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16631>Y16634>Y16639>Y47548
(SWE) PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>FTC36657
(SWS) PF7589>CTS10379>Y5149>CTS5940
Austria:
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327
The branching events are:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
BY69350 -2262 567 NO DEU
Z29840 -3007 -2769 YES CH
BY192493 -1959 24 NO DEN
B417 -2928 1719 YES DEU
Y283567 -1918 -1500 YES CH, YFULL est.
FT54189 -109 519 NO DEU via LC
BY38968 -1173 -911 NO DEU via LC
BY195676 -1561 -1464 NO DEU via LC
BY12048 603 1032 NO DEU
FTB51423 -1850 -527 NO SWE
Y47548 -859 90 NO NOR
FGC43553 -1720 -1180 NO DEU, CH
BY39196 -2123 1318 YES DEU
FGC24115 -2123 -93 NO DEU
BY69456 -2015 1912 YES DEU
BY62505 69 848 NO CH
FT40327* -1861 -1622 NO OE (YFULL), ITA
BY60590 -1042 258 NO CH
FT111429 -1042 -917 NO DEU
FTC36657 -1285 -1168 NO SWE
BY98804 471 1632 NO DEU
CTS5940 -3025 -602 NO SWE
There is a lot of data to mine through here and a some valuable insights can be gleaned. We can see that PF7589 had multiple incursions into Germany. The first may have as early as circa 1918 BCE, but this is a survivor line so that date may not be valid. Eliminating survivor lines, the first incursions into Germany were circa 1600 BCE, with more following in the late Bronze Age.
FT40327 deserves particular attention. It shows a three-way split circa 1622 between Italy (FT40327*), Austria (FT40327*), and BY42293 which features kits from Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland, Scotland, and South Africa via Britain, as well as ancient Italian Lombard. I will do a separate post on this subclade in the future. Something caused an expansion or displacement of FT40327 circa 1600 BCE, and this will be explored more in the combined analysis post later.
Y283567 is another notable subclade. This Swiss kit was tested by FTDNA and placed at CTS116*. It was submitted to YFULL and assigned CTS116>Y283567. While not visible now, there was probably a Nebula kit temporarily on YFull that allowed for the subclade refinement and age estimation. The YFull age estimate for CTS116 is similar to FTDNA’s estimate, and the Y283567 age estimate is consistent with the number of named SNPs in its block. So, I believe using the YFull age estimate for this subclade is justifiable with the rest of the analysis in this thread. I will do a sperate post on CTS116 in the future.
The BY38964 subclades FT54189, BY38968, and BY195676 represent back-migration into Germany from the Low Countries. These migrations were Frankish expansion into Germany. One could argue that BY38964 had to pass through Germany to get to the Low Countries, but there is no evidence that the line spent extensive time in Germany. It may have been a direct migration.
The BY11300 lines is another curiosity. It has a clean split circa 600 CE between German lines and Iberian lines. This is reminiscent of the “Crossing of the Rhine” in 406 where Vandals, Alans, Suebi, Quadi, etc. crossed the Rhine in migrated deeper into western Europe. The timing of the BY11300 split is 200 years too late, but well within the confidence interval. Assuming this is the case, the BY11300 line represents Suebi or some other group that travelled with the Suebi post crossing of the Rhine. One branch would have stayed in Germany while the rest migrated to Iberia. FY11300 is a 2700-year-old survivor line. It’s unclear if it had a long presence in Germany prior to the split or if it came from the middle Danube with the other groups.
As discussed in the France subsection, FTB51423 and CTS5940 are two haplogroups which feature a split in the La Tene period between Sweden and France (including downstream). It’s unclear if these subclades were present in France during the La Tene expansion, or if they were in Germany and expanded into France during this time. La Tene had some trade connections with Scandinavia, but it’s not clear that this involved movements of people. Another explanation is that these subclades were present in Hallstatt Southern Germany, and some expanded into La Tene France, and others moved into North Germany. This will need to be explored in a future post.
There are very little ancient PF7589 samples found in Germany. Some of this may be due to limited testing, but ancient DNA shows a strong presence of L151+ samples in early and middle bronze age specimens. No PF7589 or Z2103 are found in those communities. Until such specimens are found, we may assume that PF7589 was not present in Germany in large numbers prior to the late bronze age.
PF7589 from outside Europe (Anatolia, Caucuses, Middle East)
There are only two lines of PF7589 kits found outside Europe. These include:
Code: PF7589* Turkey ECA: -3260
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FT61217>FT209063>FTD91105 Armenia, Parent ECA -709, ECA 1824
FTDNA has a Yemenite L51 STR kit. Nevgen predicts it only the PF7589 level. And there are some Lebanese L51* testers found on an old 23andMe map.
Not much can be gleaned from these samples. The PF7589* kit is a survivor line and it may show that early PF7589 migrated with the Yamnaya around the Black Sea. The Armenian kits share an upstream clade, FT209063, with an Italian branch (FT209870) implying that that it was in Southern/Southeastern Europe or Anatolia during the early iron age.
There are two Anatolian ancient DNA samples: Muğla 20140 ad 20141. They were only confirmed to CTS6889, and date to 1100 CE and are Byzantine. I am unaware of their autosomal ancestry.
Czechia
There are two modern NGS tester subclades from Czechia.
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>BY38964>BY38967>BY195676>FT67331>FT68037
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>S1148>FT412949
The branching events are:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
FT68037 88 230 NO Low Countries
FT412949 -1013 1787 YES
FT68037 is under BY38964 and was in the Low Countries during the Roman Invasion. It was either forcibly relocated by the Romans to Gaul or escaped to Germany, and then later moved to Czechia.
FT412949 is a survivor line with which little can be determined. Additional NGS testing of Czech kits is needed to better understand the presence of PF7589 in Czechia.
There is one ancient PF7589 DNA sample from Czechia: Prague 15955. This also establishes the no-later-than date for PF7589’s arrival in Czechia. This sample was from the Knoviz culture. Its line follows:
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>PH1272
And dates to circa 2250 BCE.
Hungary
There are two Hungarian NGS kits. The lines follow:
Code: PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS116
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>PH1272>PH4390
STRs for two different Hungarian STR kits imply presence under:
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824
And the branching events are:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
CTS116* -2928 -1981 NO
PH4390 -2252 -1950 YES ***
CTS11824+ -2294 n/a STR only
The Hungarian kit lack raw numbers but make up for it with their implications for the larger PF7589 haplogroup. Despite their small numbers Hungarian kit show strong diversity under CTS6889 similar to better sampled countries.
The CTS116* is the earliest PF7589+ branching event for which enough context exists to draw inference. It has multiple Western European countries underneath it: CTS116* is from Hungary, a Roman ancient PF7589 is also found under CTS116, another line flows to Switzerland, and another goes to France. CTS116 will be discussed in more detail in a future post.
There are two ancient PF7589 sample from Hungary.
Gór 25507 PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY61900 1960 BCE
Hács 15 PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141 2512 BCE
Great Britain and Ireland
The FTDNA customer base is obviously in the United States, and their database has a bias towards British and Irish kits. There are also a lot of PF7589 kits with an origin listed as “Unknown” or “United States”. It’s quite possible that many of these kits are GB+I. However, I will only list those kits here if I am reasonably certain that they are GB+I. I am sure that I will miss some branches, but I generally do not believe this will affect the final the overall analysis. I think we can all agree that the Isles are not the Western European homeland of PF7589, and it could be one of the last populated places where PF7589 arrived. The PF7589 lines are:
Code: PF7589>FT15462
PF7589>BY11990>Y62024
PF7589>BY11990>Y62024>BY70474
PF7589>BY39441>BY47547>FT431333
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY56888
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY61900*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>BY161326>PH1072
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>CTS11542>FT61217>FT61736
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>A605
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>A614>FTD16061
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>FTB35174>BY1210>BY14216
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>FTB35174>BY1210>>BY14216>BY21400*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16632>Y16631>Y16634*
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16632>Y16631>Y16634>Y16639>BY12063
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659>Z6817>Y16632>Y16632>Y16631>Y16634>Y16639>Y47548
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY60654
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY11999>BY12000>BY12006
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>BY11999>BY12000>FT33767
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>BY48364>BY60590
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>FT48482>FGC24138>FGC24158>A5922>BY42298>FTD75751>FT40327>BY42293>FTC36657>BY56273
PF7589>CTS10379>Y5149>CTS5940>FT47492
The branching events are:
Branch Name Parent Branching Event Branch ECA Survivor? Notes
FT15462 -3260 1710 YES
Y62024 -3138 -975 YES
BY70474 -975 1575 NO
FT431333 -282 -255 NO La Tene
BY56888 -2975 1110 NO Norman
BY61900* -2975 -1959 YES
PH1072 -2763 -2550 YES
FT61736 -2284 -2124 YES
A605 -1719 1251 NO Norman?
FTD16061 -1719 -1684 YES
BY14216 -1104 -794 YES
BY21400* -794 -424 NO La Tene
Y16634* -1851 -1766 YES
BY12063* -858 764 YES Norman?
BY12055 764 986 NO Norman?
Y47548 -858 90 YES
BY60654 -2216 1848 YES
BY12006 765 1209 NO Norman
FT33767 765 1039 NO Norman
BY60590 -1017 268 NO RSA via Britain
BY56273 -1168 471 NO Anglo-Saxon?
FT47492 -602 976 NO Norman
There are a lot of branches that are either survivor lines across their entire history, or over a significant part of their history. When ignoring the extra-long survivor lines, the earliest arrival to GB+I was probably circa 424 BCE with the La Tene or successor cultures. It’s very possible that it may have arrived earlier than that with some of the survivor lines, but I’ll conservatively provide 424 BCE as a no-later-than date.
One will notice from the table above that most of the lines entering the Isles are via the Normans. See France section above. At present there is only one line that may have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons.
Buckland 23 is the only ancient PF7589 found in Britain. It dates to circa 600 CE in Kent. Its path is:
PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824 and the splitting event is 2294 BCE.
Posts: 77
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: NW European
Y-DNA (P): R-U152>Z56>Z43>Z46..
Y-DNA (M): R-M222
mtDNA (M): K1a
mtDNA (P): H5a1
This is such an interesting branch. I wonder how it relates to the various peoples and cultures within the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Quote:Within Italy, the first PF7589 is found in the Terramare Culture circa 1300 BCE. Thereafter PF7589 is typically found in ancient samples. Similarly, Z2103 isn’t found in Italy until after 1300 BCE, and the it is persistently found. It may be a sampling coincidence, but there is a clear southward movement of PF7589 and Z2103 samples over time through Italy.
Makes me wonder about people being pushed South by other incoming Italic tribes? and eventually mixed with somewhat. Just a speculation. I guess it could have arrived in Italy in early migrations across the Adriatic from Dalmatia as well.
U152>Z56>Z43>Z46>Z48>Z44>CTS8949>FTC82256 Lindeman
M222...>DF105>ZZ87>S588>S7814 Toner
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Diversification Over Time
I produced a simple histogram graph for the branching events found under PF7589. For consistency I only used the date estimates and branched from the FTDNA Time Tree. Each line on that tree counted as one branching event. I did not integrate data from YFULL different branch timing and structure between FTDNA and YFULL. I did not add additional data from the FTDNA Blocktree because of the inability to distinguish BigY kits from SNP-kits on FTDNA, which interferes with both timing and number of branches. There are few “extra” Nebula kits on the YFULL tree, so their omission could result in may have a small impact on the peaks of the histogram. The latter may show a reduction of the overall number of branching events in a century, but the shape should remain about the same.
There are several observations. There are two sharp increases seen 2300-2200 BCE and 2000-1900 BCE. Given the context of Cetina Valley 18752, the first pulse is similar to the first Cetina pulse seen in J-L283. The second pulse is about a century early compared to the second J-L283 Cetina pulse. Whether these pulses are tied o the Cetina directly, or with general western Balkans and/or Pannonian expansion is unknown.
Perhaps the most noticeable part of this graph is that the number of branching events collapses from 1600-1400 BCE, and then making a recovery after 1400 BCE. The only growth in PF7589 found in this period is found in BY38964, and to a lesser extent Y21243. This implies that the bulk of PF7589 was living in one area that was impacted by the same macro-event, and that BY38964 was outside that area or otherwise not effected by the event. The Y21243 has a branching event circa 1496, and shows limited evidence that it was displaced early into Italy. By comparison, L283 continues to show strong branching events during this period. Z2106 sees a decrease in the number of branching events but it still showing expansion. This implies the PF7589 was concentrated in one area of the Balkans or Hungary with minor overlap with Z2106 populations, and distinct from L283 populations.
Another collapse occurred from 500-100 BCE. Only BY47547+, FTB51423, BY21400, FTB26397 saw expansion during or near this period. All of these branches, except FTB26397, have a branching event involving a French kit, and an Irish or Swedish kit. This implies to me that those subclades were French La Tene Culture undergoing an expansion. This idea will be explored more in a future post.
Branching events rebound in the first centuries CE. These are found in BY192493, FT209870+, FT52936, BFT67331+, Y47548, BY65364. These may be the result of population recovery from Roman expansion.
Footnote: I no longer have access to the histograms showing the L283 and Z2106 branching events. These were posted on Anthrogenica. I will try to recreate them at a later date using FTDNA data. But this is a labor-intensive process, so it may take some time.
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
Combined Analysis and Potential Paths
The previous posts have outlined several important clues to the history and path of PF7589 through Europe. These include: ancient DNA, arrival times of PF7589 by region based on phylogeny and ancient DNA, and timing of expansion events.
There are several takeaways from the ancient DNA.
· Oldest sample is c1800 BCE Cetina culture, found with J-L283
· Second oldest is c1400 BCE in the Netherlands, found with L151.
· Not found in Italy or Germany prior to 1300 BCE, but lots of L151+ is found there
· First found in Italy circa 1300 BCE, persistently found in Italy thereafter and usually with Z2103, moves south through Italy over time
· Found with Z2103 and L151 in central Europe in the Iron Age.
Without considering other data, my analysis of the information implies that PF7589 was not present with Corded Ware Culture derived Bell Beaker Culture L151+ populations in Italy or Germany. It entered Italy NET 1600 BCE and NLT than 1300 BCE and progressed south. PF7589 and Z2103 probably entered Italy at around the same time and may have travelled together. The PF7589 and adjacent Z2103 likely came from the same homogenized population prior to 1300 BCE.
The branching events histogram shows several notable expansion and contraction for PF7589.
· A major expansion from 2300-2200 BCE, consistent with the first Cetina pulse and growth in J-L283
· A second major expansion circa 2100-2000 BCE, which is consistent with a second pulse in growth in Balkan populations and may line up with some Z2103 subclades in the Balkans or Hungary.
· A contraction across all PF7589xBY38964 from 1600-1500 BCE.
o BY38964 has steady growth during this period
· A major recovery occurs circa 1400-1300 BCE, followed by sustained growth through 700 BCE
The regional phylogenic analysis can offer context and other insights into PF7589’s history. In the table below I summarize the combined result of ancient DNA dates and the phylogenic analysis I performed for each region.
NET NLT
Hungary ? -1918?
Croatia -1800
Low Countries -1786 -1350
Italy -1622 -1300
Germany -1622 -1180
CH -1500 -1180
France -1350 -1250
Iberia -1300
Scandinavia -1285 -600
Czechia -1050
Britain/Ireland -425 600
Poland modern
Anatolia 1100
The first draft of the above table only included the phylogenic dates. And with those alone I noticed the same general trends as the date sorted ancient DNA chart. Early samples in Croatia and then the Low Countries. Followed by a lot of DNA in Italy and elsewhere in central Europe, with western Europe following later. Only Czechia appeared out of place, which is an indication that we need more NGS tests from that region. But otherwise, it was a good sign that the phylogenic timing and the ancient DNA told a consistent story.
The Low Countries again appear as an outlier. But this can be explained by BY38964, which makes up most Low Countries PF7589 kits and has Low Country diversity across all early branches. may have its roots in Croatia, and it appears to make a direct path for the Low Countries. BY38964 arrived circa 1800 BCE but a slightly later migration isn’t out of the question. It was probably as a “singleton” migration, perhaps a mercenary or warrior elite. The branching events timeline adds further credence to its presence far from the rest of PF7589, as it is the only branch to show sustained growth during the MBA.
The above combined phylogenic regional timeline shows a migration path from southeast Europe towards Western Europe. In the early bronze age, we see PF7589 presence in Croatia and Hungary, and the Low Countries BY38964 “outlier”.
It’s only in the middle bronze age that we start to see a presence in Western Europe: with an entry in Italy, followed later by entry into Germany, France, and Switzerland. The expansion into western Europe lines up well with the population recovery and branching events circa 1400-1300 BCE.
Full expansion north and west is largely completed during the late bronze age or iron age.
There may yet be additional lines that moved into Western Europe before the middle bronze age. But these hypothetical migrations are hidden in survivor lines and are awaiting more testing to be discovered.
The three analyses I have performed are independently pointing in the same direction. Most of PF7589 was living in a certain region circa 1600 BCE. The region would need to be centrally located to allow a southward migration into Italy, and westward into Germany, Switzerland, and France. Geographically this is the middle or upper Danube. The ancient DNA, phylogeny, and archeology suggest that it was the Hungary or western Balkans.
The Tumulus Culture spread into the Pannonian Basin circa 1600 BCE. Some local cultures disappeared (Gáta–Wieselburg) and others were displaced (Encrusted Pottery) deeper into the Balkans. And this matches well with what we see with PF7589. In this case we see growth in PF7589 freeze for a couple centuries - which is most likely a population bottleneck. There is some branching-event evidence of early displacement into Italy. Surviving Pannonian PF7589 saw a rebound circa 1400-1200 BCE and we see expansion into Western Europe.
The PF7589 Western European spread happens shortly before the bronze age collapse. It’s unclear if the spread is due to the decline of Tumulus, ascendance of Urnfield, the combination of chaotic events leading up to the Bronze age collapse, or events following the collapse. The exact nature of the spread may never be fully known. However, if the cremation portion of the Urnfield tradition began in Hungary and spread from there, then the we may be able to narrow down the PF7589 MBA refuge location since PF7589 saw growth and expansion at around the time Urnfield expanded.
It may be open to interpretation is PF7589 came from the Steppe with Yamnaya or Corded Ware. The clear EBA presence in the Balkans and Hungary gives weight to a Yamnaya migration. One could argue that PF7589 arrived in the region with CW and Hungarian Bell Beaker. But the lack of ancient DNA in Western Europe, and the lack of early PF7589 branch diversity in Western Europe, especially in comparison to L151+ populations would make this hypothesis difficult to prove. That would require a hypothetical CW PF7589 to have beelined for Hungary without any deviations. And I don’t believe that is something we see in other L151+ branches. And there is still the PF7589 and Z2103 joint migration into Italy that needs to be reconciled. At present, the data points to a Yamnaya migration from the Steppe.
The PF7589 Time Tree can now categorized in two or three parts. The first part occurs prior to circa 1600 and largely exists in the Middle Danube. The second part is a bottleneck circa 1600-1400 BCE. The last part begins afterwards and shows a recovery and expansion into Western Europe. This knowledge may be useful when determine if a subclade was part of an early excursion into Western Europe. The signal for a post-bottleneck expansion is seeing both Italian or Eastern Mediterranean branch and a non-Italian Western European branch beneath the subclade. However, one should be careful to eliminate the possibility of a later migration back to Italy, i.e. La Tene or Lombard. By contrast, an early arrival into Western Europe should show extensive branching and diversity in a specific Western European region and no unexplained Italian or Eastern Mediterranean branches.
Conclusions
We can combine the ancient DNA, modern distribution, phylogenic analysis, and branch events timeline to form a unified theory for the evolution of PF7589 and its path through Europe. It began on the Pontic Caspian Steppe. It likely migrated with Yamnaya groups following the Danube into southeast Europe. Eventually these groups became a part of the broader Pannonian and Balkan cultures. PF7589 ultimately settled in the western areas of this culture by the end of the EBA. There may have been occasional isolated migrations of PF7589 into western Europe during this time, but only one line has been identified at present. Around 1600 BCE the Tumulus culture entered the areas PF7589 settled. PF7589 likely saw a population drop during this period, and some lines were displaced. An initial displacement went into Italy. The remaining middle-Danube PF7589 culture recovered circa 1400-1300 BCE and some-but-not-all began a sustained push into Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and France. Sustained growth in those countries would help PF7589 spread to the rest of Western and Northern Europe throughout the iron age.
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Celto-Germanic/North Sea
Y-DNA (P): R-DF19 > DF88 > Z27257...
Y-DNA (M): I1 > Z140 > S12289
mtDNA (M): H39a
12-14-2023, 09:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2023, 02:35 AM by Ambiorix.
Edit Reason: Typo
)
(12-14-2023, 04:51 PM)RBHeadge Wrote: Combined Analysis and Potential Paths
The previous posts have outlined several important clues to the history and path of PF7589 through Europe. These include: ancient DNA, arrival times of PF7589 by region based on phylogeny and ancient DNA, and timing of expansion events.
There are several takeaways from the ancient DNA.
· Oldest sample is c1800 BCE Cetina culture, found with J-L283
· Second oldest is c1400 BCE in the Netherlands, found with L151.
· Not found in Italy or Germany prior to 1300 BCE, but lots of L151+ is found there
· First found in Italy circa 1300 BCE, persistently found in Italy thereafter and usually with Z2103, moves south through Italy over time
· Found with Z2103 and L151 in central Europe in the Iron Age.
Without considering other data, my analysis of the information implies that PF7589 was not present with Corded Ware Culture derived Bell Beaker Culture L151+ populations in Italy or Germany. It entered Italy NET 1600 BCE and NLT than 1300 BCE and progressed south. PF7589 and Z2103 probably entered Italy at around the same time and may have travelled together. The PF7589 and adjacent Z2103 likely came from the same homogenized population prior to 1300 BCE.
The branching events histogram shows several notable expansion and contraction for PF7589.
· A major expansion from 2300-2200 BCE, consistent with the first Cetina pulse and growth in J-L283
· A second major expansion circa 2100-2000 BCE, which is consistent with a second pulse in growth in Balkan populations and may line up with some Z2103 subclades in the Balkans or Hungary.
· A contraction across all PF7589xBY38964 from 1600-1500 BCE.
o BY38964 has steady growth during this period
· A major recovery occurs circa 1400-1300 BCE, followed by sustained growth through 700 BCE
The regional phylogenic analysis can offer context and other insights into PF7589’s history. In the table below I summarize the combined result of ancient DNA dates and the phylogenic analysis I performed for each region.
NET NLT
Hungary ? -1918?
Croatia -1800
Low Countries -1786 -1350
Italy -1622 -1300
Germany -1622 -1180
CH -1500 -1180
France -1350 -1250
Iberia -1300
Scandinavia -1285 -600
Czechia -1050
Britain/Ireland -425 600
Poland modern
Anatolia 1100
The first draft of the above table only included the phylogenic dates. And with those alone I noticed the same general trends as the date sorted ancient DNA chart. Early samples in Croatia and then the Low Countries. Followed by a lot of DNA in Italy and elsewhere in central Europe, with western Europe following later. Only Czechia appeared out of place, which is an indication that we need more NGS tests from that region. But otherwise, it was a good sign that the phylogenic timing and the ancient DNA told a consistent story.
The Low Countries again appear as an outlier. But this can be explained by BY38964, which makes up most Low Countries PF7589 kits and has Low Country diversity across all early branches. may have its roots in Croatia, and it appears to make a direct path for the Low Countries. BY38964 arrived circa 1800 BCE but a slightly later migration isn’t out of the question. It was probably as a “singleton” migration, perhaps a mercenary or warrior elite. The branching events timeline adds further credence to its presence far from the rest of PF7589, as it is the only branch to show sustained growth during the MBA.
The above combined phylogenic regional timeline shows a migration path from southeast Europe towards Western Europe. In the early bronze age, we see PF7589 presence in Croatia and Hungary, and the Low Countries BY38964 “outlier”.
It’s only in the middle bronze age that we start to see a presence in Western Europe: with an entry in Italy, followed later by entry into Germany, France, and Switzerland. The expansion into western Europe lines up well with the population recovery and branching events circa 1400-1300 BCE.
Full expansion north and west is largely completed during the late bronze age or iron age.
There may yet be additional lines that moved into Western Europe before the middle bronze age. But these hypothetical migrations are hidden in survivor lines and are awaiting more testing to be discovered.
The three analyses I have performed are independently pointing in the same direction. Most of PF7589 was living in a certain region circa 1600 BCE. The region would need to be centrally located to allow a southward migration into Italy, and westward into Germany, Switzerland, and France. Geographically this is the middle or upper Danube. The ancient DNA, phylogeny, and archeology suggest that it was the Hungary or western Balkans.
The Tumulus Culture spread into the Pannonian Basin circa 1600 BCE. Some local cultures disappeared (Gáta–Wieselburg) and others were displaced (Encrusted Pottery) deeper into the Balkans. And this matches well with what we see with PF7589. In this case we see growth in PF7589 freeze for a couple centuries - which is most likely a population bottleneck. There is some branching-event evidence of early displacement into Italy. Surviving Pannonian PF7589 saw a rebound circa 1400-1200 BCE and we see expansion into Western Europe.
The PF7589 Western European spread happens shortly before the bronze age collapse. It’s unclear if the spread is due to the decline of Tumulus, ascendance of Urnfield, the combination of chaotic events leading up to the Bronze age collapse, or events following the collapse. The exact nature of the spread may never be fully known. However, if the cremation portion of the Urnfield tradition began in Hungary and spread from there, then the we may be able to narrow down the PF7589 MBA refuge location since PF7589 saw growth and expansion at around the time Urnfield expanded.
It may be open to interpretation is PF7589 came from the Steppe with Yamnaya or Corded Ware. The clear EBA presence in the Balkans and Hungary gives weight to a Yamnaya migration. One could argue that PF7589 arrived in the region with CW and Hungarian Bell Beaker. But the lack of ancient DNA in Western Europe, and the lack of early PF7589 branch diversity in Western Europe, especially in comparison to L151+ populations would make this hypothesis difficult to prove. That would require a hypothetical CW PF7589 to have beelined for Hungary without any deviations. And I don’t believe that is something we see in other L151+ branches. And there is still the PF7589 and Z2103 joint migration into Italy that needs to be reconciled. At present, the data points to a Yamnaya migration from the Steppe.
The PF7589 Time Tree can now categorized in two or three parts. The first part occurs prior to circa 1600 and largely exists in the Middle Danube. The second part is a bottleneck circa 1600-1400 BCE. The last part begins afterwards and shows a recovery and expansion into Western Europe. This knowledge may be useful when determine if a subclade was part of an early excursion into Western Europe. The signal for a post-bottleneck expansion is seeing both Italian or Eastern Mediterranean branch and a non-Italian Western European branch beneath the subclade. However, one should be careful to eliminate the possibility of a later migration back to Italy, i.e. La Tene or Lombard. By contrast, an early arrival into Western Europe should show extensive branching and diversity in a specific Western European region and no unexplained Italian or Eastern Mediterranean branches.
Conclusions
We can combine the ancient DNA, modern distribution, phylogenic analysis, and branch events timeline to form a unified theory for the evolution of PF7589 and its path through Europe. It began on the Pontic Caspian Steppe. It likely migrated with Yamnaya groups following the Danube into southeast Europe. Eventually these groups became a part of the broader Pannonian and Balkan cultures. PF7589 ultimately settled in the western areas of this culture by the end of the EBA. There may have been occasional isolated migrations of PF7589 into western Europe during this time, but only one line has been identified at present. Around 1600 BCE the Tumulus culture entered the areas PF7589 settled. PF7589 likely saw a population drop during this period, and some lines were displaced. An initial displacement went into Italy. The remaining middle-Danube PF7589 culture recovered circa 1400-1300 BCE and some-but-not-all began a sustained push into Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and France. Sustained growth in those countries would help PF7589 spread to the rest of Western and Northern Europe throughout the iron age.
Just wanted to share that your treatment of R-PF7589 is invaluable, thank you for your presentation of the topic! I do not have much to offer, but 1600 BC happens to be within the timeframe for the Hilversum Culture, and it is known that Hoogkarspel had some sort of affinity with Hilversum, with some arguing it derived from Hilversum, others that it derived from Elp – both Elp and Hoogkarspel happen to be inhumating cultures unlike Hilversum, so I do think the R-PF7589+ sample from Zwaagdijk was part of the Hoogkarspel tradition. As it concerns the origins of Hoogkarspel: I happen to be of the mind that Hoogkarspel is an Elp extension, although I would argue the geography of West Frisia and North Holland naturally lent the Hoogkarspel folks to being intermediaries while remaining well connected to the Elp culture proper. During the Late Bronze Age, the Hoogkarspel folks had to abandon their area and probably retreated inland to settle among their Elp culture relatives, so it would not be surprising to me if interactions with Hilversum may have led to the dispersal of some haplogroups from further south (and southeast) into the north (although I currently imagine this would mostly relate to DF27) – you may be interested in these quotes from Stikkelorum (2019), "Ruling with Bronze Fist: A diachronic study of metal exchange and the proliferation of the elite in Brittany (France), Thy (Denmark), the Carpathian Basin (Hungary), and Holland (The Netherlands) during the Early- and Middle Bronze Age" (a master thesis, link here: https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...1887/68458):
Quote:“Alongside habitation on the coastal dunes the floodplain nowadays known as West[1]Frisia was not covered with peat and densely populated during the Bronze Age (Lohof and Roessingh 2014, 51). West-Frisia is an interesting research area, since it contained both a major river and a coastal outlet during the EBA. West-Frisia would connect the sea in the west to what is now Germany in the east (Van Zijverden 2017, 62). Moreover, it is situated close to a tidal hub, making sea travel across the North-Sea easier (Fokkens et al. 2013, 536). West-Frisia and the river towards the hinterland are both surrounded by peat, restricting transport. Following the reasoning of Earle et al. it can be assumed that there is a trade bottleneck here. The siltation of the river from Germany during the MBA makes the West-Frisia even more compelling as a case-study (Van Zijverden 2017, 64). The siltation of the river would imply that West-Frisia would have to cope with the loss of its obvious trade route” (Stikkelorum 2019, p. 54).
Quote:“…This small strip of land holds some of the largest deposits of metalwork, as well as some of the wealthiest graves of the Netherlands. Such as the Voorschoten hoard or the Velserbroek burial (Fontijn 2009, 137). Furthermore, some of these finds have a morphology resembling those of other regions, evidencing maritime exchange with other regions (ibidem). These deposits of bronze might be explained as tribute or spoils from use of the natural harbours or piracy. The sea-currents run along the coast, creating a fast route to the north (Figure 8). Furthermore, since the coast also has multiple tidal inlets or river mouths travellers or traders would be able to use them to find shelter from storms. This, according to the model of Earle et al. would provide a bottleneck for elites to exploit (Earle et al. 2015, 437). However, unlike Thy, elites are not attested in these areas according to the literature (Fokkens and Fontijn 2013). Otherwise, settlement pattern, house-plans and artefacts are almost identical to those of the Danish peninsula (Brück and Fokkens 2013, 87). Even the bottleneck, the close proximity to a favourable sea current and several prime natural harbours is similar between the regions” (Ibid., p. 56).
Quote:“The two burials of Zwaagdijk are very similar to the burials of Thy. Both burials contain swords and golden bracelet, this combination of bracelets and swords is frequently encountered in the burials of Thy. The burials of Gammelby, Norre-Hedegard II, Orum, Nors Havreland, Foldbjerg, Langvad 2, Voruporvej 2 and Torup 2 in Thy hold the exact same grave goods. These similarities indicate that the burials of Zwaagdijk are part of the Nordic Bronze Age deposition tradition.
Daggers or swords seem to be reserved for burials. Spear- and lanceheads are only found as single finds or hoards, apparently kept away of burial context. Pins and other ornamental items such as rings are also usually limited to graves, with the exception of the Veenenburg hoard. This late MBA hoard holds a curious collection of items: two sickles, one razor, one chisel, five bracelets, twelve rings and two pins. This assemblage is more reminiscent of the hoards of Hungary, where utilitarian tools and ornamental artefacts form the majority of metal objects in metal deposits” (Ibid., p. 118).
Quote:“The elites in the area could have made use of several large river mouths that feed into the North Sea, tributaries of these rivers would make excellent natural harbours. Local elites could demand tribute in the form of metal for the use of these natural harbours. Furthermore, the prevailing sea-current towards Denmark follows the Dutch coastline. This would provide a safe way of travel towards Scandinavia that does not necessitate open-ocean travel. This could have forced or pursued traders to stick close to the coast, allowing elites the opportunity for piracy or demanding tribute to clear pirates from the area” (Ibid., p. 119).
Some more information on one of the Zwaagdijk burials, courtesy of Jetses (2020), "Beenderen in graven en greppels. Een onderzoek naar de dodenrituelen in oostelijk West-Friesland tijdens de Midden- en Late Bronstijd" ( https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...887/136240 - I am pretty sure this burial with the bronze rapier does not contain the R-PF7589+ individual, but thought it was potentially still of interest):
Quote:"Ten slotte is bij één van de graven (nr. 129) een grafgift in de vorm van een bronzen rapier aangetroffen. Dit rapier werd gedateerd tussen 1300 en 1100 v. Chr. en was verantwoordelijk voor de periodedatering van alle vlakgraven in Zwaagdijk (Modderman 1964, 29-30, 36)" (Jetses 2020, p. 26).
Quote:"Hoewel vlakgraven niet vaak voorkwamen in West-Friesland is hierin wel het meest opmerkelijke bronzen object gevonden, namelijk een bronzen rapier uit de Midden-Bronstijd B (fig. 17; Modderman 1964, 29-30, 36). Het rapier heeft vooral karakteristieken die behoren bij het verspreidingsgebied in West-Europa, maar heeft ook enkele kenmerken die vaker voorkwamen in Centraal-Europa. Het lijkt dus een soort hybride te zijn of behorend tot een nog onbekende variant, die geen gevonden parallel heeft (Butler 1964, 37, 39). Uiteindelijk vanwege verscheidene kenmerken uit verschillende Frans-Atlantische categorieën lijkt het rapier hiervandaan te zijn gekomen (Butler 1964, 40). Het lijkt dus een zeer waardevol geïmporteerd object te zijn geweest" (Ibid., p. 43).
RBHeadge and rmstevens2 like this post
Y-Line (P): Sint-Maria-Horebeke, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium (c. 1660)
mtDNA: Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Y-Line (M): Eggleston, County Durham, England (c. 1600)
Genealogy: France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Normandy), Belgium - Flanders (Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen), Belgium - Wallonia (Hainaut, Namur), England (SW, NE), Scotland (Aberdeenshire, Galloway), Netherlands (Zeeland, Friesland), Jersey
Anthrogenica Join Date: 10-09-2022
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
(12-13-2023, 11:00 PM)rmstevens2 Wrote: Hey, awesome! Thanks for starting such an interesting thread!
Hope you don't mind me posting my wimpy R1b-L51 Descendant Tree. Feel free, of course, to post a better one.
Thanks for posting it! I didn't plan to include a descendant tree in the initial post. It would have been a heavy lift to prepare something for the entire clade. I have long terms plans to prepare something that is scaled with time, and also indicates geographic location for various branches, nodes, and subclades. But that will be a lot of work and it will be a very large graphic. It will be awhile.
(12-14-2023, 03:28 AM)Manofthehour Wrote: I wonder how it relates to the various peoples and cultures within the Bronze and Iron Ages.
I tried to allude to certain groups in the phylogeny and combined analysis sections. An earlier draft name-dropped more cultures as hosts to PF7589. I decided to leave those out because it could become a distraction from the overall thesis of PF7589's movement through Europe. Especially since the Pannonian and Balkan bronze age and the interplay between the many cultures, dates, and locations is complicated.
Generally speaking, I don't think PF7589 was the dominant haplogroup for any distinctive cultural group. Or at least none that we could know of. Instead, by the EBA it was probably living with other haplogroups in the Balkans, and by the end of the EBA it was with other cultures in Hungary. There might be an argument for PF7589 being a substantial component of Late Gáta–Wieselburg, since that culture was completely annihilated by the Tumulus and PF7589 took a huge hit around that same time. But my guess is that LGW was probably a mixture of I2a-L1229, PF7589, and Z2103. I didn't feel comfortable stating those ideas in my main writeup as its just speculation. Ultimately we'll have to wait for ancient DNA before drawing any conclusions.
I was going to highlight relationships between subclades and BA, IA, and later cultures in later posts about the history of specific clades. For example BY38964 probably started as a part of Hilversum/Drakenstein, and it's sub-branches have other clear cultural markers too.
(12-14-2023, 03:28 AM)Manofthehour Wrote: Quote:Within Italy, the first PF7589 is found in the Terramare Culture circa 1300 BCE. Thereafter PF7589 is typically found in ancient samples. Similarly, Z2103 isn’t found in Italy until after 1300 BCE, and the it is persistently found. It may be a sampling coincidence, but there is a clear southward movement of PF7589 and Z2103 samples over time through Italy.
Makes me wonder about people being pushed South by other incoming Italic tribes? and eventually mixed with somewhat. Just a speculation. I guess it could have arrived in Italy in early migrations across the Adriatic from Dalmatia as well.
Italian PF7589 analysis has it's positives and negatives. On the one hand, there nation has a relatively high concentration of PF7589 and there has been a lot of archeological study on its past. On the other hand, the number of NGS tested Italian PF7589 is really low. Aside from Sardinia, no two kits are from the same region of Italy so it's hard to say with confidence what region traces to what subclade, what migration, and when did it happen. It's got to be really frustrating for those kit owners.
I did add the proviso that ancient DNA appears to move south from the North. But some of that is an artifact of what has been found and tested. There has been more work done in the North and middle of Italy than the south. So sampling bias could be at play.
I recognized over a year ago that most of the Italian kits had branching events generally between 1500-1000 CE. And the deep dive above sort of proved that out. The Cetina sample gave me the idea that maybe there would be some earlier migrations to southern Italy, or maybe iron age Iapygians, but the modern kits aren't showing evidence for it. Maybe Y21243? But it's on the late-edge for Cetina, and it branches off the main trunk of the PF7589 tree and the other branches imply they were in probably in Hungary circa 1600 BCE. I don't think it's Cetina. With all that typed, I'd be surprised if no PF7589 ever migrated across the Adriatic. it's definitively worth keeping an eye on for future NGS Italian kits.
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
(12-14-2023, 09:50 PM)Ambiorix Wrote: Just wanted to share that your treatment of R-PF7589 is invaluable, thank you for your presentation of the topic! I do not have much to offer, but 1600 BC happens to be within the timeframe for the Hilversum Culture, and it is known that Hoogkarspel had some sort of affinity with Hilversum, with some arguing it derived from Hilversum, others that it derived from Elp – both Elp and Hoogkarspel happen to be inhumating cultures unlike Hilversum, so I do think the R-PF7589+ sample from Zwaagdijk was part of the Hoogkarspel tradition. As it concerns the origins of Hoogkarspel: I happen to be part of the , although I would argue the geography of West Frisia and North Holland naturally lent the Hoogkarspel folks to being intermediaries while remaining well connected to the Elp culture proper. During the Late Bronze Age, the Hoogkarspel folks had to abandon their area and probably retreated inland to settle among their Elp culture relatives, so it would not be surprising to me if interactions with Hilversum may have led to the dispersal of some haplogroups from further south (and southeast) into the north (although I currently imagine this would mostly relate to DF27) – you may be interested in these quotes from Stikkelorum (2019), "Ruling with Bronze Fist: A diachronic study of metal exchange and the proliferation of the elite in Brittany (France), Thy (Denmark), the Carpathian Basin (Hungary), and Holland (The Netherlands) during the Early- and Middle Bronze Age" (a master thesis, link here: https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...1887/68458):
Thank you. I really appreciate your feedback!
I will gladly take any information you have on Hilversum, Elp, or Hoogkarspel. I know what I'll be reading the next few days.
I'm pretty sure PF7689>...>BY38964 is Hilversum/Drakenstein. I need to write that post soon. FTDNA places it at 1787 BCE, which is around the beginning of Hilversum. It's arrival was too early to be in response to the Tumulus incursion. I26829 (the Zwaagdijk PF7589 sample) implies an arrival no later than 1650 BCE.
I agree that Hoogkarspel was an intermediary of Elp and Hilversum. And I'd expect some sort of population exchange between the three cultures over the centuries.
(12-14-2023, 09:50 PM)Ambiorix Wrote: Some more information on one of the Zwaagdijk burials, courtesy of Jetses (2020), "Beenderen in graven en greppels. Een onderzoek naar de dodenrituelen in oostelijk West-Friesland tijdens de Midden- en Late Bronstijd" (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...887/136240 - I am pretty sure this burial with the bronze rapier does not contain the R-PF7589+ individual, but thought it was potentially still of interest):
I26829 was not found with any grave goods. It was I26830 that was found with the rapier. He was DF19>S4281. According to my notes he had a different atDNA profile from everyone else in the graveyard. He appeared to have come from Bohemia. It's certainly worth double checking that though. S4281 might have been his actual terminal clade too. FTDNA dates S4281 to circa 1580 BCE, and I26830 was circa 1450 BCE.
Posts: 1,280
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: British
Y-DNA (P): R-FGC36981
Y-DNA (M): R-FT418639
mtDNA (M): U5a2c3a
mtDNA (P): K1a1
RBHeadge -
Every haplogroup needs at least one guy like you: someone intelligent enough, dedicated enough, and hardworking enough to assemble the known evidence in a clear and compelling manner.
You've also done all us L51 guys a service. Thanks!
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
- Wisdom of Sirach 44:1
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Celto-Germanic/North Sea
Y-DNA (P): R-DF19 > DF88 > Z27257...
Y-DNA (M): I1 > Z140 > S12289
mtDNA (M): H39a
(12-15-2023, 01:46 AM)RBHeadge Wrote: (12-14-2023, 09:50 PM)Ambiorix Wrote: Just wanted to share that your treatment of R-PF7589 is invaluable, thank you for your presentation of the topic! I do not have much to offer, but 1600 BC happens to be within the timeframe for the Hilversum Culture, and it is known that Hoogkarspel had some sort of affinity with Hilversum, with some arguing it derived from Hilversum, others that it derived from Elp – both Elp and Hoogkarspel happen to be inhumating cultures unlike Hilversum, so I do think the R-PF7589+ sample from Zwaagdijk was part of the Hoogkarspel tradition. As it concerns the origins of Hoogkarspel: I happen to be part of the , although I would argue the geography of West Frisia and North Holland naturally lent the Hoogkarspel folks to being intermediaries while remaining well connected to the Elp culture proper. During the Late Bronze Age, the Hoogkarspel folks had to abandon their area and probably retreated inland to settle among their Elp culture relatives, so it would not be surprising to me if interactions with Hilversum may have led to the dispersal of some haplogroups from further south (and southeast) into the north (although I currently imagine this would mostly relate to DF27) – you may be interested in these quotes from Stikkelorum (2019), "Ruling with Bronze Fist: A diachronic study of metal exchange and the proliferation of the elite in Brittany (France), Thy (Denmark), the Carpathian Basin (Hungary), and Holland (The Netherlands) during the Early- and Middle Bronze Age" (a master thesis, link here: https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...1887/68458):
Thank you. I really appreciate your feedback!
I will gladly take any information you have on Hilversum, Elp, or Hoogkarspel. I know what I'll be reading the next few days.
I'm pretty sure PF7689>...>BY38964 is Hilversum/Drakenstein. I need to write that post soon. FTDNA places it at 1787 BCE, which is around the beginning of Hilversum. It's arrival was too early to be in response to the Tumulus incursion. I26829 (the Zwaagdijk PF7589 sample) implies an arrival no later than 1650 BCE.
I agree that Hoogkarspel was an intermediary of Elp and Hilversum. And I'd expect some sort of population exchange between the three cultures over the centuries.
(12-14-2023, 09:50 PM)Ambiorix Wrote: Some more information on one of the Zwaagdijk burials, courtesy of Jetses (2020), "Beenderen in graven en greppels. Een onderzoek naar de dodenrituelen in oostelijk West-Friesland tijdens de Midden- en Late Bronstijd" (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden...887/136240 - I am pretty sure this burial with the bronze rapier does not contain the R-PF7589+ individual, but thought it was potentially still of interest):
I26829 was not found with any grave goods. It was I26830 that was found with the rapier. He was DF19>S4281. According to my notes he had a different atDNA profile from everyone else in the graveyard. He appeared to have come from Bohemia. It's certainly worth double checking that though. S4281 might have been his actual terminal clade too. FTDNA dates S4281 to circa 1580 BCE, and I26830 was circa 1450 BCE.
I did some searching through the Anthrogenica archive at Genoplot and found this, courtesy of @ Dewsloth ( https://genoplot.com/discussions/post/802725) - I26830 is a local imo:
Quote:Distance to: Celtic_paper:I26830
0.02167086 Norwegian
0.02315873 Danish
0.02348276 Icelandic
0.02369412 Swedish
0.02537335 Dutch
0.02594838 Irish
Analysis by ph2ter:
![[Image: 2LKfNuW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/2LKfNuW.png)
In the past, I proposed that R-DF19 largely remained within the north(east)ern parts of the “Nordwestblock” zone until the Early Iron Age, when I hypothesise after a period of steady growth throughout the Bronze Age within the context of active participation in the Nordic Bronze Age horizon and trading with central Europe for bronze (out of necessity), DF19 experienced a major expansion in the Iron Age as part of the Harpstedt-Nienburg tradition (due to a significant demographic boom in the NE Netherlands at this time and the exploitation of bog iron), followed by later waves of dispersal in association with Germanic-speaking groups more broadly. There is also the possibility of diffusion of some early DF19 branches into Britain as part of Bell Beaker expansion into the Isles, but I view this as unlikely considering the places where these early splits pop up and the frequent TMRCAs between the Early to High Middle Ages (i.e., where prominent Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman presence is well documented). I argue this is why within continental Europe, the Benelux and western Germany show a noticeable enrichment of DF19 lineages; to connect this with BY38964 and its distribution, I do find it fascinating that BY38964 seems to follow a similar trajectory (although still distinct imo), so I am definitely looking forward to your post connecting BY38964 with the Hilversum/Drakenstein phenomenon!
Some further quotes – note the fact the “British imports” of the Hilversum culture seem to have been indirectly received via southern neighbours (hence why I presume DF27 playing a key role, specifically around BA northern France?) and that Hilversum displays prominent affiliations with central Europe:
Quote:“Due to the fact that three important major rivers flow through this area, the southern Netherlands/North Belgium are potentially connected to more than one European region. These links are with the German Rhineland, south-western Germany and ultimately Central Europe via the river Rhine, with eastern France and south-eastern Belgium via the Meuse, and with (south)western Belgium and ultimately Northwest France and the Channel zone via the river Scheldt. Inhabitants of the Central River area, where the Rhine and Meuse flow close to each other and are reachable via many of smaller tributaries and streams, were potentially in a pivotal position to have access to downstream river trade routes from different European regions. This region is traditionally considered as having had a special connection with southern England during the earlier half of the Middle Bronze Age, as the ‘home’ of the English-affiliated ‘Hilversum’ culture, particularly because of similarities between Hilversum pottery and types from Wessex. The occurrence of British metalwork in the region is seen another category of artefacts evidencing regular contacts between Dutch-Belgian and overseas Bronze Age communities. It is then all the more striking that recent reviews of metalwork finds have drastically reduced the number of convincing insular imports in the ‘Hilversum culture’ region (Butler 1995/1996; Fontijn 2002). A program of metal analyses showed that ‘classic’ examples of British-Irish imports, like the entire content of the well-known Wageningen hoard or almost all of the ‘fanged axes with British-Irish affiliations’ all turned out to be of continental origin…” (Fontijn 2009, p. 134).
Quote:“More than those in any other region, the inhabitants of the west Dutch dune area may therefore have been in the best position to get involved in maritime networks. It is unclear whether they maintained regular contacts with communities in the interior via the rivers Meuse or Rhine, or even acted as some sort of ‘gateway communities’ controlling the flow of exchanged goods from the North Sea to the interior (cf. Cunliffe2001, 43; fig 2.18). This would have implied protracted voyages upstream the rivers or lengthy journeys over land. The Bronze Age metalwork found is small in number but differs to a certain extent from that in the adjacent southern Netherlands. There are a number of imports –including an entire warrior outfit (the Velserbroek grave) – that are similar to those of North German, Nordic, traditions (Butler and Steegstra 1997/1998, 175–179). Such objects might have reached the region by seafaring along the coast from the north, although the North Sea coast can be dangerous here as two tidal systems meet just to the north of this region (Thrane 2001, 553). A number of British imports may have reached the region via a southern route along the coast. Only the Acton Park palstaves in the Voorhout hoard (Fig 9.4), two faience beads and the end-looped spearhead from Bodegraven are convincing examples of overseas imports” (Fontijn 2009, p. 135).
Quote:“In the two southern Dutch and Belgian regions, local production is particularly known from the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In particular, regionally produced axes lack an outspoken regional style. Rather, they seem to lend or even copy elements that are characteristic for both Continental and Atlantic traditions (Fontijn 2002, 165). The mould from Oss-Horzak even shows that distinctive styles thought to be characteristic for mid-German regions like wheel-headed pins, seems to have been rather straightforwardly copied in the southern Netherlands (Fontijn 2002, 138–141). As a whole, regional styles in these regions may be characterised as ‘open’ rather than ‘closed’. Especially regional palstaves can have similarities to products from France (especially with those of the Normand type; Butler and Steegstra 1997/1998, 245)…
The north-eastern Netherlands seem to have been more linked with north German and Nordic traditions. Butler’s recent study of socketed axes in this region illustrates that these do have distinctive decorations that are typical for the region only (Butler and Steegstra 2003/2004). Also, they show remarkable variation in form and decoration among themselves. This is in marked contrast to what is found in the southern regions, and especially native crafting traditions from the Late Bronze Age north seem to have been much more ‘closed’ tradition than those in the south. Sørensen (1987, 99) has argued that such ‘closed’ styles prevail in Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age southern Scandinavia as well” (Fontijn 2009, pp. 137-138).
Quote:“Realising that British metalwork circulated in Northwest French networks as well, it might be ventured that the small amount of British imports known reached the southern Netherlands together with French metalwork. It is at any rate conspicuous that certain French and British objects not only share stylistic traits, but are also repeatedly found associated in depositions. Does this imply that British/Irish objects were seen as one variety of material which was seen as coming from the far south? A similar situation can be found in the adjacent west Belgian region… British/Irish metal in that case could have come from the French channel zone by sea, avoiding the much longer and more dangerous crossing of the North Sea from England to the Belgian coast. At any rate, in both scenarios, British material would also reach the area ‘from the south’ instead of from across the sea, and likewise the origins of ‘British/Irish’ may also have been located there (Fig 9.7)” (Fontijn 2009, p. 142).
Source:
Fontijn, D. (2009). “9. Land at the other end of the sea? Metalwork circulation, geographical knowledge and the significance of British/Irish imports in the Bronze Age of the Low Countries”, in Bronze Age Connections: Cultural Contact in Prehistoric Europe, https://www.academia.edu/1242969/Lan..._Low_Countries
Y-Line (P): Sint-Maria-Horebeke, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium (c. 1660)
mtDNA: Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Y-Line (M): Eggleston, County Durham, England (c. 1600)
Genealogy: France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Normandy), Belgium - Flanders (Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen), Belgium - Wallonia (Hainaut, Namur), England (SW, NE), Scotland (Aberdeenshire, Galloway), Netherlands (Zeeland, Friesland), Jersey
Anthrogenica Join Date: 10-09-2022
Posts: 498
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2023
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: North Sealandic
Nationality: Middle North-American
Y-DNA (P): S28>S139>S485>S211>S257
Y-DNA (M): I2a2a1b2a1b1>Y4925
mtDNA (M): H1bt
mtDNA (P): H37
It may be safe to say you are one of the world’s leading experts on PF7589…maybe even “The”
Awesome job!
U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150>FGC12381>FGC12378>FGC47869>FGC12401>FGC47875>FGC12384
50% English, 15% Welsh, 15% Scot/Ulster Scot, 5% Irish, 10% German, 2% Scandi, 2% French & Dutch), 1% India
Ancient ~40% Anglo-Saxon, ~40% Briton/Insular Celt, ~15% German, 4% Other Euro
600 AD: 55% Anglo-Saxon (CNE), 45% Pre-Anglo-Saxon Briton (WBI)
“Be more concerned with seeking the truth than winning an argument”
Posts: 70
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Y-DNA (P): R-BY38964
mtDNA (M): T2f1a1
mtDNA (P): H17a
12-16-2023, 12:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2023, 12:28 AM by RBHeadge.)
(12-15-2023, 02:02 AM)rmstevens2 Wrote: RBHeadge -
Every haplogroup needs at least one guy like you: someone intelligent enough, dedicated enough, and hardworking enough to assemble the known evidence in a clear and compelling manner.
You've also done all us L51 guys a service. Thanks! (12-15-2023, 12:53 PM)Mitchell-Atkins Wrote: It may be safe to say you are one of the world’s leading experts on PF7589…maybe even “The”
Awesome job! Thank you both. It means a lot to read that.
(12-15-2023, 03:49 AM)Ambiorix Wrote: I did some searching through the Anthrogenica archive at Genoplot and found this, courtesy of @Dewsloth (https://genoplot.com/discussions/post/802725) - I26830 is a local imo:
I had a feeling my notes on I26830 were off. Good thing you double checked. I'm not sure where I got the Czech part.
Yes, I concur we was a local.
How are you able to search the Genoplot archives? I'm having difficulty searching old threads at that site.
(12-15-2023, 03:49 AM)Ambiorix Wrote: In the past, I proposed that R-DF19 largely remained within the north(east)ern parts of the “Nordwestblock” zone until the Early Iron Age, when I hypothesise after a period of steady growth throughout the Bronze Age within the context of active participation in the Nordic Bronze Age horizon and trading with central Europe for bronze (out of necessity), DF19 experienced a major expansion in the Iron Age as part of the Harpstedt-Nienburg tradition (due to a significant demographic boom in the NE Netherlands at this time and the exploitation of bog iron), followed by later waves of dispersal in association with Germanic-speaking groups more broadly. There is also the possibility of diffusion of some early DF19 branches into Britain as part of Bell Beaker expansion into the Isles, but I view this as unlikely considering the places where these early splits pop up and the frequent TMRCAs between the Early to High Middle Ages (i.e., where prominent Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman presence is well documented). I argue this is why within continental Europe, the Benelux and western Germany show a noticeable enrichment of DF19 lineages; to connect this with BY38964 and its distribution, I do find it fascinating that BY38964 seems to follow a similar trajectory (although still distinct imo), so I am definitely looking forward to your post connecting BY38964 with the Hilversum/Drakenstein phenomenon!
I wrote a White Paper for myself on BY38964 last year. As you may imagine, it was long and thorough. I spent some time trying to consolidate and update it to post here but I ran out of time. I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow so I won't have it done until I get back after Christmas. It'll probably be around 1500-2000 words when I'm done, and have similar analyses as was done for PF7589 above. The tl;dr is: - Low Countries diversity found across all early branches of BY38964
- Low Countries diversity including Low Countries context found across all lower branches of BY38964, except FT39225 (the branch that spread across Europe starting after the Bronze Age Collapse). (includes NGS and STR kits)
- Modern PF7589 distribution in Low Countries essentially follows Dutch speaking areas in Belgium, France, Netherlands minus Friesland, which has significant overlap with Hilversum territory. Low Countries PF7589 is probably at least By38964+.
- BY38964 ECA is circa 1800 BCE, geography and timing lines up with Hivlersum.
- Phylogenic evidence of Belgae roots and Roman invasion causing a bottleneck. Not much evidence of presence on the German side in that period.
I suppose it possible they were Elp/Hoogkarspel who crossed the Rhine and became Urnfield/La Tene/Belgae, but signs point to Hilversum. TBH, I'm not sure why BY38964 settled there. Finding a reason would be really nice!
I have not thought about interactions with other major clades of the area and joint movements. Nearly half of BY38964 stayed in the general vicinity of the Low Countries or moved up the Rhine with the Franks.
I will read up on the sources you suggested and have a think about it all.
Ambiorix and rmstevens2 like this post
|
