Celts

[Riverman]

The Celtic impact in the East is very noticeable and definitely a tribal migration. The main problem in the West is the general similarity of Celts and neighbouring Bell Beaker derived people.

A recent comparison in a paper, I don’t remember which, points to a clear heartland of the associated profile in South Western Germany and adjacent French and Swiss territories.
I guess it will boil down to that in the end.

The Celtic G2 branches are an interesting piece of the puzzle, because they appear everywhere and are more clearly defined by low resolution samples, unlike R1b Bell Beakers.

I doubt it. They might be a subset but I doubt the core of protocol celtic could be in that area. Certainly not in that kind of confined zone. It also doesn’t fit very well linguistically because that is a bit of an interface zone and early sources place Raetians who were undergoing Celticisation at that very time in that kind of area.  It’s also an area where many people fancy seeing Italics entering Italy and it is true archatologu shows repeated string contacts with that area in the early, middle and late brinze age . Linguists place celts-Italiv as a short phase just after common NW IE. Yet proto Celtic has no borrowings from Italic, Raetic etc. I don’t think it’s possible to place both Celtic and Italic anywhere near each other after the EBA. I think you need to look much further downstream on the Rhine to find a king terms part of the area in which Celtic evolved. Remember Celtic’s only known linguistic contact is with pre-Germanic. Loads of common vocab. I think RSFO was the urnfieldisation of a middle rhine west bank Celtic group. I’m pretty sure it was part of the Celtic world. Though that is of course impossible to know. later on the same area is a La Tene core, again indicating it was persistent part of the Celtic world. I am not convinced the celticity ot the Alps could be that deep

I think the Alps were the barrier to Italics, with unknown and Rhaeticin between, but the upper to middle Rhine was the core zone for Proto-Celtic.

[alanarchae]

The Celtic impact in the East is very noticeable and definitely a tribal migration. The main problem in the West is the general similarity of Celts and neighbouring Bell Beaker derived people.

A recent comparison in a paper, I don’t remember which, points to a clear heartland of the associated profile in South Western Germany and adjacent French and Swiss territories.
I guess it will boil down to that in the end.

The Celtic G2 branches are an interesting piece of the puzzle, because they appear everywhere and are more clearly defined by low resolution samples, unlike R1b Bell Beakers.

I doubt it. They might be a subset but I doubt the core of protocol celtic could be in that area. Certainly not in that kind of confined zone. It also doesn’t fit very well linguistically because that is a bit of an interface zone and early sources place Raetians who were undergoing Celticisation at that very time in that kind of area.  It’s also an area where many people fancy seeing Italics entering Italy and it is true archatologu shows repeated string contacts with that area in the early, middle and late brinze age . Linguists place celts-Italiv as a short phase just after common NW IE. Yet proto Celtic has no borrowings from Italic, Raetic etc. I don’t think it’s possible to place both Celtic and Italic anywhere near each other after the EBA. I think you need to look much further downstream on the Rhine to find a king terms part of the area in which Celtic evolved. Remember Celtic’s only known linguistic contact is with pre-Germanic. Loads of common vocab. I think RSFO was the urnfieldisation of a middle rhine west bank Celtic group. I’m pretty sure it was part of the Celtic world. Though that is of course impossible to know. later on the same area is a La Tene core, again indicating it was persistent part of the Celtic world. I am not convinced the celticity ot the Alps could be that deep

I think the Alps were the barrier to Italics, with unknown and Rhaeticin between, but the upper to middle Rhine was the core zone for Proto-Celtic.

I 100% agree. I tend to allow for the possibility of late divergent Italic remaining in pockets north of the Alps but deep down I think the Italics likely mostly crossed the Alps in the era 2300-1800BC and after that Italy was where most (maybe all) Italics lived. I tend to think Italic bedded in in the Apennine culture. I don’t think Terramare was Italic and probably had some relationship to Raetian and Etruscan. I think there was a much larger Rhaetic speaking block than you would arrive at by just looking at iron age inscriptions in Italy. There seems to be classical references that point to much of the area between the Alps and upper Danube being formerly Raetic but having experienced intense Celticisation in the preceding generations.

I think the roots and cousins of Raetic lie in the low steppe groups you see in the Alps and northern Italy in the early Bronze Age. It looks like beaker was heavily diluted in that area and if we know one thing about heavy autosomal dilution of beaker groups it’s that they can end up adopting the local pre beaker sunstrate language. I think where steppe beaker was heavily autosomally diluted it can go either way - the IE language can be kept or it can be dropped for the substrate (especially if a pretty sophisticated metal using pre beaker substrate culture existed in the area). When beaker entered SW Europe there were some strong metal using pre beaker cultures, particularly in areas like Iberia, Languedoc, Tuscany and much of the Alps. Those areas did not need bell beaker people to drag them out of a stone age level of technology into a developed chalcolithic group. They already were. I think there is no coincidence that the IE beaker language was apparently not impossed in areas where they were arguably at least (and often more) developed than the bell beakers already. More likely in those areas they just wanted s piece of the existing action rather than start afresh and impose their language. 

But this is admittedly guessology because the sampling of possible examples of groups where bell beaker was diluted and possibly just accepted the local languages are very lightly sampled in terms of ancient DNA. 

It’s probably obvious from my posts but I think if you try to treat them as a single group rather than a variety of groups in a network, Unetice, tumulous , urnfield etc are ethnically meaningless. They quite clearly included genetically very different groups and a wide variety of languages. For example the groups like those in south/west Germany, the Alps and Italy that are seen as part of the Unetice fringe are clearly not genetically the same. The western and southern groups like unetice-ised/influenced beaker people, some of them heavily diluted by their substrates. Nothing like northern/core Unetice where there was clearly a real genetic turnover in yDNA. Urnfield also is too extensive and multilingual to treat as an ethnic thing. It looks more like a cultural domino effect with many different ethno linguistic groups involved. Yes there was some migration but much of it is likely migration of groups who were themselves urnfieldised but retained local language/identity before expanding. 

I think massive migratory waves are a rarity in Europe. After the farmers, there isn’t another till CW/BB and i’m not sure there is any strong evidence of any other huge turnover in the Bronze Age west of the Rhine/south of the Alps. In yDNA terms anyway i’d include the British Isles. Most of iron age Europe where people were speaking Celtic (where it can’t be attributed to iron age migration south and east  out of Gaul) is like a genetic museum of the beaker era in yDNA terms. Still dominated (including elite burials) by the same P312 subdividions as 2000 years earlier.

[alanarchae]

The Celtic impact in the East is very noticeable and definitely a tribal migration. The main problem in the West is the general similarity of Celts and neighbouring Bell Beaker derived people.

A recent comparison in a paper, I don’t remember which, points to a clear heartland of the associated profile in South Western Germany and adjacent French and Swiss territories.
I guess it will boil down to that in the end.

The Celtic G2 branches are an interesting piece of the puzzle, because they appear everywhere and are more clearly defined by low resolution samples, unlike R1b Bell Beakers.

I doubt it. They might be a subset but I doubt the core of protocol celtic could be in that area. Certainly not in that kind of confined zone. It also doesn’t fit very well linguistically because that is a bit of an interface zone and early sources place Raetians who were undergoing Celticisation at that very time in that kind of area.  It’s also an area where many people fancy seeing Italics entering Italy and it is true archatologu shows repeated string contacts with that area in the early, middle and late brinze age . Linguists place celts-Italiv as a short phase just after common NW IE. Yet proto Celtic has no borrowings from Italic, Raetic etc. I don’t think it’s possible to place both Celtic and Italic anywhere near each other after the EBA. I think you need to look much further downstream on the Rhine to find a king terms part of the area in which Celtic evolved. Remember Celtic’s only known linguistic contact is with pre-Germanic. Loads of common vocab. I think RSFO was the urnfieldisation of a middle rhine west bank Celtic group. I’m pretty sure it was part of the Celtic world. Though that is of course impossible to know. later on the same area is a La Tene core, again indicating it was persistent part of the Celtic world. I am not convinced the celticity ot the Alps could be that deep

I think the Alps were the barrier to Italics, with unknown and Rhaeticin between, but the upper to middle Rhine was the core zone for Proto-Celtic.

I would also tend to think that, regardless of local materiel culture difference and divergent development and different local influences from neighbouring groups, it is quite hard to imagine that a river like Rhine didn’t have a shared dialect or at least a lingua franca along its entire navigable length. I think that was true even in the beaker era where there were clearly lower, upper and middle rhine groups but they were clearly interacting and it’s hard to believe that they didn’t share a dialect. The only area that would get more hazy is where the Rhine became small and interfaced with the source area of other rivers at their narrow upper stretches - like the Danube and Rhone-Saone. Then it ceased to be a formidable east-west barrier and was less strong as a north/south highway where it got too small

[Riverman]

The Celtic impact in the East is very noticeable and definitely a tribal migration. The main problem in the West is the general similarity of Celts and neighbouring Bell Beaker derived people.

A recent comparison in a paper, I don’t remember which, points to a clear heartland of the associated profile in South Western Germany and adjacent French and Swiss territories.
I guess it will boil down to that in the end.

The Celtic G2 branches are an interesting piece of the puzzle, because they appear everywhere and are more clearly defined by low resolution samples, unlike R1b Bell Beakers.

I doubt it. They might be a subset but I doubt the core of protocol celtic could be in that area. Certainly not in that kind of confined zone. It also doesn’t fit very well linguistically because that is a bit of an interface zone and early sources place Raetians who were undergoing Celticisation at that very time in that kind of area.  It’s also an area where many people fancy seeing Italics entering Italy and it is true archatologu shows repeated string contacts with that area in the early, middle and late brinze age . Linguists place celts-Italiv as a short phase just after common NW IE. Yet proto Celtic has no borrowings from Italic, Raetic etc. I don’t think it’s possible to place both Celtic and Italic anywhere near each other after the EBA. I think you need to look much further downstream on the Rhine to find a king terms part of the area in which Celtic evolved. Remember Celtic’s only known linguistic contact is with pre-Germanic. Loads of common vocab. I think RSFO was the urnfieldisation of a middle rhine west bank Celtic group. I’m pretty sure it was part of the Celtic world. Though that is of course impossible to know. later on the same area is a La Tene core, again indicating it was persistent part of the Celtic world. I am not convinced the celticity ot the Alps could be that deep

I think the Alps were the barrier to Italics, with unknown and Rhaeticin between, but the upper to middle Rhine was the core zone for Proto-Celtic.

I would also tend to think that, regardless of local materiel culture difference and divergent development and different local influences from neighbouring groups, it is quite hard to imagine that a river like Rhine didn’t have a shared dialect or at least a lingua franca along its entire navigable length. I think that was true even in the beaker era where there were clearly lower, upper and middle rhine groups but they were clearly interacting and it’s hard to believe that they didn’t share a dialect. The only area that would get more hazy is where the Rhine became small and interfaced with the source area of other rivers at their narrow upper stretches - like the Danube and Rhone-Saone. Then it ceased to be a formidable east-west barrier and was less strong as a north/south highway where it got too small

I can't agree on that, if you think about the German dialects along the Rhine, they were soon afterwards highly differentiated. Dutch vs. Swiss German and everything in between is quite a difference.

But if there was an expansion of warrior elites, it will show up. I think its even possible that we deal with different tribes moving in diffrent directions, which were not all the same in their haplogroup frequencies etc.

[Pylsteen]

I think the bronze age is key because unlike the more territorial polities of the iron age (certainly the La Tene era), it’s very striking how the elites of the bronze age were mostly marked out by control of metals, exotica etc over distance and keeping up with fashions. There was likely not a huge land hunger in most of the bronze age. The same land could support much larger populations as we see in the AD era. The estimates of the population of north-central Europe grow a bit but not spectacularly between say 2400BC and 800BC. It’s usually estimated to start steepening in the iron age with a big jump at the end of the iron age. So I think that to some extent explains why elites focussed on control of materials etc through the Bronze Age. Land just wasn’t a scarce commodity in north and central Europe in the bronze age. Plus of course, before iron, controlling bronze was incredible power - if you were denied access that would effectively send you back to the stone age.

At the moment I'm having a look again at the subclade growth history of U152 branches based on the FTDNA discover tree, the number of new subclades increased after the Bell Beaker period, throughout the Bronze Age, peaking during the Urnfield/early Hallstatt period, then there is interestingly a decline in new subclades during later Hallstatt and early La Tène.

Here a first graph. I did not just count the number of TMRCA's this time, but the number of new daughter branches (or son branches of of course) per TMRCA, to capture the growth better. Soon more on this topic per subclade.

   

Is anyone familiar with studies on the European demography during the Iron Age?

[alanarchae]

I think the bronze age is key because unlike the more territorial polities of the iron age (certainly the La Tene era), it’s very striking how the elites of the bronze age were mostly marked out by control of metals, exotica etc over distance and keeping up with fashions. There was likely not a huge land hunger in most of the bronze age. The same land could support much larger populations as we see in the AD era. The estimates of the population of north-central Europe grow a bit but not spectacularly between say 2400BC and 800BC. It’s usually estimated to start steepening in the iron age with a big jump at the end of the iron age. So I think that to some extent explains why elites focussed on control of materials etc through the Bronze Age. Land just wasn’t a scarce commodity in north and central Europe in the bronze age. Plus of course, before iron, controlling bronze was incredible power - if you were denied access that would effectively send you back to the stone age.

At the moment I'm having a look again at the subclade growth history of U152 branches based on the FTDNA discover tree, the number of new subclades increased after the Bell Beaker period, throughout the Bronze Age, peaking during the Urnfield/early Hallstatt period, then there is interestingly a decline in new subclades during later Hallstatt and early La Tène.

Here a first graph. I did not just count the number of TMRCA's this time, but the number of new daughter branches (or son branches of of course) per TMRCA, to capture the growth better. Soon more on this topic per subclade.



Is anyone familiar with studies on the European demography during the Iron Age?

That is a very interesting graph. We need one of those for L21, DF27, U106 and all the big players. It’s a very interesting way of looking at the history of the clades! I don’t think anyone would be surprised that U152 was growing v well in the late bronze age but it’s falling a lot in the iron age is very interesting. 

[alanarchae]

I think the bronze age is key because unlike the more territorial polities of the iron age (certainly the La Tene era), it’s very striking how the elites of the bronze age were mostly marked out by control of metals, exotica etc over distance and keeping up with fashions. There was likely not a huge land hunger in most of the bronze age. The same land could support much larger populations as we see in the AD era. The estimates of the population of north-central Europe grow a bit but not spectacularly between say 2400BC and 800BC. It’s usually estimated to start steepening in the iron age with a big jump at the end of the iron age. So I think that to some extent explains why elites focussed on control of materials etc through the Bronze Age. Land just wasn’t a scarce commodity in north and central Europe in the bronze age. Plus of course, before iron, controlling bronze was incredible power - if you were denied access that would effectively send you back to the stone age.

At the moment I'm having a look again at the subclade growth history of U152 branches based on the FTDNA discover tree, the number of new subclades increased after the Bell Beaker period, throughout the Bronze Age, peaking during the Urnfield/early Hallstatt period, then there is interestingly a decline in new subclades during later Hallstatt and early La Tène.

Here a first graph. I did not just count the number of TMRCA's this time, but the number of new daughter branches (or son branches of of course) per TMRCA, to capture the growth better. Soon more on this topic per subclade.



Is anyone familiar with studies on the European demography during the Iron Age?

after doing so well in urnfield era (not unexpected) that’s  a simply shocking collapse in Hallstatt C, a brief stabilisation in Hallstatt D and then falling like a stone through La Tene until the Roman arrival. That’s kind of interesting because French archaeologist Melchard?? links hallstatt C in France with a major switch back to north Atlantic focus then a resumption of west central influence in Hallstatt D then a shift of power further north in the La Tene era. It’s almost like the success or not of U152 is linked to those fluctuations Or that something to do with the transition from bronze to iron hugely impacted U152. Some people do think the loss of elite monopoly on control of bronze that the coming of iron caused may have induced a systems collapse. Wow! Your graph has really uncovered something unexpected.

[Pylsteen]

I was inspired by Riverman's graphs on E-V13 etc. It's a bit time-consuming though, doing this by hand, if this can be automated that would speed things up quite significantly, although by hand you get a better understanding of the clades IMO and FTDNA seems to like to keep this tree in-house. I agree L21, DF27 and U106 (maybe I1 too) would be great to visualize like this as well. Patience...

[Dewsloth]

I was inspired by Riverman's graphs on E-V13 etc. It's a bit time-consuming though, doing this by hand, if this can be automated that would speed things up quite significantly, although by hand you get a better understanding of the clades IMO and FTDNA seems to like to keep this tree in-house. I agree L21, DF27 and U106 (maybe I1 too) would be great to visualize like this as well. Patience...

Can you explain the methodology?  I'd like to be consistent and try it with DF19.  If it's humanly possible with U106 and L21, DF19 should take about 20 minutes, tops.

[Riverman]

The Scythian raids at the end of Hallstatt did really hurt the Tumulus culture derived people in the East. The Celtic La Tene expansion was to some degree already more a redistribution, even if they managed to take large zone of the Carpatho-Balkans and Iberia in particular, even down to Anatolia, but you need to consider that a lot, really a lot, of this expansion was nearly completely lost.

There is almost no R-L2 East of the Alps any more, yet they once completely covered Czechia, West Slovakia, much of Hungary etc. Most of the R-L2 branches which still exist in these regions are either severely undertested, pretty rare or were brought in from the West, mostly by Germans in the Medieval period.

I think with high resolution testing of Eastern Tumulus, Eastern Hallstatt, and Eastern Celtic people, new branches will appear, which are not even known from the modern sampling.

But for R-L2 in particular, the biggest growth was definitely during the Tumulus into early Urnfield period. Much of the later Celtic territory was already covered by then and the later Celtic expansion might have even been R-L2 vs. R-L2 fighting it out, West Hallstatt clans of R-U152 vs. Eastern Hallstatt clans of the same haplogroup. There was really not that much they did conquer which Tumulus and Urnfield didn't occupy before. And where they did, like I said before, it didn't last or was that successful even on the middle, yet alone the longer run.

Its even more extreme in the Bell Beaker West where essentially, for many, many centuries, one group of Bell Beaker descendants could only replace another one of the BB stock.

[Strabo]

The Scythian raids at the end of Hallstatt did really hurt the Tumulus culture derived people in the East. The Celtic La Tene expansion was to some degree already more a redistribution, even if they managed to take large zone of the Carpatho-Balkans and Iberia in particular, even down to Anatolia, but you need to consider that a lot, really a lot, of this expansion was nearly completely lost.

There is almost no R-L2 East of the Alps any more, yet they once completely covered Czechia, West Slovakia, much of Hungary etc. Most of the R-L2 branches which still exist in these regions are either severely undertested, pretty rare or were brought in from the West, mostly by Germans in the Medieval period.

I think with high resolution testing of Eastern Tumulus, Eastern Hallstatt, and Eastern Celtic people, new branches will appear, which are not even known from the modern sampling.

But for R-L2 in particular, the biggest growth was definitely during the Tumulus into early Urnfield period. Much of the later Celtic territory was already covered by then and the later Celtic expansion might have even been R-L2 vs. R-L2 fighting it out, West Hallstatt clans of R-U152 vs. Eastern Hallstatt clans of the same haplogroup. There was really not that much they did conquer which Tumulus and Urnfield didn't occupy before. And where they did, like I said before, it didn't last or was that successful even on the middle, yet alone the longer run.

Its even more extreme in the Bell Beaker West where essentially, for many, many centuries, one group of Bell Beaker descendants could only replace another one of the BB stock.

But why do you define Tumulus/L2 as "Celtic"?  Based on what? Was there a migration of proto celts into germany south of the danube that led to "Danube EBA" as Quiles puts it and leading subsequently to the "core zone" of pre expansion Tumulus? Are these U152 L2 celticized (former) pre proto italic peoples that stayed north?

Dont forget the postulated "east alpine IE" which the paper "Celtic from the West" kind of of insinuates that celtic is a fairly recent (late) newcomer to the region in La Tene era. Is not more likely that "East Alpine IE" was from ethnic cleasning Tumulus that went east? Unless Tumulus avoided eastern pre Alps?

[Strabo]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav4040

For the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to Northern and Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age (Figs. 1, C and D, and 2B). The increase was 10 to 19% (95% confidence intervals given here and in the percentages that follow) in 15 individuals along the Mediterranean coast where non-Indo-European Iberian languages were spoken; 11 to 31% in two individuals at the Tartessian site of La Angorrilla in the southwest with uncertain language attribution; and 28 to 43% in three individuals at La Hoya in the north where Indo-European Celtiberian languages were likely spoken (fig. S6 and tables S11 and S12).

This trend documents gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18). Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages (12), our results indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages.

Are these findings and conclusions still valid in 2023?

[Riverman]

The Scythian raids at the end of Hallstatt did really hurt the Tumulus culture derived people in the East. The Celtic La Tene expansion was to some degree already more a redistribution, even if they managed to take large zone of the Carpatho-Balkans and Iberia in particular, even down to Anatolia, but you need to consider that a lot, really a lot, of this expansion was nearly completely lost.

There is almost no R-L2 East of the Alps any more, yet they once completely covered Czechia, West Slovakia, much of Hungary etc. Most of the R-L2 branches which still exist in these regions are either severely undertested, pretty rare or were brought in from the West, mostly by Germans in the Medieval period.

I think with high resolution testing of Eastern Tumulus, Eastern Hallstatt, and Eastern Celtic people, new branches will appear, which are not even known from the modern sampling.

But for R-L2 in particular, the biggest growth was definitely during the Tumulus into early Urnfield period. Much of the later Celtic territory was already covered by then and the later Celtic expansion might have even been R-L2 vs. R-L2 fighting it out, West Hallstatt clans of R-U152 vs. Eastern Hallstatt clans of the same haplogroup. There was really not that much they did conquer which Tumulus and Urnfield didn't occupy before. And where they did, like I said before, it didn't last or was that successful even on the middle, yet alone the longer run.

Its even more extreme in the Bell Beaker West where essentially, for many, many centuries, one group of Bell Beaker descendants could only replace another one of the BB stock.

But why do you define Tumulus/L2 as "Celtic"?  Based on what? Was there a migration of proto celts into germany south of the danube that led to "Danube EBA" as Quiles puts it and leading subsequently to the "core zone" of pre expansion Tumulus? Are these U152 L2 celticized (former) pre proto italic peoples that stayed north?

Dont forget the postulated "east alpine IE" which the paper "Celtic from the West" kind of of insinuates that celtic is a fairly recent (late) newcomer to the region in La Tene era. Is not more likely that "East Alpine IE" was from ethnic cleasning Tumulus that went east? Unless Tumulus avoided eastern pre Alps?

Like I said, we don't know what the Eastern Tumulus culture people spoke, but they must have been within the Centrum speaker/Italo-Celtic range, so either more distantly related to Celtic and/or Italic, Pre-/Proto-Celtic or something in between.

As for the Tumulus culture being the source of the Proto-Celtic people, I don't see a strong break after TC and a largely continuous development in culture and patrilineages since then. There were big inputs from the East, but no real break.

On the other hand, the areas outside of the TC core experienced such breaks and discontinuities which don't fit into a unified Celtic horizon.

Even in the Hallstatt period we have Northern groups, between Celts and Germanics, like the "Central German fortress people", which were part of the Hallstatt sphere, but did develop their own group and remained outside of the La Tene shift. They were finally annihilated by Germanics from the North and La Tene Celts from the South West, which kind of squeezed them to death.

Therefore the more Northern areas, those between Jastorf Germanics and La Tene Celts BENELUX-Germany look like having been rather non-Celtic or at least not well-integrated into what became La Tene Celts.

We can clearly see that the Hallstatt sphere was more diversified than the La Tene Celts were. Whether e.g. a more Daco-Thracian/Basarabi/Eastern orientation of groups like Frög and Kalenderberg meant something on the ethnic level is hard to tell.

[Albruic]

I wonder what the haplotype distribution is like for these expanding groups. In present-day France, DF27 has as much if not more of a presence throughout most regions than U152. L21 increases in gradient towards the North and West. 
I'd imagine this to be the case with Gallic tribes.

Is most DF27 in France linked with a more archaic substratum that later receives (mostly L2?) migration from the Rhine in LBA? I wonder if DF27 was already a predominate (or close to, or at least as much) Y-lineage as U152 in the EBA-LBA Middle Rhine.  
Who knows at this point I guess. 

I pinned all (or most of) P312 and DF27 samples of https://indo-european.maps.arcgis.com/ 


P312 + DF27 EARLY BRONZE AGE 


P312 + DF27 MIDDLE BRONZE AGE 



P312 + DF27 EARLY IRON AGE



From what I've seen, U152 is more predominant basically all over Western Europe in all 3 ages. And I would say P312 consists in almost 60% of all pins. (I think the site's database is a little old though, but it can give us a reference) L21 does go north-west and when it arrives in British Isles you see lots and lots of DF13s.

[Pylsteen]

I was inspired by Riverman's graphs on E-V13 etc. It's a bit time-consuming though, doing this by hand, if this can be automated that would speed things up quite significantly, although by hand you get a better understanding of the clades IMO and FTDNA seems to like to keep this tree in-house. I agree L21, DF27 and U106 (maybe I1 too) would be great to visualize like this as well. Patience...

Can you explain the methodology?  I'd like to be consistent and try it with DF19.  If it's humanly possible with U106 and L21, DF19 should take about 20 minutes, tops.

The method used is as follows:

1) Open the branch you would like to analyse in the FTDNA discover tree, and open the time tree
2) Hold notepad next to it, or if you can use split screens, you might utilize excel or whatever graph program you use, immediately
3) Write down the branch name (SNP), TMRCA, and the number of direct downstream branches, separated by comma's or semicolons.
The number of modern direct downstream branches can be inferred by counting the blue lines (generally they are two, sometimes more, the number is also in the "haplogroup story"). Generally, I ignored the brown ancient lines, because they might have variable coverage. If a branch did not show downstream blue lines or only brown ancients, I counted them as 1. I did include results from e.g. the "Sardinian" study (those branches look a bit bleaker). I did ignore everything after 1000 AD to make things a bit easier.

you'll end up with a list like

branch,TMRCA,nr
L2,-2522,32
FTA56180,865,2
FT9470,-450,2

4) copy-past the list in excel (or similar) in separate columns (use paste, separate by comma etc.).
5) prepare the data as you want: check for typo's, add a column for subclades you want to explore, etc.
6) make a turn table with the TMRCA as row, subclades as column, and the sum of daughter branches as value
7) group the TMRCA's by intervals of 100 years (or other if wished)
8) you're ready to graph; I generally copy-paste the turn-table in a new plain table, add 0 in the empty fields, and don't forget to add the 100-year intervals that were empty in the turn-table.

Now for this topic, I'm picking up DF27 first at the moment. I might have results this weekend already. The tree is a great gift from FTDNA.