World Families Forums - England: Data From the Busby Study

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  England: Data From the Busby Study
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: England: Data From the Busby Study  (Read 4056 times)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2011, 02:57:15 AM »

Then we must have been talking about two different things, because I mentioned the "Frisian segment" and short haplotypes, and you said Capelli had Chippenham at 71%. I did not mention admixture; I was talking just y-dna, as usual.

That's obvious. You interjected yourself into my reply to Goldenhind and conflated the two separate but mutually supportive views that I provided for him, Capelli's and Thomas'.

Capelli's admixture analysis however is a population admixture based purely on yDNA, the relative proportion of indigenous and migrant YDNA as stated in the paper.

We don't have data for Thomas' 'frisian segment' just the redrawn map from the Spiegel article which, as far as I know, was subsequent to Capelli's study.

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 03:11:22 AM by authun » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2011, 04:06:40 AM »

Chippenham seems too far west

Well Chippenham is just the sampling point but some of the earliest anglo saxon graveyards appear to radiate from the upper Thames valley. Many are 5th century, such as Collingbourne Ducis, one of the largest in Wiltshire.

We have some interesting comparisons such as the romano british cemetery at Queenford Farm and the adjacent anglo saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield. The Queenford Farm where, as Catherine Hills notes:

"The main period of use at Queenford Farm is in the fourth and into the fifth century AD, whilst at Berinsfield it is in the fifth into the sixth century AD, suggesting that the two cemeteries succeeded each other."

See http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/berinsfield.gif

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 05:45:41 AM by authun » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2011, 07:07:04 AM »

Then we must have been talking about two different things, because I mentioned the "Frisian segment" and short haplotypes, and you said Capelli had Chippenham at 71%. I did not mention admixture; I was talking just y-dna, as usual.

That's obvious. You interjected yourself into my reply to Goldenhind and conflated the two separate but mutually supportive views that I provided for him, Capelli's and Thomas'.

Capelli's admixture analysis however is a population admixture based purely on yDNA, the relative proportion of indigenous and migrant YDNA as stated in the paper.

We don't have data for Thomas' 'frisian segment' just the redrawn map from the Spiegel article which, as far as I know, was subsequent to Capelli's study.

best
authun

I may have "interjected" myself into part of a thread I in fact started, but I clearly referred to Thomas' map and the "Frisian segment", and you replied without making it clear what you meant.  My post was merely a caution to beware the so-called Frisian segment, a six-marker bikini haplotype that can be misleading.

Even so, my reply to that referred to Capelli's study. I was polite, not argumentative, and explained why I was baffled by the "71%" reference, which figure is not clear from Capelli's own table of y-dna haplogroups.

Your reply above, however, is rude and impolite. Snotty would be an apt characterization of it.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 07:21:50 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2011, 07:59:27 AM »

I still do not see how Capelli could have claimed 71% Anglo-Saxon input for Chippenham based on y-dna, given the y-dna results as reported in Table 1. Even if everything else is classed as Anglo-Saxon (and I doubt that it would be), Capelli is still reporting 49% "AMH+1" in his Chippenham sample. I don't think he regards that as Anglo-Saxon, since, in his "Conclusions", he says, "Wilson et al. [4] noted that AMH+1 haplotypes at high frequency are associated with the European Palaeolithic". But perhaps he is assigning a portion of that to the Anglo-Saxons, as well.

I don't have access to Capelli's supplementary info, and I am not used to seeing y-dna results referred to as "admixture", since y-dna does not recombine. Certainly we have male ancestors in lines other than our own direct y-dna line, but y-dna itself cannot be "admixed", so it seems a little odd to refer to it that way. I mean, you didn't get part of your y-dna from the Anglo-Saxons and part from the Britons. You only have one y chromosome, and you got it from one father who himself got it from one father, and so on. No "admixture". Autosomal dna is another story.

I understand Capelli, if he used the word "admixture", was using the proportions of y-dna haplogroups as a proxy for actual admixture.

All that aside, I know from personal experience that a six-marker haplotype is nowhere near long enough to distinguish a U106+ "Anglo-Saxon" from a U106- "Briton", especially in western England, where I believe L21 predominates. The little Frisian segment is probably a pretty good rule of thumb in eastern England and along the North Sea littoral, but I think it falls apart or begins to fall apart elsewhere.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2011, 08:31:11 AM »

I may have "interjected" myself into part of a thread I in fact started, but I clearly referred to Thomas' map and the "Frisian segment", and you replied without making it clear what you meant.  My post was merely a caution to beware the so-called Frisian segment, a six-marker bikini haplotype that can be misleading.

I did not comment on your claim that Thomas' 'frisian segment' is based on a six marker bikini haplotype as I don't know on what it is based. I certainly don't have the data. Perhaps you can provide us with it?

Even so, my reply to that referred to Capelli's study. I was polite, not argumentative, and explained why I was baffled by the "71%" reference, which figure is not clear from Capelli's own table of y-dna haplogroups.

I simply pointed out that Capelli doesn't make a reference to a 'frisian segment' as your question assumed and that the 71% comes from the MCMC analysis stated in the text and provided in the Supplemental Data.

Your reply above, however, is rude and impolite. Snotty would be an apt characterization of it.
This is simply facile.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 09:25:55 AM by authun » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2011, 09:22:55 AM »

I don't have access to Capelli's supplementary info, and I am not used to seeing y-dna results referred to as "admixture", since y-dna does not recombine.

LEA, the programme Capelli used, is an estimation of population admixture, the relative proportions in the final population which results from a host population being added to by a new incoming population.

The abstract here will give you a quick overview:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-8278.2001.00099.x/abstract

Capelli's Supplemental data itself is not hard to find on Google:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2803%2900373-7

and it is referenced in the main text:

"Admixture proportions were also evaluated by using a likelihood approach implemented by the program Lea[16]. This quantitative analysis was consistent with the visual pattern shown by PC investigation, and it also provides significant evidence that there has not been complete population replacement anywhere in the British Isles (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Data available with this article online)."

16. Chikhi, L., Bruford, M.W., and Beaumont, M.A. (2001). Estimation of admixture proportions: a likelihood-based approach using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Genetics 158, 1347–1362.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461710/pdf/11454781.pdf

At the time of the Capelli paper, 6 loci were considered sufficient.

I am not being "snotty" as you put it. I just don't see why you can't read the text and follow up on the references yourself.

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2011, 02:06:33 PM »

. . .

I am not being "snotty" as you put it. I just don't see why you can't read the text and follow up on the references yourself.

best
authun

One thing I have learned is that you are not someone to whom I can honestly pose a question or two, even if I ring it with qualifications about my desire not to be argumentative or contrary.

I read the text. I had questions about it. I tried to ask you, but you chose to be a horse's behind.

But thanks, I have your number now.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2011, 02:47:52 PM »

I read the text. I had questions about it. I tried to ask you, but you chose to be a horse's behind.

But thanks, I have your number now.

This is simply a display of emotional immaturity, hardly appropriate for a moderator. Your questions have been answered and where your assumptions have been incorrect, you have been informed, politely as far as I am concerned. It's not my fault that you conflated Capelli and Thomas and took umbridge at being corrected. Any personal sleight that you perceived was entirely spurious. As for 'snotty' and 'horse's behind' you may like to consider whether your momentary feeling of self satisfaction is worth the longer term diminution of your posts.

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2011, 03:07:17 PM »

I read the text. I had questions about it. I tried to ask you, but you chose to be a horse's behind.

But thanks, I have your number now.

This is simply a display of emotional immaturity, hardly appropriate for a moderator. Your questions have been answered and where your assumptions have been incorrect, you have been informed, politely as far as I am concerned. It's not my fault that you conflated Capelli and Thomas and took umbridge at being corrected. Any personal sleight that you perceived was entirely spurious. As for 'snotty' and 'horse's behind' you may like to consider whether your momentary feeling of self satisfaction is worth the longer term diminution of your posts.

best
authun

Okay, that's your opinion. It's enough.

Be satisfied with it. I think you're wrong, but it's not worth belaboring.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2011, 06:37:34 PM »


I think we should be able to have discussions and even disagreements without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. Let's try to maintain some degree of civility.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 18 queries.