World Families Forums - R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 26, 2014, 03:07:43 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)
| | |-+  R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results  (Read 8554 times)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2011, 03:37:57 AM »

Orin Wells writes on RootWeb: “I wonder what the odds are that _anyone_ would match exactly on the 16 markers after 3,300 years?”

Not if you presuppose my theory:
1)   mutations around the modal
2)   convergence to the modal as time passes
3)   except when the mutations go for the tangent

These principles are the cause of the wrong calculation of the MRCA as has been manifested by the recent ancient DNA found: the current theories must be multiplied at least for 2.5.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2011, 03:12:30 PM »

...These principles are the cause of the wrong calculation of the MRCA as has been manifested by the recent ancient DNA found: the current theories must be multiplied at least for 2.5.
What does this have to do with Ancient DNA?  Shouldn't we talk about this on an TMRCA related thread?  The good news on Ancient DNA is we have carbon dating methods.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 03:12:57 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2011, 03:52:09 PM »

What does this have to do with Ancient DNA?  Shouldn't we talk about this on an TMRCA related thread?  The good news on Ancient DNA is we have carbon dating methods.
I don't know if you understood my answer: I was replying to Orin Wells, i.e. two haplotypes separated by 3300 years are comparable only if my principles are true, otherwise Orin Wells would be right.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2011, 09:01:02 PM »

I guess you all probably saw this on Rootsweb.

Quote from: Anatole Klyosov
MY COMMENT:

The Tut's haplotype is not a "European" one, and all statements about its
"similarity with Europeans" are essentially statements that "it belongs to
R1b1a2 haplogroup". However, R1b1a2 are not necessarily "Europeans" as all
of us here do know.

It does not mean, of course, that it would be impossible to find a few dozen
Europeans whose 16 marker haplotype matches the Tut's one. However, it would
have nothing to do with his "descendants" or "relatives" except in a broad
term, that they all belong to R1b "tribe". It would indicate that (1) they
belong to the same haplogroup R1b, (2) silly statistics. As I see it, there
is a higher chance for those "matchers" to belong to R-M269* or R-L11
subclades (though other subclades can hit that silly statistics), however,
with a rather unusual DYS439=10 (not a common 12). There are only around
0.5% of R1b1a2 bearers in Europe with DYS439=10.

Having said that, my three conclusions:

(1) The haplotype 13 24 14 11 11 14 10 13 13 30 -- 16 14 19 10 15 12

(the first 10 are the FTDNA 12 marker panel without DYS426 and 388, the rest
are DYS458, 437, 448, GATAH4, DYS 456, 438)
is not a "European" haplotype. Therefore, when it was flashing on TV screen
(thank you Robert Tarin for your sharp eye and good skill in reading raw
data), it was NOT an ordinary R1b haplotype picking at the lab just as an
example. It was a rather unique haplotype, very likely to be the ancient
Tut's haplotype.

(2)  The haplotype above did not come to Egypt from Europe. It is too
ancient to be a European haplotype some 3300-4000 years ago (see below). It
came from the R1b1a2 migration from the Middle East along the North
African - Mediterranean coast between 5500 and 5000 years before present. On
its migration route (or a military expedition?) the R1b1a2 bearers went
through Egypt and established their presence, by setting superior rulers.
They were ancestors of King Tut, who lived 1,700-2,200 years later. The
R1b1a2 bearers had continued their route, reached the Atlantic Ocean,
crossed the Strait of Gibraltar, landed in the Pyrenees, established the
Bell Beaker culture around 4800 ybp, and moved up North to populate the
continental Europe between mainly 4500 to 3000 ybp.

(3) The Tut's haplotype (above) differs from M269* base haplotype by 8
mutations, from L51 base haplotype by 6 mutations, from L11 base haplotype
by 6 mutations, from U106 base haplotype by 8 mutations, from its brother
P316 base haplotype by 6 mutations. 8 mutations for the 16 marker haplotype
translate 8/0.034 = 235 --> 306 conditional generations (25 years each),
that is to 7650 years. 6 mutations translate to 6/0.034 = 176 --> 214
conditional generations, that is to 5350 years. This is a distance between
the Tut's haplotype and said base haplotypes. Since Tut lived about 3,300
ybp, and the "age" of M269*, L51, L11 and P312 base haplotypes is around
7,000, 5300, 4600, and between 3525 and 4100 ybp (calculated with different
datasets), respectively, a common ancestor of King Tut and M269*, L11, or
P312 base haplotypes lived 8975, 6975, 6625, or 6100-6400 years ago,
depending on which R1b subclade Tut belonged to. They are all pre-European
dates for R1b. The last situation (P312) is very unlikely, as well as even
less likely for U106. M269*, L51 and L11 are more likely for King Tut to
belong to.

In a nutshell: King Tut was a descendent of R1b1a2 moving from Middle East
(Mesopotamia, Lebanon, Sumers, etc.) along the North African - Mediterranean
sea coast, who established a mighty ruling group in Egypt, which became the
Pharaohs. His subclade is likely M269* or maybe L11 or L51. There are no
European descendants of him or his close relatives, since they did not come
to Europe. The Tut's haplotype did not descend from European R1b haplotypes.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov

Of course, even if King Tut was R1b of some kind (which seems likely), he lived from about 1341 BC to about 1323 BC. That's still Bronze Age, and that's as far back as we get with R1b thus far.

By the way, I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Klyosov's theory that R1b migrated from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa, but it is an interesting theory.

It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2011, 10:31:15 PM »

The trail of R1b into Europe is clear from the Danubian-Black Sea corridor to the fringes of the Atlantic. I do not see much proof of a Mediterranean-North African migration taking place.

The question is, why argue a position that is contrary to the empirical evidence thus far, all the while disregarding Occam's Razor?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2011, 10:45:42 PM »

I found this interesting:

Quote
One of the obvious features of Marfan syndrome is dolichocephaly.  With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.  From the control group, Thutmose II and the TT320-CCG61065 mummy show dolichocephaly, with cephalic indices of 73.4 and 74.3, respectively. Because there is no sign of premature closure of sutures,  none of the skull shapes can be considered pathological. The complex diagnosis of Marfan syndrome is based on certain combinations of major and minor clinical features. Following this classification, a Marfandiagnosis cannot be supported in these mummies. Antley-Bixler syndrome is also excluded in Tutankhamun and Akhenaten because their brachycephaly is not attributable to craniosynostoses, and further signs of Antley-Bixler or other syndromes are missing or unspecific.

Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
JAMA.
2010;303(7):638-647. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.121
Logged

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2011, 10:54:22 PM »

It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?

There was a blood relationship that existed between the royals of Mitanni and the Egyptians.  Along the female lines. Not paternal.  Definitely a subject worthy of further investigation.

People Of Ancient Assyria (Jorgen Laessoe)

Quote
Politically, the city of Nuzi admitted dependence on a central Hurrian state-authority established some time prior to 1500 B. c. in the area along the Habur, the northern tributary of the Euphrates. The capital of this Hurrian kingdom was Washukkanni, a city that it has recently with some likelihood been proposed to identify with the present Tell Feheriya; the excavation that could confirm this assumption has not yet, however, been undertaken. The time when a series of lesser Hurrian communities were united through the establishment of a greater state cannot be exactly determined, and this Hurrian state, called Mi t tanni , which lasted till about 1350 B.C. , was of varying extent and influence. In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries, when Mittanni reached the peak of its power, its kings enjoyed an equal footing with the pharaohs of Egypt and with the Kassite kings of Babylon; after a period marked by clashes of interest in Syria, friendly relations were inaugurated between the ruling houses of Mittanni and Egypt,
and a lively correspondence ensued. Thus, among the finds at Tell el-Amarna, were letters from the king of Mittanni, Tushratta, to Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton).

The earliest Mittanni king whose name is so far known is Parattarna, who can be dated to the period immediately after 1500 B.C. The geographical extent of the kingdom of Mittanni in the middle of the century, about 1450 B.C., is illustrated by the fact that Saushatar, then ruling at Washukkanni, appears as supreme authority
both in Alalah [Tell Atshana] in northern Syria and in Nuzi, east of the Tigris. After many years’ conflict with Thothmes III of Egypt over the control of Syria-wars that brought the Egyptian army as far as the Euphrates, and as far north as Aleppo and Carchemish-under Saushatar Mittanni was recognized as a great power on a par with Egypt. Under Artadama (about 1430 B.C.), his successor, a daughter of the king of Mittanni was sent to Egypt as the bride of Thothmes IV; similarly, Amenhotep III married a daughter of Sudarna II of Mittanni (about 1400 B.C.). When Egyptian doctors and Egypt’s own gods had not been successful in curing an illness from which Amenhotep III suffered, Sudarna sent the statue of the goddess Ishtar from her temple in Nineveh to his Egyptian confrere, and the ensuing recovery of the Egyptian king must have been powerful propaganda for the Assyrian goddess. Under Tushratta (about 1380 B.C.) friendly relations between the royal courts of Egypt and Mittanni still continued; Amenhotep IV, who as a religious reformer bore the name of Akhenaton, took one of Tushratta’s daughters, Tatuhepa, into his harem.

The beginning of renewed independence for Assyria can be attributed to the reign of Assur-nadin-ahhe II (c. 1393-1384 B.C.). From the Assur of his time we only know the signature with which he caused his bricks to be stamped: ‘Assur-nadin-ahhe, viceroy of the god Assur’. Thus in his official designation he laid no claim to territorial possessions. We know, however, from the archives at Tell el-Amarna that his envoys obtained audience of Amenhotep III, and that he received economic assistance from Egypt; it may well be that the Egyptians saw in him a possible ally against the Hittites, whose expansion into Syria at that time threatened to conflict with the interests of the pharaohs. Assur-uballit (1356-1320 B.C.) was the first to consolidate Assyria anew as a significant power in the Near East; it was under this king that the Middle Assyrian kingdom was established. At this time there was some doubt in diplomatic circles as to the extent to which Assyria was or was not to be regarded as a vassal-state of Babylon. The Kassite king of Babylon, Burnaburiash, was of the opinion that the Egyptian court had slighted him by receiving the envoys of Assur-uballit; on a later occasion he also complained to the pharaoh Tutankhamon that Assur-uballit in his letters to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) had described himself as ‘great king’. Nevertheless, Egyptian envoys soon appeared at the court of Assur-uballit, and relations between Babylon and Assur improved; the understanding between southern and northern Mesopotamia was strengthened by a marriage between a Kassite prince of Babylon, Karaindash, and a daughter of Assur-uballit named MuballitatShru’a. So it can be understood that the last king of Mittanni, Mattiwaza, after his flight from Washukkanni, should apply to the king of Babylon for protection without receiving any sympathy: Babylon had by now already accepted Assur as a Mesopotamian ally in the current game of power-politics and had written off Mittanni as an entity that belonged to a period now closed.

A cultural element that the Old World undoubtedly owes to the Hurrians and their Indo-European rulers is the horse. As a draught animal in war and peace, the horse became universal in the Near East after the arrival of the Hurrians. Evidence of the part the Hurrians played in this revolution in cultural history can be traced as far as
Egypt, in that marianni, the term for a chariot-warrior, was adopted as a loan-word in Egyptian.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 11:27:39 PM by Humanist » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2011, 11:00:09 PM »

It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?
Definitely a subject worthy of further investigation.


Yes, it is now obvious Tut's DNA comes from elsewhere.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2011, 01:02:21 AM »

Yes, it is now obvious Tut's DNA comes from elsewhere.

Not sure if I have mentioned this before here.  Given the topic, it is relevant.  

The Egyptians referred to Mitanni as "Naharin."  The Egyptians referred to the Hurrians as "Suri."

In Akkadian, the Assyrian self-appellation was "Asurayu" or "Surayu."

In our Assyrian-Aramaic dialect, our self-appellation is "Suraya."  We spell it, as follows: alaph, simkat, waw, resh, yod, alaph.  The first alaph is silent.  If it were not silent, it would be "Asuraya."  In our Assyrian-Aramaic dialect, we refer to our homeland as "Bet Naharin."  

EDIT:
I should also add that our self-appellation is nothing new.  It is attested in the nearly 2000 years worth of our Church writings. 

An interesting reference to an Assyrian-Egyptian similarity very long after the reign of Tut.  And, ~200 years after Assyria ceased to be an independent state.  Although, there is nothing, likely, of substance here, bearing on the question of R1b and Tut. 

Herodotus: from The History of the Persian Wars, c. 430 BCE

VII.63: "The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their heads made of brass, and plaited in a strange fashion which is not easy to describe. They carried shields, lances, and daggers very like the Egyptian; but in addition they had wooden clubs knotted with iron, and linen corselets. This people, whom the Hellenes call Syrians, are called Assyrians by the barbarians [Persians]. The Chaldeans served in their ranks, and they had for commander Otaspes, the son of Artachaeus."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/greek-babylon.asp
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 01:20:28 AM by Humanist » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2011, 10:52:56 AM »

... Of course, even if King Tut was R1b of some kind (which seems likely), he lived from about 1341 BC to about 1323 BC. That's still Bronze Age, and that's as far back as we get with R1b thus far.
....
It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?
Yes, that's what I wonder about too. Tut's dynasty (the 18th Dynasty) is supposed to be part of the "New Kingdom" which involved foreign rulers.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2011, 12:05:33 PM »

By foreign could that be the Hiksos ? If I remember from school they came from the East with chariots and a few other traits that have been looked at in R1b origins.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #61 on: December 07, 2011, 09:26:15 PM »

I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.

What is the evidence for that? Is there an R1b SNP trail across North Africa to Iberia? What about haplotype variance?

My impression is that the R1b SNP trail is from southeast to northwest, beginning in western Asia or eastern Europe.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 09:26:25 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2011, 09:12:55 AM »

I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2011, 06:55:58 PM »

I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.

What is the evidence for that? Is there an R1b SNP trail across North Africa to Iberia? What about haplotype variance?
I think Anatole K is relying on non-genetic evidence in some respect. The nature of cattle in Iberia seem to indicate an African origin. Bell Beaker folks reached along the coast of N. Africa too along with R1b in Chad, Egypt, etc.  I think the consideration of the Basques and their language is also part of it. Apparently he must get higher diversity in Iberia too.

I don't see a trail of L11* back to L51* back to L23* along this route although I do get that there is V88. That's the wrong lineage, though. I know Anatole is thinking there is R-M269* in Iberia so maybe that's it, but still there is a lot of L23* back in the Caucasus... so I just don't get it.

On Dec 7th Anatole posted this in respect to U106 and P312.
Quote from: Anatole Klyosov
This is very little, and since both of them are "brother" subclades and both were derived from L11, it is clear that they are almost "twins". They could not travel separately from some place in Asia, they just did not have enough time for that. Those six mutations between P312 and U106 place THEIR common ancestor at 4800 ybp .... So, I believe that ALL P312 and U106 derived of the North Africa Iberia route, and probably at the very end of that route.
I agree with him on one very important point and Goldenhind has noted that Ken Nordtvedt has the same point.  U106, P312 and L11 are close in age so they must have arose in about the same place.

I think U106 is a key because of its high North European presence. However, U106 shows up in SE France and Austria according to some frequency maps. That plus the fact that I  (most others don't) get U106 as younger than P312 or U152 or even L21, implies the possibility that L23 or L11 came to Iberia, P312 was born there and has it expanded out early on, one of it's L11* brothers begat to U106.

In an effort to compare U106 from the south to the north in Western Europe I compared these three areas. There is some overlap.

N_Cont_Europe_______: Var=0.79 [Linear 36] (N=206) ---- Germany, Denmark, Poland, the Baltic Countries
South_Europe________: Var=0.87 [Linear 36] (N=31) ---- Iberia, Aquitane, SE France, Switzerland, Italy and Austria
Nordic_Area_________: Var=0.71 [Linear 36] (N=46) ---- Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland and Denmark


I thought I'd compare with Eastern Europe just for grins as that is another possible launch point.


East Europe_________: Var=1.23 [Linear 36] (N=58)


This is Poland, the Baltic Countries, Hungary, Czech Rep, Russia, Ukraine, etc.

To me U106 looks older in NE Europe than S/SW Europe.

Anatole seems to think U106 and P312 "could not travel separately" but then either
1) they were traveling very quickly as they grew in those early days or
2) they arose from central point in Europe like Hungary.

Anthony's vision of PIE would explain that U106 (pre-Germanic IE) went north along the east side of the Carpathians while P312 (pre-Celto-Italic IE) was on the other side following the Danube.  

Manco et al's dairy/secondary products revolution also would explain it with the Stelae and Beaker folks being two of a kind in Western European output of the movement.

The LBK is very tempting but just doesn't fit Iberia and is a little too early, and then there is a lack of R1b aDNA (to-date) problem.

I think we tend to underestimate the nature of this potential expansion. Antole's manifestation of this is "could not travel separately... not have enough time for that." Vince V has noted that Y DNA does not have to follow the culture one for one. Y DNA does not have to travel with ploddingly settlement by settlement at the pace of that process.  Explorers, traders and conquerors (heard of conquistadors?) could have moved faster and with less archealogical impact.... accounting for strong geographic patterns for U106, U152 and L21. P312*, L11* and Z196 seems to be scattered amongst its brothers.

How they got to SE Europe in the first place (be it the Steppes or the Bosporous or the Agean) I haven't a clue.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 08:03:56 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2011, 08:53:08 PM »

As I have said many times, I don't think the history of U106 will ever be understood until we have a better idea of its subclade distribution. We may find that some of its oldest subclades are found in unexpected places.

An origin in, or at least an expansion from somewhere in the vicinity of Hungary would not surprise me. From there (or wherever it was) I can't see any reason why they all had to go in only one direction.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 08:55:08 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2011, 09:49:33 PM »

I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.

It's hard to assess motives, but we all have them. He is an R1a=Indo-European partisan, though. That much is obvious. He has to get R1b away from the path of PIE, and moving it to North Africa does that nicely.

I would like to see him lay out all his evidence in a clear, orderly pattern. I have followed his posts on Rootsweb, and I have yet to see him really do that. He seems to expend most of his energy being condescending.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:50:37 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2011, 10:01:05 PM »

I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.

It's hard to assess motives, but we all have them. He is an R1a=Indo-European partisan, though. That much is obvious. He has to get R1b away from the path of PIE, and moving it to North Africa does that nicely.

I would like to see him lay out all his evidence in a clear, orderly pattern. I have followed his posts on Rootsweb, and I have yet to see him really do that. He seems to expend most of his energy being condescending
.

And Klyosov is Russian, so there could be an element of national pride there.

But I have my own preferences and desire a glorious history (and prehistory) for my own ancestors, too.
Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #67 on: December 09, 2011, 07:05:14 AM »

According to this.. African Cattle are probably from the Near East.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/cattle.htm


Recent mitochondrial DNA studies support the archaeological notion of multiple domestication events, with genetics indicating that breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced into Europe where they mixed with local wild animals (aurochs), and with African domesticated cattle. Although the site of Rosenkof in northern Germany has been the focus of some discussion arguing in support of an independent European domestication of cattle, aDNA evidence does not support such a designation, and no evidence for local domestication of cattle in Europe has been identified. In addition, a 2010 publication suggests that African cattle are also likely descended from previously domesticated cattle in the Near East and/or Indus Valley.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 07:06:47 AM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #68 on: December 09, 2011, 08:00:21 AM »

The movement of various flora and fauna north and east out of Iberia following the last Ice Age used to be cited as evidence that R1b moved out of Iberia after the last Ice Age, as well. It should be obvious that just because there were animals and plants that moved in a certain direction from a certain place does not mean a specific y haplogroup was present there at the time and made the same move.

So, the supposed movement of cattle from North Africa into Iberia - if that happened - is hardly evidence that any kind of R1b made the same move.

I don't see an R1b trail across North Africa. Where is it?

The presence of V88 among the Fulani in Africa doesn't really support it, unless one wants to argue the trek across Africa began as long ago as the time when R1b was at the as-yet-undifferentiated P25 (R1b1) level. V88 is a branch off of P25 and parallel to P297. All the other R1b stuff is descended from P297, except for M335, which is also parallel to P297 and V88.

If King Tut was R1b of some kind, that isn't really evidence of movement all the way across North Africa and into Iberia either, any more than finding that Bronze Age R1b in the Lichtenstein Cave is evidence that R1b trekked from Russia across Poland and Germany enroute to France.
Logged

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #69 on: December 09, 2011, 11:23:29 AM »

live stock has been moved in curragh's by binding the animals legs. These kind of boats  have (or are thought to)  ancient Near eastern origin. It could  they were trading cattle in the med. It wouldn't take many if selective breeding was the motive for this. If cattle from the Med, were more docile they would be better for milking. I'm not saying lactose persistence, or R1b came via the Med. but they may have wanted to improve their herds. My Da was a dairy farmer and he got into a family argument over breeds for milking  and breeds for meat. The milking breeds were smaller and didn't get as much for meat if they needed to be sold and vice- versa. This must be an age old consideration.       
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: December 09, 2011, 09:55:15 PM »

I have been trying on Rootsweb to ask Dr. Klyosov about his theory, but I'm not getting very far. He's just becoming defensive. Maybe I didn't couch my questions and possible objections in humble enough language.

Ah, well.

Bernard tried, as well, and got pretty much the same sort of response.

 
Logged

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #71 on: December 09, 2011, 11:19:55 PM »

One of the fellas on Rootsweb posted a link to this Algerian data.  Frequency is ~11% (11/102).

Code:
### 393 390 19 391 385 385 426 388 439 389i 392 389b 458 459 455 454 447 437 448 H4 456 438 635
031 12 24 13 11 11 13 xx xx 12 13 13 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 24
051 12 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 12 12 13 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
032 12 24 14 10 11 15 xx xx 14 13 14 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 14 16 12 23
133 12 25 14 11 12 14 xx xx 12 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 13 15 12 23
049 13 23 15 11 11 14 xx xx 12 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 23
060 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 14 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 18 12 15 12 23
044 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
117 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
135 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
053 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 13 14 13 30 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 13 23
015 14 24 13 11 11 13.2 xx xx 12 14 13 31 16 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 14 12 23

Analysis of Y-chromosomal SNP haplogroups and STR haplotypes in an Algerian population sample
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w218230060723252/414_2007_Article_203_ESM.html
Logged

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #72 on: December 09, 2011, 11:39:13 PM »

The lone Algerian haplotype, from the R-P312 and Subclades Project:
163647 R-P312*   Algeria   
13   24   14   11   11   14   12   12   11   13   13   29   18   9   9   11   11   24   15   19   29   15   15   16   17
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2011, 01:04:18 AM »

From Dna-forums :
Posted Today, 18:05 PM
Une discussion intéressante a lieu sur rootsweb avec Anatole Klyosov au sujet de sa théorie de l'arrivée de R1b en Europe occidentale via l'Afrique du Nord. Robert Tarin a donné un lien sur une étude du chromosome Y en Algérie: http://www.springerl...18230060723252/ qui contient en données supplémentaires des haplotypes R1b. Les voici:
Resized to 54% (was 1123 x 208) - Click image to enlarge

Pour valider la théorie de Klyosov il faudrait que ces R1b soit des L23, L150, L51 ou encore L11. Par contre si ce sont des P312 ou U106, ils viennent d'Europe occidentale. Didier qu'en penses tu ?


Posted Today, 19:35 PM
Pour le premier haplotype avec DYS385=11-13.2 voir ySearch EE57U (Acuna Araya, Chile) et DCQ4V (Williams, Grosse Bretagne). Très difficile que ces haplotypes soient d’origine Algérienne.

I traslate what Claire wrote: “For the first haplotype with DYS385=11-13.2 see ySearch EE57U  (Acuna Araya, Chile) and DCQ4V (Williams, Great Btitain). It is difficult that this haplotypes are of Algerian origin, i.e. they are of recent European descent. Next I’ll examine also the others.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:05:07 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2011, 01:22:01 AM »


As you cite, the sample is incredibly small and is not of much use for provide evidence of absence (of R1b for example.)

The same issue will probably cause inconclusive propositions even for positive results. We are seeing this discussion right not for E-V13. It is found in Neolithic Iberia, however, one contention is:  So what? that E-V13 currently found in Iberia is of a different set of lineages and still may have primarily come from some place east at a later date.

The positive evidence depends on what it is.  There is a big difference between finding an R-M343+ L23- person in Iberia in a Neolithic grave versus an M222+ person.

Haven't they found a large amount of E-V13( or something similar) in an area in North Wales?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:23:39 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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 0.141 seconds with 18 queries.