World Families Forums - R1b-L51 from the West

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2014, 06:04:22 PM
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-L51 from the West
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b-L51 from the West  (Read 35847 times)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #150 on: May 17, 2012, 06:37:00 PM »

^ Are all those haplotypes R-L23+? If so, I already calculated the variance, and compared that, to the variance for the different R-L23+ subpopulations from Myres et al(2010) using the 9 STRs you provided.
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #151 on: May 17, 2012, 07:27:57 PM »

Nice work Mark.  It is interesting that the G subclades appear in a wider neolithic time-frame.

One thing about R1b M269* and everything M269+ is the dates almost always come out to the 3rd millenium and later on Ken's Generations7 for 67 marker haplotypes.  

Thanks. I was in the mode of moving data so I thought I would help JeanL and just compile the data available and run it. I didnt realize that there was that may subclades.  To sum up the G2a coalescence generations and ages, the list is below.

You mentioned the period of G2 but there is a huge amount of Caucasus HT's in the oldest P15  and P16 which would be Eneolithic/Bronze ages in Middle East: 4500 to 3300 BC? 1.5K back to founder suggests a very small, if any, growth but around 5K Ybp must have had substantial growth in the Caucasus after first 60 generations or so. After that a SNP mutation occurs on an average of every 11 generations or 275 years. Is that a way to look at it?


G-P15 Founder GA=   269   6,726
G-P16 GB coal=   208   5,208
G-P15 GA coal=   200   4,998
G-M285 GB coal=   171   4,275
G-P20 GB coal=   151   3,767
G-M406 GB coal=   143   3,575
G-M406 GB coal=   143   3,575
G-U1 GB coal=   126   3,150
R-L21 GB coal=   105   2,624
G-Page19 GB coal=   92   2,294
G-M527 GB coal=   89   2,235
G-L497 GB coal=   83   2,082
G-M485 GB coal=   82   2,038
G-L91 GB coal=   78   1,959
G-M377 GB coal=   70   1,758

And about R-L21, it had been running 3.5- 4.0k ybp but lately in the 111 marker HTs with 435 births per mutation ocurrance (0.3% Rate) as per MarkoH. Would that suggest that a larger number of males born per a single male parent continuing with many generations as in a faster lineage expansion into more branches as shown in the coalescence age estimate?

I prevously I simply performed a counting of mutations from MikeW's Extended 111 marker haplotypes with only L21 positive tested kits and it show 13,912 mutations in 635 haplotypes.  

I sent this and other info to Anatole Klyosov and he told me last month that "It gives you 13,912/635 = 21.91 mutations per 111-marker haplotype, accumulated over the time from the presumably common ancestor. Since you know that the mutation rate constant for the 111 marker haplotype equals to 0.198, you immediately obtain 21.91/0.198 = 111-->124 generations, or 3100+/-310 years to the common ancestor. Actually, it is a strange figure. It is not L21. It might indeed be a phantom "common ancestor", a superposition of a number of them from different subclades. I bet the tree gives a number of branches." (*A range of 2,790 to 3,410 Ybp, I actually calculated 3,075 Ybp in my modded spreadsheet)"

Now Ken's Generation 111T shows (edit- Using 15 markers only):
N=648   L21 GB coal=119.5 is 2,988.6Ybp. The GB(founder)=130.0  is 3,249.8Ybp (we need sigma results in the excel sheet)

Both are methods are now similar, and the age of L21 have been running 3,750-4K Ybp, Ok whats up with Ken and AK's younger age?

MJost

Edit:
The mutation counting was with all 111 markers in MikeW L21 Extented spread sheet. Here is the Generation 111T using the full set of STRs less the ones Ken doesnt use.

YrsPerGen   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP     Founder   Generations YBP
25   N=648   GB coal=   119.5   2,988.2   GB=   133.3   3,331.6

Its a WOW on the closeness of 15 vs 100 markers used in Ken's Generation 111T

MJost
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 07:42:14 PM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #152 on: May 17, 2012, 08:39:24 PM »

Based on Mikewww's use of Ken's spreadsheet, L21 seems to be somewhat older. Here is the link: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg130967#msg130967
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #153 on: May 18, 2012, 09:12:25 AM »

Based on Mikewww's use of Ken's spreadsheet, L21 seems to be somewhat older. Here is the link: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg130967#msg130967

I think the difference is due to the use of MarkoH's faster mutation rates basically. There shouldnt be variance between the 67 vs 111 marker, and assuming mike used 25 yr generations.
MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 18, 2012, 10:05:19 AM »

Based on Mikewww's use of Ken's spreadsheet, L21 seems to be somewhat older. Here is the link: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg130967#msg130967

I think the difference is due to the use of MarkoH's faster mutation rates basically. There shouldnt be variance between the 67 vs 111 marker, and assuming mike used 25 yr generations.
MJost

I used 30 years/generation in all of those graphics I built a couple of months ago. That was under Ken's Gen 7 methodology and for 67 STR haplotypes only.  I literally had thousands of haplotypes for some subclades and at least hundreds.  I don't know why the 111 STR haplotypes calculations would be different, but it is a much more limited sample size of haplotypes.   If you really compare the methodologies and mutation rates used, you probably should re-run the same 111 STR haplotypes but for 67 STRs only.

We should also keep in mind that the graphics Richard R is looking at are mostly interclade ages between pairs of subclades.  They put maximums on the ages of the underlying SNP TMRCAs and Coalescence ages.  All of these numbers are also within probability ranges, not really single number estimates.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 10:08:30 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 707


« Reply #155 on: May 18, 2012, 10:52:57 AM »

L21 Tested only x425Nul 67 Markers kits only

YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP
30   N=2555   GB coal=   131.5   3,943.6   GB=   147.8   4,433.1
   
                     
TMRCA      Founder               
30      GAB=   194.1   5,824.2   

then at 25yr Gen's

YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP
25   N=2555   GB coal=   131.5   3,286.3   GB=   147.8   3,694.3
                  
TMRCA      Founder               
25      GAB=   194.1   4,853.5         
      
What should the rule be for using a specific number of years for a Generation?? With this entire L21 I dont see that 30 years is correct over thousands of years. Just in the last 1K years only. The founders age difference is about 1K yrs.

MJost

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #156 on: May 18, 2012, 11:10:31 AM »

The beaker phase was always the latest period when a Europe-wide lineage spread that had the ability to become dominant looks possible in the archaeological record and until recent year even that would have been surprising.  Post-beaker dates after 2000BC would be simply impossible to make sense of from the archaeological record for a Europe-wide spread of lineages moving to dominance.  The interclade dates for L21, P312 as a whole, L51* calculated by Mike etc do fit beatifully with the beaker period spread.  So I would have huge doubts about any dates coming in in the 2nd millenium unless they are intraclades.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #157 on: May 18, 2012, 12:40:23 PM »

What should the rule be for using a specific number of years for a Generation?? With this entire L21 I dont see that 30 years is correct over thousands of years. Just in the last 1K years only. The founders age difference is about 1K yrs.

MJost




I saw something donkeys ago saying anthropology studies supported longer no. of yrs per generation than used by most genealogists and mentioned that here. Unfortunately I couldn't remember where I'd seen it and at the time failed to locate a reference.

Since then I did come across an article which I saved to my computer (which I typically can't find :) but I think this one (which I just googled) covers the subject quite well.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.johnbrobb.com/Content/DNA/How_Long_Is_A_Human_Generation.pdf&sa=U&ei=Vna2T9bzNsmw0QW1yZmxCg&ved=0CCIQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNFLieocNgUOxt19oisTvsi1AvyM9g

As it happens the average age over 12 generations in my line is just over 35 yrs, though of course that is relatively recent history.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #158 on: May 19, 2012, 09:40:51 AM »

Yes I have seen a few articles that show recent Genelogical time frame such as:
 http://www.ancestry.ca/learn/learningcenters/default.aspx?section=lib_generation

There are some Pay to Play reports such as:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20188/references

I too seem to have read articles concerning the 1st millennium average familial generation length much shorter. I did read the Population Simulation paper
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

In the Discussion section,

"The length of the sims' lives is governed by a formula
based on data from the United States between 1900 and
1930, skewed to produce average life spans of 51.8 years
for those reaching adulthood. It is not clear if this is a
reasonable assumption and may be an overestimate of average
lifespans prior to modern medicine and widespread
agriculture
. The fact that a generation in the model is
taken to be 30 years may seem rather long, but it results
from the mean age of a newborn's parents, with mothers
averaging a bit under 28 years old and fathers just over 33."

Underlining was added by me.

MJost

« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 09:46:10 AM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #159 on: May 19, 2012, 09:56:02 AM »

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

MJost 
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #160 on: May 19, 2012, 10:15:44 AM »

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

I've seen some recommendations to use 30 years/gen for the last 1000 years and 25 years/gen for any time estimates than 1000 years.  In other words, use 30 years/gen for any TMRCA less than 33 generations (1000 years) and if the generations (G) are greater then use  G - 33 / 25 (years/gen) + 1000.

I'm not sure that it matters so much because these things are not that precise and we have other issues, like possible STR linearity durations, that may be underestimating age.  The 30 year/gen may balance that out.  We don't know its just not that precise.

However, I think it is a point well taken that these time estimates are not always underestimating age. They "most likely" midpoint time estimates could just as easily be overestimating as underestimating age.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 10:16:05 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
chris1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2012, 11:26:39 AM »

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

I've seen some recommendations to use 30 years/gen for the last 1000 years and 25 years/gen for any time estimates than 1000 years.  In other words, use 30 years/gen for any TMRCA less than 33 generations (1000 years) and if the generations (G) are greater then use  G - 33 / 25 (years/gen) + 1000.

I'm not sure that it matters so much because these things are not that precise and we have other issues, like possible STR linearity durations, that may be underestimating age.  The 30 year/gen may balance that out.  We don't know its just not that precise.

However, I think it is a point well taken that these time estimates are not always underestimating age. They "most likely" midpoint time estimates could just as easily be overestimating as underestimating age.
Not wanting to add more confusion but I made a note of (Ken Nordtvedt's?) advice on generation length for an early 111T version I tried using but I can't find where I saw it now:

 "YrsPerGen*

*Suggest -Enter A2 or A4  or A8 as 25 if less than 1000 years else 30 if more than 1000 yrs or your own family rate."
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #162 on: May 19, 2012, 03:35:31 PM »

This is from my modification and my notes. I usually delete this note before posting. Example:

YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP   MoD
25   N=5   GA coal=   146.2   3,654.6   GA=   186.1   4,652.8   Mjost
YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP   4/1/2012
25   N=2555   GB coal=   131.5   3,286.3   GB=   147.8   3,694.3   
*Suggest -Enter A2 or A4  or A8 as 25 if less than 1000 years else 30 if more than 1000 yrs or your own family rate.                        
59 Markers                        
TMRCA      Founder                  
25      GAB=   194.1   4,853.5            
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #163 on: May 19, 2012, 07:52:33 PM »

@All

Maybe this is the paper you may know of.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288116/pdf/AJHGv66p651.pdf

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2012, 07:02:36 AM »

@All

Maybe this is the paper you may know of.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288116/pdf/AJHGv66p651.pdf

MJost

Thanks, I've saved it to somewhere sensible on my PC so maybe I'll be able to lay my hands on it next time I'm thinking about this subject !!

I think the major point in this paper is those that die younger have less impact on the overall age per generation.

It's particularly interesting that the study on the hunting and gathering !Kung (unfortunately unavailable online) drew remarkably similar conclusions.

It seems to me that the driving force is human nature or our biological clocks.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 07:06:35 AM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #165 on: May 20, 2012, 09:18:21 AM »

Here is a paper that uses 25 years per generation on deep ancestry.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/genographic/StaticFiles/ProjectUpdates/Woflgang.pdf

We now have a great interclade model from KenN which a statical generation engine. Years per generation standard is now required. So where should a specific age lines be drawn? maybe a layered approach should be used.

Example:
1) Unders 500 years of coalescence age estimate for a clade then use 33 years per generation.
2) between 501 to 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 29 years
3) Over 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 25 years

Any ideas?

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #166 on: May 20, 2012, 11:04:33 AM »

Here is a paper that uses 25 years per generation on deep ancestry.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/genographic/StaticFiles/ProjectUpdates/Woflgang.pdf

We now have a great interclade model from KenN which a statical generation engine. Years per generation standard is now required. So where should a specific age lines be drawn? maybe a layered approach should be used.

Example:
1) Unders 500 years of coalescence age estimate for a clade then use 33 years per generation.
2) between 501 to 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 29 years
3) Over 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 25 years

Any ideas?

MJost

Yes but they only used 25 yrs per generation, they didn't even explain why they thought this figure better than others.

Personally I don't really see why the figure should change dramatically between 500 yrs, 1000 or 1500 yrs ago the motivating forces would still be the same.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #167 on: May 21, 2012, 01:23:05 PM »

I let you know that Malagodi, as I had easily foreseen, resulted R-L51+ and has been put amongst the L51 in the “ht35 FTDNA project”.
I make you know that he is so far the most varied with

DYS19=13
DYS455=10
DYS437=17
DYS449=32
DYS460=10
H4=12
DYS456=17
DYS442=10
DYF406F1=12
DYS557=17
DYS487=14
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 01:44:02 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2012, 02:07:55 PM »

I let you know that Malagodi, as I had easily foreseen, resulted R-L51+ and has been put amongst the L51 in the “ht35 FTDNA project”.
I make you know that he is so far the most varied with

DYS19=13
DYS455=10
DYS437=17
DYS449=32
DYS460=10
H4=12
DYS456=17
DYS442=10
DYF406F1=12
DYS557=17
DYS487=14


Ask Klyosov, Nordtvedt, Vizachero (if he is still alive) and also Jean Manco (if she understands something of MR “trans stelas”) how much time it needs so that
DYS19 from 14 becomes 13 (MR: 0,001676)
DYS455 from 11 becomes 10 (MR: 0,000274)
DYS437 from 15 becomes 17 (MR: 0,00083)
DYS449 from 30 becomes 32 (MR: 0,008337)
DYS460 from 11 becomes 10 (MR: 0,003307)
H4 from 11 becomes 12 (MR: 0,002365)
DYS456 from 16 becomes 17 (MR: 0,005386)
DYS442 from 12 becomes 10 (MR: 0,003286)
DYF406S1 from 10 becomes 12 (MR: 0,001607)
DYS557 from 16 becomes 17 (MR: 0,0035)
DYS487 from 13 becomes 14 (MR: 0,00079)
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2012, 05:37:02 PM »

....
Ask Klyosov, Nordtvedt, Vizachero (if he is still alive) and also Jean Manco (if she understands something of MR “trans stelas”) how much time it needs so that
DYS19 from 14 becomes 13 (MR: 0,001676)...
It only takes one generation for a mutation to happen, no matter how slow the STR mutation rate.  Multiple mutations can happen in one generations. Multi-step generations can happen in one generation.  

The problem is looking at any single haplotype and trying to build a TMRCA from it or some other hypothesis.  We can drown in crossing a river with average depth of three feet.  It is clearly advantageous to have significant sample sizes so that adequate statistical averages can be applied.

Further discussion TMRCAs or statistics should probably occur over on the STR Wars thread or TMRCA thread.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 05:38:37 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 448


« Reply #170 on: May 24, 2012, 03:37:25 AM »

The beaker phase was always the latest period when a Europe-wide lineage spread that had the ability to become dominant looks possible in the archaeological record and until recent year even that would have been surprising.  Post-beaker dates after 2000BC would be simply impossible to make sense of from the archaeological record for a Europe-wide spread of lineages moving to dominance.  The interclade dates for L21, P312 as a whole, L51* calculated by Mike etc do fit beatifully with the beaker period spread.  So I would have huge doubts about any dates coming in in the 2nd millenium unless they are intraclades.

I am reading "Empires of the Word, A Language History of the World", by Nicolas Ostler.

"There are many ways of recounting the history of the world - via the rise and fall of civilisations, the fortunes of nation states, socio-economic systems and patterns, the development of technology, or the chronology of war and military prowess. This book tells the story through the rise and decline of languages. It is a compelling read, one of the most interesting books I have read in a long while."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/mar/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview3

In his description of the development of Celtic languages he seems to support the theory of Atlantic Celtic from the West and Cunliffe's idea of a Lingua Franca on the Atlantic Facade.
Two maps from the book illustrate clearly the division of pCeltic and qCeltic which he distinguishes as Atlantic Celtic and Eastern Celtic and the migration path of Atlantic Celtic along a maritime route and subsequent overlay with Phoenician.
The latter map bears an interesting resemblance to the route of L51* and subsequent path of P312.

http://db.tt/4ri6L4kE

http://db.tt/BGtzwlsf




Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



alexandromir
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #171 on: May 26, 2012, 05:32:21 AM »

Greetings from Bucharest fellow hobbyists!  I'm glad to see another good site coming together where we can truly be the vanguard of this new science....because that is exactly what we are...not many other fields where people like us can actually make a difference!

After the disappointment of approaching who I felt was the best brain among us for advice on how I could best spend my resources to fill in the black hole of the N Balkans with high-res tests (he stopped answering my questions after I suggested I wanted to approach Polako for help with the R1A's) I got somewhat sidetracked with finishing off a home in S Romania (Zimnicea) and building myself a tennis court there.  However, I still want to proceed but I don't have the time to do it all myself, I need someone to approach FTDNA to get me a good deal on circa 30,000$ worth of kits-and I will do the rest....and post it ALL online so YOU all can get cracking at realizing my intuition that this is where most of us came from.  I guess VV got scared thinking I wanted something from him besides advice....not to back my "outlandish" theories, LOL!

I am NOT that rich, I DON'T want to waste my time and money, but this is something I truly believe in.

BTW, Iplan to include eye color, height, and many other things in the data so we can learn much more than we do from these  studies these "Pro's" do.

My main question is--Why the  isn't one of you rich fucks doing this too?  How often these days can we amateurs actually pretend it's like it was in the 19th century where we can do something cool for so little $$....I doubt even the Romanian academy of sciences will want to pitch in...maybe I'll ask the EU:p...... 'em, even if nothing comes of the data, I can think of no nobler way of spending my time and money!!

Love you guys....and,, Romanian girls are soooooo hot!
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #172 on: May 26, 2012, 06:10:35 AM »

Hey, you actually showed up before coming back from Romania -- I had about given up.  Welcome aboard, but watch your language, this forum actually has a moderator.  As distinguished from the 'orrible "forumbiodiversity," where the GenX potty-mouth set gets to run things.

The other thread here that I already recommended for you is this one:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10621.msg130900#msg130900

Since then there has been a lot of chatter about DF27, mainly because new test results show that it seems to include many of the guys who used to be P312*.  That "new" SNP would be interesting to find in Romania.  Also L11*, if there still is such a thing. 

Getting a range of Romanian samples will be a very good start, but save a little of your budget for having them tested intelligently.  The groundwork for that is being laid, but the target moves frequently.  Anyway, I'm glad you have found where the knowledge-based discussion is going on (here, and on the Yahoo group for R-P312 and Subclades).

Good luck with your collecting effort -- I hope somebody knows how to get you a couple hundred little bottles with FTDNA bar codes, but I don't.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #173 on: June 13, 2012, 06:29:01 PM »

I copied this over from another thread because we are getting into a discussion of L51 descendants (L11).

Why might we be interested in the intersection between R1b1a2(M269)'s and R1b1a1(M73)'s territories?
We might consider that their overlapping territory might be a good place to look for their common father, R1b1a(P297)
.

Such scenario assumes that all R1b1a(P297) was confined to a single region, and that mutations M269 and M73 arose in that same region, it is equally likely that R1b1a(P297) started expanding, and while expanding the M269 mutation arose, and became successful amongst the P297 pool, then at a later or earlier time you had a different expansion where the M73 mutation arose, or even the R1b-V88. So, an intersection might not really give you any details, for all you know that region simply absorbed both M269 and M73, and has nothing to do with P297. Do you think R1b-L21, R1b-Z196 and R1b-U152 all arose in the same area, or in an area that was relatively close?

Yes.  

It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)

I think that U106 is not too distantly related must be kept into account as well.

It is phylogenetically demonstratable that from L51, descends L11, then P312 and U106, etc. These are real people, not just groups. There was one most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 and he was an L11* person, himself. He had to be younger than L11 and older than P312 or U106, whichever is oldest.

The real issues are just time and space.  Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport.  Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.)  Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants. An aspect of time calculation is TMRCA aging.  The closer P312, U106, U152, L2, L21, DF27 are in age the more close their origins were likely to be.

The geography I described may be wrong, but time and space limitations indicate these large L11 clades were relatively close in origin.

By the way, this works in some real family genealogy circumstances too.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 06:52:10 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #174 on: June 13, 2012, 07:59:16 PM »

Yes. 

It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)

Not really, L21 could have been born in NW France, U152 in a region around Austria, Switzerland or SE France, and DF27 could have been born in Iberia. We will have to look at the variance of each, and see where the variance peaks, and investigate it. Also, P312 being slightly older than L21, U152 or DF27 isn’t an inconvenience, and does not relate to them being born relatively close, it simply means that most of its other lines have gone extinct, hence why its TMRCA resembles that of the oldest of the L21, U152 or DF27 clades. 

I think that U106 is not too distantly related must be kept into account as well.

It is phylogenetically demonstratable that from L51, descends L11, then P312 and U106, etc. These are real people, not just groups. There was one most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 and he was an L11* person, himself. He had to be younger than L11 and older than P312 or U106, whichever is oldest.

From the data thus far observed, we can safely conclude that U106 was not born anywhere near Western Europe, perhaps Eastern Germany, but that’s about it. So what if they descend from L51, L11, etc, it doesn’t change the fact that U106 could descend from an L11 person living in Estonia, whereas P312 descend from a different L11 person living in France.

The real issues are just time and space.  Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport.  Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.)  Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants. An aspect of time calculation is TMRCA aging.  The closer P312, U106, U152, L2, L21, DF27 are in age the more close their origins were likely to be.

Not really, who is to say that P312 and U106 weren’t born at relatively close times in locations 1000 miles apart. Is there anything against that?


The geography I described may be wrong, but time and space limitations indicate these large L11 clades were relatively close in origin.

I see no indication of anything, you are simply postulating a probability, that is just as likely as many others. Their similar TMRCA doesn’t translate them into being born relatively close, that just not proven.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 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 0.179 seconds with 17 queries.