World Families Forums - So who were the first farmers in NW Europe?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 27, 2014, 03:21:11 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)
| | |-+  So who were the first farmers in NW Europe?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Down Print
Author Topic: So who were the first farmers in NW Europe?  (Read 3552 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #75 on: May 30, 2012, 11:49:32 AM »

Okay, where does the "2 or 3 times lower" come into play if it wasn't MJost's calculations you were comparing to aDNA.  I'm just trying to follow your reasoning.  You are one who made these statements.
I have written tons of letters about this.
Do you speak for JeanL?  For all I know you are putting up a straw man proposal with very limited data so that you can knock it down.   I don't care, I just wanted to see if the statement has a direct comparison made with valid consistent methodologies.
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2012, 12:11:32 PM »


I have been suggesting that since 2006.

I think it's possible I-M26 was once much more commonplace than it is now and has experienced a decline over the last several millennia.

It is very likely that I-P37.2+ tagged along G2a during the Neolithic colonization of Europe.

As for I-M26, I would say that according to the Morelli.et.al.2010 study one can see from Table-1 that the diversity of R1b-M269 is higher in Sardinia than that of I-M26, whereas G-M207 is inbetween R1b-M269 and I-M26.


http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010419&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010419.t001

Also according to the study by Lopez-Parra.et.al.2009, the diversity of R1b-M153 and R1b-SRY2627 with respect to I-M26 in the Pyrenees was studied, it turns out that they are in fact only slightly younger.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18803634

This is what they said about the mutation rate

Quote from: Lopez-Parra.et.al.2009
Time-to-most-recent-common-ancestor (TMRCA) was estimated within Network from the ρ-statistic, using an average mutation rate per Y-STR locus at 6.9 × 10−4 per generation of 25 years (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004).

So I reversed the TMRCA reported by them in Figure-3 to get the mean variance per haplogroup.

R1b-M153(n=19) var=0.23322+-0.07452

R1b-SRY2627(n=30) var=0.20355+-0.04071

I-M26 (n=13) var=0.32844+-0.11109

This was only done for Pyrenan populations, so it is not valid for comparison of the overall TMRCA of R1b-SRY2627 vs. R1b-M153.

The point here being, that R1b-M153 is on average about 0.71 as old as I-M26 in the Pyrenees.

Unfortunately I don't know the breakdown of each group, but variance calculations of such high level SNPs should be handled with caution. For example, Sardinian G2a-L91 and I-M26 each look to be the result of single migratory events based on their rarity outside of the island (and Corsica for L91). M269 could be made up of L23*, DF27 and U152 and therefore different migrations possibly spanning thousands of years. Without a doubt this would drive up the age of M269 compared to G2a and I-M26. Hopefully future testing will give us better clarity.

As for M153 being 29% younger than I-M26, that could still be the difference of over a thousand years.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2148


« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2012, 12:26:25 PM »

Do you speak for JeanL?  For all I know you are putting up a straw man proposal with very limited data so that you can knock it down.   I don't care, I just wanted to see if the statement has a direct comparison made with valid consistent methodologies.

I speak for me, and I haven’t had much feeling with Basques, beginning from Maju, but everybody, also a troll, would have seen that

G-L91 GB coal=   78   1,959

is in contrast with Ötzi (at least 5300YBP).
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2012, 12:27:54 PM »

As for M153 being 29% younger than I-M26, that could still be the difference of over a thousand years.

Well R1b-M153 diversity places it very recently using Germ line mutation rates, and by far less than 0.7 of the diversity of R-P312, I don't recall the numbers but I know Mike has them.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 12:28:47 PM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2012, 12:43:50 PM »

As for M153 being 29% younger than I-M26, that could still be the difference of over a thousand years.

Well R1b-M153 diversity places it very recently using Germ line mutation rates, and by far less than 0.7 of the diversity of R-P312, I don't recall the numbers but I know Mike has them.

That makes even more sense to me, given its STR signature and how many levels removed it is from P312.
Logged

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

Posts: 186


« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2012, 01:42:16 PM »

The level of R-M269 among the Bagvalals is interesting. Wikipedia, not always the best source, but generally reliable for non-controversial stuff, says they are an Avar people. There were about 6,500 speakers of Bagvalal as of 2006, according to this article.

So, we're not talking about a large ethnic group.

It seems to me that by far G2a is the most common y haplogroup among speakers of Caucasian languages. My guess is that, in the Caucasus, Caucasian languages can be attributed to G2a, if they are to be attributed to a y haplogroup at all. Where R1a and R1b occur among Caucasian speakers, they represent non-Caucasian peoples who have been assimilated and who at some point learned to speak a Caucasian language.

I thought that J2a and J1* are the earliest lineages in the Caucasus with G being a later intrusive element along with R.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2012, 02:14:25 PM »

.... Also according to the study by Lopez-Parra.et.al.2009, the diversity of R1b-M153 and R1b-SRY2627 with respect to I-M26 in the Pyrenees was studied, it turns out that they are in fact only slightly younger.
.....

So I reversed the TMRCA reported by them in Figure-3 to get the mean variance per haplogroup.

R1b-M153(n=19) var=0.23322+-0.07452

R1b-SRY2627(n=30) var=0.20355+-0.04071

I-M26 (n=13) var=0.32844+-0.11109

This was only done for Pyrenan populations, so it is not valid for comparison of the overall TMRCA of R1b-SRY2627 vs. R1b-M153.

The point here being, that R1b-M153 is on average about 0.71 as old as I-M26 in the Pyrenees.

I tend to see the difference between R-M153's .23322 and I-M26's .32844 as significant rather than slight. You could view M153's variance as 29% less than I-M26's or view I-M26's as 41% more than M153's.

I am concerned about the numbers of STRs used but I am sure JeanL is using the best data available.


« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 02:27:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2012, 02:18:50 PM »

As for M153 being 29% younger than I-M26, that could still be the difference of over a thousand years.

Well R1b-M153 diversity places it very recently using Germ line mutation rates, and by far less than 0.7 of the diversity of R-P312, I don't recall the numbers but I know Mike has them.

That makes even more sense to me, given its STR signature and how many levels removed it is from P312.

Yes, I won't display the numbers from the DNA projects unless you need them but M153's age (or at least its variance) appears to be about half of SRY2627's and P312 is a little older than SRY2627's.

This is off on a tanget a bit, but I'm implying that DF27, Z196 and SRY2627 occurred in relatively quick succession after P312. I think the same thing for U152 and L2... also L21 and DF13 appear to be in the same fast boat or wagon or whatever.

Of course, another way to look at this, Busby's, would be that P312's major subclades had multiple "localized" areas of origin. Since they expanded almost simultaneously and their modals are not far off WAMH, I vote for the fast expansion hypothesis instead. I would add U106 to the same boat or wagon.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 02:25:47 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 448


« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2012, 05:16:11 PM »

As for M153 being 29% younger than I-M26, that could still be the difference of over a thousand years.

Well R1b-M153 diversity places it very recently using Germ line mutation rates, and by far less than 0.7 of the diversity of R-P312, I don't recall the numbers but I know Mike has them.

That makes even more sense to me, given its STR signature and how many levels removed it is from P312.

Yes, I won't display the numbers from the DNA projects unless you need them but M153's age (or at least its variance) appears to be about half of SRY2627's and P312 is a little older than SRY2627's.

This is off on a tanget a bit, but I'm implying that DF27, Z196 and SRY2627 occurred in relatively quick succession after P312. I think the same thing for U152 and L2... also L21 and DF13 appear to be in the same fast boat or wagon or whatever.

Of course, another way to look at this, Busby's, would be that P312's major subclades had multiple "localized" areas of origin. Since they expanded almost simultaneously and their modals are not far off WAMH, I vote for the fast expansion hypothesis instead. I would add U106 to the same boat or wagon.


Mike,

To calculate the time and effort of the trip by boat or wagon in ancient times you can use The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World (ORBIS). The results are illuminating to say the least.
The maritime route wins hands down. As the Bell Beaker would not have benefited from the later Roman road network the conclusions are even more obvious.

http://orbis.stanford.edu/

"ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World reconstructs the time cost and financial expense associated with a wide range of different types of travel in antiquity. The model is based on a simplified version of the giant network of cities, roads, rivers and sea lanes that framed movement across the Roman Empire. It broadly reflects conditions around 200 CE but also covers a few sites and roads created in late antiquity.
The model consists of 751 sites, most of them urban settlements but also including important promontories and mountain passes, and covers close to 10 million square kilometers (~4 million square miles) of terrestrial and maritime space. 268 sites serve as sea ports. The road network encompasses 84,631 kilometers (52,587 miles) of road or desert tracks, complemented by 28,272 kilometers (17,567 miles) of navigable rivers and canals.
Sea travel moves across a cost surface that simulates monthly wind conditions and takes account of strong currents and wave height. The model's maritime network consists of 900 sea routes (linking 450 pairs of sites in both directions), many of them documented in historical sources and supplemented by coastal short-range connections between all ports and a few mid-range routes that fill gaps in ancient coverage. Their total length, which varies monthly, averages 180,033 kilometers (111,864 miles). Sea travel is possible at two sailing speeds that reflect the likely range of navigational capabilities in the Roman period. Maritime travel is constrained by rough weather conditions (using wave height as proxy). 158 of the sea lanes are classified as open sea connections and can be disabled to restrict movement to coastal and other short-haul routes, a process that simulates the practice of cabotage as well as sailing in unfavorable weather. For each route the model generates two discrete outcomes for time and four for expense in any given month."
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 05:49:15 PM by Heber » 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



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 0.072 seconds with 18 queries.