World Families Forums - Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2014, 04:59:43 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)
| | |-+  Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus  (Read 9433 times)
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2012, 06:03:39 PM »

This would suggest a very ancient dispersal of M73 into Central Asia and M73 being in Central Asia before the Indo-Iranian expansion. If that was the case M73 wouldn't correlate with Turkic languages whose expansion is quite recent. It would be just as significant in Central Asian Iranian speakers. that isn't the case.

Well, let's see if R1b-M73 was in the region from where the Turkic expansion took place, why wouldn't it correlate with Turkic languages.

And? Do you think R1b-L23 carriers from Europe spread to Asia and only spread Atlantic_Med without spreading Northern European? they somehow managed to leave behind their other major component?


Do you know what an ADMIXTURE component is?


Because proto Turks are from the Altai not the steepe where you claim M73 was found or Central Asia, the region you claim M73 was pushed into.

I have a basic idea about what an admixture component is.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 06:04:23 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2012, 06:05:42 PM »

Because proto Turks are from the Altai not the steepe where you claim M73 was found or Central Asia, the region you claim M73 was pushed into.

Fine, it was pushed to Altai then, that doesn't change that fact that it could have been displaced there from the Steppes circa 8000 ybp. Or that it moved from Central Asia to there, and then from there outwards. It is clear that R1b-M73 had a West-East movement, and then re-expanded with the Turks.

I have a basic idea about what an admixture component is.

Then you should know why the ADMIXTURE components have nothing to do with the place of origin of R1b-L23, given its time of origin.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 06:08:18 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2012, 08:00:33 PM »

. . .

I didn’t bring this study as a “Paleolithic R1b” zombie, or whatever you wanna call it. Isn’t a bit of an Ad Hominem to compare a given theory to a Zombie? . . .

Read my post again and you will find I was not offering a critique of the study you mentioned; I did not even mention it. I was criticizing the "Paleolithic R1b" thing, which is inherent in some of the conclusions you and palamede posted from Mari Järve. For example:

Quote from: Mari Järve
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000)

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Referring to an hypothesis as a "zombie" is hardly a personal attack. What person was it directed against? I called the "Paleolithic R1b" thing a zombie because it refuses to die, and I wish it would. So, you see, saying the Paleolithic R1b thing is "like a Caribbean zombie" is a metaphor. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is not an "ad hominem".
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 08:01:34 PM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2012, 08:10:35 PM »

Read my post again and you will find I was not offering a critique of the study you mentioned; I did not even mention it. I was criticizing the "Paleolithic R1b" thing, which is inherent in some of the conclusions you and palamede posted from Mari Järve. For example:

Quote from: Mari Järve
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000)

Those conclusions were from the older paper from 2008, which I said in this very thread that I posted it as a side thing. From the first post made by me on this thread:
Quote from: Mari Järve

  • In West Europe another major Holecene era founder effect is denoted by the mutation M412 within the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b, and the spatial and temporal pattern of a sub-clade within R1b-M412 is in close correlation with the spread of the Linear Pottery Neolithic culture.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131788#msg131788

Of course that doesn’t mean that I agree with their conclusions, but I was simply posting the conclusions.


An ad hominem is a personal attack. Referring to an hypothesis as a "zombie" is hardly a personal attack. What person was it directed against? I called the "Paleolithic R1b" thing a zombie because it refuses to die, and I wish it would. So, you see, saying the Paleolithic R1b thing is "like a Caribbean zombie" is a metaphor. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is not an "ad hominem".

Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Poisoning the Well fallacy, by associating the hypothesis with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the hypothesis by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic hypothesis a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.


« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 08:22:40 PM by JeanL » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2012, 08:41:00 PM »

That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Rich, I must say he's right, you aren't listening because your dander is up.  An idea isn't a hominem.  The association of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea with the walking dead is a perfectly good metaphor for an idea that will not die, or stay dead (but should).  And if anything is being implied about the actual persons who continue to hold that idea, though they should know better, it's not that they are stupid.
Logged

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

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2012, 08:48:34 PM »

JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct?  
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 08:52:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2012, 08:49:32 PM »

Quote from: JeanL
Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Description of Poisoning the Well, by associating the theory with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the theory by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic theory a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

I also said I think the "Paleolithic R1b" idea is preposterous. I guess you liked the zombie metaphor less.

I did explain why I think it is preposterous in my summary of it in its usual iteration.

It brings R-M269 to western Europe very early, placing it in the F-C Ice Age Refuge and having it expand from there, but leaving a fair number of relatives back in western Asia and/or eastern Europe. It must nearly kill off R-M269 a number of times in western Europe in order to sufficiently explain away its lack of diversity there.

I think this idea has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back, cutting the amount of time it has had to achieve population success. If it could have achieved population success in that reduced time frame, then it could have achieved it regardless of whether it was an old inhabitant or a new arrival.

I also think part of the genesis of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea comes from the old notion that the Basques are some kind of Paleolithic remnant population.

If I understand your hypothesis rightly, you have R-M269 spread throughout Europe very early, before the Neolithic at least, with R-L150 arising in the West. The Near Eastern farmers come chugging up via the Balkans, dragging some I-P37.2 with them, cutting eastern R-M269 (xL150) off from western R-L150.

These two R-M269 populations, east and west, as hunter-gatherers, "head for the hills" to avoid annihilation at the hands of the G2a, etc., farmers. Somehow, however, the tables eventually turn. Eastern and western R-M269 arise (especially the western R-L150 version), phoenix-like, from the early Neolithic ashes and their hideouts and mountain fastnesses, and, mastering the technology of those from whom they once fled, become dominant in much of Europe.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

It seems a trifle overworked and too elaborate to me, and therefore unlikely. It depends a lot on complex and controversial arguments about haplotype variance based on data that are, at best, incomplete. The idea that R-M269 expanded from SE to NW beginning sometime after the start of the Neolithic makes more sense to me.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:00:39 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2012, 08:54:32 PM »

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Rich . . .

That's news to me.

I wasn't aware that you often find yourself in disagreement with me. :-O
Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #58 on: May 30, 2012, 09:01:22 PM »

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

The only thing that I would say, is that the expansion phase of R1b-L23 in Western Europe was initially in its R1b-L11 form, but rapidly developed into R1b-P312 and R1b-U106. Actually moreso in its R1b-P312 form than anything else. R1b-U106 mostly took off with the Germanic expansions.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.


^Actually I'm glad that you didn't throw my hypothesis in the Paleolithic R1b bandwagon, and that you recognized that it is different.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2012, 09:04:12 PM »

I think this idea (Paleolithic R1b in Europe) has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back....

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea.  

It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story.  Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso* & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too. Did I mention that both STR variance and maximum liklihood methods cross-validate nicely with the SNP branch length counting method (Karafet) to make R-L11 look young?

Hey, I'm just old R1b Cro-Magnon fellow who fell off the wagon when I got too many facts to cloud the story. Mea culpa!

{EDIT: per JeanL's request, I want to clarify that there has been no R1b in aDNA found in Neolthic digs. There have been other haplogroups of Y DNA (i.e. G, I) in Neolithic sites found.  There has been no Y DNA of any kind identified in Europe in Mesolithic or Paleolithic sites, at least as far as I know. To keep up to date with this, please follow Jean Manco's Peopling of Europe web site, specifically URL  http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml }
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 04:05:07 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #60 on: May 30, 2012, 09:08:29 PM »

JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct? 

Per Marko.H table R1 is 21 kya in its interclade with R2. Its intraclade is 15 kya. However, for comparison I has a interclade of 25 kya with J, and intraclade of 18 kya.  I know you like refering Karafet.et.al.2008 were R1 is given an age of 18.5 kya, but in that same paper I is given an age of 22.2kya.



« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:09:36 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #61 on: May 30, 2012, 09:22:27 PM »


Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

Sure, and those Paleolithic Zombist are the only ones with theories that required bottlenecks. :D

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012
Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.

[...]

The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.


I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea.  It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story. 

Yeah, those dumb Western European HG had no chance against the mighty farmers, now the Steppe HG slaughtered those European farmers like ants, once they gained the vital technologies from their farming neighbors. Must be something in the Steppe climate. :D

Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too.

Cough* Hasty Generalization anyone?

Hasty Generalization: This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability.

Also, you got any data from Mesolithic Europe, why haven’t you shared it?

The lovely R1b-L23(xL51) Middle Eastern cousins, who could forget those, and the Caucasians, and the Anatolians. Did you know that some of the lovely Swiss R1b-L23(xL51) are from 6 to 11 mutations(On a  10 STR set) removed from most of the lovely Middle Eastern cousins, that puts their TMRCA in a pre-Neolithic time frame.

You know who else is messing up the story, haplogroup I, if that guy is supposed to be the true Cro-Magnon why does he keep giving TMRCA of 25 kya, when R1 gives 21 kya. C’mon Europe was populated 40 kya ago, someone ought to tell haplogroup I that pushing its TMRCA to 35-40 kya is needed ASAP, or he might get thrown into the Neolithic bandwagon too. 

« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:24:38 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 30, 2012, 09:23:42 PM »

JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct? 

Per Marko.H table R1 is 21 kya in its interclade with R2. Its intraclade is 15 kya. However, for comparison I has a interclade of 25 kya with J, and intraclade of 18 kya.  I know you like refering Karafet.et.al.2008 were R1 is given an age of 18.5 kya, but in that same paper I is given an age of 22.2kya.

There error ranges for these estimates, sometimes fairly large, but wow! that is a nice age validation for R1.

The interclade for the R* man who is MRCA for R1 and R2 is 19,000 BC.  That would set a maximum age for R1. The intraclade age for R1 is 13,000 BC. That would set a minium age for R1.  Then we have the "most likely" outcome from the Karafet SNP counting method (that they think is "novel") that has nothing to do with STR mutation rates and that most likely value is 16,500 BC - right where it should be.  This is for R1, though, not R1b, who is younger yet.

R1b (M343) can't be the Cro-Magnon man of the Aurignacian culture of Europe.  At least we know that.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #63 on: May 30, 2012, 09:27:59 PM »

R1b (M343) can't be the Cro-Magnon man of the Aurignacian culture of Europe.  At least we know that.


Neither can't haplogroup I-M170, as it is from 20200 BC per Karafet, and  a maximum of 23000 BC(Interclade with J) per Marko.H.

Cro-Magnon is from 26000 BC.

So the question is, who(haplogroup) was Cro-Magnon man then, if I and R are out of the question.

PS: Aurignacian culture lasted from 43000 BC to 33000 BC, so that's out of the question too.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:30:44 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2012, 09:28:36 PM »

...You know who else is messing up the story, haplogroup I, if that guy is supposed to be the true Cro-Magnon why does he keep giving TMRCA of 25 kya, when R1 gives 21 kya. C’mon Europe was populated 40 kya ago, someone ought to tell haplogroup I that pushing its TMRCA to 35-40 kya is needed ASAP, or he might get thrown into the Neolithic bandwagon too.  

I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

I know nothing that says Hg I has to be 2x or 3x or something else older than R1b, or else R1b now must be Palolithic in Europe.  Why is that important?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:30:33 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2012, 09:33:19 PM »

PS: Aurignacian culture lasted from 43000 BC to 33000 BC, so that's out of the question too.
Sorry, if got the wrong culture associated with Cro-Magnon. I could have swore that's what I read in my stuff from Spencer Wells.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2012, 09:42:31 PM »


I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

I know nothing that says Hg I has to be 2x or 3x or something else older than R1b, or else R1b now must be Palolithic in Europe.  Why is that important?


Well, I'm simply saying that just how R1 is not Cro-Magnon, and likely not Aurignacian per Karafet.et.al.2008 estimates or Marko.H, neither is I. Something bodering you with respect to that?


Again let's look at the “coincidences”:

Intraclade age of G2a or G-P15+ per Marko.H calculations 11 kya.

Intraclade age of I2a or I-P37.2+ per Marko.H calculations 12 kya.

Interestingly enough I postulated in my hypothesis that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers in their way to Western Europe, which I support by the fact that both G2a and I2a were found in Neolithic Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.

Now, let’s look at other “coincidences”:

Intraclade age of R1b-L150 per Marko.H calculations 5.7 kya.

Intraclade age of I1 or I-M253 + per Marko.H calculations 5.0 kya.

Interestingly enough neither I1 nor R1b-L150 have made any appearance in Treilles, France or Avellanar, Catalonia.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

Actually I'm not even sure if F was the Cro-Magnon, Marko-H places the interclade of F and G as 33 kya, that certainly would include Cro-Magnon but exclude Aurignacian. However the intraclade of F* is only 10 kya per Marko.H. table.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:50:07 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2012, 10:01:33 PM »


Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

Sure, and those Paleolithic Zombist are the only ones with theories that required bottlenecks. :D

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012
Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.
[...]
The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.

Is this what you are referring to?  Klylosov's comment, "However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors"

I make no defense of Klyosov's hypothesis.  I don't agree with it for sure, at least not in any sense of totality.

I think we might want to look at what an interclade age is though and understand the power of the concept.

We have huge benefit of knowing (from the SNP phylogenetic tree) that P312 and U106 are related as R-L11(S127) brothers. We also know they are separate and can place each haplotype with its own group with certainty. We know that neither P312 nor U106 can be older than their interclade most recent common (shared) ancestor.

Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates 2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF13, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

The high, high frequency for R1b in Europe is driven by U106 and P312.  Since they came from a single man in a fairly recent time there is no need to have R1b spread all over Europe in Palolithic times to explain R1b's frequency.  Time in place doesn't provide the answer to the high frequency.  The recent expansion (post bottleneck or whatever we call it) of the U106/P312 clade has to be attributed to something else.  The early researchers could have figured this out by just looking at WAMH without being mesmerized by the high frequency.

JeanL, I know you recognize there was recent expansion of L11 subclades so this is not actually in a disagreement with you.  The question kind of becomes then how did the R-L23* types get out there across Europe?  Did they come earlier?  I don't know. If they were earlier then that increases the possibility that L150 and L51 and L11 could have been born in the west too.

In context of archeology in the Bronze age I don't know much about Atlantic movements back to the east. Generally, I think that many think IE cultures and Bronze Age technologies came from the eastern edges of Europe or Asia itself.  At least that's what I read from folks like Renfrew, Anthony, etc.

There is no reason to think that hunters or farmers or IE folks were smarter or dumber or tremendously bigger or stronger.  However, somehow, the U106/P312 clade, along with probably some friends, gained a significant advantage(s) and used it very aggressively.  What was the advantage(s) that was available during the Bronze Age and where did it come from? Were the potential advantages most likely from Western Europe or from somewhere else?

« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 10:10:34 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2012, 10:20:37 PM »


Is this what you are referring to?  Klylosov's comment, "However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors"

I make no defense of Klyosov's hypothesis.  I don't agree with it for sure, at least not in any sense of totality.

I think we might want to look at what an interclade age is though and understand the power of the concept.

We have huge benefit of knowing (from the SNP phylogenetic tree) that P312 and U106 are related as R-L11(S127) brothers. We also know they are separate and can place each haplotype with its own group with certainty. We know that neither P312 nor U106 can be older than their interclade most recent common (shared) ancestor.

Well is there any other haplogroup that is below R-L51 that could be compared in interclade with R-L11, or even below R-L150 that could be compared to R-L51?

Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?

The high frequency for R1b in Europe is driven by U106 and P312.  Since they came from a single man in a fairly recent time there is no need to have R1b spread all over Europe in Palolithic times to explain R1b's frequency.  Time in place doesn't provide the answer to the high frequency.  The recent expansion (post bottleneck or whatever we call it) of the U106/P312 clade has to be attributed to something else.  The early researchers could have figured this out by just looking at WAMH without being mesmerized by the high frequency.

Well there is a need for R1b-L23 to be spread all over Europe in pre-Neolithic times, not Paleolithic(more like Mesolithic), or at least if not all over Europe, I would say all over the Northern portion of the Balkans. They had to be somewhere that when the G2a folks started moving in from Anatolia, and got the I2a folks to tag along, they drove the R1b-L23 folks Westwards and Eastwards. Also, there is the excess of R1b-M269(xL23) found in the Balkans, which leads me to think, that likely that is the place where it was hanging out.

JeanL, I know you recognize there was recent expansion of L11 subclades so this is not actually in a disagreement with you.  The question kind of becomes then how did the R-L23* types get out there across Europe? Did they come earlier?  I don't know.  If they were earlier then that increases the possibility that L150 and L51 and L11 could have been born in the west too.

I think that R1b-L150, R1b-L51, and R1b-L11 show clears signs of being born in Western Europe. But the fact is that neither one of them experienced a population explosion like P312 did, heck not even U106 experienced a population explosion like P312 did! I think most of the R-L23* in the Central and Western Europe is the product of the arrival of the Indo-European languages circa 3000 BC. However, there are still a few “survivors” of the true ancestral R1b-L23 that moved to Western Europe at the onset of the Neolithic. I found in fact two of those R1b-L23(xL51) which could be one of those survivors, I posted their haplotypes in the L23+ variance thread.

In context of archeology in the Bronze age I don't know much about Atlantic movements back to the east. Generally, I think that many think IE cultures and Bronze Age technologies came from the eastern edges of Europe or Asia itself.  At least that's what I read from folks like Renfrew, Anthony, etc.
There is no reason to think that hunters or farmers or IE folks were smarter or dumber or bigger or stronger.  However, somehow, the U106/P312 clade, along with probably some friends, gained a significant advantage(s) and used it very aggressively.

Ok if I had to guess, I would link the initial spread of R1b-L11 with megalitism in Western Europe, or with the early spread of Bell Beaker. 


« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 10:21:27 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2012, 10:34:39 PM »

I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that....

Well, I'm simply saying that just how R1 is not Cro-Magnon, and likely not Aurignacian per Karafet.et.al.2008 estimates or Marko.H, neither is I. Something bodering you with respect to that?

I don't really know who Cro-Magnon man was, but if you feel like he wasn't Hg I, I'm good with that.

Again let's look at the “coincidences”:
Intraclade age of G2a or G-P15+ per Marko.H calculations 11 kya.
Intraclade age of I2a or I-P37.2+ per Marko.H calculations 12 kya.
Interestingly enough I postulated in my hypothesis that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers in their way to Western Europe, which I support by the fact that both G2a and I2a were found in Neolithic Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.

Very good!

Now, let’s look at other “coincidences”:
Intraclade age of R1b-L150 per Marko.H calculations 5.7 kya.
Intraclade age of I1 or I-M253 + per Marko.H calculations 5.0 kya.
Interestingly enough neither I1 nor R1b-L150 have made any appearance in Treilles, France or Avellanar, Catalonia.

I think we might want to look at this in context. R1b-L150xL51 is hard to find so I'm not sure we can tell that much from little we know about L150xL51.  If you are talking about L150 'all" you are talking about a very large subclade that is dispersed all over Europe.

This should be contrasted with I1, which Ken N (and I think most) thinks of as Nordic centric that expanded significantly with the Germanic and pre-Germanic Nordic expansions of the Bronze Age.  Did you think we should find I1 in SE (Treilles) France or near the Pyrenees?  I see no strangeness in not finding a Nordic clade in SE France in the Neolithic.

As widely as L150 is spread, it should have been in at Treilles, France unless he just wasn't a Neolithic Western Europe kind of guy.   I agree it's too early to rule out finding R1b of some kind in European Neolithic sites. It could happen, but we can't really say that it will. I guess your point is that while I1 was hiding in cold places, L150 was hiding in the mountains.   Perhaps, given the Neolithic dating, I hope he was developing metallurgy up in those mountains so he could come down and take over with upcoming Bronze Age. I wonder if he was speaking IE in those mountains, the Pyrenees, I suppose? Must have been in the Alps as the L150 Pyrenees version must have spoken non-IE.  I'm not making fun of people living in the Pyrenees or Alps, I'm just asking what their advantage was during the Neolithic?

Where did metallurgy and PIE and its related practices develop?

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.
However the intraclade of F* is only 10 kya per Marko.H. table.

That means almost nothing other than probably some subclade without an known SNP that is F* is about 10,000 years old.  There is a danger in calculating paragroup, i.e. F*, rather than all of F numbers. I'm not sure if it is that pertinent to this discussion anyway.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 10:46:22 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2012, 12:03:28 AM »

Quote from: JeanL
Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Description of Poisoning the Well, by associating the theory with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the theory by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic theory a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

I also said I think the "Paleolithic R1b" idea is preposterous. I guess you liked the zombie metaphor less.

I did explain why I think it is preposterous in my summary of it in its usual iteration.

It brings R-M269 to western Europe very early, placing it in the F-C Ice Age Refuge and having it expand from there, but leaving a fair number of relatives back in western Asia and/or eastern Europe. It must nearly kill off R-M269 a number of times in western Europe in order to sufficiently explain away its lack of diversity there.

I think this idea has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back, cutting the amount of time it has had to achieve population success. If it could have achieved population success in that reduced time frame, then it could have achieved it regardless of whether it was an old inhabitant or a new arrival.

I also think part of the genesis of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea comes from the old notion that the Basques are some kind of Paleolithic remnant population.

If I understand your hypothesis rightly, you have R-M269 spread throughout Europe very early, before the Neolithic at least, with R-L150 arising in the West. The Near Eastern farmers come chugging up via the Balkans, dragging some I-P37.2 with them, cutting eastern R-M269 (xL150) off from western R-L150.

These two R-M269 populations, east and west, as hunter-gatherers, "head for the hills" to avoid annihilation at the hands of the G2a, etc., farmers. Somehow, however, the tables eventually turn. Eastern and western R-M269 arise (especially the western R-L150 version), phoenix-like, from the early Neolithic ashes and their hideouts and mountain fastnesses, and, mastering the technology of those from whom they once fled, become dominant in much of Europe.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

It seems a trifle overworked and too elaborate to me, and therefore unlikely. It depends a lot on complex and controversial arguments about haplotype variance based on data that are, at best, incomplete. The idea that R-M269 expanded from SE to NW beginning sometime after the start of the Neolithic makes more sense to me.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.



Do you think L23 is West Asian or European?

I think this idea (Paleolithic R1b in Europe) has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back....

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea. 

It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story.  Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too. Did I mention that both STR variance and maximum liklihood methods cross-validate nicely with the SNP branch length counting method (Karafet) to make R-L11 look young?

Hey, I'm just old R1b Cro-Magnon fellow who fell off the wagon when I got too many facts to cloud the story. Mea culpa!

Their hypothesis has L23 migrating from Europe to Asia. No argument support such a migration as far as I know.
Logged
palamede
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2012, 04:19:50 AM »

JeanL,

I admire your courage, persistance and skills to discuss with the chalcolithic fans.

You remind my young time when the rare isolated and crazy people who dared discussing and tried to counter the marxist theoricians and their fans.

Hard, rigoureous, nit-picker for the opposite arguments, laxist, overindulgent with their own theories and arguments.

Anyway, the imperialism of every specialized researcher is well know and mostly this of  geneticians.

Paleoanthropology, archeology are  more and more hard sciences and population genetic remains a soft science.

Certainly, explain what were the haplogroups of Aurignacian and Gravettians (2 populations of different origins) and why they would not have survived at all for the Y haplogroup (at least according to our great and fierce theoricians) is very crucial.  

I agree with you that the calculated MRCAs are too weak and must accept a factor to know the effective mutation rate, a thing admitted by the majority of scientifics.
Certainly, this factor is difficul to determin, because no pure scientific theory can give it because the factor is depending on other historical, sociological and economical factors.

The Zhiv factor 3.6) was calculated for a duration of about one millenia for 2 populations living in different conditions from a lot of prehistorical  populations (Arrival in  empty and great islands rich of ressources for Maoris of New Zealand, in modern and growing populations for Roms in Balkans.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 01:56:45 PM by palamede » Logged

Y=G2a3b1a2-L497 Wallony-Charleroi; Mt=H2a2a1 Normandy-Bray
Dodecad-DiY: E Eur 9,25% W Eur 48,48% Med 28,46% W Asia 11,70%
World9: Atl-Balt 67,61% Southern 13,23% Cauc-Gedr 12,73%
K12a: North-E 39,71% Med 37,9% Cauc 12,55% Gedr 5,78% SW Asia 2,13%
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2012, 09:02:50 AM »

I think we might want to look at this in context. R1b-L150xL51 is hard to find so I'm not sure we can tell that much from little we know about L150xL51.  If you are talking about L150 'all" you are talking about a very large subclade that is dispersed all over Europe.
Well I can tell you that as RR showed R1b-L51(xL11) has a very westernly distribution.

This should be contrasted with I1, which Ken N (and I think most) thinks of as Nordic centric that expanded significantly with the Germanic and pre-Germanic Nordic expansions of the Bronze Age.  Did you think we should find I1 in SE (Treilles) France or near the Pyrenees?  I see no strangeness in not finding a Nordic clade in SE France in the Neolithic.

What about Derenburg Meerenstieg II in Germany circa 5000 BC, it wasn’t there either, yet there is 18.5% of I1 in North Germany today.  Also, I thought that R1b-U106 also expanded with the Germanic expansions.

As widely as L150 is spread, it should have been in at Treilles, France unless he just wasn't a Neolithic Western Europe kind of guy.   I agree it's too early to rule out finding R1b of some kind in European Neolithic sites. It could happen, but we can't really say that it will. I guess your point is that while I1 was hiding in cold places, L150 was hiding in the mountains.   Perhaps, given the Neolithic dating, I hope he was developing metallurgy up in those mountains so he could come down and take over with upcoming Bronze Age. I wonder if he was speaking IE in those mountains, the Pyrenees, I suppose? Must have been in the Alps as the L150 Pyrenees version must have spoken non-IE.  I'm not making fun of people living in the Pyrenees or Alps, I'm just asking what their advantage was during the Neolithic?

I don’t think metallurgy was developed in Western Europe, the Pyrenees are mostly Megalithic in terms of Burials, even well into the Bell Beaker phase you still find collective burials in the Basque Country for example Urraxta III 3405 to 3475 ybp, or Urtiaga 3475 to 3445 ybp. I think PIE was brought  over to Europe by R1b-L23(xL150) carriers, and also R1a carriers. While you can argue that you don’t find R1a in Ireland, there is certainly a minor presence of R1b-L23(xL150), and in fact the sole haplotype found in Ireland from Myres.et.al.2010 is very close to the modal(1 mutation away) of R1b-L23(xL150), and the modal (3 mutations) of R1b-L23+, for comparison a Swiss R1b-L23(xL150) haplotype turned out to be 6 mutations from either the R1b-L23(xL150) modal or R1b-L23+ modal. In fact the Swiss haplotype is from 5 to 7 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes of the Bashkirs, it is 6 or more mutations for 27 out of the 29 Bashkirs haplotypes, it is from 3 to 10 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes found in the Caucasus, being 6 or more mutations apart for 24 out of the 32 haplotypes of the Caucasus. It is from 3 to 10 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, being 6 or more mutations apart for 47 out of the  57 haplotypes. It is from 3 to 9 mutations apart from Western European haplotypes, excluding Switzerland, it is 6 or more mutations apart for 13 out of the 19 haplotypes. In Switzerland it has an exact match, and a haplotype that is 1 mutation away, it is 6 or more mutations apart for 1 out of the 10 haplotypes found in Switzerland. In Turkey and the ME it ranges from 2 to 11 mutations apart, there is only one haplotype that is 2 mutations apart and it is found in Turkey, on the other hand 38 out of 66 haplotypes are 6 mutations or more apart. This is all in a 10 STR marker format, so those two Swiss haplotypes are old, and it is clear that along with a third Swiss haplotype that is only 1 mutation apart, those folks did not come from the R1b-L23(xL150) expansion that took place from the Steppes or from Anatolia, they were the ones that remained behind trapped in Western Europe. 

In a nutshell, what we observed is that most of R1b-L23(xL150) in Europe is of recent(i.e. Circa 3000 BC) arrival, yet there are a few outliers that are likely the remnants of the R1b-L23(xL150) that took refuge in Western Europe. I’m sure if you look for them, you will find them, in the Myres.et.al.2010 dataset, there are the three Swiss outliers, so 3/10 R1b-L23(xL150) are likely outliers, however for most of Europe, the R1b-L23(xL150) has a very close signature to the modal, and are very close to the haplotypes in Western Asia. Of course there are always a few exception,  but you don’t observed this generalized pattern where most haplotypes are at least 6 mutations of more away from the haplotype in question. 


PS: In case you are  wondering here are the two haplotypes in question:

Sample-Haplogroup---DYS19—DYS388—DYS389I—DYS389II—DYS390—DYS391—DYS392—DYS393—DYS439—DYS461


Switzerland#1
----L23xL51----15—12—13—15—24—10—14—12—13—11

Switzerland#2----L23xL51----15—12—13—15—24—10—14—12—13—11


I actually found more information with respect to the Swiss haplotypes.

It is found on page 60 of the MSc Thesis of Mari Jarve

Population---Sample#----Haplogroup---DYS19—DYS385a—DYS385b—DYS389I—DYS389II—DYS390—DYS391—DYS392—DYS393—DYS437—DYS438—DYS439—DYS448—DYS456—DYS458—DYS635—Y-GATA-H4—DYS388—DYS461—P24

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6171----L23xL51
15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6181----L23xL51 15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10

So they are identical on both a 10 STR markers format and on a 20 STR markers format.

Then there is this haplotype

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6271----L23xL51---15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—12—19—15—16—23—13 –12 –11 –10

Which differs from the othet two by one mutation in the 10 STR marker format DYS439: 13=>12, and in the 20 STR marker format 2 mutations DYS439, and Y-GATA-4:12=>13.

Here is the Modal of L23 for comparison:

Modal---Y.search=WHUFZ---L23xL51---14—11—14 –13—16—24—11—13—12—15—12—12—19—15—16—23—12—12—11--XX

Each one of the haplotypes is 6 one-step mutations removed from the modal. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and DYS439 in case of the first  two haplotypes. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and Y-GATA-4 in case of the third haplotype. So 4 mutations in "fast" markers, 2 mutations in "slow" (DYS437, and DYS392) markers.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:35:15 AM by JeanL » Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2012, 10:10:15 AM »

Give em h--l Jean.  Great job.  For comparison, and I am Z253, here are my 10 haplotype values corresponding to the same 10 dys loci you presented: 14, 13, 14, 16, 23,10, 13, 12, 13, 12. I believe I am closest to one of your turkish examples, except I have the 12 at 461 which I believe is an E-W discriminator?

Note:  the common wisdom is that I am just the product of a random process?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:12:09 AM by ironroad41 » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2012, 11:58:33 AM »

Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?

What data are using to support that you know that R1b-L11 and R1b-P312 went from Western Europe to Central Europe?

You mention R1b-L11 along with this west to east movement that you know of. R1b-U106 is a large part of R1b-L11. What evidence do you have that R1b-U106 moved west to east?  Where do you say U106 came from and based on what evidence?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 01:33:16 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 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 0.208 seconds with 18 queries.