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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2014, 07:34:30 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 6 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus  (Read 9998 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2012, 12:24:00 PM »

Lord what a depressing thread.  Occam's Razor has been blunded and the pleading is very special indeed.  You can kind of tell when people have a preferred model or have bought too deeply into a theory to retreat or their are identity aspects to it.  The evidence will always be pleaded to fit the theory
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 06:30:38 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2012, 12:25:14 PM »

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.
Well I can tell you that as RR showed R1b-L51(xL11) has a very westernly distribution.

I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.

What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

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.

I think that the Hg I1 group generally think they may have come from a little further north than northern Germany, i.e. Denmark or the Scandinavian Peninsula, and then their greater expansions didn't really take place until the Bronze Age and even the Iron Age.  I think not finding I1 in Germany at 5000 BC is consistent with this.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 12:29:38 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2012, 01:11:49 PM »

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? ...

I'm okay with the h--l, but how about some significant data sets instead of a tale of anecdotal data used for argument by exception? This is problematic as there are exceptions to everything.  

... 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,  

We will find them in other places too, including the US.

..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:
.....
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.

Maybe they are related.

Am I misreading this?  You are listing SWU6171 and SWU6181 as "R-L23xL51" but the source document just labels them as "R-M269*". The third haplotype you point out below is also listed as R-M269*.

BTW, thank you for pointing this table out. It is interesting that the Upper Rhone/Swiss area has R-M269* folks.  Unfortunately, we have R-M269* folks from England as well as the greater proportions back in Asia.  I'm not sure how this supports your arguments.  I don't see where we have enough long haplotypes of R-M269*, R-L23xL150, R-L150xL51 and R-L51xL11 people to sort out a good STR diversity comparison.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

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.

I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

I also have 394/19=15 to go with 391=12 and 389b=16 even though I'm L21+ and from Nebraska... well, I guess we could say Ireland.  How significant is this news?  I can easily find L21+ people who are GD's of 6 from WAMH (the L21 modal) at just 12 STR markers.  They are mostly from the US and the Isles. What should we make of that?

We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 01:39:20 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 31, 2012, 01:20:29 PM »

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 scientifi theory can give it because the factor is depending for 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 of 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.

Do you have anything useful to say or are you just blowing smoke? or cheerleading?  I don't give a hoot about the Chalcolithic or the Neolithic or the Mesolithic or whatever.  Are you rooting for one of those teams?

I'm just looking for some useful information and sound logic.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 01:28:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2012, 03:02:55 PM »

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?

Whoao you are giving me a lot of work in terms of replying, but fine.

I never claimed that R1b-U106 moved from west to east, if you think I did, then bring me a quote, where I explicitly or implicitly claim that R1b-U106 moved from west to east.  So let’s stop trying to put words in my mouth, and bringing in strawman arguments, no one with a sane mind would argue that R1b-U106 moved from West to East, hence why I wished Klyosov good luck in trying to prove that R1b-U106 was born in Iberia.

Now the argument, that R1b-P312 shows a Western-Eastern cline in terms of diversity.

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png

R1b-U106,  was likely born somewhere in the Baltic area, as it is where it peaks in diversity, most likely somewhere around Estonia.


I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

You really want to compare the US, a country of immigrants, with Europe. Yeah, you can argue that France has had quite the migration, but I think when a researcher collects random sample on France, they make sure that the people being investigated are ethnic Frenchs, do you disagree with that?



I think that the Hg I1 group generally think they may have come from a little further north than northern Germany, i.e. Denmark or the Scandinavian Peninsula, and then their greater expansions didn't really take place until the Bronze Age and even the Iron Age.  I think not finding I1 in Germany at 5000 BC is consistent with this.

Well I think R1b-L150 was sitting around the Pyrenees, Britanny or the Alps, and that its expansion did not start until the Bronze Age,  so I too think that not finding R1b-L150 in Cardial Avellanar 5000 BC, or Treilles, France 3000 BC is consistent with this.

I'm okay with the h--l, but how about some significant data sets instead of a tale of anecdotal data used for argument by exception? This is problematic as there are exceptions to everything.

The data has been posted here, now if you choose to ignore it, is up to you.

We will find them in other places too, including the US.

Yeah, what about the US, Swiss migrated to the US too,  but since you say you can find it on other places, Ok, find for me L23xL51 haplotypes that are at least 6 mutations away from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. You do that!!!

Maybe they are related.

Am I misreading this?  You are listing SWU6171 and SWU6181 as "R-L23xL51" but the source document just labels them as "R-M269*". The third haplotype you point out below is also listed as R-M269*.

No, you aren’t misreading it, in the paper they are described as R-M269*, however those are the exact same haplotypes found in Table-S3 of Myres.et.al.2010, where it clearly says that they are L23. You can look at the 10 STR values that are found in Myres.et.al.2010 Table-S3, and you will see that they are  indeed the same haplotypes.

BTW, thank you for pointing this table out. It is interesting that the Upper Rhone/Swiss area has R-M269* folks.  Unfortunately, we have R-M269* folks from England as well as the greater proportions back in Asia.  I'm not sure how this supports your arguments.  I don't see where we have enough long haplotypes of R-M269*, R-L23xL150, R-L150xL51 and R-L51xL11 people to sort out a good STR diversity comparison.

Well the differences is that the folks from England aren’t 6  mutations removed from the modal, or 6 mutations or more removed from the vast majority of haplotypes back in Asia, on the other hand these Swiss are.  But, wait, so 19 SRTs aren’t good to sort STR diversity, I see, whenever data doesn’t produce “good” results, data isn’t good enough.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

They aren’t a couple, but 3 of the 10 R1b-L23(xL51) found in Swiss, and that’s exactly what is showing ,that while the vast majority of R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe has only been separated for a few thousand years, these two are outliers, in the sense that they have been separated from almost everyone around them for at least 6000-7000 years. Which is what one would expect if they got stranded in Western Europe before the arrival of the Neolithic.


I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

Well, I already told you that they are L23xL51, again look for the 10 STR values in Table-S3 and you will see that they are L23. As for the modal of L23xL51, I got it from this page:

http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk

I also have 394/19=15 to go with 391=12 and 389b=16 even though I'm L21+ and from Nebraska... well, I guess we could say Ireland.  How significant is this news?  I can easily find L21+ people who are GD's of 6 from WAMH (the L21 modal) at just 12 STR markers.  They are mostly from the US and the Isles. What should we make of that?

Ok, but you aren’t L23xL51, so what’s your point? Can you find people who are 6 one-step mutations away from the WAMH, not multi-step, but 6 one-step on the same markers, that is including two of the slowest markers DYS392, and DYS437.

We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

The problem is that per Myres.et.al.2010, only one Turkish haplotype is far more removed from the modal of L23xL51 than the Swiss haplotypes are, however, that same haplotype is equally as removed from the Swiss haplotypes as it is from the modal. So like I said, you find me another West European “exception”  that is 6 mutations from the modal, and 6 mutations or more from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Caucasus, and then I will see the problem of arguing by exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.


You don’t get it, do you? Is not about having L23xL51, is about having certain haplotypes that show clear signatures of being isolated in Western Europe for millennia.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 03:08:11 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2012, 06:39:05 PM »

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?

Whoao you are giving me a lot of work in terms of replying, but fine.

I never claimed that R1b-U106 moved from west to east, if you think I did, then bring me a quote, where I explicitly or implicitly claim that R1b-U106 moved from west to east.  So let’s stop trying to put words in my mouth, and bringing in strawman arguments, no one with a sane mind would argue that R1b-U106 moved from West to East, hence why I wished Klyosov good luck in trying to prove that R1b-U106 was born in Iberia.

Now the argument, that R1b-P312 shows a Western-Eastern cline in terms of diversity.

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png

R1b-U106,  was likely born somewhere in the Baltic area, as it is where it peaks in diversity, most likely somewhere around Estonia.

I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7

Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.

As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe.  In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 06:54:17 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 31, 2012, 06:59:00 PM »

I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

I don't think it is a crazy idea and never said that it is crazy to think that L51 originated in Western Europe.  I'm just trying to see if you can convince us that L51 did originate in Western Europe.  I think what you are saying is that you don't really have evidence of such.  That's okay. An opinion is just opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
Logged

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

Posts: 406


« Reply #82 on: May 31, 2012, 07:00:53 PM »

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  
Logged

R1b Z196*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #83 on: May 31, 2012, 07:02:33 PM »

Lord what a depressing thread.  Occam's Razor has been blunded and the pleading is very special indeed.  You can kind of tell when people have a preferred model or have bought too deeply into a theory to retreat or their are identity aspects to it.  The evidence will always be pleaded to fit the theory

I agree, and you've got ironroad41 and palamede cheering it on.

In this argument, the most prolific poster - i.e., the one with the most free time on his hands - appears to carry the day. Who has time to counter all those posts and stats?

R-M269 moves into Europe sometime before the Neolithic; gets split in two by the triumphant Near Eastern farmers; hides out in the hills; experiences numerous, mysterious genetic bottlenecks to cleverly disguise its true age; and then comes roaring back to out-reproduce the once-dominant Near Eastern farmers.

A more or less steady progress from NE to SW sometime after the beginning of the European Neolithic makes more sense to me.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 31, 2012, 07:04:49 PM »

There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

You really want to compare the US, a country of immigrants, with Europe. Yeah, you can argue that France has had quite the migration, but I think when a researcher collects random sample on France, they make sure that the people being investigated are ethnic Frenchs, do you disagree with that?

I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 07:05:13 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 31, 2012, 07:11:16 PM »

I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

They aren’t a couple, but 3 of the 10 R1b-L23(xL51) found in Swiss, and that’s exactly what is showing ,that while the vast majority of R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe has only been separated for a few thousand years, these two are outliers, in the sense that they have been separated from almost everyone around them for at least 6000-7000 years. Which is what one would expect if they got stranded in Western Europe before the arrival of the Neolithic.

I guess 3 haplotypes is a whole lot better than a couple.  A total sample of 10 carries the day.  Okay, but I'm not going to rely on anecdotal data. There is not validation in a scattered find here or there.


I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

Well, I already told you that they are L23xL51, again look for the 10 STR values in Table-S3 and you will see that they are L23. As for the modal of L23xL51, I got it from this page:

http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk

Okay so your saying the first link you cited is from a study that incorrectly labeled these.   ... and you are the one who trusts these academic studies?

And yes, Myres' 10 STRs are plenty to rely for analysis.... NOT.   I've seen time after time where different variance results vary inconsistently until we start getting up towards at least 25 markers.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 07:28:15 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 31, 2012, 07:25:52 PM »

We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

The problem is that per Myres.et.al.2010, only one Turkish haplotype is far more removed from the modal of L23xL51 than the Swiss haplotypes are, however, that same haplotype is equally as removed from the Swiss haplotypes as it is from the modal. So like I said, you find me another West European “exception”  that is 6 mutations from the modal, and 6 mutations or more from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Caucasus, and then I will see the problem of arguing by exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.


You don’t get it, do you? Is not about having L23xL51, is about having certain haplotypes that show clear signatures of being isolated in Western Europe for millennia.

I see what you are saying that there are some L23xL51 signatures that are unusual as compared to WAMH.  I would expect that because, by phylogenetic definition, L51- people branched away from L51+ people a long time ago.  I can assure you there are L23xL51 people in the US.  One their STRs might be, I'm not that really interested in because it makes little difference.  The key is the L51- versus L51+ branching.  As has been noted, STRs mutate and back-mutate, possibly covering up the great lengths of time between branches.

I just don't think you can claim two outliers who may be relatives and one other in Switzerland are enough to build a strong story.  You are possibly right.  I'll say that and that's to your credit and your investigation is definitely a good thing.

You can also say 3 out of 10 is significant but I don't think a sample of 10 is worth a hill of beans.  As we've discussed before, we need a much broader representation of test results across SE Europe and SW Asia.  We just don't have it, but if you want to look for strange things you can go east as well.

Perhaps Switzerland/the Alps/the upper Rhone is to Anatolia or Romania or the Steppes .......   as what the Eastern US is to the Isles?   Midpoint destinations?

That might line up a little better with some Bronze Age or Neolithic Age archaelogically documented expansions.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 07:26:13 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 678


« Reply #87 on: May 31, 2012, 07:26:57 PM »

I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

I don't think it is a crazy idea and never said that it is crazy to think that L51 originated in Western Europe.  I'm just trying to see if you can convince us that L51 did originate in Western Europe.  I think what you are saying is that you don't really have evidence of such.  That's okay. An opinion is just opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Funnily enough but Didier has just posted a critique of Anatole's new paper which mentions the east / west distribution of L23 & L51

http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-05/1338505374
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 08:09:31 PM by Jdean » Logged

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

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #88 on: May 31, 2012, 09:28:58 PM »


I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7
Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.
As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I actually was calculating the variance country by country, but I didn’t feel like going through all that work just to prove a point, that I already knew, so I went ahead and posted that map. Yes, Turkey is pretty high up there, with 5 haplotypes, so is Poland with 6.  Pakistan has a variance of 0.41 for L23xL51 per Myres Table-S2, do you think that is accurate, or could it have to do with the fact that there are only 5 haplotypes.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

Well R1b-P312 is older than R1b-U106, and it has more variance in Western Europe than it does in Eastern Europe, so hence, I see it very likely as an scenario where R1b-L11 expands from Western Europe, R1b-P312 is born amidst that expansion, and R1b-U106 was likely born once R1b-L11 reached some regions of Eastern Europe. 

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe

Yes R1b-L11 expanded very quickly but left very few direct descendants, in fact, it only had 2 successful descendants, on the other hand  R1b-P312 was far more successful in Western Europe, and R1b-U106 in the Baltic region.

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

You know this is very sad, because I feel like you didn’t read anything of what I said, when I was proposing my hypothesis. If you go back and read, you will see that R1b-L11 did not pick up metallurgy or PIE, instead R1b-L23(xL150) bearers coming from the east were the ones that brought it. Everything isn’t black or white, in fact, I think that there was a definite expansion of R1b-L23(xL150) from Anatolia, or the Steppes, and that these folks were the ones that brought over metallurgy and PIE, but R1b-L11 was already expanding in Western Europe. What culture do I attribute that expansion you might ask? Either the initial phases of the Bell Beakers, or the expansion of Megalithism.


I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.

Well if you don’t trust the data what is the point of discussing it. Don’t ask me about Myres coverage of France, I have no idea why she covered that over Normandy, or even Brittany. Europe has only been a region of immigrant recently, and like I said, in most studies, when it is not said explicitly, it is assumed that the subjects of each country are native people.  Wait, you are talking about pre-historic migrations, do you really want to compare an R1b-L23xL51 guy from the US who can have ancestry from anywhere from Ireland to Turkey in the past 500 years, to an ethnic Swiss who at most could have gotten it from their neighbors.

I guess 3 haplotypes is a whole lot better than a couple.  A total sample of 10 carries the day.  Okay, but I'm not going to rely on anecdotal data. There is not validation in a scattered find here or there.

Well Mike, if these are survivors, they are gonna be rare to find, most of the R1b-L23(xL51) in Europe is fairly recent, yet you get these oddballs that are distant from everyone, including the oddballs in West Asia that are pretty old. So how do you explain them, did they simply come recently from West Asia, well how come they are so distant from all of those other folks over there then?


Okay so your saying the first link you cited is from a study that incorrectly labeled these.   ... and you are the one who trusts these academic studies?

And yes, Myres' 10 STRs are plenty to rely for analysis.... NOT.   I've seen time after time where different variance results vary inconsistently until we start getting up towards at least 25 markers.

Look man, stop putting words in my mouths, and enough with the freaking strawman arguments. No, they did not incorrectly labeled those, they labeled them as R1b-M269*, because back in 2008 when that study was published, they did not type the L23, or the L51 SNP in those samples, hence why they called them R1b-M269*, however we know that Myres used those haplotypes, and that only 10 markers out of the 19 were used in Myres study. So I took a look and was able to identify the haplotypes in the 19 marker form based on the haplotype information I had on the 10 marker form. Is that so hard to understand?  Yes I trust academic studies, but not because they are published by scientists, but because they make sense to me, if it doesn’t make sense, then I don’t trust it.  The academic studies out there are using 10 and 15 STRs, and that is what I work with.

I see what you are saying that there are some L23xL51 signatures that are unusual as compared to WAMH.  I would expect that because, by phylogenetic definition, L51- people branched away from L51+ people a long time ago.  I can assure you there are L23xL51 people in the US.  One their STRs might be, I'm not that really interested in because it makes little difference.  The key is the L51- versus L51+ branching.  As has been noted, STRs mutate and back-mutate, possibly covering up the great lengths of time between branches.

Those two haplotype, actually the three have two mutations in the slow markers, that is DYS392, and DYS437. I agree the first two are likely closely related, but  the point I was trying to make, is that if any of the pre-Neolithic R1b-L23(xL150) lineages that were pushed to Western Europe and gave rise to R1b-L150 in Western Europe survided today, it would be very far removed from the others. Yes there are L23xL51 people in the US, again, what does that have to do with anything of what I am saying? I think that somewhere from 95-99% of the R1b-L23(xL23) found in Western Europe came from the Steppes recently during the Bronze Age expansions, the other 1-5% are the surviving lineages  of the cousins of R1b-L150 in Western Europe. Those two Swiss haplotypes could very well represent those cousins. 


I just don't think you can claim two outliers who may be relatives and one other in Switzerland are enough to build a strong story.  You are possibly right.  I'll say that and that's to your credit and your investigation is definitely a good thing.

You can also say 3 out of 10 is significant but I don't think a sample of 10 is worth a hill of beans.  As we've discussed before, we need a much broader representation of test results across SE Europe and SW Asia.  We just don't have it, but if you want to look for strange things you can go east as well.

I did, like I told you the haplotype that is the most far removed from the L23xL51 modal is actually found in 1 Turkish sample, it is 7 single-step mutations removed from the L23xL51 modal in a 10 STR format. So you might posit the question, maybe him and the Swiss are related in the last 1000 years, and simply the Swiss aren’t really a sign of Western European survival. But it turns out, they are 7 single-step mutations removed from the “oldest” Turkish haplotype. So they did not come recently(As in 2000 ybp) from West Asia, and they are not part of the normal arrival of R1b-L23(xL51) in Europe which usually falls within 3-4 mutations away from the modal,  they have been in Europe for quite some time.


Perhaps Switzerland/the Alps/the upper Rhone is to Anatolia or Romania or the Steppes .......   as what the Eastern US is to the Isles?   Midpoint destinations?

That might line up a little better with some Bronze Age or Neolithic Age archaelogically documented expansions.

Well fine, R1b-L23(xL150) came from Anatolia, or Romania or the Steppes in the Bronze Age, the L11 mutation arose in the way,  and R1b-P312 too, but for some reason the R1b-U106 guy knew he had to get off the wagon soon, so he did not continue on to Central Europe, but headed to the Baltic, the R1b-P312 guy went on to Western Europe, and then hit the Western fringes turn back and expanded from France. All this time, they were hunter gatherers that learned farming and metallurgy from the farmers in the Steppes, they also spoke PIE, but managed to lose their language once they arrived at the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia.  Yes, Occam razor applies only in certain situations.

Here why don't we do a compilation of the hypotheses out there for the expansion of R1b-M269 in Europe:

Klyosov:
Quote
The regions considered are from South Siberia/Central Asia in the east (where R1b haplogroup arose ~16,000 ybp) via the North Kazakhstan, South Ural to the Russian Plain and further west to Europe (the northern route entering Europe around 4500 ybp); from the Russian Plain south to the Caucasus (6000 ybp), Asia Minor (6000 ybp) and the Middle East (6000 - 5500 ybp) to the Balkans in Europe (the southern route, entering Europe around 4500 ybp); along North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (5500 - 5000 ybp) via Egypt to the Atlantic, north to Iberia (the North African route with arrival to the Pyrenees 4800 ybp). The Arbins (bearers of R1b haplogroup) along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently have established the Sumer culture (and the state), moving westward to Europe (5000 - 4500 ybp) carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later. At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe). They are evidenced from the Atlantic eastward to the Balkans, Carpathian Mountains, present day Poland to the western border of the Russian Plain and up to the Baltic Sea. The Isles had a different history of R1b migrations. The bearers of L11, P312 and L21 moved to the Isles by land and sea concurrently with those Arbins who were populating Europe between 4000 and 2500 ybp and formed the respective “local” subclades of P314, M222, L226, which largely populated the Isles. As a result, a significant part of the Isles is populated almost exclusively by the Arbins, whose frequency reaches 85% - 95% among the current population. In general, the frequency of Arbins in Western and Central Europe, reaches—albeit not uniformly—some 60% of the population.
[…]
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.

So let’s see, Klyosov explanations has R1b as nonIndoEuropean speaking ,so he covers the Basque issue nicely, however,  he assumes that Indo-European languages spread in Western Europe by cultural diffusion, uhmm that sounds familiar? First assumption, then he brings in the bottleneck argument to explain why R1b-L11 get 4850 ybp, yet R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 expand 1000 years later, uhmm that sounds familiar? Second assumption. He then has R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 expanding from Iberia to colonize Europe with the Bell Beakers?

PS: Klyosov is basically trying to argue something similar to what I am arguing, only in his scenario, the R1b-L23(xL150) did not take refuge in Western Europe, but came to there from North Africa, and expanded from there as R1b-L11. He also has R1b-L23(xL150) coming directly from the East, but not speaking PIE. Whereas I think that they did speak PIE.

Yet another one of my favorite hypothesis:

Maciamo
1.   
Quote
According to my IE theory, R1b acquired horses and Bronze weapons, invaded the Balkans, and stayed there for nearly 2000 years before moving on very quickly to Central and Western Europe (all within about 500 years). The patriarchic Indo-European R1b men would have taken (several) local wives/concubines among the conquered populations, each time diluting their original autosomes, though increasing the overall percentage of their Y-DNA signature in the European population.

By the time R1b-L11 reached Central Europe, roughly 4500 years ago, R1b people were very heterogeneous, carrying Gedrosian admixtures from their Palaeolithic origins in Iran/Anatolia (I would guess only around 20-25% by then, with a tint of South Asian as well), Northeast/East European admixtures from the steppe (I'd say 15-20%), and a compound of Southeast European, West Asian, Caucasian and Southwest Asian from their conquest of the Neolithic Balkans (this could have been higher and might account for most of these admixtures in Northern Europe).

Naturally, R1b would have mixed again with natives in Central, then Western Europe. Considering the fast conquest from 2500 BCE onwards and the sudden explosion of R1b lineages, I would think that R1b men did slaughter or marginalise local men and took a lot of local women. This would have had for effect a sharp dilution of their autosomal gene pool. If R1b men had children only local women, their autosomal contribution would have fallen by exactly 50%.

But apparently his postulate is a theory, not a hypothesis.  But like some of you folks said, it is sad how much I have violated Occam’s razor with my wild hypothesis, because after all the alternatives, just make so much more sense, and make so little assumptions.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 09:46:05 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 31, 2012, 09:51:44 PM »


I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7
Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.
As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I actually was calculating the variance country by country, but I didn’t feel like going throaugh all that work just to prove a point, that I already knew, so I went ahead and posted that map. Yes, Turkey is pretty high up there, with 5 haplotypes, so is Poland with 6.  Pakistan has a variance of 0.41 for L23xL51 per Myres Table-S2, do you think that is accurate, or could it have to do with the fact that there are only 5 haplotypes.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

Well R1b-P312 is older than R1b-U106, and it has more variance in Western Europe than it does in Eastern Europe, so hence, I see it very likely as an scenario where R1b-L11 expands from Western Europe, R1b-P312 is born amidst that expansion, and R1b-U106 was likely born once R1b-L11 reached some regions of Eastern Europe.  

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe.  

Yes R1b-L11 expanded very quickly but left very few direct descendants, in fact, it only had 2 successful descendants, on the other hand  R1b-P312 was far more successful in Western Europe, and R1b-U106 in the Baltic region.

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

You know this is very sad, because I feel like you didn’t read anything of what I said, when I was proposing my hypothesis. If you go back and read, you will see that R1b-L11 did not pick up metallurgy or PIE, instead R1b-L23(xL150) bearers coming from the east were the ones that brought it. Everything isn’t black or white, in fact, I think that there was a definite expansion of R1b-L23(xL150) from Anatolia, or the Steppes, and that these folks were the ones that brought over metallurgy and PIE, but R1b-L11 was already expanding in Western Europe. What culture do I attribute that expansion you might ask? Either the initial phases of the Bell Beakers, or the expansion of Megalithism.


I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.

Well if you don’t trust the data what is the point of discussing it. Don’t ask me about Myres coverage of France, I have no idea why she covered that over Normandy, or even Brittany. Europe has only been a region of immigrant recently, and like I said, in most studies, when it is not said explicitly, it is assumed that the subjects of each country are native people.  Wait, you are talking about pre-historic migrations, do you really want to compare an R1b-L23xL51 guy from the US who can have ancestry from anywhere from Ireland to Turkey in the past 500 years, to an ethnic Swiss who at most could have gotten it from their neighbors.

I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus (a blogger) actually created by Vizachero (another blogger) without Vince's caveats. Do you blindly rely on what these academics are doing as being comprehensive and what the bloggers derive from it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.  BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  (Wikipedia: "the expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases."

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:36:14 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #90 on: May 31, 2012, 10:08:46 PM »

I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus actually created by Vizachero without his caveats. Do you blindly trust what these academics are doing is comprehensive?

No, I don’t blindly trust it, but after reviewing it, I see no reason not to trust it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

So sample sizes are decent, other are very small.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.   (BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?)

No, I decided that R1b-U106 is not part of L11. What the heck is the point of that question? Of course R1b-U106 is part of R1b-L11, I said that R1b-U106 likely arose in the Baltic or in Poland.  Per variance calculations R1b-P312 is slightly older than R1b-U106, they all descend from an R1b-L11 guy, however they do not descend from the same guy, they are cousins, not brothers. 

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

Good to know then, I usually consider 10 as the minimum sample size, and still if is bigger than 20, it is far better.

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

Oh, so now you are accusing me of cherry picking? I did not finish it, because I had to go over 13 countries, and I didn't feel like covering all of them, specially with countries such as Austria where the sample size was 5, or Turkey with 5, or Poland with 6.


2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.

Ok basically Mike this is what is happening, I’m claiming that R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe is mostly the product of the R1b-L23(xL51) that arrived there with the arrival of the IndoEuropeans, yet there are a few survivors that were likely there pre-Neolithic, I predicted that those survivors were going to be very scarce, and very distantly removed from all other L23xL51 haplotypes. I find 3 haplotypes that meet the criteria, yet you say it is not enough, well, it is not like the R1b-L23(xL51) survivors are so easy to find, they won’t be easy to find, because after all, they are whatever is left of R1b-L23(xL51) after the expansions of R1b-L23(xL51) from the Steppes or Anatolia, the expansion of R1b-P312 from Western Europe, and the expansion of R1b-U106 from Eastern Europe.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:21:36 PM by JeanL » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #91 on: May 31, 2012, 10:43:23 PM »

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  

How about the Rio Tinto Valley, the richest source of minerals in the ancient world and the epicentre of Cunliffe and Koch, Celtic from the West, theory? This type of open cast mining and smelting for the new metal culture represented by the Bell Beakers would have required huge ressources of wood for construction and charcoal. It is adjacent to the oldest BB finds in the Tagus River Valley and the Copper Age sites of Los Millares.
it is also one of the hotspots on RRs R1b-L51 map along with the Erne and the Rhone River Valley.

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_with_Neolithic_Path_003.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Millares

"Reputed to be the oldest mines in the world, Rio Tinto has a particularly rich history. Their mineral wealth was already legendary in ancient times. According to myth, these are the fabled mines of King Solomon, and a section of the area is still known as Cerro Salomón today. The nearby villages of Zalamea la Vieja (now called Nerva) and Zalamea la Real are also named after the biblical king. It was tales of the Iberian Peninsula's mineral wealth that drew Phoenician merchants to its shores, laying the foundations for a succession of Greek, Carthaginian and Roman invasions. The Rio Tinto mines they worked so intensively were among the most prized rewards that control of Iberia yielded."

http://www.andalucia.com/province/huelva/riotinto/home.htm

"The Tartessians were rich in metal. In the 4th century BC the historian Ephorus describes "a very prosperous market called Tartessos, with much tin carried by river, as well as gold and copper from Celtic lands".[2] Trade in tin was very lucrative in the Bronze Age, since it is an essential component of true bronze, and comparatively rare. Herodotus refers to a king of Tartessos, Arganthonios, presumably named for his wealth in silver."

"The existence of foreign produce and materials together with local ones permits to recognize the old Huelva harbor as a major hub for the reception, manufacturing and shipping of diverse products of different and distant origin. The analysis of written sources and the products exhumed, including inscriptions and thousand of Greek ceramics, some of which are works of excellent quality by known potters and painters, tends to identify this habitat not only with Tarshish mentioned in the Bible, in the Assyrian stele of Esharhaddon and perhaps in the Phoenician inscription of the Nora Stone, but also with the Tartessos of Greek sources –interpreting the Tartessus river as equivalent to the present-day Tinto river and the Ligustine Lake to the joint estuary of the Odiel and Tinto rivers flowing west and east of the Huelva Peninsula.
Further articles published in several specialized magazines are spreading the news of the spectacular finds which continue to be unearthed in the city of Huelva to this day."

"The Tartessian language is an extinct pre-Roman language once spoken in southern Iberia. The oldest known indigenous texts of Iberia, dated from the 7th to 6th centuries BC, are written in Tartessian. The inscriptions are written in a semi-syllabic writing system and were found in the general area in which Tartessos was located and in surrounding areas of influence. Tartessian language texts were found in Southwestern Spain and Southern Portugal (namely in the Conii areas of the Algarve and southern Alentejo. This variety is often referred as Southwest script). The affiliation of Tartessian is uncertain.[22] According to a new proposal by John T. Koch and others, however, Tartessian may have been the earliest written Celtic language."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessos


« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:30:16 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



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 31, 2012, 11:53:37 PM »

I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus actually created by Vizachero without his caveats. Do you blindly trust what these academics are doing is comprehensive?

No, I don’t blindly trust it, but after reviewing it, I see no reason not to trust it.

I'm not asking you to consider the academics or other bloggers as trustworthy personally or not.  I'm asking you to consider they are no smarter than you or me and they may not have comprehensive or representative data.  That's okay, but it is important to supply the caveats or look clearly at the alternatives.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

So sample sizes are decent, other are very small.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.   (BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?)

No, I decided that R1b-U106 is not part of L11. What the heck is the point of that question? Of course R1b-U106 is part of R1b-L11, I said that R1b-U106 likely arose in the Baltic or in Poland.  Per variance calculations R1b-P312 is slightly older than R1b-U106, they all descend from an R1b-L11 guy, however they do not descend from the same guy, they are cousins, not brothers.  

They still descend from the same guy.. be he a grandfather, 3g-grandfather or further back. U106 and P312 descend from the same ancestor, and not too long before them. That is what the TMRCA estimates are saying.

Somehow you have to account for U106 being older in the Baltic, possibly, and P312, being older in SE France, possibly, but both being not too distantly related.  Your statements about L11 showing a west to east expansion don't hold water.

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

Good to know then, I usually consider 10 as the minimum sample size, and still if is bigger than 20, it is far better.

I don't know what a proper minimum sample size is.  We need to probably hear from a market survey type statistician, but I don't see how 5 or 10 haplotypes can adequate represent a whole country.

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

Oh, so now you are accusing me of cherry picking? I did not finish it, because I had to go over 13 countries, and I didn't feel like covering all of them, specially with countries such as Austria where the sample size was 5, or Turkey with 5, or Poland with 6.


2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.

Ok basically Mike this is what is happening, I’m claiming that R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe is mostly the product of the R1b-L23(xL51) that arrived there with the arrival of the IndoEuropeans, yet there are a few survivors that were likely there pre-Neolithic, I predicted that those survivors were going to be very scarce, and very distantly removed from all other L23xL51 haplotypes. I find 3 haplotypes that meet the criteria, yet you say it is not enough, well, it is not like the R1b-L23(xL51) survivors are so easy to find, they won’t be easy to find, because after all, they are whatever is left of R1b-L23(xL51) after the expansions of R1b-L23(xL51) from the Steppes or Anatolia, the expansion of R1b-P312 from Western Europe, and the expansion of R1b-U106 from Eastern Europe.
Okay, this is a little more complex than I thought, but that's okay. The situation is complex in its outcomes.

L23xL51 came from the east with IE cultures. However, by that time...
P312 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-P312 lineage was already in Western Europe.
U106 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-U106 lineage was already in Northern Europe.
Both U106 and in particular, P312, expanded prolificly.

Is that fair summary? or do you think U106 and P312 had already expanded by the time L23xL51 got there?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:54:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2012, 09:23:24 AM »

I'm not asking you to consider the academics or other bloggers as trustworthy personally or not.  I'm asking you to consider they are no smarter than you or me and they may not have comprehensive or representative data.  That's okay, but it is important to supply the caveats or look clearly at the alternatives.

Well the reason why I consider academics more trustworthy is because at least those that publish in major Journals are expected to undergo a deep reviewing process by another knowledgeable colleague who is supposed to approve the publication. However, that doesn’t prevent disastrous papers from being published, but often times, the higher the impact factor, the harder it becomes to publish in certain journals, and basically one cannot BS and get away with it. Also data collected by Academics is supposed to follow certain protocols that aren’t usually met when the data is used by bloggers. In fact it is not the bloggers fault, I’m sure there are bloggers out there that are far more knowledgeable than some Academics, is just they lack the financial resources to be able to go in the field and collect proper data. So they have to rely on data that is published, or on DNA projects, the problem with DNA project in FTDNA is that you can have say a Mexican guy who is R1b-L23, and he claims he descends from Martin Perez de Ayala, Cuenca, Castilla La Mancha circa 1564, but there is a very real probability that Martin Perez de Ayala was a “converso” (Jewish person converted to Christianity) that migrated to the New World. On the other hand, you go on the field and sample 50 people from Cuenca, and most of those people aren’t going to be of “converso” descent because most “converses” migrated to the New World to escape persecution.  Likewise they are tons and tons of isolated villages everywhere in Europe where external flux has only been a recent thing, and people can track their ancestry in that region for centuries. In that sense, I tend to favor academic studies over FTDNA projects. The other thing is that is very hard to avoid sampling bias when working with FTDNA projects.

They still descend from the same guy.. be he a grandfather, 3g-grandfather or further back. U106 and P312 descend from the same ancestor, and not too long before them. That is what the TMRCA estimates are saying.

Well yes, but I wouldn't put too much precision on the TMRCA, because if one look at the sigmas, then one can definitely get R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 being separated by quite some distance, and in fact one could even get R1b-U106 being older than R1b-P312. In any case, anything is possible, if R1b-P312 was born first, then it is likely that R1b-L11 was around Western Europe when R1b-P312 was born, if R1b-U106 was born first, then it fits with the R1b-L11 theory coming from the east more nicely. However, for all we know R1b-L11 could have also been everywhere from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, and while hanging there they had R1b-P312, and R1b-U106. But what is clear to me, is that R1b-P312 took off like crazy, and likely killed his cousins, or something, because R1b-L11(xP312,U106) is so scarce that it seems to me, that if it ever was widespread in Europe, it suffered a great bottleneck.

Somehow you have to account for U106 being older in the Baltic, possibly, and P312, being older in SE France, possibly, but both being not too distantly related.  Your statements about L11 showing a west to east expansion don't hold water.

Why not, the only reason they would hold water would be if the precision of TMRCA was clock-like, but we know that there are sigmas, and that R1b-P312 could be distantly related to R1b-U106, or even R1b-U106 could be older. However, there isn’t sufficient evidence to go one way or the other? So yes my statement do hold water, as much as the next guy’s statement that R1b-L11 expanded from East and R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 were born along the way. 

I don't know what a proper minimum sample size is.  We need to probably hear from a market survey type statistician, but I don't see how 5 or 10 haplotypes can adequate represent a whole country.
Well 20 haplotypes cannot represent a whole country, however, 20 haplotypes for a homogenous region can represent it, if, one gets consistent results when repeating the same experiment with 20 different haplotypes from the same region numerous times.


Okay, this is a little more complex than I thought, but that's okay. The situation is complex in its outcomes.

L23xL51 came from the east with IE cultures. However, by that time...
P312 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-P312 lineage was already in Western Europe.
U106 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-U106 lineage was already in Northern Europe.
Both U106 and in particular, P312, expanded prolificly.

Is that fair summary? or do you think U106 and P312 had already expanded by the time L23xL51 got there?

I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 09:23:53 AM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2012, 10:11:12 AM »

I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2012, 10:25:47 AM »

I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

R1b can also be found in other non-IE populations, at least in minority amounts. There is a posting in the Assyrian thread at  http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=9505.0
where we see that R1b is found in some Semitic speaking peoples in decent percentages.

I think this evidence that R1b has just found a way into other cultures, not that R1b was originally Euskara or Semitic speaking.   As Richarrd R is pointing out... R1b's predominance, far and away, is in IE language cultures, particularly of the Centum paragroup. 
Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2012, 10:28:11 AM »


Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

What does modern day population say about what the population in those regions was circa 5000 ybp, do you know how the population was distributed back then? In fact, ethnic Basques are nowhere near 3 million, they probably do not amount to 1 million, so what? Again, what does that have to do with the population in the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia 5000 ybp. You do know that a lot of people that speak today Romance languages were Basque speaking in Roman times, here is a map of Gaul including Aquitania, did you know that all of Aquitania was nonIndoEuropean speaking?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png

It is easier to dismiss the Basques today, and to call the argument ridiculous, however a quick search on the internet reveals that all these people in Green also spoke a nonIndoEuropean language.

http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg

So it is not so easy to ignore it, once it is put in the proper context.

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Ok, and I think you are ignoring modern population distribution has nothing to do with the population circa 4000-5000 years ago. Again, look at the maps, and tell me with a straight face that they can easily be ignored.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

Exactly, and did the switching to an IE language bring about drastic changes in their y-DNA haplogroups?
Here are the results of people living in the Aragonese Pyrenees circa 900 AD, back then the region was Basque speaking, nowadays is Romance speaking.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/   

Ok, if I2-M26 is linked to non-IE, then how come R1b-P312 is older/has more variance in the Basque+Pyrenees region than I-M26.


« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 10:30:37 AM by JeanL » Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2012, 11:31:12 AM »

I've mentioned this before, and I'm not certain it will help, but here goes:

The Basque are strikingly low in Caucasus Admixture scores. People all around them show scores of Caucasus Admixture, with Poitou showing higher than the surrounding area.

If anything, this would seem to show no connection with R1b and Caucasus Admixture scores.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2012, 11:44:16 AM »


Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

What does modern day population say about what the population in those regions was circa 5000 ybp, do you know how the population was distributed back then? In fact, ethnic Basques are nowhere near 3 million, they probably do not amount to 1 million, so what? Again, what does that have to do with the population in the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia 5000 ybp. You do know that a lot of people that speak today Romance languages were Basque speaking in Roman times, here is a map of Gaul including Aquitania, did you know that all of Aquitania was nonIndoEuropean speaking?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png

It is easier to dismiss the Basques today, and to call the argument ridiculous, however a quick search on the internet reveals that all these people in Green also spoke a nonIndoEuropean language.

http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg

So it is not so easy to ignore it, once it is put in the proper context.

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Ok, and I think you are ignoring modern population distribution has nothing to do with the population circa 4000-5000 years ago. Again, look at the maps, and tell me with a straight face that they can easily be ignored.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

Exactly, and did the switching to an IE language bring about drastic changes in their y-DNA haplogroups?
Here are the results of people living in the Aragonese Pyrenees circa 900 AD, back then the region was Basque speaking, nowadays is Romance speaking.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/   

Ok, if I2-M26 is linked to non-IE, then how come R1b-P312 is older/has more variance in the Basque+Pyrenees region than I-M26.


Yes, I can tell you with a straight face that if 66% of Iberia spoke early IE languages, then R1b can be securely linked to R1b.

Since you brought it up, let's move onto Aquitania. Aquitania is the area of France where the least amount of Bell Beaker material has been found. Aquitania is sandwiched between two areas of France that contain the highest densities of Bell Beaker material: Brittany and Languedoc/Provence. As per Myres, French R1b peaks in Brittany and Provence and decreases between the two, Aquitania included.

Do you think its a coincidence that the closest ancient DNA to Aquitania (Treilles) tested so far has found G2a and I2a but no R1b during a time period (3,000 BC) which was a mere centuries away from seeing a Bell Beaker explosion? You still think all of this is a mere coincidence?

Aquitania and ancient DNA seems to reinforce the R1b=IE link and not the other way around.

As for high level variance, it is of very little use in your example. Within my own U152 group, I can tell you that the variance swings wildly from one country to another when taking its subclades into account, and changes even when a different number of STRs are used. Additionally, you can't compare the variance of I2-M26 and R1b in Basques as I2-M26 seems to be the product of exactly one migratory event and R1b is probably the result of repeated R1b incursions from every direction spanning thousands of years. This is attested in the variety of R1b found in modern day Basques.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 11:45:13 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2012, 12:38:10 PM »

Yes, I can tell you with a straight face that if 66% of Iberia spoke early IE languages, then R1b can be securely linked to R1b.

Some R1b can be linked to IE, others can’t. You can’t dismiss the 1/3 of Iberia, and one of the most populated areas of Iberia in the pre-Roman era.

Since you brought it up, let's move onto Aquitania. Aquitania is the area of France where the least amount of Bell Beaker material has been found. Aquitania is sandwiched between two areas of France that contain the highest densities of Bell Beaker material: Brittany and Languedoc/Provence. As per Myres, French R1b peaks in Brittany and Provence and decreases between the two, Aquitania included.

You got any source to back the claim that Aquitania is where the least amount of Bell Beaker materials has been found?

According to his map
http://img.springerimages.com/Images/SpringerBooks/BSE=6090/BOK=978-1-4419-6633-9/CHP=9_10.1007-978-1-4419-6633-9_9/MediaObjects/WATER_104983_2_En_9_Fig5_HTML.jpg

Captions: Distribution of Bell Beaker culture sites (After Kamieńska and Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970, with modifications)

Aquitania is far from being the area where the least amount of Bell Beakers have been found, and while we are at it, you see how strong the Bell Beaker was in the Eastern shores of Iberia.  Martinez-Cruz et al.2012 showed that R1b-L23+ has a frequency of 79% to 86% in all Gascons+French Basques. Moreover the Ramos-Luis.et.al.2009 paper showed that the frequency in Southwest France, which isn’t only limited to Aquitania, was 62.7% in a sample size of 83, it was 73.9% in Northwest France with a sample size of 115. Certainly SW France doesn’t have the peak in R1b per that study, but is way up there.



Do you think its a coincidence that the closest ancient DNA to Aquitania (Treilles) tested so far has found G2a and I2a but no R1b during a time period (3,000 BC) which was a mere centuries away from seeing a Bell Beaker explosion? You still think all of this is a mere coincidence?

Well first of all: I never said that R1b expansion isn’t linked to Bell Beaker, so before you get your hopes on the strawman, I recommend you go back and read the hypothesis I postulated.

Second of all: Here is a map of the Treilles, Cave:

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Lacanetal2011aFigure-1.jpg

Vs. Aquitaine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png

Third of all:

Quote from: Lacan.et.al.2011a
Necropolis Recruitment. Partial autosomal profiles were obtained for 24 of the 53 specimens under study (Table S1). The amelogenin locus indicates that 22 individuals were male and two were female (subjects 573 and 614). For five samples (samples 571, 581, 603, 609, and 637), the molecular sex could not be determined. Autosomal STR kinship analyzes highlighted at least
three close familial relationships within the necropolis: individuals 604 and 636 have a 99,9979% probability to have a father/ son relationship [likelihood ratio (LR), 48,400]. Individuals 612 and 583 could be siblings (LR, 66,400), with a probability of 99.9985%, and subject 612 could also be the father of 616, with a probability of 99.9995% (LR, 22,4000).


[…]

The Treilles group is strongly structured by paternal lineage, implying a low diversity among paternal lineages.

Aquitania and ancient DNA seems to reinforce the R1b=IE link and not the other way around.

The data seems to indicate otherwise, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

As for high level variance, it is of very little use in your example. Within my own U152 group, I can tell you that the variance swings wildly from one country to another when taking its subclades into account, and changes even when a different number of STRs are used. Additionally, you can't compare the variance of I2-M26 and R1b in Basques as I2-M26 seems to be the product of exactly one migratory event and R1b is probably the result of repeated R1b incursions from every direction spanning thousands of years.


Yes I can compare I-M26 with R1b in Basques, this is mainly because I was comparing at the level of R1b-P312, and per Marko.H latest TMRCA tables I-M26 is 14.5 kya, whereas R1b-P312 is 4000 ybp. So if we are to believe that I-M26 was present in Basques before R1b-P312 arrived, then it is by far in all fairness to take into account the variances, and it turns out that R1b-P312 is older than I-M26, which contradicts the theory where I-M26 was there before R1b-P312.

This is attested in the variety of R1b found in modern day Basques.
Uhmm, no, Basques have most of their R1b-P312 falling under the  R1b-P312*, likely R1b-Z196, which includes R1b-M153, and R1b-SRY2627. They have moderate frequencies of R1b-L21, but that’s about it, R1b-U152 is greatly lacking in them.  Also, like I said above even if you assumed that R1b-P312 in basques is a wide variety, its TMRCA and hence its variance cannot be older than 4 kya, because the way the TMRCA of R1b-P312 is calculated is by using everything that is downstream of P312, and that includes, Z196, U152, and L21. If I-M26 which has a TMRCA of 14.5 kya, was present in Basques prior to the arrival of R1b, it should have a far greater variance than R1b does, no matter if it came in a single migration or not, it is way older than P312, and it had plenty of time to accumulate variance, yet it doesn’t have more variance. So what it is going to be bottleneck? I hardly doubt it, it seems the frequencies of I-M26 have remained fairly stable at 7-8% in Basques since the 600 AD, where aDNA attest to the presence of I-M170, likely I-M26 at a frequency similar to modern proportions.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 12:44:00 PM by JeanL » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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 0.34 seconds with 18 queries.