World Families Forums - Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 02:59:29 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)
| | |-+  Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia  (Read 11728 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2012, 04:29:48 PM »

…Their family links to Corsica could have occurred in many ways. 

Mike now that you talk about Corsica, there is something that I thought I could bring up, I noticed as I have been doing some runs with the data from Busby.et.al.2011 that Corsica in fact has the highest diversity of all R1b-M269+ in Europe, at least on that dataset, and they have a good sample size, so it’s not a fluke due to small sample size. What do you think could have cause an Island such as Corsica to have such high diversity relative to other European regions? Also, do you have any haplotypes from Corsica from the FTDNA projects; it would be interesting to see if the results are replicated on a different set of samples.

I did not bring up Corsica.  Malicvelli did. What's your point?  Are you saying R1b came from Corsica to the Pyrenees?  Are you saying that Italian R1b comes from Corsica? 

To be honest, I haven't seen the data on Corsica. I'll start a thead on it.
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2012, 04:30:06 PM »

…Their family links to Corsica could have occurred in many ways. 

Mike now that you talk about Corsica, there is something that I thought I could bring up, I noticed as I have been doing some runs with the data from Busby.et.al.2011 that Corsica in fact has the highest diversity of all R1b-M269+ in Europe, at least on that dataset, and they have a good sample size, so it’s not a fluke due to small sample size. What do you think could have cause an Island such as Corsica to have such high diversity relative to other European regions? Also, do you have any haplotypes from Corsica from the FTDNA projects; it would be interesting to see if the results are replicated on a different set of samples.


If have been writing up something about R1b in the Ligurian Sea for the last month or so and will share it with all of you in the next few days or so, but it is no fluke and I'll propose a very good reason for the high diversity :)
Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2012, 04:47:22 PM »

I did not bring up Corsica.  Malicvelli did. What's your point? Are you saying R1b came from Corsica to the Pyrenees?  Are you saying that Italian R1b comes from Corsica?

No point, I was baffled by the results, so I was trying to make sense of it, mind you that these was done at the R1b-M269+ level, which includes everything from L23 down to P312 and U106 and their subclades.  For example when I ran the variance at the P312+ level, Corsica(n=10) came in fourth place with a variance of 0.3133 mut/marker.

To be honest, I haven't seen the data on Corsica. I'll start a thead on it.


Ok if you feel like it, I just wanted to make sure if this trend has been observed elsewhere, or if this is a fluke due to the sample size, which is within the limits of a small sample size.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2012, 09:28:18 PM »

As much as I do not want to get into another round of "quote, counterpoint", here goes.

What "duality"? A duality implies an equal or at least roughly equal split into two; a HUGE, Indo-European, ninety-something-percent-of-R-P312 majority versus a small, odd, Basque minority is hardly a duality. It is an anomaly.

Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion.

If you counter that the Iberians were probably non-IE speaking, you will have to show that they were mostly R-P312. It is not even certain that Iberian was non-IE.

Well, what is the percentage of R1b-P312(xDF27) in France, England, North Italy, etc. Now what is the percentage of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) inside of Iberia.  The Basques are only a minority due to them being the only nonIE speaking remant. As much as you’d wish to ignore them completely to fit the IE theory, something else don’t fit the data, P312 diversity cline goes for the most part from West to East not East-west, and L11 diversity cline has no pattern inside of Europe, so again the argument of mutations arising in the edge of a surfing wave fail when it comes to diversity distribution.

As for Iberians, well it is well known that they were nonIE speaking, they left inscriptions which clearly show that their language wasn’t IE. As for me needing to show that they were mostly R-P312, well, turns out the areas that were under Iberian territory(i.e. Catalonia, Eastern Andalucia) are the hotspots for P312 in Iberia today outside the Basque-Navarran region, I guess we can add it as yet another “coincidence” to the list. Also add to it that the nowadays Romance speaking Gascons who were Aquitanian speaking in pre-Roman times, also have lots of P312.


You spoke of a "duality" in R-P312 regarding IE and non-IE. Once again, there is no such duality. The vast vast majority of P312 is IE-speaking. A tiny minority is not. That is most emphatically not a "duality". The non-IE-speaking portion of P312 is an anomaly.

Please try to keep a sense of proportion, and use the correct terms.

We do not know much about Iberian at all, and we certainly do not know to what y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged. Even if they were mostly R-P312 and spoke a non-IE language, they would hardly bolster the non-IE portion of R-P312 enough to constitute half of the total amount of R-P312.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 09:39:17 PM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2012, 09:40:58 PM »

You spoke of a "duality" in R-P312 regarding IE and non-IE. Once again, there is no such duality. The vast vast majority of P312 is IE-speaking. A tiny minority is not. That is most emphatically not a "duality". The non-IE-speaking portion of P312 is an anomaly.
Please try to keep a sense of proportion, and use the correct terms.

Let’s try to keep a sense of historical accuracy then too; nowadays only Basques speak a nonIE language, and you can characterize them as a “tiny” minority. However just 2000 years ago all of Aquitania spoke Aquitanian a nonIE language, the Eastern side of Iberia spoke Iberian a nonIE language.  Therefore the only way you can try to characterize the nonIE connection of P312 is if you completely ignore the massive presence of P312 in nonIE speakers. Moreover, it is a coincidence that IE speakers have a majority of either L21 or U152 clades combined, or could it be because both L21 and U152 being born in a IE speaking area, whereas DF27 was born in a nonIE speaking area.

We do not know much about Iberian at all, and we certainly do not know to what y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged.

Well we know that 7th Century Alavenses were mostly R1b-M269, we know that 9th Central Pyreneans were mostly R1b (Though the sample size was very small, but it was 2/2 for R1b), last I checked as of the 9th Century Pyrenean Aragonenses spoke a nonIE language, and they were still R1b. Moreover, we certainly do not know to what y haplogroups the ancient Britons, Gauls, Picts, etc belonged too, so the argument can go either way, if you want to use the Irish as a proxy for ancient populations in Ireland based on the assumption that there has been little population replacement in the last 2000 years, then I say, prove to me that the Gascons, or that the Catalans have undergone a substantial gene flow from the last 2000 years or so. Moreover the Celtic strongholds of Iberia are greatly lacking in the R1b department, I mean relative to the other places, there is no record that indicates major population replacement or even partial population replacement in the last 2000 years in Asturias and Galicia, yet either place exhibits frequencies of R1b at a level below 60%. Again, we know for certain that Iberians were nonIE speaking because they left scriptures, and like I said, the assumption of the hotspots-R1b link is based on population continuity in Catalonia in the last 2000 years, but since you are skeptical about it, I tell you to bring proofs that there was a substantial population replacement in the area in the historical era.

Even if they were mostly R-P312 and spoke a non-IE language, they would hardly bolster the non-IE portion of R-P312 enough to constitute half of the total amount of R-P312.

It doesn't matter if they aren't half of the R-P312 proportions, after all you keep using modern population proportions, whereas the population of those regions would have been drastically different circa 1000 BC, but I'll grant you that France was highly populated in the Roman period, although some parts of it such as Aquitania were nonIE speaking.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 09:54:07 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2012, 02:05:20 AM »

However just 2000 years ago all of Aquitania spoke Aquitanian a nonIE language, the Eastern side of Iberia spoke Iberian a nonIE language.  

I'm not disputing this, but I was not aware it was settled that all of Aquitania spoke non-IE languages 2000 years ago.   Is it settled that the Iberian language spoke a non-IE language?  You mentioned they covered the eastern side of Iberia. Do you mean half or just certain regions?

What about the Celts? I thought they battled the Iberians for years, got the upper hand, and then inter-married with them.  Do I misunderstand that?  If so, this could be another vehicle spreading R1b... the Celtiberians.

... whereas DF27 was born in a nonIE speaking area.

Where do you think DF27 was born and why? Are you implying the dastern side of Iberia or SW France?

Well we know that 7th Century Alavenses were mostly R1b-M269, we know that 9th Central Pyreneans were mostly R1b (Though the sample size was very small, but it was 2/2 for R1b), last I checked as of the 9th Century Pyrenean Aragonenses spoke a nonIE language, and they were still R1b.

I know where Aragon is but I'm not familiar with the term "Aragonenses." This is quite interesting since at least some of these find were R1b.  Aragonese is a Romance (IE) language, I thought. Are you talking about some ancient tribe call the Aragonenses rather than the language. Are you saying the 7th century skeletons spoke some predecessor to this language?  Do we know from the accompanying artifacts what ethnicity they were?  
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 02:07:02 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 676


« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2012, 06:56:18 AM »

I've mentioned before in other threads about the reconquest of Spain.

Could the quantity of R1b types have inceased with the influx of forces from west of Spain?
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


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

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


JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2012, 07:15:58 AM »

I'm not disputing this, but I was not aware it was settled that all of Aquitania spoke non-IE languages 2000 years ago.   Is it settled that the Iberian language spoke a non-IE language?  You mentioned they covered the eastern side of Iberia. Do you mean half or just certain regions?

Well, we know through certain inscriptions found in Aquitanian territory that they spoke Aquitanian, I think it is safe to assume that most of the people that were deemed as Aquitanians by the Romans spoke the language.

What about the Celts? I thought they battled the Iberians for years, got the upper hand, and then inter-married with them.  Do I misunderstand that?  If so, this could be another vehicle spreading R1b... the Celtiberians.

The Celtiberians did not live in the area of modern day Catalonia, it is said that the Urnfield people were proto-Celtic who expanded there in 1000 BC, however it is said that the Iberian expansion drove them out of Catalonia westwards.

Where do you think DF27 was born and why? Are you implying the dastern side of Iberia or SW France?

I think DF27 was born inside of Iberia, and yes I do think it was nonIE speaking, it was likely born out of the P312 folks that remained in Iberia while the other folks expanded. As to why? Well seeing how DF27 is the dominant R1b clade inside of Iberia, and how it is the minority clade outside of it, its distribution can be explained if some of it moved later on outside of Iberia, only to be integrated in IE speaking communities. The same thing can be said about the presence of R1b-L21 in Basques, they were IE speaking folk who came, but since they were a minority, they likely had to learn the language of the majority.


I know where Aragon is but I'm not familiar with the term "Aragonenses." This is quite interesting since at least some of these find were R1b.  Aragonese is a Romance (IE) language, I thought. Are you talking about some ancient tribe call the Aragonenses rather than the language. Are you saying the 7th century skeletons spoke some predecessor to this language?  Do we know from the accompanying artifacts what ethnicity they were? 

Those findings were from the Central Pyrenean region, or the Pyrenees Aragonenses (Spanish possessive meaning: “from Aragon”). Yes, the language that they speak there nowadays is a Romance language, however back in the 9th Century they spoke Basque, in fact the Aran Valley, which borders the Aragonense Pyrenees from Catalonia, the word Aran comes from the Basque word Haran(Valley). Likewise there are numerous accounts of Basque placenames in the region which indicates that it was Basque speaking until the middle ages.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2012, 08:15:46 AM »

I think DF27 was born inside of Iberia

That may be the problem for which you need a reality check.  Have you seen the recent refinement of this tree?

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813460

The only part that looks predominantly Iberian here is Z278 and below.  Possibly, but not certainly, Z216 and below.  SRY2627 has an Iberian component.  Z225 is probably Iberian, and is under DF27 but doesn't yet show on this chart because the positive tests for it were from the 1000 genomes project (and almost all were on Puerto Rican samples).

It takes some pretty ingenious back-migration hocus pocus to get the various eastern and northern subclades of DF27 to descend from these later Iberian offshoots.
Logged

R1b Z196*
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2012, 08:34:16 AM »

That may be the problem for which you need a reality check.  Have you seen the recent refinement of this tree?
http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813460

The only part that looks predominantly Iberian here is Z278 and below.  Possibly, but not certainly, Z216 and below.  SRY2627 has an Iberian component.  Z225 is probably Iberian, and is under DF27 but doesn't yet show on this chart because the positive tests for it were from the 1000 genomes project (and almost all were on Puerto Rican samples).

So what exactly makes it impossible for R1b-DF27 to have been born in Iberia, because thus far I have yet to see anything that goes against it, like I said before some R1b-DF27 diffused its way towards other parts of Europe, but if you check you will see that other than Iberia elsewhere R1b-L21+ and R1b-U152+ clades prevail over R1b-DF27+. Moreover perhaps you missed the last study done on Basque and Gascons where the vast majority of them were R1b-P312(xL21,U152,M153,SRY2627), so before asking me if a need a reality check, perhaps you ought to get up to date with the data.

It takes some pretty ingenious back-migration hocus pocus to get the various eastern and northern subclades of DF27 to descend from these later Iberian offshoots.


Such as?

PS: The Iberian 1000 genome data you talked about was based on 27 samples, so perhaps think about it, before jumping into conclusions. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 08:40:53 AM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2012, 08:53:33 AM »

The Celtiberians did not live in the area of modern day Catalonia, it is said that the Urnfield people were proto-Celtic who expanded there in 1000 BC, however it is said that the Iberian expansion drove them out of Catalonia westwards.

Urnfield (specifically of the RSFO group) settlement was spotty in Catalonia and existed side-by-side with indigenous groups. They were absorbed into the local culture, not driven out.

«Frente a la idea de una cultura homogénea hoy resulta evidente que los Campos de Urnas introducen en el NE peninsular una serie de elementos de origen ultra pirenaico de forma desigual según las regiones y sobre los estratos indígenas de la vieja Edad del Bronce que siguen constituyendo el stock básico de población. No hay en consecuencia una «Cultura de los Campos de Urnas« sino grupos regionales de finales de la Edad del Bronce que reciben las innovaciones de los Campos de Urnas, de forma desigual en el tiempo y en el espacio. Esas innovaciones son las que probablemente nos han hecho sobredimensionar la naturaleza de los elementos de Campos de Urnas en la península ibérica. Pero en todo caso sigo pensando que la trascendencia cultural de los elementos de Campos de Urnas que penetraron en el NE fue muy grande» (Ruiz Zapatero 2005: 36-37).
Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2012, 09:07:42 AM »


Urnfield (specifically of the RSFO group) settlement was spotty in Catalonia and existed side-by-side with indigenous groups. They were absorbed into the local culture, not driven out.

«Frente a la idea de una cultura homogénea hoy resulta evidente que los Campos de Urnas introducen en el NE peninsular una serie de elementos de origen ultra pirenaico de forma desigual según las regiones y sobre los estratos indígenas de la vieja Edad del Bronce que siguen constituyendo el stock básico de población. No hay en consecuencia una «Cultura de los Campos de Urnas« sino grupos regionales de finales de la Edad del Bronce que reciben las innovaciones de los Campos de Urnas, de forma desigual en el tiempo y en el espacio. Esas innovaciones son las que probablemente nos han hecho sobredimensionar la naturaleza de los elementos de Campos de Urnas en la península ibérica. Pero en todo caso sigo pensando que la trascendencia cultural de los elementos de Campos de Urnas que penetraron en el NE fue muy grande» (Ruiz Zapatero 2005: 36-37).

But it doesn’t say anything about the status of the Urnfield people in Catalonia after the expansion of the Iberians. I know that the Urnfield folks reached the Southern parts of Navarra and Alava by the 8th-10th Century BC, but then when Romans reached that area it was inhabited by Celt-Iberians in the Southernmost part of Navarra, and Berones(Who were said to be Celt-Iberians) in La Rioja, and the Southern parts of Alava, essentially the Ebro Valley. In fact what you provided says that the indigenous people continued to be the basic stock of the population, and that there isn't an Urnfield Culture but regional groups at the end of the Bronze Age who received innovations from the Urnfield culture in an unequal way in time and space. It also says that those innovations probably had made people overestimate the nature of the elements of Urnfield in the Iberian Peninsula.
 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 09:11:51 AM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2012, 09:20:52 AM »


Urnfield (specifically of the RSFO group) settlement was spotty in Catalonia and existed side-by-side with indigenous groups. They were absorbed into the local culture, not driven out.

«Frente a la idea de una cultura homogénea hoy resulta evidente que los Campos de Urnas introducen en el NE peninsular una serie de elementos de origen ultra pirenaico de forma desigual según las regiones y sobre los estratos indígenas de la vieja Edad del Bronce que siguen constituyendo el stock básico de población. No hay en consecuencia una «Cultura de los Campos de Urnas« sino grupos regionales de finales de la Edad del Bronce que reciben las innovaciones de los Campos de Urnas, de forma desigual en el tiempo y en el espacio. Esas innovaciones son las que probablemente nos han hecho sobredimensionar la naturaleza de los elementos de Campos de Urnas en la península ibérica. Pero en todo caso sigo pensando que la trascendencia cultural de los elementos de Campos de Urnas que penetraron en el NE fue muy grande» (Ruiz Zapatero 2005: 36-37).

But it doesn’t say anything about the status of the Urnfield people in Catalonia after the expansion of the Iberians. I know that the Urnfield folks reached the Southern parts of Navarra and Alava by the 8th-10th Century BC, but then when Romans reached that area it was inhabited by Celt-Iberians in the Southernmost part of Navarra, and Berones(Who were said to be Celt-Iberians) in La Rioja, and the Southern parts of Alava, essentially the Ebro Valley. In fact what you provided says that the indigenous people continued to be the basic stock of the population, and that there isn't an Urnfield Culture but regional groups at the end of the Bronze Age who received innovations from the Urnfield culture in an unequal way in time and space. It also says that those innovations probably had made people overestimate the nature of the elements of Urnfield in the Iberian Peninsula.
 


Exactly, the influence is overstated and the Urnfelders just faded in with the locals in Catalonia. Nothing about Iberians driving the Urnfielders out.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2012, 09:33:24 AM »


Where do you think DF27 was born and why? Are you implying the dastern side of Iberia or SW France?

I think DF27 was born inside of Iberia, and yes I do think it was nonIE speaking, it was likely born out of the P312 folks that remained in Iberia while the other folks expanded. As to why? Well seeing how DF27 is the dominant R1b clade inside of Iberia, and how it is the minority clade outside of it, its distribution can be explained if some of it moved later on outside of Iberia, only to be integrated in IE speaking communities. The same thing can be said about the presence of R1b-L21 in Basques, they were IE speaking folk who came, but since they were a minority, they likely had to learn the language of the majority.

I see your logic is based on the premise that high or higher frequency infers origination. That's okay, but we have to remember that high frequency can also be a result of pooling at an attractive destination at the end of the wave (gene wave surfing concept.)
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 09:33:51 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2012, 09:45:59 AM »


I see your logic is based on the premise that high or higher frequency infers origination. That's okay, but we have to remember that high frequency can also be a result of pooling at an attractive destination at the end of the wave (gene wave surfing concept.)

Not only the higher frequency, it is just the fact that the R1b-L21/R1b-U152 combo prevails (As a percentage of R1b-P312) outside of Iberia, whereas the R1b-DF27 clades prevail inside of Iberia, well actually saying R1b-DF27 is incorrect, let’s just say that R1b-P312(xL21,U152) prevails inside of Iberia. Also something else I would like to bring up, is that R1b-M65 which is very rare, but has been found in Basques is not a member of either R1b-DF27, R1b-U152, or R1b-L21, so how did those R1b-M65 folks managed to survive unless there was a substantial portion of R1b-P312(xL21,U152,DF27) found in the vicinity of the Western Pyrenees to give rise to this sibling clade.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2012, 09:47:42 AM »

perhaps you missed the last study done on Basque and Gascons where the vast majority of them were R1b-P312(xL21,U152,M153,SRY2627), so before asking me if a need a reality check, perhaps you ought to get up to date with the data.

Nope, I didn't miss it.  Maybe read less into than you did, however.

It takes some pretty ingenious back-migration hocus pocus to get the various eastern and northern subclades of DF27 to descend from these later Iberian offshoots.

Quote from: JeanL
Such as?

Such as what Mike has just said, on this other thread:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10485.msg133218#msg133218

See especially his comments below the picture.  But the gold part of the picture, at left, is graphically much more clear about DF27 than Thomas Krahn's tree (or the woefully lagging ISOGG tree for the same part of R-P312).  The authors of your favorite academic paper about 15 marker samples from Gascons et al did not know about this more subtle phylogeny, as much of it was discovered about a year ago (while they were perhaps getting peer reviewed), and has only been "confirmed" by SNP testing in the FTDNA lab within the past three months.
Logged

R1b Z196*
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2012, 10:06:24 AM »


Nope, I didn't miss it.  Maybe read less into than you did, however.

No worries, often times our mind ignores unwanted things.

It takes some pretty ingenious back-migration hocus pocus to get the various eastern and northern subclades of DF27 to descend from these later Iberian offshoots.

Quote from: JeanL
Such as?

Such as what Mike has just said, on this other thread:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10485.msg133218#msg133218

See especially his comments below the picture.  But the gold part of the picture, at left, is graphically much more clear about DF27 than Thomas Krahn's tree (or the woefully lagging ISOGG tree for the same part of R-P312). 



Yes I read his comment, and again L165 being found in Northern Europe and the R1b-Z209 being North-South cluster doesn’t contradict that DF27 could have been born in Iberia. Again let me repeat myself:

So what exactly makes it impossible for R1b-DF27 to have been born in Iberia, because thus far I have yet to see anything that goes against it, like I said before some R1b-DF27 diffused its way towards other parts of Europe, but if you check you will see that other than Iberia elsewhere R1b-L21+ and R1b-U152+ clades prevail over R1b-DF27+.

Moreover how significant are the R1b-L165 or R1b-Z209 clades compared to R1b-L21+ clades and R1b-U152+ clades in Northern Europe or NW Europe?



The authors of your favorite academic paper about 15 marker samples from Gascons et al did not know about this more subtle phylogeny, as much of it was discovered about a year ago (while they were perhaps getting peer reviewed), and has only been "confirmed" by SNP testing in the FTDNA lab within the past three months.

First of all, it is not my favorite academic paper, it is the one that thus far has done extensive research in the region, whereas before often times “Basque” samples were just a sample of anywhere from 45 to 100 individuals from anywhere in the Basque Country. Second of all, I already showed here that the portions of R1b-P312(xL21,U152,SRY2627,M153) prevails in Basques as the R1b-P312+ derived clades. It seems to me that you are using the fact that they used 15 markers as some sort of way to challenge the veracity of their analyses? So once again, if(And this is pretty darn big IF), we assume that all those R1b-P312(xL21,U152,SRY2627,M153) folks are in a majority members of the DF27+ clade, then it reinforces the idea that DF27+ was likely born in the area, because they have mostly ancestral clades to either SRY2627 or M153. However due to the fact that you are basing the assumption of a DF27+ majority on the results from the Iberian 1000 Genomes, which had a sample size of 27, I am highly skeptical about those folks belonging mostly to DF27+.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 10:07:56 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 20, 2012, 10:08:52 AM »


I see your logic is based on the premise that high or higher frequency infers origination. That's okay, but we have to remember that high frequency can also be a result of pooling at an attractive destination at the end of the wave (gene wave surfing concept.)

Not only the higher frequency, it is just the fact that the R1b-L21/R1b-U152 combo prevails (As a percentage of R1b-P312) outside of Iberia, whereas the R1b-DF27 clades prevail inside of Iberia, well actually saying R1b-DF27 is incorrect, let’s just say that R1b-P312(xL21,U152) prevails inside of Iberia. Also something else I would like to bring up, is that R1b-M65 which is very rare, but has been found in Basques is not a member of either R1b-DF27, R1b-U152, or R1b-L21, so how did those R1b-M65 folks managed to survive unless there was a substantial portion of R1b-P312(xL21,U152,DF27) found in the vicinity of the Western Pyrenees to give rise to this sibling clade.

So you are saying higher relative frequency versus its peers is part of the logic, not just higher absolute frequency relative to the population?  Okay, but ironically, looking at higher relative frequency versus peers is the opposite of looking for haplogroup diversity. This seems a little counter-intuitive to me since DF27, L21 and U152 all have a P312 common ancestor. In that regards I'd expect them to emanate from the same general vicinity so haplogroup diversity might be of more interest than the opposite.

Just to be clear, I agree that Iberia is a valid consideration for the expansion of P312 to have launched from.  A counter-argument to that, though, is that little U152 is found there and U152 seems to be the most diverse (and therefore probably the oldest) of P312's large clades.  Of course, another counter-argument is the lack of and long distance from cousin* U106.

I would not necessarily use the characterization of the relationship of DF27, L21 and U152 as L21/U152 prevail outside of Iberia and DF27 prevails inside. DF27 has a unique position vis-à-vis L21 and U152.  L21 and U152 clearly do have defined territories and barely reach outside of them.  DF27, on the other hand, while being more prevalent in Iberia, has a much better pan-European showing that L21 or U152.  DF27 has a more expansive spread.

I haven't seen much M65. Some people think it is private so I'm not sure why it is significant for your argument.    http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-12/1228682928
I just took it off my SNP tracking list because seeing all of the "M65-" labels was just clogging up the other SNPs downstream of P312.

Are you saying M65 is quite old?

How do you know that M65 and DF27 are exclusive of each other?


* I don't mean literal cousin.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 10:26:36 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2012, 10:20:41 AM »

So you are saying higher relative frequency versus its peers is part of the logic, not just higher absolute frequency relative to the population?  Okay, but it is still the opposite of looking at diversity.

Well, I can’t look at diversity now, because there isn’t a good enough sample size tested for DF27+ such that I can test for diversity distribution. There is a good portion of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) from Busby.et.al.2011 but some of it could be R1b-P312(xDF27,L21,U152), some of it could be DF27, so I’m not sure about it, but if you want I can give it a run, and see what the diversity of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) looks like.

I would not necessarily use the characterization of the relationship of DF27, L21 and U152 as L21/U152 prevail outside of Iberia and DF27 prevails inside. DF27 has a unique position vis-a-vi L21 and U152.  L21 and U152 clearly do have defined territories and barely reach outside of them. DF27, on the other hand, while being more prevalent in Iberia, has a much better pan-European showing that L21 or U152.  DF27 has a more expansive spread.

Really?? I would think that R1b-L21+ has about the same range of distribution of DF27+, the only difference would be that DF27+ has a high prevalence in Iberia, while it drops sharply outside of it, whereas R1b-L21+ has a significant distribution outside of the British Islands, especially in NW France. Mind you that in here I’m assuming that most of the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Iberia is DF27+, because in reality we don’t know much about the distribution of DF27+.


I haven't seen much M65. Some people think it is private so I'm not sure why it is significant for your argument.    http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-12/1228682928
[…]
Are you saying M65 is quite old?

How do you know that M65 and DF27 are exclusive of each other?

I’m just going by the latest ISOGG tree where R1b-M65 appears to be a sibling clade of DF27, U152 and L21. I think it is important because it signals that it was born out of a P312 individual and it is not part of either one of the three families. I don’t know if it is old or not.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 10:21:19 AM by JeanL » Logged
chris1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #69 on: June 20, 2012, 10:42:59 AM »

Really?? I would think that R1b-L21+ has about the same range of distribution of DF27+, the only difference would be that DF27+ has a high prevalence in Iberia, while it drops sharply outside of it, whereas R1b-L21+ has a significant distribution outside of the British Islands, especially in NW France. Mind you that in here I’m assuming that most of the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Iberia is DF27+, because in reality we don’t know much about the distribution of DF27+.
Thing is, FTDNA has only recently offered DF27 testing for all those previously R1b-P312*. The new results are only just coming in. There looks to be a lot of DF27 turning up all over Europe, quite a bit in England. See some of the latest DF27 results towards the bottom of the P312 and Subclades Project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?section=yresults
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2012, 11:24:20 AM »

FTDNA is almost completely useless for determining high frequency areas. If it were reliable, every haplogroup would have their highest frequencies in the British Isles and Palatine Germany (see maps for G2, J2, etc.).

DF27 is going to be most frequent where P312(xL21,xU152) appears in academic studies, which pretty much narrows it down to all of Iberia and southern France.
Logged

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

Posts: 406


« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2012, 12:11:07 PM »

DF27 is going to be most frequent where P312(xL21,xU152) appears in academic studies, which pretty much narrows it down to all of Iberia and southern France.

But that isn't going to negate the fact that present frequency doesn't indicate origin.  My disagreement with JeanL is with his stated belief that DF27 originated in Iberia.

FTDNA also undersamples Ukraine, Romania, and Poland -- but finds some of the DF27 subclades in those places (mostly by sampling Americans with paternal ancestry from those places).  They don't look very Iberian, in context.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 12:11:57 PM by razyn » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2012, 12:28:46 PM »


I would not necessarily use the characterization of the relationship of DF27, L21 and U152 as L21/U152 prevail outside of Iberia and DF27 prevails inside. DF27 has a unique position vis-a-vi L21 and U152.  L21 and U152 clearly do have defined territories and barely reach outside of them. DF27, on the other hand, while being more prevalent in Iberia, has a much better pan-European showing that L21 or U152.  DF27 has a more expansive spread.

Really?? I would think that R1b-L21+ has about the same range of distribution of DF27+, the only difference would be that DF27+ has a high prevalence in Iberia, while it drops sharply outside of it, whereas R1b-L21+ has a significant distribution outside of the British Islands, especially in NW France. Mind you that in here I’m assuming that most of the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Iberia is DF27+, because in reality we don’t know much about the distribution of DF27+.

Yes, really.  

As far as L21 goes, I'm not saying that L21 was relegated only to the Isles so why use that as an argument? Most of us on this forum know L21's well defined territory includes more than the Isles.  As best I can from the studies, this is what its territory looks like.


We don't have a distribution map for DF27. We do have the early testing as well as the knowledge L176.2 is downstream and a lot of P312* could be DF27 (as you've stated.)  The best evidence that DF27 is more scattered than L21 is the North-South cluster which is now proven to be Z209+ (downstream of DF27).

I concede it is early yet on DF27 testing and we need to look at P312xU152xL21 testing for DF27 in places like Germany. Since North-South and L176.2 are present there I think we could expect much of the P312* to be DF27.  However, you'd be correct that no academic study can confirm DF27* and Z209 in Germany.

I should retract, to some degree any indication I have given that U152 is not also somewhat scattered also.  If you go east, U152 and P312* (which could be mostly DF27) run neck and neck according to Busby.  It's really just L21 that does not reach as strongly into Eastern Europe.





« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 01:15:04 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2012, 12:38:17 PM »


I would not necessarily use the characterization of the relationship of DF27, L21 and U152 as L21/U152 prevail outside of Iberia and DF27 prevails inside. DF27 has a unique position vis-a-vi L21 and U152.  L21 and U152 clearly do have defined territories and barely reach outside of them. DF27, on the other hand, while being more prevalent in Iberia, has a much better pan-European showing that L21 or U152.  DF27 has a more expansive spread.

Really?? I would think that R1b-L21+ has about the same range of distribution of DF27+, the only difference would be that DF27+ has a high prevalence in Iberia, while it drops sharply outside of it, whereas R1b-L21+ has a significant distribution outside of the British Islands, especially in NW France. Mind you that in here I’m assuming that most of the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Iberia is DF27+, because in reality we don’t know much about the distribution of DF27+.

You might be assuming that most P312* in Iberia will be DF27+ and P312* outside of Iberia (which is quite scattered) will not.  I am not assuming that but either way we don't really know.


I haven't seen much M65. Some people think it is private so I'm not sure why it is significant for your argument.    http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-12/1228682928
[…]
Are you saying M65 is quite old?

How do you know that M65 and DF27 are exclusive of each other?

I’m just going by the latest ISOGG tree where R1b-M65 appears to be a sibling clade of DF27, U152 and L21. I think it is important because it signals that it was born out of a P312 individual and it is not part of either one of the three families. I don’t know if it is old or not.

Using M65 is a poor argument if it is essentially just a private SNP which it may well be. It just appears on the ISOGG tree because it was an early SNP discovery.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2012, 12:56:46 PM »

So you are saying higher relative frequency versus its peers is part of the logic, not just higher absolute frequency relative to the population?  Okay, but it is still the opposite of looking at diversity.

Well, I can’t look at diversity now, because there isn’t a good enough sample size tested for DF27+ such that I can test for diversity distribution. There is a good portion of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) from Busby.et.al.2011 but some of it could be R1b-P312(xDF27,L21,U152), some of it could be DF27, so I’m not sure about it, but if you want I can give it a run, and see what the diversity of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) looks like.

Just because you can't look at STR diversity now, doesn't mean frequency is any better of an indicator of origin than it ever was.  Higher frequencies to the absolute population or higher frequencies in relation to its peers, either way, can be misleading.

In fact, we can look at haplogroup diversity and that is just as useful as STR diversity, perhaps more because we know haplogroups designate groups of people with an MRCA, more related to each other within their groups.  STR diversity is a mixed bag because we could have mixed haplogroups within the geography.

Haplogroup diversity for R1b-L11 is not highest in Iberia. You already have conceded this by stating U152 and L21 are rare there. We don't really know about haplogroup diversity for R1b-DF27 but we know Z209, L176.2 and SRY2627 are not relegated to Iberia.  On the other hand, M153 is relegated to Pyrenees region and at the same time L165 is relegated to Scandinavia and the Isles.   If we compare the two, M153 is just an element of Z209 and appears to be younger than its distant cousin to the north, L165.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 01:04:21 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 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 0.112 seconds with 18 queries.