Another look at Anthony's ideas

[Mikewww]

I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?

We are talking about this in another thread.

I don't know which thread you are talking about... STR Wars?  If so let's talk about that over there so as not to bog down discussions about David Anthony's writings.

Diversity alone is not reliable,

I agree. In fact I just said that we should look at all the data. Is there anyone who thinks we should look at diversity alone in a vacuum?

because the calculations often contain different lineages. Diversity is meaningful only if it for certain contains haplotypes from only one lineage.

I agree that measuring variance across different not closely related clades is not meaningful. I wasn't doing that. In this thread I was talking about U106 in its entirety, not just U106*.

Diversity of different R1b branches together is just as meaningless as the diversity of R1a, R1b and N1c together.

Your example is wrong and not at all equivalent. R1b encompasses a clade in its entirety. what I was talking about - U106, in its entirety,  is a relatively young clade.

R1a, R1b and N1c together are not one clade. You have to go way, way back to get to a common ancestor for N and R. You'd have to include Q and P and more to get to an entire clade with a common ancestor.

Diversity should not be calculated by population, region or even haplogroup as a whole – all that matters is the lineage; see Chapter 7 here: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/N1b.pdf

I agree that diversity calculated by region is suspect. It's just another piece of data. I also agree that we should breakdown each clade into as many subclades as possible, analyze each and look at the components as well as the whole. I try to do that, whenever enough data is available.

It is not correct to say diversity is useless and totally discard it arbitrarily. There may be good reasons to dis-count (for some reason this word gets deleted so I had to stick in the hyphen) it for a for a particular comparison. It could also be a red herring as it could indicate a pooled/destination population rather than a launch pad population.  The data may not be representative. However, it is not wise to summarily dismiss it. What do you say if diversity for a clade in one region is .1 and in another it is .9 ? That's a huge difference and diminishes the probabilities that the .1 region is the source.

... but okay, so you don't like STR diversity.  I think it is more valuable than to analyze just frequency. Frequency is a better indicator oftentimes of the end of a trail rather than the beginning. If you disagree, that's fine but lets discuss over on your other thread.

Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?  

What do you say? Where did U106 originate?

[T101]

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out.

Haha... don't! it's a trap!! Use of diversity in Poland should only be done with extreme caution! It almost certainly indicates as you put it "a pooled/destination population," that has received countless dribs and drabs of migration to it for millenia.

From the West R1b-U106 was already there with Jastorf or perhaps sooner (dare I say R1b-U106 ancestors formed the Globular Amphora Culture - probably not but intriguing) then the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, the Ostsiedlung, the Austro-Hungarian Empire etc. etc.

To quote Dienekes: Y-STR's are only good for "recent genealogy, or forensics." And "human prehistory in the broadest time scales."

Y-STR's often only lead to Klyosov-type conclusions. A roller coaster where you have haplogroups originating way out in China only to cross the Himalayas dip over to Saudi Arabia, flip up to Anatolia to build Gobekli Tepe then across Europe to build Stonehenge, leave Europe, do a 180 and come back to the Balkans to spread PIE! Haha.. He's a good guy... but wild ideas!

Where do you think the U106 folks came from?

I like Maciamo's idea that R1b-U106 "originated" in present-day Austria "during the Hallstatt period. Occam's razor simple and sweet.

[Jaska]

It is not correct to say diversity is useless and totally discard it arbitrarily. There may be good reasons to dis-count (for some reason this word gets deleted so I had to stick in the hyphen) it for a for a particular comparison. It could also be a red herring as it could indicate a pooled/destination population rather than a launch pad population.  The data may not be representative. However, it is not wise to summarily dismiss it. What do you say if diversity for a clade in one region is .1 and in another it is .9 ? That's a huge difference and diminishes the probabilities that the .1 region is the source.

... but okay, so you don't like STR diversity.  I think it is more valuable than to analyze just frequency. Frequency is a better indicator oftentimes of the end of a trail rather than the beginning. If you disagree, that's fine but lets discuss over on your other thread.

I mean that diversity alone, loosely and blindly calculated (as in so many genetic studies), is worthless. But if we can divide all the haplotypes by their lineage to different subhaplogroups and branches, and then calculate the diversity lineage-wise, then the results are reliable.  

Frequency alone is the least worthy; diversity alone is worthier; and analysis by lineage is the worthiest.

Even your example of two populations/regions with diversities 0.9 and 0.1 cannot tell anything certain, if they represent the "blind" diversity. Lineage analysis may well show that the most basal and ancestral haplotypes are found in the population/region A, while all the haplotypes in the population/region B are closer to the tips of branches = descendants of those ancestral haplotypes of A. In such occasion the diversity of A would of course be much smaller, because basal haplotypes are closer to each other in GD (genetic distance), while the tip haplotypes are more distant from each other, separated by many cumulative mutations. Still, the original homeland of that lineage would be the region/population A.

Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?

I Still don't know anything about the origin of U106. I would like to see complete haplotype reconstructions: string of alleles, combined results of SNP's and STR's. Even Klyosov does not give those.

U106 is a descendant of L11. L11 has DYS492 = 12, while U106 has a mutation there: DYS492 = 12 > 13. L11 seems to concentrate in Central Europe, at least according to the FamilyTreeDNA R1b project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?vgroup=r1b&section=ycolorized

U106 seems to concentrate in Central-Western Europe and Scandinavia, and its descendant Z18 seems to be even more western. I'm not sure what is the most up-to-date academic study about U106, but it seems to originate in Western-Central Europe according to the FTDNA database.

[Mikewww]

... Frequency alone is the least worthy; diversity alone is worthier; and analysis by lineage is the worthiest.

I don't think that high frequency is any kind of indicator of origin, but I do understand your concerns on diversity and without much certainty of representativeness and deep data I think we just have to view these genetic measurements as considerations...  definitely, not proof of origin from a stand-alone perspective.

Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?

I Still don't know anything about the origin of U106. I would like to see complete haplotype reconstructions: string of alleles, combined results of SNP's and STR's. Even Klyosov does not give those.

U106 is a descendant of L11. L11 has DYS492 = 12, while U106 has a mutation there: DYS492 = 12 > 13. L11 seems to concentrate in Central Europe, at least according to the FamilyTreeDNA R1b project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?vgroup=r1b&section=ycolorized

U106 seems to concentrate in Central-Western Europe and Scandinavia, and its descendant Z18 seems to be even more western. I'm not sure what is the most up-to-date academic study about U106, but it seems to originate in Western-Central Europe according to the FTDNA database.

Why do you think it originates in Western-Central Europe? I guess because that is where you see high frequency of brother L11* is or L11 as a whole??? Are you including France and Iberia?

There is a large file of all the consumer project U106 haplotypes I can find posted at the https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Haplotypes.zip
Please have at them. We have a large number of deeply tested people so you can see some patterns emerging. There is a deep branching of the smaller Z18 group from the Z381 lineages.

Of course all of our project data is biased by testing patterns and American immigration sources, but perhaps you can find some noteworthy anomalies or patterns.

[alan trowel hands.]

... I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense...

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

My stab in the dark was its Bronze Age home was Lusatian.  Ethnicity I dont know.  When U106 came into existence there was no such thing as Germanic anyway according to mainstream linguists.  I think it was all a bit fluid linguistically until later in the Bronze Age.