World Families Forums - New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 12:01:59 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)
| | |-+  New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic  (Read 18616 times)
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2010, 03:12:14 PM »

But on what are you basing your assumption? Have you asked them and they said you are right or are you basing only upon the fact that that haploype is so similar to the R-M269 ones?

If by "similar" you mean "identical", then yes.

The misclassified sample is an average GD  of 7 from the other M18+ haplotypes and an average GD of 3 from the M269 haplotypes.  It's closest match among the other M18+ haplotypes is GD=6, while the closest match among the M269+ haplotypes is 0.

Meanwhile, the greatest distance between any other two M18+ haplotypes is 1.

It's an obvious error.

VV
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2010, 03:16:22 PM »

Besides it is very strange that no one of the R-M269 haplotypes of Contu is the same. One reason more to think it is really a R-M18.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2010, 03:49:17 PM »

This evening I am going to write to Contu, hoping she is more loquacious than Scozzari, Cruciani and also the old friend Francalacci. But how much bumptiousness these professionals, with all their much show and little substance!
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2010, 06:22:02 PM »

Besides it is very strange that no one of the R-M269 haplotypes of Contu is the same. One reason more to think it is really a R-M18.

What are you trying to say?

Nearly half the R-M269 samples of Contu match at least one other R-M269 sample.

And that mistaken R-M18 sample has a perfect R-M269 match, while the real M18 samples are nowhere close to any of the M269 matches.

It is obviously a mistake in the data.
Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2010, 06:27:57 PM »

I took the 15 SNP-tested ht35 samples of the Italy DNA Project and calculated their variance using the same method as I did when making the maps of ht15/ht35 diversity. The result was 0,30. The results I obtained with predicted ht35 samples, for Italy, were 0,29, 0,30, and 0,31, for different regions of Italy. The results for Turkey's ht35 were 0,31, and for the Levant 0,30.

Contu et alii say they tested these samples by SNPs, and this is M18 and not M269.

I have to disagree with you on this one (it had to happen sometime!). That Contu sample is almost certainly R1b1b2. There are a few key rules one can use to distinguish R1b1 from R1b1b2. 90% of R1b1b2 has DYS19<=14, but only 1% of R1b1 has likewise. 80%+ of R1b1b2 have 385=11/14, but only 1% of R1b1 have 385=11/14. This sample is practically guaranteed to belong to R1b1b2. It's a mistake. Also the fact, as vineviz pointed out, that the other 7 are exceptionally close to each other, while this one shoots off to another planet.

This tells us that R-M18 is probably not an ancient lineage in Sardegna, since these seven guys have a MRCA of 1500 years or less.

That doesn't settle wether the lineage may have existed in the island for 1,500 or 10,000 years, it only shows that the currently surviving members of the clade coalesced into a single group 1,500 years ago.

The Zalloua samples are harder, since there are only three and they are diverse.  But they are all reasonably close to both Cruciani and Contu samples, so I see no reason to assume they are errors.

Remember what you pointed out to Maliclavelli, many of these studies have lots of errors, and this Zalloua study that produced the Lebanese R1b1a-M18 is arguably the worst of them all. The key point is that Cruciani found zero M18+ and lots of R1b1(xM18) in Lebanon's southern flank, Egypt. Cinnioglu found zero M18+ and 4 R1b1(xM18) in Lebanon's northern flank, Turkey. Zalloua turned it around completely, and found 3 M18+ and zero R1b1(xM18). Logically, this begs the question, did he confuse the labels? Are all his M18+ actually R1b1(xM18)?
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2010, 09:35:21 PM »

Guys -

Italy as a Younger Dryas refuge makes no sense to me. It it were, then we should expect to see a more even distribution of HT35 and HT15 east and west of Italy in Europe. But we don't see that. We see an SNP trail leading from SE to NW, with the more derived HT15 groups in the Northwest and West, and the less derived groups farther east.

I'm not sure M18 is the big backbreaker in this scenario, given its apparent scarcity.

The Sharden or Sherden who may have given their name to Sardinia are thought to have come from Anatolia originally, in the region of Sardis. Perhaps they brought M18 with them.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 09:35:54 PM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2010, 01:13:32 AM »

Argiedude says: “I have to disagree with you on this one (it had to happen sometime!)”.

Perhaps you are right, but I said only that it isn’t absurd that this haplotype is R-M18, even though it is more likely it is M-269. For this I wrote to Contu (among other a very beautiful girl), hoping in an answer of hers and I said that only a SNP’s test can solve our doubts.

Rich says: “The Sharden or Sherden who may have given their name to Sardinia are thought to have come from Anatolia originally, in the region of Sardis. Perhaps they brought M18 with them”.

Speculations again and all pro domo vestra (only to your favor). The question isn’t certain and it is strange that the ancient Italian peoples have come all from East: Shardana, Tursa, Shekels etc. Again: if they come from elsewhere, did they come all here?
Sardinia is inhabited from many thousands of years.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 06:28:36 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Norwich
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #82 on: February 09, 2010, 02:30:04 AM »

Kudos for argiedude:

Maju at Leherensuge said:

Maju is not the kind of guy you want on your side when it comes to population genetics.

It's kind of like having David Faux agree with you:  it's a sure sign you are wrong.

VV

Libelous comments VV.  These sorts of statements are generally made by those with deep seated insecurities.  The chap does have a Ph.D. and academic credentials seem to make some people quite uncomfortable.  Name calling is very unbecoming, hopefully you can stick to the facts - perhaps when Underhill, Wells and Hammer get on board (lend credence to your views) you will be less likely to take your anger out on others (displacement of aggression?).
Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #83 on: February 09, 2010, 06:40:51 AM »

This thread has nothing to do with anger, displaced or otherwise.  It is simply a matter of someone finally getting into print a rather sensible analysis of real data.

VV
Logged
pas.ban2
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #84 on: February 13, 2010, 06:56:18 AM »

I disagree with the article. If R1b had come from Anatolia during the Neolithic, there would be an R1b trail from Greece to the Balkans, and another one via southern Italy, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria and southern Spain. But the only haplogroups linking these regions are E1b1b, G2a, J2 and T. The R1b found in southern Italy, although close to the Greek one (R1b1b2 and R1b1b1), is different from the one in Sardinia (R1b1a) and north Africa (R1b1), which in turn is different from the Spanish one (R1b1b2a1b). It's just not possible. The distribution of R1b is better explained by the Classical Greek colonisation of southern Italy, the Phoenician settlements of Sardinia and North Africa, and the Celtic invasion of Western Europe from the Danube.

Furthermore, R1b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east (around the Caucasus) and weakest in the south-west (supposed entry point to Greece). Agriculture spread through the southern coast of Anatolia, not the northern one. In fact there is no known Neolithic culture in northern Anatolian before the Starcevo-Körös-Karanovo culture in the Balkans. Based on archaeological evidence alone, agriculture couldn't have spread from northern Anatolia to Europe.

I do not disagree that R1b is older in Anatolia than in Europe and that it ultimately came from there. But I think it much more likely that R1b penetrated through the steppes across the Caucasus (probably during or just before the Maykop period). The linguistic evidence for Indo-European languages to have spread from the steppes during the Bronze age is overwhelming. The connection between R1a and R1b in all IE-speaking parts of the world leaves no doubt that both haplogroups were involved in the spread of IE languages. The combined R1a and R1b's presence in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia and South Asia, in addition to Europe and the northern Middle East all argue in favour of R1b mixing with R1a and expanding from the steppes, following the various archaeological cultures that spread between the Dniester and Ural during the Copper Age.



_____________________________________
mcts 70-562 ll mcts exam ll microsoft 70-270
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #85 on: February 13, 2010, 01:57:54 PM »

You know, I don't have a firm position on this anymore. The only thing I am fairly confident of is that R1b1b2 wasn't around during the last Ice Age or the Younger Dryas and that R1b and its offspring did not spend those last two lengthy cold snaps in Iberia.

I've read Mallory and Anthony and other authors who favor the so-called Kurgan Theory, and I've read Renfrew, who advanced the idea that Indo-European was spread by farmers out of Anatolia.

Who's right? I cannot say with any confidence.

Maybe I missed something, but where's the evidence of early Steppe horse culture in Western Europe? That's an honest question. If IE was spread by horse-riding semi-nomads from the Steppe, where is that Steppe horse-riding culture in France or Britain or Spain during the right time frame? I mean, Western Europe is thoroughly Indo-European (with the exception of a small minority, the Basques), so shouldn't we be seeing some Steppe-style kurgans with horses in them, if IE was spread from the Steppe?

Those are sincere questions. If anyone can point me in the direction of some nice, conclusive-looking Steppe kurgans in Western Europe, unmistakably connected to those in Eastern Europe, then please do so. I would be happy to read about them.

Did R1b1b2 come out of the Steppe and spread IE on foot? Western Europe was still using its little, puny native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Danube Valley in the 7th century BC.

Here's another thing. I don't see the Steppe culture of the 4th millenium BC or the third millenium BC as so startlingly superior that all its neighbors would want to start speaking whatever its language was. And, yes, I've read all about the domestication of horses and the development of wagons and chariots.

But farming and animal husbandry, those were amazing developments. They secured a consistent and reliable source of food that enabled the growth of population and of civilization and the specialization attendant upon it.

There are problems with Renfrew's IE farmers scenario, too. I realize that.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #86 on: February 13, 2010, 05:41:12 PM »

rms2 - If it were easy, people wouldn't still be arguing about it. :)

You have put your finger on what was the big problem for the steppe theory. There is a nice, clear trail from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in various directions via kurgans. That's how it got labelled the "kurgan theory". Big mounds in the earth are hard to miss. Then when you excavate them, you find cultural similarities (including wagon and chariot burials, once the wheel was invented). This was like falling off a log. It was all blindingly obvious.

The kurgan trail goes eastward into the Asian steppe, and the steppe peoples carried on creating them right into the Iron Age. So cultural continuity up to the Indo-European Scythians stared archaeologists in the face.  

At the western end the kurgan trail led up the Danube in a massive way. Again you couldn't miss it. But then it peters out in the Carpathian basin. One could argue (and perfectly sane people did) that the steppe nomads just turned round and went back to the steppe.

That scarcely explained how other aspects of the culture spread over the whole of Europe. Nor does it explain how tumulus burials crop up all over the place. These include the round barrows brought to Britain by the Bell Beaker people, and Celtic chariot burials.  

Even without the tumulus, burial practices mainly changed to single graves, rather than communal, in the age of metal.

But people (including Mallory and Anthony) argued in terms of cultural diffusion. They pictured at most small, elite bands spreading metallurgy, domesticated horses, wheeled vehicles, single graves and Indo-European languages.

That does not add up to me. I'm convinced that language replacement generally came about through significant migration in this period.  But this is where genetics comes in. We should get answers from aDNA eventually.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 05:52:14 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2010, 10:03:55 PM »

Jean

What in your opinion are the main arguements against the early Neolithic Anatolian Info-European theory?  I always felt there was always enough wriggle room (especially in linguistics) in both schools of thought to make it impossible to kill one or the other theory off. However, things may have moved on since I was last up to speed on this stuff some years back.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #88 on: February 14, 2010, 09:19:24 AM »

Hi Alan. Things have moved on a shade with the spread of Neolithic cultivars paper. I updated The Peopling of Europe to read:

Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood found that, of the 15 language families they studied, 12 appeared to have spread with agriculture.* So the idea that the languages most Europeans speak today arrived in the Neolithic has an obvious appeal. Yet the attempt to link Indo-European languages and farming has two major flaws. One is the disparity in dating. Farming spread into Europe thousands of years before Proto-Indo-European had even developed, if we use the evidence of its reconstructed lexicon. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. Yet the Indo-Europeans had words for all these things.** Secondly, Renfrew argued that farming spread into Europe from Anatolia, where Indo-European languages were spoken at one time. Yet recent analysis of the spread of early Neolithic cultivars shows a trail from the Levant, heartland of a different language family. In any case Indo-European languages were intruders into Anatolia after farming was well-established.***

  • *J. Diamond and P. Bellwood, Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions, Science, vol. 300 (2003), no. 5619, pp. 597-603.
  • **B. Darden, On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo Hittite, in R. Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo Hittite Language Family: Papers Presented at a Colloquium hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18–19, 2000 (2001), pp.184–228; B. W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture (2004), p. 42; A. Garrett, Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology, in J. Clackson, P. Forster, and C. Refrew, Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages (2006), pp.143-46. J.P. Mallory, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006), pp. 251-3. In response to criticism by linguists, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza developed a two-wave model in which 1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which 2) the Kurgan expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.
  • ***Coward, F., S. Shennan, S. Colledge, J. Conolly and M. Collard, The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to Northwest Europe: a phylogenetic analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 35, no. 1 (2008) , pp. 42-56; J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), pp. 24-27; L. Quintana-Murci, Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 74 (2004), issue 5, pp. 827-845.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 09:20:20 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #89 on: February 14, 2010, 09:40:14 AM »

As you see from my second note above, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza gave themselves wiggle room in their revised, two-wave model in which

1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which
2) the Kurgan expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.

This builds on the fact that the Anatolian branch of IE appears to have sprung from an  early version of IE, without the words for wheel and wagon common to other IE language branches. So they could argue that the homeland of Pre-PIE was Anatolia. That requires us to believe that Pre-PIE lasted several millennia virtually unchanged, before becoming PIE c. 4000 BC. Not plausible, but Mallory did not feel that it could be completely written off. However if Anatolia was not the jumping off point for the farmers entering Europe, this theory has finally hit the buffers. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2010, 02:27:07 PM »

In any case, something complex happened. The spread of Indo-Europe from east to west (if that is indeed how it spread) was not swift and smooth enough to easily trace. If R1b1b2 was an original actor in the spread of IE from the Steppe, then it somehow lost the full kurgan cultural package along the way. To me that is kind of a red flag that something is amiss with the Kurgan Theory or at least with the R1b1b2 component of it.

If IE was carried at first along with the full-blown Kurgan package as we see it in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC on the Steppe and into the Carpathian Basin, then something happened to the package as it moved west. It retained individual inhumation under a mound but lost the emphasis on the horse and horse trappings. (Celtic chariot burials cannot really be used as examples because they came along so much later.)

So, if IE or PIE spread west out of the Steppe, it would appear that it changed hands somewhere in the Balkans and perhaps a different sort of folk carried it farther west, people who only kept parts (or accepted parts) of the Kurgan package. That sort of scenario would support the ideas of those who claim PIE was transmitted culturally rather than demically.

I have a hard time buying cultural diffusion.

Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2010, 07:43:38 PM »

The spread of Indo-Europe from east to west ... was not swift and smooth enough to easily trace.

No - it's swift movement that generally leaves no trace in the archaeological record. If an army takes a lot of boats down river with hundreds of men on board, later  archaeologists won't have any means of tracing that movement unless one boat sank. A band of travellers on horseback could cover hundreds of miles in a few days, leaving next to nothing en route.

The migration up the Danube was massively visible because it was slow - very, very slow. Think in terms of centuries of expansion from the hub, rather than a people rushing from A to B. There was time for thousands of people to die and be buried. The migration eastward from the European steppe to the Asian steppe was likewise more of an expansion of territory initially, crawling gradually further and further. That makes it very easy to follow.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 07:44:09 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2010, 07:51:35 PM »

If IE was carried at first along with the full-blown Kurgan package as we see it in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC on the Steppe and into the Carpathian Basin, then something happened to the package as it moved west. It retained individual inhumation under a mound but lost the emphasis on the horse and horse trappings.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Domesticated horses spread at this time, as did wheeled vehicles.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2010, 11:26:13 PM »

As I understand it, W. Europeans were still using their small native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Carpathian Basin in the 7th century BC, so the full-blown steppe package hadn't moved west by that time. There are also no horse bones in the various tumuli in Western Europe, at least not that I know of or not in the same way they appear in many of the kurgan-type burials in the East.

So the steppe culture (at least it in terms of the burial package) was not transferred in toto to the West; parts of it were jettisoned.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #94 on: February 15, 2010, 11:13:42 AM »

As I understand it, W. Europeans were still using their small native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Carpathian Basin in the 7th century BC, so the full-blown steppe package hadn't moved west by that time.

Western Europeans did not have domesticated horses at all prior to the domestication event sometime before 3,500 BC which appears to have happened on the steppe. See Prehistoric transport: horsepower. By about 3500 BC the bones of large horses, probably from the steppes, began to appear in the Danube valley, central and western Europe, the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and eastern Anatolia. The apparent spread of horses c.3500 BC east, west and south of the European steppe suggests a trade in tame horses radiating out from somewhere within that region.

The steppe tribes were horse-breeders for ages after that, selling huge numbers of horses to other peoples within the historic period.

However the mitochondrial DNA of modern horses is so diverse that it suggests that wild mares of different areas contributed to the modern gene pool. That could be explained by the capture of a few wild foals at different times and places to add to existing domesticated stock, or to raise new stock.

So the Scythians might well have larger horses in the 7th century BC, after millennia of steppe horse-breeding. But that's a later story. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2010, 11:16:58 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #95 on: February 15, 2010, 11:17:57 AM »

Okay, very good. That's what I needed to know.

Interesting!
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2010, 03:22:46 PM »

I've just revised the Wikipedia page on the Secondary Products Revolution. So it's up to date. This describes the whole package of changes in the 4th-3rd millennia BC (apart from metallurgy): horse-riding, animal traction, ploughs, wheeled vehicles, wool and milking.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #97 on: February 21, 2010, 07:34:25 PM »

Got to say its taken Tim Jansens' caclulations on rootsweb stimulating me to think more about this for me to realise how 100% right Argiedude is in this in his thread.  The mixing of ht15 and ht35 as some sort of composite (as this paper does and as it seems Anatole also does) creates big issues and distorts the result.  It is apparently a two phase spread with ht15 being a secondary spread.  

I would go further and speculate that ht15/P310/L11 occurred in a position and on a trajectory that meant it was travelling into/through east-central Europe.  Presumably an ht35 element on the northern periphery of its early distribution experienced the P310/L11 mutation during a sudden dynamic phase of growth and spread west through central Europe. The directions of its spread was away from the south and south-east and was mainly to the west and north.  

If anyone has been following Tim's calculations for overall MRCA in various areas for S116*, U152 and U106 on rootsweb then they will see that ht15 clades actually have a much younger MRCA in the south of Europe (especially Italy and the SE) and it seems clear that ht15 (P310/L11) occurred north of the Med. basin in east-central Europe and must have spread west by a central European route and that its presence in southern Europe (especially SE Europe and Italy) is much later overspill from the north.  

This is obviously not true for ht35.  The latter loks like a more limited (earlier??)spread direct from Antaolia/the Levant to the eastern and central Med. (perhaps once it was known further west too) and the Balkans.  Italy is the main country where there seems to be a huge overlap between the two R1b forms but from Tim's calculations I would wonder if they are not relics of two entirely unconnected waves from different directions at different times as discussed above.

I wonder if the ht35/ht15 split ties in with divisions in the Indo-European languages.  
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 07:40:27 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #98 on: February 21, 2010, 08:01:17 PM »

A further thought is that Tim's caculations for variance MRCA dates for S116*, U152 and U106 are very similar to Argiedudes ht15 diversity map.  The only difference is that Tim's dates tend to emphasise the differences to a greater degree.  Both agree with a basic strong north-south divide and also a present but weaker east-west pattern.  I think Argiedude tends to play down the east-west aspect of ht15 dating while Tim's dates seems fairly convincing to me on that score.  

One other thought-this really does suggest a dual (and for a long time separate) spread of ht35 and ht15 into Europe.  I think the evidence is they both moved largely east to west but at different latitudes.  As for timing, a dual spread consisting of a slightly earlier one following a Med. route and another following a central European one clearly makes it tempting to make a link with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkeramik eastward spread of farming from roots in the Balkans area (OK this is still under debate) west along the Med. and Danube/north flowing rivers respectively.     
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 08:04:24 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #99 on: February 22, 2010, 10:35:45 AM »

 It is apparently a two phase spread with ht15 being a secondary spread.  


I can't imagine what evidence would lead to that conclusion.  I'm happy to concede there are lots of things we probably don't know, but I'd say that if there was a distinct influx of P310- haplotypes into Europe that it happened AFTER the establishment of P310+ haplotypes.  After all, southern Europe has had much greater historical ties to SW Asia.

VV
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 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 0.196 seconds with 18 queries.