World Families Forums - new study on origin of R1b in Europe

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 09:19:29 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)
| | |-+  new study on origin of R1b in Europe
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: new study on origin of R1b in Europe  (Read 1534 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« on: May 14, 2010, 10:38:34 AM »

This is posted on Dienekes' blog

Increased Resolution Within Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b M269 Sheds Light On The Neolithic Transition In Europe

George Busby et al.

Early studies on classical polymorphisms have largely been vindicated by the growing tome of information on the genetic structure of European populations, with mtDNA, Y-Chromosome and autosomal markers all combining to give a fundamental pattern of migration from the East. The processes behind this pattern are however, less clear, particularly with regard to uniparental markers. Much debate still rages about how best to use Y and mtDNA to date particular historical movements, or indeed if it is appropriate at all. For example, whilst some progress has been made recently in calibrating the mtDNA clock, the selection of a mutation rate with which to date the Y-Chromosome is contentious, as the two most favoured values can give dates that differ by a factor of three. In order to address this we have investigated the sub-lineages of the common European haplogroup R1b-M269. This haplogroup has been shown to be clinal in Europe, and more recently has been posited to be the result of the Neolithic expansion from the Near East. Here, we use newly characterised SNPs downstream of M269 to produce a refined picture of the haplogroup in Europe, and further show that the diversity of this lineage cannot be entirely attributed to Neolithic migration out of Anatolia. We use simple coalescent simulations to estimate an absolute lower bound for the age of the sub-haplogoups. Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2010, 11:37:59 AM »

We are waiting to read the paper, to see some data. Which is the "sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today"? If they do mean from R1b1b2-S116/P312 or R1b1b2/U106, it is clear from many times that they originated in Europe. But my theory is that also the previous haplogroups from at least R1b1* to R-L51 were above all in Europe, and I think in Italy.

I wouldn't want that all these scholars, with so many means, arrive late. See the maps of Argiedude on R1b1*, R1b1b2/L23- etc. I think we are more ahead.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2010, 01:39:20 PM »

This is posted on Dienekes' blog

Increased Resolution Within Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b M269 Sheds Light On The Neolithic Transition In Europe
George Busby et al.
...... Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.


It's hard to comment until you read their full conclusion and logic.

I'm puzzled in how the R-M269 haplotypes could look so much alike... and already have been in place and distributed across Europe prior to the Neolithic waves.  

If they are saying the "interaction" of R-M269 and Neolithic types happened at a pinpoint spot within Romania, Bulgaria or Greece I can understand that. That would place the MRCA for the R-M269 people of Europe there.  However we are so far back in SE Europe we are nearly back in Anatolia and SW Asia anyway so I don't see the big deal.

If they are saying that there were R-M269's scattered around but they all died out except the one who did an excellent job of interacting with the Neolithic people, I understand that.  I don't think that is what they are saying though since that is a different topic than MRCA's.

Are there R-M269 haplotypes in Europe that are true outliers?  Anything like how Hg I has several quite diverse branches (nine I think Ken N says)?

Are they saying R-M269 has different mutation rates than other haplogroups?  That would seem strange since we are all the same species.

I guess this paper is aligned with Dieneke's line of thought.  Can anyone explain his approach?  I've never been able to follow it.  I'll read through this again but I guess there must be some outlier haplotypes that common statistical methods ignore or neutralize.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/haplotype-outliers-and-y-chromosome-age.html

Still, the SNP counting method that Karafet et al used in their 2008 study that determined TMRCA of R1 = 18.5kya shouldn't be susceptible to an STR based statistical analysis potential error, should it?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 08:08:03 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2010, 01:46:49 PM »

The idea that farming spread in a different way from farmers is not new.  The cultures responsible for the spread of farming across much of Europe beyond the Balkans are the Linearbandkeramik and Cardial cultures.  The Linearbandkeramik culture has been put down by some to hunter-gatherers around Hungary and the Lower Danube taking up farming through contact with 'real' farming groups in the Balkans (cultures like Starcevo etc if I recall correctly).  These Lower Danubian hunters may have adapted the farming ideas to central European conditions and this may have enabled them to undergo an incredible population expansion, largely westwards but also with an eastwards component (there was a huge area available where farming was then unknown).  In that theory I suppose (this is just an attempt to second guess what the paper is about) this would suggest that M269 has settled into the Lower Danube area in pre-farming times, presumably from Asia Minor.  On the other hand they could be talking about Cardial populations.  I think although at times a Levant origin has been suggested that current thinking is a north-west Balkans Adriatic origin.  Again, that would require the local hunter-gathers there to have been M269.  Perhaps they are considering a wide spread of M269 among hunters in SE and east-central Europe.  

What will be as interesting as any such theories (if that is what they turn out to be) is how they came about a dating that would support a European hunter-gatherer origin and an early Neolithic expansion.  The professionals seem this year to be tending towards the early Neolithic spread linked to the demographic window that early farming provided while many of the talented hobbiests favour a late Neolithic/copper Age spread.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2010, 01:58:23 PM »

This is posted on Dienekes' blog

Increased Resolution Within Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b M269 Sheds Light On The Neolithic Transition In Europe
George Busby et al.
...... Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.


It's hard to comment until you read their full conclusion and logic.

I'm puzzled in how the R-M269 haplotypes could look so much alike... and already have been in place and distributed across Europe prior to the Neolithic waves.  

If they are saying the "interaction" of R-M269 and Neolithic types happened at a pinpoint spot within Romania, Bulgaria or Greece I can understand that.  That would place the MRCA for the R-M269 people of Europe was there.  However we are so far back in SE Europe we are nearly back in Anatolia and SW Asia anyway so I don't see the big deal.

If they are saying that there were R-M269's scattered around but they all died out except the one who did an excellent job of interacting with the Neolithic people, I understand that.  I don't think that is what they are saying though since that is a different topic than MRCA's.

Are there R-M269 haplotypes in Europe that are true outliers?  Anything like how Hg I has several quite diverse branches (nine I think Ken N says)?

Are they saying R-M269 has different mutation rates than other haplogroups?  That would seem strange since we are all the same species.

I guess this paper is aligned Dieneke's line of thought.  Can anyone explain his approach?  I've never been able to follow it.  I'll read through this again but I guess there must be some outlier haplotypes that common statistical methods ignore or neutralize.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/haplotype-outliers-and-y-chromosome-age.html

Still, the SNP counting method that Karafet et al used in their 2008 study that determined TMRCA of R1 = 18.5kya shouldn't be susceptible to an STR based statistical analysis potential error, should it?

This is dabbling way outside my comfort zone (which is downstream of P310/L11) but my understanding is that prior to the main branching events there is a long straight line in the tree back to M269.  If that is correct then the long straight line surely represents a time before the demographic window of opportunity that was later grabbed.  When dabbling in the Early Neolithic model I have always thought that the change from straight line to branching represents the arrival of farming technology.  By the way I am not making a call on who is correct.  I just do not know and am at the mercy of those who calculate DNA dates.  My own feeling is that many dates currently seem too young.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 01:59:28 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2010, 02:49:57 PM »

So, what are they saying? That R1b is Paleolithic in Europe and expanded as a result of picking up farming from E1b1b, G2, J1 and J2? That's kind of a return to the same old schlock, isn't it? Schlock, Part II?

Are we entering a period of "dueling studies"? First Balaresque et al and now this one to counter it?

The Paleolithic Empire Strikes Back?

"Luke, I am your Cro-Magnon father! Turn to the hunter-gatherer side and together we will rule the Lascaux cave paintings and the shell middens!" ;-)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 02:50:57 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2010, 07:36:35 PM »

So, what are they saying? That R1b is Paleolithic in Europe and expanded as a result of picking up farming from E1b1b, G2, J1 and J2? That's kind of a return to the same old schlock, isn't it? Schlock, Part II?

Are we entering a period of "dueling studies"? First Balaresque et al and now this one to counter it?

The Paleolithic Empire Strikes Back?

"Luke, I am your Cro-Magnon father! Turn to the hunter-gatherer side and together we will rule the Lascaux cave paintings and the shell middens!" ;-)

The crucial difference would seem to be (am I admit I am guessing) that they are talking about R1b in the south-east or east of Europe not the west.   To be honest its not all that different from placing R1b in Anatolia to be swept along with the farming wave.  People tend to forget that the 'farmers' themselves were simply the hunter-gatherers of the Levant and adjacent areas who developed farming around the time of the Younger Dryas.  I suppose the acid test is is there much R1b of upstream forms in eastern and SE Europe that is old enough to be pre-farming.  After all farming was in the SE of Europe really quite early - 8 or 9 thousand years ago. I cannot remember how far upstream we need to go before variance is great enough to back a pre-farmer theory.  From memory I think well up. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 08:42:38 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2010, 07:43:58 PM »

So, what are they saying? That R1b is Paleolithic in Europe and expanded as a result of picking up farming from E1b1b, G2, J1 and J2? That's kind of a return to the same old schlock, isn't it? Schlock, Part II?

Are we entering a period of "dueling studies"? First Balaresque et al and now this one to counter it?

The Paleolithic Empire Strikes Back?

"Luke, I am your Cro-Magnon father! Turn to the hunter-gatherer side and together we will rule the Lascaux cave paintings and the shell middens!" ;-)

The crucial difference would seem to be (am I admit I am guessing) that they are talking about R1b in the south-east or east of Europe not the west.   To be honest its not all that different from placing R1b in Anatolia to be swept along with the farming wave.  People tend to forget that the 'farmers' themselves were simply the hunter-gatherers of the Levant and adjacent areas who developed farming around the time of the Younger Dryas

Hmmm . . . if you are right, that seems strange.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2010, 08:13:22 PM »

 ... The crucial difference would seem to be (am I admit I am guessing) that they are talking about R1b in the south-east or east of Europe not the west.   To be honest its not all that different from placing R1b in Anatolia to be swept along with the farming wave.  People tend to forget that the 'farmers' themselves were simply the hunter-gatherers of the Levant and adjacent areas who developed farming around the time of the Younger Dryas
That's what I meant below.  If the point of interaction is in far SE Europe, so what's the big deal?
What's the difference between Anatolia and old Greece?  .. the Bosphorus and about 700 meters of water.
Quote from: mikewww
"If they are saying the "interaction" of R-M269 and Neolithic types happened at a pinpoint spot within Romania, Bulgaria or Greece I can understand that. That would place the MRCA for the R-M269 people of Europe there.  However we are so far back in SE Europe we are nearly back in Anatolia and SW Asia anyway so I don't see the big deal."
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 12:37:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2010, 04:14:32 AM »

So, what are they saying? That R1b is Paleolithic in Europe and expanded as a result of picking up farming from E1b1b, G2, J1 and J2? That's kind of a return to the same old schlock, isn't it? Schlock, Part II?

Are we entering a period of "dueling studies"? First Balaresque et al and now this one to counter it?

The Paleolithic Empire Strikes Back?

"Luke, I am your Cro-Magnon father! Turn to the hunter-gatherer side and together we will rule the Lascaux cave paintings and the shell middens!" ;-)

The crucial difference would seem to be (am I admit I am guessing) that they are talking about R1b in the south-east or east of Europe not the west.   To be honest its not all that different from placing R1b in Anatolia to be swept along with the farming wave.  People tend to forget that the 'farmers' themselves were simply the hunter-gatherers of the Levant and adjacent areas who developed farming around the time of the Younger Dryas

Hmmm . . . if you are right, that seems strange.

I agree I am not sure if this fits when the ht35 clades are looked at.  The expert on this is VV.  Hope he comments.  Maybe they are getting at the idea that route between Anatolia and the Balkans/Lower Danube did not suddenly come into being at the time the farmers appeared but was one of the main routes into Europe since before the Ice Age.  There is no question that R1b people were hunter gatherers somewhere before they picked up farming skills.  The question is just was it SW Asia or the SE fringe of Europe.  I personally feel that R1b was not present in Asia Minor in the pre-farming era or it would have been repeatedly swept into Europe and you would expect all sort of early forms there.  My own hunch is that R1b was present as part of the mix in the area that farming was invented (Iraq, Levant, SE Turkey) and that it was significant in those farmers who settled in NW Anatolia.  Later generations in that area seem to have been crucial in the developing of dairying and its spread (along with farming) from there to Bulgaria and into the Linearbandkeramik culture.   My pet theory is that P310 happened in NW Anatolia and that it to some degree spread with dairying into the Lower Danube area then into the crucial LBK culture  that took farming from the Lower Danube in the east to Brittany in the west.   
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 04:43:19 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Pages: [1] 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 0.115 seconds with 19 queries.