World Families Forums - New TMRCA's from Anatole Klyosov - L21 subclades

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 02:28:07 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 TMRCA's from Anatole Klyosov - L21 subclades
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New TMRCA's from Anatole Klyosov - L21 subclades  (Read 3451 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: June 01, 2010, 09:52:52 AM »

I haven't figured out the URL for the full paper, but Anatole has looked at some of the subclades of R-L21 and developed TMRCA's.  They are published in the "Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, Vol. 3, No. 6".    Here is a summary of the numbers that I saw.

NW Irish / M222
1450±160 ybp

Irish Type III / L226
1325±225 ybp

South Irish
1400±190 ybp

North ? Irish
1324±275 ybp

Unassigned Small Branch
2150±340 ybp

Scottish Borders (11-13 Combo Group A-1) / L193
385=11,11  800±150 ybp
385=11,14  1200±140 ybp


I'm not sure what Anatole's North Irish haplotype is.  He describes it but I haven't looked through it in detail to see if it matches up with something else we know.  I sent him the L193 folks haplotypes and I called it "Scottish Borders" just to give it a name other than a bunch of letters and symbols.

I'm not sure what Anatole's "Unassigned small branch" is either.

He also included some estimates that he worked up in prior work on the larger subclades of R-M269 itself.  I'm not sure what he means when he says "slightly mutated".

U106 (slightly mutated)
4175±430 ybp

P312
3950±400 ybp

U152 (slightly mutated)
4125±450 ybp

L2 (slightly mutated)
4225±450 ybp

L20 (slightly mutated)
4300±610 ybp

L21
3725±380 ybp


Keep in mind that the confidence intervals that Anatole uses are much narrower than what other people use and are subject to debate. .... I guess it is all subject to debate anyway.  

Hopefully I didn't copy anything down wrong.   I'll look for where the full paper is posted.

EDIT: I posted pertinent excerpts of the proceedings here.
Excerpts of paper
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 10:22:51 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 731


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2010, 03:57:57 PM »

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if he proposes U152 to be older than P312.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2010, 05:37:58 PM »

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if he proposes U152 to be older than P312.
I have to read the paper (and I think one of past ones too that explains his methods) but don't think he is arguing that U152 is older than P312.  His calculation for it is, but with the confidence intervals it all works.

He also uses the term "slightly mutated" after some clades.  I'm not sure exactly what he means by that.

I think an important point is P312 and U152 and L21 all happened in pretty rapid succession.

As far as this paper, he is focused on what he calls the Irish haplotypes.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 05:38:46 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 150


« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 02:25:26 AM »

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if he proposes U152 to be older than P312.
Note that he has L20 older than everything else.  I think it's reflective of the inherent (but minor) flaws of his approach.
Logged

YSearch & MitoSearch: 2GXWW


yDNA: R-U106*


mtDNA: U5a1a1 (Genbank# GQ368895)


R-P312-WTY Project Admin http://tinyurl.com/daertg

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2010, 08:56:35 AM »

I haven't figured out the URL for the full paper, but Anatole has looked at some of the subclades of R-L21 and developed TMRCA's.  They are published in the "Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, Vol. 3, No. 6".    Here is a summary of the numbers that I saw.

NW Irish / M222
1450±160 ybp

Irish Type III / L226
1325±225 ybp

South Irish
1400±190 ybp

North ? Irish
1324±275 ybp

Unassigned Small Branch
2150±340 ybp

Scottish Borders (11-13 Combo Group A-1) / L193
385=11,11  800±150 ybp
385=11,14  1200±140 ybp


EDIT: I posted pertinent excerpts of the proceedings here.
Excerpts of paper

Mike thanks for the post. It is a very interesting paper.
A new genealogy tool became available today.
The entire 1901 (and 1911) Census for all counties in Ireland is now available online at:
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/
This should help genealogists narrow down their search and print out original census returns in the handwriting and signature of their ancestors. It is also a great tool for researcers to study distribution of surnames by county and by region. For those whose ancestors emigrated from Ireland prior to 1901 (during the Great Famine or earlier) it is a useful tool to connect to those family members who remained behind.
It would be interesting to map the distribution of family names referenced in Dr. Anatole Klyosov's paper against distributions in the 1901 census.
In order to go back further in historic times we could make use of
Leabhar na nGenealach (The Great Book of Irish Genealogies), translated by Dr. Nollaig O Muraille (3,100 pages).

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

The great Connacht scholar Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh (c.1600-1671), from Lackan, Co. Sligo, compiled his monumental Great Book of Genealogies in Galway at the height of the Cromwellian Wars in the mid-seventeenth century. The work has long been recognised as the most important source for the study of Irish family history, and it is also of great importance to historians of pre-17th century Ireland since it details the ancestry of many significant figures in Irish history - including: Brian Boroimhe (d.1014); Ulick Burke, Marquis of Clanricarde (d.1657); James Butler, Duke of Ormonde (d.1688); Somhairle Buidhe (Sorley Boy) MacDonnell (d.1589); Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim (d.1683); Garrett Og Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare (d.1536); Diarmuid Mac Murchadha (d.1171); Myler Magrath, Archbishop of Cashel (d.1622), Murrough O'Brien, Baron of Inchiquin (d.1674); Feagh MacHugh O'Byrne (d.1597); Rory O'Conor.(d.1198); Red Hugh O'Donnell (d.1602); Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone (d.1616); Owen Roe O'Neill (d.1649), and many, many more.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 07:40:39 PM »

I haven't figured out the URL for the full paper, but Anatole has looked at some of the subclades of R-L21 and developed TMRCA's.  They are published in the "Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, Vol. 3, No. 6".    Here is a summary of the numbers that I saw.

NW Irish / M222
1450±160 ybp

Irish Type III / L226
1325±225 ybp

South Irish
1400±190 ybp

North Irish
1324±275 ybp

Unassigned Small Branch
2150±340 ybp

Scottish Borders (11-13 Combo Group A-1) / L193
385=11,11  800±150 ybp
385=11,14  1200±140 ybp


I'm not sure what Anatole's North Irish haplotype is.  He describes it but I haven't looked through it in detail to see if it matches up with something else we know.  I sent him the L193 folks haplotypes and I called it "Scottish Borders" just to give it a name other than a bunch of letters and symbols.

I'm not sure what Anatole's "Unassigned small branch" is either.

He also included some estimates that he worked up in prior work on the larger subclades of R-M269 itself.  I'm not sure what he means when he says "slightly mutated".

U106 (slightly mutated)
4175±430 ybp

P312
3950±400 ybp

U152 (slightly mutated)
4125±450 ybp

L2 (slightly mutated)
4225±450 ybp

L20 (slightly mutated)
4300±610 ybp

L21
3725±380 ybp


Keep in mind that the confidence intervals that Anatole uses are much narrower than what other people use and are subject to debate. .... I guess it is all subject to debate anyway.  

Hopefully I didn't copy anything down wrong.   I'll look for where the full paper is posted.


Dear Mike,

Here is the paper (pp. 1029-1053):

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8895000/8895749/1/print/8895749.pdf

I do not know where this "slightly mutated" thing came from. It is not mine, I believe.

Now, I could not help but kept smiling when read "he proposes that U152 to be older than P312" when the two datings had marging of error to be 4125+/-450 and 3950+/-400 years before present. I understand that some folks have a vague idea what margin of errror is, but I nornally refrain from being critical when I do not understand basic things in some fields (it happens). Let me explain those who have a vague idea that it means (in this particular case) that with 95% confidence a common ancestor of P312 clade lived between 3550 and 4350 years before present, and a common ancestor of U152 clade lived between 3675 and 4675 ybp. Where on Earth the second is necessarily older than the first one?  What if a common ancestor of P312 lived 4350 years bp, and that of U152 lived 3675 years bp?? It is still within the 95% confidence.

Another similar comments reads: "Note that he has L20 older than everything else.  I think it's reflective of the inherent (but minor) flaws of his approach".

Can I laugh again? It is amazing...  And the author was quick to jump to "flaws of his approach"....

The are no flaws in the approach, my dear fellows. There are normal margins of error, since the respective datasets contain as many haplotypes and their mutations as they have. The number of haplotypes and mutations in them dictate margins of error. The most important result here is that all of the common ancestors of all those clades lived within a few centuries. That was time of their coming to Europe. Why they all lived within a few centuries is a different question. I have a few suggestions in that regard, however, it is pointless to discuss them when folks are preoccupied with "flaws in the approach" without any idea how to read data.

Best regards,

Anatole Klyosov   
 
P.S. The same goes to the margins of error. Very few people know how to calculate them properly. However, many are quick with comments on them, such as "their are too narrow". Well, give me YOUR number. They do not give. They do not know. Just an itchi desire to be critical...

   
Logged

R1a1

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2010, 08:28:26 PM »

The most important result here is that all of the common ancestors of all those clades lived within a few centuries. That was time of their coming to Europe. Why they all lived within a few centuries is a different question.


I can't help but wonder if this is not the most pertinent part of the above post.

I have wondered at these SNPs happening so close together, as I'm sure have all of us. Is it not possible that the reason for there closeness is in fact, as Anatole suggests, due to the people carrying these mutations all migrating into Europe in the same time frame?

Edit
Having slept on this I remembered that all of these SNP's have pretty much the same modal, so presumably they must have happened in a very close time frame.

Anybody know if there was a lot of unusual solar activity about 4000 yrs ago?

« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 07:57:43 AM by Jdean » Logged

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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 08:30:01 AM »

I certainly appreciate all that Dr. Klyosov has done for us - and all of it free of charge.

THANKS!

Your work on our behalf is very welcome. Please don't stop!
Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2010, 08:33:15 AM »

The most important result here is that all of the common ancestors of all those clades lived within a few centuries. That was time of their coming to Europe. Why they all lived within a few centuries is a different question.

Edit
...I remembered that all of these SNP's have pretty much the same modal, so presumably they must have happened in a very close time frame.

Anybody know if there was a lot of unusual solar activity about 4000 yrs ago?



By "pretty much the same modal" you apparently mean similar ancestral haplotypes. I call them "base" haplotypes, since sometimes they come up as APPARENT ancestral haplotypes. A list of base haplotypes for said P312 subclades are given in the publication at the link placed in my preceding message.

In fact, P312 and L21 have identical base haplotypes even in the 67 marker format, which indicates indeed that their common ancestors lived VERY close time-wise from each other. However, immediately after it L21 common ancestor moved from Iberia up North, where L21 have proliferated, and P312 left in Iberia, and P312 are now continue to be prevalent in Iberia. My considerations show that R1b1b2 have arrived to Iberia (apparently, from North Africa) around 4800-4500 years before present, however, they passed a severe bottleneck there, and a common ancestor of the nowadays P312 "moved" up from 4800-4500 ybp to the current ~ 4000 ybp, and shared his haplotype with the newly formed L21. That move from Iberia up North (which was mainly done by L21 and its subclades) is called Bell Beaker culture. L21 and their subclades spread over Europe and then moved to the Isles, when the subclades are younger.

Now, your "Anybody know if there was a lot of unusual solar activity about 4000 yrs ago?" has - probably - a bit different answer. On many accounts, about 4000 years ago there was a tremendous cataclysm centered (by impact) in Europe. There are hundreds of references on it.  Velikovsky wrote much about it, however, some of his views were too unorthodoxal, and he was (largely unfairly) boooed by some scientists. Anyway, it seems that indeed Europe was shaken big time between 4500 and 4000 years before present. Many bottlenecks had probably occurred those times.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov    


    
Logged

R1a1

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2010, 08:36:47 AM »

Anatolye

You said

' have a few suggestions in that regard, however, it is pointless to discuss them when folks are preoccupied with "flaws in the approach" without any idea how to read data'
 
I always enjoy hearing your ideas on these matters and would appreciate if you would share your thoughts on why so many clades have similar dates. Something to do with demographics?

Thank You

Alan
Logged
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2010, 09:03:00 AM »

Dear Alan,

I apologise if my remark was too harsh. What I meant was until we agree that those dates are more or less valid, there is no point to discuss why they are close or far from each other.

It is in a way frustrating to see how many folks are quick on their guns without having an idea how carefully those dates and the methodology were cross examined using different approaches. I am a professional physico-chemist specializing all my life in chemical kinetics (among other things), that is rates of chemical processes, which include mutations in the DNA.  This includes randomness of those mutations, back mutations, symmetry of those mutations (in terms "up" and "down"), and different ways of their calculations, and calculations of margins of error in obtained results. I employ the logarithmic method, in which mutations are not even considered (just fractions of unchanged haplotypes are analyzed), the "linear method", in which mutations are counted, ASD methods, permutational methods, etc., and I accept data only when they are in agreement with each other. The approach just cannot be "flawed" in a sense, that its foundation is the foundation of science.

It does not mean, of course, that mutations rates which I employ, are "set in stone", they need and will be corrected, however, nobody in the world was able to do it and prove that his/her mutation rate constants better describe various specific examples. I would gladly accept corrected values if they are truly justified. I have not seen them as yet.

The same goes for margins or error. "Critics" talk in general terms, sometimes (rarely) they provide mathematical formulae (ALWAYS with assumptions, which they do not examine) with multiple "k", "j" and "m", bur never show how it actually works with real haplotypes. There was an excellent paper by Walsh (~ 10 years ago), however, only for two haplotypes to be compared. All other talks are just empty talks, a kind of "it cannot be so", "your margins are too narrow", without showing how they SHOULD be, with a proper justification.

I saw it countless number of times during my ling lofe in science (I am countinuing to be there), and I see it as a kind of negative mentality. I cannot change it in other people, and they cannot change it either in themselves. Such a life.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov       
Logged

R1a1

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2010, 10:00:38 AM »

In fact, P312 and L21 have identical base haplotypes even in the 67 marker format, which indicates indeed that their common ancestors lived VERY close time-wise from each other


The base haplotype for U152 is the same as well I think, and U106 is only spiting distance away.

As Mike has pointed out many times here the shape of R1b1b2 is more like a bush with lots of short branches all connected to the centre as apposed to I1 with its larger tree structure. In my minds eye I see a sudden rapid expansion of R1b1b2 across Europe, somebody in DNA Forum made an analogy with the colonisation of America, he was arguing a futile point but I thought that was an interesting comparison.

Your point of a cataclysmic event sounds interesting, but wouldn’t that shatter the structure of R1b1b2 into several small groups?

« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 10:05:08 AM by Jdean » Logged

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

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2010, 12:48:52 PM »

Your point of a cataclysmic event sounds interesting, but wouldn’t that shatter the structure of R1b1b2 into several small groups?

Yes, if R1b1b2 would have had a long history in Europe, and spread already all over the place, we would see a bunch of R1b1b2 fragments in Europe (one fragment in the worst case; actually, no fragments at all in the worst case). However, since R1b1b2 came to Europe quite shortly before that, it seems that only the trail of R1b1b2 with a genealogy from ~ 4800-4000 ybp largely vanished. The common ancestor of P312 "moved" to ~ 3950 ybp in Iberia, and its split downstream L21 which by that time moved to South of nowadays France, had a survived common ancestor of 4200 ybp (in fact, between 4000 and 4200 on different datasets). Hence, it seems to be a little "older" than his "father" because of that event. Then a whole bunch of other suclades split off.

I do not insist that the events were exactly as described here. It is a plausible explanation. I would welcome an alternative hypothesis.

By the way, incidentally, R1a1 (along with I1) vanished from Europe just the same time. They repopulated Europe some 1500 years later. Either the cataclysm, or, fellas, you have to accept gilt of your ancestors and their violent offspring :-))

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov   
Logged

R1a1

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2010, 01:29:41 PM »

Is this what you’re talking about?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/744698/posts


Logged

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

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2010, 05:27:36 PM »

Your point of a cataclysmic event sounds interesting, but wouldn’t that shatter the structure of R1b1b2 into several small groups?

Yes, if R1b1b2 would have had a long history in Europe, and spread already all over the place, we would see a bunch of R1b1b2 fragments in Europe (one fragment in the worst case; actually, no fragments at all in the worst case). However, since R1b1b2 came to Europe quite shortly before that, it seems that only the trail of R1b1b2 with a genealogy from ~ 4800-4000 ybp largely vanished. The common ancestor of P312 "moved" to ~ 3950 ybp in Iberia, and its split downstream L21 which by that time moved to South of nowadays France, had a survived common ancestor of 4200 ybp (in fact, between 4000 and 4200 on different datasets). Hence, it seems to be a little "older" than his "father" because of that event. Then a whole bunch of other suclades split off.

I do not insist that the events were exactly as described here. It is a plausible explanation. I would welcome an alternative hypothesis.

By the way, incidentally, R1a1 (along with I1) vanished from Europe just the same time. They repopulated Europe some 1500 years later. Either the cataclysm, or, fellas, you have to accept gilt of your ancestors and their violent offspring :-))

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov  
I do want to thank Anatole for his willingness to evaluate the data available and publish his findings.  I also appreciates that he is not afraid to provide a straight-forward interpretation of his findings.

As far as our ancestor R-P312's (and subclades) expansion in Europe, I don't think we should hold any illusions as to what may have happened.  The term barbarian was not meant to be a compliment by the Romans, but then the Romans were fairly firm in inflicting their will as well... of course the Latins may have also had some R-P312 folks in their midst.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 06:08:04 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2010, 08:19:18 AM »

Is this what you’re talking about?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/744698/posts


Try this one:

Keenen, D.J. (1999) The three-century climatic upheaval of c. 2000 BC, and regional radiocarbon disparities.

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9908052

Logged

R1a1

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2010, 09:12:27 AM »

Certainly the only culture whose distribution and dates has any sort of match with the dates Anatole and others have suggested is the beaker one.  The beaker theory has always had the advantage that the culture in various forms is known in both the northern and southern R1b1b2 areas.  That is not true of the early Neolithic when western and central Europe was essentially mainly settled by two groups that divide Europe into northern and southern groups. it has always been hard to tally that with R1b1b2 without dabbling is special pleading.  If R1b1b2 is in some way inked to the beaker spread then DNA may solve an archaeological mystery rather than the other way around.  One thing I have long thought about the beaker people is that they or their ancestors must have come from a seafaring area or at least early acquired these characteristics on their travels.  So, in that sense an early movement along the Med makes a lot more sense than some land locked homeland.  I still do not feel confident at all that we know where R1b1b2 originated other than that it was in the east somewhere.  It still appears to me that south of the Black Sea is more likely than north but I am no expert on ht35
Logged
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2010, 04:43:02 PM »

I still do not feel confident at all that we know where R1b1b2 originated other than that it was in the east somewhere.  It still appears to me that south of the Black Sea is more likely than north but I am no expert on ht35

Dear Alan,

Nobody in the world can rightfully claim to be an expert in ht35, as well as an expert in the origin of R1b1b2 (time-wise and place-wise). Having said that, I would dare to say that I can challenge anyone in the world regarding these issues.

First, R1b1b2 bearers were in the Russian Plain (aka Central Eurasia) around 7,000 years before present. That is what haplotypes of the ethnic Russians show. I have published it in J. Genet. Geneal. in 2009.  Then, so-called (a poor choice of terms) ht35 moved to the Caucasus, where their common ancestors lived around 6,000 ybp. Then they moved to Anatolia (around 6,000 ybp) and to Lebanon (5500 ybp). R1b1b2 Jews have a common ancestor of 5500 ybp, apparently from there. Then they moved along North Africa (including Egypt) and arrived to Iberia (via Gibraltar) at around 4800 ybp. That was a beginning of the Bell Beaker culture. The rest is more or less known.  
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 04:45:39 PM by aklyosov » Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2010, 11:16:35 PM »


I do not know where this "slightly mutated" thing came from. It is not mine, I believe.
    

I apologize, it turned out to be mine. This is from the article on Irish R1b1b2 haplotypes and subclades. Table 3 shows the base haplotypes for P312 and L21 (they are identical up to 67 marker haplotypes), and compared to that base haplotype U106 is slightly mutated, as well as U152, L2 and L20. "Slightly mutated" in this context means that their base haplotypes differ from those of P312 and L21 by just 1, 2, or 3 mutations per 67 markers. Essentially, "slightly mutated" means that common ancestors of those subclades lived very close to each other - timewise. Indeed, all of them are within margins of error with each other, timewise. 

"Unassigned small branch" is explained in the article. It is a small branch indeed, only 0.6% of total Irish haplotypes considered in the study. However, this "unassigned small branch" has a very distinct base haplotype, a very distinct branch on the Irish haplotype tree, and does not have a name - yet. Its common ancestor lived 2150+/-340 years before present, that is at the break of BC/AD.
Logged

R1a1

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2010, 07:40:57 AM »

Anatole,

I believe I asked you this in an email, but I wasn't clear on your answer. First off, let me say that I greatly respect your work and am grateful for the analysis and insight you have offered us. So, believe me, I am not trying to be argumentative or to put forward my own position (I don't really have one). I am asking questions in order to be able to understand. So, here goes.

You say R1b1b2 moved along through North Africa to Iberia. Was that M269 or was it already P310?

What I am wondering about is this. P310 is the main variety of R1b1b2 in Europe and is split into two main divisions: P312 and U106. If P312 arose in Iberia (no problem), where did U106 come from?

Did P310 arise in Russia or Anatolia and then split into two branches, one that went south and west, eventually traveling through North Africa to Iberia, and a second branch that went directly into Eastern Europe? Or did P310 arise somewhere farther south?

Or did U106 likewise originate from P310 in Iberia?

Could P310 have gotten to Iberia by sea, coasting along the Mediterranean littoral?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 07:55:52 AM by rms2 » Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2010, 12:49:33 PM »


1. You say R1b1b2 moved along through North Africa to Iberia. Was that M269 or was it already P310?

2. What I am wondering about is this. P310 is the main variety of R1b1b2 in Europe and is split into two main divisions: P312 and U106. If P312 arose in Iberia (no problem), where did U106 come from?

3. Did P310 arise in Russia or Anatolia and then split into two branches, one that went south and west, eventually traveling through North Africa to Iberia, and a second branch that went directly into Eastern Europe? Or did P310 arise somewhere farther south?

4. Or did U106 likewise originate from P310 in Iberia?

5. Could P310 have gotten to Iberia by sea, coasting along the Mediterranean littoral?

First, thank you for your kind words. Second, I have nothing against those who are  "argumentative" or "put forward their own position". There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I always appreciate it, provided that this position is accompanied either with words "this is just a guess, I do not have data to support", or with DATA to support it. Besides, the data should be considered with an alternative explanation(s), and explained which of the alternatives fits better.

I have numbered your questions. Between us, I am not a magician :-)), so please take my attempts to answer with a good share of healthy doubt. This is science, not "set in stone" claims. As I have explained earlier, my methodology is an optimization of an answer among many alternatives. However, with availability of new data that optimization can shift. Though, the new data can turn out to be false, or interpretation (pretended to be data), or taken out of context. Hence, optimization is not to please (honor) ALL the data. It is to honor the most reliable, in my "coordinate system". 

Having said that, to wit: 

1.  You say R1b1b2 moved along through North Africa to Iberia. Was that M269 or was it already P310?

I do not have a P310 dataset, hence, cannot tell. Very likely, it was M269/L23/P310 along with R1b1a when they departed from the Middle East around 5500-5000 ybp. R1b12 split from the North African route and headed South. Its TMRCA in Cameroon/Chad is around 4400 ybp. Furthermore, Cruciani et al (2010) has identified a trail of their haplotypes from North Africa in the Southern direction, to Cameroon and Chad. Timewise, it fits to the migration pattern described above. M269-L23 have a common ancestor (w/DYS393=12) 6000 ybp in the Caucasus, 5500-5200 ybp in Lebanon (also with a good deal of DYS393=12). R1b1b2 were in Egypt in that timeframe, they are in Algeria, and cattle moved to Iberia through Gibraltar. These are all fragments of my optimization. And then, as we have discussed, the Bell Beaker path from Iberia to the continent in 4800-4500 through 3300 ybp. It fits as well. I do not see P310 before Iberia. Maybe it will be found in Egypt around 5000 ybp, then I will gladly adapt my optimization. We are not there yet.   

2. P310 is the main variety of R1b1b2 in Europe and is split into two main divisions: P312 and U106. If P312 arose in Iberia (no problem), where did U106 come from?

U106 is the "parallel" to P312 subclade. I would not be surprised if while P312 arose in Iberia, U106 went directly to Europe, westward, via Asia Minor to Mediterranean and/or to the Balkans. Why R1b1b2 would arrive to Europe by Indian file? They the most likely split into several streams. One more stream went directly from the Russian Plain to Europe, westward, and one more could have moved along the Baltic Sea, to Scandinavia. Those are just guesses, I do not have direct data for that.   

3. Did P310 arise in Russia or Anatolia and then split into two branches, one that went south and west, eventually traveling through North Africa to Iberia, and a second branch that went directly into Eastern Europe? Or did P310 arise somewhere farther south?

See above. There were - technically - two ways by R1b1b2 to Anatolia, either from the Russian Plain via Caucasus (and this way was definitely employed) or from Iranian Plateau westward to Anatolia. I have not seen any support to the latter way.
   
4. Or did U106 likewise originate from P310 in Iberia?

I cannot exclude it from just one "experimental fact" - P312 and U106 has almost identical base (ancestral) haplotypes - they differ in the first 25 markers by only one mutation: DYS390=24 in P312 and =23 in U106. This places their common ancestors by only 550 years apart. I have not looked into 26-67 markers in U106, maybe there are more differences there with P312. I would feel better then. Otherwise P310 would have lived only ~ 4350 years before present, since U106 has a common ancestor of 4175+/-430 ybp, and P312 of 3950+/-400 ybp. Of course, bottlenecks and other complications could distort the picture. My might look not at the common ancestor who arrived to Iberia 4800 ybp, but at a survivor at 3950 years ago. If so, a common ancestor of U106 and P312, that is P310, lived around 5000 ybp. A common ancestor of L51 lived 5850+/-860 ybp.   


5. Could P310 have gotten to Iberia by sea, coasting along the Mediterranean littoral?

Along with cattles? Well, everything is possible. What is wrong with the North African coastal line? It would explain Egypt and R1b1b2. Gibraltar. Algeria. Again, if there are DATA, that they were moving from Lebanon to Gibraltar by sea, I would yield to that scenario.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov   
   
Logged

R1a1

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2010, 02:28:46 PM »

Thanks, Anatole.

Isn't the R1b in Cameroon, etc., R1b1* (and some of it R-V88) rather than R1b1b2?

I'm still wondering about P310, so maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Since both P312 and U106 are P310+ and thus descended from P310+ ancestors, they would both have their source in a P310+ population.  So, if P312 and U106 took entirely different routes into Europe, the first by way of North Africa to Iberia, and the second straight into Eastern or Southeastern Europe, they both still had to come from a P310+ predecessor, so it would seem that the group that moved across North Africa was already at least mostly P310+, if not P312+, right? 

Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2010, 05:00:28 PM »


Isn't the R1b in Cameroon, etc., R1b1* (and some of it R-V88) rather than R1b1b2?

Since both P312 and U106 are P310+ and thus descended from P310+ ancestors, they would both have their source in a P310+ population.  So, if P312 and U106 took entirely different routes into Europe, the first by way of North Africa to Iberia, and the second straight into Eastern or Southeastern Europe, they both still had to come from a P310+ predecessor, so it would seem that the group that moved across North Africa was already at least mostly P310+, if not P312+, right? 


Regarding Cameroon, I did not say that it was R1b1b2. I said it was R1b1a (V88). I do not think that we should view subclades and black-and-white issues. They did not know which haplogroup each of them had had. Both clades were "Europeoids", both had similar (or the same) anthropology. However, the fact that they split, shows that something was probably different.

There are only two reasons that make me think on that scenario which was outlined above - (1) R1b1a split on a North African route, and (2) their common nacestor lived 4400 ybp, that is in the same timeframe as that for R1b1b2 moving along to the West. If there are are better data showing that it was not so, I will adapt my scenario. I make it step by step. 

>So, if P312 and U106 took entirely different routes into Europe...

Well, I did not say that. I do not know U106 route. Maybe they were moving side by side, winking to each other, and split only before entering Iberia. One group (which later became P312) crossed Gibraltar, another crossed Mediterranean and entered continental Europe. How do I mknow if there are no data? I just do not see enough of U106 in Iberia and plenty P312 there.   

We try to connect dots by straight lines, while there might be curves.

Logged

R1a1

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2010, 11:11:11 PM »

So it currently looks like R1b1b2 emerged from the Pontic Steppe, migrated south to the Middle East, then west across North Africa?

R1b1b2's entrance into Western Europe was from Gibraltar? Any reason why it did not travel west through Ukraine and up the Danube?

I appreciate your insight.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2010, 05:54:58 AM »

So it currently looks like R1b1b2 emerged from the Pontic Steppe, migrated south to the Middle East, then west across North Africa?

R1b1b2's entrance into Western Europe was from Gibraltar? Any reason why it did not travel west through Ukraine and up the Danube?

1. We do not know where R1b1b2 did emerge. R1b/R1b1/R1b1b1-R1b1b2 had a long history before that. We see the most ancient R1 clades/haplogroups somewhere in South Siberia (Altai in the major culprit), we see the most ancient R1a1 there (21000+/-3000 years), we see plenty of R1b along with R1a in the Southern-Central Asia (around Uygurs) where they both speak Altaian languages, we see them in Central Eurasia (aka Russian Plain), then we see them in the steppes, not as haplotypes, but as Kurgan culture. We do not see R1b1b2 in the Pontic steppe only because we do not have R1b1b2 datasets from there. However, we see plenty of them in the Caucasus, where practically all of them (the oldest ones) are L23 and/or DYS393=12. The same is valid for Anatolia and Lebanon. Hence, the link. Then we see R1b in Egypt, but I do not have enough data to determine their history (any help with R1b1b2 there will be greatly appreciated), and the Tut haplotype is still a mystery. Then, we see V88 split off towards South, with 4400 ybp for their common ancestor. Then, we see R1b1b2 in Algeria, with a common ancestor of 3700 ybp, and in Iberia with a vector to the continent. This is enough for the optimization I was talking about.

2. R1b1b2's entrance into Western Europe was from Gibraltar? Any reason why it did not travel west through Ukraine and up the Danube?

They certainly did. Why again "either - or"? They must have entered Europe by a number of different routes. One of them - across Gibraltar. Data there are the most informative. Then, certainly, across the Mediterranean, Sardinia, the Balkans, westward to Scandinavia., etc. The "Culture of Crushed Skulls" there might be a witness of such a route. As I remember, it was also around 4500-4000 ybp.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 05:57:28 AM by aklyosov » Logged

R1a1

Pages: [1] 2 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 0.105 seconds with 18 queries.