World Families Forums - Asian deep ancestral homeland for R1b1b2 folks - where is it?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 27, 2014, 11:29:17 PM
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)
| | |-+  Asian deep ancestral homeland for R1b1b2 folks - where is it?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Asian deep ancestral homeland for R1b1b2 folks - where is it?  (Read 3836 times)
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2010, 06:30:17 PM »

You're welcome.  I prefer to use just the subclade like L23* to see if there are any subtle differences across geography.  Here's one more to represent an Adriatic/Mediterranean L23*, which is lower than the previous groups.  There seems to be a lack of L23-L11 in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc..

Italy, Slovenia, and Greece - .204

I see what you're saying, but I'm not really the person to answer that.  It seems that if you include all subclades under L23 or L11, it gives you an idea of overall R1b diversity or variance in an area.  I'm not sure how you would determine an age of something unless you look at each subclade individually because they could have arrived at different times from different directions.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 07:21:22 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2010, 07:37:02 PM »

Your welcome.  I prefer to use just the subclade like L23* to see if there are any subtle differences across geography. ....
I see what you're saying, but I'm not really the person to answer that.  It seems that if you include all subclades under L23 or L11, it gives you an idea of overall R1b diversity or variance in an area.  I'm not sure how you would determine an age of something unless you look at each subclade individually because they could have arrived at different times from different directions.
What good does it do to determine an age for something that isn't a clade, i.e. R-L23* ?  All L23+ folks form a clade but L23* are partial branches on the L23+ tree, and the minority part at that.  Again, it still may be useful to look at L23* variance, but I just haven't figured out of if variance for a paragroup is useful or misleading or just non-relevant.
Logged

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

Posts: 347


« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2010, 08:31:27 PM »

I don't think you could get any granularity for an age estimation by combining subclades, snps, or whatever.  Each one emerge at x point time and in different locations.    I would think by observing the variance of each node individually across several locations and then look for the general pattern is a better approach for interpreting movement.  Of course, there will overlap of the groups, outliers, and back-migrations to consider, but a trend should emerge. 

Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable of statistics will explain.  I could be wrong, but I'm trying to see it logically.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2010, 09:52:43 AM »

I don't think you could get any granularity for an age estimation by combining subclades, snps, or whatever.  Each one emerge at x point time and in different locations.    I would think by observing the variance of each node individually across several locations and then look for the general pattern is a better approach for interpreting movement.  Of course, there will overlap of the groups, outliers, and back-migrations to consider, but a trend should emerge. 
Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable of statistics will explain.  I could be wrong, but I'm trying to see it logically.
I agree with you that granularity is the right thing and that we want to track each subclade that we have enough data for.  Obviously there is a lot of data for P312, L21, U152 and M222 and perhaps SRY2627 and L226. However, I still don't get the logic on doing a paragroup, be it L21* or P312* or L23*. 

Sorry for the distracting questions. I too hope someone knowledgeable on statistics and phylogeny will comment.  Other than that, I'll drop this to get us back on track.

 
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2010, 10:26:42 AM »

I agree with MHammers that granularity is important and so the more we understand about the subclades of R-M269 (R1b1b2) then we have a chance to fit the pieces together and "box in" possible origin/expansion locations.

It is reassuring to see Ken Nordtvedt acknowledge what we already know about P312, U106 and their most immediate upstream haplogroup, L11. In my opinion this has been logically apparent for years as it is just the logical conclusion of the relative lack of variance to the Super Western Atlantic Modal (all 67 markers.)
Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
When most people take P312 and U106 haplotype collections and estimate tmrcas for the two they typically come out to be very similar and around 4000 years ago. But there is a third estimation which can and should be performed --- the node age for the MRCA ancestral to both the P312 and U106 populations. That age also comes out very close to the same 4000 years. This means there probably was not much time between the single man ancestral to both haplogroups and the individual MRCAs of the two haplogroups.

I think this makes it more difficult to sustain scenarios in which the migratory history and geographical details leading up to the two founding events and locations are excessively different from each other.

There are some constraints in place which probably favor some geographical closeness between these foundings..
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290042075

I am surprised he said 4000 ybp although he didn't come out formally take a position on it (although I know he has been looking at the data.)

His conclusion is a key. P312, U106 and L11 itself must not have originated (expanded significantly) too far from each other both in time and space.

Does anyone think the Myres data on P312 and U106 coalescence times is accurate enough at the country level to be reliable?  I'm not talking about the actual ages themselves as there is a lot of concern about mutation rates. I'm just talking about the relative ages between the countries.
Quote from: Myres excerpt
Table S2 U106 All
Estonia N=10 _____ 12.862
Poland N=9 _______ 10.467
Slovakia N=11 ____ 9.552
Switzerland N=19 _ 8.963
Ireland N=6 ______ 8.756
Italy N=10 _______ 8.333
England   N=26 ___ 7.037
Netherlands N=30 _ 7.005
Denmark   N=20 ___ 6.789
France N=6 _______ 6.703
Germany   N=6 ____ 8.480

Table S2 P312 All
Turkey N=5 _______ 13.043
Vaucluse N=20 ____ 11.270
Germany   N=62 ___ 10.245
France N=40 ______ 10.097
Slovenia N=7 _____ 9.317
Hungary   N=9 ____ 9.259
Poland N=6 _______ 9.058
England   N=43 ___ 8.962
Slovakia N=20 ____ 8.152
Ireland   N=73 ___ 8.152
Italy N=72 _______ 7.637
Romania   N=11 ___ 7.576
Netherlands N=14 _ 7.565
Denmark   N=16 ___ 7.382
Greece N=7 _______ 6.729
Sweden N=10 ______ 6.159
Switzerland N=48 _ 8.610


Myres didn't hit every country but U106 looks oldest along in NE Europe along the Polish and Baltic state countries.

As far as P312, as expected, France and Germany look old, but Turkey is quite high (but that is based only 5 ht's.)  If it is to be believed, it is not a back-migration of Celts to be Galatians.  

Unfortunately, apparently they thought there was only one L11* number that had a large enough count to give a coalescence time to give.
Quote
Table S2 L11*
Germany   N=6 ______ 9.481

MHammers had this for L11*'s greatest variance.
Quote from: MHammers

West and South Central (Italy, Switzerland, France) - .359, n-6

What's between the key points of the Baltic, Germany, Switzerland and Turkey?
... the Black Sea
... Caucasus on one side
... the Lower Danube on the other
... the Steppes up into the Northern European plains to the Baltic (and these plains are separated from the middle Danube by the Carpathian Mountains)

In my opinion L11's potential initial expansion area is limited by the above.... basically Anatolia/N.Iran up through the Eastern Northern European plains.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 05:57:59 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 347


« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2010, 01:06:55 PM »

Mike,

I was going to mention interclade variance to estimate the node age, but I see you have a quote from Ken N. about it.  I think this is what you were referring to yesterday.

The variance I was doing, of course, means nothing in terms of an age estimate, but simply shows where L23* is most likely to be older.  I think Ken's method puts an upper and lower boundary on the age of the nodeman.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 01:08:55 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2010, 01:45:06 PM »

I was going to mention interclade variance to estimate the node age, but I see you have a quote from Ken N. about it.  I think this is what you were referring to yesterday.

The variance I was doing, of course, means nothing in terms of an age estimate, but simply shows where L23* is most likely to be older.  I think Ken's method puts an upper and lower boundary on the age of the nodeman.

Interclade methods separate and compares calculations between clades. This concept, that Ken N developed, has been recognized as reducing error vs. using intraclade variance based approaches.  I agree that intraclade variance results are still helpful, though.

Tim J has taken Ken N's rough interclade spreadsheet, enhanced and run through numbers for R-M269.  Ken N and others seem to support these dates. I'm not sure about Dienekes, but he does recognize that Ken's concept reduces error.

Here is the summary for R-M269's lineage.
Quote from: Janzen excerpt

M269: 6500-8500
L23: 6500-8000
L51: 5500-7000
L11: 5000-6500

U106: 4000-5500

P312: 4000-5500
 U152: 3500-5000
 L21: 3500-5500
 M167(SRY2627): 2600-3500
L11 is a key clade as it is where both U106 and P312 fall and it dominates Western Europe.  Using the Myres* data, L11 makes up 95% of all R-M343(R1b) in Western Europe.

Tim J's TMRCA estimate for L11 is essentially 3750 BC, give or take 1500 years. He is using Ken N's inter-clade techniques so I think this is as good as we can get.
EDIT: 11/19 - fixed inter/intra problem
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 09:55:37 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2010, 05:51:39 PM »

I am just comparing the MHammers calculated relative variance with the relative positions of the direct Myres age numbers for L23*.
L23*
India/Pakistan - .337, n-6
South Caucasus - .332, n-26
North Caucasus -  .330, n-31
SW Asia (Jordan, Palestine, other Middle East) - .320, n-8
Turkey - .309, n-59
Europe ( I made various combinations of the regions below with what was available, but here are the main divisions to keep the samples of similiar size)[/b]
East Central (mostly Romania and Hungary, Slovenia) - .254, n-23
South Central (mostly Italy, Switzerland) - .232, n-32
North East (mostly Poland and Slovakia, Russia, Estonia, Czech Rep.) - .175, n-26
South East (mostly Greece, Bulgaria) - .150, n-17

Quote from: Myres Table S2 excerpt
L23* Coalescence Times
Pakistan N=5 ___ 14.493
Caucasus N=32 __ 12.217
Romania   N=12 ___ 11.199
Turkey N=58 ____ 11.057
Switzerland N=10 7.246

Greece N=15 ____ 6.763
Hungary   N=7 ____ 5.952
Slovakia N=10 __ 5.153
Bashkir   N=29 ___ 1.624

It is interesting that after Turkey, within the Myres data set, Switzerland is next..... right up the Danube.

Iran is in between Turkey and Pakistan.  Would love to have data from Iran, especially Northern Iran. Of course, we'd love more data from Georgia and the Southern Russia as well.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 09:23:09 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 347


« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2010, 09:59:25 PM »

Whether the movement is neolithic or Bronze age, I think we can agree that the Danube is important to the spread of R1b, and possibly Romania for some reason.  I don't see anything in the numbers to support any major Mediterranean or Cardial-ware route for L23+. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

TomGull
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2010, 10:50:41 PM »

I was going to mention interclade variance to estimate the node age, but I see you have a quote from Ken N. about it.  I think this is what you were referring to yesterday.

The variance I was doing, of course, means nothing in terms of an age estimate, but simply shows where L23* is most likely to be older.  I think Ken's method puts an upper and lower boundary on the age of the nodeman.

Intraclade methods separate and compares calculations between clades. This concept, that Ken N developed, has been recognized as reducing error vs. using interclade variance based approaches.  I agree that interclade variance results are still helpful, though.

Tim J has taken Ken N's rough intraclade spreadsheet, enhanced and run through numbers for R-M269.  Ken N and others seem to support these dates. I'm not sure about Dienekes, but he does recognize that Ken's concept reduces error.

Here is the summary for R-M269's lineage.
Quote from: Janzen excerpt

M269: 6500-8500
L23: 6500-8000
L51: 5500-7000
L11: 5000-6500

U106: 4000-5500

P312: 4000-5500
 U152: 3500-5000
 L21: 3500-5500
 M167(SRY2627): 2600-3500
L11 is a key clade as it is where both U106 and P312 fall and it dominates Western Europe.  Using the Myres* data, L11 makes up 95% of all R-M343(R1b) in Western Europe.

Tim J's TMRCA estimate for L11 is essentially 3750 BC, give or take 1500 years. He is using Ken N's intra-clade techniques so I think this is as good as we can get.

I think the word usage here is backwards - Interclade (indeed championed as most meaningful by Ken) takes separate groups such as U152 and U106 samples and compares them against each other. Intraclade (a la Tim, typically) works with subsets within one sample (U152 people separated by some STR cluster, for example). I think the problem with the latter is that it is not known factually that the two populations have no overlap with each other, and this may increase the confidence intervals. But Ken and Tim have covered this difference in what is being measured at great length.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2010, 09:58:44 AM »

I was going to mention interclade variance to estimate the node age, but I see you have a quote from Ken N. about it.  I think this is what you were referring to yesterday.

The variance I was doing, of course, means nothing in terms of an age estimate, but simply shows where L23* is most likely to be older.  I think Ken's method puts an upper and lower boundary on the age of the nodeman.

Interclade methods separate and compares calculations between clades. This concept, that Ken N developed, has been recognized as reducing error vs. using intraclade variance based approaches.  I agree that intraclade variance results are still helpful, though.

Tim J has taken Ken N's rough interclade spreadsheet, enhanced and run through numbers for R-M269.  Ken N and others seem to support these dates. I'm not sure about Dienekes, but he does recognize that Ken's concept reduces error.

Here is the summary for R-M269's lineage.
Quote from: Janzen excerpt

M269: 6500-8500
L23: 6500-8000
L51: 5500-7000
L11: 5000-6500

U106: 4000-5500

P312: 4000-5500
 U152: 3500-5000
 L21: 3500-5500
 M167(SRY2627): 2600-3500
L11 is a key clade as it is where both U106 and P312 fall and it dominates Western Europe.  Using the Myres* data, L11 makes up 95% of all R-M343(R1b) in Western Europe.

Tim J's TMRCA estimate for L11 is essentially 3750 BC, give or take 1500 years. He is using Ken N's inter-clade techniques so I think this is as good as we can get.
EDIT: 11/18 fixed inter/intra

I think the word usage here is backwards - Interclade (indeed championed as most meaningful by Ken) takes separate groups such as U152 and U106 samples and compares them against each other. Intraclade (a la Tim, typically) works with subsets within one sample (U152 people separated by some STR cluster, for example). I think the problem with the latter is that it is not known factually that the two populations have no overlap with each other, and this may increase the confidence intervals. But Ken and Tim have covered this difference in what is being measured at great length.
I apologize to all. Tom, you're right - I had "inter" and "intra" flip flopped. I've always had a problem with these two so I guess I can't blame it on age. I edited to fix this (so the quote above is the corrected version.)

Ken N did confirm the young ages that Tim showed (above) for U106, P312 and R-L11 overall. Ken actually used the low end of the ranges, but I don't think he was making any formal statements. Reply 29 below:
Quote from: Nordtvedt
... the node age for the MRCA ancestral to both the P312 and U106 populations. That age also comes out very close to the same 4000 years.

It's probably also worth mentioning that Dr. Hammer, FTDNA's Chief Scientist and a co-author of the 2008 Karafet study, has stated that R-M269's TMRCA is  4000-8000 ybp which fits with Tim J's 6500-8500 ybp.
www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-all-GR508.pdf
The reason is I bring that up is the Karefet study developed another method, counting SNPs, in their approach so this just another methodology confirming Tim's general time-line. I actually think the younger side of Tim's time-line is probably correct, based on Hammer and Nordtvedt.... and also Anatole K too. Dr. Klyosov also comes up with ages on the younger side of Janzen's also. Klyosov has U106 at 4175 ybp and P312 at 3950 ybp.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:21:57 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2010, 01:20:06 PM »

I would still feel any interclade date for the node between S116 and U106 that is less than 4500 years old is pretty well impossible to match in the archaeological record.  After the beaker period, there was simply never again any common denominator between all the L11/P310 areas.  If its post-beaker then some ultra complex multi-period, multi-cultural spread would have to have taken place,     
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2010, 01:45:13 PM »

I would still feel any interclade date for the node between S116 and U106 that is less than 4500 years old is pretty well impossible to match in the archaeological record.  After the beaker period, there was simply never again any common denominator between all the L11/P310 areas.  If its post-beaker then some ultra complex multi-period, multi-cultural spread would have to have taken place,    
I admit I am speculating, but perhaps the archaeology can't reflect all changes in people, particularly slow changes in mixed environments.

We know the mt DNA and Y DNA distribution patterns don't align well (or hardly at all) so the question on R-L11 is not how did total cultures change but how did paternal lineages spread?

I know the Eupedia web site is not afraid to speculate and has some inaccuracies. However, that doesn't mean it is wrong all of the time.  Forget Eupedia's data, what do you think of this logic?
Quote from: Eupedia
Western Europeans do look quite different in Ireland, Holland, Aquitaine or Portugal, despite being all regions where R1b is dominant. Autosomal DNA studies have confirmed that the Western European population is far from homogeneous. A lot of maternal lineages (mtDNA) also appear to be of Paleolithic origin (e.g. H1, H3, U5 or V) based on ancient DNA tests. What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why... Polygamy ... Status & Power ... Gender imbalance...  Warfare (and more.).....
Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the priviledges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest

If the Celtic cultures really started with the Beaker folks we have about 2000 years of Celtic or Celtic/Italic hegemony in Western Europe.  At the same time a similar hegemony, but slower and less comprehensive, might have been occurring in pre-Germanic cultures to the north.

We know of at least one Celtic oriented subclade, M222, that has grown to be a fairly large even though it is young.... and that's in the last 1700 years, a time of large populations.  M222 shows us an example of a paternal lineage that could have cultural values and technology advantages over prior European inhabitants... perhaps this is just a late representation of P312 and U106 that demonstrates how R-L11 could be young but so big.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 02:16:40 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2153


« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2010, 02:01:12 PM »

Mike writes: "we have about 2000 years of Celtic or Celtic/Italic hegemony in Western Europe".

If this had been written  some years ago probably many misunderstandings wouldn't have happened.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 02:54:37 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2010, 06:16:27 PM »

I am just keeping the TMRCA's in one place. They are lining up pretty well, I think.
Quote from: Janzen
M269: 6500-8500
L23: 6500-8000
L51: 5500-7000
L11: 5000-6500

U106: 4000-5500

P312: 4000-5500
 U152: 3500-5000
 L21: 3500-5500
 M167(SRY2627): 2600-3500

L11 is a key clade as it is where both U106 and P312 fall and it dominates Western Europe.  Using the Myres* data, L11 makes up 95% of all R-M343(R1b) in Western Europe.[/quote]

Ken N did confirm the young ages that Tim showed...
Quote from: Nordtvedt
When most people take P312 and U106 haplotype collections and estimate tmrcas for the two they typically come out to be very similar and around 4000 years ago. But there is a third estimation which can and should be performed --- the node age for the MRCA ancestral to both the P312 and U106 populations. That age also comes out very close to the same 4000 years. This means there probably was not much time between the single man ancestral to both haplogroups and the individual MRCAs of the two haplogroups.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290042075

It's probably also worth mentioning that Dr. Hammer, FTDNA's Chief Scientist and a co-author of the 2008 Karafet study, has stated that R-M269's TMRCA is  4000-8000 ybp which fits with Tim J's 6500-8500 ybp.
www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-all-GR508.pdf
The reason is I bring that up is the Karefet study developed another method, counting SNPs, in their approach so this just another methodology confirming Tim's general time-line.

... and also Anatole K too. Dr. Klyosov also comes up with ages on the younger side of Janzen's also. Anatokle K has
Quote from: Klyosov summary
U106 at 4175 ybp
P312 at 3950 ybp.

Vince V has also posted his latest TMRCA's for R-M269
Quote from: Vizachero
The TRMCA of R-M269 is about 6,000 years ago.
The TMRCA of R-M73 is about 7,000 years ago.
The TMRCA of R-P297 is about 12,000 years ago.
The TMRCA of R-M415 is about 16,000 years ago."
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290183706
Prior to this he has also recently said:
Quote from: Vizachero
The MRCA of R-L23 I estimate to be about 5700 years ago (+/- 2.1 ky) and the MRCA of R-L11 I estimate to be about 5000 years ago (+/- 1.8 kya)

M415 and P25 are at the same position on the Y DNA tree.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 06:25:04 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2010, 06:20:49 PM »

Mike
I understand the example of the huge expansion of Irish early historic period clades and clusters but I do think one thing should not be lost site of.  We know from the phylogeny that we are not just dealing with the expansion of male lineages.  We are dealing with a fairly dramatic geographical spreading of these lineages.  Europe was not like some kind of free trade zone and movement in this pre-market economy period was certainly not then driven by the labour market.  

As well as the issue of unexplained movement across a wide area divided into many hostile tribes, we have the issue of how on earth the R1b folks in so many areas came to proliferate.  From what I understand from the Irish early historic period evidence, male lineage expansion was related to power.  I certainly find it hard for example to see it as some sort of below-the-radar low status trickle that then somehow came to dominate everywhere.  I dont think the way society was set up at that time would allow that combination of mobility and lineage expansion to happen in that way.  I think there must have been some sort of advantage that either meant R1b lineages could spread at will or that the locals were (initially) happy for R1b lineages to spread into their lands because they were welcome due to something they brought with them (the trojan horse angle).
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2010, 07:00:05 PM »

Mike
I understand the example of the huge expansion of Irish early historic period clades and clusters but I do think one thing should not be lost site of.  We know from the phylogeny that we are not just dealing with the expansion of male lineages.  We are dealing with a fairly dramatic geographical spreading of these lineages.  Europe was not like some kind of free trade zone and movement in this pre-market economy period was certainly not then driven by the labour market.  

As well as the issue of unexplained movement across a wide area divided into many hostile tribes, we have the issue of how on earth the R1b folks in so many areas came to proliferate.  From what I understand from the Irish early historic period evidence, male lineage expansion was related to power.  I certainly find it hard for example to see it as some sort of below-the-radar low status trickle that then somehow came to dominate everywhere.  I dont think the way society was set up at that time would allow that combination of mobility and lineage expansion to happen in that way.  I think there must have been some sort of advantage that either meant R1b lineages could spread at will or that the locals were (initially) happy for R1b lineages to spread into their lands because they were welcome due to something they brought with them (the trojan horse angle).
It's ironic that you mention the Trojan horse concept. I've been reading about the Mycenaean Greeks and the Minoans. At first, Mycenaens integrated peaceably, right?  Even though the Minoans were probably more advanced, the Mycenaeans were more militaristic and eventually they took over. Seems like a similar story, possibly, across Europe. Indo-European (Beaker?) chieftains moved in with their metallurgy, horse riding, cattle herding and militaristic client/host culture.

The IE chieftains were experts at the client/host alliance concept. They no doubt worked it to their advantage but eventually their own worst enemy (from a national standpoint) was themselves.

Vortigern, King of the Brits, invited in the Saxons. We know what Bede thought of that.

Irish King MacMorrough invited in the Normans.

Didn't William the Conqueror at least claim a deal with Harold to rally support, probably from Harold haters?

The Romans allied with and trained Goths. Eventually a Roman soldier, Aleric the Goth King, sacked Rome. That's a little different but the use of alliances can work and then back-fire.

Well, all that's a bit off track, but IE chieftains did have a good 2000 years to infiltrate, institute hegemony and some cases destroy the competition. Given the different morality of the times, the chieftains' lineages may have had an disproportional effect on the population.  Of course, some milk drinking or disease resistant genes they along with them from the east may have been part of the advantage, at least initially, before those genes mixed into the general population.

I don't know my Indo-European society stuff, but wasn't the patri-lineal nature such that they controlled the land?  If so, wouldn't you want your daughters marrying into prosperity? This is a nice way to say it, but it certainly would've been nice to have a military man as a son-in-law.  Europe is big but 2000 years is a long time for the spread to take place and grow.  

Isn't the King of Stonehenge in SW England a native of the Alps? ... 4000 ybp. How large could his clade be by now? His lineage had at 2000 years before religious conventions changed and marital fidelity became a consideration.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 05:57:57 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 37


« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2010, 05:48:28 PM »

You're welcome.  I prefer to use just the subclade like L23* to see if there are any subtle differences across geography.  Here's one more to represent an Adriatic/Mediterranean L23*, which is lower than the previous groups.  There seems to be a lack of L23-L11 in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc..

Italy, Slovenia, and Greece - .204

Probably not worth considering using current L23* in the manner that you are talking about.  I believe there is sufficient evidence from 23andMe to know that L277 will define a new major haplogroup under L23.  How much of the L23* area that L277 carves out is what we are interested in figuring out.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 05:49:50 PM by Wayne Kauffman » Logged

U106-L48
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2010, 07:05:28 PM »

Mike
 I suppose my basic point is no matter how small in the begining, people or clans who proliferated had to have had something special about them to do so, I would guess military power or some sort of specialist role.  It also was a west-Europe wide phenomenon wherebye the same L11 lineages came to be huge everywhere.  So, whatever allowed this lineage in clearly was repeated many times in many localities with the same L11 lineages proliferating for some reason.  So the question is

1. How did the L11 lineages manage to infiltrate in almost every locality from the Daube to the most far flung rock in the Outer Hebrides.

2. How did it come to expand so successfully everywhere.

Obviously one view is simple i.e. that is was linked with the unique demographic window that was the wave of the spread of farming.   If that is not the correct model, the next stop is the beaker period.  Here we do have a potential material reflection of the inflltration of society by new groups.  Certainly infiltrate may be the best term. The Stonehenge area before during and after the beaker phase show enough background continuity that it is easiest to imagine beaker elements were welcomed into the area by the Neolithic native powers, presumably because they had metalworking knowledge and a useful network of trade Europe wide.   There are many examples of less advanced groups or elements taking over the reigns of power of a more advanced society without destroying it.  The beaker people perhaps represented a new outward looking individualistic society where materialistic status symbols and prestige goods and wide contacts dominated.  This may have been in fairly sharp contrast to the relatively inward looking indigenous Neolithic societies which had a huge emphasis on ritual (seemingly more theocratic) and where (although not absent), prestige goods and contact networks were less developed and more geographically restricted (mainly contact within and between the isles). This may have been a social change that swept Europe and the elements that represented the new way came to dominate while the old theocratic leadership may have withered away.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 07:10:47 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2010, 08:16:36 PM »

Probably not worth considering using current L23* in the manner that you are talking about.  I believe there is sufficient evidence from 23andMe to know that L277 will define a new major haplogroup under L23.  How much of the L23* area that L277 carves out is what we are interested in figuring out.

How many of these 23andMe L277's are also L51+?  The two in the Ht 35 project are L51-.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2153


« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2010, 02:10:26 AM »

How many of these 23andMe L277's are also L51+?  The two in the Ht 35 project are L51-.

Of course all R-L277+ are L51-.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2010, 05:30:22 AM »

So, L277 is parallel to L51?  
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 05:32:41 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Wayne Kauffman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2010, 09:19:33 AM »

So, L277 is parallel to L51?  

That is the current hypothesis until another defining SNP is identified . L277 is present in Italian, Swiss, India, Turkey, and a Jewish Cohane cluster samples.
Logged

U106-L48
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 0.109 seconds with 18 queries.