World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: rms2 on November 05, 2011, 06:56:49 AM



Title: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 05, 2011, 06:56:49 AM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?





Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 08:37:22 AM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?



I suppose its still a very tiny sample.  The negative evidence for R1b is still one or two early(ish) Med. Neolithic sites probably of Cardial roots, a couple of LBK sites for the whole of Europe, one Corded Ware site and one copper age Italian ice man.  That is a really tiny sample for an entire continent with cultures that lasted many centuries and covered many countries represented by a singe site.  I think the number of samples in a single site is not important as they are likely to be family based anyway.  

So, the ancient DNA record is like taking one man randomly from an entire nation and using him as a representative of the nation.  

Archaeologically speaking too there are huge swathes of time and space not even covered by a single ancient DNA site.  The Mesolithic is untested, the whole middle Neolithic of non-Med. Europe between the LBK and Corded Ware (c. 2000 years) is not covered.  There are no samples between the single Corded Ware site and 1000BC, another span of 1500-2000 years.  There are essentially no samples at all for north Atlantic Europe of any period.  So there are huge gaps.  I certainly dont think the 1000BC earliest R1b find is anywhere near as old as R1b in Europe.  Very few people have suggested anything later than beaker for R1b entry to Europe.  

In general, the main thing I would concede is there is slowly building a body of evidence that the earliest Neolithic in Europe didnt include R1b and when combined with the ages people are arriving at through variance for R1b in Europe then the case is beginning to gather strength.  Other than that though I dont think we know anything about R1b's entry into Europe.  As I cant see any way R1b could possibly have reached such saturation levels in western Europe if it arrived any later, the best bet at the moment is probably mid-late Neolithic/Copper Age. My personal working hypothesis is that it crossed in L23 form over from NW Anatolia to SE Europe in the 5th millenium with dairy pastoralism and then after a bit of a delay (where it lost variance) exploded across Europe.   
 it could even have been two stage - a mid Neolithic crossing into eastern Europe then a copper age expansion after some interaction in that area with steppes cultures.  Archaeologically though the only culture that bears a strong resemblance to R1b in distribution remains beaker.  Problem is its eastern origins are far from clear. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 05, 2011, 08:37:46 AM
You know what I think about this. The last paper about the snail Tudorella sulcata, diffused from Sardinia to North Africa and South France, strengthens my hypothesis. You know that I am waiting a paper of Fulvio Cruciani about this and my hypothesis that R1b1/V88+ in North Africa has come from Italy by sea. Now that this could be happened is possible. Sardinia is at the origin of R-M18, a subclade of R1b1*.
The fact that I have found amongst the few persons near me I have tested:

R1b1a2* (Federighi)
R1b1a2a (L23+/L150+): me, my son, my relative Tognarelli
R1b1a2 (possibly U152): Malvolti

makes me think that Tuscany was the fatherland of R1b.
And it was also the fatherland of G-L497*. We have found so far the descendants of this haplotype. I hope that also the others will be found.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on November 05, 2011, 09:46:12 AM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?





In each of these sites today, R1b is the dominant y-haplogroup. G2 is relatively uncommon now, but we now know it is a major player in the Neolithic. One can say "Well, these are only small samples", but the fact that R1b is not represented at numerous sites where it is now dominant is surely telling.

I think R1b is associated with the Bronze Age migrations from the East, and as Rich mentions, we can only find R1b in the Bronze Age and later.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: MHammers on November 05, 2011, 11:07:18 AM
The crossing of R1b into SE Europe from Anatolia in the neolithic seems to make the most sense.  This area from Greece up to southern Poland has been untested from the neolithic to bronze age for ydna, so far.  I think this should be the area and timeframe that the academics should focus on to see the changes in population continuity.  


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 05, 2011, 11:19:35 AM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.
Sorry if this redundant. Here is Schweitzer's Lichtenstein Cave Data Analysis. (http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf)


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 12:42:19 PM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?





In each of these sites today, R1b is the dominant y-haplogroup. G2 is relatively uncommon now, but we now know it is a major player in the Neolithic. One can say "Well, these are only small samples", but the fact that R1b is not represented at numerous sites where it is now dominant is surely telling.

I think R1b is associated with the Bronze Age migrations from the East, and as Rich mentions, we can only find R1b in the Bronze Age and later.

You may well be correct that the first farmers didnt bring R1b but basically the entire continent of the last 8000 years is represented by only about 5 or 6 studies yielding ancient prehistoric European DNA, most of them dealing with one site.  The sample is absolutely useless in terms of providing reliable negative evidence.  Before we can start to feel like any sort of indicative negative evidence is there I think we will need to get well into double figures in each major area and each major period.   ...and by that I mean separate sites, not individuals in one site.  Burial sites will strongly tend to be families.

 
What it does provide is positive evidence and there is no question that when a clade appears several times in Neolithic-copper age samples when the number of sites involved is so small then it is not a coincidence.  G must have been big.  I wonder how that sits with the recent suggestion that the migration of the first farmers to Europe was by sea from the Levant rather than Anatolia?  In such a tiny sample any appearance (certainly more than one appearance) is very important. 

Certainly the beaker distribution has long been noted to bearing a resemblance to p312 in particular.  However, any link back to Asia Minor remains to be demonstrated.   The spread of dairying does seem to be a proven spread from NW Asia Minor.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 01:43:52 PM
The observation that essentially everything from L23 down to P312 and U106 is basically of the same variance if interesting.  Is it possible that a mixed bag of all of this stuff could have been around for some time as a peripheral element of society until some sort of climatic or similar issue gave them the advantage.  Perhaps they were a marginal element of specialist dairy pastoralists located in the more peripheral upland areas and the wet Atlantic areas that were not the prime land of the earliest LBK and Cardial farmers.  The periphery then moved into the core.  This is the sort of thing that has been suggested at other times and places through prehistory.  The process might be subtle in terms of archaeological remains rather than in your face. 

I definately have a suspicion that in many areas R1b is elevated in uplands and pastoral and rainy areas. This seems to be the case in Iberia, France, Italy, Britain, Ireland, the Alpine areas.  Of course these pastoral upland and Atlantic areas also tend to have rock exposures and metal ore deposits too.    What is clear to me is that the distribution better fits the areas that were settled more in the middle phases of the Neolithic than the first phases and the same areas.  Perhaps pastoralist communities in the areas of rock exposure also tended to be pioneers in metallurgy. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 05, 2011, 02:17:19 PM
If this were true, it would testify that R1b is ancient and original in the places where we now find it: mountainous places are more conservative than planes. I read, but probably it was a little bit exaggerated, that Garfagnana (Tuscan Apennine) has 95% R1b. And it isn’t fortuitous that we find similar haplogroups in Italy (Alpine region above all) and Caucasus (Armenia). The last I was studying is mt hg. U1: difficult to say whom belongs to the U1a on the Ian Logan’s spreadsheet (for medical reason), but the parallel U1b is in Italy (2) and in Armenia (1).


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 05, 2011, 02:48:19 PM

 . . .  As I cant see any way R1b could possibly have reached such saturation levels in western Europe if it arrived any later, the best bet at the moment is probably mid-late Neolithic/Copper Age.

That is something I wonder about. I can see a y-haplogroup achieving dominant status in a very short time indeed - perhaps only a few centuries - under the right circumstances. Look at the Americas with the introduction of European y-haplogroups and the subsequent decline of Amerindian y-dna.

I am not at all confident I know the answers, but I think it is entirely possible that R1b could have arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age. I am saying it is possible, not that that is what actually happened. I think a Bronze Age arrival, under the right set of circumstances, would have given R1b plenty of time to achieve the numerical dominance it enjoys today. Obviously, I don't have any real evidence to support the idea that the Bronze Age is when R1b arrived in Europe.

It's still possible that R1b has been in Europe since the Paleolithic Period or the Mesolithic Period. I don't think that is likely, but it is possible. We could be that wrong about the long term significance of modern STR variance. Honestly, I will be mighty disappointed if some Mesolithic or Paleolithic R1b surfaces in Europe. But, hey, if it does, we learn and push on.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 05, 2011, 03:11:34 PM
Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on November 05, 2011, 05:37:27 PM
Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.

I agree with this scenario. Any of the recent Neolithic findings could have been R1b, but they are not. So, yes, we need more aDNA, but the results so far only support your theory.

I think if you are right, far more others will be disappointed.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 05:39:38 PM
I think the idea that R1b is associated with Indo-European could be true even if its not a classic Kurgan model.  There are Anatolian intrusions into the area west of the Black Sea c. 5000BC in the form of the Hamangia and Boian cultures http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/late-neolithic.htm

and this seems to coincide also with the spread of dairy pastoralism from NW Anatolia into the same area about the same time.  Those cultures then in turn contributed to Gumelnita and also to the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and probably others (its a bit specialist).  It is also interesting to note that the long eastern tail of LBK came very close to this area and thereby connected this intrusion to the LBK world and its interesting to note that dairying seems to have spread into the Lengyel, Rossen successor cultures to LBK and also was present in the TRB culture and the British Neolithic too (and I presume French too).  So, it is interesting to speculate if Anatolian lineages spread with dairying through these post-LBK groups, transforming them.

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.

I would tend to see this as a very good potential scenario whereby R1b Anatolian immigrants into SE Europe were the origins of proto-IE and perhaps R1a was the hunter gatherer lineage of the steppes.  It seems to tie in the earliest forms of the language group, R1b, the spread of dairy pastoralism quite nicely.  It still strangely enough places the evolution of Proto-IE from Anatolian close to the Black Sea but crucially among the non-Kurgan groups.  










Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: MHammers on November 05, 2011, 05:45:50 PM
With G2a and E-V13 in Neolithic Spain plus G2a and I2a in Neolithic France, the paleo-mesolithic R1b is less likely now.  We know that G2a is very rare today and R1b is the predominant hg in those locations.  If R1b was a mesolithic forager hg as I think I2a (and F for that matter) are, then it seems it would show up in the 4 aDNA neolithic/copper ages sites.  

What are the chances Hg F which is extremely rare today and I2a more common, but usually less than R1b almost everywhere, would show up in 2 of the first 4 aDNA samples from this period?  

On the other thread Mikewww, demonstrated that the European L23 variance is significantly lower than it's Anatolian counterpart.  Also, the European L23 expands with the rest of it's L51+ descendents as the relative variance would indicate.  It is possible that the first European L23*'s were "bottlenecked" somehow in SE Europe via climate, steppe raiders, etc. until they could adapt and expand.  I think this period would be between 4000 and 3500 BC.  which is not too far off from any germline age estimates found on the net.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: MHammers on November 05, 2011, 06:06:51 PM
I think the idea that R1b is associated with Indo-European could be true even if its not a classic Kurgan model.  There are Anatolian intrusions into the area west of the Black Sea c. 5000BC in the form of the Hamangia and Boian cultures http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/late-neolithic.htm

and this seems to coincide also with the spread of dairy pastoralism from NW Anatolia into the same area about the same time.  Those cultures then in turn contributed to Gumelnita and also to the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and probably others (its a bit specialist).  It is also interesting to note that the long eastern tail of LBK came very close to this area and thereby connected this intrusion to the LBK world and its interesting to note that dairying seems to have spread into the Lengyel, Rossen successor cultures to LBK and also was present in the TRB culture and the British Neolithic too (and I presume French too).  So, it is interesting to speculate if Anatolian lineages spread with dairying through these post-LBK groups, transforming them.

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.

I would tend to see this as a very good potential scenario whereby R1b Anatolian immigrants into SE Europe were the origins of proto-IE and perhaps R1a was the hunter gatherer lineage of the steppes.  It seems to tie in the earliest forms of the language group, R1b, the spread of dairy pastoralism quite nicely.  It still strangely enough places the evolution of Proto-IE from Anatolian close to the Black Sea but crucially among the non-Kurgan groups.  
Cucuteni-Tripolye seem to have got along well with their steppe neighbors for a long time.  It seems like the steppe people had the advantage of early horse domestication whereas the farmers had most of the copper and dairy products.  It was among these interchanges that PIE likely developed.  As the late neolithic became the copper age, the steppe people realized they didn't have to be as diplomatic as before since they could come and go at will with the advent of horse riding, carts, wagons, and finally chariots.

Imo, it is why Tripolye started building those "supertowns" for defensive purposes.  However, the conflict probably only intensified when the climate went bad and it forced the steppe people to move into farmer areas.  It is easier then to picture a displaced, but IE speaking R1b.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on November 05, 2011, 06:14:48 PM

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.



I watched Renfrew's recent presentation on Tocharians at the University of Pennsylvania, and that was equally credible.

The dairy factor and the technology I see all coming from Southwest Asia, not the Steppes. I think you are right on with the Steppe tribes receiving PIE from the incomers. We already know there is a high likelihood of lactose tolerance originating in R1b-dominant tribes. At some point they come into contact with R1a Steppe tribes and intermarry enough to spread the LT gene as well.



Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 06:24:01 PM
Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.

I agree with this scenario. Any of the recent Neolithic findings could have been R1b, but they are not. So, yes, we need more aDNA, but the results so far only support your theory.

I think if you are right, far more others will be disappointed.

To be honest I personally dont really have a preferred result and nothing could disappoint me on this.  I can see interest in all of the normal options.  The Mesolithic, the Neolithic, the Beakers all have very interesting aspects to their cultures.  I would be happy if it was any of the above.  I just would like to know.  

I think we are very close to being able to eliminate pre-Neolithic origins but we do remain at the mercy of the various takes on the y-DNA clock regarding that.   If haplogroup I has five times as much variance as European R1b then it suggests to me that its virtually impossible for European R1b to be pre-Neolithic.    Its not as though there could have been pockets of M269* hanging about that then took off.  Unlike haplogroup I the R1b tree is bushy and most is descended from L11 in turn descended from L51 etc. Its one line that took off in the L51-L11-P312/U106 (and so on) burst rather than some substrate. Haplogroup I lineages probably are a Mesolithic substrate though and it seems that they are just like you would expect from pockets of hunters scattered around Europe being swept up along with farming.  R1b doesnt seem to fit that pattern in Europe.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 06:36:50 PM
With G2a and E-V13 in Neolithic Spain plus G2a and I2a in Neolithic France, the paleo-mesolithic R1b is less likely now.  We know that G2a is very rare today and R1b is the predominant hg in those locations.  If R1b was a mesolithic forager hg as I think I2a (and F for that matter) are, then it seems it would show up in the 4 aDNA neolithic/copper ages sites.  

What are the chances Hg F which is extremely rare today and I2a more common, but usually less than R1b almost everywhere, would show up in 2 of the first 4 aDNA samples from this period?  

On the other thread Mikewww, demonstrated that the European L23 variance is significantly lower than it's Anatolian counterpart.  Also, the European L23 expands with the rest of it's L51+ descendents as the relative variance would indicate.  It is possible that the first European L23*'s were "bottlenecked" somehow in SE Europe via climate, steppe raiders, etc. until they could adapt and expand.  I think this period would be between 4000 and 3500 BC.  which is not too far off from any germline age estimates found on the net.

Yes one thing I think is important to note is all intraclade variance calculations are far less useful  (and potentially much younger) than interclade calculations and as far as I understand Mikes calculations for L23 in Europe and L23 outwith Europe are both intraclade.  So I dont think we can rule out L23 in Europe being older, potentially as old as the L23 SNP but then again why on earth would one hunter gatherer family holed up somewhere suddenly populate western Europe? Seems extremely unlikely. 

Mike-if you are watching-do you have an interclade date for L23 of some sort?  I am curious to know what its maximum age is.     


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 06:48:14 PM

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.



I watched Renfrew's recent presentation on Tocharians at the University of Pennsylvania, and that was equally credible.

The dairy factor and the technology I see all coming from Southwest Asia, not the Steppes. I think you are right on with the Steppe tribes receiving PIE from the incomers. We already know there is a high likelihood of lactose tolerance originating in R1b-dominant tribes. At some point they come into contact with R1a Steppe tribes and intermarry enough to spread the LT gene as well.



Renfrew has not published any major update in his theories for quite a while, probably before the whole Dairying spreading from NW Anatolia was even known about.  When I heard about it, bearing in mind that Anatolian is seen by many as a kind of proto-proto-IE language, I thought this fits together rather well and even the spread of R1b into Europe would seem possible to be related to this all.  It is tempting to see this as all relating to one thing.  However, it is very easy to come up with apparently very convincing but false correlations so I am cautious.  It also remains to be seen if anyone can really convincingly demonstrate a spread from SE Europe to the west. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 09:44:48 PM
I have been digging about trying to look into the even deeper origins of R1b and this brought me back to M73, the sister clade of M269.  It is rather remarkable on the Myres maps how M73 and L23* both seem to share peaks in the same area in the south of the Urals.  You could interpret the various maps as being suggestive of a people originating somewhere between the east side of the Caspian and the south Urals that partly (M73) then headed into the north of Mesopotamian (or could it be the reverse) and also (L23) moving into the Caucuses and then into Anatolia and the Balkans, apparently making a beeline for the Swiss Alps.  You could look at these strange patterns as the behavour of people looking for metal ores. So, that is another potentially rational reason for the spread as an alternative to the dairy farming Anatolia idea. 

I think maciamo actually came to a very similar conclusion although I am less sure about some of his other conclusions.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25949.html


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 05, 2011, 10:49:49 PM
This has a nice, if perhaps not quite up to date, summary of early copper working in Europe and SW Asia

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba56/ba56feat.html


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 06, 2011, 01:34:50 AM
This has a nice, if perhaps not quite up to date, summary of early copper working in Europe and SW Asia

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba56/ba56feat.html

“In the mid-4th millennium, arsenical copper was now taking centre stage with a new focus on Alpine and sub-Alpine Europe”.

Many thanks, Alan. I have learned for the first time in my life to be a “sub-Alpine” man and not an Italian.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 06, 2011, 08:24:40 AM
I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 06, 2011, 08:45:48 AM
I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


I suspect the entry of R1b into Europe west of the Black Sea was some variation of the Kurgan idea and that it surfed a wave of advance, becoming far more populous at the forefront than it ever was or is now in its old homelands.

By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I don't have all the details worked out in my own thinking, but that is the rough outline of what I think probably occurred.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on November 06, 2011, 09:41:38 AM
I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I also think that current R1a levels north of the Black Sea are the result of more recent population movements rather than a continuity from earlier periods. Just like the Neolithic in Europe, we will probably see a much different genetic makeup of the population around the Black Sea in ancient times.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 06, 2011, 09:46:12 AM
I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


I suspect the entry of R1b into Europe west of the Black Sea was some variation of the Kurgan idea and that it surfed a wave of advance, becoming far more populous at the forefront than it ever was or is now in its old homelands.

By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I don't have all the details worked out in my own thinking, but that is the rough outline of what I think probably occurred.

I agree that R1a is not a likely source of Indo-European for much of Europe.  R1b is a far better candidate in many ways.  I do think that IE clearly has two stories.  There is the whole R1a story which seems to be important in the spread of IE to the east, into Asia and to a lesser extent the north-east of Europe.  I think this does tell PART of the story but the problem is the whole Kurgan thing is too often portrayed as the whole of the story.  If the mainstream idea that Anatolian is even older than proto-IE and perhaps ancestral to the latter (and Euphratic even older) then I think the origins probably lie with some movement that came to SE Europe from Anatolia.  I cant see anything at all linguistically that is evidence of early forms of IE relating to the steppes.

Personally I suspect that the other half of the story of IE is the spread of dairy farmers west 5000-4000BC and its transformation of older farming areas in Europe and its role is setting of previously unsettled areas in the form of cultures like the TRB, isles early Neolithic etc.  The spread of dairy farming in that period and its origins in Anatolia are at least scientific facts.  If that happened then it would perhaps be phase 1 of the story and explain the archaic early split of nature of the centum languages.  Then phase 2 could have been the effect of the dairy farmers who remained in SE Europe on their hunting neighbours (R1a?) in the steppes.

Another alternative more angled at metal working would be that R1b has an IE Mesopotamian origin and that it moved in jumps to the south urals (a peak for both M73 and early M269/L23) looking for copper and then L23 groups moved to the Caucuses and Anatolia for the same reason before entering SE Europe for the same reason searching for metal deposits (very early in the Balkans) and finally blazing a trail along the alps and other areas looking for arsenical copper ores (the best copper) and trailing on to the west in the form of beaker culture.  This seems to tie in fairly well with R1b phylogeny and does fit to an extent with the Eurphratic-Anatolian-proto-IE-Centum sequence of language development and this would make R1b the donators not the receivers of IE.  That kind of idea could see an early ancestors of IE stretching from Mesopotamia and the south Urals through Anatolia into SE Europe.  It is interesting that both dairying and an early copper working tradition existed c. 5000BC in both Anatolia and various parts of SE Europe and there were connecting cultures too.  However, the devil is in the detail and I would need to brush up on this copper age around the Black Sea and SW Asia stuff as I have kind of avoided it for a long time.   Of course, again, such a model would peripheralise the steppes peoples proper from the oldest roots of IE.  


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 06, 2011, 09:53:28 AM
I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I also think that current R1a levels north of the Black Sea are the result of more recent population movements rather than a continuity from earlier periods. Just like the Neolithic in Europe, we will probably see a much different genetic makeup of the population around the Black Sea in ancient times.

That could well be correct and if so would shake up the options again.  I do wonder about that.  If you look at Myres's maps R1a does look like it punched a hole in the R1b world, sort of interrupting the archaic R1b zone on the L23* and M73 maps from the L11 zone. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 06, 2011, 05:34:23 PM
Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 06, 2011, 06:28:41 PM
Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that.  5000 is plenty time.  The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes.  How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc.  Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time.  

For western Europe the beaker phase whatever its origin does represent a new level of widespread contact and networking.  The only model I can really see for that is the beaker groups really very thoroughly explored the coasts and rivers and mountains of Europe looking for ore and also nodal points in the network of trade away from the ore sources.  They may have actually originally been welcomed by the locals as supplying something that they desired. Perhaps this led to many little tribes have a small beaker settlement providing this service and forming part of a chain.  Perhaps over time these beaker settlements (maybe we can look at them as trading and distribution posts as well as metalworking) came to be so wealthy that they overshadowed the native elites in prestige and slowly started to form a new elite.  Given thousands of years elites can seriously grow as M222 shows in later times.  Of course beakers were only the start of the process of Bronze Age elites whose wealth and prestige was based on metal, trade and materialism.  The process continued throughout with the beaker networking splitting and going through various fissions and fusions into later tighter networks too.  

Ireland is just one example but it is instructive.  It seems 100% certain that beaker elements arrived exploring the metal resources and hit the jackpot with a high arsenic copper source at Ross Island in Kerry.  They may also have found gold sources in Ulster and elsewhere.  There is a suggestion that the Wedge tombs spread throughout the rocky west and other upland areas in central Ulster and elsewhere in pockets date to exactly this period and are frequently associated with beaker material.  The earliest reliable RC dates in each tomb almost perfectly corresponds to the beaker phase c. 2400-c. 2000BC and the earliest stratigraphically sound primary finds are indeed beaker material.  This definately smacks to me of an exploritory phase throughout the west and uplands elsewhere.  I get the sense of a period where groups explored and settled the likely areas, apparently in a complimentary way to the natives whose lowlands in the east seem to lack much in the way of beaker burials.  It is only in the following phase, the food vessel period, when it seems the two fused to form one culture with beaker traditions dominating as seem in the food vessel burial (especially the bowl tradition).  

In this respect I think it differed from Britain because Ireland had something approaching a macro-divide whereas I get the impression that beakers settled as pockets throughout the native's heartlands (i.e. stonehenge for example) and must have often been middle men in the metal trade.  The difference may simply be that western and upland Ireland really was a place where prospecting exploration was ongoing and successful while in lowland Britain (where most British beakers are) they had no metal sources (and the beaker settlers would have know that quickly) and so were essentially middle men for the elites.   Irish metal dominated isles copper age arsenical copper and gold work, even extending to France etc.  It was only a little later that tin etc came into play.    

You could say that this was the origin of the difference of how beaker culture expressed itself in Ireland compared to Britain.  Ireland was not in a geographically great location to redistribute beyond Britain and so you could say the focus was on the dirty hands aspect of actually getting the ore and turning it into objects while Britain on its southern and eastern coasts facing the continent (where most British beaker is) may have been an ideal location for beaker people to get very wealthy as middlemen controlling the flow of Irish metal through Britain and over to the continent etc.  The dynamics of this would change over time as tin was discovered and new copper mines opened but the same pattern probably continued to some degree into the Wessex-Armorican-Unetice period etc and well beyond.  Again it is noticeable that while Ireland produces a wealth of metalwork it lacked the wealthy graves in the Beaker period and in the subsequent Wessex type periods and that again may be down to geography.  Other than Britain, Ireland is a long way from anywhere else other than perhaps NW France.  Britain on the other hand has a long south and south-east coast that is close to the continent and ideal for trading without further middlemen.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: A.D. on November 07, 2011, 02:41:17 PM
If early R1b cremated or left their dead to the elements couldn't that go along way to explaining it's absence in ancient graves?
On the Mesolithic/Neolithic according to Niel Oliver  the Neolithic farmers ventured inland but the Mesolithic populated the coastal areas ie not in each others way. Fishing seems to be very important to the Mesolithic people. I wonder if they turned sea produce into an 'industry ?' i.e. formed larger settlements with the neolithic peoples. Maybe there might be some traces  of Mesolithic y-dna in areas of fishing. Fishing is a male dominated industry and in Britain and Ireland it's a family thing.
Having said that  Fishermen are probably all vikings lol(?)


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 07, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
If early R1b cremated or left their dead to the elements couldn't that go along way to explaining it's absence in ancient graves?
On the Mesolithic/Neolithic according to Niel Oliver  the Neolithic farmers ventured inland but the Mesolithic populated the coastal areas ie not in each others way. Fishing seems to be very important to the Mesolithic people. I wonder if they turned sea produce into an 'industry ?' i.e. formed larger settlements with the neolithic peoples. Maybe there might be some traces  of Mesolithic y-dna in areas of fishing. Fishing is a male dominated industry and in Britain and Ireland it's a family thing.
Having said that  Fishermen are probably all vikings lol(?)

cremation is going to cause some limitations to what ancient DNA is going to ever be available.  The only actual deliberate pre-Neolithic burials ever found in Ireland were cremations, so that is the period 8000BC-4000BC unlikely to ever produce much ancient DNA (there is the odd stray bone).  In the Neolithic c. 4000-2500BC there was a mix of cremation (predominant) and inhumation in Ireland.  Problematically inhumations tend to be disarticulated and multi-phase meaning the age of any given piece of bone may be unknown unless it is also radiocarbondated.   There was a period where inhumation again appeared c. 2100BC for a couple of centuries with food vessel burials but then it was pretty well exclusively cremation in the mid and late Bronze Age and all of the BC part of the Iron Age  (c. 1800BC-c. 0BC/AD).  So there are huge periods in the Irish burial record where there is very little hope of much in the way of ancient DNA due to the predominance of cremation.  However, Irelands love of cremation in prehistory seems to be a little unusual and the problem is nowhere near as bad in most countries (even Britain had far less use of cremation than Ireland).   


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 07, 2011, 07:50:55 PM
I understand some of the Mesolithic people in Brittany actually buried their dead in the shell middens.

That's an overwhelmingly R1b area. If R1b doesn't turn up in any of those Mesolithic remains, then perhaps it wasn't there then.

I think it is only natural that the older the remains are, the scarcer they will be, as well.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 07, 2011, 09:12:09 PM
I understand some of the Mesolithic people in Brittany actually buried their dead in the shell middens.

That's an overwhelmingly R1b area. If R1b doesn't turn up in any of those Mesolithic remains, then perhaps it wasn't there then.

I think it is only natural that the older the remains are, the scarcer they will be, as well.

There are only certain areas where you really get much in the way of systematic pre-farming burial in western Europe.  The Breton shell midden ones and the Ertebole of Scandinavia are the ones that quickly spring to mind.  One issue though for using Breton ones as a proxy is that there is very little evidence of the use of the Atlantic route from the continent in the Mesolithic other than perhaps very late on.  You could basically walk into Britain from the south-east and even Ireland was only a very short crossing from western Britain.  Culturally the Maglemosian early Mesolithic of England is usually thought to link  to the north European plain and its also true that the sightly later narrow blade Mesolithic (the first Mesolithic in much of Scotland and Ireland) has its earliest dates in the east of Scotland, suggesting again an eastern entry.  So, the isles may have been settled by hunters who didnt ever go anywhere near the French Atlantic area.  France was probably a little more important in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain than the Mesolithic. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on November 07, 2011, 11:05:52 PM
Have academics attempted to test ancient remains from West Asia?  I know there are more difficulties, particularly for Y-DNA, given the environment, but, I wish folks with the resources and necessary expertise, would attempt extracting aDNA from the countless "Sumerian" remains excavated during the 20th century.  If King Tut is in fact R-M269, it is not far-fetched to imagine finding some form of R1b among the remains.  Even if we do not consider King Tut's speculative results, the same holds true.   

Quote
The cemetery was originally dug outside the walls of the city of Ur...Some 1,840 burials were found, dating to between 2600 BC and 2000 BC. They ranged from simple burials (with a body rolled in a mat) to elaborate burials in domed tombs reached by descending ramps. Sixteen of the early burials [Charles Leonard] Woolley called 'Royal Graves' because of the rich grave-goods, the presence of burial chambers, and the bodies of the attendants who had apparently been sacrificed.

http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/3d3dfff71aa0f304ffff80f1ffffe417.jpg (http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/3d3dfff71aa0f304ffff80f1ffffe417.jpg)

http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/af21843f135214fffff8088ffffe417.jpg (http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/af21843f135214fffff8088ffffe417.jpg)


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Arch Y. on November 12, 2011, 03:30:04 AM
Have academics attempted to test ancient remains from West Asia?  I know there are more difficulties, particularly for Y-DNA, given the environment, but, I wish folks with the resources and necessary expertise, would attempt extracting aDNA from the countless "Sumerian" remains excavated during the 20th century.  If King Tut is in fact R-M269, it is not far-fetched to imagine finding some form of R1b among the remains.  Even if we do not consider King Tut's speculative results, the same holds true.   

Quote
The cemetery was originally dug outside the walls of the city of Ur...Some 1,840 burials were found, dating to between 2600 BC and 2000 BC. They ranged from simple burials (with a body rolled in a mat) to elaborate burials in domed tombs reached by descending ramps. Sixteen of the early burials [Charles Leonard] Woolley called 'Royal Graves' because of the rich grave-goods, the presence of burial chambers, and the bodies of the attendants who had apparently been sacrificed.

If, and it's a big If, King Tut is R1b of any sort then maybe it shouldn't turn out to be such a big surprise if there's a connection to the Hittites. The time frame seems just about right. I would venture to guess R1b's presence in Europe would have been quite minimal at this time. Being that the oldest finds of R1b only point to the Bronze Age in Germany. I just wish we could find ancient DNA from the Hittites and from the region of Wilusa aka Troy. We should expect to see Neolithic R1b somewhere in the Anatolia and Caucasus region. So far nothing.

Arch


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Arch Y. on November 12, 2011, 03:38:06 AM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?


I think it's been solidified that R1b was NOT in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. This is a group that originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus region. My mind for some reason wants to push it towards Armenia and near Karahunj. If we are finding Neolithic type DNA from other haplogroups in Western Europe, with the only a Bronze Age finding of R1b in Germany, then we should expect Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b in Anatolia or the Caucasus. So far I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of ancient R1b DNA anywhere in the Mesolithic or Neolithic; kind of odd for an HG that is 18ky old. You would expect to find it somewhere; especially in Anatolia.

Arch


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 12, 2011, 06:20:31 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been solidly proven that R1b wasn't in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. We have less than a handful of aDNA y-dna results. A Mesolithic R1b find could pop anytime and surprise us all.

Of course, "R1b", at least the way I am using it, is shorthand or code for whatever subclade of R1b was current during whatever time period an aDNA discovery is dated to. I wasn't really talking about R1b in the literal M343 sense or in the R1b1a2/M269 sense. It doesn't seem likely either of those will ever be found in Europe.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 12, 2011, 07:36:20 PM
Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) in France, Derenburg (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html) in Germany, and in Spain (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/otzi-tyrolean-iceman-belonged-to-y.html), the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?


I think it's been solidified that R1b was NOT in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. This is a group that originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus region. My mind for some reason wants to push it towards Armenia and near Karahunj. If we are finding Neolithic type DNA from other haplogroups in Western Europe, with the only a Bronze Age finding of R1b in Germany, then we should expect Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b in Anatolia or the Caucasus. So far I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of ancient R1b DNA anywhere in the Mesolithic or Neolithic; kind of odd for an HG that is 18ky old. You would expect to find it somewhere; especially in Anatolia.

Arch


The sample is incredibly small at the moment and only capable of providing positive evidence of presence.  It is worthless in terms of providing solid negative evidence for absence at present.  For example the 4000 year period 7000BC-3000BC for the whole of southern Europe and Asia Minor is represented by three sites where remains have been sampled for ancient DNA. Four millenia in half a continent represented by three sites is beyond useless for negative evidence. 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: RArnold on November 13, 2011, 06:18:31 PM
Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that.  5000 is plenty time.  The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes.  How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc.  Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............  


If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force.  If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture.  Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story?  The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc..  But, what if there were no need for a supply line?  A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train.  I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized.  Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources. 

Makes sense to me at least.  At least until tomorrow.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: GoldenHind on November 13, 2011, 08:02:10 PM
Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that.  5000 is plenty time.  The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes.  How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc.  Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............  


If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force.  If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture.  Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story?  The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc..  But, what if there were no need for a supply line?  A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train.  I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized.  Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources. 

Makes sense to me at least.  At least until tomorrow.

Makes sense to me too. And it probably still will tomorrow morning.

Welcome back. I thought you might have been kidnapped by aliens and taken to a distant planet.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on November 13, 2011, 08:19:48 PM
Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that.  5000 is plenty time.  The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes.  How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc.  Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............  


If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force.  If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture.  Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story?  The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc..  But, what if there were no need for a supply line?  A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train.  I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized.  Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources. 

Makes sense to me at least.  At least until tomorrow.

I concur.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: RArnold on November 13, 2011, 08:56:52 PM
Nah, just Ohio. Thanks; nice to be back.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: A.D. on November 13, 2011, 09:24:42 PM
Armies and logistics could be the case I think the same would be true for nomadic tribes even if the nomadic life style was forced on them  i.e. had to leave their home land.   


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 13, 2011, 10:04:36 PM
The sample is incredibly small at the moment and only capable of providing positive evidence of presence.  It is worthless in terms of providing solid negative evidence for absence at present.  For example the 4000 year period 7000BC-3000BC for the whole of southern Europe and Asia Minor is represented by three sites where remains have been sampled for ancient DNA. Four millenia in half a continent represented by three sites is beyond useless for negative evidence.  
I like to play the naysayer role when it comes to ancient DNA. I do think it is important, but only as additional evidence.

As you cite, the sample is incredibly small and is not of much use for provide evidence of absence (of R1b for example.)

The same issue will probably cause inconclusive propositions even for positive results. We are seeing this discussion right not for E-V13. It is found in Neolithic Iberia, however, one contention is:  So what? that E-V13 currently found in Iberia is of a different set of lineages and still may have primarily come from some place east at a later date.

The positive evidence depends on what it is.  There is a big difference between finding an R-M343+ L23- person in Iberia in a Neolithic grave versus an M222+ person.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 14, 2011, 02:06:45 AM
From a letter of mine in this forum:

All the theories they have had in these years are wrecked: the Mutation Rate, the knowledge of cultivated persons like Nordtvedt, Klyosov etc. Now the same Klyosov, who has written a lot about this (an impressive waste of time), is updating his theories, but if you read attentively them, they are above all my “mutations around the modal”, my “convergence to the modal as time passes”, etc. What does it mean his discriminating the haplotypes and to say that the most part of the ancient ones fell extinct?

What Klyosov says is inconsistent and to say that the E-V13 found in Spain is from elsewhere respect the E-V13 of to-day only an escamotage.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on November 14, 2011, 07:39:29 AM
I saw the discussion about E-V13 at Rootsweb. I say "saw" because I cannot claim to have read all the posts.

As I recall, a popular theory about E-V13 is that it expanded in the Bronze Age, either from Anatolia or from some place in the Balkans north of Greece. Finding it in Neolithic Spain hasn't done that theory any favors. The Bronze Age expansion story could still be true, after a fashion, but it certainly seems unlikely.

Similarly, a few years ago, and, I think, up until quite recently, the story on G2a in Europe was that it represented descent from the Sarmatians. Personally, I always thought that one more than a little far fetched, but a lot of people bought it. Unless Ötzi was a Sarmatian, and unless the recent Neolithic G2a finds were also Sarmatians (I am being facetious here - there were no Sarmatians that long ago), the theory that G2a in Europe can be attributed to the Sarmatians is a bust.

The Sarmatians seem to be popular dream catchers. I have read claims that the J1 in Spain is to be held to their account. Apparently the Sarmatians specialized in depositing odd patches of y-dna here and there across Europe.

Of course, the Indo-Europeans, if such a people ever actually existed, are dream catchers, too. A very early R1b find could cause them to dematerialize tomorrow.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 14, 2011, 10:41:30 AM
...All the theories they have had in these years are wrecked...
All theories are not wrecked. Most theories have received counter-arguments, which they should.

What Klyosov says is inconsistent and to say that the E-V13 found in Spain is from elsewhere respect the E-V13 of to-day only an escamotage.
I haven't been following that and he could be inconsistent, but that does not mean it is not well within the possibilities that E-V13 in Neolithic Spain is not any closer related to the bulk of E-V13 in modern Spain than 3, 4 or 5 thousand years.  Surely you think there could be different sublineages developed from the original E-V13 folks with different migration paths. Does anyone think all of R1b had the same migration path and expansion?  Well, maybe you do.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: A.D. on November 16, 2011, 09:21:46 PM
wasn't there a population crash at the end of the  'international bronze age' as Neal Oliver calls it followed by the 'localized iron age'. Could that explain any thing  if the lactose persistence is linked to R1b it could. Maybe the social restructuring itself had an impact on the proportion of different DNA types .


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: OConnor on November 20, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
(As posted in another forum)


Western Norway had a maritime connection as seen in Bronze Age (and older)stone carvings.
They had ships back then. Where do you suppose they were sailing to, in these ships?
Or were they coming from someplace else leaving their marks in stone in Norway?


"The dominating motifs are ships and cup marks; there are also footprints, rings, anthropomorphic
representations, a chariot, and various geometric motifs. Two small panels have cup marks only.
Natural lines and crevices are sometimes incorporated into the carvings, e.g. at Unneset 7, where a
crack in the rock surface forms the keel of a boat. The majority of the rock art is dated to the middle
of the Bronze Age; however, some boats are dated to the Early Bronze Age (Mandt 1991; Wrigglesworth
2000, 2002). The close proximity to the sea and the fact that the majority of the carvings depict boats
can be seen as a maritime rock art tradition in this area." (pg.253)
http://www.ugr.es/~a...DF4/Melanie.pdf




Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 04, 2011, 12:51:20 AM
Even though it is not official, I think King Tutankhamun is the oldest ancient DNA.

Robert Tarin posted this at Rootsweb today. I think there is a little added credibility in that Thomas Krahn gave Robert his opinion.
Quote from: Robert Tarin
When all of this first began, I had a private exchange of email with Thomas Krahn of FTDNA and it was determined that those were not dual peaks. Therefore the values for DYS19 and DYS437 both are 14. You can see the haplotype posted on Ysearch by several persons......I believe the posting by Ysearch UH2BK has the same values I came up with.

Something else that I have not seen discussed after I mentioned it, was that the CODIS markers for Tutankhamun listed in the published study, when run in the OmniPop program, indicate similarity with Europeans.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 04, 2011, 03:37:57 AM
Orin Wells writes on RootWeb: “I wonder what the odds are that _anyone_ would match exactly on the 16 markers after 3,300 years?”

Not if you presuppose my theory:
1)   mutations around the modal
2)   convergence to the modal as time passes
3)   except when the mutations go for the tangent

These principles are the cause of the wrong calculation of the MRCA as has been manifested by the recent ancient DNA found: the current theories must be multiplied at least for 2.5.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 04, 2011, 03:12:30 PM
...These principles are the cause of the wrong calculation of the MRCA as has been manifested by the recent ancient DNA found: the current theories must be multiplied at least for 2.5.
What does this have to do with Ancient DNA?  Shouldn't we talk about this on an TMRCA related thread?  The good news on Ancient DNA is we have carbon dating methods.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 04, 2011, 03:52:09 PM
What does this have to do with Ancient DNA?  Shouldn't we talk about this on an TMRCA related thread?  The good news on Ancient DNA is we have carbon dating methods.
I don't know if you understood my answer: I was replying to Orin Wells, i.e. two haplotypes separated by 3300 years are comparable only if my principles are true, otherwise Orin Wells would be right.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 04, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
I guess you all probably saw this on Rootsweb.

Quote from: Anatole Klyosov
MY COMMENT:

The Tut's haplotype is not a "European" one, and all statements about its
"similarity with Europeans" are essentially statements that "it belongs to
R1b1a2 haplogroup". However, R1b1a2 are not necessarily "Europeans" as all
of us here do know.

It does not mean, of course, that it would be impossible to find a few dozen
Europeans whose 16 marker haplotype matches the Tut's one. However, it would
have nothing to do with his "descendants" or "relatives" except in a broad
term, that they all belong to R1b "tribe". It would indicate that (1) they
belong to the same haplogroup R1b, (2) silly statistics. As I see it, there
is a higher chance for those "matchers" to belong to R-M269* or R-L11
subclades (though other subclades can hit that silly statistics), however,
with a rather unusual DYS439=10 (not a common 12). There are only around
0.5% of R1b1a2 bearers in Europe with DYS439=10.

Having said that, my three conclusions:

(1) The haplotype 13 24 14 11 11 14 10 13 13 30 -- 16 14 19 10 15 12

(the first 10 are the FTDNA 12 marker panel without DYS426 and 388, the rest
are DYS458, 437, 448, GATAH4, DYS 456, 438)
is not a "European" haplotype. Therefore, when it was flashing on TV screen
(thank you Robert Tarin for your sharp eye and good skill in reading raw
data), it was NOT an ordinary R1b haplotype picking at the lab just as an
example. It was a rather unique haplotype, very likely to be the ancient
Tut's haplotype.

(2)  The haplotype above did not come to Egypt from Europe. It is too
ancient to be a European haplotype some 3300-4000 years ago (see below). It
came from the R1b1a2 migration from the Middle East along the North
African - Mediterranean coast between 5500 and 5000 years before present. On
its migration route (or a military expedition?) the R1b1a2 bearers went
through Egypt and established their presence, by setting superior rulers.
They were ancestors of King Tut, who lived 1,700-2,200 years later. The
R1b1a2 bearers had continued their route, reached the Atlantic Ocean,
crossed the Strait of Gibraltar, landed in the Pyrenees, established the
Bell Beaker culture around 4800 ybp, and moved up North to populate the
continental Europe between mainly 4500 to 3000 ybp.

(3) The Tut's haplotype (above) differs from M269* base haplotype by 8
mutations, from L51 base haplotype by 6 mutations, from L11 base haplotype
by 6 mutations, from U106 base haplotype by 8 mutations, from its brother
P316 base haplotype by 6 mutations. 8 mutations for the 16 marker haplotype
translate 8/0.034 = 235 --> 306 conditional generations (25 years each),
that is to 7650 years. 6 mutations translate to 6/0.034 = 176 --> 214
conditional generations, that is to 5350 years. This is a distance between
the Tut's haplotype and said base haplotypes. Since Tut lived about 3,300
ybp, and the "age" of M269*, L51, L11 and P312 base haplotypes is around
7,000, 5300, 4600, and between 3525 and 4100 ybp (calculated with different
datasets), respectively, a common ancestor of King Tut and M269*, L11, or
P312 base haplotypes lived 8975, 6975, 6625, or 6100-6400 years ago,
depending on which R1b subclade Tut belonged to. They are all pre-European
dates for R1b. The last situation (P312) is very unlikely, as well as even
less likely for U106. M269*, L51 and L11 are more likely for King Tut to
belong to.

In a nutshell: King Tut was a descendent of R1b1a2 moving from Middle East
(Mesopotamia, Lebanon, Sumers, etc.) along the North African - Mediterranean
sea coast, who established a mighty ruling group in Egypt, which became the
Pharaohs. His subclade is likely M269* or maybe L11 or L51. There are no
European descendants of him or his close relatives, since they did not come
to Europe. The Tut's haplotype did not descend from European R1b haplotypes.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov

Of course, even if King Tut was R1b of some kind (which seems likely), he lived from about 1341 BC to about 1323 BC. That's still Bronze Age, and that's as far back as we get with R1b thus far.

By the way, I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Klyosov's theory that R1b migrated from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa, but it is an interesting theory.

It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on December 04, 2011, 10:31:15 PM
The trail of R1b into Europe is clear from the Danubian-Black Sea corridor to the fringes of the Atlantic. I do not see much proof of a Mediterranean-North African migration taking place.

The question is, why argue a position that is contrary to the empirical evidence thus far, all the while disregarding Occam's Razor?


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on December 04, 2011, 10:45:42 PM
I found this interesting:

Quote
One of the obvious features of Marfan syndrome is dolichocephaly.  With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.  From the control group, Thutmose II and the TT320-CCG61065 mummy show dolichocephaly, with cephalic indices of 73.4 and 74.3, respectively. Because there is no sign of premature closure of sutures,  none of the skull shapes can be considered pathological. The complex diagnosis of Marfan syndrome is based on certain combinations of major and minor clinical features. Following this classification, a Marfandiagnosis cannot be supported in these mummies. Antley-Bixler syndrome is also excluded in Tutankhamun and Akhenaten because their brachycephaly is not attributable to craniosynostoses, and further signs of Antley-Bixler or other syndromes are missing or unspecific.

Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
JAMA.
2010;303(7):638-647. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.121


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on December 04, 2011, 10:54:22 PM
It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?

There was a blood relationship that existed between the royals of Mitanni and the Egyptians.  Along the female lines. Not paternal.  Definitely a subject worthy of further investigation.

People Of Ancient Assyria (Jorgen Laessoe)

Quote
Politically, the city of Nuzi admitted dependence on a central Hurrian state-authority established some time prior to 1500 B. c. in the area along the Habur, the northern tributary of the Euphrates. The capital of this Hurrian kingdom was Washukkanni, a city that it has recently with some likelihood been proposed to identify with the present Tell Feheriya; the excavation that could confirm this assumption has not yet, however, been undertaken. The time when a series of lesser Hurrian communities were united through the establishment of a greater state cannot be exactly determined, and this Hurrian state, called Mi t tanni , which lasted till about 1350 B.C. , was of varying extent and influence. In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries, when Mittanni reached the peak of its power, its kings enjoyed an equal footing with the pharaohs of Egypt and with the Kassite kings of Babylon; after a period marked by clashes of interest in Syria, friendly relations were inaugurated between the ruling houses of Mittanni and Egypt,
and a lively correspondence ensued. Thus, among the finds at Tell el-Amarna, were letters from the king of Mittanni, Tushratta, to Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton).

The earliest Mittanni king whose name is so far known is Parattarna, who can be dated to the period immediately after 1500 B.C. The geographical extent of the kingdom of Mittanni in the middle of the century, about 1450 B.C., is illustrated by the fact that Saushatar, then ruling at Washukkanni, appears as supreme authority
both in Alalah [Tell Atshana] in northern Syria and in Nuzi, east of the Tigris. After many years’ conflict with Thothmes III of Egypt over the control of Syria-wars that brought the Egyptian army as far as the Euphrates, and as far north as Aleppo and Carchemish-under Saushatar Mittanni was recognized as a great power on a par with Egypt. Under Artadama (about 1430 B.C.), his successor, a daughter of the king of Mittanni was sent to Egypt as the bride of Thothmes IV; similarly, Amenhotep III married a daughter of Sudarna II of Mittanni (about 1400 B.C.). When Egyptian doctors and Egypt’s own gods had not been successful in curing an illness from which Amenhotep III suffered, Sudarna sent the statue of the goddess Ishtar from her temple in Nineveh to his Egyptian confrere, and the ensuing recovery of the Egyptian king must have been powerful propaganda for the Assyrian goddess. Under Tushratta (about 1380 B.C.) friendly relations between the royal courts of Egypt and Mittanni still continued; Amenhotep IV, who as a religious reformer bore the name of Akhenaton, took one of Tushratta’s daughters, Tatuhepa, into his harem.

The beginning of renewed independence for Assyria can be attributed to the reign of Assur-nadin-ahhe II (c. 1393-1384 B.C.). From the Assur of his time we only know the signature with which he caused his bricks to be stamped: ‘Assur-nadin-ahhe, viceroy of the god Assur’. Thus in his official designation he laid no claim to territorial possessions. We know, however, from the archives at Tell el-Amarna that his envoys obtained audience of Amenhotep III, and that he received economic assistance from Egypt; it may well be that the Egyptians saw in him a possible ally against the Hittites, whose expansion into Syria at that time threatened to conflict with the interests of the pharaohs. Assur-uballit (1356-1320 B.C.) was the first to consolidate Assyria anew as a significant power in the Near East; it was under this king that the Middle Assyrian kingdom was established. At this time there was some doubt in diplomatic circles as to the extent to which Assyria was or was not to be regarded as a vassal-state of Babylon. The Kassite king of Babylon, Burnaburiash, was of the opinion that the Egyptian court had slighted him by receiving the envoys of Assur-uballit; on a later occasion he also complained to the pharaoh Tutankhamon that Assur-uballit in his letters to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) had described himself as ‘great king’. Nevertheless, Egyptian envoys soon appeared at the court of Assur-uballit, and relations between Babylon and Assur improved; the understanding between southern and northern Mesopotamia was strengthened by a marriage between a Kassite prince of Babylon, Karaindash, and a daughter of Assur-uballit named MuballitatShru’a. So it can be understood that the last king of Mittanni, Mattiwaza, after his flight from Washukkanni, should apply to the king of Babylon for protection without receiving any sympathy: Babylon had by now already accepted Assur as a Mesopotamian ally in the current game of power-politics and had written off Mittanni as an entity that belonged to a period now closed.

A cultural element that the Old World undoubtedly owes to the Hurrians and their Indo-European rulers is the horse. As a draught animal in war and peace, the horse became universal in the Near East after the arrival of the Hurrians. Evidence of the part the Hurrians played in this revolution in cultural history can be traced as far as
Egypt, in that marianni, the term for a chariot-warrior, was adopted as a loan-word in Egyptian.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on December 04, 2011, 11:00:09 PM
It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?
Definitely a subject worthy of further investigation.


Yes, it is now obvious Tut's DNA comes from elsewhere.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on December 05, 2011, 01:02:21 AM
Yes, it is now obvious Tut's DNA comes from elsewhere.

Not sure if I have mentioned this before here.  Given the topic, it is relevant.  

The Egyptians referred to Mitanni as "Naharin."  The Egyptians referred to the Hurrians as "Suri."

In Akkadian, the Assyrian self-appellation was "Asurayu" or "Surayu."

In our Assyrian-Aramaic dialect, our self-appellation is "Suraya."  We spell it, as follows: alaph, simkat, waw, resh, yod, alaph.  The first alaph is silent.  If it were not silent, it would be "Asuraya."  In our Assyrian-Aramaic dialect, we refer to our homeland as "Bet Naharin."  

EDIT:
I should also add that our self-appellation is nothing new.  It is attested in the nearly 2000 years worth of our Church writings. 

An interesting reference to an Assyrian-Egyptian similarity very long after the reign of Tut.  And, ~200 years after Assyria ceased to be an independent state.  Although, there is nothing, likely, of substance here, bearing on the question of R1b and Tut. 

Herodotus: from The History of the Persian Wars, c. 430 BCE

VII.63: "The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their heads made of brass, and plaited in a strange fashion which is not easy to describe. They carried shields, lances, and daggers very like the Egyptian; but in addition they had wooden clubs knotted with iron, and linen corselets. This people, whom the Hellenes call Syrians, are called Assyrians by the barbarians [Persians]. The Chaldeans served in their ranks, and they had for commander Otaspes, the son of Artachaeus."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/greek-babylon.asp


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 05, 2011, 10:52:56 AM
... Of course, even if King Tut was R1b of some kind (which seems likely), he lived from about 1341 BC to about 1323 BC. That's still Bronze Age, and that's as far back as we get with R1b thus far.
....
It is interesting that during his reign Tut sought to restore relations with the Mitanni. Perhaps there was a blood relationship there that influenced him?
Yes, that's what I wonder about too. Tut's dynasty (the 18th Dynasty) is supposed to be part of the "New Kingdom" which involved foreign rulers.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: A.D. on December 05, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
By foreign could that be the Hiksos ? If I remember from school they came from the East with chariots and a few other traits that have been looked at in R1b origins.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 07, 2011, 09:26:15 PM
I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.

What is the evidence for that? Is there an R1b SNP trail across North Africa to Iberia? What about haplotype variance?

My impression is that the R1b SNP trail is from southeast to northwest, beginning in western Asia or eastern Europe.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: NealtheRed on December 08, 2011, 09:12:55 AM
I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Mike Walsh on December 08, 2011, 06:55:58 PM
I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.

What is the evidence for that? Is there an R1b SNP trail across North Africa to Iberia? What about haplotype variance?
I think Anatole K is relying on non-genetic evidence in some respect. The nature of cattle in Iberia seem to indicate an African origin. Bell Beaker folks reached along the coast of N. Africa too along with R1b in Chad, Egypt, etc.  I think the consideration of the Basques and their language is also part of it. Apparently he must get higher diversity in Iberia too.

I don't see a trail of L11* back to L51* back to L23* along this route although I do get that there is V88. That's the wrong lineage, though. I know Anatole is thinking there is R-M269* in Iberia so maybe that's it, but still there is a lot of L23* back in the Caucasus... so I just don't get it.

On Dec 7th Anatole posted this in respect to U106 and P312.
Quote from: Anatole Klyosov
This is very little, and since both of them are "brother" subclades and both were derived from L11, it is clear that they are almost "twins". They could not travel separately from some place in Asia, they just did not have enough time for that. Those six mutations between P312 and U106 place THEIR common ancestor at 4800 ybp .... So, I believe that ALL P312 and U106 derived of the North Africa Iberia route, and probably at the very end of that route.
I agree with him on one very important point and Goldenhind has noted that Ken Nordtvedt has the same point.  U106, P312 and L11 are close in age so they must have arose in about the same place.

I think U106 is a key because of its high North European presence. However, U106 shows up in SE France and Austria according to some frequency maps. That plus the fact that I  (most others don't) get U106 as younger than P312 or U152 or even L21, implies the possibility that L23 or L11 came to Iberia, P312 was born there and has it expanded out early on, one of it's L11* brothers begat to U106.

In an effort to compare U106 from the south to the north in Western Europe I compared these three areas. There is some overlap.

N_Cont_Europe_______: Var=0.79 [Linear 36] (N=206) ---- Germany, Denmark, Poland, the Baltic Countries
South_Europe________: Var=0.87 [Linear 36] (N=31) ---- Iberia, Aquitane, SE France, Switzerland, Italy and Austria
Nordic_Area_________: Var=0.71 [Linear 36] (N=46) ---- Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland and Denmark


I thought I'd compare with Eastern Europe just for grins as that is another possible launch point.


East Europe_________: Var=1.23 [Linear 36] (N=58)


This is Poland, the Baltic Countries, Hungary, Czech Rep, Russia, Ukraine, etc.

To me U106 looks older in NE Europe than S/SW Europe.

Anatole seems to think U106 and P312 "could not travel separately" but then either
1) they were traveling very quickly as they grew in those early days or
2) they arose from central point in Europe like Hungary.

Anthony's vision of PIE would explain that U106 (pre-Germanic IE) went north along the east side of the Carpathians while P312 (pre-Celto-Italic IE) was on the other side following the Danube.  

Manco et al's dairy/secondary products revolution also would explain it with the Stelae and Beaker folks being two of a kind in Western European output of the movement.

The LBK is very tempting but just doesn't fit Iberia and is a little too early, and then there is a lack of R1b aDNA (to-date) problem.

I think we tend to underestimate the nature of this potential expansion. Antole's manifestation of this is "could not travel separately... not have enough time for that." Vince V has noted that Y DNA does not have to follow the culture one for one. Y DNA does not have to travel with ploddingly settlement by settlement at the pace of that process.  Explorers, traders and conquerors (heard of conquistadors?) could have moved faster and with less archealogical impact.... accounting for strong geographic patterns for U106, U152 and L21. P312*, L11* and Z196 seems to be scattered amongst its brothers.

How they got to SE Europe in the first place (be it the Steppes or the Bosporous or the Agean) I haven't a clue.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: GoldenHind on December 08, 2011, 08:53:08 PM
As I have said many times, I don't think the history of U106 will ever be understood until we have a better idea of its subclade distribution. We may find that some of its oldest subclades are found in unexpected places.

An origin in, or at least an expansion from somewhere in the vicinity of Hungary would not surprise me. From there (or wherever it was) I can't see any reason why they all had to go in only one direction.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 08, 2011, 09:49:33 PM
I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.

It's hard to assess motives, but we all have them. He is an R1a=Indo-European partisan, though. That much is obvious. He has to get R1b away from the path of PIE, and moving it to North Africa does that nicely.

I would like to see him lay out all his evidence in a clear, orderly pattern. I have followed his posts on Rootsweb, and I have yet to see him really do that. He seems to expend most of his energy being condescending.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 08, 2011, 10:01:05 PM
I have never really understood why Dr. Klyosov thinks R1b, and particularly the strain that led to L11, P312 and U106, trekked from the Middle East to Iberia via North Africa.
Mostly ideological.

It's hard to assess motives, but we all have them. He is an R1a=Indo-European partisan, though. That much is obvious. He has to get R1b away from the path of PIE, and moving it to North Africa does that nicely.

I would like to see him lay out all his evidence in a clear, orderly pattern. I have followed his posts on Rootsweb, and I have yet to see him really do that. He seems to expend most of his energy being condescending
.

And Klyosov is Russian, so there could be an element of national pride there.

But I have my own preferences and desire a glorious history (and prehistory) for my own ancestors, too.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: OConnor on December 09, 2011, 07:05:14 AM
According to this.. African Cattle are probably from the Near East.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/cattle.htm


Recent mitochondrial DNA studies support the archaeological notion of multiple domestication events, with genetics indicating that breeds domesticated in the Near East and introduced into Europe where they mixed with local wild animals (aurochs), and with African domesticated cattle. Although the site of Rosenkof in northern Germany has been the focus of some discussion arguing in support of an independent European domestication of cattle, aDNA evidence does not support such a designation, and no evidence for local domestication of cattle in Europe has been identified. In addition, a 2010 publication suggests that African cattle are also likely descended from previously domesticated cattle in the Near East and/or Indus Valley.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 09, 2011, 08:00:21 AM
The movement of various flora and fauna north and east out of Iberia following the last Ice Age used to be cited as evidence that R1b moved out of Iberia after the last Ice Age, as well. It should be obvious that just because there were animals and plants that moved in a certain direction from a certain place does not mean a specific y haplogroup was present there at the time and made the same move.

So, the supposed movement of cattle from North Africa into Iberia - if that happened - is hardly evidence that any kind of R1b made the same move.

I don't see an R1b trail across North Africa. Where is it?

The presence of V88 among the Fulani in Africa doesn't really support it, unless one wants to argue the trek across Africa began as long ago as the time when R1b was at the as-yet-undifferentiated P25 (R1b1) level. V88 is a branch off of P25 and parallel to P297. All the other R1b stuff is descended from P297, except for M335, which is also parallel to P297 and V88.

If King Tut was R1b of some kind, that isn't really evidence of movement all the way across North Africa and into Iberia either, any more than finding that Bronze Age R1b in the Lichtenstein Cave is evidence that R1b trekked from Russia across Poland and Germany enroute to France.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: A.D. on December 09, 2011, 11:23:29 AM
live stock has been moved in curragh's by binding the animals legs. These kind of boats  have (or are thought to)  ancient Near eastern origin. It could  they were trading cattle in the med. It wouldn't take many if selective breeding was the motive for this. If cattle from the Med, were more docile they would be better for milking. I'm not saying lactose persistence, or R1b came via the Med. but they may have wanted to improve their herds. My Da was a dairy farmer and he got into a family argument over breeds for milking  and breeds for meat. The milking breeds were smaller and didn't get as much for meat if they needed to be sold and vice- versa. This must be an age old consideration.       


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 09, 2011, 09:55:15 PM
I have been trying on Rootsweb to ask Dr. Klyosov about his theory, but I'm not getting very far. He's just becoming defensive. Maybe I didn't couch my questions and possible objections in humble enough language.

Ah, well.

Bernard tried, as well, and got pretty much the same sort of response.

 


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on December 09, 2011, 11:19:55 PM
One of the fellas on Rootsweb posted a link to this Algerian data.  Frequency is ~11% (11/102).

Code:
### 393 390 19 391 385 385 426 388 439 389i 392 389b 458 459 455 454 447 437 448 H4 456 438 635
031 12 24 13 11 11 13 xx xx 12 13 13 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 24
051 12 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 12 12 13 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
032 12 24 14 10 11 15 xx xx 14 13 14 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 14 16 12 23
133 12 25 14 11 12 14 xx xx 12 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 13 15 12 23
049 13 23 15 11 11 14 xx xx 12 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 23
060 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 14 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 18 12 15 12 23
044 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
117 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
135 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
053 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 13 14 13 30 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 13 23
015 14 24 13 11 11 13.2 xx xx 12 14 13 31 16 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 14 12 23

Analysis of Y-chromosomal SNP haplogroups and STR haplotypes in an Algerian population sample
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w218230060723252/414_2007_Article_203_ESM.html


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Humanist on December 09, 2011, 11:39:13 PM
The lone Algerian haplotype, from the R-P312 and Subclades Project:
163647 R-P312*   Algeria   
13   24   14   11   11   14   12   12   11   13   13   29   18   9   9   11   11   24   15   19   29   15   15   16   17


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 10, 2011, 01:04:18 AM
From Dna-forums :
Posted Today, 18:05 PM
Une discussion intéressante a lieu sur rootsweb avec Anatole Klyosov au sujet de sa théorie de l'arrivée de R1b en Europe occidentale via l'Afrique du Nord. Robert Tarin a donné un lien sur une étude du chromosome Y en Algérie: http://www.springerl...18230060723252/ qui contient en données supplémentaires des haplotypes R1b. Les voici:
Resized to 54% (was 1123 x 208) - Click image to enlarge

Pour valider la théorie de Klyosov il faudrait que ces R1b soit des L23, L150, L51 ou encore L11. Par contre si ce sont des P312 ou U106, ils viennent d'Europe occidentale. Didier qu'en penses tu ?


Posted Today, 19:35 PM
Pour le premier haplotype avec DYS385=11-13.2 voir ySearch EE57U (Acuna Araya, Chile) et DCQ4V (Williams, Grosse Bretagne). Très difficile que ces haplotypes soient d’origine Algérienne.

I traslate what Claire wrote: “For the first haplotype with DYS385=11-13.2 see ySearch EE57U  (Acuna Araya, Chile) and DCQ4V (Williams, Great Btitain). It is difficult that this haplotypes are of Algerian origin, i.e. they are of recent European descent. Next I’ll examine also the others.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Bren123 on December 10, 2011, 01:22:01 AM

As you cite, the sample is incredibly small and is not of much use for provide evidence of absence (of R1b for example.)

The same issue will probably cause inconclusive propositions even for positive results. We are seeing this discussion right not for E-V13. It is found in Neolithic Iberia, however, one contention is:  So what? that E-V13 currently found in Iberia is of a different set of lineages and still may have primarily come from some place east at a later date.

The positive evidence depends on what it is.  There is a big difference between finding an R-M343+ L23- person in Iberia in a Neolithic grave versus an M222+ person.

Haven't they found a large amount of E-V13( or something similar) in an area in North Wales?


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 10, 2011, 07:34:09 AM

As you cite, the sample is incredibly small and is not of much use for provide evidence of absence (of R1b for example.)

The same issue will probably cause inconclusive propositions even for positive results. We are seeing this discussion right not for E-V13. It is found in Neolithic Iberia, however, one contention is:  So what? that E-V13 currently found in Iberia is of a different set of lineages and still may have primarily come from some place east at a later date.

The positive evidence depends on what it is.  There is a big difference between finding an R-M343+ L23- person in Iberia in a Neolithic grave versus an M222+ person.

Haven't they found a large amount of E-V13( or something similar) in an area in North Wales?

Yes, in the town of Abergele, which, as I understand it, was an old Roman trading settlement. The level of E1b1b was something like 39%, which is extremely high for anyplace in northern Europe, where E1b1b is generally more like 1-3%.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 10, 2011, 09:32:08 AM
One of the fellas on Rootsweb posted a link to this Algerian data.  Frequency is ~11% (11/102).

Code:
### 393 390 19 391 385 385 426 388 439 389i 392 389b 458 459 455 454 447 437 448 H4 456 438 635
031 12 24 13 11 11 13 xx xx 12 13 13 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 24
051 12 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 12 12 13 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
032 12 24 14 10 11 15 xx xx 14 13 14 28 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 14 16 12 23
133 12 25 14 11 12 14 xx xx 12 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 15 19 13 15 12 23
049 13 23 15 11 11 14 xx xx 12 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 16 12 23
060 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 14 29 17 xx xx xx xx 15 18 12 15 12 23
044 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 12 23
117 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 29 18 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
135 13 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx 11 13 13 30 17 xx xx xx xx 14 19 12 15 12 23
053 13 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx 13 14 13 30 18 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 15 13 23
015 14 24 13 11 11 13.2 xx xx 12 14 13 31 16 xx xx xx xx 15 19 12 14 12 23

Analysis of Y-chromosomal SNP haplogroups and STR haplotypes in an Algerian population sample
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w218230060723252/414_2007_Article_203_ESM.html

Like Anatole Klyosov would say: “Some people's got feeling tells them that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but I cannot help them either. Personally, I prefer to leave my gut feeling alone. I prefer DATA and their proper (as much as possible) interpretations”.

See this postings of mine and the date:
Re: Estimating L21 using only recently tested samples in ysearch
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2009, 12:53:27 AM »
“I'll post to Ysearch some interesting haploype with DYS385=11-13.2”.

See the Topic: R1b1b2 ht15 cluster in North Africa (385b = 13.2)  (Read 740 times)
begun by Argiedude.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: rms2 on December 10, 2011, 11:07:43 AM
Pardon me, Gioiello, but it seems to me Dr. Klyosov is woefully short on data.

Dr. Klyosov talks a lot about data, but when asked for it he gets defensive and condescending. I, for one, am close to writing him off as any kind of reliable authority.

One Algerian haplotype with 385= 11 - 13.2, or even a cluster of such haplotypes, doesn't seem all that important to me, especially given the fact that 385 is generally not reported so precisely. Under most circumstances, that value at 385 would be reported as 11-13, would it not?

That seems more likely to be of fairly recent European provenance than of ancient origin.





Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 10, 2011, 04:09:20 PM
Pardon me, Gioiello, but it seems to me Dr. Klyosov is woefully short on data.
Dr. Klyosov talks a lot about data, but when asked for it he gets defensive and condescending. I, for one, am close to writing him off as any kind of reliable authority.
One Algerian haplotype with 385= 11 - 13.2, or even a cluster of such haplotypes, doesn't seem all that important to me, especially given the fact that 385 is generally not reported so precisely. Under most circumstances, that value at 385 would be reported as 11-13, would it not?
That seems more likely to be of fairly recent European provenance than of ancient origin.
It is what I think too. If you read the threads I have cited, the discussion between Argiedude and me, you can see that this was my thinking and perhaps not of Argiedude's at least in the beginning.
It is true that this marker is incompletely tested by FTDNA, for this I have examined haplotypes extracted from SMGF or YHRD. The mutation 13.2 (but also 14.2 or 11.2 found in Europeans) is very rare, a quasi SNP, and demonstrates, I think, a clear relation and pretty certainly an European origin, probably from Italy, perhaps Sardinia.
You should read Dna-forums and see that nothing has changed from some years ago, all what I have always fought against.
About Klyosov, really a great scholar in his field (Chemistry), I have written here that he has wasted dramatically the most part of his time and his energies. I have written many postings against him on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog”, but now he is a big success on Rootsweb and I cannot reply to him there, but what I had to say to him I have already said. But see how his theories are welcome for everybody who is against an European origin and above all an Italian one of these haplogroups. All this is ridiculous.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 11, 2011, 12:49:53 AM
Rich, what you say, that there could be many DYS385 fractionated which don’t appear because FTDNA doesn’t test them, is denied by the SMGF database:

DYS385=10-13.2: 1 (0,003%) : McLeod (Scotland)
DYS385=11-13.2: 13 (0,0037%)
DYS385=11-14,2: 3 (0,008%) : Kitchen (USA), Kitchen (USA), Jones (USA)
DYS385= 11-15,2: 4 (0.011%) : Daines (England)

We could say that the origin is in the British Isles, but you know that I think that the ancestry is in Italy. Anyway if someone demonstrates that we all come from the British Isles I wouldn’t be surprised.


Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 11, 2011, 01:39:11 AM
McLoad (ySearch: CKH6F) matches McLoad (ySearch: 82YZ8) who is R1b1a2a1a1a4a.
We don’t know if these DYS385=10-13.2 are linked with the others and they could be due to different haplogroups. Certainly if the Algerians were R1b1a2a1a1a4a, we should change all our hypotheses about their origin and think to Vandals more than Italians or ancient Romans.



Title: Re: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
Post by: Maliclavelli on December 11, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Amongst the Algerian haplotypes, the weirdest is the R1b1a2a with the values:
16,13,24,28,17,14,11-15,12,10,14,23,14,14,15,12,19

It matches more closely some known haplotypes like those of Volkov, a Russian Jew with the weird DYS426=10, and some Europeans like Ehrmann. The haplotype seems of the Armenian type. See Setyan I have put on ySearch from SMGF: ID: 4ED77.
It seems then it has come from Middle East, difficult to say when and with which people.
The other Algerian  haplotypes could have come from everywhere and in every time. It seems certain that they have different origins and aren’t the witness of an ancient North African heritage.