World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 01:27:08 AM



Title: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 01:27:08 AM
Appears to be a nice summary of all the data up until April, 2012 concerning haplogroups in Europe and the Caucasus, touches everything from Balaresque.et.al.2010 to Myres.et.al.2010, to Busby.et.al.2012.

Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus: the stories told by uniparental and autosomal markers (http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/25366/jarve_mari.pdf?sequence=1)

Quote from: Mari Järve

Conclusions

  • The mutation M458, representing a founder effect around the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Central and East Europe, separates most of the European R1a carriers from the spread of this Y chromosome haplogroup that spans from South Asia to Siberia and Europe.
  • In West Europe another major Holecene era founder effect is denoted by the mutation M412 within the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b, and the spatial and temporal pattern of a sub-clade within R1b-M412 is in close correlation with the spread of the Linear Pottery Neolithic culture.
  • Populations of the Caucasus are autosomally much more uniform than might be expected from their diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. Conversely, the variation of Caucasian Y chromosome lineages exhibits sharp differences between populations and sub regions, likely due to founder effects and genetic drift in (patrilineally) isolated populations.
  • The Caucasus has not served as a corridor for the movement of people from Near/Middle East to East Europe or to Europe in general. Instead, there is a genetic continuity from the Near Eastern to East European populations along the western coast of the Black Sea, suggesting a predominant trajectory of the flow of genes and humans.
  • Y chromosome STRS with longer repeat units have a lower rate of evolution, in some cases making them better suited for population genetic studies than their counterparts with shorter repeat units.

Also from the same author, and apparently the source of most of Myres.et.al.2010 data:

Refining the phylogeny and phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup R1b1b (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf)


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 30, 2012, 02:16:10 AM
From this paper it is clear that R-L23 had some centres of diffusion, independent, and that the Alpine zone was one of this and from that L23 came all the European subclades. I consider victorious my battle (actually it has been a war) about the Italian Refugium. Call it Alpine if you want, but I consider my war finished, and, if you permit, with a complete victory.

Maliclavelli is: Prof. Gioiello Tognoni (Calcinaia, Pisa, Italy: 5 March 1948), R-L23+, K1a1b1e.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: palamede on May 30, 2012, 06:04:39 AM
Appears to be a nice summary of all the data up until April, 2012 concerning haplogroups in Europe and the Caucasus, touches everything from Balaresque.et.al.2010 to Myres.et.al.2010, to Busby.et.al.2012.

Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus: the stories told by uniparental and autosomal markers (http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/25366/jarve_mari.pdf?sequence=1)

Quote from: Mari Järve

Conclusions

  • The mutation M458, representing a founder effect around the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Central and East Europe, separates most of the European R1a carriers from the spread of this Y chromosome haplogroup that spans from South Asia to Siberia and Europe.
  • In West Europe another major Holecene era founder effect is denoted by the mutation M412 within the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b, and the spatial and temporal pattern of a sub-clade within R1b-M412 is in close correlation with the spread of the Linear Pottery Neolithic culture.
  • Populations of the Caucasus are autosomally much more uniform than might be expected from their diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. Conversely, the variation of Caucasian Y chromosome lineages exhibits sharp differences between populations and sub regions, likely due to founder effects and genetic drift in (patrilineally) isolated populations.
  • The Caucasus has not served as a corridor for the movement of people from Near/Middle East to East Europe or to Europe in general. Instead, there is a genetic continuity from the Near Eastern to East European populations along the western coast of the Black Sea, suggesting a predominant trajectory of the flow of genes and humans.
  • Y chromosome STRS with longer repeat units have a lower rate of evolution, in some cases making them better suited for population genetic studies than their counterparts with shorter repeat units.

Also from the same author, and apparently the source of most of Myres.et.al.2010 data:

Refining the phylogeny and phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup R1b1b (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf)
The papers are from a researcher of Tartu University-Estonia
Interesting like synthesis of studies, but according to the knowledge of SNPs in 2008. Now, in Europe, in more of the R1a1a1g1-M458 branch (Central Europe, peak in Central,South Poland), Bohemia), 3 important branches have been found : R1a1a1i-L664 (Germanic), R1a1a1g1-Z280 (Eastern and central Europe), R1a1a1g3 (Western and North Europe). Asiatic R1a is dominated  by the big branch R1a1a1h-Z93.  

Conclusions of the other paper :
"R1b1b" = R1b1a-P297
"R1b1b1" = R1b1a1-P73
"R1b1b2" = R1b1a2-M269
M412 = R1a1a2a1-L11
M466 = R1a1a2a1a1b3-U152
Quote from: Mari Järve

1. The two main sub-hgs of the Y chromosome hg R1b1b, R1b1b1 and R1b1b2, differ
in age and geographic distribution:
• R1b1b1 is a rare and older lineage (coalescence age 27,233±13,060 years),
found at low to moderate frequencies among Eastern European, Turkic and
Caucasian samples, being totally absent in Western Europe;
• R1b1b2 is considerably younger (coalescence age 18,301±3,566 years) and
common in Western Europe, but also spread in some of the Bashkir populations;
2. The two-partite spread of sub-hg R1b1b2  is mostly explained by the novel SNP
marker M412, which has its ancestral state in the majority of the eastern R1b1b2
samples (the R-M269* lineage), and its derived state in the absolute majority of the
western R1b1b2 samples (the R-M412 lineage and its sub-lineages);
3. The sole notable exception to the western spread of the R-M412 lineage, the
northern Bashkirs, who exhibit an uncommonly high frequency of sub-hg R-M466
(inside the R-M412 lineage), appears to be the result of a strong founder effect, as
these samples also have nearly identical STR haplotypes;
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker
of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula
after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000);
5. Recalibrating the effective mutation rate of STR markers of 6.9·10-4  per 25 years
(Zhivotovsky et al. 2004) based on the variances of 15 markers of the Applied
Biosystems AmpFlSTR® Yfiler™ Kit had very little effect, but the calculations
suggested that the mutation rate of penta- and hexanucleotide STR markers is
significantly lower, estimated as 2.4·10-4 per 25 years;
6. As illustrated by an analysis of  of the STR haplotypes of sister clades R1b1b and R1a, STR markers, including penta- and hexanucleotide microsatellites, can be used to distinguish Y chromosome hgs and, in some cases, subdivisions within hgs, without the help of SNP marker data.
For 5 and 6, I suppose these results are also found in different tables of mutation rate for each STR. This can be linKed  to a lot of workS and discussions about the validity to calculate dates by the divergence of STRs
For 4, the author Mari Järve refers to the paleolithic western origin of R1b-M412/L11 and its sub-branches. Very controversial by fans of neolitic/chalcolitic oriental origins. Personally, although no present scientifiv proof supports it, I guess R1b came to western europe with Gravettians from South Siberia (35,000BP), our Esthonian author thinks Gravettian was the culture of Hg I coming from Near East. I guess hg I came from Middle East/Zagros (45,000bp)with the Proto-Aurignacian derived from Zagros Baradostian.  

For 1,2,3, Bashkirs are a very interesting population. Maybe, indicating the origin of R1b : peak of R1b1a1-M73 in South-East Oural ; presence of "old" branches  R1b=M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L11 isolated in this region of Eurasia. But presence of new  branchd R1b-U152 in  North Oural  with haplotype divergence showing  a recent founding effect is troubling.  Bashkir U152/M466 exists in a small Bashkir trinbe in Perm Krai in Central-West Oural.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on May 30, 2012, 07:50:31 AM
Nice find Jean L.!  This is a lot to chew on.  It does support most of Busbys work and Zhivs analysis.  It will be very interesting to read the comments on this work by the "amateur genetic community".  Its apparent already that Machiavelli is ecstatic.

I'll have to read in more detail his comments about longer STR motifs and their applicability to TMRCA estimates, but off the top, I'm sure he can't mean CDY a,b.

My overall impression is very positive, at least it supports most of my points of view. Based on this work, maybe we should rethink R1b again?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 30, 2012, 08:36:24 AM
Its apparent already that Machiavelli is ecstatic.
After having read the paper, I should say that it doesn't say anything new, only a review of previous studies we did already know and discussed.
Important for me was the map of L23, which demonstrates, I think, what for me is the Italian (or Alpine) Refugium I lay at least at the Younger Dryas time.
That L23 is more Northwards doesn't exclude that during the Younger Dryas was more Southwards, but for me nothing changes.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on May 30, 2012, 08:47:39 AM
The map of U106 (aka M405) is completely wrong. A peak in NW Switzerland with decreasing frequency towards the lower Rhine goes against all known studies, including Myres.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 08:50:10 AM

The papers are from a researcher of Tartu University-Estonia
Interesting like synthesis of studies, but according to the knowledge of SNPs in 2008.

Well the paper you are quoting, which is the second one I posted, is indeed from 2008, hence the old nomenclature.

 http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf)
That was his MSc’s thesis, and in fact it includes most of the data used by Myres.et.al.2010, which should be no surprised given that his/her mentors are coauthors on the Myres.et.al.2010, and Rootsi is the main author of Rootsi.et.al.2012.  


Conclusions of the other paper :
"R1b1b" = R1b1a-P297
"R1b1b1" = R1b1a1=P73
"R1b1b2" = R1b1a2-M269
M412 = R1a1a2a1-L11
M466 = R1a1a2a1a1a-U106

Here is figure-9 from the MSc Thesis, and it shows the phylogenetic tree of R1b as of 2008.

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Jarveetal2008Figure-9.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Jarveetal2008Figure-9.jpg)

As you can see “R1b1b1” is actually R1b-M73, I believe you have a typo in there, also R1b-M466 is R1b-U152, R1b-M405 is in fact R1b-U106, so Bashkirs do not have R1b-U106, they have R1b-U152, which was later known through the Myres.et.al.2010 study, due to the fact that is the same data.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 30, 2012, 08:53:34 AM
Of course Western Tuscany is a little place and not representative, but what should I think?
I have tested 4 persons:

25% R-M269/DYS462=12
50% R-L23/L150+ (and of course I don’t count my son)
25% R (probably U152/DYS492=14, tested by SMGF)


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 08:54:54 AM
The map of U106 (aka M405) is completely wrong. A peak in NW Switzerland with decreasing frequency towards the lower Rhine goes against all known studies, including Myres.

I believe there is a typo, or something, I too was baffled by it.  Anyhow, I wanted to concentrate on the latest PhD Thesis (http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/25366/jarve_mari.pdf?sequence=1), I included the MSc Thesis as a side thing. 
I think it’s good to have it as a summary of everything up until April, 2012. It talks about the aDNA findings, and the Caucasus studies. Also find it interesting that they conclude that:

Y chromosome STRS with longer repeat units have a lower rate of evolution, in some cases making them better suited for population genetic studies than their counterparts with shorter repeat units.

Which is something I have been pondering about for a while.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on May 30, 2012, 09:26:13 AM
Obviously, the assumptions one starts with make all the difference. If one uses mutation rates that make R1b old enough to be Paleolithic in Europe, then - voila! - it is Paleolithic in Europe. If one does not, then it is not and must have come from someplace else at a later date.

The biggest part of the problem is no one knows for sure, and there is no consensus on Zhivotovsky versus germ line, etc. Y-dna itself has no certain way of telling us its age. When we find it in ancient remains, then we know for certain that it was in a certain place at a certain time.

Meanwhile, the Paleolithic thing, which I personally think is preposterous, staggers on like some sort of Caribbean zombie, and all the soporific arguments about this STR and that are next to meaningless.

"Paleolithic R1b" didn't have much of a following here until dna-forums died and we inherited some of its ex-members. I had kind of begun to think that no one believed that stuff anymore. Apparently, I was wrong.

Let's see if I can summarize it.

R1b-M269 arises in Asia in the distant Paleolithic past. Some of its carriers leave all their closest genetic cousins in the old homeland and trek across Europe or perhaps North Africa to arrive in Iberia in time to hole up there for the LGM. At some point this now-western R-M269 becomes mostly R-M412/L51. When it emerges from its LGM hibernation, it spreads eastward and northward into the rest of Europe in that form.

When the Neolithic Revolution occurs, R-M412 initially heads for the hills and tries to avoid the bearers of the strange new technology. Later, carriers of R-M412 learn how to farm and raise livestock and somehow out-reproduce the original Neolithic farmers. They eventually defy all the odds and become the dominant y haplogroup in most of Europe.

At one or more points during the lengthy European saga of R-M412, most of its bearers die off, leaving only a handful of males or perhaps just one male to transmit it to later generations. These "genetic bottlenecks" create the "illusion" of reduced age for western R-M412, but, rest assured, it really is of the greatest antiquity there.

Meanwhile, back in old Asia, the R-M269 xL51 stuff is still around, separated from its distant western cousins now by about 12k years.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: A_Wode on May 30, 2012, 09:28:07 AM
The thesis paper also states that R1b1b1 is absent among west Europeans. This isn't true at all as there is a cluster which contains an Italian, Spaniard, French/German and more- though I expect this is the result of their extremely limited dataset.

I also didn't know this R1b1b1 haplotype existed in the Caucasus among Balkars, it is currently absent from all the FTDNA R1b1b1 data - and seems to fall outside the 3 clusters Vineviz identified A, B1, B2:

13, 22, 14, 11, 14, 14/15, ........13,13,29


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 30, 2012, 09:52:59 AM
The thesis paper also states that R1b1b1 is absent among west Europeans. This isn't true at all as there is a cluster which contains an Italian, Spaniard, French/German and more- though I expect this is the result of their extremely limited dataset.

I also didn't know this R1b1b1 haplotype existed in the Caucasus among Balkars, it is currently absent from all the FTDNA R1b1b1 data - and seems to fall outside the 3 clusters Vineviz identified A, B1, B2:

13, 22, 14, 11, 14, 14/15, ........13,13,29
I have written a lot (also here) about R-M73 in Western Europe and I think having demonstrated that our haplotypes are more varied than the Asian ones, like also for R-M335.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:55:13 AM
Obviously, the assumptions one starts with make all the difference. If one uses mutation rates that make R1b old enough to be Paleolithic in Europe, then - voila! - it is Paleolithic in Europe. If one does not, then it is not and must have come from someplace else at a later date.

The biggest part of the problem is no one knows for sure, and there is no consensus on Zhivotovsky versus germ line, etc. Y-dna itself has no certain way of telling us its age. When we find it in ancient remains, then we know for certain that it was in a certain place at a certain time.

Meanwhile, the Paleolithic thing, which I personally think is preposterous, staggers on like some sort of Caribbean zombie, and all the soporific arguments about this STR and that are next to meaningless.

"Paleolithic R1b" didn't have much of a following here until dna-forums died and we inherited some of its ex-members. I had kind of begun to think that no one believed that stuff anymore. Apparently, I was wrong.

I didn’t bring this study as a “Paleolithic R1b” zombie, or whatever you wanna call it. Isn’t a bit of an Ad Hominem to compare a given theory to a Zombie? Nonetheless, the initial purpose of this was to have a summary of all studies published(including aDNA and Caucasus studies) up until April 2012. In fact in section 2.7 the author does an extensive analysis of the calculations of TMRCA, here are some excerpts:

Quote from: Mari.et.al.2012
The ‘evolutionary’ mutation rate, and even the use of Y-STRs for dating purposes in general, have also been heavily criticised. The main shortcoming of the ‘evolutionary’ rate is that it tends to overestimate dates. This is mostly due to men having different numbers of offspring, with the majority of men alive today descending from a relatively small percentage of forefathers (likely of higher social status). Therefore, a small number of more prolific forefathers have contributed the largest share of the accumulated Y-STR variance, which in its turn means that the variance is higher among the descendants of the prolific men than among the descendants of the less prolific men. Given this expansion of a few lineages at the expense of others and the fact that the more numerous descendants of the prolific forefathers are most likely to be sampled, we overestimate the time to the MRCA by mostly sampling men from lineages where Y-STR variance accumulates faster than the ‘evolutionary’ rate. The authors of the ASD method themselves have pointed out that an effective mutation rate higher than the ‘evolutionary’ rate would be observed in case of a sudden jump in the size of the haplogroup after its appearance or in case of an expanding population (Zhivotovsky et al. 2006), both of which are often reasonable assumptions for post-Neolithic human populations. The confidence intervals of Y-STR-based age estimates are wide, influenced by the chosen generation length, the inherent stochasticity of the  mutation process, and the mutation rate, which in its turn is influenced by the demographic history of a
particular haplogroup in a particular population (Zhivotovsky et al. 2006).

[…]

Until new and hopefully more reliable methods can be implemented, based for instance on SNPs from massive resequencing of a considerable portion (e.g., some tens of millions of bp) of the NRY combined with reliably dated calibration (derived, e.g., from ancient DNA studies), Y-STR variation analysis, despite its known imperfections, will continue to be used for dating. It is also likely that the new re-sequencing-based methods will offer, first and foremost, more precise estimates to date the major splits of the Y chromosome tree, whereas in case of the younger branches, the faster Y-STR clock may long remain the method of choice.

So the moral of the story, is hold you guns, and read the study before criticizing it of using erroneous assumptions.

Let's see if I can summarize it.

R1b-M269 arises in Asia in the distant Paleolithic past. Some of its carriers leave all their closest genetic cousins in the old homeland and trek across Europe or perhaps North Africa to arrive in Iberia in time to hole up there for the LGM. At some point this now-western R-M269 becomes mostly R-M412/L51. When it emerges from its LGM hibernation, it spreads eastward and northward into the rest of Europe in that form.

Not likely Asia, but somewhere in Western Russia/Ukraine, and likely it did so around 15-20 kya, so not so distant. In my opinion R1b-M269 was widespread in Europe, it wasn’t just holed up in Iberia, so no point to bring in the FC refuge.


When the Neolithic Revolution occurs, R-M412 initially heads for the hills and tries to avoid the bearers of the strange new technology. Later, carriers of R-M412 learn how to farm and raise livestock and somehow out-reproduce the original Neolithic farmers. They eventually defy all the odds and become the dominant y haplogroup in most of Europe.

It is likely that when the farmers first arrived to the Balkans they pushed some R1b-L23 folks Northeastwards, and hence why Romania gets a high variance. As for R1b-L51, I don’t think it existed yet, it probably emerged later on while hiding in Western Europe, the same would apply to R1b-L11, in fact neither one of those two experienced a sudden expansion, so it is likely they originated in a very small population that wasn’t that successful. As for out-reproducing the farmers, did the hunter-gatherers in the Steppe’s learn the technology from the farmers, and then conquered all of Europe. What is wrong with some of those folks that have been sitting around in Central Europe for a while learning the technology from the incoming invaders. Are hunter gatherers in Western Europe somehow dumber than those in the Steppe, such that the former can learn anything from the farmers, yet the latter manage to conquer all of Europe.

At one or more points during the lengthy European saga of R-M412, most of its bearers die off, leaving only a handful of males or perhaps just one male to transmit it to later generations. These "genetic bottlenecks" create the "illusion" of reduced age for western R-M412, but, rest assured, it really is of the greatest antiquity there.

Meh, R-M412 is neither part of a lengthy European saga, nor did it have a lot of bearers, so no need to think of a lot of them dying off, the big guys here are R1b-P312, they are the ones that took off abruptly.

Meanwhile, back in old Asia, the R-M269 xL51 stuff is still around, separated from its distant western cousins now by about 12k years.

Yes meanwhile, the R1b-L23(xL51) folks that were displaced towards the Steppes by the incoming farmers become the half story of the PIE group, the other half being R1a, and they go everywhere, but apparently just as they stop abruptly in Iran-Pakistan, they do so too around Central Europe, however the fact that some R1b-L23(xL51) is still found today in Western European shows that some of them did mingle around their distant cousins, and voila that explains why some R1b-P312 bearers are nonIndoEuropean speakers, whereas others aren't. If the R1b-L23(xL51) taught PIE to their cousins in Central Europe, then you get Celtic-Italic, you name it, expansions to explain the presence of IE languages in Western Europe. Whereas if R1b-L51 is born of PIE speaker R1b-L23 coming from the steppes in the Bronze age we would have a hard time explaining why groups with 80%+ of R1b-L51+ speak a nonIndoEuropean language.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: IALEM on May 30, 2012, 10:29:35 AM
Just a point on language replacement/expansion. I have seen repeatedly the expression R1a taught IE to R1b or similar. That is rsented by some, as if R1b were some poor aboriginal population  taught by lofty R1a conquerors.
Languages expand usually, and more so in premodern times, by learning, not teaching. That is usually the case when an egalitarian, excluyent society meets a hierarchical, including society, so that members of the former join the later in order to move up the social ladder. That is a well known phenomenon described by sociologist Fredrik Barth and in fact it is the explanation adopted by Mallory to explain the expansion of IE languages into Western Europe.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 10:34:31 AM
... My overall impression is very positive, at least it supports most of my points of view....
Maybe it is just me, but I think the assessment of the paper should be on the evidence, the analysis and the logic.  Whether it agrees with one point of view hopefully is not a big deal. We just want to get the best hypothesis of what happened and if this paper helps us understand that, it is good.  I'm glad for the additional focus on R1b.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 10:50:54 AM
Just a point on language replacement/expansion. I have seen repeatedly the expression R1a taught IE to R1b or similar. That is rsented by some, as if R1b were some poor aboriginal population  taught by lofty R1a conquerors.
Languages expand usually, and more so in premodern times, by learning, not teaching. That is usually the case when an egalitarian, excluyent society meets a hierarchical, including society, so that members of the former join the later in order to move up the social ladder. That is a well known phenomenon described by sociologist Fredrik Barth and in fact it is the explanation adopted by Mallory to explain the expansion of IE languages into Western Europe.
I think some people may be mistaken in understanding negative feedback on the concept of R1a teaching R1b a language. I personally don't care if this was more demand-pull or force-push.

For example, I speak English. I am proud of that and would not have it any other way. I'm pretty sure, though, that some major lineages of mine spoke Slavic, other forms of German as well as Celtic languages. My paternal lineage probably spoke Celtic for a long period of time.  So what? It is a good thing to speak English today, I think.

I have some ancestors that hated Oliver Cromwell related to his work in Ireland, but on another side I may be related to him. So what? Should I resent myself? Should I resent my Slavic side which has R1a?  Of course, not. In reality, rather than being consider lofty, my R1a sides were poor farmers and actually given somewhat degradatory/humorous labels. I won't name them so I don't offend others even if they don't offend me. Such things are not offensive to me as I am a composite of both the offended and the offender.

However, I do argue against hypotheses that either appear wrong to me or that I can't understand. I do this to test them and see if their proponents have convincing arguments. I really do not know what the first haplogroup(s) who spoke PIE was. I do not know which haplogroup(s) spoke primary pre-PIE language(s). I don't see how we will ever know given they weren't putting this stuff in writing back then.

To say R1a taught R1b or that R1b learned IE languages from R1a is possible, but seems a bit simplistic of a view and I just plain don't see much direct evidence for it.  I guess we could argue about cirmcumstancial evidence, which we do, but there is a lot of cirmcumstancial evidence that indicates that R1b as well as R1a were involved in some of the original PIE cultures. I'd actually be quite surprised if at least a little I or J wasn't too. Those lineages may not have survived until today, though. I don't know.

Ialem, you are not doing this, but I do resent when some people cry some kind of foul of a political nature just because of a different point of view than their own.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 11:11:29 AM
... "Paleolithic R1b" ..... Let's see if I can summarize it.

R1b-M269 arises in Asia in the distant Paleolithic past. Some of its carriers leave all their closest genetic cousins in the old homeland and trek across Europe or perhaps North Africa to arrive in Iberia in time to hole up there for the LGM. At some point this now-western R-M269 becomes mostly R-M412/L51. When it emerges from its LGM hibernation, it spreads eastward and northward into the rest of Europe in that form.

When the Neolithic Revolution occurs, R-M412 initially heads for the hills and tries to avoid the bearers of the strange new technology. Later, carriers of R-M412 learn how to farm and raise livestock and somehow out-reproduce the original Neolithic farmers. They eventually defy all the odds and become the dominant y haplogroup in most of Europe.

At one or more points during the lengthy European saga of R-M412, most of its bearers die off, leaving only a handful of males or perhaps just one male to transmit it to later generations. These "genetic bottlenecks" create the "illusion" of reduced age for western R-M412, but, rest assured, it really is of the greatest antiquity there.

Meanwhile, back in old Asia, the R-M269 xL51 stuff is still around, separated from its distant western cousins now by about 12k years.

I think you summarized the problems I have with "R1b is Paleolithic in Europe" hypotheses. They are clearly not parsimonious in terms of what had to have happened for them to be true.  Rb1 must have been extremely lucky to survive the advanced incomers, but only to within a whisper of their extinction to roar back fully equipped with the new cultural practices and some advantage.

I think a couple of other factors could also be added. One, R1b has been unlucky enough to remained hidden in Europe aDNA findings during the early to pre-Neolithic ages. Two, other European haplogroups show greater diversity so diversity does not "dead end" or completely "saturate" 4-5K ybp....

Well, nothing is impossible so certainly R1b could have been Paleolithic in Europe... although that doesn't mean the R1b-L51 (M412) of today came from Western Europe R1b (M343) lineages.  

Thanks, Jean L, for posting the links and bringing this to attention. I will read through it.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on May 30, 2012, 11:23:46 AM
... My overall impression is very positive, at least it supports most of my points of view....
Maybe it is just me, but I think the assessment of the paper should be on the evidence, the analysis and the logic.  Whether it agrees with one point of view hopefully is not a big deal. We just want to get the best hypothesis of what happened and if this paper helps us understand that, it is good.  I'm glad for the additional focus on R1b.
  I agree with your comment re: the merits of the paper.  That said, there has been a lot of crow on the DNA forums when the myres/balaresque papers were published and then foul when Busby came out. Not that I'm in the same league as Machiavelli, I do think that he and I among others have been contrarians to the views held by yourself and rms2.

Until DNA came around, the archaeological views of western europe re Aurignacian, Gravettian eras and subsequent descendants held sway and age was guestimated.  Recent carbon dating has given us a much better arechaeological timeframe to fit the DNA data into.  But now we have all these haplogroup flavors to deal with and who came first and when is the dominant question.  I for one am not even sure the ISOGG framework for hgs will stand the test of time?  As several have mentioned this is more of a review paper than an advancement in our level of understanding.  But, it does vote for certain points of view over others and completely omits any discussion of Variance.  Why?

I think this paper is a product of academia as it is today, warts and all.  I believe good science will prevail in the end.  JMHO.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 11:25:10 AM
I believe good science will prevail in the end.  JMHO.

I absolutely agree. It may take time and this is all just part of the process.


Are you saying they ignore DNA diversity?
...  As several have mentioned this is more of a review paper than an advancement in our level of understanding.  But, it does vote for certain points of view over others and completely omits any discussion of Variance.  Why?

Why do we have to ask why?  If they ignore diversity, don't they explain why they ignore and why whatever techniques they are using are better? It's not like DNA diversity is never analyzed in these papers. Hopefully, I misunderstand your statement.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Appears to be a nice summary of all the data up until April, 2012 concerning haplogroups in Europe and the Caucasus, touches everything from Balaresque.et.al.2010 to Myres.et.al.2010, to Busby.et.al.2012.

Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus: the stories told by uniparental and autosomal markers (http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/25366/jarve_mari.pdf?sequence=1)

Quote from: Mari Järve

Conclusions

  • The mutation M458, representing a founder effect around the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Central and East Europe, separates most of the European R1a carriers from the spread of this Y chromosome haplogroup that spans from South Asia to Siberia and Europe.
  • In West Europe another major Holecene era founder effect is denoted by the mutation M412 within the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b, and the spatial and temporal pattern of a sub-clade within R1b-M412 is in close correlation with the spread of the Linear Pottery Neolithic culture.
  • Populations of the Caucasus are autosomally much more uniform than might be expected from their diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. Conversely, the variation of Caucasian Y chromosome lineages exhibits sharp differences between populations and sub regions, likely due to founder effects and genetic drift in (patrilineally) isolated populations.
  • The Caucasus has not served as a corridor for the movement of people from Near/Middle East to East Europe or to Europe in general. Instead, there is a genetic continuity from the Near Eastern to East European populations along the western coast of the Black Sea, suggesting a predominant trajectory of the flow of genes and humans.
  • Y chromosome STRS with longer repeat units have a lower rate of evolution, in some cases making them better suited for population genetic studies than their counterparts with shorter repeat units.

Also from the same author, and apparently the source of most of Myres.et.al.2010 data:

Refining the phylogeny and phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup R1b1b (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf)
The papers are from a researcher of Tartu University-Estonia
Interesting like synthesis of studies, but according to the knowledge of SNPs in 2008. Now, in Europe, in more of the R1a1a1g1-M458 branch (Central Europe, peak in Central,South Poland), Bohemia), 3 important branches have been found : R1a1a1i-L664 (Germanic), R1a1a1g1-Z280 (Eastern and central Europe), R1a1a1g3 (Western and North Europe). Asiatic R1a is dominated  by the big branch R1a1a1h-Z93.  

Conclusions of the other paper :
"R1b1b" = R1b1a-P297
"R1b1b1" = R1b1a1-P73
"R1b1b2" = R1b1a2-M269
M412 = R1a1a2a1-L11
M466 = R1a1a2a1a1b3-U152
Quote from: Mari Järve

1. The two main sub-hgs of the Y chromosome hg R1b1b, R1b1b1 and R1b1b2, differ
in age and geographic distribution:
• R1b1b1 is a rare and older lineage (coalescence age 27,233±13,060 years),
found at low to moderate frequencies among Eastern European, Turkic and
Caucasian samples, being totally absent in Western Europe;
• R1b1b2 is considerably younger (coalescence age 18,301±3,566 years) and
common in Western Europe, but also spread in some of the Bashkir populations;
2. The two-partite spread of sub-hg R1b1b2  is mostly explained by the novel SNP
marker M412, which has its ancestral state in the majority of the eastern R1b1b2
samples (the R-M269* lineage), and its derived state in the absolute majority of the
western R1b1b2 samples (the R-M412 lineage and its sub-lineages);
3. The sole notable exception to the western spread of the R-M412 lineage, the
northern Bashkirs, who exhibit an uncommonly high frequency of sub-hg R-M466
(inside the R-M412 lineage), appears to be the result of a strong founder effect, as
these samples also have nearly identical STR haplotypes;
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker
of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula
after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000);
5. Recalibrating the effective mutation rate of STR markers of 6.9·10-4  per 25 years
(Zhivotovsky et al. 2004) based on the variances of 15 markers of the Applied
Biosystems AmpFlSTR® Yfiler™ Kit had very little effect, but the calculations
suggested that the mutation rate of penta- and hexanucleotide STR markers is
significantly lower, estimated as 2.4·10-4 per 25 years;
6. As illustrated by an analysis of  of the STR haplotypes of sister clades R1b1b and R1a, STR markers, including penta- and hexanucleotide microsatellites, can be used to distinguish Y chromosome hgs and, in some cases, subdivisions within hgs, without the help of SNP marker data.
For 5 and 6, I suppose these results are also found in different tables of mutation rate for each STR. This can be linKed  to a lot of workS and discussions about the validity to calculate dates by the divergence of STRs
For 4, the author Mari Järve refers to the paleolithic western origin of R1b-M412/L11 and its sub-branches. Very controversial by fans of neolitic/chalcolitic oriental origins. Personally, although no present scientifiv proof supports it, I guess R1b came to western europe with Gravettians from South Siberia (35,000BP), our Esthonian author thinks Gravettian was the culture of Hg I coming from Near East. I guess hg I came from Middle East/Zagros (45,000bp)with the Proto-Aurignacian derived from Zagros Baradostian.  

For 1,2,3, Bashkirs are a very interesting population. Maybe, indicating the origin of R1b : peak of R1b1a1-M73 in South-East Oural ; presence of "old" branches  R1b=M269, R1b-L23, R1b-L11 isolated in this region of Eurasia. But presence of new  branchd R1b-U152 in  North Oural  with haplotype divergence showing  a recent founding effect is troubling.  Bashkir U152/M466 exists in a small Bashkir trinbe in Perm Krai in Central-West Oural.

There is some Z280+ and Z283+ in Central Asia. Whether that is ancient or recent admixture is another sotry.

I also don't get why you think the  Proto-Aurignacian and ydna I come from the Zagros. There is close to zero I in that area. And no one has ever found IJ.

I'm curious on your thoughts on M73 and what brought it to Central Asia. my theory is that proto Turks picked it up on their way to Central Asia but others have suggested it migrated east with Proto Indo-Iranians.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 11:52:55 AM
I think you summarized the problems I have with "R1b is Paleolithic in Europe" hypotheses. They are clearly not parsimonious in terms of what had to have happened for them to be true.  Rb1 must have been extremely lucky to survive the advanced incomers, but only to within a whisper of their extinction to roar back fully equipped with the new cultural practices and some advantage.

Well, doesn’t the steppe hypothesis propose that R1b-L23(xL51) suddenly became the new deal, and swiped all the G2a farmers that had been in Europe for millennia. What is the difference between that line of thinking, and assuming that after a while HG in Western Europe managed to bounce back. Are HG in the Steppe special compared to those in Western Europe?

I think a couple of other factors could also be added. One, R1b has been unlucky enough to remained hidden in Europe aDNA findings during the early to pre-Neolithic ages. Two, other European haplogroups show greater diversity so diversity does not "dead end" or completely "saturate" 4-5K ybp....

What is the age of I1 in Europe? Not the interclade age of I1 and I2, but the intraclade age of I1, it is 5000 ybp per the table you posted from Marko H. What is the intraclade age of R1b-L150 5700 ybp per the same datasheet. So what happened to I1, which Afaik is supposed to be one of the few Mesolithic haplogroup, why is I2 much older than I1, could it be because good old I2 knew better, and happened to tag alone with the incoming farmers, whereas I1 suffered the same fate as the R1b-L23 bearers in Western Europe?

Again, I feel like I am repeating myself here, if R1b-L23 doesn’t show up in Cardial Catalonia, or Pre-Beaker Southern France, could it be because it was still in the Western fringes of the Atlantic, think Pyrenees, Basque Country, Brittany. 

I might be wrong, but I say that R1b-L23 pre-Bronze age is more likely to be found both in the Atlantic fringes, and in the Eurasian Steppe. Yes!! I am talking about two dispersals of R1b, one R1b-L150+ from Western Europe, and one of R1b-L23(xL150) from the Steppes, the latter was likely Indo-European speaking, the former wasn't.
 


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on May 30, 2012, 11:56:45 AM
I believe good science will prevail in the end.  JMHO.

I absolutely agree. It may take time and this is all just part of the process.


Are you saying they ignore DNA diversity?
...  As several have mentioned this is more of a review paper than an advancement in our level of understanding.  But, it does vote for certain points of view over others and completely omits any discussion of Variance.  Why?

Why do we have to ask why?  If they ignore diversity, don't they explain why they ignore and why whatever techniques they are using are better? It's not like DNA diversity is never analyzed in these papers. Hopefully, I misunderstand your statement.
  As I said above this is a long paper which I haven't read in detail, so I will not comment in detail; just at the general observation level.

re: diversity, I don't have the same confidence in diversity that you do.  It only estimates coalescence age not TMRCA.  It weights its estimates by the properties of the entries, which may not represent the original distribution at all.  I'm afraid that all the current diversity estimates are biased by the population samples available.  We know the population has grown tremendously in the last few K years.  If you argue the entries are all descendants of a few "successful" ancestors (the genghis khan bias), then you are biasing toward those haplotypes; If you argue the coalescent entry hypothesis then again you are using a few successful entries who started a broad population expansion.

I believe there are outliers, who get washed out in the statistical bath of diversity who probably more represent the age of subclades than diversity does.  JMHO.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on May 30, 2012, 02:43:45 PM
The map of U106 (aka M405) is completely wrong. A peak in NW Switzerland with decreasing frequency towards the lower Rhine goes against all known studies, including Myres.

And the map for U152 (aka M466) is also completely wrong - highest frequency in SE France and more frequent in most of France than Italy? I think they screwed up the x and y values while applying the Kriging technique on their maps.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I believe good science will prevail in the end.  JMHO.

I absolutely agree. It may take time and this is all just part of the process.


Are you saying they ignore DNA diversity?
...  As several have mentioned this is more of a review paper than an advancement in our level of understanding.  But, it does vote for certain points of view over others and completely omits any discussion of Variance.  Why?

Why do we have to ask why?  If they ignore diversity, don't they explain why they ignore and why whatever techniques they are using are better? It's not like DNA diversity is never analyzed in these papers. Hopefully, I misunderstand your statement.
 As I said above this is a long paper which I haven't read in detail, so I will not comment in detail; just at the general observation level....

Okay, I thought your question "why?" was important and pointing to something meaningful about the paper.  I guess not.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 02:58:52 PM
I think you summarized the problems I have with "R1b is Paleolithic in Europe" hypotheses. They are clearly not parsimonious in terms of what had to have happened for them to be true.  Rb1 must have been extremely lucky to survive the advanced incomers, but only to within a whisper of their extinction to roar back fully equipped with the new cultural practices and some advantage.

Well, doesn’t the steppe hypothesis propose that R1b-L23(xL51) suddenly became the new deal, and swiped all the G2a farmers that had been in Europe for millennia. What is the difference between that line of thinking, and assuming that after a while HG in Western Europe managed to bounce back. Are HG in the Steppe special compared to those in Western Europe?

This reminds of political discussion where instead of defending one's view, a politician (apparently because there is no good defense) just moves onto attack mode on other alternatives, preferrably strawman alternatives that are easy to attack.

I don't know if R1b-L23xL51 came from the Steppes.  I think legitimate cases can be made in the context of cultural movements that R1b-L23 lineages expanded westward from either the Steppes, SE Europe, Anatolia or even the Near East.   I don't know what is most likely.

I think a couple of other factors could also be added. One, R1b has been unlucky enough to remained hidden in Europe aDNA findings during the early to pre-Neolithic ages. Two, other European haplogroups show greater diversity so diversity does not "dead end" or completely "saturate" 4-5K ybp....
.....
Again, I feel like I am repeating myself here, if R1b-L23 doesn’t show up in Cardial Catalonia, or Pre-Beaker Southern France, could it be because it was still in the Western fringes of the Atlantic, think Pyrenees, Basque Country, Brittany.  

I might be wrong, but I say that R1b-L23 pre-Bronze age is more likely to be found both in the Atlantic fringes, and in the Eurasian Steppe. Yes!! I am talking about two dispersals of R1b, one R1b-L150+ from Western Europe, and one of R1b-L23(xL150) from the Steppes, the latter was likely Indo-European speaking, the former wasn't.

Do you have reason why you think R1b-L150+ was lurking along the Atlantic fringe before and during the LBK and Cardial Neolithic advances?

We know for certain that L150+ and L23+ L150- lineages had one Most Recent Common Ancestor who was L23+ L150-. Where and when do you think the MRCA for R1b-L23 (both L150+ and L150-) was?

Your split (east/west) personality for L23 scenario is about to get quite difficult.  I think you will have to place the L23+ L150- MRCA in Central Europe for him to send children both to the Atlantic and Caucasus in very quick fashion at a time when transportation was worse than it was post Neolithic.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
Isn't R1b-L23 supposed to be from West Asia ( in this caseAnatolia, Armenia, NW Iran)?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 03:31:34 PM
This reminds of political discussion where instead of defending one's view, a politician (apparently because there is no good defense) just moves onto attack mode on other alternatives, preferrably strawman alternatives that are easy to attack.

I did defend my point, when I postulated my hypothesis. Richard Stevens brought the concern that why out of the sudden would HG in Western Europe overpower farmers after being in the shadows for millennia, I argued that why should we expect HG in Western Europe to be any different from those in the Steppes. If hypothesis B assumes that HG learned x technology from farmers, and one is pushing for hypothesis B, it is a bit of a double standard to question hypothesis A based on the exact same assumption that was made on hypothesis B, I was simply pointing it out. If you think that is a strawman, then I think your sidetracking is an Ad Hominem. Easy as that.

I don't know if R1b-L23xL51 came from the Steppes.  I think legitimate cases can be made in the context of cultural movements that R1b-L23 lineages expanded westward from either the Steppes, SE Europe, Anatolia or even the Near East.   I don't know what is most likely.

Yes, and that doesn’t invalidate that there could have been descendants of R1b-L150 living in Western Europe, when the good ol’ R1b-L23(xL51) folks decided to head West from the Steppes and bring PIE with them.

Your split (east/west) personality for L23 scenario is about to get quite difficult.  I think you will have to place the L23+ L150- MRCA in Central Europe for him to send children both to the Atlantic and Caucasus in very quick fashion at a time when transportation was worse than it was post Neolithic.

Have you been reading what I have been saying? Pre-Neolithic R1b-L23 (xL150) was widespread in Europe, when the G2a folks arrive, they drew a hole in the middle of the R1b-L23(xL150) folks, some of them ran for the Steppes, some were cornered in the fringes of Western Europe.  Where was R1b-L150 born you might ask, well R1b-L150 was born likely a cave in Western Europe. 

Why do you think that in terms of intra-clade G2a(11 kya per Marko.H) gets about the same age as I2a(12 kya per Marko.H)?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: secherbernard on May 30, 2012, 03:32:10 PM
Nothing new in this R1 study from Mari Järve. The author confirms the Myres and Underhill papers about R1b and R1a in Europe. They spread in Europe during neolithic with the use of the Zhivotovsky mutation rate:
Quote from: Mari Järve
Novel SNP markers M458 and M412 define major European-specific subclades, likely associated with Neolithic expansions, in Y chromosome haplogroups R1a and R1b, respectively, providing a refined picture of the phylogeographic distribution of these two haplogroups that comprise about half of the European male gene pool.
The author notices that the main shortcoming of the ‘evolutionary’ rate is that it tends to overestimate dates. So the spread of R1a and R1b in Europe could be later than neolithic times.
The interesting point is about Caucasus:
Quote from: Mari Järve
The genetic discontinuity between the North Caucasus and the East European Plain, contrasting with continuity through Anatolia and the Balkans, suggests that the movement of people from the Near/Middle East to Europe took place around the western flank of the Black Sea and not through the Caucasus.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 04:02:51 PM
Your split (east/west) personality for L23 scenario is about to get quite difficult.  I think you will have to place the L23+ L150- MRCA in Central Europe for him to send children both to the Atlantic and Caucasus in very quick fashion at a time when transportation was worse than it was post Neolithic.

Have you been reading what I have been saying? Pre-Neolithic R1b-L23 (xL150) was widespread in Europe, when the G2a folks arrive, they drew a hole in the middle of the R1b-L23(xL150) folks, some of them ran for the Steppes, some were cornered in the fringes of Western Europe.  Where was R1b-L150 born you might ask, well R1b-L150 was born likely a cave in Western Europe.  

I think I understand what you are saying, but still R1b-L23 has a MRCA - a single man, a real person. Where and when was he?  Some how he left a close-in descendent (L150+) to the west while leaving L150- all over and primarily to the east. When do you think L150 was born in his cave in Western Europe?  When and where did the L23 MRCA come about?

My opinion is there wasn't much time for L23 L150- to spread out, but that depends on where you think L23 came from and when.  This is the difficulty I have with your hypothesis.
Your split (east/west) personality for L23 scenario is about to get quite difficult.  I think you will have to place the L23+ L150- MRCA in Central Europe for him to send children both to the Atlantic and Caucasus in very quick fashion at a time when transportation was worse than it was post Neolithic.
I guess you are saying L150+ is of Western European origin. Where is L23+ from? Since we are both using Marko's intraclade dating which is really a time of early expansion estimate, he has L23 as 5700 ybp or 3700 BC.  Around 3700 BC, where do you think L23's MRCA, who was L150- (but L150's ancestor), was?

Marko has the intraclade for L150 as of about the same time as L23.... both 3700 BC.  Either the L150's MRCA was geographically very close to L23's, or the L23 pre-L150 lineage moved very quickly to get to West Europe and/or L23's non-L150 lineages moved very quickly to get to Anatolia and the Caucasus.

Why do you think that in terms of intra-clade G2a(11 kya per Marko.H) gets about the same age as I2a(12 kya per Marko.H)?

I don't have any particular hypothesis or concern about it, but I guess you think I should.  What's important about this?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 04:32:25 PM
I think I understand what you are saying, but still R1b-L23 has a MRCA - a single man, a real person. Where and when was he?  Some how he left a close-in descendent (L150+) to the west while leaving L150- all over and primarily to the east. When do you think L150 was born in his cave in Western Europe?  When and where did the L23 MRCA come about?
My opinion is there wasn't much time for L23 L150- to spread out, but that depends on where you think L23 came from and when.  This is the difficulty I have with your hypothesis.

Ok R1b-L23 MRCA was likely born somewhere in the Northern Balkans, when pre-Neolithic, possibly 15-18 kya. So R1b-L23 in its R1b-L23(xL150) form was forced to take refuge in Western Europe, and in the Steppes by the incoming farmers. The R1b-L23 in Western Europe developed into R1b-L150+, whereas the other one, likely carries a SNP yet to be discovered. What is more, a small minority of the R1b-L23(xL150) present in Western Europe is really old, as in pre-Neolithic old, I think that once the SNP for R1b-L150 is discovered, we shall see the presence of people that do not belong to that SNP or L150 in Western Europe.

I guess you are saying L150+ is of Western European origin. Where is L23+ from? Since we are both using Marko's intraclade dating which is really a time of early expansion estimate, he has L23 as 5700 ybp or 3700 BC.  Around 3700 BC, where do you think L23's MRCA, who was L150- (but L150's ancestor), was?
Marko has the intraclade for L150 as of about the same time as L23.... both 3700 BC.  Either the L150's MRCA was geographically very close to L23's, or the L23 pre-L150 lineage moved very quickly to get to West Europe and/or L23's non-L150 lineages moved very quickly to get to Anatolia and the Caucasus.

Well I think the intraclade of R1b-L23 is greatly underestimated by the fact that R1b-L23 suffered a great loss during the onset of the Neolithic. But I can show you haplotypes of R1b-L23(xL150) that share a TMRCA that is pre-Neolithic. In fact I can show you a Western European R1b-L23(xL150) that shares a TMRCA with all West Asian R1b-L23(xL150) that is pre-Neolithic.


Why do you think that in terms of intra-clade G2a(11 kya per Marko.H) gets about the same age as I2a(12 kya per Marko.H)?

I don't have any particular hypothesis or concern about it, but I guess you think I should.  What's important about this?

Well I2a and G2a were both found in Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.

Here is another “coincidence” intra-clade age of R1b-L150(5700 ybp per Marko.H), intra-clade age of I1(5000 ybp per Marko.H).


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 04:48:06 PM
This reminds of political discussion where instead of defending one's view, a politician (apparently because there is no good defense) just moves onto attack mode on other alternatives, preferrably strawman alternatives that are easy to attack.

I did defend my point, when I postulated my hypothesis. Richard Stevens brought the concern that why out of the sudden would HG in Western Europe overpower farmers after being in the shadows for millennia, I argued that why should we expect HG in Western Europe to be any different from those in the Steppes. If hypothesis B assumes that HG learned x technology from farmers, and one is pushing for hypothesis B, it is a bit of a double standard to question hypothesis A based on the exact same assumption that was made on hypothesis B, I was simply pointing it out. If you think that is a strawman, then I think your sidetracking is an Ad Hominem. Easy as that.

I don't know if R1b-L23xL51 came from the Steppes.  I think legitimate cases can be made in the context of cultural movements that R1b-L23 lineages expanded westward from either the Steppes, SE Europe, Anatolia or even the Near East.   I don't know what is most likely.

Yes, and that doesn’t invalidate that there could have been descendants of R1b-L150 living in Western Europe, when the good ol’ R1b-L23(xL51) folks decided to head West from the Steppes and bring PIE with them.

Your split (east/west) personality for L23 scenario is about to get quite difficult.  I think you will have to place the L23+ L150- MRCA in Central Europe for him to send children both to the Atlantic and Caucasus in very quick fashion at a time when transportation was worse than it was post Neolithic.

Have you been reading what I have been saying? Pre-Neolithic R1b-L23 (xL150) was widespread in Europe, when the G2a folks arrive, they drew a hole in the middle of the R1b-L23(xL150) folks, some of them ran for the Steppes, some were cornered in the fringes of Western Europe.  Where was R1b-L150 born you might ask, well R1b-L150 was born likely a cave in Western Europe.  

Why do you think that in terms of intra-clade G2a(11 kya per Marko.H) gets about the same age as I2a(12 kya per Marko.H)?

Where is all the L23 in Central Asia then if the steepe was filled with it and PIE originates with it? L23 was maybe dominant in portions of the steepe. It wasn't widespread and certainly didn't originate there imo.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 04:58:45 PM

Where is all the L23 in Central Asia then if the steepe was filled with it and PIE originates with it? L23 was maybe dominant in portions of the steepe. It wasn't widespread and certainly didn't originate there imo.

I think L23 is of European origin. The Steppe probably was filled with R1b-M73 people, and in between the R1b-L23 in the Balkans, there were likely R1a that got pushed farther East as the G2a folks started entering the European picture. So R1b-L23 was likely in the Western side of the Steppe, whereas R1a was in the Eastern, but not as Eastern as R1b-M73. However, that doesn't explain why Bashkirs do not have R1a, unless their R1a was wiped out by the recent arrival of R1b-L23(xL150) folks from the Caucasus.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on May 30, 2012, 05:01:06 PM
Where is all the L23 in Central Asia then if the steepe was filled with it and PIE originates with it? L23 was maybe dominant in portions of the steepe. It wasn't widespread and certainly didn't originate there imo.

Sigh. This is an R1b forum, so nobody is going to add "and R1a also" every single time they talk about R1b and PIE. It is understood by all that use this forum that R1a is the other half of the PIE picture and it goes without saying because it doesn't need to be said. Everyone here knows it because they've all been posting on this R1b forum and other R1b forums for years. Until you understand that, you are only frustrating yourself.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:07:13 PM

Where is all the L23 in Central Asia then if the steepe was filled with it and PIE originates with it? L23 was maybe dominant in portions of the steepe. It wasn't widespread and certainly didn't originate there imo.

I think L23 is of European origin. The Steppe probably was filled with R1b-M73 people, and in between the R1b-L23 in the Balkans, there were likely R1a that got pushed farther East as the G2a folks started entering the European picture. So R1b-L23 was likely in the Western side of the Steppe, whereas R1a was in the Eastern, but not as Eastern as R1b-M73. However, that doesn't explain why Bashkirs do not have R1a, unless their R1a was wiped out by the recent arrival of R1b-L23(xL150) folks from the Caucasus.

Are you actually suggesting L23 is European? Don't most people accept L23 as West Asian. Must be why Assyrians have high R1b frequencies but are 0% Northern European.

I disagree with m73 being found in the steepe. The majority of M73 is among Turkic speakers and has increased in frequency due to bottlenecks. It is a recent phenomenon. If M73 was in the steepe at such an early date we would find it alongside R1a in places like Iran and Afghanistan.

Baskhir L23 is recent. They do have R1a btw of the z93+ variety.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
Are you actually suggesting L23 is European? Don't most people accept L23 as West Asian. Must be why Assyrians have high R1b frequencies but are 0% Northern European.

R1b-L23, could be European or from the Steppe, the main point is that it was widespread in Europe prior to the arrival of the Neolithic. What is the frequency of R1b in Assyrians? Mind you, that Sardinians have 15% R1b-M269 and show 0% Northern European too.


I disagree with m73 being found in the steepe. The majority of M73 is among Turkic speakers and has increased in frequency due to bottlenecks. It is a recent phenomenon. If M73 was in the steepe at such an early date we would find it alongside R1a in places like Iran and Afghanistan.

Baskhir L23 is recent. They do have R1a btw of the z93+ variety.



If R1b-M73 was in the Steppes circa 10000 ybp, it could have easily been pushed Eastwards towards Central Asia. The duo of R1a and R1b-L23(xL150) did not start causing trouble until much later.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Humanist on May 30, 2012, 05:25:13 PM
R1b-L23, could be European or from the Steppe, the main point is that it was widespread in Europe prior to the arrival of the Neolithic. What is the frequency of R1b in Assyrians? Mind you, that Sardinians have 15% R1b-M269 and show 0% Northern European too.

If you want studies, and not project data, here is one:

Yepiskoposian et al.  2006

I assume these are all Assyrians from the "Nestorian" Church.

n=x   n=106
hgx   ASR
hg1   41.5% (Q1a/b,R1b,R2)
hg2   0.9%
hg3   1.9%
hg7   0.0%
hg8   0.0%
hg9   37.7%
hg16   0.0%
hg21   2.8%
hg26   15.1%
hg28   0.0%
hg29   0.0%


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:25:41 PM
Are you actually suggesting L23 is European? Don't most people accept L23 as West Asian. Must be why Assyrians have high R1b frequencies but are 0% Northern European.

R1b-L23, could be European or from the Steppe, the main point is that it was widespread in Europe prior to the arrival of the Neolithic. What is the frequency of R1b in Assyrians? Mind you, that Sardinians have 15% R1b-M269 and show 0% Northern European too.


I disagree with m73 being found in the steepe. The majority of M73 is among Turkic speakers and has increased in frequency due to bottlenecks. It is a recent phenomenon. If M73 was in the steepe at such an early date we would find it alongside R1a in places like Iran and Afghanistan.

Baskhir L23 is recent. They do have R1a btw of the z93+ variety.



If R1b-M73 was in the Steppes circa 10000 ybp, it could have easily been pushed Eastwards towards Central Asia. The duo of R1a and R1b-L23(xL150) did not start causing trouble until much later.

Something along the lines of 20-30%. That another R1b rich population doesn't have a Northern Euro component only adds to the argument R1b-L23 is not European.

If M73 was in the steepe it wouldn't show a correlation to Turkic speakers only.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:32:47 PM

Something along the lines of 20-30%. That another R1b rich population doesn't have a Northern Euro component only adds to the argument R1b-L23 is not European.

If M73 was in the steepe it wouldn't show a correlation to Turkic speakers only.

Since when is Northern Euro the only European component, you do know that Finns and Lithuanians are the ones that have peak in Northern European, both populations are greatly lacking in R1b-L23. So Northern Euro isn't likely linked with some clades of R1b-L23, whereas it might be linked to some subclades of R1b-L23(i.e. R1b-U106).

R1b-M73 shows correlation with Turkic speakers for the same reason R1b-U106 shows a correlation with the Germanic expansions. The Turkic expansion was likely the haul for the expansion of R1b-M73.

PS: Sardinians are rarely what one would call R1b rich, think of Ireland if you want to go R1b rich, and they do show Northern European.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 05:33:55 PM
I think I understand what you are saying, but still R1b-L23 has a MRCA - a single man, a real person. Where and when was he?  Some how he left a close-in descendent (L150+) to the west while leaving L150- all over and primarily to the east. When do you think L150 was born in his cave in Western Europe?  When and where did the L23 MRCA come about?
My opinion is there wasn't much time for L23 L150- to spread out, but that depends on where you think L23 came from and when.  This is the difficulty I have with your hypothesis.

Ok R1b-L23 MRCA was likely born somewhere in the Northern Balkans, when pre-Neolithic, possibly 15-18 kya. So R1b-L23 in its R1b-L23(xL150) form was forced to take refuge in Western Europe, and in the Steppes by the incoming farmers. The R1b-L23 in Western Europe developed into R1b-L150+, whereas the other one, likely carries a SNP yet to be discovered. What is more, a small minority of the R1b-L23(xL150) present in Western Europe is really old, as in pre-Neolithic old, I think that once the SNP for R1b-L150 is discovered, we shall see the presence of people that do not belong to that SNP or L150 in Western Europe.

Thank you.  I think it is possible. I'll have to think about it a bit.  I'll also try to overlay your thoughts on linguistics connections, which you posted early.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct?  so that L23 can be less than 18,000 ybp?

I guess you are saying L150+ is of Western European origin. Where is L23+ from? Since we are both using Marko's intraclade dating which is really a time of early expansion estimate, he has L23 as 5700 ybp or 3700 BC.  Around 3700 BC, where do you think L23's MRCA, who was L150- (but L150's ancestor), was?
Marko has the intraclade for L150 as of about the same time as L23.... both 3700 BC.  Either the L150's MRCA was geographically very close to L23's, or the L23 pre-L150 lineage moved very quickly to get to West Europe and/or L23's non-L150 lineages moved very quickly to get to Anatolia and the Caucasus.


Well I think the intraclade of R1b-L23 is greatly underestimated by the fact that R1b-L23 suffered a great loss during the onset of the Neolithic. But I can show you haplotypes of R1b-L23(xL150) that share a TMRCA that is pre-Neolithic. In fact I can show you a Western European R1b-L23(xL150) that shares a TMRCA with all West Asian R1b-L23(xL150) that is pre-Neolithic.

I hope it is a number of haplotypes and not just anecdotal but please post whatever you've got. Kit #s and Ysearch IDs if available.

 
Why do you think that in terms of intra-clade G2a(11 kya per Marko.H) gets about the same age as I2a(12 kya per Marko.H)?

I don't have any particular hypothesis or concern about it, but I guess you think I should.  What's important about this?

Well I2a and G2a were both found in Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.
Here is another “coincidence” intra-clade age of R1b-L150(5700 ybp per Marko.H), intra-clade age of I1(5000 ybp per Marko.H).

I realize I don't know much about some of these other haplogroups so I apologize, but could you elaborate on the coincidence of the intraclade ages. At first glance it makes sense to me that many of the most commonly shared SNPs at the lower levels of the Y DNA descendancy tree were most prolific in Neolithic or post-Neolithic times.  I know I1 is thought as having a Nordic expansion point. I think I2a is up in the air and spread out a bit. I don't know about G2a.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Humanist on May 30, 2012, 05:37:18 PM
Also, all three hg1 modal haplotypes were observed in Assyrians.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/yepiskoposian.jpg (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/yepiskoposian.jpg)


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:37:41 PM

Something along the lines of 20-30%. That another R1b rich population doesn't have a Northern Euro component only adds to the argument R1b-L23 is not European.

If M73 was in the steepe it wouldn't show a correlation to Turkic speakers only.

Since when is Northern Euro the only European component, you do know that Finns and Lithuanians are the ones that have peak in Northern European, both populations are greatly lacking in R1b-L23. So Northern Euro isn't likely linked with R1b-L23.




All mainland Europeans have the Northern Euro component. If L23 is of European origin then it occurred in a people with this component. Therefore it should be accompanied by this component in West Asian populations with L23. And you are correct no link between Northern Euro and L23. And Europe and the origins of L23 for that matter.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:40:36 PM

Something along the lines of 20-30%. That another R1b rich population doesn't have a Northern Euro component only adds to the argument R1b-L23 is not European.

If M73 was in the steepe it wouldn't show a correlation to Turkic speakers only.

Since when is Northern Euro the only European component, you do know that Finns and Lithuanians are the ones that have peak in Northern European, both populations are greatly lacking in R1b-L23. So Northern Euro isn't likely linked with some clades of R1b-L23, whereas it might be linked to some subclades of R1b-L23(i.e. R1b-U106).

R1b-M73 shows correlation with Turkic speakers for the same reason R1b-U106 shows a correlation with the Germanic expansions. The Turkic expansion was likely the haul for the expansion of R1b-M73.

PS: Sardinians are rarely what one would call R1b rich, think of Ireland if you want to go R1b rich, and they do show Northern European.




If it M73 was present in the steepe it should have expanded with Indo-Iranians way before the Turkic expansion which came much later. Does it make sense for a lineage west of Indo-Iranians  to expand with a later population east of Indo-Iranians?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:42:16 PM

All mainland Europeans have the Northern Euro component. If L23 is of European origin then it occurred in a people with this component. Therefore it should be accompanied by this component in West Asian populations with L23. And you are correct no link between Northern Euro and L23. And Europe and the origins of L23 for that matter.

You do know that the Northern European component is an ADMIXTURE component, so that says nothing about Europe or the origins of L23.

You wanna see the link, look at Atlantic_Med.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:44:30 PM
If it M73 was present in the steepe it should have expanded with Indo-Iranians way before the Turkic expansion which came much later. Does it make sense for a lineage west of Indo-Iranians  to expand with a later population east of Indo-Iranians?

Dude you are killing me!!! :-) If R1b-M73, was in the Steppe 10000 ybp, and was displaced towards Central Asia 8000 ybp by R1a folks, there is no reason why it should have expanded with the Indo-Iranians, when it wasn't in the Steppe when the expansion took place.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:45:54 PM

All mainland Europeans have the Northern Euro component. If L23 is of European origin then it occurred in a people with this component. Therefore it should be accompanied by this component in West Asian populations with L23. And you are correct no link between Northern Euro and L23. And Europe and the origins of L23 for that matter.

You do know that the Northern European component is an ADMIXTURE component, so that says nothing about Europe or the origins of L23.  

Doesn't change the fact if R1b-L23 occurred in a European population West Asian populations would have this component. They don't.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:47:18 PM

Doesn't change the fact if R1b-L23 occurred in a European population West Asian populations would have this component. They don't.

Well they do have Atlantic_Med, so go figure!!


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:49:15 PM
If it M73 was present in the steepe it should have expanded with Indo-Iranians way before the Turkic expansion which came much later. Does it make sense for a lineage west of Indo-Iranians  to expand with a later population east of Indo-Iranians?

Dude you are killing me!!! :-) If R1b-M73, was in the Steppe 10000 ybp, and was displaced towards Central Asia 8000 ybp by R1a folks, there is no reason why it should have expanded with the Indo-Iranians, when it wasn't in the Steppe when the expansion took place.
 

This would suggest a very ancient dispersal of M73 into Central Asia and M73 being in Central Asia before the Indo-Iranian expansion. If that was the case M73 wouldn't correlate with Turkic languages whose expansion is quite recent. It would be just as significant in Central Asian Iranian speakers. that isn't the case.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:51:16 PM

Doesn't change the fact if R1b-L23 occurred in a European population West Asian populations would have this component. They don't.

Well they do have Atlantic_Med, so go figure!!

And? Do you think R1b-L23 carriers from Europe spread to Asia and only spread Atlantic_Med without spreading Northern European? they somehow managed to leave behind their other major component?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 05:52:32 PM
Also, all three hg1 modal haplotypes were observed in Assyrians.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/yepiskoposian.jpg (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/yepiskoposian.jpg)

What does that say about R1b's exact origins?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 05:53:56 PM
This would suggest a very ancient dispersal of M73 into Central Asia and M73 being in Central Asia before the Indo-Iranian expansion. If that was the case M73 wouldn't correlate with Turkic languages whose expansion is quite recent. It would be just as significant in Central Asian Iranian speakers. that isn't the case.

Well, let's see if R1b-M73 was in the region from where the Turkic expansion took place, why wouldn't it correlate with Turkic languages.

And? Do you think R1b-L23 carriers from Europe spread to Asia and only spread Atlantic_Med without spreading Northern European? they somehow managed to leave behind their other major component?


Do you know what an ADMIXTURE component is?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 30, 2012, 06:03:39 PM
This would suggest a very ancient dispersal of M73 into Central Asia and M73 being in Central Asia before the Indo-Iranian expansion. If that was the case M73 wouldn't correlate with Turkic languages whose expansion is quite recent. It would be just as significant in Central Asian Iranian speakers. that isn't the case.

Well, let's see if R1b-M73 was in the region from where the Turkic expansion took place, why wouldn't it correlate with Turkic languages.

And? Do you think R1b-L23 carriers from Europe spread to Asia and only spread Atlantic_Med without spreading Northern European? they somehow managed to leave behind their other major component?


Do you know what an ADMIXTURE component is?


Because proto Turks are from the Altai not the steepe where you claim M73 was found or Central Asia, the region you claim M73 was pushed into.

I have a basic idea about what an admixture component is.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 06:05:42 PM
Because proto Turks are from the Altai not the steepe where you claim M73 was found or Central Asia, the region you claim M73 was pushed into.

Fine, it was pushed to Altai then, that doesn't change that fact that it could have been displaced there from the Steppes circa 8000 ybp. Or that it moved from Central Asia to there, and then from there outwards. It is clear that R1b-M73 had a West-East movement, and then re-expanded with the Turks.

I have a basic idea about what an admixture component is.

Then you should know why the ADMIXTURE components have nothing to do with the place of origin of R1b-L23, given its time of origin.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on May 30, 2012, 08:00:33 PM
. . .

I didn’t bring this study as a “Paleolithic R1b” zombie, or whatever you wanna call it. Isn’t a bit of an Ad Hominem to compare a given theory to a Zombie? . . .

Read my post again and you will find I was not offering a critique of the study you mentioned; I did not even mention it. I was criticizing the "Paleolithic R1b" thing, which is inherent in some of the conclusions you and palamede posted from Mari Järve. For example:

Quote from: Mari Järve
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000)

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Referring to an hypothesis as a "zombie" is hardly a personal attack. What person was it directed against? I called the "Paleolithic R1b" thing a zombie because it refuses to die, and I wish it would. So, you see, saying the Paleolithic R1b thing is "like a Caribbean zombie" is a metaphor. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is not an "ad hominem".


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 08:10:35 PM
Read my post again and you will find I was not offering a critique of the study you mentioned; I did not even mention it. I was criticizing the "Paleolithic R1b" thing, which is inherent in some of the conclusions you and palamede posted from Mari Järve. For example:

Quote from: Mari Järve
4. The M412 mutation has a likely Western European origin, possibly being a marker of the recolonisation from an isolated population nucleus in the Iberian peninsula after the LGM 13-20 kya (Semino et al. 2000)

Those conclusions were from the older paper from 2008, which I said in this very thread that I posted it as a side thing. From the first post made by me on this thread:
Quote from: Mari Järve

  • In West Europe another major Holecene era founder effect is denoted by the mutation M412 within the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b, and the spatial and temporal pattern of a sub-clade within R1b-M412 is in close correlation with the spread of the Linear Pottery Neolithic culture.

 http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131788#msg131788 (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131788#msg131788)

Of course that doesn’t mean that I agree with their conclusions, but I was simply posting the conclusions.


An ad hominem is a personal attack. Referring to an hypothesis as a "zombie" is hardly a personal attack. What person was it directed against? I called the "Paleolithic R1b" thing a zombie because it refuses to die, and I wish it would. So, you see, saying the Paleolithic R1b thing is "like a Caribbean zombie" is a metaphor. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is not an "ad hominem".

Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Poisoning the Well fallacy, by associating the hypothesis with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the hypothesis by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic hypothesis a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on May 30, 2012, 08:41:00 PM
That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Rich, I must say he's right, you aren't listening because your dander is up.  An idea isn't a hominem.  The association of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea with the walking dead is a perfectly good metaphor for an idea that will not die, or stay dead (but should).  And if anything is being implied about the actual persons who continue to hold that idea, though they should know better, it's not that they are stupid.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 08:48:34 PM
JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct?  


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on May 30, 2012, 08:49:32 PM
Quote from: JeanL
Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Description of Poisoning the Well, by associating the theory with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the theory by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic theory a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

I also said I think the "Paleolithic R1b" idea is preposterous. I guess you liked the zombie metaphor less.

I did explain why I think it is preposterous in my summary of it in its usual iteration.

It brings R-M269 to western Europe very early, placing it in the F-C Ice Age Refuge and having it expand from there, but leaving a fair number of relatives back in western Asia and/or eastern Europe. It must nearly kill off R-M269 a number of times in western Europe in order to sufficiently explain away its lack of diversity there.

I think this idea has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back, cutting the amount of time it has had to achieve population success. If it could have achieved population success in that reduced time frame, then it could have achieved it regardless of whether it was an old inhabitant or a new arrival.

I also think part of the genesis of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea comes from the old notion that the Basques are some kind of Paleolithic remnant population.

If I understand your hypothesis rightly, you have R-M269 spread throughout Europe very early, before the Neolithic at least, with R-L150 arising in the West. The Near Eastern farmers come chugging up via the Balkans, dragging some I-P37.2 with them, cutting eastern R-M269 (xL150) off from western R-L150.

These two R-M269 populations, east and west, as hunter-gatherers, "head for the hills" to avoid annihilation at the hands of the G2a, etc., farmers. Somehow, however, the tables eventually turn. Eastern and western R-M269 arise (especially the western R-L150 version), phoenix-like, from the early Neolithic ashes and their hideouts and mountain fastnesses, and, mastering the technology of those from whom they once fled, become dominant in much of Europe.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

It seems a trifle overworked and too elaborate to me, and therefore unlikely. It depends a lot on complex and controversial arguments about haplotype variance based on data that are, at best, incomplete. The idea that R-M269 expanded from SE to NW beginning sometime after the start of the Neolithic makes more sense to me.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on May 30, 2012, 08:54:32 PM
Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Rich . . .

That's news to me.

I wasn't aware that you often find yourself in disagreement with me. :-O


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

The only thing that I would say, is that the expansion phase of R1b-L23 in Western Europe was initially in its R1b-L11 form, but rapidly developed into R1b-P312 and R1b-U106. Actually moreso in its R1b-P312 form than anything else. R1b-U106 mostly took off with the Germanic expansions.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.


^Actually I'm glad that you didn't throw my hypothesis in the Paleolithic R1b bandwagon, and that you recognized that it is different.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 09:04:12 PM
I think this idea (Paleolithic R1b in Europe) has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back....

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea.  

It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story.  Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso* & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too. Did I mention that both STR variance and maximum liklihood methods cross-validate nicely with the SNP branch length counting method (Karafet) to make R-L11 look young?

Hey, I'm just old R1b Cro-Magnon fellow who fell off the wagon when I got too many facts to cloud the story. Mea culpa!

{EDIT: per JeanL's request, I want to clarify that there has been no R1b in aDNA found in Neolthic digs. There have been other haplogroups of Y DNA (i.e. G, I) in Neolithic sites found.  There has been no Y DNA of any kind identified in Europe in Mesolithic or Paleolithic sites, at least as far as I know. To keep up to date with this, please follow Jean Manco's Peopling of Europe web site, specifically URL  http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml }


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:08:29 PM
JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct? 

Per Marko.H table R1 is 21 kya in its interclade with R2. Its intraclade is 15 kya. However, for comparison I has a interclade of 25 kya with J, and intraclade of 18 kya.  I know you like refering Karafet.et.al.2008 were R1 is given an age of 18.5 kya, but in that same paper I is given an age of 22.2kya.





Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:22:27 PM

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

Sure, and those Paleolithic Zombist are the only ones with theories that required bottlenecks. :D

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012
Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.

[...]

The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.


I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea.  It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story. 

Yeah, those dumb Western European HG had no chance against the mighty farmers, now the Steppe HG slaughtered those European farmers like ants, once they gained the vital technologies from their farming neighbors. Must be something in the Steppe climate. :D

Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too.

Cough* Hasty Generalization anyone?

Hasty Generalization: This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability.

Also, you got any data from Mesolithic Europe, why haven’t you shared it?

The lovely R1b-L23(xL51) Middle Eastern cousins, who could forget those, and the Caucasians, and the Anatolians. Did you know that some of the lovely Swiss R1b-L23(xL51) are from 6 to 11 mutations(On a  10 STR set) removed from most of the lovely Middle Eastern cousins, that puts their TMRCA in a pre-Neolithic time frame.

You know who else is messing up the story, haplogroup I, if that guy is supposed to be the true Cro-Magnon why does he keep giving TMRCA of 25 kya, when R1 gives 21 kya. C’mon Europe was populated 40 kya ago, someone ought to tell haplogroup I that pushing its TMRCA to 35-40 kya is needed ASAP, or he might get thrown into the Neolithic bandwagon too. 



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
JeanL, I know you are multi-tasking, which I admire, but I don't want to lose track of this which I think is important to your hypothesis. How old do you think the TMRCA for Ra1 and R1b is?  I guess I should ask what you are using as the intraclade TRMCA for R1b (R-M343) and for R-M269 while I am at it?

.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think the TMRCA for R1a and R1b is much greater than 18,000 ybp, correct? 

Per Marko.H table R1 is 21 kya in its interclade with R2. Its intraclade is 15 kya. However, for comparison I has a interclade of 25 kya with J, and intraclade of 18 kya.  I know you like refering Karafet.et.al.2008 were R1 is given an age of 18.5 kya, but in that same paper I is given an age of 22.2kya.

There error ranges for these estimates, sometimes fairly large, but wow! that is a nice age validation for R1.

The interclade for the R* man who is MRCA for R1 and R2 is 19,000 BC.  That would set a maximum age for R1. The intraclade age for R1 is 13,000 BC. That would set a minium age for R1.  Then we have the "most likely" outcome from the Karafet SNP counting method (that they think is "novel") that has nothing to do with STR mutation rates and that most likely value is 16,500 BC - right where it should be.  This is for R1, though, not R1b, who is younger yet.

R1b (M343) can't be the Cro-Magnon man of the Aurignacian culture of Europe.  At least we know that.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:27:59 PM
R1b (M343) can't be the Cro-Magnon man of the Aurignacian culture of Europe.  At least we know that.


Neither can't haplogroup I-M170, as it is from 20200 BC per Karafet, and  a maximum of 23000 BC(Interclade with J) per Marko.H.

Cro-Magnon is from 26000 BC.

So the question is, who(haplogroup) was Cro-Magnon man then, if I and R are out of the question.

PS: Aurignacian culture lasted from 43000 BC to 33000 BC, so that's out of the question too.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 09:28:36 PM
...You know who else is messing up the story, haplogroup I, if that guy is supposed to be the true Cro-Magnon why does he keep giving TMRCA of 25 kya, when R1 gives 21 kya. C’mon Europe was populated 40 kya ago, someone ought to tell haplogroup I that pushing its TMRCA to 35-40 kya is needed ASAP, or he might get thrown into the Neolithic bandwagon too.  

I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

I know nothing that says Hg I has to be 2x or 3x or something else older than R1b, or else R1b now must be Palolithic in Europe.  Why is that important?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 09:33:19 PM
PS: Aurignacian culture lasted from 43000 BC to 33000 BC, so that's out of the question too.
Sorry, if got the wrong culture associated with Cro-Magnon. I could have swore that's what I read in my stuff from Spencer Wells.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 09:42:31 PM

I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

I know nothing that says Hg I has to be 2x or 3x or something else older than R1b, or else R1b now must be Palolithic in Europe.  Why is that important?


Well, I'm simply saying that just how R1 is not Cro-Magnon, and likely not Aurignacian per Karafet.et.al.2008 estimates or Marko.H, neither is I. Something bodering you with respect to that?


Again let's look at the “coincidences”:

Intraclade age of G2a or G-P15+ per Marko.H calculations 11 kya.

Intraclade age of I2a or I-P37.2+ per Marko.H calculations 12 kya.

Interestingly enough I postulated in my hypothesis that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers in their way to Western Europe, which I support by the fact that both G2a and I2a were found in Neolithic Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.

Now, let’s look at other “coincidences”:

Intraclade age of R1b-L150 per Marko.H calculations 5.7 kya.

Intraclade age of I1 or I-M253 + per Marko.H calculations 5.0 kya.

Interestingly enough neither I1 nor R1b-L150 have made any appearance in Treilles, France or Avellanar, Catalonia.

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.

Actually I'm not even sure if F was the Cro-Magnon, Marko-H places the interclade of F and G as 33 kya, that certainly would include Cro-Magnon but exclude Aurignacian. However the intraclade of F* is only 10 kya per Marko.H. table.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 10:01:33 PM

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

Sure, and those Paleolithic Zombist are the only ones with theories that required bottlenecks. :D

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012
Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.
[...]
The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.

Is this what you are referring to?  Klylosov's comment, "However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors"

I make no defense of Klyosov's hypothesis.  I don't agree with it for sure, at least not in any sense of totality.

I think we might want to look at what an interclade age is though and understand the power of the concept.

We have huge benefit of knowing (from the SNP phylogenetic tree) that P312 and U106 are related as R-L11(S127) brothers. We also know they are separate and can place each haplotype with its own group with certainty. We know that neither P312 nor U106 can be older than their interclade most recent common (shared) ancestor.

Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates 2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF13, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

The high, high frequency for R1b in Europe is driven by U106 and P312.  Since they came from a single man in a fairly recent time there is no need to have R1b spread all over Europe in Palolithic times to explain R1b's frequency.  Time in place doesn't provide the answer to the high frequency.  The recent expansion (post bottleneck or whatever we call it) of the U106/P312 clade has to be attributed to something else.  The early researchers could have figured this out by just looking at WAMH without being mesmerized by the high frequency.

JeanL, I know you recognize there was recent expansion of L11 subclades so this is not actually in a disagreement with you.  The question kind of becomes then how did the R-L23* types get out there across Europe?  Did they come earlier?  I don't know. If they were earlier then that increases the possibility that L150 and L51 and L11 could have been born in the west too.

In context of archeology in the Bronze age I don't know much about Atlantic movements back to the east. Generally, I think that many think IE cultures and Bronze Age technologies came from the eastern edges of Europe or Asia itself.  At least that's what I read from folks like Renfrew, Anthony, etc.

There is no reason to think that hunters or farmers or IE folks were smarter or dumber or tremendously bigger or stronger.  However, somehow, the U106/P312 clade, along with probably some friends, gained a significant advantage(s) and used it very aggressively.  What was the advantage(s) that was available during the Bronze Age and where did it come from? Were the potential advantages most likely from Western Europe or from somewhere else?



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 30, 2012, 10:20:37 PM

Is this what you are referring to?  Klylosov's comment, "However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors"

I make no defense of Klyosov's hypothesis.  I don't agree with it for sure, at least not in any sense of totality.

I think we might want to look at what an interclade age is though and understand the power of the concept.

We have huge benefit of knowing (from the SNP phylogenetic tree) that P312 and U106 are related as R-L11(S127) brothers. We also know they are separate and can place each haplotype with its own group with certainty. We know that neither P312 nor U106 can be older than their interclade most recent common (shared) ancestor.

Well is there any other haplogroup that is below R-L51 that could be compared in interclade with R-L11, or even below R-L150 that could be compared to R-L51?

Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?

The high frequency for R1b in Europe is driven by U106 and P312.  Since they came from a single man in a fairly recent time there is no need to have R1b spread all over Europe in Palolithic times to explain R1b's frequency.  Time in place doesn't provide the answer to the high frequency.  The recent expansion (post bottleneck or whatever we call it) of the U106/P312 clade has to be attributed to something else.  The early researchers could have figured this out by just looking at WAMH without being mesmerized by the high frequency.

Well there is a need for R1b-L23 to be spread all over Europe in pre-Neolithic times, not Paleolithic(more like Mesolithic), or at least if not all over Europe, I would say all over the Northern portion of the Balkans. They had to be somewhere that when the G2a folks started moving in from Anatolia, and got the I2a folks to tag along, they drove the R1b-L23 folks Westwards and Eastwards. Also, there is the excess of R1b-M269(xL23) found in the Balkans, which leads me to think, that likely that is the place where it was hanging out.

JeanL, I know you recognize there was recent expansion of L11 subclades so this is not actually in a disagreement with you.  The question kind of becomes then how did the R-L23* types get out there across Europe? Did they come earlier?  I don't know.  If they were earlier then that increases the possibility that L150 and L51 and L11 could have been born in the west too.

I think that R1b-L150, R1b-L51, and R1b-L11 show clears signs of being born in Western Europe. But the fact is that neither one of them experienced a population explosion like P312 did, heck not even U106 experienced a population explosion like P312 did! I think most of the R-L23* in the Central and Western Europe is the product of the arrival of the Indo-European languages circa 3000 BC. However, there are still a few “survivors” of the true ancestral R1b-L23 that moved to Western Europe at the onset of the Neolithic. I found in fact two of those R1b-L23(xL51) which could be one of those survivors, I posted their haplotypes in the L23+ variance thread.

In context of archeology in the Bronze age I don't know much about Atlantic movements back to the east. Generally, I think that many think IE cultures and Bronze Age technologies came from the eastern edges of Europe or Asia itself.  At least that's what I read from folks like Renfrew, Anthony, etc.
There is no reason to think that hunters or farmers or IE folks were smarter or dumber or bigger or stronger.  However, somehow, the U106/P312 clade, along with probably some friends, gained a significant advantage(s) and used it very aggressively.

Ok if I had to guess, I would link the initial spread of R1b-L11 with megalitism in Western Europe, or with the early spread of Bell Beaker. 




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 30, 2012, 10:34:39 PM
I'm not necessarily supporting that Hg I was the Cro-Magnon man.  What does Ken Nordtvedt say on this?  I'd tend to support his views on that....

Well, I'm simply saying that just how R1 is not Cro-Magnon, and likely not Aurignacian per Karafet.et.al.2008 estimates or Marko.H, neither is I. Something bodering you with respect to that?

I don't really know who Cro-Magnon man was, but if you feel like he wasn't Hg I, I'm good with that.

Again let's look at the “coincidences”:
Intraclade age of G2a or G-P15+ per Marko.H calculations 11 kya.
Intraclade age of I2a or I-P37.2+ per Marko.H calculations 12 kya.
Interestingly enough I postulated in my hypothesis that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers in their way to Western Europe, which I support by the fact that both G2a and I2a were found in Neolithic Treilles, France circa 3000 BC.

Very good!

Now, let’s look at other “coincidences”:
Intraclade age of R1b-L150 per Marko.H calculations 5.7 kya.
Intraclade age of I1 or I-M253 + per Marko.H calculations 5.0 kya.
Interestingly enough neither I1 nor R1b-L150 have made any appearance in Treilles, France or Avellanar, Catalonia.

I think we might want to look at this in context. R1b-L150xL51 is hard to find so I'm not sure we can tell that much from little we know about L150xL51.  If you are talking about L150 'all" you are talking about a very large subclade that is dispersed all over Europe.

This should be contrasted with I1, which Ken N (and I think most) thinks of as Nordic centric that expanded significantly with the Germanic and pre-Germanic Nordic expansions of the Bronze Age.  Did you think we should find I1 in SE (Treilles) France or near the Pyrenees?  I see no strangeness in not finding a Nordic clade in SE France in the Neolithic.

As widely as L150 is spread, it should have been in at Treilles, France unless he just wasn't a Neolithic Western Europe kind of guy.   I agree it's too early to rule out finding R1b of some kind in European Neolithic sites. It could happen, but we can't really say that it will. I guess your point is that while I1 was hiding in cold places, L150 was hiding in the mountains.   Perhaps, given the Neolithic dating, I hope he was developing metallurgy up in those mountains so he could come down and take over with upcoming Bronze Age. I wonder if he was speaking IE in those mountains, the Pyrenees, I suppose? Must have been in the Alps as the L150 Pyrenees version must have spoken non-IE.  I'm not making fun of people living in the Pyrenees or Alps, I'm just asking what their advantage was during the Neolithic?

Where did metallurgy and PIE and its related practices develop?

Some people think Cro-Magnon was F*, I think.  Whoever, he was, there is no gaurantee he left any descendants, is there?  It's long, long way back in time and a lot of junk one would have to survive.
However the intraclade of F* is only 10 kya per Marko.H. table.

That means almost nothing other than probably some subclade without an known SNP that is F* is about 10,000 years old.  There is a danger in calculating paragroup, i.e. F*, rather than all of F numbers. I'm not sure if it is that pertinent to this discussion anyway.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 31, 2012, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: JeanL
Fair enough, then how about a Guilt by Association fallacy, or a Description of Poisoning the Well, by associating the theory with a Zombie:

a)You are ridiculing the theory by associating it with something nonreal, or by associating it with something bad. Also, by associating different theories with the" R1b has to be Paleolithic line of thinking of Semino.et.al.2000" you are indeed doing a Guilt by Association fallacy.

Calling the Paleolithic theory a Zombie, is the same thing as calling it stupid without offering any explanations as to why you think it is stupid. That itself is an Ad Hominem, simply not directed at an individual but at an idea.

I also said I think the "Paleolithic R1b" idea is preposterous. I guess you liked the zombie metaphor less.

I did explain why I think it is preposterous in my summary of it in its usual iteration.

It brings R-M269 to western Europe very early, placing it in the F-C Ice Age Refuge and having it expand from there, but leaving a fair number of relatives back in western Asia and/or eastern Europe. It must nearly kill off R-M269 a number of times in western Europe in order to sufficiently explain away its lack of diversity there.

I think this idea has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back, cutting the amount of time it has had to achieve population success. If it could have achieved population success in that reduced time frame, then it could have achieved it regardless of whether it was an old inhabitant or a new arrival.

I also think part of the genesis of the "Paleolithic R1b" idea comes from the old notion that the Basques are some kind of Paleolithic remnant population.

If I understand your hypothesis rightly, you have R-M269 spread throughout Europe very early, before the Neolithic at least, with R-L150 arising in the West. The Near Eastern farmers come chugging up via the Balkans, dragging some I-P37.2 with them, cutting eastern R-M269 (xL150) off from western R-L150.

These two R-M269 populations, east and west, as hunter-gatherers, "head for the hills" to avoid annihilation at the hands of the G2a, etc., farmers. Somehow, however, the tables eventually turn. Eastern and western R-M269 arise (especially the western R-L150 version), phoenix-like, from the early Neolithic ashes and their hideouts and mountain fastnesses, and, mastering the technology of those from whom they once fled, become dominant in much of Europe.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your idea. You are good at arguing for it.

It seems a trifle overworked and too elaborate to me, and therefore unlikely. It depends a lot on complex and controversial arguments about haplotype variance based on data that are, at best, incomplete. The idea that R-M269 expanded from SE to NW beginning sometime after the start of the Neolithic makes more sense to me.

That is my opinion. I am sure you will blast me for it, but that's fine.



Do you think L23 is West Asian or European?

I think this idea (Paleolithic R1b in Europe) has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back....

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea. 

It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story.  Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too. Did I mention that both STR variance and maximum liklihood methods cross-validate nicely with the SNP branch length counting method (Karafet) to make R-L11 look young?

Hey, I'm just old R1b Cro-Magnon fellow who fell off the wagon when I got too many facts to cloud the story. Mea culpa!

Their hypothesis has L23 migrating from Europe to Asia. No argument support such a migration as far as I know.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: palamede on May 31, 2012, 04:19:50 AM
JeanL,

I admire your courage, persistance and skills to discuss with the chalcolithic fans.

You remind my young time when the rare isolated and crazy people who dared discussing and tried to counter the marxist theoricians and their fans.

Hard, rigoureous, nit-picker for the opposite arguments, laxist, overindulgent with their own theories and arguments.

Anyway, the imperialism of every specialized researcher is well know and mostly this of  geneticians.

Paleoanthropology, archeology are  more and more hard sciences and population genetic remains a soft science.

Certainly, explain what were the haplogroups of Aurignacian and Gravettians (2 populations of different origins) and why they would not have survived at all for the Y haplogroup (at least according to our great and fierce theoricians) is very crucial.  

I agree with you that the calculated MRCAs are too weak and must accept a factor to know the effective mutation rate, a thing admitted by the majority of scientifics.
Certainly, this factor is difficul to determin, because no pure scientific theory can give it because the factor is depending on other historical, sociological and economical factors.

The Zhiv factor 3.6) was calculated for a duration of about one millenia for 2 populations living in different conditions from a lot of prehistorical  populations (Arrival in  empty and great islands rich of ressources for Maoris of New Zealand, in modern and growing populations for Roms in Balkans.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 31, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
I think we might want to look at this in context. R1b-L150xL51 is hard to find so I'm not sure we can tell that much from little we know about L150xL51.  If you are talking about L150 'all" you are talking about a very large subclade that is dispersed all over Europe.
Well I can tell you that as RR showed R1b-L51(xL11) has a very westernly distribution.

This should be contrasted with I1, which Ken N (and I think most) thinks of as Nordic centric that expanded significantly with the Germanic and pre-Germanic Nordic expansions of the Bronze Age.  Did you think we should find I1 in SE (Treilles) France or near the Pyrenees?  I see no strangeness in not finding a Nordic clade in SE France in the Neolithic.

What about Derenburg Meerenstieg II in Germany circa 5000 BC, it wasn’t there either, yet there is 18.5% of I1 in North Germany today.  Also, I thought that R1b-U106 also expanded with the Germanic expansions.

As widely as L150 is spread, it should have been in at Treilles, France unless he just wasn't a Neolithic Western Europe kind of guy.   I agree it's too early to rule out finding R1b of some kind in European Neolithic sites. It could happen, but we can't really say that it will. I guess your point is that while I1 was hiding in cold places, L150 was hiding in the mountains.   Perhaps, given the Neolithic dating, I hope he was developing metallurgy up in those mountains so he could come down and take over with upcoming Bronze Age. I wonder if he was speaking IE in those mountains, the Pyrenees, I suppose? Must have been in the Alps as the L150 Pyrenees version must have spoken non-IE.  I'm not making fun of people living in the Pyrenees or Alps, I'm just asking what their advantage was during the Neolithic?

I don’t think metallurgy was developed in Western Europe, the Pyrenees are mostly Megalithic in terms of Burials, even well into the Bell Beaker phase you still find collective burials in the Basque Country for example Urraxta III 3405 to 3475 ybp, or Urtiaga 3475 to 3445 ybp. I think PIE was brought  over to Europe by R1b-L23(xL150) carriers, and also R1a carriers. While you can argue that you don’t find R1a in Ireland, there is certainly a minor presence of R1b-L23(xL150), and in fact the sole haplotype found in Ireland from Myres.et.al.2010 is very close to the modal(1 mutation away) of R1b-L23(xL150), and the modal (3 mutations) of R1b-L23+, for comparison a Swiss R1b-L23(xL150) haplotype turned out to be 6 mutations from either the R1b-L23(xL150) modal or R1b-L23+ modal. In fact the Swiss haplotype is from 5 to 7 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes of the Bashkirs, it is 6 or more mutations for 27 out of the 29 Bashkirs haplotypes, it is from 3 to 10 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes found in the Caucasus, being 6 or more mutations apart for 24 out of the 32 haplotypes of the Caucasus. It is from 3 to 10 mutations apart from the R1b-L23(xL150) haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, being 6 or more mutations apart for 47 out of the  57 haplotypes. It is from 3 to 9 mutations apart from Western European haplotypes, excluding Switzerland, it is 6 or more mutations apart for 13 out of the 19 haplotypes. In Switzerland it has an exact match, and a haplotype that is 1 mutation away, it is 6 or more mutations apart for 1 out of the 10 haplotypes found in Switzerland. In Turkey and the ME it ranges from 2 to 11 mutations apart, there is only one haplotype that is 2 mutations apart and it is found in Turkey, on the other hand 38 out of 66 haplotypes are 6 mutations or more apart. This is all in a 10 STR marker format, so those two Swiss haplotypes are old, and it is clear that along with a third Swiss haplotype that is only 1 mutation apart, those folks did not come from the R1b-L23(xL150) expansion that took place from the Steppes or from Anatolia, they were the ones that remained behind trapped in Western Europe. 

In a nutshell, what we observed is that most of R1b-L23(xL150) in Europe is of recent(i.e. Circa 3000 BC) arrival, yet there are a few outliers that are likely the remnants of the R1b-L23(xL150) that took refuge in Western Europe. I’m sure if you look for them, you will find them, in the Myres.et.al.2010 dataset, there are the three Swiss outliers, so 3/10 R1b-L23(xL150) are likely outliers, however for most of Europe, the R1b-L23(xL150) has a very close signature to the modal, and are very close to the haplotypes in Western Asia. Of course there are always a few exception,  but you don’t observed this generalized pattern where most haplotypes are at least 6 mutations of more away from the haplotype in question. 


PS: In case you are  wondering here are the two haplotypes in question:

Sample-Haplogroup---DYS19—DYS388—DYS389I—DYS389II—DYS390—DYS391—DYS392—DYS393—DYS439—DYS461


Switzerland#1
----L23xL51----15—12—13—15—24—10—14—12—13—11

Switzerland#2----L23xL51----15—12—13—15—24—10—14—12—13—11


I actually found more information with respect to the Swiss haplotypes.

It is found on page 60 of the MSc Thesis (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf) of Mari Jarve

Population---Sample#----Haplogroup---DYS19—DYS385a—DYS385b—DYS389I—DYS389II—DYS390—DYS391—DYS392—DYS393—DYS437—DYS438—DYS439—DYS448—DYS456—DYS458—DYS635—Y-GATA-H4—DYS388—DYS461—P24

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6171----L23xL51
15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6181----L23xL51 15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10

So they are identical on both a 10 STR markers format and on a 20 STR markers format.

Then there is this haplotype

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6271----L23xL51---15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—12—19—15—16—23—13 –12 –11 –10

Which differs from the othet two by one mutation in the 10 STR marker format DYS439: 13=>12, and in the 20 STR marker format 2 mutations DYS439, and Y-GATA-4:12=>13.

Here is the Modal of L23 for comparison:

Modal---Y.search=WHUFZ---L23xL51---14—11—14 –13—16—24—11—13—12—15—12—12—19—15—16—23—12—12—11--XX

Each one of the haplotypes is 6 one-step mutations removed from the modal. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and DYS439 in case of the first  two haplotypes. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and Y-GATA-4 in case of the third haplotype. So 4 mutations in "fast" markers, 2 mutations in "slow" (DYS437, and DYS392) markers.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on May 31, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
Give em h--l Jean.  Great job.  For comparison, and I am Z253, here are my 10 haplotype values corresponding to the same 10 dys loci you presented: 14, 13, 14, 16, 23,10, 13, 12, 13, 12. I believe I am closest to one of your turkish examples, except I have the 12 at 461 which I believe is an E-W discriminator?

Note:  the common wisdom is that I am just the product of a random process?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 11:58:33 AM
Using Ken Nordtvedt's methodology on thousands of long haplotypes I get a most likely interclade P312/U106 TMRCA as 2500 BC with a two sigma (95.4% confidence) range from 3200 BC to 1800 BC.  Just coincidentally, Marko Heinila's methodology estimates2500 BC (4.5K ybp) too.... and this all fits in relatively well with the R1 TMRCA from Karefet's SNP counting method.

Call it a bottleneck, or whatever, there was a swift expansion of R-L11 in the Bronze Age. There was a swift expansion from a single man, the U106/P312 MRCA. This makes it quite difficult to figure out how the large L11 subclades of U106, Z381, U152, L2, L21, DF27 and Z196 had multiple points of "localized" origin (according to Busby).  They came from a single man not too much older than themselves.

This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?

What data are using to support that you know that R1b-L11 and R1b-P312 went from Western Europe to Central Europe?

You mention R1b-L11 along with this west to east movement that you know of. R1b-U106 is a large part of R1b-L11. What evidence do you have that R1b-U106 moved west to east?  Where do you say U106 came from and based on what evidence?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 31, 2012, 12:24:00 PM
Lord what a depressing thread.  Occam's Razor has been blunded and the pleading is very special indeed.  You can kind of tell when people have a preferred model or have bought too deeply into a theory to retreat or their are identity aspects to it.  The evidence will always be pleaded to fit the theory


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 12:25:14 PM
Now, let’s look at other “coincidences”:
Intraclade age of R1b-L150 per Marko.H calculations 5.7 kya.
Intraclade age of I1 or I-M253 + per Marko.H calculations 5.0 kya.
Interestingly enough neither I1 nor R1b-L150 have made any appearance in Treilles, France or Avellanar, Catalonia.
I think we might want to look at this in context. R1b-L150xL51 is hard to find so I'm not sure we can tell that much from little we know about L150xL51.  If you are talking about L150 'all" you are talking about a very large subclade that is dispersed all over Europe.
Well I can tell you that as RR showed R1b-L51(xL11) has a very westernly distribution.

I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.

What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

This should be contrasted with I1, which Ken N (and I think most) thinks of as Nordic centric that expanded significantly with the Germanic and pre-Germanic Nordic expansions of the Bronze Age.  Did you think we should find I1 in SE (Treilles) France or near the Pyrenees?  I see no strangeness in not finding a Nordic clade in SE France in the Neolithic.

What about Derenburg Meerenstieg II in Germany circa 5000 BC, it wasn’t there either, yet there is 18.5% of I1 in North Germany today.  Also, I thought that R1b-U106 also expanded with the Germanic expansions.

I think that the Hg I1 group generally think they may have come from a little further north than northern Germany, i.e. Denmark or the Scandinavian Peninsula, and then their greater expansions didn't really take place until the Bronze Age and even the Iron Age.  I think not finding I1 in Germany at 5000 BC is consistent with this.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 01:11:49 PM
Give em h--l Jean.  Great job.  For comparison, and I am Z253, here are my 10 haplotype values corresponding to the same 10 dys loci you presented: 14, 13, 14, 16, 23,10, 13, 12, 13, 12. I believe I am closest to one of your turkish examples, except I have the 12 at 461 which I believe is an E-W discriminator? ...

I'm okay with the h--l, but how about some significant data sets instead of a tale of anecdotal data used for argument by exception? This is problematic as there are exceptions to everything.  

... In a nutshell, what we observed is that most of R1b-L23(xL150) in Europe is of recent(i.e. Circa 3000 BC) arrival, yet there are a few outliers that are likely the remnants of the R1b-L23(xL150) that took refuge in Western Europe. I’m sure if you look for them, you will find them,  

We will find them in other places too, including the US.

..in the Myres.et.al.2010 dataset, there are the three Swiss outliers, so 3/10 R1b-L23(xL150) are likely outliers, however for most of Europe, the R1b-L23(xL150) has a very close signature to the modal, and are very close to the haplotypes in Western Asia. Of course there are always a few exception,  but you don’t observed this generalized pattern where most haplotypes are at least 6 mutations of more away from the haplotype in question.  

PS: In case you are  wondering here are the two haplotypes in question:
.....
I actually found more information with respect to the Swiss haplotypes.

It is found on page 60 of the MSc Thesis (http://www.ebc.ee/kaitsmised/2008/kaitsmisele_tulevad_3_2_magistritood/Mari_Jarve_MSc_thesis.pdf) of Mari Jarve

Population---Sample#----Haplogroup---DYS19—DYS385a—DYS385b—DYS389I—DYS389II—DYS390—DYS391—DYS392—DYS393—DYS437—DYS438—DYS439—DYS448—DYS456—DYS458—DYS635—Y-GATA-H4—DYS388—DYS461—P24
Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6171----L23xL51
15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10
Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6181----L23xL51 15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—13—19—15—16—23—12 –12 –11 –10
So they are identical on both a 10 STR markers format and on a 20 STR markers format.

Maybe they are related.

Am I misreading this?  You are listing SWU6171 and SWU6181 as "R-L23xL51" but the source document just labels them as "R-M269*". The third haplotype you point out below is also listed as R-M269*.

BTW, thank you for pointing this table out. It is interesting that the Upper Rhone/Swiss area has R-M269* folks.  Unfortunately, we have R-M269* folks from England as well as the greater proportions back in Asia.  I'm not sure how this supports your arguments.  I don't see where we have enough long haplotypes of R-M269*, R-L23xL150, R-L150xL51 and R-L51xL11 people to sort out a good STR diversity comparison.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

Then there is this haplotype

Upper Rhone valley Swiss---SWU6271----L23xL51---15—11—14—13—15—24—1014—12—16—12—12—19—15—16—23—13 –12 –11 –10
Which differs from the othet two by one mutation in the 10 STR marker format DYS439: 13=>12, and in the 20 STR marker format 2 mutations DYS439, and Y-GATA-4:12=>13.

Here is the Modal of L23 for comparison:
Modal---Y.search=WHUFZ---L23xL51---14—11—14 –13—16—24—11—13—12—15—12—12—19—15—16—23—12—12—11--XX

Each one of the haplotypes is 6 one-step mutations removed from the modal. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and DYS439 in case of the first  two haplotypes. Mutations are in DYS19, DYS389II, DYS391, DYS392, DYS437 and Y-GATA-4 in case of the third haplotype. So 4 mutations in "fast" markers, 2 mutations in "slow" (DYS437, and DYS392) markers.

I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

I also have 394/19=15 to go with 391=12 and 389b=16 even though I'm L21+ and from Nebraska... well, I guess we could say Ireland.  How significant is this news?  I can easily find L21+ people who are GD's of 6 from WAMH (the L21 modal) at just 12 STR markers.  They are mostly from the US and the Isles. What should we make of that?

We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
JeanL,

I admire your courage, persistance and skills to discuss with the chalcolithic fans.

You remind my young time when the rare isolated and crazy people who dared discussing and tried to counter the marxist theoricians and their fans.

Hard, rigoureous, nit-picker for the opposite arguments, laxist, overindulgent with their own theories and arguments.

Anyway, the imperialism of every specialized researcher is well know and mostly this of  geneticians.

Paleoanthropology, archeology are  more and more hard sciences and population genetic remains a soft science.

Certainly, explain what were the haplogroups of Aurignacian and Gravettians (2 populations of different origins) and why they would not have survived at all for the Y haplogroup (at least according to our great and fierce theoricians) is very crucial.  

I agree with you that the calculated MRCAs are too weak and must accept a factor to know the effective mutation rate, a thing admitted by the majority of scientifics.
Certainly, this factor is difficul to determin, because no pure scientifi theory can give it because the factor is depending for other historical, sociological and economical factors.

The zhiv factor 3.6) was calculated for a duration of about one millenia for 2 populations living in different conditions of a lot of prehistorical  populations (Arrival in  empty and great islands rich of ressources for Maoris of New Zealand, in modern and growing populations for Roms in Balkans.

Do you have anything useful to say or are you just blowing smoke? or cheerleading?  I don't give a hoot about the Chalcolithic or the Neolithic or the Mesolithic or whatever.  Are you rooting for one of those teams?

I'm just looking for some useful information and sound logic.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 31, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?
What data are using to support that you know that R1b-L11 and R1b-P312 went from Western Europe to Central Europe?

You mention R1b-L11 along with this west to east movement that you know of. R1b-U106 is a large part of R1b-L11. What evidence do you have that R1b-U106 moved west to east?  Where do you say U106 came from and based on what evidence?

Whoao you are giving me a lot of work in terms of replying, but fine.

I never claimed that R1b-U106 moved from west to east, if you think I did, then bring me a quote, where I explicitly or implicitly claim that R1b-U106 moved from west to east.  So let’s stop trying to put words in my mouth, and bringing in strawman arguments, no one with a sane mind would argue that R1b-U106 moved from West to East, hence why I wished Klyosov good luck in trying to prove that R1b-U106 was born in Iberia.

Now the argument, that R1b-P312 shows a Western-Eastern cline in terms of diversity.

 http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png (http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png)

R1b-U106,  was likely born somewhere in the Baltic area, as it is where it peaks in diversity, most likely somewhere around Estonia.


I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

You really want to compare the US, a country of immigrants, with Europe. Yeah, you can argue that France has had quite the migration, but I think when a researcher collects random sample on France, they make sure that the people being investigated are ethnic Frenchs, do you disagree with that?



I think that the Hg I1 group generally think they may have come from a little further north than northern Germany, i.e. Denmark or the Scandinavian Peninsula, and then their greater expansions didn't really take place until the Bronze Age and even the Iron Age.  I think not finding I1 in Germany at 5000 BC is consistent with this.

Well I think R1b-L150 was sitting around the Pyrenees, Britanny or the Alps, and that its expansion did not start until the Bronze Age,  so I too think that not finding R1b-L150 in Cardial Avellanar 5000 BC, or Treilles, France 3000 BC is consistent with this.

I'm okay with the h--l, but how about some significant data sets instead of a tale of anecdotal data used for argument by exception? This is problematic as there are exceptions to everything.

The data has been posted here, now if you choose to ignore it, is up to you.

We will find them in other places too, including the US.

Yeah, what about the US, Swiss migrated to the US too,  but since you say you can find it on other places, Ok, find for me L23xL51 haplotypes that are at least 6 mutations away from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. You do that!!!

Maybe they are related.

Am I misreading this?  You are listing SWU6171 and SWU6181 as "R-L23xL51" but the source document just labels them as "R-M269*". The third haplotype you point out below is also listed as R-M269*.

No, you aren’t misreading it, in the paper they are described as R-M269*, however those are the exact same haplotypes found in Table-S3 of Myres.et.al.2010, where it clearly says that they are L23. You can look at the 10 STR values that are found in Myres.et.al.2010 Table-S3, and you will see that they are  indeed the same haplotypes.

BTW, thank you for pointing this table out. It is interesting that the Upper Rhone/Swiss area has R-M269* folks.  Unfortunately, we have R-M269* folks from England as well as the greater proportions back in Asia.  I'm not sure how this supports your arguments.  I don't see where we have enough long haplotypes of R-M269*, R-L23xL150, R-L150xL51 and R-L51xL11 people to sort out a good STR diversity comparison.

Well the differences is that the folks from England aren’t 6  mutations removed from the modal, or 6 mutations or more removed from the vast majority of haplotypes back in Asia, on the other hand these Swiss are.  But, wait, so 19 SRTs aren’t good to sort STR diversity, I see, whenever data doesn’t produce “good” results, data isn’t good enough.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

They aren’t a couple, but 3 of the 10 R1b-L23(xL51) found in Swiss, and that’s exactly what is showing ,that while the vast majority of R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe has only been separated for a few thousand years, these two are outliers, in the sense that they have been separated from almost everyone around them for at least 6000-7000 years. Which is what one would expect if they got stranded in Western Europe before the arrival of the Neolithic.


I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

Well, I already told you that they are L23xL51, again look for the 10 STR values in Table-S3 and you will see that they are L23. As for the modal of L23xL51, I got it from this page:

 http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk (http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk)

I also have 394/19=15 to go with 391=12 and 389b=16 even though I'm L21+ and from Nebraska... well, I guess we could say Ireland.  How significant is this news?  I can easily find L21+ people who are GD's of 6 from WAMH (the L21 modal) at just 12 STR markers.  They are mostly from the US and the Isles. What should we make of that?

Ok, but you aren’t L23xL51, so what’s your point? Can you find people who are 6 one-step mutations away from the WAMH, not multi-step, but 6 one-step on the same markers, that is including two of the slowest markers DYS392, and DYS437.

We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

The problem is that per Myres.et.al.2010, only one Turkish haplotype is far more removed from the modal of L23xL51 than the Swiss haplotypes are, however, that same haplotype is equally as removed from the Swiss haplotypes as it is from the modal. So like I said, you find me another West European “exception”  that is 6 mutations from the modal, and 6 mutations or more from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Caucasus, and then I will see the problem of arguing by exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.


You don’t get it, do you? Is not about having L23xL51, is about having certain haplotypes that show clear signatures of being isolated in Western Europe for millennia.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 06:39:05 PM
This is what I know, R1b-L11, and subsequently its R1b-P312 form went from Western Europe to Central Europe, diversity at the R1b-P312 level shows that. It must have gotten to Western Europe somehow, Klyosov argues it was through North Africa, why?  Are the any particular diversity pattern that would indicate North Africa?
What data are using to support that you know that R1b-L11 and R1b-P312 went from Western Europe to Central Europe?

You mention R1b-L11 along with this west to east movement that you know of. R1b-U106 is a large part of R1b-L11. What evidence do you have that R1b-U106 moved west to east?  Where do you say U106 came from and based on what evidence?

Whoao you are giving me a lot of work in terms of replying, but fine.

I never claimed that R1b-U106 moved from west to east, if you think I did, then bring me a quote, where I explicitly or implicitly claim that R1b-U106 moved from west to east.  So let’s stop trying to put words in my mouth, and bringing in strawman arguments, no one with a sane mind would argue that R1b-U106 moved from West to East, hence why I wished Klyosov good luck in trying to prove that R1b-U106 was born in Iberia.

Now the argument, that R1b-P312 shows a Western-Eastern cline in terms of diversity.

 http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png (http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/p312.png)

R1b-U106,  was likely born somewhere in the Baltic area, as it is where it peaks in diversity, most likely somewhere around Estonia.

I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7

Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.

As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe.  In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 06:59:00 PM
I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

I don't think it is a crazy idea and never said that it is crazy to think that L51 originated in Western Europe.  I'm just trying to see if you can convince us that L51 did originate in Western Europe.  I think what you are saying is that you don't really have evidence of such.  That's okay. An opinion is just opinion. Nothing wrong with that.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on May 31, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on May 31, 2012, 07:02:33 PM
Lord what a depressing thread.  Occam's Razor has been blunded and the pleading is very special indeed.  You can kind of tell when people have a preferred model or have bought too deeply into a theory to retreat or their are identity aspects to it.  The evidence will always be pleaded to fit the theory

I agree, and you've got ironroad41 and palamede cheering it on.

In this argument, the most prolific poster - i.e., the one with the most free time on his hands - appears to carry the day. Who has time to counter all those posts and stats?

R-M269 moves into Europe sometime before the Neolithic; gets split in two by the triumphant Near Eastern farmers; hides out in the hills; experiences numerous, mysterious genetic bottlenecks to cleverly disguise its true age; and then comes roaring back to out-reproduce the once-dominant Near Eastern farmers.

A more or less steady progress from NE to SW sometime after the beginning of the European Neolithic makes more sense to me.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
There is also a strong distribution of R1b in many parts of North America, as well. My guess is there is some R1b-L51xL11 out here somewhere too.

You really want to compare the US, a country of immigrants, with Europe. Yeah, you can argue that France has had quite the migration, but I think when a researcher collects random sample on France, they make sure that the people being investigated are ethnic Frenchs, do you disagree with that?

I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 07:11:16 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say that a couple of haplotyes means that much as far as showing a Western European origin. R-M269* and R-L23 people have lineages that could easily have been separated by a few thousand years.

They aren’t a couple, but 3 of the 10 R1b-L23(xL51) found in Swiss, and that’s exactly what is showing ,that while the vast majority of R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe has only been separated for a few thousand years, these two are outliers, in the sense that they have been separated from almost everyone around them for at least 6000-7000 years. Which is what one would expect if they got stranded in Western Europe before the arrival of the Neolithic.

I guess 3 haplotypes is a whole lot better than a couple.  A total sample of 10 carries the day.  Okay, but I'm not going to rely on anecdotal data. There is not validation in a scattered find here or there.


I tried to plug in the YSearch ID for WHUFZ but nothing comes up. Is that a typo?  I'm not sure if comparing a modal for a paragroup L23xL51 to a just three M269* folks is that meaningful anyway.

Well, I already told you that they are L23xL51, again look for the 10 STR values in Table-S3 and you will see that they are L23. As for the modal of L23xL51, I got it from this page:

 http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk (http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/Y-DNA_modal_haplotypes_R1b.html#R-L23asterisk)

Okay so your saying the first link you cited is from a study that incorrectly labeled these.   ... and you are the one who trusts these academic studies?

And yes, Myres' 10 STRs are plenty to rely for analysis.... NOT.   I've seen time after time where different variance results vary inconsistently until we start getting up towards at least 25 markers.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 07:25:52 PM
We also have a number of R-M269* people in places like Armenia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Ukraine and Italy.  Do you see the problem with arguing by exception? There's always an exception.

The problem is that per Myres.et.al.2010, only one Turkish haplotype is far more removed from the modal of L23xL51 than the Swiss haplotypes are, however, that same haplotype is equally as removed from the Swiss haplotypes as it is from the modal. So like I said, you find me another West European “exception”  that is 6 mutations from the modal, and 6 mutations or more from most L23xL51 haplotypes found in Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Caucasus, and then I will see the problem of arguing by exception.

I can count 248 R-L23xL51 people in our DNA projects. 36% of them list Turkey or Armenia(n) as their origin.  Switzerland and Italy also make the list but no other country comes close to the total that Turkey/Armenia shows.  I think that data is a bit more significant than a few outlier haplotypes here or there, but I agree it is NOT conclusive and not a comprehensive representation of the populations.

It is interesting that Italy/Switzerland keeps popping up with some similarities to points further east.


You don’t get it, do you? Is not about having L23xL51, is about having certain haplotypes that show clear signatures of being isolated in Western Europe for millennia.

I see what you are saying that there are some L23xL51 signatures that are unusual as compared to WAMH.  I would expect that because, by phylogenetic definition, L51- people branched away from L51+ people a long time ago.  I can assure you there are L23xL51 people in the US.  One their STRs might be, I'm not that really interested in because it makes little difference.  The key is the L51- versus L51+ branching.  As has been noted, STRs mutate and back-mutate, possibly covering up the great lengths of time between branches.

I just don't think you can claim two outliers who may be relatives and one other in Switzerland are enough to build a strong story.  You are possibly right.  I'll say that and that's to your credit and your investigation is definitely a good thing.

You can also say 3 out of 10 is significant but I don't think a sample of 10 is worth a hill of beans.  As we've discussed before, we need a much broader representation of test results across SE Europe and SW Asia.  We just don't have it, but if you want to look for strange things you can go east as well.

Perhaps Switzerland/the Alps/the upper Rhone is to Anatolia or Romania or the Steppes .......   as what the Eastern US is to the Isles?   Midpoint destinations?

That might line up a little better with some Bronze Age or Neolithic Age archaelogically documented expansions.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Jdean on May 31, 2012, 07:26:57 PM
I'm just trying to follow you all the way through on what you cite as coincidences and their significance. You seem to trail off without fully explaining. Of course, I'm not that smart so I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
 What's your point about the coincidences of R1b-L150 and I-M253?

That I1 was in Western Europe pre-Neolithic just as R1b-L23(xL150) was, and that isn’t it such a coincidence that both appear to have expanded at the same time, or around the same time. Isn’t also a coincidence that G2a, and I2a get similar intraclade TMRCA, at least per the table you posted of Marko.H, I said that I2a tagged along with G2a farmers, and it shows in the fact that both were  found in Treilles, France. Hence I2a did not suffer any bottlenecks, which shows in their intraclade age, whereas I1 like R1b-L23 suffered a bottleneck in Western Europe, due to the arrival of farmers.


You say "R1b-L51xL11 has a very westernly distribution." Are you saying that we should depict origin based on frequency?   How is this meaningful to the coincidences you cite?

Well R1b-L51xL11 is very scarce, and if it only shows up in Western Europe, it isn’t such a crazy idea to envision it originated there.

I don't think it is a crazy idea and never said that it is crazy to think that L51 originated in Western Europe.  I'm just trying to see if you can convince us that L51 did originate in Western Europe.  I think what you are saying is that you don't really have evidence of such.  That's okay. An opinion is just opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Funnily enough but Didier has just posted a critique of Anatole's new paper which mentions the east / west distribution of L23 & L51

http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-05/1338505374 (http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-05/1338505374)


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 31, 2012, 09:28:58 PM

I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7
Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.
As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I actually was calculating the variance country by country, but I didn’t feel like going through all that work just to prove a point, that I already knew, so I went ahead and posted that map. Yes, Turkey is pretty high up there, with 5 haplotypes, so is Poland with 6.  Pakistan has a variance of 0.41 for L23xL51 per Myres Table-S2, do you think that is accurate, or could it have to do with the fact that there are only 5 haplotypes.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

Well R1b-P312 is older than R1b-U106, and it has more variance in Western Europe than it does in Eastern Europe, so hence, I see it very likely as an scenario where R1b-L11 expands from Western Europe, R1b-P312 is born amidst that expansion, and R1b-U106 was likely born once R1b-L11 reached some regions of Eastern Europe. 

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe

Yes R1b-L11 expanded very quickly but left very few direct descendants, in fact, it only had 2 successful descendants, on the other hand  R1b-P312 was far more successful in Western Europe, and R1b-U106 in the Baltic region.

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

You know this is very sad, because I feel like you didn’t read anything of what I said, when I was proposing my hypothesis. If you go back and read, you will see that R1b-L11 did not pick up metallurgy or PIE, instead R1b-L23(xL150) bearers coming from the east were the ones that brought it. Everything isn’t black or white, in fact, I think that there was a definite expansion of R1b-L23(xL150) from Anatolia, or the Steppes, and that these folks were the ones that brought over metallurgy and PIE, but R1b-L11 was already expanding in Western Europe. What culture do I attribute that expansion you might ask? Either the initial phases of the Bell Beakers, or the expansion of Megalithism.


I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.

Well if you don’t trust the data what is the point of discussing it. Don’t ask me about Myres coverage of France, I have no idea why she covered that over Normandy, or even Brittany. Europe has only been a region of immigrant recently, and like I said, in most studies, when it is not said explicitly, it is assumed that the subjects of each country are native people.  Wait, you are talking about pre-historic migrations, do you really want to compare an R1b-L23xL51 guy from the US who can have ancestry from anywhere from Ireland to Turkey in the past 500 years, to an ethnic Swiss who at most could have gotten it from their neighbors.

I guess 3 haplotypes is a whole lot better than a couple.  A total sample of 10 carries the day.  Okay, but I'm not going to rely on anecdotal data. There is not validation in a scattered find here or there.

Well Mike, if these are survivors, they are gonna be rare to find, most of the R1b-L23(xL51) in Europe is fairly recent, yet you get these oddballs that are distant from everyone, including the oddballs in West Asia that are pretty old. So how do you explain them, did they simply come recently from West Asia, well how come they are so distant from all of those other folks over there then?


Okay so your saying the first link you cited is from a study that incorrectly labeled these.   ... and you are the one who trusts these academic studies?

And yes, Myres' 10 STRs are plenty to rely for analysis.... NOT.   I've seen time after time where different variance results vary inconsistently until we start getting up towards at least 25 markers.

Look man, stop putting words in my mouths, and enough with the freaking strawman arguments. No, they did not incorrectly labeled those, they labeled them as R1b-M269*, because back in 2008 when that study was published, they did not type the L23, or the L51 SNP in those samples, hence why they called them R1b-M269*, however we know that Myres used those haplotypes, and that only 10 markers out of the 19 were used in Myres study. So I took a look and was able to identify the haplotypes in the 19 marker form based on the haplotype information I had on the 10 marker form. Is that so hard to understand?  Yes I trust academic studies, but not because they are published by scientists, but because they make sense to me, if it doesn’t make sense, then I don’t trust it.  The academic studies out there are using 10 and 15 STRs, and that is what I work with.

I see what you are saying that there are some L23xL51 signatures that are unusual as compared to WAMH.  I would expect that because, by phylogenetic definition, L51- people branched away from L51+ people a long time ago.  I can assure you there are L23xL51 people in the US.  One their STRs might be, I'm not that really interested in because it makes little difference.  The key is the L51- versus L51+ branching.  As has been noted, STRs mutate and back-mutate, possibly covering up the great lengths of time between branches.

Those two haplotype, actually the three have two mutations in the slow markers, that is DYS392, and DYS437. I agree the first two are likely closely related, but  the point I was trying to make, is that if any of the pre-Neolithic R1b-L23(xL150) lineages that were pushed to Western Europe and gave rise to R1b-L150 in Western Europe survided today, it would be very far removed from the others. Yes there are L23xL51 people in the US, again, what does that have to do with anything of what I am saying? I think that somewhere from 95-99% of the R1b-L23(xL23) found in Western Europe came from the Steppes recently during the Bronze Age expansions, the other 1-5% are the surviving lineages  of the cousins of R1b-L150 in Western Europe. Those two Swiss haplotypes could very well represent those cousins. 


I just don't think you can claim two outliers who may be relatives and one other in Switzerland are enough to build a strong story.  You are possibly right.  I'll say that and that's to your credit and your investigation is definitely a good thing.

You can also say 3 out of 10 is significant but I don't think a sample of 10 is worth a hill of beans.  As we've discussed before, we need a much broader representation of test results across SE Europe and SW Asia.  We just don't have it, but if you want to look for strange things you can go east as well.

I did, like I told you the haplotype that is the most far removed from the L23xL51 modal is actually found in 1 Turkish sample, it is 7 single-step mutations removed from the L23xL51 modal in a 10 STR format. So you might posit the question, maybe him and the Swiss are related in the last 1000 years, and simply the Swiss aren’t really a sign of Western European survival. But it turns out, they are 7 single-step mutations removed from the “oldest” Turkish haplotype. So they did not come recently(As in 2000 ybp) from West Asia, and they are not part of the normal arrival of R1b-L23(xL51) in Europe which usually falls within 3-4 mutations away from the modal,  they have been in Europe for quite some time.


Perhaps Switzerland/the Alps/the upper Rhone is to Anatolia or Romania or the Steppes .......   as what the Eastern US is to the Isles?   Midpoint destinations?

That might line up a little better with some Bronze Age or Neolithic Age archaelogically documented expansions.

Well fine, R1b-L23(xL150) came from Anatolia, or Romania or the Steppes in the Bronze Age, the L11 mutation arose in the way,  and R1b-P312 too, but for some reason the R1b-U106 guy knew he had to get off the wagon soon, so he did not continue on to Central Europe, but headed to the Baltic, the R1b-P312 guy went on to Western Europe, and then hit the Western fringes turn back and expanded from France. All this time, they were hunter gatherers that learned farming and metallurgy from the farmers in the Steppes, they also spoke PIE, but managed to lose their language once they arrived at the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia.  Yes, Occam razor applies only in certain situations.

Here why don't we do a compilation of the hypotheses out there for the expansion of R1b-M269 in Europe:

Klyosov:
Quote
The regions considered are from South Siberia/Central Asia in the east (where R1b haplogroup arose ~16,000 ybp) via the North Kazakhstan, South Ural to the Russian Plain and further west to Europe (the northern route entering Europe around 4500 ybp); from the Russian Plain south to the Caucasus (6000 ybp), Asia Minor (6000 ybp) and the Middle East (6000 - 5500 ybp) to the Balkans in Europe (the southern route, entering Europe around 4500 ybp); along North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (5500 - 5000 ybp) via Egypt to the Atlantic, north to Iberia (the North African route with arrival to the Pyrenees 4800 ybp). The Arbins (bearers of R1b haplogroup) along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently have established the Sumer culture (and the state), moving westward to Europe (5000 - 4500 ybp) carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later. At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe). They are evidenced from the Atlantic eastward to the Balkans, Carpathian Mountains, present day Poland to the western border of the Russian Plain and up to the Baltic Sea. The Isles had a different history of R1b migrations. The bearers of L11, P312 and L21 moved to the Isles by land and sea concurrently with those Arbins who were populating Europe between 4000 and 2500 ybp and formed the respective “local” subclades of P314, M222, L226, which largely populated the Isles. As a result, a significant part of the Isles is populated almost exclusively by the Arbins, whose frequency reaches 85% - 95% among the current population. In general, the frequency of Arbins in Western and Central Europe, reaches—albeit not uniformly—some 60% of the population.
[…]
Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.

So let’s see, Klyosov explanations has R1b as nonIndoEuropean speaking ,so he covers the Basque issue nicely, however,  he assumes that Indo-European languages spread in Western Europe by cultural diffusion, uhmm that sounds familiar? First assumption, then he brings in the bottleneck argument to explain why R1b-L11 get 4850 ybp, yet R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 expand 1000 years later, uhmm that sounds familiar? Second assumption. He then has R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 expanding from Iberia to colonize Europe with the Bell Beakers?

PS: Klyosov is basically trying to argue something similar to what I am arguing, only in his scenario, the R1b-L23(xL150) did not take refuge in Western Europe, but came to there from North Africa, and expanded from there as R1b-L11. He also has R1b-L23(xL150) coming directly from the East, but not speaking PIE. Whereas I think that they did speak PIE.

Yet another one of my favorite hypothesis:

Maciamo
1.   
Quote
According to my IE theory, R1b acquired horses and Bronze weapons, invaded the Balkans, and stayed there for nearly 2000 years before moving on very quickly to Central and Western Europe (all within about 500 years). The patriarchic Indo-European R1b men would have taken (several) local wives/concubines among the conquered populations, each time diluting their original autosomes, though increasing the overall percentage of their Y-DNA signature in the European population.

By the time R1b-L11 reached Central Europe, roughly 4500 years ago, R1b people were very heterogeneous, carrying Gedrosian admixtures from their Palaeolithic origins in Iran/Anatolia (I would guess only around 20-25% by then, with a tint of South Asian as well), Northeast/East European admixtures from the steppe (I'd say 15-20%), and a compound of Southeast European, West Asian, Caucasian and Southwest Asian from their conquest of the Neolithic Balkans (this could have been higher and might account for most of these admixtures in Northern Europe).

Naturally, R1b would have mixed again with natives in Central, then Western Europe. Considering the fast conquest from 2500 BCE onwards and the sudden explosion of R1b lineages, I would think that R1b men did slaughter or marginalise local men and took a lot of local women. This would have had for effect a sharp dilution of their autosomal gene pool. If R1b men had children only local women, their autosomal contribution would have fallen by exactly 50%.

But apparently his postulate is a theory, not a hypothesis.  But like some of you folks said, it is sad how much I have violated Occam’s razor with my wild hypothesis, because after all the alternatives, just make so much more sense, and make so little assumptions.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 09:51:44 PM

I don't really disagree with P312 having a significant expansion out SE France. I think that is quite possible. I guess there are some semantics confusions here as I don't really think of that high diversity in SE France as an west to east cline but just an expansion in pretty much all directions from SE France.

However, if you are relying on the chart that Rokus posted, you might want to reconsider.  I've got a copy of this chart too. I'm pretty sure that is the chart Vince Vizachero created 2 years ago on DNA-Forums from the Myres data.  However, he added some caveats that the charting tool "smoothed" out some of the clines so he didn't intend the chart to be used with much precision.

Let me show you what I mean. The actual data is Myres' Table 2. I extracted just the count and average variance columns and resorted them.

Here is S116 (P312) all by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Turkey________ AvgVar=0.330 __N=5
Vaucluse______ AvgVar=0.307 __N=20
Poland________ AvgVar=0.270 __N=6
France________ AvgVar=0.268 __N=40
Slovenia______ AvgVar=0.267 __N=7
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.262 __N=62
Hungary_______ AvgVar=0.256 __N=9
England_______ AvgVar=0.233 __N=43
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.231 __N=48
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.224 __N=20
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.208 __N=73
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.198 __N=72
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.196 __N=14
Sweden________ AvgVar=0.172 __N=10
Romania_______ AvgVar=0.169 __N=11
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.167 __N=16
Greece________ AvgVar=0.162 __N=7
Yes, I see Vaucluse up there and that is SE France. That's the only specific location in France that Myres included!  Did you happen to notice Turkey right above Vaucluse? or Poland right below? Your purported west to east cline or even a French outward cline is a little more suspect now, wouldn't you agree?  It doesn't matter, these samples are to small for some key locations and are missing many, many locations.
As you can see, the chart Rokus posted may not have had the proper caveats.

I actually was calculating the variance country by country, but I didn’t feel like going throaugh all that work just to prove a point, that I already knew, so I went ahead and posted that map. Yes, Turkey is pretty high up there, with 5 haplotypes, so is Poland with 6.  Pakistan has a variance of 0.41 for L23xL51 per Myres Table-S2, do you think that is accurate, or could it have to do with the fact that there are only 5 haplotypes.

I don't really have a problem in understanding that SE France has high diversity for P312, but you also mentioned L11 has having a west to east cline.  When you say L11 I assume you really mean L11, which includes U106. P312's brother, of about the same age.  U106 can not be ignored. He is L11+ too.  Perhaps you didn't really mean to say R-L11 and just intended to say R-P312 had a west to east cline.

From the same Myres report, here is U106 "all" variance by location.
Quote from: Myres_excerpt

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20

As you already knew, it is Baltic oriented. I don't see any support for the west to east movement that you espouse for L11. How can you say L11 went west to east while U106 was going east to west.  Oh well, you must have meant something else.

Well R1b-P312 is older than R1b-U106, and it has more variance in Western Europe than it does in Eastern Europe, so hence, I see it very likely as an scenario where R1b-L11 expands from Western Europe, R1b-P312 is born amidst that expansion, and R1b-U106 was likely born once R1b-L11 reached some regions of Eastern Europe.  

... so L11 has a whole, doesn't demonstrate much of a west to east cline that I'm aware of. If anything, its the other direction, but I think Busby et al probably has to be given their due credit here when they noted that there was "no significant" cline.  To me, there is a take-away from that, though. That take-aways is that  L11 expanded very quickly widely through out Europe.  

Yes R1b-L11 expanded very quickly but left very few direct descendants, in fact, it only had 2 successful descendants, on the other hand  R1b-P312 was far more successful in Western Europe, and R1b-U106 in the Baltic region.

In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

You know this is very sad, because I feel like you didn’t read anything of what I said, when I was proposing my hypothesis. If you go back and read, you will see that R1b-L11 did not pick up metallurgy or PIE, instead R1b-L23(xL150) bearers coming from the east were the ones that brought it. Everything isn’t black or white, in fact, I think that there was a definite expansion of R1b-L23(xL150) from Anatolia, or the Steppes, and that these folks were the ones that brought over metallurgy and PIE, but R1b-L11 was already expanding in Western Europe. What culture do I attribute that expansion you might ask? Either the initial phases of the Bell Beakers, or the expansion of Megalithism.


I don't really trust that all of these samples by various poorly funded academic studies are collected correctly. They could alright, but as I just pointed out, Myres' coverage of France is extremely week and that is critical for P312/S116.  They focused on Vaucluse?  To what purpose? Were they just looking for something there?  Why not look at Normandy?

The answer to your question about Europe - is absolutely and unequivocally - YES.  Europe is a region of immigrants too.  Just like North America.  The immigrants came in a different time and since it was primarily prehistorical it is harder to track.

Yes, Europe is a place of immigrants, just like the US.  Just look at the mix of haplogroups and differentiation between Y and mt DNA patterns.

Well if you don’t trust the data what is the point of discussing it. Don’t ask me about Myres coverage of France, I have no idea why she covered that over Normandy, or even Brittany. Europe has only been a region of immigrant recently, and like I said, in most studies, when it is not said explicitly, it is assumed that the subjects of each country are native people.  Wait, you are talking about pre-historic migrations, do you really want to compare an R1b-L23xL51 guy from the US who can have ancestry from anywhere from Ireland to Turkey in the past 500 years, to an ethnic Swiss who at most could have gotten it from their neighbors.

I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus (a blogger) actually created by Vizachero (another blogger) without Vince's caveats. Do you blindly rely on what these academics are doing as being comprehensive and what the bloggers derive from it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.  BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  (Wikipedia: "the expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases."

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on May 31, 2012, 10:08:46 PM
I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus actually created by Vizachero without his caveats. Do you blindly trust what these academics are doing is comprehensive?

No, I don’t blindly trust it, but after reviewing it, I see no reason not to trust it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

So sample sizes are decent, other are very small.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.   (BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?)

No, I decided that R1b-U106 is not part of L11. What the heck is the point of that question? Of course R1b-U106 is part of R1b-L11, I said that R1b-U106 likely arose in the Baltic or in Poland.  Per variance calculations R1b-P312 is slightly older than R1b-U106, they all descend from an R1b-L11 guy, however they do not descend from the same guy, they are cousins, not brothers. 

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

Good to know then, I usually consider 10 as the minimum sample size, and still if is bigger than 20, it is far better.

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

Oh, so now you are accusing me of cherry picking? I did not finish it, because I had to go over 13 countries, and I didn't feel like covering all of them, specially with countries such as Austria where the sample size was 5, or Turkey with 5, or Poland with 6.


2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.

Ok basically Mike this is what is happening, I’m claiming that R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe is mostly the product of the R1b-L23(xL51) that arrived there with the arrival of the IndoEuropeans, yet there are a few survivors that were likely there pre-Neolithic, I predicted that those survivors were going to be very scarce, and very distantly removed from all other L23xL51 haplotypes. I find 3 haplotypes that meet the criteria, yet you say it is not enough, well, it is not like the R1b-L23(xL51) survivors are so easy to find, they won’t be easy to find, because after all, they are whatever is left of R1b-L23(xL51) after the expansions of R1b-L23(xL51) from the Steppes or Anatolia, the expansion of R1b-P312 from Western Europe, and the expansion of R1b-U106 from Eastern Europe.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Heber on May 31, 2012, 10:43:23 PM
In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  

How about the Rio Tinto Valley, the richest source of minerals in the ancient world and the epicentre of Cunliffe and Koch, Celtic from the West, theory? This type of open cast mining and smelting for the new metal culture represented by the Bell Beakers would have required huge ressources of wood for construction and charcoal. It is adjacent to the oldest BB finds in the Tagus River Valley and the Copper Age sites of Los Millares.
it is also one of the hotspots on RRs R1b-L51 map along with the Erne and the Rhone River Valley.

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/L51_Map_with_Neolithic_Path_003.png

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

"Reputed to be the oldest mines in the world, Rio Tinto has a particularly rich history. Their mineral wealth was already legendary in ancient times. According to myth, these are the fabled mines of King Solomon, and a section of the area is still known as Cerro Salomón today. The nearby villages of Zalamea la Vieja (now called Nerva) and Zalamea la Real are also named after the biblical king. It was tales of the Iberian Peninsula's mineral wealth that drew Phoenician merchants to its shores, laying the foundations for a succession of Greek, Carthaginian and Roman invasions. The Rio Tinto mines they worked so intensively were among the most prized rewards that control of Iberia yielded."

http://www.andalucia.com/province/huelva/riotinto/home.htm

"The Tartessians were rich in metal. In the 4th century BC the historian Ephorus describes "a very prosperous market called Tartessos, with much tin carried by river, as well as gold and copper from Celtic lands".[2] Trade in tin was very lucrative in the Bronze Age, since it is an essential component of true bronze, and comparatively rare. Herodotus refers to a king of Tartessos, Arganthonios, presumably named for his wealth in silver."

"The existence of foreign produce and materials together with local ones permits to recognize the old Huelva harbor as a major hub for the reception, manufacturing and shipping of diverse products of different and distant origin. The analysis of written sources and the products exhumed, including inscriptions and thousand of Greek ceramics, some of which are works of excellent quality by known potters and painters, tends to identify this habitat not only with Tarshish mentioned in the Bible, in the Assyrian stele of Esharhaddon and perhaps in the Phoenician inscription of the Nora Stone, but also with the Tartessos of Greek sources –interpreting the Tartessus river as equivalent to the present-day Tinto river and the Ligustine Lake to the joint estuary of the Odiel and Tinto rivers flowing west and east of the Huelva Peninsula.
Further articles published in several specialized magazines are spreading the news of the spectacular finds which continue to be unearthed in the city of Huelva to this day."

"The Tartessian language is an extinct pre-Roman language once spoken in southern Iberia. The oldest known indigenous texts of Iberia, dated from the 7th to 6th centuries BC, are written in Tartessian. The inscriptions are written in a semi-syllabic writing system and were found in the general area in which Tartessos was located and in surrounding areas of influence. Tartessian language texts were found in Southwestern Spain and Southern Portugal (namely in the Conii areas of the Algarve and southern Alentejo. This variety is often referred as Southwest script). The affiliation of Tartessian is uncertain.[22] According to a new proposal by John T. Koch and others, however, Tartessian may have been the earliest written Celtic language."

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




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
I ask you about Myres coverage of France because you throw up the chart as evidence from Rokus actually created by Vizachero without his caveats. Do you blindly trust what these academics are doing is comprehensive?

No, I don’t blindly trust it, but after reviewing it, I see no reason not to trust it.

I'm not asking you to consider the academics or other bloggers as trustworthy personally or not.  I'm asking you to consider they are no smarter than you or me and they may not have comprehensive or representative data.  That's okay, but it is important to supply the caveats or look clearly at the alternatives.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't trust the data. I said I don't trust the samples.... I meant the sample sizes.

So sample sizes are decent, other are very small.

You are the one who brought Myres data in as supporting evidence for your west to east theory for R-L11.   (BTW, did you ever decide if U106 is part of L11 or not?)

No, I decided that R1b-U106 is not part of L11. What the heck is the point of that question? Of course R1b-U106 is part of R1b-L11, I said that R1b-U106 likely arose in the Baltic or in Poland.  Per variance calculations R1b-P312 is slightly older than R1b-U106, they all descend from an R1b-L11 guy, however they do not descend from the same guy, they are cousins, not brothers.  

They still descend from the same guy.. be he a grandfather, 3g-grandfather or further back. U106 and P312 descend from the same ancestor, and not too long before them. That is what the TMRCA estimates are saying.

Somehow you have to account for U106 being older in the Baltic, possibly, and P312, being older in SE France, possibly, but both being not too distantly related.  Your statements about L11 showing a west to east expansion don't hold water.

I never said the 5 from Turkey was adequate.  It is not.

Good to know then, I usually consider 10 as the minimum sample size, and still if is bigger than 20, it is far better.

I don't know what a proper minimum sample size is.  We need to probably hear from a market survey type statistician, but I don't see how 5 or 10 haplotypes can adequate represent a whole country.

BTW, since you said above you were "actually... .calculating the variance ... by country" why did you throw up a chart that skipped Turkey, with the highest variance on the table.  Are you cherry picking? If you threw it out because the sample was too small that's okay but in the interest of disclosure you should say that and point to other limitations in the sampling.

Oh, so now you are accusing me of cherry picking? I did not finish it, because I had to go over 13 countries, and I didn't feel like covering all of them, specially with countries such as Austria where the sample size was 5, or Turkey with 5, or Poland with 6.


2 or 3 is not enough. When you say 2 or 3 out of 10 Swiss are whatever they are that is not enough. 10 is not enough.

At these very small sample levels we are really just arguing about anecdotal data. Do you understand what that is?  It just becomes a confusing mess because anyone can find an exception to about anything if they want to look hard enough.

Ok basically Mike this is what is happening, I’m claiming that R1b-L23(xL51) in Western Europe is mostly the product of the R1b-L23(xL51) that arrived there with the arrival of the IndoEuropeans, yet there are a few survivors that were likely there pre-Neolithic, I predicted that those survivors were going to be very scarce, and very distantly removed from all other L23xL51 haplotypes. I find 3 haplotypes that meet the criteria, yet you say it is not enough, well, it is not like the R1b-L23(xL51) survivors are so easy to find, they won’t be easy to find, because after all, they are whatever is left of R1b-L23(xL51) after the expansions of R1b-L23(xL51) from the Steppes or Anatolia, the expansion of R1b-P312 from Western Europe, and the expansion of R1b-U106 from Eastern Europe.
Okay, this is a little more complex than I thought, but that's okay. The situation is complex in its outcomes.

L23xL51 came from the east with IE cultures. However, by that time...
P312 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-P312 lineage was already in Western Europe.
U106 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-U106 lineage was already in Northern Europe.
Both U106 and in particular, P312, expanded prolificly.

Is that fair summary? or do you think U106 and P312 had already expanded by the time L23xL51 got there?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 01, 2012, 09:23:24 AM
I'm not asking you to consider the academics or other bloggers as trustworthy personally or not.  I'm asking you to consider they are no smarter than you or me and they may not have comprehensive or representative data.  That's okay, but it is important to supply the caveats or look clearly at the alternatives.

Well the reason why I consider academics more trustworthy is because at least those that publish in major Journals are expected to undergo a deep reviewing process by another knowledgeable colleague who is supposed to approve the publication. However, that doesn’t prevent disastrous papers from being published, but often times, the higher the impact factor, the harder it becomes to publish in certain journals, and basically one cannot BS and get away with it. Also data collected by Academics is supposed to follow certain protocols that aren’t usually met when the data is used by bloggers. In fact it is not the bloggers fault, I’m sure there are bloggers out there that are far more knowledgeable than some Academics, is just they lack the financial resources to be able to go in the field and collect proper data. So they have to rely on data that is published, or on DNA projects, the problem with DNA project in FTDNA is that you can have say a Mexican guy who is R1b-L23, and he claims he descends from Martin Perez de Ayala, Cuenca, Castilla La Mancha circa 1564, but there is a very real probability that Martin Perez de Ayala was a “converso” (Jewish person converted to Christianity) that migrated to the New World. On the other hand, you go on the field and sample 50 people from Cuenca, and most of those people aren’t going to be of “converso” descent because most “converses” migrated to the New World to escape persecution.  Likewise they are tons and tons of isolated villages everywhere in Europe where external flux has only been a recent thing, and people can track their ancestry in that region for centuries. In that sense, I tend to favor academic studies over FTDNA projects. The other thing is that is very hard to avoid sampling bias when working with FTDNA projects.

They still descend from the same guy.. be he a grandfather, 3g-grandfather or further back. U106 and P312 descend from the same ancestor, and not too long before them. That is what the TMRCA estimates are saying.

Well yes, but I wouldn't put too much precision on the TMRCA, because if one look at the sigmas, then one can definitely get R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 being separated by quite some distance, and in fact one could even get R1b-U106 being older than R1b-P312. In any case, anything is possible, if R1b-P312 was born first, then it is likely that R1b-L11 was around Western Europe when R1b-P312 was born, if R1b-U106 was born first, then it fits with the R1b-L11 theory coming from the east more nicely. However, for all we know R1b-L11 could have also been everywhere from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, and while hanging there they had R1b-P312, and R1b-U106. But what is clear to me, is that R1b-P312 took off like crazy, and likely killed his cousins, or something, because R1b-L11(xP312,U106) is so scarce that it seems to me, that if it ever was widespread in Europe, it suffered a great bottleneck.

Somehow you have to account for U106 being older in the Baltic, possibly, and P312, being older in SE France, possibly, but both being not too distantly related.  Your statements about L11 showing a west to east expansion don't hold water.

Why not, the only reason they would hold water would be if the precision of TMRCA was clock-like, but we know that there are sigmas, and that R1b-P312 could be distantly related to R1b-U106, or even R1b-U106 could be older. However, there isn’t sufficient evidence to go one way or the other? So yes my statement do hold water, as much as the next guy’s statement that R1b-L11 expanded from East and R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 were born along the way. 

I don't know what a proper minimum sample size is.  We need to probably hear from a market survey type statistician, but I don't see how 5 or 10 haplotypes can adequate represent a whole country.
Well 20 haplotypes cannot represent a whole country, however, 20 haplotypes for a homogenous region can represent it, if, one gets consistent results when repeating the same experiment with 20 different haplotypes from the same region numerous times.


Okay, this is a little more complex than I thought, but that's okay. The situation is complex in its outcomes.

L23xL51 came from the east with IE cultures. However, by that time...
P312 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-P312 lineage was already in Western Europe.
U106 or at least an L51+ L11+ pre-U106 lineage was already in Northern Europe.
Both U106 and in particular, P312, expanded prolificly.

Is that fair summary? or do you think U106 and P312 had already expanded by the time L23xL51 got there?

I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 01, 2012, 10:11:12 AM
I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 01, 2012, 10:25:47 AM
I’m just  trying to explain the linguistic dichotomy observed in Europe, if R1b-L11+ was not IndoEuropean speaking, and it got partly IndoEuropeanized by R1b-L23(xL150) from the East, while being in Central Europe, then we only need the Celtic expansions to explain the current haplogroup patterns. Also, the presence of R1b-L23(xL150) in Western Europe, could attest that some of the original PIE speakers came along with the newly indo-Europeanized folks. On the other hand, if R1b-L11 was born in the expansion from the East, and was IndoEuropean speaking, then we get the Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly. Yes one could argue that I-M26 was the pre-IndoEuropean guy, but it is very hard to conceive IndoEuropean speaking R1b-L11+ folks arriving at the Basque Country, being so successful with the ladies, yet having their kids still speak the “backwards” language.  It just doesn’t fit the “macho man” view of IndoEuropean folks. 

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

R1b can also be found in other non-IE populations, at least in minority amounts. There is a posting in the Assyrian thread at  http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=9505.0
where we see that R1b is found in some Semitic speaking peoples in decent percentages.

I think this evidence that R1b has just found a way into other cultures, not that R1b was originally Euskara or Semitic speaking.   As Richarrd R is pointing out... R1b's predominance, far and away, is in IE language cultures, particularly of the Centum paragroup. 


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 01, 2012, 10:28:11 AM

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

What does modern day population say about what the population in those regions was circa 5000 ybp, do you know how the population was distributed back then? In fact, ethnic Basques are nowhere near 3 million, they probably do not amount to 1 million, so what? Again, what does that have to do with the population in the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia 5000 ybp. You do know that a lot of people that speak today Romance languages were Basque speaking in Roman times, here is a map of Gaul including Aquitania, did you know that all of Aquitania was nonIndoEuropean speaking?

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png)

It is easier to dismiss the Basques today, and to call the argument ridiculous, however a quick search on the internet reveals that all these people in Green also spoke a nonIndoEuropean language.

 http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg (http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg)

So it is not so easy to ignore it, once it is put in the proper context.

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Ok, and I think you are ignoring modern population distribution has nothing to do with the population circa 4000-5000 years ago. Again, look at the maps, and tell me with a straight face that they can easily be ignored.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

Exactly, and did the switching to an IE language bring about drastic changes in their y-DNA haplogroups?
Here are the results of people living in the Aragonese Pyrenees circa 900 AD, back then the region was Basque speaking, nowadays is Romance speaking.

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/)   

Ok, if I2-M26 is linked to non-IE, then how come R1b-P312 is older/has more variance in the Basque+Pyrenees region than I-M26.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: eochaidh on June 01, 2012, 11:31:12 AM
I've mentioned this before, and I'm not certain it will help, but here goes:

The Basque are strikingly low in Caucasus Admixture scores. People all around them show scores of Caucasus Admixture, with Poitou showing higher than the surrounding area.

If anything, this would seem to show no connection with R1b and Caucasus Admixture scores.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 01, 2012, 11:44:16 AM

Hum, let's see how absurd calling Basque/Iberian/Sardinian anomaly an "anomaly" really is:

Catalan and Valencian speaking populations = 13 million
Basque Country population = 3 million
Sardinia population = 1.7 million
Total = 17.7 million

Western Europe total population = 412.7 million

What does modern day population say about what the population in those regions was circa 5000 ybp, do you know how the population was distributed back then? In fact, ethnic Basques are nowhere near 3 million, they probably do not amount to 1 million, so what? Again, what does that have to do with the population in the Pyrenees, Eastern Iberia, and Sardinia 5000 ybp. You do know that a lot of people that speak today Romance languages were Basque speaking in Roman times, here is a map of Gaul including Aquitania, did you know that all of Aquitania was nonIndoEuropean speaking?

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png)

It is easier to dismiss the Basques today, and to call the argument ridiculous, however a quick search on the internet reveals that all these people in Green also spoke a nonIndoEuropean language.

 http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg (http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg)

So it is not so easy to ignore it, once it is put in the proper context.

So do we base the R1b link on the remaining 3 million non-IE speakers or on the other 410 million? I think calling it an anomaly is right on the money, and treating it as anything is nonsensical.

Ok, and I think you are ignoring modern population distribution has nothing to do with the population circa 4000-5000 years ago. Again, look at the maps, and tell me with a straight face that they can easily be ignored.

Let's also not forget that Catalans, Valencians and Sardinians had no problems switching over to an IE language.

Also, let's please remove the Sardinians from the 'anomaly' category as they have the least amount of R1b in all of Western Europe by a lot. If anything, they are one of the best arguments for a R1b+IE link and an ancient I2 non-IE link.

Exactly, and did the switching to an IE language bring about drastic changes in their y-DNA haplogroups?
Here are the results of people living in the Aragonese Pyrenees circa 900 AD, back then the region was Basque speaking, nowadays is Romance speaking.

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118721/)   

Ok, if I2-M26 is linked to non-IE, then how come R1b-P312 is older/has more variance in the Basque+Pyrenees region than I-M26.


Yes, I can tell you with a straight face that if 66% of Iberia spoke early IE languages, then R1b can be securely linked to R1b.

Since you brought it up, let's move onto Aquitania. Aquitania is the area of France where the least amount of Bell Beaker material has been found. Aquitania is sandwiched between two areas of France that contain the highest densities of Bell Beaker material: Brittany and Languedoc/Provence. As per Myres, French R1b peaks in Brittany and Provence and decreases between the two, Aquitania included.

Do you think its a coincidence that the closest ancient DNA to Aquitania (Treilles) tested so far has found G2a and I2a but no R1b during a time period (3,000 BC) which was a mere centuries away from seeing a Bell Beaker explosion? You still think all of this is a mere coincidence?

Aquitania and ancient DNA seems to reinforce the R1b=IE link and not the other way around.

As for high level variance, it is of very little use in your example. Within my own U152 group, I can tell you that the variance swings wildly from one country to another when taking its subclades into account, and changes even when a different number of STRs are used. Additionally, you can't compare the variance of I2-M26 and R1b in Basques as I2-M26 seems to be the product of exactly one migratory event and R1b is probably the result of repeated R1b incursions from every direction spanning thousands of years. This is attested in the variety of R1b found in modern day Basques.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 01, 2012, 12:38:10 PM
Yes, I can tell you with a straight face that if 66% of Iberia spoke early IE languages, then R1b can be securely linked to R1b.

Some R1b can be linked to IE, others can’t. You can’t dismiss the 1/3 of Iberia, and one of the most populated areas of Iberia in the pre-Roman era.

Since you brought it up, let's move onto Aquitania. Aquitania is the area of France where the least amount of Bell Beaker material has been found. Aquitania is sandwiched between two areas of France that contain the highest densities of Bell Beaker material: Brittany and Languedoc/Provence. As per Myres, French R1b peaks in Brittany and Provence and decreases between the two, Aquitania included.

You got any source to back the claim that Aquitania is where the least amount of Bell Beaker materials has been found?

According to his map
 http://img.springerimages.com/Images/SpringerBooks/BSE=6090/BOK=978-1-4419-6633-9/CHP=9_10.1007-978-1-4419-6633-9_9/MediaObjects/WATER_104983_2_En_9_Fig5_HTML.jpg (http://img.springerimages.com/Images/SpringerBooks/BSE=6090/BOK=978-1-4419-6633-9/CHP=9_10.1007-978-1-4419-6633-9_9/MediaObjects/WATER_104983_2_En_9_Fig5_HTML.jpg)

Captions: Distribution of Bell Beaker culture sites (After Kamieńska and Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970, with modifications)

Aquitania is far from being the area where the least amount of Bell Beakers have been found, and while we are at it, you see how strong the Bell Beaker was in the Eastern shores of Iberia.  Martinez-Cruz et al.2012 showed that R1b-L23+ has a frequency of 79% to 86% in all Gascons+French Basques. Moreover the Ramos-Luis.et.al.2009 paper showed that the frequency in Southwest France, which isn’t only limited to Aquitania, was 62.7% in a sample size of 83, it was 73.9% in Northwest France with a sample size of 115. Certainly SW France doesn’t have the peak in R1b per that study, but is way up there.



Do you think its a coincidence that the closest ancient DNA to Aquitania (Treilles) tested so far has found G2a and I2a but no R1b during a time period (3,000 BC) which was a mere centuries away from seeing a Bell Beaker explosion? You still think all of this is a mere coincidence?

Well first of all: I never said that R1b expansion isn’t linked to Bell Beaker, so before you get your hopes on the strawman, I recommend you go back and read the hypothesis I postulated.

Second of all: Here is a map of the Treilles, Cave:

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Lacanetal2011aFigure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Lacanetal2011aFigure-1.jpg)

Vs. Aquitaine:

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png/300px-Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png)

Third of all:

Quote from: Lacan.et.al.2011a
Necropolis Recruitment. Partial autosomal profiles were obtained for 24 of the 53 specimens under study (Table S1). The amelogenin locus indicates that 22 individuals were male and two were female (subjects 573 and 614). For five samples (samples 571, 581, 603, 609, and 637), the molecular sex could not be determined. Autosomal STR kinship analyzes highlighted at least
three close familial relationships within the necropolis: individuals 604 and 636 have a 99,9979% probability to have a father/ son relationship [likelihood ratio (LR), 48,400]. Individuals 612 and 583 could be siblings (LR, 66,400), with a probability of 99.9985%, and subject 612 could also be the father of 616, with a probability of 99.9995% (LR, 22,4000).


[…]

The Treilles group is strongly structured by paternal lineage, implying a low diversity among paternal lineages.

Aquitania and ancient DNA seems to reinforce the R1b=IE link and not the other way around.

The data seems to indicate otherwise, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

As for high level variance, it is of very little use in your example. Within my own U152 group, I can tell you that the variance swings wildly from one country to another when taking its subclades into account, and changes even when a different number of STRs are used. Additionally, you can't compare the variance of I2-M26 and R1b in Basques as I2-M26 seems to be the product of exactly one migratory event and R1b is probably the result of repeated R1b incursions from every direction spanning thousands of years.


Yes I can compare I-M26 with R1b in Basques, this is mainly because I was comparing at the level of R1b-P312, and per Marko.H latest TMRCA tables I-M26 is 14.5 kya, whereas R1b-P312 is 4000 ybp. So if we are to believe that I-M26 was present in Basques before R1b-P312 arrived, then it is by far in all fairness to take into account the variances, and it turns out that R1b-P312 is older than I-M26, which contradicts the theory where I-M26 was there before R1b-P312.

This is attested in the variety of R1b found in modern day Basques.
Uhmm, no, Basques have most of their R1b-P312 falling under the  R1b-P312*, likely R1b-Z196, which includes R1b-M153, and R1b-SRY2627. They have moderate frequencies of R1b-L21, but that’s about it, R1b-U152 is greatly lacking in them.  Also, like I said above even if you assumed that R1b-P312 in basques is a wide variety, its TMRCA and hence its variance cannot be older than 4 kya, because the way the TMRCA of R1b-P312 is calculated is by using everything that is downstream of P312, and that includes, Z196, U152, and L21. If I-M26 which has a TMRCA of 14.5 kya, was present in Basques prior to the arrival of R1b, it should have a far greater variance than R1b does, no matter if it came in a single migration or not, it is way older than P312, and it had plenty of time to accumulate variance, yet it doesn’t have more variance. So what it is going to be bottleneck? I hardly doubt it, it seems the frequencies of I-M26 have remained fairly stable at 7-8% in Basques since the 600 AD, where aDNA attest to the presence of I-M170, likely I-M26 at a frequency similar to modern proportions.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 01, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
Let's change the words around to fit reality better:

Not "some" R1b can be linked to IE, the "majority" of R1b can be linked to IE. You can discredit 66% of Iberia, but I can't discredit the 33%?

I have a better idea. Why don't you try to disassociate the R1b-IE link in Ireland (90%+) while you are at it? This would be a great exercise, since L21 is pretty much the sole reason why Basque R1b is more frequent than R1b in its non-Basque neighbors.

As for your Bell Beaker map, it is pretty horrible.

Here is a recent one from Vander Linden (2006), who is a well known BB author:
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Vander_Linden_2006.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Vander_Linden_2006.png)

And an older one from Riquet (1963) showing French BB sites:
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Riquet_1963.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Riquet_1963.png)

Aquitania is almost completely lacking in Bell Beaker material, especially next to its direct neighbors to the NW and SE. This is well documented in all French Bell Beaker literature.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Arch Y. on June 01, 2012, 01:56:30 PM
In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  

In regards to trees, I think you might have a good point. Metallurgy always requires something to burn in order to extract the ores out of the rock; with a few exceptions of course. Those exceptions being nuggets of gold or even tin. I don't recall if copper is found freely or if it has to be extracted. Silver definitely has to be extracted and probably takes a good amount of wood for the processes. A good example of large scale deforestation is around Lake Tahoe for the Viriginia City Silver Mines. I would have no doubt the same thing happened in the Dartmoor region of Devon which was probably scarce with wood in the first place. Then add the goats, cattle. etc and it leaves a pretty barren landscape. I don't know how metallurgy would be successful on the Steppes without extensive fuel sources such as trees. I don't think grass would burn hot enough to be of any use.

Arch


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Humanist on June 01, 2012, 02:03:48 PM
I've mentioned this before, and I'm not certain it will help, but here goes:

The Basque are strikingly low in Caucasus Admixture scores. People all around them show scores of Caucasus Admixture, with Poitou showing higher than the surrounding area.

If anything, this would seem to show no connection with R1b and Caucasus Admixture scores.

Sure.  But, they have one of the highest levels of "Gedrosia," among Europeans.  There are a few populations with extreme levels of one of the K12b components.  The group that may have spread R-M269 in W Europe (if we can in fact look at these components in such a way, that far back), may have been modal for this "Gedrosia" component.

Also (and not in response to something you stated directly), just because a component peaks in a population today (e.g. "Caucasus" in Georgians), does not mean it came into being in that location/population.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on June 01, 2012, 02:17:59 PM
In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  

In regards to trees, I think you might have a good point. Metallurgy always requires something to burn in order to extract the ores out of the rock; with a few exceptions of course. Those exceptions being nuggets of gold or even tin. I don't recall if copper is found freely or if it has to be extracted. Silver definitely has to be extracted and probably takes a good amount of wood for the processes. A good example of large scale deforestation is around Lake Tahoe for the Viriginia City Silver Mines. I would have no doubt the same thing happened in the Dartmoor region of Devon which was probably scarce with wood in the first place. Then add the goats, cattle. etc and it leaves a pretty barren landscape. I don't know how metallurgy would be successful on the Steppes without extensive fuel sources such as trees. I don't think grass would burn hot enough to be of any use.

Arch

I specified trees "worthy of the name," because it takes big ones to make the simpler sort of boats, dugouts with "sewn" side-expanders and such.  Where rivers cut through the steppe there are trees along the river -- usually with unsuitably soft wood, because they grow too fast -- but I think charcoal (for smelting, or high temperatures generally) can be made from soft wood.  Certainly it can be made from small trees; and the ones I saw in my single visit to the steppe were pretty shrub-like.

I'm probably guilty of a vast oversimplification; I just think any natural resources are valid candidates for the "advantages" seen by Bell Beaker scouting parties.  Trees, water routes, something to eat, some mates, horses, clay for the pottery -- lots of resources, not just ores.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 01, 2012, 02:18:16 PM
... It is easier to dismiss the Basques today, and to call the argument ridiculous, however a quick search on the internet reveals that all these people in Green also spoke a nonIndoEuropean language.
 http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg (http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/94cd509/es/fixed/470/436/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG?format=jpg)
...

Does anyone have an R1b frequency and diversity charts for Iberia?  I don't know the answer to this, but it would be interesting to see if there were variations in the subclade mix by ancient cultural regions.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 01, 2012, 02:20:42 PM
Let's change the words around to fit reality better:

Not "some" R1b can be linked to IE, the "majority" of R1b can be linked to IE. You can discredit 66% of Iberia, but I can't discredit the 33%?

Well, let’s put it this way, all the Celtic speaking Iberians have far lower frequencies of R1b than the nonCeltic speaking Iberians, so for all we know Celtic was brought over by a combination of haplogroups, and certainly not limited to R1b.

I have a better idea. Why don't you try to disassociate the R1b-IE link in Ireland (90%+) while you are at it? This would be a great exercise, since L21 is pretty much the sole reason why Basque R1b is more frequent than R1b inits non-Basque neighbors.

Yeah, nice try, here is the frequency of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) in Basques from the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study

Lapurdi/Nafarroa Beherea ZMX (n=44) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)     23/44 or 52.27%

Nafarroa Beherea NLA (n=66) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)    39/66 or 59.10%

Zuberoa SOU (n=53) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)   38/53 or 71.7%

Roncal, Nafarroa  RON (n=53) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)   30/53 or 56.60%

Central/Western Nafarroa  NCO (n=60) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)   41/60 or 68.33%

North/Western Nafarroa  NNO (n=51) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)   34/51 66.67%

Guipuscoa GUI (n=47) Table S4

 R1b-P312(xL21,U152)   32/47 or 68.10%

Southwestern Guipuscoa GSO (n=57) Table S4

 R1b-P312(xL21,U152)    40/57 or 70.18%

Alava, ALA (n=51) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)    24/51 or 47.06%

Bizkaia BBA (n=57) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)    42/57 or 73.68%

Western Bizkaia BOC(n=19) Table S4

R1b-P312(xL21,U152)    13/19 or 68.42%

What is the frequency of R1b again in Cantabrians? Ahh yeah, according to Myres.et.al.2010, it was 48.1%. What is the frequency of R1b again in Leon, Castilla Leon, again 57.8%, and that is including R1b-L21 and R1b-U152. Yeah, Alava has a lower frequency, you wanna argue about the rest of the Basques.

Also, I don’t need to make R1b-L21 nonIndoEuropean, in fact, if there is a candidate for the spread of IE amongst the R1b-P312 clades, those would be R1b-L21, and R1b-U152. However, who is to say that they did not learn PIE from the incoming R1b-L23(xL150) folks, in fact R1b-L23(xL150) is found in Ireland, England, and even amongst some French Basques, so this shows that yes there was some IE input in Basques, it simply wasn’t enough to offset the nonIE speaking R1b-P312(xU152,L21).

As for your Bell Beaker map, it is pretty horrible.

Here is a recent one from Vander Linden (2006), who is a well known BB author:
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Vander_Linden_2006.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Vander_Linden_2006.png)

And an older one from Riquet (1963) showing French BB sites:
http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Riquet_1963.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Riquet_1963.png)
Aquitania is almost completely lacking in Bell Beaker material, especially next to its direct neighbors to the NW and SE. This is well documented in all French Bell Beaker literature.

It is not my map, it is a map published from the work of Kamieńska and Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, 1970.

Who gives a d__n  about Bell Beakers in Aquitania, we are talking about the presence of R1b-P312 in there, and it is very high, so what’s it with the strawman argument. Yeah, Aquitania has less Beaker than Brittany, the Basque Country also has about the same influence as Aquitania, so what’s your point?

Here is another map(Albeit in Spanish):  http://clio.rediris.es/n32/atlas/005.jpg (http://clio.rediris.es/n32/atlas/005.jpg)




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 01, 2012, 02:55:25 PM
Does anyone have an R1b frequency and diversity charts for Iberia?  I don't know the answer to this, but it would be interesting to see if there were variations in the subclade mix by ancient cultural regions.

Well the Adams.et.al.2008 study only made a distinction between R1b-M269*, R1b-M65, R1b-M153, and R1b-SRY2627. So R1b-M269* includes anything that is downstream of M269 and that isn’t M65, or M153, or SRY2627.

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Adamsetal2008.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Adamsetal2008.jpg)

Then there is the Cruciani.et.al.2010 study where only a distinction was made between R1b-M269*, and R1b-U152, and R1b-U106.

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Crucianietal2010-Figure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Crucianietal2010-Figure-1.jpg)

I find it interesting that a good amount of Berbers were sampled, yet R1b-M269* does not surpass 2% in Berbers.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on June 01, 2012, 03:35:30 PM
In my mind, I have to start looking for some advantage for L11 to be able to do that since I doubt if he was really smarter or dumber than anybody else.  I don't think he picked up metallurgy in Brittany or the Pyrenees, nor the IE cultures, there.  I don't really know what the advantage(s) was, but must have been something.

Has anybody looked at trees?  The steppe didn't have any, worthy of the name.  Some of these metal-wielding IE guys moving west (or north) from SW Asia might have found the forests pretty handy for making boats suitable for those long, rapid maritime and riverine leaps.  (Egypt had some nice big wooden boats, but had to import the wood.)  They also had to have something in the general nature of pitch; and something like moss that swells when it's wet.  Anyway, those would be advantages, and mostly wouldn't show up in the archaeological record -- for the same reason that we usually find axe heads but not handles, etc.  

In regards to trees, I think you might have a good point. Metallurgy always requires something to burn in order to extract the ores out of the rock; with a few exceptions of course. Those exceptions being nuggets of gold or even tin. I don't recall if copper is found freely or if it has to be extracted. Silver definitely has to be extracted and probably takes a good amount of wood for the processes. A good example of large scale deforestation is around Lake Tahoe for the Viriginia City Silver Mines. I would have no doubt the same thing happened in the Dartmoor region of Devon which was probably scarce with wood in the first place. Then add the goats, cattle. etc and it leaves a pretty barren landscape. I don't know how metallurgy would be successful on the Steppes without extensive fuel sources such as trees. I don't think grass would burn hot enough to be of any use.

Arch
There is a very interesting formation of native copper mixed with silver in the northern part of the UP of Michigan and especially Isle Royale in the middle of Lake Superior.  A chunk of native copper from the ontanogan river bed is in the Smithsonian and weighs over two tons.  I bring this up because there are some questions about these sites as to who mined them prehistorically?  There were literally hundreds of thousands of stone axes at the pits.  They did need fire for cracking out of the stone, but the copper was in sheets and large hunks.  There is a city in the UP called Mass, where huge boulders of Cu were mined.  The native Cu has been found all over North America.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on June 01, 2012, 03:52:00 PM
I ran across this somewhere.  The source seems highly suspect, but the discussion is relevant, whether or not his particular theories are crazy.

http://www.philipcoppens.com/copper.html

I've been meaning to check whether this had anything to do with the high R1b level in eastern Native Americans, but couldn't bring myself to believe in it enough to exert any effort that way.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: ironroad41 on June 01, 2012, 04:32:13 PM
There are a lot of myths out there.  Attached is a refutation to some of  these claims by an anrcheologist.  I am not sure she is fully correct either.  Note I own a cc of the Drier book and went to Michigan Tech.

www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 02, 2012, 08:21:04 AM
Also, I don’t need to make R1b-L21 nonIndoEuropean, in fact, if there is a candidate for the spread of IE amongst the R1b-P312 clades, those would be R1b-L21, and R1b-U152. However, who is to say that they did not learn PIE from the incoming R1b-L23(xL150) folks, in fact R1b-L23(xL150) is found in Ireland, England, and even amongst some French Basques, so this shows that yes there was some IE input in Basques, it simply wasn’t enough to offset the nonIE speaking R1b-P312(xU152,L21).

Just so I understand, you are saying that L21 was originally non-IE speaking and they learned IE from later L23* folks? Same with U152?

If so, did these new waves of L23* always speak IE, or did they learn it from someone else as well?  If so, what group taught it to them?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 02, 2012, 09:20:38 AM
Don’t waste time with a mirrors play. Read my post about HV0a (and all previous ones): I have given infinite proofs about the Italian Refugium.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 02, 2012, 09:39:38 AM
I've mentioned this before, and I'm not certain it will help, but here goes:

The Basque are strikingly low in Caucasus Admixture scores. People all around them show scores of Caucasus Admixture, with Poitou showing higher than the surrounding area.

If anything, this would seem to show no connection with R1b and Caucasus Admixture scores.

Sure.  But, they have one of the highest levels of "Gedrosia," among Europeans.  There are a few populations with extreme levels of one of the K12b components.  The group that may have spread R-M269 in W Europe (if we can in fact look at these components in such a way, that far back), may have been modal for this "Gedrosia" component.

Also (and not in response to something you stated directly), just because a component peaks in a population today (e.g. "Caucasus" in Georgians), does not mean it came into being in that location/population.



Gedrosia is just a Caucasus component whose alleles become concentrated and selected for in South-Central Asia imo.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Isidro on June 02, 2012, 09:54:03 AM
Don’t waste time with a mirrors play. Read my post about HV0a (and all previous ones): I have given infinite proofs about the Italian Refugium.



Can you direct me to your post and your ideas about HV0a?. I am HV0 so I am interested, even though I have no connections to any part of Italy.

Thanks


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 02, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
You may find it here at the Mitochondrial section. I spoke of HV0a and not HV0, which is more widespread all over the world, also in Spain and in Italy, but also in Asia, and probably they are different ancient lines. But HV0a is Italian and all subclades come from here.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 02, 2012, 10:44:40 AM
Just so I understand, you are saying that L21 was originally non-IE speaking and they learned IE from later L23* folks? Same with U152?

Yes, but I was actually thinking of an scenario where P312* has already expanded and it is found from Iberia to Germany, then the L23* come, and by trading, and living  together some of the P312* folks learn PIE. Then the L21 folks are born inside this Central European society, so they were likely PIE speaking since they were born. I’m just throwing a hypothesis in here, but I think L21 was likely born somewhere in France, maybe around the region where Paris is today. As for U152, I think it was likely born in the region where Austria is today. However, that is highly speculative, and I wouldn’t put too much weight in the exact location, as it is impossible to know.

If so, did these new waves of L23* always speak IE, or did they learn it from someone else as well?  If so, what group taught it to them?

I agree with the Steppe hypothesis, I think L23* along with R1a was part of the PIE world. I just think that there was a duality with R1b, where some of them expanded from Western Europe(L11, P312), and then some expanded from Eastern Europe(L23*, U106). I was looking over the data of Myres.et.al.2010, and except for Iberia, everywhere else the R1b-P312 clades are dominated by L21+ and U152+ clades, so it would make sense if those two were IE speaking, and the Z196 wasn’t.  Whatever Z196 that made it to the British Islands during the Atlantic Bronze Age, would have likely learned the language, just as some of the L21 folks that got to the Basque Country had to learn Euskera, maybe not them, but eventually their offspring did.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Isidro on June 03, 2012, 09:57:49 AM
You may find it here at the Mitochondrial section. I spoke of HV0a and not HV0, which is more widespread all over the world, also in Spain and in Italy, but also in Asia, and probably they are different ancient lines. But HV0a is Italian and all subclades come from here.
Thanks will go there and check it out.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 03, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
Just so I understand, you are saying that L21 was originally non-IE speaking and they learned IE from later L23* folks? Same with U152?

Yes, but I was actually thinking of an scenario where P312* has already expanded and it is found from Iberia to Germany, then the L23* come, and by trading, and living  together some of the P312* folks learn PIE. Then the L21 folks are born inside this Central European society, so they were likely PIE speaking since they were born. I’m just throwing a hypothesis in here, but I think L21 was likely born somewhere in France, maybe around the region where Paris is today. As for U152, I think it was likely born in the region where Austria is today. However, that is highly speculative, and I wouldn’t put too much weight in the exact location, as it is impossible to know.

If so, did these new waves of L23* always speak IE, or did they learn it from someone else as well?  If so, what group taught it to them?

I agree with the Steppe hypothesis, I think L23* along with R1a was part of the PIE world. I just think that there was a duality with R1b, where some of them expanded from Western Europe(L11, P312), and then some expanded from Eastern Europe(L23*, U106). I was looking over the data of Myres.et.al.2010, and except for Iberia, everywhere else the R1b-P312 clades are dominated by L21+ and U152+ clades, so it would make sense if those two were IE speaking, and the Z196 wasn’t.  Whatever Z196 that made it to the British Islands during the Atlantic Bronze Age, would have likely learned the language, just as some of the L21 folks that got to the Basque Country had to learn Euskera, maybe not them, but eventually their offspring did.

It looks like you are saying L11 and its lineages were early expansions west and were non-IE speaking.  Later then a combination of R1a and R-L23* folks come in and settled and that point most of the L11 lineages, including U152, L21 and U106, learn IE languages and cultures (or were born into L11 lineages that learned IE from R1a and R-L23*.)  Do I understand?

Is some some ways, this is not too different than Kylosov's view, just that you address the lack of R1a in Celtic lands via hypothesizing that R-L23* was the IE group that brought IE there.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 03, 2012, 11:41:08 AM
It looks like you are saying L11 and its lineages were early expansions west and were non-IE speaking.  Later then a combination of R1a and R-L23* folks come in and settled and that point most of the L11 lineages, including U152, L21 and U106, learn IE languages and cultures (or were born into L11 lineages that learned IE from R1a and R-L23*.)  Do I understand?
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Is some some ways, this is not too different than Kylosov's view, just that you address the lack of R1a in Celtic lands via hypothesizing that R-L23* was the IE group that brought IE there.

Well, I don’t think that R1b-L23 came to Iberia via North Africa, or that R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 were both born in Iberia and expanded with the Bell Beakers, maybe one could argue it for R1b-P312, but  I don’t see how R1b-U106 fits  the picture. Yeah, I also think that R-L23* is a better candidate to explain the expansion of PIE in Western Europe, because it makes no sense that R1a would teach PIE to R1b bearers yet remain in the Eastern half of Europe, and not travel West. On the other hand, we find R1b-L23* almost everywhere in the West, although at lower proportions that other  forms of R1bL23+, but it is definitely higher than R1a, which is nonexistent in many IE speaking places in Western Europe.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Isidro on June 03, 2012, 12:27:18 PM

Well, I don’t think that R1b-L23 came to Iberia via North Africa, or that R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 were both born in Iberia and expanded with the Bell Beakers, maybe one could argue it for R1b-P312, but  I don’t see how R1b-U106 fits  the picture. Yeah, I also think that R-L23* is a better candidate to explain the expansion of PIE in Western Europe, because it makes no sense that R1a would teach PIE to R1b bearers yet remain in the Eastern half of Europe, and not travel West. On the other hand, we find R1b-L23* almost everywhere in the West, although at lower proportions that other  forms of R1bL23+, but it is definitely higher than R1a, which is nonexistent in many IE speaking places in Western Europe.



Thank you for bringing some expanded outlook of possible migrations.

Two comments in relation to Indoeuropean Languages and Haplogroups in the Iberian Peninsula prior to the Roman control.

Language by itself is a tool and it is as good as the person or group using it so to compare today's impact of some IE languages to Proto-IE is surreal, there is a connection indeed but there are two different things.
There are two languages that deserve recognition as unique,  Celtic and Euskara for surviving the surrounding IE heavy weights.


This brings me to Iberia circa 1000BC , there were  known languages, Euskara, Iberian, Celtic(IE), then add Etruscan and Ligurian spoken in Italy.
Celtic, being a branch of IE was one of 6 (maybe more) languages and most likely sharing territory with the other 5.
I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime.
1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 03, 2012, 10:50:09 PM
It looks like you are saying L11 and its lineages were early expansions west and were non-IE speaking.  Later then a combination of R1a and R-L23* folks come in and settled and that point most of the L11 lineages, including U152, L21 and U106, learn IE languages and cultures (or were born into L11 lineages that learned IE from R1a and R-L23*.)  Do I understand?
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Is some some ways, this is not too different than Kylosov's view, just that you address the lack of R1a in Celtic lands via hypothesizing that R-L23* was the IE group that brought IE there.

Well, I don’t think that R1b-L23 came to Iberia via North Africa, or that R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 were both born in Iberia and expanded with the Bell Beakers, maybe one could argue it for R1b-P312, but  I don’t see how R1b-U106 fits  the picture. Yeah, I also think that R-L23* is a better candidate to explain the expansion of PIE in Western Europe, because it makes no sense that R1a would teach PIE to R1b bearers yet remain in the Eastern half of Europe, and not travel West. On the other hand, we find R1b-L23* almost everywhere in the West, although at lower proportions that other  forms of R1bL23+, but it is definitely higher than R1a, which is nonexistent in many IE speaking places in Western Europe.

Excellent! then we have part of this settled: R1a is not likely to have brought IE to R1b in Western Europe. Now we just need a closer examination of R-L23*.

It's a bit weird that a grandson of R-L23, R-L11 (the Western European man who was non IE speaking) became, far and away, the dominant Y haplogroup in Western Europe IE speaking territories. I wonder how that happened that L11 learned IE from his grandfather or g-grandfather R-L23+ L11- ancestor (via an L11- cousin)?  I guess we need to look closer at R-L23*.

Parsimonious?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 03, 2012, 11:17:47 PM
Language by itself is a tool and it is as good as the person or group using it so to compare today's impact of some IE languages to Proto-IE is surreal, there is a connection indeed but there are two different things.
There are two languages that deserve recognition as unique,  Celtic and Euskara for surviving the surrounding IE heavy weights.

I just want to provide a technical clarification. Celtic is an IE language.  Although it has been diminished signficantly in its usage, about 2000 years ago there was no doubt that Celtic was an heavy weight IE language.  Just ask the Romans.

Celtic, being a branch of IE was one of 6 (maybe more) languages and most likely sharing territory with the other 5. I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime. 1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

This is quite possible, but if Q Celtic came with P312 then you have to look at overland mid-destination points like SE France, Italy or even an ultimate launch point further east.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on June 03, 2012, 11:42:44 PM

Celtic, being a branch of IE was one of 6 (maybe more) languages and most likely sharing territory with the other 5. I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime. 1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

This is quite possible, but if Q Celtic came with P312 then you have to look at overland mid-destination points like SE France, Italy or even an ultimate launch point further east.

Or farther north, for launching (of their boats... as possibly distinguished from the launching of Q-Celtic).  I'm not sure that arguing about a language family (if it had not yet developed) makes any more sense than arguing about glacial refugia (for Copper Age haplogroups whose SNP had not yet mutated).  Too much rides on precise dating, for which our evidence is still a little slim.  And precision, at least to the level of which millennium we mean, would make a substantial difference to the linguistic argument -- let alone to any attempt to match the Y-DNA with an archaeological complex.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 04, 2012, 01:20:36 AM

Celtic, being a branch of IE was one of 6 (maybe more) languages and most likely sharing territory with the other 5. I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime. 1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

This is quite possible, but if Q Celtic came with P312 then you have to look at overland mid-destination points like SE France, Italy or even an ultimate launch point further east.

Or farther north, for launching (of their boats... as possibly distinguished from the launching of Q-Celtic).  I'm not sure that arguing about a language family (if it had not yet developed) makes any more sense than arguing about glacial refugia (for Copper Age haplogroups whose SNP had not yet mutated).  Too much rides on precise dating, for which our evidence is still a little slim.  And precision, at least to the level of which millennium we mean, would make a substantial difference to the linguistic argument -- let alone to any attempt to match the Y-DNA with an archaeological complex.

I disagree entirely with your characterization of TMRCA precision.  "The European Bronze Age is characterized by bronze artifacts and the use of bronze implements. The regional Bronze Age succeeds the Neolithic. It starts with the Aegean Bronze Age in 3200 BC", according to Wikipedia. Whereas, they say "The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to a period in the Earth's climate history when ice sheets were at their maximum extension, between 26,500 and 19,000–20,000 years ago."

These two timeframes are geometrically different. When you add this to other information, our TMRCA dating is precise enough to discern haplogroup ages into LGM versus Bronze Age. I think that much is clear. Discerning between mid-Neolithic and Bronze Age may be questionable but LGM is out of the question for such haplogroups as P312.

PIE is a Bronze Age language. There is not too much argument about it being Paleolithic. I don't think there is much of a case that P312 is Paleolithic either.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on June 04, 2012, 01:40:22 AM
I'm not really disagreeing with you, more with Isidro -- you quoted him, but he's the one who said
Quote
I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime.
1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

However I sort of agree with his highlighting of maritime, and if that's what we are talking about (one of several variables here), finding overland stopovers for something that did not move overland might be a point of contention.

While I have your attention (Mike), my 111 markers have almost all been reported, and I'd like to start looking for off-modals in the numbers above 67.  I'm pretty sure those are not covered in Y-search, right?  So, where would I look for the extended Z196 modal?  Or, which are the interesting markers (DYS710 and above) for a DF27+ Z196+ Z209+ Z220+ Z216- guy to look at?

I'm fairly sure this discussion has happened somewhere, but in quick searching I can only seem to find L21 guys (and Hg J guys) talking about that issue, recently.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 04, 2012, 01:45:50 AM
I'm not really disagreeing with you, more with Isidro -- you quoted him, but he's the one who said
Quote
I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route  Maritime.
1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

However I sort of agree with his highlighting of maritime, and if that's what we are talking about (one of several variables here), finding overland stopovers for something that did not move overland might be a point of contention.

While I have your attention (Mike), my 111 markers have almost all been reported, and I'd like to start looking for off-modals in the numbers above 67.  I'm pretty sure those are not covered in Y-search, right?  So, where would I look for the extended Z196 modal?  Or, which are the interesting markers (DYS710 and above) for a DF27+ Z196+ Z209+ Z220+ Z216- guy to look at? ...

You can see the current Z196 modal for 111 markers by going to the Haplotype_Data_R-P312xL21 spreadsheet ExtHts tab/worksheet and selecting just Z196.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 08:37:01 AM
Excellent! then we have part of this settled: R1a is not likely to have brought IE to R1b in Western Europe. Now we just need a closer examination of R-L23*.

Also, a closer examination of the P312 subclades, we know the British Islands are L21 dominated, and U152 is big in Italy+Austria+Switzerland combo. In previous studies I observed that P312*, that is P312(xL21,U152) was big in Iberia compared to other places, I mean from 2 to 3 times that of other places. Now we know that Z196 is a big player in that  P312*, so a comprehensive study of Iberia that tests all the new SNPs shall shed some light into whether there is a differentiation in the P312 clades in Iberia that arises from the Z196 downstream level, or is it upstream.

It's a bit weird that a grandson of R-L23, R-L11 (the Western European man who was non IE speaking) became, far and away, the dominant Y haplogroup in Western Europe IE speaking territories. I wonder how that happened that L11 learned IE from his grandfather or g-grandfather R-L23+ L11- ancestor (via an L11- cousin)?  I guess we need to look closer at R-L23*.

Parsimonious?

Other scenarios remain likely possible, there could have been an earlier wave of non-IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) bearers who gave rise to L51, L11, et al, followed by a latter wave of IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51). I don’t know, perhaps the lactase persistence was something linked to the R group, and those distantly remote R1b-L150+ cousins sitting in Western Europe, were able to blend in nicely with the IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) travelers from the East, as they were both capable of drinking milk, and maybe the R1b-L150+ folks learned pastoralism from there. There must have been some sort of selective advantage, we know that the G2a folks thus far discovered along with E-V13, and I2a were all lactose intolerant, or at least very likely to be lactose intolerant. In a sense some aDNA study from SJAPL  in terms of their y-DNA could shed some light into the issue, as that population was already on its way of becoming lactose tolerant, and had quite a significant level of lactose tolerance for 5000 ybp Europe.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: razyn on June 04, 2012, 09:46:28 AM
It's previously been suggested that the people with lactase persistence might also have had antibodies for the usually non-fatal cowpox, that gave them an advantage in surviving smallpox.  Then the older population might have been selectively thinned by a smallpox outbreak that was survived by the R1b newcomers.

Something along those lines (and often involving smallpox) happened to many Native American tribes, especially those nearer the east coast.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 10:29:18 AM
Excellent! then we have part of this settled: R1a is not likely to have brought IE to R1b in Western Europe. Now we just need a closer examination of R-L23*.

Also, a closer examination of the P312 subclades, we know the British Islands are L21 dominated, and U152 is big in Italy+Austria+Switzerland combo. In previous studies I observed that P312*, that is P312(xL21,U152) was big in Iberia compared to other places, I mean from 2 to 3 times that of other places. Now we know that Z196 is a big player in that  P312*, so a comprehensive study of Iberia that tests all the new SNPs shall shed some light into whether there is a differentiation in the P312 clades in Iberia that arises from the Z196 downstream level, or is it upstream.

It's a bit weird that a grandson of R-L23, R-L11 (the Western European man who was non IE speaking) became, far and away, the dominant Y haplogroup in Western Europe IE speaking territories. I wonder how that happened that L11 learned IE from his grandfather or g-grandfather R-L23+ L11- ancestor (via an L11- cousin)?  I guess we need to look closer at R-L23*.

Parsimonious?

Other scenarios remain likely possible, there could have been an earlier wave of non-IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) bearers who gave rise to L51, L11, et al, followed by a latter wave of IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51). I don’t know, perhaps the lactase persistence was something linked to the R group, and those distantly remote R1b-L150+ cousins sitting in Western Europe, were able to blend in nicely with the IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) travelers from the East, as they were both capable of drinking milk, and maybe the R1b-L150+ folks learned pastoralism from there. There must have been some sort of selective advantage, we know that the G2a folks thus far discovered along with E-V13, and I2a were all lactose intolerant, or at least very likely to be lactose intolerant. In a sense some aDNA study from SJAPL  in terms of their y-DNA could shed some light into the issue, as that population was already on its way of becoming lactose tolerant, and had quite a significant level of lactose tolerance for 5000 ybp Europe.

Slight correction - U152 is not very frequent in Austria. It is most frequent in Northern Italy, Switzerland, Central Italy, Corsica and Eastern France.

As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 01:29:41 PM
As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).

I don’t think they are any more complex than the other hypotheses running around the web, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I respect yours. What did you mean when you said:

“…but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?)”


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 02:19:35 PM
As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).

I don’t think they are any more complex than the other hypotheses running around the web, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I respect yours. What did you mean when you said:

“…but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?)”


L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 04, 2012, 02:48:10 PM
If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.
History is a science and should be studied and known.
1) We have more than 13,000 Etruscan documents, many short, but others that tell their history beyond the Latin documents.
2) The last Etruscan King was expelled from Rome on 509BC. But Romans were at least one third of Etruscan descent, as  their surnames demonstrate (Schulze, Zur Lateinischen und Etruskischen Eigenamen).


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 02:56:32 PM
L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking,  then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance.  We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

But what haplogroup can be linked to the Etruscans, I mean Tuscany doesn’t look like an outlier in terms of their y-DNA haplogroups, perhaps you can provide some data in that regard, but they seem to be similar to their neighbors.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.
History is a science and should be studied and known.
1) We have more than 13,000 Etruscan documents, many short, but others that tell their history beyond the Latin documents.
2) The last Etruscan King was expelled from Rome on 509BC. But Romans were at least one third of Etruscan descent, as  their surnames demonstrate (Schulze, Zur Lateinischen und Etruskischen Eigenamen).

And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 03:07:11 PM
And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).

So you think Romans had an R1b-L11+ majority, uhmm, how come Southern Italy+Sicily today only shows R1b-L11 in the 29-30% range?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 04, 2012, 03:26:28 PM
And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).
The prejudice that Etruscans came from Asia Minor is “die hard”. No archaeologist in Italy believes to-day to this. Your map of R-U152 demonstrates that there is no separation between Ligurians and Etruscans. I have said in another thread that probably in Italy were present from very ancient times a Caucasian language (Sardinian, etc) an Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun intermediate between Caucasian and Indo-European and the same Indo-European. At a genetic level there were probably different haplogroups, developed by founder effect and genetic drift, but it seems that Indo-Europeans were above all hg. R1b1 and subclades. This explains probably why Western Sicily, where Indo-European languages were spoken (Elymian, Sican and Sicilian), has a high percentage of hg. R., from the most ancient R1b1a2* (LoPiccolo), to many R-L23* I found close to my Sicilian relatives on 23andme, to your R-U152.
   


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 03:34:32 PM
L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking,  then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance.  We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

But what haplogroup can be linked to the Etruscans, I mean Tuscany doesn’t look like an outlier in terms of their y-DNA haplogroups, perhaps you can provide some data in that regard, but they seem to be similar to their neighbors.


I'm assuming you are Basque, because nobody else could possibly apply Occam’s Razor to Basque P312+ and not notice that it is clearly trumped by Irish P312 which not only has more frequency, but has no debate as to its IE language.

A trickling of people over an extended period of time (think of Mexican-Indian Y-DNA crossing the USA border over the last 50 years) can certainly replace Y-DNA and not change the language. Want more proof? 82.7% of the Detroit population is African American. What language do they speak? English. You think that is the language their ggggg-grandparents spoke? I think not.

How exactly the Basque language survived is anyone's guess.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 03:38:03 PM
And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).

So you think Romans had an R1b-L11+ majority, uhmm, how come Southern Italy+Sicily today only shows R1b-L11 in the 29-30% range?

Please look at a map. Rome is in CENTRAL ITALY and always has been!


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 04, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking,  then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance.  We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were....

JeanL, I don't know if you realize this but I think you gave the logic to show exactly why the Basques may have some uniqueness in having a lot of R1b lineages but aren't IE speakers.

You said "there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country".  That is a very good point you make as I think there are indications of this just as you pointed out.

Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

I applaud you for taking a look under the covers to see that frequency, such as high R1b frequency in Basques, could be misleading. The R1b subclades could have come in, in layers and we would not need to expect the language change. Believe it or not, that has been lost on me so I really do thank you JeanL for bringing this to light. Excellent indeed!  We now have it settled that R1a wouldn't have taught Western European R1b IE languages and we have one fairly direct line of reasoning that explains why an R1b majority population might not speak IE.

(EDIT: I see Rocca beat me in posting the concept of immigration waves and language impact. I'm just a little slow witted I suppose.)


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 04, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
How exactly the Basque language survived is anyone's guess.
Basque survived because was in a mountainous zone. For the same reason Albanian survived and no other Illyrian language. Also in ancient Italy survived the language of the Stele of Novilara, probably the most ancient survived Celt language of the Italo- Celt unity with languages of only two other stocks: Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun and Italic.
The Illyrian languages of Puglia came of course from the Balkans. The other languages (Greek, Punic) are recent documented income. If Sardinian were survived, we probably would have had a Caucasian language survived also in Italy, but some Caucasian language was spoken probably also in the Alps.
Ancient world, and much more the more we go back in time, was very fragmented.                                                                                                                                                


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 04, 2012, 04:10:46 PM
..... We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country....
...
Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

How exactly the Basque language survived is anyone's guess.
Basque survived because was in a mountainous zone....

A very nice model is coming together to explain the massive R1b frequencies in Western IE speaking lands with limited L23* input and even less R1a input.  At the same time, we have an explanation for the Basque non-IE speaking anomaly.

R1b-L23* and R1b-L11 folks are related and at least large elements probably spoke the same languages, which may evolved on the western fringes of a PIE homeland. For whatever reasons, these folks were very aggressive in their explorations but also seemed to generally follow suit with changing of cultures over to Bronze Age IE practices all across Europe.  They were more successful the further west they went. It could be the folks there just weren't as advanced as the folks R1b had to deal with in SE Europe and the Near East and their R1a brothers to the east.

However, as explorers and colonizers, the IE groups that carried R1b (along with others no doubt) west were not one massive wave. It took time, with fits and starts to establish colonies ever westward. Over time, in most places their hegemony effected change to the prior inhabitants, but not in every location nor was the integration the same in every location.

Relax, this is just a supposition. There is no proof.  It is just food for thought.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 06:04:27 PM
I'm assuming you are Basque, because nobody else could possibly apply Occam’s Razor to Basque P312+ and not notice that it is clearly trumped by Irish P312 which not only has more frequency, but has no debate as to its IE language.

Yes good assumption, my lineage is Basque, now what does that have to do with Occam’s Razor. Irish P312+ is mostly L21, Basque P312+ is mostly P312(xL21,U152), that is the difference, P312(xL21,U152) reaches frequencies above 55% in all Basque minus Alavans. So once more, If we assume that all L11+ was IE speaking why would the conquerors forget their language once they reached the Basque Country and Aquitania, after all, they were superior enough as to impose their genetic mark, I mean L11+ reaches frequencies above 80%+ in all Basques. On the other hand, they reached Ireland, England, France places that were equally populated by pre-R1b people, and not only did they impose their genetic mark, but also their language. Yeah, doesn’t sound like we are talking about the same people.  A better explanation would be that Z196 which was likely born in Iberia was one of the branches of P312 that was nonIE speaking, whereas L21, and U152 both born in Central Europe, or in France, and in contact with IE speaking people learned the language and expanded from there.

 
A trickling of people over an extended period of time (think of Mexican-Indian Y-DNA crossing the USA border over the last 50 years) can certainly replace Y-DNA and not change the language. Want more proof? 82.7% of the Detroit population is African American. What language do they speak? English. You think that is the language their ggggg-grandparents spoke? I think not.

How exactly the Basque language survived is anyone's guess.

You really want to use the African American example? English was imposed to them by their White masters, are you saying that Euskera was imposed to mighty IE speaking warriors who conquered half of Asia, and all of Europe, and even Aquitania and the Basque Country, but somehow had another language imposed to them once they reached Aquitania, Eastern Iberia, and the Basque Country. If that doesn’t sound strange to you, then it sure as h__l sounds strange to me. Of course, it is always good to just ignore the Basques, or the other nonIE(pre-Roman) speaking folks who seem to be high on R1b, that is what an Ad Hoc approach does, ignore the unwanted data.

Please look at a map. Rome is in CENTRAL ITALY and always has been!

Fair enough, Table-S1 Busby.et.al.2011 Central Italy(n=115) R1b-M269+ 33.9%, that is nowhere near the definition of having an “R1b majority”.

JeanL, I don't know if you realize this but I think you gave the logic to show exactly why the Basques may have some uniqueness in having a lot of R1b lineages but aren't IE speakers.

You said "there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country".  That is a very good point you make as I think there are indications of this just as you pointed out.

Well it is possible that Z196 was born in the vicinity of the Basque Country, so in fact the only wave would be L21+ people, I was simply going by the assumptions made by Richard Rocca that all L11+ is Bronze Age, and IE speaking, and newcomers.

Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

The thing is that in the time frame that most of you adhere for the arrival of IE speaking L11+ to Western Europe, there seems to be not enough time for a haplogroup to undergo genetic drift. Which is basically what you are claiming, that the P312+ folks came in little by little, yet somehow managed to have more kids that the “proto-basques”. What haplogroup were the “proto-basques” exactly then? I mean,  so the L11+ IE speaking move to Ireland, and they manage to leave a significant impact on their genetic pool, and also impose their language, yet they move to Aquitania, and they can’t impose their language. So you actually think that my hypothesis of R1b-P312 being nonIE speaking is far too complex, but Basques receiving two influxes of IE speaking people Z196, and L21 has no effect on them, or their language. Sorry, but I simply do not buy that. Not to mention that in the Bronze Age period, while in Central Europe funerary practices of single burials were well under way, collective burials in caves, Megaliths were still the norm in the Basque regions. 

I applaud you for taking a look under the covers to see that frequency, such as high R1b frequency in Basques, could be misleading. The R1b subclades could have come in, in layers and we would not need to expect the language change.

Again see above, I recommend you read up a bit about Basque prehistory, and specially about genetic drift. Drift occurs heavily in population with low effective population size, no European population during the Bronze age could experience drift, so it is highly unlikely that layers of R1b did that. Moreover, if it was layers, one should expect to see R1b-U152 to be as big as L21, or Z196, after all if they all came as very small groups, they all have the same chance in drift, yet Z196 is 2 to 3 times the amount of L21, and 10 times the amount of U152. Again makes no sense.

Believe it or not, that has been lost on me so I really do thank you JeanL for bringing this to light. Excellent indeed!  We now have it settled that R1a wouldn't have taught Western European R1b IE languages and we have one fairly direct line of reasoning that explains why an R1b majority population might not speak IE.

(EDIT: I see Rocca beat me in posting the concept of immigration waves and language impact. I'm just a little slow witted I suppose.)

Well , I do see the Steppe’s R1b-L23(xL51) as a major candidate for the arrival of PIE to Western Europe, however that doesn’t translate into L51+ being IE speaking.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 04, 2012, 07:03:45 PM
I find the idea that L51 derived as non-IE and L23xL51 as IE a total contradiction of the modern reality.  I think Mike has shown that L23xL51 is similar in age as L51-derived in most of Europe.  

Here is a question - if you remove the relatively late P312 subclades in the Basque country, would it actually be so high in P312?  Is the level not greatly raised by  late local subclades? I understand about 10% of Basques are SRY2627 which is a fairly yound clade and also that Basque L21 is part of an even younger cluster. Those along could be responsible for the excess of p312 among Basques compared to their neighbours


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 07:43:32 PM
Regarding Central Italy, Myres 2011 has M269 at 52.9%. If you take a look at the Capelli study, you will see that R1b is higher in all areas of Central Italy than the next haplogroup (J2) by a good amount.

As for using African-Americans as an example, it was an example of how genetics don't always align with language and visa-versa.

You seemed to have disregarded my Mexican-Indian Y-DNA example quite nicely. By the way, they carry subclades of haplgroup Q that are as diverse as L21 and DF27, so there goes you theory that it is not likely in the Basque Country because Basques are made up of different SNPs, which by the way have the same modal values across 67 markers.

Sorry, but the only one who seems t think yours is the better explanation is "the better explanation" seems to be you, and now that I know you are Basque it makes sense.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 08:10:06 PM
I find the idea that L51 derived as non-IE and L23xL51 as IE a total contradiction of the modern reality.  I think Mike has shown that L23xL51 is similar in age as L51-derived in most of Europe.

I'm not sure about that(That in Europe L23xL51 has about the same age as L51+). Also, it is not L23xL51 non IE, and L51+ IE. I said it before, L23xL51 is nonIE, Neolithic comes by an some L23xL51 ends up in Western Europe, or somewhere in Europe, likely to the West. L23xL51 also heads to the Steppe, over there it learns PIE along with R1a, by the process that is commonly known. Meanwhile L23xL51 in Europe develops into L51 and retains its ancient language. Something(Megalithism, Bell Beaker, etc) makes L51, or its decendant L11 expand circa 4000 to 5000 ybp, some of them make it to Eastern Europe, in there R1b-U106 makes it debut. P312 was likely the byproduct of Beaker expansions, while one could argue that L11+ was early Beaker. Then in the mean time you get the arrival of L23xL51 cousins from the Steppe  who bring IE languages along with R1a. The contact zone of L23xL51 and L51+ is in Central Europe, so P312 subclades born in Central Europe, and maybe most of France(Minus Southwestern France) learn IE languages, some of them do expansions on their own(i.e. L21, U152), which could be linked to the Urnfield Culture, or the Italo-Celtic languages.

Here is a question - if you remove the relatively late P312 subclades in the Basque country, would it actually be so high in P312?  Is the level not greatly raised by  late local subclades? I understand about 10% of Basques are SRY2627 which is a fairly yound clade and also that Basque L21 is part of an even younger cluster. Those along could be responsible for the excess of p312 among Basques compared to their neighbours

Well SRY2627 is pretty high in Catalonia, and its phylogenetic position places it inside the Z196 haplogroup, so I don’t see why it ought to be removed. But if you are interested in the percentages of P312(xL21+,U152+,SRY2627), well here you go from Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012:

R-P312(xL21+,U152+,SRY2627)

Gascony

Bigorre: 20/44 or 45.45%
Bearn: 22/56 or 39.29%
Chalosse: 30/58 or 51.72%

French Basque

Lapurdi/Baztan: 21/44 or 47.73%
Lapurdi Nafarroa: 31/66 or 46.97%
Zuberoa: 37/53 or 69.81%

Navarra

Roncal and Salazar valleys: 25/53 or 47.17%
Central Western Nafarroa: 37/60 or 61.67%
North Western Nafarroa:  30/51 or 58.82%

Spanish Basque

Gipuzkoa: 31/47 or 65.96%
SouthWestern Gipuzkoa: 36/57 or 63.16%
Araba: 20/51 or 39.22%
Bizkaia: 42/57 or 73.68%

North Spain

La Rioja: 20/54 or 37.04%
North Aragon: 14/27 or 51.85%*

*Sample size is small compared to others.  Also the percentages are of the total sample size, not of the amount of R1b-L23+ derived clades found.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: rms2 on June 04, 2012, 08:23:46 PM
Some of these disputes could be settled by the recovery of ancient y-dna in the right contexts. Barring that, it would take a truly comprehensive study of Eurasian R1b, including all of its major subdivisions.

I suspect R-M269 in various forms progressed in more or less continuous fashion from SE to NW across Europe and within a reasonably restricted time frame, as opposed to part arriving very early and getting cut off from its eastern cousins by the influx of Near Eastern farmers.

Europe west of a line running from the Baltic to the Black Sea is really not all that big a place, so the various eddyings of this and that clade's STR variance may not be as instructive as the overall R-M269 pattern.

As for non-IE languages in Europe, Basque seems the chief fly in the ointment for the idea that R-M269 was the vector for Indo-European. I suspect the Basques were originally not an R-M269 population but became that way over time. It wouldn't take waves of R-M269 conquerors to accomplish that: just a few successful R-M269 lineages versus greater "daughtering out" by xM269 lineages and enough time.

But that might be totally wrong, so let's get some truly ancient Basque y-dna - and enough of it - sometime soon.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 08:29:00 PM
Regarding Central Italy, Myres 2011 has M269 at 52.9%. If you take a look at the Capelli study, you will see that R1b is higher in all areas of Central Italy than the next haplogroup (J2) by a good amount.

Myres.et.al.2010 doesn’t sample Central Italy, she has North and South Italy, if you are referring to the data labeled as Italy, which coincidently shows 52.9% R1b-M269, then yeah, on a sample size of 34 people 52.9% shows R1b-M269. However on a sample size of 115 people from Central Italy only 33.9% showed R1b-M269. Sorry but 115/34=3.38 times bigger. So excuse me, if I find the results using a bigger sample size far more reliable.

As for using African-Americans as an example, it was an example of how genetics don't always align with language and visa-versa.

You really want to compare African slaves, brought to America against their will, living in a predominantly White society, or at least in a White dominated society, with your putative Indo-European L11+ invaders in the Aquitania. Why, would the people that have the upper hand, adapt to something else. Last time I checked the Afrikaans speak a Germanic dialect, they don’t speak Khoisan, so it is not the language of the majority, but the language of the ruling class. As for African Americans, well, the first generations likely spoke their native languages, then it was lost, just as German Americans spoke German, and Italian Americans spoke Italian once upon a time. Which brings me again to my point, you see people changing their languages to adapt to the language that prevails, I have yet to see how Euskera would give anyone any advantage in a pre-Roman Indo-European dominated Atlantic façade. So once more, why would the English who conquered America, move to South Africa and learn Khoisan, or the Dutch? Reality, they didn’t, they retained their own language.

You seemed to have disregarded my Mexican-Indian Y-DNA example quite nicely. By the way, they carry subclades of haplgroup Q that are as diverse as L21 and DF27, so there goes you theory that it is not likely in the Basque Country because Basques are made up of different SNPs, which by the way have the same modal values across 67 markers.

What theory about Mexican-Indian Y-DNA, I didn’t even understand what you were saying. Yes there are ~33 Million Mexicans here, well for starters Mexicans aren’t even mostly Q1a3a, but R1b-P312, but anyhow, do most of them speak English, yes, a good portion do, but a large segment also speaks Spanish. Have they affected the gene pool of America, well if you sample Mexican people indeed, but if you sample any other person, I don’t see why. Again, not really getting where you are getting at with the Mexican example. Also, what do you mean Basques have the same modal values across 67 markers? Would you care to expand on that, I mean, provide sample sizes, etc, are there any significant number of Basques on FTDNA as to provide any meaningful conclusions?

Sorry, but the only one who seems t think yours is the better explanation is "the better explanation" seems to be you, and now that I know you are Basque it makes sense.

Yes, indeed the good ole’ Ad Hominem, I’m Basque therefore I must be biased, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, etc. Yes “poisoning the well” also helps.  Again, what we have seen from the advent of the phylogenetic tree of P312, is that British Islands is mostly L21+ with some minor R1b-U152, and R1b-Z196, France has gradients, but it is mostly a mixture of L21+ and U152 in terms of their P312+ derived clades. Move to Italy, Switzerland.et.al and you get into U152 territory, then there is SW France and Iberia being Z196 territory.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 09:06:59 PM
Central Italy - I had confirmed it with Natalie Myres when the paper came out, that's how I know.

Like I said in another post, R1a and R1b are two sides of the same PIE coin. Sure, it probably had its exceptions (Basques), but that is the only one that makes sense of what we know about West European linguistics, genetics and archaeology.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 09:14:07 PM
Central Italy - I had confirmed it with Natalie Myres when the paper came out, that's how I know.

Ok, but are you saying that the 33.9% R1b-M269 found in 115 Central Italians according to Busby.et.al.2011 is less accurate than the 52.9% found in 34 Central Italians according to Myres.et.al.2010.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 09:18:22 PM
Central Italy - I had confirmed it with Natalie Myres when the paper came out, that's how I know.

Ok, but are you saying that the 33.9% R1b-M269 found in 115 Central Italians according to Busby.et.al.2011 is less accurate than the 52.9% found in 34 Central Italians according to Myres.et.al.2010.




No, I'm saying that it matches better with other studies from Italy where 33% would be the absolute minimum R1b.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 09:26:53 PM
No, I'm saying that it matches better with other studies from Italy where 33% would be the absolute minimum R1b.

Would you mind providing which studies show R1b in Central Italy to be around 50%, also, please provide sample sizes.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 09:57:33 PM
No, I'm saying that it matches better with other studies from Italy where 33% would be the absolute minimum R1b.

Would you mind providing which studies show R1b in Central Italy to be around 50%, also, please provide sample sizes.

This is from Capelli 2007. The Central Italian data is in red... http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png)

If we want to get technical, Garfagnana in NW Tuscany has the highest level of R1b (76.2%) of any sampled Italian area (Di Giacomo 2003).


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 10:16:53 PM

This is from Capelli 2007. The Central Italian data is in red... http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png)

If we want to get technical, Garfagnana in NW Tuscany has the highest level of R1b (76.2%) of any sampled Italian area (Di Giacomo 2003).

Yeah, I've seen the Capelli.et.al study, nonetheless you were talking about Romans being majority R1b, yet in that study it shows the North-East Latium (n=55) has 38% of R1(xR1a1), and South Latium (n=51) has 37% of R1(xR1a1). In total the Central Italian samples have 172 R1(xR1a1) which is equal to 172/407 or 42.26% R1b, once again not really reaching majority status.


Here is the Di Giacomo.et.al.2003 study: http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf (http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf)

Here is Table-1 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Table-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Table-1.jpg)

Here is figure-1 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg)

So once more, I don't see any indication that Romans had an R1b majority, at least not from modern day DNA.

PS: Kudos for your U152 website, it is very well constructed and very informative.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 04, 2012, 10:31:12 PM

This is from Capelli 2007. The Central Italian data is in red... http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png (http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Capelli_Graph.png)

If we want to get technical, Garfagnana in NW Tuscany has the highest level of R1b (76.2%) of any sampled Italian area (Di Giacomo 2003).

Yeah, I've seen the Capelli.et.al study, nonetheless you were talking about Romans being majority R1b, yet in that study it shows the North-East Latium (n=55) has 38% of R1(xR1a1), and South Latium (n=51) has 37% of R1(xR1a1). In total the Central Italian samples have 172 R1(xR1a1) which is equal to 172/407 or 42.26% R1b, once again not really reaching majority status.


Here is the Di Giacomo.et.al.2003 study: http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf (http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf)

Here is Table-1 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Table-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Table-1.jpg)

Here is figure-1 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg)

So once more, I don't see any indication that Romans had an R1b majority, at least not from modern day DNA.

PS: Kudos for your U152 website, it is very well constructed and very informative.

Any way you want to sugar coat it, R1b is still the highest haplogroup in Central Italy and was probably more so before the Rome became the capital of the ancient world.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 04, 2012, 10:45:15 PM
Any way you want to sugar coat it, R1b is still the highest haplogroup in Central Italy and was probably more so before the Rome became the capital of the ancient world.

No need to sugar coat anything, simply showing you that your statement:

"And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course)."

Is not supported by modern DNA data, Latium(Lazio) shows R1b at levels of 37-38%, certainly not a majority. From Capelli et.al.2007

North-East Latium(n=55) R1(xR1a1) 38% , J2 15% , G 13%, E3b1 22%

South Latium(n=51) R1(xR1a1) 37% , J2 25% , G 12%

So, yeah R1(xR1a1) has the highest frequency in Central Europe, but it doesn't translate into Romans being majority R1b.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: A_Wode on June 04, 2012, 11:13:55 PM
The mathematical definition would be greater than 50%. However, Rome covered North and Central Italy, so I expect that there is a strong possibility that Romans were very near majority R1b, if not majority.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 05, 2012, 09:44:52 AM
Any way you want to sugar coat it, R1b is still the highest haplogroup in Central Italy and was probably more so before the Rome became the capital of the ancient world.

No need to sugar coat anything, simply showing you that your statement:

"And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course)."

Is not supported by modern DNA data, Latium(Lazio) shows R1b at levels of 37-38%, certainly not a majority. From Capelli et.al.2007

North-East Latium(n=55) R1(xR1a1) 38% , J2 15% , G 13%, E3b1 22%

South Latium(n=51) R1(xR1a1) 37% , J2 25% , G 12%

So, yeah R1(xR1a1) has the highest frequency in Central Europe, but it doesn't translate into Romans being majority R1b.

Trying to equate modern R1b frequency in Latium with the exact percentage that the Romans had is plain silly. Everyone knows (at least those who know Rome is in Central Italy and not Southern Italy) that Rome was the ancient equivalent of New York City for almost a thousand years and that its makeup 2,000 years ago can only be deduced. So I'll repeat, R1b was a majority in the Latin tribes (Romans) when they started their expansion.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 05, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
Trying to equate modern R1b frequency in Latium with the exact percentage that the Romans had is plain silly. Everyone knows (at least those who know Rome is in Central Italy and not Southern Italy) that Rome was the ancient equivalent of New York City for almost a thousand years and that its makeup 2,000 years ago can only be deduced.

Really!!! You are going to try to pull that Ad Hominem on me. Well, the thing is that the percentages were taken at different places in the region of Latium, unless, you want to argue that all of them were taken in the City of Rome, which there is nothing that would indicate that the samples came from Rome.

So I'll repeat, R1b was a majority in the Latin tribes (Romans) when they started their expansion.

Well, I find it odd that the places where R1b is highest in Central Italy is where the Etruscans lived.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg)

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png)

So are we to assume that there was a complete population replacement of Etruscans by Romans, and that is why the frequency of R1b is high there, but at the same time something happened in Latium that drove the frequency of R1b down. 


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 05, 2012, 10:56:15 AM
Trying to equate modern R1b frequency in Latium with the exact percentage that the Romans had is plain silly. Everyone knows (at least those who know Rome is in Central Italy and not Southern Italy) that Rome was the ancient equivalent of New York City for almost a thousand years and that its makeup 2,000 years ago can only be deduced.

Really!!! You are going to try to pull that Ad Hominem on me. Well, the thing is that the percentages were taken at different places in the region of Latium, unless, you want to argue that all of them were taken in the City of Rome, which there is nothing that would indicate that the samples came from Rome.

So I'll repeat, R1b was a majority in the Latin tribes (Romans) when they started their expansion.

Well, I find it odd that the places where R1b is highest in Central Italy is where the Etruscans lived.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/DiGiacomoetal2003-Figure-1.jpg)

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png)

So are we to assume that there was a complete population replacement of Etruscans by Romans, and that is why the frequency of R1b is high there, but at the same time something happened in Latium that drove the frequency of R1b down. 


Well, I can tell you that immigration into New York City has changed the Y-DNA picture for hundreds of miles in every direction. Same applies to Latium and Rome.

As for the Etruscans, Herodotos wrote that they settled in the territory of the Umbrians who were a P-Italic speaking people.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 05, 2012, 12:37:10 PM
As for the Etruscans, Herodotos wrote that they settled in the territory of the Umbrians who were a P-Italic speaking people.
But why do you insist about Etruscans come from elsewhere? Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC and Etruscans lived in Italy at least from many centuries (documented by linguistic inscriptions) but very likely from thousands of years if they were the Villanovians. Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who lived in more recent times, said the contrary: that they were autochthonous of Italy. Also if there was an upper class of Eastern origin, it influenced a little the genetics. I have broken in pieces all the papers published on the Etruscans, beginning from that of Brisighelli, and her classification of hg. U7 hasn’t been received by the last Behar 2012b.
The genetics of Italy is due to prehistoric times (except some income happened later, but where are the descendants of the millions of slaves? Show me their Y!).
Historians should stop to say that “The Sea Peoples” came from he Aegean Sea. Etruscans, Sardinians and Sicels came from Italy, which was in growth at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.
The percentage of hg. R1b in Italy is different from North to South only because South had more migration of the agriculturalist from the Balkans, but probably before the Neolithic were more homogeneous, and this is demonstrated also from your Western Sicily, where Italic peoples were less influenced from Greek or other migration.
Your believing about the recent times of hg. R1b and its migration from East leaks from everywhere.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 05, 2012, 01:16:22 PM
I find the idea that L51 derived as non-IE and L23xL51 as IE a total contradiction of the modern reality.  I think Mike has shown that L23xL51 is similar in age as L51-derived in most of Europe.

I'm not sure about that(That in Europe L23xL51 has about the same age as L51+). Also, it is not L23xL51 non IE, and L51+ IE. I said it before, L23xL51 is nonIE, Neolithic comes by an some L23xL51 ends up in Western Europe, or somewhere in Europe, likely to the West. L23xL51 also heads to the Steppe, over there it learns PIE along with R1a, by the process that is commonly known. Meanwhile L23xL51 in Europe develops into L51 and retains its ancient language. Something(Megalithism, Bell Beaker, etc) makes L51, or its decendant L11 expand circa 4000 to 5000 ybp, some of them make it to Eastern Europe, in there R1b-U106 makes it debut. P312 was likely the byproduct of Beaker expansions, while one could argue that L11+ was early Beaker. Then in the mean time you get the arrival of L23xL51 cousins from the Steppe  who bring IE languages along with R1a. The contact zone of L23xL51 and L51+ is in Central Europe, so P312 subclades born in Central Europe, and maybe most of France(Minus Southwestern France) learn IE languages, some of them do expansions on their own(i.e. L21, U152), which could be linked to the Urnfield Culture, or the Italo-Celtic languages.

Here is a question - if you remove the relatively late P312 subclades in the Basque country, would it actually be so high in P312?  Is the level not greatly raised by  late local subclades? I understand about 10% of Basques are SRY2627 which is a fairly yound clade and also that Basque L21 is part of an even younger cluster. Those along could be responsible for the excess of p312 among Basques compared to their neighbours

Well SRY2627 is pretty high in Catalonia, and its phylogenetic position places it inside the Z196 haplogroup, so I don’t see why it ought to be removed. But if you are interested in the percentages of P312(xL21+,U152+,SRY2627), well here you go from Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012:

R-P312(xL21+,U152+,SRY2627)

Gascony

Bigorre: 20/44 or 45.45%
Bearn: 22/56 or 39.29%
Chalosse: 30/58 or 51.72%

French Basque

Lapurdi/Baztan: 21/44 or 47.73%
Lapurdi Nafarroa: 31/66 or 46.97%
Zuberoa: 37/53 or 69.81%

Navarra

Roncal and Salazar valleys: 25/53 or 47.17%
Central Western Nafarroa: 37/60 or 61.67%
North Western Nafarroa:  30/51 or 58.82%

Spanish Basque

Gipuzkoa: 31/47 or 65.96%
SouthWestern Gipuzkoa: 36/57 or 63.16%
Araba: 20/51 or 39.22%
Bizkaia: 42/57 or 73.68%

North Spain

La Rioja: 20/54 or 37.04%
North Aragon: 14/27 or 51.85%*

*Sample size is small compared to others.  Also the percentages are of the total sample size, not of the amount of R1b-L23+ derived clades found.



Thanks.  Also I would be curious to see the variance ages of the various P312 clades (intraclade) in and around the Basque areas.  I am curious to see which P312 clades are oldest among the basques.  I understand about bottlenecks etc but it would be interesting to no, despite bottlenecks, which P312 clades seem older and younger among the basques and how that compares to their neighbours.   


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 05, 2012, 01:17:43 PM
As for the Etruscans, Herodotos wrote that they settled in the territory of the Umbrians who were a P-Italic speaking people.
But why do you insist about Etruscans come from elsewhere? Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC and Etruscans lived in Italy at least from many centuries (documented by linguistic inscriptions) but very likely from thousands of years if they were the Villanovians. Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who lived in more recent times, said the contrary: that they were autochthonous of Italy. Also if there was an upper class of Eastern origin, it influenced a little the genetics. I have broken in pieces all the papers published on the Etruscans, beginning from that of Brisighelli, and her classification of hg. U7 hasn’t been received by the last Behar 2012b.
The genetics of Italy is due to prehistoric times (except some income happened later, but where are the descendants of the millions of slaves? Show me their Y!).
Historians should stop to say that “The Sea Peoples” came from he Aegean Sea. Etruscans, Sardinians and Sicels came from Italy, which was in growth at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.
The percentage of hg. R1b in Italy is different from North to South only because South had more migration of the agriculturalist from the Balkans, but probably before the Neolithic were more homogeneous, and this is demonstrated also from your Western Sicily, where Italic peoples were less influenced from Greek or other migration.
Your believing about the recent times of hg. R1b and its migration from East leaks from everywhere.


What do you think of the idea that was in a recent paper I posted yesterday that Etruscan might actually be an IE language in the ancient Anatolian branch.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 05, 2012, 02:17:30 PM
What do you think of the idea that was in a recent paper I posted yesterday that Etruscan might actually be an IE language in the ancient Anatolian branch.
There are many theories about this. Do you remember the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev? He thought that E-truria did derive from Trusia with the Latin rotacism and Trusia were the Greek Troie (Troy). Someone linked Etruscan with some post-Hittite languages etc. All theories. Practically there isn’t a language all over the world that isn’t been linked with Etruscan, and you may understand from this that these theories have nothing serious.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 05, 2012, 02:43:29 PM
As for the Etruscans, Herodotos wrote that they settled in the territory of the Umbrians who were a P-Italic speaking people.
But why do you insist about Etruscans come from elsewhere? Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC and Etruscans lived in Italy at least from many centuries (documented by linguistic inscriptions) but very likely from thousands of years if they were the Villanovians. Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who lived in more recent times, said the contrary: that they were autochthonous of Italy. Also if there was an upper class of Eastern origin, it influenced a little the genetics. I have broken in pieces all the papers published on the Etruscans, beginning from that of Brisighelli, and her classification of hg. U7 hasn’t been received by the last Behar 2012b.
The genetics of Italy is due to prehistoric times (except some income happened later, but where are the descendants of the millions of slaves? Show me their Y!).
Historians should stop to say that “The Sea Peoples” came from he Aegean Sea. Etruscans, Sardinians and Sicels came from Italy, which was in growth at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.
The percentage of hg. R1b in Italy is different from North to South only because South had more migration of the agriculturalist from the Balkans, but probably before the Neolithic were more homogeneous, and this is demonstrated also from your Western Sicily, where Italic peoples were less influenced from Greek or other migration.
Your believing about the recent times of hg. R1b and its migration from East leaks from everywhere.


I agree those Etruscan genetic studies are pure junk, so we are in agreement there.

Pallottino probably had it right, and both the Etruscans and the Italics were constructs of people by the time the Greeks started interacting with them. However, whether the Etruscans were autochthonous or relatively late arrivals, there is enough to think that they were confined to a smaller area along the Tyrrhenian  and later expanded into Italic speaking areas (Greater Etruria), just like the Romans and Greeks wrote about.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any Y-DNA from areas like Tarquinia to really form an opinion on the autochthonous/non-autochthonous debate.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 05, 2012, 03:49:52 PM
Unfortunately I haven't seen any Y-DNA from areas like Tarquinia to really form an opinion on the autochthonous/non-autochthonous debate.
Richard, but you who are an administrator of some haplogroups and you aren’t a VV, why don’t you care of Mangino, actually the Tuscan Mancini from Monticiano (Siena), deep Etruria:
1)   to test him again for ascertain if he is really M269+
2)   and after to promote a WTY or the last 454 (if I am not wrong). I offered to contribute. If he is M269, he breaks probably the line of SNPs around M269. This is the true Etruscan people.




Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 05, 2012, 04:02:42 PM
The percentage of hg. R1b in Italy is different from North to South only because South had more migration of the agriculturalist from the Balkans, but probably before the Neolithic were more homogeneous, and this is demonstrated also from your Western Sicily, where Italic peoples were less influenced from Greek or other migration.
Your believing about the recent times of hg. R1b and its migration from East leaks from everywhere.

Another rationale for R1b being higher in the North of Italy rather than in the South could be that R1b came into Italy from the North.

The major R1b haplogroup in Italy is U152. With 67 STR ht's, here are the relative variance results for U152 from our DNA projects.

U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.96 [Mixed 49]  (N=37)
U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=37)
   
U152 France_________:  Var=1.23 [Mixed 49]  (N=46)
U152 France_________:  Var=1.18 [Linear 36]  (N=46)


R1b U152 could very well have come into Italy from the north.

As far as R1b xU152, I don't know.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: JeanL on June 05, 2012, 07:12:34 PM
Thanks.  Also I would be curious to see the variance ages of the various P312 clades (intraclade) in and around the Basque areas.  I am curious to see which P312 clades are oldest among the basques.  I understand about bottlenecks etc but it would be interesting to no, despite bottlenecks, which P312 clades seem older and younger among the basques and how that compares to their neighbours.   


In search of the Pre- and Post-Neolithic Genetic Substrates in Iberia: Evidence from Y-Chromosome in Pyrenean Populations (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00478.x/pdf)

From the paper:

Quote from: Lopez-Parra.et.al.2008

However comparing the average STR variances of the R1b1b2c (0.243), R1b1b2d (0.207) and I2a2 (0.278) lineages considered in this study and given the replicated estimates pointing to a Mesolithic time frame for the origin, diversification and diffusion of the I2a2 clade (Rootsi et al. 2004), the temporal interpretation here provided
for R1b1b2c seems reliable.

R1b1b2c==>R1b-M153 (n=19, var=0.243) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439.

R1b1b2d==>R1b-SRY2627 (n=30, var=0.207) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, GATA H4.

I2a2==>I-M26 (n=13, var=0.278) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, GATA H4.



Now this is interesting:

Quote from: Lopez.Parra.et.al.2008

Two R1b1b2c haplotypes from Biscay were found to be molecularly very differentiated from any other lineage, which surely accounts for the large average variance across Y-STR detected in Biscay (0.388) compared to Cinco Villas (0.185). The detection of such divergent haplotypes can indicate that many intermediate R1b1b2c haplotypes were either lost or still remain unsampled.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 06, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
Another rationale for R1b being higher in the North of Italy rather than in the South could be that R1b came into Italy from the North.
The major R1b haplogroup in Italy is U152. With 67 STR ht's, here are the relative variance results for U152 from our DNA projects.

U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.96 [Mixed 49]  (N=37)
U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=37)
U152 France_________:  Var=1.23 [Mixed 49]  (N=46)
U152 France_________:  Var=1.18 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

R1b U152 could very well have come into Italy from the north.
As far as R1b xU152, I don't know.
This is a possibility and it is by this that also Richard Rocca probably points to France like the origin of R-U152. I too have found some outlier R-U152 in France and take in consideration this possibility. Anyway we have discussed from so long about this, and too many are the factors to be taken present, for instance France is a place of transit more than Italy, which is a cul de sac in respect Europe and the R-U152 present in France may have come from everywhere. France gets, for instance, about 5,000,000 of recent Italian immigration, for not counting all the others. How many French of to-day descend from those who lived there 2000 years ago? French, then named Gallia, was coursed and almost destroyed by Roman troops: someone speaks of one million of dead and one million of prisoners at the time of Julius Caesar. France, above all the South, Provence, which is the Roman Provincia, has had, from Before Christ, many colonies from Italy etc. etc.
Too many are the factors which could be taken present for having something reliable. Our studies are trying to know just this.
Don’t forget what I have written recently about Sicilian Cucina and his mutations in very slow mutating markers. Does he come from France he too? Perhaps many think and desire this. To a friend of mine, in a private letter, who asked me about Richard Rocca, I said  that he is a Sicilian, who thinks to be a French, who lives in America and who will become OUTIS.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: OConnor on June 06, 2012, 06:45:11 AM
Italy itself has experienced invasions. Is there any genetic traces today in Italy of these peoples?

(for instance)
The year 781 saw the final conclusion of the efforts of Frankish emperor, Charlemagne, to fully conquer and subdue the Lombards in Italy. In that same year his son, Pepin, was given command of Italy. Under his descendant, Lothar, the Frankish kingdom of Italy included all of central and northern Italy (the former exarchate of Ravenna and Lombard kingdom territories), and the Rhine corridor up to modern Holland. It also seems to have included Switzerland. The rulers of Frankish Italy were known as the Middle Franks due to their geographical position between the Western and Eastern Franks. Two of their number were heads of the Frankish empire as a whole between 840-875.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyFranks.htm


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mark Jost on June 06, 2012, 08:31:04 AM
...
Don’t forget what I have written recently about Sicilian Cucina and his mutations in very slow mutating markers. Does he come from France he too? Perhaps many think and desire this. To a friend of mine, in a private letter, who asked me about Richard Rocca, I said  that he is a Sicilian, who thinks to be a French, who lives in America and who will become OUTIS.

Won't we all, or most of us?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 06, 2012, 08:55:10 AM
Won't we all, or most of us?
Ou-tis, ancient Greek “no one”, is the name that Ulysses said to Polyphemus. Greek “tis” is the same of Latin “quis” or “pis” of Osco-Umbrian etc.
We may understand “nobody”, in the meaning that his theories won’t make him famous, because they will be defeated, but we may understand that we all will come back in that nothing from where we have come. In this meaning I’d say: we all.



Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 06, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Italy itself has experienced invasions. Is there any genetic traces today in Italy of these peoples?
We are trying just to understand this. We are asking ourselves if a haplotype is Lombard, German, or of other peoples. In the past I have said, above all to Richard Stevens, that the lack of R-L21 in Italy (the few cases are controversial) demonstrates that all that migration from Central-North Europe to Italy probably there hasn’t been.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 06, 2012, 09:29:22 AM
Unfortunately I haven't seen any Y-DNA from areas like Tarquinia to really form an opinion on the autochthonous/non-autochthonous debate.
Richard, but you who are an administrator of some haplogroups and you aren’t a VV, why don’t you care of Mangino, actually the Tuscan Mancini from Monticiano (Siena), deep Etruria:
1)   to test him again for ascertain if he is really M269+
2)   and after to promote a WTY or the last 454 (if I am not wrong). I offered to contribute. If he is M269, he breaks probably the line of SNPs around M269. This is the true Etruscan people.


Are you sure of his origins in Tuscany? Mangino is definitely a southern Italian sounding name and is much more common in the south: http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=Mangino&x=0&y=0 (http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=Mangino&x=0&y=0)

I think the better investment would be to test someone with proven Tuscan origin. Also, it seems like the kit owner went through great lengths to test his R lineage as he was tested for both the "DeepSNP-R1b" and the "Deep Clade Extended C" products. He seems to be pretty securely M269+L23-. Is there something in his STR values that leads you to suspect that he splits the M269 line?


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 06, 2012, 09:59:12 AM
Are you sure of his origins in Tuscany? Mangino is definitely a southern Italian sounding name and is much more common in the south: http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=Mangino&x=0&y=0 (http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=Mangino&x=0&y=0)

I think the better investment would be to test someone with proven Tuscan origin. Also, it seems like the kit owner went through great lengths to test his R lineage as he was tested for both the "DeepSNP-R1b" and the "Deep Clade Extended C" products. He seems to be pretty securely M269+L23-. Is there something in his STR values that leads you to suspect that he splits the M269 line?
I am sure his surname was Mancini and came from Monticiano (Siena). I had an exchange of letters with VV, because his haplotype matches the R1b1* and not R1b1a2*. See it. If he is really M269, probably isn't so his haplotype. Anyway like M269 he is the most varied. Ask also to Humanist, who did a tree of M269, and he was the first detached from the tree. I am sure of this.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 06, 2012, 10:18:57 AM
These are the 22 markers of Klyosov:
M269:       11,12,13,11,11,12,11,9,15,16,8,10,8,12,10,12,12,8,12,11,11,12
Mangino:   12,13,13,11,11,12,11,8,15,16,8,10,8, 0,10,12,12,8,11,11,11,12
R1b1*       12,13,13,11,11,11,11,8,15,16,8,10,8,12,10,12,12,8,11,11,11,12


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mark Jost on June 06, 2012, 11:12:56 AM
Won't we all, or most of us?
Ou-tis, ancient Greek “no one”, is the name that Ulysses said to Polyphemus. Greek “tis” is the same of Latin “quis” or “pis” of Osco-Umbrian etc.
We may understand “nobody”, in the meaning that his theories won’t make him famous, because they will be defeated, but we may understand that we all will come back in that nothing from where we have come. In this meaning I’d say: we all.


This field has shown that new facts sometimes affect negatively the 'Old Guard' causing their back to be 'Bowed'.


Title: Re: Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 06, 2012, 02:04:52 PM

In search of the Pre- and Post-Neolithic Genetic Substrates in Iberia: Evidence from Y-Chromosome in Pyrenean Populations (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00478.x/pdf)

From the paper:
Quote from: Lopez-Parra.et.al.2008
However comparing the average STR variances of the R1b1b2c (0.243), R1b1b2d (0.207) and I2a2 (0.278) lineages considered in this study and given the replicated estimates pointing to a Mesolithic time frame for the origin, diversification and diffusion of the I2a2 clade (Rootsi et al. 2004), the temporal interpretation here provided for R1b1b2c seems reliable.

R1b1b2c==>R1b-M153 (n=19, var=0.243) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439.

R1b1b2d==>R1b-SRY2627 (n=30, var=0.207) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, GATA H4.

I2a2==>I-M26 (n=13, var=0.278) Calculated using DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, GATA H4.

Thank you, JeanL.  

Just a clarification for everyone, these numbers from the study are reflective of the study and the regions within its scope.  It is not a Pan-European study.

As far as R1b-M153, that region is the only place where its been found other than perhaps one haplotype in the Old Norway project.   SRY2627, is more widespread than M153 by a longshot with people in the British Isles, Benelux, Scandinavia, Germany as well as all over Spain and France.

If you compare M153 with SRY2627 (from everywhere), at least with long haplotypes, SRY2627, is quite a bit older.  The M153 that entered the Basque or pre-Basque population may have come in at a late point in time after SRY2627 had been around as it (SRY2627) scattered all over Western Europe.

What do you make of the fact from the study that I-M26 is 14-34% more diverse than the SRY2627 or M153 in this study?

I'm a bit nervous of deriving too much from just 10 STRs.