World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Jean M on January 19, 2010, 04:54:11 PM



Title: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 19, 2010, 04:54:11 PM
New paper from  (mainly) Leicester University's genetics team.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285) PLos Biology.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jdean on January 19, 2010, 06:02:38 PM
New paper from  (mainly) Leicester University's genetics team.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285) PLos Biology.

Anybody know what you have to do with there DYS439 values to make them compatible with FTDNA?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 19, 2010, 06:08:05 PM
Vizachero is rejoicing in posting the paper of Barbujani (hereon Farfugliani) on “Genealogy-dna”. Farfugliani, the preferred pupil of Cavalli Sforza. Ydna R1b1b2 would come from Middle East , the old theory of farming expansion, demic diffusion and, why not, the Renfrew’s  oddity of the Indo-European from Asia Minor.
1)   Asia Minor isn’t Middle East. There is a fault between Indo-European Asia Minor and Semite Middle East: linguistically, cultural, chromosomal.
2)   From there would come Y but not mt. Do you imagine an horde of Asian Don Juans to  break a lot of European hearts?  And under the eyes of Mesolithic hunter gatherers with their murderous bows?
3)   Anyway a few joy for Vizachero: this would have happened not 4000ya as he is thinking but at least the double before: 8000ya. Something doesn’t  square.
4)   The science of Farfugliani is all pro domo sua: Italy, which has at least a 30% of its R1b1b2 as R1b1b2a (DYS393=12), has in his data pretty only  the more recent subclades: and Italy has R1b1*, R1b1a, R1b1b2/L23-, R1b1b2/L23*/150- (the unique over the world) etc.
5)   We are yet waiting  for the Rozen’s SNPs, con buona pace di Farfugliani. Farfugliani sleeps in peace.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 19, 2010, 06:38:37 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am rejoicing simply at a paper in support of post-Mesolithic migration as the dominant force in creating Europe's present pattern of paternal lineages. At last!

But this is not the final word. Science proceeds in steps.

This paper was submitted back in May 2009. That was before the two aDNA studies that showed
1) how different the mtDNA of northern Europe was before and after the Neolithic.
2) that if you add Mesolithic and Neolithic mtDNA, you still don't get the present pattern. Something important happened later. I argue that it was the spread of Indo-European languages with technological changes of the Copper Age.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: OConnor on January 19, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
Vizachero is rejoicing in posting the paper of Barbujani (hereon Farfugliani) on “Genealogy-dna”. Farfugliani, the preferred pupil of Cavalli Sforza. Ydna R1b1b2 would come from Middle East , the old theory of farming expansion, demic diffusion and, why not, the Renfrew’s  oddity of the Indo-European from Asia Minor.
1)   Asia Minor isn’t Middle East. There is a fault between Indo-European Asia Minor and Semite Middle East: linguistically, cultural, chromosomal.
2)   From there would come Y but not mt. Do you imagine an horde of Asian Don Juans to  break a lot of European hearts?  And under the eyes of Mesolithic hunter gatherers with their murderous bows?
3)   Anyway a few joy for Vizachero: this would have happened not 4000ya as he is thinking but at least the double before: 8000ya. Something doesn’t  square.
4)   The science of Farfugliani is all pro domo sua: Italy, which has at least a 30% of its R1b1b2 as R1b1b2a (DYS393=12), has in his data pretty only  the more recent subclades: and Italy has R1b1*, R1b1a, R1b1b2/L23-, R1b1b2/L23*/150- (the unique over the world) etc.
5)   We are yet waiting  for the Rozen’s SNPs, con buona pace di Farfugliani. Farfugliani sleeps in peace.


393=12 shows up in Ireland as well. Could there be any L159.2 over the Alps?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 19, 2010, 08:20:59 PM
I printed that paper out and read it on the train today on the way home from work.

I think it makes eminent good sense.

At last we're starting to move away from all that sappy "Paleolithic R1b" stuff. I never did think that made much sense.

One of the most important aspects of the paper is the variance map showing how R1b1b2 variance increases as one moves SE through Europe toward Anatolia.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 19, 2010, 10:52:01 PM
New paper from  (mainly) Leicester University's genetics team.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285) PLos Biology.

Its not opening


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 20, 2010, 04:26:17 PM
New paper from  (mainly) Leicester University's genetics team.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285) PLos Biology.

Its not opening

PLoS was down for maintenance for a while. It's working now.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: secherbernard on January 21, 2010, 03:51:51 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am rejoicing simply at a paper in support of post-Mesolithic migration as the dominant force in creating Europe's present pattern of paternal lineages. At last!

But this is not the final word. Science proceeds in steps.

This paper was submitted back in May 2009. That was before the two aDNA studies that showed
1) how different the mtDNA of northern Europe was before and after the Neolithic.
2) that if you add Mesolithic and Neolithic mtDNA, you still don't get the present pattern. Something important happened later. I argue that it was the spread of Indo-European languages with technological changes of the Copper Age.
I am rejoicing also for this paper. I have just a remark about the dates given for TMRCA: Turkey between 4.400 and 11.000 years, Ireland between 4.000 and 7.400 years. With this incertitude, it is difficult to make a difference between the migration of the first european farmers and an indo-european migration during copper age.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 21, 2010, 06:14:07 PM
[quote author=secherbernard link=topic=9208.msg115469#msg115469
I am rejoicing also for this paper. I have just a remark about the dates given for TMRCA: Turkey between 4.400 and 11.000 years, Ireland between 4.000 and 7.400 years. With this incertitude, it is difficult to make a difference between the migration of the first european farmers and an indo-european migration during copper age.
[/quote]

Of course they can't make that distinction. The real problem is that it didn't occur to them that there was a choice. For decades now the debate has been solidly focussed on Mesolithc versus Neolithic. That will change I think, once demic diffusion is fully accepted as playing a major role in spreading farming. People will then be able to move on to thinking about later migrations. It won't be such a shock. :)


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 21, 2010, 09:30:35 PM


Of course they can't make that distinction. The real problem is that it didn't occur to them that there was a choice. For decades now the debate has been solidly focussed on Mesolithc versus Neolithic. That will change I think, once demic diffusion is fully accepted as playing a major role in spreading farming. People will then be able to move on to thinking about later migrations. It won't be such a shock. :)

Exactly. That is why this paper is important. It finally drives a stake through the heart of that old undead Iberian, "Paleolithic European R1b".

Now that he has been dispatched, we can move on to refining the real history of R1b1b2 in Europe.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 22, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
Of course they can't make that distinction. The real problem is that it didn't occur to them that there was a choice. For decades now the debate has been solidly focussed on Mesolithc versus Neolithic. That will change I think, once demic diffusion is fully accepted as playing a major role in spreading farming. People will then be able to move on to thinking about later migrations. It won't be such a shock. :)
Exactly. That is why this paper is important. It finally drives a stake through the heart of that old undead Iberian, "Paleolithic European R1b".
Now that he has been dispatched, we can move on to refining the real history of R1b1b2 in Europe.
Agreed. 

I'm amazed at the discussion generated about farmers... everything from they must be sexy and more.  I'm a little frustrated that (mostly on other forums) the discussion and articles seem to have forgotten about the Copper/Bronze/Iron Ages, but I think  this all can be viewed that as incremental progress.  The Paleothic and Mesolithic alternatives are finally getting knocked down for the count.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 22, 2010, 01:34:29 AM
“The real problem is that it didn't occur to them that there was a choice.”


Isn’t it all about publication for that community? Stray outside the box and chances of publication are diminished. We do not have that constraint in the amateur on-line genetic community.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 22, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15ht35.gif)

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15ht35.gif

I've finished estimating ht15 and ht35 diversity, it's taken me 2 days to do this, and I think the results are amazing. The diversity clines of ht15 and ht35 are almost polar opposites. I think these results seriously call into question the conclusion of the Balaresque study, which is what prompted me to look into this. There's no surfing-on-an-expanding-wave phenomenon occuring with ht15. It has its lowest variance in the supposed origination point: Anatolia.

The diversity of ht35 doesn't form a gradually decreasing cline. It seems to be uniformly similar from Iran to west Iberia, or at least up to Italy, because there are issues with the validity of the North African and Iberian data (small sample size in one case and confusion with ht15 samples, in the other). Its cline seems to be more north-south than diagonally from southwest to northeast. East European countries have the same ht35 diversity as West Europe, with the special consideration of the west Iberian results.

Some technical details to keep in mind. Ht15 can be differentiated from ht35 by barely 2 markers: 393 and 461. Few studies test 461, so most of the samples I used were chosen on the basis of 393 alone. But about 3% of ht15 and 10% of ht35 have the "wrong" value, becoming confused with the other group. This usually doesn't matter, exceot in countries where there is an overwhelming ratio difference between the frequencies of both groups, such as in Iberia, France, Britain, Netherlands, Anatolia, and the Levant. In these extreme cases, I've included, where possible, 2 pair of results. The top pair uses samples predicted as narrowly as possible, by using both 393 and 461. The bottom pair is the standard prediction using just 393. The top pair should be more accurate, but they tend to lack in sample size, so then again, maybe not. Notice in the case of Iberia, that the less restrictive result changes drastically from the more restrictive result, and ends up with identical values to Iberia's ht15 diversity estimate, suggesting most of the samples are in fact ht15 samples that are being confused for ht35 because they had a mutation in 393 to the modal value of ht35 on that marker. Curiously, this didn't happen in France, where I was only able to use the less accurate method (393 alone), and yet the result is notably low and different from France's ht15 diversity. I'd seriously take North Africa's high ht35 result (0,30) with a military-issue teaspoon of salt, it's just 5 samples. On the other hand, it's notoriously high ht15 diversity (0,28) is pretty solid.

To recap, Baralesque and all geneticists are stuck in a time warp, they're back in 2003, thinking R1b is just R1b. What a waste, after going through all the effort of collecting and processing the samples, to not have had the sense to test for a few extra key mutations that define some major subdivisions of R1b1b2 and are well known for more than 5 years. The conclusions they reached would then have been very different.

PS: Did you all notice that the French samples are mainly from west France and have a whopping 75% R1b1b2! Imagine if they had been tested for L21.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 22, 2010, 08:07:47 PM
Got to say that new paper is pretty well an exact expression of my own views. 
One thing I find interesting is is that their maps demand  that R1b1b2 had  dual spread into Europe from Anatolia - following both the Danubian route north of the Alps and the Mediterranean route.  One or the other of these alone only explains half the distribution.  That again is paralleled by the dual routes of the spread of farming west.  Their proposal of course does not fit the Bronze Age MRCA dates some suggest but I like the way the paper states the band of possible date range for each area rather than giving a single date (which is clearly nonsense statistically). 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 22, 2010, 08:24:21 PM
Argiedude-so, in simple terms, what are you suggesting that indicates in terms of the origin and movement of R1b into Europe? 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 22, 2010, 08:31:57 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am rejoicing simply at a paper in support of post-Mesolithic migration as the dominant force in creating Europe's present pattern of paternal lineages. At last!

But this is not the final word. Science proceeds in steps.

This paper was submitted back in May 2009. That was before the two aDNA studies that showed
1) how different the mtDNA of northern Europe was before and after the Neolithic.
2) that if you add Mesolithic and Neolithic mtDNA, you still don't get the present pattern. Something important happened later. I argue that it was the spread of Indo-European languages with technological changes of the Copper Age.
I am rejoicing also for this paper. I have just a remark about the dates given for TMRCA: Turkey between 4.400 and 11.000 years, Ireland between 4.000 and 7.400 years. With this incertitude, it is difficult to make a difference between the migration of the first european farmers and an indo-european migration during copper age.

However, these wide date ranges are the reality of confidence intervals.  When people quote adn actual single date it is very misleading,  I remember in Oppenheimer'book Origins of the British he quoted actual dates but if you looked into the noted it became clear that something like 3000BC would actually be +/- 1500 years e.g. 4500BC-1500BC.  You are right that such ranges can mean that its impossible to fit into one epoch but the that is the reality.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 22, 2010, 08:49:28 PM
argiedude -

If HT35 is the ancestral form of R1b1b2, then no one actually believes HT15 originated in Anatolia and (pardon me) your conclusion is mistaken.

The idea is that the oldest R1b1b2, i.e., HT35, is found much more frequently in Anatolia and SE Europe than it is farther west, just as one would expect if R1b1b2 emerged from Anatolia, crossed into SE Europe and headed northwest. HT15, i.e., P310+, would have arisen somewhere in Europe.

The progression of SNPs show the same basic trail that R1b1b2 variance does: SE to NW.

And R1b1b2 is R1b1b2. It's all M269+.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 23, 2010, 09:30:27 AM
I am delighted such a credible bunch of scientists have produced a big picture paper for R1b1b2.   I think looking at the origins of R1b1b2 clades and subclades in isolation is not a fruitful approach to real understanding.  The way I look at the fact that this study uses R1b1b2 as a whole is no big deal.  Most western European R1b1b2  are S116 subclades or S21 and all of these shared a common ancestor around the same time and the SNPs that define them came in very quick succession acccording to variance.  OK it doesnt sort the fine detail of clades but it shows the big picture and that big picture is quite independantly supported (not even discussed in this paper)by the SNP based phylogeny  which also moves from SE to west/north-west.  
 
What this study adds is some idea of the routes.  It has never (due to lack of a systematic sampling and deep clade testing of eastern and SE Europe) been clear  from SNP phylogeny which route R1b1b2 took west but this study suggests a dual route which makes complete sense.   L21 has a distinctive north of Alps/north of Pyrenees distribution and its pretty clear that L21 (or at least its explosion in numners) is simply the last leg of the R1b1b2 journey west.   I really do not understand the small rump of people who think out of the whole R1b1b2 story from the Agean to the Atlantic some at he end of the trail suddenly went into reverse gear after a brief touch down on the isles and a handy SNP mutiation and sprinted back to the continent.  It is linteresting that the maps of this study suggests a dual route and that it seems from present distribution that S116 clades seem to be included on both the Med. route and the central European one wesrtwards.  That can only have happened if S116 happened at a common origin point shared by both the groups of farmers who followed the two routes.  The routes parted company somewhere around the Balkans so you could argue that S116 happened there.  

Now L21 seems to have the same variance as S116. If f S116 happened in SE Europe and has the same variance as L21, then its hardly likely that L21 SNP happened in the isles at the opposite end of Europe.  Even what are considered lightening speed spreads like the sprad of the first farmers took about 1500-2000 years to reach from SE Europe to the isles.  Clearly variance does not support the idea of 1500-2000 years between S116 and L21.  If S116 did happen iin SE Europe and L21 happend within only a few 100 years of that then (assuming it is linked to the Neolithic spread north of the Alps) then you can actually look at the radiocarbon dates for where the Neolithic farmers had spread to within a few hundred years of leaving the Balkans area. That would seem to imply that L21 could not have happened much after 5500BC and not much further west than south Germany.   The isles did not recieve the first farmers for a further 1500 years.  So, if the spread of R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly  due to the Neolithic farmers then it is impossible that L21 could have happened in the isles.  Now there are a lot of ifs and buts in that and it does involve rejecting the forumulas used to turn variance into ages but it is of interest to try and think this through.  

There are possible alternative scenarios like that S116 happened somewhere like Italy as R1b1b2 spread west along the Med. route (c. 5500BC) and the L21 SNP happened as they spread into France from the Med. and on into the NW and west-central Europe in the 5th millenium (middel Neolithic) .  However, the archaeological evidence for this scenario is not strong.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: secherbernard on January 23, 2010, 09:50:33 AM
However, these wide date ranges are the reality of confidence intervals.  When people quote adn actual single date it is very misleading,  I remember in Oppenheimer'book Origins of the British he quoted actual dates but if you looked into the noted it became clear that something like 3000BC would actually be +/- 1500 years e.g. 4500BC-1500BC.  You are right that such ranges can mean that its impossible to fit into one epoch but the that is the reality.
I have a question about these dates given in the Balaresque paper. These dates are TMRCA. How can we link these TMRCA with migration dates ?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 23, 2010, 11:59:45 AM
..... Now L21 seems to have the same variance as S116. If f S116 happened in SE Europe and has the same variance as L21, then its hardly likely that L21 SNP happened in the isles at the opposite end of Europe.  Even what are considered lightening speed spreads like the sprad of the first farmers took about 1500-2000 years to reach from SE Europe to the isles.  Clearly variance does not support the idea of 1500-2000 years between S116 and L21.  If S116 did happen iin SE Europe and L21 happend within only a few 100 years of that then (assuming it is linked to the Neolithic spread north of the Alps) then you can actually look at the radiocarbon dates for where the Neolithic farmers had spread to within a few hundred years of leaving the Balkans area. That would seem to imply that L21 could not have happened much after 5500BC and not much further west than south Germany.   .....
This sounds like a very reasonable match of information between R1b1b2 distribution and archeology. However, I'm still have an uneasy feeling about it.

The queasiness comes from two other dimensions of the information. First the R1b1b2 TMRCA information.  A 5500 BC TMRCA for L21 is 7500 ybp and that is double the kind of target dates that we've seen out of some very good estimation methods.  I won't name names if the statisticians don't want to speak up on this but being off by 100% just seems too high.  Anecdotally speaking, if you pour through R-L21* haplotypes as I have, it is apparent (at least to me) that these "younger" estimations are very credible.

The second dimension of information is the spread of Indo-European Languages.  They also have a dating of couple of thousand years more recent than the Neolithic advances.  Someone had to bring IE to Western Europe.  I agree it could have been a hegemonic spread, but surely there would be a larger folk movement than just that has been left behind by R1a1.

I don't know the answer, but I do think we will get to a fairly good answer prior to the day that aDNA provides more resolution.  Ironically, it seems like we understand folk movement better in the Neolithic Age in Europe than the Metal Ages.  Perhaps the movement during the Metal Ages were just plain faster and more complex, creating the difficulty in understanding.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 23, 2010, 11:59:51 AM
argiedude -

If HT35 is the ancestral form of R1b1b2, then no one actually believes HT15 originated in Anatolia and (pardon me) your conclusion is mistaken.

The idea is that the oldest R1b1b2, i.e., HT35, is found much more frequently in Anatolia and SE Europe than it is farther west, just as one would expect if R1b1b2 emerged from Anatolia, crossed into SE Europe and headed northwest. HT15, i.e., P310+, would have arisen somewhere in Europe.

The progression of SNPs show the same basic trail that R1b1b2 variance does: SE to NW.

And R1b1b2 is R1b1b2. It's all M269+.

P310 must have occurred at a point before those travelling along the Med. and those travelling up the Danube had parted e.g the Balkans.  I think the distribution could suggest the same for S116 too.  I think however that distribution strongly suggests that L21 happened after the parting of the ways among the group going up the Danube towards west-central and north-west Europe.  Other calculations suggest L21 may have happened pretty soon after S116 so I cant see L21 having happened much further west than south Germany. There are other possible scenarios but this is the most intuitive when you compare DNA and the spread of farming.  I have suggested before that L21 occurred among the S116 Linearbandkeramik people in south Germany and spead to the Rhine and into northern France via the Mosselle and into the  Loire and Seine systems and then beyond.  I based my predictions for L21 distribution that it would have a strong Rhine and northern French showing on a lmodel of an origin and spread via late Linearbandkeramik and LBK-descended middle Neolithic cultures like Rossen etc before many L21 results had come in and so far its matched to a surprising degree (allowing for some later expansion).  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 23, 2010, 12:12:58 PM
...  I have a question about these dates given in the Balaresque paper. These dates are TMRCA. How can we link these TMRCA with migration dates ?
Benard, is this your question - should the TMRCA for a population have occurred prior to that populations' period of growth, during it, or after it?

If so, I have the same question.   My thinking is that the MRCA had to be prior (at least slightly) to great population growth and spread because he had to have enough descendants to get out there and lead the expansion and migrations. That's what accounts for the breadth of the spread of the descendant popultion.

I've never really heard a good discussion on this though, that I understood.  I do realize there can be bottlenecks reducing the TMRCA but it seems logical that's the point of the TMRCA being before the growth, so the ancestor's descendants could sufficiently "diversify" into multiple geographies and cultural variants, insuring more surviving lineages.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 23, 2010, 12:25:46 PM
Mike
Another way of putting it is what are the chances of two identical looking demographically massive looking explosive SE to NW spreads from Anatolia as far Atlantic Europe being entirely seperately identified by both the DNA experts and Archaeologists and them not being one and the same movement.  No other archaeologically indicated movement comes near to correlating with the geography and direction of the R1b1b2 spread but the spread of the Neolithic farmers is a perfect match in terms of origin, direction of spread, explosive demographic effect etc.  

Remember too when considering alternatives that the copper age experts are basically seeing beaker culture's origin as  Iberian with a spread from south-west to east/NW (although some would still see a secondary jumping off point at the contact zone between beaker and corded ware around the Rhine).  However, the geography and dates for those cultures in no way matches the R1b1b2 variance/diversity map.

Archaeology simply provides no alternative match to the R1b1b2 map in this new paper.  As for the later MRCA dates being discussed, while the youth of R1b1b2 is manifest and seems to rule out really old Palaeolithic origins (20,000 years old etc) it is clear to me from Tim Jansen's posts in the summer that the choice of markers as well as other variables is debateable and he demonstrated than an early Neolithic dating was within the bounds of possibility.  Even VV posted a couple of times that an earlier Neolithic dating was within touching distance of the confidence intervals of the Bronze Age dates any way.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 23, 2010, 12:35:55 PM
....  I based my predictions for L21 distribution that it would have a strong Rhine and northern French showing on a lmodel of an origin and spread via late Linearbandkeramik and LBK-descended middle Neolithic cultures like Rossen etc before many L21 results had come in and so far its matched to a surprising degree (allowing for some later expansion).  
Would you include the Michelsberg culture as one of your "LBK-descended middle Neolithic cultures"?

If so, there may be evidence for your position with Hg I-L38, who may have been "tribal brother" of R-L21*. Hans De Beule makes the case that I-L38 and R-L21* have coincident distribution patterns in his paper and that they may have come out of the Michelsberg culture as it blossomed from c. 6400 to 5500 ybp.

Origins of Hg I-L38 (I2b2) Subclades - Hans De Beule – 5th of april 2009

BTW, I-L38 is also found in the Lichenstein Cave.

http://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupil38/


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 23, 2010, 12:41:20 PM

This sounds like a very reasonable match of information between R1b1b2 distribution and archeology. However, I'm still have an uneasy feeling about it.

The queasiness comes from two other dimensions of the information. First the R1b1b2 TMRCA information.  A 5500 BC TMRCA for L21 is 7500 ybp and that is double the kind of target dates that we've seen out of some very good estimation methods. ...

The second dimension of information is the spread of Indo-European Languages.  They also have a dating of couple of thousand years more recent than the Neolithic advances.  Someone had to bring IE to Western Europe.  

Agreed. And the attempt to fit the spread of IE languages to the Neolithic has now developed an even greater flaw than the ones it already had. Renfrew's proposal that they spread from Anatolia was based on the fact that there were IE languages in Anatolia, (though not before about 3,000 BC, according to linguists).

The latest hole in the theory comes from research on Neolithic plants. The spread of species of cultivars indicated that farming didn't spread into Europe from Anatolia. It island-hopped from the Levant.

Renfrew's theory was so criticised by linguists that he modified it into a two-stage proposal.
1) Farmers spread from Anatolia speaking PIE. One group of same enter the Balkans, whence IE seeps into the western steppe.
2) Second spread of IE languages from the steppe.    

In fact that suffered from exactly the same flaw as his first proposal. PIE is a language of the Copper Age. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. Yet the Indo-Europeans had words for all these things, rooted in PIE.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 23, 2010, 12:49:13 PM

when considering alternatives that the copper age experts are basically seeing beaker culture's origin as  Iberian

Scarcely. There is no greater English-speaking expert on Iberian Bell Beaker than Richard Harrison. And, as I keep pointing out, he has published the seminal article that connects the Yamnaya to Bell Beaker.

We need to clearly distinguish between a particular pottery shape and the rest of the Bell Beaker package, which is derived from Yamnaya. In fact the pottery shape is most probably derived from the same Balkan model that probably led to Funnel Beaker, and cord decoration is common on Yamnaya pots. But I don't want to digress at huge length into pottery.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 23, 2010, 01:05:29 PM
Mike
Another way of putting it is what are the chances of two identical looking demographically massive looking explosive SE to NW spreads from Anatolia as far Atlantic Europe being entirely seperately identified by both the DNA experts and Archaeologists and them not being one and the same movement.  No other archaeologically indicated movement comes near to correlating with the geography and direction of the R1b1b2 spread but the spread of the Neolithic farmers is a perfect match in terms of origin, direction of spread, explosive demographic effect etc.  . . .
  

That was very nicely put. What are the chances indeed!

Yet there are at least two guys on Rootsweb still chatting up Paleolithic R1b1b2, one of whom just said P312 is "a remnant of the pre Ice Age population of Europe".

Caramba! :-o


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on January 23, 2010, 01:26:06 PM
@ Alan

One problem here is that a series of migrations from the east into Europe are quite likely to follow similar routes, constrained by geography. We would expect some degree of similarity between the routes taken by early farmers and those taken by Copper Age people. There are two major differences:

1) The origin point. The Levant for the farmers, the Balkans/steppe for the Copper Age.

2) The speed of spread. Farming took 4,500 years to move from Cyprus (8,500 BC) to Britain (4000 BC). The Copper Age began in Europe 5000 BC, but stuck to the Balkans until 4000 BC, and even then was limited. Its further spread is mainly associated with the Yamnaya-derived cultures - under a millenium from leaving the steppe 3,100 BC to arriving at Ross Island 2,400 BC.  

So from the data in the recent paper,
1) looks like a point in favour of the Neolithic for R1b1b2 spread.
2) is in favour of the Copper Age for R1b1b2 spread, because of the rapid population growth signalled by the "star-clusters" of sub-clades.  



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 23, 2010, 01:28:55 PM
P310 must have occurred at a point before those travelling along the Med. and those travelling up the Danube had parted e.g the Balkans.  I think the distribution could suggest the same for S116 too....
Another significant P310 descendant population is R-U106 (S21).  How does R-U106 fit into this scenario?

U106 is about the same age as P312 (S116) and got up to Northern Europe during this timeframe.  I don't see U106 in the Balkans.  Do you think it originated in Southern Germany?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 23, 2010, 01:35:04 PM
Argiedude-so, in simple terms, what are you suggesting that indicates in terms of the origin and movement of R1b into Europe?  

I'm not making my own proposal of how R1b spread, I'm just pointing out the contradictions of the Balaresque argument. According to it, ht15 should have the same diversity pattern as ht35, from southeast to northwest, because they were all born of the same SINGLE phenomenon. My results show the diversity patterns of ht15 and ht35 are almost polar opposites, thus Balaresque's conclusion is not sustained. Time to go back to the drawing board.

The idea is that the oldest R1b1b2, i.e., HT35, is found much more frequently in Anatolia and SE Europe than it is farther west, just as one would expect if R1b1b2 emerged from Anatolia, crossed into SE Europe and headed northwest. HT15, i.e., P310+, would have arisen somewhere in Europe.

But you see, you're expressing an alternative explanation of how R1b diffused. Balaresque's conclusion is that a SINGLE phenomenon caused modern R1b1b2's current distribution. Ht15 and ht35 all came in a single rolling wave. Ht15 was rare in Anatolia, but its frequency became pumped up to its current dominant status in Europe DURING the phenomenon of its introduction into Europe from Anatolia (this is the surfing-the-wavefront effect, in which computer simulations show that dna frequencies can change greatly at the front of an expanding wave of population diffusion).

What you're saying is different. You're saying ht35 moved into Europe and after it became established in Europe, a SECOND event occured, in Europe, this time involving ht15. My results support your line of reasoning. But this is not the Balaresque point of view.

I think looking at the origins of R1b1b2 clades and subclades in isolation is not a fruitful approach to real understanding.

Completely disagree. My results show ht15 was a SECONDARY phenomenon, ergo, it didn't take part in the Anatolia-to-Europe movement of R1b1b2. As such, we should discard ht15 samples when trying to understand how ht35, by itself, diffused into Europe, because including ht15 would make as much sense as including R1a or G2a.

You could say a similar thing for the case of M458 in Europe. It was thanks to the divergent haplotypes of this marker, which were sufficiently different from the R1a modal that we could already detect them and group them into clusters even before they were confirmed to an SNP clade, that Europe's R1a diversity was similar to India's. But now we can eliminate this background noise and concentrate on the diversity of the truly basal segments of R1a, before these secondary LATER phenomenons added noise to the picture, and thus we can now see that Europe's R1a1a* diversity is no longer on par with India's, it's notably less.

Or take M222. M222's modal is so different from R1b1b2, that if we included it in diversity estimates we might reach the conclusion that ht15 was born in Ireland! But we know that Irish M222 is a LATER phenomenon, so it's presence just adds noise to the picture. If we exclude them and calculate the diversity of the basal ht15 samples, then Ireland's R1b1b2 changes completely, and becomes one of the least diverse places in Europe.

it shows the big picture and that big picture is [...] moves from SE to west/north-west.

Sorry, but again, I think my results undermine Balaresque's conclusion. She found a southeast to northwest cline because ht35 is older and thus more diverse than ht15, so her results are going to reflect what percentage of a population's R1b1b2 belongs to ht15 or ht35. Anatolian R1b1b2 is almost 90% ht35, so it's going to get a high diversity, very close to ht35's true diversity. On the other hand, Italy's R1b1b2 is mostly ht15, even in the south, so Italy's R1b1b2 diversity is going to reflect ht15's younger age. But if we concentrate on ht35 alone, we find that Italy's ht35 diversity is IDENTICAL to Anatolia's ht35 diversity. And considering that my results also show that ht15 must be a SECONDARY phenomenon that occured AFTER the initial diffusion of R1b1b2-ht35, then we can question the manner in which this initial phenomenon occured. It could just as well have started in Italy, or Greece, as in Anatolia. And in a way, an Italian origin would make more sense, since it's at the center of R1b1b2's current distribution, thus we could envision a population explosion out of Italy, with one wave going to North Europe and another to southeast Europe. As opposed to an Anatolian origin, which would seem to be illogically obsessed with going in one direction, only.

[I don't believe anything of this is what really happened, I have a very unique view on how haplogroups diffused through the world.]



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 23, 2010, 01:43:32 PM


The idea is that the oldest R1b1b2, i.e., HT35, is found much more frequently in Anatolia and SE Europe than it is farther west, just as one would expect if R1b1b2 emerged from Anatolia, crossed into SE Europe and headed northwest. HT15, i.e., P310+, would have arisen somewhere in Europe.

But you see, you're expressing an alternative explanation of how R1b diffused. Balaresque's conclusion is that a SINGLE phenomenon caused modern R1b1b2's current distribution. Ht15 and ht35 all came in a single rolling wave. Ht15 was rare in Anatolia, but its frequency became pumped up to its current dominant status in Europe DURING the phenomenon of its introduction into Europe from Anatolia (this is the surfing-the-wavefront effect, in which computer simulations show that dna frequencies can change greatly at the forefront of an expanding wave of population diffusion).

What you're saying is different. You're saying ht35 moved into Europe and after it became established in Europe, a SECOND event occured, in Europe, this time involving ht15.

No. I am saying that R1b1b2 (M269+) is one thing and that HT15 (P310+ and its offshoots) is just a branch of R1b1b2.

That is not different from what Balaresque et al are saying.

M269 enters Europe during the Neolithic from Anatolia as HT35. In the course of its perambulations through Europe, its clades develop, including the P310+ (HT15) branch.

What Vince Vizachero has found via the HT35 Project is that HT35 pretty starkly decreases in frequency as one moves from SE to NW in Europe. So, the SNP trail is a SE to NW trail, and that is the same sort of trail the variance map in the Balaresque paper shows.

Fishing up some HT35 in Western Europe won't make HT35 more frequent there than it is in the East. The same is true in reverse geographical order for HT15.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 23, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
“And in a way, an Italian origin would make more sense, since it's at the center of R1b1b2's current distribution, thus we could envision a population explosion out of Italy, with one wave going to North Europe and another to southeast Europe. As opposed to an Anatolian origin, which would seem to be illogically obsessed with going in one direction, only”.
VERY GOOD FOR ME!

[I don't believe anything of this is what really happened, I have a very unique view on how haplogroups diffused through the world.]
AND THEN?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 23, 2010, 02:26:36 PM
Kudos for argiedude:

Maju at Leherensuge said:

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/01/r1b1b2-and-r1b1b2a1-distinct-str.html

“If professional geneticists would be half as serious as this amateur, we'd know a lot more and a lot better about our the population history of humankind by now.”




Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 23, 2010, 03:49:37 PM
The plain numbers on my map are bland. So here's the same map but with isoclines drawn over it:

(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15ht35withisocline.gif)

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15ht35withisocline.gif

........................

I'm now thinking that my observation about ht35 & ht15's diversity would apply even if Balaresque was right and they both came out of Anatolia together. ht35 makes up 80% to 90% of Anatolia's R1b1b2, and 90% to 100% in the Levant, the Caucasus, and Iran, so it's clear that the Out-of-Anatolia diffusion consisted of an overwhelmingly ht35 group, with ht15 a small minority. But ht15 has since become a huge group in Europe. By including it in R1b1b2 diversity estimates, in those regions where ht15 has become the new majority we are measuring the diversity of a fraction of the original Out-of-Anatolia R1b group. So we should exclude ht15 and measure only the diversity of ht35 samples, who would have made up the overwhelming majority of the Out-of-Anatolia movement of R1b1b2. Ht15 just adds noise, wether it developed in Europe after the fact, or wether it came out of Anatolia together with ht35.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 23, 2010, 04:03:55 PM
... Or take M222. M222's modal is so different from R1b1b2, that if we included it in diversity estimates we might reach the conclusion that ht15 was born in Ireland! But we know that Irish M222 is a LATER phenomenon, so it's presence just adds noise to the picture. ....

Sorry, but again, I think my results undermine Balaresque's conclusion. She found a southeast to northwest cline because ht35 is older and thus more diverse than ht15, so her results are going to reflect what percentage of a population's R1b1b2 belongs to ht15 or ht35. Anatolian R1b1b2 is almost 90% ht35, so it's going to get a high diversity, very close to ht35's true diversity. On the other hand, Italy's R1b1b2 is mostly ht15, even in the south, so Italy's R1b1b2 diversity is going to reflect ht15's younger age. But if we concentrate on ht35 alone, we find that Italy's ht35 diversity is IDENTICAL to Anatolia's ht35 diversity.....
Argiedue, first let me be clear that I really appreciate the time and effort you put into charting diversity.  This is a very helpful perspective.

I am not familiar with the whole methodology you use.  Do you have any information as it relates to "confidence interval" about which you think diversity you are calculating represents reality?  The reason I ask is I know we don't have a lot of confirmed ht35 long haplotypes so you are forced into using STR proxies and a limited number of STR's to develop the diversity calculations.  

I think you are saying there is NOT a great deal of difference in the diversity numbers that are found.  If so, perhaps given the limited sampling and the use of proxies, the clines may be difficult to detect today.

It does bother me that M222+ is not included, regardless of the implication (even if I don't think L21+ is of Isles origin).  M222+ is just another group of L21+ guys.  I don't know why they shouldn't be included in a study of L21+.  I do agree with your perspective that diversity outside a clade is "noise" but that same perspective makes it especially appropriate to consider the outlay of the whole array of SNP's of R1b1b2 in their hiearchical consideration.  In other words, it's not just an ht15, ht35 thing.  The whole sequence of R1b1b2 from L23+ to L150+ to L51+ to P310+/L11+, etc. should be considered, not a proxy for one event in the sequence.

I agree that data is limited, hence the need for proxies, but that is what makes me ask about the reliability of the findings.

EDIT: I see you may another post while I wrote this post.  I'll study it further, but still trying to get a picture if there is enough firm data available to have reliable conclusions on diversity.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: NealtheRed on January 23, 2010, 04:16:15 PM
New paper from  (mainly) Leicester University's genetics team.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285) PLos Biology.

I'd like to read this paper when I have time, but it seems to discredit the old Paleolithic R1b1b2 theory... which is good.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 23, 2010, 04:55:46 PM
Kudos for argiedude:

Maju at Leherensuge said:

Maju is not the kind of guy you want on your side when it comes to population genetics.

It's kind of like having David Faux agree with you:  it's a sure sign you are wrong.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 23, 2010, 05:39:01 PM
Hey, I am simply passing along praise for argiedude’s dedication to this hobby. If you don’t accept the fact that the amateurs are outperforming professional geneticists then that places you right along side David Faux who sings the praises of professional geneticists ever chance he gets. 

I tend to agree with argiedude’s below assessment: 

“And in a way, an Italian origin would make more sense, since it's at the center of R1b1b2's current distribution, thus we could envision a population explosion out of Italy, with one wave going to North Europe and another to southeast Europe. As opposed to an Anatolian origin, which would seem to be illogically obsessed with going in one direction, only”.

I see Maliclavelli does also.

“VERY GOOD FOR ME!”

And I’ll post what Maju said again. Please read it for what it says. 

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/01/r1b1b2-and-r1b1b2a1-distinct-str.html

“If professional geneticists would be half as serious as this amateur, we'd know a lot more and a lot better about our the population history of humankind by now.”

It is praising argiedude’s dedication and hard work. And I will also.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 23, 2010, 07:07:22 PM
Glenn -

Vineviz is Vince Vizachero. Few people have done near as much as he has to advance this hobby and really make a science out of it.

What he says you can take to the bank.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 23, 2010, 07:39:22 PM
Yes, I know who Vineviz is. Certainly, he has contributed. Of that, there is no doubt.

“What he says you can take to the bank.”

Disagreements are common in this hobby. It looks to me like argiedude is doing good work. What I posted praised the man for his efforts in this hobby. I stand by my praise of argiedude’s dedication and hard work. Of course, he did say he did not believe a word of what he posted. Therefore, I will reserve judgment until we find out what he does believe. That seems fair to me.

“[I don't believe anything of this is what really happened, I have a very unique view on how haplogroups diffused through the world.]”

 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 23, 2010, 07:44:34 PM
Yeah, argiedude does good work. I disagree with his conclusions in this case, but he certainly contributes a lot.

And he's L21+, which means he's one of the good guys. ;-)


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 23, 2010, 07:56:52 PM
Were those his conclusions since he concluded with “[I don't believe anything of this is what really happened,” or simply rampant speculation?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 23, 2010, 08:02:25 PM
Were those his conclusions since he concluded with “[I don't believe anything of this is what really happened,” or simply rampant speculation?


What he wrote originally and I answered already a couple of times.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 23, 2010, 08:29:02 PM
Then we disagree.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 23, 2010, 09:11:36 PM

I do not have time to go through all the pros and cons of the theories relating to the interconnected archaeological, genetic, palaeoecological and linguistic data.  It would take days.  All I will say is its a huge pile of points and counterpoints and contradictory conclusions within and between all fields.  These seem to be turned upside down about once a decade with ideas often going in and out of ascendancy and old rejected models coming back in. I actually remember the copper age theory being considered all but dead in some circles not so long ago and Mallory being colourfully described as having decided to fall as the last man on the battlefield of the copper age Indo-European theory.  Then the model revived under Anthony etc.  That is how much fashions go in and out on this matter.  Personally I think the evidence is far from clear-cut (as both sides in the debate tend to present it as) and for every point there is always a counterpoint clouding and enough wriggle room (perhaps special pleading) to make no objection fatal to either theory.  Given the stalemate I fall back on my gut feeling that the copper age model just seems to stray hugely from the Occam's Razor principle with its Byzantine complexity of interlinking cultures sometimes with fairly ephemeral evidence for crucial links in the chain as it attempts to explain the spread from the steppes to the Atlantic.  I guess it either convinces you or it doesnt and it just does not feel right to me.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 23, 2010, 09:30:57 PM
To see that published by some big names is progress because it has taken a long time for the pros to catch up with the amateurs on this subject.  Right now I personally find the similarity of the spread of R1b and farming (and I accept there are counterarguements and evidence against) too much for coincidence.  Whatever one's take on the paper, the paper supports a Neolithic (be that early or late) date and implies a broad origin area and direction of spread.  It is a whole new thing now looking to Anatolia and probably the Levant and beyond before that as the 'old country' in deep time terms.  It sort of gives an almost biblical epic feel to things knowing that the ancestral trail links back to an exodus from that area in the Neolithic.  



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 24, 2010, 01:56:10 AM

Alan trowel hands writes: “It sort of gives an almost biblical epic feel to things knowing that the ancestral trail links back to an exodus from that area in the Neolithic”.

And this is the problem, that religious prejudices (Christian, Jewish and imagine how much Muslim) lead theories and expectations. The map posted by Vizachero to “Dienekes blog” would be ridiculous if wasn’t tragic. But we have the weapons of irony and grimaces:

The Vizachero’s map is the light from East, it is rather a picture of the Bible or of the Four Gospels than of a Genetics’ book.
It lacks only the three Kings and the star of Bethlehem.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 24, 2010, 10:24:31 AM
....  I based my predictions for L21 distribution that it would have a strong Rhine and northern French showing on a lmodel of an origin and spread via late Linearbandkeramik and LBK-descended middle Neolithic cultures like Rossen etc before many L21 results had come in and so far its matched to a surprising degree (allowing for some later expansion).  
Would you include the Michelsberg culture as one of your "LBK-descended middle Neolithic cultures"?
If so, there may be evidence for your position with Hg I-L38, who may have been "tribal brother" of R-L21*. Hans De Beule makes the case that I-L38 and R-L21* have coincident distribution patterns in his paper and that they may have come out of the Michelsberg culture as it blossomed from c. 6400 to 5500 ybp.
Origins of Hg I-L38 (I2b2) Subclades - Hans De Beule – 5th of april 2009
BTW, I-L38 is also found in the Lichenstein Cave.
http://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupil38/
The following quote is just notes from another blog but I think the information is right.
Quote
The Rossen Culture may have spawned the Neolithic ("New Stone") Age in Britain. Neolithic farmers invaded Britain around 4000 BC. By about 3900 BC, they had pushed as far north as Yorkshire, and brutal border conflicts erupted with the previous Mesolithic ("Middle Stone") Age hunter-gatherers*. The invading Neoliths built Causewayed Enclosures like those seen earlier in Germany**, the oldest begun around 4000 BC***. These Causewayed Enclosures gradually developed from mere earthworks to wooden, and later stone, henges. They continued in unbroken use for thousands of years, only falling into disuse after 1000 BC#, around the time of the first Celtic invasions that brought the Iron Age to Britain.
I definitely agree the LBK and Impressed Wares advances (and their follow-on derivatives) are worth examining as the potential carrier of L21+ into the Isles.  Given Alan R's comments about the Rössen Culture being a possible carrier of L21+ into the Isles, that draws out the question - Who were carriers of the Celtic languages into the Isles after the Rössen people?  Were they just other variants of L21+ and P312* (along with a few other misc things)? Were they U152+ (David F's true Celtic)?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 24, 2010, 11:28:24 AM

Alan trowel hands writes: “It sort of gives an almost biblical epic feel to things knowing that the ancestral trail links back to an exodus from that area in the Neolithic”.

And this is the problem, that religious prejudices (Christian, Jewish and imagine how much Muslim) lead theories and expectations. The map posted by Vizachero to “Dienekes blog” would be ridiculous if wasn’t tragic. But we have the weapons of irony and grimaces:

The Vizachero’s map is the light from East, it is rather a picture of the Bible or of the Four Gospels than of a Genetics’ book.
It lacks only the three Kings and the star of Bethlehem.



I like you, Gioiello, but that is utter baloney.

I am a Christian, and I can tell you, most of those posting on Rootsweb and elsewhere are not Christian and do NOT seem to be influenced by religion whatsoever.

I don't think Vince is religious at all and even I, as a Christian (and I am not ashamed to say that I am a Christian), do not attempt to press genetics into the service of the Bible.

Christ needs no such feeble defenses.

I think you should restrict yourself to the actual arguments.

Besides, if religious prejudices exist, then it is also true that anti-religious prejudices exist and are influential in informing the opinions of some.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 24, 2010, 01:43:01 PM
Rich, I don't know if you have seen the Vizachero's map, where hg. R1b is radiating from Middle East ("Ex Oriente Lux" said the first Christians). Probably the validity of the theories is to hold facts and not prejudices. I remember you the last words of Argiedude on "Dienekes blog": “We thus have 2 lineages of R1b1* floating around in Sardinia. It's looking to me like Sardinia is an island refuge of lineages that have since disappeared in the mainland. And that would point to R1b1* being a long term inhabitant of at least Italy, instead of a recent historic movement, as per the Baralesque study. Gioiello has written to some of these authors pointing out this interesting case, and hopefully perhaps Cruciani will think it's worthwhile to make an addendum to his study and test some of these Contu R1b1 for his newly discovered SNPs”.
1)   It is now certain, nonetheless  the fraudulent  behavior of Vizachero, that L150 is a subclade of R-L23 and so far it has been found only in Italy (see the most recent R haplogroup map of Thomas Krahn).
2)   I am always waiting for the Rozen’s SNPs, that I think will give the final blow to the theories of Vizachero & Co.
3)   If it will be possible I’ll send to the forum the Vizachero’ map, so you’ll be able to see it.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 24, 2010, 01:51:38 PM
And this is Maju:

"And that would point to R1b1* being a longterm inhabitant of at least Italy...

I am more and more inclined to seriously consider that possibility. However it's not totally clear, specially because Italy is better sampled than West Asia and both regions "compete" for this "honor". What I do think is that it's not impossible that R1b1 arrived to Europe with Gravettian maybe (assuming that Gravettian is exogenous to Europe, what I don't think has been proven minimally). This would explain pretty well the current distribution, with Italy keeping an "older type" of diversity, rather not seen in north or west of the Alps. However it would also send to hell the molecular clock in all the variants I have ever read about".

Give me Argiedude and Maju and I leave you all the others.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 24, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
And he's [argiedude] L21+, which means he's one of the good guys. ;-)

Ha ha, huge thumbs up! That reminds me of the L21 poll I made a few months ago, I think it's time to bump it.

The Vizachero’s map is the light from East, it is rather a picture of the Bible or of the Four Gospels than of a Genetics’ book.
It lacks only the three Kings and the star of Bethlehem.

That was really funny. I was struck by the map when I saw it, because the Levant was hugely more diverse than anywhere else. I said it was wrong, because I had already been doing my own variance estimates, and we got into an argument. vineviz later changed the map, and dulled the star of Bethlehem, so that it no longer outshines Anatolia.

Rich, I don't know if you have seen the Vizachero's map, where hg. R1b is radiating from Middle East

Stevo won't be able to see that map. But yeah, it did look like there was a shining beacon of light down in the Levant.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 24, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
Variance in the Lebanese sample used in my map is (and always was) higher than the sample from Turkey.  Any attempt to suggest otherwise is based on imagination, not information.

Here's the map, by the way.  Just right-click to save or expand.

It simply shows the variance data from Balresque with a few additional samples (Armenia, southern Balkans, Cyprus, Hungary, Lebanon, and Poland) added but calculated the same way using the same STRs.

VV

(http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitymodified.png)


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 24, 2010, 03:44:31 PM
Here's the map, by the way.  Just right-click to save or expand.

It simply shows the variance data from Balresque with a few additional samples (Armenia, southern Balkans, Cyprus, Hungary, Lebanon, and Poland) added but calculated the same way using the same STRs.

Or, for the benefit of those who prefer their science to be portrayed with an anti-Semitic bent, an inverse greyscale version.

(http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitygrey.png)


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 24, 2010, 04:00:17 PM
Here's the map, by the way.  Just right-click to save or expand.
It simply shows the variance data from Balresque with a few additional samples (Armenia, southern Balkans, Cyprus, Hungary, Lebanon, and Poland) added but calculated the same way using the same STRs.
Or, for the benefit of those who prefer their science to be portrayed with an anti-Semetic bent, an inverse greyscale version.
(http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitygrey.png)
Thanks, Vince.   Am I looking at this too simplistically? ... greater diversity = longer in location.

If I understand, I'm not seeing a Cardial/Impressed Wares Neolithic pattern.  I see possibly a Linear/LBK pattern but I'd expect a little more of a darker band across Poland and Germany to Eastern France.  

It looks like Bulgaria and Romania are very important... which is where R1b1b2 would have hit the largest mountain range in Europe, the Carpathians.  Some might have found it easier to go straight north into Moldava, Ukraine and Poland.  Others might have found it easier to go west into Serbia and Hungary.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 24, 2010, 04:44:14 PM
For some reason I cannot expand that map, even when I right click on it. I would like to see it.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 24, 2010, 05:10:02 PM

Thanks, Vince.   Am I looking at this too simplistically? ... greater diversity = longer in location.

That's the basic story.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 24, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
I don’t know how Vizachero has calculated the variance of his Lebanese (why only Lebanese? and the other Semite?) data, but, having he access to the samples stored at FTDNA and testing them furtively, perhaps he has many data not known by us ignorant. Anyway he has always supported that R1b1a (M18) was more ancient in Lebanon than in Sardinia, thinking probably that the Sardinian ones were due to a Phoenician colonization, ignoring that Sardinians were dreadful mercenaries all over the Middle East from at least the Ramses II time. But now we have R1b1ba (M18) also in Corsica (see the last paper of Cruciani et alii) and in Sardinia we have probably a second clade of R1b1a (or something similar) as Argiedude has hypothesized.
And Italy has R1b1*, R-V8, R-V35 (then probably R-V88), R1b1a (probably very differentiated), R-M269, R-L23+ (the unique in the world: Romitti and his son), R-L150+ (me and many others) etc.
Which has Labanon?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 24, 2010, 05:47:01 PM
Italy was also the very cosmopolitan center of the far-flung Roman Empire, yet its overall R1b1b2 haplotype diversity is not as great as that of the Near East.

We should expect some interesting clades to show up in Italy in relatively small numbers, far from their homelands.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 24, 2010, 05:50:47 PM
. . .
It looks like Bulgaria and Romania are very important... which is where R1b1b2 would have hit the largest mountain range in Europe, the Carpathians.  Some might have found it easier to go straight north into Moldava, Ukraine and Poland.  Others might have found it easier to go west into Serbia and Hungary.

The likeliest route west would be up the Danube Valley and through the Iron Gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gate_(Danube)).


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 24, 2010, 06:16:25 PM
Rich, let that is Vizachero to say this! I have already answered your question, when I asked  you, after the discovery of the 3 R1b1* by Cruciani in Italy (1 in Middle East, but probably Asia Minor, and 1 in Far East), if they were migrants, if they had all come here!
And you don’t say that Romans were rulers and who came were slaves and see what happened in South and Central America re. the Y chromosome. In other parts of the ancient world happened the contrary.
And we are yet looking for the descendants of Barbarians in Italy: so far only 1 R-L21 and so ancient as haplotype that could not have come from elsewhere.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 24, 2010, 06:31:51 PM
Anyway he has always supported that R1b1a (M18) was more ancient in Lebanon than in Sardinia, thinking probably that the Sardinian ones were due to a Phoenician colonization

And M18 probably doesn't even exist in Lebanon. The supposed M18+ from Lebanon come from Zalloua's super-bad study from 2008, riddled with errors like no other y-dna study. It lists the haplotypes of 3 very likely R1b1 samples, and claims all 3 are R1b1a1-M18+. It also lists one other haplotype as R1/-b*, but it's almost certainly not R1b1. That means Zalloua's R1b1 samples all belonged to R1b1a1-M18+. But Cruciani's study of neighboring Egypt, despite finding dozens of R1b1 samples, didn't find a single one that was M18+, and Cinnioglu's study of neighboring Turkey, despite finding 4 R1b1 samples, didn't find any M18+. The most likely explanation, and fitting with the overall lousyness of Zalloua's study, is that he mislabeled his R1b1(xM18) samples as R1b1a1-M18+. It shouldn't surprise, as he even devised his own nomenclature "style": for example, instead of writing R1b1c, he writes R1/-b1c. Plus, the haplotypes of his 3 M18 samples seem to belong to the 2 main clusters of R1b1: 2 of them seem of the Eurasian group (438=11), the third seems of the African group (438=12, 389a=14). This mix of both clusters is also found in El-Sibai's study of Syria/Jordan. M18 is derived within the African group (I'm calling it African just because it's very common in the Lake Chad region, not because I think it was born there). Finally, the Sardinian R1b1a1-M18+ has a modal haplotype that is notably divergent from other R1b1 and looks nothing like the fake Lebanese "M18+".


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 24, 2010, 07:21:55 PM
Here is the link to the map that I have in case others can't see the other one.


http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitymodified.png


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 24, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Alan trowel hands writes: “It sort of gives an almost biblical epic feel to things knowing that the ancestral trail links back to an exodus from that area in the Neolithic”.

And this is the problem, that religious prejudices (Christian, Jewish and imagine how much Muslim) lead theories and expectations. The map posted by Vizachero to “Dienekes blog” would be ridiculous if wasn’t tragic. But we have the weapons of irony and grimaces:

The Vizachero’s map is the light from East, it is rather a picture of the Bible or of the Four Gospels than of a Genetics’ book.
It lacks only the three Kings and the star of Bethlehem.



I only meant that figuratively in the same way that during an African famine the refugee camps in the parched land were described as a biblical scene.  I meant the imagery rather than anything else.  Christianity is not usually thought of as a religion based on lineage anyway so that shouldnt be important. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 24, 2010, 09:09:20 PM
Why does VV's map give a different impression from the one in the new study.  The latter really provided a dead ringer for the Neolithic spread of farming but VV's map gives a quite different impression of the detail - less of a smooth wave of advance feel and more the impression of a long period in SE Europe followed by a late move west.  That makes a heck of a difference regarding which archaeological model it best matches.  The new study looks very like the first farmers but VV's one could be taken to be more in line with the copper age models. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on January 24, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
lol every day there is a new spin on the R1b1b2 story!!  The debate is really hotting up but nobody seems near the knockout punch. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 25, 2010, 08:52:03 AM
I would like to see Vince answer on the M18 question, which I suspect is less important than the overall cline in R1b1b2 diversity.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 25, 2010, 09:07:50 AM
Why does VV's map give a different impression from the one in the new study.  The latter really provided a dead ringer for the Neolithic spread of farming but VV's map gives a quite different impression of the detail - less of a smooth wave of advance feel and more the impression of a long period in SE Europe followed by a late move west.  That makes a heck of a difference regarding which archaeological model it best matches.  The new study looks very like the first farmers but VV's one could be taken to be more in line with the copper age models. 

Well, the reason I made my map is that Balaresque didn't really sample nearly as densely in eastern and southeastern Europe as they did in western Europe.   The only points they used east of Venice were in Turkey.

On the other hand, I used exactly the same data they did WEST of Venice (just adding some points east of there), so of course any changes are going to be in eastern Europe.

But I'm not sure how much the overall picture changes.  Maybe we see signs of ate acceleration of gene flow, manifesting in what appears to be a boundary of some sort in east-central Europe. 

Also keep in mind this whole exercise is using just nine Y-STRs.  The variance of the variances is not trivial, and the underlying demographic processes were not necessarily producing a linear cline.  So some point-to-point differences in variance are just noise.  The more densely you sample, the more likely you are to pick that up.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on January 25, 2010, 09:51:32 AM
Why does VV's map give a different impression from the one in the new study.  The latter really provided a dead ringer for the Neolithic spread of farming but VV's map gives a quite different impression of the detail - less of a smooth wave of advance feel and more the impression of a long period in SE Europe followed by a late move west.  That makes a heck of a difference regarding which archaeological model it best matches.  The new study looks very like the first farmers but VV's one could be taken to be more in line with the copper age models.  
... Well, the reason I made my map is that Balaresque didn't really sample nearly as densely in eastern and southeastern Europe as they did in western Europe.   The only points they used east of Venice were in Turkey.
....
It's almost hard to believe that Balaresque, et al. would publish their findings with such an incomplete set of data for a critical area.  That is a severe weakness in the study.  Essentially SE Europe and most the SW Asia were ignored.  Ouch!


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 25, 2010, 10:36:01 AM
I would like to see Vince answer on the M18 question, which I suspect is less important than the overall cline in R1b1b2 diversity.

M18 is a challenge, because we don't have really good haplotype data on it.   Looking at just the STRs that are in the FTDNA 12-marker set  we have:

1 sample from Cruciani, with four STRs;
3 samples from Zalloua, with nine STRs;
8 samples from Contu, with eight STRs;

But they all used different sets of STRs, so there are only three markers that are common to all three studies.

That said, one of the Contu samples is quite obviously R-M269.  The remaining seven are nearly identical to each other (all are 7/8 or 8/8 matches to the others).  This tells us that R-M18 is probably not an ancient lineage in Sardegna, since these seven guys have a MRCA of 1500 years or less.

The Zalloua samples are harder, since there are only three and they are diverse.  But they are all reasonably close to both Cruciani and Contu samples, so I see no reason to assume they are errors.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on January 25, 2010, 12:15:34 PM
“It's almost hard to believe that Balaresque, et al. would publish their findings with such an incomplete set of data for a critical area. That is a severe weakness in the study. Essentially SE Europe and most the SW Asia were ignored. Ouch!”

That’s what these professionals do. Publish! They should just publish the samples and do away with analysis.   


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 25, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
All the Vizachero’s theory is based only on his desires again, that a sample of Contu, the most different from the others, is a mistake. But Contu et alii say they tested these samples by SNPs, and this is M18 and not M269. If this sample was really M18 all the presumptions of Vizachero would crash. What a pity that these samples aren’t at his disposal like others, so he would have the possibility either to test them or to make them disappear. But the variance of the three markers comparable among Contu and Cruciani, with mutation around the modal in DYS19=14/15 and DYS391=10/11, make also this sample credible and without another SNPs test I think that Vizachero, after having been punch-drunk many times in these last days, would do better to hold his tongue. Read in the meanwhile Wittgenstein: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss so schweigen”.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 25, 2010, 01:31:47 PM
But Contu et alii say they tested these samples by SNPs, and this is M18 and not M269.
I don't doubt they tested them for SNPs.

I only point out that ONE of the samples they report to be M18+ is actually M269+.  The other seven could very well be M18+ (they are not dissimilar to the Zalloua or Cruciani haplotypes, for example) but those seven have virtually no haplotype diversity which means they have a recent MRCA.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 25, 2010, 02:10:08 PM
But on what are you basing your assumption? Have you asked them and they said you are right or are you basing only upon the fact that that haploype is so similar to the R-M269 ones? If so I think it is too early to do it. My theory is that markers mutate above all around the modal and sometime someone goes for the tangent. This haplotype could be one gone for the tangent in some markers. But you could ask: it is difficulty believable that this has happened for so many markers. But the most part are around the modal, as I have said before, and DYS385=11-14 (and we don't know if it is 14-11) has a 12-12 and a 10-12 at Cagliari and two 12-12 and three 11-12 at Sorgono, then it isn't impossible the 11-14 or the 14-11 of Cagliari.

Of course if this was true your theory would be invalidated and my proved. But the answer isn't on the wind, but on the SNPs, like those of Rozen I am waiting for.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 25, 2010, 03:12:14 PM
But on what are you basing your assumption? Have you asked them and they said you are right or are you basing only upon the fact that that haploype is so similar to the R-M269 ones?

If by "similar" you mean "identical", then yes.

The misclassified sample is an average GD  of 7 from the other M18+ haplotypes and an average GD of 3 from the M269 haplotypes.  It's closest match among the other M18+ haplotypes is GD=6, while the closest match among the M269+ haplotypes is 0.

Meanwhile, the greatest distance between any other two M18+ haplotypes is 1.

It's an obvious error.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 25, 2010, 03:16:22 PM
Besides it is very strange that no one of the R-M269 haplotypes of Contu is the same. One reason more to think it is really a R-M18.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 25, 2010, 03:49:17 PM
This evening I am going to write to Contu, hoping she is more loquacious than Scozzari, Cruciani and also the old friend Francalacci. But how much bumptiousness these professionals, with all their much show and little substance!


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on January 25, 2010, 06:22:02 PM
Besides it is very strange that no one of the R-M269 haplotypes of Contu is the same. One reason more to think it is really a R-M18.

What are you trying to say?

Nearly half the R-M269 samples of Contu match at least one other R-M269 sample.

And that mistaken R-M18 sample has a perfect R-M269 match, while the real M18 samples are nowhere close to any of the M269 matches.

It is obviously a mistake in the data.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on January 25, 2010, 06:27:57 PM
I took the 15 SNP-tested ht35 samples of the Italy DNA Project and calculated their variance using the same method as I did when making the maps of ht15/ht35 diversity. The result was 0,30. The results I obtained with predicted ht35 samples, for Italy, were 0,29, 0,30, and 0,31, for different regions of Italy. The results for Turkey's ht35 were 0,31, and for the Levant 0,30.

Contu et alii say they tested these samples by SNPs, and this is M18 and not M269.

I have to disagree with you on this one (it had to happen sometime!). That Contu sample is almost certainly R1b1b2. There are a few key rules one can use to distinguish R1b1 from R1b1b2. 90% of R1b1b2 has DYS19<=14, but only 1% of R1b1 has likewise. 80%+ of R1b1b2 have 385=11/14, but only 1% of R1b1 have 385=11/14. This sample is practically guaranteed to belong to R1b1b2. It's a mistake. Also the fact, as vineviz pointed out, that the other 7 are exceptionally close to each other, while this one shoots off to another planet.

This tells us that R-M18 is probably not an ancient lineage in Sardegna, since these seven guys have a MRCA of 1500 years or less.

That doesn't settle wether the lineage may have existed in the island for 1,500 or 10,000 years, it only shows that the currently surviving members of the clade coalesced into a single group 1,500 years ago.

The Zalloua samples are harder, since there are only three and they are diverse.  But they are all reasonably close to both Cruciani and Contu samples, so I see no reason to assume they are errors.

Remember what you pointed out to Maliclavelli, many of these studies have lots of errors, and this Zalloua study that produced the Lebanese R1b1a-M18 is arguably the worst of them all. The key point is that Cruciani found zero M18+ and lots of R1b1(xM18) in Lebanon's southern flank, Egypt. Cinnioglu found zero M18+ and 4 R1b1(xM18) in Lebanon's northern flank, Turkey. Zalloua turned it around completely, and found 3 M18+ and zero R1b1(xM18). Logically, this begs the question, did he confuse the labels? Are all his M18+ actually R1b1(xM18)?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on January 25, 2010, 09:35:21 PM
Guys -

Italy as a Younger Dryas refuge makes no sense to me. It it were, then we should expect to see a more even distribution of HT35 and HT15 east and west of Italy in Europe. But we don't see that. We see an SNP trail leading from SE to NW, with the more derived HT15 groups in the Northwest and West, and the less derived groups farther east.

I'm not sure M18 is the big backbreaker in this scenario, given its apparent scarcity.

The Sharden or Sherden who may have given their name to Sardinia are thought to have come from Anatolia originally, in the region of Sardis. Perhaps they brought M18 with them.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on January 26, 2010, 01:13:32 AM
Argiedude says: “I have to disagree with you on this one (it had to happen sometime!)”.

Perhaps you are right, but I said only that it isn’t absurd that this haplotype is R-M18, even though it is more likely it is M-269. For this I wrote to Contu (among other a very beautiful girl), hoping in an answer of hers and I said that only a SNP’s test can solve our doubts.

Rich says: “The Sharden or Sherden who may have given their name to Sardinia are thought to have come from Anatolia originally, in the region of Sardis. Perhaps they brought M18 with them”.

Speculations again and all pro domo vestra (only to your favor). The question isn’t certain and it is strange that the ancient Italian peoples have come all from East: Shardana, Tursa, Shekels etc. Again: if they come from elsewhere, did they come all here?
Sardinia is inhabited from many thousands of years.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Norwich on February 09, 2010, 02:30:04 AM
Kudos for argiedude:

Maju at Leherensuge said:

Maju is not the kind of guy you want on your side when it comes to population genetics.

It's kind of like having David Faux agree with you:  it's a sure sign you are wrong.

VV

Libelous comments VV.  These sorts of statements are generally made by those with deep seated insecurities.  The chap does have a Ph.D. and academic credentials seem to make some people quite uncomfortable.  Name calling is very unbecoming, hopefully you can stick to the facts - perhaps when Underhill, Wells and Hammer get on board (lend credence to your views) you will be less likely to take your anger out on others (displacement of aggression?).


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on February 09, 2010, 06:40:51 AM
This thread has nothing to do with anger, displaced or otherwise.  It is simply a matter of someone finally getting into print a rather sensible analysis of real data.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: pas.ban2 on February 13, 2010, 06:56:18 AM
I disagree with the article. If R1b had come from Anatolia during the Neolithic, there would be an R1b trail from Greece to the Balkans, and another one via southern Italy, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria and southern Spain. But the only haplogroups linking these regions are E1b1b, G2a, J2 and T. The R1b found in southern Italy, although close to the Greek one (R1b1b2 and R1b1b1), is different from the one in Sardinia (R1b1a) and north Africa (R1b1), which in turn is different from the Spanish one (R1b1b2a1b). It's just not possible. The distribution of R1b is better explained by the Classical Greek colonisation of southern Italy, the Phoenician settlements of Sardinia and North Africa, and the Celtic invasion of Western Europe from the Danube.

Furthermore, R1b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east (around the Caucasus) and weakest in the south-west (supposed entry point to Greece). Agriculture spread through the southern coast of Anatolia, not the northern one. In fact there is no known Neolithic culture in northern Anatolian before the Starcevo-Körös-Karanovo culture in the Balkans. Based on archaeological evidence alone, agriculture couldn't have spread from northern Anatolia to Europe.

I do not disagree that R1b is older in Anatolia than in Europe and that it ultimately came from there. But I think it much more likely that R1b penetrated through the steppes across the Caucasus (probably during or just before the Maykop period). The linguistic evidence for Indo-European languages to have spread from the steppes during the Bronze age is overwhelming. The connection between R1a and R1b in all IE-speaking parts of the world leaves no doubt that both haplogroups were involved in the spread of IE languages. The combined R1a and R1b's presence in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia and South Asia, in addition to Europe and the northern Middle East all argue in favour of R1b mixing with R1a and expanding from the steppes, following the various archaeological cultures that spread between the Dniester and Ural during the Copper Age.



_____________________________________
mcts 70-562 (http://www.actual-exams.com/70-562-practice-exam.htm) ll mcts exam (http://www.actual-exams.com/MCTS-practice-exam.htm) ll microsoft 70-270 (http://www.actual-exams.com/70-270-practice-exam.htm)


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on February 13, 2010, 01:57:54 PM
You know, I don't have a firm position on this anymore. The only thing I am fairly confident of is that R1b1b2 wasn't around during the last Ice Age or the Younger Dryas and that R1b and its offspring did not spend those last two lengthy cold snaps in Iberia.

I've read Mallory and Anthony and other authors who favor the so-called Kurgan Theory, and I've read Renfrew, who advanced the idea that Indo-European was spread by farmers out of Anatolia.

Who's right? I cannot say with any confidence.

Maybe I missed something, but where's the evidence of early Steppe horse culture in Western Europe? That's an honest question. If IE was spread by horse-riding semi-nomads from the Steppe, where is that Steppe horse-riding culture in France or Britain or Spain during the right time frame? I mean, Western Europe is thoroughly Indo-European (with the exception of a small minority, the Basques), so shouldn't we be seeing some Steppe-style kurgans with horses in them, if IE was spread from the Steppe?

Those are sincere questions. If anyone can point me in the direction of some nice, conclusive-looking Steppe kurgans in Western Europe, unmistakably connected to those in Eastern Europe, then please do so. I would be happy to read about them.

Did R1b1b2 come out of the Steppe and spread IE on foot? Western Europe was still using its little, puny native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Danube Valley in the 7th century BC.

Here's another thing. I don't see the Steppe culture of the 4th millenium BC or the third millenium BC as so startlingly superior that all its neighbors would want to start speaking whatever its language was. And, yes, I've read all about the domestication of horses and the development of wagons and chariots.

But farming and animal husbandry, those were amazing developments. They secured a consistent and reliable source of food that enabled the growth of population and of civilization and the specialization attendant upon it.

There are problems with Renfrew's IE farmers scenario, too. I realize that.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 13, 2010, 05:41:12 PM
rms2 - If it were easy, people wouldn't still be arguing about it. :)

You have put your finger on what was the big problem for the steppe theory. There is a nice, clear trail from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in various directions via kurgans. That's how it got labelled the "kurgan theory". Big mounds in the earth are hard to miss. Then when you excavate them, you find cultural similarities (including wagon and chariot burials, once the wheel was invented). This was like falling off a log. It was all blindingly obvious.

The kurgan trail goes eastward into the Asian steppe, and the steppe peoples carried on creating them right into the Iron Age. So cultural continuity up to the Indo-European Scythians stared archaeologists in the face.  

At the western end the kurgan trail led up the Danube in a massive way. Again you couldn't miss it. But then it peters out in the Carpathian basin. One could argue (and perfectly sane people did) that the steppe nomads just turned round and went back to the steppe.

That scarcely explained how other aspects of the culture spread over the whole of Europe. Nor does it explain how tumulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus) burials crop up all over the place. These include the round barrows brought to Britain by the Bell Beaker people, and Celtic chariot burials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_burial).  

Even without the tumulus, burial practices mainly changed to single graves, rather than communal, in the age of metal.

But people (including Mallory and Anthony) argued in terms of cultural diffusion. They pictured at most small, elite bands spreading metallurgy, domesticated horses, wheeled vehicles, single graves and Indo-European languages.

That does not add up to me. I'm convinced that language replacement generally came about through significant migration in this period.  But this is where genetics comes in. We should get answers from aDNA eventually.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 13, 2010, 10:03:55 PM
Jean

What in your opinion are the main arguements against the early Neolithic Anatolian Info-European theory?  I always felt there was always enough wriggle room (especially in linguistics) in both schools of thought to make it impossible to kill one or the other theory off. However, things may have moved on since I was last up to speed on this stuff some years back.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 14, 2010, 09:19:24 AM
Hi Alan. Things have moved on a shade with the spread of Neolithic cultivars paper. I updated The Peopling of Europe to read:

Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood found that, of the 15 language families they studied, 12 appeared to have spread with agriculture.* So the idea that the languages most Europeans speak today arrived in the Neolithic has an obvious appeal. Yet the attempt to link Indo-European languages and farming has two major flaws. One is the disparity in dating. Farming spread into Europe thousands of years before Proto-Indo-European had even developed, if we use the evidence of its reconstructed lexicon. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. Yet the Indo-Europeans had words for all these things.** Secondly, Renfrew argued that farming spread into Europe from Anatolia, where Indo-European languages were spoken at one time. Yet recent analysis of the spread of early Neolithic cultivars shows a trail from the Levant, heartland of a different language family. In any case Indo-European languages were intruders into Anatolia after farming was well-established.***

  • *J. Diamond and P. Bellwood, Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions, Science, vol. 300 (2003), no. 5619, pp. 597-603.
  • **B. Darden, On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo Hittite, in R. Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo Hittite Language Family: Papers Presented at a Colloquium hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18–19, 2000 (2001), pp.184–228; B. W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture (2004), p. 42; A. Garrett, Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology, in J. Clackson, P. Forster, and C. Refrew, Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages (2006), pp.143-46. J.P. Mallory, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006), pp. 251-3. In response to criticism by linguists, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza developed a two-wave model in which 1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which 2) the Kurgan expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.
  • ***Coward, F., S. Shennan, S. Colledge, J. Conolly and M. Collard, The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to Northwest Europe: a phylogenetic analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 35, no. 1 (2008) , pp. 42-56; J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), pp. 24-27; L. Quintana-Murci, Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 74 (2004), issue 5, pp. 827-845.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 14, 2010, 09:40:14 AM
As you see from my second note above, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza gave themselves wiggle room in their revised, two-wave model in which

1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which
2) the Kurgan expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.

This builds on the fact that the Anatolian branch of IE appears to have sprung from an  early version of IE, without the words for wheel and wagon common to other IE language branches. So they could argue that the homeland of Pre-PIE was Anatolia. That requires us to believe that Pre-PIE lasted several millennia virtually unchanged, before becoming PIE c. 4000 BC. Not plausible, but Mallory did not feel that it could be completely written off. However if Anatolia was not the jumping off point for the farmers entering Europe, this theory has finally hit the buffers. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on February 14, 2010, 02:27:07 PM
In any case, something complex happened. The spread of Indo-Europe from east to west (if that is indeed how it spread) was not swift and smooth enough to easily trace. If R1b1b2 was an original actor in the spread of IE from the Steppe, then it somehow lost the full kurgan cultural package along the way. To me that is kind of a red flag that something is amiss with the Kurgan Theory or at least with the R1b1b2 component of it.

If IE was carried at first along with the full-blown Kurgan package as we see it in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC on the Steppe and into the Carpathian Basin, then something happened to the package as it moved west. It retained individual inhumation under a mound but lost the emphasis on the horse and horse trappings. (Celtic chariot burials cannot really be used as examples because they came along so much later.)

So, if IE or PIE spread west out of the Steppe, it would appear that it changed hands somewhere in the Balkans and perhaps a different sort of folk carried it farther west, people who only kept parts (or accepted parts) of the Kurgan package. That sort of scenario would support the ideas of those who claim PIE was transmitted culturally rather than demically.

I have a hard time buying cultural diffusion.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 14, 2010, 07:43:38 PM
The spread of Indo-Europe from east to west ... was not swift and smooth enough to easily trace.

No - it's swift movement that generally leaves no trace in the archaeological record. If an army takes a lot of boats down river with hundreds of men on board, later  archaeologists won't have any means of tracing that movement unless one boat sank. A band of travellers on horseback could cover hundreds of miles in a few days, leaving next to nothing en route.

The migration up the Danube was massively visible because it was slow - very, very slow. Think in terms of centuries of expansion from the hub, rather than a people rushing from A to B. There was time for thousands of people to die and be buried. The migration eastward from the European steppe to the Asian steppe was likewise more of an expansion of territory initially, crawling gradually further and further. That makes it very easy to follow.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 14, 2010, 07:51:35 PM
If IE was carried at first along with the full-blown Kurgan package as we see it in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC on the Steppe and into the Carpathian Basin, then something happened to the package as it moved west. It retained individual inhumation under a mound but lost the emphasis on the horse and horse trappings.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Domesticated horses spread at this time, as did wheeled vehicles.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on February 14, 2010, 11:26:13 PM
As I understand it, W. Europeans were still using their small native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Carpathian Basin in the 7th century BC, so the full-blown steppe package hadn't moved west by that time. There are also no horse bones in the various tumuli in Western Europe, at least not that I know of or not in the same way they appear in many of the kurgan-type burials in the East.

So the steppe culture (at least it in terms of the burial package) was not transferred in toto to the West; parts of it were jettisoned.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 15, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
As I understand it, W. Europeans were still using their small native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Carpathian Basin in the 7th century BC, so the full-blown steppe package hadn't moved west by that time.

Western Europeans did not have domesticated horses at all prior to the domestication event sometime before 3,500 BC which appears to have happened on the steppe. See Prehistoric transport: horsepower (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/earlytransport.shtml#horse). By about 3500 BC the bones of large horses, probably from the steppes, began to appear in the Danube valley, central and western Europe, the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and eastern Anatolia. The apparent spread of horses c.3500 BC east, west and south of the European steppe suggests a trade in tame horses radiating out from somewhere within that region.

The steppe tribes were horse-breeders for ages after that, selling huge numbers of horses to other peoples within the historic period.

However the mitochondrial DNA of modern horses is so diverse that it suggests that wild mares of different areas contributed to the modern gene pool. That could be explained by the capture of a few wild foals at different times and places to add to existing domesticated stock, or to raise new stock.

So the Scythians might well have larger horses in the 7th century BC, after millennia of steppe horse-breeding. But that's a later story. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on February 15, 2010, 11:17:57 AM
Okay, very good. That's what I needed to know.

Interesting!


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on February 15, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I've just revised the Wikipedia page on the Secondary Products Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_products_revolution). So it's up to date. This describes the whole package of changes in the 4th-3rd millennia BC (apart from metallurgy): horse-riding, animal traction, ploughs, wheeled vehicles, wool and milking.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 21, 2010, 07:34:25 PM
Got to say its taken Tim Jansens' caclulations on rootsweb stimulating me to think more about this for me to realise how 100% right Argiedude is in this in his thread.  The mixing of ht15 and ht35 as some sort of composite (as this paper does and as it seems Anatole also does) creates big issues and distorts the result.  It is apparently a two phase spread with ht15 being a secondary spread.  

I would go further and speculate that ht15/P310/L11 occurred in a position and on a trajectory that meant it was travelling into/through east-central Europe.  Presumably an ht35 element on the northern periphery of its early distribution experienced the P310/L11 mutation during a sudden dynamic phase of growth and spread west through central Europe. The directions of its spread was away from the south and south-east and was mainly to the west and north.  

If anyone has been following Tim's calculations for overall MRCA in various areas for S116*, U152 and U106 on rootsweb then they will see that ht15 clades actually have a much younger MRCA in the south of Europe (especially Italy and the SE) and it seems clear that ht15 (P310/L11) occurred north of the Med. basin in east-central Europe and must have spread west by a central European route and that its presence in southern Europe (especially SE Europe and Italy) is much later overspill from the north.  

This is obviously not true for ht35.  The latter loks like a more limited (earlier??)spread direct from Antaolia/the Levant to the eastern and central Med. (perhaps once it was known further west too) and the Balkans.  Italy is the main country where there seems to be a huge overlap between the two R1b forms but from Tim's calculations I would wonder if they are not relics of two entirely unconnected waves from different directions at different times as discussed above.

I wonder if the ht35/ht15 split ties in with divisions in the Indo-European languages.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 21, 2010, 08:01:17 PM
A further thought is that Tim's caculations for variance MRCA dates for S116*, U152 and U106 are very similar to Argiedudes ht15 diversity map.  The only difference is that Tim's dates tend to emphasise the differences to a greater degree.  Both agree with a basic strong north-south divide and also a present but weaker east-west pattern.  I think Argiedude tends to play down the east-west aspect of ht15 dating while Tim's dates seems fairly convincing to me on that score.  

One other thought-this really does suggest a dual (and for a long time separate) spread of ht35 and ht15 into Europe.  I think the evidence is they both moved largely east to west but at different latitudes.  As for timing, a dual spread consisting of a slightly earlier one following a Med. route and another following a central European one clearly makes it tempting to make a link with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkeramik eastward spread of farming from roots in the Balkans area (OK this is still under debate) west along the Med. and Danube/north flowing rivers respectively.     


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on February 22, 2010, 10:35:45 AM
 It is apparently a two phase spread with ht15 being a secondary spread.  


I can't imagine what evidence would lead to that conclusion.  I'm happy to concede there are lots of things we probably don't know, but I'd say that if there was a distinct influx of P310- haplotypes into Europe that it happened AFTER the establishment of P310+ haplotypes.  After all, southern Europe has had much greater historical ties to SW Asia.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on February 22, 2010, 01:09:32 PM
Your theories are like the calculations of Klyosov, where the sons are always older than the fathers.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: OConnor on February 22, 2010, 01:51:27 PM
You know, I don't have a firm position on this anymore. The only thing I am fairly confident of is that R1b1b2 wasn't around during the last Ice Age or the Younger Dryas and that R1b and its offspring did not spend those last two lengthy cold snaps in Iberia.

I've read Mallory and Anthony and other authors who favor the so-called Kurgan Theory, and I've read Renfrew, who advanced the idea that Indo-European was spread by farmers out of Anatolia.

Who's right? I cannot say with any confidence.

Maybe I missed something, but where's the evidence of early Steppe horse culture in Western Europe? That's an honest question. If IE was spread by horse-riding semi-nomads from the Steppe, where is that Steppe horse-riding culture in France or Britain or Spain during the right time frame? I mean, Western Europe is thoroughly Indo-European (with the exception of a small minority, the Basques), so shouldn't we be seeing some Steppe-style kurgans with horses in them, if IE was spread from the Steppe?

Those are sincere questions. If anyone can point me in the direction of some nice, conclusive-looking Steppe kurgans in Western Europe, unmistakably connected to those in Eastern Europe, then please do so. I would be happy to read about them.

Did R1b1b2 come out of the Steppe and spread IE on foot? Western Europe was still using its little, puny native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Danube Valley in the 7th century BC.

Here's another thing. I don't see the Steppe culture of the 4th millenium BC or the third millenium BC as so startlingly superior that all its neighbors would want to start speaking whatever its language was. And, yes, I've read all about the domestication of horses and the development of wagons and chariots.

But farming and animal husbandry, those were amazing developments. They secured a consistent and reliable source of food that enabled the growth of population and of civilization and the specialization attendant upon it.

There are problems with Renfrew's IE farmers scenario, too. I realize that.

One thing that comes to my mind is that horses were used in wagon or chariot before they were bred to the size for riding.

Maybe the kurgan horse-type burial mounds were after the initial expansion.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 22, 2010, 02:26:26 PM
I take VV's point on board.  I totally agree that although ht35 is upstream of ht15 there is no reason per se  to say its order of arrival in every area always reflected the order of the haplotype phylogeny.  I am sure there are examples of this in many places.  The only reason I thought ht35 was earlier in Italy was Argiedude's diversity map which for SE Europe shows a large areas of ht35 of simiilar variance from the Levant to Italy. Argiedudes diversity counts seem to suggest that in that core early ht35 area it spead a little earlier than ht15, perhaps even just before the latter came into existance.  I took from both Argiedudes diversity map of ht15 and Tim Jansen's rootsweb calculations for variance of the main ht15 clades (calculated seperately) that ht15 came into existance somewhere beyond the Med. (my guess would be east-central Europe or the north Balkans) or at least among a group that was heading north and west (perhaps east) but not south.  Their calculations seem to suggest that ht15 started in that sort of area and headed west through central Europe (also moving up the north-flowing rivers of the area) reaching as far as the Atlantic fringe eventually.   However, Tim's  variance calculations seem to suggest ht15 did not extend into the Italy and the SE of Europe, Asia Minor etc until much later and that seems to agree with Argiedude's diversity maps.   


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 22, 2010, 02:48:18 PM
Basically Tims maps (which only cover three ht15 clades' variance) and Argiedude's maps (which study both ht15 and ht35 individually) are in close agreement with regard to the one thing they both study - ht 15.  Ht 15 seems to have only become significant when it was in eastern Europe beyond the Med. area and its history is essentially one of an east-west spread through central Europe from the east to the Atlantic followed only far later by migration into the mid-east Med. area.  My impression is that the main original east-west movement was so quick that it gives the impression of sameness but IMO the east-west trajectory can still be detected in both Tim and Argiedude's work.  

In contrast, only Argiedude (not Tim) has dealt with ht35 and his diversity maps seem to show a movement that commenced slightly earlier than ht15's to the north but was also so rapid that direction is less obvious.  Personally I think VV's ht35 phylogeny/geography work does point to a big picture of an eastern origin for ht35 and its westward spread along the Med. at least as far as Italy (albeit one that was rapid enough to blur the east-west gradient when measured by diversity).

The scenario of two fast movements of a common root but distinct subsequent routes one heading slightly earlier along the Med. and the other slightly later along a central European route, both heading on a mainly east-west trajectory but keeping strongly separated amd not meeting until the far Atlantic fringe of Euro is very tempting to parallel with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkermik spread in the Early Neolithic which both spread west but kept separate and did not meet again until they faced each other in Atlantic France and perhaps adjacent areas (perhaps merging in some way in the Middle Neolithic culture of that area).
  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on February 22, 2010, 06:27:23 PM
Basically Tims maps (which only cover three ht15 clades' variance) and Argiedude's maps (which study both ht15 and ht35 individually) are in close agreement with regard to the one thing they both study - ht 15.  Ht 15 seems to have only become significant when it was in eastern Europe beyond the Med. area and its history is essentially one of an east-west spread through central Europe from the east to the Atlantic followed only far later by migration into the mid-east Med. area.  My impression is that the main original east-west movement was so quick that it gives the impression of sameness but IMO the east-west trajectory can still be detected in both Tim and Argiedude's work.  

In contrast, only Argiedude (not Tim) has dealt with ht35 and his diversity maps seem to show a movement that commenced slightly earlier than ht15's to the north but was also so rapid that direction is less obvious.  Personally I think VV's ht35 phylogeny/geography work does point to a big picture of an eastern origin for ht35 and its westward spread along the Med. at least as far as Italy (albeit one that was rapid enough to blur the east-west gradient when measured by diversity).

The scenario of two fast movements of a common root but distinct subsequent routes one heading slightly earlier along the Med. and the other slightly later along a central European route, both heading on a mainly east-west trajectory but keeping strongly separated amd not meeting until the far Atlantic fringe of Euro is very tempting to parallel with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkermik spread in the Early Neolithic which both spread west but kept separate and did not meet again until they faced each other in Atlantic France and perhaps adjacent areas (perhaps merging in some way in the Middle Neolithic culture of that area).
  
If one accepts your hypothesis that R1b subclades formed the Cardial and LBK cultures, one is left with a complete mystery for the Beaker folk. What haplogroup(s) would you associate with them? Do you believe they developed internally from within the earlier Cardial and LBK cultures, or do you think they were intrusive from the east? If the latter, what contribution to the current genetic makeup of Europe do you think they had? And lastly, whom would you credit with the introduction of IE to Europe?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 22, 2010, 07:38:49 PM
The mystery of what the genetic input of the beaker culture was if R1b1b2 was early Neolithic is nowhere near as major as the mystery of what the genetic input of the early Neolithic people was if R1b1b2 is attributed to the beaker phase.  The early Neolithic is a clearcut major demographic event while people still debate over whether beaker people actually existed.  

I think some limited evidence for movement  in Amesbury archer etc and some studies showing population drops in post-Linearbandkeramik times falls well short of open-shut evidence for the withering away of the earlier Neolithic lines and their replacement.  Population changes and fluctuations can be massive without any intrusion.  I can think of several isles examples of this.  

It is also true that the beaker phenomenon is still a major problem in terms of origin, spread and its very nature.  We have discussed this all before but all I will say is the kind of movement direction indicated by Tim and Argiedude's studies of ht15 and its clades (a central European route west from eastern Europe to the Atlantic) does not at all well fit with current ideas on beaker dating - an originally Mediterranean network linking Iberia (where beakers are oldest) to Italy etc.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 22, 2010, 07:52:21 PM
Goldenhind

I really have no idea about the origins of the beakers.  The dating experts now say Iberia/the west Med. for the pots themselves.  Jean is more of an expert on this late period than I am and she suggests that although the beakers themselves may have developed earliest in Iberia that a lof of the rest of the beaker package has east European roots and there was a kind of two-way network relating to metallurgy linking the SW and eastern Europe (via Italy) which was established from the east a little before the beaker pots themselves.  I cannot really assess that proposition in any detail as its pretty specialist and subtle.  

My main new issue after looking at Tim and Argiedude's work is that ht15's apparently central European east-west route of spread could not be more different from the Mediterranean early (and suggested pre-) beaker network as understood by the most up to date dating studies (regardless of direction).  So, to link ht15 (which I understand to be P310 derived R1b1b2) with the beaker culture seems incredibly counterintuitive.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on February 23, 2010, 03:57:19 AM
The mystery of what the genetic input of the beaker culture was if R1b1b2 was early Neolithic is nowhere near as major as the mystery of what the genetic input of the early Neolithic people was if R1b1b2 is attributed to the beaker phase.  The latter is a clearcut major demographic event while people still debate over whether beaker people actually existed. 
....
I think the other major mystery that should be accounted for (beyond who carried the Beaker culture?) is who carried or at least pushed the Indo-European languages?  IE is all over Europe today.  My read of the linguistic authors is that it appears to be a recent development of 3500 BC and later, after the LBK and Cardial Wares sweeps through Europe.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 23, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
Mike

The expert opinion of the dating of IE languages changes frequently and for every expert who suggests later Neolithic you can find people who date them to the early Neolithic.  Its just point, counterpoint, counter-counter point.  Only a few years ago the early Neolithic perspective was very much on the rise and there were a lot of new mathematical calculations of language evolution that supported it.   My own opinion is indirect dating is not linguistics strong suite.  It seems to me that neither school has been able to deliver the other a fatal blow.  

Basically, of the three groups of dating data, archaeology and palaeoecology provides hard data for demographic aspects (although the population history aspect often remains unclear) while linguistics and DNA dating are far more subject to ongoing debate regarding formulae and variables.  Hopefully some day DNA dating will be on more solid ground but I think linguistic dating will probably always be uncertain and full of ifs and buts.  I certainly would not look to linguistics to save the day on the R1b1b2/Neolithic or Beaker/Indo-European debate.  Its the least likely of all to contribute the final answer. The idea of analysing the vocab etc to see what archaeological period it best fits goes back generations and you can see it has not led to a clear-cut answer.  The only observation I will make is that if genes and languages do tend to spread together then R1b1b2 is the only show in town to explain IE languages throughout most of western Europe.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on February 23, 2010, 10:56:14 AM
The only reason I thought ht35 was earlier in Italy was Argiedude's diversity map which for SE Europe shows a large areas of ht35 of simiilar variance from the Levant to Italy.

I appreciate argiedude's efforts, but I do not accept his diversity map as being all that accurate.

And, generally, if you have a population movement that lacks successive founder effects then you lose a great deal of your ability to rely on variance as an indicator of age.  For example, imagine a scenario in which even a small number of ht35 were flowing into Italy from SW Asia on some regular basis.  As long as that small number were greater than one, your overall variance of ht35 in Italy might not be different from the variance in SW Asia.

What makes the ht15 picture in Europe resolvable is that fact that we witness a successive series of founder effects.  We see this in the SNPs (nesting clades) and in STRs (decreasing variance).  We don't really get the same picture from ht35 in Europe - at least not strongly so- and thus have  more challenging detective work.

Imagine that you sample ht35 variance in America.  It probably wouldn't be much different than Europe, and it might be higher given the increasing numbers of non-European immigrants.  But ht35 is probably one of the LAST forms of ht35 to gain frequency in America, since early colonists largely lacked it (being largely from NW Europe) while later immigrants brought more of it (southern Italians, Greeks, Jewish refugees, Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, etc.).

So, ht15 COULD have arrived in Europe on top of a pre-existing ht35 minority.  But it is just as likely that ht35 arrived later as an overlay on a pre-existing ht15 majority.  Some would argue that E and J did this in Europe, so why not ht35 too?

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 23, 2010, 11:31:13 AM
The last few days has really made me think differently about R1b1b2.

Until Tims Jansen's calculations and their prompting me to look at Argiedude's maps again I really had not realised how late ht15 was in variance/diversity terms in the south of Europe, especially Italy and the SE.  Pooling ht15 and ht35 together as R1b1b2 in the recent paper and Anatole's and other studies had hidden the fact that in the areas where ht35 is most common ht15 is very young, NOT very old as you would expect if one simply led to the other in the same locality.  

Unless the results have been distorted badly by sample issues etc or some demographic oddity then that for me effectively rules out a Mediterranean origin or route of spread for ht15 in general and pretty well dictates that the central European route west must have been taken by ht 15 (but not ht35).  Tim and Argiedude's calculations seem consistent in their pattern that ht15 and ht35 split somewhere in or near SE Europe and essentially moved west separately, not to meet again until a long time later at the western fringes of Europe and also even later when ht15 seems to have at a very late stage penetrated south to Italy and back towards the SE of Europe (which is suspiciously similar to the Celtic movements).  

 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 23, 2010, 11:39:47 AM
Vince
I accept all your points.   To be honest, my main interest is in ht15 and its apparent youth in Italy and SE Europe which does make it look like a late overspill from the north and back-migration to the south-east.  That is the part that really struck me about both Argiedude and Tim's calculations.  I had been wondering for a long time whether a Med. or Central European route (or both) to the west was used by ht15.  So, it really struck me that youth of ht15 in Italy and the SE and the greater age in eastern and central Europe in Tim and Argiedudes calculations seems to suggest that the central European route was taken west by ht15.  Is this a reasonable deduction?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on February 23, 2010, 12:56:35 PM
Vince
I accept all your points.   To be honest, my main interest is in ht15 and its apparent youth in Italy and SE Europe which does make it look like a late overspill from the north and back-migration to the south-east.

I don't think this is all that apparent, at least not with regard to Italy.  Perhaps in specific cases it is (e.g. L21), but R-U152 - for example - doesn't look all that much younger in Italy than in, say, Switzerland or Germany.  And surely we don't have nearly enough haplotypes in these clades from the most southeast parts of Europe to say for sure.  How many legitimate confirmed R-U152 or R-U106 haplotypes do we have from the southern Balkans, for example?  Hardly any.

I think the data do show that R1b1b2 entered Europe from SW Asia, most likely overland via the Balkans.  We probably agree on this, I think.  But the question of whether there were other routes or not remains much less settled.

If  - and BIG if - P312 had emerged as early as the Balkan peninsula then you'd have a hard time disproving the suggestion that P312* could have taken a second Mediterranean route towards the west and that L21 is a remnant of that movement just as U152 and P312 seem to be a remnant of the overland movement. 

STRs will probably never resolve this, but SNPs might. 

For example, we could find a SNP between L21 and P312.  We might find such a SNP largely positive in Mediterranean P312* but negative in northern European P312*.  Or vice versa.

But for now we need to be cautious.  Just because we can see evidence of some movements, we should not be too quick to assume that no other movements occurred.

VV


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on February 23, 2010, 03:12:57 PM
A man, migrated to America from Italy, after many years was asked by his wife to recognize the son she in the meanwhile had had. He was a man of humor and said to the  judge that he would be glad to do it if he has demonstrated that he had a  ***** long from America to Italy.
The same I can say to the last finding of Vizachero, who separates R1b-sons from their father. I think that it is more likely that R1b1* to R-150+ had wintered in Italy (at least from the Younger Dryas) and the sons were born out of Italy, Eastward and Westward.
The last finding of Tutankamun’s  haplotype demonstrates definitely, I think, my theory of the mutation around the modal: these haplogroups are more ancient than Vizachero and Klyosov (I don’t know what Nordtvedt is now thinking) have always supported.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 23, 2010, 06:23:25 PM
Vince

I was just kind of having one last think about this all before putting it on hold for some time but deep down I know the sample is far too poor across Europe to have a realistic picture of the detail and will have to be patient :0( 

Argiedude describes his calculations as diversity while Tim looks at variance.  I think Argiedude pooled all ht15 into a large sample based on what he felt were crucial markers that frequently distinguished ht15 and 35.  Obviously, Tim took a very different approach and used a much smaller sample divided into clades. 

What I found interesting is that despite all of these differences in methods, approach and sampling they seemed to find similar patterns of the age of ht15 (or subsets of it) across Europe, with central and northern Europe with older MRCA dates than the Mediterranean. It is also no surprise that they both picked up an east to west trend too.   

I was wondering, due to the tendancy in Europe for east-west movements to follow one of two main routes west, if a simple comparison between ht15 along the landlocked northern/central route (basically all the countries that do not have a Mediterranean coast) compared to ht15 along the Meditteranean might help get around the lack of numbers to some degree and tell us something.  I understand that this would be very much a composite of a lot of human movement but if the result is very strong it may be interesting nevertheless. 

Alan


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on February 23, 2010, 06:36:21 PM
I think Vince's cautionary warning is a point which should be well taken. There just isn't sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.
The only points which I feel have been established are:
1) the old idea of an R1b1b2 presence in the Iberian refuge in Europe during the LMG, or indeed its presence in anywhere in central and western Europe during the Paleolithic is dead,
2) that it entered Europe from the east no earlier than than the Neolithic,
3) that one and perhaps the main route it took was from the Black Sea area up the Danube to central Europe and the Rhine and other rivers, proably fanning out as it progressed.
Personally I am inclined to suspect another more southerly route along the coast of the Mediterannean as well as a more northerly one, probably up the Dniester towards the Baltic.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: NealtheRed on February 24, 2010, 02:55:52 PM
I think Vince's cautionary warning is a point which should be well taken. There just isn't sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.
The only points which I feel have been established are:
1) the old idea of an R1b1b2 presence in the Iberian refuge in Europe during the LMG, or indeed its presence in anywhere in central and western Europe during the Paleolithic is dead,
2) that it entered Europe from the east no earlier than than the Neolithic,
3) that one and perhaps the main route it took was from the Black Sea area up the Danube to central Europe and the Rhine and other rivers, proably fanning out as it progressed.
Personally I am inclined to suspect another more southerly route along the coast of the Mediterannean as well as a more northerly one, probably up the Dniester towards the Baltic.

I think the northern route is a possibility too. I don't know if this is pertinent, but since I belong to Haplo HV I have been reading about it more of late. Anyway, HV has higher percentages in eastern European countries, especially Baltic ones and countries like Belarus and Russia. I wonder if mtDNA movements such as HV/H correspond to the same movements of R1b1b2?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on February 25, 2010, 01:41:11 PM
 I know their are problems but Tim's calculations and Argiedudes too seem to consistently point to R1b1b2 or some clades like S116* and U152 being relatively young in southern Europe, especially Italy.  Obviously Italy need to be older not younger if a Med. route was taken west.  I know its far from perfect but perhaps a simple pooling of Med. vs non-Med will help with the sample issue.  As a last throw of the dice to try and overcome the sampling issues I have asked Tim to recalculate simply dividing into Med. and non-Med. samples in a post on rootsweb.

I have no fixed views and in fact had recently began to favour the Med. route west for R1b1b2 but Tim and Argiedudes work throws big doubt on that and also doubt that the ht35 of Italy is ancestral to the P310/L11 that headed west.  It seems to me that there is a lot of L11/P310 negative ht35 in Italy.  However, L11/P310 is the link between those clades and ht15 clades like S116* and a casual glance would seem to me to point to a rather more central European distribution L11/P310* compared to the upstream forms of ht35.  My gut feeling is that there are hints that P310/L11 happened in a position that was a little removed from or on a strajectory that was largely away from the Med.  I could be wrong through.  I will have another look at the FTDNA ht35 project.  It seems to give lists of names but not countries of origin or maps so you kind of have to guess origins from the types of names. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on February 25, 2010, 08:32:06 PM
Using predicted R1b1b2 samples, mainly from yhrd, it can be seen that ht15 decreases from 45% in the north to 20% in the south, but ht35 is roughly 5% everywhere in Italy, even in Sicily. It gives the impression their diffusion is due to separate events.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on February 26, 2010, 01:16:46 AM
Yes, Argiedude, but try to think to my theory: R1b1* to R-L150+ (language Rhaetian-Etruscan) in Italy, then out of it and the subclades born in Central Europe and returned to Italy with Indo-Europeans (Italic-Celtic).
If the new escamotage of Vizachero was true, why 3 R1b1* over 5 over the world in Italy (mostly Sicily= Italians Americans) and all subclades to R-L150+ and why they aren't in the places where they should have been originated?
There was certainly a migration after the Younger Dryas from Italy: see the demonstrated mtDNA U5b3.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 01, 2010, 09:04:47 PM
Mike

The expert opinion of the dating of IE languages changes frequently and for every expert who suggests later Neolithic you can find people who date them to the early Neolithic.


Untrue. The consensus among Indo-European scholars has long been c.4000 BC for PIE.

Quote
Only a few years ago the early Neolithic perspective was very much on the rise and there were a lot of new mathematical calculations of language evolution that supported it.  

Just the notorious paper by Gray & Atkinson, whose work was ripped apart by linguists. Renfrew is still clinging to it like a drowning man clutching the proverbial straw. But it doesn't hold up for reasons I gave just a few posts ago.   


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 06, 2010, 12:32:25 PM
I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

After all the reading I've done, I'm less certain of Indo-European origins than I ever was.

Neverthless, I feel pretty sure of a couple of things:

1) People don't change their languages lightly

2) Something big must have happened early to account for the spread and success of Indo-European languages.

So, look for something truly momentous in the right places at the right time, something weighty enough to either move new people into an area or cause the old inhabitants to take up the new lingo.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on March 06, 2010, 05:23:58 PM
I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

After all the reading I've done, I'm less certain of Indo-European origins than I ever was.

Neverthless, I feel pretty sure of a couple of things:

1) People don't change their languages lightly

2) Something big must have happened early to account for the spread and success of Indo-European languages.

So, look for something truly momentous in the right places at the right time, something weighty enough to either move new people into an area or cause the old inhabitants to take up the new lingo.

Very odd, as you were the first I know of to propose the connection of R1b with IE. I was one of your first converts, and Jean's arguments have only reinforced my opinion.
I might add I am not particularly wed to the Bell Beaker idea. But since I find the concept that IE spread throughout Europe by cultural diffusion completely unconvincing, one has to look for some likely scenario how R1b brought the centum IE languages to Europe from the east. At the moment the Beaker scenario looks to me as the most likely explanation.
I do think though that we only have part of the answers at this time, and I expect further refinement over time.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 06, 2010, 06:26:15 PM
I'm not saying R1b wasn't connected with the spread of IE; I think it must have been. I'm just less sure of the exact scenario than I once thought I was.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 06, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

In general yes. Glottochronology has plenty of critics. At its best, it can only be an estimate. However if we look at the reconstructed PIE lexicon (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html), we get clues about the type of society that created it. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. Yet the Indo-Europeans had words for all these things.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 06, 2010, 09:05:39 PM
Jean
The momentous event aspect is one of the reasons why for genes (and possibly languages) the late Neolithic just has never felt convincing in terms of THE major genetic or language change event once you get beyond eastern Europe.  The incredibe chain of cultures required to link the steppes to the far west of Europe has always felt very non-Occams Razor and a bit of a house of cards to me.   


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 07, 2010, 04:40:05 PM
One thing I think that needs to be remembered in terms of y-dna about SE Europe is that it is mostly I2a (P37.2) country. Even R1a is outnumbered there by I2a.

So, if R1b1b2 pushed through carrying PIE, or the Neolithic Revolution and PIE, or nomad pastoralism and PIE, I2a closed ranks behind it, took up farming or kept on farming, and either became the most frequent Balkan y haplogroup or retained that status afterwards if it had it to begin with.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on March 07, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
One thing I think that needs to be remembered in terms of y-dna about SE Europe is that it is mostly I2a (P37.2) country. Even R1a is outnumbered there by I2a.

So, if R1b1b2 pushed through carrying PIE, or the Neolithic Revolution and PIE, or nomad pastoralism and PIE, I2a closed ranks behind it, took up farming or kept on farming, and either became the most frequent Balkan y haplogroup or retained that status afterwards if it had it to begin with.
I think it is an error to see IE as being brought to Europe exclusively by R1b. I think it quite probable that the IE intruders were a mixture of haplogroups, and wouldn't be a bit surprised if I2a was one of them.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on March 07, 2010, 06:30:06 PM
Jean
The momentous event aspect is one of the reasons why for genes (and possibly languages) the late Neolithic just has never felt convincing in terms of THE major genetic or language change event once you get beyond eastern Europe.  The incredibe chain of cultures required to link the steppes to the far west of Europe has always felt very non-Occams Razor and a bit of a house of cards to me.   
Often forgotten in Occam's Razor are the words "sine necessitate." It is necessary to explain how all of Europe came to speak the language of a small group of people from the steppes.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 07, 2010, 06:30:14 PM
Alan - I felt just the same way a few years ago. The Neolithic seemed the obvious period for the Indo-European languages to have spread. I'm not the only one. Barry Cunliffe was inclined in the same direction. I see Prof. Cunliffe as the presiding genius of British archaeology - a towering figure. So I won't apologise for having that idea, though I now see it as short-sighted, and unsupported by the evidence, and Prof. Cunliffe is currently editing a volume that will bring back the idea of the Celts as a Bronze* Age arrival.

* Should be Copper Age, but Britain hasn't seen itself as having one worth mentioning until very recently.      


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 08, 2010, 12:15:24 AM
....  But since I find the concept that IE spread throughout Europe by cultural diffusion completely unconvincing, one has to look for some likely scenario how R1b brought the centum IE languages to Europe from the east. ....
I agree completely.  The usage of IE languages was widespread in Europe and all the way to India in an ancient age without even writing, let alone without significant global communications.

Something happened that spread IE.  Then you have to wonder about all of these heavily Celtic (IE) territorities where R1b1b2 has become so thick.  Not saying other versions of R1b1b2 or R1b1 didn't touch Europe without IE, but some seemed to hit in a heavy way.

To be frank, the more I read of dating in archeology, the more I feel like genetic dating and language dating will be of huge help.  I don't see anything that is "rock solid" so all the puzzle pieces must fall in place, even if it is a complex scenario.  Occam's razor is an application of logic, but it is not always the truth.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 08, 2010, 07:18:44 AM
Occam's razor is simply the rule that we should select the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence.

The idea that IE was spread in  the Neolithic was powerfully appealing in its simplicity, I agree. But it does not explain all the evidence. Not remotely.  

I have no doubt that the Neolithic was spread across Europe by real, live farmers, rather than cultural diffusion. I have no doubt that they brought a new language, or languages with them. So it is not surprising that Renfrew should assume that this language was IE.

Unfortunately for him, there is insurmountable evidence against the idea. It must be very galling for him in his retirement. He can't be wheeled out to say "I told you so.  I was right all along.", when each study comes along proving him right about the Neolithic being  spread by demic diffusion, because he was wrong in all the details with which he clothed the idea - the contribution that was his own. He thought that the European Neolithic :

1) spread by a steady "wave of advance". Wrong.
2) spread into Europe from Anatolia. Wrong.
3) Carried IE languages. Wrong.  
 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 08, 2010, 07:45:44 AM
To be fair to Lord Renfrew, he abandoned the simple version of his idea some years ago, in the face of all the contrary evidence, linguistic and archaeological. He and Cavalli-Sforza developed a two-wave model in which

1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which
2) the "Kurgan" expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.  

This resolves the two major problems with the simple version:

1) PIE has words for things not invented much before 3,500 BC.
2) There is a clear archaeological trail from the Yamnaya onto the Asian steppe, where there is continuity of kurgan-builders right up the identifiably IE-speaking Scythians.  

It is still wrong, however, on several counts. Dropping the whole idea of any connection between the Neolithic and IE is the only way forward.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 08, 2010, 08:59:16 AM

I think it is an error to see IE as being brought to Europe exclusively by R1b. I think it quite probable that the IE intruders were a mixture of haplogroups, and wouldn't be a bit surprised if I2a was one of them.

Except that someone had to be indigenous to that region and non-IE to start with. I2a is a good candidate for that. They got to be IE by learning it from the group that introduced it to that area.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 08, 2010, 09:03:54 AM
Alan - I felt just the same way a few years ago. The Neolithic seemed the obvious period for the Indo-European languages to have spread. I'm not the only one. Barry Cunliffe was inclined in the same direction. I see Prof. Cunliffe as the presiding genius of British archaeology - a towering figure. So I won't apologise for having that idea, though I now see it as short-sighted, and unsupported by the evidence, and Prof. Cunliffe is currently editing a volume that will bring back the idea of the Celts as a Bronze* Age arrival.

* Should be Copper Age, but Britain hasn't seen itself as having one worth mentioning until very recently.      

In his Europe Between the Oceans, Cunliffe theorizes that Celtic actually developed as a lingua franca among IE speakers along the Atlantic Facade, or within what he calls the Atlantic Bronze Age Network (if I am recalling the exact term correctly). I believe John Koch, who is a highly respected Celticist, has the same notion, i.e., that Celtic first arose in the West and actually spread east.

It's an interesting idea anyway.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 08, 2010, 12:54:45 PM
Yes Europe Between the Oceans caught Prof Cunliffe in mid-shift from the old paradigm (nobody moved around in prehistory except a few traders) to the new (migration is respectable again). He points out the latter and adds his weight to the pendulum swing in principle, but had not worked it through in practice for the Celts.

However he is very keen to get on to that. He is part of the project Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone: (http://www.wales.ac.uk/en/CentreforAdvancedWelshCelticStudies/ResearchProjects/CurrentProjects/AncientBritainandtheAtlanticZone/IntroductiontotheProject.aspx) a project of the Centre for Advanced Welsh & Celtic Studies, University of Wales, examining the evidence from linguistics, archaeology and genetics for British Celtic origins in the Atlantic Bronze Age. A volume is to be published in 2010, edited by Professors John T. Koch and Sir Barry Cunliffe, of papers presented at Celticization from the West (December 2008).

Personally I doubt that this will turn out to be the last word. It is based on DNA studies now out of date. But we shall see.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 08, 2010, 06:52:25 PM
The Atlantic Bronze Age is such a wooly concept though.  It often just looks like 'all the other stuff we cant call Urnfied, Nordic Bronze etc'.  Besides, from an R1b1b2 clade point of view Atlantic Iberia and Atlantic Britain really couldnt be more different.  L21 points to an isles-northern France-west-central Europe-Norway? link not the trendy Atlantic link all the way from the Orkneys to Porugal down the Atlantic.  Otherwise how would Irish Gaelic surnamed people be so heavily L21 positive and Iberians so heavily L21 negative.  Indeed what L21 there is among the Iberians seems to be in the Basque area bordering France not in the Atlantic seaboard areas of Iberia normally linked to Bronze Age trade.     


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 08, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
I knew that you wouldn't like it Alan. Have to admit that my heart sank a bit when I saw which way he was headed. On both archaeological and genetic evidence, we can't rule out some contact via the Atlantic seaboard, but it doesn't look like the main event.   



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 08, 2010, 07:20:36 PM
If the Koch/Cunliffe basically creates an Atlantic group by lumping all S28-ve/U106-ve M269 together OR uses S116 but not L21 then the concusions will be all wrong. A study of Atlantic fringe genetic links is worthless without L21.  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 08, 2010, 07:29:54 PM
I knew that you wouldn't like it Alan. Have to admit that my heart sank a bit when I saw which way he was headed. On both archaeological and genetic evidence, we can't rule out some contact via the Atlantic seaboard, but it doesn't look like the main event.  


It will be like the Blood of the Irish series which was made when the western Ice Age refugia idea was still gong but by the time it was broadcast it was already becoming clear through S116, L21 and new ideas of R1b dating that the model presented was absolutely wrong.

As for the Atlantic contact, I see it more as a relay thing with contact not being long distance in a direct sense but through a series of flinks in a long chain, trhe ends of which never meet.  The middleman in the chain I think was probably NW France which would be an ideal meeting point of central European and Iberian cntacts. 


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Jean M on March 08, 2010, 07:35:45 PM
The problem is the long lead-up to books and TV programmes.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: GoldenHind on March 09, 2010, 12:04:42 AM
The problem is the long lead-up to books and TV programmes.
I don't think there has been a book yet on the genetic make up in Europe that wasn't out of date by the time it was published. New discoveries are moving far too fast for the academics and pseudo-academics to keep up with.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 09, 2010, 09:04:51 PM
Well, early in the L21 story I emailed Professor Koch and informed him of the discovery of L21 and the way things were headed. He never responded to my email, but I did what I could.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on March 09, 2010, 10:35:35 PM
My favorite film quote seems appropriate. It references Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in the Cider House Rules, but seems appropriate for a lot of fields. I think the actual quote is “When the morons who write the books”.

Cider House Rules Quote

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/cider_house_rules.html

http://www.literaturemaster.com/ebooks/115/2/items/27481741/27481741.pdf

LARCH
   Fuzzy is not uncommon. I tell you,
   there's something about the premature
   babies of alcoholic mothers. They
   seem susceptible to every  thing
   that comes along.

         HOMER
   I haven't read that.

         LARCH
   I haven't, either. But you *will*.
   The morons who write the books should
   do a little research *here*.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 26, 2010, 06:31:58 PM
This is an update of the maps I made of R1b1b2 diversity, because yhrd has recently added hundres of samples from southeast Europe.

(http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15updatedafteryhrd.gif)

http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15updatedafteryhrd.gif

Would be interesting to calculate the diversity of those Belgian Brabant samples.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 27, 2010, 03:54:43 AM
Your map demonstrates clearly that R-L51+ and subclades was born probably in Central Europe, what I have never denied. My hypothesis was that from R1b1* to R-L150+ were born in Italy and then expanded to Central Europe.
If it is true the theory of Jean Manco and others of an origin farther East it should be demonstrated. But in your calculations I think we shouldn't forget that one thing is a country where R is 90/80/70 % and another the countries where it is 10/15% like in Anatolia, the Caucasus etc.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 27, 2010, 07:00:52 AM
Argiedude-your map of ht15 is broadly in line with Tim Jansen's variance findings for S116* and U152.  He also found that the most variance was in the area you outline in blue and some evidence of an east-west trend.  However, Tim calculated in terms of dates and in fact the contrast between the older ht15 in Europe north of the Alps (Russia to France) and southern Europe/SW Asia was very sharp.  So you found the same trends but Tim makes the contrast much greater in his S116* and U152 calculations (admittedly with very small samples in some areas).  

That sort of trajectory would best fit movements heading west from landlocked part of eastern Europe along the Danube.  It amazing what a difference the seperation of ht15 off from ht35 makes. It seems the two groups split early, possibly before or as R1b was entering Europe presumably a splinter group broke off and found itself on an east-central European trajectory.  

My own guess in that the acestors of ht15 somehow broke away from the ancestral ht35 group of SW Asian/Anatolia/SE Europe and passed into the the landlocked Lower Danubian area north of the Balkans either having come from the Balkans or direct from Anatolia.  I suppose one other possible route would be by sea from the Levant to the extreme north-east shore of the Adriatic and into east-central Europe from there but I do not think the variance supports that.  I cannot think of any other possible routes to link the ht15 and ht35 areas in a way that is supported by the variance calculations.   One way or other if you separate the two groups and look at their variace, ht15 has a very different European history ftrm ht35.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 27, 2010, 07:37:05 AM
The Moroccan/Algerian anomoly has been noted before.  Its a kind of an outlier with values not otherwise approached in southern Europe and more like higher values in east-central and northern Europe.  I suppose the question is what is the origin of ht15 there?  What clades are there?  Could this be down to European colonial history there which is unusually complex and spread from the Iron Age to the 20th century and included several groups who may have brought varieties of Ht15: the Romans, Greeks/Byzantines, Vandals, Visagoths, Turks, Spanish, French etc.  There were pre-Roman empires that included this area too although they seem less likely to have been a major source of ht15.  Could the arrival of different ht15 groups from across Europe in multiple phases spread across 2000 years or more have led to this variance?  There are few places in Europe itself that have been subject to such a diversity of colonisation. Usually in wars and conflict in Europe it was adjacent countries attacking and invading each other but in north Africa the colonial history was unusual.  There must be few place in the world which have been so constantly effected by expanding empires and colonialism for so long, including (but certainly not exclusivey) European colonisation.  Just read the wiki pages for Morroco and Algeria!  


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 27, 2010, 05:04:28 PM
Now I've updated the ht35 variance map.

(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht35updatedafteryhrd.gif)

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht35updatedafteryhrd.gif

Note that North Africa's high value in the previous map was calculated using just 5 samples, but now I've increased that to 18, and the variance stayed the same, even slightly rose from 0,30 to 0,31. This then lends credence to the other high value in western Iberia.

One interesting thing I noticed while doing this is the existence of an ht35 cluster with 392=14 and 389B=15 (usually resulting in 389II=28). This cluster seems to accompany ht35 everywhere. In Anatolia and the Levant, it's about 20% of the ht35 samples. In Europe, from Iberia to Greece, it's between 5% and 10% of the ht35 samples. The unusually high result seen for the Baltic/Finnish region is due to 3 of the 9 ht35 samples belonging to this 392=14 cluster (and the very low sample size). Incredibly, this clade exists even in India, where it constituted 3 of 14 ht35 samples, or 20% of their ht35.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 28, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
The high variance of R1b1b2 in Turkey and nearby areas such as the Levant is an artifact due to the presence of the 392=14/389B=15 cluster. This cluster makes up 20% of the ht35 samples in these regions, or for that matter, 20% of all their R1b1b2. The cluster has 3 off modal values, in 391=10, 392=14, and 389B=15 (usually 389II=28). These off modal values result in false mutational steps being counted when calculating variance. For this same reason I excluded the Irish M222+ cluster when calculating the variance of Ireland. If I had included the Irish M222+ samples the variance of ht15 in Ireland would have jumped from 0,220 to 0,263, which you can see in the map of ht15 variance I posted 2 days ago would change Ireland's standing hugely. The 392=14/389B=15 cluster has the same number of off modal differences from the general ht35 modal as the Irish M222+ does from the ht15 general modal, and both clusters make up about 20% of the R1b1b2 samples in Ireland and Turkey, so we would expect a similar change in Turkey's variance after eliminating the samples in the 392=14/389B=15 cluster. And that's exactly what happened.

The original estimate for Turkey, which is the one shown in the ht35 variance map I posted yesterday, is 0,314, using 60 samples. After eliminating 13 samples that belong to the 392=14/389B=15 cluster, the variance drops to 0,255. The change, in percentage terms, is just slightly greater than in the case of Ireland: 20% and 23%. As expected.

But this has interesting implications, because this 392=14/389B=15 cluster is much rarer anywhere in Europe, usually constituting just 5% of their ht35 samples, which means their recalculated variances after eliminating this cluster won't drop nearly as much as Turkey's or the Levant's variance. And since Italy and southeast Europe already had a variance that was equal to Turkey and the Levant, the result should be that Italy and southeast Europe will have slightly higher ht35 variance than Turkey or the Levant. And that's what happened. For now, I've estimated North Italy and all of southeast Europe combined. For North Italy I got an estimate of 0,28, and for southeast Europe somewhere around 0,27. The initial values were around 0,30. In either case, the number of samples was 100 or more, and the 392=14/389B=15 cluster constituted just 6% and 8% of the ht35 samples.

This ht35 cluster is pretty rock solid, by the way. It has 3 off-modal values, leaving little doubt about its validity, and it consistently appears everywhere that ht35 is present, even in India, where it makes up 20% of the sub-continent's ht35 samples (I think there were 3 out of 14 samples).


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 28, 2010, 02:18:09 PM
Italy's ht35 variance should be slightly higher than what the maps show, because a significant percentage of the Italian samples that I predicted as ht35 are in fact ht15 with 393=12. This only applies to Italy, there's no such issue in southeast Europe or Turkey.

About 20% of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12 are probably ht15. I made a quick test of how this would affect North Italy's ht35 variance by calculating the variance of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12, and then adding a number of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13, to simulate ht15 samples, so that the new set of samples would presumably have 40% ht15. I did this several times with random sets of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13 and observed that this caused the variance of North Italy to drop between 0,01 and 0,03, from an initial value of 0,30. This is reasonable, since North Italy's ht15 samples have a low variance of 0,22; they're hidden presence amongst the 393=12 samples is dragging down the variance calculations for ht35. I'd presume if we could calculate North Italy's ht35 variance using SNP-tested ht35 samples only, the estimate would be higher by 0,01 to 0,03, or about 0,32. I did the same test after removing the 392=14/389B=15 samples, and the increase was the same, though this time it started off from an initial estimate of 0,28. Thus, all things considered, between the elimination of the 392=14/389B=15 cluster that was increasing the results and the elimination of the hidden ht15 samples in North Italy that are dragging down its results, North Italy will possibly have a notably higher variance than Turkey, by a margin of 0,05 (0,30 versus 0,25).

In Sicily and south Italy, as much as 10% of the R1b1b2 samples with 393=12 are ht15. So their estimates could also be slightly higher, by just 0,01.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 29, 2010, 05:22:52 AM
Dear Argiedude,
I have criticized many times this way to make clusters. What does it mean a “Jewish cluster” M269+L23- with DYS391=10, DYS426=11, DYS392=14 opposing to a cluster from Italy to Caucasus? And less a “Jewish cluster” M269+ L23+ which is the same with a cluster from Iberia to India except for DYS385b=15? I think having demonstrated many times that the “Jewish clusters” are due to a founder effect and that are very recent, then they have no autonomy.
The same for the Albanian cluster with DYS393=13 and DYS385b=11: you too have said that it is very recent. These clusters say only something about the origin of the cluster itself and nothing about the origin of the haplogroup. We can think that R-L23- with DYS 426=11 doesn’t go back to the origin of the haplogroup, but to an individual who had the rare mutation from 12 to 11, which may have been happened in any time between the origin of this particular cluster, also in recent times. Anyway only one individual survived with DYS426=11 and everybody is a descendant of him. Then this cluster was born in a precise place and not everywhere from Italy to Caucasus. And as you perhaps know I think in Italy.
The same is for R-L51+ with  DYS426=13. Everybody in this cluster descends from an individual who had the mutation of DYS426 from 12 to 13, and also this happened probably in the Alpine Region, when R was coming out from Italy to Central Europe, passing to East, as your map of R-L51- is demonstrating: the exit from Italy happened first from the Rhaetian Region to Austria and South Germany. In fact I have found (and signaled) some probable Italian R-L51+s in the Rhaetian Region. It is meaningful what you have said: “And since Italy and southeast Europe will have slightly higher ht35 variance than Turkey or the Levant”.



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on March 29, 2010, 05:08:58 PM
Italy's ht35 variance should be slightly higher than what the maps show, because a significant percentage of the Italian samples that I predicted as ht35 are in fact ht15 with 393=12. This only applies to Italy, there's no such issue in southeast Europe or Turkey.
Good lord, how much torture can this data withstand?  Hasn't it "confessed" enough?

Throw out this data, double-count out that data, redefine categories for this region but not that region, sample for one thing and call it another?  That's a recipe for doctoring the experiment to suit your preferred conclusion.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 29, 2010, 08:21:45 PM
Maliclavelli, I also think that the Jewish clusters are recent, but it's good to have them in the table because there are many Jewish samples of ht35 in public databases, and this can cause confusion. If there were thousands of Gypsy samples in public databases and they also had their own R1b clusters I would've included them, too, despite being obvious that the clusters must have been acquired only a few centuries ago.

Vineviz, I did only 2 things with the data. I chose the R1b1b2 samples that had 393=12, which mostly indicates an ht35 sample, and then I eliminated the samples that belonged to 2 obvious clusters, the Albanian 385=11/11 and the 392=14/389B=15 cluster. These 2 clades are clearly haplogroups who will eventually be properly identified with their own SNP mutation. By removing them, we can get a better estimate of the variance of the basal lineage, ht35* so to speak. As an example, the Arabian region seems to be split evenly between "normal" ht35 and the 392=14 cluster. Calculating the variance of all these samples together gives a result of 0,30. Calculating each cluster separately gives 0,20 for either. Same with the Irish M222+ cluster. By including this cluster in the estimate of ht15 variance, Ireland gets a high value, very different from its island neighbors, which makes it seem almost like the origin of ht15. But removing this cluster causes Ireland's variance to drop to 0,22 like its neighbors in Britain.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: OConnor on March 30, 2010, 11:35:08 PM
I have 393=12 and I am L21+ and R-L159.2+

The model for L21 is 393=13

Is there a model value for all R's at 393 ?



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on March 31, 2010, 12:54:42 AM
My theory is that a marker mutates around a value with someone going to the tangent (plus and minus).
Then there isn't a modal, but a beginning's value for each cluster and haplogroup. You, as R-L21, derive from DYS393=13 and when a ancestor of yours had the mutation to 12, he began a new clade (yours), then probably 12 will be your modal and of your descendants for many time, being a slow mutating marker.
I am R1b1b2a-L23+/L150+ and I am DYS393=12 too, but probably my 12, derived from a previous 13, is the same from many thousands of years before your 12.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: rms2 on March 31, 2010, 09:24:33 AM
I have 393=12 and I am L21+ and R-L159.2+

The model for L21 is 393=13

Is there a model value for all R's at 393 ?



Probably 393=13, because that is the most common value in R1b and R1a, but for R2 it looks like it's 393=14, and there are even many who are 393=15.

Of course, for P310- (what we used to call HT35) guys it appears to be 393=12.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vtilroe on March 31, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
Italy's ht35 variance should be slightly higher than what the maps show, because a significant percentage of the Italian samples that I predicted as ht35 are in fact ht15 with 393=12. This only applies to Italy, there's no such issue in southeast Europe or Turkey.

About 20% of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12 are probably ht15. I made a quick test of how this would affect North Italy's ht35 variance by calculating the variance of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12, and then adding a number of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13, to simulate ht15 samples, so that the new set of samples would presumably have 40% ht15. I did this several times with random sets of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13 and observed that this caused the variance of North Italy to drop between 0,01 and 0,03, from an initial value of 0,30. This is reasonable, since North Italy's ht15 samples have a low variance of 0,22; they're hidden presence amongst the 393=12 samples is dragging down the variance calculations for ht35. I'd presume if we could calculate North Italy's ht35 variance using SNP-tested ht35 samples only, the estimate would be higher by 0,01 to 0,03, or about 0,32. I did the same test after removing the 392=14/389B=15 samples, and the increase was the same, though this time it started off from an initial estimate of 0,28. Thus, all things considered, between the elimination of the 392=14/389B=15 cluster that was increasing the results and the elimination of the hidden ht15 samples in North Italy that are dragging down its results, North Italy will possibly have a notably higher variance than Turkey, by a margin of 0,05 (0,30 versus 0,25).

In Sicily and south Italy, as much as 10% of the R1b1b2 samples with 393=12 are ht15. So their estimates could also be slightly higher, by just 0,01.
For the love of mike... and this is exactly why I can't take your charts at face value.  Why even mention ht15 and ht35?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on March 31, 2010, 10:45:21 PM
Italy's ht35 variance should be slightly higher than what the maps show, because a significant percentage of the Italian samples that I predicted as ht35 are in fact ht15 with 393=12. This only applies to Italy, there's no such issue in southeast Europe or Turkey.

About 20% of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12 are probably ht15. I made a quick test of how this would affect North Italy's ht35 variance by calculating the variance of North Italian R1b1b2 with 393=12, and then adding a number of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13, to simulate ht15 samples, so that the new set of samples would presumably have 40% ht15. I did this several times with random sets of R1b1b2 samples with 393=13 and observed that this caused the variance of North Italy to drop between 0,01 and 0,03, from an initial value of 0,30. This is reasonable, since North Italy's ht15 samples have a low variance of 0,22; they're hidden presence amongst the 393=12 samples is dragging down the variance calculations for ht35. I'd presume if we could calculate North Italy's ht35 variance using SNP-tested ht35 samples only, the estimate would be higher by 0,01 to 0,03, or about 0,32. I did the same test after removing the 392=14/389B=15 samples, and the increase was the same, though this time it started off from an initial estimate of 0,28. Thus, all things considered, between the elimination of the 392=14/389B=15 cluster that was increasing the results and the elimination of the hidden ht15 samples in North Italy that are dragging down its results, North Italy will possibly have a notably higher variance than Turkey, by a margin of 0,05 (0,30 versus 0,25).

In Sicily and south Italy, as much as 10% of the R1b1b2 samples with 393=12 are ht15. So their estimates could also be slightly higher, by just 0,01.
For the love of mike... and this is exactly why I can't take your charts at face value.  Why even mention ht15 and ht35?

What I said about Italy was a sidenote which I didn't include in the map because it's speculation. It's very reasonable, since Italy has a lot of ht15 samples, while southeast Europe and Anatolia don't, so I mentioned the possibility that its variance might be slightly higher than what appears in the map.

-------------------------------

I've made the final update to the ht35 variance map. After discovering that there's a major clade of ht35 defined by 392=14 & 389B=15, I recalculated all the figures excluding this cluster. This still isn't good enough, because there are still 2 clades with different modal haplotypes: M269* and L23*. To tell them apart one needs samples that have tested DYS426 (the former has 426=11), but that would reduce my eligible samples to almost nothing, so that problem remains.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht35excludeallcluste.gif

(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht35excludeallcluste.gif)

This map is very different from the ht15 map which had an easily discernable, obvious pattern. I haven't drawn any contour lines as in previous maps because of this. I'd say the map could justify just as much the point of view of those who think ht35 came out of Anatolia as those who don't.

The main haplogroups of ht15 have nearly identical modal haplotypes, so an estimate of each haplogroup individually is very close to an estimate of all of them together. But ht35's 2 major clades have notable differences in their modal haplotypes, to the point that the result depended on the proportions of each clade in the tested population. For example, in southern Arabia I found 12 samples of ht35. Their variance was 0,30, a high value. But 6 samples belonged to the "normal" ht35 haplotype, and 6 to the 392=14 & 389B=15 haplotype. Calculating each set separately, they both had a variance of just 0,17, a very low value.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on April 02, 2010, 01:49:15 AM
Argiedude writes on Rootsweb:

"L23+ L150- is apparently the result of cross-amplification of a distinct (previously unmapped) piece of DNA from someplace other than the Y"

Any truth to this?


Where are you quoting from?


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: argiedude on April 02, 2010, 02:10:08 PM
Posting removed in it's entirety.

WFN Administrator



Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on April 02, 2010, 03:07:19 PM
DNAForums was nothing but one argument after another for me. Glad I don’t even read the thing anymore.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on April 02, 2010, 03:39:45 PM
By the way, you might want to edit your previous post throwing out the offensive language. Otherwise, you will probably be banished from WFN. I was threatened with banishment for a lot less.    


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: vineviz on April 02, 2010, 03:42:35 PM
By the way, I said something funny to him, after he insulted me for the 8th or 10th time in the last 2 weeks:

Yeah, that's hilarious.  The sophisticated wit just slays me.

First, I didn't insult anyone.  I just pointed out a flawed analysis.

Second, that diatribe has so many factual errors I wouldn't know where to start correcting them.  Fortunately, the abusive language will probably get the post deleted so there is no need.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Maliclavelli on April 02, 2010, 04:18:28 PM
Not only posts are deleted. In my case also the persons, but certainly Ideas will survive. Some years ago I was alone, now we are many and you are always the same.


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Terry Barton on April 02, 2010, 10:00:05 PM
Very few postings have ever been deleted from this forum - other than spam.   I would prefer that it was none - but a little decorum is necessary.

We've banned even fewer members for inappropriate postings.

WorldFamilies Forums Administrator


Title: Re: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
Post by: Arch Y. on April 26, 2011, 03:46:43 AM
Wow, hopefully everybody's temperament has calmed down since the last posting of this thread. Starting from the beginning of the thread I really thought it was going to be interesting and then it just slowly eroded into a bloodbath of quips and attacks.
Ouch!

Arch