So who were the first farmers in NW Europe?

[rms2]

If I had to bet on the situation of R1b in European prehistoric dynamics I would put my Money on this:

Increased Resolution Within Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b M269 Sheds Light On The Neolithic Transition In Europe


George Busby et al.

Early studies on classical polymorphisms have largely been vindicated by the growing tome of information on the genetic structure of European populations, with mtDNA, Y-Chromosome and autosomal markers all combining to give a fundamental pattern of migration from the East. The processes behind this pattern are however, less clear, particularly with regard to uniparental markers. Much debate still rages about how best to use Y and mtDNA to date particular historical movements, or indeed if it is appropriate at all. For example, whilst some progress has been made recently in calibrating the mtDNA clock, the selection of a mutation rate with which to date the Y-Chromosome is contentious, as the two most favoured values can give dates that differ by a factor of three. In order to address this we have investigated the sub-lineages of the common European haplogroup R1b-M269. This haplogroup has been shown to be clinal in Europe, and more recently has been posited to be the result of the Neolithic expansion from the Near East.Here, we use newly characterised SNPs downstream of M269 to produce a refined picture of the haplogroup in Europe, and further show that the diversity of this lineage cannot be entirely attributed to Neolithic migration out of Anatolia. We use simple coalescent simulations to estimate an absolute lower bound for the age of the sub-haplogoups. Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.

My only digression would be that R1b-M269 didn't expand with the Neolithic wave, but some of its sub-clades were part of the Indo-European expansion.

PS: We won't find any R1b-M269 in Europe pre-Neolithic, unless we check in the right places. Mainly, check the Baltic states for R-U106, Romania for R1b-L23(xL51), the Western fringes of Frances, and perhaps the Franco Cantabrian region for R-P312. It is also clear to me, that some linages of R1b were Indo-European speaking, others weren't, and others learned the language from their cousins.

I am certainly not competent to criticize the methodology of Busby, et al, but I seriously doubt R-M269 comprised a substantial portion of the y-dna of "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.

That's just the "Paleolithic R1b" thing redux.

Time and more aDNA will tell, but where's the R-M269 in the path of the Neolithic expansion? None at Derenburg, none at Treilles, none at Avellaner; Ötzi isn't R1b.

I don't think any pre-Neolithic R1b will be found in the places you named either.

Eventually we will find out, maybe.

[Mike Walsh]

If I had to bet on the situation of R1b in European prehistoric dynamics I would put my Money on this:

Increased Resolution Within Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b M269 Sheds Light On The Neolithic Transition In Europe

George Busby et al.
....Here, we use newly characterised SNPs downstream of M269 to produce a refined picture of the haplogroup in Europe, and further show that the diversity of this lineage cannot be entirely attributed to Neolithic migration out of Anatolia. We use simple coalescent simulations to estimate an absolute lower bound for the age of the sub-haplogoups. Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.

My only digression would be that R1b-M269 didn't expand with the Neolithic wave, but some of its sub-clades were part of the Indo-European expansion.

What is the evidence that R1b-M269 was part of the "early Europeans already present" before the Neolithic?

Are you or Busby saying M269 was present in Western Europe prior to the Neolithic? If we are talking about SE Europe or western Russia, the Ukraine, etc., that is quite a different thing than Western Europe.

We won't find any R1b-M269 in Europe pre-Neolithic, unless we check in the right places. .

How convenient for your argument. This is hardly parsimonious, but on the other hand, this whole thing is complex.

Mainly, check the Baltic states for R-U106, Romania for R1b-L23(xL51), the Western fringes of Frances, and perhaps the Franco Cantabrian region for R-P312. It is also clear to me, that some linages of R1b were Indo-European speaking, others weren't, and others learned the language from their cousins.

This is probably true. Some R1b probably was IE speaking and some was not.

[intrestedinhistory]

Slightly off topic but does ydna I2a being found with G2a, E1b1b and F* give credibility to the I2 originates in Anatolia theory?

And how is it J2 plays no role in all of this?

[rms2]

Slightly off topic but does ydna I2a being found with G2a, E1b1b and F* give credibility to the I2 originates in Anatolia theory?

And how is it J2 plays no role in all of this?

I think it probably indicates that I2a was part of the "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.

I don't know the answer to your question about J2. It's a good question, though.

[JeanL]

I am certainly not competent to criticize the methodology of Busby, et al, but I seriously doubt R-M269 comprised a substantial portion of the y-dna of "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.

That's just the "Paleolithic R1b" thing redux.

Well, I never said that R-M269 was a substantial portion of the y-DNA of early Europeans, I simply said that part of it was present in Western Europe pre-Neolithic, but not just in Western Europe, also Eastern Europe and West Asia, it was widespread.

Time and more aDNA will tell, but where's the R-M269 in the path of the Neolithic expansion? None at Derenburg, none at Treilles, none at Avellaner; Ötzi isn't R1b.

Avellanar was Cardial, Treilles was pre-Beaker, and Derenburg was LBK, why on Earth would be expect to find any pre-Neolithic R1b present in sites that were colonized by Neolithic agriculturist, in fact the presence of E-V13 in Avellanar, and I2a in Treilles simply points to Balkanic HG side coming along with the farmers to Western Europe in case of I2a.

I don't think any pre-Neolithic R1b will be found in the places you named either.

Eventually we will find out, maybe.

Well, you are free to think whatever you want, I’m not 100% sure, but I certainly have a picture in mind that fits with the current linguistic, and genetic scenario of Western Europe.

[JeanL]

What is the evidence that R1b-M269 was part of the "early Europeans already present" before the Neolithic?

What is the evidence that it wasn’t?

Are you or Busby saying M269 was present in Western Europe prior to the Neolithic? If we are talking about SE Europe or western Russia, the Ukraine, etc., that is quite a different thing than Western Europe.

I’m saying that M269 was not only in Western Europe but also in Eastern Europe and Western Asia, it was mixed with R1a in the steppes, and with I1 in Western Europe. I2a was hanging around in the Balkans pre-Neolithic, and they got to be BFF with the incoming G2a farmers.

How convenient for your argument. This is hardly parsimonious, but on the other hand, this whole thing is complex.

Well, Mike, if one is looking for copper, one looks in a site that is known to have copper not iron. Hence, why should we find R1b-M269 in sites known to be colonized by Agriculturists. But I do agree with you that the whole thing is complex.

This is probably true. Some R1b probably was IE speaking and some was not.

I’m actually starting to believe that the R1b-L23(xL51) found in the Balkans, and in Romania was partly responsible for the advancement of Indo-European languages in Eastern and Central Europe, and also Anatolia and Mesopotamia, of course I think R1a was right there by his side.

[rms2]

I am certainly not competent to criticize the methodology of Busby, et al, but I seriously doubt R-M269 comprised a substantial portion of the y-dna of "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.

That's just the "Paleolithic R1b" thing redux.

Well, I never said that R-M269 was a substantial portion of the y-DNA of early Europeans, I simply said that part of it was present in Western Europe pre-Neolithic, but not just in Western Europe, also Eastern Europe and West Asia, it was widespread.

I never said you said that. I was quoting Busby, et al, as you did.

We disagree, because I do not think R1b was present in western Europe before the Neolithic Period. That is why I wrote what I wrote. I don't think it was any part of the "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.

The part in quotes was from Busby, not from you.

Time and more aDNA will tell, but where's the R-M269 in the path of the Neolithic expansion? None at Derenburg, none at Treilles, none at Avellaner; Ötzi isn't R1b.

Avellanar was Cardial, Treilles was pre-Beaker, and Derenburg was LBK, why on Earth would be expect to find any pre-Neolithic R1b present in sites that were colonized by Neolithic agriculturist, in fact the presence of E-V13 in Avellanar, and I2a in Treilles simply points to Balkanic HG side coming along with the farmers to Western Europe in case of I2a.

Yes, why would we expect to find R1b there?

And why would we expect to find pre-Neolithic R1b anywhere in Europe?

The point in what I wrote was the part from Busby about R-M269 being "in the path of" the Neolithic expansion. It must have managed to get out of the path pretty neatly to avoid showing up at Neolithic sites. Isn't it odd that I2a got dragged along but not R1b?

I don't think any pre-Neolithic R1b will be found in the places you named either.

Eventually we will find out, maybe.

Well, you are free to think whatever you want, I’m not 100% sure, but I certainly have a picture in mind that fits with the current linguistic, and genetic scenario of Western Europe.

Well, I don't think you do, but I'm not 100% sure either.

[JeanL]

I never said you said that. I was quoting Busby, et al, as you did.

We disagree, because I do not think R1b was present in western Europe before the Neolithic Period. That is why I wrote what I wrote. I don't think it was any part of the "populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave" of Neolithic expansion.
The part in quotes was from Busby, not from you.

Well according to you, what haplogroups were in the path of the Neolithic expansion wave in Western Europe?

Yes, why would we expect to find R1b there?

Why should we expect to find lactose tolerance in SJAPL 3000 BC, when in Treilles a sample of 25+ were all C/C, and in Avellanar 5000 BC they were all C/C, and yet we find it in SJAPL, and Longar. If you are a hunter gatherer in 4000 BC Western Europe, and there are farmers coming to your territory what do you do: I would run for the hills? What happens when most of a population gets greatly reduced and only a few couple of folks survive, you get an inherited loss of diversity.

And why would we expect to find pre-Neolithic R1b anywhere in Europe?

List the reasons why we shouldn’t, and I’d gladly give my thoughts about it.

[rms2]

Well, I don't know for sure, but I think probably F and I of various kinds were already in Europe before the Neolithic Period. Perhaps G2a was, as well.

I am not familiar with SJAPL, but from what I can see from the comments at this site, 6 of the 19 remains there had the T13910 mutation thought to signify lactase persistence.

I remember seeing the abstract when it came out, but it is one of those pay-to-read articles. I don't buy those unless it is something potentially earth shaking; it may be in JeanM's mini-library. I don't know.

If any of those remains could be shown to have been R1b, that would be something. Unfortunately, apparently no y-dna was obtained from SJAPL.

As for running for the hills, that is one scenario. Trying to kill the farmers might be another option. Still another might be trying to meet and communicate with them.

The "genetic bottleneck" argument has always struck me as very weak and the last refuge of the Paleolithic R1b crowd remnant.

Haplotype variance a trifle low? That's easy to explain! Must have been a "genetic bottleneck"!

Not impossible. Surely such things happen or have happened. But the supposition is not very convincing.

Why wait for me, since you have in your mind such a neat picture that fits all of the multifarious forms of evidence? Go ahead, tell us why we will someday find pre-Neolithic R1b in Europe.

[JeanL]

Well, I don't know for sure, but I think probably F and I of various kinds were already in Europe before the Neolithic Period. Perhaps G2a was, as well.

Well I2a is linked to the Balkans, F is simply a paragroup, and has been found in Neolithic remains, and is today found mostly outside of Europe. So, once more, what haplogroups were found in Western Europe pre-Neolithic. G2a has been found in sites known to have been colonized from the East.

I am not familiar with SJAPL, but from what I can see from the comments at this site, 6 of the 19 remains there had the T13910 mutation thought to signify lactase persistence.

I remember seeing the abstract when it came out, but it is one of those pay-to-read articles. I don't buy those unless it is something potentially earth shaking; it may be in JeanM's mini-library. I don't know.

If any of those remains could be shown to have been R1b, that would be something. Unfortunately, apparently no y-dna was obtained from SJAPL.

I wouldn’t go as far as to link LCT persistence to R1b, but I was simply providing an example of how aDNA might provide surprising results on occasions, and why those regions I mentioned are important in my opinion. 

As for running for the hills, that is one scenario. Trying to kill the farmers might be another option. Still another might be trying to meet and communicate with them.

I think they did try to communicate with the farmers, but likely failed, on the other hand their long distant R1b-L23(xL51) cousins appear to have been kinder to them than their farming neighbors.

The "genetic bottleneck" argument has always struck me as very weak and the last refuge of the Paleolithic R1b crowd remnant.

Haplotype variance a trifle low? That's easy to explain! Must have been a "genetic bottleneck"!

Not impossible. Surely such things happen or have happened. But the supposition is not very convincing.

Well what is the difference between a bottleneck at the onset of the Neolithic in the Atlantic fringes of France and the Franco Cantabrian region, and a bottleneck circa 3700 ybp in Iberia for R1b-P312 newcomers from Africa? I think the latter is a theory pushed by one of the genetic hobbyists that has argued for a Bronze Age arrival of R1b-P312 in Western Europe.  Why is it that most G2a in Europe today gets TMRCA that is about 2 or 3 times lower than its known presence from aDNA, what should we expect for a haplogroup that got nearly annihilated in the Neolithic? 

Why wait for me, since you have in your mind such a neat picture that fits all of the multifarious forms of evidence? Go ahead, tell us why we will someday find pre-Neolithic R1b in Europe.

I already said it, pre-Neolithic Europe was R1b-M269(xL23) hanging around all of Europe with I1 in Western Europe, and R1a in Eastern Europe, I2a folks were hanging out in the Balkans. Then the G2a farmers move into Europe, and amid the chaos we get some R1b-L23 folks pushed towards the steppes with R1a folks, other folks that were R1b-L23(xL51) remained in isolated spots in Western Europe. The R1b-L51 mutation is born somewhere in Western Europe circa 5000 ybp, subsequently R1b-L11 makes his debut, then some take on for Poland, and some stay behind. R1b-L23(xL51) folks pick Indo-European languages from their cousins R1a, and they started heading to Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia region, R1a being Eastwards makes it farther back into Asia, likewise they come trailing (or pushing them) behind R1b-L23 into Europe.  Like I said, it is likely that the R1b-L23(xL51) folks were a lot kinder to their R1b-P312 cousins in Western Europe than the farmers. Likely when the R1b-L23(xL51) folks arrived in Central Europe, it was already dominated by R1b-L51+ folks, and they apparently smoked the peace pipe.

PS: Driving Mechanism for R1b-P312 in Western Europe(Bell Beakers).

[rms2]

Interesting theory, well presented. I'll have to think about it awhile. My initial impression is of a very intricate Rube Goldberg contraption, but that is probably not entirely fair, since I don't really have a well thought out alternative to it.

I don't agree with the version you mentioned by Klyosov, but I do think Jean M's "Stelae People" idea has a lot of merit.

[JeanL]

Interesting theory, well presented. I'll have to think about it awhile. My initial impression is of a very intricate Rube Goldberg contraption, but that is probably not entirely fair, since I don't really have a well thought out alternative to it.

I don't agree with the version you mentioned by Klyosov, but I do think Jean M's "Stelae People" idea has a lot of merit.

I agree the more hypotheses out there, the better, it is always said that having multiple hypotheses while conducting an experiment reduces the likelihood of creating an Ad Hoc approach.

[intrestedinhistory]

Most people link R1b with lactose tolerance

Also where does F* exist today?

So Anatolian and Iranian I2 a product of recent admixture. That's what I always thought but some wanted to push I2 into West Asia.

[Jean M]

Also where does F* exist today?

See http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpF.html

Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90% of the world’s population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.

The major sub-groups of Haplogroup F are Haplogroups G, H, [IJ], and K.... The minor sub-groups, F*, F1, and F2 have not been well studied, but apparently occur only infrequently and primarily in the Indian subcontinent. F* has been observed in two individuals in Portugal, possibly representing a remnant of 15th and 16th century contact of Portugal with India.

[ironroad41]

crowd[/s] remnant.

Haplotype variance a trifle low? That's easy to explain! Must have been a "genetic bottleneck"!

I don't want to belabor this issue but for the western part of Europe, especially the NW, bottlenecks and "environmental erasures" have affected our interpretation of the past seriously.  The Ice Ages and their impacts are real.  They erased any evidence of prior life.    The time of the aftermath of the Ice Age, with the Flood thrown in destroyed the shoreline settlements in Europe and I would argue that is where people lived until they were forced to migrate to high land for safety. A few caves have been the only sources of Western Europe info.

re: artifacts; the acid soils of western europe, like the soils of the eastern US are destructive,  nothing remains in these soils after a few hundred years.  Only in the Near East are the soils conducive to providing remnants of prior cultures.

So, the human DNA record is the only record left of what went on in WEstern Europe and it doesn't carry any geographical info.

As an example, look at Z253 and the data set collected so far.  There are about 4 outliers (I'm one); the rest are the standard 13,24 etc.  Some of us are 7 off the modal for the first 12 dys loci and that includes some of the slowest mutators we have.  note: if you are skeptical of "bottlenecks", I am skeptical of GD, it absolutely has no meaning when the mu rates have a range of over 100!

You have every right to be skeptical of the "genetic bottleneck" argument, but I believe it is that small number of haplotype outliers that contain the real story of what happened to R1b in Western Europe.

[rms2]

Well, we disagree.

I think it is pretty plain that R1b was born somewhere in Asia and only reached Europe in the form of its descendant, R-M269.

The trouble with the genetic bottle neck as an argument is that it cannot be disproved and it cannot be proven either.

It's just a little too convenient.

One has to haul R1b from Asia all the way to Iberia pretty early to get it there in time for the LGM, or argue that the rest of R1b's closest genetic relatives all moved away from western Europe to Asia at least as early.

It doesn't make sense.

[intrestedinhistory]

Also where does F* exist today?

See http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpF.html

Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90% of the world’s population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.

The major sub-groups of Haplogroup F are Haplogroups G, H, [IJ], and K.... The minor sub-groups, F*, F1, and F2 have not been well studied, but apparently occur only infrequently and primarily in the Indian subcontinent. F* has been observed in two individuals in Portugal, possibly representing a remnant of 15th and 16th century contact of Portugal with India.

Interesting. Is F* in South Asia associated with West Asian farmers or he first movement into India by South Eurasians?

[Humanist]

Also where does F* exist today?

This does not answer your question, but...

FTDNA F Project, for all 67 marker haplotypes.  Removed DYS464.  PHYLIP.  Kitsch. 

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/ydna_f_67_exl464.jpg

Group I (Black)      
95628   Berry   Unknown Origin   F

Group III   (Green)   
150898   Boyer   Unknown Origin   F
24676   Boyd (boyatt)   United Kingdom   F
95377   Boyette   Unknown Origin   F
102538   Boyett   Unknown Origin   F
103311   Boyett   Unknown Origin   F
25086   Boyette   Unknown Origin   F
30389   Boyette   Unknown Origin   F
152923   Boyett   Unknown Origin   F
25431   Boyett   Unknown Origin   F
27860   Boyett   United Kingdom   F
26893   Boyett   United Kingdom   F

Group IV   (Red)   
19746   Slagle   Germany   F
162819   Mohns   Unknown Origin   F

Group VI   (Blue)      
104403   Sharp   Ireland   F
N23773   Sharp   Unknown Origin   F
51626   Sharp   Unknown Origin   F
66728   Butler   England   F
73049   Crawford   Scotland   F
175045   Reeves   Unknown Origin   F3
109142   Giessel   Czech Republic   F
54283   Coe   United States   F
N47214   Buursink   Netherlands   F

Group VII   (Cyan)      
114737   Wright   England   F

Ungrouped         
164203   Melik-Grigoryan Armenian F3
164944   Baghdoyan    Armenian F3

N37056   Lazar   Assyrian F3   

217766   Taleb   Bahrain   F3

M6309   Al Hussaini   United Arab Emirates   F

127699      Unknown Origin   F

218679   Root   France   F

[Jean M]

Interesting. Is F* in South Asia associated with West Asian farmers or the first movement into India by South Eurasians?

F* is much earlier than that. We don't know and will never know its exact birthplace, but we can guess that it was somewhere on the route out of Africa, which is now thought to have crossed Southern Arabia. Somewhere in West Asia there was a branching: some people went west into the Levant and from there into Europe, others went east into South Asia. In South Asia F gave birth to H about 30,000-40,000 years ago. H appears at 25-40% over most of India. We would expect F* to be dotted about that area, where it survives. Such ancient haplogroups are rare in living people today.  
 
Somewhere in West Asia F gave birth to IJK. The latter's offspring K went east, but another offspring IJ went west into the Near East. From IJ we get I and J. Again we would expect the odd H* scattered about in the Near East and Europe, though very rare.

[A_Wode]

It would be difficult to argue R1b in its typical western P312+ form in Iberia 30,000 years ago - unless U106+ was hiding out in a frozen Germany at the time - another refugia would be required. Almost all of Iberian R1b YDNA is downstream of P312+ and really leaves no room for U106 in the same location since it is rarely found there today -as there should be equal survival rates.

I suppose one could argue L11* (xP312, xU106) were the mesolithic western Europeans and the branch that expanded northwards into Europe eventually sprouted a U106+ man, and the branch who stayed more or less local sprung a P312+ man and went on from there over time. I don't know what this says about the other R1b branches. Perhaps L23* were among R1a1 in a Ukranian refugia - and subsequently expanded east to Anatolia? Cro-magnon in Levant as R1b1*?

[A_Wode]

Why should we expect to find lactose tolerance in SJAPL 3000 BC, when in Treilles a sample of 25+ were all C/C, and in Avellanar 5000 BC they were all C/C, and yet we find it in SJAPL, and Longar. If you are a hunter gatherer in 4000 BC Western Europe, and there are farmers coming to your territory what do you do: I would run for the hills? What happens when most of a population gets greatly reduced and only a few couple of folks survive, you get an inherited loss of diversity.

Interesting thought though. R1b has come out a mathematical majority in almost all the European countries that are densely populated. (excluding Balkans and Scandinavia which are prone to founder effects.)

It is possible R1b was on the defensive from invaders to Europe throughout all of history and still came out on top. This would imply that G, E, and I might represent farmers from West Asia and the Levant. I wouldn't count this out - especially seeing a F* result from the Neolithic.

[Mike Walsh]

What is the evidence that R1b-M269 was part of the "early Europeans already present" before the Neolithic?

What is the evidence that it wasn’t?

It looks like you answer questions with questions. You are the one who said the following on a proactive basis...

... I already said it, pre-Neolithic Europe was R1b-M269(xL23) hanging around all of Europe with I1 in Western Europe, and R1a in Eastern Europe, I2a folks were hanging out in the Balkans. ...

... I simply said that part of it (R-M269) was present in Western Europe pre-Neolithic, but not just in Western Europe, also Eastern Europe and West Asia, it was widespread.

In your original statement, you emboldened and highlighted in blue your apparent position.

If I had to bet on the situation of R1b in European prehistoric dynamics I would put my Money on this:

...Here, we use newly characterised SNPs downstream of M269 to produce a refined picture of the haplogroup in Europe, and further show that the diversity of this lineage cannot be entirely attributed to Neolithic migration out of Anatolia. We use simple coalescent simulations to estimate an absolute lower bound for the age of the sub-haplogoups. Rather than originating with the farmers from the East, we suggest that the sub-structure of R1b-M269 visible in Europe today, and thus the great majority of European paternal ancestry, is the result of the interaction between the Neolithic wave of expansion and populations of early Europeans already present in the path of the wave.

You may be right. Busby may be right.  I'm just asking for the evidence, but you answer my question with a question.   How should we interpret your answer? ... you don't have any?

[Mike Walsh]

The "genetic bottleneck" argument has always struck me as very weak and the last refuge of the Paleolithic R1b crowd remnant.

Haplotype variance a trifle low? That's easy to explain! Must have been a "genetic bottleneck"!

Not impossible. Surely such things happen or have happened. But the supposition is not very convincing.

....
Well what is the difference between a bottleneck at the onset of the Neolithic in the Atlantic fringes of France and the Franco Cantabrian region, and a bottleneck circa 3700 ybp in Iberia for R1b-P312 newcomers from Africa? I think the latter is a theory pushed by one of the genetic hobbyists that has argued for a Bronze Age arrival of R1b-P312 in Western Europe.  Why is it that most G2a in Europe today gets TMRCA that is about 2 or 3 times lower than its known presence from aDNA, what should we expect for a haplogroup that got nearly annihilated in the Neolithic?  

Please explain the point about G2a (G-P15.)  I've read Dienekes make some kind of point on this too.  I may be looking at different TMRCA calculations for Hg G than you, but when I look at Marko Heinila's work, which is the only one I've seen with long haplotypes and tens of thousands of haplotypes, I don't see anything that looks out of place.

Heinila has G2a (G-P15) with an intraclade TMRCA of 11k ybp, but more importantly, the interclade TMRCA for G-P15 and G-M337 as 15k ybp. We can view the 15k ybp as a maximum age for either G-P15 or G-M337 with 11k ybp for G-P15 as approximate time of initial expansion.

For comparison purposes, Heinila has intraclade TMRCAs for R-M269 as 5.7k ybp, R-L23 as 5.7k ybp and R-L11 as 4.8k ybp.

Unfortunately there is not adequate* data for extant brother subclades for L23 and L11 so we can't calculate a valid interclade TMRCA. M269 (R1b1a2) does have a brother Heinila used, M73 (R1b1a1.) The interclade TMRCA for M269 and M73 is 15k ybp so that puts a kind of a maximum on M269's age.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/TMRCAs_for_major_Y_Hgs_by_Heinila_2011.html

Anyway, I just don't see anything that really looks out of place.


* Actually I see he only had a sample size of 16 for R-M73 so I wouldn't bet the world on that either.

[JeanL]

It looks like you answer questions with questions. You are the one who said the following on a proactive basis...

I simply provided my hypothesis formulated on the data that I have seen from the diversity distribution in Europe, do you have anything to disprove that hypothesis?

In your original statement, you emboldened and highlighted in blue your apparent position.
You may be right. Busby may be right.  I'm just asking for the evidence, but you answer my question with a question.   How should we interpret your answer? ... you don't have any?

What is evidence to you? I provided my interpretation of the current pattern observed in Europe pertaining haplogroup R1b-M269; I equally provided my hypothesis, which is fairly similar to what Busby.et.al provides. If you think I have no answer, then we have nothing to talk about. It is as simple as that.

[Mike Walsh]

It looks like you answer questions with questions. You are the one who said the following on a proactive basis...

I simply provided my hypothesis formulated on the data that I have seen from the diversity distribution in Europe, do you have anything to disprove that hypothesis?

In your original statement, you emboldened and highlighted in blue your apparent position.
You may be right. Busby may be right.  I'm just asking for the evidence, but you answer my question with a question.   How should we interpret your answer? ... you don't have any?

What is evidence to you? I provided my interpretation of the current pattern observed in Europe pertaining haplogroup R1b-M269; I equally provided my hypothesis, which is fairly similar to what Busby.et.al provides. If you think I have no answer, then we have nothing to talk about. It is as simple as that.

I generally try to discern evidence from interpretation. Evidence is a set of facts.

Can you be a little more specific on the "current pattern" that you based your interpretation on?  What specific diversity, frequency or phylogenetic data are you looking at?