PDA

View Full Version : How to find Common Pre-Historic ancestors



Fire Haired14
28-10-15, 06:57
2 laws about genetics.
>New distinct genetic profiles form *only* because of inbred populations. What I mean by inbred is a small clan/region that only mix with each other for many generations maybe 1,000s of years. There will never be an American genetic profile because there are no breeding populations.
>Every generation is about 30 years.

The modern European are a mixture of many differnt Upper Paleolithic inbred populations. Two admixture events that occurred 8,000-4,000 years ago between distinct populations who were a mixture of earlier inbred populations defines most genetic diversity in Europe.

The two admixture events I'm speaking of are.
>Between Near Eastern immigrants and native "WHG" 8,000-5,000 years ago.
>Between East European immigrants and the new natives(Near Eastern+WHG) between 4800 and 4,000 years ago.

Each admixture event technically lasted for over a 1,000 years, although most admixture occurred in relatively short time periods. The last one was especially short, but mostly only applies to North Europe, most of it probably occurred for only a few hundred years.

I thought it'd be interesting to get a basic idea how many of our ancestors were apart of biracial couples during those short admixture events. Also, how many common ancestors differnt ethnic groups have during differnt time periods.

If you combine the "2 laws about genetics" with some guesses about all Pre-Historic society you can get some answers to those questions.

Here are those those guess you can combine with the "2 laws about genetics".
>Clan size varied from a few hundred to a few thousand.
>Nuclear families usually had 3+ kids. Polygamy makes things complicated though.
>People usually mated with non-relatives from their clan or near by clans. Extended family unites varied from 30 to 100 people.

Before the Ice age most European's ancestors probably lived in only a few very inbred regions. Nothing resembling modern regional genetic diversity had formed. The "WHG", "Basal Eurasian", "ANE" ancestry in modern Europeans probably comes from the exact same ancestors and exact same regions.

In the first admixture event, Near Eastern+WHG. There's a low chance most Europeans have any significant shared ancestry within Europe. WHG and EEF mixed with each other multiple times in differnt regions. One wave of EEF went via the Mediterranean sea and one via land. There wasn't an inbred populations that all Europeans share lots of ancestry from.

The second admixture event though occurred in a shorter time period and in a single region: East-Central Europe. Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Germany were probably the primary locations admixture occurred. Then hybrid populations expanded into most of Europe and eventually as far east as India. There's a higher chance that EUropeans share lots hyprid ancestors in from this time period.

bicicleur
28-10-15, 10:52
Interesting line of thinking, but it will be hard to make a refined, workable model.

Fire Haired14
28-10-15, 11:23
Interesting line of thinking, but it will be hard to make a refined, workable model.

I agree. Genealogy is frustrating because it's impossible to fully understand.

I've tried making a model, but there too many aspects I know nothing about . I have no idea how many children per woman, how much of a factor polygamy played, whether there were paternal royal families(royalty was passed down via fathers) where the men had more wives than most men, etc.

Archaeologist and other experts can probably create a somewhat accurate model. Because they know what the population size was in specific regions at specific times, what the mortality rate was for each gender/age/lifestyle, how likely people of differnt tribes/cultures/physical appearance were to mix with each other.

In terms of Y DNA: In my opinon, Paternal royal families is the best explanation as to why R1b-L151 and R1a-Z282 dominate.

Lets say several Indo European-speaking R1a-M417 tribes from Ukraine of 5000 people over a course of 300 years(3000-2700 BC) migrate deep into Poland. These tribes had several paternal royal families where most royal men have 5 wives. During that time they bring in 1500 natives into their tribe, 70% were female. By 2700 BC they'd be 30% native, almost 100% of their Y DNA would still be R1a-M417, and lots of their mtDNA would be native.

This cycle probably repeated itself where ever Indo Europeans went. They could incorporate a lot of native blood but keep mostly IE-Y DNA because of royal families where most men had many wives.

Y DNA I1 looks like a line of native men who got lucky by being incorporated into an IE royal family. I could see a fictional narrative being written about I1 men. Maybe the original I1a man(99% of I1 is I1a) became a friend to an old IE patriarch's family, and then he incorporated the original I1a guy into his family. Or maybe he married an IE patriarch's daughter.

bicicleur
28-10-15, 14:58
you might check this again : http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0122968

it is about G1 and there are some good examples of some subclades spreading very rapidly over the last 2000 years

and then there are Dzjengis Khan in Siberia, the Qing dynasty in China and even some medieval Irish dynasty

http://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-has-competition-1.16767

epoch
29-10-15, 23:38
In terms of Y DNA: In my opinon, Paternal royal families is the best explanation as to why R1b-L151 and R1a-Z282 dominate.

Lets say several Indo European-speaking R1a-M417 tribes from Ukraine of 5000 people over a course of 300 years(3000-2700 BC) migrate deep into Poland. These tribes had several paternal royal families where most royal men have 5 wives. During that time they bring in 1500 natives into their tribe, 70% were female. By 2700 BC they'd be 30% native, almost 100% of their Y DNA would still be R1a-M417, and lots of their mtDNA would be native.

This cycle probably repeated itself where ever Indo Europeans went. They could incorporate a lot of native blood but keep mostly IE-Y DNA because of royal families where most men had many wives.

Why? R1b in North Western Europe is about half of the Y-DNA. So is, roughly speaking, Yamnaya ancestry according to the latest papers (I'm willing to adapt to other figures, though). We know for sure - see Angela's recent link on a Corded Ware settlement in the Netherlands - that a fair number of Corded Ware sites are new settlements.