Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 129

Thread: Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people

  1. #101
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,381
    Points
    38,396
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,396, Level: 60
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 654
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    I'm longing for a ancient DNA surveys of Neolithic Atlantic shores populations... Patience!

  2. #102
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-07-13
    Location
    Ticino
    Posts
    138
    Points
    5,103
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,103, Level: 21
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A7992

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I'm longing for a ancient DNA surveys of Neolithic Atlantic shores populations... Patience!
    With the two samples from the megalith site of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne sampled by Lacan (2011) we are not so far from the french Atlantic coast: they are I2a, like the other megalith samples from Spain (see Haak 2015).

    But I'm also waiting more samples from Atlantic shores.

  3. #103
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Sorry I’ve been tied up for awhile with issues arising out of the new R1b backbone test. Some of the issues we are discussing are complex, and I might deal with them one at a time before coming to your particular points.

    First lets look at the issue of one population almost completely replacing another. Despite what proponents of invasion theories would like you to believe, this is an extremely rare event. The only proven cases are Europeans in North America/Argentina/Australia; and probably the Neanderthals in Europe.
    In the historical record, complete population replacement has been largely due to disease and habitat destruction; with some assistance from military superiority. It depends on three things.
    a) The invading force must be carrying diseases (a number) to which the natives are susceptible. Therefore they must have been biologically separate for a very long time
    b) The invading force must be almost completely dominant in military technology to be able to remove the indigenes from their rangelands and keep them off it.
    c) It has to be done quickly so the locals don’t have much time to pick up the superior technologies.
    d) The invading force must come from a huge and expanding population base which enables them to just keep coming.
    Please note we have very many examples of “failed replacement” – it is not an easy thing to do. The whites could not replace the indigenous populations in Africa, New Zealand, India, Indonesia or Mexico. They were not sufficiently militarily superior in NZ, Asia or Africa, in Africa and Asia the locals struck back with their own diseases. Etc.

    The Neolithic farming invasion of Europe from Turkey etc failed. They potentially had the numbers, they could keep the locals off farmland but not for too long, they didn’t have the diseases. After well documented incursions, they were eventually swamped by locals.

    The major military invasions of antiquity had very little impact of local populations. Genghis Khan did not have the numbers or the diseases, and while he was advanced in military technology, he was low in rangeland/population management technology. The Romans had technology but not really the numbers and no diseases. Norman Conquest Etc etc. There is really very little genetic evidence of these conquests at any distance from source. Alexander is supposed to have left a population remnant in Bactria but I have not seen it proved. Arabs in southern Spain, sure but the genetics had been there for millennia, very hard ot separate from an invading force.
    More modern genocides – the Armenians and Turks, the Jews and Hitler, Rwanda, the various population replacements in Poland: not much genetic evidence.

    The only (partial not complete) population replacement scenario that anyone has really attempted to fly (Jobling et al) is the Saxons in East Anglia. Personally I think Germanic speaking tribes were in England long before the Romans, who barely knew the difference between Celts and Germans. Plenty of Celtic DNA there anyway, the replacement is mostly cultural rather than genetic. Not proven.

    Given the absence of any sort of plausible comparable proven examples, anyone who wants to run any kind of invasion population replacement scenario has their work cut out for them. Anyone who wants show that a few savages from Scythia with a little bit of new technology and no diseases managed to replace the entire population of Western Europe fairly recently is seriously pushing the bounds of the credible.

  4. #104
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Second post. “SUCCESSFUL SONS”
    While if the invasion hypothesis seems completely unbelievable – we have a new gradualist replacement theory stressing some sort of “natural process” in which a particular line is “extremely successful” either randomly or for social reasons. No-one would seriously have put this argument forward - – that a single man could have huge numbers of male-line descendants to the exclusion of others - until testing companies started plugging the “Genghis Khan” and “Nhiall” theories for commercial reasons.
    The trouble is that while it appears to be an observable fact, it doesn’t match in with either any directly observed historical process or any simulation modelling we have done. Yes it is possible to have large numbers of descendants quickly, but male line descendants are very much harder to come by – I have plenty of men in my projects whose nearest male line cousin is about eighth.

    Documented real cases expose the fallacy. For example, AbdulAziz Saud or others with large harems can have large numbers of sons (75) and grandsons, but that is about where it stops because cadet branches soon become ordinary members of society with few privileges. I have seen it estimated that there are 10 000 ibn Sauds dating from the founders in the 1700s, which is an awful lot but still only a tiny and now barely increasing fraction of the population.

    Efforts at modelling this by my colleagues in GOONs and myself show much the same. We find in the purely random case that the most male line descendants in Britain anyone living in the 1300s can expect to have today is about 750.

    Very many lines die out almost immediately, but with steady population growth once you reach about 20 male line descendants, your line will not die out but will increase in proportion with the general population. Europe’s population appears to have been growing steadily since the Bronze Age – the TMRCA to all the major branches of R1b date to there. We do not know why that is or why it was not growing before, given that agriculture is a lot older.

    What the simulation results imply is that the haplotype structure of any large population group in Europe should be pretty much the same now as it was in the Bronze Age – with some small contribution from immigrants. If France is 58% R1b, 15% I, 7.5% E, 6% J2, 5.5% G; well that is close to what it was in the Bronze Age.

    I will deal next with what it takes to obtain reductions in genetic diversity. Basically, the population has to fall and advance, preferably repeatedly. The ‘successful lines’ that dominate are not due to growing in the good times, because so will all other established lines at the same rate, they are due to surviving the hard times.

  5. #105
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by joeflood View Post
    First lets look at the issue of one population almost completely replacing another. Despite what proponents of invasion theories would like you to believe, this is an extremely rare event. The only proven cases are Europeans in North America/Argentina/Australia; and probably the Neanderthals in Europe.
    We're not talking about complete replacement. Pre-Indo-European haplogroups still exist in Europe, they're just not dominant.

    Please note we have very many examples of “failed replacement” – it is not an easy thing to do. The whites could not replace the indigenous populations in Africa, New Zealand, India, Indonesia or Mexico.
    Funny that you mention Mexico...their Y-DNA is predominantly European, mostly varying types of R1b-M269. According to your theories, doesn't this mean they've been that way for thousands and thousands of years? It's impossible that people came from the east and R1b became so successful as to be the majority haplogroup, right?

    Norman Conquest Etc etc. There is really very little genetic evidence of these conquests at any distance from source.
    Considering the origin of the Normans, how would one differentiate them from the mixed Celtic/Germanic population of England?

    More modern genocides – the Armenians and Turks, the Jews and Hitler, Rwanda, the various population replacements in Poland: not much genetic evidence.
    I don't even know what to say to someone who thinks "there's not much genetic evidence for the Jewish Holocaust" is some kind of point. Sorry.

    Personally I think Germanic speaking tribes were in England long before the Romans, who barely knew the difference between Celts and Germans. Plenty of Celtic DNA there anyway, the replacement is mostly cultural rather than genetic. Not proven.
    U106 is rather obviously Germanic. Just look at a map of it. Seriously.

    Given the absence of any sort of plausible comparable proven examples, anyone who wants to run any kind of invasion population replacement scenario has their work cut out for them. Anyone who wants show that a few savages from Scythia with a little bit of new technology and no diseases managed to replace the entire population of Western Europe fairly recently is seriously pushing the bounds of the credible.
    Again, we're not talking about "complete replacement" in the sense of "Indo-Europeans literally killed everyone who wasn't Indo-European." No one is talking about that but you. If that's your best evidence against the scientific consensus and available data, it's not the rest of the world pushing the bounds of the credible.

    While if the invasion hypothesis seems completely unbelievable – we have a new gradualist replacement theory stressing some sort of “natural process” in which a particular line is “extremely successful” either randomly or for social reasons. No-one would seriously have put this argument forward - – that a single man could have huge numbers of male-line descendants to the exclusion of others - until testing companies started plugging the “Genghis Khan” and “Nhiall” theories for commercial reasons.
    The trouble is that while it appears to be an observable fact, it doesn’t match in with either any directly observed historical process or any simulation modelling we have done.
    I think you forgot that you just mentioned Mexico. In five-hundred years, European Y haplogroups have become dominant. Yet you believe that the same would be impossible over thousands of years in western Europe. Bit illogical, isn't it? Contradictory?

    Documented real cases expose the fallacy. For example, AbdulAziz Saud or others with large harems can have large numbers of sons (75) and grandsons, but that is about where it stops because cadet branches soon become ordinary members of society with few privileges. I have seen it estimated that there are 10 000 ibn Sauds dating from the founders in the 1700s, which is an awful lot but still only a tiny and now barely increasing fraction of the population.
    Documented genetics expose the fallacious nature of your fallacy; by definition, all R men are descended from a single individual, yet they dominate Europe and large swaths of the rest of the world.

    Very many lines die out almost immediately, but with steady population growth once you reach about 20 male line descendants, your line will not die out but will increase in proportion with the general population. Europe’s population appears to have been growing steadily since the Bronze Age – the TMRCA to all the major branches of R1b date to there. We do not know why that is or why it was not growing before, given that agriculture is a lot older.
    Simply put, it was not growing in Europe before because it wasn't in Europe long before. R1b wasn't common in western Europe during the Stone Age, and it didn't come from the middle east with agriculture. Your own modeling demonstrates the truth of this, but your insistence that it cannot be true keeps you from seeing the logical conclusion, IMO.

    What the simulation results imply is that the haplotype structure of any large population group in Europe should be pretty much the same now as it was in the Bronze Age – with some small contribution from immigrants. If France is 58% R1b, 15% I, 7.5% E, 6% J2, 5.5% G; well that is close to what it was in the Bronze Age.
    The Bronze Age, which saw the expansion of R1b into western Europe.

    I know you have more coming, so I hope I'm not stepping on your toes when I boil our disagreements down to this:

    You think that because R1b is so common in western Europe, it must have been there for tens of thousands of years.

    I think that because we've no evidence of the R1b that dominates western Europe actually being in western Europe prior to a few thousand years ago, and the oldest R1b of that sort we do have was found in an Indo-European culture in what's now Russia, and that we find successively younger clades of that R1b as we go further west, that it's entirely logical and evident that said R1b spread from Proto-Indo-European central Asia, westward into Europe. This would also explain the steppe ancestry common in western Europe, which I disagree is due to eastward migration from Europe. With dozens and dozens of Neolithic European remains having been tested, only one was R1b, and that R1b wasn't ancestral to any of the R1b that's so common in Europe today. Contrarily, almost all of the Yamnaya samples tested were M269.

    I will, of course, revise my opinion if any evidence supportive of your theory ever actually turns up.

  6. #106
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class5000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    23-03-15
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    332
    Points
    6,281
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,281, Level: 23
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 269
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-M222 (NW Irish)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bi

    Ethnic group
    Scots Appalachian ("Hillbilly")
    Country: USA - Virginia



    Quote Originally Posted by Athiudisc View Post
    ...Considering the origin of the Normans, how would one differentiate them from the mixed Celtic/Germanic population of England?...
    Largely through genealogy and other documentary evidence. England already had a significant Norse/Viking population through the Danelaw. The Normans also probably picked up a few Celtic and/or German/Dutch lineages along the way, and those lineages are likely to match those of their Celtic and/or Anglo-Saxon cousins who were already in England.

  7. #107
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Third post REDUCING GENETIC DIVERSITY

    We want to know why some populations have low genetic diversity – such as occurs in Western Europe, in Atlantic Africa or in Siberian tribes. Please note that just being a tribe is far from sufficient – they say the average E/S African village has more diversity than the whole of Western Europe.


    For this we have to turn to Genetics 101 which says there are only a couple of ways to reduce diversity

    a) Isolation of a small population for a very long period of time (genetic drift, slow)
    b) Falling population (wipes out small lines) - medium or fast
    c) Founder effect – expansion into effectively empty territory (fast)

    Both of these require the population to be on the fringe or range boundary. This is obvious in human populations – the more central (such as Turkey) the greater mixing, and concentrated populations are all edge-of-range,

    In general, the formation of species or the development of new lines requires a period of concentration, otherwise the innovation just gets swamped or bred out, While this is not so true of non-combinatory DNA it is still worth considering that significant haplotypes have probably spent time in stressed, remote locations where they have concentrated, followed by expansion into empty territory when conditions improve.

    The classic of this is the Siberian tribes which are famous for each having only a couple of haplotypes. This is because they expand north in good periods when the ice retreats with a lot of founder effects, and contract back in bad seasons. This pump over thousands of years has made them very concentrated, hence the so called “Genghis” effect.
    Another good one is K-haplotype, an ancestor of R, which grew in South East Asia when the area was a giant peninsula (Sunda), subject to flooding and the formation of islands. When the ice age ended the area flooded and they were driven north, where they became the ancestors of P in Siberia, which spread in better times as Q in North America and R in Europe and India.

    Neanderthal is another, I think they probably developed in Scandinavia when it was an island during the interglacial, eventually broke out and invaded all the way to China and Lebanon.

    The ‘ice age refugium’ theory of concentration of R1b and R1a was actually very reasonable because it was based on standard population genetics - concentration in isolation followed by expansion into empty territory. While the theory still has legs, newer evidence has led it to be questioned.

  8. #108
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Unfortunately, there is not much genetic evidence of Norse settlement
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...our-genes.html

    The Germanic influence is a lot harder to explain away.

    The Normans did in fact use a lot of Flemish and Breton mercenaries, as you suggest

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertColumbia View Post
    Largely through genealogy and other documentary evidence. England already had a significant Norse/Viking population through the Danelaw. The Normans also probably picked up a few Celtic and/or German/Dutch lineages along the way, and those lineages are likely to match those of their Celtic and/or Anglo-Saxon cousins who were already in England.

  9. #109
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    Quote Originally Posted by RobertColumbia View Post
    Largely through genealogy and other documentary evidence. England already had a significant Norse/Viking population through the Danelaw. The Normans also probably picked up a few Celtic and/or German/Dutch lineages along the way, and those lineages are likely to match those of their Celtic and/or Anglo-Saxon cousins who were already in England.
    I completely agree. I don't think joe considers that to be evidence, though, at least of the genetic sort.

  10. #110
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Post #4 THEORY – THE DRYAS PUMP

    You have asked for a theory so here is one.This is just a theory like any other, we are working off so little data that almost anything plausible can be made to fit.

    When I see haplotype distributions so tight over a large area as R1b on the Atlantic Seaboard, or E-V38 on the African Atlantic seaboard – I say, obviously this must have been empty territory settled by small concentrated groups. The highest concentration areas are low-lying which provides a clue.

    The Glacial Retreat will not work in Africa, and it is seems too early for Europe. However we do have a new option, the three Dryas periods which could have acted in a similar manner to the Siberian pump in concentrating populations, by exposing and inundating land which was repeatedly re-settled. it now appears the Younger Dryas, a sudden massive global cooling lasting 1200 years, was caused by a bolide or comet strike in or near the North Atlantic ~12.5kya. Anything of a size to do this could have caused 30-50m megatsunamis on the Atlantic seaboard, enough to clear the population out of all the low lying areas. Repopulation by the surviving already concentrated populations could lead to the distribution we see today.

    One would also expect to see similar distributions in animal populations and in mtDNA. Hg H is concentrated in similar areas but nowhere near as strongly as R1b. Which does suggest some sort of sociocultural gender divide, it is not clear why male populations should respond more than female to the pump unless men travelled with groups of women into the empty territory.

  11. #111
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    <POST 5> SUMMARY
    I have taken a look again at Hammer’s 2013 FTDNA Conference presentation, which seems to have been the main impetus for the idea that R1b somehow replaced all the earlier population of Europe subsequent to the agricultural expansion.
    gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf

    While I appreciate Hammer’s other good work, I think he has gone right out on a limb here. Strangely, it seems he was drawn to his theory from the rebuttal of Balaresque 2010 by Busby et al 2012 whereas the conclusion I drew from Busby’s work is the opposite, that you couldn’t say anything at all about the origins of R1b from the existing distribution, you might as well presume it evolved in place as the base hypothesis.

    I agree with Hammer that R1b-M239 apparently expanded out of multicentres in Europe – R-U106 around the North Sea, R-U152 from Piedmont, R-L21 concentrated in Britain, R-DF27 from south of the Pyrenees. However, the main weakness in Hammer’s exposition is the lack of any credible explanation as to why these subclades should have concentrated in the first place, and why indigenous DNA was replaced.

    Genetic concentration does not occur in ‘population centres’, people come to these centres from all over a region in search of opportunity. The centres become very genetically diverse, not concentrated. In fact, from Genetics 101, concentration occurs in nature at marginal range edges under stress, mostly associated with periodic resettlement and withdrawal.

    Now as in lowland West Africa, conditions of stress and resettlement in Britain and around the North Sea might have been caused by periodic flooding due to climate change or disasters. However, it is puzzling as to what could have caused genetic concentration in the lee of the Alps and the Pyrenees. One is drawn to the ‘refuge’ idea, with tundra to the north of the Pyrenees and Alps and glaciers on the Alps probably advancing and withdrawing, but the LGM seems much too long ago.

    For me the real puzzle is – why did population start expanding rapidly from the Bronze Age 5kbp instead of from the Neolithic 9kbp in Europe when agriculture was introduced. The evidence being that TMRCA of all the major subclades of R1b are about the same 5ky bp, including the ones in Africa and West Asia.

    Does the recent sequencing of Bronze Age genomes add anything? Yes and no. One has to take the results seriously, but numbers are still few and there is considerable reason to suspect sampling bias. A lot of G has been identified in Southern Europe and it is no longer there. This is from agricultural sites which may not be representative of the hunter-gatherer population and was probably ultimately swamped by the indigenes. One also has to wonder why there is no J and little E accompanying the relic G, if this represents the spread of agriculture.

    The Kurgan site doesn’t help much, it shows two kinds of R1b DNA which as far as I know are both still present in that area, not in Europe. At any rate, digging out a couple of burial sites is frankly not much different from going down the local cemetery and exhuming a couple of family plots, it will not be representative and may show a narrow range of DNA.
    I guess you are aware I am saying that humans are just another animal whose genetic distribution is determined by natural factors such as climate and climate change, availability of foodstuffs etc and social factors have nothing to do with it. However I have to admit there are peculiarities in the data that suggest there are other things going on – neighbouring tribes in Asia with very different Y-genetic structures, or strong unexplained hotspots for particular haplotypes for example, should not happen under random mixing. There is probably something important we are missing here.

    So for the time being we have just as many puzzles as we always had and not too many convincing answers.

  12. #112
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    AFTERTHOUGHTS. HOTSPOTS

    On the question of why all these concentrated isolated haplotype hotspots appear on the Eupedia maps - I am guessing because I don't know how the maps were drawn, but I may have an answer. I believe the genetic anthropologists who ran round and gathered 'independent samples' from various tribes may not have done us any favours. I would have preferred it if they had taken random samples from the whole local population, as we try to do in Europe. I presume that by testing 'tribes' that have social restrictions on men joining them they thought they might be getting a handle on ancient populations but I dont think thats the case at all. It's quite possible these tribes suffered the equivalent of environmental concentration through the social mechanism of discrimination.

    If these non-mixing minority tribes were periodically harassed by the mainstream population through warfare and land grabs to reduce their numbers, then subsequently expanded when the pressure came off, this would have exactly the same effect as I have described in the climate-change Siberian pump. Their genetic diversity would reduce and small haplotypes originating perhaps from a single adopted wanderer could come to predominate relatively quickly by random chance. Therefore the current distribution might be nothing like the ht distribution in the past. Oops.

    As to the question of mt haplotypes being less concentrated - in the environmental case obviously the most efficient way of populating new lands is several women per man, and anyone who did that for generations or as a society would see their genes come to dominate. The settlers on new lands might well be the aggressive type who went off raiding for women over a considerable area, by boat perhaps, thereby getting a somewhat better mix of mt.

  13. #113
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Bronze age R1b refuted? Not yet but close

    I have been giving reasons, mostly related to Haplotype distribution, why a bronze age R1b in Europe is a long shot. I'd like to move on to the possibility of a direct disproof. Digging up remains is the definitive way, but the next best would be to demonstrate a R1b subclade that is pre-bronze and purely European. Haven't quite done it yet but it is a close call.

    Lets consider R-P312>ZZ37>L624. It is not on FTDNA/ISOGG trees but BritainsDNA have been exploring it; I have several in my CORNWALL project and there are quite a few others in Argyll. I believe several thousand tests have been done, many on the continent, but no example of the SNPs have turned up on the mainland.

    Like other immediate descendants of P312, this one is dated to 3600 BC. Just at the time the Neolithic builders were embarking on Stonehenge and the rest of their works. Given the distribution, it seems most likely L624 is indigenous and Neolithic. Yes there is evidence of bronze age implements at Stonehenge, but they look to have been traded, probably for tin, ther eis no real evidence of Bell Beaker culture there (anyway Bell beaker itself is under a cloud as a source of R1b, according to this thread).

    Yes it is possible some trader came there say 3800 BC and left the fruit of his P312 loins which went native - but there are a lot of ifs here, and we are still left with the highly problematic question of how descendants of a few traders or religious tourists managed to replace most of the genetic lines of a civilization that could build Stonehenge. I prefer the alternative - Neolithic R1b well established in Britain at this time and actually building Stonehenge etc.

    This is Britain the furthest corner of Europe and we have R1b there at the start of the Beaker period. I think we can find earlier subclades than P312 that are indubitably European; I will continue.

  14. #114
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    The Younger Dryas theory is interesting, but I fail to see any reason to believe it affected R1b instead of, say, I1. It just seems like you're holding on to the "R1b is common in western Europe, therefore that's where it comes from" idea with both hands.

    Still waiting on my "unproven, incorrect statements and misunderstandings" to be pointed out, much less addressed.

  15. #115
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    <POST 6> THE EXPANSION ODF R1b AND THE TIN TRADE

    Thankyou Athiudisk for your patience while I explained where I am coming from. I do not “hold to” particular theories, I consider the theory that is the simplest to explain the evidence and if the evidence changes, so will the simplest theory. In particular, I have never said that “R1b comes from Europe” of course it doesn’t. But some subclades do, and those SNPs date back to 4000 BC at least.

    What I object to is Maciamo’s early unilateral statement, “R1b men entered Europe from the steppes as Indo-European speakers. All the cultures they founded were archaeologically linked to the Yamna and Maykop cultures”. This simply does not accord with the facts

    Now leaving behind the consolidation phase of R1b, I wish to talk about its expansion to its present distribution after 3800 BC, which I suspect is intimately connected with the tin trade.

    As I have mentioned before, the principal DNA evidence for timing is the rapid increase in the number of subclades of Western R1b which survive in significant numbers to the present day. Under L21 we have at least 29 branches dated to 3600-3300 BC, DF27 26 branches, and U152 14 branches. U106 has 11 branches. This marks an unprecedented population explosion in Western Europe which the mutations time.

    We can reasonably assume the expansion happened in a major period of peace, fixed settlement and trade. It is at the same time as the Sumerian culture was developing. The first pyramids and the megaliths were being built, activities that required vast wealth and surplus labour. One could call it Western Eurasia’s first great ‘globalisation’ as it happened over much of the region and was facilitated by elaborate trade networks.

    The sea networks and wealth of the megalith builders permitted them to import goods, skills and technology. Their agricultural sophistication steadily increased as they expanded into Bell Beaker cultures (horses and ploughs around 2600 BC and bronze weapons by 2300 BC, depicted on Stonehenge). From the introduction of bronze smelting they controlled the largest supply of the world’s most important rare resource, tin, and it must have made them enormously wealthy. They could afford to buy the best technology and build some of the largest complexes of their day. With bronze they could clear old growth forest to expand their agricultural area and increase their population.

    From the timing and location it is obvious the Atlantic R1b expansion was associated with megalith building activity and the Bell Beaker successors. The only question is – was the R1b already there or was it brought by a ‘race’ of megalith builders, probably originally emanating from Turkey where the first stone circles of 10 000 BC are located.

    Note there is no chance at all that the steppe was involved. At the time those people were mesolithic. They had flint axes, no horses, and were living 3000 km away from the large Atlantic civilizations, who had bronze weapons at least half a millennium before the Yamnaya.

    If it is an accident it is an extremely fortuitous one that the megalith people settled near all of the few known sources of tin in Western Europe. Brittany, Spain, south England, Turkey. I think they knew of its value already by 3000BC. Apart from the deposits on the German-Czech border (also probably R1b), the megalith builders and their beaker successors must have had a near-monopoly on the world’s most important commodity.

    So which is it, Western R1b expanded in situ or through colonies of Mediterranean people? I still think probably the former. It is possible but rather far-fetched to imagine a largely R1b people seafaring people from Turkey, Malta or wherever forming beachheads along the Atlantic, holding them against all comers, carrying diseases from Asia minor, introducing agriculture for the first time and expanding quickly in enclaves without mixing with the locals who quietly died off. Doing that sort of thing will make the natives extremely angry and almost never succeeds.

    As to our warlike Indo-European friends, yes a thousand years later they probably romped with their horses and chariots through a Europe now opened by agriculture and introduced their languages. But like all conquerors they left little in the way of DNA, it takes settlement and peace for that.

  16. #116
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Megalithic explosion of R1b - local or foreign?

    <POST 7> WESTERN R1b FROM 2700 BC – COASTAl INVADERS OR ENTHUSIASTIC LOCALS?

    I have raised the question of whether the megalith builders on the Atlantic seaboard after 3000 BC were an invading largely R1b people that set up agricultural beachheads and somehow expanded while preserving Y-genetic isolation; or whether they were just local people who learned new tricks from a few missionaries and “foreign advisors”.

    It is easy enough – lets just look at I1, whom most people think were ‘aboriginal’. If R1bs were wiping them out, their genetic diversity would be shrinking after 2800 BC. We would see long collections of SNPs with no branches. If they were just regular folks contributing to the population growth – we should see heavy branching of I1 just like R1b.

    I am working from the yfull.com tree. We have NO BRANCHES of I1 up to its TMRCA 2700 BC. 296 SNPs, no branches, how about that? Severe deprivation for 23 000 years through the whole paleolithic and mesolithic, clinging to existence by one man a good part of the time!

    Then 2700 BC, 14 branches of I1. An explosion just like R1b:. Z131, DF29> A5697, Y11205, Y10633, Y11262, Y14628, Y7282, Z63, Z2336, Z58, Z59, CTS8647. Many of these continue to branch Z2336 has 12 branches, Z58 has 3, CTS8647 has 8 branches prior to 2100BC. That is just the branches we know about

    Not as many as R1b but this would be because their actual numbers were fewer at the beginning.

    I think this makes it clear – I1 also participated in the Great Leap Forward after 2700BC just as R1b did. As I presaged in my first post, modelling shows that population proportions of established haplotypes can be expected to stay the same during rapid expansions so the situation at 2700BC was probably similar to what you see today.

    I do have one caveat – if the Great Leap Forward of 2700 BC started in a place that already had a higher proportion of R1b than average, then the proportion of R1b would increase throughout the range away from the original point of expansion. Rather similar to what you see with the major subclades of Western R1b on Eupedia's maps.

  17. #117
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by joeflood View Post
    We can reasonably assume the expansion happened in a major period of peace, fixed settlement and trade.
    Why?

    From the timing and location it is obvious the Atlantic R1b expansion was associated with megalith building activity and the Bell Beaker successors.
    Why?

    As to our warlike Indo-European friends, yes a thousand years later they probably romped with their horses and chariots through a Europe now opened by agriculture and introduced their languages. But like all conquerors they left little in the way of DNA, it takes settlement and peace for that.
    I am very unclear as to what process you envision that leads to the situation of older clades being Indo-European in eastern Europe/central Asia, with younger clades expanding over western Europe in situ, lacking Indo-European languages, then being Indo-Europeanized. It seems to defy your yearning for simple explanations.

    Similarly, I'm at a loss when trying to imagine what convoluted scenario could explain genetic affinities between modern northern/western Europeans and Yamnaya Indo-Europeans. Using the recent work by Haak et al. as a reference for sake of discussion, modern northern/western Europeans show three main lines of origin: European hunter-gatherers, immigrant farmers and Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya.

    If you identify the European hunter-gatherers with R1b and deny genetic input from Yamnaya, how do you explain the obvious evidence of that input, and why was Yamnaya all, thus far, M269?

    If (to choose an example) U106 (along with its brothers) spread in a non-Indo-European context from the west, why are our oldest U106 remains (dating rather closely to the birth of the clade itself) from an Indo-European culture in Sweden (Battle Axe/Corded Ware, showing a marked genetic affinity with Yamnaya...more than modern Europeans, in fact)?

  18. #118
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    <I am very unclear as to what process you envision that leads to the situation of older clades being Indo-European in eastern Europe/central Asia?

    This is the first error you make. What do you mean by 'older clades?' , if you are talking about TMRCA, all significant clades of R1b are about the same age. Why do you think the clades in eastern Europe/Central Asia are older than the ones on the Atlantic?

    I think what you probably mean is, "why are there old clades of R1b in the Caucasus, Turkey, Britain, Spain, North Italy, North Africa and the Cameroons." Dont know, probably never will. It only takes one man to go to these places and have a lot of sons just before a major population increase.

    <with younger clades expanding over western Europe in situ,

    The megalith builders are much older than the Yamnaya, not younger.

    <lacking Indo-European languages>
    It's fairly clear that the original language of Iberia was an ancestor of Basque. A people who are solidly R1b. Something like this may well have been the original language of the area

    <then being Indo-Europeanized. It seems to defy your yearning for simple explanations.>

    Only because there were R-P312 in Western Europe and Britain a millennium before any Indo-European languages existed. Your theory cannot explain why this was so.

    >Similarly, I'm at a loss when trying to imagine what convoluted scenario could explain genetic affinities between modern northern/western Europeans and Yamnaya Indo-Europeans. Using the recent work by Haak et al.

    Sorry but I think Haak gets completely misrepresented, cause and effect are confused. Do you really think he has any evidence that the English are descended from a couple of skeletons in Ukraine? Of course not. Ring him up and ask him.

    > European hunter-gatherers, immigrant farmers and Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya.

    You will note he says European hunter gatherers had the bigger contribution. In other words, the Yamnaya are partly descended from them. Nobody is going to argue with that.

    >why was Yamnaya all, thus far, M269?

    Were they all? I thought two were from an Eastern clade. R1b* thus far. You have a mix, one (likely) family of Europeans and one family of Western Asians. As I said earlier, the M269 may well be descended from people who travelled west from Europe. No proof either way at this stage, I do not claim any particular location for M269.

    If you are seeking proof why members of certain early haplogroups are remotely separated from each other you are probably going to be disappointed. Why is I in Scandinavia and the Balkans? Dont know, but it only takes one man in each place. Why is G scattered all over the place? Don’t know. Why do most other haplogroups have hotspots widely separated from source? No idea, guess an early traveller laid down roots.


    >If (to choose an example) U106 (along with its brothers) spread in a non-Indo-European context from the west, why are our oldest U106 remains (dating rather closely to the birth of the clade itself) from an Indo-European culture in Sweden (Battle Axe/Corded Ware, showing a marked genetic affinity with Yamnaya...more than modern Europeans, in fact)

    U106 is tricky, I will admit, there has always been something odd about it. It doesnt really look like part of the megalithic thing I am boldly claiming for P312, unless it spread out of England - something that so far no-one would consider. I will come back to you on U106 once I have done some research.

  19. #119
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    A LOOK AT THE KURGAN HYPOTHESIS

    I have been taking a look at this “Kurgan hypothesis” (KH). The original Aryan hypothesis, the one I know from “The Rise of the West”, had barbarians charging out of the steppes around 1750BC on spoke-wheel chariots which made them unstoppable, taking down serious civilizations such as the Harappan and Egyptian. ‘Proto-Indo European’ language dated a little earlier than this, maybe 2100 BC.

    I was unaware that a gulf had been created by C14 dating, putting back the age of Bronze Age culture in the North Caucasus by 1500 years to the mid 4th millennium. It’s hard to believe that a non-urbanised “barbarian” society in Maykop was producing quality metalwork so early, long before Sumeria and the Old Kingdom. The metal resources of the Caucasus were clearly making them extraordinarily rich from a very early time. If this timing is correct, it is not surprising that the nearby Yamna culture should have been able to obtain copper and even bronze weapons from 3500 BC on.

    This re-timing has put a bomb under just about everything we believed, and I see now why scholars are taking the KH seriously. The steppe people may well have come into Eastern Europe as early as 2500 BC, coincidentally at the same time Stonehenge was being built in the far West and our R-P312 ancestors were busily expanding.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/sc...europeans.html spells the current research scene out pretty well.
    “Dr Anthony said he was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles. ‘I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,’ Me too! What is hard to understand also is why they were pushed out of the Pontic steppes at that early time, or why as nomads their numbers expanded.

    KH really doesn’t hold water for W Europe, these steppe people couldn't get there in time, too much forest in the way for their herds, and they have the wrong R1b clade. But it does for NE Europe. We are looking at two expansions of R1b! Much the same way as the Romans and Germans ran into each other around 1AD.

    I do not concede that DNA and language have anything much to do with each other (there is no gene for speaking Indo-European), but there may have been two entries for Indo-European languages into Europe as well, as Heggarty speculates.


    At the rate they are now sequencing ancient genomes, I guess everything will soon be revealed – and if I have to eat humble pie so be it.

  20. #120
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    I have no idea why it takes so long for your posts to show up. As of a few days ago, I was the last poster in the thread, but the dates say it's been weeks since you replied.

    Quote Originally Posted by joeflood View Post
    This is the first error you make. What do you mean by 'older clades?'
    It's not an error. L23 is, by definition, older than L51. You cannot possess the mutation for L51 without also having the older L23.

    Why do you think the clades in eastern Europe/Central Asia are older than the ones on the Atlantic?
    See above. L23 is older than L51, as L51 cannot exist prior to L23. L51 is older than L11, L11 is older than P312, etc.

    I think what you probably mean is, "why are there old clades of R1b in the Caucasus, Turkey, Britain, Spain, North Italy, North Africa and the Cameroons."
    I know what I meant. :) Why don't you understand how SNPs work?

    The megalith builders are much older than the Yamnaya, not younger.
    There's nothing tying R1b to megalith builders in western Europe. No evidence of any kind.

    Only because there were R-P312 in Western Europe and Britain a millennium before any Indo-European languages existed. Your theory cannot explain why this was so.
    We have no evidence it was so. If any evidence ever shows up, I'll consider trying to explain it.

    U106 is tricky, I will admit, there has always been something odd about it. It doesnt really look like part of the megalithic thing I am boldly claiming for P312, unless it spread out of England - something that so far no-one would consider. I will come back to you on U106 once I have done some research.
    Thank you. I look forward to your theories on U106 in particular. They're interesting, if lacking in evidence thus far.

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Yes you are right Athiudisk about a number of things now I have researched
    them more fully.

    But still wrong about the Yamnaya, the DNA evidence is all against it.
    Frankly, it takes a lot of chutzpah to put forward the country with the
    lowest incidence of R1b in Europe (Ukraine) as the source of R1b. Yes it
    appears there was a sudden outbreak of concentrated R-Z2103 in Ukraine
    etc in the 4th millennium BC among the pastoralists, but they never got past Poland, not even into the German forest. They were after all open plain pastoralists. It seems they were wiped out by advancing R1a. Today almost everything left of the little R1b in Ukraine is
    Western (and by Western I mean U106) and Z2103 has only a trace. Perhaps they were only an elite from the beginning.

    I think you are also right about R1b on the Atlantic seaboard being early
    Bronze. While there are traces of just about every early branch of R1b from
    V88 onwards even in England, the evidence against pre-Chalcolithic R1b on
    the Atlantic is too strong.

    Having eliminated the impossible (Paleolithic, Neolithic and Yamnaya), we
    are left with only one option, no matter how improbable. That option is: R1b set up
    exclusive beachhead colonies on the Atlantic to obtain tin and advanced from
    there, just as they later did in the New World looking for gold.

    I have always
    thought it was pretty weird the way Europeans thought it was OK to sail to
    the lands of other people and set up colonies with the purpose of
    exploitation and conquest, nobody else much has done that as far as we know,
    but perhaps R1b are a greedy bunch that have been doing it for 5000 years.

    This is not exactly a revolutionary idea, it has been put forward as fable
    since the Middle Ages, but now we have some DNA backup for it. This I will
    need to explain more fully in a paper which is under preparation. I do thank
    you for the argument which allowed me to focus on this proposition.

    I'll let you know when I have the paper up.

    JF

  22. #122
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213
    Points
    2,460
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,460, Level: 14
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 290
    Overall activity: 34.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by joeflood View Post
    But still wrong about the Yamnaya, the DNA evidence is all against it.
    I disagree. Given that, in addition to the Z2103, there was L23 (L23 being the parent of both Z2103 and L51, L51 being the ancestor of European R1b), and given that the successive clades seem to flow westward, and given that Yamnaya seems to have provided much of Corded Ware's ancestry/culture, and given Corded Ware's importance to the spread of Indo-Europeans westward into Europe, and given that we've our oldest U106 in a Corded Ware subculture...

    Frankly, it takes a lot of chutzpah to put forward the country with the lowest incidence of R1b in Europe (Ukraine) as the source of R1b.
    I don't see why. As you say yourself:

    It seems they were wiped out by advancing R1a.
    Indeed. So the fact that there is relatively little R1b there now means absolutely nothing.

    I'll let you know when I have the paper up.
    Thank you.

  23. #123
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-07-13
    Location
    Ticino
    Posts
    138
    Points
    5,103
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,103, Level: 21
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A7992

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by joeflood View Post
    Frankly, it takes a lot of chutzpah to put forward the country with the
    lowest incidence of R1b in Europe (Ukraine) as the source of R1b.
    My two cents:

    I always say that genealogic genetics must be tied to some principles of documental genealogy: a surname was born at the beginning of the XI century in place A, then in the XI, XIII and XIV centuries it remained in place A, but in the XV century some bearers of that surname migrated to place B. In the XVI century, from place B some bearers migrated in places C and D, and, in the mean time, in place A it remains only one family with that surname. In the XVII century place A hasn't got any bearer of that surname, but place B, C and D has. Also, place C has the greatest number of bearers.

    This is the journey of my surname.

    According to your view, then I must say that place C must be the place of origin of my surname, because it has got the greatest number of bearers... well, thanks to a documental research I saw that was place A the origin.

  24. #124
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    Look Athiudisk, seriously you are not on a winner here. First are we sure that single L23* was tested fully? As far as I know it was poor DNA so they couldn't get the subclade. It's an awful lot to hang off a sample of one.

    Even as late as 0AD Germany was 70% forest, back then it was all forest except the river valleys. Now you are proposing that one of these very rare L23* plains dwellers slipped into the forest, presumably running away from that R1a hordes, and leaving no trail behind, made it across a thousand miles of dangerous uncharted forest. having a L51, a L151 and P312 mutation along the way, then with no support. set up a vast and mighty dynasty on the Atlantic. It goes beyond improbable.

    What you have to keep in mind is that Mr Western R1b on the Atlantic, Mr Eastern R1a in the Baltic, and Mr I1 too wherever he was, each descended from a single man who lived around 3000 BC, if yfull,com timings are right. So we need to get those three men into place at the right time with adequate support so that their lines can dominate in the Early Bronze population explosion.

    It's far more likely (and this needs quite a bit of explanation too) that R1b from the Mediterranean sailed around to Spain, set up a decent sort of Beaker colony, then expanded massively from there. They started chopping forest from the West and before too long met up with R1a chopping forest from the East. They both had steppe-type Bronze culture and probably got on alright so they formed the very disparate Corded Ware society - R1a in the East, R1b and I1 in the West.

    At this point, as you are committed to one thing, we may have to agree to disagree. However you going to hear a lot more about the early Bronze Atlantic Culture, I am selling it quite hard now that I have settled on a possible solution. The incidental evidence is actually fairly reasonable, and once people stop dismissing it as myth and start looking for evidence around the Atlantic using our new dating tools - instead of wasting their time on a dead end in the Ukraine - we will get a pretty solid theory I think. Certainly a lot more exciting than sheepherders.

  25. #125
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    09-02-14
    Posts
    30
    Points
    4,064
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,064, Level: 18
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 186
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Australia



    <given that the successive clades seem to flow westward>
    No they don't, unless you mean around the Mediterranean



    <and given that Yamnaya seems to have provided much of Corded Ware's ancestry/culture>
    Uncertain, they might have. I would say R1a is much more likely to have done so, as the east end of Corded Ware is all R1a


    From the genetics point of view there is one thing that really makes the Yamnaya a very unlikely starter for Western R1b. L51 precedes the Yamnaya, which dates 3600-2300 BC. If yfull's timings are correct L51 formed about 4100BC, 500 years earlier, and has TMRCA of 3800 BC pre Yamnaya. If they were ancestors of Western R1b, L51 would have to be ancestors of at least some of them. Where are the L51s?

    You really need to look at the other branch under L51, Z1111/PF7589, which also is supposed to be older than Yamnaya. I see eight on FTDNA. One in Spain, one in Italy, three in Britain, one in Greece, two unknown. Looking awfully like Atlantic-Mediterranean seagoing culture and nothing at all like Yamnaya?









    , and given Corded Ware's importance to the spread of Indo-Europeans westward into Europe, and given that we've our oldest U106 in a Corded Ware subculture...



    I don't see why. As you say yourself:



    Indeed. So the fact that there is relatively little R1b there now means absolutely nothing.



    Thank you. [/QUOTE]

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •