J1 and Northern Italy (Tuscany)

[Semitic Duwa]

how can an individual repeat the same nonsense over again by totally ignoring 99% of the arguments the opposite side brought up.

Since it seems you didn't understand me properly here I will repeat myself for you. Show me one scientists who came to the conclusion R1b originated in the Steppes or R* originated in Siberia based on this ancient Samples found there.

You lack the basic understanding, it might be the long standing contact to ABF type of people. Your Ad Hominum there is unforgotten

You're just appealing to authority in order to avoid addressing simple facts, which is why I am going to reiterate once more: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary evidence.
Let that thought sink in for a while.

Heck as always you are interpreting arguments [...] which I never stated

[...]

What I said here is J2 was spred into Europe with Indo Europeans at first place.

Yeah, in other words: You're still busy proving my point over & over again. Glad we could clear this one up.

The fact that in this post you concentrate more on attacking me personally instead of just trying to disprove my arguments above, simply means you just don't want to admit you made a joke out of yourself and do not have any answer for it.

^^ Pot calling the kettle black, if you'd taken the time to actually read what I wrote you'd have noticed that your "arguments' self-destruct since you're arguing against the evidence.

So again even if this Samara individual was -m269 and -m478 it is still younger than the Iberian neolithic R1b and downstream to m343 and p25.

First of all, it's not "even if", the Samaran HG was M478- and M269-, once more I strongly suggest you take the time to read the Haak et al. study. Finally, the R1b sample from El Trocs is ~7000 kya old while the Samaran HG is ~7500 kya old (which makes it the oldest R1b sample in the archeogenetic record). Technically-speaking, you're way off the hook since you're using contemporary phylogeny to discard archeogenetic evidence, that in itself speaks volumes about your approach. So no, the Epicardial sample isn't older than the Samaran HG, it's actually younger.

Yep since I am the only one who has his doubts on the PC Steppe theory. And not a single scientist has come to any other idea. Doubting something doesn't mean you refute it. Again you are simply not smart enough to understand the difference. All I said is there is the possibility that PC Steppes is not the Homeland of all Indo Europeans and PIE per se. But how does this mean I am not accepting this model? I am simply taking other models into account too.
By the way where are your scientists who place R1b origin on the Steppes. I must have missed them. And don't even try to distract. The Urheimat wasn't even our topic.

Once more, a classic case of projection from your part: There is no room for doubt as far as the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat is of concern, one would need to discard several centuries (not decades, centuries) of linguistic evidence in order to cast doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat. But that's not exactly surprising, coming from someone who implies that R1b came from West Asia and is equally inclined to promote a West Asian urheimat for PIE.

But let's suppose you're right for the time being... If R1b really came from West Asia then how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry (and closely ressembled the Karelian HG, who was R1a)? Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it.

If I were you, I'd drop this self-defeating attitude immediately, since there's no other IE model worthy of consideration at this point... And unfortunately for you, appealing to authority ("gimme scientist! muh scientist") is just going to make things worse in this case.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

That's not in any way dispositive. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the R1b hunter gatherer only proves that R1b was on the steppe 7,000 years ago. It doesn't prove it "originated" there, even if you think that "Mal'ta" proves that "R" originated in Siberia. It depends on the direction of gene flow after Mal'ta. Your conclusions are based on a lot of assumptions.

It's beyond me why some hobbyists are so emphatic in insisting on certain positions when we just don't have enough data yet. Well, forget that. I do know what is behind some of it, at least.

Fascinating, but there's a question which still troubles me you see... Let's pretend you're spot on and that finding a ~7500 kya old R1b sample on the Pontic-Caspian steppe tells us nothing about its origins (let alone R1b's origins), how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.

Could you please direct us as to specifically where in Haak et al 2015 the researchers opined on where R1b originated? The relevant page reference would be helpful.

Oh, could you also cite any academic papers which have reached that conclusion as of this date, i.e. that R1b is "native" to or originated on the steppe? "Spread from" is not the same as the "origination" point. You seem to use some terms in a very "loose" fashion. Thanks.

Ed. I see some of my points have already been made.

I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you understand: I said that the Haak et al. paper showed that R1b was native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not that the authors explicitely said so.
If you have an issue with that simple fact, I suggest you read the Haak et al. study again and focus on the parts dealing with the R1b samples and EHG... Better still, try answering the question I just asked you.

 

[Sile]

First of all, it's not "even if", the Samaran HG was M478- and M269-, once more I strongly suggest you take the time to read the Haak et al. study. Finally, the R1b sample from El Trocs is ~7000 kya old while the Samaran HG is ~7500 kya old (which makes it the oldest R1b sample in the archeogenetic record). Technically-speaking, you're way off the hook since you're using contemporary phylogeny to discard archeogenetic evidence, that in itself speaks volumes about your approach. So no, the Epicardial sample isn't older than the Samaran HG, it's actually younger.



Once more, a classic case of projection from your part: There is no room for doubt as far as the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat is of concern, one would need to discard several centuries (not decades, centuries) of linguistic evidence in order to cast doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat. But that's not exactly surprising, coming from someone who implies that R1b came from West Asia and is equally inclined to promote a West Asian urheimat for PIE.

But let's suppose you're right for the time being... If R1b really came from West Asia then how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry (and closely ressembled the Karelian HG, who was R1a)? Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it.

If I were you, I'd drop this self-defeating attitude immediately, since there's no other IE model worthy of consideration at this point... And unfortunately for you, appealing to authority ("gimme scientist! muh scientist") is just going to make things worse in this case.

Clearly your comments should be used against the Karafet 2014 paper where it states the origins of R is in south-east asia and not use Haak paper to claim where the origins of R began.

IMO
R as per karafet began life in South-east asia ( yfull agrees with this ).
R1 and R2 formed in north-india/himalyas area.
R1a and R1b formed in BMAC/east caspian area .
and R1b went west before R1a did .................how else do you explain the R1b western dominance of Europe and R1a the eastern dominance of Europe.

This is a simple summary

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Clearly your comments should be used against the Karafet 2014 paper where it states the origins of R is in south-east asia and not use Haak paper to claim where the origins of R began.

IMO
R as per karafet began life in South-east asia ( yfull agrees with this ).
R1 and R2 formed in north-india/himalyas area.
R1a and R1b formed in BMAC/east caspian area .
and R1b went west before R1a did .................how else do you explain the R1b western dominance of Europe and R1a the eastern dominance of Europe.

This is a simple summary

Again, how many times do I have to repeat this? Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data. <<<- Unless you take that fact into account you're arguing against the data.

 

[Sile]

Again, how many times do I have to repeat this? Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data. <<<- Unless you take that fact into account you're arguing against the data.

Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that

 

[Alan]

Again cheap attacks without actual evidences. Again more than 75% of all the questions/arguments of the opposite side ignored simply because not being capable to answer them. Angela brought some points he totally ignored, My arguments totally ignored. Not capable of understanding the basic logic behind the words it doesn't matter from which timeframe the sample stems because it is downstream and not basal.

Duwa logic explained just in a few sentences.

Since Haplogroup G2a2 was found in ancient samples across neolithic Europe and we know "Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data "our conclusion should be that G2a as a whole originated in Europe...

Now replace G2a2 with R1b1a, Europe with the Pontic Steppes and G2a with R1b.

There you have a perfect description of the Duwa logic.

As I said I am not going to waste more energy on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that

:grin: and J2 has it's origin in Hungary.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that

Because we all know that the LBK horizon had nothing to do with the arrival of Neolithic farmers from the Near East, don't we all? Seriously, keep it real.

 

[Angela]

Fascinating, but there's a question which still troubles me you see... Let's pretend you're spot on and that finding a ~7500 kya old R1b sample on the Pontic-Caspian steppe tells us nothing about its origins (let alone R1b's origins), how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.

I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you understand: I said that the Haak et al. paper showed that R1b was native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not that the authors explicitely said so.
If you have an issue with that simple fact, I suggest you read the Haak et al. study again and focus on the parts dealing with the R1b samples and EHG... Better still, try answering the question I just asked you.

We deal in genetics and archaeology here, and try to determine what conclusions can be logically drawn from that evidence. Nobody has a crystal ball, however. Even the experts can differ, much less informed but hobbyist level posters. Have a little respect for other people's points of view, especially when the discussion is about issues where the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus, or there are going to be consequences. I'd also point out that what usually happens here is that people don't engage with polemicists.

Also, I've warned you before about setting up straw man arguments and misrepresenting what people say. It would be nice if you spent one tenth of the time reading and thinking about the words I post as I spend choosing them. Where precisely did I say that this R1b hunter's presence on the steppe tells us nothing about R1b's origins? Do you usually get away with this kind of debate tactic? It's just that it doesn't tell us everything about its origins. Can you follow the logic of that? Terms matter, definitions matter, logic matters...that's how we get clarity and judge other people's arguments. I'm not interested in somebody, anybody, trying to force data into a certain pre-determined theory.

As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?

As I said, I'm still an agnostic as to the precise area of "origin" of R1b, and so was ready to be persuaded, but I'm not getting any scientifcally or logically sound arguments from you for the fact that it's a slam dunk that basal R1b itself originated on the steppe. What I'm getting is incivility, straw man arguments, repetition, and the parroting that the finding of this particular R1b lineage on the steppe is proof positive that basal R1b arose on the steppe. Nor have you proposed an argument for how the trajectory of the older V88 lineage fits into such an origin, or how the Iberian Neolithic R1b would have gotten from the steppe to Iberia.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Again cheap attacks without actual evidences. Again more than 75% of all the questions/arguments of the opposite side ignored simply because not being capable to answer them. Angela brought some points he totally ignored, My arguments totally ignored. Not capable of understanding the basic logic behind the words it doesn't matter from which timeframe the sample stems because it is downstream and not basal.

Duwa logic explained just in a few sentences.

Since Haplogroup G2a2 was found in ancient samples across neolithic Europe and we know "Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data "our conclusion should be that G2a as a whole originated in Europe...

Now replace G2a2 with R1b1a, Europe with the Pontic Steppes and G2a with R1b.

There you have a perfect description of the Duwa logic.

Again, a brilliant case of projective identification from your part. You're just highlighting my initial point quite frankly, namely that you have no idea what you're talking about. You fail to take the simplest facts into account while managing to produce self-defeating claims.

But that's not what troubles me the most... Oh no, what really worries me is that you don't even understand what I'm saying. This is quite obvious judging from what you think is "Duwa logic". Indeed, you'd have a point if G2a showed up in a Mesolithic context, but unfortunately for you that's not the case. G2a makes its first appearance in a purely Neolithic context. The rest is common sense, which is something you abundantly lack.

Using your idiosyncratic approach (putting your misinterpretation of what I am saying aside) I could easily conclude that I2 isn't native to Europe... I mean, who cares whether I2 is found in a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Neolithic record in Europe? That's how self-defeating your contention is.

Needless to say, you will be disappointed when we get more archeogenetic data. Wouldn't like to be in your shoes right now, that's for sure.

As I said I am not going to waste more energy on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Must I conclude I "deserve it"? I mean, you're still wasting your "energy" on me, so I must obviously be special to you.

:grin: and J2 has it's origin in Hungary.

And R1b has its origin in West Asia, and migrated to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe through the Caucasus... Just like PIE! Let's all forget about the archeogenetic evidence and rely solely on contemporary data, who cares about ancient DNA anyway?

^^See? I can do it as well.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

We deal in genetics and archaeology here, and try to determine what conclusions can be logically drawn from that evidence. Nobody has a crystal ball, however. Even the experts can differ, much less informed but hobbyist level posters. Have a little respect for other people's points of view, especially when the discussion is about issues where the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus, or there are going to be consequences. I'd also point out that what usually happens here is that people don't engage with polemicists.

Also, I've warned you before about setting up straw man arguments and misrepresenting what people say. It would be nice if you spent one tenth of the time reading and thinking about the words I post as I spend choosing them. Where precisely did I say that this R1b hunter's presence on the steppe tells us nothing about R1b's origins? Do you usually get away with this kind of debate tactic? It's just that it doesn't tell us everything about its origins. Can you follow the logic of that? Terms matter, definitions matter, logic matters...that's how we get clarity and judge other people's arguments. I'm not interested in somebody, anybody, trying to force data into a certain pre-determined theory.

As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?

As I said, I'm still an agnostic as to the precise area of "origin" of R1b, and so was ready to be persuaded, but I'm not getting any scientifcally or logically sound arguments from you for the fact that it's a slam dunk that basal R1b itself originated on the steppe. What I'm getting is incivility, straw man arguments, repetition, and the parroting that the finding of this particular R1b lineage on the steppe is proof positive that basal R1b arose on the steppe. Nor have you proposed an argument for how the trajectory of the older V88 lineage fits into such an origin, or how the Iberian Neolithic R1b would have gotten from the steppe to Iberia.

That's an interesting way of avoiding the question I asked you. Unless you're ready to answer it without coming up with irrelevant processes, or even downright incorrect assumptions, I'll just conclude you haven't read the Haak et al. study (especially the parts addressing the EHG cluster and how it relates to ANE).

Oh, and if you're looking for straw man arguments and misrepresentation, I suggest you have a good look at what Alan and Sile just wrote (does "Duwa logic" ring a bell?).

 

[Alan]

As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?

Exactly, just within ten generations a component can be washed out to as low as 0.05% if there is no up following admixture. If we take ~25 years per generation thats roughly 250 years. Exctly with the same reasoning we could argue that "because Assyrians lack North European ancestry despite high frequency of R1b, it couldn't be that this Haplogroup originated outside of the Near East". Thats the conclusion if we use the same logic. He also seems to not understand that "Near Eastern " should not be used in the same sentence as EHG, because these are two components of completely different timeframes. "Near Easterners" by 5000 BC most likely had already allot of ANE type ancestry themselves. Who says that ANE couldn't have originated somewhere between South_Central Asia and Iran? This region is at least closer to the supposed homeland of P*, N* and O*. Who says that WHG didn't existed in Western Asia already (since it is prominent in all Levantines, heck even Arabians)?

Ask him why the Neolithic Iberian sample, which at the same time belongs to a lineage closer to the root, is typically EEF. By the way the Samara H&G did have some ~7% Proto Gedrosia type ancestry.

 

[Angela]

That's an interesting way of avoiding the question I asked you. Unless you're ready to answer it without coming up with irrelevant processes, or even downright incorrect assumptions, I'll just conclude you haven't read the Haak et al. study (especially the parts addressing the EHG cluster and how it relates to ANE).

Oh, and if you're looking for straw man arguments and misrepresentation, I suggest you have a good look at what Alan and Sile just wrote (does "Duwa logic" ring a bell?).

How on earth did I not answer your question?

Question:

Semitic Duwa: how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.

Answer: Maybe it arose in Siberia. Or maybe it came from Central Asia, and if it contained any "Near Eastern" genetic material at that point, it might have washed out in as little as 250 years after the arrival of R1b on the steppe. That's what the following means. Are you reading other people's responses?

Angela: why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you?

You were also asked some questions. I'll repeat them, and I honestly want to know if you have an explanation, because, as I said, I don't think that the issue is at all settled. If R1b originated in the steppe around Samara, how do you explain the Neolithic R1b in Iberia, and how do you explain the trajectory of V88?

Also, is it your position that "R" arose in Siberia and moved directly to the steppe? Do you not think that it's possible that because of the LGM it moved south toward Central Asia/Iran and re-expanded from there?

Ed. Another cross post, I see. I can't keep up.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Answer: Maybe it arose in Siberia. Or maybe it came from Central Asia, and if it contained any "Near Eastern" genetic material at that point, it might have washed out in as little as 250 years after the arrival of R1b on the steppe. That's what the following means. Are you reading other people's responses?

The thing is, EHG inscribes itself within a continuum along with WHG and ANE, some argue it can be modeled as WHG + ANE. At this point, this strongly suggests R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe and that Eastern Europe was a bifurcation hotspot for R1. Phylogenetically, that's the only model which makes sense considering the EHG cluster.
Unless we find some sort of EHG population in the Zagros/Transcaucasus, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Either way, we are way OT, I came here to discuss J1, not R1b so that's exactly what I'm going to do:

Recently, I've noticed that the Gulf seems to harbour quite a lot of J1 diversity. This could be due to sampling bias in the Gulf... However, if the diversity is "real" then the Gulf Oasis hypothesis could bridge some of the gaps regarding J1's origin (and J2's for that matter) since an Early Holocene expansion from a population reservoir in the now-inundated Gulf would provide a smooth model for J1's expansion.

 

[GeoFan]

I am finding it interesting how much discussion has ensued from J1-and-Northern-Italy-(Tuscany) with over 150 posts now.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

I am finding it interesting how much discussion has ensued from J1-and-Northern-Italy-(Tuscany) with over 150 posts now.

If I were you, I'd test with FTDNA and order the J1-M267 SNP panel once your results are in (after joining the J1 FTDNA project), that would enable you to find which subclade you belong to.

 

[GeoFan]

Exactly, just within ten generations a component can be washed out to as low as 0.05% if there is no up following admixture...

IS that true of Y-DNA which is directly inherited via the paternal line?

 

[GeoFan]

If I were you, I'd test with FTDNA and order the J1-M267 SNP panel once your results are in (after joining the J1 FTDNA project), that would enable you to find which subclade you belong to.

Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. I have been spending all my spare time following up with 23andMe info for a few months and I have a lot more to learn.

 

[Regio X]

Etruscan origins study reveals migration from Armenian Highlands

You have absolutely no way of knowing that given the current level of verifiable data either archaeological or genetic. We just don't know yet. Vallicanus' statement about J1 being all African and Syrian is even worse, because we know it is in fact not the case.

No one who approaches these matters objectively with any kind of scientific or historical rigor is at all persuaded by these kinds of statements.

Look this: peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

 

[GeoFan]

http://peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

Very interesting, mtDNA study... relates to the Tuscan Y-DNA J1 (J-M267) question that began this whole thread!

Etruscan origins study reveals migration from Armenian Highlands

http://www.peopleofar.com/2014/09/2...dy-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

. . .

Interesting because the slopes of the Caucasus currently shows the highest frequencies of (Y-DNA) J1 yet measured!

(Balanovsky 2011)

"The small isolated population of the Kubachi, in which haplogroup J1*-M267(xP58) became virtually fixed (99%, Table 2)"

The current village of Kubachi (42°06'N 47°36'E) is about 100 km Northeast of Armenia.


Maybe just my own bias, but this does seem to show another wisp of evidence for an Etruscan-Tuscan J1 (J-M267) connection?

 

[Angela]

Look this: peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

There is an entire thread devoted to that paper...with 94 posts. See the following:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...tus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=456263#post456263

It is also discussed in this thread. It might help to read it from the beginning.

I don't know what more can be said...