GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211402802


From: Alan R <>
Subject: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:46:42 +0000 (GMT)


Sorry, in my last post I meant most R1b1c* turned out to be S116+ not -ve.

So maybe up to 30% of R1b1c* is S116-ve? It will be interesting once we can see a geographical distribution. Anyone know what the ancestral origins are of these folk who tested? There was a flurry of posting then no more on this issue. Has a MRCA for R1b1c* S116 -ve folk been calculated. That would be interesting to see as they could be a remanant of the R1b population before the explosion that sent certain R1b lineages into huge demographic ascendancy. Their distribution may also be a clue as to the extent of R1b prior to these lineages. Until we see a distribution it is hard to tell if R1b was a relatively late comer or had been around for a long time in some form in western Europe. Is there a MRCA date using Ken's system comparing 'eastern' R1b1c with any/all of the western? I think someone may have posted this before but I cant find it.

Am I right in assuming that the finding that the various western R1b clades all splits off in quick succession would still apply even if its only correct in relative terms but badly out in absolute dating terms? If so, this surely means an end to the separate S21 refugia theory?. If the dating is wildly out but the fact of rapid quickfire splitting is sound, this observation is still a breakthrough in itself.

I like Mr Faux still find it very hard to reconcile the late dating with our normal understanding of demographic turning points in European prehistory derived from archaeological and environmental data. The mid-late Bronze Age just doesn't have the obvious attractions of hunter gather expansion into empty lands after the LGM or Younger Dryas or the intitial arrival of farming. I am not denying that important processes might remain archaeologically invisible as several have suggested but I am duty bound to point out that the late dating is very very counter-intuitive from an archaeological point of view.

Alan

This thread: