GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211480964


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:29:24 -0700
References: <769063.31538.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <769063.31538.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>


I believe that the finding of S28 being older than S21 is an artifact
reflecting a skewing of the data. At a time in the not too distant past
there was a massive Ui Neill or Genghis - like effect which created the
extremely large "Frisian type" of S21. Hence by including these in with the
rest of the haplogroup it artificially lowers the age and gives the illusion
of being more youthful than it really is. S21 sits on a S116 negative
plafform along with R1b1c* "Eastern type". S28 sits atop S116 positive so
the probability that it is older than S21 makes very little sense to me.
Clearly a reasonable assumption that S116 and S21 occured about about the
same time. However here we are being asked to accept an unusual assertion
that despite being downstream of the juncture of S21 and S116, that S28 is
older than S21 - not in my world, not without evidence beyond unrooted
numerical calculations.

David K. Faux.


On 5/22/08, Alan R <> wrote:
>
> I am ignoring the actual suggested dating and concentrating on the
> implications of the new suggested relative seniority of R1b clades. For
> almost all archaeological attested scenarios I can think of, the idea that a
> predominantly west-central R1b clade is older than a predominantly northern
> one makes far more sense. So I am relieved to hear that S28 may be older
> than S21. It required a lot of special pleading to explain the scenario
> that the reverse was the case as was commonly previously thought. Whatever
> disagreement there is about the the absolute period (and I am hugely
> sceptical of the actual dates suggested), knowing the relative seniority of
> one clade over another is still a very helpful step. The priority of
> west-central Europe over the north is an archaeological fact:
>
> 1. During the post LGM expansion.
> 2. During the spread of Neolithic culture/economy/people
> 3, More hazily the west-central area was a womb of ideas and progress
> throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages compared to the rather insular
> north. Its much less clear what (if hardly any) gene flow followed these
> influences.
>
> I cant think of any reverse cases of major north-south cultural flow until
> the end of the Roman empire. The proto-Germanic areas were very much
> isolated and far behind the Celts technologically and in terms of social
> complexity from the ealry Bronze Age until the Roman period when they
> started to get the military upper hand,
>
> If an archaeological phase is to be tied to this demographic event (the
> sudden burst of several prolific lineages) then I think it is critical to
> work out the sequencing of the break off of the far western clades too. Are
> they older or younger than S28? In some ways it is no surprised that a
> northern clade is younger than a west-central ones. However that leaves me
> wondering what the relative seniority between west-central S28 and the
> western/Atlantic clades are. That might tell us the direction of the spread
> and indeed suggest the original location of the MRCA of all the western
> R1b. Nothing would surprise me now after the revelations of recent weeks.
>
> Alan
>
>
>

This thread: