GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-07 > 1216954630


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: [DNA] Dating of R-M269 and Subclades
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:57:10 -0700


List:

On the http://www.dna-forums.org site two individuals, Vinviz and Navigator
have set themselves up as "experts" and asserted that R-M269 is Neolithic,
and R-U152 as well as U-152 are less than 4000 years (Bronze Age) - somehow
defying the fact that nothing in the archaeological record supports
population replacement in Western Europe at this time. The claim is that
all of the authors such as Wells, Semino, Underhill, Cinnioglu and other
population geneticists are sadly misguided in believing that R-M269 is
Paleolithic, waiting out the LGM in either the Franco-Cantabria or
Balkan-Anatolian Refugia (this is what is found in all books and articles on
the subject at least to this point in time). While Karafet et al. (2008)
did propose, indirectly, a somewhat earlier date for the TMRCA of R-M269,
they changed the date by 12,000 years (from 30,000 to 18,000) between the
first presentation of the results last November (2007) and the publication
of the paper (April 2008). In addition they never actually noted R-M269,
only R1 and discussed the use of their new SNP methodology in dating (this
being a novel approach it has yet to stand the test of time and further
analyses).

I inquired of an individual who is a population geneticist with a
publication list as long as my arm what they thought of the 4000 year old
date for U152 and U106 and the reply was that as far as they knew not a
single population geneticist anywhere would give this any credence. Ok,
then we have two admittedly astute hobbyists set against what appears to be
the entire field of population genetics. This is not by any means to say
that Vinviz and Navigator are wrong, just that they have an uphill battle to
convince anyone outside the protected realm of genetic genealogy of the
correctness of their views. Unfortunately what I have seen is a cadre of
individuals who, although admitting that they don't understand the
methodology, say that they "trust" Vinviz and Navigator (but somehow not the
list of people who are acutally professionally trained in this area of
study). When anyone tries to bring up facts, such as the study of Contu et
al. (2008) of the haplotypes of M269 Sardinians which found a TMRCA of
28,000 years for their sample, then both the messenger and the article are
roundly attacked by enthusiasts on the Forum.

One of the key points in their argument is that the diversity of the Eastern
(probably p49 Taq Ht 35 most common in Anatolia) is greater than that of
Western (probably Ht 15) R-M269. This has now become a mantra. It has
become an urban legend - such as the need to drink 8 glasses of water a day
(no one knows the origin of this myth). No one dares question this "because
it is true". Well if so where is the evidence? Apparently in the Cinnioglu
et al. (2004) paper studying the haplotypes of Turkish males from across the
country - although oddly Cinnioglu proposes both an Iberian and an Anatolian
refugium for R-M269 during the LGM. I decided to look more closely at the
data. What is apparent is that Cinnioglu has a sample that covers all of
Turkey. His relatively small sample of Iberia could all be from a single
region - it is unknown as far as I can tell. The Anatolian haplotypes are
available with the article and even a cursory inspection of the R-M269 group
does indeed appear to reflect high diversity. However when looking at the
Contu et al. paper, which includes the Sardinian R-M269 haplotypes, there
appears to be even greater diversity than what is seen in Cinnioglu's
Turkish sample. Contu et al. include a number of supplementary tables, and
I have not explored them all, but what is needed is a comparison of the
diversity of each sample. What if the Sardinians were more diverse than the
Turks - what would that say about the origins of R-M269. What may be even
more compelling is that the only Sardinian who has been tested for the
R-M269 subclades was R-U152, which is downstream of R-S116 (the "clild" of
R-M269 responsible also for R-M222, R-M154, R-M167 and so on). is it is
possible that R-U152 is older than the supposed sample of the descendants of
the earliest group of R-M269? If someone is willing to undertake this
challenge it could be informative.

The point is that the new observations could be right on the money. However
at present those who challenge the "new order" are accused of defering to
authority, when really the accusers are just defering to a new authority,
but one which has not revealed their credentials nor published their results
via any sort of peer-reviewed article. Thus until the latter occurs I
suggest that we accept the status quo (R-M269 is Paleolithic) and get one
with other things until the "establishment" finds reason to amend their
views (and what is in every article, book and website addressing the
subject). According to one of the "experts" PLOS Genetics (the journal in
which the Contu et al. paper was published) is low on the prestige scale of
things so I suggest that they attempt to get their work accepted by the
American Journal of Human Genetics or other prestigious journal. By the way
I looked at who had given input to the Contu et al. paper. One was Chris
Tyler-Smith. As far as I know the latter is on everyone's "A list" of
population geneticists.

I will admit my biases here. Mathematical formulae require a large set of
assumptions (e.g., generation time) and are faced with unknowns (e.g.,
bottlenecks) and the output can be criticized no matter what figures jump
out of the hopper (viz. the "infamous" 3 times "fudge" factor that some
assert for the Zhiv., Underhill and Feldman (2006) study). I am far too
concrete to accept anything except securely dated ancient DNA samples tested
with or via dendochronology, Carbon 14, potassium argon or newer dating
techniques, with stratigraphy that is unquestionable (such as the Bronze Age
samples found in the Litchenstein Cave where Y-STR data as well as
artifacts were recovered). The recent paper on mtDNA from a Cro-Magnon
sample from Southern Italy (which turned out to be haplogroup H, CRS, the
most common haplotype in Western Europe even to this day) gives hope that
Y-DNA STR and SNP date will soon be available.

I realize that I may be in for a barrage of criticism from those who espouse
"the new order" but so be it - just as long as the criticism is specific and
presented in a respectful way. Perhaps the subject has been "overplayed"
and should be left to slowly die away.

Anyway 3 CDs relating to the Celts just arrived at my door, and I want to
fire them up on my new laptop (I fried the motherboard of the one I took to
Europe), so with best wishes,


David K. Faux.

This thread: