GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220812071


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT)


Anatole:

It is a disappointment that, in studying Ashkenazi samples, you don't keep the problem in mind that the TMRCA of group or clade among a particular population being examined isn't necessarily the same time that the haplogroup or clade entered the region or population. You seem to have a good grasp of that idea with Swedish J and G and Icelandic R1a1, but not such a good grasp of that same idea with Ashkenazi R1b, Q, etc.

But I've raised this problem with you before. It led to a less than productive discussion with you. However, for those interested or who missed Anatole's & the list discussion of his paper on Ashkenazi DNA results (which Anatole wrongly insists on referring to a "Jewish" DNA, though his samples are almost exclusively Ashkenazi), I'd suggest searching the archives over the last few months.

Ellen Coffman



--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Anatole Klyosov <> wrote:

> From: Anatole Klyosov <>
>
>
> Yes, indeed, a common ancestor of R1a1 haplotypes in USA
> 5,000 years ago does not mean that the common ancestor lived
> there that time back. Even in chemistry or geology, if one
> finds some volcanic ash in North America, it does not
> necessarily mean that it came from a volcano in North
> America. It might be Krakatoa or something. That is, you
> place your findings to a certain context, and THINK over it.
>
> One more example. As far as I remember (I might be wrong),
> Iceland was populated in the 900th AD. R1a1 from Iceland
> showed the same common ancestor of 4500 years BP. It is
> normal, and it is easy to understand. Then, haplotypes of
> haplogroup G in Sweden have a common ancestor back to 5000
> years BP. I would seriously doubt that a common ancestor of
> G lived in Sweden that long ago. Furthermore, if to look at
> a fraction of those haplotypes in Sweden, we will see that
> there were only 7 of them among total 383, that is 1.8%. By
> itself it is not a killing argument, however, when we put a
> number of reasons together, we (at least myself) come to a
> conclusion that it is a later "admixture". You
> see, you have to THINK, and this is good. One more example,
> haplotypes J in Sweden. 7300 years to a common ancestor.
> What do you think? 11 haplotypes out of 383 tested in that
> particular haplotype set (Karlsson et al, 2006).
>
> However, as I have said, 4000-5000 years back for common
> ancestors for R1a1 all over Europe along with a proper
> context (I think) point at arrivals. If you have opposite
> data, or data supporting your opposite interpretation, it
> would be useful to see them. Just to say - I do not believe,
> it is too easy and not appropriate in a scientific
> discussion.
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message






This thread: