GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220835213


From: "R. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:53:33 -0400
References: <455721.65945.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com><BEB40FDA-BF13-4923-91AB-14A4427695CF@vizachero.com><ea3bd9560809071725m7508cbe4o65dc27c397210143@mail.gmail.com>


The problem with the whole old "bottleneck" argument that is used to explain
that R1b1b2 only "looks" young, is that it destroys the very reason to
believe R1b1b2 is Paleolithic in Western Europe in the first place. It
destroys the "first-comers" argument, the idea that Western Europe was a
"blank slate" immediately after the last Ice Age, that R1b1b2 got the first
shot at signing its name all over it, and that is why there is so much
R1b1b2 in Western Europe today.

If R1b1b2 (M269) suffered a set of such horrible setbacks that it only
"appears" to be around 7,000-8,000 years old, then those same setbacks would
have completely wiped out any supposed advantages R1b1b2 might have
possessed up to that point by having emerged first from the alleged Iberian
Refuge. After suffering those setbacks, R1b1b2 would have been on the same
or even a lesser footing as any other y haplogroup in or entering Europe at
that time.

Thus, R1b1b2's apparent reproductive success in Europe has been achieved in
the last 7,000-8,000 years, however one slices it, and the whole basis for
arguing that it spent the LGM in Iberia is illusory.

Rich


This thread: