GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220884720


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:38:40 -0400
References: <455721.65945.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com><BEB40FDA-BF13-4923-91AB-14A4427695CF@vizachero.com><ea3bd9560809071725m7508cbe4o65dc27c397210143@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560809071725m7508cbe4o65dc27c397210143@mail.gmail.com>


Chaix et al. explicitly point out that their study that the "absolute
age of the expansions cannot be ascertained with precision . . . .".
As the paper's conclusion makes clear, Chaix et al. are not prepared
to distinguish between Paleolithic and Neolithic scenarios.

With regard to the Y-chromosome, though, the paper found that "the
simulations results reject the hypothesis of independent expansion
events in western Eurasia and support a westward diffusion of
expansion through migrations from Central Asia to Europe (either
recurrent gene flows or massive and sudden move of people)."

In other words, rejected is the notion that Y-STR diversity in Europe
is the product of independent expansion events (e.g. one from Franco-
Cantabria and another from the Balkans). Rather, the data are
consistent with a primarily westward flow of people from Central Asia.

The study only used 7 STRs and 10 European populations - no SNPs at
all!! - so there is room for improvement. But to the extent it says
anything about the topic of this thread (i.e. the origins and age of
R1b in Europe), Chaix et al. is anything BUT supportive of the
Paleolithic Franco-Cantabrian refugium scenario advanced by Semino
and others.

VV



On Sep 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, David Faux wrote:

> I think that we can all now kiss the R-M269 is Bronze Age or Neolithic
> hypothesis goodbye.
>
> The latest hot off the presses study by Chaix et al.
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117928986/abstract
>
> is very very clear in pointing to a single explanation for the
> spread we see
> today of R1b in western Europe, it occured in the Paleolithic
> (Aurignacian
> culture). This is not only the best fit to their data based on
> extensive
> computer modeling and analyses of germ line and phylogentic
> mutation rates,
> but really the only one. No matter how population geneticists
> slice the
> data, using mtDNA or YDNA, it still comes out the same. The
> population of
> Europe today was largely established in the Paleolithc. All of these
> successive studies using varied technology by population
> geneticists and
> members of allied disciplines simply cannot be entirely wrong.

This thread: