GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221522202


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:43:22 -0700
References: <mailman.2470.1221503749.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000a01c91786$372507c0$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><004d01c9178a$52481070$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <004d01c9178a$52481070$6400a8c0@Ken1>


The message that I seem to have difficutly in conveying is that my interest
lies not so much when say U152 became very "bushy", that would likely tie in
with the documented (by Classical authors) expansion due to overpopulation
in Eastern Gaul between 600 and 400 BC.

However, there is no reason at all to suppose that the origin of the SNP was
any time close to its "bushiest aspect". As Ken said, the first occurence
of the SNP could have been thousands of years prior to the node and a
function of a few straggling lineages who survived the Mesolithic to appear
"youngish" not because the SNP is recent, but simply because the major
expansions occured in relatively recent times.

It is entirely possible that Tim and Ken and Anatole and Vince are correct
in pinning down the times of major expansions, but Bob may have been able to
best answer my question - when did the first U152 male appear on earth. Of
course my second question is where did this event happen. The latter will
pose some problems, but is not insurmountable and logical hypotheses will
either be confirmed or unsupported via ancient DNA.

Unfortunately many people are looking only at these dates and positing some
sort of migration in Bronze Age times from the Black Sea to almost
completely replace the lineages already present in western Europe. That
scenario is almost impossible to defend looking at the archaeological record
and the fact that every corner of Europe was "full" by this time, of course
with a few regions experiencing drops and others increases. This ebb and
flow is expected, but a virtual complete population replacement with the
many clades of R-P312* (e.g., R-U152 which now has two subgroups the
ancestral L2- and the derived L2+) appearing and expanding in what would
have to be record quick time within a heavily populated continent - heavily
populated with who? All of the evidence suggests R-P312 because it has been
in Iberia since its inception, emerging from a M-269 Y chromsome in
Paleolithic times, and that from Iberia, France and Italy the various
subgroups radiated to the east until they ran into the wall of R1a1 and
others in Mesolithic - Neolithic times.

That is my take on things to 15 September.

David K. Faux.


On 9/15/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
>
> we talk about "age of a haplogroup", meaning - again - "of folks living
> today".
>
> [[[[[ "age of a haplogroup" maybe should be best retired from usage. It
> sounds like one is putting an age on an SNP occurrence --- a process which
> has serious problems.
>
> 1. Most haplogroups will have multiple SNPs equivalently tagging them.
> Which SNP occurrence would have preference for establishing age?
>
> 2. Age of SNP occurrence can not be done short of digging up most of the
> ancient bones. SNPs can be bracketed in their age by estimating age of an
> earlier node as well as estimating age of a node occuring more recently.
> "node" refers to the tree of descent leading to those alive today; that
> tree
> could only be filled out in greater detail (with more dense nodes) by those
> ancient bones being available for measurement. Most males who were at one
> time members of a haplogroup have had their lines go extinct, so we today
> have nothing to measure about their past existence.
>
> What we can estimate is the age back to the MRCA for a haplogroup. Maybe
> that's what was meant by "age of haplogroup"?
> This age will be more recent than the occurrence of the SNP(s) for the
> haplogroup by some number of generations --- from 1 up to hundreds. I1 is
> a
> good example: the MRCA for I1 has an ancestral branch line of about 600
> generations over which there are already 15 SNPs equivalently tagging the
> haplogroup but located at completely unknown positions in that 600
> generation branch line.
>
> Ken ]]]]]
>
>

This thread: