GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1222293106


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:51:46 +0000


>From David Faux
>Ok, it would appear that Anatole cannot answer my one simple question in
relation to Valcamonica.

My response:

Well, why? I can. However, I would not like to shoot out all my ammo in one day.

But if you insist...

Here is a haplotype tree of R1b1b1 haplotype that Vince referred to yesterday (?). This is the 37-marker tree

http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=r1b1b137sb9.jpg

and this is the 25-marker tree

http://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=r1b1b125nc5.jpg

You see separate but distinct branches of R1b1b1. As I have noticed it here earlier, they along with the European R1b1b2 have a common ancestor of 16,000 years "old". However, what we see on the above trees/branches and in Europe - only young cut-offs, in Europe no more than 4200-4600 year old, in Asia no more than 1300-2600 years old. However, as I have said, their base haplotypes differ tremendously.

All it means that the "links" between these cut-offs had vanished. They had vanished in Asia, they had vanished in Europe. Some of their descendants, though, survived, and that is what we see as those cut-offs.

Archaeologists see their remnants, of those vanished R1b's, but DNA genealogy does not. Well, it does, but only as those cut-offs. Young and fresh. Hence, the AMH, fresh as it could be.

This observation should make peace between us and archaeologists. We see different things, under different angles. However, we complement each other.

Why they had vanished is still a mystery. Diseases? Black plague? A cosmic cataclysm (in fact, Velikovsky had written much about it at, related to 3500-4500 BP, and he was writing on vanishing whole populations in Europe). Maybe we need to revisit his writings... Without prejudice, in light of our newly acquired knowledge.

Would it suit you?

Anatole Klyosov


This thread: