GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-01 > 1232113019


From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] More L21 results
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:36:59 +0000 (GMT)


Tim
 
Appreciate your efforts again. The problem is this is so counter-intuitive and against everything in the archaeological records etc that I cant help but feel the results put more doubts on the theory behind it (or perhaps the sample) than anything else. 
 
Could it be that while Ireland remained split into loads of small tribes that in Gaul and west-central Europe things were much more centralised and a single L21 dynasty and its collateral branches dominating a large area (and its resources) could have slowly squeezed out other lesser local L21 folk over a wide area, making their L21 look less diverse.  That is very much how it seems to have worked within all Celtic tribal areas - squeezing out of the bottom by expansion from the top. 
 
This proposed contrast in territorial area certainly fits what archaeology suggests went on in the Celtic continental world and Ireland in the Iron Age with much larger tribes and more centralisation of power among the Gauls than Ireland.  Meanwhile Ireland remained split into many many small tribes with many separate dynasties ruling them which may have kept diversity up compared to the larger more centralised continental territories. In other word whereas the descendants of a few L21 nobles could be spread over a wide area on the continent due to the greater size of the tribes, Ireland had many petty kings and kingdoms covering a similar of area of land as one continental kingdom/tribe and each of these petty kings would each produce descendants.  Could this sort of phenomenon be a major problem for this method?  
 
An Irish/Scottish origin c. 1500BC with a spread to the continent by c. the last couple of centuries BC couldn't be more counter intuitive.  Ireland was a real backwater for centuries after 600BC, probably had an unusually low population in this period   That scenario involves either Ireland or Scotland having some guy with a mutation and then his descendants somehow going on to not only replace nearly all of his own countries population but also most of that of the country next door, not to mention the western/central Britons to the south and provide large chunks of the French and a significant amounts of the west Germany population, all of this not starting until the later Bronze Age!!!!!!  That sounds insanely improbable. 
 
I could accept the possibility of Bronze Age Irish merchants (probably dealing with metal -possibly as ealry as beaker times) leaving pockets or a thin scatter of descendants due to trading posts or the like. Ireland had a special place in copper and bronze age metal trade.  However, If the very considerable French and German proportions of L21 hold up then that clearly cannot be the case.  In a nutshell that is the problem, sheer numbers.
 
Another problem are the L21 and other S116 dates.  They seem too late for population-replacing movements even if we stick to the traditional idea of movement towards, not from, the British Isles.  They especially seem too late when it is considered that near total population replacement is involved.  No major population movements or really strong grass roots cultural changes (influences on metalwork and trade aside) link the west-central Europe area with the British Isles (which remain rather insular) in the period between 1500BC and 500BC (300BC in the case of Ireland).  Certainly nothing that could possibly involve rapid population replacement. 
 
I am not saying that archaeology should take precedence over DNA but in terms of a mismatch, the story of L21 implied by these dates is off the scale.
 
Alan
 Dear All,
I just took another look at the L21 positive data at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21 and at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c. I segregated the
results from these projects into multiple subgroups and made TMRCA
estimates. The following are the results using Ken Nordtvedt's method after
removing the multi-copy markers using my TMRCA variance calculator:

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (Ireland) 3312 36 37
R1b-L21+ (Ireland) 3549 29 67

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (Scotland) 3388 11 67

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (Ireland & Scot.) 3575 40 67

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (England and Wales) 3275 23 37
R1b-L21+ (England and Wales) 3059 19 67


Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (western Europe) 2740 9 37
R1b-L21+ (western Europe) 2196 5 67

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (Scandinavia) 1491 4 67

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (Eastern Europe) 1894 2 37

Project KN -M # of haplotypes # of markers
R1b-L21+ (w. and e. Europe and Scandinavia) 2781 15 37
R1b-L21+ (w. and e. Europe and Scandinavia) 2150 10 67


We now have almost twice as many L21+ haplotypes as we did when I
ran similar calculations a month ago and the results continue to suggest
that L21 originated in the British Isles, probably in Ireland or Scotland.
We simply aren't seeing as much haplotype diversity on the continent of
Europe or in Scandinavia as we would expect to find if L21 had originated
somewhere in western Europe. It will be interesting to see how things
unfold as we get even more data.
Sincerely,
Tim Janzen

This thread: