GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-07 > 1246974092


From: "Richard Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b Origins (was OurEuropeangeographicalblock. . .)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:41:32 -0400
References: <332277.15104.qm@web81108.mail.mud.yahoo.com><E62EF137391F4C8882F549EF1E9B7963@RichardNW>
In-Reply-To: <E62EF137391F4C8882F549EF1E9B7963@RichardNW>


Does anyone recall this report -
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/abs/5201769a.html ? It was
co-authored by a number of "the best geneticists of our time" (to use Gary's
words), yet it contains a fundamental historical flaw caused by the
unwarranted assumption (current at the time the report was written) that R1b
is "Paleolithic" in Europe. The authors found R1b (or R1b1b2) on the Lasithi
Plateau on the island of Crete, while the coastal towns were mostly J (J2,
as I recall). They concluded the R1b there had been on the island since the
Old Stone Age and even entitled their paper, "Paleolithic Y-haplogroup
heritage predominates in a Cretan highland plateau."

As it turns out, a little checking of Cretan history revealed that the
Venetians controlled the island during the 13th and 14th centuries. When the
Lasithi Plateau highlanders proved rebellious and recalcitrant, the
Venetians ran them off the plateau, demolished their villages, and forbade
them to return on penalty of death. The Venetians repopulated the Lasithi
Plateau with their own people and with Greeks from the mainland. So the
highlanders studied by the authors of that report were the descendants of
medieval imports and not some sort of "Paleolithic remnant" at all.

I'm not trying to be overly critical of the authors of that report. They are
indeed among "the best geneticists of our time", and they know worlds more
about genetics - and biology in general - than I do. But if a paper begins
from the premise that M269 is a "Paleolithic mutation", unless that paper
offers some sort of proof that M269 is in fact a "Paleolithic mutation",
then it is pretty obvious the authors are making the ASSUMPTION that it is a
Paleolithic mutation. That's not a bias in the perjorative sense of that
word. It is an assumption. I believe recent developments, cited here by a
number of people, have proved it to be an incorrect assumption.

Rich

This thread: