GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-01 > 1264358528
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Predominantly Neolithic OriginforEuropeanPaternalLineages
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:42:08 -0700
One will just have to judge the evidence at hand for oneself --- while
seeking more evidence.
The two fundamental and initial nodes in the I tree happened before the LGM
(20,000 years ago). the branch lines coming out of these nodes lead to I1,
I2a...., and I2/I2b....
These three divisions of I are all overwhelmingly European haplogroups,
with only one of three clades of I2* being a possible exception.
Then the next two nodes in the I tree separated I2a.... into the branch
lines leading to I2a*/I2a2, I2a1, and I2a3 --- all European haplogroups.
These two nodes arguably also took place before the LGM (just 2 or 3
thousand years after the first two nodes), depending on when one has the LGM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
To: "Alan R" <>; <>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Predominantly Neolithic Origin
> If haplogroup I was at some time "confined to a number of separate
> (from which it later expanded) , then its location before the time in
> "refugia" is UNKNOWABLE.
> Then why are you assuming it was "spread across Europe" before refugia,
> isn't it a kind of magical thinking, like "of course in Europe, where else
> could they be!".
> Actually, present day DNA data contain no information about pre-refugia
> localization of Haplogroup A.
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Alan R <> wrote:
>> I do not really understand why haplogroup I had a very different early
>> population history from R1b if both were in the European refugia. They
>> surely would have shared the same problems if that was the case. In
>> fact, I
>> think the contrasting early history/branching shows that they were not
>> located in the same environments. To me, haplogroup I has the right
>> hallmarks of a lineage that spread across Europe in pre-glacial times and
>> was then confined to a number of separate refugia for a very long period.
>> R1b does not seem to have that kind of early population history. It
>> like it was located in one place for a long time before something allowed
>> dramatic sudden population explosion and migration westwards. Given the
>> forms of R1b, that place has to have been in SW Asia/Anatolia.
>> the stand out event for a major demographic expansion out of SW Asia in
>> European prehistory is the spread of farming. There are other
>> I personally do not see similar very clear-cut non-debatable dramatic
>> evidence for a demographic wave from that area at any other point
>> in European prehistory.
>> From: Gary Felix <>
>> To: Alan R <>;
>> Sent: Saturday, 23 January, 2010 21:26:49
>> Subject: Re: [DNA] A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for
>> Alan said:
>> One thing I think is irrefutable is that the similarity of Iberian R1b1b2
>> (mainly S116)and other SE European forms is far too great for the sort of
>> gap required to interpret S116 as having parted with the Asia Minor
>> and arrived in Iberia pre-ice age times.
>> My response:
>> we are dealing with a very small population size. Estimates are a few
>> thousand at best during the time these populations were isolated in
>> (roughly 10K years). Would you expect the same variance in the Y as you
>> would have in a farming population of the Neolithic?
>> Alan said:
>> Laying aside the suggested dating and concentrating on
>> relative/proportional size of variance, if S116 is 20,000 years old then
>> can that possibly tally with the interclade variance of haplogroup I
>> being calculated as something like six times as great than S116 by most
>> people posting here. If S116 was 20,000 years old then that factor of
>> would make haplogroup I something like 120,000 years
>> old, clearly impossible and about 3 times older than the history of man
>> Europe! If on the other hand R1b1b2 is 8000 years old (early Neolithic)
>> origin then if haplogroup I is c. six times older that makes it c. 48,000
>> years old which is a lot closer to plausible than treating S116 as 20,000
>> years old.
>> My response:
>> you are comparing two different population histories: If you look at the
>> haplogroup tree you will see a very significant amount of redundant snips
>> haplogroup I. These expansions show variants surviving to the present but
>> not expanding with parallel branches in the tree. It is possible
>> I was successful staying put geographically and expanding when climate
>> permitted. I am sure Dr. Hammer is aware of this discrepancy as well.
>> Alan said:
>> One thing I would ask in general is what are the chances of archaeology
>> DNA completely independently identifying a uniquely important population
>> event in post-Ice Age times in the form of an explosive movement
>> in Asia Minor and moving across Europe in a SE to west and NW direction
>> (apparently by two routes-the Mediterranean and the Danubian)?
>> My response:
>> The paper I cited used climate change in their analysis as well. We have
>> use all that is available as is done very often in these research papers.
>> Geography and Mtdna (with a more stable molecular clock) is also very
>> important. Once you buy into these rapid mutation rates of the Y
>> will look like it happened overnight.
>> Mexico DNA Project Admin.
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
|Re: [DNA] A Predominantly Neolithic OriginforEuropeanPaternalLineages by "Ken Nordtvedt" <>|