Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bell Beakers in Ireland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    P312 and U106 are 50/50 in Germany among the R1b population.
    I looked at the German dna project.
    In the area around Kromsdorf, Germany, U106 is more frequent than P312, and, in general, P312 tends to prevail in southern and western Germany, while U106 is more frequent in the north and east.

    The German Language Area Y-DNA Project is fine, but it is not a scientific study.

    The fact remains that the scientists who tested the Beaker remains from Kromsdorf tested them for U106 (they were U106-) but not for P312.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stevo View Post
      I never claimed all the Beaker men were L21+. For one thing, I don't think they were. But I do think L21 was prevalent among the Beaker Folk who went to the British Isles.

      Of the two sets of Beaker remains from the site near Kromsdorf, Germany, one tested M269+, but they could only get as far as M343+ with the other. It's not that the second one was M343*; it's just that they could not get a clear M269+ result from such old remains. They did test both sets of remains for U106, however, and both were clearly U106-.
      I guess that says it all. They could not get a clear result on the type of R1b.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I guess that says it all.
        Obviously not. It just says they were U106-. We still do not know for what other SNPs downstream of M269 they may have been positive.

        We probably never will know either. We're lucky they were able to get as far as they did with such old remains.

        We need some really well preserved Beaker remains and a full genome result. Frozen remains would be nice, but the Beaker Folk, as far as I know, did not settle in places where their remains were likely to remain frozen for long.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          No, but in the case of Ireland, the manifestation of this complex differs from elsewhere because settlements are comparatively common while stereotypical Beaker burials are rare.
          There is a very active thread on Anthrogenica re: who were the forerunners of Europe. Jean M and Jean L have been trading insults for days. Jean L just posted a thread which is a detailed analysis of Light hair, blue eyes, red hair etc., based on genetic mutations. The discussion concerns three kinds of ancient cultures: EEF (early European farmers), WEH (west European hunters) and ANE( ancient north Eurasian). Her conclusions infer that ANE has the light hair and blue eyes mutation and maybe as much as 20% of modern European DNA. I know that Stevo has posted there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stevo View Post
            Obviously not. It just says they were U106-. We still do not know for what other SNPs downstream of M269 they may have been positive.

            We probably never will know either. We're lucky they were able to get as far as they did with such old remains.

            We need some really well preserved Beaker remains and a full genome result. Frozen remains would be nice, but the Beaker Folk, as far as I know, did not settle in places where their remains were likely to remain frozen for long.
            You said that they were finding it difficult to test them for M269 and then they tried to test them for a downstream branch like U106. That does not make sense.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stevo View Post
              From The History of the Celtic People by French archaeologist and inguist Henri Hubert, pages 169 and 171-173:
              You chide others for their sources. I believe that the story of human history has to be rewritten using STR, ADNA and other data, tied in with appropriate Climatological and Archaeological data. For now, I don't even trust Linguistics. What we need is more data, not personal opinion. JMHO.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ironroad41 View Post
                You chide others for their sources. I believe that the story of human history has to be rewritten using STR, ADNA and other data, tied in with appropriate Climatological and Archaeological data. For now, I don't even trust Linguistics. What we need is more data, not personal opinion. JMHO.
                What does that mean? Are you saying Hubert is not a competent source on the Beaker Folk? Hubert wrote back in the early 20th century. He had nothing to say about dna, but what he said about archaeology and linguistics is still valuable. The point of the quote from him was to provide information on the Beaker Folk in the British Isles, information which is still valid.

                The climate in Western Europe is the climate in Western Europe. It has little bearing on people who are not there at the time.
                Last edited by Stevo; 13 June 2014, 09:58 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                  You said that they were finding it difficult to test them for M269 and then they tried to test them for a downstream branch like U106. That does not make sense.
                  No, that is NOT what I wrote. The scientists were able to get a clear M269+ result from one of the sets of Beaker remains. From the other set they got a clear M343+ result but were unable to get a clear M269+ result. This does not mean that M343+ skeleton was M269-. It just means they could not get a clear M269+ result from it.

                  They were, however, able to test both for U106 and determine that both were U106-.

                  It isn't necessary to reconstitute the entire genome of a set of remains in phylogenetic order to be able to test for specific SNPs.
                  Last edited by Stevo; 13 June 2014, 10:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Stevo View Post
                    No, that is NOT what I wrote. The scientists were able to get a clear M269+ result from one of the sets of Beaker remains. From the other set they got a clear M343+ result but were unable to get a clear M269+ result. This does not mean that M343+ skeleton was M269-. It just means they could not get a clear M269+ result from it.

                    They were, however, able to test both for U106 and determine that both were U106-.

                    It isn't necessary to reconstitute the entire genome of a set of remains in phylogenetic order to be able to test for specific SNPs.
                    They couldn't get a clear M269 result but they could get a clear U106 result. LOL

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      They couldn't get a clear M269 result but they could get a clear U106 result. LOL
                      What is it about that you do not understand?

                      It is not necessary to reconstruct the entire genome of a set of remains in phylogenetic order to be able to test for one specific SNP like U106 and get a clear result.

                      In other words, simply because M269 is well upstream of U106 does not mean one must have a clear M269 result in order to be able to get a clear U106 result.

                      If it were necessary, a la carte SNP testing would be impossible.

                      One set of remains was clearly M269+ and U106-. The other set was clearly M343+ and U106-.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        They couldn't get a clear M269 result but they could get a clear U106 result. LOL
                        I didn't know that you're a technician in a DNA testing lab. You write as if you know something about that. In which lab do you work?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                          I didn't know that you're a technician in a DNA testing lab. You write as if you know something about that. In which lab do you work?
                          What lab do you work in?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            What lab do you work in?
                            I don't need to state my credentials. I wasn't the one who made an incorrect statement about getting a result for U106 but not M269 in SNP testing. You are the one who did.

                            Stevo answered your objection in his post, just before mine. As he pointed out, individual SNPs can be tested for - it's not necessary to get a result for M269 in order to get a result for U106.

                            It's well-known that ancient DNA has been degraded to one degree or another and sometimes one location on a chromosome will get a clear result, but another location on the same chromosome will get a no-call. In fact, that happens with DNA from living people. A test like 23andMe or Family Finder will get a very small percentage of no-calls at some locations. DNA from ancient remains will have even more no-calls.
                            Last edited by MMaddi; 13 June 2014, 12:47 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              1798: Please do not disrespect MMaddi. He is one of our most knowledgeable and valuable contributors who gives generously of his time to this forum. Thank you.
                              Last edited by Biblioteque; 13 June 2014, 12:50 PM. Reason: spell

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by marietta View Post
                                1798: Please do not disrespect MMaddi. He is one of our most knowledgeable and valuable contributors who gives generously of his time to this forum. Thank you.
                                He gives his opinions the same as I and others. He is not right about a lot of stuff but he writes as if he is.He should also show me a bit of respect. I didn't have to get dna tested nor even make my results public.Some people are crying out for people born in Ireland to dna test and then when they do they try to tell them that they have the wrong dna because it doesn't fit in with their ideology.
                                Who are you to to tell me what I should and should not say? I know who you are and where you come from.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X