Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lost Tribe, M269

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

  • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Motala SHGs had ANE 7,500 ybp so it was already in western Europe before the Yamanya. Lochsbour and La Brana 8000 ybp had ANE also.
    There was no ANE in either Lochsbour nor La Brana, they were WHG. Pondering where Motala picked up ANE would be interesting but it's unlikely to be the same source as the ANE in modern Europeans. in a beta version of their paper Lazaridis et el speculated that some European ANE may have originated from the SHG population but decided in the final publication that ‘SHG may not be a source for Europeans’, presumably that’s why you don't get people posting their SHG admixture percentages : )

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
      Without ancient DNA from the Isles...

      All conclusions are always tentative & will be changed whenever conflicting data is found. That is generally the way science works.

      So when we talk about M269 coming from the steppes, etc., etc., it is a tentaive statement... In light of everything that has been found & published up to 2015, a handful of clades derived from M269 migrated from the steppe into central & western Europe in about 2500 BC, bringing the Bronze Age, horses & Indo-European languages to central and western Europe.

      There will be another tidbit of data that will compel theorists to modify their hypotheses. This was true when the theories of Oppenheimer, Sykes & Wells ruled the roost (over a decade ago) and it is true today.

      What happened in the distant past happened... but the knowledge about it isn't chiseled in stone. Any serious student of this subject should always be willing to change one's understanding in light of new data.

      Timothy Peterman
      They were not completely wrong. The unresolved WAMH and R1b is found in Ireland and Iberia in higher frequencies than anywhere else in the world.

      If you show me the evidence that L51,L11 and U106 originated in the Steppe then I will take that on board.

      Comment


      • When nothing about the substructure of R1b was known, all that these pioneers (Oppenheimer, Sykes, et al) had to go by was distribution and percentages of populations. At the time when they formulated what was then the consensus opinion, R1b1c (M269) hadn't even been discovered. I remember what a milestone it was & how I crowed when Family Tree DNA confirmed that I'm P25+ (like, wow).

        Forums were buzzing with discussions back then about how, even though R1b had been in western Europe since the Upper Paleolithic (35,000 years ago was a reasonable estimate back then), for some inexplicable reason it couldn't be clustered, thus making it almost impossible to find SNPs nested under P25.

        As we know today, the reason R1b couldn't be clustered is that, compared to the I haplogroup or the J haplogroup, or the G haplogroup, the R haplogroup comprised the new kids on the block... at least the part of them that were in western Europe.

        Timothy Peterman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Subwoofer View Post
          There was no ANE in either Lochsbour nor La Brana, they were WHG. Pondering where Motala picked up ANE would be interesting but it's unlikely to be the same source as the ANE in modern Europeans. in a beta version of their paper Lazaridis et el speculated that some European ANE may have originated from the SHG population but decided in the final publication that ‘SHG may not be a source for Europeans’, presumably that’s why you don't get people posting their SHG admixture percentages : )
          Lochsbour F999918 8,000 ybp

          ANE 7.35%
          ASE 0.49%
          WHG-UHG 88.70%
          East_Eurasian 3.09%
          West_African - * *
          East_African 0.36%
          ENF - * *


          La Brana F999915 8,000 ybp

          ANE 3.98%
          ASE 0.45%
          WHG-UHG 92.37%
          East_Eurasian 2.31%
          West_African 0.86%
          East_African - * *
          ENF - * *


          Motala 7,500 ybp

          ANE 19.62%
          ASE - * *
          WHG-UHG 80.23%
          East_Eurasian 0.14%
          West_African - * *
          East_African - * *
          ENF - * *

          Ajvide F999924 5000ybp
          ANE 14.54%
          ASE 2.06%
          WHG-UHG 78.38%
          East_Eurasian 2.21%
          West_African 0.49%
          East_African 2.32%
          ENF - * *

          My result
          ANE 17.07%
          ASE 2.65%
          WHG-UHG 64.81%
          East_Eurasian -
          West_African -
          East_African 0.80%
          ENF 14.68%
          Last edited by 1798; 22 May 2015, 02:49 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            Lochsbour F999918 8,000 ybp

            ANE 7.35%
            ASE 0.49%
            WHG-UHG 88.70%
            East_Eurasian 3.09%
            West_African - * *
            East_African 0.36%
            ENF - * *
            Using the K7 calculator. : )

            http://bga101.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09...es-ane-k7.html

            The ANE component is not modeled on the Mal'ta boy or MA-1 genome, the main ANE proxy in scientific literature, because this sample didn't offer enough high quality markers for the job. So instead, I used the non-East Asian portions of several Karitiana genomes from the HGDP


            Lazaridis Paper

            While ANE ancestry was not as pervasive in Europe during the agricultural transition as
            it is today (we do not detect it in either Loschbour or Stuttgart), it was already present, since
            MA1 shares more alleles with Motala12 (SHG) than with Loschbour, and Motala12 fits as a
            mixture of 81% WHG and 19% ANE

            Comment


            • Don't know how much of an improvement K8 was over K7, David seems to have removed the blog about it, however this is a spreadsheet he produced using it.

              https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...1#gid=74932529

              Comment


              • I really think the most sensible thing here would be for the administrators of the ht35 project to weigh in on this. Their expertise centers around M269, L23, L51 & L11 (not including U106 or P312). They have been studying this & gathering data for many, many years.

                What do they say? What do they think about the origin of M269? Perhaps you should ask them, rather than trying to get the rest of us to debate the matter.

                Timothy Peterman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                  I really think the most sensible thing here would be for the administrators of the ht35 project to weigh in on this. Their expertise centers around M269, L23, L51 & L11 (not including U106 or P312). They have been studying this & gathering data for many, many years.

                  What do they say? What do they think about the origin of M269? Perhaps you should ask them, rather than trying to get the rest of us to debate the matter.

                  Timothy Peterman
                  I don't think that they have a clue so there is no point asking them. We need the 43 SNPs at the M269 level to be put in phylogenetic order so that if some ancient dna with any of these SNPs are found we will have an idea of the age and the region.

                  The R1b project only shows two L23 branches and FTDNA has nine on their Y-tree.

                  Comment


                  • I would suggest that these administrators might not be right, but only because all conclusions are tentative, based only on the information available.

                    But... I would add that they have access to information that is many times better than whatever you or I have access to. They are very dedicated & have been studying it intensively for years. I would listen carefully to what they have to say. If you disagree, show them where they are wrong & the data that supports an alternative. Work it out with them, rather than trying to debate the comparatively uninformed here in these forums.

                    Once you know the consensus interpretation of the administrators, you should report it as such, with a minor footnote that you don't agree with or like their conclusions.

                    Timothy Peterman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                      I would suggest that these administrators might not be right, but only because all conclusions are tentative, based only on the information available.

                      But... I would add that they have access to information that is many times better than whatever you or I have access to. They are very dedicated & have been studying it intensively for years. I would listen carefully to what they have to say. If you disagree, show them where they are wrong & the data that supports an alternative. Work it out with them, rather than trying to debate the comparatively uninformed here in these forums.

                      Once you know the consensus interpretation of the administrators, you should report it as such, with a minor footnote that you don't agree with or like their conclusions.

                      Timothy Peterman
                      @Timothy
                      I posted this thread to highlight the need for people to understand M269. We are all descendants of this 6000 year single family line. We cannot get the end of the story right if we don't start right. We are all going in circles.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        @Timothy
                        I posted this thread to highlight the need for people to understand M269. We are all descendants of this 6000 year single family line. We cannot get the end of the story right if we don't start right. We are all going in circles.
                        It will continue going in circles until more research or ancient DNA comes to light.

                        Comment


                        • Ciaran, The great problem with R1b in general is that the whole study, going back 15 to 20 years, started out wrong. We can forgive those who initiated the grand misinterpretation (ie, Oppenheimer, Sykes, et al), because their wrong start was based on rather weak information, which was the best available at the time.

                          Unfortunately, their initial finding satisfied the Irish narrative quite well, as long as that of many other western Europeans, who yearned to be descended from the Cro-Magnons of the Upper Paleolithic. A lot of people latched onto this notion, and when better data became available, were slow to adapt the newer interpretations, which were and are better because they are based on a far more comprehensive data set.

                          The data points are there, but the few who cling to the R1b=Cro Magnon or Upper Paleolithic in western Europe notion, are simply ignoring them.

                          The steppe narrative must seem horrible to those who like to think that their patrilines were peaceful western Europeans for countless millennia, just minding their own business, until they were conquered by invaders from the East (whether Roman, German, Hun, or whatever). The steppe narrative says that all of the R1b U106 & P312 men are descended from similar invaders, although a couple thousand years earlier.

                          So, I do have a bit of sympathy for the continuous attempt to challenge the steppe hypothesis. But such a challenge isn't really based on science, but rather wishful thinking.

                          Work it out with the experts and then give all of us a report on what you find.

                          Timothy Peterman

                          Comment


                          • A new study reveals something similar to the Bashkir/U152 link, but with Tatar/U106:

                            http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=72f5e563-6ac0-4bd2-bd37-628ba5104183&cKey=48d1c45f-9314-48fd-8e69-f897d44c40e4&mKey={CABDEDDA-497C-457E-8481-34A866AB3681}

                            "Abstract: We analyzed a sample of the Volga-Ural region, including 462 individuals from 8 populations: Udmurts, Komi, Mordvinians, Mari, Besermyans, Chuvashes, Tatars, Bashkirs. We have shown that the major proportion of Y-chromosome haplogroups in the studied populations accounted for the four branches (R1b-M269, R1a-M198, N1c1-Tat and N1c2-P43), which together make up from 51% to 100% of the patrilineal genetic diversity in the studied region.
                            We have shown that West Asian and Central Asian Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z2125 in the Volga-Ural region occurs with the greatest frequency in Bashkirs (31%), which is the dominant subgroup of haplogroup R1a-M198 in this population despite the fact that in other populations Eastern European R1a-M558 and R1a-M458 are the dominant lines. This fact indicates that different haplogroup R1a-M198 lines in the populations of the Volga-Ural region have different sources.
                            The Eastern European influence in the population can be also seen in Tatars from Tuimasinsky district of Bashlortostan in which typical for Central Europe haplogroup R1b-M405 is the predominant line of the haplogroup R1b-M343. According to the PCA analysis based on the Y-chromosome haplogroups distribution, Bashkirs show the greatest separation from other populations of the region. The reason is the presence with the high frequency of Asian lineages in their gene pool."
                            Last edited by 1798; 23 May 2015, 11:08 AM.

                            Comment


                            • 1798 ... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                                A new study reveals something similar to the Bashkir/U152 link, but with Tatar/U106:

                                http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=72f5e563-6ac0-4bd2-bd37-628ba5104183&cKey=48d1c45f-9314-48fd-8e69-f897d44c40e4&mKey={CABDEDDA-497C-457E-8481-34A866AB3681}

                                "Abstract: We analyzed a sample of the Volga-Ural region, including 462 individuals from 8 populations: Udmurts, Komi, Mordvinians, Mari, Besermyans, Chuvashes, Tatars, Bashkirs. We have shown that the major proportion of Y-chromosome haplogroups in the studied populations accounted for the four branches (R1b-M269, R1a-M198, N1c1-Tat and N1c2-P43), which together make up from 51% to 100% of the patrilineal genetic diversity in the studied region.
                                We have shown that West Asian and Central Asian Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z2125 in the Volga-Ural region occurs with the greatest frequency in Bashkirs (31%), which is the dominant subgroup of haplogroup R1a-M198 in this population despite the fact that in other populations Eastern European R1a-M558 and R1a-M458 are the dominant lines. This fact indicates that different haplogroup R1a-M198 lines in the populations of the Volga-Ural region have different sources.
                                The Eastern European influence in the population can be also seen in Tatars from Tuimasinsky district of Bashlortostan in which typical for Central Europe haplogroup R1b-M405 is the predominant line of the haplogroup R1b-M343. According to the PCA analysis based on the Y-chromosome haplogroups distribution, Bashkirs show the greatest separation from other populations of the region. The reason is the presence with the high frequency of Asian lineages in their gene pool."
                                I think that finding these R1b groups in these areas is proof of a west to east movement.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X