Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cro-Magnon

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

  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    So now you are discussing ydna and mtdna...weren't you originally trying to state that the WHG component in the admixture calculators is Cro-Magnon?...and weren't you trying to discuss autosomal DNA?

    I think you're confusing yourself in these postings.

    Mal'ta boy is not exclusively WHG...in fact he has more of the ANE component according to his results.

    Is this a sideline topic from your post, are you attempting to try and link it back some how?

    It just seems like more waffle.
    You seem to get upset at any suggestion that we in western Europe have WHG autosomal dna from the Cro Magnons who lived in western Europe.

    We also have R YDNA and U MTdna dna from the Cro Magnon era as well. I thought you might want to know that.

    Motala 12 has shown that ANE was also found in all ancient Europeans.

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Dna tests on some Cro Magnon ancient remains in western Europe will show how modern western Europeans are related to them.

    The scientists are testing remains from other regions in the world but it seems that western Europe is a long way behind. Mal'ta boy was Cro Magnon and he had ydna R and mtdna U.
    So now you are discussing ydna and mtdna...weren't you originally trying to state that the WHG component in the admixture calculators is Cro-Magnon?...and weren't you trying to discuss autosomal DNA?

    I think you're confusing yourself in these postings.

    Mal'ta boy is not exclusively WHG...in fact he has more of the ANE component according to his results.

    Is this a sideline topic from your post, are you attempting to try and link it back some how?

    It just seems like more waffle.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Yet you are stating they comprised of WHG...only...how is that?



    I addressed this in my previous post

    "...collective term for European early modern humans..."

    Why are you parroting what I already stated?



    By cherry-picking that statement you missed the point and completely went off on a tangent. European early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) were not just WHG. Was that not made clear enough? With all the time you spend on the admixture calculators you should surely know this.

    If you don't understand my intentions, ask me, as you often get the wrong end of the stick when you assume.

    Well done on your copy and paste from Wikipedia (still not research). Where is the part that states Cro-Magnons are exclusively WHG? Try working on a constructive concise argument rather than cutting and pasting a Wikipedia article, it doesn't help your case.
    Dna tests on some Cro Magnon ancient remains in western Europe will show how modern western Europeans are related to them. The scientists are testing remains from other regions in the world but it seems that western Europe is a long way behind. Mal'ta boy was Cro Magnon and he had ydna R and mtdna U.

    Leave a comment:


  • Taz85
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The age of subclades or origin has nothing to do with autosomal dna or has it? France was not affected by the Ice Age so why would the Cro Magnon in France be replaced? The Irish people are close to the French in autosomal,YDNA and MTDNA.The archaeological records show this as well.

    Some posters are tying language to single subgroups to accommodate their personal ancestry and that has nothing to do with science.

    Just for the record our common ancestor P311 originated in western Europe and I don't know which language he spoke and far less I care, so JMHO.

    How many threads do you need to start? I'm surprised with how many arguments you get into on here, that you're still allowed to post.

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I don't remember saying that Cro Magnon belonged to a separate culture.
    Yet you are stating they comprised of WHG...only...how is that?

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The Cro Magnon was the label put on the earliest western Europeans.
    I addressed this in my previous post

    "...collective term for European early modern humans..."

    Why are you parroting what I already stated?

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I don't see what is artificial about WHG. Is it not an autosomal component that is found in western Europeans today and is also found in ancient remains from western Europe? We are told often enough that we have dna links to Africans but you don't think that we could have any links to early Europeans!!!
    By cherry-picking that statement you missed the point and completely went off on a tangent. European early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) were not just WHG. Was that not made clear enough? With all the time you spend on the admixture calculators you should surely know this.

    If you don't understand my intentions, ask me, as you often get the wrong end of the stick when you assume.

    Well done on your copy and paste from Wikipedia (still not research). Where is the part that states Cro-Magnons are exclusively WHG? Try working on a constructive concise argument rather than cutting and pasting a Wikipedia article, it doesn't help your case.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Wikipedia

    "The original Cro-Magnon find was discovered in a rock shelter at Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France. The type specimen from the site is Cro-Magnon 1, carbon dated to about 28,000 14C years old.[20] (27,680 ± 270 BP). Compared to Neanderthals, the skeletons showed the same high forehead, upright posture and slender (gracile) skeleton as modern humans. The other specimens from the site are a female, Cro-Magnon 2, and male remains, Cro-Magnon 3.

    The condition and placement of the remains of Cro-Magnon 1, along with pieces of shell and animal teeth in what appear to have been pendants or necklaces, raises the question of whether they were buried intentionally. If Cro-Magnons buried their dead intentionally, it suggests they had a knowledge of ritual, by burying their dead with necklaces and tools, or an idea of disease and that the bodies needed to be contained.[21]

    Analysis of the pathology of the skeletons shows that the humans of this period led a physically difficult life. In addition to infection, several of the individuals found at the shelter had fused vertebrae in their necks, indicating traumatic injury; the adult female found at the shelter had survived for some time with a skull fracture. As these injuries would be life-threatening even today, this suggests that Cro-Magnons relied on community support and took care of each other's injuries."

    "Cro-Magnon (Listeni/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US pronunciation: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French: [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.[1] The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43-45,000 years before present that have been discovered in Italy[2] and Britain,[3] with the remains found of those that reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago."

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Nothing, you were the one who deviated from topic and posted ridiculous statements aimed at me.

    You've previously tried to the 'North Sea' component out of a gedmatch DNA calculator and use it to support some kind of argument...this seems no different.

    Go back and read the very first post I had here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...14&postcount=6

    I asked you to provide evidence of where literature stated that the WHG component of the admixture calculators represents Cro-Magnon DNA. You didn't because you can't single out Cro-Magnon as a separate culture or subspecies.

    The WHG component is an artificial construct it is based on.....based on....the Loschbour sample two Mesolithic individuals from the La Brana Cave in Spain.

    You're essentially trying to attribute this component to a collective term for European early modern humans. Do you have any research or data, other than an admixture calculator to say that the WHG component represents which is not as simple as plucking the WHG component out of an admixture calculator.

    "The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10,000 b.p. […] The term "Cro-Magnon" has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans (AMH). They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label "Cro-Magnon", which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term "Cro-Magnon" is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons."

    Fagan, B.M. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 864.

    Take a breath and instead of flying off the handles because someone identifies some holes in your argument, try to do some actual research rather than relying on admixture calculator results to support your statements.
    I don't remember saying that Cro Magnon belonged to a separate culture. The Cro Magnon was the label put on the earliest western Europeans.

    I don't see what is artificial about WHG. Is it not an autosomal component that is found in western Europeans today and is also found in ancient remains from western Europe? We are told often enough that we have dna links to Africans but you don't think that we could have any links to early Europeans!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    What has that to do with Cro Magnon autosomal dna. I don't have a problem but there are a lot of people out there that does have one with continuity.
    Nothing, you were the one who deviated from topic and posted ridiculous statements aimed at me.

    You've previously tried to the 'North Sea' component out of a gedmatch DNA calculator and use it to support some kind of argument...this seems no different.

    Go back and read the very first post I had here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...14&postcount=6

    I asked you to provide evidence of where literature stated that the WHG component of the admixture calculators represents Cro-Magnon DNA. You didn't because you can't single out Cro-Magnon as a separate culture or subspecies.

    The WHG component is an artificial construct it is based on.....based on....the Loschbour sample two Mesolithic individuals from the La Brana Cave in Spain.

    You're essentially trying to attribute this component to a collective term for European early modern humans. Do you have any research or data, other than an admixture calculator to say that the WHG component represents which is not as simple as plucking the WHG component out of an admixture calculator.

    "The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10,000 b.p. […] The term "Cro-Magnon" has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans (AMH). They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label "Cro-Magnon", which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term "Cro-Magnon" is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons."

    Fagan, B.M. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 864.

    Take a breath and instead of flying off the handles because someone identifies some holes in your argument, try to do some actual research rather than relying on admixture calculator results to support your statements.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Russia? Pure IE?

    You have some strange ideas.

    You have no basis to make such a statement.

    Please provide a link to postings where I have made such statements.

    You are the one who wants to be linked to ancient Europeans and after years of being on forums you cannot seem to deal with the possibility that you may not be.

    It seems that you can only conceive that all of your ancestry is Irish and you are determined to try and twist any piece of information to suit your agenda. You may have English or Scandinavian ancestry in the mix as well. If you do so what? If you don't so what?

    I have no preference about where my ancestors came from. I am curious about my ancestry and what DNA testing can tell me. I'm not out to prove anything.

    If you have a problem with the age or origin of the subclades in your haplogroup that's your problem.

    If it turned out there was a Mongolian connection, it would add an interesting story or two to my ancestry but that's about it.

    Unlike, I have no agenda or assumptions on these forums.
    What has that to do with Cro Magnon autosomal dna. I don't have a problem but there are a lot of people out there that does have one with continuity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darren
    replied
    Hello,

    This seems to be an argument that plays out in many threads. If we can keep it all in one comprehensive thread I would much appreciate it.

    -Darren
    Family Tree DNA

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The age of subclades or origin has nothing to do with autosomal dna or has it? France was not affected by the Ice Age so why would the Cro Magnon in France be replaced? The Irish people are close to the French in autosomal,YDNA and MTDNA.The archaeological records show this as well.

    Some posters are tying language to single subgroups to accommodate their personal ancestry and that has nothing to do with science.

    Just for the record our common ancestor P311 originated in western Europe and I don't know which language he spoke and far less I care, so JMHO.
    In other words you have no basis to make any statements about me so you will deflect to more questions.

    I mentioned nothing of a connection between subclade age or origin and autosomal DNA.

    This is yet another example where a discussion will ensure for a number of posts and you will end up stating either "we need more ancient DNA results", "we need ancient DNA from the Isles" or post some more results from an admixture calculator and attempt to make some loose connection.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Russia? Pure IE?

    You have some strange ideas.

    You have no basis to make such a statement.

    Please provide a link to postings where I have made such statements.

    You are the one who wants to be linked to ancient Europeans and after years of being on forums you cannot seem to deal with the possibility that you may not be.

    It seems that you can only conceive that all of your ancestry is Irish and you are determined to try and twist any piece of information to suit your agenda. You may have English or Scandinavian ancestry in the mix as well. If you do so what? If you don't so what?

    I have no preference about where my ancestors came from. I am curious about my ancestry and what DNA testing can tell me. I'm not out to prove anything.

    If you have a problem with the age or origin of the subclades in your haplogroup that's your problem.

    If it turned out there was a Mongolian connection, it would add an interesting story or two to my ancestry but that's about it.

    Unlike, I have no agenda or assumptions on these forums.
    The age of subclades or origin has nothing to do with autosomal dna or has it? France was not affected by the Ice Age so why would the Cro Magnon in France be replaced? The Irish people are close to the French in autosomal,YDNA and MTDNA.The archaeological records show this as well.

    Some posters are tying language to single subgroups to accommodate their personal ancestry and that has nothing to do with science.

    Just for the record our common ancestor P311 originated in western Europe and I don't know which language he spoke and far less I care, so JMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    You want your ancestor to originate in Russia, so that you can claim to be pure IE.
    Russia? Pure IE?

    You have some strange ideas.

    You have no basis to make such a statement.

    Please provide a link to postings where I have made such statements.

    You are the one who wants to be linked to ancient Europeans and after years of being on forums you cannot seem to deal with the possibility that you may not be.

    It seems that you can only conceive that all of your ancestry is Irish and you are determined to try and twist any piece of information to suit your agenda. You may have English or Scandinavian ancestry in the mix as well. If you do so what? If you don't so what?

    I have no preference about where my ancestors came from. I am curious about my ancestry and what DNA testing can tell me. I'm not out to prove anything.

    If you have a problem with the age or origin of the subclades in your haplogroup that's your problem.

    If it turned out there was a Mongolian connection, it would add an interesting story or two to my ancestry but that's about it.

    Unlike, I have no agenda or assumptions on these forums.
    Last edited by N21163; 28 June 2015, 05:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Dodecad V3
    KOI HG Hungary 5,600BC (F999931) YDNA I-L68
    # Population Percent
    1 West_European 67.44
    2 East_European 31.68

    Using 4 populations approximation:
    1 Finnish + Finnish + Swedish + Swedish @ 14.117715
    Eurogenes Hunter_Gatherer vs. Farmer Admixture Proportions
    Population *
    Anatolian Farmer - * *
    Baltic Hunter Gatherer 96.43%
    Middle Eastern Herder - * *
    East Asian Farmer - * *
    South American Hunter Gatherer - * *
    South Asian Hunter Gatherer - * *
    North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer - * *
    East African Pastoralist - * *
    Oceanian Hunter Gatherer 0.12%
    Mediterranean Farmer 3.46%
    Pygmy Hunter Gatherer - * *
    Bantu Farmer - * *

    Eurogenes K13 4-Ancestors Oracle
    # Population Percent
    1 Baltic 56.72
    2 North_Atlantic 43.23

    Using 4 populations approximation:
    1 Estonian + Estonian + Estonian + La_Brana-1 @ 13.996668
    Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 4-Ancestors Oracle
    # Population Percent
    1 Baltic 37.28
    2 North_Sea 37.02
    3 Atlantic 20.96
    4 Eastern_Euro 4.74

    Using 4 populations approximation:
    1 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Swedish + Swedish @ 18.262562

    Eurogenes_ANE K7 Admixture Proportion
    Population * *
    ANE 6.55%
    ASE - * *
    WHG-UHG 93.07%
    East_Eurasian 0.15%
    West_African - * *
    East_African 0.22%
    ENF - * *

    This HG was a long way from home in Hungary.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Yawn.
    You want your ancestor to originate in Russia, so that you can claim to be pure IE.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X