Must read book for R1b folk

[Arch Yeomans]

If you have not read Sir Barry Cunliffe's book 'Facing the Ocean' then you're missing out on some excellent reading material. The book is so well thought out and it points to the true Atlantic culture or identity. Those labeled as AMH or Western AMH would find it fascinating. I like the Atlantic Celt label because it makes more sense then saying Celt (implying central Europe)...

[Stevo]

If you have not read Sir Barry Cunliffe's book 'Facing the Ocean' then you're missing out on some excellent reading material. The book is so well thought out and it points to the true Atlantic culture or identity. Those labeled as AMH or Western AMH would find it fascinating. I like the Atlantic Celt label because it makes more sense then saying Celt (implying central Europe)...

Cunliffe's views are not universally shared by historians and archaeologists, many of whom still interpret the evidence as indicating incursions into Western Europe beginning by the 1st millenium B.C. if not earlier.

Cunliffe is part of the current fashion that sees the people of W. Europe in place and basically unchanged since the Paleolithic Period. I disagree.

I'm still looking for someone who can explain to me why an analysis of R1b1c haplotypes yields a TMRCA of ~8,000 years, yet it is claimed the Cro-Magnons, who dwelt in Europe beginning about 40,000 years ago, were R1b1c. Did all R1b1c lines but one die out or daughter out by about 6,000 B.C.?

How can the Aurignacian culture be attributed to R1b1c when the Aurignacian culture flourished from 34,000 to 23,000 years ago? Liberal estimates say R1b1c is ~15,000 years old. Haplotype evidence indicates R1b1c is ~8,000 years old. Isn't R1b1c a bit too young to take credit for the Aurignacian culture and its cave art?

Why is it that the greatest R1b haplotype variance occurs in Western and Central Asia (greater variance indicates greater age)?

Why is it that R1b1c's immediate genetic predecessors - P, R, R1, and R1b1 - are extremely rare in Europe yet are found in Central Asia?

Question these so-called "authorities." Some of their opinions are not as well thought out as they appear to be.

[Johnserrat]

Both Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer have new books coming out this month showing evidence of paleolithic continuity in western europe. I am not aware of any books or articles being published making the old invasion argument.

In terms of R1b1c, which variety are you referring too? It is my understanding that there are two different varieties of R1b1c, one ancient western european that was present well before the Last Glacial Maximum and a second which was involved in repopulating eastern europe after the LGM.

Nobody is arguing that R1b did not come from Asia in the past. All modern humans outside of Africa came through Asia. It is really a question of when R1b arrived in europe. In the past year I have not seen any academics arguing that the majority of R1bs arrived in western europe within the last 3,000, let alone last 10,000 years.

You are swimming against the stream on this one.

John

[Kathleen Carrow]

Books

I am currently reading Oppenheimer's book and he cites Cunliffe's theories.

Does he talk about I1b also? Oppenheimer believes that some of that was definitely in Scotland, Ireland via coastal route after the LGM.

I might have to get it( his book) as my mtDNA J2 is considred Atlantic Fringe

[Arch Yeomans]

Cunliffe's Views

Cunliffe's views are not universally shared by historians and archaeologists, many of whom still interpret the evidence as indicating incursions into Western Europe beginning by the 1st millenium B.C. if not earlier.

Cunliffe is part of the current fashion that sees the people of W. Europe in place and basically unchanged since the Paleolithic Period. I disagree.

I'm still looking for someone who can explain to me why an analysis of R1b1c haplotypes yields a TMRCA of ~8,000 years, yet it is claimed the Cro-Magnons, who dwelt in Europe beginning about 40,000 years ago, were R1b1c. Did all R1b1c lines but one die out or daughter out by about 6,000 B.C.?

How can the Aurignacian culture be attributed to R1b1c when the Aurignacian culture flourished from 34,000 to 23,000 years ago? Liberal estimates say R1b1c is ~15,000 years old. Haplotype evidence indicates R1b1c is ~8,000 years old. Isn't R1b1c a bit too young to take credit for the Aurignacian culture and its cave art?

Why is it that the greatest R1b haplotype variance occurs in Western and Central Asia (greater variance indicates greater age)?

Why is it that R1b1c's immediate genetic predecessors - P, R, R1, and R1b1 - are extremely rare in Europe yet are found in Central Asia?

Question these so-called "authorities." Some of their opinions are not as well thought out as they appear to be.

To me he seems pretty convincing. I think where he nails it right on the head is when he mentions the most likely trade-routes since the mesolithic period. In his book he does seem to focus from around 8,000 BC and later. Not much (at least to me) is given towards the upper paleolithic. Then again he edited a book called Pre-Historic Europe which seems to cover all that ground.

As far as age of the alleles and so forth, it seems to me that geneticists are not as advanced in the field of dating genes as well as archeologists are in dating the artefacts of a people's culture. Or is it artifacts? (I forget). I'm not exactly sure why, but when R1b1c6 has a span of possibly being 2,000 years old to 9,000 years old; I don't call that exactly precise.

Frank Pryor seems to back up Cunliffe's theories or hypotheses. I figure when you have two very smart people like them, they're bound to have most of it right. Then again, we have to be careful as the invasion theories may be a big bust and the history books may have to be rewritten, or modified into a more indecisive statement of what we believe to be the facts.

I may have an explanation why R1b only goes back to TMCRA of ~8,000 ya. It may have to do with the type of tests conducted and the limitations, just as C-14 testing can only go so far back in time and other methods of guesswork or inference has to be used with testing with a greater degree of inaccuracy; but it's all we have. The further we go back in my opinion the more compounded the inaccuracy will be in terms of puting dates to events.

Perhaps the geneticists are wrong in determining the migratory path to a set region of time. They could literally be thousands of years off the mark of the actual date of the events they are labeling. Who knows, maybe there was a reverse migration and we're related to neanderthals more than we think. To me everything is up in the air, and the questions are more challenging, more so then they have ever been. All I hope for is we get to to the truth.

[Arch Yeomans]

The Invasion of the R1b

Both Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer have new books coming out this month showing evidence of paleolithic continuity in western europe. I am not aware of any books or articles being published making the old invasion argument.

In terms of R1b1c, which variety are you referring too? It is my understanding that there are two different varieties of R1b1c, one ancient western european that was present well before the Last Glacial Maximum and a second which was involved in repopulating eastern europe after the LGM.

Nobody is arguing that R1b did not come from Asia in the past. All modern humans outside of Africa came through Asia. It is really a question of when R1b arrived in europe. In the past year I have not seen any academics arguing that the majority of R1bs arrived in western europe within the last 3,000, let alone last 10,000 years.

You are swimming against the stream on this one.

John

From what I understand. R1b arrived in Europe around 35,000 ya. Not R1b1c. Populations during this period of the Upper Paleolithic would have been large and closely settled together. Contrary to the belief these people would have been spread far and wide, they were most likely not too far apart from each other in groups. Some theories were these ancient people literally travelled large or vast landscapes to hunt their prey, but I disagree. They were smart enough to establish themselves next to the migratory paths of their prey. To me it's quite apparent they didn't travel very far to get their food but were in a way migratory to nearby population centers during different seasons. Look at the proximity of the upper paleolithic communities of SW France, and the communities in NW Iberia to NE Iberia. This would have been around 30,000 ya when R1b was "created" or mutated into existence.

As the last glacial period expanded to its height around 18,000 ya. The populations got smaller and the more separated. My guess possibly creating the R1b1 population from R1b. When the last glacial period was coming to a close, the forests grew thicker supporting less biomass and feeding less people. The communities became more separated and smaller again, mutating into the variants of R1b1c over the course of time. To me the mutations of R1b1 into R1b1c subtypes so to speak, occured during the time the ice sheet of Europe was in full retreat and when the forests grew thicker in the south and up the slopes, while the more cold tolerant species moved north from south. In essence it was the forestation causing the isolation which in turn gave us the different mutations of R1b1c types. Perhaps that is why R1b1c is around TMRCA is ~8,000 ya. It's only a guess, but it seems simple and its usually the simple things in life that are right.

[Arch Yeomans]

Oops

I meant Francis Pryor. Got Frankfurters on the brain.

[Stevo]

In the past year I have not seen any academics arguing that the majority of R1bs arrived in western europe within the last 3,000, let alone last 10,000 years.

You are swimming against the stream on this one.

John

That is not entirely correct. The fields of history, archaeology, and anthropology are not dominated by a few geneticists, and there are plenty of scholars who still believe that W. Europe suffered a series of intrusions beginning in the late Neolithic Period.

Perhaps you can find one of your experts who will explain why he thinks R1b is ~30,000 years old and R1b1c ~15,000 years old when the haplotype evidence indicates that R1b1c is ~8,000 years old.

I have asked that question of a couple of experts, and their only answer is to speculate that all the R1b1c lines but one died or daughtered out around 6,000 B.C.!

So where did they get those 30,000-year and 15,000-year figures if there is nothing within R1b and R1b1c to indicate they are that old?

Did they develop an hypothesis first and only then scramble up ages to match it?

You may accept the word of a few men you regard as authorities, John, but I would like some explanations.

Dogmatic assertions are strangely unconvincing, especially when they are riddled with pretty obvious holes.

Besides, if somebody didn't "swim against the stream," the egg of truth would never be fertilized and come to fruition.

There is no real evidence - NONE - that R1b has been in W. Europe since before the LGM. The speculations and opinions of Oppenheimer and Sykes are NOT evidence, by the way.

[Kathleen Carrow]

Facing the Ocean

I have just ordered this book..how does a book get out of print in 2 years?
ordered it used..
I am slowly enjoying Oppenheimer's book and he quotes him extensively..

My mtDNA J2 is described in Oppenheimer as accompanying Cardial Ware and entering Ireland in the Neolithic..
My Grandpop's line ( male cousin tested) who marries the mtDNA J2 is described as preceding the J2 but following the same Coastal route.

I believe he is describing my version of I1b1b which he calls I1b-2..as he says it has 41% of Sardinian males due to Founder effect..

Both of these folks left the old country and settled again in a Coastal plain..We were all from Southern New Jersey smack on the banks of the Delaware..
Very cool..

[vineviz]

You may accept the word of a few men you regard as authorities, John, but I would like some explanations.

It is an explanation only if it agrees with your view of the world. Otherwise it is merely "speculation and opinion". Right?

[Stevo]

It is an explanation only if it agrees with your view of the world. Otherwise it is merely "speculation and opinion". Right?

That's a bit unfair, don't you think?

It's an explanation if it tells me in terms I can understand how geneticists arrive at an age of ~30,000 years for R1b and ~15,000 years for R1b1c, especially in the face of actual internal haplotype evidence that indicates an age for R1b1c of ~8,000 years.

"Dr. Falderal says it is so" is most decidedly NOT an explanation.

I am perfectly willing to conform my opinions - my "view of the world" - to the actual evidence.

But arguments from authority are not evidence, as I am sure you must realize.

Thus far it looks like Oppenheimer, Sykes, and Wells are, in fact, speculating when they associate Cro-Magnons and their Aurignacian culture with R1b.

There does not seem to be anything within R1b or R1b1c (or any other haplogroup) aside from current haplotype variance that can be used to gauge its age.

If you know of some convincing evidence that R1b is ~30,000 years old, then, by all means, present it.

BTW, things that can actually be proven are fact. Guesswork based on a particular interpretation of data is speculation and opinion. There is nothing wrong with speculation and opinion, and certainly the speculations and opinions of recognized experts carry a lot of weight, but they are not facts and should not be asserted dogmatically as if they were.

[Stevo]

Here is a recent Rootsweb DNA List exchange on this subject that might be interesting to some.

[NormanGalway]

Stevo,

The apparent "youth" of a Y-DNA line is par for the course for the Y-chromosome as a whole. I know you know this, because you refer to "daughtering out" - male lines die out a lot faster than female lines. Why would "Adam" be tens of thousands of years younger than "Eve" otherwise?

The story of R1b and its various subclades is no different. Do you really think that there were a continent's worth of male homo sapiens in Europe that were either slaughtered or out-bred or out-competed by R1b1c in the last several millenia?

If so, where is the evidence? Nobody (yet) knows what happened to the Neaderthals, who did not disappear until @35,000 years ago and existed in much smaller numbers. Yet suddenly, in the much more recent past, a magic wand changed the population of Paleolithic Europe into R1b-land?

I don't think so. The burden of proof is on you for your theory, which strains credulity because of what it requires. Once upon a time, you cited archeological and anthropological evidence on these boards, yet know they get chucked out the window to defend your pet theory?

[Kathleen Carrow]

Link for dates

This is the link for the paper that Oppenheimer says are the methods he used for his population datings..

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n5/001799/001799.html

I saw it posted elsewhere..

[kaybee930]

Thanks for that link - clarifies some things

Thank you. That paper provides some other avenues for me to pursue, the use of non-recombining mtDNA for estimating age of populations and tracking backwards to African origins.

Kathleen