Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Y-chromosome tree bursts into leaf

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

  • #46
    Attached is how I suggest clades be named. The rows represent new SNP generations (not time or direct father to son generations). x is the ancestral clade that we are studying. Could be R, or R1b M269, or R1b U106 or whatever.

    The concept is that each new SNP leads to two y-DNA types (ancestral, that is identical to the previous type, and derived, which contains the new SNP). I don't think the current nomenclature is structured like this.

    The point in all of this is that after merely 4 SNP occurances, there are 16 y-DNA types.

    Considering how many times patrilines have daughtered out, or else been hit by a population bottleneck/ extinction event, the odds of the original ancestral type surviving is tiny compared to all of the derived types.

    I think the reason this hierarchy was never adopted by genetic genealogists is that there is no way to tell if a SNP should be classed as x1, or x2, or x3, or x4; each looks today as if it simply was first time mutation out of the ancestral population.

    Timothy Peterman
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
      I would have never guessed that the chance of an SNP occurring between father & son is as high as 25%. That means that of my three brothers & I, there is a 68% chance that one of us has a SNP. I assume this means that between my great-great grandfather & I, there is also a 68% chance of a SNP having occurred. By the logic of multiplying 75% times 75%, etc, we never get to 0, so there is never a 100% chance of a SNP occurring.

      If we want to count SNPs that have occurred among descendants of haplogroup founder to estimate the age of the group, we have to remember that ONLY count SNPs that can be arranged hierarchically. On most SNP trees, this is the number of columns in (not the total SNP count nested under the founder). The diversity of SNPs found under P312 & U106 are both testaments to how rapidly the L11+ population was growing.

      I have never seen any SNP counting that justifies an age for U106 or P312 that is older than the estimated 4,000 to 4,500 years. The only thing that could support an earlier date for either would be ancient DNA; and samples from an earlier age that contain P312 or U106 have to be found first.

      Timothy Peterman
      It is not about the number of SNPs but about the amount of time between them. It is not so long ago that it was thought that there was 400-500 years between SNPs. You seem to be suggesting that there was a R1b population explosion in the Bronze-Age and R1b missed out on the Neolithic. Some people have suggested this to try and make it fit with the PIE.

      Comment


      • #48
        The chance of an SNP between father and son hasn't changed across time. The variables that have changed are generation length, and the number of sons.

        Within any patriline, the probability of a SNP within say 6 generations today, is the same as it was in 6 generations 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. The constancy of this may have been maintained across blocks of time, instead of generations. If men father sons when they are older, the time involved for 6 generations would increase, but so would the likelihood of an SNP within the father's germline cells.

        In a rapidly expanding population, where men have a number of sons, the population as a whole should incur SNPs at an accelerated pace, hence the large number of SNPs under L21 for example. But within each patriline within the population, the rate would be the same as it was when the population was remaining steady.

        I think that when one looks at the really old SNPs nested under P312 & U106, it becomes obvious that in the early history of these haplogroups, there was a massive population growth.

        This is not characteristic of the Paleolithic or Mesolithic at all, where the population was thinly spread & steady, with the exception of occasional population collapses associated with catastrophes & such. The Neolithic should have seen a massive population growth across Europe. Indications are that these people belonged to the G haplogroup and may have been the major European haplogroup for several millenia before the arrival of the R haplogroup.

        Every innovation that saved labor or increased food productivity was likely to have triggered a population increase. Switching from stone to bronze & then iron was helpful. Introducing the horse to European agriculture & transportation helped immensely.

        As you know, my inclination, based on all that I have read within the last few years, is to think that there was a huge expansion of R1b in Europe, initially within an Ancient North Eurasian population, that brought the horse and Indo-European languages into Europe, all in about 2500 to 2000 BC. R1b L11+ probably overran the continent in just a few generations; as wives were acquired from local populations, G2a breeding opportunities were diminished to the point where G2a barely exists, except in certain hotspots like Sardinia. If there were battles, the majority of casualties were probably on the G2a side of the battlefield. Widows were created who eventually wound up marrying R1b men; or G2a men, wisely recognizing the value of the new technology, offered daughters as wives for the newcomers to help seal good relations. There may be any number of hypothesese to account for this.

        I recommend a book called "The Horse in Human History".

        To clarify another point. None of us are denying that R1b went through the Neolithic. We are fairly confident that R1b went through the Neolithic elsewhere (suggestions include Anatolia, NW Iran, or the Pontic Steppe). They were early adapters to horseback riding & may have been the people who did the domesticating. They were probably on the verge of the chalcolithic when they invaded Old Europe (ie, the Balkans) in say 3900 BC. They were probably in the Early Bronze Age when they swept across the rest of Europe.

        Timothy Peterman

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
          The chance of an SNP between father and son hasn't changed across time. The variables that have changed are generation length, and the number of sons.

          Within any patriline, the probability of a SNP within say 6 generations today, is the same as it was in 6 generations 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. The constancy of this may have been maintained across blocks of time, instead of generations. If men father sons when they are older, the time involved for 6 generations would increase, but so would the likelihood of an SNP within the father's germline cells.

          In a rapidly expanding population, where men have a number of sons, the population as a whole should incur SNPs at an accelerated pace, hence the large number of SNPs under L21 for example. But within each patriline within the population, the rate would be the same as it was when the population was remaining steady.

          I think that when one looks at the really old SNPs nested under P312 & U106, it becomes obvious that in the early history of these haplogroups, there was a massive population growth.

          This is not characteristic of the Paleolithic or Mesolithic at all, where the population was thinly spread & steady, with the exception of occasional population collapses associated with catastrophes & such. The Neolithic should have seen a massive population growth across Europe. Indications are that these people belonged to the G haplogroup and may have been the major European haplogroup for several millenia before the arrival of the R haplogroup.

          Every innovation that saved labor or increased food productivity was likely to have triggered a population increase. Switching from stone to bronze & then iron was helpful. Introducing the horse to European agriculture & transportation helped immensely.

          As you know, my inclination, based on all that I have read within the last few years, is to think that there was a huge expansion of R1b in Europe, initially within an Ancient North Eurasian population, that brought the horse and Indo-European languages into Europe, all in about 2500 to 2000 BC. R1b L11+ probably overran the continent in just a few generations; as wives were acquired from local populations, G2a breeding opportunities were diminished to the point where G2a barely exists, except in certain hotspots like Sardinia. If there were battles, the majority of casualties were probably on the G2a side of the battlefield. Widows were created who eventually wound up marrying R1b men; or G2a men, wisely recognizing the value of the new technology, offered daughters as wives for the newcomers to help seal good relations. There may be any number of hypothesese to account for this.

          I recommend a book called "The Horse in Human History".

          To clarify another point. None of us are denying that R1b went through the Neolithic. We are fairly confident that R1b went through the Neolithic elsewhere (suggestions include Anatolia, NW Iran, or the Pontic Steppe). They were early adapters to horseback riding & may have been the people who did the domesticating. They were probably on the verge of the chalcolithic when they invaded Old Europe (ie, the Balkans) in say 3900 BC. They were probably in the Early Bronze Age when they swept across the rest of Europe.

          Timothy Peterman
          Al that need to be done is for someone to post these Neolithic SNPs. We all have a fair idea about some of the Mesolithic SNPs like M269 and his 43 SNP clan. L11 and six of his descendants struggled for a thousand years also so one cannot add them to the Neolithic. So where are the Neolithic SNPs?

          Comment


          • #50
            All of those SNPs that define M269 show how far down it was from P297 & this list might not be complete. By your earlier statement that, during the H-G era, SNPs only came along every 400 to 500 years, if we use 400 years, that would place 17,200 years between P297 & the occurance of M269. 500 years would suggest 21,500 years. R1 is said to be a mere 18,500 years old. If we use your estimate of 135 years, that places a mere 5,805 years between P297 & M269.

            Each of those 43 SNPs may have defined a split into two clades, but thanks to population bottlenecks & such, only M269 survived. Considering that the Neolithic began earlier in Anatolia, NW Iran and/or the Pontic steppe, the last dozen or so of those 43 SNPs may very well be the Neolithic SNPs that you are searching for.

            The current SNP list at ISOGG makes it look like L23 was fairly close to M269 (two SNPs), & L51 was really close to L23 (one SNP). Five SNPs separate L51 from P311. U106 & P312 branch off without any intervening SNPs. All of this suggests to me that there wasn't much time between M269 & L11 (or P311) and also that there was a massive population expansion during this era. This points to either really late Neolithic, chalcolithic, or really early Bronze Age.

            Timothy Peterman

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
              All of those SNPs that define M269 show how far down it was from P297 & this list might not be complete. By your earlier statement that, during the H-G era, SNPs only came along every 400 to 500 years, if we use 400 years, that would place 17,200 years between P297 & the occurance of M269. 500 years would suggest 21,500 years. R1 is said to be a mere 18,500 years old. If we use your estimate of 135 years, that places a mere 5,805 years between P297 & M269.

              Each of those 43 SNPs may have defined a split into two clades, but thanks to population bottlenecks & such, only M269 survived. Considering that the Neolithic began earlier in Anatolia, NW Iran and/or the Pontic steppe, the last dozen or so of those 43 SNPs may very well be the Neolithic SNPs that you are searching for.

              The current SNP list at ISOGG makes it look like L23 was fairly close to M269 (two SNPs), & L51 was really close to L23 (one SNP). Five SNPs separate L51 from P311. U106 & P312 branch off without any intervening SNPs. All of this suggests to me that there wasn't much time between M269 & L11 (or P311) and also that there was a massive population expansion during this era. This points to either really late Neolithic, chalcolithic, or really early Bronze Age.

              Timothy Peterman
              Some people think that L51 had its origins in Italy. He is the ancestor of all P311. How is that connected to the Steppe?

              Comment


              • #52
                What evidence can they cite that shows L51 having origins in Italy? The haplogroup from which it originated (L23+, L51-) is found all over Anatolia, the Balkans, the Pontic Steppe, etc. If L51 originated in Italy, it was derived from an L23 man who had just moved in from the steppe (or other points many hundreds of miles east of Italy).

                Timothy Peterman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                  What evidence can they cite that shows L51 having origins in Italy? The haplogroup from which it originated (L23+, L51-) is found all over Anatolia, the Balkans, the Pontic Steppe, etc. If L51 originated in Italy, it was derived from an L23 man who had just moved in from the steppe (or other points many hundreds of miles east of Italy).

                  Timothy Peterman
                  If L51 originated in Italy it means the end of the PIE theory for R1b.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    Some people think that L51 had its origins in Italy. He is the ancestor of all P311. How is that connected to the Steppe?
                    The only person I know who believes that is an Italian genetic genealogist who believes that just about every major haplogroup found in Europe today originated in Italy. That's not what any scientist believes, based on the evidence.

                    This is what is called an agenda. Someone with an agenda, for some personal reason (usually irrational nationalism), looks at all the evidence from the viewpoint of his agenda and comes up with the conclusions that he had from before he looked at any evidence.

                    Does this sound familiar to you?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                      The only person I know who believes that is an Italian genetic genealogist who believes that just about every major haplogroup found in Europe today originated in Italy. That's not what any scientist believes, based on the evidence.

                      This is what is called an agenda. Someone with an agenda, for some personal reason (usually irrational nationalism), looks at all the evidence from the viewpoint of his agenda and comes up with the conclusions that he had from before he looked at any evidence.

                      Does this sound familiar to you?
                      Some people think that they are ancestors were Lombards.
                      Does this sound familiar to you?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Some people think their patrilineal ancestors were Helvetii; sounds very familiar to me

                        I might be sticking my neck out on a limb suggesting this, but at least my y-DNA is consistent with this bit of speculation on my part. I am R1b P312+ U152+ L20*.

                        Timothy Peterman

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                          Some people think that they are ancestors were Lombards.
                          Does this sound familiar to you?
                          I think it's most likely that my paternal line ancestors were Goths or Lombards, but that is certainly not proven. It's what's called a "working hypothesis" - the evidence I have so far supports that, but evidence that may come along in the future may force me to give up that hypothesis and adopt a different one. I won't bore you with the details, but when I have an updated working hypothesis, I'll be sure to inform you.

                          Or would you rather that I believe that U106 arose in Sicily 6,000 years ago and that my paternal line ancestors have been there all that time. I am just about eternally Sicilian! Sound familiar?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                            Some people think their patrilineal ancestors were Helvetii; sounds very familiar to me

                            I might be sticking my neck out on a limb suggesting this, but at least my y-DNA is consistent with this bit of speculation on my part. I am R1b P312+ U152+ L20*.

                            Timothy Peterman
                            I think L20* was around a long time before the Helvetii originated.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                              I think L20* was around a long time before the Helvetii originated.
                              "The Helvetii were a Gallic[2] tribe or tribal confederation[3] occupying most of the Swiss plateau at the time of their contact with the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC. According to Julius Caesar, the Helvetians were divided into four subgroups or pagi. Of these Caesar only names the Verbigeni and the Tigurini,[4] while Poseidonios mentions the Tigurini and the Tougeni (Τωυγενοί).[5] They feature prominently in the Commentaries on the Gallic War, with their failed migration attempt to southwestern Gaul (58 BC) serving as a catalyst for Caesar's conquest of Gaul."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                All that I can say is that my great grandfather, Josef Petermann was Swiss. He was born in Root, canton Luzern, Switzerland. The Petermann family has been in that town for many centuries. Even in the 1700s, Petermann was the most popular surname in town. The surname, in Switzerland, is found almost nowhere else. There are Germans with the surname but they are G2a. I think that in Root, there is a clear founder effect at work with the Petermann surname. Archaeological finds demonstrate that the town was likely in existence at the time of the Romans & was called Rota in Latin. There was an old slate quarry there that has been worked for centuries.

                                My Petermann line, unlike the Germans, is R1b L20*, which is strongest in the areas around the Alps (northern Italy & Switzerland), but is spread out thinly in other countries, including the Isles. my closest y-str matches are in Switzerland & some of my Big Y matches are from northern Italy.

                                When the Allemanni moved into Switzerland & set up shop, there were still plenty of Helvetii around. My guess is that the Allemanni gave the Petermann label to the Italo-Celtic inhabitants who were already in Root.

                                But no one knows for a fact whether the Helvetii were even L20. But it looks plausible to me.

                                Timothy Peterman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X