origin of R 1 b

[Haganus]

WIth interests I read the messages about R 1 a and R 1 b.
But there are contradictory opinions about the origin of
R 1 b. Mostly you can write that the R 1 b haplogroup has a
common ancestor with the Basks during the Ice Age in southwest-
France.

But Ellen Levy-Coffman wrote that the Basks are not direct
descendants of the Cro-Magnon men. According to her
R 1b haplgroup has arrived in West-Europe after after Ice-Age.

[Eki]

WIth interests I read the messages about R 1 a and R 1 b.
But there are contradictory opinions about the origin of
R 1 b. Mostly you can write that the R 1 b haplogroup has a
common ancestor with the Basks during the Ice Age in southwest-
France.

But Ellen Levy-Coffman wrote that the Basks are not direct
descendants of the Cro-Magnon men. According to her
R 1b haplgroup has arrived in West-Europe after after Ice-Age.

According to the article "The Origin of the Baltic-Finns from the
Physical Anthropological Point of View" by Niskanen, of modern people the Finns, Swedes and the Saami have the most similar craniofacial measurements to the Cro Magnon people (see Figure 2):

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf

Since the only major Y-haplogroups in Finland are N3 and I1a, and N3 is considered eastern while I1a is considered "European", I'd say that I1a is a descendant of the Cro Magnon haplogroups.

[mickm]

According to the article "The Origin of the Baltic-Finns from the
Physical Anthropological Point of View" by Niskanen, of modern people the Finns, Swedes and the Saami have the most similar craniofacial measurements to the Cro Magnon people (see Figure 2):

Why should there necessarily be a correlation between particular features and the Y haplogroup? Seems dubious to me.

That said I must have a read of that paper. I've become interested in Finland since I got my mtDNA results. My HVS-I haplotype is 192 311 (U5b*) which has a particularly high incidence in Ostrobothnia, a region I had never heard of before. Given the relatively high incidence in Finland, I assume that it arose there. I am intrigued as to how and when my female ancestor made it to Ireland.

[cacio]

mickm:

the fact that something has high frequency in Scandinavia doesn't mean that it arose there. Scandinavia was populated very recently, after the end of the glaciation periods, from refuges in Europe. Its genetic makeup reflects the dna of whoever happened to move there first and be lucky enough to survive and pass it down to her offsprings. So your haplotype may have well arisen in Europe (France or the like), from where it moved into Finland.

cacio

[Eki]

mickm:

the fact that something has high frequency in Scandinavia doesn't mean that it arose there. Scandinavia was populated very recently, after the end of the glaciation periods, from refuges in Europe. Its genetic makeup reflects the dna of whoever happened to move there first and be lucky enough to survive and pass it down to her offsprings. So your haplotype may have well arisen in Europe (France or the like), from where it moved into Finland.

cacio

I know, and I didn't say I1a was a Cro Magnon haplogroup, because it's too young. I said it could be a descendant of a Cro Magnon haplogroup, so the actual haplogroup could have been for example IJ or F.

Cro-Magnon is in southwestern France, so I1a being from France doesn't exclude it from the list of candidates of Cro Magnon descendants.

You said Scandinavia was populated very recently. True, but since Europe is constantly changing, the more southern parts have received more new blood from outside Europe that have deminished the Cro Magnon features in the south whereas in the northern fringes they have remained more in their original form.

EDIT: Oh, sorry. You we're referring to mickm and U5b.

[Eki]

I am intrigued as to how and when my female ancestor made it to Ireland.

Could have been with the Norse settlers during the Viking era. My mtDNA seems to be from northeastern Germany or northern Poland, but I have several matches in the British Isles and Ireland too.

[mickm]

mickm:

the fact that something has high frequency in Scandinavia doesn't mean that it arose there.

So your haplotype may have well arisen in Europe (France or the like), from where it moved into Finland.

cacio

I realise that but one would expect to find some examples (possibly at the highest frequency) in the place where it originated. The distribution appears to be almost bimodal - North-Eastern Europe and Ireland-Britain - and it is unlikely that the movement has been eastwards from Ireland-Britain. I've not seen any examples in western mainland Europe (Iberia, France or Norway out of >1000 samples) but it is one of the more common haplotypes in Finland (and also occurs in Latvia and Estonia). It's unlikely to have moved from Ireland-Britain eastwards. Of course it could have arisen somewhere in the middle and split.

[mickm]

Could have been with the Norse settlers during the Viking era. My mtDNA seems to be from northeastern Germany or northern Poland, but I have several matches in the British Isles and Ireland too.

I don't think the Vikings brought many women to Ireland. They were apparently very partial to Irish girls who mainly ended up going in the opposite direction (to Iceland at least). Norman is probably a bit more likely but I've not seen any matches to my haplotype from Norway, Denmark or France.

[lgmayka]

Since the only major Y-haplogroups in Finland are N3 and I1a, and N3 is considered eastern while I1a is considered "European", I'd say that I1a is a descendant of the Cro Magnon haplogroups.

That only looks at the yDNA side. I think it much more likely that the mtDNA haplogroups in Finland and the Baltic republics descend from the Cro-Magnons. Among Lithuanians, my project is finding such ancient haplogroups as M10a, N1b, R0a, U2, and X.

[Haganus]

origin of R 1 b

But where does R 1 b arise? In southwest France during the Ice Age?
The Cro-Magnon's descendants went after the Ice Age to Great Brittany
and Scandinavia? So the actual inhabitants of Scandinvia are mostly
descendants of the Cro-Magnons?

There is another theory that R 1b has an origin in the East of Europe.
For example the Tocharians have R 1 b and apart of R 1 a there are
a lot of Haplogroup R 1 b in Russia and Turkye. Who does know
Ellen Levy-Koffman's theory?

[MMaddi]

Ellen Levy Coffman's work is not specifically about R1b. She has written about the discontinuity of Europe's population of over 10,000 years ago from today. Although I don't think she focuses on R1b, her work does have application to the question you ask and has added to doubts already in my mind that R1b was the haplogroup of Europeans as long as 30,000 years ago.

That is the general claim made - that the humans who painted animal figures in southern French caves that long ago were R1b. This also is what the Genographic Project claims. You can look at their "Atlas of the Human Journey" at https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/atlas.html for what they present as their description of the chronology of human migrations. I already mentioned that I have serious doubts about this sort of timeline for R1b in Europe. You can read my reasoning at a posting I did in another thread on this board several months ago at http://www.ftdna.com/forum/showthrea...4749#post34749

The gist of my disagreement is that it's acknowledged by everyone that R arose in Central Asia and descended from P, along with Q. While Q moved east from Siberia across the Bering Strait at the height of the Ice Age, when men could walk from Asia to North America, R moved in the opposite direction, to the west and also to the south (India, Pakistan, Tocharians). As you can read in my earlier posting that I linked to, the timeline and geography given by the Genographic Project for the development from P to R to R1 to R1b makes no sense at all. In fact, given that the vast majority of R1b's in Europe are R1b1c, it's unbelievable to me that the Genographic Project atlas doesn't even account for the SNPs that define R1b1 or R1b1c.

All this says to me that R1b was not in western Europe as long ago as 30,000 years. If you ask me what was the haplogroup of humans in Europe that long ago, I honestly have to say that I don't know. But I will say that it's far more likely that the haplogroup of those early Europeans was I or perhaps IJ or its parent F than that they were R1b. That falls in line with what Eki wrote above in this thread regarding I1a. It might help you to visualize the relationships between the yDNA haplogroups by looking at the ISOGG haplogroup tree at http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNATreeTrunk07.html

[Johnserrat]

This topic keeps rearing its ugly head, despite a complete lack of new data to support the theory that R1b has a post-LGM entry to Europe.

Further, R1bs likely repopulated Europe after the LGM from multiple refugia. This is not controversial among the primary researchers in this field. Please name one reputable researcher who postulates a haplogroup other than R1b as the earliest of our paleolithic european ancestors.

I1a is not a good candidate for the original cro-magnons because their distribution in europe is far too limited and regionalized. I1as were probably in europe as well prior to the LGM, but appear to have arrived many thousands of years after R1bs.

I should note, for the record, that R1bs are descendants of haplogroup F, just like I1as.

As is nicely summarized on wikipedia: "Until new subclade markers emerge, the most parsimonious interpretation is that R1b1c* reflects Paleolithic hunter - gatherer populations that overwintered in the Franco - Cantabrian Refugium during the last Ice Ages and, while largely remaining in the immediate area, did fan out as far a Central Europe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

Clearly, the Genographic Project has its faults and there remain many things to be explained. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus at this time is that R1bs are western europe's indigenous population.

John

[MMaddi]

This topic keeps rearing its ugly head, despite a complete lack of new data to support the theory that R1b has a post-LGM entry to Europe.

I'm not sure what causes you to characterize my objections to what's said about R1b as "rearing its ugly head." That sounds like quite a perjorative description of what I posted. Perhaps you can explain what makes it so "ugly."

Further, R1bs likely repopulated Europe after the LGM from multiple refugia. This is not controversial among the primary researchers in this field. Please name one reputable researcher who postulates a haplogroup other than R1b as the earliest of our paleolithic european ancestors.

Again you want to knock down my argument by an appeal to authority. I don't accept that as a valid refutation of my objections. I have pointed out what I think are clearly serious problems with the timeline and geography of the Genographic Project in regard to R1b. Those problems are generally in line with what I see as mistakes in general in the theory of placing R1b in Europe 30,000 years ago. Why don't you show me how I'm mistaken in seeing problems in their timeline and geography, instead of continually asking me for academic authorities to back up my concerns? I suppose you would have asked Kepler which leading authorities backed up his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system and the planetary orbits were elliptical! Although I noted that Ellen Levy Coffman does not specifically address the question of R1b, she does deal convincingly with the question of population discontinuity, both in Europe at large and in Iberia, and that certainly backs up my problems with the question of R1b in western Europe.

I1a is not a good candidate for the original cro-magnons because their distribution in europe is far too limited and regionalized. I1as were probably in europe as well prior to the LGM, but appear to have arrived many thousands of years after R1bs.

I should note, for the record, that R1bs are descendants of haplogroup F, just like I1as.

Please read Eki's and my post again. Neither of us say that I1a was the haplogroup of European humans 30,000 years ago. We both put forward IJ or F as the possible predominant haplogroup of Europe at that time. Perhaps "their distribution in europe is far too limited and regionalized" (as you write) because they were replaced by the later R1b population in the post-LGM period. After all, the theory is that there was a severe population bottleneck during LGM, which would present the possibility of population replacement (as Ellen Levy Coffman points to) of one haplogroup by another. Isn't that possible, if you admit that I1a was probably present in Europe pre-LGM?

Clearly, the Genographic Project has its faults and there remain many things to be explained. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus at this time is that R1bs are western europe's indigenous population.

John

Frankly, I don't think the question will be settled unless someone is able to get some testable yDNA from a skeleton of over 10,000 years ago. Until then, I'll maintain my doubts.

[Johnserrat]

I'm not sure what causes you to characterize my objections to what's said about R1b as "rearing its ugly head." That sounds like quite a perjorative description of what I posted. Perhaps you can explain what makes it so "ugly."

This debate has been very circular. No new research or data has come to light that supports an argument in favour of any haplogroup other than R1b as being indigenous in europe. No personal insult was intended.

Again you want to knock down my argument by an appeal to authority. I don't accept that as a valid refutation of my objections. I have pointed out what I think are clearly serious problems with the timeline and geography of the Genographic Project in regard to R1b. Those problems are generally in line with what I see as mistakes in general in the theory of placing R1b in Europe 30,000 years ago. Why don't you show me how I'm mistaken in seeing problems in their timeline and geography, instead of continually asking me for academic authorities to back up my concerns? I suppose you would have asked Kepler which leading authorities backed up his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system and the planetary orbits were elliptical! Although I noted that Ellen Levy Coffman does not specifically address the question of R1b, she does deal convincingly with the question of population discontinuity, both in Europe at large and in Iberia, and that certainly backs up my problems with the question of R1b in western Europe.

Are you equating yourself to Johannes Kepler, who was one of the leading academics of his time? When it comes to complex science, relying on experts would seem to be sensible. When someone advocates a position on an issue, requesting information regarding the scientific authorities that support that position is quite proper. An absence of support significantly weakens the position. To reject academic authorities out of hand is a pernicious form of anti-intellectualism.

Please read Eki's and my post again. Neither of us say that I1a was the haplogroup of European humans 30,000 years ago. We both put forward IJ or F as the possible predominant haplogroup of Europe at that time. Perhaps "their distribution in europe is far too limited and regionalized" (as you write) because they were replaced by the later R1b population in the post-LGM period. After all, the theory is that there was a severe population bottleneck during LGM, which would present the possibility of population replacement (as Ellen Levy Coffman points to) of one haplogroup by another. Isn't that possible, if you admit that I1a was probably present in Europe pre-LGM?

First of all, Coffman based her conclusions on very few ancient DNA results. Secondly, if haplogroup F was the dominant haplogroup among the cro-magnon, they could have evolved into R1bs just as easily as I1as because they both are descendant populations from F. Now to be clear, I don't advocate this position myself. I do not see any difficulty in F leaving Africa around 45,000 years ago, evolving into haplogroup P in central asia around 40,000 years ago, evolving into haplogroup R around 35,000 years ago and moving into europe to form the Aurignacian culture around 30,000 years ago. After the LGM, it appears that the majority of the repopulation of europe was by members of the R1b1c* subclade.

Frankly, I don't think the question will be settled unless someone is able to get some testable yDNA from a skeleton of over 10,000 years ago. Until then, I'll maintain my doubts.

I believe everyone would like to see more ancient DNA results and to have those results available on a public database. But until that happens, the best explanation remains that R1bs are western europe's indigenous population.

John

[Eki]

This topic keeps rearing its ugly head, despite a complete lack of new data to support the theory that R1b has a post-LGM entry to Europe.

Further, R1bs likely repopulated Europe after the LGM from multiple refugia. This is not controversial among the primary researchers in this field. Please name one reputable researcher who postulates a haplogroup other than R1b as the earliest of our paleolithic european ancestors.

I1a is not a good candidate for the original cro-magnons because their distribution in europe is far too limited and regionalized. I1as were probably in europe as well prior to the LGM, but appear to have arrived many thousands of years after R1bs.

I should note, for the record, that R1bs are descendants of haplogroup F, just like I1as.

As is nicely summarized on wikipedia: "Until new subclade markers emerge, the most parsimonious interpretation is that R1b1c* reflects Paleolithic hunter - gatherer populations that overwintered in the Franco - Cantabrian Refugium during the last Ice Ages and, while largely remaining in the immediate area, did fan out as far a Central Europe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

Clearly, the Genographic Project has its faults and there remain many things to be explained. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus at this time is that R1bs are western europe's indigenous population.

John

If R1b reached Northern Europe before I1a, do yo have an explanation why hardly any R1b has reached Finland and has it's Scandinavian hotspot just in the southern Scandinavia, while I1a has reached even the northernmost part of Scandinavia and Finland in large numbers as seen in the maps by Paul Johnsen? If R1b started to spread in Europe first, I1a must have bypassed it sometime in the race towards north: