PDA

View Full Version : How it was all clear from the beginning



Squad
01-31-2018, 04:11 PM
In this post, I will talk about R1b and how the truth about it could have been deduced many years ago and is now more and more being confirmed by ancient DNA. If you all remember, early studies seemed to give more attention to frequency rather than diversity and for this R-M269 was once believed to have been the genetic signature of the very first Europeans due to its high concentration in the western portion of the ''continent'' and especially among the Basques whose language was thought to be a remnant of the first paleolithic Europeans.

However, the data back then was already clear in that it was not supportive of this agenda-driven scenario. Looking at the various haplotypes of R-M269 from all around Europe, it was clear that the clade lacked in diversity but you could only know it if you actually cared to compare the data with that of Haplogroup I and especially I2. Looking at I2, it was possible to notice how it was made up of multiple distinct branches represented by different modal haplotypes and with much more internal diversity, indicating the haplogroup's more ancient diversification. On the other hand, the different divisions within R-M269 not only somewhat lacked in diversity but also more often than not did not have distinct modals and thus could not really be distinguished on the basis of Y-STRs, the main tool we had back then. This off course meant that no long bottleneck events led to those branches and that R-M269 instead differentiated quickly into its various sub-clades, in a starlike fashion. That was of course indicative of a more recent expansion and clearly very far from being in agreement with the absurd belief that it was Cro-Magnon's line.

All of the above was of course confirmed when the SNP revolution happened in the beginning of the current decade and when ancient DNA emerged. Even shortly before that, there were new theories proposing a neolithic arrival together with other allegedly neolithic lines from the Near-East and many people switched to this scenario. This was when papers started to become increasingly obsessed by diversity, not yet knowing that it is rather basal diversity that is more important since Y-STR diversity on itself could be misleading, especially when not understood properly. The diversity of M269 in Armenia and Anatolia made a lot of people think that this was evidence for this new scenario. But if the time aspect was now closer to the truth as it was no longer question of Cro-Magnon or any absurd stuff along those lines, there was more to it if one payed enough attention. Europe also had its big share of basal R-M269, and R-L23(xL51) looked rather european and was all over the place. Gioiello made countless efforts trying to persuade people about the role Italy played in the evolution of M269 and R1b as a whole, but most people didn't want to listen, despite him being very insightful. People cared more about their own personal conviction and opted for either a neolithic arrival or a link with the diffusion of indo-european languages.

However, the data was also not in favor of any of that, which further shows how fast are people, be them actual scientists or not, jumping to conclusions. No matter how people tried to ignore Italy and Europe, the fact remained that there was definitely something of great importance over there and someone had to provide a sound explanation. The indo-european migrations didn't make sense and were easy to dismiss for it was recorded that not only ''basque'' but quite a few pre indo-european languages were spoken in Iberia not so long ago. Or were these people thinking that all of iberian M269 came with the Celts or the Romans ? Very silly indeed... The near-eastern theory was also very speculative, nothing indicated that M269 could be from there, its distribution as well as internal structure are not similar to other clades that were thought to have diffused during the neolithic. It was primarily because of R-V88 that people insisted on this otherwise poor scenario. Indeed, everyone was of the opinion that V88 entered Africa from the Levant because that was the most obvious route. But did it really make sense that various clades of R1b would have migrated from the Near-East at very distinct times without the Near-East preserving any initial diversity even though - given that M269 and V88 are fairly divergent from each other - it stayed there for many thousand years and that instead each branch migrated to very different places (M269 to Europe, M73 to the north into Eastern-Europe/Central Asia and V88 to Africa) and during different eras, without being associated with other clades along the way ? At least in my head, it always looked very unlikely that R1b was ever in the Middle-East.

If you really looked close enough, there was more to R-V88 than this very simplistic scenario. Browsing through the data made it clear that there was something european about V88. Its presence in many regions across the ''continent'' (Italy, Balkans, Iberia, British Isles...) was certainly against some kind of african diffusion. V88 in Africa has a ''chadic'' diffusion, not maghrebi. Even if it came from the Maghreb, how come it made it to so many places then and why would Sardinia have this elevated frequency of almost 3% and have specific non-african sub-clades ? This was without even looking at the diversity, for which european V88 seemed to have much by looking at the haplotypes. When we came to know more about R-V88's phylogeny, it of course became obvious that it is Europe and not Africa which harbored basal lines and thus was its most likely place of origin. I was and still am from the view that it entered Africa from Italy since it is more common there and is very rare in Morocco (about 0.2%) and almost non-existent in more western areas of Africa thus making an iberian route very unlikely, whereas it is relatively common in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt (roughly 2% or more each) making it more likely that it quickly went to the south following ancient libyan rivers from there until it reached lake Chad. Today we know from Yfull that this is a nicely fitting model since the TMRCA of sub-saharan V88 corresponds to the intense aridification process associated with the 5.9 kiloyear event. Quite frankly, the near-eastern scenario never made sense...

But apparently, all of this was not enough to convince the majority of people. Now when ancient DNA came into play and that R-M269 failed to show up in various neolithic remains, most people became even more clueless. The followers of the near-eastern neolithic origin quickly switched their minds and started adhering to the indo-european arrival from the East, especially when it appeared in Yamnaya, not acknowledging that V88 is most likely european thus not being concerned with the fact that Europe/Italy have basal representatives for both V88 and M269, which would be a little bit too coincidental to happen through unrelated migrations to Italy. Hey but they had R-M73 to back them up in their claims right !? Here comes the most interesting part which should end the debate. Indeed, the sister-clade of R-M269, R-M73, would appear eastern to the unfamiliar observer given that it is mostly diffused in central Asia and even managed to reach much farther east as far as western China. Well, that's only true for one of its two sub-clades, R-M478, which is further divided in two. The first cluster, now known as R-Y14051, is lacking in diversity due to a more pronounced bottleneck and can easily be spotted by a multi-step deletion at DYS390 for which it has a value of 19, while the second cluster, now R-Y20750, is more diverse and ancient. M478 as a whole seems to be associated with turkic speaking people and is almost completely absent in Europe.

But here is what most people are not aware of : R-M478 has an european brother. And not only european but western european. This R-M73 sub-clade is definitely not linked to any turkic migration or whatsoever, as it is not seen outside of western Europe, where it is found everywhere albeit at low frequencies. While it is now merely a shell of its former self, YHRD used to be a great tool for allowing the user to search for haplotypes in their massive database, with more than 7000 samples from Germany, 4000 from Poland, 2000 from Czech republic, 5000 from Iberia and so on. Thanks to it, I've found a lot of stuff and this, coupled with FTDNA, was what enabled me to see just how widespread and above all very diverse this sub-clade is. Hopefully it has a distinct enough modal to be identified, you just had to enter the three main discriminating values [DYS438=10, DYS392=13, DYS393=12] and then add a couple more to narrow down the possibilities such as DYS390=25. YHRD will then give you every corresponding haplotype and neighboring haplotypes (which are one mutation away from what you entered). Doing a few searches, the haplogroup showed up in a bunch of different regions within western Europe, reaching even previous associated colonies. It is found as far south as Portugal where it is also represented by a small cluster with DYS390 = 9 that also made it to Brazil, and as far north as Mecklenburg in northern Germany ! Everywhere in western Europe but never in the east, not even in Poland, with the easternmost case I know of being czech ! As can also be observed at FTDNA, its diversity is kind of high and I estimate its expansion time to be around 5000 years old. It happens to be concentrated just north of Italy : in the alpine mountain range of Switzerland and Austria, where it is found at about 0.3 - 0.5% on average. So we are again brought to the same area, an area which seemingly played a major role in the history of R1b no doubt (for example, remember the concentration of R-L23* in Switerland was known for many years).

But I guess some could argue that pre-M73 was found in a hunter-gatherer from Samara, dating from about 7.6 kya. I wonder what actually made them think that M478 and M73 are equivalent SNPs while they're not as I've just told you about this non-M478 european cluster ! So the case from Samara is pre-M478 and now we know that M478's MRCA lived some 7.3 kya and would thus represent an eastern migration of M73. I'd estimate european R-M73* to have diverged from M478 about a thousand years earlier or two, putting the overall TMRCA of R-M73 at around 8-9000 years. We would need a sample submitted to Yfull to refine the estimate.

So here is what I wanted to say : that everything was already clear, but only if you cared enough to dig extensively through every piece of data made available. It was clear based on all the above observations that Europe, especially the area around Italy/Switzerland, was very important to understand R-M269 and even R1b as a whole, pointing to some kind of alpine refugium. Back then, while not defined by any SNP yet, even the much rare sub-clades such as R-L389(xP297) and the basal R-L278*/PH155 could easily be noticed to also have european representatives. Now that we have a better understanding of haplogroups thanks to the SNP revolution, we can estimate ages with much more accuracy and it just so happens that most R1b sub-clades expanded at similar dates centered at about 7500 years ago, thus indicating a more or less common bottleneck in support of a refugium scenario. With ancient DNA, it is now case closed I think, with V88 popping up everywhere in Europe, taking away any last hope from the proponents of an extra-european coalescence. R1b, while clearly not the first european haplogroup, is not of neolithic or post-neolithic arrival either : it occupies an intermediate position between the two claims. It was already clear from the start and if you're not convinced, I suggest you re-read all of the above.

But it was not clear for people who rushed to conclusions to support their own convictions. I cannot believe that the likes of Davidski spend a lot of time dealing with different charts, graphs and statistics but are still clueless. I've noticed that many people are saying that modern DNA is not informative, and it is not informative when you refuse to admit that Y-DNA K2 is south-east asian and instead argue that it's central asian, or think that E is not african... Lesson to be learned : never underestimate modern DNA and study every hidden bit of it while staying objective if you really want to discover the truth, else prepare to get your own little world destroyed when ancient DNA is given the right to speak.

Squad
02-03-2018, 04:33 PM
Yeah K2 is most likely south asian or southeast asian, however E is clearly non african, or at least originated in a population that was more related to eurasians compared to sub-saharan africans. Considering natufians did not look phenotypically like negroids/Sub-saharan africans at all and had no admixture from them either, while still carrying E old clades. Same with IAM in North africa, no SSA admixture and they didnt look black/ SSA in phenotype.

Kostenki makes me wonder if there is some australoid substratum in modern Europeans.

That's not even the intended purpose of my R1b post, but clearly non-african you say? Show your evidence then. The ONLY E sub-clade with non-african representatives is E-M35. I never understood how come people base themselves one one very downstream sub-clade to infer the origin of E as a whole. Even worse than that is that E-M35 itself is mostly african ! No one talked about modern sub-saharan Africans, they have nothing to do here as it is obvious that if the population which gave rise to CT was separated from B ''paleo-Africans'', the east-african population that was responsible for the spread of E would be closer to eurasian pops than to ''paleo-Africans''. People should stay objective and stop trying to distance themselves from Africans for a while !

mephisto
02-03-2018, 07:15 PM
Amusing as usual. I wonder what else in genetics is a conspiracy against the truth. First J1 and now R1b. To what you said about V88 I can agree slightly.

Tz85
02-03-2018, 07:23 PM
Did I just read that E-M35 is European in origin? Now that's comical

Squad
02-03-2018, 08:31 PM
Amusing as usual. I wonder what else in genetics is a conspiracy against the truth. First J1 and now R1b. To what you said about V88 I can agree slightly.

Many things I'd say. What I wrote about R1b actually is based on extensive research and observations and seems much closer to the truth, and now with ancient DNA it is becoming more and more obvious. What I specifically said regarding R-M73 is the most overlooked/hidden fact and the most important at the same time. As for J1, my concern was with its sub-clade J-P58 and also its parent L136, rather than the whole haplogroup.


Did I just read that E-M35 is European in origin? Now that's comical

Who said so ? In case you are referring to me, I said that out of all haplogroup E sub-clades, E-M35 is the only one which has some non-african representatives.

Awale
02-03-2018, 11:54 PM
Yeah K2 is most likely south asian or southeast asian, however E is clearly non african, or at least originated in a population that was more related to eurasians compared to sub-saharan africans. Considering natufians did not look phenotypically like negroids/Sub-saharan africans at all and had no admixture from them either, while still carrying E old clades. Same with IAM in North africa, no SSA admixture and they didnt look black/ SSA in phenotype.

The only Natufians whose craniofacial traits I've seen tested did actually show a "Negroid" shift:

https://i.imgur.com/s9VoRGM.png

source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325007/)

This is why some chaps online were shouting from the roof-tops that Lazaridis et al. didn't notice SSA autosomal input in them because, as even the Lazaridis paper noted, some expected them to show such ancestry because of the small amount of craniofacial data (about 4 samples, I recall). And I still don't get how some think them not showing ancestry akin to modern non-Eurasian admixed SSAs while carrying E-Z830 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z830/), a single subclade of E-M35 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-M35/), somehow informs on the overall origins of E as a whole or why this even matters. E originated around 65,000 years ago. It would pretty much date to a time when the lines between some African clusters and "Eurasians" were thoroughly blurred and still forming when the world was yet entirely inhabited by a relatively small number of Hunter-Gatherer bands that probably didn't even look substantially distinct phenotypically. Yet you still see weird folk projecting all this modern "Africa Vs. Eurasia" stuff into such a distant past. Quite odd... :-|


Same with IAM in North africa, no SSA admixture

Where are you getting this? The only results I recall from the Neolithic North-Africa pre-print (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569) on them were the ones shared in the supplementary and all I recall learning from those was that:

* They have lowered Neanderthal ancestry.

* They might be more basal than Natufians.

* F-stats show they're much closer to Neolithic and Epipaleolithic Levantines than to various populations across Sub-Saharan Africa.

* Their Fst distance from SSAs is comparable to their Fst distance from WHGs and EHGs. In fact, they're closer by 0.033 in this respect to Yorubas than to WHGs (https://i.imgur.com/mgXA64o.png).

Nowhere do I see a formal-stat test to confirm if they have some gene-flow from some Sub-Saharan groups when compared to Natufians, unless I've missed something? Even if they lack such admixture; they show a lot of it in ADMIXTURE and have a strong shift toward SSAs in the global PCA which, if this isn't direct recent East or West African-like ancestry, implies, in my humble opinion, that this could be caused by them being even more Basal-Eurasian than Natufians (who show similar but less significant shifts in ADMIXTURE and PCAs). So, we basically have our most Basal group yet and they're in North-Africa with a Fst distance closer to Yorubas than to WHGs... I wonder what that says to someone without an agenda about the possible origin place of Basal Eurasian (North-Africa?). I mean I think it could still be in West-Asia itself (the gulf oasis?) and I don't really care either way but we'll see. :eyebrows:

---

Anyway, sorry for having interrupted your thread with some OT content, Squad. As you were... :P

TuaMan
02-04-2018, 12:50 AM
Squad, I think you're becoming one of my new favorite posters:P This place gets pretty dull honestly when there aren't interesting new papers coming out to stimulate disucssion.

Back to the topic, if you're assuming a kind of mild Giollelo-esque position regarding R1b and the Alpine/Italian refugium, how do you envisage the correlation between the contemporary distribution of R1b in Europe and the Indo-European invasion?

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 01:13 AM
Villabruna has bow been “promoted” to P297, making it the earliest attested on that line, and on the way to M269.
However, I don’t think Italy was a refigium rather a relict Zone
The main core of late glacial expansion was east Central Europe

rms2
02-04-2018, 01:55 AM
The advantage the original post in this thread has it that it is too long. Most people, including me, don't want to read crap that long. I won't read long posts here unless they are from someone whom experience has taught me probably has something worthwhile to say, like Jean M, Generalissimo, or Alan, among a few others.

But when "Squad", whom I'm guessing is someone who has been banned here before, said Gioiello was "insightful", that was it for me, I was done. Gioiello is a horrible anti-Semite and Italian chauvinist who lacks the sense God gave a piss-ant.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 02:06 AM
The advantage the original post in this thread has it that it is too long. Most people, including me, don't want to read crap that long. I won't read long posts here unless they are from someone whom experience has taught me probably has something worthwhile to say, like Jean M, Generalissimo, or Alan, among a few others.

But when "Squad", whom I'm guessing is someone who has been banned here before, said Gioiello was "insightful", that was it for me, I was done. Gioiello is a horrible anti-Semite and Italian chauvinist who lacks the sense God gave a piss-ant.

Well, Squad whoever he is deserves a little less rudeness
Anyhow, Jean Alan and all the Sibero-Steppe squad didn’t exact hit the nail on the about R1b, anyhow

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:15 AM
Well, Squad whoever he is deserves a little less rudeness
Anyhow, Jean Alan and all the Sibero-Steppe squad didn’t exact hit the nail on the about R1b, anyhow

That's funny, coming from you.

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:16 AM
Squad reminds me of epp.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 02:19 AM
That's funny, coming from you.

What is ?
Try to formulate big boy comments

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:25 AM
What is ?
Try to formulate big boy comments

You first.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 02:28 AM
You first.

That actually made me laugh, thanks

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:29 AM
That actually made me laugh, thanks

You're welcome.

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:32 AM
Squad's initial post in this thread is obviously the typical anti-R1b rant, and by anti-R1b I mean the usual R1b-is-anything-but-Indo-European schtick. Maybe he's not epp, but that post sure reminds me of epp's kind of drivel.

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:40 AM
I guess I should bow out of this thread, because I am becoming so impatient with this kind of *stuff* it is difficult for me to tolerate it anymore. There's been years of it. It's getting old (it was old about ten years ago).

Eventually the ancient y-dna evidence will set things straight.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 02:53 AM
I don’t see too much wrong with squads comments, nor do I understand how suggesting that R1b has a long history in Europe & exploring possible linguistics connections is “anti-R1b”.
Yes squad is right : M73 likely represents a movement eastward to Russia from Europe. If this realisation is too traumatic for people it perhaps is best for them to tune out and let others interested in Palaeolithic matters, phylogeny, etc go on their discussion.

rms2
02-04-2018, 02:55 AM
I don’t see too much wrong with squads comments, nor do I understand how suggesting that R1b has a long history in Europe & exploring possible linguistics connections is “anti-R1b”.
Yes squad is right : M73 likely represents a movement eastward to Russia from Europe. If this realisation is too traumatic for people it perhaps is best for them to tune out and let others interested in Palaeolithic matters, phylogeny, etc go on their discussion.

Naturally you see things that way. That's no big surprise to anyone who has read your posts here or at Eurogenes for any length of time.

A Norfolk L-M20
02-04-2018, 03:10 AM
I'm sure that this is just a friendly disagreement, but, just a friendly reminder: 3.12 Anthrogenica encourages its members to participate in discussions in a topic-focused manner. Personalization of discussions is completely prohibited at all times. This includes (and is not limited to) direct personal attacks, accusations, insinuations and false disclosures. Additionally, discussions that degenerate into inconsequential flaming or inanity will be deleted without prior notice. Note that this discussion policy also applies to Anthrogenica's Private Messaging and Visitor Message functions.

Thanks guys.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 03:27 AM
I'm sure that must mean something to you somehow. I'm sure you think for yourself. Never said you didn't. We just disagree, so I think you get a lot wrong.

You mean like how you were right that Post Neolithic southeast Europe had a higher population than Central Europe ?

21222

Or that I continually am proven correct about R1b not just darting in from Siberia ?

Or that there were some movements from balkans to steppe ?

My theories are looking pretty fine, thanks




I'm thinking your choice of words there is very revealing but really not of anything I hadn't figured out already. Maybe it will help others understand, however.

The only thing which is revealing is your meltdown from the inception. As I said long ago, pay attention to counter- transference and strawmen.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 03:31 AM
I gotta say; things are awfully quiet these days in terms of Ancient DNA. Perhaps we have been spoiled beyond satiation in the recent years. Interesting to know that Villabruna has been officially placed in the R1b-P297 branch and in the R1b-M73 branch. Thus; this means he was the great-great-great grand-daddy of the Latvians HG and ultimately Samara HG.

https://kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b_xP312xU106_V.38.1.pdf

rms2
02-04-2018, 03:31 AM
You mean like how you were right that Post Neolithic southeast Europe had a higher population than Central Europe ?

21222

What are you talking about?



Or that I continually am proven correct about R1b not just darting in from Siberia ?

You are? I must have missed that. Besides, who said R1b "darted in from Siberia"? Who cares, anyway?




The only thing which is revealing is your meltdown from the inception. As I said long ago, pay attention to counter- transference

My meltdown? From the inception of what?

I have a pretty good idea what inspires you.

rms2
02-04-2018, 03:36 AM
. . . Interesting to know that Villabruna has been officially placed in the R1b-P297 branch and in the R1b-M73 branch. Thus; this means he was the great-great-great grand-daddy of the Latvians HG and ultimately Samara HG.

. . .

Oh, come on. You know better than that. As far as we know, Villabruna left no y-dna descendants. But I guess he is all that is left to you, since Blätterhöhle turned out to be V88. Squeeze what you can out of him.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 03:46 AM
Oh, come on. You know better than that. As far as we know, Villabruna left no y-dna descendants. But I guess he is all that is left to you, since Blätterhöhle turned out to be V88. Squeeze what you can out of him.

Boy you are really confrontational today! Have a look at the link that I provided; it comes from our very own Sergey Malyshev; updated by Atanas Kumbarov. It now places Villabruna in the same clade as:

I0124, EHG, Lebyazhinka IV (Russia), 5640-5555 calBCE
Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC
Latvia_HG2, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5841-5636 cal BC
Latvia_HG3, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5302-4852 cal BC


All of them derived for:

M73, BY13043, BY13044, BY13045, BY13046, BY13047, BY13048, BY13049, S3511, Y13199, Y13200, Y13202, Y13203, Y13204, Y13206, Y13208, Y13209, Y13210, Y13871, Y13872, Y13873, Y13874, Y13875, Y13878, Y13879, Y13880, Y13881, Y13882, Y13883, Y13884, Y13885, Y13886, Y13887, Y13888

But ancestral to:

L1435, M478, Y13201, Y13207, Y13876, Y13877, Y13889, Y22569

Moreover; how am I squeezing anything out of Villabruna; he isn't even in the M269 line. Him being related to the ancestral lineage that gave rise to the R1b-M73 found in the Latvians HG makes perfect sense; since we see a shift in WHG in the Latvians compared to the SHG. The same shift that we see in the Ukranians who become more WHG-like in the Neolithic but they get the R1b-V88 and R1b-V88 like lineages that were hanging out in the Balkans. Still; it seems the illusive R1b-M269 line is yet to be found; but it ain't in Ukraine. Only thing we know is that R1b-M73 went from Peninsular Europe to Western Russia and gave rise to Samara HG. Also; did you see this ATP3 in the M269 line in the link above? Oh boy; oh boy!

To be fair; it does seem like Blatterhole were descendants of the Balkan R1b-V88 types that probably were carried away to Western Europe with farmers; so they are not related to the R1b-M269 line.

rms2
02-04-2018, 03:52 AM
Check out this highly informative thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior). Seems to complement this one pretty well.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 03:55 AM
Boy you are really confrontational today! Have a look at the link that I provided; it comes from our very own Sergey Malyshev; updated by Atanas Kumbarov. It now places Villabruna in the same clade as:

I0124, EHG, Lebyazhinka IV (Russia), 5640-5555 calBCE
Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC
Latvia_HG2, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5841-5636 cal BC
Latvia_HG3, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5302-4852 cal BC


All of them derived for:

M73, BY13043, BY13044, BY13045, BY13046, BY13047, BY13048, BY13049, S3511, Y13199, Y13200, Y13202, Y13203, Y13204, Y13206, Y13208, Y13209, Y13210, Y13871, Y13872, Y13873, Y13874, Y13875, Y13878, Y13879, Y13880, Y13881, Y13882, Y13883, Y13884, Y13885, Y13886, Y13887, Y13888

But ancestral to:

L1435, M478, Y13201, Y13207, Y13876, Y13877, Y13889, Y22569

Moreover; how am I squeezing anything out of Villabruna; he isn't even in the M269 line. Him being related to the ancestral lineage that gave rise to the R1b-M73 found in the Latvians HG makes perfect sense; since we see a shift in WHG in the Latvians compared to the SHG. The same shift that we see in the Ukranians who become more WHG-like in the Neolithic but they get the R1b-V88 and R1b-V88 like lineages that were hanging out in the Balkans. Still; it seems the illusive R1b-M269 line is yet to be found; but it ain't in Ukraine. Only thing we know is that R1b-M73 went from Peninsular Europe to Western Russia and gave rise to Samara HG. Also; did you see this ATP3 in the M269 line in the link above? Oh boy; oh boy!

To be fair; it does seem like Blatterhole were descendants of the Balkan R1b-V88 types that probably were carried away to Western Europe with farmers; so they are not related to the R1b-M269 line.

What’s also interesting is that Khvalynsk Eneolithic R1b is now on the same branch as Armenia EBA Kalavan Cave

rms2
02-04-2018, 04:01 AM
. . . Still; it seems the illusive R1b-M269 line is yet to be found; but it ain't in Ukraine.

We don't know that. We don't have any Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe, none from Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, etc.



Only thing we know is that R1b-M73 went from Peninsular Europe to Western Russia and gave rise to Samara HG. Also; did you see this ATP3 in the M269 line in the link above? Oh boy; oh boy! . . .

We don't know that. It is more likely that R1b-M73 went up the Volga to the Baltic.

There you are still flogging the crappy ATP3 sample. One would think that by now something more to your liking would have come along, but it hasn't.

At least you aren't able to beat the Blätterhöhle-pre-M269 drum anymore.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 04:56 AM
We don't know that. We don't have any Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe, none from Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, etc.

Well; but we do have some Yamnaya y-DNA from Bulgaria and zero R1b-M269-L51. Also plenty of Ukrainian Neolithic samples; yet 0 R1b-M269-L51. Heck even the elusive R1a1a-M417 makes its appearance in Ukraine e-Neolithic Sredny Stog(North Pontic (Ukrainian) steppe); yet 0 R1b-M269-L51 there. So; either R1b-M269 came from the East or it must have not been in the Steppe at all. We do have aDNA from the East; but none of it is R1b-L51. SAD! But sure; we'll find R1b-L51 in the Pontic Steppe; except that we haven't:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeA1S2Dc-YFuwo9p1D1h4sstx_upPFkqRRdcLORnj-c/edit#gid=1261376483

Ukraine_Eneolithic Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier I4110 .. J2b1 5456 3634-3377 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine F 1.068 580868
Ukraine_Eneolithic Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 R1a1a1 H2a1a 6200 5000-3500 BCE Alexandria Ukraine M 1.422 738661
Ukraine_Eneolithic_outlier Ukraine_Eneolithic I5883 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U4a 5966 4296-3735 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M 0.158 166148
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1733 .. U4b 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734 R1b1a U5b2 9202 7446-7058 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1737 .. U5a2 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1763 I2a1 U5b2 10074 8280-7967 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 R1a U5b2 10643 8825-8561 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5885 .. U5b2b 8110 6392-5927 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1732 .. U4b 7239 5364-5213 calBCE Vovnigi Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1736 .. U5b2b1 8109 6248-6070 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1738 I2a2a1b1b U5a2 7350 5473-5326 calBCE Vovnigi Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3712 IJ U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3713 I U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3714 I2a2a U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3715 I2a2a1b1 U2e1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3716 I2 U5b2a1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3717 I2a2a1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3718 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4111 .. U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4112 R U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4114 R1b1a U5a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5868 I U4d 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5870 I2a2 U4b1b1 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5872 I U5a2a 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5873 .. U4b 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5875 I2a2a1b U4a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5876 R1a U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5881 R1 U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5886 I U4a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5889 .. U5a2a 6998 5310-4785 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5890 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5891 R U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5892 R1b1a U4a1 7092 5301-4982 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5893 R1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5957 I T2 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I6133 .. U5b2a1a 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine

You see all the R1b-M269 flourishing in the Pontic Steppe. Do you see all the clades leading all the way down to R1b-M269? Yeah you do! You dawg!


We don't know that. It is more likely that R1b-M73 went up the Volga to the Baltic.

Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise. Villabruna in the R1b-M73 line and being 100% WHG; Latvians about 80% WHG and 20% EHG per the latest Fu.et.al paper are R1b-M73 and R1b-P297 as early as 7500 BC. Samara HG is R1b-M73 circa 5000 BC. So your boy Samara HG was the great-great-great-...-great grandson of Villabruna or one of his siblings/cousins.


There you are still flogging the crappy ATP3 sample. One would think that by now something more to your liking would have come along, but it hasn't.

Well; perhaps let me draw another sample from the thousands of ancient DNA samples that we have from Iberia. Oh wait! Sorry; won't be able to do that. Sounds like you gonna have to get use to ATP3 being R1b-M269.


At least you aren't able to beat the Blätterhöhle-pre-M269 drum anymore.

Well; hear me now: Before the released of the data per the authors of the paper Blatterhohle had ancestral and derived SNPs in the R1b-M269 line. Given the evidence at the moment we could only based our assumptions based on what the authors were saying. No worries; as soon as new evidence showed up to demonstrate otherwise I was more than happy to reconsider the status of Blatterhohle in the R1b line. So; yeah! There is that!

ffoucart
02-04-2018, 09:06 AM
Well; but we do have some Yamnaya y-DNA from Bulgaria and zero R1b-M269-L51. Also plenty of Ukrainian Neolithic samples; yet 0 R1b-M269-L51. Heck even the elusive R1a1a-M417 makes its appearance in Ukraine e-Neolithic Sredny Stog(North Pontic (Ukrainian) steppe); yet 0 R1b-M269-L51 there. So; either R1b-M269 came from the East or it must have not been in the Steppe at all. We do have aDNA from the East; but none of it is R1b-L51. SAD! But sure; we'll find R1b-L51 in the Pontic Steppe; except that we haven't

If I remember correctly, a well-known searcher has warned us against erroneous conclusions based on "clonal DNA" (and If I'm right, it was an answer to a similar post). Given than we have only DNA from a handfull of sites, you should be more cautious.

And given than Z2103 has been found in Yamnayan from Samara, what are the odds that L51 could have a complete different origin? The fact that Yamna from Bulgaria seem to have been I2 instead of R1b means that Steppe people were originally more diverse in terms of Y DNA than what we see after their expansion.

Ral
02-04-2018, 11:17 AM
Squad, I think you're becoming one of my new favorite posters:P This place gets pretty dull honestly when there aren't interesting new papers coming out to stimulate disucssion.

Back to the topic, if you're assuming a kind of mild Giollelo-esque position regarding R1b and the Alpine/Italian refugium, how do you envisage the correlation between the contemporary distribution of R1b in Europe and the Indo-European invasion?
I can sound a provocative thing too:
If we consider the situation with language change, then the model according to which the non-EI Basque population R1b changes its language to the Indo-European, preserving its Basque language only in isolation in the mountains looks more natural, unlike the situation when the IE population R1b for unknown reasons loses own native language in the mountains in spite of ethnic domination.

By the way, offtopic.The historical dispute in Russia(Live Radio):)
https://youtu.be/_66KZ79lAgg?t=63

ffoucart
02-04-2018, 12:31 PM
I can sound a provocative thing too:
If we consider the situation with language change, then the model according to which the non-EI Basque population R1b changes its language to the Indo-European]

Given that R1b is probably intrusive in Basques, with the same subclade found in neighboring IE populations, and that Basque ethnogenesis is probably fairly recent (Iron Age?), your point doesn't seem good.

Ral
02-04-2018, 12:48 PM
Given that R1b is probably intrusive in Basques, with the same subclade found in neighboring IE populations, and that Basque ethnogenesis is probably fairly recent (Iron Age?), your point doesn't seem good.
If we consider language change, the logic based on hierarchy of subclades does'nt work good.
"Young" subclade could(at the mountains) preserve their language, whereas old subclades could change their language. I do not insist on this viewpoint. But i want to show a weakness of such interpretations(based on hierarchy of subclades).

Romilius
02-04-2018, 01:02 PM
I think that that Alpine refugium could be debunked or put in glory with Olalde paper's last version, with samples from Sion, hopefully if those samples could cover also the Early Neolithic period.

Isidro
02-04-2018, 03:04 PM
Many people agree that we don't have a huge database that covers Eurasia in ancient DNA with a systematic geographic gradient approach to date, many of us are waiting and waiting for more results, that in itself it's a sign that very few people are convinced and ready to close the books.

It eludes me that accepting this caveat, still some are ruling out certain scenarios in view of the ever shifting and changing ancient results in the huge R1b branch.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 03:37 PM
Many people agree that we don't have a huge database that covers Eurasia in ancient DNA with a systematic geographic gradient approach to date, many of us are waiting and waiting for more results, that in itself it's a sign that very few people are convinced and ready to close the books.

It eludes me that accepting this caveat, still some are ruling out certain scenarios in view of the ever shifting and changing ancient results in the huge R1b branch.

That's because many people are desperate to close the chapter on it; lets not the evidence disprove their beloved hypothesis. Hence; why they engage in ridiculing any alternative theory and try their best within their possibilities to shut it down.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 03:47 PM
And given than Z2103 has been found in Yamnayan from Samara, what are the odds that L51 could have a complete different origin?

About the same odds that the R1b-M73 in Samara looks like it came straight out of the West from the Latvians who had plenty of R1b-M73 and its precursor R1b-P297(xM269). Thus; I wouldn't be surprise if R1b-Z2103 venture into the Eastern side of the Steppe in the form of a pack containing R1b-Z2103 and R1b-M269(xL51); whereas the ancestral lineage to R1b-L51 remain westwards of there. An explanation is needed for the seemingly lack of R1b-M269 or even R1b-P297 related lineages in the Pontic Steppe in the time period circa 5000 BC-3500 BC; which is a key time period since R1b-L23 would have been expanding by that time. Moreover; per the latest iteration even the Eastern Yamnaya genomes can be best modeled using the following admixture:

CHG + EHG + LBK_EN + WHG 0.551431774

0.435 0.435 0.072 0.058

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uG1V60YfLTyt7O8Nrhuz4FIcF-I_j_Ou/view

Thus; we see that the Eastern Yamnaya people can be modeled as being 7.2% LBK_EN and 5.8% WHG. If there was a migration from West to East; specially one that passed through farmers territory; we would expect to see at least a minor autosomal input. Well; the autosomal input has been confirmed.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/01/another-look-at-genetic-structure-of.html

ffoucart
02-04-2018, 04:22 PM
LBK seems more a default choice for CT, there is no need (and obviously no proof) for a migration from Central Europe to explain the EEF found in Yamna. By the way, your logics are at fault: if you postulate a migration to the East, why L51 wasn't part of it, since ancestral forms did so?
Moreover, L51 is not absent from Ukraine, it hasn't been found in the (very partial) current sampling. It's far too early to conclude of the absence of L51 from the Steppe.

jeanL
02-04-2018, 04:40 PM
LBK seems more a default choice for CT, there is no need (and obviously no proof) for a migration from Central Europe to explain the EEF found in Yamna. By the way, your logics are at fault: if you postulate a migration to the East, why L51 wasn't part of it, since ancestral forms did so?

Quite simple; there was no ancestral form migrating to Eastern Yamnaya. R1b-M269(xL51) is not an ancestral form; the sole R1b-L23(xZ2103, L51) isn't ancestral to anything because it is not only contemporary with full fledged R1b-Z2103 but far too young to be ancestral or related to the ancestral lineage of R1b-Z2103. Therefore; the simplest explanation is that a subset of the R1b-L23 lineages migrated East whereas the other stayed West or North of Ukraine. BTW; LBK+WHG gets a lower score (i.e., is a better fit) than Koros_EN+Koros_HG; take a look at the link I provided.

CHG + EHG + Koros_EN + Koros_HG 0.612772624


Moreover, L51 is not absent from Ukraine, it hasn't been found in the (very partial) current sampling. It's far too early to conclude of the absence of L51 from the Steppe.

Well, 27 samples with Y-DNA from Ukraine with 3 from the Mesolithic, 3 from the eNeolithic and 21 from the Neolithic, isn't exactly very partial. In fact, is far more than many samples that we have from Iberia (n=11), France (n=25), Germany(n=18), Italy(n=5), etc from the same time period (Mesolithic-eNeolithic). Now, people here, specially Steppe dogmatist aren't particularly concerned about the small sample size in Western European aDNA to arrive to their conclusions. Thus, how come now 27 samples of the area and time period (i.e., 5000 BC-3500 BC) where one would expect to see R1b-M269 and its branches fail to produce any single R1b-P297 lineage; while producing a even single R1a1a-M417 and tons of R1b1a-V88 related lineages. Yet, just a few hundred miles North of Ukraine we have the Latvians HG with plenty of R1b-P297(xM269), R1b-M73 and even some R1b-P297 dated to 7500 BC. Now with Villabruna's new placement in the R1b-M73 branch; and the Balkans R1b-V88 finding; it becomes obvious that R1b-M269 was West and North of the Pontic Steppe throughout its development.

Squad
02-04-2018, 04:42 PM
About the same odds that the R1b-M73 in Samara looks like it came straight out of the West from the Latvians who had plenty of R1b-M73 and its precursor R1b-P297(xM269). Thus; I would be surprise if R1b-Z2103 venture into the Eastern side of the Steppe in the form of a pack containing R1b-Z2103 and R1b-M269(xL51); whereas the ancestral lineage to R1b-L51 remain westwards of there. An explanation is needed for the seemingly lack of R1b-M269 or even R1b-P297 related lineages in the Pontic Steppe in the time period circa 5000 BC-3500 BC; which is a key time period since R1b-L23 would have been expanding by that time. Moreover; per the latest iteration even the Eastern Yamnaya genomes can be best modeled using the following admixture:

CHG + EHG + LBK_EN + WHG 0.551431774

0.435 0.435 0.072 0.058

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uG1V60YfLTyt7O8Nrhuz4FIcF-I_j_Ou/view

Thus; we see that the Eastern Yamnaya people can be modeled as being 7.2% LBK_EN and 5.8% WHG. If there was a migration from West to East; specially one that passed through farmers territory; we would expect to see at least a minor autosomal input. Well; the autosomal input has been confirmed.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/01/another-look-at-genetic-structure-of.html

You basically said it all. People fail to see that M269 in Yamnayans could be issued from a migration from the west. Now that we basically know for a fact that M73 came from Europe, it shouldn't come to us as a surprise that the same is true for M269. People move a lot, hence why it is important not to be fooled by some seemingly unusual migrations and why it is more wise to not concentrate on a single sub-clade but always pay attention to the related sub-clades in order to grasp the bigger picture and identify the cradle. In this case, I'd say that the alpine zone is a very likely candidate for R1b, regardless of what the steppe fanatics think. About the claim that I'm a reborn banned member, there are baseless accusations for I've never had an account over here, and me claiming that Gioiello is insightful has nothing to do with his political views or whatnot, so what he thinks about Jews or anything isn't the concern and has nothing to do with with how he deals with R1b. Everyone who's been studying R1b in great detail basically arrived to the same conclusion : that it is an european haplogroup.

About the correlation between the distribution of R1b and indo-european languages, this is easily answered : linguistic shift. Aside from modern basque, we have evidence that pre-IE languages were spoken in Iberia during historical times when M269 was probably already well established therein. For instance, DF27 (whether it originated in Iberia or immediately out of it) arose and expanded about 4500 years ago and I can't fathom the existence of any IE language in Iberia back then. Any correlation between M269 and IE is superficial, just like that between chadic and V88. Indeed, some sub-clades of V88 obviously have something to do with the expansion of chadic languages, but it would be foolish to assume that V88 arose in a chadic context.

As for Villabruna being nested within M73, this alone should reinforce that pre-M269 was not very far. But I guess the steppe boys are going to say it's merely a wanderer, just like they used to say about El Trocs...

ffoucart
02-04-2018, 07:07 PM
Yes, extinct branch of R1b can been found in Central or Baltic Europe, thousands of miles and thousands of year before Yamna and related populations.

Problem: R1b P312 subclades have been diffused in Western Europe by BBs (late ones), and it happens they also diffused Steppe admixture, the same found in Yamna (you know, those who were R1b Z2103). Big coincidence? Or more probably (as implied by some who work on the unpublished samples) L51 came from the Steppe with the Steppe migrations? Mind this is not saying anything about were L51 came from.

And yes, France, Italy or Germany are under sampled and that's a big difficulty.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 07:28 PM
“People fail to see that M269 in Yamnayans could be issued from a migration from the west.”

I’d use different terms though.
I agree that P297 or pre-M269 diffused eastward as part of H-G mobility patterns or whatnot, but then migrated westward with Yamnaya. It explains different dynamics

Romilius
02-04-2018, 07:37 PM
Well, 27 samples with Y-DNA from Ukraine with 3 from the Mesolithic, 3 from the eNeolithic and 21 from the Neolithic, isn't exactly very partial. In fact, is far more than many samples that we have from Iberia (n=11), France (n=25), Germany(n=18), Italy(n=5), etc from the same time period (Mesolithic-eNeolithic). Now, people here, specially Steppe dogmatist aren't particularly concerned about the small sample size in Western European aDNA to arrive to their conclusions. Thus, how come now 27 samples of the area and time period (i.e., 5000 BC-3500 BC) where one would expect to see R1b-M269 and its branches fail to produce any single R1b-P297 lineage; while producing a even single R1a1a-M417 and tons of R1b1a-V88 related lineages. Yet, just a few hundred miles North of Ukraine we have the Latvians HG with plenty of R1b-P297(xM269), R1b-M73 and even some R1b-P297 dated to 7500 BC. Now with Villabruna's new placement in the R1b-M73 branch; and the Balkans R1b-V88 finding; it becomes obvious that R1b-M269 was West and North of the Pontic Steppe throughout its development.

The source for claiming that V88 was among those 27 samples from Ukraine?

Squad
02-04-2018, 07:57 PM
“People fail to see that M269 in Yamnayans could be issued from a migration from the west.”

I’d use different terms though.
I agree that P297 or pre-M269 diffused eastward as part of H-G mobility patterns or whatnot, but then migrated westward with Yamnaya. It explains different dynamics

Well, that doesn't really change the fact that it originally came from the west. M269 dynamics are highly complex owing to all the various star-like expansions associated with its sub-clades. It would still be possible that M269 arose in the west but some of it quickly headed east and re-expanded with Yamnayans back into Europe. But L51 is clearly western as well as some of L23(xL51).

jeanL
02-04-2018, 08:01 PM
The source for claiming that V88 was among those 27 samples from Ukraine?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13300-How-it-was-all-clear-from-the-beginning&p=342920&viewfull=1#post342920

R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) <= These are the R1b-V88; note that these are the exact same R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) found in the Iron Gates_HG who turned out to be R1b-V88 according to further analysis by Genetiker and other here:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-sc1/

alan
02-04-2018, 08:06 PM
“People fail to see that M269 in Yamnayans could be issued from a migration from the west.”

I’d use different terms though.
I agree that P297 or pre-M269 diffused eastward as part of H-G mobility patterns or whatnot, but then migrated westward with Yamnaya. It explains different dynamics

When you say P297 diffused eastwards you mean from a starting point in the Carpathians/Balkans/lower Danube etc it moved towards the steppe and Baltic c 8000BC don't you? That is far from impossible and a very different concept from the idea it came from far west Magdalenian Europe which is crackpot

Pribislav
02-04-2018, 08:13 PM
Maybe I've missed something, but could someone explain how Villabruna suddenly became M73?

Both Malishev and Genetiker found R1b-P297: PF6463- CTS3876/PF6458- CTS5577/FGC38/PF6464- CTS7904/FGC32/PF6471- CTS7941/FGC51/PF6472- CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484- PF6459/S3848- L585/PF6499-

Malishev also found R1b-P297:PF6475/S17/YSC0000269-

Genetiker also found R1b-P297: Y97/FGC46-

Genetiker found R1b-M73: M478- Y13199- Y13202- Y13206- Y13207- Y13208- Y13209- Y13872- Y13874- Y13888-

That's 10 SNPs with ancestral alleles on both P297 & M73 level, so it seems Kumbarov made a mistake placing Villabruna under M73.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 08:27 PM
When you say P297 diffused eastwards you mean from a starting point in the Carpathians/Balkans/lower Danube etc it moved towards the steppe and Baltic c 8000BC don't you?

Perhaps, P343 having originally come from the east, with secondary expansion from ECE. Details missing given the lack of LUP samples from EE


That is far from impossible and a very different concept from the idea it came from far west Magdalenian Europe which is crackpot
But I don’t think anyone had proposed anything about France or Iberia ?
BTW I don’t think anything came from Magdalenians, let alone R1.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-04-2018, 08:28 PM
Maybe I've missed something, but could someone explain how Villabruna suddenly became M73?

Both Malishev and Genetiker found R1b-P297: PF6463- CTS3876/PF6458- CTS5577/FGC38/PF6464- CTS7904/FGC32/PF6471- CTS7941/FGC51/PF6472- CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484- PF6459/S3848- L585/PF6499-

Malishev also found R1b-P297:PF6475/S17/YSC0000269-

Genetiker also found R1b-P297: Y97/FGC46-

Genetiker found R1b-M73: M478- Y13199- Y13202- Y13206- Y13207- Y13208- Y13209- Y13872- Y13874- Y13888-

That's 10 SNPs with ancestral alleles on both P297 & M73 level, so it seems Kumbarov made a mistake placing Villabruna under M73.

It’s not M73, but apparently P297 , but they’re still reworking new tree

alan
02-04-2018, 09:05 PM
Perhaps, P343 having originally come from the east. Details missing given the lack of LUP samples from EE


But I don’t think anyone had proposed anything about France or Iberia ?
BTW I don’t think anything came from Magdalenians, let alone R1.

I agree the evidence seems to be pointing to an upper paeleolithic refugium for R1b around the eaatern part of central Europe, apparently in the Gravetian group there. It may have moved about several times due to the dramatic oscillations in the climate from 24000-8000BC but I would accept the evidence strongly points to P297 at least at certain points in time being in east-central Europe from 12000BC in Gravetian groups and capable of spilling into Italy. If I am understanding this new info and if it's reliable then that includes P297. But in cultural terms it's clear Italy was the westernmost outpost of a spread of loosely related cultures thst stretched to the Black Sea.

It's no big deal to me as it a long time from there to PIE steppes many millennia later and it's clear several groups over time entered the melting pot where PIE arose. I have no doubt that the ancestor of L23 was in the steppes and L23 was on scene as the PIE language was crystallising there 6000 or so years ago. Z2103 clearly was in Yamnaya while the clear linkage of all the earliest L51 derived samples with a steppe genetic input makes it clear t too was in the steppe mix and spread west from a steppe- linked group.

Why hasn't L51xL11been found yet? I think the reason is manifest in the tree showing that before L11 it was simply surviving not expanding before P312 and U106 c3000BC so finding it may be impossible. My hunch for years has been that L11 followed the same route taken by CW north of the Carpathians rather than the Yamnaya Danubian route. The exact relationship between L11 and standard CW is unclear but some sort of chronological-societal geographical explanation is easy to envisage as to how an L11 derived group expanded with a modified version of the CW autosomal signal c2500BC. I think the answer is that L11and especially P312 was associated with a trader outgroup living in the CW world for a couple of centuries before beaker pots were adopted by them

ADW_1981
02-04-2018, 09:13 PM
I don’t see too much wrong with squads comments, nor do I understand how suggesting that R1b has a long history in Europe & exploring possible linguistics connections is “anti-R1b”.
Yes squad is right : M73 likely represents a movement eastward to Russia from Europe. If this realisation is too traumatic for people it perhaps is best for them to tune out and let others interested in Palaeolithic matters, phylogeny, etc go on their discussion.

Rich coming from the guy who doesn't understand the basic phylogeny of I2-M223.

alan
02-04-2018, 09:22 PM
Perhaps, P343 having originally come from the east, with secondary expansion from ECE. Details missing given the lack of LUP samples from EE


But I don’t think anyone had proposed anything about France or Iberia ?
BTW I don’t think anything came from Magdalenians, let alone R1.

Certainly the archaeological and DNA evidence is not meshing at all well but archaeology has always known that is a weak areas and not really it's purpose. Regarding my microblades observations, it does remain true that the first Latvian Mesolithic culture did show technological links to Butovo on the Volga and pressure flaked micrblades and there is no earlier Latvian Mesolithic. But the genetic evidence makes more of a case for a move to Latvia by P297 people from east central European origins. Clearly the technology spread to the group who settled Latvia without major geneflow, perhaps because an intermediary group passed it on. As to where a P297 carrying groups could have received that technological influence, there are a couple of possibilities. There were a couple of obscure microblade using groups in NW Russia between Latvia and the volga Butovo culture who could have been intermediaries. Or alternatively a P297 group may have reached the Volga before 8000BC and absorbed the microblade idea before heading north-west up the Volga to Latvia.

alan
02-04-2018, 09:38 PM
Well, Squad whoever he is deserves a little less rudeness
Anyhow, Jean Alan and all the Sibero-Steppe squad didn’t exact hit the nail on the about R1b, anyhow

We just looked for patterns in the archaeology that MIGHT correlate and were brave enough to put our heads above the parapet and say something. 100s of hours of reading into obscure palaeolithic literature was done. The problem is archaeology and DNA sometimes simply just don't correlate. There is nothing in archaeology that can explain R at Malta in 22000BC and R1b in Europe in 12000BC. So until it was proven wrong the microblades bring it c 9000-8000BC was the most rational option to an archaeologist. If folk fear getting childishly taunted for putting a theory that doesn't work out then they just won't bother

alan
02-04-2018, 09:50 PM
Has Jean posted lately? Seems like ages since I saw one of her posts?

Gravetto-Danubian
02-05-2018, 08:07 AM
Rich coming from the guy who doesn't understand the basic phylogeny of I2-M223.

Exactly. I understand that the earliest I2a2a1b is in Early Neolithic Bulgaria, Lengyel, etc and then also appearing in Mariupol Ukraine, including with heavily ENF ancestry.
Just like it seems R1b-P297 drifted East.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-05-2018, 08:15 AM
I agree the evidence seems to be pointing to an upper paeleolithic refugium for R1b around the eaatern part of central Europe, apparently in the Gravetian group there. It may have moved about several times due to the dramatic oscillations in the climate from 24000-8000BC but I would accept the evidence strongly points to P297 at least at certain points in time being in east-central Europe from 12000BC in Gravetian groups and capable of spilling into Italy. If I am understanding this new info and if it's reliable then that includes P297. But in cultural terms it's clear Italy was the westernmost outpost of a spread of loosely related cultures thst stretched to the Black Sea.

I think it stretched as far as Iberia, these post-LGM networks, which is why El Miron already has VB-like ancestry, and we see those odd J and R haplogroups in Iboussieres




It's no big deal to me as it a long time from there to PIE steppes many millennia later and it's clear several groups over time entered the melting pot where PIE arose. I have no doubt that the ancestor of L23 was in the steppes and L23 was on scene as the PIE language was crystallising there 6000 or so years ago.

Exactly ! Which is why there is no need for opening theatrics.


Certainly the archaeological and DNA evidence is not meshing at all well but archaeology has always known that is a weak areas and not really it's purpose

But i think it does. Look at Oleni Ostrov and Zvejnieki: we have mtDNA haplogroups C1 and R1b - obvious PaleoSiberians. There is Y DNA Q in Latvia too. I think R1a1 would fit the bill here too. That's the link from Siberia through the Volga to Butovo and Kunda & Veretye, through to Norway. - even Denmark the Maglemose individual with U5a.

I don't know exactly how R1b-P343 fits in, but it must be an earlier migration by several thousand years, and IMO Mal'ta has been a red herring for people.


If folk fear getting childishly taunted for putting a theory that doesn't work out then they just won't bother

Not at all. But stubborn refusal to accept new evidence deserves a rejoinder, although I do not think you fall into that category. My aps.

ffoucart
02-07-2018, 07:13 AM
But L51 is clearly western as well as some of L23(xL51).

You have no proof of that whatsoever. You are only making deductions based on modern and/or post Steppe migration data. You should know that modern distribution says very little of a subclade point of origin. And it happens that Eastern Europe have completely changed its Y haplogroups frequencies since the BA, several times at least.

Your point is clearly not parsimonious.

alan
02-07-2018, 11:06 AM
I think it stretched as far as Iberia, these post-LGM networks, which is why El Miron already has VB-like ancestry, and we see those odd J and R haplogroups in Iboussieres




Exactly ! Which is why there is no need for opening theatrics.



But i think it does. Look at Oleni Ostrov and Zvejnieki: we have mtDNA haplogroups C1 and R1b - obvious PaleoSiberians. There is Y DNA Q in Latvia too. I think R1a1 would fit the bill here too. That's the link from Siberia through the Volga to Butovo and Kunda & Veretye, through to Norway. - even Denmark the Maglemose individual with U5a.

I don't know exactly how R1b-P343 fits in, but it must be an earlier migration by several thousand years, and IMO Mal'ta has been a red herring for people.



Not at all. But stubborn refusal to accept new evidence deserves a rejoinder, although I do not think you fall into that category. My aps.

I may have been wrong about R1b remaining in Siberia until the arrival of microblades but I still think the latter are linked to ANE. Is there any evidence of ANE in eastern and northern Europe before the Boreal?

alan
02-07-2018, 11:23 AM
You have no proof of that whatsoever. You are only making deductions based on modern and/of post Steppe migration data. You should know that modern distribution says very little of a subclade point of origin. And it happens that Eastern Europe have completely changed its Y haplogroups frequencies since the BA, several times at least.

Your point is clearly not parsimonious.

Yes given that L51 and Z2103 share an ancestor at 4100BC acordng to yfull, it's basically preposterous to place one in the west and the other on the Volga. It's 100% clear that when they both expand they are moving into areas that have not seen either steppe autosomal genes or those y lines before in the ancient DNA record. The only rational conclusion is they were both part of phases of the same east to west movement out the steppes c 3000-2800BC.

alan
02-07-2018, 11:48 AM
I may have been wrong about R1b remaining in Siberia until the arrival of microblades but I still think the latter are linked to ANE. Is there any evidence of ANE in eastern and northern Europe before the Boreal?

Also I would dismiss the importance of the R at Mal'ta at 22000BC. Afontova gora (winsome claim in R1a) shows the persistence of similar hunters in that area at the other end of the LGM and if my memory is not failing me there is no proven ANE in Europe till at least boreal times. It's true that at least some R1b (apparently including some P297) was in Europe from 12000BC but P297 is 2-3000 years old than that so it may be a subset who broke away early and by 12000BC had through living in Europe for a long period in a Gravetian population developed a very different signal to other P297s. Unfortunately far too many samples of hunters are late ones.

Kale
02-07-2018, 07:34 PM
Also I would dismiss the importance of the R at Mal'ta at 22000BC. Afontova gora (winsome claim in R1a) shows the persistence of similar hunters in that area at the other end of the LGM and if my memory is not failing me there is no proven ANE in Europe till at least boreal times. It's true that at least some R1b (apparently including some P297) was in Europe from 12000BC but P297 is 2-3000 years old than that so it may be a subset who broke away early and by 12000BC had through living in Europe for a long period in a Gravetian population developed a very different signal to other P297s. Unfortunately far too many samples of hunters are late ones.

We definitely need some more samples to fill that 30,000-15,000bp gap in most of Europe, but something to chew on in the meantime.
It definitely looks like Villabruna has some proper-ANE going on.
Mbuti Karitiana Villabruna Vestonice -0.0157 -4.594 736700

That is not due to substructure within older populations.
Mbuti Karitiana GoyetQ116-1 Kostenki14 -0.0004 -0.081 631360
Mbuti Karitiana GoyetQ116-1 Vestonice -0.0018 -0.369 574904

The stat is insignificant, but it appears ElMiron has affinity in proportion to it's roughly 1/3 WHG-like ancestry.
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron GoyetQ116-1 -0.0047 -0.912 479333
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron Kostenki14 -0.0059 -1.181 563521
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron Vestonice -0.0077 -1.743 534074

Gravetto-Danubian
02-07-2018, 09:46 PM
I may have been wrong about R1b remaining in Siberia until the arrival of microblades but I still think the latter are linked to ANE. Is there any evidence of ANE in eastern and northern Europe before the Boreal?

ANE is a composite of something West Eurasian and ENA. Therefor I see no need for rigid links between it and any haplogroup . Therefor there is possible 2 migration paths into Europe during the MUP/ LUP transition and the early Holocene , which is what the eveidence has already hinted at
There are some post LGM human remains from russia and Anatolia, so they’ll clarify things shortly

jeanL
02-07-2018, 09:52 PM
Yes given that L51 and Z2103 share an ancestor at 4100BC acordng to yfull, it's basically preposterous to place one in the west and the other on the Volga.

Yet how many times the ages estimates have been off not just by a few hundred years but by 2000 years. So yFull estimate of 4800BC is just that: an estimate. Nothing preposterous about doubting an estimate. Also I wouldn't call the Baltic region "The West".

Onur Dincer
02-09-2018, 07:25 AM
The thread has been moved from the General section to the R1b Early Subclades section.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 07:30 AM
We definitely need some more samples to fill that 30,000-15,000bp gap in most of Europe, but something to chew on in the meantime.
It definitely looks like Villabruna has some proper-ANE going on.
Mbuti Karitiana Villabruna Vestonice -0.0157 -4.594 736700

That is not due to substructure within older populations.
Mbuti Karitiana GoyetQ116-1 Kostenki14 -0.0004 -0.081 631360
Mbuti Karitiana GoyetQ116-1 Vestonice -0.0018 -0.369 574904

The stat is insignificant, but it appears ElMiron has affinity in proportion to it's roughly 1/3 WHG-like ancestry.
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron GoyetQ116-1 -0.0047 -0.912 479333
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron Kostenki14 -0.0059 -1.181 563521
Mbuti Karitiana ElMiron Vestonice -0.0077 -1.743 534074

What does it mean? That villabruna already had some early ANEish genes, or that it didnt?(sorry, im not that sharp at autosomal yet)

Onur Dincer
02-10-2018, 04:55 AM
What does it mean? That villabruna already had some early ANEish genes, or that it didnt?(sorry, im not that sharp at autosomal yet)

It means Villabruna had a connection to Amerindians, who have a high proportion of ANE, that previous Upper Paleolithic European samples lacked.

Squad
02-10-2018, 11:03 PM
You have no proof of that whatsoever. You are only making deductions based on modern and/or post Steppe migration data. You should know that modern distribution says very little of a subclade point of origin. And it happens that Eastern Europe have completely changed its Y haplogroups frequencies since the BA, several times at least.

Your point is clearly not parsimonious.

I'm not only pointing out modern distributions, I'm trying to gather all the evidence together to draw a synthesis. Some M269 lines did spread from the east/steppe, but they originally came from the west. We will have to wait till we have more aDNA from around the alpine region/North Italy.

Ebizur
02-18-2018, 07:27 AM
It was not an east african population that spread E, it was a west eurasian population that spread it into Africa. And these people did not look like Negroids or black sub-saharans. The E carriers in Africa only got that look after mixing with local black african women for a long period of time, getting more diluted with every generation until modern times when the autosomal profile is almost completely native SSA.First, it is important to distinguish between two different hypotheses:

(a) The bearer of proto-E migrated from some place in "west [E]urasia" to some place in Africa, and the various extant branches of haplogroup E originated in his descendants in Africa (except certain branches of E-M35, whose forebears have migrated back to Eurasia).

(b) The bearer of proto-E lived somewhere in "west [E]urasia," his descendants also remained in "west [E]urasia" and produced various subclades of haplogroup E there, after which most of them subsequently migrated into Africa, leaving little trace in Eurasia besides certain subclades of E-M35.

Hypothesis (a) appears more plausible to me a priori, although published results of analysis of aDNA extracted from Natufian remains have been just a bit surprising.

Anyway, even if one assumes that one of these two hypotheses is correct, and that either proto-E or various subclades of E have entered Africa from "west [E]urasia," it does not follow logically that these migrants to Africa were "West Eurasian" in the genetic sense used by Generalissimo among others. It would make more sense for them to have a phylogenetic position like that of the theoretical "Basal Eurasians" (i.e. equally related to both "West Eurasians" and "Eastern Non-Africans").

Squad
02-18-2018, 08:26 AM
First, it is important to distinguish between two different hypotheses:

(a) The bearer of proto-E migrated from some place in "west [E]urasia" to some place in Africa, and the various extant branches of haplogroup E originated in his descendants in Africa (except certain branches of E-M35, whose forebears have migrated back to Eurasia).

(b) The bearer of proto-E lived somewhere in "west [E]urasia," his descendants also remained in "west [E]urasia" and produced various subclades of haplogroup E there, after which most of them subsequently migrated into Africa, leaving little trace in Eurasia besides certain subclades of E-M35.

Hypothesis (a) appears more plausible to me a priori, although published results of analysis of aDNA extracted from Natufian remains have been just a bit surprising.

Anyway, even if one assumes that one of these two hypotheses is correct, and that either proto-E or various subclades of E have entered Africa from "west [E]urasia," it does not follow logically that these migrants to Africa were "West Eurasian" in the genetic sense used by Generalissimo among others. It would make more sense for them to have a phylogenetic position like that of the theoretical "Basal Eurasians" (i.e. equally related to both "West Eurasians" and "Eastern Non-Africans").

To be fair though, hypothesis (b) is pure non-sense. It is beyond clear that E diversified in Africa, discussing this ain't funny no more. Natufians don't mean anything at all as they are waaay too recent and carry a very downstream sub-clade.

Ebizur
02-18-2018, 10:01 AM
Natufians don't mean anything at all as they are waaay too recent and carry a very downstream sub-clade.I thought my implicit reference to the Natufian specimens' lack of genomic affinity with modern populations of Sub-Saharan Africa would be sufficiently obvious.

If the more parsimonious (and therefore prima facie more plausible) hypothesis (a) is correct, then either the population from which the various subclades of haplogroup E have originated in Africa was not of Sub-Saharan African genomic affinity but rather of Eurasian affinity, or else the direct patrilineal ancestor of those Natufian specimens must have migrated into some genomically Eurasian population in Southwest Asia, introducing E-M35 Y-DNA through introgression.

Squad
02-18-2018, 07:44 PM
I thought my implicit reference to the Natufian specimens' lack of genomic affinity with modern populations of Sub-Saharan Africa would be sufficiently obvious.

If the more parsimonious (and therefore prima facie more plausible) hypothesis (a) is correct, then either the population from which the various subclades of haplogroup E have originated in Africa was not of Sub-Saharan African genomic affinity but rather of Eurasian affinity, or else the direct patrilineal ancestor of those Natufian specimens must have migrated into some genomically Eurasian population in Southwest Asia, introducing E-M35 Y-DNA through introgression.

Natufians do show some affinity to Africans, this is clear even from admixture runs at earlier values of k, this is also true for the three ancient Egyptian whose remains were tested and about whom everybody tries to deny them any african affinity. You should also realise that Africa is very diverse and as I said in one post in this very same thread : No one talked about modern sub-saharan Africans, they have nothing to do here as it is obvious that if the population which gave rise to CT was separated from B ''paleo-Africans'', the east-african population that was responsible for the spread of E would be closer to eurasian pops than to ''paleo-Africans''. People should stay objective and stop trying to distance themselves from Africans for a while !

But in any case, what you said is actually what happened, ''Neo-Africans'' as I like to call them migrated to Southwest Asia and mixed with an already established eurasian people.

mephisto
02-18-2018, 07:51 PM
For the truth on Basal R1b clades, an excerpt of my talk with an admin of the R1b Basal Subclades Group of ftdna:
"[We can't tell much about this subclade from the currently available data]. It probably emerged somewhere in the Middle East - this seems to be the cradle of most R1b basal subclades."

Squad
02-18-2018, 07:57 PM
For the truth on Basal R1b clades, an excerpt of my talk with an admin of the R1b Basal Subclades Group of ftdna:
"[We can't tell much about this subclade from the currently available data]. It probably emerged somewhere in the Middle East - this seems to be the cradle of most R1b basal subclades."

This has been completely debunked to be honest, this was even one of the main point I tried to put forward by creating this thread, that the middle eastern theory never had any basis nor ever made sense at all. In case the guys at ftDNA consider R-V88 to be middle-eastern which I think they do, then they would be completely clueless.

mephisto
02-18-2018, 07:59 PM
This has been completely debunked to be honest, this was even one of the main point I tried to put forward by creating this thread, that the middle eastern theory never had any basis nor ever made sense at all. In case the guys at ftDNA consider R-V88 to be middle-eastern which I think they do, then they would be completely clueless.
Nobody is speaking about V88 but you would not understand anyway. How about you go make some racial classifications, pseudo-science is part of basically all your threads. Just look at your "human height" thread, I mean seriously everything you claim is based on baseless "facts", often your own ridiculous observations.

Squad
02-18-2018, 08:07 PM
Again with the personal attacks, everything I say I can prove it to you just like I provided you with loads of studies showing frequencies of P58 in the Maghreb when you insisted. It is not just about V88, but V88 is important being an early branch. The ''most basal'' sub-clade also looks european as I said in my initial post : Back then, while not defined by any SNP yet, even the much rare sub-clades such as R-L389(xP297) and the basal R-L278*/PH155 could easily be noticed to also have european representatives.

The truth about R-L389(xP297)/R-V1636 is currently being settled at this very moment and everything is pointing toward an european origin.

Maybe my initial post was too long and you didn't actually care to read it...

mephisto
02-18-2018, 08:15 PM
Again with the personal attacks, everything I say I can prove it to you just like I provided you with loads of studies showing frequencies of P58 in the Maghreb when you insisted. It is not just about V88, but V88 is important being an early branch. The ''most basal'' sub-clade also looks european as I said in my initial post : Back then, while not defined by any SNP yet, even the much rare sub-clades such as R-L389(xP297) and the basal R-L278*/PH155 could easily be noticed to also have european representatives.

The truth about R-L389(xP297)/R-V1636 is currently being settled at this very moment and everything is pointing toward an european origin.
L389/V1636 are Middle Eastern in origin, so are R-L278*/PH155.
You can take all your modern observations and do whatever you want with them, they are not relevant. If you want to argue based on modern samples then tell me why are most R1*/R1b* /V1636 samples found in the Middle East?
https://yfull.com/tree/R-V1636/
V88 might have come from Europe, but these Basal Clades for sure not. But I will PM your agenda or your motivation for making this thread, do not think I do not understand why you always make such threads, your motivation is clear.

To the matter of origins of the Indo-European languages, Ivanov and Gramkelizde's theory will be the true one, not the non-sense of "out of Europe", nor Gimbutas steppes "madness".
http://www.biblemysteries.com/images/migration.jpg

Squad
02-18-2018, 08:30 PM
L389/V1636 are Middle Eastern in origin, so are R-L278*/PH155.
You can take all your modern observations and do whatever you want with them, they are not relevant. If you want to argue based on modern samples then tell me why are most R1*/R1b* /V1636 samples found in the Middle East?
https://yfull.com/tree/R-V1636/
V88 might have come from Europe, but these Basal Clades for sure not. But I will PM your agenda or your motivation for making this thread, do not think I do not understand why you always make such threads, your motivation is clear.

You wish them to bee middle-eastern but I could go on and prove you wrong about these two clades, which I remind you have been bottlenecked for so long anyway so that you cannot understand them without looking very carefully. Also, I purposely brought up M73 in conjunction with V88 in my initial post so that maybe you guys can notice how both of them appear to have something to do with the italian/alpine zone, which would mean that R-L754 as a whole originated in Europe, unless you actually think that this italian/alpine link is coincidental and that V88 and P297 both decided to be somehow summoned to the same zone on their own, but Villabruna does not agree with you either and reinforces my point instead ! You are clouded by the presence of some indian haplotypes and this is why you and the ftDNA crew are mislead into concluding that R1b originated in the Middle-East for it would act as link between India and Europe. But the reality is deeper than that, we can discuss these two clades if you want so that maybe you could realise.

PM or not, I can prove you wrong anyways, whether it is about R1b or something else like the accusations you make against me...

mephisto
02-18-2018, 08:37 PM
You wish them to bee middle-eastern but I could go on and prove you wrong about these two clades, which I remind you have been bottlenecked for so long anyway so that you cannot understand them without looking very carefully. Also, I purposely brought up M73 in conjunction with V88 in my initial post so that maybe you guys can notice how both of them appear to have something to do with the italian/alpine zone, which would mean that R-L754 as a whole originated in Europe, unless you actually think that this italian/alpine link is coincidental and that V88 and P297 both decided to be somehow summoned to the same zone on their own, but Villabruna does not agree with you either and reinforces my point instead ! You are clouded by the presence of some indian haplotypes and this is why you and the ftDNA crew are mislead into concluding that R1b originated in the Middle-East. But the reality is deeper than that, we can discuss these two clades if you want so that maybe you could realise.

PM or not, I can prove you wrong anyways, whether it is about R1b or something else like the accusations you make against me...
Villabruna is basically proving what I said, on the Cheddar man thread they also discussed Villabruna, go read it through, there you will also find my position to that topic. The ftDNA "crew" and I are mislead? I am laughing. We are not mislead by any "Indian" haplotype (?, R1a is the haplogroup for that if you did not know ;) ).

Squad
02-18-2018, 08:47 PM
Villabruna is basically proving what I said, on the Cheddar man thread they also discussed Villabruna, go read it through, there you will also find my position to that topic. The ftDNA "crew" and I are mislead? I am laughing. We are not mislead by any "Indian" haplotype (?, R1a is the haplogroup for that if you did not know ;) ).

I'm actually referring to indian PH155. I see that you are a follower of the anatolian IE urheimat theory, I thought this position basically died out but it is nice to see it alive... until it can be put to rest again. I don't mind discussing it though.

mephisto
02-18-2018, 08:48 PM
I'm actually referring to indian PH155.
"Indian", if you say so.. It is again predominantly found in the Near East.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PH155/

Squad
02-18-2018, 08:59 PM
"Indian", if you say so.. It is again predominantly found in the Near East.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PH155/

I didn't actually label PH155 as indian, I was talking about the indian PH155 as in the indian cluster/clusters of PH155.