Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: More thoughts of Anatole's work on very deep time R1b branching

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,713
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    More thoughts of Anatole's work on very deep time R1b branching

    Anatole Klyosov in his 'Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 Years before Present' makes some observations about the early days of R1b that I think need further discussion.

    He states that

    1. R-M73 in Central Asia and R-M269 in Europe had a common ancestor (P297) c. 8600BC. However the two clades that today largely represent the branch are dated by Klyosov to about 6000BC (M73) and 4-5000BC (M269).

    2. The R1b1* common ancestor (P297 negative) to 14,500BC. This of course is the root that led to V88. However he dates the main branch of this V88 to only 4 or 5000BC and significantly younger in Africa.




    I dont know if everyone agree with his general dating. So if anyone can comment on that that would be great. Taking his dating at face value, it really does show the extremely long period of time in the story of R1b before it took a permanent hold and expanded significantly in a way that is still detectable.

    So the first thing to note is that lineage leading to V88 branched off from the other main R1b lines about 14500BC. That waa back in the Palaeolithic. This was also 10000 years before its main descendant clade V88 arose and the parallel M73 and M269 clades on the other line arose. So, surprise really ought not to be so great that V88 has such a different distribution. There was an incredible depth of time for this to happen. This should be remembered when trying to deduce overall cultural or linguistic affliations for R1b. There is no such thing when you consider the suggested date of 14500BC for the lineage split between the ancestors of the V88 line and the other branches. This branching off was back in a period (and was succeeded by a period) when the climate was really fluctuating. That creates many possible scenarios that could have led to near extinction and then the commencing of the sharp distinction of distribution in the three main branches of R1b. The clear impression is that the P297 negative lineage moved southwards but before trying to link this with things like the Dryas periods etc it is worth noting that Klyosov states that European-Middle Eastern R1b1* haplotypes are only c. 8400 years old. That suggests that the move south into the zone of early farming was well after the Neolithic had begun. The lack of evidence for any sort of significant expansion of the lineages of this branch of R1b until well into the Neolithic or after and its non-appearance as a major player in Neolithic European ancient DNA would seem to back this. So, there is a suggestion that this line of R1b which later became very much the southern one was not on the scene and may have arrived from somewhere else away from the near east.


    Anatole places the P297 common ancestor at a time c. 8500BC a little after the nasty cold snap of the Younger Dryas in a period of climate improvement and at a time when the Neolithic just getting under way in the Near East. However, the earliest branch of this line to take off was the M73 central Asian branch. Anatole places this around 6000BC. This seems the wrong time and wrong place to be linked to the earliest farming take off zones. It does seem to roughly coincide with the 8.2 kiloyear event which cause three centuries of aridity in the middle east and aridity and cold to the north. It could have been just after this event. Its very complex but I wonder if this paper may contain the answer to the take off of the M73 lineage

    http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI...8491aa4.../PDF

    Maybe, maybe not. However, one way or other if Anatole's kind of dating is right it has to be explained why the first of the modern superclades of R1b to take off seems to have done so in the least farming-friendly location and furthest from the area of origin of agriculture.

    Another thing worth noting is the similarity in the age Anatole gives for a steppe clade like M73 and the overall age of European-Middle Eastern R1b1* (P297 negative). He places both around the 6000BC mark give or take a century or so. Even though they were separate branches since the Palaeolithic they share the same clade formation period suggesting they both took off from bear extinction at the same time.

    The other thing to note is that the split between the ancestors of M269 and M73 is only a little more than half of the time depth of the split with the ancestral line leading to V88 according to Anatole. So a greater affinity (although not neccessarily very close) in terms of cultural origin, linguistics and geography seems more likely between M269 and M73 than between V88 and the other branches. The common ancestor of M269 and M73 lived at the start of the Neolithic (although perhaps peripheral from this development) having survived some mighty climatic swings. It is noticeable that the age of M73 is close to the date of the 8.2 kiloyear event. However, its hard to say at these levels of DNA dating if it took off during or after this. However, if this was an intrusion of farmers from the south into the steppes then that would suggest that the ancestor of both M73 and M269 lay in that early farming area which doesnt seem likely to me given the lack of much P297*.

    Another thing worth noting is the similarity in the age Anatole gives for a steppe clade like M73 and the overall age of all European-Middle Eastern P297 negative R1b. He places both around the 6000BC mark give or take a century or so. Its all very unclear but the climatic shock of events like the 8.2 kioyear event as well as others do give possible scenarios of near-extinction events in any areas where aridity is an issue (which includes both eastern Europe, especially the steppes, and SW Asia). I wonder if the event, the kill off it created and the upheavals it created create the origins of simultanious but geographically different rise of M73 and the P297 negative group in SW Asia. Maybe a migration from terrible aridity that went in a couple of directions. A location in the west of SW Asia (Levant etc) before this seems unlikely given ancient DNA results of Neolithic Europeans to date. Then again a position for both lineages that could reach both the steppes and the Levant is required. Also, there may be no trail simply because the descendant lineages only expanded when they reached these new locations and survived the climatic downturn with perhaps M73 occurring among the first settlers in the steppes.

    Then we have to account for the delay in growth and different geography (lets call it circumpontic but with status on the northern shore unknown) of M269. This did not take off until rather late, maybe around 4000BC and even then largely in L23 form. Why did it suddenly take off 2000 years after M73? Clearly it didnt have the same driving force. On the other hand this is not so different from the age of take off of V88. What could have triggered too simultanious expansions in two different directions by clades that had brached from each other 10000 years earlier? At the risk of too much climatic determinism that period did see the 5.9 kiloyear event which caused widespread aridity, displacement and movement to river valley in arid regions. Maybe these very distant cousins lived in arid areas (but likely not the same arid area). There could have been near extinction followed by survival and expansion. One thing I would say is that this event killed off the Green Sahara which is probably why when V88 migrated to Africa (either around this time or a millenia or so if you accept Klyosov's dating) they probably headed south down the Nile and not east to west along north Africa. The recent studies would seem to point for the north to south down the Nile then west route for V88.

    M269 (well L23* really) might have pushed out of some arid area around this time too. It was the time of collapse of Old Europe, the push of the earliest steppe groups into the Danube mouth both of which were probably closely related to the 5.9 kiloyear event and the aridity it caused. The date of the rise of L23* really does not seem to make it correlate with the Old European farmers. They were around for thousands of years before the existance of L23 and M269 and there really isnt a case for R1b in the Old Europe area before those clades.

    Very inconclusive ramblings! However I think they do raise a couple of lessons. Firstly there is no point in looking for an overall R1b backstory that explains V88, M269 and M73. The first split is way back in the Palaelithic when R1b itself was not very old. 16000 years of separation and huge climatic changes in subsequent periods basically absolves us from making sense of the distribtion of the modern distribution of their later Neolthic and Bronze Age descendant clades like V88 and M269. No geographical, cultural or linguistic correlation can be expected at that depth of seperation. People who try to link all R1b linguistically to Chadic etc clearly have not thought this out in any depth. The degree of separation is enormous between V88 and M269. Perhaps somewhat more of a linkage might exist between M269 and M73 as their common ancestor was only about half as long ago as the one they share with V88 and lies at the start of the Asian Neolithic. However, their distribution is very different and it is again possible that the major climatic events of the 8.2 and 5.9 kiloyear events may have separated them significantly geographically, culturally and linguistically for a couple of millenia at least.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Joe B (05-06-2013),  Silesian (05-07-2013)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,869
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  4. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,713
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard A. Rocca View Post
    Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.
    I partly raised the issue of his paper to draw comment on his methods and results. Certainly most of his more downstream dates for R1b seem in the same ballpark as what other have calculated. I would be curious to hear any other date calculations done for P297 'all' and P25 all or any other method to get an estimate on when the branches leading to V88 and P297 (M73 and M269) split. Its probably been done by someone but I cannot put my hand on it. I just want to get a handle on the depth of time the separation is. I am less sure if other methods come to similar dates for those early splits.

  5. #4
    Legacy Account
    Posts
    7,362
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Nationality
    British
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    United Kingdom
    All I can suggest is that you contact Vince Vizachero or invite him to this thread. The estimated dates that I have are:

    R1 - Age c. 18,500 years ago (Karafet 2008)

    R1b (M343/PF6242) - Age 16,000 ya (Vincent Vizachero on his on his FTDNA project and fig. 2 in Soares 2010.)

    R1b1a1 (M73, M478) - Age c. 7000 ya (V.V.)

    R1b1a2 (M269) – Age 4-800 ya (VV); 5-800 ya (Arredi 2007); 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen)

    R1b1c (V88) - Age 5600-9200 y.a. (Cruciani 2010); 9000 y.a. (V.V.)
    Last edited by Jean M; 05-08-2013 at 12:43 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Jean M For This Useful Post:

     ilmari (05-09-2013)

  7. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,357
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard A. Rocca View Post
    Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.
    Not always, but Kylosov's TMRCA calculations for R1b are usually in line with others for R1b so I don't think we need to distrust them just because they are from Klyosov. On the other hand, his error ranges are quite narrow compare to most alternative methods. I just ignore his error ranges.

    I'm not sure the E-V13 ancient DNA is a good example to assess the Klyosov methodology's technical correctness. TMRCA intraclade estimates like Klyosov's only represent the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for the remnant population. The E-V13 MRCA (single man) for those surviving may have very little to do with the ancient DNA E-V13 man found other than some very, very ancient connection. Of course, all of this is what drove Dienekes nuts, particularly as it relates to geographical differentiation.

    However, problems with intraclade calculations can be mitigated by doing multiple phylogenetically comparable calculations and using interclade methods like what Ken Nordtvedt developed.

    If we want to go deeper into the topic of methodologies we should probably go over to this thread designed for that purpose.
    http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...p-SNP-counting
    Last edited by TigerMW; 05-14-2013 at 12:53 PM.

  8. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,357
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    ... Firstly there is no point in looking for an overall R1b backstory that explains V88, M269 and M73. The first split is way back in the Palaelithic when R1b itself was not very old. 16000 years of separation and huge climatic changes in subsequent periods basically absolves us from making sense of the distribtion of the modern distribution of their later Neolthic and Bronze Age descendant clades like V88 and M269. No geographical, cultural or linguistic correlation can be expected at that depth of seperation.
    I absolutely agree. At the time of R1b's early branching we can scarely hope to understand what languages they might have spoken.

    I disagree slightly on the geographical dimension. I think the geographical distribution gives us some points to corner in an origin point. However, I'm not saying there is any resolution to that to try to narrow down say the East European plains versus the Caucasus versus Anatolia, etc., etc. I think geographically we can point to a very broad area. To me, I just conclude that R1b must have come from the the east, somewhere around the Black Sea, the Near East or points further east.

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    People who try to link all R1b linguistically to Chadic etc clearly have not thought this out in any depth. The degree of separation is enormous between V88 and M269. Perhaps somewhat more of a linkage might exist between M269 and M73 as their common ancestor was only about half as long ago as the one they share with V88 and lies at the start of the Asian Neolithic. However, their distribution is very different and it is again possible that the major climatic events of the 8.2 and 5.9 kiloyear events may have separated them significantly geographically, culturally and linguistically for a couple of millenia at least.
    I agree. Does anyone understand where Proto-Chadic might fit in with other language families?

    Modern genetic studies of populations which speak Chadic languages has shown high frequencies of the Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b (specifically the R1b R-V88 variant), a marker which is common in parts of Europe and Asia, but otherwise rare in Africa. This has lead to the theory that the Proto-Chadic people originated in Asia (the Middle East) before entering Africa as early as 7 thousand years ago, probably before the First Dynasty of Egypt. The speakers of Proto-Chadic might have been a Levantine population dating back to an Africa migration (a "back-migration")
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadic_languages

    Ironically, this article tries to use R1b genetics to show the origin of Chadic. We'd rather have an independent (of genetics) assessment of where Chadic comes from so we could look for intersections with R1b.

  9. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,869
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Not always, but Kylosov's TMRCA calculations for R1b are usually in line with others for R1b so I don't think we need to distrust them just because they are from Klyosov. On the other hand, his error ranges are quite narrow compare to most alternative methods. I just ignore his error ranges.

    I'm not sure the E-V13 ancient DNA is a good example to assess the Klyosov methodology's technical correctness. TMRCA intraclade estimates like Klyosov's only represent the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for the remnant population. The E-V13 MRCA (single man) for those surviving may have very little to do with the ancient DNA E-V13 man found other than some very, very ancient connection. Of course, all of this is what drove Dienekes nuts, particularly as it relates to geographical differentiation.

    However, problems with intraclade calculations can be mitigated by doing multiple phylogenetically comparable calculations and using interclade methods like what Ken Nordtvedt developed.

    If we want to go deeper into the topic of methodologies we should probably go over to this thread designed for that purpose.
    http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...p-SNP-counting
    I am well aware of the limitations and will pass on going deeper into the topic, but I only mention it because I want people to be aware that Anatoly's dates only represent the successful living ancestors and are probably fraught with the reduced age of successful founder effects. It in no way means that we will not find R1b hundreds or even thousands of years older than his numbers.
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  10. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,357
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    All I can suggest is that you contact Vince Vizachero or invite him to this thread. The estimated dates that I have are:

    R1 - Age c. 18,500 years ago (Karafet 2008)

    R1b (M343/PF6242) - Age 16,000 ya (Vincent Vizachero on his on his FTDNA project and fig. 2 in Soares 2010.)

    R1b1a1 (M73, M478) - Age c. 7000 ya (V.V.)

    R1b1a2 (M269) – Age 4-800 ya (VV); 5-800 ya (Arredi 2007); 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen)

    R1b1c (V88) - Age 5600-9200 y.a. (Cruciani 2010); 9000 y.a. (V.V.)
    I posted this side by side comparison in another thread.
    K years before present

    Marko Heinila _ Anatole Klyosov

    M343_ 14.0 __ 14.0

    V88__ _9.5 __ _6.9
    v88__ ____ __ _4.3 (Africa)
    V69__ ____ __ _4.3

    M73__ _7.2 __ _8.0

    M269_ _5.7 __ _7.0
    L23__ _5.7 __ _6.2
    L51__ _4.9 __ _4.9
    L11__ _4.8 __ _4.6
    U106_ _4.5 __ _4.2
    P312_ _4.2 __ _4.2
    We also have Hammer, the FTDNA Chief Scientist, in his presentation in mid 2008 as saying M269 is 4-8K ybp.

    In light of the of the Karafet 2008 estimate of 18.5k ybp for R1b's predecessor, R1, all of these numbers roughly align. I think this particularly important because Karafet used a completely different estimation method, avoiding Y STRs altogether. It serves as a good checkpoint.

    I don't think we should view any of these estimates as precise, be they from Klyosov, Nordtvedt's tool, Vizachero or anyone.

    I can't say I'd rely too much on M73 dating in particular. It does look diverse but it's not like we have thousands of long haplotypes.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 05-14-2013 at 05:41 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     Silesian (05-15-2013)

  12. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,051
    Sex
    Location
    Central United States
    Ethnicity
    Celtic, Goidelic
    Y-DNA (P)
    DF13>FGC5494>FGC5496
    mtDNA (M)
    H11a2a>C12014T

    United States of America Netherlands Isle of Man Scotland Poland Northern Ireland
    Since Cruciani etal 2010 data was mentioned, and if someone is interested, I ran their dataset for Variance/Modal TRMCA's using MH's 2012 Mutation Rates Stated in Generations for reference.

    I have posted a zipped copy my latest version TRMCA Estimator spreadsheet (modified to handle limited STR sets to be able to match any study set of STRs using the largest marker setting where an STR is presented in that panel) loaded with Cruciani Datasets for review at:
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y...it?usp=sharing


    Count IntraClade Coalescence (n-1) Age MeanGenerations___StdDevInGen___CI-SDGenCoal(n-1)

    N=45 Clade A: Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a)____153.4___+-78.3___CI+-135.80
    N=145 Clade B: R1b1 ALL_______________________240.6___+-98.1___CI+-147.46

    Count Intraclade Founder's Modal Age ModalGenAge___StdDevInGen___CI-SDGenModal
    N=45 Clade A: Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a)_____164.5___+-81.1____CI+-104.01
    N=145 Clade B: R1b1 ALL________________________353.8___+-119.0___CI+-83.67
    Diff = 189.3

    Pooled SD Clades A & B
    R1b (R-M343) for Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a) & R1b1 ALL

    InterClade Coalescence (n-1) Age:
    Generations___StdDevInGen___ CI-SDInterClade
    208.3___+-91.3___CI+-104.01

    Interclade Modal Founder's:
    Generations___StdDevInGen___ CI-SDInterClade
    187.8___+-37.5___CI+-83.67

    Confidence Level (CI) at 99.73%
    The question I have is, how should the years per generation be applied maybe as different lengths at different milleniums?

    MJost
    148326, FGC-0FW1R, YSID6 & YF3272 R-DF13>FGC5494>*7448>*5496>*5521>*5511>*5539>*5538>* 5508>*5524
     
    Watterson USA GD1/67 & GD3/111, *5508+. GD1ís fatherís sister-23andme pred. 3rd Cous w/ 0.91% DNA shared-3 seg. Largest on Chr1 w/non-Euro admix affirms my NPE paternal Watterson line via aDNA & YDNA. A 2nd pred. 4th cous has same DKA b. 1840's Georgia and MDKA d 1703 IOM. 3rd Cousin FtDNA FF is from the Watterson Ala. *5538+ b. IOM w/ GD6/67 & GD8/111 -SGD3. FGC5539+ a Scot-Ross GD13/111 -SGD8

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to MJost For This Useful Post:

     Silesian (05-15-2013)

  14. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,713
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Here is a question. Why does M73 appear to have expanded 2000 years before M269 (both share a common ancestor perhaps around 8000BC). TODAY M73 is largely preserved in central Asia and the steppes in pre-Slavic Turkic groups. Yet it appears to be the first major clade of P297 to emerge. Not the sort of location one would generally see as having a better chance of expansion back in the Neolithic. M269, or rather the P297 branch leading to it, seems to have expanded much later. Again not the sort of pattern one would expect if it was in the farming zone while M73 was in central Asia.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2019, 11:54 AM
  2. Early branching in L513
    By TigerMW in forum L513
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-24-2015, 06:17 PM
  3. age of most upstream branching of U106
    By alan in forum R1b-U106
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-02-2014, 07:04 PM
  4. Why so much branching L21
    By Brunetmj in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2014, 03:50 PM
  5. R1b and IE branching
    By alan in forum R1b General
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •