Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: M73 - the best proxy for what R1b was doing 8000 years ago?

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    M73 - the best proxy for what R1b was doing 8000 years ago?

    I wonder why this clade is never talked about. M73 is after all only one of two major lines stemming from P297, the other one being the line leading to M269. Klyosov dates M73 to c. 6000BC and dates the common P297 ancestor of it and M269 at 8000BC. So, these are siblings who are FAR closer related to each other than either is with V88. So for me, understanding the ancestors of M269 during the Neolithic is probably best achieved by looking tangentially at M73. As M269 didnt arise until 2000 years later than M73 as a clade there is not really much choice but to used M73 as a proxy for all P297 between 6000 and 4000BC. There just doesnt seem to be much P297*. IN general we should really be trying to understand M73 more than V88 if we want to understand the line leading to M269. Basically consider the brother rather than the cousin.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (05-23-2013),  dp (01-15-2016),  icebreaker (01-15-2016),  NK19191 (05-18-2016),  rms2 (05-31-2016)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,908
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    I wonder why this clade is never talked about. M73 is after all only one of two major lines stemming from P297, the other one being the line leading to M269. Klyosov dates M73 to c. 6000BC and dates the common P297 ancestor of it and M269 at 8000BC. So, these are siblings who are FAR closer related to each other than either is with V88. ...
    Good point. M73 is an important link and truly is more of a brother to M269 than V88 by probably a couple of thousand years.

    Here is the R1b-M73 project.
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
    Look at some of those values! 390 ranges from 19 to 26 in a group of only 35 people or so.

    Of course the geographies include Central Asia and even India.
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap

  4. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Thought I would paste this in before it got lost in the early branches thread which is slowly turning into a critique on Klyosov's new paper. I dont want this point lost in that because I think its a crucial point.



    M73 and M269 converge as P297* far too recently c. 8000BC according to Klyosov (early Neolithic) to have been in separate ice age refugia. They dont have separate histories prior to 8000BC. So the different distribution of M73 and M269 cannot relate to them or their ancestral lineages being is separate refugia. They were at the same spot c. 8000BC.

    Its the other branch P297-negative branch (which much later led to V88) that separated off in the Upper Palaeolithic according to Klyosov c. 12500BC. Now that branch could well have been in a seperate area given the much greater depth of time and the amount of drastic climatic fluctations in the 4000 years or so after that date.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     dp (01-15-2016),  rms2 (05-31-2016),  Silesian (05-25-2013)

  6. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    This excellent book on p90 or so discusses the sequence of skull types in the east end of the steppes. It sees three European types as moving into the area with Molgoloid skulls only appearing very late. It would seem almost inevitable that one of those European groups included the ancient M73 people moving east. Klyosov thought that the various M73 clusters in the eastern steppe had a very remote common ancestry back 8000 years ago. Strangely though when he suggested a homeland for M73 and indeed R1b on China's western boundaries he didnt consider the archaeological evidence that the Tarim and adjacent area was not settled at all until the Bronze Age. This makes it appear certain that M73 had a prior life of several thousand years somewhere else. After all it cannot have been on China's western borders in 6000BC if the area was not even settled by anyone until several thousand years late. So I think Anatole's suggestion of M73 or R1b homeland on China's border is badly at odds with his own dates and the archaeological evidence. M73 surely must have arrived in one of the waves of Europeans noted in the craniometry discussion in the attached book.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5...ed=0CHYQ6AEwDA

  7. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    As it stands there is really no case for M73 coming from SW Asia as it is lacking there. It has a presence from Ukraine through central Asia to China. So, given the lack of any evidence of European type peoples (or anyone?) in the extreme east of the steppes until Afanasievo it is logical to look to the west along the steppes to central Asia and the European steppes as the most likely source. It seems clear that only steppe type groups were equiped to make move in that zone. So, its very hard not to be tempted to see M73 as an element of Afanasievo. I am not a believer in pure mono-lineage populations. We know for example from studies of Gaelic lineages/clans that clans were rarely of a single lineage even if one was dominant. They tended to integrate other groups and clans. As I said before, M73 and M269 are thought to have had a common ancestor as recently as 8000BC according to a number of individuals calculations. So, the M73 and M269 shared a starting point in the early Neolithic somewhere.

  8. #6
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,661
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Here is the R1b-M73 project.
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
    Look at some of those values! 390 ranges from 19 to 26 in a group of only 35 people or so.
    One clade of R-M73 has undergone a multistep deletion at DYS390.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to lgmayka For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (05-23-2013)

  10. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Interesting thread. A classic actually. Does make me wonder if I havent been naive about Anatole's observations on M73. Interesting that VV thinks that M269, V88 and M73 are all oldest in SW Asia. I had worked out for myself that the Altai or adjacent R1b M73 origin point and Anatole's date for that clade were basically incompatible and impossible given the Bronze Age date of the first Europoid (or indeed any) presence in that area. However, a younger age of c. 5000BC as per VV and a connection with Afansievo's move east towards that area from the Urals c. 3300BC would work OK.

  11. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,908
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Thank you, Lawrence.

    If, and this is a big "if", one was looking at a limited set of STRs, this multi-step deletion at 390 could misleadingly drive the age of M73 older. I haven't had time to figure it out, and Klyosov's papers tend to have the cross-referencing of some corporate contract Ts and Cs (or IRS code), but we should try to understand the details of Klyosov's aging for M73....
    if we are relying on it.

  12. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Thank you, Lawrence.

    If, and this is a big "if", one was looking at a limited set of STRs, this multi-step deletion at 390 could misleadingly drive the age of M73 older. I haven't had time to figure it out, and Klyosov's papers tend to have the cross-referencing of some corporate contract Ts and Cs (or IRS code), but we should try to understand the details of Klyosov's aging for M73....
    if we are relying on it.
    It did seem though that the result of the debate was only to push the age of M73 back towards 7000 years old instead of 8000 years. VV also believed that M269, M73 and V88 are all oldest in SW Asia. I find a location in the hearland of early farming hard to tally with what appears to be R1b doing very little pre-5000BC. Other than seeing R1b as peripheral to early farming or located somewhere on its margins to the east or north, the only explantation I can think of that would actually place R1b in the heart of farming yet somehow doing very little would be if it recieved a nasty bottleneck. The aridity phase that peaked around 3900BC seems to have been the most extreme of that era. Either explanation is possible. However, I do have trouble seeing R1b expanding from Uruk in southern Iraq.

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

     Silesian (05-25-2013)

  14. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,776
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I was thinking the new paper Dienekes just posted that argues that Maykop originated in south central Asia and the Iran plateau could in theory make it easier to understand the relationship of the two P297 subclades M73 and M269. After all M73 and L23XL51 do have a presence in central Asia. This new proposed origin point is perhaps a more comfortable central location for those two clades. Again it is important to note that these two clades are far closer related (perhaps common ancestor c. 8000BC) than either are to V88 where a common ancestor is not shared until we are back in the Palaeolithic.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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