Page 435 of 445 FirstFirst ... 335385425433434435436437 ... LastLast
Results 4,341 to 4,350 of 4449

Thread: Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

  1. #4341
    Registered Users
    Posts
    348
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Absolute dates will be argued about for a long time to come but there is one thing that stands out as solid. P312 derivatives like DF13, L2 etc are proven to be linked with non Iberian beaker from its inception but their P312 shared mrca is centuries earlier. Given that their most recent shared ancestor is several centuries pre-beaker then how on earth did they all come to be so closely linked to beaker centuries later?

    There are only two likely explanations imho:

    1. All P312 decendants remained in a compact area for several centuries until they adopted the beaker.

    2. A beaker type trade network without the beakers was set up by the grandkids/g grandkids of Mr P312 in central europe around 2900-2800BC. This led to at least part of the P312 subclades geography being in place before beakers were adopted. The subsequent spread of the beaker and other shared traits and innovations through all the P312 people was due to them already forming a network through which they were linked.
    Perhaps both, with P312 having a compact base, and a network venturing out from and returning to that base.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to epp For This Useful Post:

     alan (09-14-2017)

  3. #4342
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,253
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
    ...we need to account for all the mutations that occurred...
    Based on the above I think that it's safe to assume P312 would be no younger than 2750 BC.
    It very well could be but I don't think that is a safe assumption at all because you do NOT need to account for all of the mutations.

    Mitchell, your usage of non-SNPs even if we name them SNPs and a widely varied coverage base is faulty logic. There can be, and in fact are, multiple mutations on the Y chromosome per one generation. It's just a matter of taking your pick.

    Here's a couple of quotes from Dave V on the dead horse thread.

    "Those numbers are NOT comparable to any one else's SNP mutation rates calculated at different coverages, SNP selection criteria, etc. But even trying to factor out all those valid differences between SNP mutation rates, this says we're still very far away from a universal SNP ageing methodology. And to be honest, that even YFull's methods have a much larger error margin then they're probably accounting for."

    "Big Ys have on average 10.31 Mbp coverage which would yield 118 years to every SNP, and FGC Elite has 23 Mbp coverage yielding a SNP every 53 years."

    Mitchell, here is analogy for what you are saying. There are two fields and field A has only orange trees while field B is several times larger and has apple and orange trees. You go fill up several bushel baskets from each.

    You throw apples in the baskets from field B because you can and then you declare field B produces more oranges per acre than field A. We don't know how big the fields are and we were counting baskets with apples + oranges as equivalents to baskets with oranges only.

    For those who like to beat dead horses, here's the thread:
    http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...der-for-Y-SNPs

    Alan, YFull has the maximum age of the TMRCA for P312 as 2800 BC with 95% confidence. I'm not saying they are right but I'm not saying McDonald's estimates are or anybody's are either.
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

    I just suggest not relying on the mutation counting age estimates to get you any closer than the right half-millenium... maybe. We do know the P312 MRCA has be older older than 2500 BC. The U152 guy's bones tell us that.
    Last edited by Mikewww; 09-14-2017 at 01:46 AM.

  4. #4343
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,349
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Y-DNA
    DF27, FGC15748
    mtDNA
    T2f3

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    It very well could be but I don't think that is a safe assumption at all because you do NOT need to account for all of the mutations.

    Mitchell, your usage of non-SNPs even if we name them SNPs and a widely varied coverage base is faulty logic. There can be, and in fact are, multiple mutations on the Y chromosome per one generation. It's just a matter of taking your pick.
    I disagree that Mitchell's logic is faulty, at least in the cases of Z40481 and ZZ11/Z38841. Per the Big Tree (the only place you're likely to see them), those define separate levels, each with more than one branch -- whether you call them SNPs, or UEPs, or Fred. Can't do that w/o another generation, each.

    Otherwise I agree with Mike that on many levels, in many branches of the P312 phylogeny, there are multiple SNPs (or other mutations) that happened at the same time, to the same guy. And they screw up the SNP-counting system of age estimation, which itself is not completely immune to the Faulty Logic virus.

  5. #4344
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,253
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by razyn View Post
    I disagree that Mitchell's logic is faulty, at least in the cases of Z40481 and ZZ11/Z38841. Per the Big Tree (the only place you're likely to see them), those define separate levels, each with more than one branch -- whether you call them SNPs, or UEPs, or Fred. Can't do that w/o another generation, each.

    Otherwise I agree with Mike that on many levels, in many branches of the P312 phylogeny, there are multiple SNPs (or other mutations) that happened at the same time, to the same guy. And they screw up the SNP-counting system of age estimation, which itself is not completely immune to the Faulty Logic virus.
    Any mutation or combination of mutations may be useful for marking branching on a tree, albeit not necessarily on formal or academically acceptable trees. However, that has little to do with using mutations to estimate generations. You have to control coverage as the base of the measure and have data on mutation rates to estimate times. That's the faulty logic. Don't believe me. Believe what David V was saying, "Those numbers are NOT comparable to any one else's SNP mutation rates calculated at different coverages, SNP selection criteria, etc. "

    Alex Williamson, the discoverer of Z40481, says of Z40481, "Please note that the defining mutation for this block is in fact an STR."
    www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1565

    Z40481 is clearly not a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism. It's not an SNP.

    Alex is the discoverer of ZZ11 and he says of it, "ZZ11 is a mutation within the DYZ19 (125bp repeat) region, but its exact position is unknown. It may well be in a part of DYZ19 that has not yet been sequenced."
    http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=2

    Every distinct branch does require a distinct father-son transmission, I agree, but with aggressive counting and stretchy coverage we could easily be talking about only one generation per ZZ11 and one per Z40481. That could amount to 50 years total. ... and that's assuming no back mutation at the STR we called Z40481 nor anything screwy happening at ZZ11 which we aren't really aren't that sure about.

    I don't see Iain McDonald nor YFull using either of these in their age estimates. Okay, that's enough. I'll check the dead horse thread I linked into reply #4342 if people want to talk more about this.

    [[[EDIT after reply 4345 by Mitchell: I'm just going to tack on here if you want to keep on this thread because this has got be killing everybody else.

    I understand the real event thing, sexual intercourse and all. That's what I was trying to say with "Every distinct branch does require a distinct father-son transmission". A father-son transmission includes a wife/mother in the process of course. I understand a new child branch is a new branch requiring at least one generation... which means time. That's why I said "per ZZ11 and one per Z40481. That could amount to 50 years total" and that's assuming Z40481, the STR did not mutate down one step and that ZZ11 is actually being measured accurately.

    I'm just saying you can't stretch these things out with the typical SNP every 100 years or so depending on what on what coverage one is using. The sex and resulting child and grandchild sequence could easily be 100 years or less for all of this below....

    P312 MRCA father
    Z4081 son, DF19 son, Z290 son, L238 son, etc.
    ZZ11/Z38841 grandson, DF99 grandson, ZZ37 grandson, L21 grandson, etc.
    U152 and DF27 great-grandsons, etc.

    You can't stretch this out to 500 or 1000 years with what you think is a theoretical (it's not a theory, it's real but we can only estimate it) mutation rate of 112 years per true SNP given 9,900,000 base pairs of coverage. Really we are looking at double the coverage since FGC has that so our best estimate is about 50 years per true validated SNP... which I don't think still includes your STR or ZZ11.

    Let's go ahead and imagine these are all valid SNPs and use the FGC rate of an SNP every 53 years (I think they say). That's average not maximum, that's average. In that case we can estimate U152 and DF27 appeared about 150 years after the P312 MRCA man. I'm definitely not trying to say the P312 MRCA couldn't have been around 3000 BC, but I don't think we should rely on that. That's all I was telling Alan. We can rely on the 2540 BC plus some... how much? I don't know but not a lot unless there was just some aberrant pause in valid SNP occurrences in the L151 lineages, and its just as likely there was an acceleration of SNPs as there was a pause.

    I'm fine with a 2700 BC date or 3000 BC or whatever. I wouldn't build a whole hypothesis on 3000 BC versus 2650 BC, though. I may have misunderstood the premises that Alan was setting up. I thought he was looking at 500 year gap or something I was just trying to say the gap may not be that big.

    Please note I didn't cite mutation rates or anything to kick off this sideshow on reply #4338. I just told Alan, "I wouldn't rely too much on precision in dating, at least from the genetic age estimates. They could easily be off several hundred years"
    EDIT again: I was wrong on this "I know we have U152 very early but that might only be a generation or two away from the P312 MRCA." I should have said "might only be a few generations" not "one or two". ]]]
    Last edited by Mikewww; 09-14-2017 at 12:58 PM.

  6. #4345
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,272
    Sex
    Location
    Carolina, N. America
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European mutt
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R-U152>>>FGC12384
    mtDNA
    H1

    England Scotland Wales Germany Ireland Sweden Finns
    We are apparently talking past one another. You are talking about theoretical mutations rates....which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sex...actual sexually transmitted mutations from a man to his son at conception that happened in the real world in this line to create the structure we observe between RISE563 (a U152 descendant) and Mr. P312.

    Fact #1
    Some men who descend from P312 have the Z40481 mutation (DF27, U152, DF99 among others). Some don't (L21 DF19, L238).

    Theoretically they could have been brothers and sons of P312 (one son Z40481+ one Z40481-) i.e. only one generation down from P312.

    Fact #2
    Some men who descend from Z40481 have the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations and some don't.
    Theoretically both mutations could have occurred in one son of Z40481 and not in another son of Z40481. i.e. they could have been brothers...sons of Z40481...just 2 generations down from P312.

    Theoretically Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 could have been the father of both DF27 and U152...just 3 generations down from Mr P312.

    Theoretically RISE563 was the original Mr. U152.

    Theoretically P312 had a son (Mr. Z40481) right when he reached puberty at 13 years old. Mr. Z40481 in turn had his son, Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 when he was 13. And Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 had RISE563 when he was 13, and RISE563 could theoretically be the original U152.

    So yeah, theoretically P312 could be as young as 2581 BC (2542 BC+13+13+13). Or 119 years younger than my ridiculous assumption of 2700 BC.

    Sorry for being a smart ass but maybe I'm just dense...Is there some other way that the mutations happen other than conception? If not then I think it's more realistic to assume that RISE563 was not the original U152 carrier. If we are lucky maybe he was the grandson or great grandson of the original U152. And it's more realistic to assume that a mutation/multiple mutations didn't happen at every single conception event as I laid out above in the most optimum timeline conceivable (pun intended).

    IMO a more realistic timeline is RISE563 is at least 2-3 generations (60 years) removed from the original U152 (a rough guess to avoid the "hitting the lottery scenario" of RISE563 being the original U152 carrier or one of his sons...what are the odds?). This would put U152 at 2602 BC at the latest. Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 may have been 1-2 generations before that or about 2632 to 2662 BC. Mr Z40481 may have been a generations or two before that or about 2662 to 2722 BC.

    That is the background/thinking as to how I came up with 2700 BC as the latest realistic date for P312. It has nothing to do with theoretical SNP mutation rate averages and combBED SNPs.

    It's based on working backwards from RISE563's carbon date and on real conception events in this paternal line that had to occur to explain the actual mutations between P312 and U152 that some men have and some don't i.e. to explain the real tree structure/branches below P312.
    Last edited by MitchellSince1893; 09-15-2017 at 01:28 AM.
    Genetic info
     
    U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z12222>FGC12378>FGC12384. Yfull YF01489. YSEARCH 2PJVS.
    Earliest Known Paternal Ancestor: Edward Leopold Mitchell (NPE), b 1893, London, England

    Ancestry: English=37% Scot/Ulster-Scot=27% Welsh=14% Irish=3% German=14% Scandinavian=3% India=1% French & Dutch=1%

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MitchellSince1893 For This Useful Post:

     alan (09-14-2017), gogogenes (09-14-2017), Muircheartaigh (09-15-2017)

  8. #4346
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,881
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA
    L21
    mtDNA
    H

    Mike- fair points. I am trying to push the data further than it can be. I'll be less ambitious and simply say that ancient DNA all but prove that the P312 MRCA is older than 2600BC but it's unclear by how much. Yfull are at least 200 years too young re the P312 MRCA.

    Irish Brehon law shows legal and traditional bonds even including inheritance in some circumstances out to the indfine or end of clan who were descendants of a common great great great grandfather. My patrilineal ggg grandfather was born about 140 years before me. I would guess back in premodern times the same span would average 125 years. Add a few decades for the living generation of 3rd cousins to be adults and that's prob around 150ys since the common ancestor. That is the sort of maximum span I see a lineage operating as a unit without fission into separate units where kinship is no longer a practical bond. I kind of see that sort of span as the longest that P312 may have remained a meaningful unit before fission split it into separate independent branches.

    It seems clear that by 2500BC the geographical patterning of P312 major branches was already under way. Perhaps the kinship and inheritance bonds that linked Mr P312's descendent reached the snapping point around 150ys after his birth. Archaeologically that process looks like 2550BC or so when beaker took off in all directions. That sort of notional model would perhaps back a date of c 2700BC for Mr P312 plus or minus a fre decades of course.

    Funny enough I have found that accurate purely oral family history in many of my lines consistently reaches back to about 150-160ys and everything older has been found only by paper research. It's so consistent across so many branches of my ancestors that it almost seems like a natural law.

  9. #4347
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,881
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA
    L21
    mtDNA
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
    We are apparently talking past one another. You are talking about theoretical mutations rates....which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sex...actual sexually transmitted mutations from a man to his son at conception that happened in the real world in this line to create the structure we observe between RISE563 (a U152 descendant) and Mr. P312.

    Fact #1
    Some men who descend from P312 have the Z40481 mutation (DF27, U152, DF99 among others). Some don't (L21 DF19, L238).

    Theoretically they could have been brothers and sons of P312 (one sne Z40481+ one Z40481-) i.e. only one generation down from P312.

    Fact #2. Some men who descend from Z40481 have the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations and some don't.
    Theoretically both mutations could have occurred in one son of Z40481 and not in another son of Z40481. i.e. they could have been brothers...sons of Z40481...just 2 generations down from P312.

    Theoretically Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 could have been the father of both DF27 and U152...just 3 generations down from Mr P312.

    Theoretically RISE563 was the original Mr. U152.

    Theoretically P312 had a son (Mr. Z40481) right when he reached puberty at 13 years old. Mr. Z40481 in turn had his son, Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 when he was 13. And Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 had RISE563 when he was 13, and RISE563 could theoretically be the original U152.

    So yeah, theoretically P312 could be as young as 2581 BC (2542 BC+13+13+13). Or 119 years younger than my ridiculous assumption of 2700 BC.

    Sorry for being a smart ass but maybe I'm just dense...Is there some other way that the mutations happen other than conception? If not then I think it's more realistic to assume that RISE563 was not the original U152 carrier. If we are lucky maybe he was the grandson or great grandson of the original U152. And it's more realistic to assume that a mutation/multiple mutations didn't happen at every single conception event as I laid out above in the most optimum timeline conceivable (pun intended).

    IMO a more realistic timeline is RISE563 is at least 2-3 generations (60 years) removed from the original U152 (a rough guess to avoid the "hitting the lottery scenario" of RISE563 being the original U152 carrier or one of his sons...what are the odds?). This would put U152 at 2602 BC at the latest. Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 may have been 1-2 generations before that or about 2632 to 2662 BC. Mr Z40481 may have been a generations or two before that or about 2662 to 2722 BC.

    That is the background/thinking as to how I came up with 2700 BC as the latest realistic date for P312. It has nothing to do with theoretical SNP mutation rate averages and combBED SNPs.

    It's based on working backwards from RISE563's carbon date and on real conception events in this paternal line that had to occur to explain the actual mutations between P312 and U152 that some men have and some don't i.e. to explain the real tree structure/branches below P312.
    I can see your logic and I don't think many now would think Mr P312 was younger than 2700BC anyway: As per my post above, it may well be that 2550BC was around 150ys or so after his birth and that marked a fission of his descendants into branches seeking fortunes elsewhere which was inevitable. That would fit a date of c 2700BC for Mr P312 nicely

  10. #4348
    Registered Users
    Posts
    348
    Sex

    How about the P312’s immediate forefather - the MRCA of P312 and U106 (to which P312 looks closest)? I estimate that P312 split from U106 at about the same time that I estimate P312 started branching - around 3,000 BC.
    Is it right that ancient U106 is found only in Sweden?
    I’ve already identified a relative autosomal similarity between Swedish Funnel Beaker and German Bell Beaker; and Irish Bell Beaker looks to have a greater autosomal similarity with a Swedish 6th millennium sample than it does with Yamnayan samples or (even more so) Central European Neolithic samples.
    Does this point to L151 developing far to the North?

  11. #4349
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    915
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Nationality
    Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R-DF49
    mtDNA
    J1c2e

    United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by epp View Post
    How about the P312’s immediate forefather - the MRCA of P312 and U106 (to which P312 looks closest)? I estimate that P312 split from U106 at about the same time that I estimate P312 started branching - around 3,000 BC.
    Is it right that ancient U106 is found only in Sweden?
    I’ve already identified a relative autosomal similarity between Swedish Funnel Beaker and German Bell Beaker; and Irish Bell Beaker looks to have a greater autosomal similarity with a Swedish 6th millennium sample than it does with Yamnayan samples or (even more so) Central European Neolithic samples.
    Does this point to L151 developing far to the North?
    You're going to base a theory on a single sample ????

  12. #4350
    Registered Users
    Posts
    348
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by jdean View Post
    You're going to base a theory on a single sample ????
    I haven't expressed a theory - I asked a question.
    The question was triggered by six samples - 4 Swedish funnel beaker, 1 Swedish early Neolithic and 1 Swedish U106 (as far as I'm aware, the only ancient one).
    Are there many (or any) Central European Neolithic samples that bear a close autosomal resemblance to Bell Beaker?

Page 435 of 445 FirstFirst ... 335385425433434435436437 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. R-L21+ = Bell Beaker?
    By evon in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-08-2015, 08:47 AM
  2. A deeper think about beakers and genes
    By alan in forum R1b General
    Replies: 581
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 10:39 AM
  3. Conference of Jan Turek about Bell Beakers
    By Bernard in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2013, 01:14 PM
  4. Bell Beaker Isotopes
    By dartraighe in forum General
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-01-2013, 11:43 PM
  5. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 04:51 AM

Posting Permissions

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