Two new papers on the distribution of R1b subclades

Myres et al. (pdf):
present phylogeographically resolved data for 2043 M269-derived Y-chromosomes from 118 West Asian and European populations assessed for the M412 SNP that largely separates the majority of Central and West European R1b lineages from those observed in Eastern Europe, the Circum-Uralic region, the Near East, the Caucasus and Pakistan. Within the M412 dichotomy, the major S116 sub-clade shows a frequency peak in the upper Danube basin and Paris area with declining frequency toward Italy, Iberia, Southern France and British Isles.
The supplementary data contains more detailed information on the frequency and diversity of R1b subclades in various population samples. Dienekes comments.

The dating (and consequently the authors' specific attempts to link the spread of R1b to archaeological horizons) is likely badly off; the various subclades are probably much younger than calculated by the authors. It's also far from clear to me that R1b entered Europe via Anatolia (as opposed to a more northerly route). Either way, the Iberian Irish myth is still very dead.

I haven't read the Cruciani paper (pdf).

References:

Myres et al. A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

Cruciani et al. Strong intra- and inter-continental differentiation revealed by Y chromosome SNPs M269, U106 and U152. Forensic Science International: Genetics doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.07.006

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you positive that Myres et al. completely debunks the Iberian Irish myth?

n/a said...

Is that a serious question?

Anonymous said...

I’m afraid it is. Please don’t kill me. In your post you wrote:

“Either way, the Iberian Irish myth is still very dead.”

This led me to believe that the study had somehow decisively refuted the Iberian Irish myth. And I was merely interested in an elaboration on that.

Occidental said...

I wonder why it is that scientists merely ignore things like, e.g.archaeological and linguistic, evidence when speculating as to genetic origins. It seems logical to incorporate those findings. For example, the evidence in those two fields suggests a migration of the Indo-Europeans into Europe via the plains of the Northeast. That's not to say that another migration could not have occurred via Anatolia but it is very hard to believe that was the only point of distribution. I don't see why this is just ignored in the scientific community. They need to integrate the relevant academic fields a bit more, imo.

n/a said...

Anonymous,

It's not so much that Myres et al. "decisively refute" the myth -- they don't explicitly address the issue -- but that the data they present are consistent with the picture that has been building for years that R1b entered W. Europe relatively recently from the east (i.e., that it does not tag a post-LGM dispersal from Iberia) and that Irish R1b shows no special affinity with Iberian R1b. You are welcome to look at the maps and data and make up your own mind. (Note: L21 is called M529 in this study.)

Occidental,

Here's one of the better (amateur) attempts I've seen to integrate the findings from DNA with the archaeological evidence.

Occidental said...

Here's one of the better (amateur) attempts I've seen to integrate the findings from DNA with the archaeological evidence. - n/a

Looks very interesting, I only had time to skim it but look forward to reading the entire thing soon. It may be an amateur attempt but it looks very thorough. Thanks for the link.

Anonymous said...

Here's one of the better (amateur) attempts I've seen to integrate the findings from DNA with the archaeological evidence.

"The first Europeans looked like a mixture of modern European and East Asian and Sub-Saharan African. The continental differences we see today had yet to evolve."

Do you agree with that and what do you think of it?

n/a said...

Not really. There, I think she's just repeating a talking point from "The Incredible Human Journey". The artist who did the "reconstruction" of Oase 2 for that documentary went out of his way to produce a final product in line with the intended interpretation.

Early Upper Paleolithic Europeans obviously weren't identical to modern Europeans. Some may have been mixed with Neanderthal and many would have been strange looking by modern standards. John Hawks thinks Oase 2 looks Asian. But overall I think UP European skulls look more similar to those of modern Europeans than to those of other living humans.

Jean said...

I think she's just repeating a talking point from "The Incredible Human Journey".

Yes I am. It seemed reasonable to me. The chap who made the reconstruction, Richard Neave, said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html#ixzz0ybXPn9Ep

In other words, rather like San Bushmen today. http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1475913

I was amused to see that people commenting on blogs and forums were mainly fixated on the skin colour, which in fact Neave didn't attempt to show. He just left the model the natural colour of the clay. I worked the image over to attempt something like a San Bushmen. Wasn't terribly successful.

Blogger said...

Searching for the Best Dating Site? Create an account and find your perfect date.