Several posters at Davidski's Eurogenes blog have noted that they've been banned from Anthrogenica for challenging the Kool-Aid drinking orthodoxy that infects that website.
The pattern almost always goes as follows. A regular Anthrogenica poster says something like, "Isn't the Kool-Aid grand?" A newcomer says, "I don't want to drink your Kool-Aid." The Anthrogenica regular says, "I'm right, you idiot." And then the newcomer says, "You're the idiot" -- and yep, you guessed it, only one of them gets banned.
It's gotten so bad that some of the best citizen-scientist minds, and almost all contrarian voices, are gone from that website. In the old days, the orthodoxy sought to excommunicate Galileo from the Catholic faith. Now they excommunicate posters from the major discussion websites. No dissent allowed.
With Dienekes inactive, Eurogenes is where many go for discussion. But Davidski has been very heavy with the censorship button there too. Post something he disagrees with? He removes your comment. It's really sad.
I myself have tried to post my most recent thread, about applying simple demographics to his "Conquest and Warfare" fantasies, and he always removes my comments asap.
What does that leave? Eupedia? Maciamo is a reductio ad absurdem idiot, who also doesn't hesitate to ban people with any contrarian viewpoint.
So, this is it. This is your thread. This thread (and this website) is for anyone Banned From Anthrogenica, or Censored by Eurogenes.
Post away. You will not be censored here.
Showing posts with label Dienekes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dienekes. Show all posts
Friday, May 12, 2017
Saturday, January 30, 2016
In Praise of Roberta Estes and DNAeXplained.com
In a world of pseudo-science and echo chambers, a few blogs stick out for being mostly in touch with reality. In the world of Ancient DNA, Dienekes, although less active than before, has pioneered much in the field of DNA, and still has many serious scientists who comment there.
In the world of DNA for Genealogy, one blog sticks out. It is Roberta Estes' DNAeXplained.com. Of all the blogs and websites dedicated to disseminating information about DNA, hers is consistently factual, science-based, and yet easy to understand.
This scientist came across a few of her posts, and I daresay they are mandatory reading for anyone seeking a better understanding of their DNA. Below are links and highlights:
Step 1: Creation of the underlying population data base.
Don’t we wish this was as simple as it sounds. It isn’t. In fact, this step is the underpinnings of the accuracy of the ethnicity predictions. The old GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) concept applies here. . . .
The third way to obtain this type of information is by inference. Both Ancestry.com and 23andMe do some of this. Ancestry released its V2 ethnicity updates this week, and as a part of that update, they included a white paper available to DNA participants. In that paper, Ancestry discusses their process for utilizing contributed pedigree charts and states that, aside from immigrant locations, such as the United States and Canada, a common location for 4 grandparents is sufficient information to include that individuals DNA as “native” to that location. Ancestry used 3000 samples in their new ethnicity predictions to cover 26 geographic locations. That’s only 115 samples, on average, per location to represent all of that population. That’s pretty slim pickins. Their most highly represented area is Eastern Europe with 432 samples and the least represented is Mali with 16. The regions they cover are shown below. . .
No matter which calculations you use relative to acceptable Margin of Error and Confidence Level, Ancestry’s sample size is extremely light. . . .
"having Haplogroup Origins and Ancestral Origins indicating Native American ancestry does not necessarily mean you are Native American or have Native American heritage. This is a very pervasive myth that needs to be dispelled. . . .
The good news is that more and more people are DNA testing. The bad news is that errors in the system are tending to become more problematic, or said another way, GIGO – Garbage in, Garbage Out.
....
There are a very limited number of major haplogroups that include Native American results. For mitochondrial DNA, they are A, B, C, D, X and possibly M. I maintain a research list of the subgroups which are Native. Each of these base haplogroups also have subgroups which are European and/or Asian. The same holds true for Native American Y haplogroups Q and C.
In the Haplogroup Origins and Ancestral Origins, there are many examples where Non-Native haplogroups are assigned as Native American, such as haplogroup H1a below. Haplogroup H is European...
One of the problems we have today is that because there are so many people who carry the oral history of grandmother being “Cherokee,” it has become common to “self-assign” oneself as Native. That’s all fine and good, until one begins to “self-assign” those haplogroups as Native as well – by virtue of that “Native” assignment in the Family Tree DNA data base. That’s a horse of a different color.
In the world of DNA for Genealogy, one blog sticks out. It is Roberta Estes' DNAeXplained.com. Of all the blogs and websites dedicated to disseminating information about DNA, hers is consistently factual, science-based, and yet easy to understand.
This scientist came across a few of her posts, and I daresay they are mandatory reading for anyone seeking a better understanding of their DNA. Below are links and highlights:
Don’t we wish this was as simple as it sounds. It isn’t. In fact, this step is the underpinnings of the accuracy of the ethnicity predictions. The old GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) concept applies here. . . .
The third way to obtain this type of information is by inference. Both Ancestry.com and 23andMe do some of this. Ancestry released its V2 ethnicity updates this week, and as a part of that update, they included a white paper available to DNA participants. In that paper, Ancestry discusses their process for utilizing contributed pedigree charts and states that, aside from immigrant locations, such as the United States and Canada, a common location for 4 grandparents is sufficient information to include that individuals DNA as “native” to that location. Ancestry used 3000 samples in their new ethnicity predictions to cover 26 geographic locations. That’s only 115 samples, on average, per location to represent all of that population. That’s pretty slim pickins. Their most highly represented area is Eastern Europe with 432 samples and the least represented is Mali with 16. The regions they cover are shown below. . .
No matter which calculations you use relative to acceptable Margin of Error and Confidence Level, Ancestry’s sample size is extremely light. . . .
"having Haplogroup Origins and Ancestral Origins indicating Native American ancestry does not necessarily mean you are Native American or have Native American heritage. This is a very pervasive myth that needs to be dispelled. . . .
The good news is that more and more people are DNA testing. The bad news is that errors in the system are tending to become more problematic, or said another way, GIGO – Garbage in, Garbage Out.
....
There are a very limited number of major haplogroups that include Native American results. For mitochondrial DNA, they are A, B, C, D, X and possibly M. I maintain a research list of the subgroups which are Native. Each of these base haplogroups also have subgroups which are European and/or Asian. The same holds true for Native American Y haplogroups Q and C.
In the Haplogroup Origins and Ancestral Origins, there are many examples where Non-Native haplogroups are assigned as Native American, such as haplogroup H1a below. Haplogroup H is European...
One of the problems we have today is that because there are so many people who carry the oral history of grandmother being “Cherokee,” it has become common to “self-assign” oneself as Native. That’s all fine and good, until one begins to “self-assign” those haplogroups as Native as well – by virtue of that “Native” assignment in the Family Tree DNA data base. That’s a horse of a different color.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
How Little We Know About Ancient DNA - Part II
Earlier this year, I posted a series of maps graphically depicting the (at that time) exhaustive list of Ancient DNA finds, mapped out for both time and space.
The post, while now a bit dated due to additional finds, is still worth examining. When reading it, it should becomes very apparent to you, the concept in the title of this post: How Little We Know About Ancient DNA.
As you can see from the maps, it appears that people bearing certain Y Chromosome haplogroups "flew" across time and space. And that certain parts of Europe had nobody in them until someone flew across the distances.
Of course, this is impossible. It simply reflects the fact that we continue to have immense gaps in skeletal finds and in our knowledge.
Most importantly, it shows that today's conventional wisdom, popular at echo chambers like the Anthrogenica boards, will certainly change tomorrow -- revealing the adherents to such theories to be akin to arrogant fraudsters, peddling certainty where none is scientifically warranted.
Recently, a poster at Anthrogenica, with the handle Tomenable, posted an excellent visualization of the same gaps in knowledge that I referenced.
You can view a list of aDNA finds here, in chart form, courtesy of Tomenable.
And even better, here is a chart, in chronological order, showing the same.
What does the chart show? By applying *scientific* methods of taking things to their logical conclusions, and reducing our knowledge to a set of provable statements, you can easily see how little we know.
For starters, based on these chrono maps, it looks like Haplogroup C1 made it to Europe after I2. Yet almost everyone, from the scientific community to the "citizen" scientists (their term) on Anthrogenica, agree that C1 is a rare, likely "Cro-Magnon" marker, that represents the very first humans out of Africa and into Europe. On the other hand, it has been accepted for over a decade that Haplogroup I, notably I2, represents the second (or third) wave of the population of Europe, associated with the Gravettian dispersions.
But again, this is *not* "what the aDNA shows."
Ask the wiseguys on Anthrogenica, or search their posts. They express with certainty that C1 came first, followed by I2. And it probably is true. But it is NOT born out by the aDNA evidence. (Yet).
However, the same group of people turn to the aDNA evidence (blindly) to express 100% confidence in other theories, for example, everything from the notion that R1b xV88 couldn't be found west of modern Poland until the Indo-European expansions. (I find this notion laughable.)
They also rely on the aDNA evidence to express 100% confidence in wild notions of sex selection that have more in common with dimestore novels than anything scientific. The proponents of said theories also happen to be mostly males bearing R1b. Yes folks, in a world where racial identity is taboo, any sense of ingroup-outgroup dynamics for Western Europeans has simply been transferred to tiny markers on one chromosome.
In other words, many of these folks blindly turn to our meager aDNA evidence to justify their pet theory du jour, but choose to ignore what the aDNA evidence shows, when convenient.
They cite gaps in data (i.e., a lack of samples) as evidence for proving a negative, as if that was possible -- when they want to.
But they ignore the lack of samples when convenient, if it doesn't fit in their narrative for that time or place.
Doubt them, they revert to the argument "well, the aDNA shows..." but they are more than willing to fill in gaps in aDNA when convenient.
It's already been a rough year for the arrogantly certain in Ancient DNA. Notably, past theories on the dispersion of Haplogroup J2 have fallen by the wayside. Theories posted on Anthrogenica just a couple months ago, and accepted by the echo chamber as gospel fact, have been called into serious doubt by recent academic papers.
I've also posted repeatedly on how difference in culture and hyperlocal topography can affect what aDNA survives into modern times. The easiest example is one tribe burying their dead, while another tribe cremates it. Anyone who knows anything about written history understands that the reason why we don't have m(any) ethnic Roman skeletons is because they cremated their dead. To those who don't grasp this concept, it would be as if the Romans, a powerful, numerous, colonizing, widespread, important society -- didn't exist.
I can just see Anthrogenica in the year 2515: "but there are no Roman samples in aDNA," they would maintain adamantly. Yes, you would reply. But the Romans existed.
The point is simple: approach any theories explaining what happened before written history with caution. There are major gaps in the record, and it is far, far too early to approach things with the smug certainty one sees on these boards.
Look at the samples across time and space (geography). Don't hide behind relative, subjective terms like "Mesolithic" and "Neolithic." Instead, look at how Europe was populated, the way it was populated --- in gradations, over (real) time. You, too, will notice "How Little We Know (Still) About aDNA."
The post, while now a bit dated due to additional finds, is still worth examining. When reading it, it should becomes very apparent to you, the concept in the title of this post: How Little We Know About Ancient DNA.
As you can see from the maps, it appears that people bearing certain Y Chromosome haplogroups "flew" across time and space. And that certain parts of Europe had nobody in them until someone flew across the distances.
Of course, this is impossible. It simply reflects the fact that we continue to have immense gaps in skeletal finds and in our knowledge.
Most importantly, it shows that today's conventional wisdom, popular at echo chambers like the Anthrogenica boards, will certainly change tomorrow -- revealing the adherents to such theories to be akin to arrogant fraudsters, peddling certainty where none is scientifically warranted.
Recently, a poster at Anthrogenica, with the handle Tomenable, posted an excellent visualization of the same gaps in knowledge that I referenced.
You can view a list of aDNA finds here, in chart form, courtesy of Tomenable.
And even better, here is a chart, in chronological order, showing the same.
What does the chart show? By applying *scientific* methods of taking things to their logical conclusions, and reducing our knowledge to a set of provable statements, you can easily see how little we know.
For starters, based on these chrono maps, it looks like Haplogroup C1 made it to Europe after I2. Yet almost everyone, from the scientific community to the "citizen" scientists (their term) on Anthrogenica, agree that C1 is a rare, likely "Cro-Magnon" marker, that represents the very first humans out of Africa and into Europe. On the other hand, it has been accepted for over a decade that Haplogroup I, notably I2, represents the second (or third) wave of the population of Europe, associated with the Gravettian dispersions.
But again, this is *not* "what the aDNA shows."
Ask the wiseguys on Anthrogenica, or search their posts. They express with certainty that C1 came first, followed by I2. And it probably is true. But it is NOT born out by the aDNA evidence. (Yet).
However, the same group of people turn to the aDNA evidence (blindly) to express 100% confidence in other theories, for example, everything from the notion that R1b xV88 couldn't be found west of modern Poland until the Indo-European expansions. (I find this notion laughable.)
They also rely on the aDNA evidence to express 100% confidence in wild notions of sex selection that have more in common with dimestore novels than anything scientific. The proponents of said theories also happen to be mostly males bearing R1b. Yes folks, in a world where racial identity is taboo, any sense of ingroup-outgroup dynamics for Western Europeans has simply been transferred to tiny markers on one chromosome.
In other words, many of these folks blindly turn to our meager aDNA evidence to justify their pet theory du jour, but choose to ignore what the aDNA evidence shows, when convenient.
They cite gaps in data (i.e., a lack of samples) as evidence for proving a negative, as if that was possible -- when they want to.
But they ignore the lack of samples when convenient, if it doesn't fit in their narrative for that time or place.
Doubt them, they revert to the argument "well, the aDNA shows..." but they are more than willing to fill in gaps in aDNA when convenient.
It's already been a rough year for the arrogantly certain in Ancient DNA. Notably, past theories on the dispersion of Haplogroup J2 have fallen by the wayside. Theories posted on Anthrogenica just a couple months ago, and accepted by the echo chamber as gospel fact, have been called into serious doubt by recent academic papers.
I've also posted repeatedly on how difference in culture and hyperlocal topography can affect what aDNA survives into modern times. The easiest example is one tribe burying their dead, while another tribe cremates it. Anyone who knows anything about written history understands that the reason why we don't have m(any) ethnic Roman skeletons is because they cremated their dead. To those who don't grasp this concept, it would be as if the Romans, a powerful, numerous, colonizing, widespread, important society -- didn't exist.
I can just see Anthrogenica in the year 2515: "but there are no Roman samples in aDNA," they would maintain adamantly. Yes, you would reply. But the Romans existed.
The point is simple: approach any theories explaining what happened before written history with caution. There are major gaps in the record, and it is far, far too early to approach things with the smug certainty one sees on these boards.
Look at the samples across time and space (geography). Don't hide behind relative, subjective terms like "Mesolithic" and "Neolithic." Instead, look at how Europe was populated, the way it was populated --- in gradations, over (real) time. You, too, will notice "How Little We Know (Still) About aDNA."
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Ancient DNA Provides A New Understanding of Haplogroup I2a1a M26
Below is a map of confirmed instances of I-M26 found in prehistoric remains. Lots of others could have potentially been added -- ancestral clades, closely related sister clades, and ones where the coverages is insufficient to determine whether it is indeed M26 (or L672 L160 etc.) But we decided to err on the side of being conservative.
Going chronologically, we have M26 in what is now Sweden, at the Motala site, at 7730 BP (Before Present). These were Hunter/Gatherers.
Next, we have it at the La Spina site, in modern Spain, at 5765 BP. This was a Megalithic site, during the Neolithic. Farming was already in Spain at that time.
Next we find it at Treilles, modern France, at 5015 BP. This was a Megalithic/Neolithic site of farmers, near the coast.
Next we find it in the Remedello culture, of Northern Italy, at 4758 BP. This was a Chalcolithic (Copper Age) site. Per Robert S.P. Beekes, "bears all the marks of an Indo-European invasion: a new style of ceramics, a new burial rite, changes in the social structure, the introduction of a warrior aristocracy, the intro- duction of metallurgy, the horse and the chariot. But it is still not possible to assign language groups to particular culture."
Finally, for now, researchers have found it in the Megalithic culture of central France, near the Dolmen of Villaneuve-Sur-Yonne, 4753 BP, and again, of course, farming was present.
In modern times, we find M26 at 37% in Sardinia, certainly an outlier due to substantial founder effect.
But it is also found at up to 10% in Samnite country in Molise, Italy (and in significant numbers in Cosenza province of northern Calabria). It is found at 5-9% in Spain, including Basque country. At up to 7% on Sicily. And 3% in many areas of England and Ireland, especially places like the Channel Islands. It is still found at 1% in Southern Sweden.
So, given all that we know, what is a sensible theory for M26's distribution and spread?
We've heard them all, and each has merit: that is represents Megalithic Mariners, who went around old Europe converting local populations and building huge monuments like Stonehenge and the Nuraghe. That it represents the spread of Cardial Ware culture, along the western Mediterranean seaboard. That it represents the spread of farming, either as hunter/gatherers who adopted farming quickly, or as a rare clade of Haplogroup I that was predominantly farmers since the dawn of agriculture. Finally, some posit that it represents a caste (or not) of people embedded in other haplogroups in motion, most often listed as G2a or R1b.
All have merit, none are perfect. Let's go through the logical conclusions and form a model.
The presence of M26 amongst the hunter/gatherers of Motala, and its widespread ancient distribution by the dawn of the Neolithic tell us that it is a most ancient indigenous European clade.
We believe that it is safe to say that the first modern humans in Europe, Aurignacians, aka Cro-Magnons, bore haplogroup C. (Although during the Paleolithic, that far back, it is really anyone's guess whether Hg C came in during one the next phases).
M26, along with its brother clades within Haplogroup I2, most likely formed a part of the second wave of European hunter/gatherers, and was presumably present among the Epi-Gravettians and the Magdalenians.
How then does one explain its wide distribution and adaptive nature throughout the continent during the Neolithic?
Perhaps the answer is simple. These were people who have been in Europe for a long time, and are adaptable, and are survivors.
Europe was settled in waves, and not just the three big ones (Hunter/Gatherer, Farmers, Steppe Horsemen), which is an oversimplification.
Imagine Europe as a pipe. It has three entry points: the steppes of Russia from people heading due west, the Balkans/river corridors from people heading northwest, and the Mediterranean from people heading north.
Imagine a party. The "Emtwentysix" family was among the first to arrive. When they got to the house, they represented maybe 15% of the guests. But as more guests arrived, some through the front door, some through the back door, and some through the side door, the Emtwentysix family became a smaller percentage of the total guests, now just 0.5-3%.
When the family arrived, they were playing foosball together. But at some point, some members of the family joined a group of other guests who were dancing, and some joined groups of other guests who were playing video games.
You get the analogy.
None of the above theories may be 100% accurate, and yet all theories may be accurate in their own way.
For example, it is doubtful that I-M26 first showed up in Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture, but it could have been among the groups (as it was clearly in Italy for a long time) that encountered the Cardial peoples, and then became a component of said peoples, heading west along the western Mediterranean seaboard.
Similarly, in Northern Italy, M26 peoples could have been among the first who were Indo-Europeanized, in the Remedello culture, and then part of the secondary expansion into Italy, which formed the Oscan-speaking Sabellic tribes (Samnites, Brutti, and Sicels).
In other places, clearly M26 was Megalithic acculturated, and its odd distribution in places where Megaliths appear is intriguing for sure.
And lastly, some of its distribution could reflect later movements by obsidian traders or something similar.
Prehistory is a series of periods of demographic expansion followed by demographic crisis. Good hunting, good weather, good crops, absence of disease, and other factors make people have more babies. Then luck turns, and some lines die out, while other lines come to the party. Since the Bronze Age in Europe, it has mostly been a demographic march to more population as time goes by.
We would like to see a study comparing the M26 in Sweden, Ireland, Spain, the Italian mainland, and Sardinia, to see who is ancestral to whom, or how and when the different groups separated.
But the bottom line appears to be that M26 has been in Europe a long time, and like all lineages that were there a long time, its distribution will have changed a bit and its absolute numbers will have gone down, but these Most Adaptable Hunter Gatherers (MAHGs) continue to intrigue.
Going chronologically, we have M26 in what is now Sweden, at the Motala site, at 7730 BP (Before Present). These were Hunter/Gatherers.
Next, we have it at the La Spina site, in modern Spain, at 5765 BP. This was a Megalithic site, during the Neolithic. Farming was already in Spain at that time.
Next we find it at Treilles, modern France, at 5015 BP. This was a Megalithic/Neolithic site of farmers, near the coast.
Next we find it in the Remedello culture, of Northern Italy, at 4758 BP. This was a Chalcolithic (Copper Age) site. Per Robert S.P. Beekes, "bears all the marks of an Indo-European invasion: a new style of ceramics, a new burial rite, changes in the social structure, the introduction of a warrior aristocracy, the intro- duction of metallurgy, the horse and the chariot. But it is still not possible to assign language groups to particular culture."
Finally, for now, researchers have found it in the Megalithic culture of central France, near the Dolmen of Villaneuve-Sur-Yonne, 4753 BP, and again, of course, farming was present.
In modern times, we find M26 at 37% in Sardinia, certainly an outlier due to substantial founder effect.
But it is also found at up to 10% in Samnite country in Molise, Italy (and in significant numbers in Cosenza province of northern Calabria). It is found at 5-9% in Spain, including Basque country. At up to 7% on Sicily. And 3% in many areas of England and Ireland, especially places like the Channel Islands. It is still found at 1% in Southern Sweden.
So, given all that we know, what is a sensible theory for M26's distribution and spread?
We've heard them all, and each has merit: that is represents Megalithic Mariners, who went around old Europe converting local populations and building huge monuments like Stonehenge and the Nuraghe. That it represents the spread of Cardial Ware culture, along the western Mediterranean seaboard. That it represents the spread of farming, either as hunter/gatherers who adopted farming quickly, or as a rare clade of Haplogroup I that was predominantly farmers since the dawn of agriculture. Finally, some posit that it represents a caste (or not) of people embedded in other haplogroups in motion, most often listed as G2a or R1b.
All have merit, none are perfect. Let's go through the logical conclusions and form a model.
The presence of M26 amongst the hunter/gatherers of Motala, and its widespread ancient distribution by the dawn of the Neolithic tell us that it is a most ancient indigenous European clade.
We believe that it is safe to say that the first modern humans in Europe, Aurignacians, aka Cro-Magnons, bore haplogroup C. (Although during the Paleolithic, that far back, it is really anyone's guess whether Hg C came in during one the next phases).
M26, along with its brother clades within Haplogroup I2, most likely formed a part of the second wave of European hunter/gatherers, and was presumably present among the Epi-Gravettians and the Magdalenians.
How then does one explain its wide distribution and adaptive nature throughout the continent during the Neolithic?
Perhaps the answer is simple. These were people who have been in Europe for a long time, and are adaptable, and are survivors.
Europe was settled in waves, and not just the three big ones (Hunter/Gatherer, Farmers, Steppe Horsemen), which is an oversimplification.
Imagine Europe as a pipe. It has three entry points: the steppes of Russia from people heading due west, the Balkans/river corridors from people heading northwest, and the Mediterranean from people heading north.
Imagine a party. The "Emtwentysix" family was among the first to arrive. When they got to the house, they represented maybe 15% of the guests. But as more guests arrived, some through the front door, some through the back door, and some through the side door, the Emtwentysix family became a smaller percentage of the total guests, now just 0.5-3%.
When the family arrived, they were playing foosball together. But at some point, some members of the family joined a group of other guests who were dancing, and some joined groups of other guests who were playing video games.
You get the analogy.
None of the above theories may be 100% accurate, and yet all theories may be accurate in their own way.
For example, it is doubtful that I-M26 first showed up in Europe with the Cardium Pottery culture, but it could have been among the groups (as it was clearly in Italy for a long time) that encountered the Cardial peoples, and then became a component of said peoples, heading west along the western Mediterranean seaboard.
Similarly, in Northern Italy, M26 peoples could have been among the first who were Indo-Europeanized, in the Remedello culture, and then part of the secondary expansion into Italy, which formed the Oscan-speaking Sabellic tribes (Samnites, Brutti, and Sicels).
In other places, clearly M26 was Megalithic acculturated, and its odd distribution in places where Megaliths appear is intriguing for sure.
And lastly, some of its distribution could reflect later movements by obsidian traders or something similar.
Prehistory is a series of periods of demographic expansion followed by demographic crisis. Good hunting, good weather, good crops, absence of disease, and other factors make people have more babies. Then luck turns, and some lines die out, while other lines come to the party. Since the Bronze Age in Europe, it has mostly been a demographic march to more population as time goes by.
We would like to see a study comparing the M26 in Sweden, Ireland, Spain, the Italian mainland, and Sardinia, to see who is ancestral to whom, or how and when the different groups separated.
But the bottom line appears to be that M26 has been in Europe a long time, and like all lineages that were there a long time, its distribution will have changed a bit and its absolute numbers will have gone down, but these Most Adaptable Hunter Gatherers (MAHGs) continue to intrigue.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
How Little We Know About Ancient DNA
I've frequented several of the Ancient DNA discussion boards lately, and have been flummoxed by the self-important, self-promoted, self-described "experts," who proclaim to know precise migration patterns of Ancient Europeans.
These same "experts" even go so far as to claim to be able to tie specific haplogroups to languages, tribes, and epochs. They will make broad statements, like, "all of Europe was populated by [this haplogroup or that], which represented the [Cro-Magnons or whatever], until they were replaced, en masse, by the [new Haplogroup.]"
(Often the dominant invader haplogroup in their theories tends to be the one of the posting "expert," but that's just coincidence, I'm sure.)
Contrasting these experts are some bona fide theoreticians, who point out that we have less than 100 samples of Caucasian Ancient DNA, and that a simple cultural fact, for example, if one tribe cremated their dead and another tribe buried their dead, could contribute to the number of ancient skeletons that make it to the present day.
So, what I decided to do was to plot the confirmed ancient NR Y Chromosome haplogroup samples on a map, to show whatever it shows.
What I discovered was a complete lack of any real patterns. In other words, it's too early to tell. We need way more aDNA.
I used the excellent data from Ancestral Journeys. All maps are labeled. All times and locations are approximate. All maps are copyrighted, but feel free to share, as long as you link to this page or attribute to me. (The final map is not mine, but purports to represent modern majorities).
I think from these maps it is clear that several of the widely accepted theories are bunk. For example, looking at these maps, it is clear that Haplogroup G2 is a candidate too for one of the original populations of Europe. It was ubiquitous. The wiseguys all postulate that it originated in the western Caucasus, near where it is currently dominant, and moved west with the migratory herders or agriculturalists. However, it is just as likely from looking at these maps that it once simply was everywhere, in a band in central Europe, along the major rivers, stretching from northern Spain to the Caucasus, and that its current location is one where it RECEDED to, not originated from.
What other theories can be questioned by these maps?
These same "experts" even go so far as to claim to be able to tie specific haplogroups to languages, tribes, and epochs. They will make broad statements, like, "all of Europe was populated by [this haplogroup or that], which represented the [Cro-Magnons or whatever], until they were replaced, en masse, by the [new Haplogroup.]"
(Often the dominant invader haplogroup in their theories tends to be the one of the posting "expert," but that's just coincidence, I'm sure.)
Contrasting these experts are some bona fide theoreticians, who point out that we have less than 100 samples of Caucasian Ancient DNA, and that a simple cultural fact, for example, if one tribe cremated their dead and another tribe buried their dead, could contribute to the number of ancient skeletons that make it to the present day.
So, what I decided to do was to plot the confirmed ancient NR Y Chromosome haplogroup samples on a map, to show whatever it shows.
What I discovered was a complete lack of any real patterns. In other words, it's too early to tell. We need way more aDNA.
I used the excellent data from Ancestral Journeys. All maps are labeled. All times and locations are approximate. All maps are copyrighted, but feel free to share, as long as you link to this page or attribute to me. (The final map is not mine, but purports to represent modern majorities).
What other theories can be questioned by these maps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)