Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

871Re: R1b and the franco-cantabrian refuge

Expand Messages
  • garyf@pacbell.net
    Nov 22, 2013
      > G2 has been found in the same places so it also fits the archaeological record of the recolonization of Europe. There is no proof R1b was part of a recolonization of Europe prior to 5,000 years ago because there is no DNA from in western Europe from that period.
      >

      G2 is found infrequently all over Europe but it is found with significant frequency in the Caucasus indicating it expanded from this point. The archaeological record shows the Paleo expanded out of the FC Refugium and headed directly to the North Sea Area and we have an expansion out of the European Eastern Refugia to the Eastern banks of the North Sea Area. You should show a remanent population in the furthest reaches of the Neolithic expansion in Western Ireland and the Western Coast of Norway where there was an Ice Free Corridor after the Ice.

      If you actually had proof there would be no need for this discussion. We would all be in agreement.

      > Knowledge of metallurgy helps create better tools and weapons which >helps for better defense which leads to longer life spans which >allows for more children and bigger families. Being able to create >metal items that others want allows for more trade. Knowledge of >mining and creating items from metals came from the east about the >same time R1b begins to show up in Europe so by chance the R1b people >had this advantage.
      >

      The archeological record shows the early farmers had the advantage of food production but suffered early population collapses. Mankind was not used to eating these foods and we still suffer with maladys like diabetes from eating the foods these Neolithic farmers mass produced.
      Farming takes a big toll on a population see Spencer Wells book called Pandora's seed.

      > It's not that they were the only ones with boats. They are likely >the ones that had a desire to move about more in order to find metal >ores.
      >

      Not sure why you think only R1b had the desire to move about and perpetuate their population. The Neolithic had done a pretty good job of bringing advances to Europe prior.

      >
      > A person with a certain DNA having better technology does not mean they had better DNA. Therefore, it wasn't DNA that gave them an advantage. It was the fact that they had acquired the means prior to other groups by chance.
      >

      Acquired what means? The Neolithic already introduced their advances to Western Europe 6K years ago at the latest.

      > I have referenced the logical deductions made by people that have >read many books on the subjects of history, anthropology, >archaeology, and DNA. These are people that have presented evidence >through books, blogs, and a genetic conference. One person was once a >professor of history at a university and another person is the chief >scientist of FTDNA.
      >
      Your reference from Dr. Hammer shows even he is uncertain how R1b arrived in Europe.
      Let look at it logically: 5K years ago there were no new places to settle in Europe. R1b* appears now to be very rare which does not seem logical if this was a great recent migration.
      R1b-U106 would have been born in the Eastern edge of the North Sea at a time when he would have been surrounded by Neolithic and Mesolithic populations. The same with R1b-P312 only he appears to have expanded in Southern France-Northern Iberia under the same conditions. How do these two Men come to produce Sons where they are surrounded by Non R1b and perpetuate their lines of descent so throughly that they would have replaced a good 70 percent of the male lines in Western Europe. Since they would have been born in Western Europe what advantages did they bring?

      > There was also the Battle of Otumba, shortly after the Noche Triste, >where the Spaniards and a small number his Tlaxcaltecan allies were >far outnumbered but were able to win that battle also partly due to >their swords and their armor. http://www.todahistoria.com/la-batalla->de-otumba/
      >

      Their armor weighted them down so they dispensed with it all together after Notche Triste.

      They also had horses to aid in their escape and headed for their their Native American allies.

      > A person with a certain DNA having better technology does not mean >they had better DNA. Therefore, it wasn't DNA that gave them an >advantage. It was the fact that they had acquired the means prior to >other groups by chance.
      >
      How do two Neolithic R1b male children come to dominate in numbers the whole of Western Europe. What advantages could they have had?

      Gary
      Mexico DNA Project Admin.





      --- In MexicoDNAProject@yahoogroups.com, "mexr1b@..." <armandor1b@...> wrote:
      >
      > <The idea here is not to provide proof since the answer is not definitively known but to provide evidence. For instance the current dispersal of R1b and the archaeological record of the recolonization of Europe show the same pattern. >
      >
      > G2 has been found in the same places so it also fits the archaeological record of the recolonization of Europe. There is no proof R1b was part of a recolonization of Europe prior to 5,000 years ago because there is no DNA from in western Europe from that period.
      >
      >
      > <How do Metallurgy and boats help you multiply and what makes you think R1b only had these advantages?>
      >
      > Knowledge of metallurgy helps create better tools and weapons which helps for better defense which leads to longer life spans which allows for more children and bigger families. Being able to create metal items that others want allows for more trade. Knowledge of mining and creating items from metals came from the east about the same time R1b begins to show up in Europe so by chance the R1b people had this advantage.
      >
      > It's not that they were the only ones with boats. They are likely the ones that had a desire to move about more in order to find metal ores.
      >
      > <This is what I meant by the idea that one mans DNA is better than anothers. What selective advantage did R1b have over other haplogroups?>
      >
      > A person with a certain DNA having better technology does not mean they had better DNA. Therefore, it wasn't DNA that gave them an advantage. It was the fact that they had acquired the means prior to other groups by chance.
      >
      > <You have referenced peoples beliefs and that is not evidence.>
      >
      > I have referenced the logical deductions made by people that have read many books on the subjects of history, anthropology, archaeology, and DNA. These are people that have presented evidence through books, blogs, and a genetic conference. One person was once a professor of history at a university and another person is the chief scientist of FTDNA.
      >
      > I still don't see your evidence proving your belief that R1b was in western Europe more than 5,000 years. There is no proof that R1b was in western Europe 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.
      >
      > <Spencer Wells has reiterated his support for the France Cantabrian Refugium recently and he is the one with the data from the genographic project. >
      >
      > This is interesting, but like many theories it takes time for the new ones to be accepted.
      >
      > <There is a common misconception that the a few hundred Spaniards defeated the Meshica. I have read many books on the conquest from eye witness accounts and Native Americans defeated Native Americans with massive casualties due to disease. Cortes lived among the Meshica for 2 years before the effects of disease made it easy for Cortes and his Native American allies to come in and take over Tenochtitlan. If you go to the Coat of Arms page on my website you will see the crown awarded COA's to their Native American allies for their support in the conquest. The conquistadors found that the metal suits of armor were more of a hindrance after the Noche Triste. >
      >
      > I was already aware of the fact that the Spaniards had thousands of Native American allies, mainly Tlaxcaltecas. The Tlaxcaltecas, with a force of thousands had originally attacked the Spaniards but when they could not defeat the small force of Spaniards they decided to join them in their fight against the Aztecs. This was inferred in my previous comment and I was expecting this to be understood. I was not referring to the common misconception that you mentioned.
      >
      > There was also the Battle of Otumba, shortly after the Noche Triste, where the Spaniards and a small number his Tlaxcaltecan allies were far outnumbered but were able to win that battle also partly due to their swords and their armor. http://www.todahistoria.com/la-batalla-de-otumba/
      >
      > I do see references to the Aztecs dying of smallpox by the time of the siege of Tenochtitlan. I hadn't remembered about that being mentioned before. I should have looked that up before posting that bit.
      >
      > The armor might not have always been an advantage. I was alluding more to the swords, spears, the guns, the cannons, horses, style of battle, and strategies as far as the advantages. But now we got onto a different subject.
      >
    • Show all 55 messages in this topic