Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145809647

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New Populations
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:27:27 -0600
References: <>

They need to survive and multiply to develop a population. I guess we might
now have dozens of opinions and speculations about what is the minimal
viable size of a new hunting group? I'd rather call that a question with
possibly but not necessarily a contribution to its answer from understanding
the distribution of haplotypes seen today in the world.

But remember the studies of surnames in Italian valleys; how the "normal"
extinctions of lines can bring areas, originally containing surname variety,
to surname dominances. Similarly, the normal extinction of ydna lines is
probably up in the 70 or 80 percent range, with wide flucuations above and
below the average extinction rate during "good" and "bad" times.

If there ever was an era for man's genes when the powerful combination of
small numbers, isolation, and differences of reproductive efficiency would
have its play it was when mankind was expanding into empty regions of the
Earth with a hunter/gatherer way of life.

But to get to a concrete question related to this all. (old) I1c and I1a
probably were among the haplogroups already in Europe when the last glacial
maximum hit. Did those two haplogroups participate together in the same
migrations in refilling Europe? Or will we be able to show that they
migrated in separate movements? I think we might be able to shed light on
such a question, and similar questions.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] New Populations

> Ken
> I don't think you could call a founding family a "population" unless they
> were totally isolated and self-sufficient.
> Does anyone know what might have been the smallest viable size of a
> self-contained group of hunter-gatherer humans?
> Gareth
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 4:39 PM
> Subject: [DNA] New Populations
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 1:21 AM
>> Subject: [DNA] irish origins and myths
>> > You should not refer to any population by one isolated haplogroup.
>> > There is
>> > absolutely no reason to think that there was ever any population
>> > anywhere
>> > who had only one haplotype.
>> Andrew, I guess I disagree with this close to 180 degrees. Everytime an
>> individual, or brothers, or close family group took off from one group to
>> settle the next valley during the period that man was filling the Earth,
>> another population was started with essentially a founder's single
>> haplotype. I think it unrealistic to successfully model the lumpiness
>> and geographical concentrations of haplotype varieties we see on Earth
>> today without this era of the constant isolation of new populations with
>> varied founding haplotypes. Of course other mechanisms were in play as
>> well. And as soon as isolated populations with different founding
>> haplotypes came into existence they were immediately subject through the
>> ages to slow mixing with their neighbors, mankind being the social as
>> well as warring and conquering animal he is. So an era of repeated
>> isolations and foundings, followed by the slow remixing, presently going
>> on faster and faster, and that brings us to what we have today. Ken
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: