PDA

View Full Version : J2a1-L70 in Europeans,Turks, Turkomans, North Eastern Europe and Central Asia.



Anatolian_Afshar_Turcoman
09-25-2020, 11:09 AM
I‘m Anatolian Turkmen with paternal roots from subtribes of the Afshar tribe, my paternal family have Turanid phenotypes and patriarchal structures and I’m shocked about my Y-DNA result. I have haplogroup J2a1-L70, I got this information through my MyHeritage raw data and Morleys Y-DNA haplogroup predictor.

Some non-Jewish Europeans have this haplogroup too, I think this haplogroup came to Proto Indo-Europeans through Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers into the Pontic steppes. My tribe is mentioned by Herodotus, they were a Scythian tribe called the Avhatai clan (Avshatai = Avshat/Afshar), I know a Turkic Karachay-Balkar Avshat tribe they are descended from Alans. I’m not paternal Native Anatolian or Anatolian Greek, because I have also Turkoman ancestors from 1690, the ancient Alans called themselfs as As people, I think it’s similar to the name of the Oghuzes or Ouzes and many historians from ancient times also mentioned that the Turks are descendants of the Saka people or Scythians.

A theory from my side is that paternal ancestors, met the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Pontic steppes and later they spoke a nomadic Iranic language and got turkicized through the Xiongnu confederation or the Proto Turks were R1a, R1b and J and the Xiongnu Q, N and C nomads were mostly Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Mongolic tribes who confederated with the caucasoid Turkic tribes.

My tribe has also L, Q, N, J2a, E3a and E3b carriers, also Chuvash and western Tatars are Scythian descendants and they have also J, E3a and E3b carriers and Mongolians have 3% haplogroup J males and What is your opinion about my Y-DNA result? Anyone here with European or Central Asian roots with J2a1-L70? Could someone here also explain my paternal roots with his knowledge of history?

“Anthrogenica, J-Man: “With some further investigating and team work it has been determined that the haplogroup J2a sample from Iron Age Altai belongs to the L24 subclade. Some further digging and reading also revealed that this sample is labelled RISE602 in the RISE project and was discovered in the Sary-Bel kurgan. It has been dated to Iron Age (900/700 BC-AD 500/1000 ) and a rough translation from a Russian site has this to say about this burial site. ''So Sarah burial cemetery date back to the beginning of Bel-Hun-Sarmatian time and,
may belong to the people, which penetrated into the Altai Mountains to the southeast".

The Bulan-Kobin culture evolved out of the Pazyryk culture which was Scythian. So there seems like there is a good chance then that this J2a-L24 male may have belonged to the Bulan-Kobin culture which had its origins in the earlier Pazyryk culture.”

Eupedia: “...All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes...”

davit
09-25-2020, 11:14 AM
I‘m Anatolian Turkmen with paternal roots from subtribes of the Afshar tribe, my paternal family have Turanid phenotypes and patriarchal structures and I’m shocked about my Y-DNA result. I have haplogroup J2a1-L70, I got this information through my MyHeritage raw data and Morleys Y-DNA haplogroup predictor. Some non-Jewish Europeans have this haplogroup too, I think this haplogroup came to Proto Indo-Europeans through Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers into the Pontic steppes. My tribe is mentioned by Herodotus, they were a Scythian tribe called the Avhatai clan (Avshatai = Avshat/Afshar), I know a Turkic Karachay-Balkar Avshat tribe they are descended from Alans. I’m not paternal Native Anatolian or Anatolian Greek, because I have also Turkoman ancestors from 1690, the ancient Alans called themselfs as As people, I think it’s similar to the name of the Oghuzes or Ouzes and many historians from ancient times also mentioned that the Turks are descendants of the Saka people or Scythians. A theory from my side is that paternal ancestors, met the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Pontic steppes and later they spoke a nomadic Iranic language and got turkicized through the Xiongnu confederation or the Proto Turks were R1a, R1b and J and the Xiongnu Q, N and C nomads were mostly Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Mongolic tribes who confederated with the caucasoid Turkic tribes. My tribe has also L, Q, N, J2a, E3a and E3b carriers, also Chuvash and western Tatars are Scythian descendants and they have also J, E3a and E3b carriers and Mongolians have 3% haplogroup J males and What is your opinion about my Y-DNA result? Anyone here with European or Central Asian roots with J2a1-L70? Could someone here also explain my paternal roots with his knowledge of history?

Proto Turks were not R1a and J imo. Probably not R1b either but some rare clades are R1b are possible. But Z2103 is out of the question.

Afshar
09-25-2020, 11:32 AM
If you are more interested into your patrilineal lineage, I would advise you to take a proper yDNA test, like a 12 marker test from ftDNA.
The are more Turks with J-L70 around.

SUPREEEEEME
09-25-2020, 12:16 PM
I‘m Anatolian Turkmen with paternal roots from subtribes of the Afshar tribe, my paternal family have Turanid phenotypes and patriarchal structures and I’m shocked about my Y-DNA result. I have haplogroup J2a1-L70, I got this information through my MyHeritage raw data and Morleys Y-DNA haplogroup predictor.

Some non-Jewish Europeans have this haplogroup too, I think this haplogroup came to Proto Indo-Europeans through Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers into the Pontic steppes. My tribe is mentioned by Herodotus, they were a Scythian tribe called the Avhatai clan (Avshatai = Avshat/Afshar), I know a Turkic Karachay-Balkar Avshat tribe they are descended from Alans. I’m not paternal Native Anatolian or Anatolian Greek, because I have also Turkoman ancestors from 1690, the ancient Alans called themselfs as As people, I think it’s similar to the name of the Oghuzes or Ouzes and many historians from ancient times also mentioned that the Turks are descendants of the Saka people or Scythians.

A theory from my side is that paternal ancestors, met the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Pontic steppes and later they spoke a nomadic Iranic language and got turkicized through the Xiongnu confederation or the Proto Turks were R1a, R1b and J and the Xiongnu Q, N and C nomads were mostly Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Mongolic tribes who confederated with the caucasoid Turkic tribes.

My tribe has also L, Q, N, J2a, E3a and E3b carriers, also Chuvash and western Tatars are Scythian descendants and they have also J, E3a and E3b carriers and Mongolians have 3% haplogroup J males and What is your opinion about my Y-DNA result? Anyone here with European or Central Asian roots with J2a1-L70? Could someone here also explain my paternal roots with his knowledge of history?

“Anthrogenica, J-Man: “With some further investigating and team work it has been determined that the haplogroup J2a sample from Iron Age Altai belongs to the L24 subclade. Some further digging and reading also revealed that this sample is labelled RISE602 in the RISE project and was discovered in the Sary-Bel kurgan. It has been dated to Iron Age (900/700 BC-AD 500/1000 ) and a rough translation from a Russian site has this to say about this burial site. ''So Sarah burial cemetery date back to the beginning of Bel-Hun-Sarmatian time and,
may belong to the people, which penetrated into the Altai Mountains to the southeast".

The Bulan-Kobin culture evolved out of the Pazyryk culture which was Scythian. So there seems like there is a good chance then that this J2a-L24 male may have belonged to the Bulan-Kobin culture which had its origins in the earlier Pazyryk culture.”

Eupedia: “...All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes...”

J-L70 isn't really common in the Caucasus - having likely originated in the Levant with basal branches in a Jordanian, Palestinian, and South Sinai Egyptian. J-L70 also displays the greatest diversity in the Levant. It was certainly not spread by Indo-Europeans from the Steppes. In Central Asia, it's only really common in Bukharan Jews. In Eastern Europe, the overwhelming majority of J-L70 carriers are Ashkenazi Jews. In the Caucasus, Mountain Jews probably carry more J-L70 than any other population. Eupedia is especially outdated when it comes to J-L70, and can be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a chance that your paternal line could be Anatolian, with several branches spreading from the Levant into Anatolia.

If you're looking to find out more about J-L70, I have two threads dedicated to it:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?19736-J-L70-Presence-in-the-Middle-East-North-Africa

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18818-Jews-and-J-L70

dosas
09-25-2020, 12:42 PM
I can't believe the nonsense that is cited on that site.

J.delajara
09-25-2020, 02:44 PM
I‘m Anatolian Turkmen with paternal roots from subtribes of the Afshar tribe, my paternal family have Turanid phenotypes and patriarchal structures and I’m shocked about my Y-DNA result. I have haplogroup J2a1-L70, I got this information through my MyHeritage raw data and Morleys Y-DNA haplogroup predictor.

Some non-Jewish Europeans have this haplogroup too, I think this haplogroup came to Proto Indo-Europeans through Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers into the Pontic steppes. My tribe is mentioned by Herodotus, they were a Scythian tribe called the Avhatai clan (Avshatai = Avshat/Afshar), I know a Turkic Karachay-Balkar Avshat tribe they are descended from Alans. I’m not paternal Native Anatolian or Anatolian Greek, because I have also Turkoman ancestors from 1690, the ancient Alans called themselfs as As people, I think it’s similar to the name of the Oghuzes or Ouzes and many historians from ancient times also mentioned that the Turks are descendants of the Saka people or Scythians.

A theory from my side is that paternal ancestors, met the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Pontic steppes and later they spoke a nomadic Iranic language and got turkicized through the Xiongnu confederation or the Proto Turks were R1a, R1b and J and the Xiongnu Q, N and C nomads were mostly Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Mongolic tribes who confederated with the caucasoid Turkic tribes.

My tribe has also L, Q, N, J2a, E3a and E3b carriers, also Chuvash and western Tatars are Scythian descendants and they have also J, E3a and E3b carriers and Mongolians have 3% haplogroup J males and What is your opinion about my Y-DNA result? Anyone here with European or Central Asian roots with J2a1-L70? Could someone here also explain my paternal roots with his knowledge of history?

“Anthrogenica, J-Man: “With some further investigating and team work it has been determined that the haplogroup J2a sample from Iron Age Altai belongs to the L24 subclade. Some further digging and reading also revealed that this sample is labelled RISE602 in the RISE project and was discovered in the Sary-Bel kurgan. It has been dated to Iron Age (900/700 BC-AD 500/1000 ) and a rough translation from a Russian site has this to say about this burial site. ''So Sarah burial cemetery date back to the beginning of Bel-Hun-Sarmatian time and,
may belong to the people, which penetrated into the Altai Mountains to the southeast".

The Bulan-Kobin culture evolved out of the Pazyryk culture which was Scythian. So there seems like there is a good chance then that this J2a-L24 male may have belonged to the Bulan-Kobin culture which had its origins in the earlier Pazyryk culture.”

Eupedia: “...All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes...”

Good day Anatolian. L70 was probably born in the Anatolian Peninsula, and spread to the South, East and West, thousands of years ago, forming subclades in many places . Some scientific papers state that ( for ex. ''A finaly resolved phylogeny of Y Chromosome Hg j illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean'' By. A. Finocchio), although we need further ancient samples to be sure of the ancient origin of this clade, the ancient samples we have until now are from Late Antiquity (Roman Southern Italian), Visigoths and Vikings, all found in Europe. Bronce and Iron age samples are needed to have solid evidence, modern samples shows L70 branches, nothing more. It was clearly expanded by romans, all over Europe and elsewhere. Today people from different religions and cultural backgrounds are descendants of this clade.
So we need further ancient samples to have strong arguments. Hittites for example, could have expanded it to the Levant. Let's wait and see. Best Regards.

SUPREEEEEME
09-25-2020, 04:28 PM
Good day Anatolian. L70 was probably born in the Anatolian Peninsula, and spread to the South, East and West, thousands of years ago, forming subclades in many places . Some scientific papers state that ( for ex. ''A finaly resolved phylogeny of Y Chromosome Hg j illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean'' By. A. Finocchio), although we need further ancient samples to be sure of the ancient origin of this clade, the ancient samples we have until now are from Late Antiquity (Roman Southern Italian), Visigoths and Vikings, all found in Europe. Bronce and Iron age samples are needed to have solid evidence, modern samples shows L70 branches, nothing more. It was clearly expanded by romans, all over Europe and elsewhere. Today people from different religions and cultural backgrounds are descendants of this clade.
So we need further ancient samples to have strong arguments. Hittites for example, could have expanded it to the Levant. Let's wait and see. Best Regards.

While an Anatolian origin isn't out of the question, the evidence currently is pointing towards the Levant as being L70's region of origin. There are several reasons why I think J-L70 did not originate in Anatolia:
1) We are starting to see several basal branches being found in the Levant - an indication that this is not a mere coincidence. Anatolia appears to have undergone the same level of testing as the Levant. Considering this, if J-L70 did originate in Anatolia, I would have expected to find several basal Anatolians by now - but we have not, rather finding Southern Levantines. Granted, J-FT63319 does appear to have a Turk closest to basal (not basal to the whole clade itself) - but this is a pretty uncommon clade, so its origins will be more difficult to decipher. I imagine as the Levant tests further, we will begin to find more basal clades and unknown branches, particularly among the Levantine Christian population.
2) J-L70 displays it's greatest branch diversity in the Levant - not Anatolia. Considering the similar levels of testing, if it were Anatolian we should be seeing it the other way around. While these branches could have migrated from Anatolia to the Levant, I can't imagine the probability of this many J-L70 Anatolian males with this many different branches settling in the Levant during the Middle-Late Bronze Age, considering all the different branches of J2 and others found in Anatolia. There are at least 10 distinct, significantly distant Jewish branches under J-L70. I believe there could be more - but only time will tell. No similarly aged clade has as many distinct Jewish lineages - save for perhaps J-Y2919, but that's 600 years older. This is very significant. Historically, Jews have always been a small, endogamous population. Whenever mixing occurred with the host population, it was almost always with Jewish men and non-Jewish women. It's been proven for some time now that the vast majority of Jewish Y-DNA are of Near Eastern origin. What are the odds of having at least 10 distinct lineages under a branch not much older than organised Judaism itself, without an origin in ancient Israel? Not very high. Two of these lineages are even Cohen branches! Not to mention the spread of non-Jewish Levantines amongst several other branches, considering that most Levantines who are J-L70 either haven't taken a Y-Chromosome test (i.e. they've taken 23andMe and the like) or haven't taken a BigY. Anatolia doesn't show this diversity.
3) I not only believe that J-L70 originated in the Levant, but J-Z387 as a whole. J-L70's sibling clade, J-FGC3550 is classically Southwest Asian in distribution. J-FGC35503 also has two basal lines in Lebanon.

This is all too much of a coincidence for J-L70 to be Anatolian in origin.

I'm not completely against J-L70 having an Anatolian origin, but I haven't found any strong evidence to suggest it originated there. I fully expect to find J-L70's oldest ancient samples in the Levant in the coming months/years.

J.delajara
09-25-2020, 06:00 PM
While an Anatolian origin isn't out of the question, the evidence currently is pointing towards the Levant as being L70's region of origin. There are several reasons why I think J-L70 did not originate in Anatolia:
1) We are starting to see several basal branches being found in the Levant - an indication that this is not a mere coincidence. Anatolia appears to have undergone the same level of testing as the Levant. Considering this, if J-L70 did originate in Anatolia, I would have expected to find several basal Anatolians by now - but we have not, rather finding Southern Levantines. Granted, J-FT63319 does appear to have a Turk closest to basal (not basal to the whole clade itself) - but this is a pretty uncommon clade, so its origins will be more difficult to decipher. I imagine as the Levant tests further, we will begin to find more basal clades and unknown branches, particularly among the Levantine Christian population.
2) J-L70 displays it's greatest branch diversity in the Levant - not Anatolia. Considering the similar levels of testing, if it were Anatolian we should be seeing it the other way around. While these branches could have migrated from Anatolia to the Levant, I can't imagine the probability of this many J-L70 Anatolian males with this many different branches settling in the Levant during the Middle-Late Bronze Age, considering all the different branches of J2 and others found in Anatolia. There are at least 10 distinct, significantly distant Jewish branches under J-L70. I believe there could be more - but only time will tell. No similarly aged clade has as many distinct Jewish lineages - save for perhaps J-Y2919, but that's 600 years older. This is very significant. Historically, Jews have always been a small, endogamous population. Whenever mixing occurred with the host population, it was almost always with Jewish men and non-Jewish women. It's been proven for some time now that the vast majority of Jewish Y-DNA are of Near Eastern origin. What are the odds of having at least 10 distinct lineages under a branch not much older than organised Judaism itself, without an origin in ancient Israel? Not very high. Two of these lineages are even Cohen branches! Not to mention the spread of non-Jewish Levantines amongst several other branches, considering that most Levantines who are J-L70 either haven't taken a Y-Chromosome test (i.e. they've taken 23andMe and the like) or haven't taken a BigY. Anatolia doesn't show this diversity.
3) I not only believe that J-L70 originated in the Levant, but J-Z387 as a whole. J-L70's sibling clade, J-FGC3550 is classically Southwest Asian in distribution. J-FGC35503 also has two basal lines in Lebanon.

This is all too much of a coincidence for J-L70 to be Anatolian in origin.

I'm not completely against J-L70 having an Anatolian origin, but I haven't found any strong evidence to suggest it originated there. I fully expect to find J-L70's oldest ancient samples in the Levant in the coming months/years.

Thanks Supreeme. I understand your arguments. But , as you know, I don't fully agree with them, although ancient samples could change my opinion of course.
We've been arguing on other threats about this, specially regarding southern Italy, were this clades and its branches are abundant, and much more diversified, as FTDNA block tree shows, than other geographical areas. Sorry to quote again the Finocchio and the R. King papers, both about Greek colonies in the west Mediterranean, either way they state that L397 ( or J2a 445=6) is considered a ''Neolithic Anatolian Lineage'', by analyzing ancient alleles and other specific genetic elements.

The basal samples you've mentioned in the Levant are forming and will probably form new branches, besides the more European based Z435, there are plenty of historical arguments, supporting also Aegean, Macedonian Greek, Roman and Byzantine presence on the Levant as well, so I think is difficult to define the movements of their ancestors on that area.
The other interesting fact is that recent papers regarding ancient Levant didnīt find neither L70 or Z387 on ancient individuals, and they concluded that there was a big genetic change on that geographical area, specially on the Bronze Age, with big movements of people coming from the North and the East, the Haak paper suggest it could have been made by people of the Kura Axes culture.

Of course the origin of this clade is still open, and we can have big surprises in the future.

Is always a pleasure to exchange views with you Supreeme. Best Regards

leorcooper19
09-25-2020, 09:51 PM
Thanks Supreeme. I understand your arguments. But , as you know, I don't fully agree with them, although ancient samples could change my opinion of course.
We've been arguing on other threats about this, specially regarding southern Italy, were this clades and its branches are abundant, and much more diversified, as FTDNA block tree shows, than other geographical areas. Sorry to quote again the Finocchio and the R. King papers, both about Greek colonies in the west Mediterranean, either way they state that L397 ( or J2a 445=6) is considered a ''Neolithic Anatolian Lineage'', by analyzing ancient alleles and other specific genetic elements.

The basal samples you've mentioned in the Levant are forming and will probably form new branches, besides the more European based Z435, there are plenty of historical arguments, supporting also Aegean, Macedonian Greek, Roman and Byzantine presence on the Levant as well, so I think is difficult to define the movements of their ancestors on that area.
The other interesting fact is that recent papers regarding ancient Levant didnīt find neither L70 or Z387 on ancient individuals, and they concluded that there was a big genetic change on that geographical area, specially on the Bronze Age, with big movements of people coming from the North and the East, the Haak paper suggest it could have been made by people of the Kura Axes culture.

Of course the origin of this clade is still open, and we can have big surprises in the future.

Is always a pleasure to exchange views with you Supreeme. Best Regards

I'd just like to add a few things here:
1) Southern Italy's population has always been more cosmopolitan and probably larger than all Jewish subgroups individually, so its greater diversity makes sense in context.
2) J-L70 (or L397 as referenced) simply cannot be called a "Neolithic Anatolian Lineage" because its TMRCA is 500-1000 years into the Bronze Age. If DYS445=6 includes J-Z387, and that's truly what they're calling a "Neolithic Anatolian Lineage," then that's a different story. Although, as Supreme said, J-FGC3550 is quite classically Levantine spread.
3) I, along with Supreme, struggle with the Anatolian hypothesis due to the lack of specific evidence in favor. It seems like to account for density in both the Levant and in Italy/Greece, individuals have put forward Anatolia as an option simply because it is between the two. Juan, in your option, what is the best positive evidence for Anatolia being the location of the J-L70 MRCA? I am very open to the possibility, just am doubtful that the current evidence in favor of Anatolia is more convincing than the current evidence in favor of the Levant.
4) I do think we should remind ourselves of a few critical points in terms of TMRCAs here. While the TMRCA of J-L70 is c. 1900 BCE, its clear that the main growth period is between c. 1500-1100 BCE. Early J-L70 had to have been rich in a population/culture we already know from the historical/archaeological record.

As you said, I'm glad we can discuss this clade with open minds.

J.delajara
09-26-2020, 02:13 AM
I'd just like to add a few things here:
1) Southern Italy's population has always been more cosmopolitan and probably larger than all Jewish subgroups individually, so its greater diversity makes sense in context.
2) J-L70 (or L397 as referenced) simply cannot be called a "Neolithic Anatolian Lineage" because its TMRCA is 500-1000 years into the Bronze Age. If DYS445=6 includes J-Z387, and that's truly what they're calling a "Neolithic Anatolian Lineage," then that's a different story. Although, as Supreme said, J-FGC3550 is quite classically Levantine spread.
3) I, along with Supreme, struggle with the Anatolian hypothesis due to the lack of specific evidence in favor. It seems like to account for density in both the Levant and in Italy/Greece, individuals have put forward Anatolia as an option simply because it is between the two. Juan, in your option, what is the best positive evidence for Anatolia being the location of the J-L70 MRCA? I am very open to the possibility, just am doubtful that the current evidence in favor of Anatolia is more convincing than the current evidence in favor of the Levant.
4) I do think we should remind ourselves of a few critical points in terms of TMRCAs here. While the TMRCA of J-L70 is c. 1900 BCE, its clear that the main growth period is between c. 1500-1100 BCE. Early J-L70 had to have been rich in a population/culture we already know from the historical/archaeological record.

As you said, I'm glad we can discuss this clade with open minds.

Thanks a lot Leorcooper. Regarding your arguments I would like to add the following, please be patient with me, because as English is my third language, after Spanish and Italian, sometimes is difficult for me to make myself understood properly:

1) The papers I cited, both state to be precise, as you said, that J2a DYS445=6 as a ''Neolithic Anatolian Lineage''. What the Finocchio papers adds, on regard of L397, is that together with DYS445=6 DYS , DYS390=9, I quote: ''confirming their Anatolian Greek signature''. For me this statements are good arguments to support the origin of L70 in the Anatolian peninsula, although there are only good hints, not conclusive explanations.

2) Another interesting point, specially if we consider the big changes that occurred on the Levant on the Late Bronze age, is the Hittite expansion to that area, if we take into account, as mentioned above, DYS225=6 as a Neolithic Anatolian Lineage, specially on the big expansion of that culture, that took place after the 15th century BC on the period known as the ''New Kingdom'' . This could explain the spread of J Z387 branches into the Levant, such as J-FGC3550 and part the Levantine L70 clades.

3) ''A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean'' is probably the paper that goes deeper on L70, and its expansion to the northern west Mediterranean, they support that this clade in southern Italy is a clear sign of the Greek expansion to the west. Let me quote some interesting conclusions they made on this study:
''Within J2a-L397, we genotyped the three variants defining branches 57, 58 and 59 (Fig. 2B). Only 4 samples were ancestral at all three positions (paragroup J2a-L397*). For each of the three positions, the centroids of carriers of the ancestral allele were located in Greece. The overall distribution of J2a-L397 covered only the northern Mediterranean, with no carriers of this lineage in Cretans of our core sample, but reported at 2.6% by in ref.43.''

''In summary, a first conclusion of our sequencing effort and merge with available data is that the phylogeography of Hg J is complex and hardly explained by the presence of a single population harbouring the major lineages at the onset of agriculture and spreading westward. A unifying explanation for all the above inconsistencies could be a centre of initial radiation outside the area here sampled more densely, i.e. the Caucasus and regions North of it, from which different Hg J subclades may have later reached mainland Italy, Greece and Turkey, possibly following different routes and times. Evidence in this direction comes from the distribution of J2a-M410 45,48 and the early-49 or mid-Holocene50 southward spread of J1.''

''Finally, we explored the distribution of J2a-L397 and three derived lineages within it. J2a-L397 is tightly associated with a typical DYS445 6-repeat allele. This has been hypothesized as a marker of the Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean55, based on its presence in Greek Anatolia and Provence (France), a region with attested Iron Age Greek contribution. All of our chromosomes in this clade were characterized also by DYS391(9), confirming their Anatolian Greek signature. We resolved the J2a-L397 clade to an unprecedented precision, with three internal markers which allow a finer discrimination than STRs. The ages of the three lineages (2.0–3.0 kya) are compatible with the beginning of the Greek colonial period, in the 8th century BCE. The three subclades have different distributions (Fig. 2B), with two (branches 57, 59) found both East and West to Greece, and one only in Italy (branch 58). As to Mediterranean Islands, J2a-L397 was found in Cyprus56 and Crete43. Its presence as one of the three branches 57–59 will represent an important test. In Italy all three variants were found mainly along the Western coast (18/25), which hosted the preferred Greek trade cities. The finding of all three differentiated lineages in Locri excludes a local founder effect of a single genealogy. Interestingly, an important Greek colony was established in this location, with continuity of human settlement until modern times. The sample composed of the same subjects displayed genetic affinities with Eastern Greece and the Aegean also at autosomal markers57. In summary, the distributions of branches 57–59 mirror the variety of the cities of origin and geographic ranges during the phases of the colonization process.''

Sorry for the long quotes, but I think is interesting to underline some conclusions that goes deeper on this interesting and complex clade. Of course the whole paper adds other worthwhile statements.

As you said clearly L70 was part of rich population/culture we already know, part of it seams, or at least some of its branches, were part of the Greek culture and expanded West and East , according to what is explained above.

Future ancient sample will bring us more light for sure.

Thanks again for this interesting discussion, and please excuse me for my english.

Best Regards

leorcooper19
09-26-2020, 05:56 AM
Thanks a lot Leorcooper. Regarding your arguments I would like to add the following, please be patient with me, because as English is my third language, after Spanish and Italian, sometimes is difficult for me to make myself understood properly:

1) The papers I cited, both state to be precise, as you said, that J2a DYS445=6 as a ''Neolithic Anatolian Lineage''. What the Finocchio papers adds, on regard of L397, is that together with DYS445=6 DYS , DYS390=9, I quote: ''confirming their Anatolian Greek signature''. For me this statements are good arguments to support the origin of L70 in the Anatolian peninsula, although there are only good hints, not conclusive explanations.

2) Another interesting point, specially if we consider the big changes that occurred on the Levant on the Late Bronze age, is the Hittite expansion to that area, if we take into account, as mentioned above, DYS225=6 as a Neolithic Anatolian Lineage, specially on the big expansion of that culture, that took place after the 15th century BC on the period known as the ''New Kingdom'' . This could explain the spread of J Z387 branches into the Levant, such as J-FGC3550 and part the Levantine L70 clades.

3) ''A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean'' is probably the paper that goes deeper on L70, and its expansion to the northern west Mediterranean, they support that this clade in southern Italy is a clear sign of the Greek expansion to the west. Let me quote some interesting conclusions they made on this study:
''Within J2a-L397, we genotyped the three variants defining branches 57, 58 and 59 (Fig. 2B). Only 4 samples were ancestral at all three positions (paragroup J2a-L397*). For each of the three positions, the centroids of carriers of the ancestral allele were located in Greece. The overall distribution of J2a-L397 covered only the northern Mediterranean, with no carriers of this lineage in Cretans of our core sample, but reported at 2.6% by in ref.43.''

''In summary, a first conclusion of our sequencing effort and merge with available data is that the phylogeography of Hg J is complex and hardly explained by the presence of a single population harbouring the major lineages at the onset of agriculture and spreading westward. A unifying explanation for all the above inconsistencies could be a centre of initial radiation outside the area here sampled more densely, i.e. the Caucasus and regions North of it, from which different Hg J subclades may have later reached mainland Italy, Greece and Turkey, possibly following different routes and times. Evidence in this direction comes from the distribution of J2a-M410 45,48 and the early-49 or mid-Holocene50 southward spread of J1.''

''Finally, we explored the distribution of J2a-L397 and three derived lineages within it. J2a-L397 is tightly associated with a typical DYS445 6-repeat allele. This has been hypothesized as a marker of the Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean55, based on its presence in Greek Anatolia and Provence (France), a region with attested Iron Age Greek contribution. All of our chromosomes in this clade were characterized also by DYS391(9), confirming their Anatolian Greek signature. We resolved the J2a-L397 clade to an unprecedented precision, with three internal markers which allow a finer discrimination than STRs. The ages of the three lineages (2.0–3.0 kya) are compatible with the beginning of the Greek colonial period, in the 8th century BCE. The three subclades have different distributions (Fig. 2B), with two (branches 57, 59) found both East and West to Greece, and one only in Italy (branch 58). As to Mediterranean Islands, J2a-L397 was found in Cyprus56 and Crete43. Its presence as one of the three branches 57–59 will represent an important test. In Italy all three variants were found mainly along the Western coast (18/25), which hosted the preferred Greek trade cities. The finding of all three differentiated lineages in Locri excludes a local founder effect of a single genealogy. Interestingly, an important Greek colony was established in this location, with continuity of human settlement until modern times. The sample composed of the same subjects displayed genetic affinities with Eastern Greece and the Aegean also at autosomal markers57. In summary, the distributions of branches 57–59 mirror the variety of the cities of origin and geographic ranges during the phases of the colonization process.''

Sorry for the long quotes, but I think is interesting to underline some conclusions that goes deeper on this interesting and complex clade. Of course the whole paper adds other worthwhile statements.

As you said clearly L70 was part of rich population/culture we already know, part of it seams, or at least some of its branches, were part of the Greek culture and expanded West and East , according to what is explained above.

Future ancient sample will bring us more light for sure.

Thanks again for this interesting discussion, and please excuse me for my english.

Best Regards

Thanks, I definitely understand your point of view more. And trust me, your English is really good!

After reading your referenced papers in full, I do have a better understanding of the Anatolian-Greek argument. But I have a fundamental issue with their reasoning: it appears to be circular.
1) Finnochio et al. 2018 set out to refine Haplogroup J in the context of Phoenician and Greek settlements of the early Iron Age in the Mediterranean. The authors cite King et al. 2011, who in their paper The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean had identified J-L70 as Greek-oriented due to its modern spread.
2) Finnochio et al. 2018 determine that there is more STR diversity in Greece than in Italy and that much of Italian J-L70 could have come from the area of modern Greece. They say that this suggests a Greek origin for the clade, which according to them has a TMRCA of "between 2k ybp and 3k ybp,"(which is significantly lower than YFull's estimate, although there is some overlap between the ranges) which they say lines up perfectly with the historical record of Greek colonization.
3) So, they look for lines associated with Greek colonization in areas with significant related histories, and they find J-L70 (a clade which, again, was already referred to as common in areas associated with ancient Greeks). They call it Greek because that's what makes the most sense in their study; it fits with all of their data.

Problem is, they only looked in areas associated with ancient Greek settlement and colonization. And I don't mean to disrespect the study at all; certainly they improved the available knowledge and samples of J and added critical information to the field. They just didn't set out to find a non-biased origin for J-L70. If you only look for J-L70 in areas of ancient Greek settlement, that's where you'll find it! I also want to point out their relatively limited coverage for STRs; they only mentioned 7 different STR markers are being tested for in the supplemental text, although DYS445 was not one of them so it is unclear exactly how much genetic coverage they had for each sample.

I also struggle to understand the exact relationship between modern Greece and Anatolia here. If you agree with Finnochio et al. 2018 in that it originated and was spread by the Ancient Greeks, why even bring up Anatolia? To my knowledge, ancient Greeks living in western Anatolia would have been seeded by settlers from the islands/modern Greek mainland, so unless you think it was introgressed from an indigenous Anatolian population I think it could just be called Greek. Anyone is free to school me on that if I am mischaracterizing.

Now, here is what I think could be (on the surface) a reasonable statement: J-L70's origin is in Anatolia, it spread to the Greeks who then spread it across the Mediterranean, and it also spread to the Levant through Hittite happenings. That's why there is diversity in each region. I could totally see that being reasonable, if the phylogeny didn't exist. We know that there are Levantines and Greeks/Italians (and non-Med Europeans) at practically every level of the star-shaped phylogeny. If there were branches that went to Greece and branches that went to the Levant then we should see a clear distinction between the subclades. We just don't. Even subclades as young as 1000 or 900 BCE have modern descendants in both regions. To me, that means that a population, that was both rich *and* diverse in J-L70 (meaning time had passed for genetic mutations to accrue) supplied a lot of Y-chromosomes to either Mediterranean Europe or to the Levant. Only that can explain why there is such diversity on a subclade-by-subclade basis, rather than the clade as a whole.

I don't mean to repeat what others have said, but I think the damning evidence is, personally, the diversity among Jews. I mostly focus on Jewish Y-DNA, and it's a serious point that J-L70 is the clade aged around 4000-3500 ybp that has the most phylogenetically distinct Jewish lineages. To say that all of these lines entered Jewry from Greeks is crazy to me; that's not to say introgressions from Greeks didn't happen, as they certainly did. But at least 10 times in the same relatively young (at the time) clade? If it were that common, we should be seeing way more Greek-descendant clades among Jews that didn't happen to be in J-L70. Not even getting into whether the introgressions were in the diaspora or in Judea...

This is such a fascinating clade. It's amazing that even with its commonness and the focus researchers have put into the clade over the years that we are still debating it. No matter what, I don't think anyone will be totally right by the end. For example, I can't seem to explain why it is so geographically and genetically difference in Europe if I believe the origin was in the central Levant. Spread by Phoenicians or spread by Romans probably played a role, but I think both are oversimplifications. Either way, I do think we'll have more aDNA soon.

J.delajara
09-26-2020, 12:39 PM
Thanks, I definitely understand your point of view more. And trust me, your English is really good!

After reading your referenced papers in full, I do have a better understanding of the Anatolian-Greek argument. But I have a fundamental issue with their reasoning: it appears to be circular.
1) Finnochio et al. 2018 set out to refine Haplogroup J in the context of Phoenician and Greek settlements of the early Iron Age in the Mediterranean. The authors cite King et al. 2011, who in their paper The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean had identified J-L70 as Greek-oriented due to its modern spread.
2) Finnochio et al. 2018 determine that there is more STR diversity in Greece than in Italy and that much of Italian J-L70 could have come from the area of modern Greece. They say that this suggests a Greek origin for the clade, which according to them has a TMRCA of "between 2k ybp and 3k ybp,"(which is significantly lower than YFull's estimate, although there is some overlap between the ranges) which they say lines up perfectly with the historical record of Greek colonization.
3) So, they look for lines associated with Greek colonization in areas with significant related histories, and they find J-L70 (a clade which, again, was already referred to as common in areas associated with ancient Greeks). They call it Greek because that's what makes the most sense in their study; it fits with all of their data.

Problem is, they only looked in areas associated with ancient Greek settlement and colonization. And I don't mean to disrespect the study at all; certainly they improved the available knowledge and samples of J and added critical information to the field. They just didn't set out to find a non-biased origin for J-L70. If you only look for J-L70 in areas of ancient Greek settlement, that's where you'll find it! I also want to point out their relatively limited coverage for STRs; they only mentioned 7 different STR markers are being tested for in the supplemental text, although DYS445 was not one of them so it is unclear exactly how much genetic coverage they had for each sample.

I also struggle to understand the exact relationship between modern Greece and Anatolia here. If you agree with Finnochio et al. 2018 in that it originated and was spread by the Ancient Greeks, why even bring up Anatolia? To my knowledge, ancient Greeks living in western Anatolia would have been seeded by settlers from the islands/modern Greek mainland, so unless you think it was introgressed from an indigenous Anatolian population I think it could just be called Greek. Anyone is free to school me on that if I am mischaracterizing.

Now, here is what I think could be (on the surface) a reasonable statement: J-L70's origin is in Anatolia, it spread to the Greeks who then spread it across the Mediterranean, and it also spread to the Levant through Hittite happenings. That's why there is diversity in each region. I could totally see that being reasonable, if the phylogeny didn't exist. We know that there are Levantines and Greeks/Italians (and non-Med Europeans) at practically every level of the star-shaped phylogeny. If there were branches that went to Greece and branches that went to the Levant then we should see a clear distinction between the subclades. We just don't. Even subclades as young as 1000 or 900 BCE have modern descendants in both regions. To me, that means that a population, that was both rich *and* diverse in J-L70 (meaning time had passed for genetic mutations to accrue) supplied a lot of Y-chromosomes to either Mediterranean Europe or to the Levant. Only that can explain why there is such diversity on a subclade-by-subclade basis, rather than the clade as a whole.

I don't mean to repeat what others have said, but I think the damning evidence is, personally, the diversity among Jews. I mostly focus on Jewish Y-DNA, and it's a serious point that J-L70 is the clade aged around 4000-3500 ybp that has the most phylogenetically distinct Jewish lineages. To say that all of these lines entered Jewry from Greeks is crazy to me; that's not to say introgressions from Greeks didn't happen, as they certainly did. But at least 10 times in the same relatively young (at the time) clade? If it were that common, we should be seeing way more Greek-descendant clades among Jews that didn't happen to be in J-L70. Not even getting into whether the introgressions were in the diaspora or in Judea...

This is such a fascinating clade. It's amazing that even with its commonness and the focus researchers have put into the clade over the years that we are still debating it. No matter what, I don't think anyone will be totally right by the end. For example, I can't seem to explain why it is so geographically and genetically difference in Europe if I believe the origin was in the central Levant. Spread by Phoenicians or spread by Romans probably played a role, but I think both are oversimplifications. Either way, I do think we'll have more aDNA soon.

Thanks a lot Leorcooper for your deep analysis. I'm not an expert on Jewish genetics, so I can't say much to your comments on this regard. What I do think is that different people/ culture and religions belongs to this clade, and that is probably because at least one relevant ancient culture had L70 and expanded it elsewhere.
As you said, I agree with Finocchio that ancient Greek from the continent indeed formed their colonies in Anatolia, my deduction on regard the Asia Minor peninsula origin is related with the Neolithic component, defined for DYS445=6, so I assume before they came to the southern Balkans, they were Anatolians.

There are many other issues we can still debate, but I think the final explanation, as you said, won`t be the right one , probably there is more than one answer, and that's why L70 is so interesting.

So let's wait for more Adna, and see if this could help us.

Thanks again and have a good day.

harrimir
09-27-2020, 02:14 PM
I am no great expert in the dna, but I too have felt that the reasoning in the Anatolian argument was circular.
As well, much of the Levantine L-70 is not in groups that would have been largely affected by the hittites, but very south Levantine, including primarily Jews, even bedouin Arabs who migrated northward later. ( sinai, gaza, jordan, saudi arabia, etc)