PDA

View Full Version : New DNA Papers - General Discussion Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

newtoboard
02-05-2014, 08:30 PM
Mitochondrial Genome Sequencing in Mesolithic North East Europe Unearths a New Sub-Clade within the Broadly Distributed Human Haplogroup C1 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0087612)

Isn't this the author which conducted the mtDNA analysis of the Rostov-on-Don Scythians? Hopefully YDNA will follow.

Ebizur
04-19-2014, 06:35 AM
About 80000 years for mtdNA M and 85000 years for mtDNA N

Thank you for the link, parasar. However, I do not see where you have got these figures for the TMRCA of mtDNA haplogroup M and the TMRCA of mtDNA haplogroup N. Within macrohaplogroup N, the present study seems to deal with only the subclades B and P, which share a common ancestor more recent than that of haplogroup N as a whole (either haplogroup R or a subgroup of haplogroup R that contains B, P, and probably also R0'HV).

parasar
04-20-2014, 04:21 AM
Thank you for the link, parasar. However, I do not see where you have got these figures for the TMRCA of mtDNA haplogroup M and the TMRCA of mtDNA haplogroup N. Within macrohaplogroup N, the present study seems to deal with only the subclades B and P, which share a common ancestor more recent than that of haplogroup N as a whole (either haplogroup R or a subgroup of haplogroup R that contains B, P, and probably also R0'HV).

Those were my ballpark estimates for the upper bounds (the authors connect them using dotted lines) from "Figure 6. Schematic of Haplogroups and Coalescence Times for Haplogroups Found in Oceania, Based on Bayesian Phylogenetic Analyses and Mutation Rates"

Joe B
05-03-2014, 02:54 AM
Just notice this

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074

7.36% unassigned M269 could theoretically be M269*, L23xL51, L51*, L11* etc so I wouldnt get too worked up about that figure.
In the world of R1b-M269*, L23xL51, L51*, L11*, 7.36% will get some attention. Hopefully good. The study published the STRs of 119 Y samples of all haplogroups.
Table S3. Y-Chromosome STRs haplotypes and SNPs analysis results for the newly-typed samples of the present study (N=119) (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096074.s006)

It looks like out of five M269*, L23xL51, L51*, L11*" haplotypes, four are most likely R1b-Z2103 or R1b-PF7563 of some sort and one is a L51 or L11.

Pop. DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS385a DYS385b DYS439 DYS389I DYS392 DYS389II DYS458 DYS437 DYS448 GATAH4 DYS456 DYS438 DYS635 HG-SNP

CS 12 24 14 11 10 14 12 13 13 29 18 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
CS 12 23 14 11 11 14 12 13 13 29 17 15 19 12 16 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
EN 13 25 14 11 12 15 12 13 13 29 16 15 19 12 17 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
TP 12 23 14 11 11 14 13 13 13 29 16 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
TP 12 23 14 11 11 14 12 14 15 29 17 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
EN 13 23 14 11 14 16 11 13 13 30 16 14 19 12 15 11 23 R-M343(xM269,M18)
Can anybody figure out if that is a L51, L11, PF7589?Z2118 or what?
Map from study (http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/previews.figshare.com/1477905/preview_1477905.jpg)


Citation: Sarno S, Boattini A, Carta M, Ferri G, Alů M, et al. (2014) An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: Investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy. PLoS ONE 9(4): e96074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096074 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074#pone-0096074-t001)

alan
05-04-2014, 04:27 PM
About 5% L23xL51 is not really a major surprise. The relatively significant amount of this in southern Italy has been noted before. I tend to think we should look Balkans-ward to explain it but I am not an expert on this clade.


In the world of R1b-M269*, L23xL51, L51*, L11*, 7.36% will get some attention. Hopefully good. The study published the STRs of 119 Y samples of all haplogroups.
Table S3. Y-Chromosome STRs haplotypes and SNPs analysis results for the newly-typed samples of the present study (N=119) (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096074.s006)

It looks like out of five M269*, L23xL51, L51*, L11*" haplotypes, four are most likely R1b-Z2103 or R1b-PF7563 of some sort and one is a L51 or L11.

Pop. DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS385a DYS385b DYS439 DYS389I DYS392 DYS389II DYS458 DYS437 DYS448 GATAH4 DYS456 DYS438 DYS635 HG-SNP

CS 12 24 14 11 10 14 12 13 13 29 18 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
CS 12 23 14 11 11 14 12 13 13 29 17 15 19 12 16 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
EN 13 25 14 11 12 15 12 13 13 29 16 15 19 12 17 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
TP 12 23 14 11 11 14 13 13 13 29 16 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
TP 12 23 14 11 11 14 12 14 15 29 17 15 19 12 15 12 23 R-M269(xP311)
EN 13 23 14 11 14 16 11 13 13 30 16 14 19 12 15 11 23 R-M343(xM269,M18)
Can anybody figure out if that is a L51, L11, PF7589?Z2118 or what?
Map from study (http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/previews.figshare.com/1477905/preview_1477905.jpg)


Citation: Sarno S, Boattini A, Carta M, Ferri G, Alů M, et al. (2014) An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: Investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy. PLoS ONE 9(4): e96074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096074 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074#pone-0096074-t001)

MitchellSince1893
05-04-2014, 05:59 PM
Maybe I missed it but I can't find where they explain/discuss the "resequencing" methodology shown in the figures.

jeanL
05-04-2014, 09:51 PM
Maybe I missed it but I can't find where they explain/discuss the "resequencing" methodology shown in the figures.

I believe they are comparing STR calculations with those using SNPs, however as you said they did not specify which mutation rate /paper they used for SNPs. SNPs mutation rates thus far derived have a number of intrinsic assumptions that could make them prone to errors, however one of them, the one derived using the clovis individual might be more accurate for small populations that expanded like the native americans did. In any case, this paper fails to take into account the non-linearity of the Short Tandem Repeats with the repeat number, amongst other assumptions. That is, that the germline mutation rates for SNPs do not provide the substitution rates, and the observed mutation rates on father-son pairs might be prone to overestimating the mutability of STRs, as it is empirically observed that the mutability increases as a function of the repeat number for many loci, and it appears that a logistic fit, seems to be the best fit for many of the loci.

parasar
05-15-2014, 08:59 PM
paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/750)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27432234
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629505/Was-Naia-American-Teenage-girls-skeleton-dating-ice-age-13-000-years-ago-oldest-Americas.html


This aligns with the hypothesis that both Paleoamericans and Native Americans derive from a single source population
...

'Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan,' James Chatters, lead author on the study, said, 'but the oldest American skeletons do not.'
They have longer, narrower crania than later Native Americans, and smaller, shorter faces, too - more closely resembling modern peoples of Africa, Australia, and the Southern Pacific Rim....

The earliest modern human bones unearthed to date are pieces of human skull from ‘the Cave of the Monkeys’ in Laos that are up to 63,000-years-old.


This could imply that the EDAR mutation first occurred in the Americas and swept out of there, as it could hardly have arisen independently in the Americas and in East Asia.

Humanist
05-16-2014, 02:00 AM
paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/750)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27432234
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629505/Was-Naia-American-Teenage-girls-skeleton-dating-ice-age-13-000-years-ago-oldest-Americas.html

Fascinating story. :)

From the above BBC article:


To reach the natural amphitheatre, divers had to swim almost 1km (0.6 miles) through a water-filled tunnel.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74882000/jpg/_74882850_74882849.jpg

lgmayka
05-22-2014, 10:49 PM
Inferring human population size and separation history from multiple genome sequences
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/21/005348?rss=1
As always, there is the issue of calibrating the results. The paper says:
---
Our results are scaled to real times using a mutation rate of 1.25×10-8 per nucleotide per generation, as proposed recently [16] and supported by several direct mutation studies [14-16]. Using a value of 2.5×10-8 as was common previously [44, 45] would halve the times. This would bring the midpoint of the out-of-Africa separation to an uncomfortably recent 30-40kya, but more concerningly it would bring the separation of Native American ancestors (MXL) from East-Asian populations to 5-10kya, inconsistent with the paleontological record [25, 26]. We suggest that the establishment and spread of the Native American populations may provide a good time point for calibrating population genetic demographic models.
---
This is not entirely convincing, since:

- There is considerable evidence of some continuing gene flow between the Old and New Worlds after the initial Beringian crossing. I am still skeptical of the recently popular claim (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/750) that "Mongoloid" characteristics arose independently in the Old and New Worlds.

- Unlike the authors, I am not "uncomfortable" with some gene flow in and out of Africa continuing until 30,000 B.C. and beyond.

parasar
05-23-2014, 12:54 AM
As always, there is the issue of calibrating the results. The paper says:
---
Our results are scaled to real times using a mutation rate of 1.25×10-8 per nucleotide per generation, as proposed recently [16] and supported by several direct mutation studies [14-16]. Using a value of 2.5×10-8 as was common previously [44, 45] would halve the times. This would bring the midpoint of the out-of-Africa separation to an uncomfortably recent 30-40kya, but more concerningly it would bring the separation of Native American ancestors (MXL) from East-Asian populations to 5-10kya, inconsistent with the paleontological record [25, 26]. We suggest that the establishment and spread of the Native American populations may provide a good time point for calibrating population genetic demographic models.
---
This is not entirely convincing, since:

- There is considerable evidence of some continuing gene flow between the Old and New Worlds after the initial Beringian crossing. I am still skeptical of the recently popular claim (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/750) that "Mongoloid" characteristics arose independently in the Old and New Worlds.

- Unlike the authors, I am not "uncomfortable" with some gene flow in and out of Africa continuing until 30,000 B.C. and beyond.

I agree. I think it is almost impossible that EDAR arose independently in two adjacent populations but not elsewhere (India, Africa, Australia, Europe, etc).
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=40145&viewfull=1#post40145

vettor
05-29-2014, 07:46 AM
Posted by Dienekes:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WnwnvK0Q0YQ/U30aqQH9khI/AAAAAAAAJnA/JCdJwQ9D8fw/s1600/msmc.png

Schiffels et al
Inferring human population size and separation history from multiple genome sequences
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/05/21/005348?rss=1

i wonder how accurate Interpretome Chr beta test for the above are:

mine below
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/interPaint_zps341e5710.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/interPaint_zps341e5710.jpg.html)

R.Rocca
05-30-2014, 09:13 PM
J Purps et al., A global analysis of Y-chromosomal haplotype diversity for 23 STR loci, Forensic Science International: Genetics, in press.
http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2814%2900084-2/abstract (open access)

Looks like its 2004 all over again ;)

mnd
06-10-2014, 05:56 PM
Hopefully some of the genome bloggers manage to obtain the data from these Greek populations so they can be analysed and compared to modern populations in more detail.

I would be particularly interested to see how the Cappadocian Greeks compare to Turks from the same region, Cypriots and peoples from the Caucasus.

EDIT: just noticed the discussion thread - this should probably be moved there.

Mehrdad
06-11-2014, 07:50 PM
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/neandertal-origin-of-mc1r-haplotypes.html

neanderthals gave us red-hair

Eupedia person has been telling us this for years

Interesting, here I was thinking that the red hair mutation was around 10kybp.

lgmayka
06-11-2014, 08:26 PM
Interesting, here I was thinking that the red hair mutation was around 10kybp.
The paper refers to skin color, not hair color; and in Taiwanese aborigines (and to some extent other East Asians), not Europeans. From the abstract:
---
Frequency of this Neanderthal introgression is low in Europeans (~5%), moderate in continental East Asians (~30%), and high in Taiwanese aborigines (60-70%). Since the putative Neanderthal introgressive haplotypes carry a loss-of-function variant that could alter the function of MC1R and is associated with multiple traits related to skin color, we speculate that the Neanderthal introgression may have played an important role in the local adaptation of Eurasians to sunlight intensity.
---

palamede
06-12-2014, 10:43 AM
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/neandertal-origin-of-mc1r-haplotypes.html

neanderthals gave us red-hair

Eupedia person has been telling us this for years

I think the paper is about a variant responsible for skin colour in Eurasiatic peopple, very specially the east-asiatic people (the old "yellow" race) and not for the red hair.

"the Val92Met variant, a loss-of-function variant in MC1R that is associated with multiple dermatological traits including skin color and photoaging."

Chad Rohlfsen
06-23-2014, 09:17 PM
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/neandertal-origin-of-mc1r-haplotypes.html

neanderthals gave us red-hair

Eupedia person has been telling us this for years

This has to do with the skin coloring of Eurasians, mostly Eastern. The cause of red hair is a dysfunctional MC1R. Not the same thing. There is no evidence of red hair, even in the Neolithic to this point.

Bernard
06-30-2014, 02:34 PM
Fresh off the press; came out a few days ago on PubMed.

Genetic Diversity of a Late Prehispanic Group of the Quebrada de Humahuaca, Northwestern Argentina.
Mendisco F1, Keyser C, Seldes V, Rivolta C, Mercolli P, Cruz P, Nielsen AE, Crubezy E, Ludes B. Ann Hum Genet. 2014 Jun 24. doi: 10.1111/ahg.12075. [Epub ahead of print]

[Link (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12075/abstract;jsessionid=6784771AF250DF5FA1407A748DD7AD 1A.f04t02)]
From the Mendisco paper:

From a total of 51 individuals, the mitochondrial haplogroup status of 41 samples was reproducibly retrieved (Table 2). Each of these 41 individuals belongs to one of the Amerindian major founding mitochondrial haplogroups (Tamm et al., 2007;Achilli et al., 2008; Perego et al., 2010). Eighteen individuals were associated with maternal lineage A2, 12 with lineage B2, six individuals belonged to lineage C1b, and finally, five belonged to lineage D1. Reproducible complete HVR-1 sequences were obtained for 33 of the 51 individuals tested. These 33 sequences were classified into 16 different haplotypes, of which 10 were carried by a single individual whereas six were shared by at least two individuals (Table 2).

2004

From a total of 51 individuals, the Y-haplogroup status of 22 individuals was reproducibly determined (Table 3). Eighteen out of the 22 male individuals belonged to the most frequent haplogroup within Amerindian populations, Q-M3 (Battaglia et al., 2013). The remaining three individuals were associated with the haplogroup Q-M346 (Q1a2).

2005

venustas
07-01-2014, 12:23 AM
Ancient y-dna from the americas is not exciting because it always turns out to be Q.

venustas
07-01-2014, 01:33 AM
Taiwan Y-chromosomal DNA variation and its relationship with Island Southeast Asia
Apparently 55% of Akha have y-dna haplogroup Q?

venustas
07-01-2014, 02:00 AM
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1026S-4.pdf y-dna in pakistan.

Humanist
07-01-2014, 03:43 AM
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1026S-4.pdf y-dna in pakistan.

Thank you for the link. The data appears to be from the following source: Sadaf Firasat (2010) Analysis of Y-chromosome Polymorphisms in Pakistani Populations. PhD thesis, Sindh Institute of Urology And Transplantation, Karachi. (http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/1026S.pdf)

venustas
07-01-2014, 03:50 AM
Thank you for the link. The data appears to be from the following source: Sadaf Firasat (2010) Analysis of Y-chromosome Polymorphisms in Pakistani Populations. PhD thesis, Sindh Institute of Urology And Transplantation, Karachi. (http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/1026S.pdf)

A few months ago the site went down, (prr.hec.gov.pk/) it was gone for months , a few days ago I stumbled upon it by accident. You should save the pdf for personal use before the site goes down again (like I did you cannot upload pdfs here) , the site is based in Pakistan meaning it is unstable.

Táltos
07-01-2014, 04:02 AM
Thank you for the link. The data appears to be from the following source: Sadaf Firasat (2010) Analysis of Y-chromosome Polymorphisms in Pakistani Populations. PhD thesis, Sindh Institute of Urology And Transplantation, Karachi. (http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/1026S.pdf)
No real breakdown for the Q's though. :(

venustas
07-01-2014, 04:56 AM
No real breakdown for the Q's though. :(
If you are interested in Q apparently around 55% of AKha from Thailand have Q.
The link is /Taiwan Y-chromosomal DNA variation and its relationship with Island Southeast Asia/ New paper easy to google info is at end of pdf.

Táltos
07-01-2014, 05:12 AM
If you are interested in Q apparently around 55% of AKha from Thailand have Q.
Interesting, but of course I'm sure it is probably a subclade of Q1a. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but as my father line is a subclade of Q1b, it is hard to come by many of them. I had to chuckle at your dismay for ancient Y DNA in the Americas being only Q. Though believe me I am all for finding out as much as we can about Q in the Americas. Q1b subclades are majorly overshadowed by the majority of Native Americans being Q-M3. Meaning they are pretty much ignored for research. The Q-M346 is interesting in the Mendisco paper as it links the Old World with the New.

Do you have a link to that information about Q's in Thailand?

venustas
07-01-2014, 06:50 AM
Interesting, but of course I'm sure it is probably a subclade of Q1a. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but as my father line is a subclade of Q1b, it is hard to come by many of them. I had to chuckle at your dismay for ancient Y DNA in the Americas being only Q. Though believe me I am all for finding out as much as we can about Q in the Americas. Q1b subclades are majorly overshadowed by the majority of Native Americans being Q-M3. Meaning they are pretty much ignored for research. The Q-M346 is interesting in the Mendisco paper as it links the Old World with the New.

Do you have a link to that information about Q's in Thailand?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-15-77.pdf

lgmayka
07-01-2014, 08:58 AM
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-15-77.pdf
Out of 146 Filipinos, 3 belong to R1a-M17 and 1 belongs to R1a-SRY10831.2. Only 1 belongs to R1b, so I would not dismiss the R1a as recently admixture.

Ebizur
07-01-2014, 10:03 AM
Out of 146 Filipinos, 3 belong to R1a-M17 and 1 belongs to R1a-SRY10831.2. Only 1 belongs to R1b, so I would not dismiss the R1a as recently admixture.
The same table also indicates that they have found an extremely rare P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) Y-chromosome in a member of an aboriginal mountain tribe of southern Taiwan. I hope this sample can be retested in order to confirm that there has been no error in the haplogroup assignment.

Táltos
07-01-2014, 01:17 PM
Out of 146 Filipinos, 3 belong to R1a-M17 and 1 belongs to R1a-SRY10831.2. Only 1 belongs to R1b, so I would not dismiss the R1a as recently admixture.
Just curious why you think that? I'm sure if they found any of these Q's to be a Q1b it would be Mazel tov they are Jewish, we don't need them in this study. Kind of like what happened here. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071390

Which not to be dumb, I don't see why the logic in the link that I provided was:

Only two American Y chromosomes did not cluster into the L54 sub-branch. They were both M378-positive, thus belonging to Q1b, a finding never previously reported for Native Americans. Considering that the phylogeography of this infrequent haplogroup is restricted to South West Asia [52]–[55], the most likely interpretation of this outcome is that they represent an arrival from Asia in contemporary history. For this reason the two Y chromosomes were not included in subsequent analyses.

Obviously I'm no expert on this, but maybe it would be nice to investigate something like that further. I don't know if the two Native American Q1b actually had some oral history of being Jewish or not, that particular paper didn't say. And in that paper it didn't necessarily call them Jewish, just that the subclade is restricted to South West Asia.

parasar
07-01-2014, 02:47 PM
The same table also indicates that they have found an extremely rare P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) Y-chromosome in a member of an aboriginal mountain tribe of southern Taiwan. I hope this sample can be retested in order to confirm that there has been no error in the haplogroup assignment.

This could provide a connecting link form SE Asia to Southern India.

P-M45(xM207, xM242)
Pulayar PLY HTF3 HTF P* P-M45 13 16 22 16 13 17 15 11
Thoda THD HTC2 HTC P* P-M45 13 17 25 17 16 15 14 11
Cape Nadar NDC DLF5 DLF P* P-M45 14 16 22 15 13 19 14 11
Valayar VLR AW1 AW P* P-M45 14 18 24 15 16 16 14 11
Valayar VLR AW1 AW P* P-M45 14 18 24 15 16 16 14 11
Valayar VLR AW1 AW P* P-M45 14 16 22 15 13 17 14 11
Brahacharanam BHC BRH2 BRH P* P-M45 13 18 25 16 15 14 14 11

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1533-R*-where-is-it-found-today&p=19456&viewfull=1#post19456

parasar
07-01-2014, 03:32 PM
Just curious why you think that? I'm sure if they found any of these Q's to be a Q1b it would be Mazel tov they are Jewish, we don't need them in this study. Kind of like what happened here. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071390

Which not to be dumb, I don't see why the logic in the link that I provided was:


Obviously I'm no expert on this, but maybe it would be nice to investigate something like that further. I don't know if the two Native American Q1b actually had some oral history of being Jewish or not, that particular paper didn't say. And in that paper it didn't necessarily call them Jewish, just that the subclade is restricted to South West Asia.

South Asia has some trace M378
N19260 India Q1b M242+, M378+,, M3-, M346-, MEH2-
N58043 India Q1b L214+, L215+, L275+, L314+, M378+
N78873 India Q1b L214+, L215+, L275+, L314+, L58+, L606+, L612+, M378+, P306+, P36.2+
HGDP00129 Pakistan Q1b M378+
HGDP00165 Pakistan Q1b M378+
107ASM12 Afghanistan Q1b M378+
1xASS2006 Afghanistan Q1b M378+

as well as the parallel Y1150
HG09314 Eastern
HG03552 North-Western
HG03864 Southern
http://www.yfull.com/tree/Q/

parasar
07-01-2014, 04:03 PM
... Kind of like what happened here. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071390
...
Obviously I'm no expert on this, but maybe it would be nice to investigate something like that further. I don't know if the two Native American Q1b actually had some oral history of being Jewish or not, that particular paper didn't say. And in that paper it didn't necessarily call them Jewish, just that the subclade is restricted to South West Asia.


Only two American Y chromosomes did not cluster into the L54 sub-branch. They were both M378-positive, thus belonging to Q1b, a finding never previously reported for Native Americans. Considering that the phylogeography of this infrequent haplogroup is restricted to South West Asia [52]–[55], the most likely interpretation of this outcome is that they represent an arrival from Asia in contemporary history. For this reason the two Y chromosomes were not included in subsequent analyses.


The two Q1b samples though (from Ecuador, Panama) in that paper are reasonably distant from each other.
13 13 16 22 10 16 13 14 11 11 19 15 17 22 10 12 12 16 17 12 12 15 25 30 33 11 11 12 13 11 28 11 15
13 13 16 22 10 16 13 14 11 11 20 16 16 22 10 12 12 16 16 12 12 14 26 29 32 12 11 10 13 11 26 11 15

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390.s002

ADW_1981
07-01-2014, 05:56 PM
The two Q1b samples though (from Ecuador, Panama) in that paper are reasonably distant from each other.
13 13 16 22 10 16 13 14 11 11 19 15 17 22 10 12 12 16 17 12 12 15 25 30 33 11 11 12 13 11 28 11 15
13 13 16 22 10 16 13 14 11 11 20 16 16 22 10 12 12 16 16 12 12 14 26 29 32 12 11 10 13 11 26 11 15

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390.s002

I believe their conclusion to be incorrect. Q1b must have arrived from NE Asia.

lgmayka
07-01-2014, 07:04 PM
Just curious why you think that? I'm sure if they found any of these Q's to be a Q1b it would be Mazel tov they are Jewish, we don't need them in this study. Kind of like what happened here. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071390
The study you cite had already screened out all haplogroups but Q. I am referring to a very different situation:

In the Philippines, colonized by Spain and then by the United States (both countries with a plurality of R1b), the study found only 1 R1b but several R1a (of 3 different kinds!). One must suspect that the R1a is not colonial admixture but rather an earlier introgression.

parasar
07-01-2014, 07:44 PM
I believe their conclusion to be incorrect. Q1b must have arrived from NE Asia.

Very possible as the 'Di' Asiatic nomads [Huns] seem to share Y types with the Americas.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=37506&viewfull=1#post37506

The Honni (Honk'/Kushan/Ta Yüeh-chih) faction in the Jews may have taken it west from the Shanxi region.

Humanist
07-05-2014, 07:04 AM
Population and genomic lessons from genetic analysis of two Indian populations.
Juyal G1, Mondal M, Luisi P, Laayouni H, Sood A, Midha V, Heutink P, Bertranpetit J, Thelma BK, Casals F. Hum Genet. 2014 Jul 1. [Epub ahead of print]


[Link (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-014-1462-0)]


[D]eep genetic studies from this terrain [India] have been scarce.

Have they really been scarce? Perhaps compared to studies of European populations. But I could certainly name some other populations/regions that have genuinely scarce (or absolutely no) coverage. The data that has been published, and the work of folks like Zack over at the Harappa Project have contributed significantly to our understanding of Indian genetics, in my opinion. That said, the more samples the better.

DMXX
07-05-2014, 08:05 AM
Have they really been scarce? Perhaps compared to studies of European populations. But I could certainly name some other populations/regions that have genuinely scarce (or absolutely no) coverage. The data that has been published, and the work of folks like Zack over at the Harappa Project have contributed significantly to our understanding of Indian genetics, in my opinion. That said, the more samples the better.

I myself only have a rough idea of India's enormous ethno-linguistic diversity. It is definitely true that certain parts of the world haven't received as much attention, or a data black hole exists within certain regions (e.g. Afghanistan until recently, Azerbaijan despite surrounding countries being represented).

My interpretation of this study is that it demonstrates the extent to which intra-population diversity coincides with inter-population diversity and the current samples from 1k Genomes and HGDP do not cover these variables sufficiently.

Regarding the global picture, however, it probably would be a more worthwhile endeavour to approach the undersampled regions before tackling any issues brought by intra-pop diversity.

venustas
07-06-2014, 04:59 PM
The study you cite had already screened out all haplogroups but Q. I am referring to a very different situation:

In the Philippines, colonized by Spain and then by the United States (both countries with a plurality of R1b), the study found only 1 R1b but several R1a (of 3 different kinds!). One must suspect that the R1a is not colonial admixture but rather an earlier introgression.

Probably recent south asian.

palamede
07-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Chen K, Ablimit A, Ling F, Wu W, Shan W, et al. (2014) Paternal and Maternal Genetic Analysis of a Desert Keriyan Population: Keriyans Are Not the Descendants of Guge Tibetans. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0100479) PLoS ONE 9(6): e100479. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100479

In France there was an archeological exhibition (remarkable paintings) about Franch and Chinese research in old Keriya Valley, the river changed the course several times in Takla Makan desert .

Here is a description in french
http://tetered.free.fr/keriya/projet.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriya_River

Humanist
07-17-2014, 07:39 AM
New paper on population sampling. Abstract doesn't seem to reveal much, except confirming what us in the genetic genealogy community already know...

...We need samples, samples and more samples! The current tested populations clearly are insufficient in countries with a history of demographic diversity.

Population and genomic lessons from genetic analysis of two Indian populations.
Juyal G1, Mondal M, Luisi P, Laayouni H, Sood A, Midha V, Heutink P, Bertranpetit J, Thelma BK, Casals F. Hum Genet. 2014 Jul 1. [Epub ahead of print]


[Link (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-014-1462-0)]

Razib Khan has a blog post up in which he mentions the above study: Caste System Probably Does Increase Load of Recessive Diseases (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/caste-system-probably-does-increase-load-of-recessive-diseases/)

DMXX
08-02-2014, 11:09 AM
From Humanist's post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=47406&viewfull=1#post47406):

The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia
Yunusbayev B, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, Valeev A, Litvinov S, Valiev R et al.



The Turkic peoples represent a diverse collection of ethnic groups defined by the Turkic languages. These groups have dispersed across a vast area, including Siberia, Northwest China, Central Asia, East Europe, the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. The origin and early dispersal history of the Turkic peoples is disputed, with candidates for their ancient homeland ranging from the Transcaspian steppe to Manchuria in Northeast Asia. Previous genetic studies have not identified a clear-cut unifying genetic signal for the Turkic peoples, which lends support for language replacement rather than demic diffusion as the model for the Turkic language?s expansion. We addressed the genetic origin of 373 individuals from 22 Turkic-speaking populations, representing their current geographic range, by analyzing genome-wide high-density genotype data. Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities. The observed excess of long chromosomal tracts IBD (> 1cM) between populations from SSM and Turkic peoples across West Eurasia was statistically significant. Finally, we used the ALDER method and inferred admixture dates (~9th?17th centuries) that overlap with the Turkic migrations of the 5th?16th centuries. Thus, our results indicate historical admixture among Turkic peoples, and the recent shared ancestry with modern populations in SSM supports one of the hypothesized homelands for their nomadic Turkic and related Mongolic ancestors.


Supplementary data can be found here (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/07/30/005850.figures-only). Some of the diagrams are a little cryptic and will benefit from a copy of the main text to interpret properly.

On the other hand, the segment sharing across various populations (Figure S4 (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-4.pdf)) is straightforward. It is readily apparent that, despite resembling their geographical neighbours closest, Turkic-speaking populations across West Eurasia do have actual large segments shared with modern Altaic-speaking South Siberian populations. This is consistent across the board irrespective of cM length (range of 1-6).

I would have liked to see Azeris from the Republic of Azerbaijan to be included in this study. Given the history of Turkoman settlers in Medieval West Asia, I am fairly confident they will have equivalent (or even more) segments as Anatolian Turks, who in turn ended up with more than Azeri Iranians. The Caspian depression around Baku was a more appropriate settling region for them than Northwest Iran given their pastoral lifestyle, which the Turkoman eventually took preference to.

One aspect of the study that should be addressed is the status of the Kazakh and Kyrgyz with respect to western speakers of Turkic languages. Both the Kyrgyz and Kazakh have obvious historical, linguistic or genealogical connections to Mongolic-speaking populations or regions. They, therefore, cannot be assumed to be modern representatives of the ancient Turks with respect to their genetic profile.

This study certainly confirms a genetic contribution by early Turks into the genepool of Anatolian Turks, Azeri Iranians and other modern ethnicities in varying degrees, which is in line with historical records of Turkoman settlement over centuries. However, these ethnicities still overlap most with their immediate neighbours. This study (amongst others (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23113065)) clearly indicates that a minor genetic contribution accompanied the language and cultural shifts, rather than complete or predominant population replacement or an absolute form of elite dominance linguistically. Reality appears firmly in-between those diametric stances.

Humanist
08-02-2014, 12:25 PM
David has a blog post on the recent Yunusbayev et al. paper: Turks probably came from south Siberia (http://eurogenes.blogspot.no/2014/07/turks-probably-came-from-south-siberia.html)

Generalissimo
08-03-2014, 12:46 PM
Anyone know what these 2,500 year-old European samples are?

ETR2, ETR5, ETR9.

Comparative Performance of Two Whole Genome Capture Methodologies on Ancient DNA Illumina Libraries (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/07/24/007419)

Humanist
08-03-2014, 01:33 PM
Anyone know what these 2,500 year-old European samples are?

ETR2, ETR5, ETR9.

Are those samples, or ethylene receptor names?

RCO
08-03-2014, 08:05 PM
What would be the original Turkic Y chromosomes associated with the elite dominance, now that we can have the next-gen Y sequence ? No results in this new article.

Humanist
08-03-2014, 08:12 PM
What would be the original Turkic Y chromosomes associated with the elite dominance, now that we can have the next-gen Y sequence ? No results in this new article.

I would probably compare Anatolian Turk Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies with Armenian Y-DNA frequencies, and investigate any and all differences for possible clues as to the Y chromosomes of those responsible for the Turkification of Anatolia.

Jean M
08-03-2014, 08:21 PM
Are those samples, or ethylene receptor names?

They are sample identifications, which would typically be the site initials (or part of the name) with the sample number. I don't recognise them and assume they are as yet unpublished.

R.Rocca
08-03-2014, 08:40 PM
They are sample identifications, which would typically be the site initials with the sample number. I don't recognise them and assume they are as yet unpublished.

ETRuria would be nice ;)

Jean M
08-03-2014, 08:59 PM
ETRuria would be nice ;)

Oh I wish! I see that you have asked for disclosure.

DMXX
08-03-2014, 09:00 PM
I would probably compare Anatolian Turk Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies with Armenian Y-DNA frequencies, and investigate any and all differences for possible clues as to the Y chromosomes of those responsible for the Turkification of Anatolia.

Off-hand, I'd speculate some R1a-Z93 and most of the Y-DNA N, O and C in Turkey is derived from the ancient Turks. The "some" and "most" qualifiers are there to address whatever Indo-Iranian influence Anatolia may have experienced through the former and additional eastern-derived movements (Silk Road?) through the latter. Additionally, vineviz also demonstrated through the FTDNA R1b-M73 project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/) some years ago that a distinct cluster in that subclade is shared between Anatolian and Central Asian Turks.

Y-DNA Q is a lot trickier to interpret. As we both know, it has an irregular spread across various West and South Asian ethnic groups.

Regarding other lineages, I won't comment on Y-DNA L for the time being, but some of the R2a-M124 in Turkey may actually be South Siberian/Altaic in origin. I discovered in my very first Vaędhya entry that both the Buryats of Siberia and Kalmyks of the Caucasus share a similar STR haplotype profile that appears independent of South Asia (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2011/09/of-buryats-and-kalmyks-r2a-connection.html). We'll need more data to verify this idea.

RCO
08-03-2014, 10:59 PM
The problem is if they could show a common pool of Turkic Y DNA haplogroups/haplotypes derived from a common source 2000/1500 years ago and present in almost all current modern Turkic speaking populations.

Táltos
08-04-2014, 04:10 AM
Y-DNA Q is a lot trickier to interpret. As we both know, it has an irregular spread across various West and South Asian ethnic groups.

So frustrating. Just like the brick wall on my direct paternal line with my great grandfather.

Sein
08-04-2014, 09:33 PM
From Humanist's post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=47406&viewfull=1#post47406):

The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia
Yunusbayev B, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, Valeev A, Litvinov S, Valiev R et al.



Supplementary data can be found here (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/07/30/005850.figures-only). Some of the diagrams are a little cryptic and will benefit from a copy of the main text to interpret properly.

On the other hand, the segment sharing across various populations (Figure S4 (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-4.pdf)) is straightforward. It is readily apparent that, despite resembling their geographical neighbours closest, Turkic-speaking populations across West Eurasia do have actual large segments shared with modern Altaic-speaking South Siberian populations. This is consistent across the board irrespective of cM length (range of 1-6).

I would have liked to see Azeris from the Republic of Azerbaijan to be included in this study. Given the history of Turkoman settlers in Medieval West Asia, I am fairly confident they will have equivalent (or even more) segments as Anatolian Turks, who in turn ended up with more than Azeri Iranians. The Caspian depression around Baku was a more appropriate settling region for them than Northwest Iran given their pastoral lifestyle, which the Turkoman eventually took preference to.

One aspect of the study that should be addressed is the status of the Kazakh and Kyrgyz with respect to western speakers of Turkic languages. Both the Kyrgyz and Kazakh have obvious historical, linguistic or genealogical connections to Mongolic-speaking populations or regions. They, therefore, cannot be assumed to be modern representatives of the ancient Turks with respect to their genetic profile.

This study certainly confirms a genetic contribution by early Turks into the genepool of Anatolian Turks, Azeri Iranians and other modern ethnicities in varying degrees, which is in line with historical records of Turkoman settlement over centuries. However, these ethnicities still overlap most with their immediate neighbours. This study (amongst others (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23113065)) clearly indicates that a minor genetic contribution accompanied the language and cultural shifts, rather than complete or predominant population replacement or an absolute form of elite dominance linguistically. Reality appears firmly in-between those diametric stances.

The study is exceedingly fascinating. Personally speaking, I can't wait till these new samples become publicly available, so that people like Everest, David, and Zack can utilize them. The Pamiri and Yaghnobi populations from Tajikistan would constitute a very important addition to these projects. Comparing ADMIXTURE results between Pamiri samples and the ethnic Tajik samples, the Pamiri samples have higher South Asian and northeastern European percentages. Also, on average, they seem to be less East Asian-admixed. In this region, the ADMIXTURE clusters modal in South Asia and northeastern Europe seem to correlate with ANE ancestry, so perhaps this suggests that Pamiri speakers from Tajikistan have higher ANE admixture than ethnic Tajiks?

Note: As an example of the South Asian cluster tracking greater ANE admixture, here are ADMIXTURE results for Georgians (one of the least ANE-admixed populations in the Caucasus) and Lezgians (so far, the most ANE-admixed population in the Caucasus). The dark green component peaks in South Asia, and the "Kanjars" are almost completely of this cluster. This is from the same study.

Georgians
2220

The South Asian component is almost non-existent.

Lezgians
2221

By contrast, they have a good helping of the South Asian component.

I think the Pamiri vs Tajik difference in South Asian levels involves the same dynamic. The greater South Asian admixture in the Pamiri samples probably boils down to greater ANE admixture. Here are all three populations from Tajikistan. From left to right, ethnic Tajik samples, Pamiri samples, and Yaghnobi samples. I underlined them too (:biggrin1:), red for Tajiks, blue for Pamiri, and black for Yaghnobi. The Yaghnobi have very low East Asian percentages for this region. Interestingly, the Pamiri mostly lack the Southwest Asian component, while both Tajiks and Yaghnobi possess it at low but consistent levels.

2222

DMXX
08-04-2014, 09:56 PM
... so perhaps this suggests that Pamiri speakers from Tajikistan have higher ANE admixture than ethnic Tajiks?


This would be a sensible proposition. The Yunusbayev Tajiks have a Southwest Asian component of approximately 3.1% according to Dodecad K12b (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE#gid=0). It is highly likely these samples were collected from somewhere around Dushanbe for accessibility reasons. The Burusho, who are situated in the Hunza valley around the Karakoram (same mountain extension as the Pamirs as you know :) ), have no Southwest Asian. If we use the Iranian_D as surrogates for Sassanid-era Persians*, that would mean Dari-speaking Tajiks, at the most, derive a quarter of their ancestry from Persians, who are lingustically not native to that part of Asia.

I suppose, in light of this, the Pamiris might best represent the genetic constituency of South-Central Asia before various historical events and language shifts took place.

* Recently discovered through the literature that modern Iranians largely descend from Medieval Iranian villagers following the Arab conquest of Persia. On their part, the social elite sided with the new Arab rulers or fled the country, reaching as far as China.

[Edit]: Following your comment above, I suspect the Yaghnobis also derive their SW Asian component from historical Persians. Out of the three, it is the Pamiris that have had minimal contact with West Iranic speakers.

alan
08-05-2014, 10:46 PM
I have always found the GA culture an interesting mystery. What is the latest ideas on them - Kurganised farmers?

venustas
08-08-2014, 12:35 AM
Mitochondrial DNA Variation in North Dakota Residents of European Ancestry (http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_5_May_2014/6.pdf)

American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 4, No. 5; May 2014

Katelyn Kjelland and Dr. Igor Ovchinnikov

Abstract

18.56% U5 and U4 , no U2, no L or M, and no N(incl R) lineages that are Native American or Eastern.
All is expected other than the very high paleolithic European mtdna frequency.

gravetti
08-08-2014, 11:40 AM
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1791/20140819

Abstract

The conventional ‘Neolithic package’ comprised animals and plants originally domesticated in the Near East. As farming spread on a generally northwest trajectory across Europe, early pastoralists would have been faced with the challenge of making farming viable in regions in which the organisms were poorly adapted to providing optimal yields or even surviving. Hence, it has long been debated whether Neolithic economies were ever established at the modern limits of agriculture. Here, we examine food residues in pottery, testing a hypothesis that Neolithic farming was practiced beyond the 60th parallel north. Our findings, based on diagnostic biomarker lipids and δ13C values of preserved fatty acids, reveal a transition at ca 2500 BC from the exploitation of aquatic organisms to processing of ruminant products, specifically milk, confirming farming was practiced at high latitudes. Combining this with genetic, environmental and archaeological information, we demonstrate the origins of dairying probably accompanied an incoming, genetically distinct, population successfully establishing this new subsistence ‘package’.

Humanist
08-08-2014, 08:22 PM
We finally have some North Caucasian aDNA (via Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/08/mtdna-haplogroup-v7-from-5000-year-old.html)). Judging from the abstract, it looks either Maikop or Yamnaya-influenced?

Analysis of the Mitochondrial Genome of a Novosvobodnaya Culture Representative using Next-Generation Sequencing and Its Relation to the Funnel Beaker Culture
A. V. Nedoluzhko et al. Acta Naturae. 2014 Apr-Jun; 6(2): 31–35.

Thank you for posting the link, DMXX.

Looking at Ian Logan's GenBank page for V7 (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/v7_genbank_sequences.htm) and its subclades, it appears to have a strong presence in Finland and Denmark, as well as some samples from Germany and Russia.

lgmayka
08-09-2014, 12:24 AM
Looking at Ian Logan's GenBank page for V7 (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/v7_genbank_sequences.htm) and its subclades, it appears to have a strong presence in Finland and Denmark, as well as some samples from Germany and Russia.
My project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish/default.aspx?section=mtresults) has a V7 from southern Ukraine, and V7a from Belarus and Slovakia.

Humanist
08-09-2014, 12:43 AM
My project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish/default.aspx?section=mtresults) has a V7 from southern Ukraine, and V7a from Belarus and Slovakia.

Geographically, your southern Ukrainian sample would probably be the nearest to the north Caucasian sample. It would be interesting to compare the two mtDNA sequences.

lgmayka
08-09-2014, 01:48 AM
Geographically, your southern Ukrainian sample would probably be the nearest to the north Caucasian sample. It would be interesting to compare the two mtDNA sequences.
According to this table (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/table/T1/), the ancient sample had these mtDNA mutations:
72C
93G
2515T
9378A
9541T
11018T
11720G
11723T
12851A
14906G
15302G
15477T

This does not look like mtDNA V. In fact, it looks like gibberish. Am I misunderstanding something?

gravetti
08-14-2014, 08:52 AM
Alans(with Catacomb burial ritual) from River Don 8-th century 6 had haplogroup G2
https://www.academia.edu/7061155/_._...014._._312-315

Google translation:
3) To analyze Alanian paleo-DNA haplogroup level (laboratory work performed Iljinsky VV) were selected, 12 samples of human teeth and bone fragments from the catacomb burial. Investigation of the male line was carried out by analyzing 23 microsatellite loci (STR) Y-chromosome of man. Definition haplogroup female line was carried out the study of mtDNA hypervariable regions. The task was to identify the nucleotide sequences of the hypervariable regions HVS-1, HVS-2, HVS -3 mtDNA haplogroup, with subsequent determination of individuals and the predictions of migration routes. As a result, in the 6 samples was found haplogroup G2 and 6 samples - female haplogroup I.
Scientists note that the North Caucasus, which are connected with the territory of their origin Don Alans, G2 occur as the two branches of the Ossetians (G2a1) and the Circassians (G2a3). G2a little occurs in Karachai and Balkars, as well as the Ingush and Chechens. The researchers write, and I quote: "The issue is Alan DNA is closely associated with the study of the role of Alan and Caucasian substrate in the formation of the Ossetian people, now takes on a more distinct shape. We got a first and very promising data about Alan DNA Khazar time." It is further noted that the need for a thorough research in the field paleoDNK level subclades not only Alanian material Khazar and predhazarskogo time, but the study of paleo-DNA carriers barrows and burial rites yamnogo on the territory of the Khazar Khanate as well as simultaneous and preceding them centrally-Caucasian substratum, practiced burial in stone boxes, underground and above-ground tombs. Then it can be ascertained whether the men G2 the Don Alan Sarmatian heritage, kangyuytsev or a contribution to the Central Caucasian substratum ..
(LeBrok)

Jean M
08-14-2014, 10:25 AM
According to this table (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/table/T1/), the ancient sample had these mtDNA mutations ... This does not look like mtDNA V. In fact, it looks like gibberish. Am I misunderstanding something?

T72C = HV0
A93G = V7

Otherwise unrecognisable, and I don't know why they did not cover HVI. But I suppose they are treating the other mutations as private. GailT might better understand it.

dp
08-15-2014, 08:29 PM
Moderator, I don't know if this link is better served here or in the autosomal section so move if applicable. Thanks, -dp

There is a companion website to the scientific paper:
Science 14 February 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6172 pp. 747-751
DOI: 10.1126/science.1243518
Garrett Hellenthal, George B. J. Busby, et al. "A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History"
The companion site's URL is http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/
I encourage people interesting in population studies, ancestral admixture mapping, etc. to check it out.
[For example in Central America, (testing 21 subjects) Maya's gave a European component of roughly 7% Spanish, 3% Irish. The admix is estimated to have occured: Estimated date (95% CI): 1670CE (1642CE - 1726CE)]
Thanks,
dp :-)

ADW_1981
08-15-2014, 08:46 PM
Alans(with Catacomb burial ritual) from River Don 8-th century 6 had haplogroup G2
https://www.academia.edu/7061155/_._...014._._312-315

Google translation:
3) To analyze Alanian paleo-DNA haplogroup level (laboratory work performed Iljinsky VV) were selected, 12 samples of human teeth and bone fragments from the catacomb burial. Investigation of the male line was carried out by analyzing 23 microsatellite loci (STR) Y-chromosome of man. Definition haplogroup female line was carried out the study of mtDNA hypervariable regions. The task was to identify the nucleotide sequences of the hypervariable regions HVS-1, HVS-2, HVS -3 mtDNA haplogroup, with subsequent determination of individuals and the predictions of migration routes. As a result, in the 6 samples was found haplogroup G2 and 6 samples - female haplogroup I.
Scientists note that the North Caucasus, which are connected with the territory of their origin Don Alans, G2 occur as the two branches of the Ossetians (G2a1) and the Circassians (G2a3). G2a little occurs in Karachai and Balkars, as well as the Ingush and Chechens. The researchers write, and I quote: "The issue is Alan DNA is closely associated with the study of the role of Alan and Caucasian substrate in the formation of the Ossetian people, now takes on a more distinct shape. We got a first and very promising data about Alan DNA Khazar time." It is further noted that the need for a thorough research in the field paleoDNK level subclades not only Alanian material Khazar and predhazarskogo time, but the study of paleo-DNA carriers barrows and burial rites yamnogo on the territory of the Khazar Khanate as well as simultaneous and preceding them centrally-Caucasian substratum, practiced burial in stone boxes, underground and above-ground tombs. Then it can be ascertained whether the men G2 the Don Alan Sarmatian heritage, kangyuytsev or a contribution to the Central Caucasian substratum ..
(LeBrok)

Wasn't the Catacomb culture a good deal older than 6th-8th century? AD? BC? If this paper were in English I'd suggest we have a new thread. The translation isn't very coherent.

vettor
08-15-2014, 11:04 PM
Wasn't the Catacomb culture a good deal older than 6th-8th century? AD? BC? If this paper were in English I'd suggest we have a new thread. The translation isn't very coherent.

did the alans reach austria of be part of creation of Austrians in 998AD

The G-L91 is the otzi marker, which as you will read is only 4%

http://www.blutspendezurich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf

gravetti
08-16-2014, 07:42 AM
Wasn't the Catacomb culture a good deal older than 6th-8th century? AD? BC? If this paper were in English I'd suggest we have a new thread. The translation isn't very coherent.
It is from 6th-8th AD.(" We got a first and very promising data about Alan DNA Khazar time." )

Hando
08-24-2014, 04:42 PM
Lejla Kovacevic: Standing at the Gateway to Europe - The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105090)
Abstract:
Could someone please explain the last two sentences?
"Western Balkan populations reveals...genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers." Does this mean that Western Balkan populations and especially Western South Slavic speakers have genetic similarity and thus share common ancestry?
If so, why does the next sentence say there is "genetic variation of Western Balkan populations"? Doesn't "variation" mean differences?
I understand that they are saying that they have found evidence of genetic flow from the ME to Europe via the Balkans which was a major ancient route and that genetic similarities are found between the ME and the Balkans.

ViktorL1
08-27-2014, 03:20 AM
Some of these papers are really fascinating, I'm enjoying reading through them. To be honest, population genetics is my favorite field of genetics, but it's extremely controversial in some circles, so I keep my interest in it on the DL.

ViktorL1
08-27-2014, 03:21 AM
The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia

Yunusbayev et al.

ABSTRACT

The Turkic peoples represent a diverse collection of ethnic groups defined by the Turkic languages. These groups have dispersed across a vast area, including Siberia, Northwest China, Central Asia, East Europe, the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. The origin and early dispersal history of the Turkic peoples is disputed, with candidates for their ancient homeland ranging from the Transcaspian steppe to Manchuria in Northeast Asia. Previous genetic studies have not identified a clear-cut unifying genetic signal for the Turkic peoples, which lends support for language replacement rather than demic diffusion as the model for the Turkic language?s expansion. We addressed the genetic origin of 373 individuals from 22 Turkic-speaking populations, representing their current geographic range, by analyzing genome-wide high-density genotype data. Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities. The observed excess of long chromosomal tracts IBD (> 1cM) between populations from SSM and Turkic peoples across West Eurasia was statistically significant. Finally, we used the ALDER method and inferred admixture dates (~9th?17th centuries) that overlap with the Turkic migrations of the 5th?16th centuries. Thus, our results indicate historical admixture among Turkic peoples, and the recent shared ancestry with modern populations in SSM supports one of the hypothesized homelands for their nomadic Turkic and related Mongolic ancestors.

This paper is closely related to my sub-interest within the field of population genetics, so thanks so much for posting this!!

Bernard
08-27-2014, 10:01 AM
This paper is closely related to my sub-interest within the field of population genetics, so thanks so much for posting this!!
This paper was already posted here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=47406&viewfull=1#post47406

Hando
08-27-2014, 06:30 PM
Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM)

So does this mean that the population of modern day Turkey are mostly descended from migrants whose ultimate homeland was most likely SSM?
I'm confused, because the previous sentence says most Turkic people, except for Central Asians resemble their geographic neighbours. I thought Turkey was included in this "most Turkic people" reference.
If, most people from modern Turkey are similar to Central Asian Turks and SSM populations, it seems that they are descended from Central Asian Turks.

Jean M
08-27-2014, 06:32 PM
So does this mean that the population of modern day Turkey are mostly descended from migrants whose ultimate homeland was most likely SSM?

No. The exact opposite.

Hando
08-27-2014, 06:40 PM
This question is for Bernard or anyone else who has read the PLUS ONE article posted by Bernard.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105090
"Contemporary inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula belong to several ethnic groups of diverse cultural background. In this study, three ethnic groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina - Bosniacs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs - as well as the populations of Serbians, Croatians, Macedonians from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrins and Kosovars have been characterized for the genetic variation of 660 000 genome-wide autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms and for haploid markers. New autosomal data of the 70 individuals together with previously published data of 20 individuals from the populations of the Western Balkan region in a context of 695 samples of global range have been analysed. Comparison of the variation data of autosomal and haploid lineages of the studied Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers. The genetic variation of Western Balkan populations reveals the continuity between the Middle East and Europe via the Balkan region and supports the scenario that one of the major routes of ancient gene flows and admixture went through the Balkan Peninsula."

Could someone please explain the last two sentences?
"Western Balkan populations reveals...genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers." Does this mean that Western Balkan populations and especially Western South Slavic speakers have genetic similarity and thus share common ancestry?
If so, why does the next sentence say there is "genetic variation of Western Balkan populations"? Doesn't "variation" mean differences?
I understand that they are saying that they have found evidence of genetic flow from the ME to Europe via the Balkans which was a major ancient route and that genetic similarities are found between the ME and the Balkans

Hando
08-27-2014, 06:44 PM
No. The exact opposite.
Thank you, but who exactly do they mean by "western Turkic peoples from West Eurasia? I thought western Turks were modern populations from Turkey and West Eurasia meant Turkey. Are there Turks even further west than this who resemble SSM?

Hando
08-27-2014, 06:47 PM
Contemporary inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula belong to several ethnic groups of diverse cultural background. In this study, three ethnic groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina - Bosniacs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs - as well as the populations of Serbians, Croatians, Macedonians from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrins and Kosovars have been characterized for the genetic variation of 660 000 genome-wide autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms and for haploid markers. New autosomal data of the 70 individuals together with previously published data of 20 individuals from the populations of the Western Balkan region in a context of 695 samples of global range have been analysed. Comparison of the variation data of autosomal and haploid lineages of the studied Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers. The genetic variation of Western Balkan populations reveals the continuity between the Middle East and Europe via the Balkan region and supports the scenario that one of the major routes of ancient gene flows and admixture went through the Balkan Peninsula.

Lejla Kovacevic: Standing at the Gateway to Europe - The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105090)
Abstract:


Dear Bernard, or anyone else who has read the above, could you please explain the last two sentences?
"Western Balkan populations reveals...genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers." Does this mean that Western Balkan populations and especially Western South Slavic speakers have genetic similarity and thus share common ancestry?
If so, why does the next sentence say there is "genetic variation of Western Balkan populations"? Doesn't "variation" mean differences?
I understand that they are saying that they have found evidence of genetic flow from the ME to Europe via the Balkans which was a major ancient route and that genetic similarities are found between the ME and the Balkans.

Jean M
08-27-2014, 06:56 PM
Thank you, but who exactly do they mean by "western Turkic peoples from West Eurasia? I thought western Turks were modern populations from Turkey and West Eurasia meant Turkey. Are there Turks even further west than this who resemble SSM?

If you read the actual paper, things might get clearer.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/08/13/005850

Hando
08-27-2014, 07:41 PM
If you read the actual paper, things might get clearer.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/08/13/005850

By west Eurasia and western Turks, I gather they mean Eastern Europe and Turkic populations there. Perhaps they mean the Turkic Tatars in the Crimea, the Bulgarians, Kalmuks and a few small groups. If so, I would have thought these groups, with the exception of the Kalmuks, were quite admixed with their East European Slavic neighbours. I even recall that Bulgarians are mostly Slavic now.

Humanist
08-27-2014, 08:01 PM
I even recall that Bulgarians are mostly Slavic now.

They are not. Although they clearly display a northern shift in the general direction of those populations that today speak a Balto-Slavic language. And please do not take the below map as definitive. It is simply one of what are several thousand analyses that have been performed over the course of the last handful of years on the autosomal DNA of the populations of the world.


Based on the median values of a 2012 Eurogenes SPA run:

Armenian -- A Armenian
Belarusian -- B Balto-Slavic
Bulgarian -- C Balto-Slavic
Lithuanian -- O Balto-Slavic
Polish -- S Balto-Slavic
Russian -- V Balto-Slavic
Ukrainian -- Z Balto-Slavic
Irish -- L Celtic
Danish -- E Germanic
Dutch -- F Germanic
English -- G Germanic
German -- I Germanic
Norwegian -- Q Germanic
Swedish -- X Germanic
Cypriot -- D Hellenic
Greek -- J Hellenic
Iranian -- K Indo-Iranian
Kurdish -- N Indo-Iranian
Ossetian -- R Indo-Iranian
French -- H Italic
Italian -- M Italic
North Italians -- P Italic
Portuguese -- T Italic
Romanian -- U Italic
Spanish -- W Italic
Tuscan -- Y Italic


http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/SPA_Indo_European.jpg

DMXX
08-27-2014, 08:03 PM
By west Eurasia and western Turks, I gather they mean Eastern Europe and Turkic populations there. Perhaps they mean the Turkic Tatars in the Crimea, the Bulgarians, Kalmuks and a few small groups. If so, I would have thought these groups, with the exception of the Kalmuks, were quite admixed with their East European Slavic neighbours. I even recall that Bulgarians are mostly Slavic now.

West Eurasia is a catch-all term for various landmasses, which includes Europe, North Africa and the Near-East. I advise you to refer to the original paper rather than deriving a discussion about something that can be conclusively be addressed through doing so. There is little point asking Jean M or anyone other members for elaborations on this or anything other points requiring clarity on your end, when reading the actual paper will answer your inquiries.

What is the precise misunderstanding you have with the paper's findings? They're reporting that Turkish-speaking populations mostly resemble their immediate neighbours best but there is a demonstrated degree of genetic linkage with the SSM groups through long segments. All I've done is slightly rephrase the original text.

Bernard
08-28-2014, 08:28 AM
Dear Bernard, or anyone else who has read the above, could you please explain the last two sentences?
"Western Balkan populations reveals...genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers." Does this mean that Western Balkan populations and especially Western South Slavic speakers have genetic similarity and thus share common ancestry?
If so, why does the next sentence say there is "genetic variation of Western Balkan populations"? Doesn't "variation" mean differences?
I understand that they are saying that they have found evidence of genetic flow from the ME to Europe via the Balkans which was a major ancient route and that genetic similarities are found between the ME and the Balkans.
Dear hando, if you read the paper here (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105090) you can answer yourself to your questions.

Ebizur
08-28-2014, 02:33 PM
Patterns of Admixture and Population Structure in Native Populations of Northwest North America
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004530



Nothing really surprising here.Yes, it is not really surprising, but I always appreciate extra evidence, and it is important to collect as many Native North American samples as possible before admixture proceeds any further.

One such not-really-surprising-but-interesting finding is that, when provided with European (Sardinian, non-Sardinian Italian, French, Basque, Orcadian, Russian, Adygei), East Asian (Xibo, Han, Dai, Hezhen, Lahu, Miao, Oroqen, She, Tujia, Tu, Yi, Naxi, Japanese, Mongol, Yakut), and American (Tlingit, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Haida, Splatsin, Stswecem'c, Seri, Pima, Maya, Colombian, Karitiana, Surui) inputs, ADMIXTURE always produces the first four components in the following order:

K=2: creates one component maximized in Sardinian and Basque ("European") and another component maximized in Karitiana and Surui ("American"), with all other populations appearing as mixtures of these two components in various proportions
K=3: derives a new component essentially from the K=2 "American" component that is maximized in Japanese, Tujia, Dai, She, and some Han samples ("East Asian")
K=4: derives a new component mostly from the K=3 "American" component but also partially from the K=3 "East Asian" component (and perhaps also a very small bit from the K=3 "European" component) that is maximized in the least admixed individuals among the sampled Tlingit, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, and Haida ("North American")

In other words, ADMIXTURE very regularly identifies a Native North American autosomal component distinct from a Native South American autosomal component (the latter maximized in the Karitiana) before it identifies any component that subdivides Europeans or East Asians.

However, the sampled North American indigenous peoples are heavily admixed with Europeans (mean membership in the European cluster = 0.344 with SD = 0.226), only a bit less admixed than Mexican Americans (mean membership in European cluster = 0.514 with SD = 0.150). In addition to their major European admixture, the Na-Dene-speaking Tlingit and Northern Interior Salish-speaking Splatsin and Stswecem'c also exhibit a significant but highly variable amount of East Asian admixture or excess East Asian affinity (ca. 50% in a few individuals, but ca. 10% in some other individuals) beyond that which can be accounted for by the minority element of East Asian affinity that, in combination with the majority element of South American affinity, constitutes the general Native North American autosomal component. This finding of excess East Asian affinity in some indigenous populations of northwestern North America is not unexpected, but it is important to note.

For higher numbers of K, ADMIXTURE is less certain about how to partition the autosomal variation. For K=5, ADMIXTURE mostly has trouble deciding whether it wants to further subdivide Native American autosomal variation, deriving a "Central American" (actually more like "southern North American," as it is maximized in the Pima) component that consists of roughly 2/3 to 3/4 "North American" of K=4 plus roughly 1/4 to 1/3 "South American" of K=4, or whether it wants to subdivide the K=4 "East Asian" component into a "Southwestern East Asian" component maximized in the Dai and Lahu and a "Northeastern East Asian" component maximized in the Japanese.

In any case, ADMIXTURE definitely prefers subdividing Native Americans and East Asians before it ever seriously considers subdividing Europeans. This fits with a lot of the data I have seen regarding Y-DNA and mtDNA of these populations; many Native American tribes seem to possess more-or-less private mtDNA variants of very great time depth (dating back almost to the presumed time of initial entry of modern humans into the American continent), and there is a very clear contrast between the haploid pools of Northeastern East Asians (mostly Y-DNA D and C, mtDNA M and N(xR)) and Southwestern East Asians (mostly Y-DNA NO and F*, mtDNA R).

J1 DYS388=13
08-30-2014, 09:49 AM
Antonio F. Pardińas et al.: Over the sands and far away: Interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins

If anybody purchases this paper, could you post a sentence or two describing the "Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time..." Thanks.

Bernard
09-01-2014, 08:21 AM
Antonio F. Pardińas et al.: Over the sands and far away: Interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins

If anybody purchases this paper, could you post a sentence or two describing the "Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time..." Thanks.
This is the paper (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1RIQRMwAdjpQ2xTN0xlZUIwNDA/edit?usp=sharing).

J1 DYS388=13
09-01-2014, 09:50 AM
They did 40 million Monte Carlo simulations on their data to estimate a TMRCA, then cast doubt on their own findings in the discussion section. Oh well.

R.Rocca
09-04-2014, 12:22 PM
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy et al., Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664

Y-DNA Neolithic: I, G and F*
mtDNA Mesolithic: U5b2a5
mtDNA Neolithic: H, HV, V, J, K, N1a, T1, T2, U, U2, U3, U4, U5a, W, and X

This was one of the papers read at the ISBA conference in August.

Of note, this paper includes (I think) the first I1 found in ancient DNA. The real shock, to me anyway, is the continued absence of Y-DNA J in farmers.

Artmar
09-04-2014, 01:20 PM
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy et al., Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664


Y-DNA Neolithic: I, G and F*
mtDNA Mesolithic: U5b2a5
mtDNA Neolithic: H, HV, V, J, K, N1a, T1, T2, U, U2, U3, U4, U5a, W, and X

This was one of the papers read at the ISBA conference in August.

I don't understand something. According to what I've read on page 13 and 14, the set should look like that:

Complete SNP profiles:
2 males from Transdanubian LBK:
1x I1-M253
1x G2a2b

7 Starcevo Culture males:
2x G2a2b-S126
1x G2a-P15
1x I2a1-P37.2
3x F*

And they have, 9 unambiguous results by SNP testing.

But according to what is written later, they have also another 8 males with incomplete SNP profiles:

Starcevo Culture:
3x G2a2b-S126
2x G2a-P15
1x I-M170
Transdanubian LBK:
1x G2a2b-S126
1x F*

But in the abstract, it is said about presenting 9 y-chromosomal profiles. So I guess they counted only complete, confident y-chromosomal results.
May someone enlighten me?

Atimeres
09-04-2014, 01:25 PM
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy et al., Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664[/quote]

I think Neolithic Starčevo this work haplogroup E1b1.

LBK above the Middle Danube (Balaton region) and LBK European Plain is a work:
Y-DNA Neolithic: I, G and F*
mtDNA Mesolithic: U5b2a5
mtDNA Neolithic: H, HV, V, J, K, N1a, T1, T2, U, U2, U3, U4, U5a, W, and X
This was one of the papers read at the ISBA conference in August.

In contrast, the neolithic/farming / of the central and northern Europe is the work of people LBK and TRB/FBK.
The TRB/FBK this work of the haplogroups I1 and I2
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm#I1_i_I2

Hok
09-04-2014, 01:29 PM
Of note, this paper includes (I think) the first I1 found in ancient DNA. The real shock, to me anyway, is the continued absence of Y-DNA J in farmers.

E-V13 is absent aswell.

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 01:34 PM
I think Neolithic Starčevo this work haplogroup E1b1.


Huh? The find from Starčevo did not yield any E1b1. A quick wiki search states that this culture was overrun by Pelasgians around 4200. Although this isn't the most reliable, it would make sense that people along the Mediterranean were pushing north in and around the Neolithic and their genetic signature was most likely E-V13.

There is ample proof that I2/I1 are not neolithic per-se, but were northern hunter gatherers who were absorbed, and perhaps even overran the incoming farmers.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 01:50 PM
Of note, this paper includes (I think) the first I1 found in ancient DNA. The real shock, to me anyway, is the continued absence of Y-DNA J in farmers.

Well they say it pretty explicitely, which is a good thing if you ask me:


Surprisingly, Y chromosome haplogroups, such as E1b1b1 (M35), E1b1b1a1 (M78), E1b1b1b2a
(M123), J2 (M172), J1 (M267), and R1b1a2 (M269), which were claimed to be associated with the
Neolithic expansion [23–25], have not been found so far in the 6th millennium BC of the
Carpathian Basin and Central Europe.

Though E-V13 was found in the Avellaner cave (Lacan et al. 2011; Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by men in the Neolithic dissemination), so I wouldn't discard it as a potential Neolithic marker (in fact it could be a major one as far as the Mediterranean neolithic is of concern).

Jean M
09-04-2014, 02:06 PM
There is ample proof that I2/I1 are not neolithic per-se, but were northern hunter gatherers who were absorbed ...

Not northern. Southern. This is a set of samples from the Carpathian Basin. The most likely source of the I2 are fishermen of Lepenski Vir on the Danube. They were a highly successful sedentary culture who could and did mix with incoming farmers on equal terms. They took wives from among the incoming farmers, and then adopted farming themselves, making it highly likely that some of their Y-DNA would survive.

The I1 is a surprise. Together with the lack of it in northern Mesolithic samples, it overturns my view that I1 was born from I in the north. Looks like Ken N. is right again. But I await his comments on the sample.

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 02:21 PM
Not northern. Southern. This is a set of samples from the Carpathian Basin. The most likely source of the I2 are fishermen of Lepenski Vir on the Danube. They were a highly successful sedentary culture who could and did mix with incoming farmers on equal terms. They took wives from among the incoming farmers, and then adopted farming themselves, making it highly likely that some of their Y-DNA would survive.

The I1 is a surprise. Together with the lack of it in northern Mesolithic samples, it overturns my view that I1 was born from I in the north. Looks like Ken N. is right again. But I await his comments on the sample.

Since no YDNA has been profiled from true south-eastern foragers outside of a neolithic context, it's still a bit hasty to make that conclusion. I don't recall Mr. Nordvedt stating I1 was 9,000 years old, but I could be wrong. I haven't been following the latest I->I1 SNPs so perhaps the new dates fall in line with these aDNA discoveries.
Moving this tangent to another thread might be warranted.

parasar
09-04-2014, 02:46 PM
...The real shock, to me anyway, is the continued absence of Y-DNA J in farmers.
Once again, there is no L(x N) of any kind and the N1 is 16147A.

Palanichamy, 2010:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/304


The phylogeny reveals an early split of African/Near East lineages with the HV1 region variant 16147G from the European and Central Asian lineages, which carry the 16147A variant ...

Based on the current N1a haplogroup phylogeny and phylogeographic information on the farmer mtDNA associated subclades distribution, we suppose that the farmer lineages-DEB3, FLO1, and HAL2 might be derived from local communities and that they would have adopted the farming culture indigenously. Therefore, the results of the present study are somewhat difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the N1a lineages were brought into central Europe by the Neolithic farmers from the Near East by a major demic diffusion event. Moreover, the evidence from phylogeographic analysis of N1a lineages emphasizes that European farmer N1a lineages might have been originated from different sources- from eastern Europe (for N1a1a1), from Near East via southern Europe (for N1a1b and perhaps for N1a1a3), and from local central European source (for N1a1a2).



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209017679

the non-local mtDNA of Central Europe's earliest farmers [1] will probably not turn out to be of Near Eastern origin, but will more likely be of Greek, Balkan, or Black Sea hunter-gatherer descent — hunter-gatherer genes swept up into the previous pulse of farming advance.

R.Rocca
09-04-2014, 03:24 PM
Once again, there is no L(x N) of any kind and the N1 is 16147A.

Palanichamy, 2010:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/304



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209017679

From today's paper...


In our opinion, these newly described seven different incomplete HVS-I haplotypes (np 16095-16369) only provide a limited basis for comparative aDNA analyses, and we thus still consider modern-day Near Eastern genetic data sufficient proxies, when tracing the origin of the first European farmers.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 03:39 PM
From today's paper...

That doesn't make much sense, though.

Jean M
09-04-2014, 03:54 PM
Since no YDNA has been profiled from true south-eastern foragers outside of a neolithic context, it's still a bit hasty to make that conclusion.

Not really. I was disappointed that they didn't get a sample of Mesolithic Y-DNA, but logical deduction gets us there. Northern Europe was of course populated from southern refuges in the Mesolithic, so the I2 in the Scandinavian Mesolithic will have come from further south. The Danube/Carpathian Basin was always the most likely source for I2, and now we have some right there.


I don't recall Mr. Nordvedt stating I1 was 9,000 years old

Where do you get the idea I said he did? We seem to be at cross-purposes here.

jeanL
09-04-2014, 04:34 PM
Isn't the discovery of I1 in this ancient DNA sample kind of a blow for the linear STR based (Klyosov, Nordvedt, etc) age estimates which placed it as being only 4000-5000 years old?

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 04:37 PM
Not really. I was disappointed that they didn't get a sample of Mesolithic Y-DNA, but logical deduction gets us there. Northern Europe was of course populated from southern refuges in the Mesolithic, so the I2 in the Scandinavian Mesolithic will have come from further south. The Danube/Carpathian Basin was always the most likely source for I2, and now we have some right there.


Thinking it over again, you are probably right here. If the south-eastern foragers were indeed different from the northern ones, I would have expected a trace of it by the time the farmers reached the Carpathians.

The only exception might be the spread of farming through cardial expansion. I suspect E-V13 was carried west along the Mediterranean with those G2a farmers. In other words, maybe those Aegean foragers were E-V13.

R.Rocca
09-04-2014, 04:46 PM
That doesn't make much sense, though.

The global similarity maps (supplementary figures S3a-b) seem to make their point, especially if taken into account with heavy prior mtDNA U in Central Europe.

Jean M
09-04-2014, 05:14 PM
Isn't the discovery of I1 in this ancient DNA sample kind of a blow for the linear STR based (Klyosov, Nordvedt, etc) age estimates which placed it as being only 4000-5000 years old?

As I said, I await Ken's comments. It seems quite likely that this sample has some, but not all, of the SNPs that characterise all the modern I1. There's a huge list of them.

Bernard
09-04-2014, 05:18 PM
Isn't the discovery of I1 in this ancient DNA sample kind of a blow for the linear STR based (Klyosov, Nordvedt, etc) age estimates which placed it as being only 4000-5000 years old?
The discovery of this I1 ancient DNA sample is based on only one marker M253. The definition of the I1 haplogroup on ISOGG is based on a list of many SNPs: CTS5783/S63, CTS11042/S66, L64, L75, L80, L81, L118, L121/S62, L123, L124/S64, L125/S65, L157.1, L186, L187, L840, L845/S110/YSC0000278, M253, M307.2/P203.2, M450/S109, P30, P40, S107, S108, S111/Y1868

If M253 SNP is one of the first markers of this list, it can be much older than the common ancestor of all the living I1 people

Jean M
09-04-2014, 05:23 PM
maybe those Aegean foragers were E-V13.

:biggrin1: That would certainly turn everyone's ideas on their heads. But let's be serious. The Aegean foragers disappeared before the farmers arrived. This may have been the result of a climate change that turned that part of Europe very arid. Or it might just been them following the herds of cold-adapted animals north.

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 05:46 PM
:biggrin1: That would certainly turn everyone's ideas on their heads. But let's be serious. The Aegean foragers disappeared before the farmers arrived. This may have been the result of a climate change that turned that part of Europe very arid. Or it might just been them following the herds of cold-adapted animals north.

Well the E-V13 Cardial needs to be accounted for and hasn't turned up anywhere else. E-V13 must have been lingering around the SE periphery of Europe at the time. I can't imagine a west to east expansion across the north Mediterranean, although it should be considered if that branch somehow crossed Gibraltar.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 06:07 PM
The global similarity maps (supplementary figures S3a-b) seem to make their point, especially if taken into account with heavy prior mtDNA U in Central Europe.


Still, the logic is kind of faulty, here's the full quote:


Recent aDNA study from 8000 BC Near
Eastern farmers raises the question whether modern Near Eastern mtDNA can be used as a
proxy for the Near Eastern Neolithic variability [44]. In our opinion, these newly described seven
different incomplete HVS-I haplotypes (np 16095-16369) only provide a limited basis for
comparative aDNA analyses, and we thus still consider modern-day Near Eastern genetic data
sufficient proxies, when tracing the origin of the first European farmers.

I mean, sure these haplotypes are incomplete but as far as I'm aware that certainly doesn't favour a model where contemporary Near Easterners can be used as proxies... Quite the opposite, if anything.

Jean M
09-04-2014, 06:08 PM
Well the E-V13 Cardial needs to be accounted for and hasn't turned up anywhere else. E-V13 must have been lingering around the SE periphery of Europe at the time.

Cardial Ware came from Impressed Ware, which started in the northern Levant. The present distribution of sub-clades of Y-DNA E1b1b1 (M35.1) across both the northern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean is a clue that it spread from the Near East in the Neolithic. The paucity of any branch of E1b1b1 (M35.1) today in the Caucasus and Indus Valley suggests that this haplogroup was not involved in Neolithic movements eastwards and northwards from the Zagros Mountains. It may have arrived in the Levant from north Africa once the desert had receded enough to allow passage. Thus it would not have taken part in the very earliest stages of the Neolithic in the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent, but moved north gradually to join the farmers. Then the subclades of E1b1b1 helped to spread farming in the Mediterranean.

In north Africa there is an east-west cline in the subclade E1b1b1b1a (M81), with genetic diversity increasing towards the Near East. The estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) suggest a largely Neolithic origin. So it seems that Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Near East disbursed across north Africa, generating the Berber languages and Ancient Egyptian.

jeanL
09-04-2014, 06:13 PM
The discovery of this I1 ancient DNA sample is based on only one marker M253. The definition of the I1 haplogroup on ISOGG is based on a list of many SNPs: CTS5783/S63, CTS11042/S66, L64, L75, L80, L81, L118, L121/S62, L123, L124/S64, L125/S65, L157.1, L186, L187, L840, L845/S110/YSC0000278, M253, M307.2/P203.2, M450/S109, P30, P40, S107, S108, S111/Y1868

If M253 SNP is one of the first markers of this list, it can be much older than the common ancestor of all the living I1 people

That would apply if they happen to test for the other SNPs and they turned out to be negative/ancestral. I'm not aware of any testing in that sense.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 06:24 PM
Cardial Ware came from Impressed Ware, which started in the northern Levant. The present distribution of sub-clades of Y-DNA E1b1b1 (M35.1) across both the northern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean is a clue that it spread from the Near East in the Neolithic. The paucity of any branch of E1b1b1 (M35.1) today in the Caucasus and Indus Valley suggests that this haplogroup was not involved in Neolithic movements eastwards and northwards from the Zagros Mountains. It may have arrived in the Levant from north Africa once the desert had receded enough to allow passage. Thus it would not have taken part in the very earliest stages of the Neolithic in the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent, but moved north gradually to join the farmers. Then the subclades of E1b1b1 helped to spread farming in the Mediterranean.

In north Africa there is an east-west cline in the subclade E1b1b1b1a (M81), with genetic diversity increasing towards the Near East. The estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) suggest a largely Neolithic origin. So it seems that Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Near East disbursed across north Africa, generating the Berber languages and Ancient Egyptian.

Such a model means that J1 as well as T-M70 have to be involved in AA's early stages.
Even though I suspect the AA Urheimat is to be found in NE Africa between the Nile and the Sudanian Red Sea coast, I find a semi-nomadic pastoralist model for the spread of AA's Northern branches pretty convincing.

alan
09-04-2014, 06:30 PM
Is cardial not very little sampled in comparison to Balkans and LBK? Too little to conclude anything?

Actually this is linked to the reason why I started that thread on SW Asia they other day. I think there is complex geographical-chronological patterning there that explains the knock-on effect in Europe. I think J may have been on the east side of the Tigres/Eurphrates c. 8-6000BC and simply tended to move from there south and north instead of west in large numbers. G somehow was in a position to have a great effect on Europe. I also posted that I believe that NW Anatolia had an I substrate as it did have the Agach epigravettian type hunters on the north-west coastal area. You can see suggestions in Fikirtepe culture that there was a mix of farmers and hunter-fishers in that culture so it could have been a mix of G and I.

sparkey
09-04-2014, 06:31 PM
Isn't the discovery of I1 in this ancient DNA sample kind of a blow for the linear STR based (Klyosov, Nordvedt, etc) age estimates which placed it as being only 4000-5000 years old?

The clade age of I1 is estimated at much older than 4000-5000 years old, it's estimated at more like 22,000 years old. You must be thinking of TMRCA estimation of modern samples, which presents no contradiction. This wouldn't be the first time a now-extinct branch (or perhaps a direct ancestor?) has been found in an ancient sample. La Brana was apparently a now-extinct branch of C-V20, Loschbour was apparently a now-extinct branch of I2-P37.2, and if I recall correctly, the Avellaner Cave E-V13 predated certain E-V13 TMRCA estimates.

vettor
09-04-2014, 06:34 PM
Well they say it pretty explicitely, which is a good thing if you ask me:



Though E-V13 was found in the Avellaner cave (Lacan et al. 2011; Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by men in the Neolithic dissemination), so I wouldn't discard it as a potential Neolithic marker (in fact it could be a major one as far as the Mediterranean neolithic is of concern).

The missing J which has always been associated with marker I as a "group" should be looked at.

I once read that the Zargos mountains running from NW to SE direction was a divide, with E and J to the south of it , while IGTLH on the northern side.

Lets see, ........why would a tribe ( J) want to travel over the Zargos mountains when you have the fertile lands of Mesopotamia around you

alan
09-04-2014, 06:37 PM
Could E have been a substrate left from the Natufian hunters who survived somewhere in the Levant?


Such a model means that J1 as well as T-M70 have to be involved in AA's early stages.
Even though I suspect the AA Urheimat is to be found in NE Africa between the Nile and the Sudanian Red Sea coast, I find a semi-nomadic pastoralist model for the spread of AA's Northern branches pretty convincing.

Jean M
09-04-2014, 06:41 PM
Such a model means that J1 as well as T-M70 have to be involved in AA's early stages..

Let's not leap to conclusions. Y-DNA Haplogroup J1 seems to have been associated with at least one other language family in the Neolithic. Some ended up in the Caucasus. It need not have been heavily associated with AA before the Copper Age development of Proto-Semitic.

alan
09-04-2014, 06:49 PM
Maybe the two great rivers were barriers that tended to groups peoples on the east, west or between them. Also we need to take into account the complex history of Mesopotamia. Initially they were rainfall farmers. Later Neolithic cultures like Halaf, Hassuna and Samara followed that sort of life style. Then there was a bad period of aridity that scattered peoples. I forget the details. Then there was the the movement south of people to form the Ubaid culture and the development of irrigation in Ubaid 2 much further down stream and then there was the expansion of those southerners northwards during the Uruk expansion. Its pretty complex. Marginal areas of high aridity probably suffered some incredibly population displacements in the past.


The missing J which has always been associated with marker I as a "group" should be looked at.

I once read that the Zargos mountains running from NW to SE direction was a divide, with E and J to the south of it , while IGTLH on the northern side.

Lets see, ........why would a tribe ( J) want to travel over the Zargos mountains when you have the fertile lands of Mesopotamia around you

alan
09-04-2014, 06:53 PM
Maybe the lower stretches of the two great rivers were barriers that tended to groups peoples on the east, west or between them. Also we need to take into account the complex history of Mesopotamia. Initially they were rainfall farmers. Later Neolithic cultures like Halaf, Hassuna and Samara followed that sort of life style. Then there was a bad period of aridity that scattered peoples. I forget the details. Then there was the the movement south of people to form the Ubaid culture and the development of irrigation in Ubaid 2 much further down stream and then there was the expansion of those southerners northwards during the Uruk expansion. Its pretty complex. Marginal areas of high aridity probably suffered some incredibly population displacements in the past.


The missing J which has always been associated with marker I as a "group" should be looked at.

I once read that the Zargos mountains running from NW to SE direction was a divide, with E and J to the south of it , while IGTLH on the northern side.

Lets see, ........why would a tribe ( J) want to travel over the Zargos mountains when you have the fertile lands of Mesopotamia around you

vettor
09-04-2014, 06:54 PM
Such a model means that J1 as well as T-M70 have to be involved in AA's early stages.
Even though I suspect the AA Urheimat is to be found in NE Africa between the Nile and the Sudanian Red Sea coast, I find a semi-nomadic pastoralist model for the spread of AA's Northern branches pretty convincing.

J1 and T-M70 cannot be associated together because past papers clearly states the levant T-M70 as well as the Arabian peninsula T-M70 are far too young ( of the T family).....and T that arrived in the levant was the T that went into Egypt which then went to the Sudan and eventually to Somalia.

I believe J1 runs from the levant to the Persian gulf ( basra).......I can only see E as its companion in the early groups in the levant

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 07:08 PM
Cardial Ware came from Impressed Ware, which started in the northern Levant. The present distribution of sub-clades of Y-DNA E1b1b1 (M35.1) across both the northern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean is a clue that it spread from the Near East in the Neolithic. The paucity of any branch of E1b1b1 (M35.1) today in the Caucasus and Indus Valley suggests that this haplogroup was not involved in Neolithic movements eastwards and northwards from the Zagros Mountains. It may have arrived in the Levant from north Africa once the desert had receded enough to allow passage. Thus it would not have taken part in the very earliest stages of the Neolithic in the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent, but moved north gradually to join the farmers. Then the subclades of E1b1b1 helped to spread farming in the Mediterranean.


I agree with this, no need to bring in linguistics ;)

Hando
09-04-2014, 07:20 PM
In north Africa there is an east-west cline in the subclade E1b1b1b1a (M81), with genetic diversity increasing towards the Near East. The estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) suggest a largely Neolithic origin. So it seems that Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Near East disbursed across north Africa, generating the Berber languages and Ancient Egyptian.
So these Afro Asiatic speaking pastoralists who generated the Ancient Egyptians were a Basal Eurasian descended people?

Humanist
09-04-2014, 07:28 PM
T-M70 cannot be associated together because past papers clearly states the levant T-M70 as well as the Arabian peninsula T-M70 are far too young ( of the T family)

What is your source? And please do not provide a vague reference.

vettor
09-04-2014, 07:32 PM
What is your source? And please do not provide a vague reference.

this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/

Haplogroup T-M184 is not associated with the R1, G and J lineages that entered Africa from Eurasia relatively recently. Luis et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of the clade on the African continent may, like R1* representatives, point to an older introduction from Asia. The Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula appears to have been the main route of entry, as the Egyptian and Turkish haplotypes are considerably older in age (13,700 ybp and 9,000 ybp, respectively) than those found in Oman (only 1,600 ybp)

and one other which I will get soon

Humanist
09-04-2014, 07:40 PM
this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/

Haplogroup T-M184 is not associated with the R1, G and J lineages that entered Africa from Eurasia relatively recently. Luis et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of the clade on the African continent may, like R1* representatives, point to an older introduction from Asia. The Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula appears to have been the main route of entry, as the Egyptian and Turkish haplotypes are considerably older in age (13,700 ybp and 9,000 ybp, respectively) than those found in Oman (only 1,600 ybp)

and one other which I will get soon

That does not establish what you are asserting.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 08:11 PM
Let's not leap to conclusions. Y-DNA Haplogroup J1 seems to have been associated with at least one other language family in the Neolithic. Some ended up in the Caucasus. It need not have been heavily associated with AA before the Copper Age development of Proto-Semitic.

That's also what I thought until Plaster found high amounts of J (presumably J1 for the most) in North Omotic speakers such as the Shekecho, Kefa & Yem (along with T-M70 in Cushitic speakers)... And let's not forget J1 in prehispanic Guanches either.

Though I do agree that J1 as a whole potentially covers a vast array of language families, one must keep in mind that those who favour a Near Eastern/Levantine Urheimat for Proto-AA also tend to emphasize AA's links to Eurasian languages (such as Sumerian) while those who advocate in favour of an African Urheimat often stress AA's similarity to other African language families (I susbcribe to the latter for the most, though I do not reject the former either, both views have convincing elements as well as outlandish ones).

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 08:15 PM
So these Afro Asiatic speaking pastoralists who generated the Ancient Egyptians were a Basal Eurasian descended people?

I'd be surprised if they weren't, quite frankly.
The common ancestor of Berber, Semitic and Egyptian (variously labeled "Boreafrasian" or "North Afrasian") seems to have been spoken by semi-nomadic pastoralists and this fits in quite well with what we know about these languages (at least as far as internal reconstruction is of concern).

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 08:24 PM
I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, but can anyone confirm if the samples, in particular the context of the G2a (S126 ) were tested for:

L141, P303, L140, U1

Since these mutations are most commonly found in both north and south European G2a men today, it may give us an indication if these subsequent mutations were derived locally in Europe, or a separate migration of G men came to Europe later.

EDIT: Looking through the SNPs tested, it seems these SNPs were not part of the tests. However, the F samples could belong to H-M282 (aka F3) which has a real, but limited presence across Europe in typical "Germanic" speaking countries.

Ebizur
09-05-2014, 12:00 AM
The clade age of I1 is estimated at much older than 4000-5000 years old, it's estimated at more like 22,000 years old. You must be thinking of TMRCA estimation of modern samples, which presents no contradiction. This wouldn't be the first time a now-extinct branch (or perhaps a direct ancestor?) has been found in an ancient sample. La Brana was apparently a now-extinct branch of C-V20, Loschbour was apparently a now-extinct branch of I2-P37.2, and if I recall correctly, the Avellaner Cave E-V13 predated certain E-V13 TMRCA estimates.Yes, you have recalled the matter correctly. However, "Southwest Asian" E1b1b1b2a-M123 and "North African" E1b1b1b1a-M81 now are recognized to share a more recent common ancestor (E1b1b1b-CTS1243/Z827) than either of those subclades shares with "European" E1b1b1a1-M78, which is a superclade of E1b1b1a1b1a-V13. The TMRCA of the entire E-M78 clade seems to be roughly 15,000 years, whereas the TMRCA of the {E-M78 + E-CTS1243} superset seems to be roughly 20,000 years (or, more generally, the TMRCA of E-M78 appears to be approximately 3/4 of the TMRCA of the {E-M78 + E-CTS1243} superset.) I am not sure about the branch lengths in the phylogeny between E-M78 and E-V13, but, judging from the aforementioned facts, the age of the E-V13 mutation (as opposed to the TMRCA of extant representatives of E-V13) could be as much as nearly 15,000 years or almost 3/4 of the TMRCA of {E-M78 + E-CTS1243}.

Judging from the TMRCA estimates, it is hypothetically possible that E-M78 might have existed in some Mesolithic culture of southeastern Europe, with its descendants, including the widespread E-V13 subclade, participating in the development of the Thessalian Neolithic approximately 9000 to 10000 YBP and subsequently spreading outward from that region. As I recall from reading the original source (Lacan et al. 2011), the Neolithic affinity of the burial tradition reflected at the Avellaner site is questionable. It seems possible that the people buried in that cave might have been descendants of colonists from an early Neolithic culture in southeastern Europe that contained genetic influences from both the local Mesolithic inhabitants and Neolithic immigrants.

GailT
09-05-2014, 03:33 AM
mtDNA Mesolithic: U5b2a5


Not sure the U5b2a5 is reliable as it seems to be predicted from HVR1 results, 16270 and 16311. It is missing 16189, and 16311 is an extremely common mutation, so I would not trust this ID unles CR results are also available.

The U5a1 samples matches in HVR1 with U5a1* samples from Italy and Russia and also a U5a1b sample from Slovakia, so it would be interesting to see CR results for this sample to determine it's relationshop to other U5a1.

Jean M
09-05-2014, 10:36 AM
Judging from the TMRCA estimates, it is hypothetically possible that E-M78 might have existed in some Mesolithic culture of southeastern Europe, with its descendants, including the widespread E-V13 subclade, participating in the development of the Thessalian Neolithic approximately 9000 to 10000 YBP and subsequently spreading outward from that region.

This hypothesis seems to require a lot of special pleading, but now I come to think about it, the few Mesolithic sites in Greece are coastal and there is no continuity from the Palaeolithic. These people presumably arrived from elsewhere once the climate improved. An arrival from the Near East might explain what seemed strange aDNA results from the Franchthi Cave Mesolithic, unpublished, but reported in a lecture.

Jean M
09-05-2014, 10:46 AM
...one must keep in mind that those who favour a Near Eastern/Levantine Urheimat for Proto-AA also tend to emphasize AA's links to Eurasian languages (such as Sumerian) while those who advocate in favour of an African Urheimat often stress AA's similarity to other African language families ....

I assumed that this conflict could be resolved if we picture pre-AA arriving in the Levant from NE Africa in the Mesolithic, meeting the farmers and borrowing vocabulary from them to develop Proto-AA. Then some of the latter speakers moved to North Africa with farming, while others remained to develop Proto-Semitic. That was the solution I proffered in AJ, p. 83. I don't want to drag this thread kicking and screaming into the realms of linguistics, so perhaps you could contact me privately if you feel I went wrong, so I can correct if I get the chance.

Agamemnon
09-05-2014, 12:41 PM
I assumed that this conflict could be resolved if we picture pre-AA arriving in the Levant from NE Africa in the Mesolithic, meeting the farmers and borrowing vocabulary from them to develop Proto-AA. Then some of the latter speakers moved to North Africa with farming, while others remained to develop Proto-Semitic. That was the solution I proffered in AJ, p. 83. I don't want to drag this thread kicking and screaming into the realms of linguistics, so perhaps you could contact me privately if you feel I went wrong, so I can correct if I get the chance.

In fact, that's also the kind of model I'd favour but it's still too early to tell IMO, AA studies are still in their infancy.

Jean M
09-05-2014, 01:28 PM
In fact, that's also the kind of model I'd favour but it's still too early to tell IMO, AA studies are still in their infancy.

I see what you mean. How unsporting of me to solve the problem before the linguists have had the chance to really wrangle those isoglosses into submission. ;) Seriously, the answers to linguistic puzzles must come from linguistics of course.

DMXX
09-05-2014, 01:52 PM
Following on from this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=50783&viewfull=1#post50783) (very recent study, 44 populations, 979 17 Y-STR haplotypes).

There's a lot of useful information in the supplementaries - Quite a few new populations have been showcased here. I've written a blog entry very superficially covering those interesting finds, while also collating most of the results (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2014/09/worldwide-population-y-dna-collated-xu.html):



This paper showcases a staggering 979 distinct Y-DNA 17 STR haplotypes across 44 distinct populations from across the world. These haplotypes are soon to be uploaded to the Y-STR Haplotype Resource Database (YHRD). The authors have made all the haplotypes, together with a slew of additional information, publicly available independent of the official article (raw haplotypes, Y-DNA haplogroup predictions).

In this entry, the collated results of all populations are presented, together with cursory inferences provided with the intention of aiding interpreting them. ...

Although at least three drawbacks (four including the MRCA calculations) are identified here, this study provides researchers worldwide with a plethora of data from populations that are either poorly represented in the current literature or have been entirely absent until present. The majority of the results outline the wide Y-chromosomal diversity across the world, whilst also revealing specific trends that have been established in both the current literature and in online discussion boards. An mtDNA counterpart of this paper would be a wonderful addition to see sometime in the near future. ...


Links to spreadsheets showing these per region/continent are included in the entry. To be frank, with this amount of data, a full team of analysts is required, but I fleshed out as much immediately informative topics as possible.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts, and more importantly, further exploring of the data.

ADW_1981
09-05-2014, 02:51 PM
Following on from this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=50783&viewfull=1#post50783) (very recent study, 44 populations, 979 17 Y-STR haplotypes).

There's a lot of useful information in the supplementaries - Quite a few new populations have been showcased here. I've written a blog entry very superficially covering those interesting finds, while also collating most of the results (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2014/09/worldwide-population-y-dna-collated-xu.html):



Links to spreadsheets showing these per region/continent are included in the entry. To be frank, with this amount of data, a full team of analysts is required, but I fleshed out as much immediately informative topics as possible.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts, and more importantly, further exploring of the data.


Haven''t looked completely, but the first couple with respect to R1b.

Danes (Copenhagen) = 17/28 = 60%
Hungarians (Budapest) = 12/39 = 31%

I anticipate a lot of the P-M45 in populations like Yemenite Jews and Hausa is actually R1b-V88, but difficult to say without actually seeing the haplotype.

parasar
09-05-2014, 03:17 PM
Following on from this post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=50783&viewfull=1#post50783) (very recent study, 44 populations, 979 17 Y-STR haplotypes).

There's a lot of useful information in the supplementaries - Quite a few new populations have been showcased here. I've written a blog entry very superficially covering those interesting finds, while also collating most of the results (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2014/09/worldwide-population-y-dna-collated-xu.html):



Links to spreadsheets showing these per region/continent are included in the entry. To be frank, with this amount of data, a full team of analysts is required, but I fleshed out as much immediately informative topics as possible.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts, and more importantly, further exploring of the data.

A few of the entries at your blog caught my eye:

"The Laotians appear to have one man with DE*-M1" - The Laos-Vietnam region is where I think much of current AMH came out of post Toba.

"The Karitiana are predominantly Q-MEH2 but appear to have some Eurasian admixture through E-U175, L-M27 and R-M417 ... Quechua people, although C-M217 and T-L162 make their first appearance here." - If this is recent Eurasian, then the Karitiana should not be used in population studies as representing some early type of Amerindian. It is still interesting to see both L and T make an appearance along with R and the ubiquitous Amerindian Q.

Edit: Which Karitiana samples are L-M27 and R-M417? Thanks.

Shaikorth
09-05-2014, 03:40 PM
"The Karitiana are predominantly Q-MEH2 but appear to have some Eurasian admixture through E-U175, L-M27 and R-M417 ... Quechua people, although C-M217 and T-L162 make their first appearance here." - If this is recent Eurasian, then the Karitiana should not be used in population studies as representing some early type of Amerindian. It is still interesting to see both L and T make an appearance along with R and the ubiquitous Amerindian Q.

That Karitiana result was not too unexpected, in a previous thread I suspected Eurasian admixture due to their high amount of blue eye-related alleles compared to some other Amazon natives.

DMXX
09-05-2014, 03:48 PM
For future reference ladies and gentlemen, please note the authors themselves used the exact same subclade predictor as myself and published their own list with ID's paired up (here (http://link.springer.com/content/esm/art:10.1007/s00438-014-0903-8/file/MediaObjects/438_2014_903_MOESM9_ESM.xls)). You may check out samples of interest there and cross-refer with the raw haplotypes (here (http://link.springer.com/content/esm/art:10.1007/s00438-014-0903-8/file/MediaObjects/438_2014_903_MOESM4_ESM.xls)). It'd also help me prune out any more errors given what happened with the Karitiana below.



I anticipate a lot of the P-M45 in populations like Yemenite Jews and Hausa is actually R1b-V88, but difficult to say without actually seeing the haplotype.

These are the Yemenite Jewish predicted P*-M45 ID's: JK1251, JK2216, ,JK2217, JK2218
And, these are the Hausa ones: JK4000, JK4025


If this is recent Eurasian, then the Karitiana should not be used in population studies as representing some early type of Amerindian.


Fully agree. The other populations with 100% Q-MEH2, at least from a paternal point of view, make better candidates.



Edit: Which Karitiana samples are L-M27 and R-M417? Thanks.

Drat. A small error was made. There actually isn't any L-M27 or R-M417 among the Karitiana; Keralite samples accidentally got mixed in. I'll be editing the entry shortly.

Having said that, there actually is an E-U175 individual who was sampled among the Karitiana (ID JK1376).

parasar
09-05-2014, 03:54 PM
That Karitiana result was not too unexpected, in a previous thread I suspected Eurasian admixture due to their high amount of blue eye-related alleles compared to some other Amazon natives.

I went and reviewed the STR data, and to me they all look Q.
One STR haplotype is off the Q norm, but I would not rely on a predictor to put it in a non-Q E-U175 (seen mostly in sub-Saharan Africans) category.

DMXX
09-05-2014, 03:59 PM
That Karitiana result was not too unexpected, in a previous thread I suspected Eurasian admixture due to their high amount of blue eye-related alleles compared to some other Amazon natives.


I went and reviewed the STR data, and to me they all look Q.
One STR haplotype is off the Q norm, but I would not rely on a predictor to put it in a non-Q E-U175 (seen mostly in sub-Saharan Africans) category.

Please see post 137. The predictor isn't perfect, which I highlighted in the entry. Some of the African populations were getting pretty spurious results. I suspect these tools are engineered best for Eurasian populations, which makes sense, given the sheer amount of data available and maintained interest from both ends of the supercontinent.

As for Karitiana, YPredictor calculated the E-U175 individual with a probability of 81%. I'd refer to an E expert's opinion on this (Andrew Lancaster?).

alan
09-05-2014, 04:09 PM
It has been suggested before that the Greek Mesolithic is quite unlike the European one, might be intrusive and might have parallels in the east Med. Now if the east Med. did have a pre-farming E population then that would make sense.

alan
09-05-2014, 04:32 PM
This notes on p23 that the soft stone grooved tools of Mesolithic Greece suggest contacts with the Near East. Again could there have been an influx of genes from there in pre-farming times. I would be interested to know more about this.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e1SQG8JN-bYC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=greek+mesolithic&source=bl&ots=pmZC2qOG6I&sig=A0LrsSzZ1wF0XdSuwx4nh_eol8w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NuIJVJH1L4zVatWbgcgP&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=greek%20mesolithic&f=false

ADW_1981
09-05-2014, 04:34 PM
For future reference ladies and gentlemen, please note the authors themselves used the exact same subclade predictor as myself and published their own list with ID's paired up .

Thanks DMXX, I missed the spreadsheet somehow.
I'm pretty certain of my claim now that P-M45 = R-V88

JK1252 Yemen Jewish is predicted to be R1b1b2, but actually has the haplotype motif of the R-V88 cluster. When you compare JK1252 haplotype to the "P-45" predicted ones you can see they are part of the same cluster, except that JK1251, JK2216, JK2217, and JK2218 all have a rare mutation on DYS385ab (13-17 instead of 13-14) which is causing the predictor to be off. The 4 anomaly samples of R1b-V88 have a GD of 2 between them.

This puts the R1b rate of Yemen Jews to 7/21 samples- 33%, and 5 of those under the R-V88 umbrella, the other two being L23*/M269*

On the Hausa:

JK4025 is confidently V88
JK4000 doesn't seem to be R1b or anything close to it.

That puts R-V88 at 6/16 Hausa samples, or 37.5% which is inline with the FTDNA Chadic project.

parasar
09-05-2014, 04:39 PM
...
As for Karitiana, YPredictor calculated the E-U175 individual with a probability of 81%. I'd refer to an E expert's opinion on this (Andrew Lancaster?).

I agree, no doubt 81% is high.
Though even if E-U175 is correct, it points to an African input, rather than a European one. On the Karitiana's high ANE and rs12913832G issue, a recent European input is one that would be of concern.

alan
09-05-2014, 04:41 PM
This mentions that the Mesolithic round houses and burials under floors at the Greek Aegean island of Maroulas have parallels with the Natufian of Syria and Palestine. Add that to the soft stone grooved tools and there is some suggestion that the peculiar Greek Neolithic may have had connections with the Levant. Could this be how E got to Greece in later pre-farming times?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YVSg-DOHzJMC&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=greek+mesolithic+links+with+levant&source=bl&ots=PNkfJZnQsn&sig=Zxw8vCSrBsAEGQiZujqZ9a3VCls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3-UJVID0KIjPaPv3gJAG&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=greek%20mesolithic%20links%20with%20levant&f=false

nuadha
09-05-2014, 04:43 PM
This hypothesis seems to require a lot of special pleading, but now I come to think about it, the few Mesolithic sites in Greece are coastal and there is no continuity from the Palaeolithic. These people presumably arrived from elsewhere once the climate improved. An arrival from the Near East might explain what seemed strange aDNA results from the Franchthi Cave Mesolithic, unpublished, but reported in a lecture.

Not sure why you would assume that those Mesolithic Greeks had to have come from the Near East, or better yet, why there had to be so much genetic discontinuity between Europe and the Near East just before the early Mesolithic. There could have been exchanges back and forth years before the Mesolithic.

Also, are you assuming a homogeneous mix of "neolithic like" mtdna in the near east at the start of the Mesolithic?

Jean M
09-05-2014, 04:56 PM
This mentions that the Mesolithic round houses and burials under floors at the Greek Aegean island of Maroulas have parallels with the Natufian of Syria and Palestine. Add that to the soft stone grooved tools and there is some suggestion that the peculiar Greek Neolithic may have had connections with the Levant. Could this be how E got to Greece in later pre-farming times?

We haven't actually found Y-DNA E in Greece in pre-farming times. That's just a bit of speculation going on. There were some unexpected (by me) mtDNA results from Mesolithic Greece reported in a lecture in 2012. At the time I said I'd wait until the study was published before I tried to work out what had happened there. Could have been errors in dating or whatever. But the material you have turned up makes it a lot more likely that what seemed strange actually makes sense. Thanks for that. Very interesting.

Silesian
09-05-2014, 05:04 PM
This puts the R1b rate of Yemen Jews to 7/21 samples- 33%, and 5 of those under the R-V88 umbrella, the other two being L23*/M269*..



I found it interesting J1c3-P58 is found in, Yemenite Jews/Israel-Samaritans/Druze.

Humanist
09-05-2014, 05:14 PM
I found it interesting J1c3-P58 is found in, Yemenite Jews/Israel-Samaritans/Druze.

What is interesting about it?

vettor
09-05-2014, 06:48 PM
Once again, there is no L(x N) of any kind and the N1 is 16147A.

Palanichamy, 2010:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/304



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209017679

it makes me laugh when they state no N when papers like this below shows N1b2 in Italy
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html

vettor
09-05-2014, 06:54 PM
That does not establish what you are asserting.

The paper shows age of the markers found and so It cannot be from the levant, Africa, Arabian peninsula, Egypt or Anatolia/turkey...............where do you think its from.......its not assyrian neither the old elamites. It cannot be from Oman as this is the youngest and was from East india T group not Iran.

It has to have its origins after G,Iand J as they are from the same line....so wherever you place T , remember to place I,Gand J west of it

alan
09-05-2014, 07:20 PM
The Greek Mesolithic has been a pretty depressing subject for a long time so I havent read up on it for at least a decade but it seems some progress has been made. Its interesting that the island locations make sea travel clear and I believe some of them specialised in Tuna fishing. It is also interesting that the Greek Mesolithic seems to be new and no continuous development from the Upper Paleolithic. I have had a feeling for a while that we are underestimating movement in the Mesolithic. The problem is there are often so few burials and settlements and its very hard to work out how much movement is behind the big, sometimes pan-European, trends of change in lithics that happen during the Mesolithic. After all the idea of linking R1a or b with pressure microblades is based on an extremely late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic change in lithic techniques in European terms.

Its weird to be talking about the possibility of E in a pre-farming context in Europe but the unexpected is what makes this hobby so entertaining. I would imagine Dienekes and many E Greeks would be pretty pleased if E turned out to be pre-farming in Greece. People like to be able to claim they got their towel down on the beach first.


We haven't actually found Y-DNA E in Greece in pre-farming times. That's just a bit of speculation going on. There were some unexpected (by me) mtDNA results from Mesolithic Greece reported in a lecture in 2012. At the time I said I'd wait until the study was published before I tried to work out what had happened there. Could have been errors in dating or whatever. But the material you have turned up makes it a lot more likely that what seemed strange actually makes sense. Thanks for that. Very interesting.

gravetti
09-05-2014, 07:27 PM
Not northern. Southern. This is a set of samples from the Carpathian Basin. The most likely source of the I2 are fishermen of Lepenski Vir on the Danube. They were a highly successful sedentary culture who could and did mix with incoming farmers on equal terms. They took wives from among the incoming farmers, and then adopted farming themselves, making it highly likely that some of their Y-DNA would survive.

The I1 is a surprise. Together with the lack of it in northern Mesolithic samples, it overturns my view that I1 was born from I in the north. Looks like Ken N. is right again. But I await his comments on the sample.

Carpathian Basin is not South!Carpathian Basin is Central Europe!!!

Ignis90
09-05-2014, 07:52 PM
The paper shows age of the markers found and so It cannot be from the levant, Africa, Arabian peninsula, Egypt or Anatolia/turkey...............where do you think its from.......its not assyrian neither the old elamites. It cannot be from Oman as this is the youngest and was from East india T group not Iran.

It has to have its origins after G,Iand J as they are from the same line....so wherever you place T , remember to place I,Gand J west of it

Well, if you go back far enough in time, L and T originated somewhere in Southeast Asia (or South Asia), according to Karafet et al. (2014).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xIyCVSPSm3I/U5LqVD5nawI/AAAAAAAACsM/TEjs1OTRu7k/s1600/Karafet-Y-DNA-K-tree-annotated.png

alan
09-05-2014, 07:53 PM
I have long ago forgotten the details of the Greek Neolithic subsistence strategy but it is interesting that they still have that tradition of using the sea and the land which isnt surprising in a country where the land often rises very steeply from the shore and its got loads of coast and islands. I cannot recall if the Greeks or at least the coastal/island ones kept a fishing component when farming arrive and I dont have the energy to look into it right now. Certainly a lot of Greece is the sort of place where you would expect that people with fishing skills wouldnt just have disappeared. Could that be the reason E is so high in E? I wonder if there is a correlation between E and places where combined farmer-fishers were traditional.

Humanist
09-05-2014, 08:00 PM
The paper shows age of the markers found and so It cannot be from the levant, Africa, Arabian peninsula, Egypt or Anatolia/turkey...............where do you think its from.......its not assyrian neither the old elamites. It cannot be from Oman as this is the youngest and was from East india T group not Iran.

Who claimed it was "Assyrian?" I certainly never claimed that it was "Assyrian." But, your theory regarding the Caucasus does not look very promising based on modern frequencies. Anyway, you and I never make any headway when discussing this topic, so, I will just leave it at that.

gravetti
09-05-2014, 08:04 PM
Isn't the discovery of I1 in this ancient DNA sample kind of a blow for the linear STR based (Klyosov, Nordvedt, etc) age estimates which placed it as being only 4000-5000 years old?
The age estimates of Klyosov and Nordtvedt are speculative.

vettor
09-05-2014, 08:06 PM
Well, if you go back far enough in time, L and T originated somewhere in Southeast Asia (or South Asia), according to Karafet et al. (2014).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xIyCVSPSm3I/U5LqVD5nawI/AAAAAAAACsM/TEjs1OTRu7k/s1600/Karafet-Y-DNA-K-tree-annotated.png

sorry, the paper states that T and L ( or K1 ) was not found to originate in south-east asia .......but found in west-asia and south-asia

the k2a branch which is N and O is basically around burma and thailand ( and north of Burma)

the P of the K2b branch was in south-east asia as well as the 8% of R-m207 which is in java, borneo etc ( not to say that all R formed in south-east asia

And T and L was formed as per your graph over 20000 years before R .........july 2014 new dates actually state over 30000 years

i think we need to stop insisting that R is west-asian
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/cradlek_zps27e3ced3.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/cradlek_zps27e3ced3.jpg.html)

Jean M
09-05-2014, 08:08 PM
Carpathian Basin is not South!Carpathian Basin is Central Europe!!!

Yes but the farmers there arrived up the Danube. So the hunter-gatherers that they absorbed would have lived to the south somewhere, along the route that they had travelled to get into the Carpathian Basin. I suggested Lepenski Vir. Lepenski Vir is not in Scandinavia. That was the only point that I was making.

I assure you that I was not implying that Hungary belongs in a union with Greece and Italy and should be getting a lot more beach tourists. :)

Hando
09-05-2014, 08:21 PM
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy et al., Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664

The above paper says "Our comprehensive Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA population genetic analyses demonstrate a clear affinity of the early farmers to the modern Near East and Caucasus, tracing the expansion from that region through south-eastern Europe and the Carpathian Basin into Central Europe."
But, I thought the NE element in EEF was different from the NE DNA of modern Near Easterners. Someone on this forum pointed out earlier that the ancient Near Easterners differed somewhat from modern Near Easterners.

DMXX
09-05-2014, 08:38 PM
Someone on this forum pointed out earlier that the ancient Near Easterners differed somewhat from modern Near Easterners.

Which ancient Near-Easterners? Which modern Near-Easterners?

Are you aware we have no genome-wide ancient DNA from anywhere in the Near East? And, as a result, we simply cannot make any judgements regarding the degree of population continuity anywhere in this diverse region?

Hando
09-05-2014, 08:57 PM
Which ancient Near-Easterners? Which modern Near-Easterners?

Are you aware we have no genome-wide ancient DNA from anywhere in the Near East? And, as a result, we simply cannot make any judgements regarding the degree of population continuity anywhere in this diverse region?
Sorry, I may have been mistaken then, although I distinctly recall someone mentioning something about modern NE populations differing from ancient NE. Perhaps this was about Y DNA J being more Arabic and that this J migrated to the NE in more recent times with Islam.
But if we have no genome wide ancient DNA from the NE, how is it possible to say that near eastern farmers/EEF came from the modern Near East and Caucasus?

DMXX
09-05-2014, 09:04 PM
Sorry, I may have been mistaken then, although I distinctly recall someone mentioning something about modern NE populations differing from ancient NE. Perhaps this was about Y DNA J being more Arabic and that this J migrated to the NE in more recent times with Islam.

I'm at a loss to explain why this reasoning might be adopted by anyone; Y-DNA J peaks in mountainous locales across West Asia which are relatively cut-off from adjacent regions. Good examples of this are enclaves within the Caucasus and Zagros mountains. Islam and Arabic are not regularly invoked in the population genetics community as an explanation for anything with respect to Y-DNA J in the Near-East. I have seen an association linked between Islam and other Y-DNA haplogroups in India, but this is a separate discussion.



But if we have no genome wide ancient DNA from the NE, how is it possible to say that near eastern farmers/EEF came from the modern Near East and Caucasus?

It is a good point, but once more, as discussed elsewhere on the forum, you will need to read the actual study to understand why better than any of us can likely verbalise.

Humanist
09-05-2014, 09:12 PM
I'm at a loss to explain why this reasoning might be adopted by anyone; Y-DNA J peaks in mountainous locales across West Asia which are relatively cut-off from adjacent regions. Good examples of this are enclaves within the Caucasus and Zagros mountains. Islam and Arabic are not regularly invoked in the population genetics community as an explanation for anything with respect to Y-DNA J in the Near-East.

He may be referring to my post, where I associate the increased frequency of Y-DNA J1 among modern Near Eastern populations with the Arabo-Islamic expansions. For instance, the frequency of J1 among Palestinian Christians was less than 10% based on one study, if I recall correctly. The frequency among Arab populations is significantly greater, for the most part.


Here are some frequencies. If the other forum finally returns, I will update the post with the missing population data, and other details.

The three "red" populations are Armenians, Assyrians, and the people of Ma'loula, Syria. See the video below, if you are unfamiliar with the latter.

Red frequencies = J1* > J1c3
Blue frequencies = J1c3 > J1*
Black frequencies = breakdown unknown

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/MMap_Middle_East_J1-1_.jpg


And, this was the J1 map for the Arab populations (the red here does not indicate anything in particular - all populations are J1-P58 > J1*):

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/MMap_Middle_East_J1_Arab_.jpg

alan
09-06-2014, 12:06 AM
I suppose this of course adds to the growing evidence for no R1b among the farmers of the Balkans. LBK is thought by many to be a derivative of Koros culture which is closely related to Starcevo and Cris cultures also of the Balkans. I had generally felt that LBK provided indirect evidence for no R1b in the Balkans Neolithic from which it derived but this kind of adds to the evidence.

I suppose that leaves the only non-steppe copper age possibility the less early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans that came between the first farmers and the steppe invaders. Or as I have suggested it could simply be that M269 was always the signature of lineages of copper workers from the inception of copper smelting c. 5000BC.


I don't understand something. According to what I've read on page 13 and 14, the set should look like that:

Complete SNP profiles:
2 males from Transdanubian LBK:
1x I1-M253
1x G2a2b

7 Starcevo Culture males:
2x G2a2b-S126
1x G2a-P15
1x I2a1-P37.2
3x F*

And they have, 9 unambiguous results by SNP testing.

But according to what is written later, they have also another 8 males with incomplete SNP profiles:

Starcevo Culture:
3x G2a2b-S126
2x G2a-P15
1x I-M170
Transdanubian LBK:
1x G2a2b-S126
1x F*

But in the abstract, it is said about presenting 9 y-chromosomal profiles. So I guess they counted only complete, confident y-chromosomal results.
May someone enlighten me?

alan
09-06-2014, 12:27 AM
Thinking further projecting what evidence we have for LBK and Starcevo it is worth noting the wiki description of the origins of C-Trip culture:

The roots of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture can be found in the Starčevo-Körös-Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[6] with additional influence from the Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).[20] During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC), the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian-Giulesti culture from the south.[6] Through colonization and acculturation from these other cultures, the formative Precucuteni/Trypillia A culture was established. Over the course of the fifth millennium, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture expanded from its 'homeland' in the Prut-Siret region along the eastern foothills of the Carpathian Mountains into the basins and plains of the Dnieper and Southern Bug rivers of central Ukraine.[21] Settlements also developed in the southeastern stretches of the Carpathian Mountains, with the materials known locally as the Ariuşd culture (see also: Prehistory of Transylvania). Most of the settlements were located close to rivers, with fewer settlements located on the plateaus. Most early dwellings took the form of pit houses, though they were accompanied by an ever-increasing incidence of above-ground clay houses.[2

So, I think that the evidence to date would rule out R1b in the Starcevo-Cris-Koros and LBK elements that went into creating C-T. Whether the Bug Dniester substrate of the other elements could have carried R1b is not known. I personally suspect Bug Dniester might have had R1a or b in it. I have read it developed out of either the Kukrek or Grebeniki cultures (I forget which one) which are Mesolithic cultures that had used the pressure microblades that I have suggested might be linked to R spreading into Europe from Siberia. C-T is the only farming culture of eastern Europe that overlaps the area where pressure microblade using groups had previously been known in the Mesolithic. So, on geographical grounds it is possible that R1 could have been absorbed to some degree in C-T.

rms2
09-06-2014, 12:33 AM
If the recent news (unconfirmed) that Russian archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okunevo Culture in the Altai Mountains is true, that could be a real game changer. If you recall, two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

Personally, I think the predominance of both R1b and centum Indo-European in most of Europe is no coincidence. Time and more ancient y-dna will bear that out, I think.

Atimeres
09-06-2014, 08:40 AM
I have read it developed out of either the Kukrek or Grebeniki cultures (I forget which one) which are Mesolithic cultures that had used the pressure microblades that I have suggested might be linked to R spreading into Europe from Siberia. Kukrek and Grebeniki?

The new IE theory:

The way of the the migration of haplogroup R1a-M420
1) Asia
2) Edzani (Caucasus) Kukrek, Grebeniki, ... Rudoj Ostrov, Stare Baraki, Janislawice, Deby 29 (Kuyavia)

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/amfora13.jpg

This all places distinguishes by migration of the archaeological tool "inserts like Deby".
This culture Janisławice-Rudoj Ostrow (J-RO) developed before/about 6000 years before Christ.
Loss of the J-RO culture and family R1a (xM417).
3) The gradual revival of family R1a from one(!) common ancestor M417, the Indo-European!
4) Development of the IE family R1a-M417 in the Globular Amphora culture (4000-1850 years BC.) and horizon Corded Ware culture.

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/amphora1.jpg

Eulau 2600 before Chr.
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm#Praindoeuropejczycy_i_ich_ojczyzna

DMXX
09-06-2014, 08:46 AM
He may be referring to my post, where I associate the increased frequency of Y-DNA J1 among modern Near Eastern populations with the Arabo-Islamic expansions. For instance, the frequency of J1 among Palestinian Christians was less than 10% based on one study, if I recall correctly. The frequency among Arab populations is significantly greater, for the most part.


Y-DNA J1 (or a specific subclade to be specific) can be broadly correlated with speakers of Semitic languages, that's been a popular idea on various forums for a long time. An additional layer brought by a combination of Islam and the Arabic language in the Near-East certainly sounds reasonable to me. A wholesale association with Y-DNA J on the other hand isn't. Otherwise, one would have to explain the significant presence of Y-DNA J(2) subclades in parts or peoples of Eurasia which aren't usually implicated within the Islamic cultural zone (e.g. northern Italy, or the Kalash, given the derogatory title of "kafir" in Pakistan by Muslims there).

gravetti
09-06-2014, 08:47 AM
Yes but the farmers there arrived up the Danube. So the hunter-gatherers that they absorbed would have lived to the south somewhere, along the route that they had travelled to get into the Carpathian Basin. I suggested Lepenski Vir. Lepenski Vir is not in Scandinavia. That was the only point that I was making.

I assure you that I was not implying that Hungary belongs in a union with Greece and Italy and should be getting a lot more beach tourists. :)
According to the paper:"The earliest LBK emerged in the mid-6th millennium BC in Transdanubia (called “LBK in Transdanubia”, or LBKT) [9], marking the beginning of sedentary life in northern Hungary and via this area, Central Europe. The earliest LBKT coexisted with the STA in Transdanubia for about 100-150 years [10].Archaeological research described an interaction zone between indigenous hunter-gatherer groups and farmers at the northernmost extent of the STA in Transdanubia, which might have led to the genesis of the LBKT [10,11]."

DMXX
09-06-2014, 08:52 AM
Kukrek and Grebeniki?

The new IE theory:



Thank you for your post. I recognise we have users from across the world and some of our members cite items which originate from non-Anglo countries, which I appreciate, but the structure of this post makes it very hard to interpret. Who is proposing this new theory or idea? What evidence supports a movement from "Krym Kukrek" to "Deby"? What evidence in this theory makes it a contender compared to the commonly accepted Pontic-Caspian theory?

gravetti
09-06-2014, 10:41 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post

"So the hunter-gatherers that they absorbed would have lived to the south somewhere, along the route that they had travelled to get into the Carpathian Basin."

"According to the low proportion of hunter-gatherer mtDNA lineages in the LBK gene pool, we assume, that admixture between hunter-gatherers and colonizing LBK farmers was negligible in Central Europe. Considering the relative size and speed of the LBK expansion, we have to assume a substantial population growth during the earliest LBKT, which might have resulted in a population pressure and led to emigration from Transdanubia [55]. While such a radical population increase was not palpable from the Early Neolithic archaeological records [7], but recent extensive archaeological excavations have provided new insights into large-scale early LBKT settlements in western Hungary [9,56,57], which suggest larger source communities for a possible colonization than previously assumed. Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 6, 2014"

Jean M
09-06-2014, 11:47 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Jean M "So the hunter-gatherers that they absorbed would have lived to the south somewhere, along the route that they had travelled to get into the Carpathian Basin."

"According to the low proportion of hunter-gatherer mtDNA lineages in the LBK gene pool, we assume, that admixture between hunter-gatherers and colonizing LBK farmers was negligible in Central Europe..".

Yes indeed. The archaeological evidence is very much in accordance with that. The LBK farmers kept their distance from foragers in Central Europe, as I said in AJ.

But the LBK did not suddently appear out of nowhere. The LBK, as this paper shows (and as all sensible people had assumed all along), sprang from the Starčevo Culture to the south. Farmers from the Near East did not fly into Central Europe by jet plane. They first arrived on the Mediterranean islands and coasts of Europe by boat.

While I do not think that the Starčevo farmers mixed a great deal with foragers along their route, they did absorb some from Lepenski Vir. That seems the best explanation for the occasional forager mtDNA and for the Y-DNA I2. This mixing should not be exaggerated in its effects. Near Eastern farming DNA was dominant in the European Neolithic. But the small amount of mixing that took place along the Danube and probably at least one other place explains the finding of I2 in several farming samples, and it explains how I2 was a founder lineage in Sardinia, which was first settled in the Neolithic.

This map from the paper shows the route roughly. Click to enlarge.

2548

Atimeres
09-06-2014, 01:00 PM
Thank you for your post. I recognise we have users from across the world and some of our members cite items which originate from non-Anglo countries, which I appreciate, but the structure of this post makes it very hard to interpret. Who is proposing this new theory or idea? What evidence supports a movement from "Krym Kukrek" to "Deby"? What evidence in this theory makes it a contender compared to the commonly accepted Pontic-Caspian theory?
1) “Who is proposing this new theory or idea? “

And if I?

Contact with the university's history, prehistory and archeology have more than thirty years; most of the archeology, history and prehistory of the Adam Mickiewicz University (UAM) of Poznan. There, the publishing Slavia Antiqua published my dissertations...(etc, etc.).
(some of my publications in the field of historical linguistics and the early Middle Ages history I find the lists of basic reading for students of various universities).
This somehow justifies my audacity

Archeology and prehistory Instytyt UAM runs a very immersive study of the rich and interesting archeology and settlement of the region Kuyavia (Kujawy).

For our topic was particularly important the Globular Amphora culture, drawn from Kujaw, and later developing (and migrant) in the framework of the Corded Ware horizon.
This culture, dealing specifically with Polish and German archaeologists, for example. J. Muller and J. Czebreszuk.
Groundbreaking publications derived from (cited by me) prof. Marzena Szmyt, for example.
1991: New tendencies in studies of Globular Amphora culture;
1996a: Community Globular Amphora culture to Kujawach;
1996b: Globular Amphora culture in Eastern Europe. Present State of Research and Possibilities for Future Studies
2010: Betwen West and East. People of the Globular Amphiora culture in Eastern Europe: 2950-2350 BC.


2) “What evidence supports a movement from "Krym Kukrek" to "Deby"?”

Are of great importance also research about Janisławice-Rudoj Ostow culture - its particular manifestation: “inserts type Dęby” (Kuyavia). They define migration route like a small human population from the Caucasus (Edzani) through the Black Sea plains to the Polish region Kuyavia (village Dęby).
The discovery and study of the archaeological group of special services laid S.K. Kozlowski, L. Czerniak, and especially L. Domańska, 1990: “Kaukasko-Nadczarnomorskie wzorce kulturowe w rozwoju późnoneolitycznych społeczeństw Niżu strefy pogranicza Europy
Wschodniej i Środkowej” (“The Caucasian-and over the Black Sea cultural patterns in the development of the late Neolithic societies Lowlands border zone of Eastern and Central Europe”)

An important point of this theory is find early R1a haoplogroup in the territory of Amphora culture and the Corded, so if the extension of the archaeological trail Caucasus - Kuyavia

3) “What evidence in this theory makes it a contender compared to the commonly accepted Pontic-Caspian theory?”

So far I see no concrete evidence for the Pontic-Caspian theory, even among Russian archaeologists... Everything is in the circle of conjecture.

alan
09-06-2014, 02:37 PM
Almost by a process of elimination we are being pushed towards that sort of period and some sort of eastern geography. The L23 lineage that led to L11 eventually doesnt seem to have done a lot of expansion to say the least as so much western European R1b is descended from just one man who probably lived some time between 4000 and 3000BC. The L23 line that led to L23XL51 seems older and expanded earlier at some time 5000-4000BC. So I do still believe that the European R1b story is older in the east. I just dont know where in the 'east' and what the exact cultural context was. I do think the timing of its expansion is suggestive of a link either with copper or first steppe intrusions or a bit of both. It would be easy to test the idea of a Balkans copper link by testing men from the Varna necropolis who clearly were rolling in metal wealth. Interesting too that this is one of the earliest suggestions of a highly stratified society with clear material expressions of this in graves. It is now argued by many archaeologists like Yuri Rassamakin that it was Balkans Varna type metal elites who influences the steppes into more hierachical burial traditions rather than the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_Necropolis


If the recent news (unconfirmed) that Russian archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okunevo Culture in the Altai Mountains is true, that could be a real game changer. If you recall, two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

Personally, I think the predominance of both R1b and centum Indo-European in most of Europe is no coincidence. Time and more ancient y-dna will bear that out, I think.

gravetti
09-06-2014, 03:10 PM
Jean M:
"But the LBK did not suddently appear out of nowhere. The LBK, as this paper shows (and as all sensible people had assumed all along), sprang from the Starčevo Culture to the south. Farmers from the Near East did not fly into Central Europe by jet plane. They first arrived on the Mediterranean islands and coasts of Europe by boat. "


How many I2a was in the Balkans for 8000 years ago? Maybe 0-2,27%?And what about the "slavic theory"?

"The ASHA shows that ancestral hunter-gatherer lineages were rare in the STA (2.27%), LBKT (0%) and LBK (1.85%) as well as in 5th/4th millennium BC cultures (0%) and became more common in Central Europe during the 3rd/2nd millennium BC (2.86-11.76%) [37]."
"Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the G2a2b (S126) haplogroup, and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2) (Dataset S3, S5). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253)."
"The presence of N1a in early farmers from the Carpathian Basin (6.82-10.26%) and Central Europe (12.04%, Table 1) lends further support to its pivotal role as a marker for the Continental route of the Neolithic expansion."


While I do not think that the Starčevo farmers mixed a great deal with foragers along their route, they did absorb some from Lepenski Vir.

This map from the paper shows the route roughly. Click to enlarge.

2548[/QUOTE]

nuadha
09-06-2014, 03:11 PM
If the recent news (unconfirmed) that Russian archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okunevo Culture in the Altai Mountains is true, that could be a real game changer. If you recall, two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

Personally, I think the predominance of both R1b and centum Indo-European in most of Europe is no coincidence. Time and more ancient y-dna will bear that out, I think.

I heard a blogger say that a few months back at davidski's site. Have you heard any new news since then?

Jean M
09-06-2014, 04:09 PM
How many I2a was in the Balkans for 8000 years ago? Maybe 0-2,27%?

If you are asking what percentage of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the whole Balkan region were I2a or I2a1, I cannot tell you. We are only just starting to get Mesolithic Y-DNA results. We don't have any for the Balkans. We have some interesting results for Starčevo and the LBK in this latest paper. They include F*, I and I1, I2a1, which are all likely to be hunter-gatherer derived. But we are a long way from being able to talk in percentages.

If you are asking what percentage of the Neolithic farmers were I2a1, we are starting to get a pretty clear impression that G2a was easily the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup across Europe. You can see that for yourself. The Big Story of the Neolithic in both Y-DNA and mtDNA is new haplogroups coming in from the Near East. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml


And what about the "slavic theory"?
The Slavic spread into the Balkans was of I2a1b3a (L147), as far as we can tell from modern DNA. This subclade seems to be specific to Slavs and found to some degree in all the Slavic-speaking nations. So it is easy to guess that this derives from some I2a1 that entered the Middle Dnieper with farmers.

J Man
09-06-2014, 05:57 PM
Sorry, I may have been mistaken then, although I distinctly recall someone mentioning something about modern NE populations differing from ancient NE. Perhaps this was about Y DNA J being more Arabic and that this J migrated to the NE in more recent times with Islam.
But if we have no genome wide ancient DNA from the NE, how is it possible to say that near eastern farmers/EEF came from the modern Near East and Caucasus?

Haplogroup J was present all over the Near East well before Islam was around. Calling J just Arabic is very wrong. J is a very diverse haplogroup and it's J1 and J2 subclades have different histories.

J Man
09-06-2014, 06:01 PM
Another interesting find from this new ancient DNA Balkan study was that the Mesolithic individual from the Croatian Island of Korčula belonged to mtDNA haplogroup U5b2a5. That adds another U5b result to the Mesolithic samples from Europe.

Hando
09-06-2014, 06:36 PM
I suppose that leaves the only non-steppe copper age possibility the less early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans that came between the first farmers and the steppe invaders.
Sorry what do you mean by "the less early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans"? Are you saying a later Neolithic culture in the Balkans may have contributed R1B? I thought no Neolithic Balkan culture carried R1b.

Hando
09-06-2014, 06:38 PM
So, I think that the evidence to date would rule out R1b in the Starcevo-Cris-Koros and LBK elements that went into creating C-T. Whether the Bug Dniester substrate of the other elements could have carried R1b is not known. I personally suspect Bug Dniester might have had R1a or b in it. I have read it developed out of either the Kukrek or Grebeniki cultures (I forget which one) which are Mesolithic cultures that had used the pressure microblades that I have suggested might be linked to R spreading into Europe from Siberia. C-T is the only farming culture of eastern Europe that overlaps the area where pressure microblade using groups had previously been known in the Mesolithic. So, on geographical grounds it is possible that R1 could have been absorbed to some degree in C-T.
If Bug Dniester did in fact contribute R1b to C-T, then would it have been a very negligible amount?

Atimeres
09-06-2014, 07:30 PM
The Slavic spread into the Balkans was of I2a1b3a (L147), as far as we can tell from modern DNA. This subclade seems to be specific to Slavs and found to some degree in all the Slavic-speaking nations. So it is easy to guess that this derives from some I2a1 that entered the Middle Dnieper with farmers.
Please note that a slavization must come from an earlier Indo-Europeanization of someone.
The first Indo-Europeanization of significant population I1 / I2 made when on the space of Komornica culture, Chojnice-Pieńków and FBK, sure of I1 and I2 population haplogrups,
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/komorniki.jpg

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/chojnice.jpg

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/amfora12.jpg

imposed after arriving from the south-east the archaeological culture Janisławice (with inserts of type Dęby) and its subsequent follow-up, already autochthonous Globular Amphora culture, sure of R1a family.
See the maps .
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread/page17#167

The population of Komornica and Chojnice-Pieńków culture was surely the same as the population of Jutland and southern Scandinavia, .(I1 and I2, according to Lazaridis et al., 2013).
We do not know how close they were her contacts with the population I2a the Balkans.

Jean M
09-06-2014, 07:44 PM
Please note that a slavization must come from an earlier Indo-Europeanization of someone.

Of course. That is all covered by the standard theory of the IE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. But this takes us away from discussion of new papers, which is the purpose of this thread. There are several threads about IE, if you would like to contribute to one, such as http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?623-Indo-European-Homeland-and-Migrations-Linguistics-Archeology-and-DNA

vettor
09-06-2014, 07:54 PM
He may be referring to my post, where I associate the increased frequency of Y-DNA J1 among modern Near Eastern populations with the Arabo-Islamic expansions. For instance, the frequency of J1 among Palestinian Christians was less than 10% based on one study, if I recall correctly. The frequency among Arab populations is significantly greater, for the most part.





Do you actually think that islam which started less than 1600 years ago was the cause of J1 expansions?

J1 as per NatGen studies/findings found the same 10% in the levant matching ancient Phoenician people genetics. I would like to know when this term arabic first appear, it seems to me it was originally meant to be only for people who moved around and did not have a permanent settlement

Humanist
09-06-2014, 08:03 PM
Do you actually think that islam which started less than 1600 years ago was the cause of J1 expansions?

This is what I wrote:


I associate the increased frequency of Y-DNA J1 among modern Near Eastern populations with the Arabo-Islamic expansions

Nobody is denying that J1 was present in the Near East before the Islam expansions. What is being suggested is that the frequency of J1 increased, after the Arabo-Islamic expansions of the 7th century CE.

vettor
09-06-2014, 08:11 PM
This is what I wrote:



Nobody is denying that J1 was present in the Near East before the Islam expansions. What is being suggested is that the frequency of J1 increased, after the Arabo-Islamic expansions of the 7th century CE.

........J1 around the Mediterranean was already placed in the bronze-age....the only thing the "arabic " people did with there migration from the arabian peninsula along north-africa ( heading west) was to increase the percentage of J1 in these lands , essentially replacing the barbarian invasions genetics that looped around from Spain into North-africa.
We know the berbers where not J1, we know the numidians where J1 ............what was the liby-phoenican people ? .........I am talking about greatest % of a markers of these people

DMXX
09-06-2014, 08:20 PM
........J1 around the Mediterranean was already placed in the bronze-age....the only thing the "arabic " people did with there migration from the arabian peninsula along north-africa ( heading west) was to increase the percentage of J1 in these lands , essentially replacing the barbarian invasions genetics that looped around from Spain into North-africa.
We know the berbers where not J1, we know the numidians where J1 ............what was the liby-phoenican people ? .........I am talking about greatest % of a markers of these people

Why are you invoking these regions in the discussion? Humanist has very plainly spelled out his reasoning here is specific to the Near-East, which does not ordinarily encompass North Africa.

vettor
09-06-2014, 08:21 PM
Why are you invoking these regions in the discussion? Humanist has very plainly spelled out his reasoning here is specific to the Near-East, which does not ordinarily encompass North Africa.

to show J1 was already around the med.

DMXX
09-06-2014, 08:29 PM
to show J1 was already around the med.

Throughout this particular tangent in the thread, Humanist has not once invoked the presence of Y-DNA J1 anywhere outside of the Mediterranean. You're very welcome to flick across the prior three pages to confirm this. The entirety of this tangent has been focused on Y-DNA J1 in the Middle-East. Given this, your insistence that Y-DNA J1 was apparently "already around the med" is completely irrelevant and does nothing to discuss Humanist's original notion.

For the sake of maintaining the integrity of this thread, please consider abating this insistence.

vettor
09-06-2014, 08:55 PM
Throughout this particular tangent in the thread, Humanist has not once invoked the presence of Y-DNA J1 anywhere outside of the Mediterranean. You're very welcome to flick across the prior three pages to confirm this. The entirety of this tangent has been focused on Y-DNA J1 in the Middle-East. Given this, your insistence that Y-DNA J1 was apparently "already around the med" is completely irrelevant and does nothing to discuss Humanist's original notion.

For the sake of maintaining the integrity of this thread, please consider abating this insistence.

Since I agree with Humanist in my post118, then the confusion on my part was the term Palestian-Christian.....basically because I see no language, religion or nationality playing any role in genetics. But it's another matter if a paper specifically designates a religious or linguistic group for a example of a test.

vettor
09-06-2014, 09:17 PM
I'm at a loss to explain why this reasoning might be adopted by anyone; Y-DNA J peaks in mountainous locales across West Asia which are relatively cut-off from adjacent regions. Good examples of this are enclaves within the Caucasus and Zagros mountains. Islam and Arabic are not regularly invoked in the population genetics community as an explanation for anything with respect to Y-DNA J in the Near-East. I have seen an association linked between Islam and other Y-DNA haplogroups in India, but this is a separate discussion.



It is a good point, but once more, as discussed elsewhere on the forum, you will need to read the actual study to understand why better than any of us can likely verbalise.

this is the divide I was talking about in my zargos posts
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0095714

Humanist
09-06-2014, 09:54 PM
asically because [B]I see no language, religion or nationality playing any role in genetics.

I doubt you will find many people who agree with you on that point. Anyway, that is OT in this thread. You are free to create another thread discussing the correlation (or, according to you, lack thereof) between genetics and language, religion, nationality, etc.

alan
09-06-2014, 11:12 PM
Well the problem is there were loads of cultures and a sequence of cultures in the Balkans from say 6000-4500BC in the Neolithic and early Eneolithic. What is not clear is if they all just involved in situ from the early Cris-Koros-Starcevo farming cultures of the Balkans or if there were subsequent intrusions from Anatolia. Dairying for example spread from Anatolia to the Balkans perhaps 1000 years after farming spread to the Balkans. The middle to later Neolithic cultures of the Balkans like Hamangia have been suggested to have other links with Anatolia. So, there is the possibility that about 1000 years after the first farmers in the Balkans that more immigrants came in from Anatolia.

However, obviously for that to be the case then R1b would have had to be present among the NW Anatolians by before 5000bc but somehow not present among the earlier farmers who settled the Balkans c. 6000BC. That may seem odd but there is growing evidence that early Balkans farmers such as the Starcevo culture may have roots in the Levant rather than NW Anatolia. Anatolians could have only been a secondary later wave into the Balkans c. 5000BC or just before.

However, that does raise the question as to how R1b got to NW Anatolia before 5000BC. NW Anatolia was much much later to take up farming than central, south and east Anatolia. I get the impression that the Fikirtepe culture of the first farmers of NW Anatolia were a mix of the Agach eepigravettian descended hunters and a migration of farmers from central Anatolia. Obviously with so many unknowns nothing is clear but I personally do not think NW Anatolians had R1b in the Neolithic and therefore were not in a position to spread R1b to the Balkans in the developed Neolithic. I personally now believe the Fikirtepe culture Neolithic of NW Anatolia were probably a mixture of G people from central Anatolia and local I hunters they absorbed. Only further ancient DNA will prove this. The other alternative is that R1b was on the steppe. Although modern distribution doesnt make it look that way the whole steppe area was nomadic for so long and so many waves rolled over it that I dont expect ancient steppe populations to survive in situ there today.


Sorry what do you mean by "the less early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans"? Are you saying a later Neolithic culture in the Balkans may have contributed R1B? I thought no Neolithic Balkan culture carried R1b.

alan
09-06-2014, 11:24 PM
There seems to be some disagreement about whether input was minimal or significant. So, I cannot answer that. I must admit I have moved somewhat more to thinking R1b is linked somehow to Sredny Stog and the Skelya elite of that culture and also the Suvorovo culture that was created by migrants of the former cultures into the Balkans. I am sitting on the fence right now as to whether M269 was linked to those cultures or is simply a lineage who spread copper working from the invention of smelting - which would point to the Balkans-Anatolia-Iran zone. Of course the two things are not entirely unconnected as Balkans people definately had some influence on Sredny Stog and the latter controlled the Balkans metal flow into the steppes.


If Bug Dniester did in fact contribute R1b to C-T, then would it have been a very negligible amount?

gravetti
09-07-2014, 03:56 AM
Another interesting find from this new ancient DNA Balkan study was that the Mesolithic individual from the Croatian Island of Korčula belonged to mtDNA haplogroup U5b2a5. That adds another U5b result to the Mesolithic samples from Europe.
Balkan study?Carpathian Basin is not in the Balkan.Is Holland Skandinavian?

palamede
09-07-2014, 12:13 PM
Thing rarely observed by readers is the paper of Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy et al.-2014 challenges the thesis of the durable influence of the "great neolithic wave" of the LBK and this coming from the first Near East .

Outside the influence of the indigenous haplogroups picked up during the expansion, the found majority is G2a-P15 and G2a2b-P30,considered as Near Easterner, for me wrongly) and the present frequencies in Europe is under 10% always (except Austrian Tyrol) and under 5% often.
For the very most frequent G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 in Tyrol , it is above 10% in the upper valleys of Tyrol (include one valley with 40%) in a study and this study with more one thousand of tested Tyrolean males with the paternal great-father born in AustrianTyrol gives 12,5% (and present inhabitants give 9,5%). Austrian Tyrol is the valley of Inn river and its alpine tributaries, Inn river is a Danube tributary

The most important sub-clade in Europe (more than 50% of G and still more in continental countries) is G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 . It is the most probable clade which was introduced by Danubian route, the other G2a subclades seemes to have introduced by the Mediterraneen route.

G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 is European wholly and probably born in Europe (certainly in a Lower Danube or immersed Occidental Black Sea before 6500C). Its cousinage with the Circassian G2a2b2a1a- U1 mainly spred in West Caucase in Adygheans, Tcherkesses, Kabards, Abkhazes and Georgians shows its ancestor G2a2b2a1-L140 come from the Colchidian refugia during Last Glacial Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis “The Colchis has a high proportion of Tertiary relict plants and animals, with the closest relatives in distant parts of the world: five species of Rhododendrons and other evergreen shrubs, wingnuts,Caucasian salamander, Caucasian Parsley Frog, eight endemic species of lizards from the genus Darevskia, Caucasian adder, Robert's vole, and endemic cave shrimps.”

Maybe , The G clade participated in the first neolithic cultures as PPNA (9700-8700BC) and PPNB (8700-7200BC) but certainly not G2a2b2a1-L140 . A branch went though the Black Sea by boat or along the coast, probably the north coast) and developped the sub-clade G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 who is still present in the lower Danube,It will need to study their markers downstraits L497 to precize their locations in the G-L497 phylogeny.

Before 7000BC (and the first entry of Neolithic in Continental Europe), 2 or 3 “neolithic” haplogroups were already present in South-West Europe : G-L497 (along the Black Sea and Lower Danube ) and E-V13, and probably J2b2-M241 (both in South-Balkans). They came as hunter-gatherers, fishermen and first sheep herders (sheep preceded neolithic waves often).
I
I am Belgian G-P15_>P30-> P303 –> L140 –> L497 –> Z725 –> Z726 –> CTS4803 –> S2808 and I stated as

1) There is no clade from Near East, Anatolia and South Balkans (as E-V13 and J2b2-M241) in Starcevo and LBK tests, destroying the theory of the first neolithic wave coming with LBK from the Near East thru South Balkans.
I don't take into account the common sentences of their conclusions. I took into account their laboratory results but I am often not fond of their conclusion sentences, too often they are cliches to be politically correct and to avoid angers of powerful scholars.

2) The clades were present locally in the Lower Danubian Mesolithic (G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317, I2a1-P37.2 and probably a basal branch of I1)

3) In french we said “une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps” means “one seen swallow does not make a spring”, english proverb “one swallow does not make a summer“ and it needs to be cautious with one I1 test. There are several possibilities
a) Laboratory mistake
b)Ancestor of the MRCA of the present I1 men.
c) Disappeared early branch of I1.
d) Always existing surviving early branch of I1.

Although Ken Nordvedt calculates a coalescence point of I1 clades 5000 years ago (3000 BC), I thing first inhabitants of Sweden were I1 members about 9500BC (11,500 years ago) and I1a1b –L22 was born at the entry of I1 in Scandinavia. 9000BC-10,000BC is a reasonable calibration date for I1a1b-L22, more reasonable than a lot of used calibration dates for other haplogroups and it is injust to reject it blindly.
Probably in Last Glacial, I1 survives leaving no or very rare archeological traces of a small clan along the Middle Danube river above the Carpatian Basin epigravattian I2. This small clan adopted the Recent Magdalenian culture at or just before the Bölling warm phase (13700BC) by contact with Magdalenians coming from South-West and developped northwards in free hunting grounds participating to the Hamburgian c. in North Germany and North-West Poland, then to the Ahrensburgian c., then to the Lingby culture in Danmark).
It is reasonable to think the I1 bottleneck spent during the LGM from 30,000C to 13,700 BC and from the small original danubian clan, only one lineage born about 15-14,000BC survived.

Addendum
4) Although, LBK people are probably the ancestors of my male lineage, I must say LBK potteries and sculptures had a very weak and unpolished qualty compared of the potteries and sculptures of Neolithic Near East, Anatolia and the following Balkanic sculptures and culturally, LBK is really apart of the other Balkanic cultures coming from Levant, Anatolia and South Balkans.
And the same thing could be said for the unpolished Cardial culture.
When people speaks about East to West migration, they ignore the very differnt level of quality between West and East, even in the third millenia BC..
Globally, Western Europe knew a workcraft of big quality only from the Middle Bronze Age (1700BC), but not the cultural and political level of the East at this time..
Here I don't speak of the great Paleolithic art which disappeared about 11,000BC

gravetti
09-07-2014, 03:00 PM
Very good points,palamede.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/

After all,
scientific inquiry is, and has been for centuries, funded by wealthy patrons, entrepreneurs,
industrialists, and governments, all of which have their individual agendas.

http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/PCsciC1.pdf

J Man
09-07-2014, 03:01 PM
Balkan study?Carpathian Basin is not in the Balkan.Is Holland Skandinavian?

As far as I know Croatia is in the Balkans.

Generalissimo
09-07-2014, 03:16 PM
Thing rarely observed by readers is the paper of Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy et al.-2014 challenges the thesis of the durable influence of the "great neolithic wave" of the LBK and this coming from the first Near East .

Outside the influence of the indigenous haplogroups picked up during the expansion, the found majority is G2a-P15 and G2a2b-P30,considered as Near Easterner, for me wrongly) and the present frequencies in Europe is under 10% always (except Austrian Tyrol) and under 5% often.
For the very most frequent G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 in Tyrol , it is above 10% in the upper valleys of Tyrol (include one valley with 40%) in a study and this study with more one thousand of tested Tyrolean males with the paternal great-father born in AustrianTyrol gives 12,5% (and present inhabitants give 9,5%). Austrian Tyrol is the valley of Inn river and its alpine tributaries, Inn river is a Danube tributary

The most important sub-clade in Europe (more than 50% of G and still more in continental countries) is G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 . It is the most probable clade which was introduced by Danubian route, the other G2a subclades seemes to have introduced by the Mediterraneen route.

G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 is European wholly and probably born in Europe (certainly in a Lower Danube or immersed Occidental Black Sea before 6500C). Its cousinage with the Circassian G2a2b2a1a- U1 mainly spred in West Caucase in Adygheans, Tcherkesses, Kabards, Abkhazes and Georgians shows its ancestor G2a2b2a1-L140 come from the Colchidian refugia during Last Glacial Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis “The Colchis has a high proportion of Tertiary relict plants and animals, with the closest relatives in distant parts of the world: five species of Rhododendrons and other evergreen shrubs, wingnuts,Caucasian salamander, Caucasian Parsley Frog, eight endemic species of lizards from the genus Darevskia, Caucasian adder, Robert's vole, and endemic cave shrimps.”

Maybe , The G clade participated in the first neolithic cultures as PPNA (9700-8700BC) and PPNB (8700-7200BC) but certainly not G2a2b2a1-L140 . A branch went though the Black Sea by boat or along the coast, probably the north coast) and developped the sub-clade G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 who is still present in the lower Danube,It will need to study their markers downstraits L497 to precize their locations in the G-L497 phylogeny.

Before 7000BC (and the first entry of Neolithic in Continental Europe), 2 or 3 “neolithic” haplogroups were already present in South-West Europe : G-L497 (along the Black Sea and Lower Danube ) and E-V13, and probably J2b2-M241 (both in South-Balkans). They came as hunter-gatherers, fishermen and first sheep herders (sheep preceded neolithic waves often).
I
I am Belgian G-P15_>P30-> P303 –> L140 –> L497 –> Z725 –> Z726 –> CTS4803 –> S2808 and I stated as

1) There is no clade from Near East, Anatolia and South Balkans (as E-V13 and J2b2-M241) in Starcevo and LBK tests, destroying the theory of the first neolithic wave coming with LBK from the Near East thru South Balkans.
I don't take into account the common sentences of their conclusions. I took into account their laboratory results but I am often not fond of their conclusion sentences, too often they are cliches to be politically correct and to avoid angers of powerful scholars.

2) The clades were present locally in the Lower Danubian Mesolithic (G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317, I2a1-P37.2 and probably a basal branch of I1)

3) In french we said “une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps” means “one seen swallow does not make a spring”, english proverb “one swallow does not make a summer“ and it needs to be cautious with one I1 test. There are several possibilities
a) Laboratory mistake
b)Ancestor of the MRCA of the present I1 men.
c) Disappeared early branch of I1.
d) Always existing surviving early branch of I1.

Although Ken Nordvedt calculates a coalescence point of I1 clades 5000 years ago (3000 BC), I thing first inhabitants of Sweden were I1 members about 9500BC (11,500 years ago) and I1a1b –L22 was born at the entry of I1 in Scandinavia. 9000BC-10,000BC is a reasonable calibration date for I1a1b-L22, more reasonable than a lot of used calibration dates for other haplogroups and it is injust to reject it blindly.
Probably in Last Glacial, I1 survives leaving no or very rare archeological traces of a small clan along the Middle Danube river above the Carpatian Basin epigravattian I2. This small clan adopted the Recent Magdalenian culture at or just before the Bölling warm phase (13700BC) by contact with Magdalenians coming from South-West and developped northwards in free hunting grounds participating to the Hamburgian c. in North Germany and North-West Poland, then to the Ahrensburgian c., then to the Lingby culture in Danmark).
It is reasonable to think the I1 bottleneck spent during the LGM from 30,000C to 13,700 BC and from the small original danubian clan, only one lineage born about 15-14,000BC survived.

Addendum
4) Although, LBK people are probably the ancestors of my male lineage, I must say LBK potteries and sculptures had a very weak and unpolished qualty compared of the potteries and sculptures of Neolithic Near East, Anatolia and the following Balkanic sculptures and culturally, LBK is really apart of the other Balkanic cultures coming from Levant, Anatolia and South Balkans.
And the same thing could be said for the unpolished Cardial culture.
When people speaks about East to West migration, they ignore the very differnt level of quality between West and East, even in the third millenia BC..
Globally, Western Europe knew a workcraft of big quality only from the Middle Bronze Age (1700BC), but not the cultural and political level of the East at this time..
Here I don't speak of the great Paleolithic art which disappeared about 11,000BC

LBK came from the Near East, beause genomes like Stuttgart, Oetzi and even Gokhem2 are in large part of Near Eastern origin (ie. they are not indigenous Europeans like the hunter-gatherers).

How difficult is this to understand?

parasar
09-07-2014, 03:36 PM
LBK came from the Near East, beause genomes like Stuttgart, Oetzi and even Gokhem2 are in large part of Near Eastern origin (ie. they are not indigenous Europeans like the hunter-gatherers).

How difficult is this to understand?

Just repeating a mantra over and over again, does not make it a fact.
While we await autosomal DNA from the ancient near east, it is looking more and more that this LBK population is from SE European (incld. modern W. Turkey) hunter-gatherers and is potentially more indigenous to Europe than the western hunter-gatherers.

gravetti
09-07-2014, 03:39 PM
As far as I know Croatia is in the Balkans.

Of course,but I1 was found in Hungary,not in Croatia.
From the paper:
"Key words
Ancient DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomal DNA, Neolithisation, Carpathian Basin, Central Europé"

"Farming was established in Central Europe by the Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK), a well-investigated archaeological horizon, which emerged in the Carpathian Basin, in today’s Hungary."

Generalissimo
09-07-2014, 04:40 PM
Just repeating a mantra over and over again, does not make it a fact.
While we await autosomal DNA from the ancient near east, it is looking more and more that this LBK population is from SE European (incld. modern W. Turkey) hunter-gatherers and is potentially more indigenous to Europe than the western hunter-gatherers.

Are Bedouins from the Negev also more indigenus to Europe than western hunter-gatherers in your mind? Becuse you do realise that some Bedouins are basically like Oetzi, just with more African admixture and less western hunter-gatherer ancestry.

So just to confirm you actually believe that Bedouins are more native to Europe than La Brana?

parasar
09-07-2014, 05:21 PM
Are Bedouins from the Negev also more indigenus to Europe than western hunter-gatherers in your mind? Becuse you do realise that some Bedouins are basically like Oetzi, just with more African admixture and less western hunter-gatherer ancestry.

So just to confirm you actually believe that Bedouins are more native to Europe than La Brana?

Yes, in a way. The populations sharing common ancestry (basal west Eurasian portion) with the Bedouins are more native to Europe than La Brana.

I think this connection comes from the N(xR) portion of OoA.
Eg N1a
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/N1a_Phylotree.jpg/1280px-N1a_Phylotree.jpg

vettor
09-07-2014, 05:35 PM
Thing rarely observed by readers is the paper of Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy et al.-2014 challenges the thesis of the durable influence of the "great neolithic wave" of the LBK and this coming from the first Near East .

Outside the influence of the indigenous haplogroups picked up during the expansion, the found majority is G2a-P15 and G2a2b-P30,considered as Near Easterner, for me wrongly) and the present frequencies in Europe is under 10% always (except Austrian Tyrol) and under 5% often.
For the very most frequent G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 in Tyrol , it is above 10% in the upper valleys of Tyrol (include one valley with 40%) in a study and this study with more one thousand of tested Tyrolean males with the paternal great-father born in AustrianTyrol gives 12,5% (and present inhabitants give 9,5%). Austrian Tyrol is the valley of Inn river and its alpine tributaries, Inn river is a Danube tributary

The most important sub-clade in Europe (more than 50% of G and still more in continental countries) is G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 . It is the most probable clade which was introduced by Danubian route, the other G2a subclades seemes to have introduced by the Mediterraneen route.

G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 is European wholly and probably born in Europe (certainly in a Lower Danube or immersed Occidental Black Sea before 6500C). Its cousinage with the Circassian G2a2b2a1a- U1 mainly spred in West Caucase in Adygheans, Tcherkesses, Kabards, Abkhazes and Georgians shows its ancestor G2a2b2a1-L140 come from the Colchidian refugia during Last Glacial Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis “The Colchis has a high proportion of Tertiary relict plants and animals, with the closest relatives in distant parts of the world: five species of Rhododendrons and other evergreen shrubs, wingnuts,Caucasian salamander, Caucasian Parsley Frog, eight endemic species of lizards from the genus Darevskia, Caucasian adder, Robert's vole, and endemic cave shrimps.”

Maybe , The G clade participated in the first neolithic cultures as PPNA (9700-8700BC) and PPNB (8700-7200BC) but certainly not G2a2b2a1-L140 . A branch went though the Black Sea by boat or along the coast, probably the north coast) and developped the sub-clade G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 who is still present in the lower Danube,It will need to study their markers downstraits L497 to precize their locations in the G-L497 phylogeny.

Before 7000BC (and the first entry of Neolithic in Continental Europe), 2 or 3 “neolithic” haplogroups were already present in South-West Europe : G-L497 (along the Black Sea and Lower Danube ) and E-V13, and probably J2b2-M241 (both in South-Balkans). They came as hunter-gatherers, fishermen and first sheep herders (sheep preceded neolithic waves often).
I
I am Belgian G-P15_>P30-> P303 –> L140 –> L497 –> Z725 –> Z726 –> CTS4803 –> S2808 and I stated as

1) There is no clade from Near East, Anatolia and South Balkans (as E-V13 and J2b2-M241) in Starcevo and LBK tests, destroying the theory of the first neolithic wave coming with LBK from the Near East thru South Balkans.
I don't take into account the common sentences of their conclusions. I took into account their laboratory results but I am often not fond of their conclusion sentences, too often they are cliches to be politically correct and to avoid angers of powerful scholars.

2) The clades were present locally in the Lower Danubian Mesolithic (G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317, I2a1-P37.2 and probably a basal branch of I1)

3) In french we said “une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps” means “one seen swallow does not make a spring”, english proverb “one swallow does not make a summer“ and it needs to be cautious with one I1 test. There are several possibilities
a) Laboratory mistake
b)Ancestor of the MRCA of the present I1 men.
c) Disappeared early branch of I1.
d) Always existing surviving early branch of I1.

Although Ken Nordvedt calculates a coalescence point of I1 clades 5000 years ago (3000 BC), I thing first inhabitants of Sweden were I1 members about 9500BC (11,500 years ago) and I1a1b –L22 was born at the entry of I1 in Scandinavia. 9000BC-10,000BC is a reasonable calibration date for I1a1b-L22, more reasonable than a lot of used calibration dates for other haplogroups and it is injust to reject it blindly.
Probably in Last Glacial, I1 survives leaving no or very rare archeological traces of a small clan along the Middle Danube river above the Carpatian Basin epigravattian I2. This small clan adopted the Recent Magdalenian culture at or just before the Bölling warm phase (13700BC) by contact with Magdalenians coming from South-West and developped northwards in free hunting grounds participating to the Hamburgian c. in North Germany and North-West Poland, then to the Ahrensburgian c., then to the Lingby culture in Danmark).
It is reasonable to think the I1 bottleneck spent during the LGM from 30,000C to 13,700 BC and from the small original danubian clan, only one lineage born about 15-14,000BC survived.

Addendum
4) Although, LBK people are probably the ancestors of my male lineage, I must say LBK potteries and sculptures had a very weak and unpolished qualty compared of the potteries and sculptures of Neolithic Near East, Anatolia and the following Balkanic sculptures and culturally, LBK is really apart of the other Balkanic cultures coming from Levant, Anatolia and South Balkans.
And the same thing could be said for the unpolished Cardial culture.
When people speaks about East to West migration, they ignore the very differnt level of quality between West and East, even in the third millenia BC..
Globally, Western Europe knew a workcraft of big quality only from the Middle Bronze Age (1700BC), but not the cultural and political level of the East at this time..
Here I don't speak of the great Paleolithic art which disappeared about 11,000BC

thank you

but G-L497 is 80% of Austrian tyrol, but is also in far greater numbers in North-East Italy
http://www.blutspendezurich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf

vettor
09-07-2014, 05:39 PM
As far as I know Croatia is in the Balkans.

I would like someone also to clarify which lands are included in the Balkans............I have never found a clear answer from anyone

edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

clearly romanians, slovenians, hungarians and half the craotians are not balkan people

alan
09-07-2014, 06:04 PM
This suggest that patterns of early farming suggest that early farmers came to Greece and the Adriatic/Cardial cultures from the Levant and Aegian Greece while the former Yugoslavia culture of Starcevo-Cris-Koros and Karnovo of Bulgaria show patterns of farming that might link best with NW Anatolia. The contrast being that the former were focused on sheep/goat and varied crops while the latter had much more pigs and cattle and more restricted variety of cereals.

http://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

I doubt this is definative as it is possibly just environmental adaption. However, if it was it would be significant as it as evidence of ancient DNA would suggest so far that R1b is absent in traditions of likely Levantine or Anatolian origin. So, it might be more evidence for no R1b in Anatolia in the Neolithic.

Jean M
09-07-2014, 06:33 PM
early farmers came to Greece and the Adriatic/Cardial cultures from the Levant and Aegian Greece while the former Yugoslavia culture of Starcevo-Cris-Koros and Karnovo of Bulgaria show patterns of farming that might link best with NW Anatolia.

More information should be forthcoming next year from BEAN: http://beanproject.eu/jobs

gravetti
09-07-2014, 06:33 PM
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanhalv%C3%B6n

gravetti
09-07-2014, 06:45 PM
This suggest that patterns of early farming suggest that early farmers came to Greece and the Adriatic/Cardial cultures from the Levant and Aegian Greece while the former Yugoslavia culture of Starcevo-Cris-Koros and Karnovo of Bulgaria show patterns of farming that might link best with NW Anatolia. The contrast being that the former were focused on sheep/goat and varied crops while the latter had much more pigs and cattle and more restricted variety of cereals.

http://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

I doubt this is definative as it is possibly just environmental adaption. However, if it was it would be significant as it as evidence of ancient DNA would suggest so far that R1b is absent in traditions of likely Levantine or Anatolian origin. So, it might be more evidence for no R1b in Anatolia in the Neolithic.

alan, Körös-Starčevo-Criş Culture is not the same as Körös-Cris.Körös in hungarian is the same thing that Cris in Romanian.Körös is the name of a 195 km long river in eastern Hungary,has nothing to do with former Yugoslavia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_River

Artmar
09-07-2014, 07:56 PM
Maybe , The G clade participated in the first neolithic cultures as PPNA (9700-8700BC) and PPNB (8700-7200BC) but certainly not G2a2b2a1-L140 . A branch went though the Black Sea by boat or along the coast, probably the north coast) and developped the sub-clade G2a2b2a1b-L497/S317 who is still present in the lower Danube,It will need to study their markers downstraits L497 to precize their locations in the G-L497 phylogeny.
Just participated? So who has initialised a neolithic expansion, a non-existant J or E?



Before 7000BC (and the first entry of Neolithic in Continental Europe), 2 or 3 “neolithic” haplogroups were already present in South-West Europe : G-L497 (along the Black Sea and Lower Danube ) and E-V13, and probably J2b2-M241 (both in South-Balkans). They came as hunter-gatherers, fishermen and first sheep herders (sheep preceded neolithic waves often).
How do you know as who they've come? No one has even found a J*, not to mention J2b2. It's most likely a later thing, spread by Illyrians, Etruscans, Greeks, Romans....



1) There is no clade from Near East, Anatolia and South Balkans (as E-V13 and J2b2-M241) in Starcevo and LBK tests, destroying the theory of the first neolithic wave coming with LBK from the Near East thru South Balkans.
I don't take into account the common sentences of their conclusions. I took into account their laboratory results but I am often not fond of their conclusion sentences, too often they are cliches to be politically correct and to avoid angers of powerful scholars.
We don't know how actually y-chromosomal makeup of Near East looked like. E-V13 has strong distribution in Balkans but it could've been absent that time.


3) In french we said “une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps” means “one seen swallow does not make a spring”, english proverb “one swallow does not make a summer“ and it needs to be cautious with one I1 test. There are several possibilities
a) Laboratory mistake
b)Ancestor of the MRCA of the present I1 men.
c) Disappeared early branch of I1.
d) Always existing surviving early branch of I1.
I1 is defined my dozens of SNPs, that's why it's rather not a mistake but a genuine M253. Take a look at the YFull I1 tree: http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/


9000BC-10,000BC is a reasonable calibration date for I1a1b-L22, more reasonable than a lot of used calibration dates for other haplogroups and it is injust to reject it blindly.
Such calibration date would mean that my own R1a subbranch is at least mesolithic :D.

alan
09-08-2014, 01:59 AM
I use it to mean former Yugoslavia plus the Carpathian area including Bulgaria and Romania and perhaps Hungary. II know its not technically correct because even Greece is south Balkans but I never mean Greece when i say Balkans. Its just shorthand for lands north of Greece and south of the Carpathians.

http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/7/7f/Balkans_regions_map.png/350px-Balkans_regions_map.png

I dont unsually include Hungary. I tend to think of the Balkans as a zone of mountainous land of SE Europe south of Hungary.

I like mountain landscapes so one day I would like to go to some of those countries. Croatia is very popular for seaside holidays already but you dont hear of people going to Bosnia, Serbia, Albania etc on holiday.


I would like someone also to clarify which lands are included in the Balkans............I have never found a clear answer from anyone

edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

clearly romanians, slovenians, hungarians and half the craotians are not balkan people

vettor
09-08-2014, 06:19 AM
I use it to mean former Yugoslavia plus the Carpathian area including Bulgaria and Romania and perhaps Hungary. II know its not technically correct because even Greece is south Balkans but I never mean Greece when i say Balkans. Its just shorthand for lands north of Greece and south of the Carpathians.

http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/7/7f/Balkans_regions_map.png/350px-Balkans_regions_map.png

I dont unsually include Hungary. I tend to think of the Balkans as a zone of mountainous land of SE Europe south of Hungary.

I like mountain landscapes so one day I would like to go to some of those countries. Croatia is very popular for seaside holidays already but you dont hear of people going to Bosnia, Serbia, Albania etc on holiday.

I was after clarity of who where incorporated in the balkans and not what you stated.

I was always taught that hungarians, romanians, croatians and slovenians where never balkan people.......but it seems coastal Croatians may be included.

Cofgene
09-09-2014, 04:27 PM
Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html

All those full genomes and not a single mention of y-haplogroup information?

Hando
09-09-2014, 07:57 PM
We don't know how actually y-chromosomal makeup of Near East looked like. E-V13 has strong distribution in Balkans but it could've been absent that time.
Are you saying that we do not know what DNA ancient Near Easterners had? If so, doesn't this mean that we do not know the DNA of the first Near Eastern neolithic farmers who migrated to Europe during the Neolithic?

Humanist
09-09-2014, 08:02 PM
Are you saying that we do not know what DNA ancient Near Easterners had?

I am not sure if that is what he was saying, but I can tell you definitively that, to date, there have been no aDNA Y-DNA or autosomal results published for samples from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc.

dp
09-09-2014, 08:15 PM
I am not sure if that is what he was saying, but I can tell you definitively that, to date, there have been no aDNA Y-DNA or autosomal results published for samples from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc.
That is sad. I mean you hear of Egyptian DNA studies. I've got the paper on King Tut by Z. Hawas somewhere.
I remember reading of Neanderthal remains being found in the Near East. I would think that human remains would have survived to a similar extent. I didn't know there were no analogues to MA-1 in the near east.
dp :-)

Humanist
09-09-2014, 08:22 PM
That is sad. I mean you hear of Egyptian DNA studies.

I believe there is some Y-DNA data from Egypt that has been published. But, nothing from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, etc.

dp
09-09-2014, 08:41 PM
Dear Humanist,
Not a good showing from the center of civilization, to use occidental biased language.
dp :-)

J Man
09-10-2014, 02:02 AM
Of course,but I1 was found in Hungary,not in Croatia.
From the paper:
"Key words
Ancient DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomal DNA, Neolithisation, Carpathian Basin, Central Europé"

"Farming was established in Central Europe by the Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK), a well-investigated archaeological horizon, which emerged in the Carpathian Basin, in today’s Hungary."

I was not even talking about the I1 sample from Hungary if you read my post. I was talking about the mtDNA haplogroup U5b2a5 sample from Korcula island Croatia.

J Man
09-10-2014, 02:05 AM
I would like someone also to clarify which lands are included in the Balkans............I have never found a clear answer from anyone

edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

clearly romanians, slovenians, hungarians and half the craotians are not balkan people

The countries/nations of the Balkans are...Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia, Romania, Albania, Greece, Montenegro and Slovenia. All of those countries are in the Balkans or at least partially in the Balkans.

J Man
09-10-2014, 02:07 AM
European Jews Are All 30th Cousins, Study Finds.

http://www.livescience.com/47755-european-jews-are-30th-cousins.html?cmpid=514627_20140909_31308916

ADW_1981
09-10-2014, 02:09 AM
I am not sure if that is what he was saying, but I can tell you definitively that, to date, there have been no aDNA Y-DNA or autosomal results published for samples from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc.

I suspect that G2a was spread through the Fertile Cresent, only to be superseded by J1/J2 slightly later on.

J Man
09-10-2014, 02:11 AM
I suspect that G2a was spread through the Fertile Cresent, only to be superseded by J1/J2 slightly later on.

I wonder where J1 and J2 originated? Maybe they also originated in the Fertile Crescent but for some reason happened to win out over the haplogroup G men also present there over time. Or maybe they were newcomers from somewhere else.

Artmar
09-10-2014, 01:20 PM
I am not sure if that is what he was saying, but I can tell you definitively that, to date, there have been no aDNA Y-DNA or autosomal results published for samples from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc.
Yes, I meant y-dna and autosomals from Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia etc.

ADW_1981
09-10-2014, 02:17 PM
I wonder where J1 and J2 originated? Maybe they also originated in the Fertile Crescent but for some reason happened to win out over the haplogroup G men also present there over time. Or maybe they were newcomers from somewhere else.

Perhaps G2a represents expansion of the pre-pottery Neolithic from the fertile crescent. This goes way back to 8500 BC and that's certainly enough time for it to expand into the Balkans and eastern Europe by 6000 BC or so. If the earliest farmers were something other than F or G, I would be very surprised since these same lineages have appeared in 40 or so bodies now within a European farming context. The earlier foragers are clearly within haplogroup I.

All that said there is plenty of turnover which occurred since then in the fertile crescent - Halaf, Ubaid are two later competing cultures which come to mind.

Agamemnon
09-10-2014, 03:07 PM
Perhaps G2a represents expansion of the pre-pottery Neolithic from the fertile crescent.

That's also what I was about to say, I'm getting more & more the impression that the PPNB horizon is associated with G2a... Which is interesting since other studies associated it to the diffusion of J1-P58 (Chiaroni et al. 2009 for instance).

parasar
09-10-2014, 04:44 PM
...
Eulau 2600 before Chr.
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm#Praindoeuropejczycy_i_ich_ojczyzna
Is it possible that Eulau was an earlier migration and that the bulk of R1a1 came in later?
Do we know the mtDNA composition of Corded Ware in Poland?

From a later period:
Table 17-18-19-20
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/10593/2702/1/Anna%20Juras%20Praca%20doktorska.pdf

Shaikorth
09-10-2014, 07:29 PM
We present whole genome sequences generated from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), two of which are dated to around 2,000 years before present (Iron Age), and three to around 1,300 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period)...

We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples, the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

This is interesting, considering the British Isles populations that weren't so greatly affected by Anglo-Saxons, like the Irish, tend to be more "mesolithic" than the English today.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2a0htud.jpg

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122098.htm

Hando
09-10-2014, 07:43 PM
This is interesting, considering the British Isles populations that weren't so greatly affected by Anglo-Saxons, like the Irish, tend to be more "mesolithic" than the English today.

When it says "the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS)." does this mean the Iron age samples are more similar in terms of DNA with present southern European (Spanish) populations? I am thrown off by the term low frequency variation which is a term I do not understand.

Hando
09-10-2014, 07:44 PM
I suspect that G2a was spread through the Fertile Cresent, only to be superseded by J1/J2 slightly later on.

When do you think J1/J2 superseded G2a? What time period? Thanks

RCO
09-11-2014, 12:40 AM
When do you think J1/J2 superseded G2a? What time period? Thanks

Remember the map of the Caucasian disposition of haplogroups (Balanovsky, 2011 - Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region). J1 in the East, J2 in the Centre-East and G2 in the Centre-West and West, so originally J1 would be in the right, around the Southern Caspian region, J2 would be placed to the left of J1 and G to the West (left), so G could be the first to advance to Anatolia and G were the first Anatolian-European farmers meeting the haplogroup I European hunter-gatherers. Ramifications of J2 and J1 also spreaded to every direction with some of the derived branches.

http://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Languages-and-genes-in-North-Caucasus.jpg

Generalissimo
09-11-2014, 04:26 AM
When it says "the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS)." does this mean the Iron age samples are more similar in terms of DNA with present southern European (Spanish) populations? I am thrown off by the term low frequency variation which is a term I do not understand.

They're talking about very rare alleles not overall ancestry.

So overall the Iron Age Brit was more similar to Northern Europeans than to Southern Europeans. But the fact that it carried more of these very low frequency alleles specific to Iberia suggests that it shared direct links with Iberians that the Anglo-Saxon genomes lacked.

vettor
09-11-2014, 05:56 AM
Remember the map of the Caucasian disposition of haplogroups (Balanovsky, 2011 - Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region). J1 in the East, J2 in the Centre-East and G2 in the Centre-West and West, so originally J1 would be in the right, around the Southern Caspian region, J2 would be placed to the left of J1 and G to the West (left), so G could be the first to advance to Anatolia and G were the first Anatolian-European farmers meeting the haplogroup I European hunter-gatherers. Ramifications of J2 and J1 also spreaded to every direction with some of the derived branches.

http://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Languages-and-genes-in-North-Caucasus.jpg

and your scenario fits with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_the_Caucasus

the surprising one for me is L, as in 14% of chenens in dagestan

vettor
09-11-2014, 06:01 AM
This is interesting, considering the British Isles populations that weren't so greatly affected by Anglo-Saxons, like the Irish, tend to be more "mesolithic" than the English today.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2a0htud.jpg

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122098.htm

it always surprises me that north-italians sit next to spaniards.

I feel that , if these tests could split castilian spain, from catalonian spain and from galician spain, we might make more sense of these plots

Shaikorth
09-11-2014, 06:20 AM
it always surprises me that north-italians sit next to spaniards.

I feel that , if these tests could split castilian spain, from catalonian spain and from galician spain, we might make more sense of these plots

The problem is that Iberian peninsula excluding the Basque Country has very little population substructure. We might see Spanish/Portuguese subgroups in a PCA that only contained Iberians, but they will start overlapping and become a single grouping on any European-wide PCA.

Atimeres
09-11-2014, 06:57 PM
Chuan-Chao Wang, M Thomas P Gilbert, Li Jin and Hui Li, Evaluating the Y chromosomal timescale in human demographic and lineage dating, Investigative Genetics 2014, 5:12 http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/5/1/12

This table of the haplogroups time, respectively extended to other divisions of the main haplogroups, probably not a bad idea!
We expect only to Big Y and Y-Full gave us a summary of the results for the youngest subclades.
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/hg_time.jpg

J Man
09-11-2014, 10:40 PM
Perhaps G2a represents expansion of the pre-pottery Neolithic from the fertile crescent. This goes way back to 8500 BC and that's certainly enough time for it to expand into the Balkans and eastern Europe by 6000 BC or so. If the earliest farmers were something other than F or G, I would be very surprised since these same lineages have appeared in 40 or so bodies now within a European farming context. The earlier foragers are clearly within haplogroup I.

All that said there is plenty of turnover which occurred since then in the fertile crescent - Halaf, Ubaid are two later competing cultures which come to mind.

Many people for a long time thought that Y-DNA J was the main marker of the earliest farmers of the Near East. I do think there is a good chance that J was present among the earliest farmers of the Levant.

J Man
09-11-2014, 10:41 PM
Remember the map of the Caucasian disposition of haplogroups (Balanovsky, 2011 - Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region). J1 in the East, J2 in the Centre-East and G2 in the Centre-West and West, so originally J1 would be in the right, around the Southern Caspian region, J2 would be placed to the left of J1 and G to the West (left), so G could be the first to advance to Anatolia and G were the first Anatolian-European farmers meeting the haplogroup I European hunter-gatherers. Ramifications of J2 and J1 also spreaded to every direction with some of the derived branches.

http://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Languages-and-genes-in-North-Caucasus.jpg

Wouldn't they have had plenty of time to mix and spread around together though?

ArmandoR1b
09-12-2014, 04:34 PM
This is interesting, considering the British Isles populations that weren't so greatly affected by Anglo-Saxons, like the Irish, tend to be more "mesolithic" than the English today.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2a0htud.jpg

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122098.htm

Could you elaborate more on what you are saying? I don't understand which study shows the Irish to be more "mesolithic" than the English today. How does that tie in to the graph which shows the Irish to be closely related to the British? Where is the graph from?

dp
09-12-2014, 04:43 PM
European Jews Are All 30th Cousins, Study Finds.

http://www.livescience.com/47755-european-jews-are-30th-cousins.html?cmpid=514627_20140909_31308916

Read something of that same study. Since the MRCA is estimated at 30 generations ago, that would be only 900 ybp. mtDNA results have indicated earlier coalescence estimates, say 1800 ybp. Thus the autosomal figure is half of the mtDNA estimate.
dp :-)

Hando
09-13-2014, 07:48 PM
Gerstenberger J, Hummel S, Schultes T, Häck B, Herrmann B, Reconstruction of a historical genealogy by means of STR analysis and Y-haplotyping of ancient DNA. Eur J Hum Genet. 1999 May-Jun;7(4):469-77. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v7/n4/pdf/5200322a.pdf

Old but gold. I've never seen this thesis previously and results are not listed at ancestraljourneys.

I've ran y-DNA samples with Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor:
Hanns Sigismund (1552-1618) - I1?
Hanns Christoph (1511-1546)- I1?
Wolf Ehrenreich (1587-1638) - I1?
Josef Wilhelm (1648-1716)- I1?
Georg Josef (1684-1749) - R1b? - probably NPE

When you say Georg Josef was not the biological son/descendant of Josef Wilhelm (NPE), what possible scenarios can we assume? That Georg Josef was adopted from outside of the family or something else?

Grossvater
09-14-2014, 01:49 PM
When you say Georg Josef was not the biological son/descendant of Josef Wilhelm (NPE), what possible scenarios can we assume? That Georg Josef was adopted from outside of the family or something else?

To put it inelegantly...Mom had a fling with the gardener. Only now is the truth coming out.

Artmar
09-14-2014, 02:07 PM
To put it inelegantly...Mom had a fling with the gardener. Only now is the truth coming out.
:D.

Not necessarilly. For example - among Polish nobility, there were several adoptions. Nobleman adopted other male noble person (usually his daughter's husband) if he didn't left any male descendants - to prevent from dividing all the assets.

That's observable in y-dna projects but we have to know that certain surname was given only to one person at some point. Although there are also genetically confirmed cases of NPE, like one of the Czartoryski princes descending from a French man and bearing R1b instead of N1c that other documented and related Czartoryski lineages have.

seferhabahir
09-14-2014, 04:36 PM
European Jews Are All 30th Cousins, Study Finds.

http://www.livescience.com/47755-european-jews-are-30th-cousins.html?cmpid=514627_20140909_31308916

I commented on an abstract to this paper about a year ago regarding the 300-400 person/family European bottleneck that presumably led to all my Family Finder cousins. At last count, my sister and I each have over 3600 Family Finder cousins. No doubt if the algorithm FTDNA used was more lenient than the "5th to remote" cutoff, we would be matched up to every Ashkenazi person that has ever taken Family Finder. But a more interesting question for me is where my R1b paternal line that broke off from the rest of R-Z251 (likely in Europe) two thousand years before Jewish history became Jewish (in the Rhineland? in Italy? in the Middle East?). Just for grins and to paraphrase the Bible, I currently favor the "My father was a wandering Mediterranean trader, and he went down into Egypt or Canaan with a few others and lived there" explanation. Until I find a lot more SNPs shared between "Celtic" and "Jewish" testers below R-S9294, it's as good a story as any other for now.

Humanist
09-14-2014, 04:53 PM
Just for grins and to paraphrase the Bible, I currently favor the "My father was a wandering Mediterranean trader, and he went down into Egypt or Canaan with a few others and lived there" explanation.

Mediterranean trader? Where do you find that translation?

Agamemnon
09-14-2014, 05:08 PM
I commented on an abstract to this paper about a year ago regarding the 300-400 person/family European bottleneck that presumably led to all my Family Finder cousins. At last count, my sister and I each have over 3600 Family Finder cousins. No doubt if the algorithm FTDNA used was more lenient than the "5th to remote" cutoff, we would be matched up to every Ashkenazi person that has ever taken Family Finder. But a more interesting question for me is where my R1b paternal line that broke off from the rest of R-Z251 (likely in Europe) two thousand years before Jewish history became Jewish (in the Rhineland? in Italy? in the Middle East?). Just for grins and to paraphrase the Bible, I currently favor the "My father was a wandering Mediterranean trader, and he went down into Egypt or Canaan with a few others and lived there" explanation. Until I find a lot more SNPs shared between "Celtic" and "Jewish" testers below R-S9294, it's as good a story as any other for now.

That's actually quite likely if you ask me, and the same could count for some Jewish U152 clades IMHO.

ADW_1981
09-14-2014, 05:20 PM
When you say Georg Josef was not the biological son/descendant of Josef Wilhelm (NPE), what possible scenarios can we assume? That Georg Josef was adopted from outside of the family or something else?

Granted I just quickly skimmed the paper, but you cannot accurately determine a haplogroup from 4 STR, let alone the 4 which were selected. It does look like a NPE was involved though.

Hando
09-14-2014, 08:04 PM
:D.

Not necessarilly. For example - among Polish nobility, there were several adoptions. Nobleman adopted other male noble person (usually his daughter's husband) if he didn't left any male descendants - to prevent from dividing all the assets.

That's observable in y-dna projects but we have to know that certain surname was given only to one person at some point. Although there are also genetically confirmed cases of NPE, like one of the Czartoryski princes descending from a French man and bearing R1b instead of N1c that other documented and related Czartoryski lineages have.

But either through adoption or the gardner, it seems certain that Georg Josef was not the biological son/descendant of Josef Wilhelm. If it was by adoption of his daughter's husband, then the daughter's child would still be his biological grandson. So in this way the current descendants are still biologically related to Josef Wilhelm. But, how terrible for the current Konigsfeld family to find out they are not descended from their lineage founder. What country are they from?

seferhabahir
09-14-2014, 11:31 PM
Mediterranean trader? Where do you find that translation?

Nowhere. I took some poetic license to make a point. I know what the actual translation is, having studied biblical literature for 30 years.

seferhabahir
09-15-2014, 12:19 AM
That's actually quite likely if you ask me, and the same could count for some Jewish U152 clades IMHO.

I wonder if some of the Jewish U152 clusters and the L21 Jewish cluster can be shown to be significantly different than say the L47 "Ivanhoe Cluster" in terms of genetic isolation and high numbers of novel variants, based on recent Big Y and FGC results. I have not done a study on this, but maybe I will.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?142-L47*-%28Z159-DYS438-11%29-The-quot-Ivanhoe-Cluster-quot

Not to get hung up on biblical translations (or truthfulness) again, but there were probably good reasons the writers of the Exodus chose to use the phrase "And a mixed multitude [erev rav in Hebrew] went up also with them". This literal "riff-raff" could have included an ethnically diverse group of Mediterranean imports (R1b and others) into Egypt's lower social strata, who then took the opportunity to leave along with more local J1/J2/E1 types during the Exodus (or if you prefer, some other historical migration out of Egypt, such as the Hyksos expulsion).