PDA

View Full Version : K's and Ashkenazim



dp
07-21-2014, 07:28 PM
check out Marta D. Costa's 2013 paper, "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages." I think, 30% of all Ashkenzim are in K. From what I can tell, every complete haplogroup K mitogenome available was used. It was done after Behar's massive 8,000 novel familytreedna sequences were added, so it was very comprehensive. Any tagged information such as ethnicity, origin locality or the like was also indicated. Coalescence dates for the individual haplogroups was also generated.
An earlier paper that had a similar impact on haplogroup K studies was a 2006 Ashkenazim study by Doron Behar.
David Powell
dp :-)

AJL
07-21-2014, 07:47 PM
Already some threads on this with salient critiques of Costa's methods:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1419-New-paper-on-Ashkenazi-mtDNA-lineages

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News/page6

Longbowman
01-27-2015, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure about K1a9 but K1a1b1a and K2a2 clearly nest among European lineages.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_K_mtDNA.shtml#subclades

dp
01-27-2015, 06:18 PM
Dear Longbowman,
Being nested within a larger (European) clade --not that K is large-- and being a distinct downstream (Jewish) clade are different things. Yep, they all are probably derived from European mothers, of various K haplogroups, say 1800 years ago, but the groups diverged. At some point Jewish men had to have interbred with a European women from each haplogroup, and the descendants of these women over time have come to predominate the European Jewish genetic pool. It's remarkable to think that millions of people can share a handful of ancestors in just two millenia. The closest analog, for a similar time period, I can think of at the moment is the haplotype of Mongols descended from the Khans [see Wikipedia - suggested 25 Marker "Genghis Khan" Y-DNA Profile by FamilyTreeDNA], and maybe the up to 40% Irish men that have the M222 SNP.
dp :-)

vettor
01-27-2015, 06:32 PM
Dear Longbowman,
Being nested within a larger (European) clade --not that K is large-- and being a distinct downstream (Jewish) clade are different things. Yep, they all are probably derived from European mothers, of various K haplogroups, say 1800 years ago, but the groups diverged. At some point Jewish men had to have interbred with a European women from each haplogroup, and the descendants of these women over time have come to predominate the European Jewish genetic pool. It's remarkable to think that millions of people can share a handful of ancestors in just two millenia. The closest analog, for a similar time period, I can think of at the moment is the haplotype of Mongols descended from the Khans [see Wikipedia - suggested 25 Marker "Genghis Khan" Y-DNA Profile by FamilyTreeDNA], and maybe the up to 40% Irish men that have the M222 SNP.
dp :-)

which mtdna K subclades are predominate jewish women?....................mtdna K is far far older than the jewish faith, clearly only some subclades can be associated as from a jewish line the rest cannot be

AJL
01-27-2015, 06:45 PM
which mtdna K subclades are predominate jewish women?....................mtdna K is far far older than the jewish faith, clearly only some subclades can be associated as from a jewish line the rest cannot be

K1a9, K2a2, K1a1b1a.

Longbowman
01-27-2015, 07:04 PM
Dear Longbowman,
Being nested within a larger (European) clade --not that K is large-- and being a distinct downstream (Jewish) clade are different things. Yep, they all are probably derived from European mothers, of various K haplogroups, say 1800 years ago, but the groups diverged. At some point Jewish men had to have interbred with a European women from each haplogroup, and the descendants of these women over time have come to predominate the European Jewish genetic pool. It's remarkable to think that millions of people can share a handful of ancestors in just two millenia. The closest analog, for a similar time period, I can think of at the moment is the haplotype of Mongols descended from the Khans [see Wikipedia - suggested 25 Marker "Genghis Khan" Y-DNA Profile by FamilyTreeDNA], and maybe the up to 40% Irish men that have the M222 SNP.
dp :-)

I believed this to be true anyhow; what are you reading from my post that disagrees with it?

dp
01-27-2015, 07:05 PM
which mtdna K subclades are predominate jewish women?....................mtdna K is far far older than the jewish faith, clearly only some subclades can be associated as from a jewish line the rest cannot be
AJL answered your first part of your question. To address the second, I said and quote myself
nested within a larger (European) clade
dp :-)

John Doe
01-27-2015, 07:09 PM
I'm K1a9, so what does this mean?

Longbowman
01-27-2015, 07:10 PM
I'm K1a9, so what does this mean?

Typical Ashkenazi clade. Possibly ultimately European in origin.

GailT
01-28-2015, 01:35 AM
Yep, they all are probably derived from European mothers, of various K haplogroups, say 1800 years ago, but the groups diverged. At some point Jewish men had to have interbred with a European women from each haplogroup, and the descendants of these women over time have come to predominate the European Jewish genetic pool.

Only if you believe Costa's conclusions, and everything that Costa et al. write in their Supplement contradict the conclusions of their paper. It's the worst sort of naive phylogeographic analysis that never should have passed peer review. I don't have any personnel stake in this (no Jewish ancestry) but it amazes me that such flawed analysis can be published and widely accepted as reliable.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 01:52 AM
Only if you believe Costa's conclusions, and everything that Costa et al. write in their Supplement contradict the conclusions of their paper. It's the worst sort of naive phylogeographic analysis that never should have passed peer review. I don't have any personnel stake in this (no Jewish ancestry) but it amazes me that such flawed analysis can be published and widely accepted as reliable.

Well, most recent research supports Ashkenazis having European ancestry, so even though Costa's methodology was superficial and insufficient, it doesn't mean he's wrong.

AJL
01-28-2015, 02:00 AM
Well, most recent research supports Ashkenazis having European ancestry, so even though Costa's methodology was superficial and insufficient, it doesn't mean he's wrong.

First of all, she's a she not a he. Second, it doesn't mean she's right either. The nature of science is you need to gather sufficient evidence using proper methodology before making conclusions.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 02:06 AM
First of all, she's a she not a he. Second, it doesn't mean she's right either. The nature of science is you need to gather sufficient evidence using proper methodology before making conclusions.

Apologies. I should have said 'they.'

I didn't say otherwise.

jesus
01-28-2015, 02:14 AM
U8b is also found in Ashkenazis. K is considered the most common subclade of U8b according to Wiki.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/u8b_genbank_sequences.htm

jesus
01-28-2015, 02:22 AM
How accurate is this figure?

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/images/ncomms3543-f1.jpg
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/fig_tab/ncomms3543_F1.html

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 02:37 AM
How accurate is this figure?

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/images/ncomms3543-f1.jpg
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/fig_tab/ncomms3543_F1.html

Pretty accurate.

vettor
01-28-2015, 06:37 AM
Is william Hurst still running the K mtdna project for Ftdna .............I sent him 5 emails in 6 months and never received a reply..........I do know he was in hospital same time back

dp
01-28-2015, 04:11 PM
Dear Jean,

I was thinking of Behar 2006 when I mentioned the 1800 years ago. Guess I should have stated.

Only if we have mtDNA from say 2000 years ago remains from the Levant can any association with the three K groups prior to known German settlement (200 AD or so) be established.

dp :-)

GailT
01-28-2015, 05:40 PM
How accurate is this figure?

Extremely inaccurate. Most of the evidence that Costa et al. discuss suggests a near eastern origin for K, and it likely expanded into Europe during the Neolithic. So every block earlier than about 10,000 years ago would be green, with the exception of U8 (because there is a U8c ancient mtDNA sample in Europe dated to 31,000 ybp).

mtDNA provides very poor temporal resolution. If you have a subclade that dates to 4000 ybp, and if that subclade originated in the Near East, it may have migrated to Europe and also remained in the Near East. So the fact that you find it in Europe does not prove that it was exclusive to Europe.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 05:52 PM
Extremely inaccurate. Most of the evidence that Costa et al. discuss suggests a near eastern origin for K, and it likely expanded into Europe during the Neolithic. So every block earlier than about 10,000 years ago would be green, with the exception of U8 (because there is a U8c ancient mtDNA sample in Europe dated to 31,000 ybp).

mtDNA provides very poor temporal resolution. If you have a subclade that dates to 4000 ybp, and if that subclade originated in the Near East, it may have migrated to Europe and also remained in the Near East. So the fact that you find it in Europe does not prove that it was exclusive to Europe.

R1b didn't originate in the UK but specific clades are almost undoubtedly British in origin, similar to K1a9"10etc. Whilst I wouldn't call it perfect, 'extremely inaccurate' is unfair.

GailT
01-28-2015, 06:01 PM
Well, most recent research supports Ashkenazis having European ancestry, so even though Costa's methodology was superficial and insufficient, it doesn't mean he's wrong.

I assume there was mixing of Ashkenazis Jewish and European populations in the last 2000 years, but I don't think the Costa analysis supports the conclusion that this mixing was only (or even primarily) through the maternal line.

Some of the common ancestry of European and Ashkenazis Jewish populations will date to their common origin in near Eastern farmers. I think you need ancient DNA from the near east to quantify how much of the Ashkenazis Jewish ancestry dates to recent mixing with Europeans.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 06:02 PM
I assume there was mixing of Ashkenazis Jewish and European populations in the last 2000 years, but I don't think the Costa analysis supports the conclusion that this mixing was only (or even primarily) through the maternal line.

Some of the common ancestry of European and Ashkenazis Jewish populations will date to their common origin in near Eastern farmers. I think you need ancient DNA from the near east to quantify how much of the Ashkenazis Jewish ancestry dates to recent mixing with Europeans.

Naturally some will be Neolithic (European or otherwise) but the autosomal DNA suggests enormous levels of admixture and YDNA and the historical record suggests it happened on the female line.

GailT
01-28-2015, 06:05 PM
R1b didn't originate in the UK but specific clades are almost undoubtedly British in origin, similar to K1a9"10etc. Whilst I wouldn't call it perfect, 'extremely inaccurate' is unfair.

Yes, but it is only the very young subclades of R1b that have a specifically European origin, probably within the last 4000 years. y-DNA provides excellent temporal resolution.

There probably are K subclades that originated specifically in Europe in the last 10,000 years, but its difficult to resolve those subclades (temporally and geographically) because of the slow mutation rate and very poor temporal resolution of mtDNA.

GailT
01-28-2015, 06:09 PM
Naturally some will be Neolithic (European or otherwise) but the autosomal DNA suggests enormous levels of admixture..

Are there recent papers that support this, and that also quantify the amount of common ancestry that originates in the Near East? I think you need ancient near eastern Jewish autosomal DNA (dated at 2000-3000 years ago) to do this analysis. [edit: My point is that Jewish and European DNA may have already been very similar 2000 years ago).

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 06:09 PM
Yes, but it is only the very young subclades of R1b that have a specifically European origin, probably within the last 4000 years. y-DNA provides excellent temporal resolution.

There probably are K subclades that originated specifically in Europe in the last 10,000 years, but its difficult to resolve those subclades (temporally and geographically) because of the slow mutation rate and very poor temporal resolution of mtDNA.

Yes, I'm just trying to draw a rough parallel. Certain clades (K1a1b1, for example) are found almost uniquely in Northwestern Europe. Nothing is set in stone, but whilst we can dismiss his methodology, it doesn't follow that the conclusions he drew were necessarily inaccurate.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 06:13 PM
Are there recent papers that support this, and that also quantify the amount of common ancestry that originates in the Near East? I think you need ancient near eastern Jewish autosomal DNA (dated at 2000-3000 years ago) to do this analysis.

Not that I know of. It just makes sense considering the results of citizen scientist projects like the various Eurogenes calculators in addition to what we know from the historical record. I don't know of anyone who's come forward recently to propose the opposite. You're right in saying we need some ancient Israelite DNA, but one can make educated guesses by seeing where current Jewish populations plot and comparing them to modern-day Levantine populations like Samaritans or Druze.

DMXX
01-28-2015, 06:15 PM
We'll likely (and hopefully soon) reach a point where terminal SNPs date to perhaps a few hundred years at the most. It will likely be at that point where Y-STRs would truly be relegated to the sidelines as a historical research material. If we aren't there now, we certainly will be at the point where lineages downstream of R1b-L21 for instance will be restricted to the British Isles in the near future.

GailT
01-28-2015, 06:24 PM
Yes, I'm just trying to draw a rough parallel. Certain clades (K1a1b1, for example) are found almost uniquely in Northwestern Europe. Nothing is set in stone, but whilst we can dismiss his methodology, it doesn't follow that the conclusions he drew were necessarily inaccurate.

Yes, I'll agree that the conclusion about recent admixture in Europe might be accurate, but I think the conclusions about the European origins of K are inaccurate. Costa et al. cite extensive evidence in the supplement that supports a near eastern origin for K but then reject that evidence in favour or a European origin for K, largely based on the U8c ancient sample and present day distributions of K. There is a long history of academics relying on present day distributions to indicate ancient origins, and this is the naive phylogeographic analysis that I've criticized. Many others have made this mistake so it's a common failure of the research community.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 06:30 PM
Yes, I'll agree that the conclusion about recent admixture in Europe might be accurate, but I think the conclusions about the European origins of K are inaccurate. Costa et al. cite extensive evidence in the supplement that supports a near eastern origin for K but then reject that evidence in favour or a European origin for K, largely based on the U8c ancient sample and present day distributions of K. There is a long history of academics relying on present day distributions to indicate ancient origins, and this is the naive phylogeographic analysis that I've criticized. Many others have made this mistake so it's a common failure of the research community.

I should clarify that by lending tentative support to Costa's results if not her methodology I'm suggesting the European Jews mixed with Europeans and accrued European lineages of which many would have been ultimately Neolithic in origin and thus Near Eastern as of ~5-7,000 years ago. Costa's study also shows 25% H and HVO and other lineages that could be Mesolithic; I wouldn't argue that the K-clades weren't Neolithic; I would merely suggest they weren't Jewish until after the exodus.

seferhabahir
01-28-2015, 06:47 PM
Are there recent papers that support this, and that also quantify the amount of common ancestry that originates in the Near East? I think you need ancient near eastern Jewish autosomal DNA (dated at 2000-3000 years ago) to do this analysis. [edit: My point is that Jewish and European DNA may have already been very similar 2000 years ago).

Well, there's the Zoossmann-Diskin paper from 2010 "The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms" that is sometimes referenced in support of this, but I think most people disagree with the conclusions.

http://www.biologydirect.com/content/5/1/57

"[Eastern European Jews] are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data." is the paper's major conclusion based on the methods he used.

I used to think this might have been applicable to my own Y-DNA line (possible Roman Empire conversion in Italy of an R-L21 lineage) until I found out through recent FGC and Big Y results that my line diverged 4000-5000 years ago from the rest of L21, instead of only 2000 years ago. Obviously, there are now genetic data that support other origin scenarios, including Middle Eastern ones, even for R1b clades.

warwick
01-28-2015, 09:56 PM
check out Marta D. Costa's 2013 paper, "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages." I think, 30% of all Ashkenzim are in K. From what I can tell, every complete haplogroup K mitogenome available was used. It was done after Behar's massive 8,000 novel familytreedna sequences were added, so it was very comprehensive. Any tagged information such as ethnicity, origin locality or the like was also indicated. Coalescence dates for the individual haplogroups was also generated.
An earlier paper that had a similar impact on haplogroup K studies was a 2006 Ashkenazim study by Doron Behar.
David Powell
dp :-)

The best recent work is by Pe'er and others, and I believe it suggests a 50% European and 50% Middle East mix for Ashkenazi Jews, from a founding population of less than 1,000 people around 1000 AD.


Reconstruction of recent AJ history from such segments confirms a recent bottleneck of merely ≈ 350 individuals. Modelling of ancient histories for AJ and European populations using their joint allele frequency spectrum determines AJ to be an even admixture of European and likely Middle Eastern origins.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25203624

Founding population: 350

AJ bottleneck (effective size 250–420; 25–32 generations ago)

European percentage of Ashkenazi Jews:
" One ancestral population, consistent with being the ancestors of the FL samples, contributed 46–50% of the AJ gene pool. "

GailT
01-28-2015, 11:17 PM
Costa's study also shows 25% H and HVO and other lineages that could be Mesolithic; I wouldn't argue that the K-clades weren't Neolithic; I would merely suggest they weren't Jewish until after the exodus.

As yet there is no solid evidence of mtDNA H and HV0 in Mesolithic Europeans, so these also probably originated in near eastern farmers. The problem with the K analysis (which Costa et al. recognize but can't explain) is the unusually high percentage of mtDNA K. If European Jewish women were mostly of European origin, you would expect their mtDNA distribution to be more similar to the non-Jewish European distribution. The high percentage of K, and the probability that K originated in the near east, suggests that these mtDNA lineages originated in the near east, not Europe. It's possible that a founder effect was the cause of the high percentage of K, but in the case of a founder expect you would expect a single subclade of K. In fact, there are several K subclades found among European Jews.

Longbowman
01-28-2015, 11:20 PM
As yet there is no solid evidence of mtDNA H and HV0 in Mesolithic Europeans, so these also probably originated in near eastern farmers. The problem with the K analysis (which Costa et al. recognize but can't explain) is the unusually high percentage of mtDNA K. If European Jewish women were mostly of European origin, you would expect their mtDNA distribution to be more similar to the non-Jewish European distribution. The high percentage of K, and the probability that K originated in the near east, suggests that these mtDNA lineages originated in the near east, not Europe. It's possible that a founder effect was the cause of the high percentage of K, but in the case of a founder expect you would expect a single subclade of K. In fact, there are several K subclades found among European Jews.

I don't see how it follows the high percentage, which is far higher than any other demographic, ME or not, would indicate ME origin.

We're only talking about 3 major subclades of K anyhow.

warwick
01-28-2015, 11:49 PM
There happens to be k1a1b1 in Crete as I recall, for example. It is quite conceivable that K1a1b1a was present in the region between southern Italy, Greece, Crete, Anatolia and the Near East. Also, since there was significant population movement around the Mediterranean, it shouldn't be surprising that settlements in Greece, Sicily, and the Near East might share recent migrations, particularly since a large number of Jews were found in Sicily under the early Roman empire.

EDIT:
The k1a1b1 person was of Greek origin, and born in Crete, with no Jewish ancestry. A starting point might be to look for the origin of K1a1b1a somewhere within a radius X from Crete, perhaps 500 miles.

Piquerobi
01-29-2015, 12:09 AM
Someone wrote this on the FamilyTreeDNA forum:


Let’s start from the positive – as most paternal lineages carried by Ashkenazi Jews seem to trace back to the Levant, yet autosomal DNA tests reveal that Ashkenazi Jews have more European admixture than other Jewish populations, there is a strong assumption that the inflow into the Jewish community most likely occurred on the maternal side.

The problem is, reading through the article, that the authors with a predetermined conclusion in mind, seem to have set out to prove this despite not having sufficient data to do so.

Considering the K halogroups and K1a1b1a in particular (which is the most significant haplogroup making up 20% of total Ashkenazi lineages). As the authors state: “These lineages are extremely infrequent across the Near East and Europe, making the identification of potential source populations very challenging. Nevertheless, they concluded that all four most likely arose in the Near East and were markers of a migration to Europe of people ancestral to the Ashkenazim only ~2,000 years ago”

It is worthwhile repeating why Behar concluded that these haplogroups most likely originated in the Levant – the age of these maternal lineages (which are restricted to Jewish populations) exceeds 2,000 years. The authors admit the same: “K1a1b1a, K1a9 and K2a2a12. These three founder clusters show a strong expansion signal beginning ~2.3 ka” and furthermore “K1a1b1a (slightly re-defined, due to the improved resolution of the new tree) (Fig. 2) accounts for 63% of Ashkenazi K lineages (or ~20% of total Ashkenazi lineages) and dates to ~4.4 ka with maximum likelihood (ML)”. Just to place these results in their historical perspective 2,300 years predates the dispersal of the Jewish population from the Levant to Europe and 4,400 years predates the ancient Israelite kingdoms. Assuming that these haplogroups had originated in “Europe” many hundreds (or even thousands) of years prior to the establishment of the Ashkenazi Jewish community in Europe you would expect to find other non-Jewish individuals carrying ancient versions of these maternal lineages. The opposite is true – as the authors themselves admit those individuals in Europe carrying these maternal lineages nest within the Ashkenazi cluster and the geneflow is from the Ashkenazi community outwards rather than inwards.

In order to get around this problem what the authors do is make a false assumption – that it is possible to gain a better understanding of the origin of the haplogroup by looking at the lineages upstream – so in the case of K1a1b1a the authors examine K1a1b1. This is what they conclude: “The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (including 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)”. There are a number of problems with this conclusion – I will focus on its age. K1a1b1 is by the authors own admission over 10k years old (Figure 2). Do the authors not consider that in the interim ~6,000 years between the appearance of K1a1b1 and the appearance of K1a1b1a the maternal lineage could have possibly migrated to and from the Levant? Since ancient times the Mediterranean basin has been the “central superhighway of transport, trade and cultural exchange between diverse peoples—encompassing three continents: Western Asia, North Africa, and Southern Europe”. During the timeframe in question the Western and Eastern Mediterranean were better connected than the Western Mediterranean was to North Western Europe and the British Isles. If K1a1b1 ended up in the British Isles there is no logical reason it could not have ended up or originated in the Eastern Mediterranean during the many thousands of years of its existence. If anything the paper shows the authors lack of knowledge of the ancient world and their inability to escape from the modern definition of Europe, which is completely irrelevant when looking at haplogroups thousands and tens of thousands of years old.

This is reinforced when the authors make the following statement: “the lack of haplogroup K lineages in Samaritans, who might be expected to have shared an ancestral gene pool with ancient Israelites, both strongly imply that we are unlikely to have missed a hitherto undetected Levantine ‘reservoir’ of haplogroup K variation”. As the Samaritan population numbers 751 closely related individuals as of 2012 (and is actually a population of the verge of extinction) there is no reason whatsoever to think that it is in any way representative of the diversity of the ancient Israelite gene-pool.

This does not mean that K1a1b1a cannot have entered the Ashkenazi Jewish gene-pool in the Northern Mediterranean rather than the Levant, but the age of the haplogroup, and its apparent absence in non-Jewish populations indicates the opposite and until K1a1b1a samples are found amongst different ancestral populations or in ancient samples the fact that it originated in the Levant is the more logical conclusion.

Just to show the fallacy of this idea the authors promote that the geographical spread of a certain haplogroup has any implications for those downstream when looking at time frames of thousands of years let us examine HV1b2. The authors conclude that “HV1b2 mitogenomes, in particular, date to ~2 ka and nest within a cluster of Near Eastern HV1b lineages dating to ~18 ka”. However, HV1b is also found amongst Italians and other European populations, not just around Near Eastern populations. Here are a number of examples:

HV1b 12696
34. AY738942(Italy) Achilli HV1b 13-APR-2007 C150T A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G T3290C A4769G A5134G C6263T C7028T A8014T A8860G C9585T T12696C A15218G A15326G C16067T
35. EF657609 mtDNA44(Europe) Herrnstadt HV1b 14-JUL-2007 A750G A1438G A2706G A3547G A4769G G6023A C7028T A8014T A8860G T12696C A15218G A15326G
36. EF657676 mtDNA50(Europe) Herrnstadt HV1b 14-JUL-2007 A750G A1438G A2706G A3547G A4769G G6023A C7028T A8014T A8860G T12696C A15218G A15326G

Using this logic clearly HV1b1 (found amongst for example Yemenite Jews and Assyrians) and HV1b2 (which has recently been identified in a Kurdish individual as well as amongst Ashkenazi Jews) are also “European”.

The truth of the matter is that because of the incredibly ancient timeframes, it is not possible to reach any conclusion as to the origins of a mitochondrial haplogroup based on those halogroups upstream from the one in question and this is ignoring their “very superficial analysis of modern population distribution”.
http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=34338&page=2

warwick
01-29-2015, 12:13 AM
non-Jewish individuals carrying ancient versions of these maternal lineages

There are such people in Greece [k1a1b1], for example.
(This doesn't suggest that k1a1b1a is Greek, but that the origin could be Greece/Anatolia/Near East in a broad sense).

Overall, though, in the absence of ancient DNA evidence this debate becomes very speculative.

EDIT:
Possibilities:
There was a lot of commerce between Crete, Cyprus, Lebanon, Egypt, and the early Israelite Kingdoms from 1500 BC or earlier. There was plenty of opportunity for travel, and the fact that k1a1b1 was found in Crete suggests to me that a reasonable possibility might even include ancient migrations from ancient Greece to the Near East and then back to Europe.

That is only one of many scenarios [which would include an origin for K1a1b1a from somewhere in the Near East to somewhere in Italy], since there was a lot of trade between the Greek city states and the near east.

EDIT:
I don't see any prospect in the short term of answering that question [the origin of K1a1b1a et al], but it is more useful to consider that whenever you look at this question, the composition of the Israelite haplogroups is unknown, and that there is a tendency to speculate, based on current distributions.

Keep in mind that in the period from 1500 BC to 500 BC there were no prohibitions on intermarriage and Judaism didn't exist prior to 1000 BC.

warwick
01-29-2015, 12:56 AM
Example:

Connections between the Minoan civilization and ancient Canaanite civilization:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091109121119.htm


The remains of a Minoan-style wall painting, recognizable by a blue background, the first of its kind to be found in Israel, was discovered in the course of the recent excavation season at Tel Kabri. This fresco joins others of Aegean style that have been uncovered during earlier seasons at the Canaanite palace in Kabri. "It was, without doubt, a conscious decision made by the city's rulers who wished to associate with Mediterranean culture and not adopt Syrian and Mesopotamian styles of art like other cities in Canaan did. The Canaanites were living in the Levant and wanted to feel European," explains Dr. Assaf Yasur-Landau of the University of Haifa, who directed the excavations.

This isn't about an argument that K1a1b1a is "Greek" or "Canaanite" but I'm suggesting that the extent of trade suggests the possibility of either of these, and we can't exclude either possibility (among others) at the moment.

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:00 AM
I suppose I might tentatively suggest the following: if k1a1b1a et al are found individually at significant incidences in non-European Jewish populations from the Levant and from the Jewish Diaspora, it's Levantine.

I mean, k1a1b1a is found amongst some European populations, but the point is valid and if it's found in other Jews and Levantines, predating as it does the Exodus by about 400 years, it should abound or at least be present in the region.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:02 AM
I suppose I might tentatively suggest the following: if k1a1b1a et al are found individually at significant incidences in non-European Jewish populations from the Levant and from the Jewish Diaspora, it's Levantine.

Right, that still doesn't rule out any of these scenarios, since to my knowledge, K1a1b1a is only found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. It is not found in Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian Jews, as far as I know.

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:06 AM
Right, that still doesn't rule out any of these scenarios, since to my knowledge, K1a1b1a is only found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. It is not found in Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian Jews, as far as I know.

Exactly, which is my point. I keep reading 'it's also found in Mizrahi Jews' on various commercial sites that promote the idea of Jewish ancestral unity but google fails to produce any hint of data and I have heard of no non-European or European Jew with the clade.

It is found in Hutterites with origins in northern Italy, though. 23andme is furthermore full of threads by gentiles surprised at having such a strongly AJ clade (I was surprised as my maternal line is Sephardic). None of this is conclusive, but my thought are still pointed towards a recent European origin.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:11 AM
Right, that still doesn't rule out any of these scenarios, since to my knowledge, K1a1b1a is only found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. It is not found in Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian Jews, as far as I know.

Last I checked K1a1b1a is not found in Iraqi Jews or Iranian Jews, which raises an important question, because they are two of the oldest Jewish populations.

See Behar et al. 2008. Counting the founders.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:14 AM
Exactly, which is my point. I keep reading 'it's also found in Mizrahi Jews' on various commercial sites that promote the idea of Jewish ancestral unity but google fails to produce any hint of data and I have heard of no non-European or European Jew with the clade.

It is found in Hutterites with origins in northern Italy, though. 23andme is furthermore full of threads by gentiles surprised at having such a strongly AJ clade (I was surprised as my maternal line is Sephardic). None of this is conclusive, but my thought are still pointed towards a recent European origin.

I think the European/Levant distinction is not necessarily applicable, if it arose in Greece/Anatolia and migrated to the Levant or vice versa. The boundaries were more fluid because of trade and the absence of religious prohibitions on intermarriage.

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:16 AM
I think the European/Levant distinction is not necessarily applicable, if it arose in Greece/Anatolia and migrated to the Levant or vice versa. The boundaries were more fluid because of trade and the absence of religious prohibitions on intermarriage.

It doesn't matter in the sense that none of this really matters but as a K1a1b1a carrier I am interested in the ultimate origin of the clade, which I believe to be European on the basis of the data gathered, possibly Northern Italian on the basis of the historic record and minor non-Jewish K1a1b1a lines. Of course there's never been a prohibition on marrying (non-Edomite, Moabite and Amonite) converts, but my goal here is to understand the ethnic origins of the 'founding mothers,' just for fun.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:20 AM
It doesn't matter in the sense that none of this really matters but as a K1a1b1a carrier I am interested in the ultimate origin of the clade, which I believe to be European on the basis of the data gathered, possibly Northern Italian on the basis of the historic record and minor non-Jewish K1a1b1a lines. Of course there's never been a prohibition on marrying (non-Edomite, Moabite and Amonite) converts, but my goal here is to understand the ethnic origins of the 'founding mothers,' just for fun.

There are a lot of possibilities here. I find the Crete K1a1b1 example interesting (though of course it is a distant parent of K1a1b1a). The problem is the absence of a significant non-Jewish K1a1b1a population. I'm not aware of one at the moment. I wasn't aware of the Hutterite case.

Last I checked, there was a fair amount of diversity under K1a1b1a. That does suggest an ancient origin, but it doesn't tell us where.

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:24 AM
There are a lot of possibilities here. I find the Crete K1a1b1 example interesting (though of course it is a distant parent of K1a1b1a). The problem is the absence of a significant non-Jewish K1a1b1a population. I'm not aware of one at the moment. I wasn't aware of the Hutterite case.

Last I checked, there was a fair amount of diversity under K1a1b1a. That does suggest an ancient origin, but it doesn't tell us where.

Yeah, I have quite a few odd mutations on mine, but I'm not of maternal Ashkenazi descent so it's not surprising.

There are a few distinct non-AJ/SJ K1a1b1a lines that go back to far northern Italy.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:29 AM
Yeah, I have quite a few odd mutations on mine, but I'm not of maternal Ashkenazi descent so it's not surprising.

There are a few distinct non-AJ/SJ K1a1b1a lines that go back to far northern Italy.

I think that the diversity of mutations suggests that K1a1b1a is over 2,000 years old. That doesn't disprove the Northern Italy hypothesis but I think it suggests that the "Eastern Med/Levant" hypothesis may be more likely.
Where [Eastern Med/Levant includes Southern Italy/Greece/Crete/Cyprus/Analtolia/Near East]

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:33 AM
I think that the diversity of mutations suggests that K1a1b1a is over 2,000 years old. That doesn't disprove the Northern Italy hypothesis but I think it suggests that the "Eastern Med/Levant" hypothesis may be more likely.
Where [Eastern Med/Levant includes Southern Italy/Greece/Crete/Cyprus/Analtolia/Near East]

See, I'm inclined to disbelieve the Near East part, because if it were true, where's all the Near Eastern K1a1b1a?

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:36 AM
See, I'm inclined to disbelieve the Near East part, because if it were true, where's all the Near Eastern K1a1b1a?

I prefer the Greek/Minoan hypothesis. Admittedly, there is no evidence.

However.
1. K1a1b1 is found in Crete
2. Ancient Minoan civilizations had a great deal of contact with the Canaanites.
3. Canaanite civilizations demonstrate admiration for Minoans via adopting their art and architecture (see previous post)

I favor the Greek/Minoan model. My second preference would be Southern Italy.


I do think that there should be some presence of K1a1b1 in any hypothetical area of origin for K1a1b1a. Crete meets that criterion. I am not sure about Anatolia. No data.

Longbowman
01-29-2015, 01:38 AM
I prefer the Greek/Minoan hypothesis. Admittedly, there is no evidence.

However.
1. K1a1b1 is found in Crete
2. Ancient Minoan civilizations had a great deal of contact with the Canaanites.
3. Canaanite civilizations demonstrate admiration for Minoans via adopting their art and architecture (see previous post)

I favor the Greek/Minoan model.

My second preference would be Southern Italy.

Possibly. K1a1b1f is Greek. B through E are Central/Northwest European in dispersion.

warwick
01-29-2015, 01:42 AM
Possibly. K1a1b1f is Greek. B through E are Central/Northwest European in dispersion.

It is also possible that K1a1b1a originated in Anatolia, but that is little harder to argue for. There were large Greek settlements and presumably the close affinity of Anatolian and Greek DNA might suggest some K1a1b1 in ancient Anatolia as well.

Pure speculation.

EDIT:
This admix could have occurred prior to the Roman empire, in the time of the Hellenist rulers after Alexander the Great.

vettor
01-29-2015, 04:55 AM
Is not otzi a K mtdna, is he not over 5000 years old, ?....was he from the levant or middle-east

IIRC, it was stated he was from north-caucasus

Humanist
01-29-2015, 05:11 AM
[I]t was stated he was from north-caucasus

Can you please provide a source, definitively stating that he originated in the northern Caucasus?

warwick
01-29-2015, 06:03 AM
Can you please provide a source, definitively stating that he originated in the northern Caucasus?

He clustered with the Sardinians as I recall, not people from the Caucasus.

GailT
01-29-2015, 06:18 AM
Is not otzi a K mtdna, is he not over 5000 years old, ?....was he from the levant or middle-east

Otzi lived in the late Neolithic and is representative of the near eastern farmers who migrated to Europe during the Neolithic. He is not in one of the Jewish clusters so his mtDNA isn't relevant to the origin of Jewish K subclades.

If mtDNA K originated in the near east and began migrating to Europe in the early Neolithic, that does not mean that ALL European K arrived in Europe in the early Neolithic. The near east would likely have continued to be a reservoir of K and subsequent migrations could have brought new subclades of K to Europe in the iron age, the Roman era, etc. So you cannot reach any certain conclusions about the when those migrations occurred simply by looking at present day distributions. Origins of mtDNA subclades will remain highly speculative until we will have many more ancient DNA samples, and even then, the slow mutation rate will make it difficult to resolve those migrations in time.

dp
01-29-2015, 05:13 PM
Right, that still doesn't rule out any of these scenarios, since to my knowledge, K1a1b1a is only found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. It is not found in Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian Jews, as far as I know.
I compiled this table of K1a1b1a's from EMBL-ENA/GEDBANK complete mtGenome accessions in 2012-2013.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&d=1422551448
only coding region mutations are indicated, given WRT the RSRS.
Not every accession has notes specifying ethnicity/country of origin. Those of Behar 2012b are all FamilyTreeDNA kits but when they were put in GEDBANK ethnicity/COF was omitted.
PS: One is listed twice. I think that one either was a K1a1b1a with a HVS reversion

Mention has been made up upstream and sister clades. This is what I have on them, from 2012-2013.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3638&d=1422553688

parasar
05-30-2016, 04:37 PM
My niece: K1a11 or K1a11a or K1a11b?
Present in Ashkenazis?

Markers found (shown as differences to rCRS):
HVR2: 73G 248G 263G 497T
CR: 750G 1189C 1438G 1811G 2706G 3480G 4769G 7028T 8281- 8282- 8283- 8284- 8285- 8286- 8287- 8288- 8289- 8860G 9055A 9698C 10084C 10398G 10550G 11299C 11467G 11719A 12308G 12372A 12681C 14167T 14766T 14798C
HVR1: 16224C 16311C (16519C)

C J Wyatt III
05-30-2016, 05:52 PM
I compiled this table of K1a1b1a's from EMBL-ENA/GEDBANK complete mtGenome accessions in 2012-2013.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3634&d=1422551448
only coding region mutations are indicated, given WRT the RSRS.
Not every accession has notes specifying ethnicity/country of origin. Those of Behar 2012b are all FamilyTreeDNA kits but when they were put in GEDBANK ethnicity/COF was omitted.
PS: One is listed twice. I think that one either was a K1a1b1a with a HVS reversion

Mention has been made up upstream and sister clades. This is what I have on them, from 2012-2013.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3638&d=1422553688

Something really huge is being missed about the migration of K1a1b1a's.

My mother (T436420) on her GEDmatch 'X one-to-many' list using the excessive default parameters (can't impugn me on my short segment matching this time) has eight K1a1b1a's. A match just about anywhere on my mother's X-chromosomes indicates Mr. Thomas Edward Green, a person who fathered many more times his fair share of children with hundreds of enslaved women, as a common ancestor. While the X-matches could be via a line other than the maternal line for the eight examples, I think that would be highly unlikely. Thus at least one of the enslaved women had K1a1b1a as her mtDNA haplogroup. Descendants are scattered all over the place including Europe, but it is from movement within the last 300 years, not a thousand or so.

This example needs more than a brush-off from the experts.

Jack Wyatt

parasar
05-30-2016, 09:19 PM
My niece: K1a11 or K1a11a or K1a11b?
Present in Ashkenazis?

Markers found (shown as differences to rCRS):
HVR2: 73G 248G 263G 497T
CR: 750G 1189C 1438G 1811G 2706G 3480G 4769G 7028T 8281- 8282- 8283- 8284- 8285- 8286- 8287- 8288- 8289- 8860G 9055A 9698C 10084C 10398G 10550G 11299C 11467G 11719A 12308G 12372A 12681C 14167T 14766T 14798C
HVR1: 16224C 16311C (16519C)

These are listed by Ian Logan. None from India?

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/k1a11_genbank_sequences.htm
K1a11 A16T T199C 8281-8289d T9938C G16129A
1. EF657354
2. JQ705523
3. JQ705747
4. JX153165(Denmark)
5. JX154015(Denmark)
6. JX154021(Denmark)
7. JX193906 Genebase
8. KF161915(Denmark)
9. KF162404(Denmark)
10. KF162944(Denmark)
11. KT725859 FTDNA
12. KT803045(France)
..
.. 23andMe('Maureen Markov'-143)
.. 23andme('Civ's father'-438)
.. 23andme('Lisa'-1806)
.. 23andMe('Lucille Ball'-3358)
..
13. JN657206(Germany)
14. JQ702675 Behar
15. JQ703607 Behar
16. GU332639 FTDNA

K1a11a1
17. JQ705336 Behar K1a11a1
18. JX679248 FTDNA K1a11a1


K1a11b
19. EU523125 FTDNA
20. EU603402 FTDNA
21. EU623472 FTDNA

dp
05-31-2016, 10:20 PM
9554
here's my 2012ish listing for K1a11 (some may have been added in 2013)
Note: GU332639 is one I have as a Caucasian K1a11a1, tested by FTDNA, which harbored no coding region polymorphisms beyond those that define that particular haplogroup.
Disclaimer: I omitted the kits EF657xxx because they were not of complete mtGenomes (too lazy to write a routine just to read their .fasta files)
dp :-)

@India
Two K's in ENA designated origin from India when I was working with K .fasta's:
K1a1b2a AY714044 Uttar Pradesh, India Brahmin Palanichamy (2004) Other coding region pm's: T2352C T11204C A15562G G15731A
K2a5 AY714017 Andra Pradesh, India Thogataveera Palanichamy (2004) Other coding region pm's: G2831A C11151T

placement based on Phylotree build (abt 2012)


These are listed by Ian Logan. None from India?

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/k1a11_genbank_sequences.htm
K1a11 A16T T199C 8281-8289d T9938C G16129A
1. EF657354
2. JQ705523
3. JQ705747
4. JX153165(Denmark)
5. JX154015(Denmark)
6. JX154021(Denmark)
7. JX193906 Genebase
8. KF161915(Denmark)
9. KF162404(Denmark)
10. KF162944(Denmark)
11. KT725859 FTDNA
12. KT803045(France)
..
.. 23andMe('Maureen Markov'-143)
.. 23andme('Civ's father'-438)
.. 23andme('Lisa'-1806)
.. 23andMe('Lucille Ball'-3358)
..
13. JN657206(Germany)
14. JQ702675 Behar
15. JQ703607 Behar
16. GU332639 FTDNA

K1a11a1
17. JQ705336 Behar K1a11a1
18. JX679248 FTDNA K1a11a1


K1a11b
19. EU523125 FTDNA
20. EU603402 FTDNA
21. EU623472 FTDNA

kingjohn
05-27-2017, 04:18 PM
very intresting
it may confirm the middle eastern origin of k1a1b1a

http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V52016121167.pdf

p.s
now i see it also appear in this page
famous historic dna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_haplogroups_of_historic_people
if it is indid true it is amazing ... :)

lgmayka
05-27-2017, 08:20 PM
very intresting
it may confirm the middle eastern origin of k1a1b1a

http://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V52016121167.pdf
To be fair, there is an alternate, older (6th-century) tradition that St. Mary Magdalen died at Ephesus (https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/09761A.HTM) (and never went to Gaul at all).
---
The Greek Church maintains that the saint retired to Ephesus with the Blessed Virgin and there died, that her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours (De miraculis, I, xxx) supports the statement that she went to Ephesus.
---

However, it is quite possible that one of the several women named Mary in the New Testament went to Gaul, and that her relics are preserved there.

kingjohn
05-27-2017, 08:36 PM
ok i am not expert in this relgious matter
i am jewish
i think it is still huge find
if in roman gaul there was a jewish community k1a1b1a could be present among them...
that is nice...

jkotl0327
06-04-2020, 06:06 AM
I'm not sure about K1a9 but K1a1b1a and K2a2 clearly nest among European lineages.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_K_mtDNA.shtml#subclades

You aren’t accounting for the fact that K1a1b1 and K2a originated in the Near East pre-Neolithic migration, so some clades spread to Europe, some spread to Middle East, it doesn’t make them the result of European admixture. Behar outlines this.

jkotl0327
06-04-2020, 06:08 AM
Typical Ashkenazi clade. Possibly ultimately European in origin.

Although K2a2a and K1a1b1a are still disputed, most agree that K1a9 is Judean in origin.

Erikl86
06-07-2020, 06:49 AM
Although K2a2a and K1a1b1a are still disputed, most agree that K1a9 is Judean in origin.

While I'd love for both K1a1b1a and K2a2a to be of Judean origin - as I'm myself am a K1a1b1a carrier and my dad is K2a2a - it's most likely isn't.

It's true that there is the interesting case of Pashtun K1a1b1a and few Indian Jews also carrying that mtdna subclade - but they are an anomaly - an island of peculiarity that might have arrived there via the silk road from some Ashkenazi Jews.

But hey, if there'd be enough evidence to support a Near Eastern origin - I'm all ears.

jkotl0327
06-07-2020, 07:07 AM
While I'd love for both K1a1b1a and K2a2a to be of Judean origin - as I'm myself am a K1a1b1a carrier and my dad is K2a2a - it's most likely isn't.

It's true that there is the interesting case of Pashtun K1a1b1a and few Indian Jews also carrying that mtdna subclade - but they are an anomaly - an island of peculiarity that might have arrived there via the silk road from some Ashkenazi Jews.

But hey, if there'd be enough evidence to support a Near Eastern origin - I'm all ears.

The K1a1b1a in Indian Jews is actually probably due to Sephardi admixture, but the Iraqi Jews and the Pashtuns is not. The Khattak tribe of Pashtuns has K1a1b1a of 5% and this is a tribe of a few million people. I don't know how many Ashkenazis were on the Silk Road, but considering that K1a1b1a is found in non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups and the only non-Jewish group I've seen that has it is a Middle Eastern group, I would say that this is more evidence than I ever thought would be found. K1a1b1 formed pre-Neolithic, quite possibly in the Near East, with the other European subclades of K1a1b1 forming only during or after the Neolithic. This certainly means that K1a1b1a could be Near Eastern, and coupled with the other MENA groups having K1a1b1a, I would say that it probably is Near Eastern. In fact, I have yet to see compelling evidence for the counterargument, that K1a1b1a is European.

Erikl86
06-07-2020, 07:51 AM
The K1a1b1a in Indian Jews is actually probably due to Sephardi admixture, but the Iraqi Jews and the Pashtuns is not. The Khattak tribe of Pashtuns has K1a1b1a of 5% and this is a tribe of a few million people. I don't know how many Ashkenazis were on the Silk Road, but considering that K1a1b1a is found in non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups and the only non-Jewish group I've seen that has it is a Middle Eastern group, I would say that this is more evidence than I ever thought would be found. K1a1b1 formed pre-Neolithic, quite possibly in the Near East, with the other European subclades of K1a1b1 forming only during or after the Neolithic. This certainly means that K1a1b1a could be Near Eastern, and coupled with the other MENA groups having K1a1b1a, I would say that it probably is Near Eastern. In fact, I have yet to see compelling evidence for the counterargument, that K1a1b1a is European.

I do believe the Iraqi K1a1b1a came from Syrian Jews as I have told you on the other thread. And Syrian Jews got that from Ashkenazim (as I hope you are aware - non-Musta'arabi Syrian Jews are a mixture of Sephardim, Ashkenazim and Musta'arabic Syrian Jews - the reason why "Ashkenazi" is such a common Syrian Jewish surname is exactly because of this).

The Pashtun K1a1b1a is a very interesting case and thus far the only non-Jewish, non-West European case I know of. Other than that, K1a1b1a has been found in ancient Northeastern Iberian samples of course and IMO it has entered Ashkenazi materilineal lineage in South France.

Alas, Behar et al. might be right - for instance in the latest North Syria, Anatolia and Caucasus paper there are a lot of K1a's without further down streaming subclades assigned to it - I've already raised the issue on several occasions that those mtdna subclades need to be further examined - perhaps we'll find K1a1b1a over there, which will raise the probability of it being acquired in the Near East or at least Asia Minor.

jkotl0327
06-07-2020, 03:03 PM
I do believe the Iraqi K1a1b1a came from Syrian Jews as I have told you on the other thread. And Syrian Jews got that from Ashkenazim (as I hope you are aware - non-Musta'arabi Syrian Jews are a mixture of Sephardim, Ashkenazim and Musta'arabic Syrian Jews - the reason why "Ashkenazi" is such a common Syrian Jewish surname is exactly because of this).

The Pashtun K1a1b1a is a very interesting case and thus far the only non-Jewish, non-West European case I know of. Other than that, K1a1b1a has been found in ancient Northeastern Iberian samples of course and IMO it has entered Ashkenazi materilineal lineage in South France.

Alas, Behar et al. might be right - for instance in the latest North Syria, Anatolia and Caucasus paper there are a lot of K1a's without further down streaming subclades assigned to it - I've already raised the issue on several occasions that those mtdna subclades need to be further examined - perhaps we'll find K1a1b1a over there, which will raise the probability of it being acquired in the Near East or at least Asia Minor.

What is the source for ancient Iberian K1a1b1a, I would be interested in reading it. It is theoretically possible that any Ashkenazi-Mizrahi shared haplogroup is the result of gene flow but I believe that it is much more likely indicative of ancient shared ancestry, considering that gene flow from Syrian Sephardim in the last few hundred years to Iraqi Mizrahim has been relatively low (at least so I've heard). You are right of course about the general K1a's.

hartaisarlag
06-07-2020, 03:45 PM
What is the source for ancient Iberian K1a1b1a, I would be interested in reading it. It is theoretically possible that any Ashkenazi-Mizrahi shared haplogroup is the result of gene flow but I believe that it is much more likely indicative of ancient shared ancestry, considering that gene flow from Syrian Sephardim in the last few hundred years to Iraqi Mizrahim has been relatively low (at least so I've heard). You are right of course about the general K1a's.

It depends. You have to look at the phylogenetic/dating evidence. It's not as well-characterized for mtDNA, but for Y-DNA, as I've explained, there are several clear cases of gene flow (one of which, which has gained traction on this forum, and which StillWater can tell you all about, is the partial Mizrahi ancestry of the early pre-Ashkenazic Jewish population of Eastern Europe). Clear proof of classical-era divergence, or earlier, is rare so far. Can't just be assumed.

jkotl0327
06-07-2020, 04:03 PM
It depends. You have to look at the phylogenetic/dating evidence. It's not as well-characterized for mtDNA, but for Y-DNA, as I've explained, there are several clear cases of gene flow (one of which, which has gained traction on this forum, and which StillWater can tell you all about, is the partial Mizrahi ancestry of the early pre-Ashkenazic Jewish population of Eastern Europe). Clear proof of classical-era divergence, or earlier, is rare so far. Can't just be assumed.

Even the more specific subclades of K1a1b1a seem to be at least 2000 years old, like K1a1b1a1. I haven't been able to find the study for ancient Iberian K1a1b1a.

J1 DYS388=13
06-07-2020, 06:31 PM
Even the more specific subclades of K1a1b1a seem to be at least 2000 years old, like K1a1b1a1. I haven't been able to find the study for ancient Iberian K1a1b1a.

Table S1 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002062#pone.0002062.s004 shows modern day "Spanish Exilers" with K1a1b1a

Ancient K1a1b1a in Late Neolithic Hungary and Iron Age Gaul at https://indo-european.eu/all-ancient-dna.pdf

jkotl0327
06-07-2020, 10:02 PM
Table S1 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002062#pone.0002062.s004 shows modern day "Spanish Exilers" with K1a1b1a

Ancient K1a1b1a in Late Neolithic Hungary and Iron Age Gaul at https://indo-european.eu/all-ancient-dna.pdf

The Spanish Exilers refers to Jews it seems. The Hungary thing seems impossible because the specific subclade of K1a1b1a identified has a TMRCA of about 2000 years ago, but the samples are from over 6000 years ago. That needs verification for sure. The only compelling one is the Gaul match. It seems like the typical Jewish lineage but without the last major mutation 16519. The sample was very specifically dated to 2300-2100 ybp though, and 16234 (the sample's second-to-last mutation) already has a TMRCA of 2000 ybp. What we need is to figure out the TMRCA of 16311, the last mutation that the Gaul sample has. If it is conceivable that 16311 could have arose before 2300-2100 ybp, then that is certainly major evidence for the European origin hypothesis. Unfortunately, the paper mentions possible contamination of some samples by archaeologists, and two of them do have the 16311 lineage. Also, this sample was found in the NW tip of France (I think Normandy), not Iberia or SW France as some were suggesting. This seems like compelling evidence, but needs verification and TMRCA.

J1 DYS388=13
06-08-2020, 04:30 AM
The Spanish Exilers refers to Jews it seems. The Hungary thing seems impossible because the specific subclade of K1a1b1a identified has a TMRCA of about 2000 years ago, but the samples are from over 6000 years ago. That needs verification for sure.

Page 267, two Neolithic samples, BAL10 and BAL11, with K1a1b1a ---
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/4075.pdf
The protocol to check for contamination is on page 92.

jkotl0327
06-08-2020, 03:06 PM
Page 267, two Neolithic samples, BAL10 and BAL11, with K1a1b1a ---
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/4075.pdf
The protocol to check for contamination is on page 92.

Yes, those are from the Hungarian neolithic period about 6000 years ago. Impossible since the subclade they were placed in has a TMRCA of 2000 years ago. This is someone's thesis, not sure of the reliability, but either way definitely should be retested. These people lived way before when that subclade could have formed.

J1 DYS388=13
06-08-2020, 04:07 PM
Yes, those are from the Hungarian neolithic period about 6000 years ago. Impossible since the subclade they were placed in has a TMRCA of 2000 years ago. This is someone's thesis, not sure of the reliability, but either way definitely should be retested. These people lived way before when that subclade could have formed.

Data (radiocarbon dating and archaeological context) does not support your theory (TMRCA), so you say the data must be wrong?

jkotl0327
06-08-2020, 04:44 PM
Data (radiocarbon dating and archaeological context) does not support your theory (TMRCA), so you say the data must be wrong?

TMRCA is not my theory. It has been established by both Behar and even Costa that K1a1b1a1 specifically (which these samples were said to belong to) has a TMRCA of just a little over 2000 ybp. These samples are from 6000 ybp and I am not questioning the date. I am simply saying that based on what we know about this haplogroup this seems like a misidentification. My advice to you (and everyone who supports the hypothesis that K1a1b1a is European in origin) is to focus on the Gaul sample. That is much more compelling than these samples. Do you know if this study was peer-reviewed (it's a thesis)? Haplogroup misidentification happens, especially with ancient samples. All I am saying is that this lady's thesis should be verified.

J1 DYS388=13
06-08-2020, 05:04 PM
... that K1a1b1a1 specifically (which these samples were said to belong to)...

No, BAL10 and BAL11 are K1a1b1a, not K1a1b1a1. https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/4075.pdf

J1 DYS388=13
06-08-2020, 05:09 PM
Do you know if this study was peer-reviewed (it's a thesis)?
Not peer reviewed, faculty reviewed ---
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Hans Zischler
1. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt W. Alt
2. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eszter Bánffy
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 3. Juni 2015
Dean: Prof. Dr. Hans Zischler
1st expert: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt W. Alt
2nd reviewer: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eszter Bánffy
Oral Exam Day: June 3, 2015

jkotl0327
06-08-2020, 05:21 PM
No, BAL10 and BAL11 are K1a1b1a, not K1a1b1a1. https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/4075.pdf

When you look at the mutations listed, it can be classified as K1a1b1a1. They listed it as K1a1b1a because that is the name everyone knows. Look at the mutations and you'll see what I mean. It just wasn't this study's goal to provide the most detailed haplogroup identification possible. It's like when 23andme tells someone they are K1a1b1a, but they can really be put into K1a1b1a1 more specifically. Even K1a1b1a has a TMRCA of over 2000 years after these samples' dates though.

jkotl0327
06-08-2020, 05:23 PM
Not peer reviewed, faculty reviewed ---
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Hans Zischler
1. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt W. Alt
2. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eszter Bánffy
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 3. Juni 2015
Dean: Prof. Dr. Hans Zischler
1st expert: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kurt W. Alt
2nd reviewer: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eszter Bánffy
Oral Exam Day: June 3, 2015

That seems fine but this still needs verification. Either the TMRCA is way off and our understanding of K1a1b1a should be seriously shifted, or this was a misidentification. I just think there is a much higher probability of the latter.

xenus
06-09-2020, 01:57 AM
That seems fine but this still needs verification. Either the TMRCA is way off and our understanding of K1a1b1a should be seriously shifted, or this was a misidentification. I just think there is a much higher probability of the latter.

Easier to believe for sure. The answer is usually more data or more attention.

jkotl0327
06-09-2020, 02:25 AM
Easier to believe for sure. The answer is usually more data or more attention.

Exactly, if J1 DYS388=13 discussed the Gaul sample then I would have agreed that it is a legitimate piece of evidence for the K1a1b1a euro origin hypothesis, but he decided to focus on these likely misidentified ones.

Erikl86
06-09-2020, 09:21 AM
As I was saying, my suspicion for K1a1b1a's origin is South France.

The issue of Pashtuns and Indian Jews with that mtdna is quite exceptional and needs further checking.

jkotl0327
06-09-2020, 03:45 PM
As I was saying, my suspicion for K1a1b1a's origin is South France.

The issue of Pashtuns and Indian Jews with that mtdna is quite exceptional and needs further checking.

The Gaul sample is in Normandy, not South France. It is unclear if K1a1b1a even ever existed in South France. We still need the TMRCA for the 16311 mutation to confirm that it was actually possible for this haplogroup to exist at the time of the sample, and that this is not another case of misidentification. Keep in mind that there have been, as far as I know, no Frenchmen found (in North or South France) today with this haplogroup, whereas over 150,000 MENA people do have this haplogroup. The archeologists do mention that two of their team members share the 16311 lineage, and although this of course does not automatically mean contamination, contamination is a possibility.

StillWater
12-29-2020, 01:17 AM
Found a K1a9 that's either Syrian Turkmen,Iraqi Turkmen, Syrian, or Iraqi. Prior to that, found an Iranian Kurdish K1a9.

jkotl0327
12-29-2020, 03:19 AM
Found a K1a9 that's either Syrian Turkmen,Iraqi Turkmen, Syrian, or Iraqi. Prior to that, found an Iranian Kurdish K1a9.


Has anyone looked at how many mutations they share with Ashkenazi? Maybe even to determine a TMRCA?

StillWater
12-29-2020, 05:52 AM
Has anyone looked at how many mutations they share with Ashkenazi? Maybe even to determine a TMRCA?

The Iranian Kurd is a study sample. Find my post with the citation and see if YFull will upload the sample. You'll need to provide them with the file link though.

StillWater
12-29-2020, 07:48 PM
Found a K1a9 that's either Syrian Turkmen,Iraqi Turkmen, Syrian, or Iraqi. Prior to that, found an Iranian Kurdish K1a9.

Subject's maternal grandmother is/was Syrian Turkmen.

jkotl0327
12-29-2020, 09:01 PM
Subject's maternal grandmother is/was Syrian Turkmen.

Is it fair to say that out of the 3 big K's, K1a9 is the most likely to have a Middle Eastern origin?

StillWater
12-29-2020, 11:28 PM
Is it fair to say that out of the 3 big K's, K1a9 is the most likely to have a Middle Eastern origin?

Not sure. However, none of them are as clear to me as they were to Costa et al.

jkotl0327
12-30-2020, 12:43 AM
Not sure. However, none of them are as clear to me as they were to Costa et al.

What I mean is, for K1a1b1a for example, we have Gaulish aDNA vs modern Pashtuns & Lurs, which is conflicting evidence, for K1a9, I don't believe there is any comparable strong evidence of European origin.

StillWater
12-30-2020, 04:34 AM
What I mean is, for K1a1b1a for example, we have Gaulish aDNA vs modern Pashtuns & Lurs, which is conflicting evidence, for K1a9, I don't believe there is any comparable strong evidence of European origin.

I'm not aware of any ancient K1a9 samples. However, according to Costa et al, there are European K1a9. Haven't heard of k1a1b1a Lurs - what's the source? Also, don't forget that there are Spanish k1a1b1a.

jkotl0327
12-30-2020, 05:41 AM
I'm not aware of any ancient K1a9 samples. However, according to Costa et al, there are European K1a9. Haven't heard of k1a1b1a Lurs - what's the source? Also, don't forget that there are Spanish k1a1b1a.

If I'm not mistaken Costa was referring to Eastern Europeans that were later determined to be Jewish-descended. Sorry the Lurs were the K1a9. The Pashtuns are the only ones I can confirm are non-Jewish Middle East,

Turkey-4
Syria-1
Azerbaijan-1
Uzbekistan-1
India-1

are all on ftDNA as well but theoretically they could all be Jews. The Spanish k1a1b1a... at the very least a Jewish -> Spanish gene flow bringing K1a1b1a seems more probable to me than an Ashkenazi -> Pashtun gene flow resulting in quite high k1a1b1a frequencies (if we assume a European origin to explain the Pashtuns away we have to assume it came from Ashkenazim or at least Western Europeans at some point). The ancient Gaul samples are what prevent me from saying I believe it is more likely Middle Eastern than European. At the very least we know that there were K1a* Canaanites, not that that necessarily proves anything.

ffoucart
12-31-2020, 09:00 AM
I am asking myself if my haplogroup K1a29a could have come in Europe with Jews. It is rare, and I don't find many people sharing it. But I can follow my line to Southern France to a woman probably born around 1570, from a place not very far from cities where Jews are attested during Middle Ages (Le Puy en Velay, Valence, Vienne, Largentičre, Montélimar...). One of my 2 matches is a woman from Limoges, and I found his maternal line till 1700 in a village nearby. Limoges was home to a jewish community in medieval times, where lived Joseph Tov Elem.

K1a29 and K129a are listed as Ashkenazi by Costa:
http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/k1a29_genbank_sequences.htm

What seems clear to me is that K1a29a has not its origin in Europe, and came from Levant some millenias ago, but after Neolithic expansion.

Any ideas?

jkotl0327
12-31-2020, 10:06 AM
I am asking myself if my haplogroup K1a29a could have come in Europe with Jews. It is rare, and I don't find many people sharing it. But I can follow my line to Southern France to a woman probably born around 1570, from a place not very far from cities where Jews are attested during Middle Ages (Le Puy en Velay, Valence, Vienne, Largentičre, Montélimar...). One of my 2 matches is a woman from Limoges, and I found his maternal line till 1700 in a village nearby. Limoges was home to a jewish community in medieval times, where lived Joseph Tov Elem.

K1a29 and K129a are listed as Ashkenazi by Costa:
http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/k1a29_genbank_sequences.htm

What seems clear to me is that K1a29a has not its origin in Europe, and came from Levant some millenias ago, but after Neolithic expansion.

Any ideas?

There doesn't seem to be enough info to state anything conclusive. Too few have tested positive. Other than the Ashkenazim I believe the Armenians and Azerbaijanis were the only Middle Easterners to get it. So I suppose we cannot conclude Levantine origin immediately. However it is certainly possible. As for how it got to S France, Jews seems like the most likely scenario but I wouldn't rule out any possibilities with so few positive individuals.

EDIT: https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/174047/FORD-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Hear about this Cyprus K1a29a?

Sources that write about it seem to describe it as Middle Eastern so at least you can be somewhat confident about that.