PDA

View Full Version : Where would the main ancestor(s) of I2a-Din have been located in the BA?



George
08-11-2015, 01:40 PM
Looking at JeanM's aDNA listings, it would seem (unless I've missed something) that no aDNA has yet been found for a group whose emergence age in the YFull sequences has been suggested as 3,500 BCE. The closest seem to be "Isles" type cousins from Spain and Germany. What are the best theories?

George
08-22-2015, 02:17 PM
Looking at JeanM's aDNA listings, it would seem (unless I've missed something) that no aDNA has yet been found for a group whose emergence age in the YFull sequences has been suggested as 3,500 BCE. The closest seem to be "Isles" type cousins from Spain and Germany. What are the best theories?

A follow up query. Is there anything available online by the late Prof. Marek Zvelebil? I read an article of his years ago (don't remember the title) where he wrote a bit about the "hunter-gatherer resurgence" I think HG's were one of his prime academic interests. One of his ideas there was that HG's were not just helpless pushovers to incoming farmers, and had their own areas of dominance. He also claimed that in a number of areas the agricultural transition came not as a result of "assimilation" to pushy farmer communities but rather as a historical choice by HG communities themselves. I would sure like to reread his stuff.

Bane
08-22-2015, 07:47 PM
Can we assume that when you wrote I2a-Din you meant I-CTS10228? At the time when Dinaric variety was recognized there was no known SNP to define it. However, today it may be better to talk in terms of SNPs, if you agree?

And one more thing for clarification. Wikipedia I1 haplogroup article uses the term "initial dispersion" like this: "It is suggested that it (I1) initially dispersed from the area that is now Denmark." . It may also be good to use that term here in order to understand if your main topic tries to give an answer about the initial dispersion area for I-CTS10228 or, you already have no doubts about that and you want to hypothesize whereabouts of I-CTS10228 before its initial dispersion?

George
08-22-2015, 08:15 PM
Can we assume that when you wrote I2a-Din you meant I-CTS10228? At the time when Dinaric variety was recognized there was no known SNP to define it. However, today it may be better to talk in terms of SNPs, if you agree?

And one more thing for clarification. Wikipedia I1 haplogroup article uses the term "initial dispersion" like this: "It is suggested that it (I1) initially dispersed from the area that is now Denmark." . It may also be good to use that term here in order to understand if your main topic tries to give an answer about the initial dispersion area for I-CTS10228 or, you already have no doubts about that and you want to hypothesize whereabouts of I-CTS10228 before its initial dispersion?

Yes to first question. Yes to second question. I would of course dearly love to read theories about the initial locus of emergence (according to Yfull the date would be c. 3500 BCE (acc. to Michal as per L. Mayka c. 4,000 BCE (?)), and also about your last question. I have plenty of doubts about these.

B)

lgmayka
08-22-2015, 08:22 PM
according to Yfull the date would be c. 3500 BCE (acc. to Michal as per L. Mayka c. 4,000 BCE (?)
YFull's TMRCA for I-CTS10228 is only 2300 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/) (= 300 BCE). Its "formed" date is 5500 ybp (= 3500 BCE), but that means it was barely surviving for 3200 years prior to expansion.

George
08-22-2015, 08:46 PM
YFull's TMRCA for I-CTS10228 is only 2300 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/) (= 300 BCE). Its "formed" date is 5500 ybp (= 3500 BCE), but that means it was barely surviving for 3200 years prior to expansion.

How does one tell that it was "barely surviving"? What are the deciding criteria? Something to do with TMRCA of today's carriers?

P.S. Actually when I put the initial question about "ancestors" I meant not only the actual I-CTS10228, but the "immediate parent" so to speak, before the actual mutation. I don't know what SNP would be the indicator. I assume that it would be something shared by "Isles" and "Disles" and then having further mutations before producing 10228?

lgmayka
08-23-2015, 12:50 AM
How does one tell that it was "barely surviving"?
The lack of fanout (spawning of subclades and/or singletons). As far as we know right now, I-CTS10228 is the result of a single lineage that survived from I-CTS4002 3200 years earlier (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/).

Gravetto-Danubian
08-23-2015, 01:08 PM
The lack of fanout (spawning of subclades and/or singletons). As far as we know right now, I-CTS10228 is the result of a single lineage that survived from I-CTS4002 3200 years earlier (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/).

Agreed.
Question is when did the bottlenecking occur, and why ?

George
08-23-2015, 03:00 PM
The lack of fanout (spawning of subclades and/or singletons). As far as we know right now, I-CTS10228 is the result of a single lineage that survived from I-CTS4002 3200 years earlier (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/).

What about the Polish I-CTS4002* ? Another question: where does the "Disles" group fit in? Are they also an offshoot of CTS4002? I guess it's reasonable to assume that there may have been other 4002 lineages which went extinct.

lgmayka
08-23-2015, 10:30 PM
What about the Polish I-CTS4002* ?
Kit N113464 from Moskorzew, Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskorzew).


where does the "Disles" group fit in? Are they also an offshoot of CTS4002?
"Disles" is actually a paragroup, not a true clade. One "Disles" turned out to be I-L621* (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L621/), another I-CTS4002* .

George
08-23-2015, 11:46 PM
Kit N113464 from Moskorzew, Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskorzew).

"Disles" is actually a paragroup, not a true clade. One "Disles" turned out to be I-L621* (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L621/), another I-CTS4002* .

Thanks for the info. As far as you know is that also the case with the other known extant British "Disles"? (i.e. paragroup not true clade)

George
08-24-2015, 12:42 PM
Thanks for the info. As far as you know is that also the case with the other known extant British "Disles"? (i.e. paragroup not true clade)

FTDNA's I2a project recognizes two "Disles" groups, "A" and "B". The first is much smaller and the members are all of British or German origin. They seem to be distinguished as CTS4002-, CTS11768-, and CTS10936-. So L-621* would be the marker of recognition. I don't know if the YFull YFO2856 is one of the FTDNA's 4 Disles A members or somebody else. The Disles B group is much larger. It has the kit you mention N113464 (the only Polish one I think) and another 19, all of them NW European in origin (British, Irish, German). Disles B is CTS4002+, CTS11768+, and CTS10936+. They don't have the specific Dinaric markers (CTS10228 etc.). I hope we're not veering into an instance of "language" versus "dialect" issue;)

P.S. I suppose that if there are only so many "floating" SNP's between 4002 and 10228 and Disles "B" has them along with Dinarics, but does not have 10228 etc.. then I-4002* is as good a marker for Disles B as any.

lgmayka
08-24-2015, 02:24 PM
I hope we're not veering into an instance of "language" versus "dialect" issue
The distinction between a clade and a paragroup is essential.

All members of a clade descend patrilineally from one man; and no one outside the clade descends patrilineally from that man. Thus, all members of I-CTS4002 (including those in I-CTS10228) form a clade--they are more closely related patrilineally to each other than to anyone else.

A paragroup is a logical (artificial) grouping. I-CTS4002(xCTS10228), often called I-CTS4002*, is a paragroup because its definition artificially groups some members of the clade while excluding others. On YFull's current haplotree, the two men designated as I-CTS4002* are no more closely related to each other than to members of I-CTS10228.

"Disles" is an even more extravagantly named paragroup. It is a moniker for two other paragroups, I-L621* and I-CTS4002*. Members of I-CTS4002* are definitely more closely related to I-CTS10228 than to I-L621*, so the lumping together of I-L621* and I-CTS4002* really makes no sense at all.

George
08-24-2015, 03:25 PM
The distinction between a clade and a paragroup is essential.

All members of a clade descend patrilineally from one man; and no one outside the clade descends patrilineally from that man. Thus, all members of I-CTS4002 (including those in I-CTS10228) form a clade--they are more closely related patrilineally to each other than to anyone else.

A paragroup is a logical (artificial) grouping. I-CTS4002(xCTS10228), often called I-CTS4002*, is a paragroup because its definition artificially groups some members of the clade while excluding others. On YFull's current haplotree, the two men designated as I-CTS4002* are no more closely related to each other than to members of I-CTS10228.

"Disles" is an even more extravagantly named paragroup. It is a moniker for two other paragroups, I-L621* and I-CTS4002*. Members of I-CTS4002* are definitely more closely related to I-CTS10228 than to I-L621*, so the lumping together of I-L621* and I-CTS4002* really makes no sense at all.

There's something not quite right with some implications of this logic. It lumps together artificially all those descended from the 4002 man, whereas it is clear that if the 10228 people have an originating father in common, that father is NOT the father of those who are not 10228. The fact that all descend from a further father 4002 is not relevant. Ultimately we all descend from "Adam" or "God" and further in betweens. If the problem is nomenclature then a way should be found around this. The DISLES groups are clearly distinct genetically (never mind other factors) from the DINARICS (not much but enough). You find L-621* or CTS-4002* nonsensical. Fair enough. But to include DISLES with DINARICS for the sake of artificial nomenclature sounds a bit nonsensical to me.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2015, 03:45 PM
Keep in mind groups like "Disles" were first defined by STRs. Such clusters do not nearly coincide with true clades. Sometimes at all, sometimes just a little off

George
08-24-2015, 04:22 PM
"Disles" is an even more extravagantly named paragroup. It is a moniker for two other paragroups, I-L621* and I-CTS4002*. Members of I-CTS4002* are definitely more closely related to I-CTS10228 than to I-L621*, so the lumping together of I-L621* and I-CTS4002* really makes no sense at all.

Would it then make better sense to use the ISOGG nomenclature? Instead of Disles "A" have I2a1b2*, for Disles "B" have I2a1b2a* and for the Dinaric collectivity have I2a1b2a1 ?

Christina
08-26-2015, 02:42 AM
Doggerland.

George
08-26-2015, 11:48 AM
Doggerland.

Indeed. Not a new idea, but well worth occasionally restating. The meager aDNA evidence for I2a1b's does seem to point to a fundamentally northward expansion after the LGM. Is there some way of proving that many of the tested "Isles" and "Disles" people were in situ in Britain before Doggerland went under? The L621 and L161 groups seem constituted before this event. So far though, the only evidence available afaik is that an "Isles" person was part of the German area TRB in 3200 BCE... No aDNA evidence yet for CTS4002 anywhere. Perhaps still too small.

George
10-26-2015, 03:27 PM
In lieu of a new thread, a more specific continuation of this older one, with a slightly different query:

"WHERE WAS I2a1b2 IN 3000 BCE?" I.e at the moment when Yamna was forming, and GAC pushing eastward, with TRB and TC still existing, and CWC on the horizon..

1. Was it still some small group of HG's wandering in the forests of Northeastern Europe "in survival mode"?
2. Was it a group already integrated into a functioning Neolithic culture?

The Verenich theory seems closer to 1. But if one prefers option 2, what would be the culture [yet note that acc. to Yfull I2a1b2 remained in "survival mode" until ca. 300 BCE]? Must there nevertheless be some correlation to the pending "Baltoid" (Balto-Slavic) cultural areas because of the overwhelming presence of I2a1b2 in modern Slavdoms?

I have no clear or set answers. But a lot of interest. All I can see is that the closest aDNA relative so far documented is the I2a1b1 in TRB (Eperstedt). And the belief that I2a1b2 spread northeastward in ancient times also seems very plausible. Yfull suggests that I1 and I2a1b1 emerged from "survival mode" long before I2a1b2...

Mcintyre01
10-30-2015, 10:27 PM
Sorry to bump the thread but can someone explain which is older...Disles or Dinaric? I was tested by Scotlandsdna and told I was Illyrian, I-S392 then sent my raw data to someone else who said I was Disles-B? Dinaric doesn't make sense because as far as I can trace back my ancestors were all from the Hebridean Isles in Scotland! It was suggested to me on another forum that Disles was older but this conflicts with what Scotlandsdna said to me? Much confused!!!

George
10-30-2015, 11:14 PM
Michal and Larry can do a much better job of explaining this for you than I. But very briefly if you are Disles B (according to the FTDNA classification) your defining marker should be CT 4002 or CTS 10936 (although you are also L 621). According to Yfull see here: http://yfull.com/tree/I2/ Disles B (they don't call it that) would have been "formed" ca. 4,500 BCE, about a thousand years before I2a-Dinaric. You would on that side have been a descendant of the WHG who were slowly moving northeastward from their Alpine birthplace aeons earlier, and your "Disles" initiator would have been born somewhere in the North Central European area. At some point your clade would have been caught up in a western headed outmigration (perhaps in Celtic times, perhaps later) and wound up in the British Isles. I2a-Dinaric is very closely related genetically to Disles, but its historical destiny was quite different. It's called "Dinaric" because it is especially abundant (percentage wise) among the Southern Slavs, although in point of fact there are more "Dinarics" north than south of the Carpathians. Its distinguishing marker is CTS 10228 (and others) but it also is L-621. It was "formed" ca. 3500 BCE in the same general area as "Disles" but subsequently went east instead of west like yours.

lgmayka
10-30-2015, 11:51 PM
Sorry to bump the thread but can someone explain which is older...Disles or Dinaric? I was tested by Scotlandsdna and told I was Illyrian, I-S392 then sent my raw data to someone else who said I was Disles-B? Dinaric doesn't make sense because as far as I can trace back my ancestors were all from the Hebridean Isles in Scotland! It was suggested to me on another forum that Disles was older but this conflicts with what Scotlandsdna said to me? Much confused!!!
S392 is another name for L621. Take a look at YFull's haplotree for I-L621 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L621/). I presume that ScotlandsDNA tested for at least one SNP associated with I-CTS10228 ("Dinaric") and found you negative. So on YFull's tree, you would fall somewhere between I-L621 and I-CTS10228 -- e.g., I-L621* or I-CTS4002* . Some people call either or both of these "Disles", although they are separated by 1000 years from each other.

Ideally, you would order a full-Y scan from either FTDNA or FullGenomes, and submit the raw results to YFull for placement. Perhaps you will force the creation of a new level?

Mcintyre01
10-31-2015, 07:30 PM
Hi Guys, thanks for the replies, really interesting! I am CTS10936+ but CTS10228- CTS5966- but can't see CTS4002 on my raw data? I assumed the chromo 2 test was a full Y scan when I ordered it but I'm not sure what the difference is tbh. I paid quite a lot for the test so although I am interested in finding out more I can't really afford to do another test at the moment. Thanks again!!

lgmayka
10-31-2015, 08:47 PM
I am CTS10936+ but CTS10228- CTS5966- but can't see CTS4002 on my raw data?
On YFull's haplotree, CTS10936 is at the same level as CTS4002 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/). So on that tree, you would be classified as I-CTS4002* . However, a full-Y scan could place somewhat higher (older) or lower (younger) along that line.


I assumed the chromo 2 test was a full Y scan when I ordered it but I'm not sure what the difference is tbh.
Chromo2 was a good test for its time, but it was not anywhere near a full-Y scan. A full-Y scan examines millions of locations, not just thousands.


I paid quite a lot for the test so although I am interested in finding out more I can't really afford to do another test at the moment.
That's understandable. But you can at least go to the I2a Project spreadsheet (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults), change the page size to 1500, and search for the category labeled

I2a2 'Disles B' (I-CTS10936) ..M423+ L621+ CTS4002+ CTS10936+ CTS11768+ but CTS5966- CTS10228-

You belong in that category. It includes two men of Scottish ancestry.

Mcintyre01
10-31-2015, 10:31 PM
On YFull's haplotree, CTS10936 is at the same level as CTS4002 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/). So on that tree, you would be classified as I-CTS4002* . However, a full-Y scan could place somewhat higher (older) or lower (younger) along that line.

Chromo2 was a good test for its time, but it was not anywhere near a full-Y scan. A full-Y scan examines millions of locations, not just thousands.

That's understandable. But you can at least go to the I2a Project spreadsheet (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults), change the page size to 1500, and search for the category labeled

I2a2 'Disles B' (I-CTS10936) ..M423+ L621+ CTS4002+ CTS10936+ CTS11768+ but CTS5966- CTS10228-

You belong in that category. It includes two men of Scottish ancestry.

Thank you Igmayka, I will have a look at the project.

Bane
12-15-2015, 09:07 PM
It is a pure speculation but since the topic requires some kind of assumption here it is:

Doggerland -> Scandinavia -> Baltic Sea Eastern Coast -> Middle Dnieper

I wouldn't try guessing where exactly on this route did I-CTS10228 originate, but my assumption is somewhere between the start and the end point of the above route.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 09:23 PM
Looking at JeanM's aDNA listings, it would seem (unless I've missed something) that no aDNA has yet been found for a group whose emergence age in the YFull sequences has been suggested as 3,500 BCE. The closest seem to be "Isles" type cousins from Spain and Germany. What are the best theories?

Back in 2014 I suggested, that pre-I2a-Din could survive PIE onslaught in Polesian Lowland, and later took part in ethnogenesis of Slavs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesian_Lowland


The lowland has an area of 270,000 km2 (100,000 sq mi). Polesian Lowland is characterized by predominance of sandy lowlands with large, mostly swampy valleys. Average height is 150–200 m (490–660 ft), while maximum is 316 m (1,037 ft) (Ovruch Ridge).[1]

My map from 2014, showing this hypothesis (note: I2a here refers only to clades ancestral to I2a-Din, of course):

http://s29.postimg.org/kusjgwefb/Slavic_Ethnogenesis.png

Polesian Lowland landscape:

http://kresy24.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Polesie_blota_Szyszkin_malarstwo.jpg

As you probably know, this area (Belarusian-Ukrainian borderland) has a very high frequency of I2a-Din today.

I am not sure about the level of I2a-Din diversity there, though.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 09:44 PM
According to Kushnierevich 2013, in Polesia haplogroup I2a1 reaches a high frequency of 26% (56 males in a sample of 217).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesia

This is consistent across the whole region with 31 I2a1 out of 121 in Western Polesia and 25 I2a1 out of 96 in Eastern Polesia.

Map made by Maciamo from Eupedia also shows a hotspot there (though such maps cannot be expected to be fully accurate):

http://s10.postimg.org/gr60b25hl/Hotspot.png

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 09:49 PM
Is there evidence of habitation in Polesia throughout the Neolithic and Metal Ages?

Jean M
01-27-2016, 12:56 AM
Back in 2014 I suggested, that pre-I2a-Din could survive PIE onslaught in Polesian Lowland, and later took part in ethnogenesis of Slavs:

Your image shows I2a as Mesolithic survivors. But where is your evidenc e of Mesolithic survival in that area?

What we find in the ancient DNA results is that Mesolithic I2a in the Balkans was absorbed by the Neolithic advance. Then we see I2a appearing in farmers elsewhere. We see bursts of new lineages in I2 at c. 8,000 years ago = 6000 BC, as farming reached the Balkans. It appears that some I2 men were willing and able to adopt agriculture. So it seems likely that there happened to be an I2a chap among the CT farmers in the Middle Dnieper who were absorbed into the Middle Dnieper Culture.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 01:05 AM
Yes, I made that image back in 2014, so before all the recent genetic studies about the spread of Neolithic in Europe.

Mesolithic "survivors" in the sense that their Mesolithic Y-DNA survived, not that they continued to live as hunter-gatherers.

But now we know, that some WHG I2 could also come from Western Anatolia after having been absorbed by ENF there.

Jean M
01-27-2016, 12:58 PM
But now we know, that some WHG I2 could also come from Western Anatolia after having been absorbed by ENF there.

We have no WHG aDNA from Anatolia that I know of. Do you mean that we can deduce that I2 would once have been connected to the genome-wide WHG signature, but no longer was by the time we see I2c in Barcin, Turkey 6500-6200 BC (Mathieson 2015)? I'm not entirely sure about that.


Mesolithic = people living a hunter-gatherer life in Europe.
Mesolithic survival = people still living a hunter-gatherer life though farming has taken over most of the region in which they live.
WHG = the genome-wide signature found in most European hunter-gatherers. This does not mean that all hunter-gatherers world-wide carried this signature, or even all in Europe. We know that those who arrived in Europe from the Asian steppe carried a different one. The people of the Middle East who developed farming would have a different one, that they passed on to their farming descendants.


How long Y-DNA I had been in Anatolia remains unknown. Where it originated remains unknown. All we can say so far is that in the Anatolian Neolithic, I and I2c appeared Neolithic in genome-wide signature.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-27-2016, 01:11 PM
We have no WHG aDNA from Anatolia that I know of. Do you mean that we can deduce that I2 would once have been connected to the genome-wide WHG signature, but no longer was by the time we see I2c in Barcin, Turkey 6500-6200 BC (Mathieson 2015)?

It would be possible, IMO. That the I2 from Anatolia is only represented by I2c suggests a back-diffusion of I2 into Anatolia- a small amount seen by the EpiGravettian sites seen in an otherwise scantily populated pre-Neolithic Anatolia. By 6500 BC, they would have been wholly "Neolithicized" by numerous farmers actively migrating en masse from the Levant due to climatic change and the 'collapse' of the Natufian.

Jean M
01-27-2016, 01:55 PM
It would be possible, IMO. That the I2 from Anatolia is only represented by I2c suggests a back-diffusion of I2 into Anatolia- a small amount seen by the EpiGravettian sites seen in an otherwise scantily populated pre-Neolithic Anatolia. By 6500 BC, they would have been wholly "Neolithicized" by numerous farmers actively migrating en masse from the Levant due to climatic change and the 'collapse' of the Natufian.

Makes sense to me now you put it that way. However I'm not sure that I2c was the only I2 in Anatolia in the Neolithic. I'm guessing that the I2a in Impressed/Cardial Ware was picked up in Anatolia en route to Italy, Sardinia and Iberia.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 01:58 PM
We have no WHG aDNA from Anatolia that I know of.

ENF in Anatolia were WHG-admixed (about 10% or 15% if I remember correctly) and some of them - 2 out of 16 - had I2 haplogroup.

And 1 out of 16 also had haplogroup C - which could as well be picked up from WHG-type hunters (see for example La Brana).

This shows that autosomally WHG hunters did not live only in Europe, but extended also into Western Anatolia before ENF expansion.

While expanding into Europe, farmers picked up some additional WHG autosomal and assimilated additional men with I2 haplogroup.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 02:01 PM
That the I2 from Anatolia is only represented by I2c suggests a back-diffusion of I2 into Anatolia

Indeed. And they also were admixed by WHG autosomal DNA (they were between 10% and 15% WHG, if I recall correctly).

All this shows that after the LGM people from the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge (= WHG) expanded as far as Western Anatolia.

Let's not forget about one sample of C from Anatolia, which could also be from WHG, among whom C was a minority lineage.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 02:03 PM
I2 would once have been connected to the genome-wide WHG signature, but no longer was by the time we see I2c in Barcin, Turkey 6500-6200 BC

Then why do we see some degree of WHG autosomal signatures in Barcin genomes ???

This shows clearly that they were admixed by WHG auDNA already before entering Europe.

Later in Europe percentage of WHG admixture increased as they assimilated some locals.

And this specific WHG autosomal component most likely emerged in Iberian LGM refuge.

I don't think that WHG autosomal existed already before the LGM. What do you think?


WHG = the genome-wide signature found in most European hunter-gatherers.

Why "most" ??? Just those in Iberia and Western Europe (Luxembourg, Switzerland), and to some extent those in Sweden.

And it is quite obvious, that places such as Luxembourg and Sweden were repopulated after the LGM, because during the LGM they were covered by ice or too cold, and uninhabited. So WHG signature arrived to Luxembourg and Sweden only after that. This is why I think that WHG genetic signature = descendants of migrants who expanded out of Iberia following the LGM. Hunters in Caucasus and Western Russia were not WHG, but CHG and EHG respectively - they descended from different LGM refugia, not from the Franco-Cantabrian one. And those in Scandinavia were also not identical as WHG - probably because SHG were a mix of WHG and EHG. Paper linked below suggests that there was a migration from Russia to Scandinavia in the 9th-8th millennia BC, which probably brought some EHG, and a mixture of WHG and EHG created what we know as SHG:

"The First Eastern Migrations of People and Knowledge into Scandinavia: Evidence from Studies of Mesolithic Technology, 9th-8th Millennium BC":

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293652.2013.770416?journalCode=sarc20#.Vo952leTn gA


In this paper a team of Scandinavian researchers identifies and describes a Mesolithic technological concept, referred to as ‘the conical core pressure blade’ concept, and investigates how this concept spread into Fennoscandia and across Scandinavia. Using lithic technological, contextual archaeological and radiocarbon analyses, it is demonstrated that this blade concept arrived with ‘post-Swiderian’ hunter-gatherer groups from the Russian plain into northern Fennoscandia and the eastern Baltic during the 9th millennium bc. From there it was spread by migrating people and/or as transmitted knowledge through culture contacts into interior central Sweden, Norway and down along the Norwegian coast. However it was also spread into southern Scandinavia, where it was formerly identified as the Maglemosian technogroup 3 (or the ‘Svζrdborg phase’). In this paper it is argued that the identification and spread of the conical core pressure blade concept represents the first migration of people, technologyand ideas into Scandinavia from the south-eastern Baltic region and the Russian plain.

Most likely before that migration, Scandinavia was inhabited by "pure WHG" - such as those from La Brana, Loschbour and Bichon.

After that migration, WHG in Scandinavia was admixed by EHG - leading to the emergence of SHG genome-wide signature.

SHG samples in various PCA graphs always plot in the middle between WHG and EHG, but a bit closer to WHG.

==========================

Edit:

CHG genome-wide signature also did not exist before the LGM - it emerged only during many thousand years of endogamy that followed:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/full/ncomms9912.html

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-fourth-strand-european-ancestry-hunter-gatherers.html

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-


The Caucasus hunter-gatherer genome showed a continued mixture with the ancestors of the early farmers in the Levant area, which Manica says makes sense given the relative proximity. This ends, however, around 25,000 years ago - just before the time of the last glacial maximum, or peak Ice Age.

At this point, Caucasus hunter-gatherer populations shrink as the genes homogenise, a sign of breeding between those with increasingly similar DNA. This doesn't change for thousands of years as these populations remain in apparent isolation in the shelter of the mountains - possibly cut off from other major ancestral populations for as long as 15,000 years - until migrations began again as the Glacial Maximum recedes, and the Yamnaya culture ultimately emerges.

So CHG autosomal component simply did not yet exist 25,000 years ago. At that time they were idistinguishable autosomally.

CHG "race" emerged only between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, during a period of 15,000 years of endogamy and isolation.

Other clear-cut genome-wide signatures could also emerge because of isolation and long periods of no interbreeding with outsiders.

I think that WHG "race" (so to speak) also emerged during a veeeery long period of endogamy and lack of breeding with other groups, which points to the Franco-Cantabrian refuge as the place and to the LGM as the period where/when it could emerge as a distinct signature.

Per analogiam - EHG most likely emerged as a specific signature in yet another LGM refuge. The LGM was a time of numerical decimation and spatial fragmentation of previous Upper Paleolithic populations, during which they could differentiate into distinct, specific groups.

After the LGM they started expanding, migrating and gradually mixing with each other again.

Jean M
01-27-2016, 02:07 PM
Then why do we see some degree of WHG autosomal signatures in Barcin genomes ???

This show clearly that they were admixed by WHG auDNA already before entering Europe.

Yes it is all making sense to me now, thanks. Don't know why this hadn't sunk in with me.

George
01-27-2016, 02:44 PM
Is there evidence of habitation in Polesia throughout the Neolithic and Metal Ages?

One point to keep in mind is that the I2a-Din group remained extremely small until the very end of the first millennium BCE, not easily archaeologically detectable. And another thing is that, though small, it was significant enough (according to the Verenich hypothesis which I rather like) to DEFLECT the Baltic speech of some of its neighbours into Slavic probably at the point of the initial co-operative expansion of the relevant I2a and R1a groups. Your theory is an acceptable alternative to the Bastarnian hypothesis earlier broached. Both have their pluses and minuses. More aDNA from local cultures such as GAC etc.. (such as left inhumations) would obviously help the discussion.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 02:54 PM
Speaking of LGM refugia, ENF and EHG - both ENF and EHG were lighter-skinned, while WHG (with Y-DNA such as I and C) were dark.

This suggests that mutations for light skin emerged after the split of IJ into I and J (because I males originally did not have them).

Only SHG with Y-DNA I2 had those mutations, but - as I wrote above - SHG were probably admixed by EHG migrants.

And what is the only Y-DNA lineage which connects lighter-skinned EHG with lighter-skinned ENF in Western Anatolia? The answer is - J:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6265-Ancient-DNA-and-the-rewriting-of-human-history-be-sparing-with-Occam%92s-razor&p=136650&viewfull=1#post136650

1 out of 2 hunters in Karelia was J and 1 out of 16 farmers in Western Anatolia was J2a.

Assuming that derived alleles for light skin emerged originally in a male (or in two males), those could be carriers of J haplogroup.

=============================

But perhaps a better link with spreading derived alleles for light skin can be established for carriers of some mtDNA haplogroup(s).

aarnisotka
01-27-2016, 03:12 PM
Speaking of LGM refugia, ENF and EHG - both ENF and EHG were lighter-skinned, while WHG (with Y-DNA such as I and C) were dark.

This suggests that mutations for light skin emerged after the split of IJ into I and J (because I males originally did not have them).

Only SHG with Y-DNA I2 had those mutations, but - as I wrote above - SHG were probably admixed by EHG migrants.

And what is the only Y-DNA lineage which connects lighter-skinned EHG with lighter-skinned ENF in Western Anatolia? The answer is - J:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6265-Ancient-DNA-and-the-rewriting-of-human-history-be-sparing-with-Occam%92s-razor&p=136650&viewfull=1#post136650

1 out of 2 hunters in Karelia was J and 1 out of 16 farmers in Western Anatolia was J2a.

=============================

But perhaps a better link with spreading derived alleles for light skin can be established for carriers of some mtDNA haplogroup(s).

I wonder what these "lighter skin mutations" would have meant in practice. If ENF in anatolia was lighter than WHG, but modern anatolians and populations with large ENF ancestry in most cases lack the very pale skin of northern Europe, then that would suggest to me that modern pale skin is still a much younger mutation than these folks mentioned.

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 03:26 PM
I wonder what these "lighter skin mutations" would have meant in practice. If ENF in anatolia was lighter than WHG, but modern anatolians and populations with large ENF ancestry in most cases lack the very pale skin of northern Europe, then that would suggest to me that modern pale skin is still a much younger mutation than these folks mentioned.

No, no - modern light skin is caused by exactly the same two mutations.

The difference is, that their frequency in modern Northern Europe is almost fixed (close to 100%).

While their frequency in prehistoric populations was usually lower than now.

Frequencies of skin-lightening derived alleles rs1426654 and rs16891982:

Western Hunters (4 genomes) = 12,5% and 0% (combined 13)
Caucasus Hunters (2 genomes) = 100% and 0% (combined 100)
Sweden Hunters (6 genomes) = 58,3% and 66,7% (combined 125)
Anatolian Farmers (17 genomes) = 100% and 34,8% (combined 135)
Russian Hunters (2 genomes) = 100% and 75% (combined 175)
================================
Britain Iron Age (6 genomes) = 100% and 85,7% (combined 186)
================================
Britain Modern (91 genomes) = 100% and 97,3% (combined 197)
Iberia Modern (107 genomes) = 100% and 81,8% (combined 182)

Sources:

(see data from "A%" column, as I used % of derived alleles among all alleles, not % of people with 2 copies of derived allele):

Prehistoric: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1800275085

91 modern Brits with 182 alleles (91x2) of rs16891982, of which just 5 "ancestral" alleles C and 177 (97,3%) derived alleles G:

Modern Europe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JxxjOa-KOd2b5hhQ9DQ9L5z7rxf8WW2MRN6owtf22ag/edit#gid=0

=======================

Out of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic populations, the lightest-skinned group were EHG hunters in Russia (including Karelia).

But some people complain about a small sample size (only 2 genomes, though I think that at this point we already have 3).

aarnisotka
01-27-2016, 03:39 PM
Well exactly. If Iberians are almost fixed with these mutations, then that to me tells that there has to be something more to this. There is a clear difference between Iberian skin tone, and the very pale you see in the north. I understand tho, that Iberians claim that this is due to excess sunlight in the mediterranean - and what do I know? Perhaps they are right.

Do you have numbers for modern mideast?

Tomenable
01-27-2016, 03:43 PM
Not me but Krefter / FireHaired (these are his spreadsheets, I'm using figures he compiled).

Here is his data for modern Middle East, but only for rs16891982 (no data for rs1426654 - unlike in spreadsheets linked above):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tsv3eJkbes6pNbq3ACSYPUuXgTXe2IfhBasUiTSVNWI/edit#gid=0

But look at figures for Europe - it suggests that Austrians should be darker than Iberians (which I don't think is the case ???).

Megalophias
01-27-2016, 04:11 PM
Well exactly. If Iberians are almost fixed with these mutations, then that to me tells that there has to be something more to this. There is a clear difference between Iberian skin tone, and the very pale you see in the north. I understand tho, that Iberians claim that this is due to excess sunlight in the mediterranean - and what do I know? Perhaps they are right.

Portuguese are as light skinned as Poles without sun exposure. Irish are lighter than either, but Irish have a high level of ultra-pale non-tanning redhead types. Most Northern Europeans are not that pale and tan normally.

Even most Middle Easterners are not much darker than North Europeans when you put them somewhere where it's winter half the year.

aarnisotka
01-27-2016, 04:15 PM
Lemme check this again.

aarnisotka
01-27-2016, 04:17 PM
Portuguese are as light skinned as Poles without sun exposure. Irish are lighter than either, but Irish have a high level of ultra-pale non-tanning redhead types. Most Northern Europeans are not that pale and tan normally.

Even most Middle Easterners are not much darker than North Europeans when you put them somewhere where it's winter half the year.

Nonsense. There are plenty Middle Easternes living here and the difference is very obvious.

Megalophias
01-27-2016, 04:47 PM
Nonsense. There are plenty Middle Easternes living here and the difference is very obvious.
I didn't say you couldn't tell, I said they are not much darker. Adjust the semantic content of "much" to suit yourself, I don't care.

aarnisotka
01-27-2016, 05:01 PM
Whatever.

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 10:17 PM
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tsv3eJkbes6pNbq3ACSYPUuXgTXe2IfhBasUiTSVNWI/edit#gid=0

But look at figures for Europe - it suggests that Austrians should be darker than Iberians (which I don't think is the case ???).

Here is an anthropological study with some surprising conclusions about Austrians:

http://mankindquarterly.org/sample/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf

Check "The Degree of Facial Flatness" - pages 6 to 10 out of 33. The conclusion is:


The Volga-Finnic-speaking Mordvians (39.4%) and Austrians (32.4%) have the flattest faces in Europe

39.4% and 32.4% refer to values of so called Mongol-index for these populations.

Germans have a vastly different (16.7%) value of Mongol-index than Austrians (32.4%) - who would have thought?

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 10:26 PM
Portuguese are as light skinned as Poles without sun exposure. Irish are lighter than either, but Irish have a high level of ultra-pale non-tanning redhead types. Most Northern Europeans are not that pale and tan normally.

What is your source for this info that Portuguese skin is not any daker (on average) than Polish ???

Is it this study (if so, can you cite the relevant excerpt?): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048294

I have read medical articles which claim that ethnic Poles should avoid tanning because 70% have Skin Phototypes I and II on Fitzpatrick's Scale, which do not tan normally. When you have Phototypes I or II, tanning increases the risk of melanoma. So I'm not sure if you are right.

Phototype I = always burns, never tans (pale white skin)
Phototype II = always burns easily, tans minimally (white skin)
Phototype III = burns moderately, tans uniformly (light brown skin)

According to sources that I have read, around 70% of Poles have types I and II (my own type is II), and not type III.

For example these articles:

"Sun: a special danger for Poles" - http://natemat.pl/107531,slonce-szczegolnie-grozne-dla-polakow

"70% of Poles belong to high-risk group for melanoma" - http://vitars.pl/ryzyko-czerniaka-w-polsce/

"65-70% of Poles have skin phototypes I or II with high melanoma risk" - http://vitars.pl/author/pestifer/page/14/

"65-70% of Poles endangered by melanoma" - http://www.mp.pl/onkologia/aktualnosci/show.html?id=101220

And so on, and so on.

I would say, that Portuguese people have a higher frequency of Phototype III - what do you thnk ???

Fitzpatrick's Scale: http://s24.postimg.org/7wkl79xg5/171411961.png

http://s24.postimg.org/7wkl79xg5/171411961.png

Megalophias
01-28-2016, 10:37 PM
Yes, that is the study. The data is right there in the table, it is measured by reflectance spectrometry on unexposed skin. If you want an excerpt: "With the exception of the Poland vs. Portugal comparison, average skin pigmentation is also different among countries. Most significant is the difference in skin pigmentation between Ireland and the other countries: Irish participants have lighter skin pigmentation than Polish, Italian, and Portuguese participants." This was a measurement of skin lightness only, expressly avoiding tanning ability.


I have read medical articles which claim that ethnic Poles should avoid tanning because 70% have Skin Phototypes I and II on Fitzpatrick's Scale, which do not tan normally. When you have Phototypes I or II, tanning increases the risk of melanoma. So I'm not sure if you are right.

Interesting. I don't know really know any Poles (a few Czechs and Slovaks), so I don't doubt you are right. The super-pale people I had in mind were Phototype I, it would be difficult if not impossible to tell II and III apart at sight.

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 10:40 PM
I do not tan normally, for example. I can tan brown with great efforts and after using proper suntan oils, but without taking such measures, my skin just turns mostly red (= burns). Some sources describing Early Slavs in period of their expansion into the Balkans, described them as people who turn red / reddish / ruddy (instead of brown) under sunshine. And they found that peculiar about them.


I don't know really know any Poles (a few Czechs and Slovaks)

I think Czechs have on average a bit darker complexion (maybe no longer today, but it seems that they used to have it darker).

Jewish 10th century traveller - Abraham ben Jacob - who travelled in Western Slavic lands in years 965 - 966, wrote:

"(...) What is peculiar [when it comes to Slavs], most of Bojema people are of swarthy complexion and dark hair, while fair colors are rare among them [compared to frequencies among other West and East Slavs]. (...)"

Also Muslim author Ibn Al-Faqih (10th century) wrote:

"(...) There exist two kinds of Slavic people. First kind are people of swarthy complexion and dark hair. They live near the coast of the [Mediterranean] Sea [= South Slavs]. The other kind are fair Slavic people, who live inland. (...)"

By the 10th century, South Slavs were already described as being darker than North Slavs.

However, in the 6th and 7th centuries, Slavic migrants who came to the Balkans were described as light-pigmented.

[B]Source (in Polish but with English summary):

"Phenotype of old Slavs, 6th to 10th centuries":

http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2001-t3_%2844%29-nB-s205-212.pdf

Gravetto-Danubian
01-28-2016, 10:58 PM
For South Slavs, if one looks ad Novak Djokovic or Bernard Tomic, it would have to be the stereotypical phenotype and skin tone of the "Dinaricness" of non-Bulgarian South Slavs. They often start dark blond as kids and darken with age/ sun exposure. The remainder 30% would be a split between full-blonde and FST I/ II (like my brother) and those of a "Mediteranean look".

Gravetto-Danubian
01-28-2016, 11:12 PM
One point to keep in mind is that the I2a-Din group remained extremely small until the very end of the first millennium BCE, not easily archaeologically detectable. And another thing is that, though small, it was significant enough (according to the Verenich hypothesis which I rather like) to DEFLECT the Baltic speech of some of its neighbours into Slavic probably at the point of the initial co-operative expansion of the relevant I2a and R1a groups. Your theory is an acceptable alternative to the Bastarnian hypothesis earlier broached. Both have their pluses and minuses. More aDNA from local cultures such as GAC etc.. (such as left inhumations) would obviously help the discussion.

What if I2a -L621 was a more prevalent than we think ? And its current singularity is due to more recent demographic events than deeper, prehistoric ones ?

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 11:13 PM
Coming back to that surprising anthropological difference between Germans and Austrians:


Here is an anthropological study with some surprising conclusions about Austrians:

http://mankindquarterly.org/sample/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf

Check "The Degree of Facial Flatness" - pages 6 to 10 out of 33. The conclusion is:


The Volga-Finnic-speaking Mordvians (39.4%) and Austrians (32.4%) have the flattest faces in Europe

39.4% and 32.4% refer to values of so called Mongol-index for these populations.

Germans have a vastly different (16.7%) value of Mongol-index than Austrians (32.4%) - who would have thought?

Let's add, that according to that study, the least flat faces in Europe are these of people of the British Isles (12.9%).

The most flat faces are of course Mongoloid ones (hance the name "Mongol-index").

Why are German faces more similar to British and Irish faces, but Austrian faces more similar to Mordvin faces?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-28-2016, 11:18 PM
And it is quite obvious, that places such as Luxembourg and Sweden were repopulated after the LGM, because during the LGM they were covered by ice or too cold, and uninhabited. So WHG signature arrived to Luxembourg and Sweden only after that. This is why I think that WHG genetic signature = descendants of migrants who expanded out of Iberia following the LGM. Hunters in Caucasus and Western Russia were not WHG, but CHG and EHG respectively - they descended from different LGM refugia, not from the Franco-Cantabrian one. And those in Scandinavia were also not identical as WHG - probably because SHG were a mix of WHG and EHG. Paper linked below suggests that there was a migration from Russia to Scandinavia in the 9th-8th millennia BC, which probably brought some EHG, and a mixture of WHG and EHG created what we know as SHG:

"The First Eastern Migrations of People and Knowledge into Scandinavia: Evidence from Studies of Mesolithic Technology, 9th-8th Millennium BC":

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293652.2013.770416?journalCode=sarc20#.Vo952leTn gA



Most likely before that migration, Scandinavia was inhabited by "pure WHG" - such as those from La Brana, Loschbour and Bichon.

After that migration, WHG in Scandinavia was admixed by EHG - leading to the emergence of SHG genome-wide signature.

SHG samples in various PCA graphs always plot in the middle between WHG and EHG, but a bit closer to WHG.

==========================

Edit:

CHG genome-wide signature also did not exist before the LGM - it emerged only during many thousand years of endogamy that followed:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/full/ncomms9912.html

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-fourth-strand-european-ancestry-hunter-gatherers.html

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-



So CHG autosomal component simply did not yet exist 25,000 years ago. At that time they were idistinguishable autosomally.

CHG "race" emerged only between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, during a period of 15,000 years of endogamy and isolation.

Other clear-cut genome-wide signatures could also emerge because of isolation and long periods of no interbreeding with outsiders.

I think that WHG "race" (so to speak) also emerged during a veeeery long period of endogamy and lack of breeding with other groups, which points to the Franco-Cantabrian refuge as the place and to the LGM as the period where/when it could emerge as a distinct signature.

Per analogiam - EHG most likely emerged as a specific signature in yet another LGM refuge. The LGM was a time of numerical decimation and spatial fragmentation of previous Upper Paleolithic populations, during which they could differentiate into distinct, specific groups.

After the LGM they started expanding, migrating and gradually mixing with each other again.

But isn't EHG mostly WHG ? Ie 60% . This would suggest EHG is merely WHG with extra 'eastern stuff' - whatever that is. We can see it with mtDNA C in the Mesolithic western steppe, Y DNA haplogroups Q, possibly R
We still don't actually have proper Mesolithic samples from Russia. Yes , I said right. The Samara HG and Karelia HG date from 6th Mill BC ? If so, that's after the arrival of so-called "pottery Neoilithic' of an eastern tradition.
There have been several changes in the Russian plain between the UP and Yamnaya period. We're not close to establishing the complexity of genetic evolution here.

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 11:25 PM
But isn't EHG mostly WHG ? Ie 60% .

Isn't this just due to some kind of "deep ancestral similarity", though ??? Perhaps common Paleolithic origin of both ???

Maybe they intebred with each other before the LGM, but during the LGM they got isolated.


This would suggest EHG is merely WHG with extra 'eastern stuff' - whatever that is.

I think that the extra 'eastern stuff' amounting to 40% was simply ANE (so a Mal'ta-like genome-wide signature).

That is, EHG was modelled as 60% WHG + 40% ANE mixture, but were they really such a mix?

Maybe they weren't a recent mix, but a distinct group on their own, sharing deep ancestry with both WHG and ANE ???

Gravetto-Danubian
01-29-2016, 12:04 AM
Isn't this just due to some kind of "deep ancestral similarity", though ??? Perhaps common Paleolithic origin of both ???

Maybe they intebred with each other before the LGM, but during the LGM they got isolated.



I think that the extra 'eastern stuff' amounting to 40% was simply ANE (so a Mal'ta-like genome-wide signature).

That is, EHG was modelled as 60% WHG + 40% ANE mixture, but were they really such a mix?

Maybe they weren't a recent mix, but a distinct group on their own, sharing deep ancestry with both WHG and ANE ???

Maybe you can ask Generalissimo more about the modelling based on stats, but I recall 2 or 3 viable models were offered by Haak, Lazaridies, etc for EHG.

From a broader perspective, the following sketch can be made for the north Black sea region & EE plain.

- early Ahmarian type bladetelet industries assoc. with modern human teeth at kostenki (not yet tested), c. 40/39 kya

- Aurignacian -like industry c. 36/ 37 kya, after a 2000 year hiatus. This is our K14 dude. Y DNA C1.

- Gravettian industry with appearance of new forms. ? mere cultural change or arrival of new groups (? hg I*). These are the mammoth-hunters, Venus figurines, etc.

- sometime between 27 and the peak LGM (20 kya), there was wholescale abandonment of EE plain. However, there is evidence of habitation on the Black Sea littoral - but this is bizarrely a late epi-Aurignacian character (?where did they come from?) & M0ldavia

- 20/ 18 kya : appearance of epi-Gravettian in EE plain (? possibly from Bohemia / Moravia). These are the mammoth bone sites on the middle Dnieper.

- 13/12 kya ; appearance of Tardi-Epi-Gravettian. Microlithicization of tool kit.

- 11-10 kya : appearance of microblades (via Volga basin - eg Butovo culture. Possibly associated with arrival of R/ ANE ?)

- 7 kya : appearance of pottery package (? from east). Our Karelia/ Samara EHG samples.

- 6 ky- 5: "Eneolithic" Khvlanysk samples, 5 kya Yamnaya.

Tomenable
02-01-2016, 11:12 AM
Are there any maps or charts (with percentages by country) showing the distribution of I2a1b2a1 / I-CTS10228 ???

For reference: http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

What percent of all I2a1 is this very young subclade I2a1b2a1, especially in Slavic and neighbouring countries?:

http://yfull.com/tree/I-L621/

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html

https://lundiak.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/i2...aka-i-cts10228/ (https://lundiak.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/i2a1b2a1-aka-i-cts10228/)

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Gravetto-Danubian
02-01-2016, 11:47 AM
Here is one of M223 i did with Surfer Goldenware

http://www.anthrogenica.com/asset.php?fid=6692&uid=3330&d=1454327047

And L621 - CTS10228

http://www.anthrogenica.com/asset.php?fid=6691&uid=3330&d=1454327014

http://www.anthrogenica.com/asset.php?fid=6692&uid=3330&d=1454327047

Tomenable
02-01-2016, 11:51 AM
So called I2a-Din is now defined as all of L621, or just CTS10228 ???

I guess it doesn't make much difference since Non-CTS10228 seems to be just a tiny portion of all L621.

Vast majority of all L621 seems to be under CTS10228 as well, right?

Edit:

Thanks for the maps!

========================

Fixed it for you: :)

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7573&d=1454327014

Now copy this between:



And we get:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7573&d=1454327014

Bane
02-01-2016, 12:04 PM
Are there any maps or charts (with percentages by country) showing the distribution of I2a1b2a1 / I-CTS10228 ???

Here is one created by Balanovsky or his assistants almost 8 years ago. It shows the distribution of I-M423 (at the time map was created large number of SNPs was not known yet).
Vast majority of I-M423 on the map would be I-CTS10228 (British isles area is of course not I-CTS10228).
Unfortunately Romania remains poorly sampled for all these years.

http://i.imgur.com/YIV0TQD.jpg

Tomenable
02-01-2016, 12:13 PM
Thank you Bane - I think that Polesia was also poorly sampled by Balanovsky.

According to Kushnierevich 2013, in Polesia I2a1 reaches a high frequency of 26% (56 males in a sample of 217):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5142-Where-would-the-main-ancestor(s)-of-I2a-Din-have-been-located-in-the-BA&p=136497&viewfull=1#post136497

This is the highest frequency out of all regions of Belarus (Polesia is partially in Belarus, partially in Ukraine).

ljiljanm
02-03-2016, 01:48 PM
It is not directly connected to the subject (BA location of CTS10228 - so called I2a-Din), but I have a question, regarding the time of formation of the clade. On Y-Full we can see that it was formed before 5500y (confidence interval 4600-6400y), and that TMRCA is 2200y (CI 1950-2600). On the other side, on another place I saw that Motala 12 was tested positive for L147.2 (on http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ eg). If it is true that Motala people lived cca 7700y before present, how is it possible that they were positive for L147.2?

lgmayka
02-03-2016, 02:24 PM
On the other side, on another place I saw that Motala 12 was tested positive for L147.2 (on http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ eg). If it is true that Motala people lived cca 7700y before present, how is it possible that they were positive for L147.2?
According to YFull (http://yfull.com/search-snp-in-tree/), L147 has occurred so often (more than 30 times) in human history as to be rather useless for phylogenetic purposes:
---
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 J-Z2331
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 O
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 A1a
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y5179
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y4115*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y11231
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-CTS10228
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-L623
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-Y7357
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y14328
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-FGC39110
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 N-Z1941*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y7263
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-Y10802*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y13952
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-S844
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-YP4121
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-L679
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y3684*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-YP335*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 B-M112
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y13037
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 E-CTS1871*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-Z19*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 E-A930
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-A88
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 R-YP441*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-Y8331
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 E-Y2962*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-L1302*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− L147.1 • L147.3 • L147.4 • L147.2 • L147.5 • L147.6 • L147.7 • L147.8 • PF4883 • L147 I-L704*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
---

ljiljanm
02-03-2016, 02:53 PM
Oh, I see. Thank you Igmayka.