Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67

Thread: DNA from Atlantic Megalithic tombs

  1. #31
    Registered Users
    Posts
    726
    Sex
    Location
    Addis Abeba
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Nationality
    Ethiopian
    Y-DNA
    G2a
    mtDNA
    H1

    Italy Ethiopia Eritrea
    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    All, sorry for the confusion. Serves me right for trying to post late while rushing to go to dinner. It was prs002BE, not prs009BE that had M269 level calls. Not only does this sample have M269 level calls, but most calls leading to the M269 branch are indeed positive. I am using the 2017 ISOGG tree for my calls:

    A-V221 >> Positive for equivalent Z11905
    BT-M42 >> Positive for equivalents Z40399, M9115, P97, M9151, M9177, M9301, M8973
    CT-M168 >> Positive for equivalents M5655, M5695, CTS7257, M5780, M5811, Z40572, M5590
    CF-P143
    F-M89 >> Positive for P141 equivalent
    IJK-L15
    IJ-P124
    K-M9
    K(xLT)-M526
    K-YSC0000186
    P-P295 >> Positive for equivalents M1267, CTS12524, PF5481. Negative for equivalents F1660, M1258
    R-M207 >> Positive for M207
    R-M173
    R-M343
    R-L754 >> Positive for CTS3794
    R-L389
    R-P297 >> Positive for PF6501
    R-M269 >> Positive for L777, CTS329


    Positive haplogroup I SNPs CTS2514, CTS8963
    Positive for haplogroup N SNP CTS7885
    Positive for haplogroup C2b1a2b1b SNP M4620

    I have put the calls here for folks that want to investigate further:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
    Thanks. I tried to run the BAM file of prs002BE in order to check autosomal, but my laptop raised white flag after 8 cca hours of continue battle against its hardware limits.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romilius For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (04-15-2019),  Megalophias (04-15-2019)

  3. #32
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,039
    Sex

    The study was published today. Thanks to rozenfeld for posting it in the Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News subforum

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../09/1818037116

    Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society

    Federico Sánchez-Quinto, Helena Malmström, Magdalena Fraser, Linus Girdland-Flink, Emma M. Svensson, Luciana G. Simġes, Robert George, Nina Hollfelder, Göran Burenhult, Gordon Noble, Kate Britton, Sahra Talamo, Neil Curtis, Hana Brzobohata, Radka Sumberova, Anders Götherström, Jan Storċ, and Mattias Jakobsson

    PNAS first published April 15, 2019

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818037116

    Edited by Anne C. Stone, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved March 15, 2019 (received for review October 19, 2018)

    Significance

    A new phenomenon of constructing distinctive funerary monuments, collectively known as megalithic tombs, emerged around 4500 BCE along the Atlantic façade. The megalithic phenomenon has attracted interest and speculation since medieval times. In particular, the origin, dispersal dynamics, and the role of these constructions within the societies that built them have been debated. We generate genome sequence data from 24 individuals buried in five megaliths and investigate the population history and social dynamics of the groups that buried their dead in megalithic monuments across northwestern Europe in the fourth millennium BCE. Our results show kin relations among the buried individuals and an overrepresentation of males, suggesting that at least some of these funerary monuments were used by patrilineal societies.

    Abstract

    Paleogenomic and archaeological studies show that Neolithic lifeways spread from the Fertile Crescent into Europe around 9000 BCE, reaching northwestern Europe by 4000 BCE. Starting around 4500 BCE, a new phenomenon of constructing megalithic monuments, particularly for funerary practices, emerged along the Atlantic façade. While it has been suggested that the emergence of megaliths was associated with the territories of farming communities, the origin and social structure of the groups that erected them has remained largely unknown. We generated genome sequence data from human remains, corresponding to 24 individuals from five megalithic burial sites, encompassing the widespread tradition of megalithic construction in northern and western Europe, and analyzed our results in relation to the existing European paleogenomic data. The various individuals buried in megaliths show genetic affinities with local farming groups within their different chronological contexts. Individuals buried in megaliths display (past) admixture with local hunter-gatherers, similar to that seen in other Neolithic individuals in Europe. In relation to the tomb populations, we find significantly more males than females buried in the megaliths of the British Isles. The genetic data show close kin relationships among the individuals buried within the megaliths, and for the Irish megaliths, we found a kin relation between individuals buried in different megaliths. We also see paternal continuity through time, including the same Y-chromosome haplotypes reoccurring. These observations suggest that the investigated funerary monuments were associated with patrilineal kindred groups. Our genomic investigation provides insight into the people associated with this long-standing megalith funerary tradition, including their social dynamics.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ArmandoR1b For This Useful Post:

     angscoire (04-16-2019),  Drewcastle (04-15-2019),  etrusco (04-15-2019),  Grossvater (04-20-2019),  Jessie (04-16-2019),  Judith (04-18-2019),  Pribislav (04-16-2019),  Psynome (04-16-2019),  R.Rocca (04-15-2019),  traject (04-16-2019)

  5. #33
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,039
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    Yes, sorry for the confusion. It was prs002BE, not prs009BE that had M269 level calls.

    BTW, on the radiocarbon dates, not sure if those were calibrated or un-calibrated, so I guess we'll have to see if:

    1. The sample is male or female
    2. The sample is contaminated
    3. The dates are calibrated (an therefore into the Bell Beaker period)
    It looked like there were too many Y-DNA SNPs calls to be female. Luckily the study was published today so we don't have to speculate.

    Primrose2 prs002 Calibrated date is 3790-3660 sex is XX, meaning she is a female, per the study.

    BE represents blunt-end data and WGC represents whole genome capture data and some samples used both types and is why we see BAM files with each.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ArmandoR1b For This Useful Post:

     Jessie (04-16-2019),  Megalophias (04-15-2019),  Rafe (04-17-2019)

  7. #34
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,441
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmandoR1b View Post
    It looked like there were too many Y-DNA SNPs calls to be female. Luckily the study was published today so we don't have to speculate.

    Primrose2 prs002 Calibrated date is 3790-3660 sex is XX, meaning she is a female, per the study.

    BE represents blunt-end data and WGC represents whole genome capture data and some samples used both types and is why we see BAM files with each.
    I had written on my first post about it that it was likely a female due to its low Y-DNA to total DNA ratio. The calls may have been due to male contamination. Good to see they confirmed it. Thanks for the update Armando.

    No doubt some will crawl back into their holes tonight.
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543, Pietro della Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to R.Rocca For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (04-16-2019),  ArmandoR1b (04-15-2019),  Helves (04-16-2019),  Jessie (04-16-2019),  Psynome (04-16-2019),  Radboud (04-17-2019),  Rafe (04-17-2019)

  9. #35
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,039
    Sex

    The study used ISOGG version 11.110, April 21, 2016 for the longhand names of the SNPs. So my analysis of ans008, ans014, and ans017 as being positive for I2a1a2a1a1-FGC7126 is correct because FGC7126 is a synonym of S2703 and the 2016 longhand is I2a1b1a1a which is what the study shows them to be positive for.

    Code:
    Ans008 belongs to I2a1b1a1a. The haplotype call was supported by derived alleles for I2a1b1a1a (S2703:17361387, C>A, 2) and for upstream I2a1b1a1 (L1498:18668472, C>T, 1), I2a1b (S2768:22905944, G>C, 5; S2687:16594452, A>G, 1; S2715:17893806, A>G, 5; S2722:18049134, C>T, 2 and M423:19096091, G>A, 1), I2a (PF3647:7879415, A>C, 2) as well as for 63 markers defining haplogroup I (e.g. PF3721:15023364, T>C, 1; PF3742:16354708, G>A, 1 and PF3730:15595624, G>A, 5). Although Ans008 also displayed a derived allele state for a marker defining another sub-clade within I, I2a2a2a1 (L1228:15446045, C>G, 1), this was refuted by ancestral allele states for 13 upstream mutations (I2a2a2-Y6098:9647453, C>T, 1 and SK1254:6742730, T>C, 1; I2a2a-PF3857:7716262, A>C, 1; S152:17570599, C>T, 1; S24:15517851, T>G, 3; PF3858:8353707, C>A, 1; U250:18888200, C>G, 1 and S117:16699334, C>G, 2 and I2a2- S150:22725379, C>A, 1; S153:17516123, T>C, 1; S33:18747493, G>C, 3; L368:6931594, C>T, 1 and S23:7628484, C>T, 1).
    
    Ans014 belongs to I2a1b1a1a. This individual was derived for I2a1b1a1a (S2703:17361387, C>A, 1) and for upstream I2a1b1a1 (L1498:18668472, C>T, 2), I2a1b (S2768:22905944, G>C, 2; S2638:14074218, A>T, 2; S2679:16233135, A>G, 2; S2687:16594452, A>G, 3; S2702:17359886, A>C, 1; S2715:17893806, A>G, 1; S328:15574052, G>A, 2 and M423:19096091, G>A, 3), I2a (PF3647:7879415, A>C, 2), I2 (PF3781:18700150, C>T, 1; S31:16638804, A>G, 3 and Z2638:8567995, G>A, 2) and for 117 markers defining haplogroup I (e.g. PF3721:15023364, T>C, 1; PF3742:16354708, G>A, 2 and PF3753:16836079, C>A, 6). Like Ans008 and Ans017, Ans014 had a derived allele state for a marker defining another sub-clade within I, namely I2a2a2a1 (L1228:15446045, C>G, 2). There was no further support for this sub-clade as this individual was ancestral for I2a2a2 (SK1254:6742730, T>C, 2), I2a2a (M223:21717307, G>A, 4; L59:7113556, C>T, 4; S24:15517851, T>G, 2; S119:24475669, G>T, 3 and S117:16699334, C>G, 2) and I2a2 (S150:22725379, C>A, 2; S33:18747493, G>C, 2; L181:19077754, G>T, 1; L368:6931594, C>T, 1 and S32:17493630, T>G, 3).
    
    Ans017 belongs to I2a1b1a1a and displayed derived allele states for the following; I2a1b1a1a (S2703:17361387; C>A, 6), I2a1b1a1 (L1498:18668472, C>T, 3), I2a1b1 (S185:22513718, C>T, 5), I2a1b (S2768:22905944, G>C, 4; S2632:7317227, G>A, 4; S2621:2785672, A>G, 1; S2638:14074218, A>T, 1; S2679:16233135, A>G, 10; S2687:16594452, A>G, 8; S2702:17359886, A>C, 7; S2715:17893806, A>G, 6; S2722:18049134, C>T, 3; S328:15574052, G>A, 3 and M423:19096091, G>A, 1), I2a (PF3647:7879415, A>C, 4), I2 (PF3781:18700150, C>T, 6; S31:16638804, A>G, 4 and Z2638:8567995, G>A, 4), and for 166 markers defining haplogroup I (e.g. PF3715:14847792, A>C, 2; PF3721:15023364, T>C, 3 and PF3742:16354708, G>A, 3). Similar to Ans008 and Ans014, Ans017 was derived for one marker defining another sub-clade within I, I2a2a2a1 (L1228:15446045, C>G, 8) although this was not further supported as upstream markers were ancestral for I2a2a2 (Y6098:9647453, C>T, 3 and SK1254:6742730, T>C, 5), for I2a2a (PF3857:7716262, A>C, 3; S152:17570599, C>T, 6; L622:13718315, C>A, 7; M223:21717307, G>A, 6; L59:7113556, C>T, 7; S24:15517851, T>G, 1; S119:24475669, G>T, 1; PF3858:8353707, C>A, 4; U250:18888200, C>G, 2 and S117:16699334, C>G, 4), I2a2 (S33:18747493, G>C, 6; L181:19077754, G>T, 3; L368:6931594, C>T, 4; S30:13992338, C>G, 3; S23:7628484, C>T, 4 and S32:17493630, T>G, 2).
    Last edited by ArmandoR1b; 04-15-2019 at 11:49 PM.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ArmandoR1b For This Useful Post:

     Jessie (04-16-2019),  Megalophias (04-16-2019),  Saosis (04-18-2019)

  11. #36
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,039
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    I had written on my first post about it that it was likely a female due to its low Y-DNA to total DNA ratio. The calls may have been due to male contamination. Good to see they confirmed it.
    I remember and you were right. Good call.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.Rocca View Post
    No doubt some will crawl back into their holes tonight.
    Their hopes continue to be diminished as more studies of ancient DNA are published.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ArmandoR1b For This Useful Post:

     Helves (04-16-2019),  Jessie (04-16-2019),  R.Rocca (04-16-2019)

  13. #37
    Registered Users
    Posts
    276
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA
    G1a
    mtDNA
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmandoR1b View Post
    I remember and you were right. Good call.


    Their hopes continue to be diminished as more studies of ancient DNA are published.
    The Eurogenes comment section was all hyped up yesterday lol. Especially our own Basque friend(he's still banned?).

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Helves For This Useful Post:

     Jessie (04-16-2019),  R.Rocca (04-16-2019)

  15. #38
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,390
    Ethnicity
    Pred.Anglo-Saxon + Briton
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA
    R1b S21184, BY50830+
    mtDNA
    U4b1a2 - FGS

    Canada England Wales Netherlands France Cornwall
    What I find interesting is the genome changes from WHG to EEF, but the I2 continuity persists, or at least it appears to persist. Would this suggest that I2 were also part of the Neolithic island hoppers or simply local lineages who took EEF wives over thousands of years? I suspect we need more aDNA from the Mesolithic along the Mediterranean, including the eastern portions.
    YDNA: R1b-Z220 (A7066+) (1800's Stepney, London(Bethnal Green), UK George Wood b. 1782
    maternal-grandfather YDNA: prob. I1 Gurr, George 1843, Feversham, Kent, England.
    maternal-grandmother YDNA: R1b-P311+ Beech, John Richard b. 1780, Lewes, England
    maternal-ggrandfather YDNA R1b-U106 Thomas, Edward b 1854, Sittingbourne, Kent
    paternal-ggf YDNA: R1b-L48. Gould, John Somerset England 1800s.
    paternal-ggf YDNA: R1b-L48. Scott, William Hamilton mdka Ireland(?) < 1800s

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ADW_1981 For This Useful Post:

     hartaisarlag (04-16-2019)

  17. #39
    Registered Users
    Posts
    368
    Sex
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Ethnicity
    Appalachia
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U152>L20>CTS9733
    mtDNA
    H1b1-T16362C

    Where is this new article being discussed: "Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain" ?? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0871-9

    BBC has discussed the research in layman's terms, "Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders" here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47938188

    "...The migration to Britain was just one part of a general, massive expansion of people out of Anatolia in 6,000BC that introduced farming to Europe. Before that, Europe was populated by small, travelling groups which hunted animals and gathered wild plants and shellfish. One group of early farmers followed the river Danube up into Central Europe, but another group travelled west across the Mediterranean. DNA reveals that Neolithic Britons were largely descended from groups who took the Mediterranean route, either hugging the coast or hopping from island-to-island on boats.

    "When the researchers analysed the DNA of early British farmers, they found they most closely resembled Neolithic people from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). These Iberian farmers were descended from people who had journeyed across the Mediterranean. From Iberia, or somewhere close, the Mediterranean farmers travelled north through France. They might have entered Britain from the west, through Wales or south-west England. Indeed, radiocarbon dates suggest that Neolithic people arrived marginally earlier in the west, but this remains a topic for future work.

    "In addition to farming, the Neolithic migrants to Britain appear to have introduced the tradition of building monuments using large stones known as megaliths. Stonehenge in Wiltshire was part of this tradition. Although Britain was inhabited by groups of "western hunter-gatherers" when the farmers arrived in about 4,000BC, DNA shows that the two groups did not mix very much at all. The British hunter-gatherers were almost completely replaced by the Neolithic farmers, apart from one group in western Scotland, where the Neolithic inhabitants had elevated local ancestry. This could have come down to the farmer groups simply having greater number."
    FTDNA Big-Y SNP Results: R1b-U152+, L2+, Z367+, Z384+, L20+, CTS9733+, BY34096+

    Milam / Mileham / Milum Y-DNA Surname Project
    Hidden Content

    My Avatar is an image of my family history website's home page: Hidden Content
    An history of Thomas Milam (1738) and his 6 sons as found in Virginia court records from 1738 - 1820.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Celt_?? For This Useful Post:

     Jessie (04-16-2019),  JMcB (04-16-2019),  Trelvern (04-16-2019)

  19. #40
    Registered Users
    Posts
    809
    Sex
    Location
    Brittany
    Nationality
    French
    Y-DNA
    R-U106 S497
    mtDNA
    K1a

    France Bretagne Kroaz Du
    Quote Originally Posted by Celt_?? View Post
    Where is this new article being discussed: "Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain" ?? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0871-9

    BBC has discussed the research in layman's terms, "Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders" here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47938188

    "...The migration to Britain was just one part of a general, massive expansion of people out of Anatolia in 6,000BC that introduced farming to Europe. Before that, Europe was populated by small, travelling groups which hunted animals and gathered wild plants and shellfish. One group of early farmers followed the river Danube up into Central Europe, but another group travelled west across the Mediterranean. DNA reveals that Neolithic Britons were largely descended from groups who took the Mediterranean route, either hugging the coast or hopping from island-to-island on boats.

    "When the researchers analysed the DNA of early British farmers, they found they most closely resembled Neolithic people from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). These Iberian farmers were descended from people who had journeyed across the Mediterranean. From Iberia, or somewhere close, the Mediterranean farmers travelled north through France. They might have entered Britain from the west, through Wales or south-west England. Indeed, radiocarbon dates suggest that Neolithic people arrived marginally earlier in the west, but this remains a topic for future work.

    "In addition to farming, the Neolithic migrants to Britain appear to have introduced the tradition of building monuments using large stones known as megaliths. Stonehenge in Wiltshire was part of this tradition. Although Britain was inhabited by groups of "western hunter-gatherers" when the farmers arrived in about 4,000BC, DNA shows that the two groups did not mix very much at all. The British hunter-gatherers were almost completely replaced by the Neolithic farmers, apart from one group in western Scotland, where the Neolithic inhabitants had elevated local ancestry. This could have come down to the farmer groups simply having greater number."

    "Towards the end of the Neolithic period, around 2450 BC, the descendants of the first farmers were themselves almost entirely replaced by a new population - the Bell Beaker people - emigrated from continental Europe. has thus witnessed two extreme genetic mutations in the space of a few thousand years. "
    Stonehenge was built between 2800 and 1100 BC.
    So, 2 distinct peoples have erected this structure? (Neolithics and beakers?)

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Megalithic spread from Brittany
    By Finn in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2019, 09:47 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-08-2018, 06:07 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2018, 01:34 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-07-2017, 01:21 PM
  5. 5,000 Year Old Tombs Unearthed In China's Jiangsu
    By MfA in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-15-2016, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •