Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

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

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    206
    Location
    US
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y140446
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1a4b2
    Y-DNA (M)
    I-Z60
    mtDNA (P)
    V7a7a2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Future ancient sample will bring us more light for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to leorcooper19 For This Useful Post:

     Glaucus (06-11-2021),  harrimir (09-27-2020),  J.delajara (09-26-2020),  Principe (09-27-2020),  SUPREEEEEME (09-26-2020)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    117
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-S23155

    Spanish Empire (1506-1701)
    Quote Originally Posted by leorcooper19 View Post
    Thanks, I definitely understand your point of view more. And trust me, your English is really good!

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

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

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

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

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

    This is such a fascinating clade. It's amazing that even with its commonness and the focus researchers have put into the clade over the years that we are still debating it. No matter what, I don't think anyone will be totally right by the end. For example, I can't seem to explain why it is so geographically and genetically difference in Europe if I believe the origin was in the central Levant. Spread by Phoenicians or spread by Romans probably played a role, but I think both are oversimplifications. Either way, I do think we'll have more aDNA soon.
    Thanks a lot Leorcooper for your deep analysis. I'm not an expert on Jewish genetics, so I can't say much to your comments on this regard. What I do think is that different people/ culture and religions belongs to this clade, and that is probably because at least one relevant ancient culture had L70 and expanded it elsewhere.
    As you said, I agree with Finocchio that ancient Greek from the continent indeed formed their colonies in Anatolia, my deduction on regard the Asia Minor peninsula origin is related with the Neolithic component, defined for DYS445=6, so I assume before they came to the southern Balkans, they were Anatolians.

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

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

    Thanks again and have a good day.
    Last edited by J.delajara; 09-26-2020 at 02:49 PM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J.delajara For This Useful Post:

     harrimir (09-27-2020),  leorcooper19 (09-26-2020),  Principe (09-27-2020)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    27
    Sex

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

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

     leorcooper19 (09-27-2020),  Principe (09-27-2020),  SUPREEEEEME (09-27-2020)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-06-2018, 07:55 AM
  2. R1b in Central - Eastern Europe
    By Gravetto-Danubian in forum R1b General
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-13-2016, 05:25 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-11-2014, 03:37 AM
  4. Eastern, Southeastern, and Central Europe Archaeology and History News
    By History-of-Things in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 03:12 PM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-26-2013, 08:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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