PDA

View Full Version : 7000 year old human bones found in Spain



L.D.Brousse
01-07-12, 17:56
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cavemen-bones-dna-humans_n_1636289.html?utm_hp_ref=science&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D174863

Christiaan
01-07-12, 18:10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cavemen-bones-dna-humans_n_1636289.html?utm_hp_ref=science&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D174863

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

Taranis
01-07-12, 21:29
Excellent news!

(I have moved this thread into the ancient DNA section, just so that everybody knows :) )

ElHorsto
01-07-12, 23:33
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

I can not draw clear conclusions yet. Some remarkable results from the Paper and Dienekes regarding the ancient Brana DNA are:

- "...euro7 calculator, the results are: 89.6% Northwestern"
- "Using the K12b, the results are: 45% Atlantic_Med, 41.6% North_European"

That means there is again the same splitting of "Northwestern" component into into Atlantic_Med + North_European, and this time for an ancient human. As in the Scandinavian Gok4 and Ajv samples there is no Gedrosia component as well.

More:

- "...fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons..."
- "not related to modern Basques" (This claim makes no sense to me, because Brana allegedly clusters with Brits, and the partial Basque-British overlap is actually famous)
- "nomads"
- "Eastern African component" (There was some very exotic element in the Ajv sample as well. Perhaps those exotic nomadic tribes became just extinct until now?)
- "asian shift" (perhaps a northern finnic-saami connection)

A K3 analysis would be interesting. Maybe these nomadic hunter-gatherers might have had a very open lifestyle, allowing locals to assimilate. These particular ones might have mixed with Basques (most likely women). But again, I don't get how the Brana guy is "unrelated to Basques".

spongetaro
02-07-12, 10:42
It looks like the Southern admixture is extra european.

Knovas
02-07-12, 14:32
Even if extra European (Middle East or North Africa), it is as West Eurasian as the Atlantic_Baltic is according to the Fst distances. It's the most distant cluster from East Eurasia, and almost the same far from inner Africa compared to Atlantic_Baltic. So in my honest opinion, it's not clear where this element originated...surely somewhere in the Mediteranean, and not necessarily outside of Europe (Southern Europe).

Also, Atlantic_Baltic includes extra European influences. All this clusters emerge using modern genotypes, hence, they're all admixed.

spongetaro
02-07-12, 14:53
What if I2a1 (from the Balkans?) had brought the southern admixture?
Though I wonder which Y haplogroups did these Iberians Meolithic folks carried: I*, I2*, I2a1 already?

Knovas
02-07-12, 15:55
Now with the new nomenclature I'm still a bit confused. At least, I2a1a (I2a1 before) most likely originated in the Pyrenees. The previous clade could have originated in the Balkans, and it could partly give an explanation for territories which nowadays are high in Southern and have sizeable amounts of I2a1 variants (Southern France, Iberia & Sardinia specially). Worth to mention that even nowadays there are small pockets of I2a1 variants in the UK and even in Ireland, where it's quite unexpected. Note that the Southern element is very significant there too.

Recently was posted in another thread the possibility that Haplogroup E is not a native African Haplogroup, but Paleo-Eurasian (likely from the Arabian Peninsula). Dienekes' wrote about this and the Out of Arabia hipothesis regarding modern human origins. The main point was that most Sub-Saharan populations (except Pygmies and a few San from Namibia I think), seem to have an afiliation with West Eurasians, and Haplogroup E could be the reason according to him. So, in other words, E as whole could be linked to the Southern element as well, although I must clarify that the mentioned afiliation it's only noticeable in genetic maps at the moment. For instance, in those maps we can see groups like Yoruba deviating towards West Eurasians, being the Pygmies and probably a few San the most extreme African pole, but when you run an admixture experiment, the same Yoruba samples come out 100% African or something like this...maybe it's due to a limitation of the Admixture program or there should be better represented populations in the dataset. Let's wait.

ElHorsto
02-07-12, 16:01
What if I2a1 (from the Balkans?) had brought the southern admixture?
Though I wonder which Y haplogroups did these Iberians Meolithic folks carried: I*, I2*, I2a1 already?

I'm actually quite sure that Y-HG I, or at least I2* belongs to Atlantic_Med or South_Euro components, e.g. Basques and Sardinians. For the following reasons:

- Sardinians are one of the very few europeans with 0% North_European component. At the same time they are a major I2 hotspot in europe. Of course, there is the possibility of genetic drift, but if I2 was from North_European component, then Sardinians should have at least a tiny bit more than 0% of North_european. This basically makes a northern origin of HG I2a1 very unlikely in my opinion.

- The Basques also still have some significant Y-HG I, but it got mostly replaced by R1b, which can be probably explained by the detected gedrosian admixture, similar to other west-europeans. The Sardinians have the Caucasus component instead, which possibly could explain their Y-HG G lineages.

- Regarding possible Balkan origin of Y-HG I2a1, I have no opinion yet.

- Even if Y-HG I is a Cro-Magnon heritage, as some others propose, it still is consistent with Atlantic_Med component being its carrier, because I find it unlikely that all these southern glacial refuge areas suddenly became entirely depopulated, with the Atlantic_Med component being a completely new settlement of south-europe in the Mesolithic or Neolitic. It could also be that Atlantic_Med component eventually turns out to be a combined Cro-Magnon + something else component. But the North_European component really seems to be related more to the Finnic or Indo-European peoples, not Cro-Magnons, unless HG-Y I is not from Cro-Magnons.

- North and North-West Europe might have been very sparsely populated after glaciers receded. And we know how the Saami dwelled along a huge area and are anthropologically part-asian. Probably the european hunter-gatherers can be compared to american indians, which intermarried with foreign tribes, and which were rather sparse peoples and got almost exterminated by indo-europeans and/or farmers. The Braga sample might belong to nomadic visitors that carried exotic admixtures and came later and died out.

sparkey
02-07-12, 17:40
What if I2a1 (from the Balkans?) had brought the southern admixture?
Though I wonder which Y haplogroups did these Iberians Meolithic folks carried: I*, I2*, I2a1 already?

I2a-M26 is the only good candidate for an I subclade 7000 years ago in that region that is known to still exist today. That's I2a1a in current ISOGG nomenclature. The M26 mutation occurred between 10,000 and 18,000 years ago or so, so it's a good candidate to have been in a 7000 year old population. A better question is whether or not L160 was present (I2a1a1).


Now with the new nomenclature I'm still a bit confused. At least, I2a1a (I2a1 before) most likely originated in the Pyrenees. The previous clade could have originated in the Balkans, and it could partly give an explanation for territories which nowadays are high in Southern and have sizeable amounts of I2a1 variants (Southern France, Iberia & Sardinia specially). Worth to mention that even nowadays there are small pockets of I2a1 variants in the UK and even in Ireland, where it's quite unexpected. Note that the Southern element is very significant there too.

The diversity of I2a1a IMHO strongly indicates a broadly Western European distribution prior to the Neolithic... from the Rhine to Iberia. That's consistent with finding outlier clades along the Rhine and Northern France/British Isles. I also don't suspect that any of its recent ancestor clades were from the Balkans. Maybe I* before it split into I1 and I2, but that's extrapolating back too far, I think.


Recently was posted in another thread the possibility that Haplogroup E is not a native African Haplogroup, but Paleo-Eurasian (likely from the Arabian Peninsula). Dienekes' wrote about this and the Out of Arabia hipothesis regarding modern human origins. The main point was that most Sub-Saharan populations (except Pygmies and a few San from Namibia I think), seem to have an afiliation with West Eurasians, and Haplogroup E could be the reason according to him. So, in other words, E as whole could be linked to the Southern element as well, although I must clarify that the mentioned afiliation it's only noticeable in genetic maps at the moment. For instance, in those maps we can see groups like Yoruba deviating towards West Eurasians, being the Pygmies and probably a few San the most extreme African pole, but when you run an admixture experiment, the same Yoruba samples come out 100% African or something like this...maybe it's due to a limitation of the Admixture program or there should be better represented populations in the dataset. Let's wait.

I also want to explore the Haplogroup E = Southern element hypothesis more, especially now that we've found some ancient Haplogroup E in Europe indicating that it's Neolithic at the latest, and after my own analyses of Haplogroup I have found little diversity of it across Southern Europe (the closest exception being northern Iberia having a lot of I2a1a diversity).

sparkey
02-07-12, 18:10
I'm actually quite sure that Y-HG I, or at least I2* belongs to Atlantic_Med or South_Euro components, e.g. Basques and Sardinians.

By "I2*" you mean I2 as a whole? (That's a misuse of "*" by the way... no I2* is currently known, unless you're going by the FTDNA standard which doesn't recognize L460, L416, L596, etc., and mean what ISOGG calls I2b and I2c, which I don't think you do.) Including I2-M223, which is, as a whole, very Northern/Central European, and an important component of Germanic populations? You could instead say I2-P37 as a whole, which removes the tricky P217 subclades, but even with P37, you have to account for its diversity not having a particularly Southern spread (look at the red dots here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26944-The-Paleolithic-Remnants-a-map)). I suppose it's true that the greatest expansions of I2-P37 have been southward... into Sardinia and the Balkans in particular... and that we can say that those expansions weren't just Y-line expansions. But watch out, that's a testable hypothesis, which will have us expecting significant Southern_Euro components in ancient samples from Northern France to the Netherlands, and little Southern_Euro components from ancient Balkans samples.


- Sardinians are one of the very few europeans with 0% North_European component. At the same time they are a major I2 hotspot in europe. Of course, there is the possibility of genetic drift, but if I2 was from North_European component, then Sardinians should have at least a tiny bit more than 0% of North_european. This basically makes a northern origin of HG I2a1 very unlikely in my opinion.

IMHO we'll see typical haplogroup "arrays" for different autosomal clusters, rather than obvious haplogroup-cluster mappings. That is, Sardinians indicate that the North_European component does not tend to have an array that has a lot of I2-M26, G2a, and J2... but that doesn't exclude certain autosomal North_European populations carrying the occasional I2-M26 as part of a different array, including, say, I2-M223 and I1.


- Even if Y-HG I is a Cro-Magnon heritage, as some others propose, it still is consistent with Atlantic_Med component being its carrier, because I find it unlikely that all these southern glacial refuge areas suddenly became entirely depopulated, with the Atlantic_Med component being a completely new settlement of south-europe in the Mesolithic or Neolitic. It could also be that Atlantic_Med component eventually turns out to be a combined Cro-Magnon + something else component. But the North_European component really seems to be related more to the Finnic or Indo-European peoples, not Cro-Magnons, unless HG-Y I is not from Cro-Magnons.

Why not map the North_European cluster to mainly Cro-Magnon heritage, including a haplogroup array that includes the more northern I clades? Don't forget that Haplogroup I is just as diverse as Haplogroup R, and it seems like we're establishing that two R subclades are important contributors to the haplogroup arrays that map to both the Gedrosian and Caucasian components. So clearly, different I subclades can give different contributions to the haplogroup arrays that correspond to autosomal clusters.

Knovas
02-07-12, 18:57
We should also keep in mind that Ötzi was G2a and the autosomal data showed very high Southern. The number of SNP's available was low compared to modern samples, but the major components seem to reflect fairly well his ancestry.

I'm telling this because equating one component to one haplogroup is absolutely wrong. Atlantic_Baltic is not 100% I, and Southern, for sure, includes I even if in a lesser degree.

My thoughts:

Atlantic_Baltic = I (mostly I1), N and some ancient R1a. U maternal line would be significant in this cluster.

Southern = I (mostly I2), E, and G2a. H maternal line, which was surely present prior to the Neolithic, must have something to do here. Oh, and don't forget K, since its presence in Europe seems to be much older than expected according to the latest data (check mtDNA K thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26612-mtDNA-K)

This is just a summary, I'm possibly missing something. Maybe Y-DNA T is also a minor part of the Southern element for example, although it's not clear due to its wide distribution (found even among Indian populations at not trivial amounts I think). Not easy.

spongetaro
02-07-12, 19:26
I2a-M26 is the only good candidate for an I subclade 7000 years ago in that region that is known to still exist today. That's I2a1a in current ISOGG nomenclature. The M26 mutation occurred between 10,000 and 18,000 years ago or so, so it's a good candidate to have been in a 7000 year old population. A better question is whether or not L160 was present (I2a1a1).

I2a-M26 is indeed a good candidate to have been in a 7000 year old population but where?
M26 is linked to Neolithic culture (Treilles, Eure et Loire...) so far but was it already in western Europe BEFORE the Neolithic? I hope they will try to test the Y haplogroup of these two Iberian Mesolithics.

ElHorsto
02-07-12, 19:33
By "I2*" you mean I2 as a whole? (That's a misuse of "*" by the way... no I2* is currently known, unless you're going by the FTDNA standard which doesn't recognize L460, L416, L596, etc., and mean what ISOGG calls I2b and I2c, which I don't think you do.) Including I2-M223, which is, as a whole, very Northern/Central European, and an important component of Germanic populations? You could instead say I2-P37 as a whole, which removes the tricky P217 subclades, but even with P37, you have to account for its diversity not having a particularly Southern spread (look at the red dots here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26944-The-Paleolithic-Remnants-a-map)).


I indeed meant I2 as a whole and I misused the "*", sorry. Actually I meant even complete I, including I1.



I suppose it's true that the greatest expansions of I2-P37 have been southward... into Sardinia and the Balkans in particular... and that we can say that those expansions weren't just Y-line expansions. But watch out, that's a testable hypothesis, which will have us expecting significant Southern_Euro components in ancient samples from Northern France to the Netherlands, and little Southern_Euro components from ancient Balkans samples.


Well, if I'm not mistaken, Gok4 from Scandinavia is already one such case.
Regarding Balkans, I did not say that Y-HG I = Atlantic_Med, but only that Y-HG I long time ago has become a part of today Atlantic_Med component. Probably Atlantic_Med itself is a combined component or a continuum.



IMHO we'll see typical haplogroup "arrays" for different autosomal clusters, rather than obvious haplogroup-cluster mappings. That is, Sardinians indicate that the North_European component does not tend to have an array that has a lot of I2-M26, G2a, and J2... but that doesn't exclude certain autosomal North_European populations carrying the occasional I2-M26 as part of a different array, including, say, I2-M223 and I1.


Of course not.



Why not map the North_European cluster to mainly Cro-Magnon heritage, including a haplogroup array that includes the more northern I clades?


Simply because all northern european populations I'm aware of still have at least 12% Atlantic_Med component (e.g. Finns). Even Mordovians still have 11%. On the other hand the Sardinians have 0% North_euro admixture. To me it really looks like the entire HG I is correlated with Atlantic_Med, slowly fading out towards the north-east, while North_euro component seems anti-correllated. That's just my amateurish observation.



Don't forget that Haplogroup I is just as diverse as Haplogroup R, and it seems like we're establishing that two R subclades are important contributors to the haplogroup arrays that map to both the Gedrosian and Caucasian components. So clearly, different I subclades can give different contributions to the haplogroup arrays that correspond to autosomal clusters.

Sure they can, but I have not found any evidence yet. For that I would like to find a North_euro rich population without any Atlantic_Med admixture, but at the same time still with any Y-HG I.

Note that I don't exclude that Y-HG I can stem from the Cro-Magnons. As I said, in that case there even might be an individual Cro-Magnon component which we just don't see yet, but so far it seems to be hidden inside the Atlantic_med component, but not North_euro component. By North_euro I mean the dodecad K12b component, not north-european populations of today per se, because the latter actually carry already considerable Atlantic_med (32.9% in Sweden!).

sparkey
02-07-12, 19:50
I2a-M26 is indeed a good candidate to have been in a 7000 year old population but where?
M26 is linked to Neolithic culture (Treilles, Eure et Loire...) so far but was it already in western Europe BEFORE the Neolithic?

If I were to guess based on our limited ancient DNA and the modern diversity patterns, I would guess that it spanned most of Western Europe, with the Rhine being its eastern edge and northern Iberia the furthest it went to the southwest. But it's also possible that drift over time is throwing me off.

One important clue, I think, is that the calculated TMRCA of I2a-M26 is actually older than 7000 years. It's more like 8500 according to Nordtvedt and Cullen.


I hope they will try to test the Y haplogroup of these two Iberian Mesolithics.

Yes, hopefully.

sparkey
02-07-12, 21:17
Well, if I'm not mistaken, Gok4 from Scandinavia is already one such case.

Gok4 was the farmer, though... I was thinking that we would find more Southern components in northern hunter-gatherers if your placement of I entirely within Southern/Atlantic_Med components was right.


Regarding Balkans, I did not say that Y-HG I = Atlantic_Med, but only that Y-HG I long time ago has become a part of today Atlantic_Med component. Probably Atlantic_Med itself is a combined component or a continuum.

I have trouble imagining this sort of continuum (which I also think probably exists) picking up Haplogroup I as a whole, considering the wideness of Haplogroup I's dispersal.


Simply because all northern european populations I'm aware of still have at least 12% Atlantic_Med component (e.g. Finns). Even Mordovians still have 11%. On the other hand the Sardinians have 0% North_euro admixture. To me it really looks like the entire HG I is correlated with Atlantic_Med, slowly fading out towards the north-east, while North_euro component seems anti-correllated. That's just my amateurish observation.

But Sardinians also have basically 0% I1, 0% I2-M223, and 0% any Haplogroup I except I2-M26, so that doesn't say a lot about anything but I2-M26. Isn't there some correlation between I1+I2-M223 and North_European? At least the western extent of North_European, because I also observe that the North_European cluster extends beyond the extent of Haplogroup I (as does Atlantic_Med).


Note that I don't exclude that Y-HG I can stem from the Cro-Magnons. As I said, in that case there even might be an individual Cro-Magnon component which we just don't see yet, but so far it seems to be hidden inside the Atlantic_med component, but not North_euro component. By North_euro I mean the dodecad K12b component, not north-european populations of today per se, because the latter actually carry already considerable Atlantic_med (32.9% in Sweden!).

I think we'll need to wait for more northern ancient samples (directly testing Cro-Magnons would be ideal), because I don't know of a modern population that represents anything close to direct descent from ancient Cro-Magnons.

Keegah
02-07-12, 21:22
If this is a very obviously foolish question, my apologies. I am still learning about the field of genetics, and at the moment understand little other than the basics.

Is there any chance the haplogroup was I2a-L161+?

sparkey
02-07-12, 21:25
If this is a very obviously foolish question, my apologies. I am still learning about the field of genetics, and at the moment understand little other than the basics.

Is there any chance the haplogroup was I2a-L161+?

There isn't a lot of L161 diversity in northern Iberia nowadays, so I find it unlikely. But L161 probably existed somewhere in Europe 7,000 years ago, so who knows?

ElHorsto
03-07-12, 10:54
Gok4 was the farmer, though... I was thinking that we would find more Southern components in northern hunter-gatherers if your placement of I entirely within Southern/Atlantic_Med components was right.


Actually my reasoning is opposite, assuming that Y-HG I has been brought to the north by farmers. One tiny evidence for this is exactly the almost complete lack of Atlantic_Med among the two scandinavian hunter-gatherer Ajv samples. But since Atlantic_Med is strong today in scandinavia (~30%), I assume that Gok4-like farmers are the original carriers.

Further, if guessing the Y-HG of those farmers, Y-HG I appears most likely, because there are relatively few haplogroups today in Scandinavia, while I1/I2 being part of them. In particular, the typical neolithic haplogroups E,J etc. are almost missing in Scandinavia today, such that I1/I2 would remain as likely candidates for neolithic farmers.
Of course that is still much speculative. Extinction of tribes is also something that I believe happened quite often in sparsely populated regions. So maybe the farmers could have died out, although I see no important reason to assume this so far.

Nomadic tribes then might have brought a little bit of Atlantic_med and HG-I further to northern russia. Very speculative of course.



I have trouble imagining this sort of continuum (which I also think probably exists) picking up Haplogroup I as a whole, considering the wideness of Haplogroup I's dispersal.


On the other hand, Atlantic_med is also very widespread. If you mean that HG-I frequencies do not match Atlantic_med concentration, I agree. HG-I is indeed not exactly "fading out" like Atlantic_med does. But I think we also concluded that south-west europe was originally a stronghold of HG-I2 before aggressive R1b indo-europeans replaced these lineages. The few places where considerable HG-I2 is still left today are Sardinia and - to a lesser extent - Basque country, both being modal in Atlantic_med component today, although admittedly with very particular I2-M26 HG only.
And regarding the balkans, it is not clear yet. If the slavic theory of central european origin of I2 is correct, then the high balkanic concentration could be the result of a big genetic drift.



But Sardinians also have basically 0% I1, 0% I2-M223, and 0% any Haplogroup I except I2-M26, so that doesn't say a lot about anything but I2-M26. Isn't there some correlation between I1+I2-M223 and North_European? At least the western extent of North_European, because I also observe that the North_European cluster extends beyond the extent of Haplogroup I (as does Atlantic_Med).


That's true.



I think we'll need to wait for more northern ancient samples (directly testing Cro-Magnons would be ideal), because I don't know of a modern population that represents anything close to direct descent from ancient Cro-Magnons.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

sparkey
03-07-12, 18:02
Actually my reasoning is opposite, assuming that Y-HG I has been brought to the north by farmers.

Actually, I don't discount this possibility. The TMRCA of I1 indicates that it didn't really start spreading until after the Neolithic had already reached its region. But there seems to be a lack of other possible hunter-gatherer haplogroups in the region, which makes me think it's more likely that I1 is a case of a hunter-gatherer that bottlenecked and expanded by chance within the population later. Either explanation is possible, though.


One tiny evidence for this is exactly the almost complete lack of Atlantic_Med among the two scandinavian hunter-gatherer Ajv samples. But since Atlantic_Med is strong today in scandinavia (~30%), I assume that Gok4-like farmers are the original carriers.

Isn't this circular reasoning? That Haplogroup I was probably carried by farmers, because because Atlantic_Med was weak in the Ajv samples, and that Atlantic_Med probably had a lot of Haplogroup I, because Haplogroup I was probably carried by farmers.

I think it will close your loop and establish your thoughts firmly if we start finding lots of Haplogroup I in ancient northern farmers with a lot of Atlantic_Med.


Further, if guessing the Y-HG of those farmers, Y-HG I appears most likely, because there are relatively few haplogroups today in Scandinavia, while I1/I2 being part of them. In particular, the typical neolithic haplogroups E,J etc. are almost missing in Scandinavia today, such that I1/I2 would remain as likely candidates for neolithic farmers.

Let's see... modern Scandinavians have about a 5:3 ratio of Northern_European to Atlantic_Med. Ajv had more Atlantic_Med than Gok4 had Northern_European. So in my judgment, unless the group that introduced the Gedrosian component to modern Scandinavians had a significant impact on that ratio (which probably happened, but which way?), modern Scandinavians are about twice as much descended from Ajv types as Gok4 types. Yet Scandinavians are at least 1/3 I1... more than we would expect from I1 corresponding to Atlantic_Med, unless we don't think that any other haplogroups made up Atlantic_Med.

I actually lean towards simply throwing out modern Y-haplogroup frequencies as indicators of which haplogroup arrays used to correspond to these components, in this case. It's likely that modern I1 is a more recent expansion than when some of these components were introduced to the Scandinavian population. So its frequency in modern Scandinavians is unlikely to tell us anything.

ElHorsto
03-07-12, 19:24
Isn't this circular reasoning?


I hope not, let me try again below.



That Haplogroup I was probably carried by farmers, because because Atlantic_Med was weak in the Ajv samples, and that Atlantic_Med probably had a lot of Haplogroup I, because Haplogroup I was probably carried by farmers.


First, the R1b and R1a lineages are already occupied by the known IE migration theories, thus it leaves not much room for other explanations other than neolithic farmer origin of HG-I, or alternatively a hunter-gatherer origin. But the likelyhood of the hunter-gatherer explanation is being reduced for the benefit of the neolithic farmer explanation, because:

1. Atlantic_med component increase can be best explained by neolithic farmers.

If 1) is true, then we must ask, ...

2. ... whether it is possible that these farmers at the same time did not affect any Y-lineages in Scandinavia.

I would find the probability of 2) somewhat small. That means, at least one of the few current R1b/R1a/I1/I2 lineages probably belonged to farmers. Since R1b and R1a are certainly a different story, only I1 or I2 are likely (not proven!) candidates.



Let's see... modern Scandinavians have about a 5:3 ratio of Northern_European to Atlantic_Med. Ajv had more Atlantic_Med than Gok4 had Northern_European. So in my judgment,
unless the group that introduced the Gedrosian component to modern Scandinavians had a significant impact on that ratio (which probably happened,

but which way?),


In a way that does not increase the Atlantic_med component. That's because in my opinion IE theories suggest other than Atlantic_med influence, probably North_european + Gedrosia/Caucasus. Therefore I can imagine the farmers only to be most likely (not proven of course!) responsible ones for having increased the Atlantic_med component in today Scandinavia, compared to Ajv. However I admit, that Ajv samples already had a little trace of Atlantic_med.



modern Scandinavians are about twice as much descended from Ajv types as Gok4 types. Yet Scandinavians are at least 1/3 I1... more than we would expect from I1 corresponding to Atlantic_Med, unless we don't think that any other haplogroups made up Atlantic_Med.
I actually lean towards simply throwing out modern Y-haplogroup frequencies as indicators of which haplogroup arrays used to correspond to these components, in this case. It's likely that modern I1 is a more recent expansion than when some of these components were introduced to the Scandinavian population. So its frequency in modern Scandinavians is unlikely to tell us anything.

Of course modern HG-frequencies are not reliable at all, especially not in the sparsely populated north. But that's not what I was using for reasoning, but rather the entire absence or presence of a Y-HG.

ElHorsto
03-07-12, 21:45
Actually, I don't discount this possibility. The TMRCA of I1 indicates that it didn't really start spreading until after the Neolithic had already reached its region. But there seems to be a lack of other possible hunter-gatherer haplogroups in the region, which makes me think it's more likely that I1 is a case of a hunter-gatherer that bottlenecked and expanded by chance within the population later. Either explanation is possible, though.


Now I realize that you basically use the same reasoning to support the hunter-gatherer theory which I use for the neolithic farmers theory.

Here is an additional possible justification for the neolithic farmer theory:

There was in another thread shown that the Ajv samples turned out to be "Super-Saami" based on K3 analysis. I was actually very surpised when Saami got separated from Scandinavians by the crude K3 partitioning, but now I think it is quite important, since Saami have a very different lifestyle. The dominant Saami Y-HG is N, which is probably the "original" one. Assuming that they constantly assimilated individuals from foreign tribes, depending on where they dwelled, there is a possibly interesting ranking of Y-HG frequencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_European_populations):

1. N (asian)
2. I1 (neolithic farming)
3. R1a (early IE/corded/steppe)
4. R1b (late IE centum speakers)

This ranking of frequency accidentally corresponds to the assumed arrival times of these haplogroups. I found that interesting, though perhaps not enough significant for decisive support of the neolithic theory.

After all I agree that the evidences for either theory are not yet very decisive.

spongetaro
03-07-12, 23:44
1. N (asian)
2. I1 (neolithic farming)
3. R1a (early IE/corded/steppe)
4. R1b (late IE centum speakers)


I1 could indeed make the Atlantic Med admixture in Scandinavia. However, what is the predecessor of this neolithic I1? ... I* ?

Below, I propose this scenario:

1) N and R1a (Northern and eastern Hunter gatherers)
2) R1b (western Hunter gatherers)
3) Em81 (some Iberians and French hunter gatherers)
4) G2a, I2a, EV13 (Southern and central european Neolithic farmers)
5) I1 (Scandinavian Neolithic farmers)
6) J2, G2a (Bronze age invaders)



Now that we know that Hunter gatherers and Neolithic farmers had different admixtures and knowing that only Neolithic farmers had their Y haplogroup tested , I would not be surprised if the Hunter gatherers Y dna turned out to be R1b and/or R1a. The fact that we didn't find R1b in Neoithic samples so far doesn't indicate that R1b wasn"t already in Europe at that time but rather that R1b wasn't the haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers carrying the Southern admixture

ElHorsto
04-07-12, 01:09
I1 could indeed make the Atlantic Med admixture in Scandinavia. However, what is the predecessor of this neolithic I1? ... I* ?


You mean, which peoples lived before I1 in Scandinavia and which HG they had?
Well, if you want me to speculate even more, I cannot resist. Here we go:

Scandinavia was covered by ice not long ago, thus not inhabited at all. I think the farmers (possibly former western hunter-gatherers, combe-capelle, who adopted farming from near easteners (Y-HG G, E, etc.)) could have been the very first humans in south scandinavia and north germany after the ice age, which ended late up there. The Ajv hunter-gatherer nomads probably entered the Scandinavian pennisula at the same time from Finland and/or the Baltic (I'd even not exclude the Brana sample to be a distant nomadic offshoot). I believe they were mainly N carriers, perhaps also a little bit R1a, but I don't believe they were R1b. I think that the Saami are their closest descendants today and the contemporary swedes and norwegians do not descend that much from these peoples. R1b and maybe also R1a can be explained by the classic bronze-age IE theory, which likely brought Gedrosia as well, but especially the North_euro component from a more eastern source to North/North-West Europe. I think that North-west europe was much more "southern" (f.i. Ertebölle) before the IE came. Those indo-europeans might once have been similar hunter-gatherers like the Saami and Ajv, but more from the south-east, where Gedrosia component and R1a/R1b was more prevalent instead of N and Siberian component. If asking for predecessors of these HGs I'd bet for some older extinct lineages. As Gimbutas once proposed, it would be even possible that the Cro-Magnon skeletons (better adapted to harsh continental climates than Combe-Capelle) might have been re-introduced by R1b Indo-Europeans, after becoming extinct in Western Europe yet during the early paleolithic. Of course the latter is especially speculative since it is such a long time ago.
Further, the nomadic life-style is a very important property of hunter-gatherers, which caused fast and ongoing migrations, while farmers moved much slower.



Below, I propose this scenario:

1) N and R1a (Northern and eastern Hunter gatherers)
2) R1b (western Hunter gatherers)
3) Em81 (some Iberians and French hunter gatherers)
4) G2a, I2a, EV13 (Southern and central european Neolithic farmers)
5) I1 (Scandinavian Neolithic farmers)
6) J2, G2a (Bronze age invaders)



Now that we know that Hunter gatherers and Neolithic farmers had different admixtures and knowing that only Neolithic farmers had their Y haplogroup tested , I would not be surprised if the Hunter gatherers Y dna turned out to be R1b and/or R1a. The fact that we didn't find R1b in Neoithic samples so far doesn't indicate that R1b wasn"t already in Europe at that time but rather that R1b wasn't the haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers carrying the Southern admixture

Maybe, but for now I'd rather bet on a more recent IE/central-asian source.

However I agree with 1), 4), 5) and 6). I disagree with 2) and regarding 3) I have no opinion.

Goga
04-07-12, 13:25
Some subclades of the Western hg. R1b can also be from Bronze age invaders and migrated together with J2 and G2.

According to me there were different migration waves of hg. R1b into Europe!

Some subclades of R1b, J2 and G2 can be from proto-IE folks

JFWR
05-07-12, 06:39
Now with the new nomenclature I'm still a bit confused. At least, I2a1a (I2a1 before) most likely originated in the Pyrenees. The previous clade could have originated in the Balkans, and it could partly give an explanation for territories which nowadays are high in Southern and have sizeable amounts of I2a1 variants (Southern France, Iberia & Sardinia specially). Worth to mention that even nowadays there are small pockets of I2a1 variants in the UK and even in Ireland, where it's quite unexpected. Note that the Southern element is very significant there too.

Recently was posted in another thread the possibility that Haplogroup E is not a native African Haplogroup, but Paleo-Eurasian (likely from the Arabian Peninsula). Dienekes' wrote about this and the Out of Arabia hipothesis regarding modern human origins. The main point was that most Sub-Saharan populations (except Pygmies and a few San from Namibia I think), seem to have an afiliation with West Eurasians, and Haplogroup E could be the reason according to him. So, in other words, E as whole could be linked to the Southern element as well, although I must clarify that the mentioned afiliation it's only noticeable in genetic maps at the moment. For instance, in those maps we can see groups like Yoruba deviating towards West Eurasians, being the Pygmies and probably a few San the most extreme African pole, but when you run an admixture experiment, the same Yoruba samples come out 100% African or something like this...maybe it's due to a limitation of the Admixture program or there should be better represented populations in the dataset. Let's wait.

Aside from I2A2a-Isles (which seems to be a paleolithic British clade), I2A2A has been associated variably with bronze-age Eastern Celtic (less favoured now from what I am reading) and Germanic (more favoured now). Non -isles in Britain probably has to do with historic Germanic population shifts into Britain, of either Saxon, Viking, or Norman (or all three) blood. Despite the fact that Lower Saxony has the highest concentration in all of Europe of I2A2A, I would speculate that the Saxons weren't majority I2A2A because of the relative small amount of that haplotype in Great Britain which seems more likely to correlate with a smaller population movement, as in the Vikings or Normans, unlike the mass migration of the Saxons to England.

I favour the Norman idea as there are pockets of I2A2A in areas where the Normans historically occupied in Southern Italy, as well as in Normandy itself in France.

Edit: Completely screwed up with I2A1A being misrepresented as I2A2A. Changed to represent that, but now it is pretty much irrelevant to the prior discussion. Very sorry!

Basically, disregard this.

Knovas
05-07-12, 13:55
Despite the fact that Lower Saxony has the highest concentration in all of Europe of I2A1A
¿Where did you get this info? I've never heard about this.

Also, I2a1 variants appeared in Neolithic burials at least a couple of times, which is important considering all ancient samples we have so far. So the expansion started surely long before the bronze age IMO.

I2a1a is estimated to be 8000 years old aprox I think, hence, there's much chance for significant pre-bronze age migrations.

JFWR
06-07-12, 04:00
¿Where did you get this info? I've never heard about this.

Also, I2a1 variants appeared in Neolithic burials at least a couple of times, which is important considering all ancient samples we have so far. So the expansion started surely long before the bronze age IMO.

I2a1a is estimated to be 8000 years old aprox I think, hence, there's much chance for significant pre-bronze age migrations.

National Geographic Genographic Project. Germany is the only place in all of Europe where I2A2A has a higher than 10 percent concentration of the haplogroup. The specific area is Lower Saxony. See this map of M223 distribution, which peaks in Lower Saxony.

5677

JFWR
06-07-12, 05:18
¿Where did you get this info? I've never heard about this.

Also, I2a1 variants appeared in Neolithic burials at least a couple of times, which is important considering all ancient samples we have so far. So the expansion started surely long before the bronze age IMO.

I2a1a is estimated to be 8000 years old aprox I think, hence, there's much chance for significant pre-bronze age migrations.

Duke, my HUGE mistake: I meant I2A2A, not I2A1A. -So- sorry. That was a huge mistake on my end. Big blunder. Sorry.

Disregard my I2A2A stuff here. I'll edit my previous post for that.

ElHorsto
10-07-12, 15:03
It looks like the Southern admixture is extra european.

On the other hand, how long should an admixture have to be present in europe to be considered "european"?
Anyway, assuming it is entirely of neolithic near-eastern origin, then half of these southern farmer ancestors of the Brana guys must have converted to hunting and gathering stone age. But such anti-development usually does not happen in history. Especially farming represents an opportunity (and pressure) to accumulate wealth, status and exploitation of humans, which is irresistible. Further, the extinction of the Mammoths possibly further pushed hunter-gatherers of SW europe to adopt farming. Hence I believe there were near-eastern humans migrating to europe already during the paleolithic, such that the Brana samples represent the blend of two different hunter-gatherer populations ("Fennobaltic"+"Basque"; Tardenoisian or Maglemosian?). I do not propose that the Basque language is necessarily paleolithic, it could be already neolithic, just the population mostly descend from former near-eastern hunter-gatherers who later became farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipaleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle

spongetaro
10-07-12, 15:15
On the other hand, how long should an admixture have to be present in europe to be considered "european"?
Anyway, assuming it is entirely of neolithic near-eastern origin, then half of these southern farmer ancestors of the Brana guys must have converted to hunting and gathering stone age. But such anti-development usually does not happen in history. Especially farming represents an opportunity (and pressure) to accumulate wealth, status and exploitation of humans, which is irresistible. Further, the extinction of the Mammoths possibly further pushed hunter-gatherers of SW europe to adopt farming. Hence I believe there were near-eastern humans migrating to europe already during the paleolithic, such that the Brana samples represent the blend of two different hunter-gatherer populations ("Fennobaltic"+"Basque"; Tardenoisian or Maglemosian?). I do not propose that the Basque language is necessarily paleolithic, it could be already neolithic, just the population mostly descend from former near-eastern hunter-gatherers who later became farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipaleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle


Southern Europe admixture is either south east european or near east. In a recent thread I made the hypothesis that the first wave of farming (begining with Sesklo in 6850 bc) brought South East Europe haplogroups to the west (I2a, G2a). I believe that the LBK especially brought to the west the local haplogroups of Hungary (where it started) and not Anatolian one.

But where the "local" Neolithic haplogroups of South East Europe (I2a, G2a, EV13) native to the area or brought from the east? I don't know. Dienekes seems to believe that major shifts happened in the middle east during the Neolithic. If I'm right he thinks that the local admixture of the first farmers in fertile crescent was more "Mediterranean" and that the West Asian component is a later input in the area. (caused by the Black sea deluge?).

There are multiple scenarios for the southern Europe admixture in Europe:
1) I2a and G2a are intrusive to Europe => "Southern Europe" is indeed extra european
2) I2a and G2a are South East Europe natives=> "Southern Europe" is European
3) I2a is native to South East Europe, but not G2a=> "Southern Europe" is partially European
4) The brana guys are intrusives to Iberia=> Southern Europe admixture was already in Iberia during the Mesolithic

ElHorsto
10-07-12, 17:29
Southern Europe admixture is either south east european or near east. In a recent thread I made the hypothesis that the first wave of farming (begining with Sesklo in 6850 bc) brought South East Europe haplogroups to the west (I2a, G2a). I believe that the LBK especially brought to the west the local haplogroups of Hungary (where it started) and not Anatolian one.

But where the "local" Neolithic haplogroups of South East Europe (I2a, G2a, EV13) native to the area or brought from the east? I don't know. Dienekes seems to believe that major shifts happened in the middle east during the Neolithic. If I'm right he thinks that the local admixture of the first farmers in fertile crescent was more "Mediterranean" and that the West Asian component is a later input in the area. (caused by the Black sea deluge?).

There are multiple scenarios for the southern Europe admixture in Europe:
1) I2a and G2a are intrusive to Europe => "Southern Europe" is indeed extra european
2) I2a and G2a are South East Europe natives=> "Southern Europe" is European
3) I2a is native to South East Europe, but not G2a=> "Southern Europe" is partially European
4) The brana guys are intrusives to Iberia=> Southern Europe admixture was already in Iberia during the Mesolithic

I'll think later more thoroughly about your neolithic theory.
Currently I still believe that Y-HG I is paleolithic south european Atlantic_med admixture, which is modal in Iberia and also still reaches 20% in Maroc and Algeria. The North_euro component on the other hand is extremely unlikely to be related to Cro-Magnons in my opinion, especially if the following information is true:

"Other studies confirm that the Cro-Magnon (Mechta) population had been living in North Africa for a very long time. According to recent genetic research published in 2004, part of the modern population displays a genetic marker that is characteristic of a transition from Cro-Magnon (Mechta) type to the Mediterranean type, and is restricted to North Africa. This suggests that an expansion of the Mediterranean group took place in North Africa around 10,500 years ago and spread to neighboring populations. What anthropological studies of prehistoric peoples demonstrate is that the Cro-Magnon (Mechta)-type people were the sole inhabitants of the Mediterranean and North Africa regions, including the Canary Islands, prior to 10,500 years ago. "

http://humanpast.net/evolution/evolution11k.htm

(I hope this site is serious, at least they are citing scientific literature, which I haven't read (yet) by myself.)

ElHorsto
10-07-12, 17:42
One additional remark: Y-HG I occurs in NW africa as well where non-european Atlantic_med is strong (20%). Else it occurs outside of europe only in Kurdistan, which is not too surprising if the theory of mediterranean Cro-Magnon diffusion is true, as the Atlantic_med admixture trail also reaches the near east. The Combe-Capelle skulls were very different though...

Knovas
10-07-12, 18:09
What it's clear checking the Fst distances, is that the Southern admixture from the K7b, or other similar components sometimes called "Middle East" or "Mediterranean", all represent some sort of ancient humans who were completely West Eurasian, doesn't matter if they originated out of Europe or were already in Europe. I personally don't see the point into calling those components Middle Eastern, since what is identified today as Middle Eastern is a composite of influences from West Asia and East Africa, superposed to the Southern or Mediterranean substratum.

So my thoughts are that it's possible that during the Mesolithic "Atlantic_Baltic" (or something similar, don't forget that modern genotypes have their limitations) was modal in Europe, but, if we could test ancient Cro-magnons using the same pattern, I wouldn't be surprised if the result comes out largely "Southern" or "Mediterranean".

By the way, actually the K10a experiment is much more informative than K12b, which as I said many times, tends to cause confusion due to overlap between clusters.

sparkey
10-07-12, 18:26
One additional remark: Y-HG I occurs in NW africa as well where non-european Atlantic_med is strong (20%). Else it occurs outside of europe only in Kurdistan, which is not too surprising if the theory of mediterranean Cro-Magnon diffusion is true, as the Atlantic_med admixture trail also reaches the near east.

I don't think that this is right. Where are the NW African Haplogroup I samples? Do we know their subclades? Also, in addition to Kurds (who seem to have an interesting I1/I2a2a mixture), it also reaches Armenians (I2c)... but all of these expansions are apparently very recent. Not Cro-Magnon diffusion, but from what I've observed, later European diffusion (like, Iron Age at the earliest for most of it). I think it's pretty obvious that Atlantic_med stretches outside the bounds of Haplogroup I's current distribution, and is very distinct from Haplogroup I's pre-Neolithic distribution.

Knovas
10-07-12, 18:43
The fingerprints of Cro-Magnons in North Africa are more evident in the Maternal lines. Certainly haplogroup U6 must have something to do with this, I think it's defenitely a Paleolithic remmant in North Africa. On the other side, we know that Y-linages can change fairly rapidly, so it's not surprising to me that "I" samples are not significant there nowadays.

ElHorsto
10-07-12, 19:41
I don't think that this is right. Where are the NW African Haplogroup I samples? Do we know their subclades? Also, in addition to Kurds (who seem to have an interesting I1/I2a2a mixture), it also reaches Armenians (I2c)... but all of these expansions are apparently very recent. Not Cro-Magnon diffusion, but from what I've observed, later European diffusion (like, Iron Age at the earliest for most of it). I think it's pretty obvious that Atlantic_med stretches outside the bounds of Haplogroup I's current distribution, and is very distinct from Haplogroup I's pre-Neolithic distribution.

The HG I traces are admittedly minimal in NW Africa, and I don't know their subclades. Possibly they got replaced by an african HG (E1b) in Africa, like they were diminished by R1b in West Europe, except of few remnants.

spongetaro
10-07-12, 21:54
The Mechta and generally speaking "Cro magnon" Y haplogroups could have completely disappear today. Those haplogroups could have been F*, IJk*, IJ* etc

ElHorsto
14-07-12, 11:15
By the way, actually the K10a experiment is much more informative than K12b, which as I said many times, tends to cause confusion due to overlap between clusters.

But K10a does not look so different from K12b and the main conclusions remain the same. Only Gedrosian and Caucasus got merged, but this is not surprising due to the lower resolution of K12b.

Knovas
14-07-12, 15:24
Specially the Caucassus component of the K12b run shifts a lot of results. Among Caucasian populations works well compared to West Asian admixture (most similar), but when you check Sardinians and other Southwest Europeans who usually don't get any West Asian or very little, the discordance it's quite evident. Obviously the component is not the same as West Asian, but there's a clear similarity which just fails in its expected distribution. K10a results make, by far, much more sense when checking West Asian, and goes according to other experiments done before. No confusion in general terms.

ElHorsto
30-07-12, 13:31
I1 could indeed make the Atlantic Med admixture in Scandinavia. However, what is the predecessor of this neolithic I1? ... I* ?

Below, I propose this scenario:

1) N and R1a (Northern and eastern Hunter gatherers)
2) R1b (western Hunter gatherers)
3) Em81 (some Iberians and French hunter gatherers)
4) G2a, I2a, EV13 (Southern and central european Neolithic farmers)
5) I1 (Scandinavian Neolithic farmers)
6) J2, G2a (Bronze age invaders)



Now that we know that Hunter gatherers and Neolithic farmers had different admixtures and knowing that only Neolithic farmers had their Y haplogroup tested , I would not be surprised if the Hunter gatherers Y dna turned out to be R1b and/or R1a. The fact that we didn't find R1b in Neoithic samples so far doesn't indicate that R1b wasn"t already in Europe at that time but rather that R1b wasn't the haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers carrying the Southern admixture

One more remark regarding 2): Despite R1b certainly isn't really upper-paleolithic as believed earlier, I agree that some of it could have came to europe bringing some of todays North_euro admixture from the east to europe yet during late the paleolithic, say 9000 years ago (Something like early pre-IE eurasian hunter-gatherer migrations along the glaciers edges.). At that time, Y-genetics in the Urals and central Asia was certainly more differentiated than today. So yes, I also think there is a small possibility that the Brana people already could have had some R1b or R1a, as they are half North_euro.